User talk:Black Falcon/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Welcome!

Hi, Black Falcon/Archive 1, Welcome to Wikipedia!

I hope you like this place — I sure do — and want to stay. Before getting too in-depth, you may want to read about the five pillars of Wikipedia. If you need help on how to title new articles check out the naming conventions, and for help on formatting the pages visit the manual of style. If you need help look at Wikipedia:Help and the FAQ , plus if you can't find your answer there, check the Village Pump (for Wikipedia related questions) or the Reference Desk (for general questions)! There's still more help at the Tutorial and Policy Library. Plus, don't forget to visit the Community Portal. And if you have any more questions after that, feel free to post them on my user talk page.

---

Additional tips

Here's some extra tips to help you get around in the 'pedia!

• If you want to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.
• You can sign your name using three tildes (~). If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.
• You may want to add yourself to the new user log.
• If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.
• If you're still entirely confused, or would like to get a better grasp of your wikipedia skills, and you have an IRC client (or don't mind getting one), check out the Bootcamp. It's not what it sounds like, but it is fun and can help you with your editing skills.
• If you're bored and want to find something to do, try the Random page button in the sidebar, or check out the Open Task message in the Community Portal.

Happy Wiki-ing.

Link —Preceding undated comment added 15:38, 27 July 2005 (UTC).

Diacritics in brackets

Hi, Black Falcon. I reverted some of the changes you have recently you made to Cristian Pârvulescu. Among them was your addition of diacritics in brackets for category inclusions - a letter with a diacritic will be placed at the end of the alphabetized category. (A word with the succession of letters "Pâ" will be placed after a "Pz" word. This is especially obvious with words that start with a diacritic, as they are placed at the end of the alphabet.) I consider this "rule" a bug in the system myself, as they could have simply write in a command for the system to view all letters with diacritics as their letter in categories; as it is, we have to work with it. Thanks for your attention and happy editing. Dahn 12:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Dahn. Yes, I noticed that as well and reverted my previous edit (although I missed one category). I am curious about one thing, though: did Pârvulescu remain an assistant professor after becoming Dean of the SNSPA? I went to the SNSPA's webpage, but could not find any information about this (I do not speak Romanian, but tried to navigate through some of the links with my limited knowledge of Spanish--another Romance language). Black Falcon 21:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Brackets around bio dates

Is that policy or preference? I am curious, not offended. Had just run peerreviewer script on it to correct such things. Seasalt 11:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• No problem at all. I don't know if there's anything specifically addressing whether bio dates should be incorporated into or separated from the main text, but the examples in the "Dates of birth and death" section of the Manual of Style follow the second format (the dates are separated from the text by parentheses) [1]. I hope that helps. Cheers, Black Falcon 20:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Calculus

I was trying to revert the edit by 74.111.152.98, but Anti-Vandal Bot did it sooner, so I ended up reverting AVB's revert. Black Falcon 03:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that! I have removed the warning! Mike6271 03:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem at all. I know how hectic the RC patrol is (I only started watching the recent changes 2-3 days ago: I had no idea WP had so much vandalism!). Cheers, Black Falcon 03:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

AfD Nomination: The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion

An editor has nominated the article The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion for deletion, under the Articles for deletion process. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the nomination (also see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Your opinions on why the topic of the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome: participate in the discussion by editing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Add four tildes like this ˜˜˜˜ to sign your comments. You can also edit the article The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion during the discussion, but do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top of the article), this will not end the deletion debate. Jayden54Bot 15:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Yacveria

Black Falcon, you are quite right. Yacveria is merely a concept intended to prove a theory a friend and I were discussing. Unfortunately another work collegue thought it would be funny to try and build a Yacveria country page. *Note this is my account - I'm assuming he found the login details on my desk, I'll have words when he arrives.

I have set the page up for Speedy Deletion - It could have been a useful tool in that we could gage reaction. But I'm sure there are more suitable places to test theories. I've noticed a message from you regarding Sandbox - Is that a page open to experimentation? Citizenerased2000 08:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Sandbox is open for experimentation, but I think it is deleted every hour. You can create a personal sandbox by typing "[[/Sandbox]]" anywhere on your user page (only the part in quotes). As far as I know, you can replace the title "Sandbox" with anything you like (with the possible exception of special characters). Happy editing, Black Falcon 19:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Goosebumps

Go ahead, delete it. I only made the first sentence. You'd be better off contacting the people who wrote the bulk of the article.--CyberGhostface 22:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The main contributor is an anonymous IP address that hasn't made any contributions for several months (the rest of the contributions are mostly minor). I didn't expect any problems with deleting it, but wanted to let you know (as the article's creater and only active substantive contributor) in case you wanted to edit/expand it later. Cheers, Black Falcon 22:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

uncyclopedia/featured article

I'm removing the speedy tag you placed on the above page, we are working to put uncyclopedia on main page for april fools, this is why it has been created - so we don't disturb mainspace RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what you mean, as there is already a page for Uncyclopedia on WP (are starting a new project to improve that article)? In any case, thank you for letting me know -- I won't add a deletion tag again. Cheers, Black Falcon 01:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Basically, we're creating an article on Uncyclopedia to get featured status and therefore apear on main page for april fools day, and we want it to be a parody of the wikipedia page. I've now moved the article to Talk Uncyclopedia/featured article so it won't disrupt mainspace RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, I see now. I think the article (Talk Uncyclopedia/featured article) is still in the mainspace. You may want to create Talk:Uncyclopedia/featured article, but I'm not sure if that would create an archive on the Talk:Uncyclopedia page or if someone would later deleted for being a talk page for an article that doesn't exist. Well, best of luck. Black Falcon 01:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Filipino people

See my reply on my talk page. --Howard the Duck 03:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review

Responded on my talk page.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 21:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Iranianism

Hi Black Falcon,

I just wanted to say that I'm not 100% sure how to deal with anti-Iranianism but I really appreciate your thoughtful comments on the AfD. I have to give some thought to what the best course of action is. GabrielF 20:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. If the article were to remain as it currently is, I would support deletion. It basically reads like a political history of which groups/countries Iran has had problems with! The only reason I voted to keep was that there is (in my opinion) some salvageable content in the article and that I also think the topic is worthy of an article (but certainly not the one that is there now). I also appreciate your bringing this to the community's attention as the article had essentially remained in the same state for over 7 months and will probably need help from persons familiar with Iranian-related topics. I can perhaps cleanup the article and add info about modern anti-Iranianism, but I certainly do not have sufficient knowledge to give a historical background of anti-Persianism. Cheers, Black Falcon 20:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Black Falcon. What's happening right now is that a few people are in a huff over Anti-Iranianism. The trick is maybe to do a reverse POV fork (the opposite of taking a neutral article and making a second one that pushes a POV.) Start an article from a stub on "Anti-Iranian sentiment" and keep it focused. Also another could be "Anti-Persian sentiment" and tied them together. There is much material available for such articles. The debate on the AfD is a bit of a distraction and a waste of time. My recent experience was that GabrielF nominated this article Proposed Israeli Nuclear First Strike on Natanz Facility for deletion and the solution was just to expand the appropriate section in the boarder and more informative article: Plans for strikes against the Iranian nuclear program. Don't take Wikipedia too seriously, everything often works out in the end. --70.51.232.106 23:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi. If the article is deleted, I may do just that. But it would be much easier to do so if one were working from the already-existing (and well-sourced) article. In any case, I will likely wait until the AfD is closed before taking any significant action. Cheers, Black Falcon 23:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Unless you count a glass of wine as significant action ;) - Black Falcon 23:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi again,

The ideal solution is for someone who really understands the material to rewrite the article based on scholarly secondary sources about the topic, but of course that's not very likely to happen. The reason that I don't think withdrawing the AfD is a good idea is that I just don't see how the suggestions that you and others made can be implemented if there is a group of editors who think that the arguments that I and others have made amount to racism. I'll withdraw my nomination if the changes that you recommended on the AfD page are implemented, but I really don't see that happening. I'm not prepared to withdraw the AfD if someone can add an unencyclopedic list of everyone who has ever used the term "anti-Iranianism" and then prevent its removal. GabrielF 02:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I understand. I am working on a cleanup from a merge right now, but I will edit the anti-Iranianism article and see if anyone reverts it. If not, then that may be a sign of the possibility of future improvement. -- Black Falcon 02:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Just so we can keep everything in the same place, I made a similar comment on Talk:Anti-Iranianism. GabrielF 02:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Re:Sachi Sri Kantha

Hi, the thing is we can't just find the worst thing someone has said about the STF and include them in the article. I don't think wikipedia should work that way. Like I said in the edit summery, if I write something in a book or newspaper along the lines of "the STF are a brilliant organization that protects the people of Sri Lanka and all the accusations against them are fake" will we want to include it in the article? If I was someone important maybe (sadly I'm not :( Or if some top UN or Human rights organization said something like that then yes, it can be included. Otherwise I don't think we should be quoting someone who doesn't seem notable and who is a "researcher at the Japan Institute for Control of Aging."[2] --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 05:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I see your point. Black Falcon 06:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Your message

Hi, thanks for the message. I think the material should be kept one way or another, if not in that article then in another. There is clearly a movement to restrain Iran's development, so the information is notable. Some users don't like this information because of political reasons, but WP is supposed to be cool and neutral. Anyway, another of my concern is that the article not just be about anti-Persianism, but take into account anti-Iranianism as a whole, because Persians are only one out of dozens of ethnic groups in the country, and all Iranians identify as "Iranians". Its like the United States, except we are not a modern civilisation and most groups are ethnically and historically related. No one would deny anti-Israel sentiments (against the state and its citizens) or anti-American sentiments (against the state and its citizens) or anti-France sentiments (against the state and its citizens) to cite three well known examples of anti-national sentiments, which are not just attacks against governments, but also the peoples of those lands. I am half-Kurd, and half-Arab for example, but when I have been attacked, they have attacked me as an Iranian, not because I am half-Kurdish or half-Arab. Those who have attacked me never even knew my ethnic background, they only knew about the Iranian part. Same is true of most countries like even France, which has many ethnic groups. But when a French citizen travels to United States, for example, and if he or she is ridiculed or taunted for being French (this has happened, of course), they are not being targeted because of their ethnicity necessarily, but because they are French nationality. Of course people are ignorant and assume all French are the same so they think they are also attacking the ethnicity. Just as with attacks against Iranians, they see us as all the same (typical Eurocentric, Orientalist view), so they attack us as one ethnic group. Just like when people attack "Middle Easterners" as "ragheads" and "camel jockeys" etc. (even including Greeks and Armenians and Indians and Pakistanis in this label!) they are assuming Arabs, Iranians, Turks, Armenians, Indians etc etc are all exactly the same. Khorshid 05:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I do agree that there is a "movement to restrain Iran's development", but the problem with the Anti-Iranianism article was that it made no distinction between this movement and anti-Persian or anti-Iranian sentiments. As regards your other point, I most certainly do think that both anti-Persian and anti-Iranian sentiments should be included in WP (ideally in separate articles, but if that is not feasible, then in one article for now). In the AfD I noted two instances of peaked anti-Iranian sentiment in the US: after the Islamic Revolution and during the second half of the Bush administration. However, Iranians were also targeted/discriminated against after 11 September 2001, despite the fact of their noninvolvement AND despite the fact that most Iranian nationals are not ethnic Arabs (then again, what can you expect when Bush himself once classified Pakistan as part of the Arab world). I think the new article should reflect this. If the AfD result is keep or if the nomination is withdrawn, I will propose an improvement effort (hopefully with the help of members of WikiProject:Iran as my knowledge beyond the modern era is very limited) and will myself try to find reliable sources on anti-Iranian sentiment in the United States in modern times (the sentiments exist, it's only a matter of finding appropriate sources). Black Falcon 06:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Why should hostility toward the Persian and Iranian states and animosity toward the Persian and Iranian peoples be seperate? The two determine eachother's fates. Take 1953. If it were not for the CIA/UK Operation Ajax, Iran's popularly elected Prime Minister would not be replaced by a dictator that became notorious for his Savak torture prisons, and the rise of the mullahs themselves. Another example is the US unilateral sanctions on Iran's government. It has been proven that such sanctions only affect Iran's people, not its government, and yet the U.S. insists it effects the government. I've seen how these sanctions make people's lives miserable. Yet another example is the financial, intelligence, and indirect military support of the U.S. offered to Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war. Saddam wouldnt have the capability to bomb civilian targets in Iranian cities (which I routinely saw with my own eyes, shops, houses bombed), if it were not for this support. The current govt of Iran may be an unpopular one, with many blunders and embarassing faults, but they are twined with the lives of the people.

And yet, I have showed my will for a compromise: I have drastically trimmed down the US section. I hope that suffices, and that you meet me halfway as well.--Zereshk 08:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

True--the two are intertwined. However, animosity against the Persian and Iranian peoples requires some sort of negative emotional feeling, whereas hostility against Persia or Iran can simply be the product of political calculation. When a country occupies Iranian territory (e.g., Russia), how is that an indication of animosity toward the Iranian people rather than simple political self-interest? To classify it as such could be construed as original research. In any case, it's not so much a matter of me meeting you half-way (I favor keeping the article even as it is, but discussing possible changes on the talk page instead of the AfD), but rather of the AfD nomination not passing (or User:GabrielF withdrawing his nomination). Black Falcon 08:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

btw, totally off the point, I saw Nelson Mandella once when he visited our school (Tehran University) a couple of years ago. I thought it was interesting.--Zereshk 23:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Was his talk about Iraq (assuming, of course, that it was after 2003)? I saw the Dalai Lama (from somewhat afar) late last year while visiting Buffalo, NY (actually, I was visiting Niagara Falls and Toronto but also went to a few places in New York state). Black Falcon 00:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Saudis and Yemenis

Hi.

I'm not sure if you've got access to Dresch's work which I cited in the AfD on the Saudi-Yemeni war - or even whether the online sources are superior to it, since I haven't yet had the time to check them through - but if you need any citations from it, just drop me a line and I'll be happy to footnote away. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Thank you for your offer. I will see what can be done with the online sources noted in the AfD and any others I might find, but I think it is appropriate to mention the book at least in a further readings section if not as a direct source for the text. Wenn Sie es mögen, kann ich Sie informieren sobald ich mit der Erweiterung des Artikels fertig bin so dass Sie es durchsehen können. My German's a little rusty, so I'm not sure if that's wholly correct Nochmals danke, Black Falcon 07:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia Provinces

Yep. I made them... but, they are bad by today's standards. I have tried to create an SVG out of it... but I'm not sure if it's any good. It's close. But, maps should be more than close. Image:Saudi Arabia provinces SVG template.svg is my SVG attempt. It's hard to see but, with a good framework it can easily be changed to show provinces. I am trying to find out if the borders on that images are accurate. I think some of the angles are too soft and I'm not fully sure how to fix it. Image:Saudi Arabia - Al Qasim province locator.png this is what I made it from. gren グレン 22:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The SVG you created seems very close, but I can't really make an informed comment on how accurate it is (it seems to fit pretty well with this 1993 provinces map at the UofTexas library map collection). I thought that it might be possible to create a map (based on Image:Saudi Arabia - province locator template.png) in which 2 or 3 provinces are highlighted (in light green). However, before any such map should be created for adding to the article, it's necessary to first clarify what areas in particular were in dispute during the war. Black Falcon 22:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, Image:Saudi Arabia provinces template.svg will be easier to see... but, look at how soft some of the smaller provinces are. I'm not sure how to fix that. gren グレン 22:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, one thing I can note: the northwestern border for Al Qasim province in the SVG file seems to stray from the actual provincial border. Hope that helps. Black Falcon 22:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Special Task Force

Hi there, I would just like to thank you for your work on the Special Task Force page, it is deeply apreciated. If you would like to work together on any projects I would be honored.

--Sharz 23:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

Thank you for the acknowledgement and your gracious invitation. I would like to collaborate on various projects of common interest. I see from your user page that we share a number of interests, including the civil war in Sri Lanka and human rights (my general interest/specialization is mostly civil conflict in the Middle East, south Asia, and (to a lesser extent) central Africa). In fact, one of the first articles I created was about the truck bombing in Digampathana in October 2006. I noticed that you created the Gulf War WikiProject page and have listed Kuwaiti oil fires as an article for expansion. I have some knowledge of the environmental impact of the fires on Kuwait and the Persian Gulf region and will gladly add a section to the article in a day or so once I do some research.

Thank you again, Black Falcon 01:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay well I look forward to it, I'll probably start work on improcing the Kuwaiti Oil Fires today and we can expand on that --Sharz 04:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Does "newsworthy" always mean "encyclopedic?"

Thanks for your thoughtful post about the proposed guideline. My concern is that we will have too many articles which are definitely news at the time they happen, as evidenced by the decision of newspaper editors and TV news show producers to present them. But they may be so commonplace that we would have articles about things which are a frequent part of daily life. The example was give of a fatal multipassenger car wreck in a small European country. It will definitely be presented in the 3 major newspapers and the 3 TV stations. Some would say, well, it still doesn't get in, because we require coverage on more than 1 day's events. So we have the accident reported on Feb 1, then the funeral on Feb. 4, with more coverage because one was a high school honor student (nonnotable but sympathetic). Then we have another when the hit and run driver is found and arrested. We hasve another round of stories when he is put ontrial and another when he is convicted. To go to a recent tragic missing white girls story, please tell me if there should be Wikipedia articles for Rachel Smith and Rachel Crites. The two girls, 16 and 18 went missing along with a car belonging to one around Jan 22, 2007 from Gaithersburg Maryland. On Jan 22, TV station NBC4 (Maryland?) ran a story "Police get leads from public. The Washington Post ran an independent story "Police reach out to 2 missing teenagers " on page PB2. On Jan 23, CBS TV channel 5 in Montgomery County Maryland ran a story derived in part from an Associated Press story, "Diary may hold clue." WJZ, CBS-TV Baltimore Maryland ran "Diary may hold clues." CBS TV station KCAL in Los Angeles, California ran a story originating from the Maryland TV station, giving the story coverage on at least both coasts. The Frederick News, Frederick Maryland ran an original story "Police search for missing teens." ABC-TV WJLA ran a story based on the Washington Post story. The Gazette-Net Maryland (print or net, not sure) ran an original story "Search for missing teens."

On Jan 24, the Examiner.com Montgomery County Maryland ran an original story "Scope of search increases." The Maryland Gazette ran "Nationwide search launched for missing teens.

On Jan 25, NBC4.com ran an original story "Center for Missing and Exploited Children searches for teens.”

On January 26, Cox.net a cable TV news channel, ran "Two missing Montgomery County girls gone a week."

On Jan. 27, The Washington Post ran "Family member plead for a phone call. America's Most Wanted, a network TV program which had earlier run a brief story on the two, ran a feature story.

There was a gap, then on Feb. 2, Fox TV News ran "On the Record, a network program with Greta van Susteren, in which the story was covered extensively and the father of one was interviewed. The Herald Mail online of Hagerstown Maryland ran an original story "Missing girls might be in area." NBC-TV channel 25 of Hagerstown ran an original story "Police find car with two bodies," with no signs of foul play. Snopes.com, a respected website which is carried in numerous newspapers, ran "Rachel Smith and Rachel Crites" telling the sad story.

On Feb 3, the Washington Post ran "Missing MD teen car found with two bodies" on page A1, indicating it is a major news story. The Associated Press sent out "Teens most likely dead from fumes." no suicide note, no pills, ignition on. But one girl had expressed a desire that they be buried together in her diary.

So this story had numerous original stories, not just reprints, written over numerous days, carried in papers in Maryland and adjoining states, and carried on 2 network TV programs, and carried in TV stations around the country This Shakespeare-quality tragedy seems to fully satisfy [[[WP:N], WP:RS, and WP:V. Are there other guidelines which could be used correctly against in in AFD, or would it be deleted on grounds “It just isn’t important enough a story?Does it satisfy WP:BIO? Compare to Jennifer Wilbanks who chose to run away and turned up safe. But Examiner.com, Washington D.C ran a story Jan 24 which said Montgomery County police (one county out of thousands in the U.S. had 1650 cases of runaways in 2006, and 811 remain open. Should we have 811 Wikipedia articles per county? Or only ones where two pretty teenage girls run way together in a Missing white woman syndrome. ( I can think of several similar cases in my medium size town) or only when they are found dead? Or is it a sad case for Wikinews? After doing the research and finding sources, I feel that I (or we) could write up a well sourced article on each girl or on the disappearance of both, and see if it survives AFD. It is a heart rending story for parents or friends of teenagers. But I'm not sure that this story or literally tens of thousands a year belong in an encyclopedia. I do not see new laws or any other change in society coming out of it. Can you find a reason for there not to be an article about this, or do you think I (or you) should write such an article? How many such cases of disappearances, crime victims, or even cute animal human interest stories get enough press coverage in enough independent sources over a long enough period to satisfy the filters you have listed and not get stories? Or is all news encyclopedic (not just Wikinewsworthy?) I really see the need for an additional filter to say, yes, it was widely covered for a couple of days or weeks, but it is not encyclopedic. A fat cat stuck in a doggy door may make national news on the day he is rescued, and then again when the owner installs a giant doggy door, because editors love to keep going back to an appealing story. Please give me your thoughts on my long (but labor intensive) reply to your long and thoughtful posting. Edison 21:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your thought-out and detailed response. To answer your question: No, "newsworthiness" does not automatically translate into "encyclopedic"? Wikipedia should not have an article for every incident or person that makes the news. You are quite correct to note that my suggested criterion of "non-identical coverage in more than one reliable news source on multiple occasions" for the notability of news items would permit a great many articles which even I agree would be unencyclopedic (such as 811 separate articles about missing persons for each regional political subdivision in the world--county, province, etc.). However, I still believe that it is a necessary addition to this guideline assuming it is adopted (a part of me is still quite reluctant to embrace this new criterion despite my frustration at seeing unencyclopedic articles about captains of non-notable naval vessels, newly-established bands, etc.).

I believe the current criteria of the proposed guideline are much too strict and would justify the exclusion of articles like the Battle of Hurtgen Forest--a WWII battle that involved 200,000 soldiers and caused 45,000 casualties and yet had no great strategic importance--for years after its occurrence. Although WP's deletion process is imperfect, I think it works rather well. Unencyclopedic topics, no matter how well-sourced or NPOV will eventually be tagged for deletion and a final decision can be reached based on consensus. An article about a boy that is rescued from a well and then gets a dog is obviously not encyclopedic, and though it passes my criterion, that does not mean it is safe from deletion. WP:Notability specifies the kind of articles that categorically do not belong, but it does not extend guaranteed protection over all others. In any case, simple "news reports" (even if they have multiple sources) fall under WP#NOT.

Another concern: the criterion of secondary (non-news) documentation, publication, and/or analysis (which is essentially what the entire policy is) is likely biased toward certain countries that have a larger publication capacity. For example, you will find many detailed analyses of WWII battles (and even minor engagements) involving the US and UK, but far fewer on battles between the Third Reich and the USSR.

I will note again that the deletion process, though imperfect, is quite good. Articles that are newsworthy but unencyclopedic will be identified, targeted, and eventually deleted (the 7th sentence on WP:Notability specifically excludes merely "newsworthy" articles). Given that "Notability is generally permanent", some news pieces may pop up as articles from time to time, but if long-term notability is not shown, they will be deleted. I believe we should trust consensus to do what is best for the encyclopedia. I would value your thoughts on the issues I have raised. Cheers, Black Falcon 01:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tall women, List of tall men

Please see new combined deletion debate. ~ trialsanderrors 20:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Karbala provincial headquarters raid sources

I'll look up where I found those details and will add the references to the article. So don't change the article right away.Top Gun —Preceding undated comment added 00:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

Thanks for the praise. I am doing my best to add more and more battles and bomings articles to the Iraq war battles and bombings campaignbox. The article seems comprehensive enough now. You to, great work!Top Gun —Preceding undated comment added 04:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

re: List of the tallest men

I've posted a follow-up question at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tall women, List of tall men. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 23:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I could probably support the scope definition that you've described. But I don't think the current page would be much help in that regard. You might have an easier time to just start from scratch. It would help the discussion if you mocked up that proposed page in your userspace. It would especially help if you laid out the definition section that normally goes at the top of the listpage. Good luck. Rossami (talk) 02:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

That seems like a good suggestion. Which potential article are you referring to: List of the tallest men or List of men notable for their height? In the latter case, which I favor as more viable, I think it should be something like (this is, of course, a very rough draft I came up with in about 5-10 minutes):

This is a list of men who are notable for their height. It is limited to men who:

1. are notable only for being extremely tall or short (e.g., Robert Pershing Wadlow); or
2. are otherwise notable, but whose height (either tall or short) has been noted as directly relevant to (e.g., Yao Ming) or contributing (e.g., Peter the Great) to their notability.

Notability here is defined as an extension of WP:Notability. In order for someone to get on the list, their height (not they themselves) has to be mentioned in "multiple reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself" (I think the non-trivial condition should be loosened here for the 2nd category of men--everyone recognizes that Yao Ming's height is directly relevant to his notability as a basketball star, but I think it would be too much to expect that there be published works out there that discuss only his height). As for section layout, I think it should be by occupation (maybe a separate section by height--but only if it the people in it meet the two criteria above). Please let me know what you think. Black Falcon 03:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I would be glad to help. It is something I intended to get round to, first I sourced most of the people on that list. It is a difficult task tho because some of the other editors who used to help to keep thje list in check don't seem to be around anymore, and I think some of the last editors who made some edits beforte the last afd did so to strengthen the case to have it deleted.

I always thought the people who should be on the list should be those who are well known due to their height..the famous giants of history, e.g. Wadlow. And mabbe those who have achived success despite their great height, e.g actors? But am not sure on that second one.Halbared 11:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Great! I too agree that the list should have those people who are among the the tallest recorded (e.g., Wadlow) and those who are famous for their height (e.g., Brad Garrett). The details of exactly what criteria are used can be worked out on the talk page. Given the current state of the list, I am amazed at some editors' comments that it would be easier to delete this list and start over. This is one of the best-sourced lists in Wikipedia! Aside from the "Historical" section, there are only three names that are still unsourced. I will work on those now. Cheers, Black Falcon 17:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

RE: List of Federal Ministers for Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection (Germany)

The information was taken from the German language article.--Carabinieri 12:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I will use the information there to complete merge. Black Falcon 17:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Kuwaiti Oil Fires

Hey, I just made some additions to the article, and along with your additions, it's looking alot better. Thanks alot = ), is there any article in particular that you want some help with?

--Sharz 04:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I will try to add some more information to the "Environmental impact" section tomorrow. Also, thank you for your offer. I can't think of any one particular article (perhaps you know of some new information with regards to the 2006 Digampathana truck bombing?), but if you'd like, I keep a list of all the articles I've created on my user page, along with a lot of other information--I admit to being a little obsessive-compulsive. Note that I'm only stating that I will admit to being a little obsessive-compulsive, whereas I may be highly obsessive-compulsive. See! I'm even compulsive about that!  ;-) -- Cheers, Black Falcon 05:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Numbers

Hey, so I just noticed how you have all your number on your userpage (like #of edits, number of mainspace, most edited ect - very impressive by the way, for me since i didn't know how to use preview I'll probably have like 99 percent non-mainspace edits) - where do you get that info, I've been looking for a good edit tracker like that. Thanks! Daniel()Folsom ^T|_C|^U 22:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

There are a number of edit counters at Wikipedia:Tools#Edit counters. I use Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Edit Counter mostly because it gives your top 15 edited mainspace, talk, template, user, user talk, wikipedia, and wikipedia talk pages. Cheers, Black Falcon 22:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

UTHR

The University Teachers for Human Rights (Jaffna Branch) (UTHR (J)) The University Teachers for Human Rights (Jaffna Branch) (UTHR (J)) was formed in 1988 as part of the national UTHR. It no longer operates out of the University, following the murder of one of its founding members in 1989 and the withdrawal of many of its members from Jaffna in 1990. Their occasional reports on human rights are accessible via http://www.tamilnation.org/humanrights/UTHR (J)/UTHR (J).htm#UTHR (J). The work of the UTHR (J) is partly funded by the European Human Rights Foundation. [3]User:RaveenS —Preceding undated comment added 19:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

A favor

I created Assassinations and murders during the Sri Lankan civil war article by merging two articles, one was Attributed to the LTTE and the other to the government. Both were unstable and always had the tinge of POV over them and were cause of lot of edit wars. So I merged them and created this to minimize the conflict. When you have time, can you look over it please ? ThanksRaveenS

Sure, I'd be happy to and am honored that you would ask me. I think merging the two under one title is more NPOV. I will have a detailed look at it today and post a longer reply when I do. There is just one thing I want to mention about the title. As most of the individuals on the list seem to be persons who were specifically targeted, and in light of some AfDs I've seen in the past few days, it may be appropriate to drop "and murders" from the title. Oh, and thanks for the clarification regarding UTHR--unfortunately I could find no sources (I did, however, find multiple references to another massacre, which I will add to WP in the next day or two). Cheers, Black Falcon 19:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be a edit war situation developing in these bold changes that I made, details here [[4]] a third part review like yours would be great RaveenS 19:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I have posted a comment at Talk:Assassinations and murders attributed to the LTTE‎. I do indeed hope support for the merge builds without the need for mediation or arbitration. Merging the two articles can only reduce POV and make the article more informative by concentrating related information. I wanted to re-perform the merge, but though it would be best to wait until there is some discussion. Could you also please tell me whether there is a specific place that centralized discussion is taking place (I'm assuming for the moment that it's at Talk:Assassinations and murders attributed to the LTTE‎)? Thanks, Black Falcon 19:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

You are in the right place RaveenS 20:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I have finnished craeting the [[Notable_assassinations_of_the_Sri_Lankan_Civil_War. I need your opinion as to proceed further with the re directs to thsi neutral article. Thanks RaveenS 20:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I made an edit to the article (standardising the appearance of the tables across the subsections). The "Extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions" and "LTTE vs. Tamil militant groups" sections need to be removed or rewritten per the new title, but overall the article is looking good. I will try to work on the article over the next couple of days (mostly its organisation and sourcing). I noticed the discussion with Snowolfd4 and Iwazaki at the old talk page just a short while ago. The articles essentially convey the same information, but this is written under a more NPOV title and has potential for future expansion into a general analytical article about "Assassinations in the Sri Lankan civil war". If you want my support for this title and to redirect everything else there, you have it. -- Black Falcon 20:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Buenos Aires

FWIW I know enough not to end up getting thumped for spouting political opinions in Buenos Aires, were I lucky enough to ever visit that city. And the same can be said for cities in the UK like Plymouth too, because people died in the war who would otherwise still be alive and I recognise feelings still run very strongly, SqueakBox 18:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I certainly understand and hope you took no offense from my comments. It was merely an unsuccessful attempt at humour and I in no way wished to downgrade you as an editor or to deny the validity of the UK's claim on the Falklands. -- Black Falcon 19:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of palindromic phrases in English

Your comments in the AfD were added before two related articles were added to it as a group nomination. Please clarify whether your vote applies to all 3 or not. Thanks, Jerry lavoie 02:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Peruvian Jews

Correct, it is a consequence of the attribution rules on the GFDL. See WP:MERGE. (This is one reason some of the other Wikimedia projects don't use the GFDL liscence but use more flexible ones). JoshuaZ 02:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

VegaDark's Request for Adminship

Black Falcon/Archive 1

---

Thank you for supporting my RfA. It was successful at a unanimous 52/0/0. I hope I can live up to the kind words expressed of me there, and hope to now be more of an asset to the community with access to the tools. Please feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any suggestions for me in the future. Thanks again! VegaDark 07:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Mexican Jews

This seems like the slightly better-sourced version of List of Peruvian Jews. I took a handful of redlinks and googled them. Here are some examples: [5], [6], ..even William Landau, M.D was recently deleted for not being notable. Aside from the sourced blue-links, many of which don't even describe the people as Mexicans. I have a feeling people won't delete this list if its up on AFD because they'll ignore the many red links and just focus on the few sourced ones, so I think the best approach may be to just redirect the list to List of Latin American Jews with all the blue-links. What do you think? Usedup 09:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I think simply merging/redirecting (all blue-links and the few sourced red-links) is the best solution, especially since this is just one list (unlike the 20 lists for Peruvian Jews). I can do this is an hour or so (unless you've done it by then) and also add {{fact}} after any blue-links that do not state that the individual in question is a Mexican and a Jew. Cheers, Black Falcon 17:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, after looking at the article in more detail, I'm not sure merging to List of Latin American Jews would be the best solution as it would largely overwhelm the latter article. I think there are enough names listed in the "Mexican Jews" article that are blue-linked and/or sourced that it should have its own list. That is not to say, of course, that it doesn't need to be cleaned up. -- Black Falcon 00:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

There's not that many blue links that have been confirmed as being both Mexican and Jewish. I don't think List of Latin American Jews would be more overwhelmed than List of North European Jews is right now. My current count is about 38, only of which less than half are correctly sourced. Any red links that are deemed valuable (meaning, actually show up on google for more than a few pages) can just be added to the talk page. Usedup 15:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, another problem is List of Chilean Jews. Only 10 have articles, but 24 others are sourced. However, most appear to bne sourced from the same link, and this could just be some community listing of non-notables. The fact that none have had articles written about them suggests that. If you think its a good idea, I'll redirect list of Chilean Jews to List of Latin American Jews add all the blue links with some requests for references, and move all the red links to the talk page (even the sourced ones) as there is no reason to assume they will ever have articles made about them if they are not notable. Usedup 15:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

In my effort to try to clean up List of Chilean Jews, I was met with pretty harsh resistance and even a warning threat. Can you perhaps weigh in on this at TALK:List of Chilean Jews or User_talk:Usedup#List_of_Chilean_Jews? Usedup 19:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the comments. Ironically, the names have not been tagged just since January 28th, but since September 2006 (lol). Nobody did anything about most of them for almost half a year. Usedup 00:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Huh, you are right! I assumed Jan. 28 because of the edit summary reading "Tags per new policy on ...". -- Black Falcon 00:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and help sourcing, but I think a day will be enough. So tomorrow? I have a few pdfs which might help. Do you have an email? It says one isn't registered to you when you click "Email this user." Usedup 03:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I prefer not to use my e-mail on Wikipedia unless absolutely necessary (involving an administrative or bureaucratic action) as it may be personally identifiable. If the files are available online, you could provide the web addresses. In any case, although I will work on sourcing the list over the next few days, I cannot devote my full attention to it. If you wish to move the unsourced redlinks to the talk page after one day, that's OK with me (I only suggested a few days to try to get User:Runcorn's support as well). Cheers, Black Falcon 05:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of surnames

It is my sense that batch AfD nominations should only be done when all articles nominated are substantially similar, so I think it was an error to include List of common Chinese surnames which is not in the same style as the rest. In that case, it should only have been listed individually, if at all. I've stricken it from the nomination, restricting the nomination to the remaining similar articles. Hopefully you can clarify your comment now. Sorry for the inconvenience. Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 09:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: AFD

I'm not so much withdrawing the commercial failure AFD as I am relisting the articles separately, in individual AFD noms. In that way, a consensus to delete can still emerge for one or more of the articles. szyslak (t, c) 20:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Your vote for Castle

Thank you for supporting Castle at WP:ACID. The article is in a shocking state and needs masses of work. You helped it stay on the list for another little while. Hopefully, it can get some more votes. Cheers, --Dweller 20:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Microsoft Office 14

Thanks for standing up for Microsoft Office 14. It was my first brand-new article on Wikipedia and it had been "prodded" twice. I was ready to just let it die but I was very surprised to see someone sticking up for it. Thanks. :) White 720 04:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for creating such a balanced and well-sourced article. If Microsoft Office 12 deserves an article, I see no reason why the next version doesn't, given that there is already talk about it in published, reliable sources. Cheers, Black Falcon 04:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

STF

Hey, just letting you know that I reverted the formatting edit there accidentally, but if you look at the edit before that, Snowolfd4 deletes about 50% of the human rights section. --Sharz 06:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Reference spacing

I disagree. While it may be a little more difficult to distinguish between the actual text and the reference, the benefit of not having to scroll through all that text outways the burden. In any case, I never use that style of referencing, so the issue rarely comes up. Regards, KazakhPol 04:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 05:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I do know. I just sometimes forget. And now I'm replying to a bot. ....... I wonder if you will sign an unsigned comment made by me on this talk page. Let's find out shall we.

This page is not monitored by the bot, so no. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AQu01rius (talk • contribs) 06:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

lol I was wrong. I was just messing around. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 16:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Dennis Travale

The page read like it was right out of an official bio and you said that a source was needed to prove copyvio. I have found one [7]. Some parts have been cut, but several sections are word for word copyvio. -- Scorpion 04:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

You are right. I will remove the copyvio content (most of the article) momentarily. By the way, this is the link at the bottom, isn't it? I should have checked it. -- Black Falcon 04:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magic Bullet (appliance)

Hello, I noticed that you !voted early in this AfD. I can easily see how you arrived at your decision, base don information present in the debate at the time you !voted. If you are so inclined, would you please take a moment to review any new information that has been left since you last viewed it, and see if there is possibly basis to change your !vote? Thanks, Jerry lavoie 18:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

You helped choose Rwandan Genocide as this week's WP:ACID winner

AzaBot 23:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Please Assist

Hello, I've seen you give input under Articles for Deletion, and you appear to be fair and knowledgeable. I was checking up an article, UltraRogue and found the following:

07:56, 16 February 2007 Lectonar (Talk | contribs) deleted "UltraRogue" (A7)

Yet, I am unable to find the trail of where this deletion discussion took place, nor can I find any record of this action being taken under Lectonar's history. If you could please help me to follow what occurred and point me to wherever the log is, I would appreciate it.

Thank you Bbagot 20:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

It seems the article was speedy deleted per criterion A7: "An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject." The action does not appear in User:Lectonar's contribution history I assume because edits made to articles which are deleted are also removed from users' histories (I know this to be true for regular users and it also seems to apply to admins). If you wish the page to be restored, you may ask the deleting admin on his/her talk page. If they refuse, you may list the page for deletion review.

I hope this helps. Cheers, Black Falcon 20:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

RE: USMC film list

You have commented on the AFD discussion for List of films featuring United States Marines, the discussion can be viewed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films featuring United States Marines.

Following support for my suggestion, I have done a userspace rewrite of the article at User:Saberwyn/Films featuring the United States Marine Corps, with the rewritten article in the top half and the current article with annotations as to their inclusion or non-inclusion in the rewritten list.

I would like to request that you review the rewritten article, and if you think it is appropriate, amend your stance at the AFD discussion. -- saberwyn 11:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

List of screen recording software

You recently fixed a mangling of two AfDs that were combined. This AfD notice still points to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_screen_capture_software. Is this the wrong place? Shouldn't it point to a AfD:List of screen recording software? I don't know how to fix this. Thanks. (Requestion 21:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC))

• In cases where multiple articles are considered for deletion together, the deletion discussion should be at one centralized location (per WP:AFD#How to list multiple related pages for deletion). As in this case the nominator listed the two articles for deletion together (see the original version of the AfD page), I simply directed the AfD notice on "List of screen recording software" to the joint discussion located at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of screen capture software. A separate AfD page for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of screen recording software is not needed. Cheers, Black Falcon 21:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I get it now. One central location, still two articles up for deletion. Thank you for your explanation. (Requestion 21:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC))

List of films with disabled protagonists

In the articles for deletion discussion of List of films with disabled protagonists you commented that you thought the list should be deleted, but then stated that "A list of films about disabled persons or disabilities is a different matter." My understanding is that the "protagonist" of a film is by definition the person the film is about. The list itself may need clean-up, but I would expect that a list of films with disabled protagonists would in fact be a list of films that are about disabled people. I hope this is helpful. 05:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Howling Terror AfD

You're probably right about the album articles. I prodded them earlier in the day, before I'd made the AfD nomination. I'll de-prod them. Oldelpaso 21:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

You helped choose Black hole as this week's WP:ACID winner

AzaBot 01:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Template:Bus Terminals in Moscow Oblast

Userfied. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 01:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Prod of List of Scottish footballers

If you do insert more information, it would meet WP:LIST as informative, and the argument for deletion would be no more. It could be hard to maintain over time, though? Punkmorten 09:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Help

I nominated a group of articles for deletion (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mario Party 3 minigames). However, a number of the articles had been considered for deletion not more than 2 days earlier and closed with a "no consensus, default keep" result (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mario Party 8 minigames). I mistakenly perceived the discussion date to be 21 February 2006 instead of 2007. I would like to withdraw my nomination and call for a speedy close. However, a number of users have already voted to delete. Can I withdraw the nomination? Thank you, Black Falcon 20:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, want me to close it early? It probably woud be a good idea since a similar AfD just happened and there has been canvassing. Let the dust settle for a month and then revisit if you want to nominate again.--Isotope23 20:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and closed the AfD.--Isotope23 20:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes, please, if it can be done. I have also suggested at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mario Party 2 minigames (a nomination initiated by User:JzG) that the nomination of that article be withdrawn as well and, if necessary, all articles be renominated together after a while (I suggested 2 months; 1 month works equally well). I don't know whether s/he will withdraw, but I feel s/he should (at least for the sake consistency) as the articles are essentially identical in terms of flaws and merits. I apologize for the unnecessary confusion I created through my mistaken nomination. Thank you for your assistance, -- Black Falcon 20:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Eh, don't sweat it. It happens. I'm going to let JzG decide that one for himself.--Isotope23 21:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Category for discussion template

I adjusted {{Oldcfdfull}}, if that's okay, and now it works as (I hope) you wanted. If you have questions or comments, feel free to leave a note. Gracenotes^T § 21:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Campaignbox al-Qaeda attacks

Template:Campaignbox al-Qaeda attacks has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --— Indon (reply) — 15:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Citation for Dwight Gustafson

Hi, I'm formatting the book source given in the Dwight Gustafson article with {{cite book}} per User:Uncle G's recommendation in the AfD. Could you please specify whether the page-numbers are for the paper-back or the hardcover edition (the ISBNs of the two are different). Thank you, Black Falcon 18:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The hardback and paperback are identical except for the binding; but I used the paperback. (Also, the second edition seems to be identical or virtually identical with the first except for additional material.)--John Foxe 19:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. It's a minor issue, really, but one that adds specificity to the reference and makes the article more easily verifiable. I've already added the extra info, so you may check it if you wish. Cheers, Black Falcon 19:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. All the best, John Foxe 20:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Input is appreciated

Dear editor, since you also commented on this recent AfD, I would appreciate your input here: Talk:List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck"#Arbitrary cut-off discussion. Best regards, --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

tanzanians

Please take your time with the List of Tanzanians article. I'm not in a hurry and not trying to make a point. :) -- Ben 02:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• Following extensive research and a series of cost-benefit considerations, the article is confirmed as a a probable liability. After looking at the article and possible ways to expand it (and make it more informative), I really don't know whether it's worth the trouble. The category already does a fairly good job. I will give it a try tomorrow by actually editing the article (so far I've just been looking through candidate articles) and if it's still problematic, I will re-prod. Cheers, Black Falcon 07:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • That's what I was thinking... it's a timesink. And the category looks like it could do the job quite nicely. -- Ben 14:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

List of MP8 mini-games

See, there's something that really wasn't acknowledged, that the only reason anyone can say "it's not a guide!" is because is can't be a guide. There's no one to guide, and no one can guide them yet, as it's unreleased. But when all of the other MP mini-game lists are about telling how to play them, what is to be expected? There's not been a precedence to put mini-game lists on Wikipedia, and I'm sure that it surviving has more to do with people liking the article more than feeling it adheres to policy and guidelines. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I nominated all of the MP minigame lists for deletion on February 28 for that very reason: WP:NOT a game guide. However, I had failed to notice that the previous AfD discussion had closed only 27 hours earlier, so I withdrew my nomination. I intend to wait a month or two (until April, at least, or even May), and the renominate all the articles for deletion. I simply removed the prod because it is not a case of uncontroversial deletion (having already survived AfD once). -- Black Falcon 01:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The beginning of April is the earliest you could be able to do it (or rather, late March). - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

List of German actors (from 1895 to the present)

I've userfied this to a subpage (User:Black Falcon/Sandbox/List of German actors (from 1895 to the present)) per your request at the AfD. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

You helped choose Atmosphere as this week's WP:ACID winner

AzaBot 01:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Award & adminship

I award this Barnstar to Black Falcon for excellent contributions to Wikipedia. —Quarl 2007-03-07

Hi Black Falcon, I first noticed your work in AFD. Excellent work writing articles, saving worthwhile articles, sourcing articles, merging articles, and general insightful contributions. Have an award! I would like to nominate you for adminship! Are you interested? —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-07 12:34Z

Thank you for the award! I have seen your valuable improvements to articles at AFD–most recently Extreme Pizza–and am honored that you would consider nominating me for adminship. I am interested, but am concerned the timing may be off. For personal reasons, I will be spending significantly less time at Wikipedia in the second half of March than I have in the past month (I do plan on a full comeback in April). I would like to become an admin eventually, but do not feel comfortable requesting adminship shortly before taking a Wikibreak. I would be flattered if you would still consider nominating me sometime after my full return. My sincere thanks for your acknowledgement and show of trust. Cheers, Black Falcon 19:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, if/when you would like a nomination, let me know —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-08 07:12Z

OK. Thanks again, Black Falcon 07:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Email

With respect to the list of German actors and some administrative details, I really need you to register an e-mail in your preferences. You can make a yahoo account in less than a few minutes and use it exclusively for wikipedia. You'll understand why I'm asking when you get my first email. Usedup 01:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Two of the best things about Wikipedia, in my opinion, are the anonymity it affords and the existence of records of all actions and statements. I prefer for now to keep all Wikipedia-related communication on Wikipedia and am generally wary of communication that is not freely available to be read by other editors. As regards the list of actors, I intend to investigate whether the information present can be used as the basis for a new "List of German actors" that: (1) is sourced; (2) includes only notable actors; and (3) includes information that cannot be efficiently presented in a category. I think most or all information relevant to that endeavour can be found online or in available print sources. -- Black Falcon 02:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

As a possible future admin, I continue to implore you put an e-mail address in your preferences. Everyone else, and definitely every admin, does it, so its questionable why this admin candidate consistently refuses too. There is a save correspondence feature in most e-mail services. Again, it will make much more sense why I'm asking for this the sooner you decide to make the email. Lets say it has more to do with administrative details than anything else. Please reconsider. Usedup 17:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The reason behind my reluctance to provide an e-mail address was transparency of communication. Also, please note that I am not yet an admin candidate and would certainly provide an e-mail if/when I sought adminship. However, in following WP:AGF, I have created an account and saved it to my preferences. I hope you were not offended by my initial reluctance to give an e-mail address; I still feel it is best to keep WP-related communication on WP, but if you insist on an account, I will assume you have good reason(s) for doing so. Cheers, Black Falcon 18:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

No of course I wasn't offended. Thank you and I sent you the email. Make sure to reply to it via email (you'll see why). After our discussion you can remove the email address again if you wish. Usedup 23:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey thanks for the response. Clearly we don't see eye-to-eye on deletion disputes but we're probably the best at discussing them. Write back soon when you can. Usedup 00:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Campa

I was about to AfD, but seeing your comments I 'll wait another week. Your problem is the several different fields: is it particularly as a sociologist, or as a popular writer or what? If you can focus on one and actually prove it, I'll be glad to support the article. DGG 05:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. On the one hand, he is an academic. Yet on the other, he is a public activist. And, to complicate matters even more, almost all sources about him are in Italian or Polish. Polish is completely incomprehensible to me, but I have a basic understanding of Romance languages and will try to use some Italian sources to bolster the article. -- Black Falcon 06:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Bus terminals in Moscow oblast

All articles were deleted dispite the voting againgt deletion. All images werre deleted as well.--Dojarca 19:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I have brought up the issue with the deleting admin at User talk:Wknight94#List of bus terminals in Moscow Oblast and requested that the images be restored. Please let me know or comment there if you feel I have not adequately presented the argument for restoring the images. Thank you for bringing this to my attention, Black Falcon 20:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Trevor Loflin

Hi, I saw you removed the prod notice from the article. I still don't think an article is needed so I put it up for deletion here. Garion96 (talk) 22:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me. -- Black Falcon 23:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Terrorism in Kazakhstan

Hi, You recently participted in an AFD on Terrorism in Kazakhstan. Your input on a proposed page move is desired. Regards, KazakhPol 23:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

White Cross

Hi. Thank's for leaving me the message about that. The page, as initially created, contained a link and mention that multiple members of the band went to form the band GWAR. According to wiki guidelines that should qualify them for notability. I've readded that information and removed the header. Tomb Ride ^{My Talk} 02:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Whoops, forgot to say that information had been deleted for some reason at some point. It's, as I mentioned, re included. Tomb Ride ^{My Talk} 02:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Pop feminism

Hi Black Falcon, this is a bit late but I'd just like to query your contestation of the {{prod}} for Pop feminism. I originally tagged the page as original research because of its complete lack of references. I say this for the simple reason that 5 of the references (numbers 2-6) are not notable or published on reliable sources (the 5th reference is also broken) - the fact that there is 1 newspaper article about pop feminism doesn't mean it deserves its own article. As I have posted on the talk page there are some throw-away references made to pop feminism but I can't say that there is either a definition or clarification of the term in any academic source that I've come across. When the article itself says: "There is no proof pop feminism is an actual feminist philosophy; it seems to be an observed phenomenon in society or the media" it is correct. I am anxious to do something about this article whether expand, merge or delete - its current state is a mess. What are your views on the article?--Cailil 12:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

After a more detailed investigation of the available sources, I found my initial assessment of "following a review of available sources, I believe there is enough material to expand the article" to be incorrect. I don't think that the article can stand on its own. I don't think a merge to feminism is necessary: as you state, the article's "current state is a mess". A simple redirect to feminism would probably be enough. I will do so now, but please revert me if you feel it should remain a while longer or that another outcome would be more appropriate. I will also attempt to incorporate the CBC source into the feminism article; it's a good source for a few sentences, but does not justify a separate article, as you've noted. Cheers, Black Falcon 18:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

PRODing of romance authors

To respond to your concerns:

1) I was suspicious, actually highly suspicious, in the unreferenced/sourced manner in which the articles had been added. The fact that most of them only linked to a list of romance authors also left me less than convinced they were nothing more than SPAM bios.

2) The incorrect edit summary was a mistake. I'd like to say it'll never happen again, but I know thats probably not true.

3) Sadly enough, just adding a tag that an article needed references and more explanation of notability very rarely leads to cleanup in that regard. Something like a third of articles I've sent for an AfD after dealing with defensive article creators removing cleanup tags repeatedly immediately get cleaned up and sourced due to the proceedings. I'm glad that you intend to source the rest of the articles.

As for removing the PROD tags, I checked through my edit history and you and GroggyDice have removed all of them. As you might have guessed, I'm a deletionist, and I think I still view these authors as failing WP:BIO, as they fail to assert their notability through 'secondary sources that are reliable, distinct, and independent of the subject'. But, this isn't my encyclopedia, and life will go on. Thanks for bringing your concerns to my attention. Happy wikipedia-ing. Cornell Rockey 14:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

List of bus terminals in Moscow Oblast

FYI, I responded to your request on my talk page. Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Hartal

The user seems to be more interested in ranting and making vague legal threats than finding reliable sources for his articles. If you think that Roger J. Geronimo is notable, I will not object if you remove the prod tag (although I would greatly appreciate if the sources were standardized since Hartal seems to only use the hard to reach caches for reasons I don't understand). Similar comments apply to the currently under AfD Rochelle Holt. JoshuaZ 17:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I am actually unconvinced whether Roger J. Geronimo meets WP:BIO (my search for additional sources was largely fruitless). I simply de-prodded and re-prodded the article in order to make the author aware of the issue and hopefully prompt him to provide additional sources to establish notability. If such sources are not forthcoming, I am not opposed to the article's deletion. I believe the situation with Rochelle Holt is different as she seems to be notable despite her affiliation with CPU and the poor state of the article (somewhat improved since the AFD).

I really don't know what to make of Hartal's comments on his talk page. His comment about the deletion of articles about notable persons related to CPU (including an Icelandic Minister, a NYT bestselling author, and a former Prime Minister) initially concerned me. However, there is no record of a "John Sigurdsson" or "Barbara De Angelis" article being deleted and the article for Harold Wilson still exists.

In any case, I have commented at the AFD and made some changes to the article. Also, per you request, I have standardised the references in both articles. Cheers, Black Falcon 19:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I see now what Hartal meant -- that the names were removed from the "notable alumni" section of Columbia Pacific University. Well, this was certainly appropriate for Wilson (honorary fellows don't count as alumni as far as I know). Even if the other two do belong in the section, Hartal's way of going about it is not particularly constructive. Rather than delving into legal issues, I would suggest that he take the matter to WP:RFC if he feels there have been inappropriate actions on the part of other editors--although his actions would come under scrutiny too. -- Black Falcon 19:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Studios Architecture

Thanks for cleaning up Studios Architecture - the prod was mostly because it was a huge WP:COI/WP:AUTO violation. It got me upset because then after that the user changed names which I thought was extremely fishy. I wanted somebody not affiliated to take a look, or let it fall off the map. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 01:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

http://www.studiosarch.com (the user's initial name) redirects to the company's official website, http://www.studiosarchitecture.com. The name change just 2 days after creating the article is a bit strange, but should not be overly relevant once the article is cleaned up. I will look for sources for the additional claims made by the article and delete those which cannot be sourced. (And also slightly modify some claims: for instance, the renovation of the Pentagon was contracted to STUDIOS Architecture and another company, but the article currently reads as if STUDIOS was the only one to work on the project. Whether this is deliberate or due to the way the information is presented I'm not certain; both are possible, but I'm somewhat inclined toward the latter (mostly because much of the article was well-sourced).) In any case, I will continue to work on the article. Cheers, Black Falcon 02:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Glad somebody else is keeping an eye on it... twice today the same blurb, first anonymous. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 01:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important homeopaths

Thanks for the note. That title, I think, will work better. Still, I'm not sure it holds up to Wikipedia's standards, but that can change - so I'm going with a "weak keep or merge" vote due to ambiguity (here, I'm focusing also on something like WP:LOCAL, as these people are notable amongst practicioners of homeopathy), but thinking that the article might not stand on its own and be better if it were merged into the Homeopathy article itself - but hedging a bet that it can live on its own. =^^= --Dennisthe2 18:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Naomi Hazan

Hi. The reason I moved the article (aside from the incorrect transliteration - Chazan is the German version of her name) was for consistency. For example, another MK, Yehiel Hazan, has the same name, but spelt differently (starting with an "H") on the Knesset website. There are plenty more examples (Haim vs Chaim etc), but unfortunately people take "official" Israeli translations as read, despite the fact there is no consistency (I believe there are some pages on the website where you can find more than two names spelt in different ways (one I know of which discusses presidents, talks about Chaim Weizmann, Haim Herzog and Ezer Weizman!)), and therefore Google searches to determine the "correct" spelling are effectively meaningless. I hope this is convincing enough not to move it back as I have recently started fixing mis-transliterations of Hebrew words/names (Qiryat -> Kiryat etc.) Number 57 09:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with User:Number 57. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 10:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

If you think the Knesset website is inconsistent, you should drive round Petah Tikva (also a mistransliteration - it should be Petakh Tikva). I have seen it spelt at least four different ways on road signs! In Be'er Sheva there are several streets where the street name is spelt differently at each end :S Number 57 17:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Digital strategy

Hi. I was wondering if you wouldn't mind taking a second look at the article on Digital Strategy. I've been working on making edits based on guidance from Ronz and he felt it might be worthwhile for someone else to take a look. I've updated all the references (where possible) to link directly to their online sources and included page numbers (again where relevent). In addition, there are two other references which were removed as either COI or violating WP:SOURCE - self published and was wondering on what your take was now that the links have been added to the articles directly. Thanks for any help you can provide! --Zyaar 12:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the comments and perspective. I think it will help focus the discussions about the article. Thanks! --Ronz 02:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Black Falcon. This is great, constructive criticism and definitely gives me a roadmap to follow for any of my contributions to this topic. --Zyaar 13:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Mangojuice/Trivia

I updated my essay quite a bit, thought you'd want to take a look. Cheers, Mangojuice^talk 21:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I actually did end up merging it with Wikipedia:Trivia. My answer to your point about non-annotated lists -- if the list has a specific heading, no further explanation is likely to be necessary. Imagine, for instance, a section "Pigs as major characters in fiction." I don't think we'd need much in the individual items in terms of annotation. It might be better to have items like "Wilbur in Charlotte's Web" rather than simply "Charlotte's Web", but that's a well-controlled form of limited annotation. But I do agree that a real miscellaneous info section could never be covered well as a plain list. Mangojuice^talk 20:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, OK. So it's just a matter of specifying a narrow scope for the list. I looked at the talk page discussion here and agree with you that a merge of the two is not yet appropriate (although the two should reference each other). The worst trivia sections and articles are being deleted in AFD or otherwise. However, a number of the better ones that sourced and narrow in scope are being kept or merged. To merge the essay into the guideline would constitute a change in the guideline that may not be supported by consensus. I noted previously that I may support turning it into a guideline, but that was if it gained consensus support. I don't think that has happened yet (though it may be worth starting a discussion on the matter). -- Black Falcon 21:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

You helped choose Vladimir Lenin as this week's WP:ACID winner

AzaBot 01:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

"intellectually independent"

"intellectually independent" as you added it at Bio could be an interesting addition to WP:N. --Kevin Murray 00:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I added that to WP:BIO based on my discussion with Rossami here. I found the previous wording to be misleading and believe the phrase "intellectually independent" to better convey the intended meaning. It may be worthwhile to discuss its addition to WP:N, but I think that should be deferred until the final state of the guideline is determined (keep, reject, replace with WP:AIC, etc.). I have removed the phrase "and of each other" from WP:N. Again, the phrase is misleading. Moreover, it was a change that was slipped in without consensus support or discussion (at least one that I could find). -- Black Falcon 02:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:N

You edited a criterion in WP:N down to "multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject." removing the part about "independent of each other." So consider the case that I want to write about something which happenened say in 1880 through 1900 and the only online source I have for those years is the New York Times. If I find say 12 articles about the subject in that one source, they are independent of the subject but not of each other. Is that the making of an adequately referenced article? This leaves it for others to add references from books or from other publications of the period. Could someone argue legitimately that it should be deleted for lack of multiple references "independent of each other?" They could have before your edit but not after. This is not a hypothetical case, because I have relied on that one source for the reason stated. Edison 04:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe we should require the type of independence of sources that you noted. I would say that 12 articles on a subject do serve as adequate referencing, even if all 12 are from the NYT. The type of independence you've outlined is essentially related to a "conflict of interest". Judging the independence of sources from each other is a difficult, subjective, and (in my view) unnecessary endeavour. Are two books by separate authors published by the same publisher independent? Are two news outlets who share an individual on their board of directors independent? Are separate ministries/departments of a government independent? We can say with reasonable certainty whether a given source is independent from its subject. We cannot (and in my opinion should not) do the same for the independence of sources from each other. -- Black Falcon 04:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Need your response

Talk:Assassinations_and_murders_attributed_to_the_LTTE#redirect please respond on this ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ^Talk 14:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Preferred method of execution

The cruelist is generally being left to die of old age, but my preferred method would be for the tribe to leave me out on the ice where I'd gradually just become numb before succumbing! Noroton 16:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Private First Class Stephan "Obi" Obrieski

Hi, the debate closed with a merge result, and you indicated you'd be willing to do the merging of the content. Since you seem to be have been online a few minutes ago, I figured I'd leave a message to you before doing anything else. If you don't feel like doing it right now, I'll remove the afd tags and add in the {{afdmergeto}} templates, but in the meantime, I won't be touching them. The title of the merge target is up to you. Thanks. - Bobet 18:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Again: List of German actors

I'd be curious to learn why this page has been "userfied" rather than "projectified" to Wikipedia:WikiProject Films. In the second case, at least a minority of Wikipedians—those interested in German film—would be able to work on the list whereas editing a user subpage is seen by most people as an intrusion of privacy. Needless to say, the whole idea of removing the list from the main space based on one or two outsiders' votes is most ridiculous. See also Talk:List of actors from Germany. I don't even know where to put these lines. All the best, <KF>, 18 March 2006

I asked the page to be userfied "until such time as I trim/improve it and suggest its recreation, merge it into List of actors from Germany, Switzerland, and Austria, or find an appropriate WikiProject which would take it" (copied from the AFD discussion). I only requested the userfication so that the content would not be deleted entirely. So far, I have not been able to devote time to working on it, so I would be more than happy to see it "projectified". Please let me know the appropriate location and I will move it, or feel free to move it yourself. Cheers, Black Falcon 21:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. I have no idea where to put it and I don't know if the people working on the WikiProject Film would want it. As I said, as far as I'm concerned it (a) belongs in the main space and (b) the only overhaul it needs is additional names (if there are any). At a stage in the progress of Wikipedia where every single album of some unknown pop group has its own entry certainly every single German actor and actress deserves one. Personally, I always favour and enjoy the red links because they clearly show at a glance what work there still is to be done. In other words, I would have preferred the list to remain exactly as and where it was. As this is impossible, I really have no idea what to do now. I'll keep an eye on future developments. Thanks again, and best wishes, KF 18 March 2007.

Falcon, I have something!

Trampton has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Trampton 15:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

Kya: Dark Lineage

Hi, I've merged all of the items from the various lists back into the core article for now. I imagine that once I get it trimmed down and looking more encyclopedic the article won't need to be branched out. Cheers, Lankybugger 19:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree: there is not that much information to warrant a separate list as this point. I have tried to cleanup one section, "Characters", but don't know how successful I was, largely because I don't know which elements are significant to the game and which are not. Feel free to revert my edits. Also, I didn't know what to do with the images, so I placed them in a gallery. Let me know what you think of the format for that section or if you can suggest an alternate format, and I'll try to help with the cleanup. Thanks, Black Falcon 20:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The more I look at the Kya article, the more I feel it's going to have to be rewritten pretty much from the ground up. While hotspot's enthusiasm is a welcome addition to any wiki, the prose brought along for the ride is not. It's pretty much lacks any means of salvaging which wouldn't be more work than just rewriting it from scratch. I think I'll take a run at doing just that.

Oh, and as you've no doubt noticed, I went ahead and stole the Kya redirect. There's a toplink in the article right now, but I don't imagine it'll be contested. Cheers, Lankybugger 05:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1850-51 Australian cricket season

A lot of the articles that were deleted have been recreated. I just thought I would point it out to you - Ozzykhan 21:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

I was just rv'ing another step farther back when you did a second before me on Ethnic group Thanks.--Xiahou 00:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Afd you voted on

Just to let you know that an Afd that you previously voted on, Maximilian Roos, was relisted due to some of the contributors sockpuppeting. I have revoted along with my original opinion. Laughhead 14:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The Afd was closed as delete - do you think that was the correct decision? One vote was struck that came from an IP user with >300 edits, another that had many edits but from a while ago. Does the remaining 3-2 demonstrate consensus? I'm not a regular wikipedia user so would be interested to know your opinion.Laughhead 16:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I should tell you, firstly, that I am not an administrator, but a regular editor. However, I spent quite a bit of time at AFD and so will give you my honest analysis of the discussion and closure.

In terms of numbers, I count 3 deletes and 3 keeps (excluding EbayVP, Cashandhoes, and yourself--no offense--for having too few edits outside the subject). One of the issues raised against the article was that much of its notability rested in the references posted on unibooks (magazine scans). As the scans seem to be unaffiliated with unibooks, I think that their consideration as unreliable was mistaken. However, that is not to say that notability, as defined here, could not have been reasonably contested due to a lack of provided sources that. Perhaps a result of 'no consensus' would have been more appropriate, but then again, 'no consensus' discussions where only a few editors participate are usually left to admin discretion (not per policy as far as I'm aware, but in practice).

If you wish, you may list the discussion at deletion review, specifically bringing up the issue of the scans on unibooks and the mistake of discounting the recommendation of the one IP user with 300+ edits. If you do take it to DRV, you should only address the closing of the discussion and/or bring up new sources of information--DRV should not consist merely of a restatement of arguments in the AFD. Before doing so, however, keep in mind that AFD is not just a head-count (arguments are supposed to matter more) and also that the closure as delete may well have been within the admin's discretion. I don't want to unnecessarily discourage you from pursuing the matter, but I also don't want to unnecessarily encourage you. I hope my comments aid you in making a decision as to how to proceed. Cheers, Black Falcon 17:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for your lengthly reply. I will have a think and may post on DRV. Laughhead 17:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I have posted it here. Wikipedia:Deletion review Laughhead 19:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)