Hello Flatscan! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. You may also push the signature button located above the edit window. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! -- Kukini08:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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overlapping information, some of that was contradictory (not because sources were inaccurate, but because some were out of date).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:
Merge "Taser controversy" into "Taser" and clean up
Make the "Taser" article's focus about what the Taser is, with a "main article" or "see also" tag directing readers to the "Taser controversy" article for information about the controversy
If the list of notable Taser deaths grows to be quite long, make that into a separate article.
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)[reply]
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.
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. Canyouhearmenow12:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response. Unfortunately, I do not follow your reasoning, in particular, why my edit fails WP:NPOV. The Study article is a disambiguation page, and it seems odd to require citations on brief descriptions. I was not able to find any relevant guidance at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). The revision isn't really mine — as I noted, it is a reversion to a long-standing previous revision. I can see that the revision that I reverted ("Studying, an excuse used to eat and hang out with friends") could be considered humorous or tongue-in-cheek, but it clearly lacks the primary definition of studying. Flatscan (talk) 01:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Flatscan, I appreciate your passion on this matter, however, even by definition the disambiguous page tells us, "There must then be a way to direct the reader to the correct specific article when an ambiguous term is referenced by linking, browsing or searching; this is what is known as disambiguation". The link that you added the verbiage to links right to an article on studying. You would have to link it somewhere so that your statement makes sense for the disambiguation. Canyouhearmenow02:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for continuing this discussion and putting up with my persistence. I can see your latest point, particularly when comparing my revision to your latest revision (diff), as the description is better with "study skills" removed. However, I still fail to see why my edit merited outright and unexplained reversion. Did you use the Wikipedia:Rollback feature?
In consideration of my difficulty in understanding your points, would you mind if I asked CBD to help us? I noticed that you've contacted him in the past. Flatscan (talk) 01:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have submitted this issue to CBD and I will wait on his response. I do feel that my edit is proper unless I am misunderstanding the rules, but they seem clear to me that if you are goingn to add verbiage and then link it, there has to be a union of the disambiguation and the link. In this case, I am not sure as to how the verbiage that you added had anything to do with the link for studying. If one searches for studying, I do not think it will link to the statements or additions that you made. This is why I made the original revert. Yes, I use the rollback feature. Thanks for your attention. Maybe you and I will learn something new here? Canyouhearmenow03:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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. Canyouhearmenow03:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments. I am going to hold off on replying to some of them until we resolve the core dispute/discussion.
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)
From your comment, it appears that you attribute the following edit to me ("the editor"):
Studying, an excuse used to eat and hang out with friends (diff)
I hope that you are not going to stop editing! That would be a shame. We need good editors and you are very passionate about your contibutions. Please reconsider being more active. Canyouhearmenow04:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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! Canyouhearmenow12:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's about time! This place is crawling with vandalism and lack of committment to mainspace. Please try not to leave us like that again! It's very stressful! LOL Welcome back friend.. Canyouhearmenow03:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it up
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! ⇒SWATJesterSon of the Defender00:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excited delirium
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Undue weight?
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I have no objections to contacting the editors who contributed to the AFD so I think if both of us are ok with that that should be fine. We should probably contact all the editors, though, with a neutral message such as "Thank you for you input on the recent AFD on Taser controversy. The editors involved with that article would like to continue the discussion on how to proceed and invite you to join the discussion at Talk:Taser controversy." As long as the message left on editor's talk pages is neutral and as long as all editors are contacted (rather than a selective sample) then there shouldn't be any problem as far as WP:Canvassing - particularly if we're both in agreement on reaching out in this way. Reggie Perrin (talk) 19:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The way I read the instructions, the template goes on the article you want to get rid of (which is usually newer, except in this case, where it's the older Lodoss to Senki redirect/article), and it gets moved into the article space of the article you want to keep (which gets deleted and recreated, and in this case is Record of Lodoss War). If it was the other way around it would require a merge of history and a page move back to the Lodoss War title, which almost defeats the purpose of the merge in the first place, I think. Maybe get someone else more familiar with the process to look at it? MSJapan (talk) 22:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Flatscan and MSJapan. Please see Template:Db-histmerge. It instructs editors to "Place this template on the target article, ie. the page where the text was pasted into." I believe the template should have been put on Record of Lodoss War instead. However, it is not too important as admins will review relevant discussions, and the histories of the two (or sometimes more) pages needing to be merged together. As for this case, I figured out the correct page you wanted to stay because of the RfD. Also, as an alternative, you may put Template:Db-copypaste on the page "from which the content was taken.", which would have been Lodoss to Senki. Best, --PeaceNT (talk) 04:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem at all
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Merging question
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)[reply]
Thanks for the note. I've been following the case since it broke in late October. I have some thoughts and sources that I'll collect. Flatscan (talk) 04:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I assume that this comment is regarding my reversion of an edit by 66.183.46.229. The officer's name was actually the last of a number of reasons, but I included it in my edit summary to indicate that it was removed in the undo.
The parenthetical statements contained editorializing and wording that could indicate original research.
Thanks for the note. Since I do not have full understanding of the content dispute or the specific behavioral issues, I do not plan to contribute at the WQA. I did notice a number of Ikip's edits that I thought were characteristically questionable. Are you interested in participating in the RfC? Flatscan (talk) 04:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
i figured it out :)
I do have another mess to fix from 2006 regarding history merges.
OK, Now it goes like this:
Currawong is a genus of birds, which has had an article since 2003.
There are several species, which were initially redirects to the genus page:
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)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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)[reply]
Draft
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. ThemFromSpace08:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ikip is self-blocked until August. Since this is the exact same thing he did last time we tried to set up an RfC I think we should continue through with this for procedural purposes, even if he can't reply there. He can't leave when others grow suspicious of his edits and return like nothing ever happened. ThemFromSpace13:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the messages. I agree with not rewarding a pattern of developing action → leave of absence → no action, but 72 days is long, over 5 times the length of his last break. I'll think this over and get back to you. Flatscan (talk) 04:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is the canvassing spree within the scope of the arbitration case? I thought the case was centered around AMIB's actions directed at Ikip. Go ahead and add your evidence if you feel it helps with the case and if it seems acceptable than I could back it up with my own findings. ThemFromSpace03:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's relevant as an expansion of WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A Man In Black/Evidence#Canvassing as presented by Steel. It would show a pattern in Ikip's behavior and concern from users besides AMIB in the lead-up to AMIB's block of Ikip. At worst, I would blank the sections judged to be outside the scope, and the presentation would be ready to copy to a future RfC. I will probably not have time to finalize my evidence before Saturday (at the deadline), but I could write an outline if it would be useful to you. Flatscan (talk) 03:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, in that case you should go ahead and put in your evidence (I think you had more direct interactions with him regarding this than I have). I'm still considering posting evidence there as well. ThemFromSpace04:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dear fellow Wikipedian, I just want to wish you a Happy Bastille Day, whether you are French, Republican or not! :) Happy Editing! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk17:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Given that the discussion went to archive without anyone even really answering your last question, and Uncle G's rationale was odd (he claimed deletion adds to the DB, but not deleting doesn't, because pages are cheap? There's a load somewhere either in query or bandwidth or storage space; 1 byte multiplied a couple of trillion times is still over a gigabyte), and that no one made a decision, it might be wise to revoke your request and open a formal policy discussion - I still think this is wikilawyering in that it's semantics and not practicality involved. MSJapan (talk) 13:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not to play semantics, and I don't remember the entirety of the thread, but in this case, the article was merged first and then redirected. Does that make a difference wrt G8? MSJapan (talk) 15:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The merge's content copy should be attributed using {{Copied}}. It does not make a difference if the AfD template is considered "meaningful" on its own. Flatscan (talk) 03:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, it was no problem. Considering how confusing the merge instructions are – despite my intermittent editing there – you did a good job on your first try. I've prioritized rewriting the instructions and any feedback would be helpful. Flatscan (talk) 04:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the invitation, but I will decline. My approach to discussion is deliberate and often slow. I will see if there are open discussions on my watched pages that need revisiting. Flatscan (talk) 03:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a million for your prompt reply. I'm an editor writing on card games, which is my field, and I've been entirely devoted to this for the past thirty years of my life. There's an article on Wiki created to allocated different versions of Euchre. Can you move Five-Handed Euchre to Euchre variations (there's an entry there for five players) and delete Five-Handed Euchre (Bid) ? Krenakarore (talk) 06:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC) ![reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
It looks great! Repairing improperly done copies should be covered, but I haven't given it much thought. My limited experience is that they're difficult even to detect. Almost all of my repair work has been converting properly done merges into "deluxe" ones with oldids. Flatscan (talk) 03:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a little more development and created a template (see it tested at the talk). I run into improper copying relatively routinely through CP work, since Corensearchbot does pick up copies of Wikipedia mirrors. I don't know about "deluxe" repairs. :) At some point, we should consider moving this into project space and proposing it at least as a guideline. It would be nice to incorporate Merge & Split by reference, since these do not currently have guideline status. Would you like to get wider feedback before taking that step? Or do you think it needs more incubation and development before we seek wider feedback? --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:59, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's near-ready (another week?) for moving into WP space and presenting to knowledgeable editors. The order doesn't matter to me, but some users may be hesitant to edit as long as it's in my user space. Once a local consensus is established, we can consider community feedback. I believe it should be a guideline, but if its promotion fails, the {{infopage}} box at the top of WP:Copy-paste looks about right. The "deluxe" thing is a pet project and a distraction at this point – I'll write a separate page for it eventually. Flatscan (talk) 03:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There aren't that many people who read the COPYCLEAN group, but I can ask. (I don't think we need a signpost listing; so far as I know, consensus at VPP should be enough.) I will wait to pump it if you aren't ready. So far as I know, it should be a fairly straightforward conversation. It's not proposing any new rules, but simply explaining what already exists. :) I did put the "proposal" tag on it, though. Since it's in mainspace, we have to make clear that it's not a policy or guideline yet. Even though it doesn't have a policy tag, its presence might otherwise confuse users. I'll ask at WP:COPYCLEAN. --Moonriddengirl(talk)10:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm probably overly cautious. My main worry is that unfamiliar = CREEP for some editors, even if the page is strictly explanatory. Flatscan (talk) 03:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick note to say that I think this page is much needed & will look it over later today. (About to leave the house now). --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please go ahead. The new RfC proposal category ({{rfctag|prop}}) may be useful also. I've been working on it at a glacial pace, and I have no desire to delay your real work. Flatscan (talk) 03:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Thanks for the link – I remember seeing it at DRV. From my review, I probably agree more with your view of what happened. My opinion is that endorsing without looking into the backstory is careless, but the anecdote isn't critical to FeydHuxtable's section. Flatscan (talk) 04:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Euchre articles
Five-Handed Euchre has already been trimmed and moved into the proper article on Euchre variations. It is there for your appreciation (I know you're busy, but let us put an end to this). Five-Handed Euchre (Bid) is a variation for five players and it needs to be moved into Bid euchre, which is a modality of Euchre, as you know.
Another thing is, Euchre variations deals with methodology and technical terms (it all started like this). A different article needs to be created for this purpose, so that we may leave Euchre variations only for variations in play.
There's a Pfeffer entry (and Double hasenpfeffer too) on Bid euchre, and another entry on Euchre variations called Hasenpfeffer (which is Pfeffer with minor differences anyway). It should be moved to Bid Euchre too because it's description fits Bid euchre.
I could do that Flat, but I feel I need to take it up with somebody like you, so it sounds more like a legal movement from my part. Let us clean up the articles pal, and remove all those redundant tags too. Krenakarore (talk) 17:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Krenakarore, good to hear from you. Since you merged it, I can take care of making Five-Handed Euchre into a redirect with all the appropriate tags. Regarding the other reorganizations, you can be bold and go ahead, or I can help with tagging and creating discussions. Seeing our prior experience, they may not get any participation. I apologize that I lack the subject expertise to be more directly helpful. Flatscan (talk) 03:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another page called Euchre regional variations was created, and moved to Euchre game variations, to alocate the variations listed on Euchre variations page, which is now listing only variations on rules and game terminology.
The Hasenpfeffer variation, previously listed on Euchre variations page, was merged to Bid Euchre, according to its classification (This variation is, by all means, plain Bid Euchre).
Can you please place the "copied|from=source|to=destination|diff=permanent diff" tag on the talk page of each of the links listed above to clarify this "wild" move for me, because the stupid guy here can't get the meaning of "diff=permanent diff".
Oh, by the way, no more blue.....:) ! 2005 had already advised me to comply with the manual of style. I got him in great account, you know. Thanks for all help provided pal. Krenakarore (talk) 13:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wonderful piece of work Flatscan ! Your help is not only necessary, but also indispensable. I have now learned something more from you. Thank you once more, thank you once again. Krenakarore (talk) 11:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to help. After you confirmed, I wrote "deluxe" (no one else does them) edit summaries, in case something happens to the talk page tags. Feel free to contact me for this type of work in the future. Flatscan (talk) 01:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Since you are the one who opened the most recent thread at WT:AFD, I wonder what you expected would happen if all the participating editors supported your view of the merge-during-AfD rules? Did you figure that consensus in that thread would be endorsing a wider policy change? If so, what documents did you think would change? Possibly WP:Deletion policy? I don't see any recent discussion of merge-during-AfD in the Talk archives of WP:Deletion policy. (Not that I think your approach is wrong, I just want to know what you thought was the issue at stake). EdJohnston (talk) 04:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I think you are *not* proposing a change in the deletion policy. What you say when opening the new section called Merging during live AfD is that you want to see if current consensus affirms this guidance. So if the commenters in the thread *support* your view, then the existing paragraph in WP:GD will be kept unchanged. And in that event, we know that the community still wants merging during live AfD to be handled the way that paragraph says. The reason you raised this question is presumably that you have seen some *merges* taking place during live AfDs and you want to tell people that this is against consensus of the community. Yes? EdJohnston (talk) 00:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for volunteering to read through the discussions and for the reading that you've already done. The short answer is "Yes": you pretty much nailed it. Longer answers follow below. I think that it might be best to centralize these closing sub-discussions at WT:AFD. Flatscan (talk) 04:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is the desired outcome?
Excerpt from original discussion prompt: WP:Guide to deletion#You may edit the article during the discussion advises against merging content from an article at AfD, suggesting that editor wait until the AfD is closed. Since Guide to deletion has low activity, I'm starting a discussion here to see if current consensus affirms this guidance. I observed editors merging/copying from articles with open AfDs, sometimes with undesirable effects on the live discussions. There are a few examples sprinkled throughout the discussion. If the guidance is affirmed, one will be able to approach these editors with a long-standing reference page backed by current consensus. IAR would be possible, but invoking it should require superior justification. The current item in Guide to deletion should be sufficient unless such merging becomes significantly more common. A possible new location is WP:Articles for deletion#AfD Wikietiquette, which mentions potential confusion from moves.
This discussion is most relevant to AfD (perhaps MfD for userspace drafts or userfied articles; possibly DRV) and not very relevant to CSD or PROD. WT:AFD is relatively high-traffic, with many watchers.
I would also like to make a list of all the live-merging AfD cases that the editors could have had in mind while this discussion took place. The ones I've pinned down so far are:
This was cited by Jack Merridew as an example of 'Merging during an AfD as a highly disruptive tactic used with the aim of precluding a delete outcome'. In that AfD, Jack left a comment citing this edit by A Nobody as being a disruptive use of merging to forestall a delete outcome. See the top of Talk:Jimmy Patterson to see the three {{copied}} templates placed by A Nobody which state "Jimmy Patterson now serves to provide attribution for content in Medal of Honor (video game) and must not be deleted so long as Medal of Honor (video game) exists."
This was cited by Flatscan: 'Despite a split consensus, the nominator performed a merger and requested a speedy close'. Pokerdance did the merge to Michael Jackson here, and then Unionhawk did a close of the AfD with the result 'Content has been merged.' There was some protest of this near the end of the AfD discussion. In fact, due to objections Unionhawk opened up a third AfD nomination on his own, declaring that he'd not been aware that the previous nominator (Pokerdance) had done the merge himself.
This was cited by KrebMarkt, as an example of a general pattern whereby a project that has such articles on its clean-up/merge list will probably accelerate its merge efforts, thus hijacking the outcome of the AfD. Though the merge was done 'early', during the AfD, the discussion seemed to have a merge consensus anyway, by that point, though seven days had not elapsed.
Do you know of any other widely-known live-merging AfD cases that these editors could have been thinking of, even if I missed seeing them in the discussion?
I notice that Template:Copied is new as of July, and was created by Moonriddengirl, so is unlikely to have been intended as a partisan move in the AfD wars. Someone who places that template on the target article when performing a live merge does seem to be vetoing a Delete closure on the currently-open AfD of the source article, since it states 'XXX must not be deleted so long as YYY exists.' I see that not everyone records the source of any merged material in the target article, though the {{oldafdfull}} template, when recording a Merge closure and when placed on the Talk page of the redirect, may have some benefit in reminding people of the source of the merged content. Of course, by its nature an Oldafdfull is only placed *after* the AfD is over, so won't be used in a live merge. EdJohnston (talk) 06:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those three AfDs are the only ones linked directly from the discussion. I have reordered them by date of linking:
The link to Jimmy Patterson was pivotal, as it linked to other AfDs involving a specific user performing similar edits and probably caused a change in the tone of the discussion. Having reviewed the early discussion, I believe that while several users demonstrated familiarity with the topic, they were unaware of these specific AfDs prior to them being linked.
Moonriddengirl created {{Copied}} during Help talk:Merging#Best practice, a discussion that I started. There are rarely-used workarounds to the "must not be deleted" wording, covered by WP:Merge and delete and WP:Copying within Wikipedia. {{afd-merged-from}} is the normal AfD merge template, but it does not have any of that wording, probably because it is placed by a bot as soon as the page is redirected.
I used the affectation "a specific user" above. The discussion was clearly affected by his involvement (as topic and participant), but (in my opinion) it was not tainted.
As I review the tally of !votes, by those who picked one of the numbered options from the RfC, I get the following:
Option 1: 2 votes
Option 2: 0 votes
Option 3: 2 votes
Option 4: 17 votes
Option 5: 2 votes
This leaves out a few people whose votes straddled some of the options. I'll have to summarize them in the text. If when we are all done, this numerical count seems to accurately capture the sense of the discussion, do you think that would imply that the wording of WP:GD should be changed? Your question in the RfC was only "When is it appropriate to merge content from an article at AfD?" The Guide currently says Use extreme caution when live-merging. That sounds a lot like the wording of Option 4, almost never, with very limited exceptions. I do perceive that some people think that alternative attribution schemes are possible (copying the history), and that might lead to another caveat tacked on the end. It will take another reading to see if consensus thinks that the alternate attributions are credible. EdJohnston (talk) 06:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the "extreme caution" wording is in line with Option 4. If Option 4 is determined to be the consensus view, it would support the current strong wording of the Guide's recommendation. I think that alternate attribution was insufficiently discussed and that the input of knowledgeable (in copyright and attribution) editors should be sought before mentioning it and thus encouraging its use. The method descriptions in WP:Merge and delete note that they are rarely used; I know of only one recent non-transwiki use: WT:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force#Merge and delete, which may not have been implemented. Although the existing caveat "unless there is a strong case for merge under the deletion policy" was not covered exactly at WT:AFD, I think it would be consistent to remove it as a loophole – if the case is truly strong, it will be convincing and reflected in the AfD's consensus – after discussion at WT:Guide to deletion#You may edit the article during the discussion. Flatscan (talk) 04:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I've seen your latest there, I think the draft is ready for general review. I am planning to post a link at WP:AN and WT:AFD on Monday, asking for any further comments. I still don't see any mandate for changing the 'live-merge' paragraph in WP:GD, since the present language sounds very much like the wording of Option 4. (There were two comments on my Talk page about that, one by Chaser and another by Jack Merridew, but I didn't see enough reason for a change based on what people said in the discussion). EdJohnston (talk) 05:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, I'll keep watching. The lack of wording discussion was a failure of the framing of the question; while inconvenient, a separate discussion is probably appropriate. Flatscan (talk) 05:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, all edits after TheFarix's removal on 8 January 2009 should be unaffected. If anything differs from what I expect, I'll follow up with the admin who performs the histpurge. Flatscan (talk) 05:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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 | contribs08:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your interest. I investigated the situation further and can give you specific information. WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Reusing deleted material describes why deleted material cannot be reused; consider the contrapositive: since the content was already copied, its source article cannot be deleted. Removal of the copied content has no effect, as it is still visible in the page history. This applies to most cases, but the relevant content here has a less common history, as it was merged back into its original article.
Do nothing, leaving the Asa Seeley redirect in article space.
Remove the page from article space using a method suggested by WP:Merge and delete. Rarely used.
Attribute that sentence to Sebwite using a dummy edit summary and delete the redirect. Considering that it is one sentence edited once by one editor, I think this is acceptable, but I would need to check with an editor experienced with copyright. Articles usually have more editors, making this method difficult in most cases.
A NobodyMy talk is wishing you a MerryChristmas! 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.
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. Ikip18:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the compliment. I'm not sure that I will be able to help with all the proposals, but I'll start with WP:Article Incubator and WP:Userfication:
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. Ikip16:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
your welcome :) phase two is up, more of the same, sigh...
Please review this "projectification" proposal, to see if it is something the community would support. Harsh constructive criticism is very welcome! Better now than later. I am looking to remedy any potential objections by the community. Your opinion is especially vital as someone who tends to have different views than me.
Some quick thoughts: Incubation-style proposals saw lukewarm reception. A new process requires implementation and creates complexity that both sides distrust. Concerns over implementation could be addressed by finding a "sponsor" – someone technically proficient who commits to implementing the dedicated page space, the tools, and the bot. Flatscan (talk) 05:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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 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.
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.
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.
Hi. Thanks for making those updates to SK. I've been meaning to discuss with you whether they should be left or reverted. The rename/scope change seems to have stalled again after some brief interest last month (User talk:DGG#Articles for Discussion, when I created the tag). Flatscan (talk) 04:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Renaming AfD itself is going to be a developer or bot request, isn't it? It's probably got what, 50,000 subpages? More? Gigs (talk) 20:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's better than having a guideline page sit in limbo indefinitely. Apologies for leading you into making those updates in the first place. Flatscan (talk) 04:05, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Picture of the day photo credits
Hi, thanks for noticing. I skimmed that discussion after seeing it on {{cent}}, and I read through it just now. Unfortunately, my experience is limited to text, which is treated differently from images and other media by the Terms of Use (pointed out by agr). I will take another look, but I may not have any insights. Flatscan (talk) 04:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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 Merridew21:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which as I said in the AFD, and in the edit summary itself even, was taken with permission from the one editor over there who wrote this. You can even see where I asked them on their talk page. [6] The Wikia has the same rules as the Wikipedia, as far as you can export and import things from one to the other. Click the special pages link at the side, and choose export. Administrators can also use the import feature. DreamFocus22:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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:
Dream Focus includes full URL in edit summary (diff)
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)[reply]
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. :| TelCoNaSpVe :|23:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I have neither the background nor the time to help with that. Parsing templates and aggregating data is one of my interests, but I've never completed a working bot. Flatscan (talk) 04:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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-C08:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've thought about this: namespaces and log entries are best left as ints/strings because the number of these is wiki dependent. MER-C02:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
Wikipedia:Reviewing. I note that you do page patrolling and revert inappropriate edits, so this is something that would fit in with your activity. Your judgement is good, so you can be trusted to review pages. Let me know if you'd like to have this.
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)[reply]
Hi, SilkTork. Thanks for reviewing and expressing trust in my edits. I use the undo link rarely, and I worry about misclicking a rollback link. I've hidden them using my personal CSS. I'm aware that any admin may revoke this unused right. I've looked at the reviewer right, but I haven't thought about requesting it. I am not planning to apply for adminship at this time. Thanks again and happy editing. Flatscan (talk) 04:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The new title would push the focus towards scientific studies and papers, which is generally good, if sources are available. When I worked on the article a few years ago, I came away with the impression that most studies received funding from interested parties – Taser International or its critics, with results that conveniently matched, creating difficulties in maintaining WP:NPOV. An article shouldn't be full of dueling "Study A found X, but Study B found Y." Flatscan (talk) 04:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I apologize if I upset or confused you. If I had found the closures faulty, I would have asked for a self-revert. You are correct that both DRVs were pretty SNOWy, and I probably would not have contacted you if you had not also participated. Participating then closing is a no-no for most formal discussions on Wikipedia and is listed explicitly, such as at WP:Non-admin closure#Inappropriate closures. In my opinion, AfDs and DRVs that are obvious enough to NAC are easily closed by a regular. DRVs are usually closed by admins, probably due to the smaller workload compared to AfD. Regarding DRV closing statements, WP:Deletion review#Closing reviews has brief instructions. If you wish to continue closing DRVs, I won't bother you again. Flatscan (talk) 04:41, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a bother. I just want to be told if I am doing something that is inherrently incorrect or am otherwise possibly causing damage. I am simply being bold, in a sense, by trying new things. As I commented in reply to Cunard, deletion review is something I am finding I am quite interested in, something I was not fully aware existed until recently when my Nail Yakupov article was suggested to go that way for survival after he won the Emms Family Award, and I started becoming active in discussions from that day onwards. I thought I'd lose interest after a few like with other areas, but I kept on going, and over today (the 23rd so to speak, I'm not in bed yet) I commented in "List of sources about claims that Vojsava Kastrioti was Slav" where I quoted to the apparent author that he is asking for a deletion of a bibliography to be overturned. I later found my comment somewhat humorous and actually edited my user page to link to the diff.
In any case, I've also asked Cunard's opinion on the matter. While I wouldn't feel comfortable doing most closing activity right now, it definitely is something I would like to learn going forward; as I said to Cunard at my page, DRV is the procedural section that so far has the most interest to me and kept my attention. I participate in very few AfDs (I participated at the one for Hash oil so far today), but I am very vocal in the DRVs, maybe because there are much fewer of them. I did also get to close my first AfD weeks ago when Born This Way became a blinding snowstorm. So I definitely want to learn. =) CycloneGU (talk) 07:09, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've gotten good feedback from Cunard, better than what I have given. I tried to follow the AfD daily logs, but I gave up within a few days. DRV is much more manageable. Flatscan (talk) 04:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I decided today (well, yesterday) to start following some of the AfD discussions as a participant (either voting or neutral) and have expanded my watchlist a bit as a result. Regarding following the logs, I do agree that is virtually impossible; if I were to become active there as a closer (obviously still using the hypothetical "if"), I'd probably look at the AfDs that are about a week old but not yet closed one way or the other (there is a page that lists which ones remain from each date, and MathBot undid my edit removing a closed one recently XD) and make calls on those. In fact, when I think I'm ready to trial close with guidance, I'd probably start with those. With that said, however, right now, if I come across something that appears to be a snowstorm at AfD - at least where the snow is a Keep since I can't delete pages - are those ones I can still close without issue provided I didn't participate? CycloneGU (talk) 20:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm generally against non-admin closures, so consider my advice in that light. An important point is to avoid mistaking a lopsided vote count as SNOW – there are many little things that can lead to discounted recommendations, such as WP:Canvassing or heavy reliance on WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. You can close SNOW AfDs, but I advise against it. You may want an AfD regular as a mentor if you're interested in closing. Flatscan (talk) 04:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all right with that idea. I actually saw a withdrawn nomination and decided that was a rare case, regardless of forum, where a non-admin closure would be warranted so decided to do it just to save the trouble of waiting for an admin. later. I did get Cunard's opinion immediately afterwards, which led to advice on things to watch out for in cases of other withdrawn nominations (i.e. lopsided vote/opinion that nomination would be approved for instance). I appreciated it, and am certainly not going to be freely closing any AfD/DRV I can; even if it's snowing, I will consider whether there might be some objection to a close, not to mention cases like, if there's 7 keeps and 1 delete, there's a possibility of the delete opinion being the stronger policy-based one and I won't touch it. At least 99% of these things aren't my business until it comes time to get experienced help learning how to read consensus and trying some closes on the sidelines (i.e. not doing them myself or by myself).
I truthfully wish I could close the ContentCreatorZ discussion started yesterday, it's an obvious delete scenario (most requesting speedy), but I participated NEway (as one of the Speedy votes). Might I take this opportunity to ask if you mind doing a speedy close there assuming it's warranted and you feel it correct? My only request whether you do or not: take a moment to chuckle at the talk page and at the "product" list that includes, and I quote, "jargon". =D CycloneGU (talk) 04:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That got a chuckle out of me. Regarding a speedy deletion, the A7 was properly declined because the claim of being the first registered company of its type is a claim of importance, a lower bar than WP:Notability. It is very promotional, but I think (not completely sure) that the metric for G11 is unsalvageably so, and removing the promotional and unencyclopedic content would leave a stub, not nothing. Flatscan (talk) 04:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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).
Thanks. There is an odd caching glitch that may delay the visible effects of suppression now that you've tagged the page. I've seen it take up to a week or more. Purging local cache didn't solve it either. It appears to be possibly related to the reindexing algorithm used by the search engine crawler. I don't remember what the bug-fix number is for the problem but I did want to let you set appropriate expectations. Unprintworthy will cause it to drop off ... eventually. Thanks again. Rossami(talk)14:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.
I watchlisted the page and kept an eye on it. Your {{Copied}} at Talk:Sirius Satellite Radio channel history looks good. If I gave the impression that I would help with the content, I apologize – I'm only vaguely aware that Sirius and XM merged some time ago. My intended meaning of "assist" was tagging and such. Flatscan (talk) 04:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And you are the one person who said the merger shouldn't take place, so thanks for that. Maybe it shouldn't, because there's a lot of cofusing stuff to resolve even though so many of the channels are the same in both lists.Vchimpanzee· talk·contributions·17:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean this comment? I meant that moving and merging made more sense than creating a third page to hold the merged list. I don't really have an opinion on merging the lists, but removing redundancy is a reasonable justification. Flatscan (talk) 04:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Jonny Quest
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.
err sorry I checked it again and I think I misread {{Split}}, that's not for talk pages. {{Copied}} is just fine for all the merging, copying and spliting notice on talk, forget my confused garrulity about {{Split}}. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 15:29, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 groovilyTalk to me06:05, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Yes, I intend to file, but I plan to take my time drafting it. I will not post notifications, so your best bet is to watch the SPI subpage. Flatscan (talk) 05:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking. I don't think we understood each other yet. All 5 articles are essentially one, split only because of size. I am concerned that the introduction section is the same in 4 of them without any marking of "copied material". And what should be done about the relation to the main (FA) article? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:45, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your patience – I am not familiar with this topic area at all, so you will probably need to lead me along. I saw that the 4 sub-articles that you created had basically the same Introduction section, but it looked like you took only a small amount from the main article and wrote the rest by yourself, from scratch. Is that correct, or did I miss something like a collaborative sandbox? I saw you coordinating with other editors at Old revision of User:Brianboulton/Sandbox3, but I didn't see any drafting there. If you were the sole author of the new content, you don't have to give extra attribution to yourself when you reuse it. There is a dependency for the few sentences from the main article, unless you wrote those also. Flatscan (talk) 05:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I wrote those, but don't remember. But as I tried to explain, the 4 articles I wrote are only split off the main article for the reason of size, they are sort of part of it, how can that be shown? The introduction SHOULD say the same - for the text and music parts covered by the 4. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are multiple links between the articles, particularly the {{Main}} links at the top of the relevant sections. I don't know of any other tags. If you are concerned about an editor modifying one introduction section and missing the others, you could hide comments with <!-- -->. Flatscan (talk) 05:26, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind. Your example was easy enough to trace back! I will make the fixes! Thank you. I may have aquestion for you shortly, if I am unable to figure it out.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:15, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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 Talk04:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I haven't worked on those articles in a while, so my information may be out of date. If the probes are fired, they usually puncture the skin. If I remember correctly, Taser#Drive Stun may cause red marks or possibly welts at the contact site. Flatscan (talk) 04:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Just in terms of theoretical ideas, would it be possible to generate a database of mainspace edits including date, title of piece, size of change, and maybe a field in which 1=yes as to whether the piece is a new article start? Is that something that CAN be done? In the RAN case it would be a huge file, of course... I'm not sure that would actually be too valuable for my purposes, but CCI is drowning in the way they run cases. It's like they have 500 volunteers to throw into the fray, when they really have closer to 5, and an IRS auditing system in which they try to examine every receipt going back to the day their target opened their first lemonade stand... One would think they need to have something which can be split up and sorted by date and title. Best, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 05:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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. WilyD09:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, fundamentally, what the licence really requires is that we include a list of authors, and allow people to reuse the content for whatever they like (as long as they relicense the new content under the same licence). As such, the list of authors is really the critical thing, so hiding part of it away from the usual place doesn't sit right with me. The disjointed diffs don't bother me much - they're really only a service for us, typical edit histories are full of disjointed diffs from vandalism, edit wars, whatnot. But I don't think you should worry about my feelings on this, given the guideline says differently (as was presumably created by someone who actually knew what they were talking about). WilyD09:14, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Cut-and-paste-move_repair_holding_pen
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.
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)[reply]
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.
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.
You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.
This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.
The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.
Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.
7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.
To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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.
.jpg)
.jpg)
