User talk:Black Falcon/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Template:Talk header

Thanks for the correction. Earlymen (talk) 01:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

A few things to discuss

Hi! 1. I think there should be a category for American Jews of Polish descent since Polish American Jews was deleted. 2. I think Liane_Cartman#Liane_Cartman should go under the Category:Fictional_prostitutes and Category:Fictional_pornographic_film_actors since an early part of South_park was about her sex life and was like that for a long time. 3. I would like to add links to Xena:_Warrior_Princess actors articles. For example, Claire_Stansfield page should have link http://hercxena.wikia.com/wiki/Claire_Stansfield from the Xena Wiki just like Star Trek actors have links from Memory_Alpha. Thank you! Neptunekh2 (talk) 01:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Category:Polish American Jews, please see the deletion summary. The category was renamed to Category:American people of Polish-Jewish descent. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 01:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Neptunekh2 posted the same to Wikipedia:Help desk#A few things to discuss. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Black Falcon. You have new messages at SchuminWeb's talk page.
Message added 03:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

And again. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians by ethnic or national descent

Your opinion? I'll also throw Category:Wikipedians of Breton ancestry in there as quite similar (is there a difference between ancestry and descent?). I'm rereading your mass nom here from way back when and the rationale seems to apply to "descent" categories just as well. Also interested in jc37's opinion, who I suspect will see this without needing a notification. VegaDark (talk) 18:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

See the section directly above. Several of the reasons there would seem to apply to the Wikipedian cats as well. - jc37 16:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, there is no significant difference between "descent" and "ancestry" user categories. If we are to have ethnicity and nationality user categories, my preference still is for the Fooian Wikipedians format.

I recently was considering a test nom for the descent user categories, but I want to wait and see what happens with the DRV for the Service Awards user categories. If there is no consensus that we should not have user categories for Wikipedians by edit count and time served, then consensus to delete descent user categories may be even more elusive. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, the Service Awards categories discussions are finally over, so I think we could proceed on this. What do you think is the best approach: a single test nomination or all-at-once?

It's worth noting, too, that most of the categories seem to be populated by Buaidh's user interest userboxes, so perhaps we ought to discuss at User talk:Buaidh#Regional categories userbox templates as a first step. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem with discussing it there is that, even if we get a consensus to remove linking the category to the userboxes, thus allowing a C1 deletion for the categories, it won't provide a G4 basis for deletion. I would take this step if the CfD is no consensus or keep. I think I'm going to go ahead and make the nomination shortly and see if we can nip this issue in the bud, rather than leaving the door open for recreation. VegaDark (talk)

OK, it makes sense. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Wikipedia books on Buddhism

Category:Wikipedia books on Buddhism, which you created, has been nominated for 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. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I will comment at the discussion. Cheers, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 16:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Question, my new friend

I see that the talk pages of a few Canadian sub portal pages have been deleted as per Template:Talk header, this is fine and i dont care. Do you think its ok to redirect them to the main portal talk. I am thinking this would be best because we have Canadian editors that do nothing but add this temple to pages and portals ...and it would guess they will be added back soon. So if we redirect the sub talk pages to the main talk page we could avoid all this in the future. What do you think?. Moxy (talk) 02:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi! Yes, I think it could be a good idea to redirect them to Portal talk:Aboriginal peoples in Canada. Doing so would prevent the template from being added again and, in the event that someone wanted to discuss one of the portal's subpages, the discussion could take place at a central location rather than on a sub-talkpage.

This is the full list of the portal's subpages (and only one has a talk page, Portal talk:Aboriginal peoples in Canada/Intro, which can also be redirected). If you'd like, I can do this fairly quickly using the AutoWikiBrowser tool. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 03:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok yes pls do so ...I will look into this bot your using and learn it because i would love to do all the Canada portals (let alone the music portals that have so much vandalism to this types of pages). In fact think this is such a good idea that perhaps an RFC on this topic and thus a overhaul of all portals could take place. In the future all this sub pages could be called something like Portal talk:Aboriginal peoples in Canada/Subpage/PAGENAME so that an automated redirect to the main page is done. Well all this would take me (anyone) hours of coding and labour in editing. PS Great to talk to you!Moxy (talk) 04:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Done! -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Two thing to discuss

1. I think there should be category created for Fictional People with Bipolar Disorder because for example Callisto_(Xena) from Xena has bipolar disorder. 2.I also think there should be category for American_people_of_isreail-Jewish_descent because that applies to such people as Natalie_portman and Oded_Fehr. Thanks! Neptunekh2 (talk) 00:10, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

There is already Category:American people of Israeli descent and I think Category:American people of Israeli-Jewish descent would end up being virtually identical. I'd suggest asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Unpatriotic!

Please do not remove content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Lewiston, Maine, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and very unpatriotic and unamerican.--66.254.43.111 (talk) 19:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I did provide a reason in the edit summary: the content (pertaining to the Battle of Mogadishu (1993) and a terrorist plot in Oregon) was irrelevant to the topic of the page (Lewiston, Maine). Also, as an international encyclopedia, Wikipedia is not intended to be "patriotic" or "American". Please see Wikipedia:About. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Transport categories

Thank you for your support on getting these categories resolved. My problem is the time I was willing to devote to doing it properly. Sorry if I conveyed a dismissal of or ingratitude at what you were saying. I'm sure you were correct. But doing this properly requires a lot of agreement by Transportation people which I don't think is there because they mostly aren't aware of the problem and a vigorous defense by the folks who enjoy the hyped categories. The latter seem quite entrenched. It is quite beyond me. I don't do well tilting at windmills! My forte is geography and schools which are a good deal simpler and groundrules are well established. Good luck with your work in resolving the situation. Student7 (talk) 20:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Some things I want to discuss

1. First of all, I think should be a category for "Central African people of ethnic or national origin" because every other country on wikipedia has a category for people's ethnicity so I thought Central African people should have that category. 2. Hikaru_Sulu on his wikipedia page says he is of Filipino descent so there should be a category that says :Fictional_American_people_of_Filipino_descent. 3. There should be a category for Fictional people with ADHD or Fictional people with Dyslexia. Percy_jackson is listed under both. 4. I would like to make an article about the novel More Than Weird. Here's an article about it: http://www.umanitoba.ca/cm/cmarchive/vol16no4/morethanweird.html I don't know why it was deleted. 5. I would like to add a summary for the movie The_Seventh_Coin. Could someone help me with that? Thank you! Neptunekh2 (talk) 05:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I've been absent this past month, so apologies for the late reply.

1. I see you already have created Category:Central African people by ethnic or national origin.
2. I could find no mention in Hikaru Sulu that the character is of Filipino descent, though the article does indicate that he is "of Japanese heritage".
3. Categories of (real or fictional) people by illness or disease have been deleted in the past, and I think that the reasons would apply to categories for ADHD and dyslexia.
4. More than Weird was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/More than Weird, and the source you provide already was in the article. I would suggest contacting the closer (User:Cirt) if you can find another reliable source which discusses the book.
5. Perhaps one of the members of WikiProject Film could be of help.

-- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

You may have forgot about this 8 November 2010 matter,

but in another month or two, we might have a consensus at this CfD! Though the mills of Wikipedia grind slowly, they grind exceeding fine.[1] -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 23:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I see it was resolved in the meantime ... 45 days after it was nominated! Well, backlogs at CfD are nothing new, I suppose. :) -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

How to report widespread commercial spam

I've searched for about an hour, so I'm just going to ask you, cuz you're handy. AlumniClass.com, a commercial website, has managed to get its links on hundreds of high school pages, using wording that often implies that they are the official alumni site for that school. How can I get this to the attention of those that can do something about it?

Bwood (talk) 19:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The best venue, I think, would be Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam. If the spam is particularly difficult to eliminate, then the website even could be blacklisted. It appears that most of the links were removed sometime during the period between your comment and my reply, since a search for "Alumniclass.com" finds only 59 articles which link to the website. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Two questions

1. I think there should be a picture for Julie Kavner, the voice of Marge Simpson. Would this one for acceptable: http://simpsons.wikia.com/wiki/File:Juliekavner.jpeg 2. It says the Hikaru_Sulu that he is of both Japanese and Filipino descent. Should there be category for Sulu called Fictional American people of Filipino descent? Please let me know.Neptunekh2 (talk) 04:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

As the licensing information for the image at Wikia is incomplete (in particular, the source is not specified), the image is not acceptable. Even if the full licensing information was present, a copyrighted image of a living person is almost always not acceptable; see WP:NFC#UUI: "Pictures of people still alive [are not acceptable for non-free use] ... provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image." -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Categories:Wikipedians by ethnic or national descent (and subcategories)

I've had a very traditional conversation about another category (Does this cat have enough articles?) and encountered some weird hostility. In contrast, my conversation with you is off the wall (Sure this cat breaks the rules but so what?) but you've remained nothing but polite. The contrast could not be starker.

Thanks for keeping everything professional.RevelationDirect (talk) 03:31, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, and allow me to thank you for voicing your disagreement honestly and logically. "It breaks the rules, but so what?" is not inherently a weak position as long as one can provide a reasonable explanation, and I appreciate the fact that you did. Best, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC) P.S. Apologies for the delayed reply ... I've been absent the past month.

Category:Music, mind and body DRV

The discussion that you participated in that resulted in the deletion of Category:Music, mind and body has been taken to deletion review. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems I missed the discussion during my absence. Thanks, though, for the notice. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

John Deere

Please weigh in on the requested move I proposed here CTJF83 chat 17:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

As above, I missed the discussion due to my absence. However, I think the current situation—the company at John Deere and the person at a disambiguated title—probably is the best. Thanks for taking the time to notify me. Cheers, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Women philosophers

Why did u remove the page women philosophers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.154.173.247 (talk) 13:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Could you clarify, please, which page you mean by linking to it? There is, by the way, a List of female philosophers and Category:Women philosophers. Could either one be the page you seek? Best, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Policy on Classification by Ethnicity, Gender, Religion and Sexuality

Hi, I have a problem with the article White Argentine. In the article I mentioned many people who are Argentine by birth and by option (they immigrated when they were children and stayed in Argetnina until their death, or they are now living there). All those people mentioned in the article are perfectly Caucasian by phenotype, and all have European/Middle Eastern ancestry. To see the names, check this older version of the article, for they are now removed. This is because some users appeared criticizing the article and alleging that mentioning all those persons without a source that explicitly define them as "White Argentine/Argentinian" was a breach to Wikipedia's BLP policy. Is that true? Because I read the article of WP policy on categorization by ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality, and the topic "Race" is still under dispute. Besides, one of the users that criticizes the article is also involved in the proposal/discussion/RfC of the policy itself. If the matter isn't still resolved, can they apply a rule that it is not fully valid yet? If I provide sources that every living Argentine mentioned in the article is of predominantly European ancestry, isn't that enough to define him/her as White? Please, help me clarify this doubt.--Pablozeta (talk) 12:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I am afraid I was unable, in the midst of all of the discussion and back-and-forth edits, to clearly understand the core of the disagreement. If it is whether the concepts of "White Argentine", "Argentine people of Caucasian phenotype" and "Argentine people of European or Middle Eastern Ancestry" are identical, then I'm afraid I find myself insufficiently informed about the subject. Is this claimed equivalence supported by reliable sources? I was absent for most of the past two months, so apologies for the late reply. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:00, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

RDs should be hyphenated not dashed

I'm more than a bit frustrated to see "pat" changes to RD names which weren't directly discussed; I was away from Wikipedia around June 4, I think, so didn't notice the CfD, or if I did, didn't notice that in addition to dropping the comma-province dab, which I myself had pointed out in earlier relating CfDs about subcats where "the" was introduced wherre appropriate, that you'd also done the hyphen-dash change supposedly mandated by MOSDASH; actually it's not mandated by MOSDASH or ENDASH, not at all; "hyphenated names" are hyphenated names; these are not conjunctive; Alberni is a particular place, Clayoquot a particular (uninhabited) place in the Clayoquot Sound region, and even if Alberni Valley-Clayoqout Sound is interpreted as being hte sense of the name (which it is), Barkley Sound, Bamfield, etc are not part of either, so it's not "this place and that place". Likewise Squamish-Lillooet and the other hyphenated RDs. An admin has closed, no consensus, the RM at Talk:Alberni-Clayoquot Regional District - very prematurely as the issue had moved on to Talk:Poland-Lithuania where it's still seething with inanities as DASH-advocates continue to mis-cite and mis-interpret, as they see fit, what was very clear already in ENDASH (which has since been amended to specify placenames as well as family/personal names, as a result of the talkpage "debate" at Poland-Lithuania. No source of any kind uses dashes for these names, they look unsightly and awkward and give the wrong idea of their meaning; they are just hyphenated names and should have remained so. From what I see of your nomination on the CfD, you only mention the removal of the comma-province dab, and didn't mention (though laid out the links for) the dashed versions of the name, without pointing out what they were doing; so the CfD wasn't completely phrased, therefore invalid on that issue, and contrary to what MOS actually says. Dashification of commonly-hyphenated names is a curse to me, some style-concoctor's idea of Wikipedia's "taste", as decided by only a few people, overlain across the reality laid down by convention/history and also by authoritative sources, legal sources etc etc "'style' is more important that what the sources say" is one sophomoric, arrogant comment I've seen; from somebody who doedsn't even know what a regional district is, or how their names come about, or what their geographic contexts are....Ostensibly Good Ol'Factory is waiting on a resolution the DASH issue on Talk:Poland-Lithuania, where the same admin who closed the ACRD one (without good reason) also relisted the P-L one, apparently to forestall a long-fought-out emerging consensus; so now he won't change these categories back to their proper form as there was allegedly "no consensus" on ACRD (even though that discussion had moved over to both WTMOS and T:P-L)....from what I've been told the RMs and CfDs, if not properly done, should be changed; and as yours did not say that t he hyphens were being changed to dashes, that aspect of it should be reversed and only take place after discussion on the specifics (where it would fail, given the sources and COMMONNAME).Skookum1 (talk) 22:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Further comment: re the Columbia-Shuswap RD CfD you claimed, falsely: "BCGNIS and Statistics Canada both include the dash" - no they most certainly do not, they use hyphens, and only hyphens. As do all other official sources, including Hansard and the enabling legislation and the RDs themselves (except in Columbia-Shuswap's case where they drop the hyphen altogether, but as with "Metro Vancouver" it's just a rebranding, and not in common use or in the legal-definition sources (Metro Vancouver category is now back to where it shoudl be as the GVRD category: Metro Vancouver is only the name of the board, not the RD itself).Skookum1 (talk) 22:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I do not remember all the details since this was many months ago, but I will attempt to respond to your concern as best I can.

My nomination involved six hyphen-to-dash category changes. Although I did not explicitly mention that hyphens were being changed to dashes (I suppose I assumed that it would be noticed), I did note that the change was intended to establish "consistency with [naming of] the main articles ... [as well as] to remove unnecessary disambiguation". At the time, the corresponding main article for each category used an en dash instead of a hyphen. Four of the six still do, although I noticed that you recently reverted the moves of Kitimat-Stikine and Bulkley-Nechako.

Regarding the Columbia-Shuswap RD category, it seems that I was indeed mistaken. My idea was to contrast "Columbia Shuswap" (no hyphen or dash) with the form that used one of the two as, again, my goal was to establish consistency between the article and the category. You appear to be correct that both sources make use of a hyphen.

I favor the use of en dashes where they are appropriate insofar that I find the "it's easier to type a hyphen than an en dash" argument to be unconvincing. Beyond that, however, I support the punctuation that is most correct, and the arguments at Talk:Alberni–Clayoquot Regional District have me convinced that the hyphenated form is correct (i.e., that the RD names are hyphenated place names). I would ask only, in order to avoid extra back-and-forth changes, that the issue be resolved at the level of the articles before further changes are made to the categories.

I would be happy to initiate a nomination to reverse the hyphen-to-dash changes of the 2010 discussion if a consensus forms for the articles. In other words, I'd be glad to fix the categories once agreement is reached on the articles. In this context, and in light of this recent change to WP:MOS (made two days after the original RM was closed as "no consensus"), I think the best course of action would be to initiate a follow-up RM discussion for the RD articles.

I have initiated the second requested move discussion here. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Re the article-name changes, which I am unable to reverse myself (or would have by now), I have posted on User talk:Arctic.gnome, arctic.gnome being the user who made those name changes, plus others such as various Vancouver and other neighbourhoods (e.g. Grandview-Woodland - "Woodland" is not a placename, it is a school name). To me these were all undiscussed speedies....as you can see at the Alberni-Clayoquot RM, one problem with that is the "dash defenders" weigh in heavily, and with ad hoc arguments, to preserve their precious dashes as a fait accompli and will try to argue into the hole anyone who objects - and they get downright vicious, or just invoke TLDR when anyone starts making too much sense (TLDR in those contexts tranlates to "I'm only semi-literate and can't read long things, but my opinion still counts as immutable fact"). A similar problem exists with inconsistency in dash/hyphen application on war-names; I've posted at TALK:MILHIST about that this morning. Thanks for your support for this; I'll be looking around for other instances of mis-applied dashes; MOS was never meant to be a Bible, and it happens that even with that modification to ENDASH, it already said everything it needed to be said, and the closing passage of HYPHEN re "subtlety" was blatantly ignored .... by the unsubtle, illogical and quasi-religious hammers of the "dash-ites, who maintain that their consensus is the only consensus.....Skookum1 (talk) 20:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that the root of the problem, ultimately, is confusion about when a hyphen is appropriate and when an en dash is appropriate. I do not profess to being an expert myself, but I do think it is good practice to defer to sources, particularly in the case of entities which have legal names (e.g., the RDs). If there is consensus in this new RM to rename the articles to the hyphenated form, I will take care of getting the categories renamed as well. Best, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Good Ol'Factory has already said that once the article names have been corrected, he will speedy the category changes....having a CfD invites interloping by people claiming some arcane consensus about things that don't apply, and who don't know the affected subject matter, nor have any familiarity with the places in question - as happened with the RM above, and continues to happen on Poland-Lithuania and WTMOS. "Confusion" as you note is, to me, an expression of ignorance, often willful ignorance, and too many made-up rationalizations and syntactical deconstructions by people who aren't even linguists, and who have said (loudly and repeatedly) that the sources don't matter - only Wikipedia's almighty typographical style does; I'm a BIG opponent of "style" over substance, and see no reason at all why MOS should depart from real-world standards....concocted by people who know nothing about history, don't care about geography, and who make a practice of pissing on what other people have to say, and distorting both facts and what MOS says in order to advance their very-questionable case.....CANMOS should supersede MOS anyway, and because of various issues within Canadian English and certain usages in British Columbia, I'm drafting a BCMOS which will specify things like hyphenage and certain capitalizations.....there's way too much loosey-goosey thinking coming from people making supposedly MOS-mandated changes....but MOS doesn't mandate anything, it's supposed to be a guideline only, and supposed to be optional. It's not holy writ, nor law, and when it varies from reality it should be fixed, and not a new usage imposed on reality by default (one big problem is because of Wikipedia's influence on other websites and thereby on the English language as a whole, such that things like the lower-case convention and dashes, when misapplied, wind up influencing new standards; it's sort of a Heisenbergian issue - the act of changing usage of language on an original research basis in such a pervasive medium as Wikipedia influences reality, rather than reflecting it as should be the case. MOS should include a very prominent statement that "what the sources say GOES" and even the simple and obvious fact that "adjectival forms of hyphenated names should also be hyphenated" has been met with derision and insults and called "bogus claims"....e.g. Poland-Lithuania vs Polish-Lithuanian union - the dashers have finally conceded that they'll allow Poland-Lithuania's re-hyphenization but they insist that the adjectival forms have to be dashed....that's nonsense. And NB the person who closed the original ACRD RM prematurely just moments before had relisted the Poland-Lithuania one, even though it was about to reach consensus to restore the hyphen....suspicious motives is what that came off like - interference by a "senior content editor" (apparently I'm a Senior Editor III or some such, but just don't put that in my userboxes). Content/accuracy issues should ALWAYS take precedence over home-made "style" and the accompanying "we have a better typography" agenda ("people who don't use dashes have just been lazy and are technologically backwards" is one juvenile position that's been stated, over and over and over again).Skookum1 (talk) 21:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Speedy renaming is what I had in mind, actually, but I'm happy to hear that GOF has expressed willingness to carry out the necessary changes. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

New utopia

Hi what did happen to new utopia project? did it be a class action against it ? because it looks like all (Delphi uvyersiter/development plan and flotilla website are down and the webpage have change from florida and Texas to uk ) as a charter citzin I wonder what happen some website did said howard tureny did get arrested for fraud in 2007… know where I can get more info abut what did happen to new utopia fraud? Because it have not happened anything in 15 years… and the disccusen page on new utopia did not get mcuh activity after 2007 so somthing must have happend... murkami boy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.147.38.2 (talk) 14:56, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure, to be honest. It's been quite a while since I last looked for sources for the article. If I find the time, I will try to search for more recent sources with which to update the article. Best, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

A few things I need to discuss

1. Should Atlin, British_Columbia go under the category Stikine Country? 2. Should Alyson Hannigan go under the category Category American people of Jewish descent since she is Jewish on her Mother's side? 3. Is it OK if I an article for the book called More Than Weird by English author Martyn_Godfrey? Because it was deleted for some reason. 4. Could you help help write a plot summary for the movie The_Seventh_Coin? I find a summary from this website:http://www.movieguide.org/reviews/movie/the-seventh-coin.html But I need help putting the summary into my own words. Thanks!Neptunekh2 (talk) 04:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

1. I cannot say as the article makes no mention of Stikine Country. You could try asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British Columbia.
2. Probably, in light of the sourced statement within the article indicating that she is "Jewish on her mother's [side]".
3. Yes, but only if the book meets the minimum notability criteria expressed in the notability guideline for books and if the recreation is appropriately supported by multiple reliable sources. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/More than Weird for an explanation of why the article was deleted.
4. As I wrote above, I recommend directing your request to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film. I have not seen the film, and the members of that WikiProject probably have more experience than I in writing plot summaries.

-- Black Falcon ^(talk)

CfD on alternate account categories

Just thought I would let you know I have seen your query to me there...I'm not ignoring it, I'm just having a very busy weekend at the moment and can't seem to find time to get on the computer until very late at night (for example, it's currently 0048 where I live =P). If all else fails I will respond to it on Monday or Tuesday from school; for some reason I always seem to find spare time on the computer there. Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. 06:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Take your time, please, and thank you for the note. :) Best, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 16:47, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry...I've still had very limited time on the computer...school has been canceled yesterday, today, and tomorrow because of weather...I'll see if I can squeeze in more time tomorrow, but I can't guarantee anything...it does look like we will finally have school Thursday, though, so at the latest then (if I haven't found time by then, I'll make time). Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. 03:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

William Fearon

You seem to be collecting info about the Great William Fearon Hoax. Have you seen Professorial Lecturer? And relevant edit: [2]. What the hell is all this about? I've even received spam emails about this "great" academic. See: [3] Famousdog (talk) 11:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I haven't any idea, to be honest. The only connecting strand seems to be an obsession with touting the tremendous achievements of various (fake) people with the surname "Fearon" (William, Guillermo Roy and John William). Whatever the motive for this hoax, it has been an annoyance since 2008 (see the slightly out-of-date tracking page).

I reverted the change to Professorial Lecturer and updated the tracking page. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

...and it seems a new IP address undid your undoing... [4] so I undid their reundidding... Famousdog (talk) 12:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

That seems to be part of the pattern: using a different IP account as soon as a previous one is identified and reverted, warned, and/or blocked. I will add the new IP to the tracking page. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

New new utopia ??

hi did some days to goggel this project (but not done one the same pc its hard to keep the links and look on dns and domain name owner are maybe too hard for a normal refernace thing ?(sorry my bad english) i found that :Howard turney did get convicted for fraud in 2007 But the project are also a fraud because the website did move from Texas to Florida to uk

The website that promoted condos on new utopia did also close down Tm bud skillern a guy sign the constitution was convicted for fraud

The university are fraud because it did move in 2007 That was supposed to be build in new utopia Delphi university did get new address in panama after it did have a address in hut river province Australia The development plan do not exist neither do the web server maybe it did get sued for fraud or a settlement by the charter citizens/investors ?

do you have any comment on it ? maybe if done a update you csn make some info abut how/where to conect if you get fraud by this ppl ?outside usa ppl dont know how to get money back or a lawsuite if they did change ther mail adres the last 10-15 years... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.147.33.187 (talk) 16:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

sorry did psot twice much of the same thing :( hope you can annwser the new ideas in my post :) eh thanks for your repaly :) some said a look on pay only database abut lawsuites in usa/caymen island was a idea to get info but i dont have the mony for so deep thing email to the flotilla think did not get a error msg but not a replay either and becuse you are a user of wikipeida where and why did the defenter of new utopia handel go ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.147.33.187 (talk) 16:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Could you link to the websites from which you obtained that information (regarding the fraud conviction, website location, etc.)? -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes you get in some days but i don’t know what happened to the charter citizens… any idea and any idea what happen to the investor’s ? Or some old Wikipedia writer that do/was investors?

I just know that alle the website did close down abut 2007 2008 a proof of fraud? Vortexentity guy what did happen to him  ? any thing to follow to get idea what happen to this thing looks like I for some suspects reason stopped defend it the same time thow there business closed down…and the new business plan are in reality just now a pdf abut a Dubai project …Michael McDonnough did pay for the Florida new utopa domain from Sarasota, T.M (Bud) Skillern looks like a big fraudsters if you look in sec database and eh grey market stockmarket/invesotres (but I don’t know so good English that I can read and translate all this financial stuff I thinks its better that you look it up in goggle, live search and yahoo search

Maybe try this: http://www.gaa.to/projects

Did all the new utopia domain at alex (or something like that search engineer but don’t remember the name exactly now also something something like that ) that’s wher I got most info

http://ourmicronations.com/New Utopia this look like a good place for look names/domain names up

http://www.tech-utopia.biz/ was where the tech stuff was abut before

http://www.robtex.com/dns/tech-utopia.biz.html#whois

http://www.robtex.com/dns/new-utopia.com.html#whois

http://www.robtex.com/dns/delphiuniversity.com.html#whois

Btw a guy did write this if you look in spellchecker I think it make sense  and think he have some good ideas any comment on this ? http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9621

What you think ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.147.38.2 (talk) 17:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The first link seems to be broken (or blocked). The second is not a reliable source (much of it quotes Wikipedia and Wikia), though it did lead me to this article; however, it is from 1998 and, thus, lacking in new information. The whois information is interesting but, since it is not a reliable secondary source, cannot be used for much in the article. The last link directs to a forum, and so also cannot be considered to be a reliable source.

I know nothing about New Utopia except for what I've read in a few news articles (all of them currently used in the article New Utopia). If you are seeking information about the status of the project, perhaps you would have more luck asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Micronations. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

eh for use as whois info = more data minning? look up the names/adres and when did the servers start and stop ? and caymen island information?like one of the constitution guy did register then new utopia website thing in 2003 but did use for some school project since 2004 82.147.33.187 (talk) 16:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Alexandra Powers

Hi! I was wondering if you could edit the Alexandra Powers page. I found this article online that talk about her personal life: http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,308844,00.html Would it be ok to use this article as a reference? Thanks! Neptunekh2 (talk) 06:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Fraudsters

Sorry, your close is not acceptable.

Prior to the CFD debate, I removed "category fraudster" from a number of BLPs as a violation of neutrality. This was discussed on the BLP noticeboard, where my concerns were shared by a number of editors. Stuff removed under BLP is not to be replaced without a consenssu that it is safe to do so, and there is no such consensus. An editor then created "persons convicted of fraud" as a compromise. I don't see anything like a consensus to delete "persons convicted of fraud" and I'm pretty sure your close will be overturned at DRV. However, be that as it may, it is a violation of the BLP policy to replace "category fraudsters" from the articles it has been removed from, without a consensus that it is safe to do so. There is no such consensus so I'm going to remove that category from the relevant articles. Due to your close, that will leave them uncategorised in this regard, which is unfortunate, but no big deal.--Scott Mac 09:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Looking at your close. There majority view of participants is that "persons convicted of fraud" is a better category and should either be kept, or reverse merge of "fraudster" into it. There's maybe even a consensus here. When you add in that view that that is the "BLP safest" option, I'd say that's a no-brainer. There is certainly no consensus to delete, or merge, which is a very much minority opinion. Since when did a no-consensus default to delete - especially when BLP counts in the other direction? You argument that you are restoring the original position is strange: if you create an article and someone AFDs it, if there's no consensus can I close the debate as delete on the grounds that I'm restoring back to before you created the article? Can you please undo your close and let someone else try? Otherwise we have a lot of arguments and then DRV overturns it.--Scott Mac 11:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The portion of your argument regarding BLP relies on the assertion that "fraudster" and "person convicted of fraud" are not synonymous. I did not see a consensus in the CFD or the BLPN discussion for this assertion, and I could not ignore the fact that it was an assertion that contradicted reliable sources (the dictionaries).

A majority indeed held the view that Category:Persons convicted of fraud should exist in one form or another (either instead of or alongside Category:Fraudsters), but this was a majority of votes only. The editors who held this position (Options #2 and #3) expressed different assumptions about the meaning of the word, different preferences for how to define the scope of one or both categories, and different interpretations of the applicability of BLP (e.g., the "keep" argument expressed by Occuli that all people convicted of fraud are fraudsters, but not vice versa, contradicts the "keep" argument expressed by you or FT2).

My reasoning for restoring the original situation was along the lines of reversing an undiscussed move or forking of an article. If three requests to move or split an article end with no consensus to move or split it, and then someone (in good faith) moves or splits the article following mixed discussion, then is it unreasonable to undo the move or split pending the formation of a consensus?

If my reasoning is flawed, then I suspect even a DRV will not be necessary, since I will not object to an uninvolved editor changing the close if he or she reviews the discussion and arrives at a different conclusion (see WP:AN); personally, I would have been glad if someone else had closed the discussion, but no one had for a full week beyond the normal 7-day window. A third option would be to renominate Category:Fraudsters for renaming or splitting, and to try once more to form a consensus around this.

Best, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I was about to post this to DRV, but read that prior to doing so a discussion should be had with the closing admin. I agree with Scott that there was a consensus to Keep, which I believe was misrepresented by your method of dividing the arguments based on your own original criteria. You divided people into camps without appropriately counting all of the arguments or decisions favored by each person. Many commentators explicitly mentioned more than one of the argument types you created. That said, even if I accepted your rationale for a "no consensus", I find it very hard to understand how non consensus resulted in delete, as opposed to keep (which is the normal result). To be sure I disagree with the very logic of your rationale, but let's say once again that I didn't. That I accept the logic. You link to three prior discussions without the range of community input this one had, all of which resulted in "no consensus". Even within your rationale, there was no prior consensus on this question. Hence, no action should, as usual, be the default of keeping the current state, and not some prior state, which itself never had a consensus. In other words I find no justification for this result whatsoever, even if I were to accept various premises of yours, (which again I do not actually accept). I think you need to overturn your decision. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I also am extremely surprised at this closure - there was a clear support to keep the category. Off2riorob (talk) 13:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

(Please see my reply to Scott Mac for a more detailed response.) I did try to account for the fact that a few editors expressed more than one preference; however, the three options I mentioned represent the full range of options offered in the discussion: to use "fraudster", to use "person convicted of fraud", or to use both.

It is true that the previous three CFDs ended with "no consensus", but it was specifically "no consensus to rename to Category:People convicted of fraud". Furthermore, no action would have resulted in the continued existence of two categories (my personal preference, by the way), yet this option was supported by a minority only.

I think there is a good chance that DRV would restore the category, but I doubt that it would produce a consensus for one particular outcome (DRV, being process-oriented by nature, is not the best venue to form consensus on content issues). If the category is restored, should it replace Category:Fraudsters, be made a subcategory of Category:Fraudsters (with the implication that persons convicted of fraud are a subset of fraudsters), or somehow exist alongside Category:Fraudsters? -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

If you are not prepared to replace the category we should open a thread to dispute your closure, where is the correct location now? Off2riorob (talk) 23:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

A deletion review was initiated here. -- Black Falcon ^(talk)

This is bizarre. There was no consensus to delete, indeed there was a consensus to keep, yet you deleted. There was no consensus that "fraudster" wasn't a BLP violation, yet you replaced the alleged BLP violation. You've invented policy on the hoof. If you will not undo this, then it goes to DRV and you get egg on your face - because you know it will be overturned. You've said your rather someone else closed it, well there may or may not be someone willing to revert your close. It would be easier to get someone else to close it if you reverted it yourself, otherwise my simplest path is DRV.--Scott Mac 19:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Black Falcon this is indeed bizarre. Here's how the numbers came down. Merge 4, Keep 8, Reverse merge 6. As we all know, reverse merge also entails keep. If you group them together you have 4 merge, 12 keep (since two people wrote both keep and reverse merge). Even if you don't you have 2:1 in favor of keep over merge. That there was no consensus for a reverse merge is clear, that there was no consensus for a keep is not clear at all. I'm also troubled by your further explanation here, in which you say that there had previously been "no consensus to rename ... ". Nothing was being renamed here. A new category was created, and you deleted the new category claiming a default "no consensus" (odd in itself), that clearly didn't even exist.Griswaldo (talk) 20:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Griswaldo, I believe you've miscounted (specifically, accidentally switched the counts for "keep" and "reverse merge") as there were more votes for "reverse merge" than for "keep" (e.g., I saw Student7's comment as "reverse merge", not keep). In any case, even looking only at numbers does not present a clear picture since, if we look only at numbers, then we must also see that the numbers came down about 10–6 in favor of having one category instead of two. More generally, the numbers fail to capture the additional complexities of the discussion, such as different editors supporting "keep" for contradicting reasons.

I find it quite possible that the DRV will overturn the close and we will be left with a category (Category:Persons convicted of fraud) for which consensus did not exist in 2005, 2008 or 2009, and a situation (two categories) for which consensus did not exist in this most recent discussion. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for Category:Persons convicted of fraud

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Persons convicted of fraud. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --Scott Mac 23:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me. I will add a brief comment to the deletion review. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Category:Electric power in America

Hi Black Falcon, I am impressed of your contribution in Wikipedia. You wrote as the result of CFD discussion about the Category:Electric power in America delete. It was deleted in 8 February 2011. In my opinion the rename option to Category:Electric power in the Americas won, since there are no sure opinions or arguments for the delete option compared to the rename option. Wikinews:Criteria for deletion advice: If in doubt... don't delete! and Wikipedia:Deletion policy: If in doubt ...administrators will normally not delete it. As a matter of fact, the majority of the participants named the rename option as an alternative. Since work on the electricity categories is at start, there is a cooperation opportunity for everybody. However, the early state of work is in my opinion not a good deletion criteria. This category is of importance since parallel name is used for a namber of other issues: SEE HERE: Category:Americas. In my opinion both the Category:Electric power in the Americas and the Category:Energy in the Americas deserve equally a place here compared to e.g. to the Category:World Heritage Sites in the Americas, Category:Politics of the Americas or Category:Newspapers of the Americas. For this reason Black Falcon, please rename category to: Category:Electric power in the Americas. Watti Renew (talk) 17:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you for sharing your perspective.

I think you may have misread the "rename" comments in the discussion. Except for yours, there were two others—Hugo999's (delete or rename) and Beagel's, and both suggested renaming to Category:Electric power in South America, not Category:Electric power in the Americas. In fact, four of the five participants in the discussion did not express support for an "Americas" category. I did not, however, decide based on the balance of votes since consensus is formed through the careful consideration, dissection and eventual synthesis of each side's arguments, and should not be calculated solely by the balance of votes.

The main argument for deletion—as expressed by Hugo999 and Vegaswikian, for instance—was that the category does not facilitate navigation. The main argument for keeping the category (renaming to "the Americas" would have been a form of keeping) was that other topics use a similar category scheme and that it follows the scheme of {{Regions of the world}}. As choster pointed out, however, "[s]imply because a category scheme exists does not mean that all topics should adopt it", and an argument was not offered to justify why the topic of electric power should use this scheme.

If, after reading my explanation and re-reading the CFD discussion, you still believe that I closed the discussion in error, you are welcome to request a review of the deletion by the community (see here for instructions). However, I see from your contributions history that your interest lies in this topic, and so I would also recommend that you try to coordinate and cooperate with others who share a similar interest, e.g. at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Energy.

Best, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Ok. It is fair to discuss the issue in the team. Please join the discussion after I started it :) Watti Renew (talk) 15:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Invitation

I have reopened the discussion about two blank lines before stub templates here. Since I noticed you have taken an interest in this subject before, I cordially invite you to join there. Debresser (talk) 10:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Intersection of two categories

Thank you for pointing me to that guideline. Although considered academically or culturally significant by external sources would seem to be a good test for all such intersections. --Bejnar (talk) 21:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Cfd nomination

Template:Cfd nomination has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — This, that, and the other (talk) 05:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me. I will comment at the TfD discussion. Cheers, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 06:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

English spelling reform again.

helo ugen, mr. falkun.

resintle i lukt in on xu inglis speling reform ortikl & so xat, wuns ugen, xu link tq nqalf had bin deletid frum xu 'ogmented romin alfubets' seksn. so, i re-adid it. no supriz, sevrl daz latr its gon ugen. (just re-re-adid it)

xu xing xat ma inturest yq ubowt xis iz xat hqevrz deleting it olso manijiz tq kep xu sistum frum notifiing me. JO 753 (talk) 03:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The link was removed in this edit, so perhaps you would like to discuss the matter at Talk:English language spelling reform or User talk:Psychonaut. I would recommend, however, that you write with standard spelling so that your post can be understood by all editors with an interest in the article. Also, you should avoid marking as "minor" (e.g., here) edits which add, remove or change text.
For what it's worth, the list in the section 'Augmenting or replacing the basic Roman alphabet' seems to be focused toward reform proposals about which we have an article. Also, external links generally should not be included in the body of an article. In this context, the link to Nooalf does not really belong, and I have removed it in the absence of a consensus to include it. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 03:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

External links not included in articles? I hate to have to criticize Wikipedia again, but has the style over substance trend progressed in the last few years or did I just not notice that before? Anyway, since a Wiki article for Nooalf fails the policies in the opinion of the editors, it obviously precludes a place in the list. So to make the information contained in that section more clearly classified for the reader, the title should be changed to Spelling reform proposals Which Have Wikipedea Articles. In fact, you should add that to all lists for uniformity.JO 753 (talk) 20:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

External links generally are not included in the body of an article, and there is no need to change the section title (or every section title) when the guidance is provided in one location: Wikipedia:External links. I would characterize the trend as more minimalist or selectivist than one of "style over substance", but there has been a shift toward the opinion that an article should contain only information that is relevant to its topic and a list should contain only entries that are notable. Yes, there is potential for misunderstanding and some back-and-forth editing, but I believe that is inevitable with any general guidance. Best, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:EGRS itself

I reverted your recent Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality trivial change, because whomever wrote the original text properly used the so-called rule of threes: "that combination" -> "itself" -> "its own right". It's a standard rhetorical device. That sentence is cited in other guidelines, and plenty of discussion, so it's best not to change it.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, and your reasoning makes sense. Although ... shouldn't "itself" precede "is"—i.e., "where that combination itself is recognized" instead of "where that combination is itself recognized"? And, thank you for notifying me as I did not have the page on my watchlist. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Good question. I'm inclined to leave it as is, otherwise having to go and find the other places the same sentence is used. I'm still not finished fixing up your earlier move of the word "only". Sometimes, either way is correct, and merely a matter of preference.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The nature of a wiki is such that text quoted from non-archive pages (such as articles, guidelines and policies) eventually will no longer match the text of the source page, and I do not think that it is feasible or critical, in the long term, to try to keep quotations updated. Still, you're right that the change would not actually change or improve much, so perhaps it's best to leave it as it is. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

And you haven't yet weighed in on: WT:BLP#Include "ethnicity, gender," to match all other guidelines.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me. I've been meaning to read the arguments offered in the discussion. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Ping

I have responded here. Please give me your input. Thanks --Cyde Weys 02:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The issue is fixed. Please have a look at Cydebot's latest category removal edits just to verify that everything is proceeding as you had anticipated. Thanks. --Cyde Weys 19:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed response. I didn't have a chance to log in for the past three days. Cydebot appears to be performing wonderfully again ([5][6]), so thank you for your quick handling of this issue. Best, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 16:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Another ping at User talk:Cyde#Cydebot deletion log summaries. This one is a really easy change at least (as you might imagine). --Cyde Weys 22:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I've responded at your talk page. Please feel free to respond there as I have the page on my watchlist. Best, and thank you, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Category:Fellows of the Royal Society of Arts

As per WP:DRV and WP:UND I would like to request a re-review of the deletion of Category:Fellows of the Royal Society of Arts on which you arbitrated under Feburary 3, 2011, categories for discussion. The society is not like the Sierra Club. People elected to FRSA have to demonstrate a significant commitment and achievement or potential related to the arts. Fellows may also use the post-nominals FRSA, a defining feature of the person. The society is an arts equivalent to the Royal Society in the United Kingdom. Although not as prestigious, it is still an important part of the fabric of British society. Election to fellowship is an honour and not automatic. Please note that as creator of the category, I was not informed by the proposer of the proposed deletion, a normal courtesy on Wikipedia. I think the discussion was very one-sided and cursory as a result. I look forward to hearing from you on the best way forward. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 12:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

In light of the unanimity present in the discussion, and the average level of participation in the discussion, I think the best approach for you would be to initiate a deletion review requesting a re-opening of the discussion on the basis of "significant new information pertaining to the debate that was not available [or considered] during the debate". However, since BrownHairedGirl did mention some of the points you bring up, such as the dissimilarity with organizations such as Greenpeace in terms of exclusivity and the need for "sponsors and referees", your case would be strengthened if it was supported by reliable sources confirming the significance of election to FRSA. This truly would be "significant new information" and could merit a re-opening of the discussion. P.S. It is possible that you were not notified because you were not listed as the creator in the category's page history; the category you created, Category:Fellows of the RSA, was renamed in 2005. P.P.S. Here is the list of articles that were in the category when it was deleted. Best, and thank you for contacting me prior to initiating a review, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for your very helpful response. I will do some more research, particularly with respect to reliable references, and follow your advice. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 09:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. Please let me know if I can be of further help. Best, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 16:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I am attempting a deletion review, with new references to demonstrate that this is an award and an honour, not just a membership of a society, under FRSA. If I have got anything wrong, please let me know, this is my first attempt at such a review. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 17:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Everything appears to be correct. Now, it's just a question of whether editors will be convinced by the sources that FRSA is an award or honor of sufficient significance to merit categorization. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for Category:Fellows of the Royal Society of Arts

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Fellows of the Royal Society of Arts. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Jonathan Bowen (talk) 17:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

CFD template

Hi Black Falcon! Your edit turned "deletion" to "discussion", which seems to me in most cases to be a euphemistic change, which can fail to alert users of the deletion of the category.

Would you consider restoring the original notice, please? It would be great if you consider either (1) creating another template with "discussion" (for proposals of merger, etc.) or (2) parametrizing the template to allow both options. Thanks for your consideration,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 15:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

My intent was to use more inclusive wording—"discussion" instead of just "deletion, merging or renaming"—to avoid the need to specify all possible reason a category is nominated for discussion: deletion, merging, renaming, splitting, conversion to a list or article and other discussion.

It is not efficient, in my opinion, to create separate templates for the separate possible proposal types, but I think it whould be fairly easy to add a parameter allowing replacement of "discussion" with other text. I will write more at Template talk:Cfd-notify. Best, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Well done!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 20:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Jennifer Aniston Goes Viral

One of many good hooks in this DYK load - thanks Victuallers (talk) 00:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Where were all these spelling changes for Afghan articles discussed?

I've been on WikiProject Afghanistan for years, and I've seen no discussion of all of these changes to diacritic-heavy spellings. Was there any consensus solicited or reached somewhere that I'm not familiar with? MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The changes are to bring the category titles in line with the article titles, per general category naming conventions. I am not aware of any discussion (that's not to say there hasn't been any), but Ghōr Province and Orūzgān Province have been at those titles since August 2009 and September 2006, respectively. Category redirects have been created at the diacritic-free titles: Category:Ghor Province and Category:Oruzgan Province. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, there has been a general lack of consistency. Just wanted to make sure there hadn't been a deliberate movement to wholesale change from Standard A to Standard B. At some point we might survey editors and figure out which set of spelling standards to go with, but in the short term it appears that you are correct in at least leveling the articles along the current main-space titles. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that such a survey—to determine whose spelling standards (government of Afghanistan, United Nations, ISO 3166, etc.) we should adopt—would be useful. It would be much simpler to adopt one set of standards for all 34 provinces than to try to decide for each province individually. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The No. 1 Ladies' Detective Agency (TV series)

Should The No. 1 Ladies' Detective Agency (TV series) go under the category Botswana LGBT-related_television_programs since one the main characters is gay and IMDB lists as Botswana as one of countries of origin. Please tell me your opinion. Neptunekh2 (talk) 21:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

No, unless a reliable source has noted that LGBT themes are present in the series. The mere fact that one of the characters is gay is not enough, in my opinion, to classify the whole series as "LGBT-related". -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The Seventh Coin

Black Falcon could you do me a favor? Could you write a summary for the Seventh Coin movie based on this summary: http://www.movieguide.org/reviews/movie/the-seventh-coin.html Thanks! Neptunekh2 (talk) 02:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Please refer to my responses here and here: I recommend that you direct your request to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film. As I have not seen the film, it would be difficult for me to write a summary based on such a short review; in addition, the members of that WikiProject probably have more experience than I in writing plot summaries. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 03:47, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Julie Kavner

Should Julie Kavner go under the catgeory American_people_of_Jewish_descent? Thanks! Neptunekh2 (talk) 03:40, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The article contains no reliably sourced statement that she is of Jewish descent, so no. See Wikipedia:Categorization of people. Have you found a reliable source indicating that she is of Jewish descent? -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:08, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Deprecated Refimprove section

Hi. you marked "Refimprove section" as deprecated. Is there any relevant discussion in which you can link me to? I thought the current trend was to use these section templates instead of using parameters in order to have different categorisation at some point. We even modified AWB to support the new templates against the standard versions. -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:21, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

See for example {{Unreferenced section}}, {{BLP unsourced section}}. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:08, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi. No, there is no particular discussion of which I'm aware, and I marked the template as deprecated based on the impression that the current trend was to move away from section templates. I suppose that point ought to be clarified, and the ongoing TfD perhaps will serve that function. By the way, as far as I know, separate categorization can be implemented even with parameters, so a separate section template is not strictly necessary for that purpose. Best, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:26, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

OK. I am good both ways. I just think we need to establish a common standard for all templates. Moreover, in the past I fixed many to the other direction because they had various parameters like "following section", "section named History", etc. which was making things difficult to standardise. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:15, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree completely on the need for standardization. My preference is to use parameterization, but I would rather see one format used consistently than both used inconsistently. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Sri Aurobindo description of a star named Belphegor

Here is a link to another use of this word, in case it has not shown up in your research. There is an another meaning also - Sir Aurobindo's meaning? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.242.182.73 (talk) 22:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Crusio's comments

Hello,

I wanted to see what you thought about Crusio's comments at the Armed Forces & Society entry and if you have any suggestions about how to address his points.

Thanks,

T.Whetsell —Preceding unsigned comment added by T.Whetsell (talk • contribs) 04:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Your changes have been a net positive, in my opinion. Although you do have a potential conflict of interest, you honestly declared it and I don't believe that your edits have gone against WP:COI. I agree with Crusio about the promotional language and detailed biographical information about individuals associated with the journal, but you seem to have already removed that. I encourage you to continue to follow the best practices for editors with confilcts of interest, specifically that you propose potentially controversial changes on the article's talk page. Best, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 16:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Ballowharf

Can you clean up an article I started called Ballowharf about a town in Northern_Province,_Sierra_Leone? I started the article but it needs for more info. Neptunekh2 (talk) 22:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:23, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

New Utopia website

hi look on the new utopia things look like they trid to changhe the fraud/ivenstement mix of old and new website (part of it written in late 1990s and maybe 2005 becuse its say difrent things the website and the investoers and links changed )

looked like they have changed ther websites and devlompent plan did the other get sued ?must be a reasson why i moved from a expensiv house in tulas to a aperment in saresota if he could not pay sec...

found this

the new utopia project stoped?

did you find any more info abut this ppl ? http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4182/is_19990426/ai_n10127304/#talkback

http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=1991_791758

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4182/is_19990426/ai_n10127304/ http://groups.google.com/group/cytogenix-inc/web/cryogenic-solutions-the-beginning-part-one?hl=en

i want to fnd out why the website and the investores did close dowen in 2007 and move there server 2 times and now even changed ther pictures of new utopia and changed many of the emmbasy and consulates (did they get ther mony back ??

some conusulat guy was aressted for fraud in miam dont remmber the name but just scarh on new utopa (joshua chossin or somthing like that abut fraud in costa rica )

sorry for my bad enghlis

82.147.33.187 (talk) 14:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry, I've been inactive for the past month, and wasn't able to respond to your comment. I haven't found new information, at least not in independent, reliable sources, about New Utopia. This article contains quite a bit of useful information, but it is not recent (published 1999). It seems to me that the initial media interest in the project has passed, and the project is not being written about anymore. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 15:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Invititation to Motto of the day

Hi there, Black Falcon! Thought you might be interested in Motto of the Day, a collaborative (and totally voluntary) effort by a group of Wikipedians to create original, inspirational mottoes. Have a good motto idea? Share it here, comment on some of the mottoes there or just pass this message onto your friends.

MOTD Needs Your Help!

Delivered By --The Σ ^talk_contribs 03:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the invite! I'd be happy to try to share a few ideas. In fact, I'll add a suggestion or two to the 'Nominations' page shortly. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Category attribution

Can do Thanks for the heads-up. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Notable Wikipedians and Russian tanks

Please do what you need to do to the the Notable Wikipedians category, and then make a redirect and delete the category (or I can). And also please do what you suggested in the tank discussion as well.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Done and done! I've left Category:Notable Wikipedians for you to delete or redirect as you think appropriate. Best, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

By the way, you came up with an excellent section heading. I immediately thought of: "Stay tuned for a CNN special report, Notable Wikipedians and Russian tanks, coming up after the break." :) -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

If you could contribute that'd be fab

I've started a discussion over on User:Pjoef's talk page, about the Motto of the Day project and it would be great if you could input your opinion: User talk:pjoef#About the MotD Project. Okay thanks. That Ole Cheesy Dude ^{(Talk to the hand!)} 14:49, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Request for assistance or advice

I was wondering if may I impose on you for whatever assistance you can offer regarding editor, Brittany Cintron jr, who I've had problems with on an RFC of the inclusion of Billy Bob Thornton's daughter's conviction in his article. You were kind enough to advise this editor to avoid personal comments directed against me. I have been trying hard not to antagonize them, but it's been unpleasant. Unfortunately, I noticed they just reverted another editor's removal of the material, stating that the RFC consensus was to include. By my count the vote was 4-4 (a fifth editor removed the material but didn't comment) and I hadn't thought the RFC ended. I could revert and let chips fall where they may, but I anticipate more unpleasantness. I considered leaving a note on the editor's talk page, but based upon comments they made to another editor there decided it wouldn't help. Any advice/assistance would be appreciated. Thanks, BashBrannigan (talk) 22:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure that you're right about the RFC not having ended; don't they typically stay open for a month (or more if, as in this case, editors are evenly split on the issue)? In any case, the RFC consensus should be judged by an uninvolved editor, and not by one of the original parties to the disagreement (and who also originally added the disputed content).

My understanding of WP:BLP, in particular the section on restoring deleted content, leads me to believe that the restoration was doubly premature:

"When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first ...."

I've requested clarification at WT:BLP (here) regarding whether the quoted section applies only to deleted content or also to content that is removed via regular editing.

I am not sure about the best course of action right now. On the one hand, reverting may needlessly shift attention away from the discussion and/or spark a revert war; on the other, we should err on the side of caution when it comes to BLPs. It seems to me that the disagreement stems from differing interpretations of whether the sentence about Thornton's daughter complies with two policies: WP:BLP and the "undue weight" portion of WP:NPOV. So, perhaps it would help to clarify consensus—one way or the other—if a notice was added at the noticeboards for those policies: WP:BLP/N and WP:NPOV/N. Perhaps something along the lines of:

There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Billy Bob Thornton about the inclusion or removal of certain information. The disagreement seems to involve conflicting interpretations of whether inclusion or removal of the information would comply with or violate the policies on BLPs and undue weight. Additional comments and perspectives from uninvolved editors would be welcome.

What do you think? -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I like the idea of adding the notice you suggested to the two notice boards. The more opinions offered will hopefully make this less about me and keep it on topic. At this point, I'm reluctant to even add my own opinions on the RFC knowing that it will provoke this editor. BashBrannigan (talk) 04:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy to have been of help, and am glad to see that the notices have prompted additional comments and opinions. I see that User:Brittany Cintron jr's revert still stands, but it's probably not worth undoing until the RFC ends in about a week; it will be clearer, at that time, what the proper course of action is. Best, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes thanks for the advice. An RFC bot "removed an expired tag". Does this mean the end of the RFC? I don't know what the procedure is from here. I believe the weight of the consensus was to remove. I'm also concerned that the edit by User:Brittany Cintron jr may confuse some editors as it states that consensus was to keep, which was clearly wrong at the time and even more wrong now. BashBrannigan (talk) 23:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, basically, and I think it's safe to proceed with removing mention of the daughter's conviction (based on the result of the RfC). If anyone argues that the consensus of the RfC does not support this course of action, then we can request (at WP:AN, for example) an uninvolved editor/administrator to evaluate the discussion. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 01:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

TFD Re-opening

Per an unusual request on my user talk page, I have re-opened the discussion that I had closed regarding Template:Infobox fictional battle. Since you participated in the discussion and may have thought it closed, I wanted to make you aware of its re-opening. The discussion is now listed at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 July 6 if you wish to make any further comments on it. --RL0919 (talk) 04:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me. I have responded to Jclemens' comment at the reopened discussion. Best, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 06:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for nothing

Thanks a lot. You made me spray cranberry juice out of my mouth and it's all over my monitor and keyboard. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I do own stock in a company that manufactures computers and other electronics ... perhaps I should look into paper towels or cranberry juice, too. :) Or you could just, you know, get a cat. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Things you can do

Dear Black Falcon, I had a question regarding the project I'm currently working on: the WikiAfrica project. We are trying to get an overview of all the articles that need to be created/edited/wikified/etc. on our project page. We want to encourage people to expand existing articles on Africa and start with subject related to art, literature, poetry, etc. To do this, we need to pull in a list like the 'Things you can do' list I noticed you have been working on. We want to pull in a list of (for example) African poetry stubs: however, this could refer to either Africa stubs, notable Africans, notable Malians, or African literature stubs, all crossed with poetry. Do you have any idea how I can create this? Or do you know any Wikipedians who do? If you have the time, it would really hulp us out. Thanks in advance!Riannedac (talk) 10:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Is the WikiAfrica project separate from WikiProject Africa? I noticed that it has a separate project banner, Template:WikiAfrica, yet the scope – "edit existing articles and create new African articles", i.e., improve Wikipedia's coverage of Africa-related topics – seems to be the same.

In response to your question: It depends on what list you are trying to generate, and how comprehensive you want it to be. For instance, it is rather easy to generate a list of articles whose talk pages are tagged with {{WikiProject Africa}} and which also are poetry stubs or which are tagged with {{Wikify}}; it is more difficult (due to the sheer number of pages involved) to generate a list of poetry stubs which are located somewhere within the Category:Africa category tree. I think the most effective approach would be to decide exactly what lists you want or need, and then to make a request for those lists at Wikipedia:Bot requests. Many projects utilize such bot-generated lists and I, too, have requested them on a few occasions. I hope this helps. Best, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:17, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Another option is to use the CatScan tool, which can be quite useful too. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your response! Yes, we have seen these, thanks. We are aware of the WikiProject Africa and even though our scope on the template is similar, WikiAfrica has different goals to the WikiProject Africa. In that our project focuses on getting external Africa-based, cultural organisations, museums and archives, as well as bloggers and journalists, to contribute their knowledge to Wikipedia. It's specifically design to facilitate and coordinate contributions on Wikipedia about Africa; WikiAfrica works both online and offline. Nevertheless, we try to collaborate any way we can. - One more question: on the African Portal I noticed a nice overview of new selections (WikiNews, featured article, etc.) Is there a way of integrating these on to our projectpage? Or do you know the person who did this? We would very much like to 'feed' our projectpage with articles/features that are up to date. Kr, Riannedac (talk) 08:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I see. So, then, WikiAfrica is more of an outreach initiative intended to attract a particular type (i.e., Africa-based) of new editor rather than a WikiProject intended to help existing editors to coordinate their activities. I can understand why a separation of the projects is useful.

Yes, it is possible to integrate them onto the WikiAfrica page. I, with the welcome assistance of several other editors, created the current structure of Portal:Africa. What type of information do you want to integrate, and where? I see that Wikipedia:WikiAfrica/Explore Africa already contains a news feed, so perhaps a Did you know... feed next to it that highlights Africa-related articles featured in the DYK section of the Main Page? Or, if you prefer to focus on Africa-related featured articles, that can be done too. Please let me know, and I would be happy to try to help in any way I can. Best, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 16:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Black Falcon, I am working with Riannedac (she is currently on holiday) on WikiAfrica, and wanted to pick up on your excellent suggestions. I have changed the name from Explore Africa to Africa Today (there were semantic objections with the title). your suggestion in your last post sounded exactly what we needed. a "did you know" feed would be great (could we not have this and a FA-Class Africa article feed?). How do I do that?

As you mentioned, we have a news highlights section, but I have also been trying to find a way to pull in the Arts and Culture Science and Technology Whackynews on WikiNews that relates to Africa, but I cannot find a way of doing it. Only of pulling in the "In the News" feed. do you have any ideas? I would be very grateful for any help, i am not great on code!Islahaddow (talk) 12:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi! The most effective way, I think, would be to incorporate the DYK and FA feeds from Portal:Africa. I will work on that later today ... I have some ideas for the Africa portal that I also want to implement.

I am not quite sure how best to import the other, more specialized news feeds from Wikinews. I have an idea, but I will need to do some research about its feasibility. In the end, it may be simplest just to turn to User:Misza13, the operator of Wikinews Importer Bot. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I am working on the necessary changes off-wiki, saving my changes in Notepad, and I expect to be done by tomorrow. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 07:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Black Falcon, that sounds great! thank you. I have tried to use the Misza13 importer bot, but got all snarled up - as you can see from this message I left on their talk page, this is how far I got:

I've found a template that can just pull in the top 5 of what's in the news. but I see on this page: http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Africa, that there are also Science and Technology; Culture and Entertainment and Wackynews elements, and I would like to pull in these new feeds to the same table. I had hoped that the importer bot page would help me, and was very excited about it until I started to read it, and my limited techno and code defeated me. How can I do what I described above? (here are the subpages I created in steps 1 and 2: http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Wikinews_Importer_Bot/WikiAfric and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Wikinewshas/WikiAfrica.

I didn't get a reply from Misza13 and now the message has been dumped in the archive. So, I am no closer. Would you have any idea - or experience of it? Could you help me figure it out? I am very grateful for any help, thanks!! Islahaddow (talk) 08:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll try my hand at it. I think a set of subpages (one on Wikinews, one on Wikipedia) will be required for each element, but we'll see. Best, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 14:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I have set up the Wikinews news feeds for the Africa-related 'Science and technology', 'Culture and entertainment' and 'Wackynews' elements; in the end, I created for each element a pair of dedicated subpages: one on Wikinews and one on Wikipedia. They are:

1. 'Science and technology' – Wikinews and Wikipedia
2. 'Culture and entertainment' – Wikinews and Wikipedia
3. 'Wackynews' – Wikinews and Wikipedia

I consolidate the tables for all elements at Wikipedia:WikiAfrica/Wikinews and transcluded that page directly into Wikipedia:WikiAfrica/Africa today. The tables for the three new elements currently are empty because the Wikinews Importer Bot has not had time to generate them, but that should be done within the next day or two. Also, I used the default of 5 news items, but this can be increased or decreased by changing the value of the count parameter in the subpages at Wikinews.

I'd love to hear your thoughts and any suggestions for changes or additions. I will resume working on the FA and DYK feeds tomorrow and expect to finish those soon. The FA and DYK feeds are taking a while longer than the news feeds because I am also expanding and updating the pool of Africa-related FAs and DYKs which would be used in the feed. Best, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 07:07, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Black Falcon - Yesterday I wrote a whole long letter of thanks to you, and then didn't to save it. so please accept my gratitude - it looks great! really great! You asked on my talk page where we should add the FA and DYK feeds, and perhaps they should be next to the news feeds, i.e. all the news feeds are arranged in the left hand column (we could reduce the 'count parameter' for the three new boxes to 3, making the boxes less cumbersome) and then put the FA and DYK feeds in the right hand column. What do you think?

I also wanted to raise the issue that Riannedac originally contacted you about: the ability to pull in multiple cross referenced categories into one "articles that need expanding" list. I have used the Catscan tool, as you suggested, but I don't know how to 'pull' those searches into the list so that the list is constantly updated? You can see how I have started the process (by just copying and pasting lists from one category (say, African poetry stubs) on these pages: WikiAfrica Literature and WikiAfrica Art. Surely, there must be a better/easier/more sustainable way of doing this? And, as you can see, I am also having a bit of problem with getting the lists to go across 3 or 4 columns, evenly.

Your help in any and all of these matters would be amazing! Please let me know what you think about the answers to the FA and DYK feeds, and these additional "challenges". Islahaddow (talk) 11:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)