User talk:Black Falcon/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion

I also objected on "South Sudenese politicians" but have posted an alternative. Would you mind commenting there for the sake of anyone following? Thanks! CycloneGU (talk) 21:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure, and thanks for informing me. Cheers, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:27, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Good to see you back

I had lost touch with you after few years, good to see you back. Kanatonian (talk) 06:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Appeal to admin for speedy deletion

Hello Black Falcon, Please read last responses on discussions discussion 1 and discussion 2 and discussion 3 (topic on my talk page). Thanks for help. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 11:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, FaktneviM. I just want to clarify, so there's no confusion: are you requesting here that the categories be speedily deleted? If so, I can go ahead and do that. Best, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes. My new mind is deleting those 3 pages. ((( Initially I want to leave them in my space for my own unique using, but such option is not able, as you stated ---- in discussion 1 ---- you wroted: "In response to FaktneviM's request: there really is no way to move a category to user space. A category is a technical function that allows related pages to be grouped together. -- Black Falcon" ))). --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 20:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done. Yes, unfortunately, categories cannot be moved liked other pages; this is a known issue (see e.g. here and the third paragraph of Wikipedia:Moving a page), but there is no easy solution at this time. Best, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! Sadly I have now "Deleted edits: 6" in editcounter. Catastrophic scenario. I thought user request for deletion are not considered as vandalism. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 18:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Deleted edits are nothing to worry about and are not a sign of anything negative. Most users, especially those who carry out maintenance or deletion-related tasks, have a significant number of deleted edits; for example, I have over 9,000 deleted edits. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:14, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I knew that before your response. I saw your account huge numbers of edits, including deleted ones. Maybe is not so catastrophic :)) If I need any help in future, I´ll contact you. See You. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 11:16, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Update

Hi BlackFalcon ♥ again. Please delete my existing subpages in my user space. Speedy. Thanks for kindness. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 09:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Already taken care of, I see, during my absence. :) Cheers, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

FUI

This is just a reminder. If a motto has been used multiple times it should be under or added to Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/Frequently used ideas. Simply south...... improving for 5 years So much for ER 10:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd been wondering what "FUI" meant. :) I'll keep it in mind as of now. Cheers, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

How to appeal a cfd rename?

I was wondering if you could advise me how to appeal against a decision to rename in categories for discussion would did not seem to reflect the discussion that took place. Deletion review does not seem appropriate. Cjc13 (talk) 10:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

You may already (during my absence) have received a response to your question elsewhere, but I'm happy to offer a suggestion. I suggest contacting the editor who closed the discussion with the aim of proposing a reopening of the discussion. If that fails, you can initiate a nomination to reverse the change, perhaps even notifying the editors who participated in the original discussion and/or interested WikiProjects. I hope this helps. Cheers, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I did connect the editor who closed the discussion but he was not interested in reopening the discussion. One of the issues I have is his lack of neutrality on the issues concerned. I did try the deletion review process but that only had comments from editors who already taken part in discussion. Not surprisingly they saw no reason to change their minds. What I really want is an independent review of the final decision. This decision is now being used to justify further changes. Anyway thanks for your suggestions. By the way are you aware that your decision in the discussion about Old Edwardians is being used to justify the use of "People educated at ...." in many other categories, despite what you said in the closer notes? If you do not want to get involved I quite understand. Cjc13 (talk) 10:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I tried to make clear in my close of the Old Edwardians discussion that the outcome reflected only a local consensus and that a wider discussion should be sought. I understand the practice of editors referring to previous discussions, since the arguments in every discussion are mostly the same, but it seems to me that having a single, centralized discussion would be more effective than a piecemeal approach. Nonetheless, the outcomes of recent discussions suggest a growing community consensus for the 'People educated at' format.

Deletion review is, to my knowledge, the highest level of review for individual deletion discussion decisions. You could, however, request comment on an appropriate talk page – perhaps Category talk:Former pupils by school in the United Kingdom or the talk page of a relevant WikiProject – in order to seek a wider discussion concerning naming conventions for this type of category. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed that there is an RFC already underway, so my suggestion above is moot... The only other suggestion I have, at this time, is to appropriately publicize the discussion (through {{Centralized discussion}}, for example) in order to ensure that the outcome truly will reflect a community consensus. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Fearon vandalism

Dear Black Falcon,

I saw that you are tracking the Fearon vandal. Presuming this to mean that you are gathering information on the legendary William/Roy/etc. Fearon, the black doctor/philosopher/economist, I wonder whether you might be interested in viewing a spam e-mail just sent to a list of economic theorists from the legend himself, warning us about damage to Britney Spears' vocal cords. If so, please let me know. Thank you, Colin Rowat (talk) 20:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Rowat,

Thank you for contacting me regarding this matter. I appreciate your offer and would be interested in viewing the e-mail. Would you please forward it to me? I am both amazed and perplexed by the level of commitment that this individual shows toward perpetrating this seemingly pointless hoax campaign, and can only wonder about what motivates him or her to continue it over a period of several years and, apparently, through various media.

Thank you, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

WikiAfrica

hi Black Falcon

It's me again. Our discussion had been archived, and I didn't want it to be lost in the ether. You as asked for my thoughts and suggestions for changes and additions - and this is what I wrote, but I didn't get any feedback from you. Please let me know if you are still keen to help.

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)

We are currently trying to make an African Incubator for any new wikipedians wanting to contribute their knowledge of Africa to the project - we are also going to work with the Africa WM chapters. I wondered if you would be keen to help us with this process? If you are, I can give you more information on it, and who is involved. I look forward to hearing, and thank you for your help so far!! Islig 10:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Islahaddow (talk • contribs)

Hi! I'm sorry for the delayed response ... I've been absent from Wikipedia for most of the past month.

I added both the FA and DYK feeds today (the DYK feed currently is static, but I am in the process of making it dynamic). To keep things simple, I carried over the coloring scheme from Portal:Africa, but it is easy enough to change: just create Wikipedia:WikiAfrica/Africa today/box-header using the code of Portal:Africa/box-header, and replace the color values with the desired colors. I also reduced to "4" the value of the count parameter for the three topical news boxes; that ought to suffice to render the two columns of roughly equal length.

The only practical way I know of to generate continually updated lists of particular groups of Africa-related articles in need of attention is via a bot. The CatScan tool generates a list but, as you noted, does not format it or update an existing list. I think the best option would be to initiate a bot request.

I would be happy to help with any other tasks, to the extent that time allows. There are several projects for WikiProject Africa and Portal:Africa which I have planned (including the conversion of the DYK feed from a static list that must be manually updated to a dynamic and randomized feed), and I expect that they will take up much of my time on Wikipedia in the foreseeable future. Still, I would be interested in knowing about additional opportunities for collaboration.

Best, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Redirect help

Kanakarayan_River and Verugal River are two articles which were redirected from their native names Kanakarayan_Aru and Verugal Aru to the hybrid native-english name. if you check the official maps, it si the native name that is used. How to we redirect back to the original names ? Thanks Kanatonian (talk) 19:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

You can move the page to its original title, overwriting the redirect in the process, as long as no additional edits were made to the original titles. I've moved the first article back to its original title; feel free to move the second, too. Best, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:23, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

WikiAfrica

	Incredible Assistance
	Thank you for your assistance in making WikiAfrica as good as it possibly can be! Islig 08:23, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! Please let me know if I can be of assistance again. Best, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

New Utopia

hmm did move the website from flordia too uk

change ther phone number serval times

consualtens are changing very offen look like....

do anybody can prove that he sold his pasport to real pepol dont just make this up ? would anybdoy sue him for fraud after make passport that are not real after promise they are real is not that fraud (made pasport and you have to pay to make new one even when he promis that his project are made real 3-4 years from now ??

his so called delopment plans change contact infomation and adress after 4 years a fraud ?

why do nobody care abut this project in many yeras on wikipida?

sorry not a expert on usa laws

he changed devlopment plan sevral times   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.147.33.187 (talk) 14:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC) 

hi did look on new utopia in wikipeida why is it written in wasa new country project ? eh devlopment plan link dont work and they ahve made 3 new devlopment plans should not sombody could prove that this are a fraud ?rumoers that it did sued in 2007 and 2009 or a link to a otehr scams somobody have got there money back in sorry not speak good enghlis :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.147.33.187 (talk) 13:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The project's website has been updated as recently as August, so I think it would be premature to change is to was, unless an outside source confirms that the project is inactive. Information can be added to the article only if it is present in reliable sources; if you find such sources which provide information about New Utopia, I would be happy to use them in the article. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 16:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

http://www.patrickpretty.com/2011/02/21/update-suspect-arrested-friday-in-alleged-pump-and-dump-scheme-and-costa-rican-money-laundering-caper-may-have-link-to-bizarre-underwater-nation-that-sells-drivers-licenses-for-140/ mayne this link is a hint abut it WAS since i dont write good enghlis maybe you comment on it and ceck it out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.147.33.187 (talk) 16:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

The source contains a decent amount of information about New Utopia, and I think that I can use it to expand the article. I will try to do so in the next day or two. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

2011 Chilean Pen Incident

I just wanted to say thank you for the comments you made at WP:Articles_for_deletion/2011_Chilean_pen_incident. Both your constructive suggestion to merge and your reasoned rebuke of FuFoFuEd speak to what I think Wikipedia should be about: civilized discourse and mutual respect. I'm happy to see that at least someone understood my intentions: the article was admittedly silly in its first draft, but since when do we judge articles by the first edit? FuFoFuEd's comments and accusations left a distinctly bitter taste in my mouth and I was glad to read your thoughts on the matter. DubiousIrony ^yell 20:40, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

You're most welcome. :) I was disappointed to see the focus of the discussion shifting from consideration of the article's content and potential to unsubstantiated speculation about your intentions, and the pithy dismissal of your response under WP:TLDR was uncollegial and entirely uncalled for. I'm sorry to see you depart, but I've always believed editing Wikipedia is worthwhile only if one enjoys the experience. Best, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey bro!

How are you doing, Black Falcon?:) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.116.31.63 (talk) 04:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi! I'm well, though I'm afraid you have me at a disadvantage as I don't recognize your IP. :) -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Motto of the Day Motto Shop

Hello! My name is Belugaboy, and by now, you and I both have heard of the Motto Shop, and if not, there's a Motto Shop! It's an exclusive place where users can get their own motto to live by on the wiki. It's great, but we're really running slow, in fact, we haven't seen a customer in months. So we thought YOU, the contributors to Motto of the Day, could spread the word to your WikiFriends, heck, order yourself one, whether you have or haven't before. Thank you and warm regards to all of you!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Belugaboy (talk) at 15:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC).

Survey for new page patrollers

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Black Falcon/Archive 14! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Wiki Media Foundation at 11:44, 25 October 2011 (UTC).

ITN

As an aside, please donmet ]refactor other comments.Lihaas (talk) 17:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Refactoring is an acceptable practice, as long as it preserves the original authors' intent and meaning, and what I did was not so much refactor as merely standardize indentation. My edit did not affect the content (or even capitalization, spelling or punctuation) of the comments. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:59, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

R66

Hey Mike,

I dont know how to change pages, next time would you please add Australia and Bankstown Helicopters to the page for comapnies and countries that have the 66, regards

Scott Cleland — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottcleland (talk • contribs) 23:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you've arrived at the wrong talk page as my name is not Mike. Nonetheless, I'd be glad to try to help you if you could indicate to which page you're referring. Best, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion II: Academy of Achievement

Hello, Black Falcon. You have new messages at Talk:Academy of Achievement.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks. I just found your name in the original deletion request. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

DEL notice

Hi

A simple prod notice would have been fine, the lecture and chastising is not appreciated. If that was because of some automated method of informing users, perhaps more care should be taken as to how messages might not be neutral in tone. Chaosdruid (talk) 04:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

It is, in fact, the method of notification built into Template:Proposed deletion and not a custom notice. My intent was not to chastize but rather to provide a courtesy notification. In truth, my statement in the article was directed not at you but at other editors and the administrator who would decide whether there is cause to delete the article. The criticism itself was, again, not aimed at you or your actions but was intended to be an assessment of the article.

In retrospect, a simple "List of ASIMO public appearances has been proposed for deletion" probably would have been better, and I regret that the manner of the message's delivery was off-putting. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 06:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for you openness. I too have found that automated processes can sometimes lead to undesirable outcomes, as it is not always apparent what they are going to do or say next. Chaosdruid (talk) 10:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Herding cats

Hi, Black Falcon. Thanks for this correction]. I see the difference. --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

No problem. :) I am in the process of drafting a nomination to rename most of the categories in that tree, and so the change caught my eye. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:20, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorting out Golden Gloves

Hi. I wouldn't want to nag, but the promise you made at the bottom of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of US national Golden Gloves super heavyweight champions was a very good idea, so what happened? SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Not at all, I appreciate the reminder. :) Outside events intervened, forcing me to take a break for a while, but I'll post the draft to my sandbox today ... umm, tomorrow ... (I've started working on it in a text editor); if it looks good, then we can move it into the mainspace and redirect the existing lists. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I hate to do this, but I'll have to postpone again. I'll try to finish it by late Friday (UTC-time); if I'm not able to do that, then I'll have it done by early Sunday (again, UTC-time) at the latest. It's mainly a lot of repetitive formatting that I'm having to do, so it's fairly easy but a bit time-consuming. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 06:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for dropping off radar ... sudden work obligations took precedence over editing. I've started the draft here and would be grateful for your suggestions. What do you think of the format? At this time, I'm thinking of replacing the "City/state/region represented" column – the information is often ambiguous, and the size of the area ranges from an individual city to a multi-state region – with a column for the host city (Chicago until 1964, and then here. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The format looks good. Many of the boxers are without articles, and for them the "City/state/region represented" column gives the only information beyond their name which might be used to identify them, so I think it is better retained, however ambiguous. Entries in that column could even be left unlinked, since the user would often not want to follow those links anyway, and we'd be giving the users honestly all we know. That would avoid the need for repeated tags. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 18:35, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

That's a good point, and a good idea. Would you suggest unlinking only in instances where there is ambiguity or in all instances? -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:01, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

As the only unambiguous cases are where the reference is obvious, links here will never add much value, so it's simplest to omit them all. That will look neater too. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 09:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate your perspective. I'll unlink the existing items and resume work on the remaining sections. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Fila Brasileiro page

I have corrected a long running WRONG that has disgraced the pages of Wiki. This is the link to it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fila_Brasileiro . I dont want what I did to be counted as vandalism because I posted the true and correct Fila Brasileiro standard. The FCI/CBKC standard was created by Paulo Santos Cruz before he had ever seen a Fila Brasileiro and once he had a chance to educate himself he expressed to the CBKC that he was misled when he wrote that standard and he then wrote the CAFIB standard. Since the the CBKC/FCI standard has gone through multiple revisions as it changes with whatever the biggest kennel is breeding. Instead of enforcing the standard and haveing breeders conform to the standard, the standard conforms to the breeders. The CAFIB standard has remained the same since it was written and the breeders have never wavered from that standard. The CAFIB standard is the one that is exclusively used in Europe, Asia, south America, Central America and most of North America. FCI and CBKC officials have even publicly talked about converting to the CAFIB standard. There are more CAFIB Fila Brasileiros in the United States than not, almost all the Filas in Europe are CAFIB and I dont even think there is one non CAFIB Fila Brasileiro in Asia. Let me know what you need so I could support what I wrote to you.

BTW the "legal" portion of the page may be completly incorrect as I found NY there as a city which banned the breed when NYC does not have one banned breed.

Thanks Brasileirokid (talk) 08:08, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I lack the requisite knowledge of dog breeds to be able to help you with this matter myself. I can, however, suggest that you raise the issue with WikiProject Dogs, whose members likely have more expertise in this subject. Best, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

MotD: New Year's Eve&Day Wikipedia's birthday

Hi Black Falcon!
Please, consider to give your opinion on this nomination for the New Year's Day, and, if you can, check the nomination for the eleventh birthday of Wikipedia (it's just 1-2 noms below).
Thank you, and a Merry Christmas and a New Year of health, happiness, peace, love, and prosperity to you and your family. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I've been on wiki-break and, I'm afraid, have fallen quite a bit behind. It will take me some time to catch up, but I look forward to resuming my participation at WP:MOTD. Best, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for Category:Freemasons

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Freemasons. 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. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Reply posted at User talk:Piotrus#Deletion review for Category:Freemasons (diff). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

LGBT sports query

Hi, Black Falcon! I don't have AWB, so could I ask you a favor? How many articles turn up in the intersection of "LGBT people from the United States" and "American sportspeople"? Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy to help. According to AWB, of the 76,964 mainspace pages under Category:American sportspeople and the 2,606 mainspace pages under Category:LGBT people from the United States, 82 are common to both category trees:

Let me know, please, if there's any others you'd like me to check. Best, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Ugh. See - 11 that I need to check.

Would you be willing/able to run the same type of thing one level up - "American sportspeople" union "LGBT people by nationality"? If you want, you could put it in my userspace. Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Sure, and please feel free to ask for any others that may be useful. Of the 77,052 mainspace pages under Category:American sportspeople and the 5,264 mainspace pages under Category:LGBT people by nationality, 81 are common to both category trees:

The first and second lists are almost identical, with three differences: Sarah Vaillancourt is a new addition, and Ann Wolfe and Eric Durchholz are now absent. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 09:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe

Hi Black Falcon. My username came via a different route, but it is certainly true that I enjoy hickory-smoked ribs. I have drunk Jack Daniel's whiskey, but agreed that it tasted like methylated spirits filtered through burnt pencils. Maker's Mark I find much more agreeable. I have yet to try a sloppy joe, visit Sloppy Joe's bar, and see Smokey Joe's Café. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:31, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Ha, what happy accident! A sloppy joe, Sloppy Joe's bar and Smokey Joe's Cafe cover all three bases of 'Eat, drink and be merry'. Always a pleasure, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 01:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who are disabled

What do you think of this category? Any legitimate reason to keep? Was previously discussed here with very minimal participation. I think I still tend to agree with my original nomination that this isn't useful, but perhaps you can think of a reason. If nominated, think there would be consensus to delete? — Preceding unsigned comment added by VegaDark (talk • contribs) 09:25, 23 January 2012‎ (UTC)

In my view, the 2009 discussion basically was a 'no consensus' close. Neither commenter addressed the issue which you raised in the nomination or provided any indication of how the category could be useful – User:Debresser did assert that the category is a "valid and potentially constructive form of self-organisation among Wikipedians" but did not indicate why he thought that was the case. The grouping does not reflect any particular ability, expertise or interest which would support collaborative editing and for which someone might need to browse the category. Furthermore, as you noted in the previous discussion, disability could be related to any one or combination of hundreds of distinct physiological and psychological conditions, meaning that this category fails to provide any specific information about a user.

The only possible use for this category that I can think of is as a resource for WikiProject Accessibility, but they seem to have a system already in place: Wikipedia:WikiProject Accessibility#Userboxes, with links to the 'WhatLinksHere' of each userbox. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 01:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll put this on my list of things to nominate in the next few days then. I've also been messing around with the chart in my sandbox, I changed a couple things around. I'm still trying to figure out how to make the collapsible list's title not stand out so much. Feel free to mess around with it. I also changed the "topics" from what you had in mind by a little to better reflect the topical index type of listing, although still messing around to see what works best. VegaDark (talk) 09:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Iglesia ni Cristo work group

It started as a successful proposal with the Council proposals page, but, like you have said, it never got a lot of attention. Unfortunately, according to Melton's "categorization" of denominations, it doesn't actually fit very well with any other groups, being one of the very few Christian groups (3 or 4 in total) which isn't included in any of the "families" of Christian traditions. I think the latter point was one of the reasons why it wasn't merged into any of the other extant Christian project groups. I wish I could offer more information, but, unfortunately, I really can't. Maybe, if the Filipino editors were to have an interest in it, we might be able to have a "Christianity in the Philippines" or maybe "Christianity in East Asia" group which might be able to take up the subject and some related ones. I honestly haven't checked on that myself though, and am not sure that there would be sufficient interest. It might involve adjusting the Christianity banner, but that is probably overdue as well. Maybe give me a few days to give me some time to think over the options, and I'll contact you then? John Carter (talk) 19:49, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Sure, there's no rush. :) I appreciate your response and the background information is helpful. A work group involving members of WikiProjects Christianity and Philippines probably would be viable if there was enough interest. Both projects, the latter especially, appear to be quite active. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Moscow Airways, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tail number (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Service award categories

Thought you might be interested in this discussion since you were heavily involved the last time these were brought to DRV. What do you think the proper course of action is? We stop watching user categories like a hawk for a while and look what happens... VegaDark (talk) 01:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems I'm coming to the party a bit late, but I wanted just to say that I think you handled the matter very well. Best, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - Glad to see you are back in regular editing mode. I just nominated a smattering of new user categories, in case you would like to add your .02. I'm also continuing work on the UCFD/CFD/DRV user category history listing on my sandbox in case you had any ideas. I was thinking of possibly changing the format before I got too far along. Ideally I think I would like a sortable list that has the discussion type (DRV or regular discussion), date, topic (for instance, "Wikipedians by website", i.e. the list would do the job of the topical index if you sorted it by type), the ability to color each entry green/yellow/red to signify good precedent, grey area precedent, and overturned precedent, and an expand/collapse box for discussions nominating multiple categories that would allow you to view each category that was actually at issue in the discussion if you choose to expand. That being said, I would have to look into creating a chart like that since I hardly know where to begin, and it would take a TON of effort to compile. It would be amazing when finished, however. VegaDark (talk) 02:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad to have the time to be back, and I'll take a look at the recent CFD logs. A table of the type you describe indeed would be impressive, and it would supersede the topical index, but you're right that it would require a very large investment of time. Do you have in mind something like:

Type	Date	Topic1	Topic2	Category	Outcome
CFD	2010-02-03	Jokes/nonsense		Category:Wikipedians against kitten abuse	Delete
CFD	2010-03-05	Advocacy		Category:Wikipedians for Israel	Delete
CFD	2010-03-30	Dislike	Divisive	Wikipedians by disliked religions categories Category:Wikipedians dislike monotheistic religions Category:Wikipedians dislike polytheistic religions Category:Wikipedians dislike all religions Category:Wikipedians dislike no religions	Delete

Regardless, I'll gladly provide whatever assistance I can. Currently, I am focused mostly on continuing work on the 'Association football' category tree – when I nominated the main category for renaming in January 2010, I never imagined that, two years later, I'd still be trying to clean up and standardize the tree – and on fixing or improving various WikiProjects' category systems. Both tasks are moving along slowly... the former due to the sheer number of pages involved and the latter due to the need to consult WikiProjects prior to making significant changes to their internal categories. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

That looks very good! I was just thinking that some entries would have more than one "topic" related to their deletion, so the addition of the second column is good. The one thing I would add is in the "Category" column the ability to insert a collapsible list (that in turn expands the height of that individual entry, if possible) that would be inserted for CfD nominations that included several entries, such as the service awards nomination that included 17 categories. If this isn't possible it could be included as a footnote at the bottom, but there would be a ton of footnotes. I'd also like to brainstorm anything else we might possibly want to see on this list and/or anything we might want the ability to sort by before it's started so nobody has to go back and change the entire thing if a good idea is thought up down the road. Perhaps I'll message Jc37 on the matter. I'm also slightly worried of the list getting too long, and no real good way to split it into multiple pages that I can see. VegaDark (talk) 07:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Collapsible lists for multi-category nominations is a good idea and should be doable – I'm not sure whether Template:Collapsible list works within tables, though I do know it works within infoboxes. The length of the list (and the size of the page) certainly would become an issue before long and some mechanism of splitting it would be needed, but I can't think of a good one either. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The only way I can think about splitting it would be by year (or couple of years) for each page - thus a sort would not get all similar categories under the same topic, but would require sorting over a few different pages if you wanted to check the entire history. Acceptable but not as nice as having it all on one page. I also just tried the collapsible list (see above), works very well, although perhaps we want the title centered. VegaDark (talk) 20:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I still read this and that, just haven't been signing in/editing much apparently. (Time really seems to be flying by.)

If you can catch me up with some related/relevant links, I would be willing to check things out and help as i can : ) - jc37 08:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Good to see you around again. :) -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, this was the only link I was hoping for your input on (changes to the chart, not the service award categories...that matter was already dealt with), but there are plenty of user category CFDs open right now (Most on the 16th) if you care to add your .02. VegaDark (talk) 20:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

One thing I'm concerned about, is that not every category (and the discussion(s) thereof) is this cut n dried. I am thinking about how I disagree with the true/false ratings at snopes, after reading the article, there are times that the rating clearly doesn't match. And since I would guess that the whole point of this (besides giving another way to help facilitate navigation for these), is to be able to look over these at a glance - I'm hesitant. And colours by their nature can introduce bias.

Of course, this problem isn't new to Wikipedia : )

What do you think? - jc37 04:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Gave this some further thought. I don't think my first reaction to compare this to snopes is as applicable as I initially thought. snopes isn't a wiki that anyone can edit to fix such possible problems : ) - jc37 10:56, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I think with anything that has mixed or ambiguous precedent we can color code yellow, and be fairly generous if it's at all ambiguous (possibly with an explanatory note for each as well). Take a look at my sandbox for the current incarnation of the chart. VegaDark (talk) 20:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

On another note, what would be a good Wikipedia-space name for this to be under, and at what point should this be moved from my userspace to there? VegaDark (talk) 01:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I've created it at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/User/Archive/Discussion history, although the name certainly isn't set in stone. 2012 is currently up to date, now to start working on the backlog... VegaDark (talk) 09:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

OC

• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_14#Category:Public_speakers

Sounds to me like WP:OC/U#vaguely defined should be listed at WP:OCAT, to be applicable to all cats in general. (Just change the word "user" to "individual".) - jc37 19:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Like the below, maybe? Now to just find supporting examples in cfd : ) - jc37 21:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Too broad or vaguely defined

This includes any grouping of individuals on the basis of characteristics which cannot be readily identified, or which are defined so broadly or vaguely that one cannot draw meaningful conclusions about individuals based on their membership in the category.

I think you may be onto something there. :)

None of the types currently listed at WP:OCAT account for excessively broad or poorly limited categories; there may be some overlap with WP:DEFINING, but there are cases where a characteristic may be defining for a large portion of a category's members but still fail to set adequate limits on inclusion – the 'Public speakers' category is an example that springs to mind. I'll try ferreting out a few supporting examples by checking the CFD logs for the past year or so, which will also give me an opportunity to update the user category discussion topical index. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 03:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Sounds great. I have in the past often wondered if several of the inappropriate examples at OC/U should be more broadly applied at OCAT. (WP:UCAT#NOT for another example.)

Also, since I last looked at it, OCat has grown a bit. I merged two pretty much duplicate sections (trivia and trivial), and I'll try to work on it some more.

One thing that jumps out at me is that some of the sections are about the characteristics of the members of a category, and some about the characteristics of the category itself. Splitting the two concepts is probably a good idea, but I have a feeling if I do, I'll need to rewrite a chunk of the page for better clarity - which wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing of course, but it would be a lot of work that I don't know if it's worth the effort. The page is likely clear enough as it is... What do you think? - jc37 04:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Huh... I hadn't noticed that before, but it does stand out now that you mention it: sections like WP:OC#DEFINING and WP:OC#OPINION relate to the characteristic being categorized, whereas ones such as WP:OC#NARROW and WP:OC#SMALL focus on the category itself. I don't know how useful it would be to make explicit this difference but I would recommend proposing on the talk page any major reorganization in order to reduce the chance of your effort being challenged and reverted.

I think your decision to merge the 'Trivial characteristics' and 'Trivial intersection' sections was a good one, as you managed to preserve the message of both sections by adding "unrelated or" before "wholly peripheral". I'm thinking, however, that the section title should be 'Trivial intersection or characteristics' since the two are distinct issues and a trivial intersection can consist of two or more non-trivial characteristics.

I can think of many instances when a 'not-based' section in WP:OC would have been applicable, but there may be some exceptions, such as Category:Vertebrates without jaws and Category:Films without speech. It is, without a doubt, worth considering, perhaps in a slightly more limited form. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 06:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I somewhat hesitate at a longer section title for aesthetic reasons : )

But besides that, I would think that having an object or subject and a characteristic of that object or subject is an intersection.

But I also accept that not everyone is going to "get" that, and since guidelines should be easy to understand, I'll weakly accept your suggestion (smile). - jc37 20:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

And point well taken about Not categories. Maybe focus it only on categories dealing with people? - jc37 20:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

That seems reasonable; there are a few 'not'-based categories of people, but they seem to be in need of renaming, e.g., Category:Limbless people to Category:People with tetra-amelia syndrome. To borrow from you... now, to find some supporting examples. :) -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Google books question

Hi Black Falcon. I saw your comments on Mike Cline's talk page and one thing really jumped out at me: "my own search of Google Books showed about three times as many hits for WTA (173K) as PW (57K)". Just wondering if you could check those numbers again because when I click on those links I get 5,900 for WTA and 16,500 for PW (and I'm in Australia, so surely there wouldn't be a problem with Brazilian POV). If our results for the same search really are so different I think I'll have to stop using gbooks hits at all in RMs. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 02:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jenks. When I search now (or click on the links), I can't reproduce my original results. Now, I see 6,280 hits for WTA and 16,500 for PW, which are much closer to the numbers you're seeing – though, still, there's no reason they shouldn't match. Incidentally, I noticed that searching for "War of the Triple Alliance" instead of "War of the triple alliance" adds 80 hits even though the search is supposed to be case insensitive. User:Wee Curry Monster's check on 26 January (diff) yielded a similar outcome to my original search (a ratio of 175–57), but even his links show different numbers now. Best, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 03:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, very interesting. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 14:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Time on my hands

Ok, I have a feeling I may regret asking this of such a prolific editor : )

I find I have some time on my hands this evening.

Would you offer several suggestions on some things I might help with/find interesting? : ) - jc37 03:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Hehe...  ;)

I can suggest a few ideas – though I'm naturally biased toward the activities in which I'm involved or of which I'm aware – and perhaps one will catch your fancy:

If it's category-related work you're interested in:

WP:CFD has a 1–2 week backlog which could benefit from some extra attention;

Template:User language subcategory has a new option (see your original comment) that allows N-level to be hidden for non-natural languages;

I've proposed a change to WP:UCAT at Wikipedia talk:User categories#Mixing user and content categories;

Category:Association football by country probably should be populated with individual Football in {Country} categories;

Category:Women's association football clubs by country should be sorted by country name;

Special:WantedCategories contains a good number of categories which should be emptied or created; and

I recall that you're a member of WikiProject Comics, so this discussion may interest you.

You can also check Wikipedia:Database reports for general maintenance tasks, or WP:RFC#Request comment through talk pages for complicated content discussions.

Hmm... that's a rather odd collection, isn't it? :) Are you looking for something more particular, such as article improvement? -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Been working on the backlog, though some I have closed, and some I have commented in the discussion.

I'll have to check out the template and the UCAT discussion, thanks : )

not a big fan of sports related stuff, but if you would like help then, I'll see what I can do (please remember I don't have any automated tools, though I tried to get one going once, I never got back to playing with it).

I'll check out wantedcats

Saw that. The last consensus was to listify characters by power so that explanations of each characters usage/application of such powers could be explained. The after that, the "fancruft" cabal at AfD deleted the lists enmasse. So until the comics project gets a consensus that will hold up at AfD/CfD, there's no point in continuing the back n forth between ppl's rabbit gardens.

Thanks for the list, I'll start looking at them now : ) - jc37 04:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you found it useful. :) I'd forgotten that you don't have AWB, so please don't worry about populating Category:Association football by country (unless you really want to) ... that project will probably take 10–20 minutes using AWB, but probably twice or thrice that manually. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

lol ok - jc37 04:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

cfD backlog mostly dealt with : ) - jc37 19:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

And reciprocal, please of course feel free to check out my recent contributions for what I've been doing lately.

In particular, depending on any further discussion here, I may be asking for help tagging for CfD : ) - jc37 04:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Will do, and just let me know what you'd like tagged and when, and I'll be happy to oblige. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:People of Black African descent and all its subcats. Rdy when you are. - jc37 19:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Shall I exclude from tagging those categories, such as Category:Jews in the African diaspora‎ and Category:Siddi people, which do not fall into the 'Fooian people of Black African descent' format? Or, go ahead and post the nomination, and I'll tag all categories listed in the nomination. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Stick to "Fooian..." I guess. Hoping that the rest already have a parent/container cat, and (more importantly) don't fall under the WP:OR/WP:BLP problem that the rest do.

I'll write up the nom, but would appreciate it if you could paste a list of those tagged, if easily possible. - jc37 20:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I tagged the following 'Fooian people of Black African descent' categories:

• Category:Arab people of Black African descent
• Category:Argentine people of Black African descent
• Category:Australian people of Black African descent
• Category:Austrian people of Black African descent
• Category:Bahamian people of Black African descent
• Category:Bahraini people of Black African descent
• Category:Belgian people of Black African descent
• Category:Bolivian people of Black African descent
• Category:Brazilian people of Black African descent
• Category:Canadian people of Black African descent
• Category:Central American people of Black African descent
• Category:Chilean people of Black African descent
• Category:Colombian people of Black African descent
• Category:Costa Rican people of Black African descent
• Category:Croatian people of Black African descent
• Category:Cuban people of Black African descent
• Category:Danish people of Black African descent
• Category:Dutch people of Black African descent
• Category:Ecuadorian people of Black African descent
• Category:Egyptian people of Black African descent
• Category:English people of Black African descent
• Category:French people of Black African descent
• Category:German people of Black African descent
• Category:Greek people of Black African descent
• Category:Grenadian people of Black African descent
• Category:Guatemalan people of Black African descent
• Category:Guyanese people of Black African descent
• Category:Honduran people of Black African descent
• Category:Italian people of Black African descent
• Category:Japanese people of Black African descent
• Category:Mexican people of Black African descent
• Category:Nicaraguan people of Black African descent
• Category:Norwegian people of Black African descent
• Category:Pakistani people of Black African descent
• Category:Panamanian people of Black African descent
• Category:Paraguayan people of Black African descent
• Category:Peruvian people of Black African descent
• Category:Portuguese people of Black African descent
• Category:Qatari people of Black African descent
• Category:Romanian people of Black African descent
• Category:Russian people of Black African descent
• Category:Salvadoran people of Black African descent
• Category:Scottish people of Black African descent
• Category:Spanish people of Black African descent
• Category:Surinamese people of Black African descent
• Category:Swedish people of Black African descent
• Category:Swiss people of Black African descent
• Category:Trinidad and Tobago people of Black African descent
• Category:Turkish people of Black African descent
• Category:Ukrainian people of Black African descent
• Category:United Arab Emirati people of Black African descent
• Category:Uruguayan people of Black African descent
• Category:Venezuelan people of Black African descent

I also tagged the following two categories, which use 'of African descent' instead of 'of Black African descent'

• Category:Irish people of African descent
• Category:Puerto Rican people of African descent

I was not sure about and, thus, did not tag:

• Category:African-American people
• Category:Black British people
• Category:Coloured African people
• Category:Fictional characters of Black African descent
• Category:Haitian people
• Category:Jews in the African diaspora
• Category:People of African American descent
• Category:Siddhi people

Best, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:29, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow, thank you.

Was going to list them all at nom in a collapsed box, but don't recall offhand the code, and besides, I think it's probably clear enough in the nom.

Thanks again : ) - jc37 20:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

No problem. :)

The code for a collapsed box would be:

{{Collapse top|''Title''}}
* ''Category 1'''
* ''Category 2''
* ...
{{Collapse bottom}}

-- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

rofl, easier than I recall it being. - jc37 20:52, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

AWB user

• User talk:Waacstats#American politicians?

As you likely know more about awb than I do (as you use it : ) - would you please take a look at this? Apparently lots of mistakes, and is not answering questions on their talk page. Thank you. - jc37 06:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

It's likely that Waacstats generated a list of articles categorized under a particular category tree of politicians, and that the tree happened to contain one or more non-politician categories. It's one of the pitfalls of using AWB-generated lists – the list is only as clean and accurate as the category tree from which it is drawn and always must be manually checked. It appears that he's corrected several of those that were brought to his attention, but there are others (e.g. Hosea Hudson, Milo Radulovich). In fact, the common thread appears to be Category:McCarthyism and its subcategories. Best, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Future of MOTD

I've decided to start a project discussion on this. Please see WT:MOTD. Simply south...... having large explosions for 5 years 17:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Re Admin Barnstar

Thanks, --Mike Cline (talk) 22:17, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear Black Falcon,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at [email protected] (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at [email protected]. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 15:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of the Euphrates

Hi Black Falcon, You might want to add the Battle of Salman Pak article to this AfD - it was created by the same editor and has the same shortcomings. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

You're right, I think, but I hestitate due to the fact that there is some slight coverage ([1][2][3]) of the skirmish. My feeling is that the skirmish is not notable, but a separate examination is probably worthwhile. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

John Dies at the End (film)

Original thread at User talk:Koavf#John Dies at the End (film) (stable version)

Categories The categories were redundant--it was already placed in subcategories of them. (e.g. Category:American comedy horror films and Category:American horror films.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Reply posted at User talk:Koavf#John Dies at the End (film) (diff). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

donkey punch

Your input in a prior RFC on this topic has been mentioned, so you might want to opine at Talk:Donkey_punch#Roadmap. --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me. I've commented at the discussion on the article's talk page. Best, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

User mfe

Can you take care of the Category:User mfe categories now that the reverse merge has been approved?--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I'll start on it now. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

All done. I renamed every template and category and updated all significant incoming links. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:Museums in Greater Moncton for deletion

Greetings, I am here to tell you that this category called Category:Museums in Greater Moncton. User:Shawn in Montreal is challenging you for a contested deletion. This category is not enough to populate articles it's just only one article. Moncton Museum is the only museum in Moncton. User:Shawn in Montreal wants to challenge you for a contested deletion at the categories for discussion. If you want to participate this discussion, There's the CFD link here. I will see you at the CFD page. Steam5 (talk) 20:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you; I've commented at the CFD. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 03:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

CFDS

Am I doing something wrong at WP:CFDS? User:Gregbard is yelling (ALL-CAPSING) there at me for some of my nominations to logic categories. I realize that I work as a bit of a "category gnome", if there is such a thing—matching up category names to article names and so forth, and that volume-wise I can go through quite a few categories sometimes, but I don't feel that I've overstepped any bounds. Am I wrong? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't think so, and your nominations do have a logical basis. However, it may be the case that – in light of Gregbard's stated opposition to the use of parenthetical disambiguation in the titles of philosophy categories – changes of this type involving philsophy categories should not (at least for the time being) be considered uncontroversial. So, perhaps it would be prudent to simply take them to a full discussion and, thereby, bypass the step of a WP:CFDS listing.

In other words, the fact that he opposes these types of changes may be a reason not to list them at WP:CFDS, but it does not restrict you from nominating them at a full discussion ... unless, I suppose, they are consistently rejected, in which case I'm sure you'd stop nominating them. :) Best, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Good advice. I didn't realise he was going to blanket oppose any change that was suggested to any of the philosophy categories, but it looks like he probably would. I don't find his opposition statements particularly convincing or based on any real substantive reasons, but I don't mind bypassing CFDS for the time being. I might feel a bit silly bringing nominations to full discussion saying—"this is speediable, but since I know it will be opposed, I'm bringing it here." That said, I don't think there're many more categories in the philosophy area to deal with. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Truth be told, neither do I, in most cases. In particular, I find his opposition based on your lack of participation in WikiProject Philosophy to be rather strange; after all, while the expertise of a logician is certainly useful when discussing a logic category, the expertise of a category expert is equally useful. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 07:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Revdel

Please revdel [4]. (Personal attack) PaoloNapolitano 21:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Done. I'll keep an eye on the IP's contributions history for a little while. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Springs

Just a note on Category:Springs: I've moved it to a full discussion, but I didn't include a copy of the speedy nomination and your comment, because I got the impression that you were opposing the application of the speedy process more than you were opposing on any substantive grounds, which you seemed not to express an opinion on one way or the other? So to avoid any confusion about what your vote might mean, I didn't copy it. If you would like it copied, could you do so or ask me here to do so, or just repost what you want to say to the full discussion. I just want to be very careful that you or anyone else doesn't think that I'm trying to repress a vote of opposition to a proposal made by me. Thanks. (And I agree with you that given the extent of the tree, a full discussion is wise.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't often find myself opposing one of your nominations. :)

Thanks for reacting so promptly and for your comment here. You're absolutely right that my opposition to the nomination was purely process-driven: I wanted a full discussion so that there would be an opportunity to consider various possibilites and, in particular, to discuss what would happen to the subcategories if Category:Springs was renamed. I don't mind at all that you didn't copy the speedy discussion, especially since your nomination statement fully reflects the concern I raised at WP:CFD/S.

It may be a while before I comment at the discussion, however, since I currently have about a dozen tabs open. :) -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

See here for RM on the article. OK, now I'll stop posting on your talkpage. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Haha... really, though, I do appreciate your notifications. Best, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 03:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Indian disambiguation

Re your wondering: regarding articles, this is an ongoing issue of debate administrative division placenames, and not just with the Indian ones. The Indian WikiProject specifically have struggled to find consensus on this issue. Really what's going on is that the ", India" is just a disambiguator. In real life, no one really refers to either "Lilitpur district, India" or "Lilitpur district, Uttar Pradesh" in the same way someone might say "Washington County, Texas". This fact has caused some to suggest recently that really what we should be naming it is "Lilitpur district (India)". Others oppose the parenthetical and want disambiguation to be worded like natural language, with a comma. I tried to get the ball rolling for a discussion of this issue a few weeks ago, but there was little participation and it kind of went nowhere. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the background information. So, basically, Lilitpur district, Uttar Pradesh is no more natural-sounding to an Indian ear than Lilitpur district, India. Well, at least your efforts are ensuring that there is consistency between the articles and categories—as opposed to the previous situation, where there was inconsistency between articles, between categories, and between articles and their categories. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 03:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Ping

• User talk:DGG#Primary sources

are your ears red? : )

If you're willing, I kinda volunteered you : )

Oh and of course, anyone else watching this page would be welcome to help too : ) - jc37 02:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd be happy to help. I don't think I'll be able to do much tonight but I'll take a closer look and comment tomorrow.

That last sentence makes me want to turn around and check if there's anyone behind me. :) And it reminds me: hey, everyone! -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 03:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Best..Edit..Summary..Ever [5].

(Well maybe not the best ever, but certainly made me at least laugh quite a bit : ) - jc37 04:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

It's been a busy few days for me but I'm back now so I can perhaps start by providing the list of "pages relating to primary sources" which you requested from DGG. The most obvious, of course, are the article Primary source and Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources, which discusses appropriate uses of primary sources and the importance of avoiding original interpretation of primary source material. An extension of the section in WP:NOR is Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Misuse of primary sources, which restricts what types of primary sources may or may not be used in BLPs. Indirectly, primary sources are a consideration in verifying notability, for which coverage in primary sources is considered insufficient.

The topic of primary sources also is covered at the following locations:

1. Wikipedia:Classification of sources, Wikipedia:Evaluating sources, and Wikipedia:Independent sources;
2. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a tertiary source;
3. Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, in sections 'Scholarship' and 'Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources;
4. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction;
5. Wikipedia:Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources;
6. Wikipedia:How the Current events page works#Wikipedia is not a news service - don't create articles about breaking news stories based only on primary sources
7. Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials#Wikipedia does not publish original research - don't use Wikipedia to publish your research

Overall, it appears that primary sources are discussed in three contexts: when they should not be used or are insufficient; how to use them properly; and 'Wikipedia is not a primary source' – i.e., it should not be used to publish personal or original research, host primary source material or report the news. I hope this is a useful starting point for you. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow. Nod, very much so. Thank you : ) - jc37 04:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Category deleted but came back under another name?

Hi, as the closing/deleting admin, can you quickly have a check on these: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_April_11#Category:Rabbinic_LevitesWikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_April_11#Category:Rabbinic_Kohanim vs Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_September_27#Category:Kohanim_authors_of_Rabbinic_literature Is there a meaningful difference? In ictu oculi (talk) 06:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The deleted Category:Rabbinic Kohanim and the current Category:Kohanim authors of Rabbinic literature are quite similar, both in scope and membership. It's not clear to me, however, whether they really categorize the same characteristic. Are all rabbis authors of rabbinic literature? If yes, then what explains the omission from the new category of Nesanel Quinn, Ishmael ben Elisha ha-Kohen, Gamliel Rabinowitz, Chaim Gutnick and Arnold Resnicoff, who were identified as 'Rabbinic Kohanim, currently are identified as 'Kohanim', and yet are absent from the 'Kohanim authors...'?

If you think that the new category should be deleted, I think the best course of action at this stage would be starting a new CFD discussion. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for taking a look. I would guess that the omissions - which seem notable if the category is notable - are either omissions because they haven't been spotted or because the priestly descent is questioned for those rabbis. I wouldn't propose a CfD, but the category seems problematic for the same reasons the original category was deleted. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you may be right. I've asked the editors at WikiProject Judaism to evaluate and comment on the category (see here). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

GoF

say something nice to GoF please. I think they're a bit stressed dealing with the day to day. If it were me, I know I'd appreciate something nice : )

(Though I will say that kbdank had a great set of comments : ) - jc37 23:39, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

My RfA

Thanks for your kind words in support of my RfA, which was successful and nearly unanimous. I very much appreciated the effort you made to review my work and cite examples that you liked.

Be among the first to see my L-plate! – Fayenatic L (talk) 14:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

MOTDs (This space for rent)

You may have noticed over the past few days that the MOTD that you link to on your user page has simply displayed a red link. This is due to the fact that not enough people are reviewing pending MOTDs here. Please help us keep the MOTD template alive and simply go and review a few of the MOTDs in the list. That way we can have a real MOTD in the future rather than re-using (This space for rent). Any help would be appreciated! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 18:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I will try, but I'm afraid I won't be able to offer much time to MOTD as my available time is mostly taken up by other projects. Still, your note is appreciated. :) Cheers, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Category:Hindu temples in Chennai district

Category:Hindu temples in Chennai district, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. 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. Ravi_{My Tea Kadai} 16:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me. I have no objection to deletion and, in the absence of objections by anyone else, have speedily deleted the category. Best, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:00, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Black Falcon. You have new messages at WP:CFD/S.
Message added 22:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 22:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Conflict between two nominations

We have a conflict between two successful CfD nominations: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_February_29#Category:Wikipedians_by_credential and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_February_27#Category:Wikipedian_professional_engineers. One says "Wikipedian engineers" must exist, and one says it mustn't. What do you want to do about this?--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that the one says it must. Your close indicates that such occupations cats should exist rather than credentially named ones. But the other close suggests that that specific cat should not. YMMV : ) - jc37 01:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's an interesting situation. :) Perhaps the 'engineers' category could function as a container category until we can figure out what to do with the credentials subcategories and maybe even Category:Wikipedians by profession as a whole. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 01:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

But, but, but... Why do something sensible when here we had the prime opportunity to edit war over it? (pouts) Or (look of openly awed astonishment) even (hushed whisper) wheel war over? - jc37 02:31, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I ruined it, didn't I? (hangs head in shame) We had a great chance there and I ... I didn't even see it. I knew I shouldn't have had so much chamomile tea. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Sigh @ tea, once again the culprit of sensibility... - jc37 22:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Let's have "wheel peace" instead. The engineers subcategories have to go somewhere. Are you expecting to nominate all the subcategories? If so, where are those likely to end up?--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:48, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

This may seem like an odd question in light of the fact that there are only three of us, but: to whom are your questions directed? :) -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, just upmerged. (As I think they are?) I didn't have any immediate plans for occupation ones, since we're currently discussing the article ones at WT:CFD.

However, (smile) it's your talk page, so maybe I should just sit quietly and watch : ) - jc37 22:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Mi casa es su casa... :) -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 02:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if you watch TfD

Please see here Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:42, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. The page was on my watchlist but I hadn't noticed your response. I have replied at the deletion discussion. Best, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 02:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

April Fool Motto

April Fools Day is just around the corner. As such please could you nominate a new motto or comment on existing suggestions at Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/Specials? Simply south...... facing oncoming traffic for over 5 years 16:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Historic

If you're motivated, you could nominate Category:Historic counties of England and Category:Historic counties of Wales, and Category:Highest points of historic Scottish counties. But... the dictionary says that "historic" can also mean "historical", and the term "historic county" seems to be in actual use (in Scotland at least) here and perhaps elsewhere. Maybe it's a Britishism. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 18:53, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Following your comment here and at WP:CFD/S, I conducted a few searches for 'historic county' and it seems you're right: 'historic' is used widely in place of 'historical'. I suspect it may be an BrEng/AmEng difference, but it's enough to convince me to withdraw my objection. Cheers, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:06, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Category:Works by decade of setting

• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_March_18#Category:Works_by_decade_of_setting

Not sure if it's necessary, but, would you be willing to please tag the subcats? - jc37 00:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm just about to head off to sleep but I'm happy to do it tomorrow morning. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 06:41, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Before I proceed, could you please verify the list:

Category:Films by decade of setting
Category:Films set in 1596
Category:Films set in 1864
Category:Films set in 1885
Category:Films set in 1888
Category:Films set in 1890
Category:Films set in 1891
Category:Films set in 1893
Category:Films set in 1895
Category:Films set in 1896
Category:Films set in 1897
Category:Films set in 1898
Category:Films set in 1899
Category:Films set in 1901
Category:Films set in 1902
Category:Films set in 1903
Category:Films set in 1904
Category:Films set in 1905
Category:Films set in 1906
Category:Films set in 1907
Category:Films set in 1908
Category:Films set in 1909
Category:Films set in 1910
Category:Films set in 1911
Category:Films set in 1912
Category:Films set in 1913
Category:Films set in 1914
Category:Films set in 1915
Category:Films set in 1916
Category:Films set in 1917
Category:Films set in 1918
Category:Films set in 1919
Category:Films set in 1920
Category:Films set in 1921
Category:Films set in 1922
Category:Films set in 1923
Category:Films set in 1924
Category:Films set in 1925
Category:Films set in 1926
Category:Films set in 1927
Category:Films set in 1928
Category:Films set in 1929
Category:Films set in 1930
Category:Films set in 1931
Category:Films set in 1932
Category:Films set in 1933
Category:Films set in 1934
Category:Films set in 1935
Category:Films set in 1936
Category:Films set in 1937
Category:Films set in 1938
Category:Films set in 1939
Category:Films set in 1940
Category:Films set in 1941
Category:Films set in 1942
Category:Films set in 1943
Category:Films set in 1944
Category:Films set in 1945
Category:Films set in 1946
Category:Films set in 1947
Category:Films set in 1948
Category:Films set in 1949
Category:Films set in 1950
Category:Films set in 1951
Category:Films set in 1952
Category:Films set in 1953
Category:Films set in 1954
Category:Films set in 1955
Category:Films set in 1956
Category:Films set in 1957
Category:Films set in 1958
Category:Films set in 1959
Category:Films set in 1960
Category:Films set in 1961
Category:Films set in 1962
Category:Films set in 1963
Category:Films set in 1964
Category:Films set in 1965
Category:Films set in 1966
Category:Films set in 1967
Category:Films set in 1968
Category:Films set in 1969
Category:Films set in 1970
Category:Films set in 1971
Category:Films set in 1972
Category:Films set in 1973
Category:Films set in 1974
Category:Films set in 1975
Category:Films set in 1976
Category:Films set in 1977
Category:Films set in 1978
Category:Films set in 1979
Category:Films set in 1980
Category:Films set in 1981
Category:Films set in 1982
Category:Films set in 1983
Category:Films set in 1984
Category:Films set in 1985
Category:Films set in 1986
Category:Films set in 1987
Category:Films set in 1988
Category:Films set in 1989
Category:Films set in 1990
Category:Films set in 1991
Category:Films set in 1992
Category:Films set in 1993
Category:Films set in 1994
Category:Films set in 1995
Category:Films set in 1996
Category:Films set in 1997
Category:Films set in 1998
Category:Films set in 1999
Category:Films set in 2000
Category:Films set in 2001
Category:Films set in 2002
Category:Films set in 2003
Category:Films set in 2004
Category:Films set in 2005
Category:Films set in 2006
Category:Films set in 2007
Category:Films set in 2008
Category:Films set in 2009
Category:Films set in 2010
Category:Films set in 2011
Category:Films set in 2012
Category:Films set in 2013
Category:Films set in 2014
Category:Films set in 2015
Category:Films set in 2016
Category:Films set in 2017
Category:Films set in 2018
Category:Films set in 2019
Category:Films set in 2020
Category:Films set in 2021
Category:Films set in 2022
Category:Films set in 2024
Category:Films set in 2025
Category:Films set in 2029
Category:Films set in 2066
Category:Films set in the 1490s
Category:Films set in the 1590s
Category:Films set in the 1700s
Category:Films set in the 1710s
Category:Films set in the 1720s
Category:Films set in the 1730s
Category:Films set in the 1740s
Category:Films set in the 1750s
Category:Films set in the 1760s
Category:Films set in the 1770s
Category:Films set in the 1780s
Category:Films set in the 1790s
Category:Films set in the 1800s
Category:Films set in the 1810s
Category:Films set in the 1820s
Category:Films set in the 1830s
Category:Films set in the 1840s
Category:Films set in the 1850s
Category:Films set in the 1860s
Category:Films set in the 1870s
Category:Films set in the 1880s
Category:Films set in the 1890s
Category:Films set in the 1900s
Category:Films set in the 1910s
Category:Films set in the 1920s
Category:Films set in the 1930s
Category:Films set in the 1940s
Category:Films set in the 1950s
Category:Films set in the 1960s
Category:Films set in the 1970s
Category:Films set in the 1980s
Category:Films set in the 1990s
Category:Films set in the 2000s
Category:Films set in the 2010s
Category:Films set in the 2020s
Category:Films set in the 2030s
Category:Films set in the 2040s
Category:Films set in the 2050s
Category:Films set in the 2060s
Category:Films set in the 2070s
Category:Films set in the 2080s
Category:Films set in the 2090s

Category:Novels by decade of setting
Category:Novels set in the 1840s
Category:Novels set in the 1910s
Category:Novels set in the 1920s
Category:Novels set in the 1930s
Category:Novels set in the 1940s
Category:Novels set in the 1950s
Category:Novels set in the 1960s
Category:Novels set in the 1970s
Category:Novels set in the 1980s
Category:Novels set in the 1990s

Category:Television series set in the 1900s
Category:Television series set in the 1910s
Category:Television series set in the 1920s
Category:Television series set in the 1930s
Category:Television series set in the 1940s
Category:Television series set in the 1950s
Category:Television series set in the 1960s
Category:Television series set in the 1970s
Category:Television series set in the 1980s
Category:Television series set in the 1990s
Category:Television series set in the 2010s

Category:Video games set in 1990
Category:Video games set in 1991
Category:Video games set in 1992
Category:Video games set in 1993
Category:Video games set in 1994
Category:Video games set in 1995
Category:Video games set in 1996
Category:Video games set in 1997
Category:Video games set in 1998
Category:Video games set in 1999
Category:Video games set in 2000
Category:Video games set in 2001
Category:Video games set in 2002
Category:Video games set in 2003
Category:Video games set in 2004
Category:Video games set in 2005
Category:Video games set in 2006
Category:Video games set in 2007
Category:Video games set in 2008
Category:Video games set in 2009
Category:Video games set in 2010
Category:Video games set in 2011
Category:Video games set in the 1990s
Category:Video games set in the 2000s
Category:Video games set in the 2010s

Category:Works set in the 1840s
Category:Works set in the 1900s
Category:Works set in the 1910s
Category:Works set in the 1920s
Category:Works set in the 1930s
Category:Works set in the 1940s
Category:Works set in the 1950s
Category:Works set in the 1960s
Category:Works set in the 1970s
Category:Works set in the 1980s
Category:Works set in the 1990s
Category:Works set in the 2000s
Category:Works set in the 2010s

I have deliberately excluded any categories by historical period or event, such as Category:Films set in the partition of India. Also, in light of the fact that at least a few participants appear not to have read the other discussion to which you linked, would you prefer to continue the existing discussion or, as Shawn in Montreal suggested, close it and start afresh? -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:59, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Thank you very much for the help.

I don't oppose starting again (particularly since it's taken this long to tag the subcats, and several have asked for the tagging). - jc37 05:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

All tagged. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 03:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I may be getting ahead of myself but if the nomination succeeds, does the same rationale apply to Category:Works by century of setting and its subcategories? -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 16:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not sure. But it is something that should be discussed. The century ones "could" be considered "era" ones. However, there are still certain issues:

• I think that for fictional works at least, we could make the argument of "shared dates" being similar to WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES. (And from the arguements in the discussion, I have to admit, I'm starting to wonder about whether anything should be grouped by "shared dates" unless they are tied together by local region and/or local culture.)
• And WP:OC#ARBITRARY. Quite often a particular "era" doesn't fit into a particular decade or even a particular century.

That said, I also recall the debate over categorising by February 29. So it's possible that others may have differing opinions on this, so I think it would be worth discussing at CfD.

What do you think? - jc37 21:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I can another issue: an era is defined by time and place, so there is only a superficial similarity between a work set in 19th-century England and one set in 19th-century Central Africa. The connection is even less solid if we compare a historical 19th-century setting with a fictionalized one (as in C.S.A.: The Confederate States of America, for example) or an altogether fictional one (e.g., alien invasion (Cowboys & Aliens), time-traveling Nazis, and so on).

I think, ultimately, that it depends on the outcomes of the 14, 18 and 23 March discussions. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 01:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Looks like the train is heading to no consensus-ville... - jc37 02:09, 14 April 2012 (UTC)