Jump to content

User talk:Black Falcon/Archive 16

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18→Archive 20

Note

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It is what it is. But, due due to the current kerfuffle, I think it's worth waiting a couple weeks before looking into it. By then hopefully things will be resolved. (You got this note, since we were discussing other such categories further up your talk page (if they aren't already archived : ) - jc37 23:23, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

UpDate: Well, it seems after I posted this here, someone nominated it for CFD. It was CSD'd. DRV'd, overturned/relist'd, and is now at CFD. - jc37 22:49, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
and now replicated as a list, and the cfd is now closed (waits for the possible subsequent drv/mfd/cfd/etc... - jc37 22:15, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, it looks like we didn't have long to wait. Mfd progressing... - jc37 23:31, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Mfd speedily closed per SNOW. - jc37 21:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
And of course, now, (after some talk with the SNOW closer) DRV'd. - jc37 17:11, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
DRV resolved. And yet the drama continues. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
As noted, DRV closed, then a new DRV opened, then speedily closed, then the WP page talk page started, then speedily deleted. As this is seemingly never-ending, I'm going to close this for archiving at this point. Feel free to undo at your discretion, BF. - jc37 23:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
It reminds me of The Cat in the Hat. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Brigades of the British Army in the First World War etc

I have put Category:Brigades of the British Army in the First World War and Category:Battalions of the British Army in the First World War to a full discussion, though I thought it was foregone too Hugo999 (talk) 11:53, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Black Falcon. You have new messages at WP:CFD/S.
Message added 11:00, 4 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Armbrust The Homonculus 11:00, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Mass category renaming: Image-Class/File-Class

Howdy. I see from Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_July_3#Category:Image-Class_articles that you've been entrusted with the follow-though on the move of Image-Class categories to File-Class titles.

For the most part it's all gone well - good job there - but I've come accross a few leftover oddities. Firstly, we've a few mis-named categories left:

Secondly, we've links from 1158 templates to (the now red) Image-Class categories. A few examples are:

I wanted to check with yourself if any of these were left intentionally before tidying them up. Cheers. - TB (talk) 13:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I see now you're not active right now. I'll fix the above. - TB (talk) 16:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Conflict with prior closing of Category:Competitive/Cooperative online role-playing games

Hello. According to This log, you closed "Category:Competitive/Cooperative online role-playing games" as a result of a vote. Unfortunately, this has created a problem for at least one video game.

Guild Wars is a video game previously listed under the Competitive online role-playing game category. It is currently listed under MMORPG, due to CORPGs merger into MMORPG. Guild Wars does not fit the definition of MMORPG, as Guild Wars does not have a Persistent world. It uses mostly instances for much of the gameplay, with only some towns and cities acting as shared spaced with other players, which are at best lobbies and trade centers.

I think the category may need to be reinstated. Something that was not pointed out in the discussion is the fact that Jeff Strain, producer of Guild Wars, clearly mentions that "Guild Wars is not an MMORPG." On top of this, The Official Guild Wars Wiki states that it is a CORPG.

Guild Wars currently is the only video game I am aware of that insists it fits into the definition of CORPG. If that is not enough to reinstate the category, I understand. The problem then would be to reconcile Guild Wars' position as an MMORPG, or move it to a new category. - 50.46.162.55 (talk) 19:10, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi

Saw you on my watchlist, and just thought I'd say hi : ) - jc37 16:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey! :)
It's nice to hear from you. You've been well, I hope. -- Black Falcon (talk) 16:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Nod, ty : )
And I hope you have as well : )
Incidentally, I put the two proposals up for discussion, but they're seemingly mired in details, and drive-by voting (not that I should be surprised : ) - jc37 17:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Noncombat internal explosions on warships

Hi! I've finally closed the CFD here and noticed you volunteered to do the manual work of splitting the category. I've listed them at WP:CFDWM#Multiple merge targets, feel free to go through them when you have the time. Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 07:46, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

An AFD you participated in before is back for a second round

List of special entities recognized by international treaty or agreement is nominated for deletion again. I'm contacting all of those who participated in the first AFD discussion. Dream Focus 02:26, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Love history & culture? Get involved in WikiProject World Digital Library!

World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you!
Hi Black Falcon! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! SarahStierch (talk) 17:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Just to let you know

You have been mentioned at Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians. XOttawahitech (talk) 13:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Nice to see you are back. XOttawahitech (talk) 04:22, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm glad to be back (and to see some familiar names).
I won't be able to sustain the same level of activity as I once had, but I'll be maintaining a moderate presence. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:10, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
: ) - jc37 05:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, hello there. :) -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:29, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Lol, fancy meeting you here.
Enjoy your wikibreak? - jc37 05:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
It's had its ups and downs, but it's ending on a positive note overall.
You've been well, I hope? -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:55, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Glad to hear, and nod. Thank you : )
Been the typical Wikipedia ups and downs (see my talk page), but nothing out of the ordinary. Though I guess it depends on how far we go back. For example were you around when I ran for bureaucrat? For arbcom? or for the WP:RRA or WP:MOD proposals?
Outside of Wikipedia, things have been what RL is I suppose. Atm, I'm sitting here enjoying an Orange Crush : ) - jc37 06:11, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
I hope it was refreshing. :)
I was around for the RfB, though as I recall I did not find out about it until after it had ended, but I was absent for the ArbCom elections. I recall WP:RRA, but WP:MOD is new to me. (I swear... Wikipedia is as bad as TV Tropes in terms of leading one down a path of links.) -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:09, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
It was, drinking another one now : )
Nod, it seemed I had managed to alienate several different factions, including two seemingly opposing factions at fac. Here's My candidate page. Though a trip through the guides should be illuminating. But wear your peril sensitive sunglasses, or you may walk out of there convinced how evil jc37 is : )
And nod, it was one of the things which first drew me to wikipedia. Does anyone even remember altavista search or translator? - jc37 07:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Certainly. Although by then I had become happy using Infoseek. Infoseek was the first search engine that I found moderately reliable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:35, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

User page

why the hell do u care about what i'm doing on my page. You don't see me writing bs on yours. Stop sending me unnecessary messages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morales91 (talk • contribs) 18:19, 2 September 2013‎ (UTC)

Please see my initial comment to you or my discussion rationale for an answer to your question. -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:59, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Professionals - notice of discussion

You may be interested in the deletion proposal related to Category: Professionals. Regards, XOttawahitech (talk) 17:58, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Category:Mountains on the Appalachian Trail

Category:Mountains on the Appalachian Trail has been re-nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 20:52, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Australian Bravery and Gallantry awards

Hi! I'm a bit confused trying to work out what you've done, and why. Perhaps you can help me? In summary, the relevant pages are:

Let's deal with the easy one first: Category:Recipients of the Commendation for Gallantry. There is a rough consensus that this category is not sufficiently defining. - OK. That resolves that one.

In accordance with the established policy of not retaining empty categories with the anticipation that they might be populated eventually, the default outcome is to speedy delete. - Hmmm. It's rather hard to argue with that. Particularly given that you then say: When at least one biography is identified that could be categorized, then the categories should be recreated without any need for additional discussion or deletion review.

Hmmm. I seem to have come to the same conclusion as you without you needing to say anything further! Ummmmm. Thanks? Pdfpdf (talk) 13:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter


Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 21:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Some cats to be delete

The subcategories of Category:Legal articles by quality and Category:Legal articles by importance now empty. Could you deleted them? (Since you made modification a template (too lazy to search it), that effectively emptied the categories.) Armbrust The Homunculus 21:17, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I had been checking on them periodically over the past weeks and I am glad to see that they are finally empty. I have deleted all of the categories. I will also delete User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Legal, but I would like to make sure that the bot will not continue to update (and thereby recreate) the page. Thank you, -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:23, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Nazanine Moshiri

Courtesy call to advise you that I have 're-'created this page. You deleted one in 2007, but I believe she is definitely notable these days, and certainly more so than several people - no names, it would be a lengthy list - with un-deleted entries.

Protozoon (talk) 14:46, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

CFDS processing error

Hi! It looks like you made a mistake by this CFDS processing to CFDW and a large portion was lost between the two edits. Could you please add the missed ones below? Armbrust The Homunculus 09:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Missed categories
Thank you for noticing my error and briging it to my attention. I have listed the above changes at WP:CFD/W (see diff). Thanks again, -- Black Falcon (talk) 14:30, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

apropos

Your recent comments, I've been looking at categories like Category:18th-century BC women, which to me is a classic example of a trivial intersection - of course there were women in the 18th century BC, but there were also men, and women didn't have some special relationship with the 18th century BC. I could propose to delete, or at least to purge so we only keep subcategories that are defining, like Category:19th-century female rulers for example. What do you think?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I am in agreement. Categories that intersect sex and century are trivial and appear to exist more because the intersections are possible than because they are meaningful. I would go a step further to suggest that top-level categories such as Category:18th-century BC people should not directly include biographical articles as they overlap significantly with categories such as Category:18th-century BC births and Category:18th-century BC deaths.
I have been away for most of the past three months, and so I'm curious... has there been any discussion pertaining to this issue? Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 15:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

"Unfortunately this survey has been closed. Thank you for your time." -- You bastards, you promised you'd wait for me! ... Oh, you didn't? Well, then, thanks anyway for the invite, mate. :) Cheers, -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Closing "Merge the entire Lawsuits tree into the Case Law tree" Cfm Nomination

Black Falcon, if another administrator hasn't already, could you close the nomination for Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 December 15#Merge the entire Lawsuits tree into the Case Law tree? I withdrew as the nominator. Thanks! RevelationDirect (talk) 01:31, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to BrownHairedGirl for closing the nomination the day after this request. -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:38, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I submitted Solider and a State for delection

See page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Soldier_and_the_State — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casprings (talk • contribs) 22:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you (belatedly) for notifying me. The book is notable, but the article is in poor shape. I created it a few years ago as a stub and have, sadly, neglected it since then; I appreciate your reminder and will try to collect some resources to develop the article. -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Malayalam Cinema - Pazhassi Raja - Edit

You have made a revision stating Pazhassi Raja as the second highest grossing film. Would love to know if you have any reference — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tachs (talk • contribs) 12:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

That edit was made by another user editing with an IP account: 71.17.172.138. The account appears to be relatively active but unresponsive to comments. Cheers, -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:1917 in the Palestinian territories

Category:1917 in the Palestinian territories has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. GreyShark (dibra) 17:42, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I notify you, because of your participation in discussion on Pakistan anachronistic category.GreyShark (dibra) 17:42, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Please also see the merge proposal of category:1920s in Syria -> category:1920s in Mandatory Syria.GreyShark (dibra) 20:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, I appreciate your notification. I did not have an opportunity to comment in the 'Palestinian territories' discussion, but I have offered my thoughts at the '1920s in Syria' discussion. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:20, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:History of the San Joaquin Valley

Hi Black Falcon, I do support your proposed change to Category:History of the San Joaquin Valley Area to Category:History of the San Joaquin Valley for improved clarity and conformity with other CA regions' scope/cat. names. However Sierra/S.J. Valley aspects of your rationale in log's "proposed" are confusing. My using 'History of the San Joaquin Valley Area' was not intended to duplicate/include the Category:History of the Sierra Nevada (U.S.), just the valley/foothills 'human history ecotone.' Please see my full text under the discussion log's entry.

It is common courtesy to fellow editors to notify the originator of a category about its proposed changes in a discussion log entry. Please try to do so in the future. Your improvement of the cat. is a good idea.—Look2See1 t a l k → 00:30, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello,
My apologies for not notifying you of the discussion; I generally try to take that step but did not remember to do it in this case. I want to thank you for your valuable input in the discussion. I understand that the category was not intended to duplicate Category:History of the Sierra Nevada (U.S.) and just wanted to convey in my nomination that the previous title gave that impression.
Regards, -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:25, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, Hi

You're back? Dunno how I missed that. lol

Anyway, nice to see you around : ) - jc37 05:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Likewise! :)
How've you been? -- Black Falcon (talk)
Not too bad. Probably have been doing far more reading than editing, but shifting the balance on that a bit of late.
One thing that's odd to see is that, even more than in the past, CfD has become ILIKEIT choices.
Back before I was an admin even, I seem to remember citing articles and checking references. Like when discussing the name of a college, actually going to the college webite, finding out what they call themselves, and then linking to that in the discussion.
Did due diligence die? - jc37 08:32, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Motto of the Day Help Request April 2014

Motto of the Day (WP:MOTD) is in a state of emergency and really needs your help! There are not enough editors who are reviewing or nominating mottos at Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/In review, and this probably means that you will notice a red link or “This space for rent” as our mottos for the next weeks and months.

Please take a moment to review the nominations and nominate your own new mottos at Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/In review and Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/'Specials. Any help would be appreciated! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

This message has been sent by pjoef on behalf of Motto of the Day to all editors of the English Wikipedia who are showing MOTD's templates on their pages, and to all the participants to MOTD: (page, template, and category).

List of specialist schools

I see your comment below on the AfD page, and I agree about making a list article. Can you do this now, before the category is gone?--DThomsen8 (talk) 14:17, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Listify to List of specialist schools or to multiple lists of schools by field of specialization. A temporary administrative designation (typically 5-10 years since the program did not really take off until the early 2000s) is not a particularly defining characteristics of these schools; these details are appropriate for a stand-alone list but less so as a basis for categorization. -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:42, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Appears to be an error

All major news outlets are reporting that the Malaysian flight was shot down, and there is a consensus to post that fact. There is not going to be an "official" finding for months or years. The ITN criteria is to follow the reliable sources. Please reverse your edit or I will do so on your behalf should you be unavailable to reply, as this is a very timely matter that should not linger. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 00:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

It looks like you've been offline for about 5 hours and might not return for a while, so I've proceeded to update the blurb. All major, reliable news reporting says that the plane was shot down. We should not yet say who did the shooting, though the reports and theories are going to be covered in the article. Please discuss with me before reverting. Please feel free to email me for urgent attention. Thanks. Jehochman Talk 00:07, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for notifying me, but your statement is incorrect: some major news sources (such as NYT) are reporting that MH17 was shot down and some (such as BBC) are reporting that MH17 is suspected to have been shot down. I have responded to your comment at WP:ITN/C so that we can try to keep the discussion in one place. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Based on your comments here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Avoiding_harm, I am interested in having your feedback/criticism dialogue here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Guideline_for_crime_victims_of_world_wide_significanceMeropeRiddle (talk) 11:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

CFDs that are overdue for closing

August 13th's[1]...William 01:29, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Phantom quartz

I have a gemstone question for you: does phantom quartz come ever in a silver or grey colour? Thanks Black Falcon! Venustar84 (talk) 17:14, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know much about minerals. You may have more luck at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geology. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:37, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppet issue

Hi. If you get this message before any blocks are doled out, could you perhaps have a quick look at this SPI and see what you think should be done as a result of the finding? I think all the relevant info is well summarized there. I am involved in the discussion in which a sock was recently used the single time, so I shouldn't be doing anything administrative there. The sock should obviously be blocked, but not sure what should be done with the "puppeteer" in this case. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:43, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Uh, never mind, as it's gotten more complex. The users are now both claiming that they have nothing to do with one another. Previously I thought it was just going to be a straightforward case of a user foolishly using a sock one time to bolster one of his positions, but clearly this is going somewhere else, so I won't ask you to become involved (unless of course you are keen). Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:39, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Category:New Naturalist author

The speedy rename of Category:New Naturalist author is listed under opposed. Just looked at that discussion and did not see any opposition to renaming. So let me know if this can be a speedy move. Thanks. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:31, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Some speedy noms

At the speedy renaming of Category:Gas stations of Iceland‎, Category:Gas stations of the United States‎ and Category:Gas stations of Ukraine‎ you suggested that "Gas station" should be replaced with "Filling station", however that was opposed by an IP. I have processed the original proposal to replace "of" with "in". Feel free to initiate a full discussion about your suggestion.
You also brought up the concern that Category:New Naturalist author is a violation of WP:OC#PERF, but I have still renamed the category to Category:New Naturalist authors (to which the creator of the category agreed). Feel free to nominate the category for deletion. Armbrust The Homunculus 16:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi!

Hi! Please read my reply. Thanks Quis separabit? 23:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hi Black Falcon, I hope you are cyberly doing well. Stumbling across wiki articles and getting to learn its ever growing rules, I came across your profile and interests, I figured an article Visual Collaborative relisted under afd discussions may be of interest? If this is not the case thanks either way and have a great day. have a great day. Mnanonymous (talk) 13:35, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Category:Establishments in Ottoman Syria by year

Category:Establishments in Ottoman Syria by year, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 16:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Independence, Mississippi

I added some text to this article, and prematurely removed the stub class. It may still be a stub though. Would you have a moment to re-assess? Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 00:16, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

  • Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
  • Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
  • Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
  • Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
  • Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
  • Research coordinators: run reference services



Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Juma Namangani

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Contests

User:Dr. Blofeld has created Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/Contests. The idea is to run a series of contests/editathons focusing on each region of Africa. He has spoken to Wikimedia about it and $1000-1500 is possible for prize money. As someone who has previously expressed interest in African topics, would you be interested in contributing to one or assisting draw up core article/missing article lists? He says he's thinking of North Africa for an inaugural one in October. If interested please sign up in the participants section of the Contest page, thanks.♦ --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 01:12, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to rename category

Please see my proposal to rename Category:California military personnel etc Hugo999 (talk) 04:40, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. I have added my comments at the category's discussion. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:58, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello!

I came across some of your comments here and thought I'd stop by and say hi!

It's been a while, hasn't it...? I hope you've been well.

Cheers, -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:39, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey! : )
Thanks for the note. Just back from what I'd like to think was a well-earned vacation : )
And yes, tilting at windmills again.... Maybe someday discussions will return to earnest editors doing due diligence, reading about a proposal and providing their informed opinion, and positively joining in on discussion. But atm, drive-by voting on what they guess a proposal is about, clearly without even reading it, is apparently now the norm. Sigh.
Anyway, yes, I've been well, and I hope the same for you as well : )
What have you been up to of late? - jc37 10:59, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Not much... I find myself occasionally editing the odd article that catches my interest or performing category cleanup. I've glanced at some discussions but, for the most part, have not been motivated to participate. My sympathies on your recent frustrations with the WP:MOD proposal.
Anyway, I've been well also, and I was happy to find you still around and active. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:34, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Feyli

this article already exists in Wikipedia but a user made this. both of them are one, but when i use propose deletion, he deletes the tag. here and here --– Hossein Iran « talk » 18:28, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I am alerting editors

that I think (or is it a feeling?) might be interested in the discussion going on here based on their past insolvent with this category. Category talk:Sculptures by artist. Stop by and see what you . . . . well . . .... think or feel. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 20:39, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Black Falcon. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

  • Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
  • A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Invite to the African Destubathon

Hi. You may be interested in participating in the African Destubathon which starts on October 15. Africa currently has over 37,000 stubs and badly needs a quality improvement editathon/contest to flesh out basic stubs. There are proposed substantial prizes to give to editors who do the most geography, wildlife and women articles, and planned smaller prizes for doing to most destubs for each of the 53 African countries, so should be enjoyable! Even if contests aren't your thing we would be grateful if you could consider destubbing a few African articles during the drive to help the cause and help reduce the massive 37,000 + stub count, of which many are rated high importance (think Regions of countries etc). If you're interested in competing or just loosely contributing, whether it's a river in Malawi, a Nigerian footballer, or a South African civil rights activist, please add your name to the Contestants/participants section. Diversity of work from a lot of people will make this that bit more special. For those of you who signed up to the North African contest, that will hopefully be held in the new year. Thanks. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:11, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Black Falcon.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Black Falcon. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Cheif executive officer listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Cheif executive officer. Since you had some involvement with the Cheif executive officer redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 23:03, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me. I have commented at the discussion in support of your nomination. Cheers, -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:33, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

FYI

Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion#Fate of CFDS. Armbrust The Homunculus 09:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67
Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
  • Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
  • The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

Obituaries

  • JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.
Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Can you please review my article.

Hello Black Falcon, Can you please review the article: Http://en.wikipedia.com/wiki/sofia_espinoza_alvarez

I found your on wiki and after reading your page I figured you would be open and willing to help me out.

Kind regards, J.Stefanonni VonEdit (talk) 10:41, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi User:VonEdit, I made a few edits to the article (diff). One additional item I wanted to bring to your attention is that some portions of the article appear to closely paraphrase the subject's official website. I am not fluent in Spanish, but a number of sentences in the article appear to be direct (or very close) translations of the subject's personal biography. In general, articles should summarize information from other sources instead of closely paraphrasing, which infringes on the source's copyright. Please let me know if I could offer any further assistance witht this. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:46, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Reason for deleting page "Education in Brunei"

Hi. I notice that back in 2007 you deleted the page Education in Brunei. May I know your reason(s), because I believe this is a very important topic in relation to aspects of a country. At present, Brunei is one of the few countries, I think, in which there is no Wikipedia page on its education. Zulfadli51 (talk) 05:15, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

At the time, the page was just a redirect to another page and the editor who created it asked that it be deleted to encourage a new article to be created. I agree with you about the topic's importance, and you are most welcome to create a new article or draft if you would like to do so. Cheers, -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:54, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Television programming by language

You said under the CfD on 'Television programming by language' that "There was some discussion of applying WP:ENGVAR to the by-country television shows categories, but those were not tagged and will have to be nominated separately." My question is, how are these separate nominations supposed to work? As a Brit I feel violently ill reading entries for British TV programmes that are categorised as 'programs'. I suspect that Americans users would've felt similarly discombobulated had it been a blanket 'programme' instead. The disappointing aspect of the category movement is that 'programming' elegantly elided this distinction. Now we're forced to, what, nominate every single British TV show to be moved to a more appropriate category than this clomping Americanism? 2A02:C7D:821A:6400:84D6:1A3D:6B2F:A3B2 (talk) 23:17, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

My comment pertained to the exchange between User:Fayenatic london and User:Paul 012 about Category:Television shows by country. You would not need to nominate every article about a British television show—just the category (or categories) containing them if it is (or they are) specific to British television (see steps for nominating a category). It is an awkward solution, I admit. You can see an example of it at Category:Association football venues by country, where most categories use "football" and some use either "soccer" (e.g. Australia, United States) or "association football" (e.g. RoI, New Zealand). I agree that the use of programming avoided this issue, but the consensus at the CfD was that programming was a confusing or incorrect term.
For categories that contain both American and British television shows, such as Category:English-language television programs, we have to choose either program or programme for all articles in the category. There is no option of which I am aware to display English-language television programs for American television and English-language television programmes for British television. If you have any further questions, please ask. -- Black Falcon (talk) 14:46, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. IMHO we should not be categorising programmes directly in Category:English-language television programs. This is over-categorization. The vast majority of American, Australian, British (etc) TV programmes are in English language, so the national categories can be categorised under English language (a minority of exceptions are allowed under WP:SUBCAT). See Category:English-language songs for an example which I think has been done right.
Rather than nominate this category immediately for purging, I have started with English-language albums, which has closer precedents for singers and songs; see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_September_13#English-language_albums. – Fayenatic London 09:58, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

A question on the closing of 4 categories

Hi Black Falcon, I see you closed the category deletion discussion yesterday for 4 "Persecution by..." categories on Muslims, Christians, Hindus, and Buddhists that I had made 2 months ago with "The result of the discussion was: no consensus."

Thanks for finally closing these discussions, by the way. I am new to this and wanted to know if you could elaborate more on what this "no consensus" result means. Does it mean nothing happens and leave the categories as they were? I am at ease with your decision and respect it for the nuances you mentioned and the care you took in considering both sides' views. I think it was a tough decision to make considering all the categories involved were all on religions and persecutions. But just wanted to see if you could shed some extra light on what it means when "no consensus" is the result. Should I do anything?

I look forward to hearing from you and again good job with this difficult endeavor. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 22:32, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ramos1990: Thanks for reaching out and for the kind words. A "no consensus" result essentially means that the discussion did not yield agreement on a specific course of action (to delete or keep) and nothing changes for now.
If you wish to do so, you could start a new deletion discussion now, though it is probably premature and unlikely to produce a different result so soon, or at any time in the future. Alternatively, you could start a discussion about the appropriate scope of the categories—i.e. what articles they should and should not contain—on one of their talk pages. If you choose the second option, I would recommend that you initiate a formal request for comment or solicit feedback at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion to attract participation since category talk pages usually are not watched.
I would be glad to provide further clarification if you have any follow-up questions. Cheers, -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:44, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you so very much for further explaining the result. That was pretty much what I was thinking it meant and you helped clarify further. I will leave these categories as is and allow your decision to stand. It was a tough one for sure. Thanks also for explaining the alternatives too. Good to know. Have a wonderful and fruitful day! Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 04:22, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
You're very welcome! -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:10, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to Admin confidence survey

Hello,

Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.

The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.

To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.

We really appreciate your input!

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

User categories

I saw that you made this revert: [2]. I don't understand what your objection was, so I hope that you could clarify it here. My reasoning in the edit that I had made earlier was not really about the substance of the material, but mostly just about the fact that it seemed to me that the links did not actually go to what they said they went to, that the targets did not say what the text indicated that they would. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:42, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: Thanks for offering that clarification—I thought you were objecting to defining and overcat as concepts. I made a few more changes (diff) to remove the word "inappropriately" (and the accompanying reference to WP:NOT) and update the footnotes to align with the current language of each guideline or policy. Would you mind taking another look to see if the changes address your original concerns? Cheers, -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:44, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! I think that your edits were spot-on in reflecting what I had originally intended. I very much appreciate that you did that. I also made some subsequent edits that were mostly just about format and writing style, so you in turn might want to double-check those. I'm glad that we worked this out. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:30, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Excellent! Thanks for the additional edits. I agree with all of them, except perhaps this one. The quote about "not every verifiable fact" needing a category relates directly to bottom notices—i.e. that categories should not be used to create bottom-of-the-page tags for every verifiable fact—and less so to the collaborative purpose of user categories. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:41, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
OK, then, I did this: [3]. That way, we can have it in both places. The idea that it relates to bottom notices had not been apparent to me, but I can see the logic now in "not everything you want to say in a notice needs to be said via a category". --Tryptofish (talk) 20:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, that works for me! -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:07, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians

Hey Black Falcon, how have you been? Do you recall if we ever had a discussion to depopulate Category:Wikipedians of individual users? I can't seem to find it anywhere, although I know we had several depopulate noms and it would have made sense for this to be one of them. In any event, that category is overrun with userpages. Do you think we need to have a formal discussion somewhere to do this, or do you think we should just go ahead and depopulate it? Obviously it isn't doing anyone any good for people to be in this parent category. VegaDark (talk) 08:38, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@VegaDark: I know we discussed it many times but I do not recall a formal nomination (that might have been before my time). I do not think a formal discussion is needed, given that we would not take this step prior to depopulating any other container category. The category has been marked as a container category since January 2011, except for a roughly one-year period when the designation was removed (without any discussion as far as I can tell). I know you have not been very active the past few months, so I will add this to my list of things to do. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:35, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for addressing this. I know I've not been too active, but I still check on from time to time (and pings!) VegaDark (talk) 17:56, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 Done. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:30, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2017).

Administrator changes

added Boing! said Zebedee • Ansh666 • Ad Orientem
removed Tonywalton • AmiDaniel • Silence • BanyanTree • Magioladitis • Vanamonde93 • Mr.Z-man • Jdavidb • Jakec • Ram-Man • Yelyos • Kurt Shaped Box

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

  • Community consultation on the 2017 candidates for CheckUser and Oversight has concluded. The Arbitration Committee will appoint successful candidates by October 11.
  • A request for comment is open regarding the structure, rules, and procedures of the December 2017 Arbitration Committee election, and how to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Category deletion

Hi Black Falcon,

you deleted Category:Catalonian building and structure stubs. I saw this because you asked deletion on Wikidata where I am admin. I notice the category is used however on 59 articles. Could you please unlink the deleted category. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 03:44, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

@Taketa: Hi! Category:Catalonian building and structure stubs is a template-populated category. I have edited all of the applicable templates and the category will become empty as soon as the job queue processes within the next 12–24 hours. If you would like, I can ping you again once that happens. Cheers, -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:51, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi Black Falcon, thank you for the info. No need to ping me, I simply wanted to make sure nothing was overlooked. Keep up the good work. All the best, Taketa (talk) 03:52, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Alright, then. Thanks for your vigilance and for reaching out! Best, -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:54, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Research on Backlogs

Hi Black Falcon,

I'm Pau Giner, a member of the Wikimedia Design team. We are interested in providing better support to some of the activities that experienced editors do. In particular, we want to understand better how backlogs work and the issues that users may find when adding the work to be done, and finding/completing this work.

We are organising a series of short interview sessions, and we consider you as an experienced editor are an ideal candidate to participate. In order to participate you can fill this form that collects the basic information for us to schedule a session and contact you back. If you know other users that may provide useful information in this area, feel free to recommend them to participate too.

The sessions will use Google Hangouts, which is a browser-based videoconference tool, but using a camera is totally optional. We use this tool since it will allow you to share your screen and show how you do your on-wiki activities in more detail. If you prefer a different format/tool, please let us know.

Thanks!

--Pginer-WMF (talk) 10:06, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Pau. I thank you for the invitation but respectfully decline at this time. Best, -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:30, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Precious

Africa and raising a glass

Thank you for quality articles beginning more than 10 years ago with The Survivors of the Chancellor, for your amazing contributions, especially for your efforts to make Portal:Africa excellent, for countless categories, for "Thanks for your vigilance and for reaching out!" and for raising an imagined glass, - repeating (11 February 2009): you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:46, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the code, I used it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:55, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: Thank you for your kind words and for making my day a bit brighter! Editors like you are the reason I've stayed so long. And, thank you also for reminding me of the article I created so long ago and had forgotten—I am a dfiferent editor now than I was then, so I'm actually excited to take a go at improving it! Cheers, -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:54, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Now your kind words made my day brighter, - thank you! I also looked just looked at an older article and improved it. Getting ready for reformation, or raising a glass ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:22, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2017).

Administrator changes

added Longhair • Megalibrarygirl • TonyBallioni • Vanamonde93
removed Allen3 • Eluchil404 • Arthur Rubin • Bencherlite

Technical news

Arbitration

Obituaries

  • The Wikipedia community has recently learned that Allen3 (William Allen Peckham) passed away on December 30, 2016, the same day as JohnCD. Allen began editing in 2005 and became an administrator that same year.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Query at Cfd

(Replying here becoz i'm on mobile phone at moment and can only edit small sections) Iirc there was only one article in the category when i cfd-tagged it, but previously (possibly several days earlier) I'd removed at least one page from the category that was in a different namespace (probably Wikipedia or talk as that was what i was doing db queries for). I've had a look at my contribs and can't find it so possibly the page has since been deleted. DexDor (talk) 22:00, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

@DexDor: Thanks for clarifying! No worries about not finding the other page, I was just worried there was a lot of content in the category, and that the category's creator may have depopulated and/or renamed the category prematurely. Cheers, -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:02, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. Um, what was the question again?

Hi, Black Falcon and thank you for your message at User talk:Shirt58/Archives/2021/March#Category deletion per CSD G6.
In future I will endeavor to link to the deletion discussions.
While this explains but does not excuse my errors, I think I should mention that family and friends have pointed out that I have set a number of world records for absent-mindedness. Unsurprisingly, I was quite completely oblivious to them at the time.
Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:52, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

@Shirt58: Um, what was the question again? When in doubt, I usually choose "to be, or not to be". I am no record-holder but certainly an aspiring amateur myself—I saw your note a few days ago and promptly forgot to do something about it. Many thanks for following up! Cheers, -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:16, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Category:American people of Huguenot descent

Very sad to see this was deleted by only 5 editors, based on their personal opinion/their own family ancestry. I agree with Aqchampion.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:44, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

@Zigzig20s: Re: this discussion. I gave as much weight to arguments based on personal family history as I did to Aqchampion's argument based on his "great pride in being an American of Huguenot descent"—in short, no weight at all. I deleted the category based on the argument that the characteristic of having Huguenot descendants is non-defining for most people in the category. If you think that there are reasons to keep the category that were not considered during the discussion, please highlight them and I would be happy to revisit my close. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:51, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
When I was working on Louisiana planters, I found it useful to see who was of Huguenot descent. I don't see how different this is from an American citizen of German descent six times removed, yet we have no plans to delete Category:American people of German descent.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:49, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Hmm... I do see that there is a wider scheme of Category:People of Huguenot descent, similar to Category:People of German descent. Let me do a little more checking, please, and I'll respond again. Thansk, -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:53, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
@Zigzig20s: Thanks for your patience. After once again reviewing the recent discussion, and also considering the previous discussion, I do think there was a consensus for deletion. At the moment, the unanswered question in mind is: Is the American category any different from the others in Category:People of Huguenot descent—if yes, how; if no, then should either the American category be restored or the others deleted? You are welcome to request a deletion review for this category, or perhaps User:Johnpacklambert could shed some light on this. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:49, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
  • The nomination flows out of specific statements in reliable sources that Hugenots are the quintessential example of a fully integrated immigrant group. That said I really think we need to exercise more caution and reason in applying these categories. Having Hugenot ancestry is also not really defining to Afrikaans people in South Africa. The German descent category works for people whose parents or grandparents were immigrants but in many cases it has been applied over an absurdly long duration on time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:14, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:IOffer screenshot.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:IOffer screenshot.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:10, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

The file is in use at iOffer.com. -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:30, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia Version 0.5

Do you know what needs changing on {{V0.5}} and {{WP1.0}} to get the categories emptied? Timrollpickering 00:34, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

@Timrollpickering: I do, although it appears Jonesey95 made the necessary changes (see Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Version 0.5 & 0.7 category structure). I'll take a look at both the changes and any required additional cleanup (e.g. incoming links) in the next day or two. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Speedy

Replied. --110.93.236.75 (talk) 12:00, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Black Falcon. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Black_Falcon/Archive_16&oldid=1142894464"