|
|
Last week, after hearing several recent news stories about Taser deaths and other incidents, I looked up "Taser" on Wikipedia, only to find that there was no article titled "Taser." Rather there was a section under "Electroshock Weapon" about Taser to which Taser redirected. Given the high profile nature of the Taser, I went and created a separate article called "Taser" by copying all the information from the Electroshock Weapon page, and adding various sections on the controversial aspects of the weapon, including some notable Taser deaths. Unbeknownst to me at the time, there was already an article called "Taser controversy." When I discovered it, I found both articles had some overlapping information, some of that was contradictory (not because sources were inaccurate, but because some were out of date). I promptly suggested merging these articles.
Fact is, if I entered "Taser" looking for information on the topic, so would many others, therefore, it makes sense to have an article titled "Taser" as the basic source of information on Tasers.
Here are some ideas as to solving this problem:
Which do you think is the best approach? Shaliya waya 14:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Copied message to Talk:Taser#Suggested merge with Taser controversy at 01:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC) and left a note for Shaliya waya a few minutes later
Hi, Flatscan. I'm not accepting your unilateral decision to quarantine Taser from justified critical content ("controversial" or otherwise.) Please review your action or prepare to face full scrutiny and criticism yourself. See my discussion proposal. Cheers Bjenks ( talk) 07:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Flatscan originally made at and copied from User talk:Canyouhearmenow#Reverted edit to Study ( historical revision)
Hi, you reverted an edit I made to Study. I had reverted edits that I felt were unencyclopedic and informal. My revision is identical to a revision that has been maintained since July 2007. Would you mind taking another look? Thanks.
By the way, your header link points to junebug52. Flatscan ( talk) 03:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello Flatscan. Yes, I did make an edit reversal to the study article. [1] That statement is not encyclopedic and it is POV. Now, if you could cite it where the statement has been used by a third source, then it can stay in the article. Otherwise, I feel the edit was appropriate and edit should remain. When we are writing these things, we have to make sure that we are doing it in a non POV fashion and that everything we put in has a cite or source. Thank you for contacting me and bringing it to my attention. I hope you will enjoy your time here at wikipedia. Canyouhearmenow 12:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Discussion continued after 1-month hiatus
Flatscan, I wanted to wait until I was sure of my revert before I notified you about the addition that you put up on the Study page. I was thinking that it was going to have to be removed to to being unencyclopedic and I was correct. IN the disambiguation, it has to point to a direct article or subject and not just a ramdom thought or action of the disambiguation. I hope this makes better sense to you. I also appreciate your input on my talk pages in reference to the rollback issue. It was not clear as to how to edit with rollback since it does not allow you to enter an explaination of the edit. So, now I am going in manually and reverting the vandalism. Takes more time but hey, we have to do our part! Thank you for being civil with me and I think above all things we both have learned new things here! Let me know if I can ever help you. Canyouhearmenow 03:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
The definition the editor originally gave was attached to studying. I reverted that edit in the beginning and that is when the editor then linked it to study group. I never reverted the edit to that one. The edit I did was up ontop for studying. Then I put the correct disambiguation in there. I was waiting on CBD to get back with us so I never reverted the edit the editor placed back on which of course was study group. Thanks for fixing it for me. Canyouhearmenow 03:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC) (in response to Bibliomaniac15, diff)
Studying, an excuse used to eat and hang out with friends ( diff)
Hi, the recent edit you made to Taser has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Party! Talk to me! 21:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, i was a bit too fast on the trigger! *bad pun intended*. But i did a check, and found out you were right, so i used a rollback on A good faith :) -- Party! Talk to me! 21:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I see that you are not editing that much, but you have been sneaking in from time to time! I do hope that you will come back and help me whip this place into shape! I would hate to think that an editor such as yourself would not devote time to what it is they love to do. I devote at least an hour a day to editing. It helps keep my mind active and it also stops my wife from killing me! She said I needed a hobby and now I have one! I just wanted to send you a little encouragement. Smiles! Canyouhearmenow 12:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
You're doing a commendable job, especially at Taser controversy. Some editors can work hard on an article for a long time and not get any recognition, so I thought I'd drop a little note by to let you know you're doing great! Keep up the good work! ⇒ SWATJester Son of the Defender 00:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I added the section since I couldn't find any reference to "excited delirium" in the Taser article. It's possible I just misspelled it when I was using the search function. In any case, in Canada, it has been a major issue relating to the use of Tasers and is mentioned in numerous articles I've read in the past few months and it seems clear, at least from the testimony given in Canada, and the defence given by Taser and its defenders, that it is an important aspect of the Taser story. Both articles that I cite discuss excited delirium in relation to Tasers (though I might not have pulled the most pertinent information from the source material). Reggie Perrin ( talk) 05:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Please see the main source article here. I had intended to write the paragraph in a way that gives both Taser's side and the critics' side of the issue but I think I leaned too far towards the side of critics since , to my mind, "excited delirium" looks like junk science. Since Taser is raising the phenomenon it does merit mention in the main Taser article. Reggie Perrin ( talk) 05:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand how a paragraph on excited delirium constitutes "undue weight"? If this were taking up 1/3 of the article then you'd have a point but one small section? I don't think that's a valid criticism. How is it justifiable not to have any mention whatsoever of the issue when it is so prominent in the Taser story? Reggie Perrin ( talk) 01:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Anyhow, this is what Undue Weight actually says: WP:NPOV#Undue weight: "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all." If anything this supports inclusion of much of the material that's been removed or that you've tried to exclude as they are "significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source." Reggie Perrin ( talk) 07:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm wondering if you could give your input at Talk:Taser_controversy#Renaming_this_article.3F where I've suggested renaming the Taser controversy article? I think a new name would help define and focus the article and would also help us with the main Taser article. Thanks. Reggie Perrin ( talk) 06:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for my closure; I'm trying to expand my abilities, and I should of thought that out more. Incredibly sorry, and happy editing, Leonard( Bloom) 23:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Re contacting editors - looks good to me. Reggie Perrin ( talk) 01:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
The da Vinci Barnstar | ||
For your excellent work creating Template:Talkarchivehist, which will allow us to increase the transparency of talk page archiving, I award you the da Vinci Barnstar! – xenocidic ( talk) 03:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC) |
That's good info. I requested a history merge because it should be done, and as it stands the redir is going to be kept, I think. MSJapan ( talk) 21:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely no problem at all - I'm a bit hopeless when it comes to all that sort of stuff - it's just the page was getting a bit long to deal with. em... while you are at it.. you don't mind seeing if I did the archive right at the Martian ManHunter page do you? I'd be very grateful. -- Allemandtando ( talk) 08:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi - thanks for spotting the unsupported info about Tasers in the article. I have amended the Did You Know? hook accordingly (see here). Hassocks 5489 (tickets please!) 11:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I just wanted to extend my gratitude to you and everyone else for helping out with the Adrenergic Storm article. It was awesome (and, admittedly, quite unexpected) for the new article to garner any attention at all, much less appear on the front page! I'm quite honored but it wouldn't be there if it weren't for ya'll. Thanks again and happy wiki'ing - Mr0t1633 ( talk) 00:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I figure that if your question did not get answered, maybe a fresh poke at the sleeping dog might wake it up. I don't particularly care where the question is either way. If you feel a burning need to keep the conversation together, I won't object if you move it. SDY ( talk) 01:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I think that Robert Dziekański was killed by terrorists. Why delete this category of the article? -- 212.183.251.103 ( talk) 00:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I've seen you around the Sean Bell article so I thought this might be of interest to you. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 07:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Greetings, pursuant to a request on the Third Opinion Noticeboard: I added my opinion to the article's talk page. I hope that my comments help to resolve the dispute. Regards, Lazulilasher ( talk) 17:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I speedy keep the discussion following the criteria in WP:NAC about the WP:Snowball clause. Thanks, -- J.Mundo ( talk) 06:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Would like your reasoning against naming the officers involved in this event. I don't see this sort of censorship at BART Police shooting of Oscar Grant, or NYPD subway sodomy scandal. Cheers. RomaC ( talk) 15:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
You might want to see WP:WQA for Ikip's complaints against Collect and THF, and THF's complaint against Ikip. Collect ( talk) 00:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
There - it is here now User:Flatscan/List of Neopets species. I am not sure where this should end up but is userfied with history intact now. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 03:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I do have another mess to fix from 2006 regarding history merges.
OK, Now it goes like this:
Obviously what I needed to do then (but didn't realise, was Move the redirect ad preserve the history, but now we have this odd extraneous bit at the scientific name which really should be history/merged. Question is, who does it... Casliber ( talk · contribs) 06:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes I learnt after this, and was 'learned' at the time, but I figure I now should fix it now I remembered it... Casliber ( talk · contribs) 06:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
On behalf of the Kindness campaign, I just wanted to wish my fellow Wikipedians a Happy Easter! Sincerely, -- A Nobody My talk 06:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I would prefer if you were to do it, because I surely would screw up in a way that would cause a crashing of some sort. :) Thank you! CarpetCrawler message me 05:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
The Minor Barnstar | ||
For helping me with the minor, but to me complicated task of moving the Curtains article. Thank you so much! :) CarpetCrawler message me 19:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC) |
Thanks for the barnstar. Feel free to contact me if you come across a similar issue in the future. Flatscan ( talk) 04:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I added a diff, you are welcome to remove. I am also confused by your bullet points. Ikip ( talk) 03:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Response to this comment at User talk:Ikip. Additional response in edit summary there. Moved into separate section, added diffs.
Received and acknowledged. I will honor your request, including optional or recommended notifications, but I will post notifications if required by Wikipedia process. Flatscan ( talk) 04:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm setting up a transparant draft of the RfC/U we discussed earlier here. You're welcome to edit the page as you see fit. Discussion can take place on the talk page there. Them From Space 08:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
See WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A Man In Black/Workshop#Ikip added as a party and WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A Man In Black#Involved parties ( diff). I intend to add detailed evidence on the pattern of borderline canvassing and behaviors related to those incidents. Flatscan ( talk) 04:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Dear fellow Wikipedian, I just want to wish you a Happy Bastille Day, whether you are French, Republican or not! :) Happy Editing! Sincerely, -- A Nobody My talk 17:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Response to this comment at User talk:MSJapan.
Yes, I saw that, which is why I struck the comment, but upon further consideration, no clear decision had been reached in that thread at the time you made the request, and now you have a talk page for a deleted page which took forever to have removed even in the face of policy violations, and for which it seems the rationale was "to know why it was deleted". This information should be in the article's deletion message placed by the admin as part of WP's SOP. So, I'm not sure why we need to retain orphan talk pages to convey this information, other than to cause real problems with re-creating content that was deleted "because, well, it's got a talk page, so it should have an article". This also means we have to keep talk pages to hoaxes, vandalism, attack pages, and a lot of other things that are specifically prohibited by policy so we "know why they were deleted". In my book, that's a nightmare - it means all that stuff needs to be watched, because it's no longer redlinked in the watchlists. I would much rather have seen a clear decision reached by the admins as a group before you went out unilaterally and asked for undeletion of pages, as it seems that no one else had really done that, and I really think it's a can of worms. MSJapan ( talk) 13:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Dylan 620 ( contribs, logs) 14:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for cleaning up the mess I made merging cookie dough bites with cookie dough. I dream of horses @ 13:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Flatscan! You are invited to participate in the Great Wikipedia Dramaonly, an effort to end arguments and discussions, and fight vandalism! It is intended to stop discussions from interfering everyone's work in the article namespace. Please sign up here! Kayau Wuthering Heights VANITY FAIR paradise lost 10:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{ Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 00:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Dear colleague, I just want to wish you a happy, hopefully, extended holiday weekend and nice end to summer! Your friend, -- A Nobody My talk 02:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
You may be right, but I really do think it's time to move on. I suspect it may be nominated soon enough, but items still in the news make terrible AfD nominations. Bearian ( talk) 12:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I've expanded it some. Sorry for the delay! I missed your note. Good direction? Bad direction? I want to include some material on how to repair improperly done copies and have sort of outlined it. Oh, and your outlines are still there, but <!--hidden-->. :) -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
←I'd like to village pump this now. It's been here a while, and I have need of it on a regular basis. Do you mind? -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
I notice your request for Julian to review WT:Articles for deletion#Merging during live AfD and close it. I would close it myself, but I already closed one voluminous discussion so I'm not up for reading another. :) Anyway, I thought you should know the "normal" place to request an admin review a discussion is WP:AN. (You were correct that WP:ANI wouldn't be a good place to put it.) Hope that helps, ThaddeusB ( talk) 04:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
re this I think FeydHuxtable is referring to User:Frei Hans and the fallout from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Telepathy and war, sockpuppet investigations and all.
My take on what happened there does not entirely coincide with that of Mr. Huxtable. pablo hablo. 21:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
As Halloween is my favorite holiday, I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Halloween! Sincerely, -- A Nobody My talk 23:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the offer but I'm not someone who is any good at writing essays or particularly interested in writing them. Don;t let it stop yourself from writing one though. Davewild ( talk) 08:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello Flatscan. Please see my comment at WP:AN#Request discussion closure. EdJohnston ( talk) 17:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Flatscan ( talk) 04:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, -- A Nobody My talk 15:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
So, if I'm understanding this right, the history of the infobox tweaks by Nopockyforkitty [3] will be retained? -- Malkinann ( talk) 05:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
The thread in question is marked resolved now, but I wanted to follow up regarding your comment here. Looking quickly at the essay and guideline you cite there, I did not notice anything that suggested that a redirect cannot be deleted even if the merged content was removed. Maybe I'm missing something but if so can you point me to it? I was probably going to start an RfD to try to get rid of the thing, as to me it is rather bizarre for Asa Seeley, upon being typed into the search box, to lead a reader to an article about a train station where there is no info about the person in question (though apparently that point is still somewhat up for debate, unfortunately). -- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
{{ uw-rickrollblock}}, aka {{ rickroll}}. Enjoy. — Sizzle Flambé ( ☎/ ✍) 08:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
A Nobody
My talk is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
To those who make Good Arguments, who are appreciative, or supportive. Sincerely, -- A Nobody My talk 03:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
See: [4]
I created a break out session regarding the BLP issue. I think we really need someone who has the incredible gift that you do to look up all past policy decisions so we can know which ideas are bound to fail, and which have a chance to suceed. Ikip 18:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Added your valuable research here: Past_proposals_to_userfy_and_incubate I would really welcome more of your valuable input, DGG for example has a good starting proposal. I copied Themfromspace's suprising proposal from the BLP RFC also, and we are discussing whether that is viable.
The Barnstar of Diligence | ||
The Barnstar of Diligence may be awarded in recognition of a combination of extraordinary scrutiny, precision and community service.
This barnstar is awarded to Flatscan, for his incredible research abilities, which assist wikipedia in so many ways, thank you. Ikip 16:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC) |
Thanks for the barnstar. I'm sort of waiting for Phase 2 of the BLP RfC, but I'll take a look if I have some free time. Flatscan ( talk) 04:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I replied on my talk page: User talk:Ucucha#Copied templates. Ucucha 13:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Your bot corrected a grammatical error in WP:Merge and delete. However, it is within an excerpt from WP:Text of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License, with the error present in the original. Thanks. Flatscan ( talk) 04:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people
As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:
Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 02:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Flatscan. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 January 14, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 February 28#Simple Instant Messenger. Cunard ( talk) 08:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Flatscan,
Thanks for picking up on my mistake. I've tried to make the dummy edit twice, but it's not showing up. If you wouldn't mind doing it or, alternatively, telling me how to do it, it would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks again,
Neelix ( talk) 11:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Pcap ping 04:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I didn't know about that template, but it's perfectly suited to this type of situation. Thanks! -- Black Falcon ( talk) 20:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks so much for having a look at the page! My main worry was getting it done right by Wikipedia standards. At Wikia, when the page needs to be split, you just do it in a way (hopefully) ;-) that makes sense.
We hope ( talk) 14:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Per a motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case:
This case is accepted, but will not be opened unless and until A Nobody ( talk · contribs) returns to Wikipedia. If A Nobody does so under any account or I.P., he/she is required to notify the Committee.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (
u •
t •
c) 23:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Had originally intended to copy the dog-specific material from the cats and dogs page and then work with it. As I started, realized there were a lot of things not directly addressed that needed to be, so yes, there are some sentences and parts of the cats and dogs page on the new dogs one.
Thought about putting a split tag on the cats and dogs page to indicate the page split into separate pages for dogs and cats, moving the cats and dogs page to Diabetes in cats and removing the dog information to avoid any confusion. As it is right now, it's a jumble of them both; hope someone with hands-on feline experience would take the cats page from there, as there are some comments on the talk page re: lack of other options/treatment opinions being presented.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Diabetes_in_cats_and_dogs#Very_partial_article
Thanks again for all your help!!!!
We hope ( talk) 15:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I already listed the article. Thanks, Racepacket ( talk) 11:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Is it going forward or not? I integrated some of the changes into WP:SK but it doesn't look like anything else is changing. Gigs ( talk) 15:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Flatscan, I have appreciated your interest and helpfulness relating to Wikipedia's WP:Copyrights. I would be interested to read your thoughts on our practices of credit and attribution on images, focused on the high quality pictures, at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Picture of the day photo credits. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 00:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I responded to your comment. I guess I didn't make my intentions clear. Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
As the filer of the case-in-abeyance re A Nobody, you should be notified that there's a new request up. There's also a lot of stuff on meta talk pages, especially Rlevse's and Risker's. Cheers, Jack Merridew 21:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the link to Wikipedia:AfD and mergers. I'll still absorbing how it fits in; will com back with thoughts later. SPhilbrick T 13:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks so much for that - you prevented a lot of stumbling, glad to know how to do that now!-- Milowent ( talk) 12:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
This raises a few issues, methinks. See:
Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
While I prefer when planning and discussion happen before copying/pasting, I don't see a licensing problem here. The Hetalia Wiki is compatibly licensed under CC-BY-SA, and a number of steps were taken to indicate the original source:
I will leave a similar note at the AfD and another note at the WikiProject. As an aside, I looked at the deletion log there and consider it unlikely that the source page will ever be deleted. Flatscan ( talk) 04:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Can I see this failed RM that you briefly mentioned in the section Requested moves from namespace? Or perhaps you were mentioning the AfDs instead? Thanks. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 23:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Query_on_AFD_statistics - any chance you could help out with this? :) Thank you for your time, -- Cirt ( talk) 16:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I know Ultra Magnus (Transformers) dab needs to go go since there is no need disambiguate it. Kicker (Transformers) and Transmetal Driver need merging I am sure others need merging or need to merged but I am unsure. Dwanyewest ( talk) 15:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I understand this was more a problematic thing how it was done and not proper. I was fully aware there was zero admin action that could be done if the solution was "merge to the list", only putting it as a consideration for collaboration among editors going forward. -- MASEM ( t) 04:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I see you haven't contributed in a couple of days--hope you're off enjoying a nice vacation. Your input is sought at the subject RFC page, now that I actually have a bit more time to help compose things... Jclemens ( talk) 04:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
I see that you've marked User:Cdogsimmons/Canada–Tonga relations with a copyvio tag. [8]. I must admit that I'm not sure what "[t]he revisions requested to be deleted are 400242459 to 402683119, inclusive" means. I thought the copyright issues had already been addressed. [9] Do you believe the most recent version needs to be edited?-- Cdogsimmons ( talk) 00:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi! I revived a discussion you initiated, so you may be interested in observing/commenting. -- œ ™ 09:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Done.
There are already subclasses for users, revisions and log entries, so additional subclasses are not an issue. The idea is one source file (though WMF specific stuff should go into a new file) with no external client dependencies. There are things I would like to do too (parsing loops could be faster, for instance) but I am too lazy at the moment. If in doubt, ask. MER-C 08:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Would you be willing to take that discussion to another forum to achieve a consensus, or at least get more input? BOZ ( talk) 12:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. :) BOZ ( talk) 04:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Flatscan. I noticed some comments you made on Help talk:Merging. You appear to be very level headed. I took a look at your contributions and you do some solid administrative work. While you don't have much article editing experience, you do appear to have the right attitude and approach to make a useful admin. Being an admin doesn't mean you would do much different to what you do now, except it would give you certain user rights that would help with maintenance work. There are a couple of rights that I can give you right now that might (or might not) be useful to you.
This user has rollback rights on the English Wikipedia. ( verify) |
Please give some thought to becoming an admin. You can do as much or as little admin tasks as you like; but each admin task that you do would be one less for the other admins, and so improve Wikipedia. Let me know. SilkTork * YES! 10:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Would you support a move to Health effects of taser use? Would be more broad and neutral. Marcus Qwertyus 05:11, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Breaking my own policy by responding off my talk page, but I'm slightly puzzled.
I closed the two DRVs from April 14 that were absolutely certain of their outcome; in other words, there was not a snowball's chance of a different result. If there are 7 votes saying overturn to keep or redirect and zero votes saying delete, there is no chance of a decision saying "delete". Further, I closed ones that didn't need additional actions by an admin.; deleting or undeleting a page, namely (in both cases it was already visible). My understanding is that WP:SNOW invokes part of WP:IAR in its use. The one I closed early because 7 votes endorsed the Keep result, and the other closed beyond 7 days because there was not a single vote that went towards an eventual delete result). I left the one in the middle because I thought admin. actions would be needed on that one, it wasn't a certain consensus. Sure, perhaps my closing statements need some work; it's my first time closing DRVs. Sure, I participated, but again there was no chance of an opposite outcome. Does that still make what I did there wrong? I do want to learn, I simply thought those closes would be uncontentious. CycloneGU ( talk) 15:19, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
In a reply in the RfD discussion, you said that you "would be satisfied with a no-redirect move to subpage". I don't want to clog up the RfD discussion unnecessarily but did want to ask what you think that change would accomplish? The page would still exist. It would still show as an inbound link on the Yul Brynner page. The history would still be intact. It would even still show in the search-box prefill (unless tagged with {{ unprintworthy}} but that would suppress at either title).
How does moving it to a subpage change anything that concerns you about the page? Thanks. Rossami (talk) 23:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Flatscan. You participated in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 April 13#Ch interpreter. Originally closed as "[n]o consensus = no change to the status quo", the DRV close has amended by the closer to relist. If you would like to participate in the AfD, please comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ch interpreter (2nd nomination). Cunard ( talk) 07:49, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
You had promised to watchlist this page and its talk page. I'm making slow progress toward the goal, but it seems only a few people are helping. User:Tv's emory had a draft of the new page ready but has been AWOL almost since May 5, based on his contributions. Although if we were to use his draft and erase all my hard work ... well, there goes all my hard work. Besides, I'd like to keep all the trivia that was in the XM list to begin with, and his draft doesn't include it.
On the other hand, there's no reason we couldn't keep both lists and make Tv's emory's draft a combined list. No one has commented. Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Okay, well, someone already did the work on the Sirius list. That's what I was hoping to prevent. There would be only one list at the end, with a move of the XM list and a redirect for the Sirius list. The question is whether the unique information is enough to justify keeping both. Certainly it would be quite complicated to move all the trivia from the Sirius list. Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 13:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Flatscan,
Thanks for letting me know about Template:Copied. Splitting articles is not something I often do, but I will attempt to remember to use that template when splitting in the future.
Happy editing,
Neelix ( talk) 14:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Jayjg (talk) 03:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Cerejota ( talk) 05:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Cerejota ( talk) 04:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I suppose that {{
Copied multi/Merged-to}} doesn't exist and is not reasonable to exist. You can merge several articles into one, but you can't merge one into several. If content of an article is copied to several articles, that may be a
Split rather than a
Merger, in such cases, {{
Copied}}, {{
Split}} and {{
Copied multi/Copied}} could be used (so better to create a {{
Copied multi/Split}}. But meanwhile, {{
Copied}} and {{
Copied multi/Copied}} can handle everything, if you can use {{
Split}}, you can use {{
Copied}}...). Also, {{
Merged-from}} and {{
Merged-to}} are deprecated and not recommended to be used. --
Tomchen1989 (
talk) 05:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
The Bushranger One ping only 04:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi Flatscan. Please note this change to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion after I requested Sandstein ( talk · contribs) review it.
Thank you for your participation in the "Early closes" discussion and pointing out the dishonest redaction of your hard work. I've advised you on my talk page to withdraw from further discussion with Alpha Quadrant because further discussion will likely be fruitless. Cunard ( talk) 07:46, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I responded belatedly at User Talk:Moonriddengirl [11] to a discussion in which you participated a little while ago at [12]. Just to let you know. DGG ( talk ) 02:19, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I reverted you. The link you provided on your edit summary doesn't explain or justify its deprecation. It, in fact, demonstrates that no one knows why it was deprecated. Until someone can find the discussion or other documentation that it actually has been deprecated, I will continue to revert attempts to add that message. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 06:05, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
The Help:Merging page could use some more detailed instructions in the Section Performing the merger. Specifically, what is the recommended format of the edit summaries in order to conform with Wikipedia's licensing requirements? Are there any templates that can be used on the discussion pages? What happens with the old discussion page when the page is merged? If you would like to elaborate the instructions a bit it would be highly appreciated. Isheden ( talk) 14:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Are you going to file that BarkingMoon SPI? I want to know so I can chime in. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
reviewing eyes | |
Thank you for reviewing in the Contributor copyright investigations/PumpkinSky, you did a lot to explain and clarify! Paraphrasing (I hope not too closely): If everybody who read this looked at one more article it could be over today. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC) |
<!-- -->
.
Flatscan (
talk) 05:26, 10 March 2012 (UTC)Thanks for all the very useful information. So the oldid is from the originating article. Where do you get that number?-- Amadscientist ( talk) 07:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
You are invited to join to the project extra999 ( talk) 06:09, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Just a friendly reminder that the evidence phase of the Rich Farmbrough case has closed. If you would like to add additional evidence, please speak to a clerk or one of the drafting arbitrators -- Guerillero | My Talk 04:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi Flatscan, and thank you for your message. You're right, the chronology seems wrong. Perhaps it would be best to discuss this on the article's talk page? -- Shirt58 ( talk) 11:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
can you tell me what marks would be left on a body after yhey havwe been tasered ? thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.62.7.193 ( talk) 19:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply, I left a followup. Geo Swan ( talk) 13:45, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Can you take a look at WT:DRV#DRV bot request? Thanks a lot. T. Canens ( talk) 15:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Flatscan. Please can I direct your attention to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dictionary of chemical formulas/Merge/Ca-Cu? All the best— S Marshall T/ C 19:27, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC) 04:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Oh my, that does change things. I just looked at the dates of a couple and thought I had figured out the scheme. Is there any way to sort those articles by date? Carrite ( talk) 06:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't like it - moving author information out of the author list is pretty dodgy with respect to the licence (although I realise it's standard practice to play pretty fast and loose with the licence on internal moves). It just doesn't sit right with me, but I don't think there's any point in me objecting, given it's what the guideline says and I'm not a copyright lawyer. Wily D 09:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
sigh.... yes.... lol... that's what happens when u take extended wikibreaks lol. Thanks! -- ΖαππερΝαππερ Babel Alexandria 20:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | ||
Your excellent documentation on Template:copied saved my butt, excellent explanation. |
Tazerdadog ( talk) 07:42, 18 August 2013 (UTC)}
The Paradigm City page should be restored since it is similiar in function to the Gotham City page. It concerns a fictional city that was given background in the anime and manga. 174.22.12.54 ( talk) 13:39, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Flatscan. Could you please look at the attribution problem mentioned at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Kimbola/sandbox and suggest what might be done? -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 00:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
I noticed that you raised a concern at AfD regarding WP:Copying within Wikipedia. I am not a very tech savvy person, and it takes me a long time to figure out the template stuff; I have trouble parsing most technical guidelines. Would you mind taking the time to explain to me how to do this correctly? GabeMc ( talk| contribs) 22:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your heads up. Unfortunately, as all of the articles already existed, I could not simply move the articles, and thus did the next best thing which was to copy and paste the information. I'm sorry if I didn't do it the proper way, as I didn't know how to given the situation and the limited time I can allocate to contributing to Wikipedia. If you're going to "repair" the copy and pastes, please make sure to preserve and recreate the edits I contributed as it takes a lot of time and effort to contribute edits to Wikipedia. It is an extremely mentally exhausting activity and blanket undos which remove man-hours and man-months of work and contribution wholesale is extremely inconsiderate and detrimental to the Wikipedia project. Please see my notes on the article at your request at the cut and paste holding pen for a further explanation about the edits. /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Cut-and-paste-move_repair_holding_pen
Regards, - Object404 ( talk) 13:27, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Some of your edits are in the history of Butterfly knife. If you are missing others, I can help you look for them. There is a new discussion regarding the page name at Talk:Butterfly knife#Move? (2014). You should make your case there. Flatscan ( talk) 04:52, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 16:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Flatscan. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Template:Afd rename has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. -- Trialpears ( talk) 00:05, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Template:Talk archive notice with diff has been nominated for merging with Template:Archive. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. -- Trialpears ( talk) 12:01, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Template:Copied/debug has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Q 𝟤 𝟪 16:09, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi. In light of your last message, I was able to be more specific about your claim when it came to Saracen. Is this what you meant about being specific about the exporting and importing information? I'm just consulting here. Also, I have noticed that your last response on my talk page came in between 12:00 AM and 12:30 AM when I get the notification about it in my email. I was also wondering if you wrote this somewhere where it is day or you edit on the night shift. I'm just curious and also asking here. -- Rtkat3 ( talk) 02:44, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments, even though consensus is looking towards endorse. LibStar ( talk) 05:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
|
|
Last week, after hearing several recent news stories about Taser deaths and other incidents, I looked up "Taser" on Wikipedia, only to find that there was no article titled "Taser." Rather there was a section under "Electroshock Weapon" about Taser to which Taser redirected. Given the high profile nature of the Taser, I went and created a separate article called "Taser" by copying all the information from the Electroshock Weapon page, and adding various sections on the controversial aspects of the weapon, including some notable Taser deaths. Unbeknownst to me at the time, there was already an article called "Taser controversy." When I discovered it, I found both articles had some overlapping information, some of that was contradictory (not because sources were inaccurate, but because some were out of date). I promptly suggested merging these articles.
Fact is, if I entered "Taser" looking for information on the topic, so would many others, therefore, it makes sense to have an article titled "Taser" as the basic source of information on Tasers.
Here are some ideas as to solving this problem:
Which do you think is the best approach? Shaliya waya 14:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Copied message to Talk:Taser#Suggested merge with Taser controversy at 01:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC) and left a note for Shaliya waya a few minutes later
Hi, Flatscan. I'm not accepting your unilateral decision to quarantine Taser from justified critical content ("controversial" or otherwise.) Please review your action or prepare to face full scrutiny and criticism yourself. See my discussion proposal. Cheers Bjenks ( talk) 07:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Flatscan originally made at and copied from User talk:Canyouhearmenow#Reverted edit to Study ( historical revision)
Hi, you reverted an edit I made to Study. I had reverted edits that I felt were unencyclopedic and informal. My revision is identical to a revision that has been maintained since July 2007. Would you mind taking another look? Thanks.
By the way, your header link points to junebug52. Flatscan ( talk) 03:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello Flatscan. Yes, I did make an edit reversal to the study article. [1] That statement is not encyclopedic and it is POV. Now, if you could cite it where the statement has been used by a third source, then it can stay in the article. Otherwise, I feel the edit was appropriate and edit should remain. When we are writing these things, we have to make sure that we are doing it in a non POV fashion and that everything we put in has a cite or source. Thank you for contacting me and bringing it to my attention. I hope you will enjoy your time here at wikipedia. Canyouhearmenow 12:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Discussion continued after 1-month hiatus
Flatscan, I wanted to wait until I was sure of my revert before I notified you about the addition that you put up on the Study page. I was thinking that it was going to have to be removed to to being unencyclopedic and I was correct. IN the disambiguation, it has to point to a direct article or subject and not just a ramdom thought or action of the disambiguation. I hope this makes better sense to you. I also appreciate your input on my talk pages in reference to the rollback issue. It was not clear as to how to edit with rollback since it does not allow you to enter an explaination of the edit. So, now I am going in manually and reverting the vandalism. Takes more time but hey, we have to do our part! Thank you for being civil with me and I think above all things we both have learned new things here! Let me know if I can ever help you. Canyouhearmenow 03:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
The definition the editor originally gave was attached to studying. I reverted that edit in the beginning and that is when the editor then linked it to study group. I never reverted the edit to that one. The edit I did was up ontop for studying. Then I put the correct disambiguation in there. I was waiting on CBD to get back with us so I never reverted the edit the editor placed back on which of course was study group. Thanks for fixing it for me. Canyouhearmenow 03:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC) (in response to Bibliomaniac15, diff)
Studying, an excuse used to eat and hang out with friends ( diff)
Hi, the recent edit you made to Taser has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Party! Talk to me! 21:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, i was a bit too fast on the trigger! *bad pun intended*. But i did a check, and found out you were right, so i used a rollback on A good faith :) -- Party! Talk to me! 21:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I see that you are not editing that much, but you have been sneaking in from time to time! I do hope that you will come back and help me whip this place into shape! I would hate to think that an editor such as yourself would not devote time to what it is they love to do. I devote at least an hour a day to editing. It helps keep my mind active and it also stops my wife from killing me! She said I needed a hobby and now I have one! I just wanted to send you a little encouragement. Smiles! Canyouhearmenow 12:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
You're doing a commendable job, especially at Taser controversy. Some editors can work hard on an article for a long time and not get any recognition, so I thought I'd drop a little note by to let you know you're doing great! Keep up the good work! ⇒ SWATJester Son of the Defender 00:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I added the section since I couldn't find any reference to "excited delirium" in the Taser article. It's possible I just misspelled it when I was using the search function. In any case, in Canada, it has been a major issue relating to the use of Tasers and is mentioned in numerous articles I've read in the past few months and it seems clear, at least from the testimony given in Canada, and the defence given by Taser and its defenders, that it is an important aspect of the Taser story. Both articles that I cite discuss excited delirium in relation to Tasers (though I might not have pulled the most pertinent information from the source material). Reggie Perrin ( talk) 05:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Please see the main source article here. I had intended to write the paragraph in a way that gives both Taser's side and the critics' side of the issue but I think I leaned too far towards the side of critics since , to my mind, "excited delirium" looks like junk science. Since Taser is raising the phenomenon it does merit mention in the main Taser article. Reggie Perrin ( talk) 05:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand how a paragraph on excited delirium constitutes "undue weight"? If this were taking up 1/3 of the article then you'd have a point but one small section? I don't think that's a valid criticism. How is it justifiable not to have any mention whatsoever of the issue when it is so prominent in the Taser story? Reggie Perrin ( talk) 01:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Anyhow, this is what Undue Weight actually says: WP:NPOV#Undue weight: "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all." If anything this supports inclusion of much of the material that's been removed or that you've tried to exclude as they are "significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source." Reggie Perrin ( talk) 07:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm wondering if you could give your input at Talk:Taser_controversy#Renaming_this_article.3F where I've suggested renaming the Taser controversy article? I think a new name would help define and focus the article and would also help us with the main Taser article. Thanks. Reggie Perrin ( talk) 06:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for my closure; I'm trying to expand my abilities, and I should of thought that out more. Incredibly sorry, and happy editing, Leonard( Bloom) 23:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Re contacting editors - looks good to me. Reggie Perrin ( talk) 01:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
The da Vinci Barnstar | ||
For your excellent work creating Template:Talkarchivehist, which will allow us to increase the transparency of talk page archiving, I award you the da Vinci Barnstar! – xenocidic ( talk) 03:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC) |
That's good info. I requested a history merge because it should be done, and as it stands the redir is going to be kept, I think. MSJapan ( talk) 21:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely no problem at all - I'm a bit hopeless when it comes to all that sort of stuff - it's just the page was getting a bit long to deal with. em... while you are at it.. you don't mind seeing if I did the archive right at the Martian ManHunter page do you? I'd be very grateful. -- Allemandtando ( talk) 08:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi - thanks for spotting the unsupported info about Tasers in the article. I have amended the Did You Know? hook accordingly (see here). Hassocks 5489 (tickets please!) 11:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I just wanted to extend my gratitude to you and everyone else for helping out with the Adrenergic Storm article. It was awesome (and, admittedly, quite unexpected) for the new article to garner any attention at all, much less appear on the front page! I'm quite honored but it wouldn't be there if it weren't for ya'll. Thanks again and happy wiki'ing - Mr0t1633 ( talk) 00:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I figure that if your question did not get answered, maybe a fresh poke at the sleeping dog might wake it up. I don't particularly care where the question is either way. If you feel a burning need to keep the conversation together, I won't object if you move it. SDY ( talk) 01:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I think that Robert Dziekański was killed by terrorists. Why delete this category of the article? -- 212.183.251.103 ( talk) 00:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I've seen you around the Sean Bell article so I thought this might be of interest to you. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 07:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Greetings, pursuant to a request on the Third Opinion Noticeboard: I added my opinion to the article's talk page. I hope that my comments help to resolve the dispute. Regards, Lazulilasher ( talk) 17:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I speedy keep the discussion following the criteria in WP:NAC about the WP:Snowball clause. Thanks, -- J.Mundo ( talk) 06:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Would like your reasoning against naming the officers involved in this event. I don't see this sort of censorship at BART Police shooting of Oscar Grant, or NYPD subway sodomy scandal. Cheers. RomaC ( talk) 15:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
You might want to see WP:WQA for Ikip's complaints against Collect and THF, and THF's complaint against Ikip. Collect ( talk) 00:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
There - it is here now User:Flatscan/List of Neopets species. I am not sure where this should end up but is userfied with history intact now. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 03:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I do have another mess to fix from 2006 regarding history merges.
OK, Now it goes like this:
Obviously what I needed to do then (but didn't realise, was Move the redirect ad preserve the history, but now we have this odd extraneous bit at the scientific name which really should be history/merged. Question is, who does it... Casliber ( talk · contribs) 06:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes I learnt after this, and was 'learned' at the time, but I figure I now should fix it now I remembered it... Casliber ( talk · contribs) 06:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
On behalf of the Kindness campaign, I just wanted to wish my fellow Wikipedians a Happy Easter! Sincerely, -- A Nobody My talk 06:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I would prefer if you were to do it, because I surely would screw up in a way that would cause a crashing of some sort. :) Thank you! CarpetCrawler message me 05:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
The Minor Barnstar | ||
For helping me with the minor, but to me complicated task of moving the Curtains article. Thank you so much! :) CarpetCrawler message me 19:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC) |
Thanks for the barnstar. Feel free to contact me if you come across a similar issue in the future. Flatscan ( talk) 04:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I added a diff, you are welcome to remove. I am also confused by your bullet points. Ikip ( talk) 03:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Response to this comment at User talk:Ikip. Additional response in edit summary there. Moved into separate section, added diffs.
Received and acknowledged. I will honor your request, including optional or recommended notifications, but I will post notifications if required by Wikipedia process. Flatscan ( talk) 04:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm setting up a transparant draft of the RfC/U we discussed earlier here. You're welcome to edit the page as you see fit. Discussion can take place on the talk page there. Them From Space 08:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
See WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A Man In Black/Workshop#Ikip added as a party and WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A Man In Black#Involved parties ( diff). I intend to add detailed evidence on the pattern of borderline canvassing and behaviors related to those incidents. Flatscan ( talk) 04:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Dear fellow Wikipedian, I just want to wish you a Happy Bastille Day, whether you are French, Republican or not! :) Happy Editing! Sincerely, -- A Nobody My talk 17:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Response to this comment at User talk:MSJapan.
Yes, I saw that, which is why I struck the comment, but upon further consideration, no clear decision had been reached in that thread at the time you made the request, and now you have a talk page for a deleted page which took forever to have removed even in the face of policy violations, and for which it seems the rationale was "to know why it was deleted". This information should be in the article's deletion message placed by the admin as part of WP's SOP. So, I'm not sure why we need to retain orphan talk pages to convey this information, other than to cause real problems with re-creating content that was deleted "because, well, it's got a talk page, so it should have an article". This also means we have to keep talk pages to hoaxes, vandalism, attack pages, and a lot of other things that are specifically prohibited by policy so we "know why they were deleted". In my book, that's a nightmare - it means all that stuff needs to be watched, because it's no longer redlinked in the watchlists. I would much rather have seen a clear decision reached by the admins as a group before you went out unilaterally and asked for undeletion of pages, as it seems that no one else had really done that, and I really think it's a can of worms. MSJapan ( talk) 13:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Dylan 620 ( contribs, logs) 14:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for cleaning up the mess I made merging cookie dough bites with cookie dough. I dream of horses @ 13:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Flatscan! You are invited to participate in the Great Wikipedia Dramaonly, an effort to end arguments and discussions, and fight vandalism! It is intended to stop discussions from interfering everyone's work in the article namespace. Please sign up here! Kayau Wuthering Heights VANITY FAIR paradise lost 10:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{ Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 00:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Dear colleague, I just want to wish you a happy, hopefully, extended holiday weekend and nice end to summer! Your friend, -- A Nobody My talk 02:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
You may be right, but I really do think it's time to move on. I suspect it may be nominated soon enough, but items still in the news make terrible AfD nominations. Bearian ( talk) 12:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I've expanded it some. Sorry for the delay! I missed your note. Good direction? Bad direction? I want to include some material on how to repair improperly done copies and have sort of outlined it. Oh, and your outlines are still there, but <!--hidden-->. :) -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
←I'd like to village pump this now. It's been here a while, and I have need of it on a regular basis. Do you mind? -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
I notice your request for Julian to review WT:Articles for deletion#Merging during live AfD and close it. I would close it myself, but I already closed one voluminous discussion so I'm not up for reading another. :) Anyway, I thought you should know the "normal" place to request an admin review a discussion is WP:AN. (You were correct that WP:ANI wouldn't be a good place to put it.) Hope that helps, ThaddeusB ( talk) 04:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
re this I think FeydHuxtable is referring to User:Frei Hans and the fallout from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Telepathy and war, sockpuppet investigations and all.
My take on what happened there does not entirely coincide with that of Mr. Huxtable. pablo hablo. 21:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
As Halloween is my favorite holiday, I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Halloween! Sincerely, -- A Nobody My talk 23:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the offer but I'm not someone who is any good at writing essays or particularly interested in writing them. Don;t let it stop yourself from writing one though. Davewild ( talk) 08:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello Flatscan. Please see my comment at WP:AN#Request discussion closure. EdJohnston ( talk) 17:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Flatscan ( talk) 04:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, -- A Nobody My talk 15:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
So, if I'm understanding this right, the history of the infobox tweaks by Nopockyforkitty [3] will be retained? -- Malkinann ( talk) 05:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
The thread in question is marked resolved now, but I wanted to follow up regarding your comment here. Looking quickly at the essay and guideline you cite there, I did not notice anything that suggested that a redirect cannot be deleted even if the merged content was removed. Maybe I'm missing something but if so can you point me to it? I was probably going to start an RfD to try to get rid of the thing, as to me it is rather bizarre for Asa Seeley, upon being typed into the search box, to lead a reader to an article about a train station where there is no info about the person in question (though apparently that point is still somewhat up for debate, unfortunately). -- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
{{ uw-rickrollblock}}, aka {{ rickroll}}. Enjoy. — Sizzle Flambé ( ☎/ ✍) 08:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
A Nobody
My talk is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
To those who make Good Arguments, who are appreciative, or supportive. Sincerely, -- A Nobody My talk 03:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
See: [4]
I created a break out session regarding the BLP issue. I think we really need someone who has the incredible gift that you do to look up all past policy decisions so we can know which ideas are bound to fail, and which have a chance to suceed. Ikip 18:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Added your valuable research here: Past_proposals_to_userfy_and_incubate I would really welcome more of your valuable input, DGG for example has a good starting proposal. I copied Themfromspace's suprising proposal from the BLP RFC also, and we are discussing whether that is viable.
The Barnstar of Diligence | ||
The Barnstar of Diligence may be awarded in recognition of a combination of extraordinary scrutiny, precision and community service.
This barnstar is awarded to Flatscan, for his incredible research abilities, which assist wikipedia in so many ways, thank you. Ikip 16:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC) |
Thanks for the barnstar. I'm sort of waiting for Phase 2 of the BLP RfC, but I'll take a look if I have some free time. Flatscan ( talk) 04:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I replied on my talk page: User talk:Ucucha#Copied templates. Ucucha 13:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Your bot corrected a grammatical error in WP:Merge and delete. However, it is within an excerpt from WP:Text of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License, with the error present in the original. Thanks. Flatscan ( talk) 04:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people
As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:
Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 02:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Flatscan. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 January 14, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 February 28#Simple Instant Messenger. Cunard ( talk) 08:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Flatscan,
Thanks for picking up on my mistake. I've tried to make the dummy edit twice, but it's not showing up. If you wouldn't mind doing it or, alternatively, telling me how to do it, it would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks again,
Neelix ( talk) 11:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Pcap ping 04:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I didn't know about that template, but it's perfectly suited to this type of situation. Thanks! -- Black Falcon ( talk) 20:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks so much for having a look at the page! My main worry was getting it done right by Wikipedia standards. At Wikia, when the page needs to be split, you just do it in a way (hopefully) ;-) that makes sense.
We hope ( talk) 14:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Per a motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case:
This case is accepted, but will not be opened unless and until A Nobody ( talk · contribs) returns to Wikipedia. If A Nobody does so under any account or I.P., he/she is required to notify the Committee.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (
u •
t •
c) 23:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Had originally intended to copy the dog-specific material from the cats and dogs page and then work with it. As I started, realized there were a lot of things not directly addressed that needed to be, so yes, there are some sentences and parts of the cats and dogs page on the new dogs one.
Thought about putting a split tag on the cats and dogs page to indicate the page split into separate pages for dogs and cats, moving the cats and dogs page to Diabetes in cats and removing the dog information to avoid any confusion. As it is right now, it's a jumble of them both; hope someone with hands-on feline experience would take the cats page from there, as there are some comments on the talk page re: lack of other options/treatment opinions being presented.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Diabetes_in_cats_and_dogs#Very_partial_article
Thanks again for all your help!!!!
We hope ( talk) 15:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I already listed the article. Thanks, Racepacket ( talk) 11:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Is it going forward or not? I integrated some of the changes into WP:SK but it doesn't look like anything else is changing. Gigs ( talk) 15:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Flatscan, I have appreciated your interest and helpfulness relating to Wikipedia's WP:Copyrights. I would be interested to read your thoughts on our practices of credit and attribution on images, focused on the high quality pictures, at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Picture of the day photo credits. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 00:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I responded to your comment. I guess I didn't make my intentions clear. Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
As the filer of the case-in-abeyance re A Nobody, you should be notified that there's a new request up. There's also a lot of stuff on meta talk pages, especially Rlevse's and Risker's. Cheers, Jack Merridew 21:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the link to Wikipedia:AfD and mergers. I'll still absorbing how it fits in; will com back with thoughts later. SPhilbrick T 13:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks so much for that - you prevented a lot of stumbling, glad to know how to do that now!-- Milowent ( talk) 12:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
This raises a few issues, methinks. See:
Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
While I prefer when planning and discussion happen before copying/pasting, I don't see a licensing problem here. The Hetalia Wiki is compatibly licensed under CC-BY-SA, and a number of steps were taken to indicate the original source:
I will leave a similar note at the AfD and another note at the WikiProject. As an aside, I looked at the deletion log there and consider it unlikely that the source page will ever be deleted. Flatscan ( talk) 04:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Can I see this failed RM that you briefly mentioned in the section Requested moves from namespace? Or perhaps you were mentioning the AfDs instead? Thanks. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 23:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Query_on_AFD_statistics - any chance you could help out with this? :) Thank you for your time, -- Cirt ( talk) 16:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I know Ultra Magnus (Transformers) dab needs to go go since there is no need disambiguate it. Kicker (Transformers) and Transmetal Driver need merging I am sure others need merging or need to merged but I am unsure. Dwanyewest ( talk) 15:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I understand this was more a problematic thing how it was done and not proper. I was fully aware there was zero admin action that could be done if the solution was "merge to the list", only putting it as a consideration for collaboration among editors going forward. -- MASEM ( t) 04:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I see you haven't contributed in a couple of days--hope you're off enjoying a nice vacation. Your input is sought at the subject RFC page, now that I actually have a bit more time to help compose things... Jclemens ( talk) 04:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
I see that you've marked User:Cdogsimmons/Canada–Tonga relations with a copyvio tag. [8]. I must admit that I'm not sure what "[t]he revisions requested to be deleted are 400242459 to 402683119, inclusive" means. I thought the copyright issues had already been addressed. [9] Do you believe the most recent version needs to be edited?-- Cdogsimmons ( talk) 00:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi! I revived a discussion you initiated, so you may be interested in observing/commenting. -- œ ™ 09:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Done.
There are already subclasses for users, revisions and log entries, so additional subclasses are not an issue. The idea is one source file (though WMF specific stuff should go into a new file) with no external client dependencies. There are things I would like to do too (parsing loops could be faster, for instance) but I am too lazy at the moment. If in doubt, ask. MER-C 08:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Would you be willing to take that discussion to another forum to achieve a consensus, or at least get more input? BOZ ( talk) 12:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. :) BOZ ( talk) 04:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Flatscan. I noticed some comments you made on Help talk:Merging. You appear to be very level headed. I took a look at your contributions and you do some solid administrative work. While you don't have much article editing experience, you do appear to have the right attitude and approach to make a useful admin. Being an admin doesn't mean you would do much different to what you do now, except it would give you certain user rights that would help with maintenance work. There are a couple of rights that I can give you right now that might (or might not) be useful to you.
This user has rollback rights on the English Wikipedia. ( verify) |
Please give some thought to becoming an admin. You can do as much or as little admin tasks as you like; but each admin task that you do would be one less for the other admins, and so improve Wikipedia. Let me know. SilkTork * YES! 10:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Would you support a move to Health effects of taser use? Would be more broad and neutral. Marcus Qwertyus 05:11, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Breaking my own policy by responding off my talk page, but I'm slightly puzzled.
I closed the two DRVs from April 14 that were absolutely certain of their outcome; in other words, there was not a snowball's chance of a different result. If there are 7 votes saying overturn to keep or redirect and zero votes saying delete, there is no chance of a decision saying "delete". Further, I closed ones that didn't need additional actions by an admin.; deleting or undeleting a page, namely (in both cases it was already visible). My understanding is that WP:SNOW invokes part of WP:IAR in its use. The one I closed early because 7 votes endorsed the Keep result, and the other closed beyond 7 days because there was not a single vote that went towards an eventual delete result). I left the one in the middle because I thought admin. actions would be needed on that one, it wasn't a certain consensus. Sure, perhaps my closing statements need some work; it's my first time closing DRVs. Sure, I participated, but again there was no chance of an opposite outcome. Does that still make what I did there wrong? I do want to learn, I simply thought those closes would be uncontentious. CycloneGU ( talk) 15:19, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
In a reply in the RfD discussion, you said that you "would be satisfied with a no-redirect move to subpage". I don't want to clog up the RfD discussion unnecessarily but did want to ask what you think that change would accomplish? The page would still exist. It would still show as an inbound link on the Yul Brynner page. The history would still be intact. It would even still show in the search-box prefill (unless tagged with {{ unprintworthy}} but that would suppress at either title).
How does moving it to a subpage change anything that concerns you about the page? Thanks. Rossami (talk) 23:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Flatscan. You participated in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 April 13#Ch interpreter. Originally closed as "[n]o consensus = no change to the status quo", the DRV close has amended by the closer to relist. If you would like to participate in the AfD, please comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ch interpreter (2nd nomination). Cunard ( talk) 07:49, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
You had promised to watchlist this page and its talk page. I'm making slow progress toward the goal, but it seems only a few people are helping. User:Tv's emory had a draft of the new page ready but has been AWOL almost since May 5, based on his contributions. Although if we were to use his draft and erase all my hard work ... well, there goes all my hard work. Besides, I'd like to keep all the trivia that was in the XM list to begin with, and his draft doesn't include it.
On the other hand, there's no reason we couldn't keep both lists and make Tv's emory's draft a combined list. No one has commented. Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Okay, well, someone already did the work on the Sirius list. That's what I was hoping to prevent. There would be only one list at the end, with a move of the XM list and a redirect for the Sirius list. The question is whether the unique information is enough to justify keeping both. Certainly it would be quite complicated to move all the trivia from the Sirius list. Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 13:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Flatscan,
Thanks for letting me know about Template:Copied. Splitting articles is not something I often do, but I will attempt to remember to use that template when splitting in the future.
Happy editing,
Neelix ( talk) 14:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Jayjg (talk) 03:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Cerejota ( talk) 05:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Cerejota ( talk) 04:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I suppose that {{
Copied multi/Merged-to}} doesn't exist and is not reasonable to exist. You can merge several articles into one, but you can't merge one into several. If content of an article is copied to several articles, that may be a
Split rather than a
Merger, in such cases, {{
Copied}}, {{
Split}} and {{
Copied multi/Copied}} could be used (so better to create a {{
Copied multi/Split}}. But meanwhile, {{
Copied}} and {{
Copied multi/Copied}} can handle everything, if you can use {{
Split}}, you can use {{
Copied}}...). Also, {{
Merged-from}} and {{
Merged-to}} are deprecated and not recommended to be used. --
Tomchen1989 (
talk) 05:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
The Bushranger One ping only 04:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi Flatscan. Please note this change to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion after I requested Sandstein ( talk · contribs) review it.
Thank you for your participation in the "Early closes" discussion and pointing out the dishonest redaction of your hard work. I've advised you on my talk page to withdraw from further discussion with Alpha Quadrant because further discussion will likely be fruitless. Cunard ( talk) 07:46, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I responded belatedly at User Talk:Moonriddengirl [11] to a discussion in which you participated a little while ago at [12]. Just to let you know. DGG ( talk ) 02:19, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I reverted you. The link you provided on your edit summary doesn't explain or justify its deprecation. It, in fact, demonstrates that no one knows why it was deprecated. Until someone can find the discussion or other documentation that it actually has been deprecated, I will continue to revert attempts to add that message. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 06:05, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
The Help:Merging page could use some more detailed instructions in the Section Performing the merger. Specifically, what is the recommended format of the edit summaries in order to conform with Wikipedia's licensing requirements? Are there any templates that can be used on the discussion pages? What happens with the old discussion page when the page is merged? If you would like to elaborate the instructions a bit it would be highly appreciated. Isheden ( talk) 14:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Are you going to file that BarkingMoon SPI? I want to know so I can chime in. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
reviewing eyes | |
Thank you for reviewing in the Contributor copyright investigations/PumpkinSky, you did a lot to explain and clarify! Paraphrasing (I hope not too closely): If everybody who read this looked at one more article it could be over today. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC) |
<!-- -->
.
Flatscan (
talk) 05:26, 10 March 2012 (UTC)Thanks for all the very useful information. So the oldid is from the originating article. Where do you get that number?-- Amadscientist ( talk) 07:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
You are invited to join to the project extra999 ( talk) 06:09, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Just a friendly reminder that the evidence phase of the Rich Farmbrough case has closed. If you would like to add additional evidence, please speak to a clerk or one of the drafting arbitrators -- Guerillero | My Talk 04:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi Flatscan, and thank you for your message. You're right, the chronology seems wrong. Perhaps it would be best to discuss this on the article's talk page? -- Shirt58 ( talk) 11:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
can you tell me what marks would be left on a body after yhey havwe been tasered ? thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.62.7.193 ( talk) 19:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply, I left a followup. Geo Swan ( talk) 13:45, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Can you take a look at WT:DRV#DRV bot request? Thanks a lot. T. Canens ( talk) 15:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Flatscan. Please can I direct your attention to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dictionary of chemical formulas/Merge/Ca-Cu? All the best— S Marshall T/ C 19:27, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC) 04:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Oh my, that does change things. I just looked at the dates of a couple and thought I had figured out the scheme. Is there any way to sort those articles by date? Carrite ( talk) 06:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't like it - moving author information out of the author list is pretty dodgy with respect to the licence (although I realise it's standard practice to play pretty fast and loose with the licence on internal moves). It just doesn't sit right with me, but I don't think there's any point in me objecting, given it's what the guideline says and I'm not a copyright lawyer. Wily D 09:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
sigh.... yes.... lol... that's what happens when u take extended wikibreaks lol. Thanks! -- ΖαππερΝαππερ Babel Alexandria 20:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | ||
Your excellent documentation on Template:copied saved my butt, excellent explanation. |
Tazerdadog ( talk) 07:42, 18 August 2013 (UTC)}
The Paradigm City page should be restored since it is similiar in function to the Gotham City page. It concerns a fictional city that was given background in the anime and manga. 174.22.12.54 ( talk) 13:39, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Flatscan. Could you please look at the attribution problem mentioned at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Kimbola/sandbox and suggest what might be done? -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 00:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
I noticed that you raised a concern at AfD regarding WP:Copying within Wikipedia. I am not a very tech savvy person, and it takes me a long time to figure out the template stuff; I have trouble parsing most technical guidelines. Would you mind taking the time to explain to me how to do this correctly? GabeMc ( talk| contribs) 22:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your heads up. Unfortunately, as all of the articles already existed, I could not simply move the articles, and thus did the next best thing which was to copy and paste the information. I'm sorry if I didn't do it the proper way, as I didn't know how to given the situation and the limited time I can allocate to contributing to Wikipedia. If you're going to "repair" the copy and pastes, please make sure to preserve and recreate the edits I contributed as it takes a lot of time and effort to contribute edits to Wikipedia. It is an extremely mentally exhausting activity and blanket undos which remove man-hours and man-months of work and contribution wholesale is extremely inconsiderate and detrimental to the Wikipedia project. Please see my notes on the article at your request at the cut and paste holding pen for a further explanation about the edits. /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Cut-and-paste-move_repair_holding_pen
Regards, - Object404 ( talk) 13:27, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Some of your edits are in the history of Butterfly knife. If you are missing others, I can help you look for them. There is a new discussion regarding the page name at Talk:Butterfly knife#Move? (2014). You should make your case there. Flatscan ( talk) 04:52, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 16:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Flatscan. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Template:Afd rename has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. -- Trialpears ( talk) 00:05, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Template:Talk archive notice with diff has been nominated for merging with Template:Archive. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. -- Trialpears ( talk) 12:01, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Template:Copied/debug has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Q 𝟤 𝟪 16:09, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi. In light of your last message, I was able to be more specific about your claim when it came to Saracen. Is this what you meant about being specific about the exporting and importing information? I'm just consulting here. Also, I have noticed that your last response on my talk page came in between 12:00 AM and 12:30 AM when I get the notification about it in my email. I was also wondering if you wrote this somewhere where it is day or you edit on the night shift. I'm just curious and also asking here. -- Rtkat3 ( talk) 02:44, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments, even though consensus is looking towards endorse. LibStar ( talk) 05:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)