generic {{talkheader}}:
- I'll take a look at it when I get a chance. Thanks. I appreciate more eyes on this situation :-) - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 22:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't change links to point to a disambiguation page. Wikilinks should go directly to an article. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 07:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Then the article (in this case Triple Goddess) should cover what it was linked to cover. The problem is that the article has been changed, from covering the concept of a triple goddess (i.e. triple goddesses in general) to covering only the Neopagan/Wiccan female deity. As a result, links from Demeter, Frigg, Dea Matrona, etc., became inappropriately linked. The proper fix would be to restore the original topic of "Triple Goddess"; unfortunately, that's stalemated. In the meantime, no page covered triple goddesses generally. The disambiguation page is an attempt to fill that gap, at least until the stalemate is resolved, by listing the "Triple Goddess" article along with the "Triple goddesses" section of Triple deities. I'd be happy for a better solution; in the meantime, this seems the best available. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 08:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it's not. In fact, that disambig page shouldn't exist at all - disambigs are for cases when there are three or more articles, not merely two. Please review the guidelines at WP:Disambiguation. If you continue to change links to point to the disambig page, I will put it up for deletion and resolve the issue that way. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 17:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Triple deities for one page; then the content of Triple Goddess belongs on two separate pages. One article on the overall concept including Robert Graves's archetype; another on the Neopagan/Wiccan deity. Articles like Demeter were linked there to find Graves's ideas. Unfortunately Wicca has usurped that page for itself, making such links inappropriate, and leaving no page on Graves's archetype outside Neopaganism/Wicca. This leaves the disambig page referencing: (1) Triple deities; (2) the book The White Goddess and (3) its author Robert Graves; (4) The Triple Goddess. By my count, that's three references, one of them to two articles. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 19:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You're missing the point, which is that wikilinks should not direct readers to a disambig page. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 19:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Then the article page that the links were pointing to should be restored to cover the topic it covered when the links were created, without the new limitation to (usurpation by) the Wiccan deity. Right now the "disambig page" is the only one doing that, hence the re-linking. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 20:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ever hear the phrase "two wrongs don't make a right?" If you have problems with the content of specific articles, deal with it in those articles or create a new article to cover the more generalized topic. Don't compound the problem by trying to bypass it in violation of WP guidelines. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 20:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- «create a new article to cover the more generalized topic.» The disambig page does that by reference, and at present is the only page that does. If you want to help fix Triple Goddess, please do; but first see the problem at Talk:Triple Goddess. Or, if you're not interested in fixing problems, then kindly let those who are do. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 20:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (See further at Talk:Demeter#"Triple Goddess" link and these changes by 98.248.33.198.) — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 03:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Sizzle Flambé! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking  or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Redtigerxyz Talk 14:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Getting started
|
|
|
Getting help
|
|
|
Policies and guidelines
|
|
|
The community
|
|
Writing articles
|
|
|
Miscellaneous
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Sizzle, since the edits have been flying fast and furious at Triple Goddess, I just wanted to make sure that you're aware of the three-revert rule. I have no idea whether you've come close to breaking it or not, but it's a good thing to be aware of nonetheless. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Sizzle. Sorry I can't help with your technical question about the display font, as I am an ignoramus in such matters. I work in Word on a Mac; I can easily switch back and forth from my standard keyboard to Greek Polytonic when I'm taking notes, and then I just paste into Wikipedia. So my diacriticals always display in my contributions when I view them, and I didn't know there might be additional considerations for others. BTW, you are only the latest in a long line of potential Triple Goddess contributors to confront this obstacle, as I'm sure you realize. If you check the archive, I gave a list of Latin poets who use a triple goddess epithet. The talk page and the edit history say it all: there's one editor who consistently outlasts anybody else. I had these notes because I was contemplating how to do an 'end run' by constructing an article limited to Greek and Latin sources. Good luck. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Triple Goddess. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring and make any comments you think appropriate. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See the result of this 3RR case at WP:AN3#User:Sizzle Flambé reported by User:Akhilleus (Result: No vio). Though I did not think that anyone deserved to be sanctioned, I was concerned about the rapid-fire pace of your editing and this edit, which made it sound like you were the only authority on whether the article needed to be tagged. If the article doesn't settle down soon, either full protection or a 1RR rule might be considered. It would be preferable if the participants would use an RfC, but apparently that's never been done on this article. EdJohnston (talk) 13:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, you're the second person to spot the lensman reference (OrangeMike won the balloon)...and yes, transit can also refer to transportation, but I grew up with London Transport, not London Transit. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings,
A little disappointed that my contribution on the sovereign citizen article was reverted because it wasn't "constructive" enough. I am well versed in Common Law and associated with folk who were a part of the sovereign movement. Most were decent, law-abiding americans and I was honored to have been around such erudite legal minds. Truth is stranger than fiction they say and when I began my research into the Uniform Commercial Code, I was astonished at how commercial paper instruments were used. I was warned that this is a lonely road and many will call you names instead of point by point refutation. Thank God we have websites and Youtube. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingsbench7 (talk • contribs) 12:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. 72.72.48.218 (talk) 20:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- An anon-IP blanks sourced text as its very first edit. When that's restored, the anon-IP (as its second edit) reverts and (as its third edit) posts an "edit war" warning on the restorer's page. Why do I get the impression this anon-IP is effectively a WP:SOCK? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 20:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks!, I wasn't sure about that one! Dreadstar ☥ 23:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have already raised the matter of the odd result here. If you wish to pursue the matter further the proper venue would be at WP:Deletion Review. Artw (talk) 21:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Should you take Human Disguise to DRV please remember that taking as calm and neutral approach as possible often yields the best results.
- Also please note that I have userfied the article and am considering canibalising it for use in other articles. To avoid needless duplication I will refrain from doing so until any review has taken place. It is possible I will actually kick off the discussion myself, but TBH I am not sure I need that kind of time sink right now.
- Cheers, Artw (talk) 21:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is now at deletion review: deletion review. Artw (talk) 22:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care If it gets restored and someone wants me to return the links, you can post on my talk. It's irrelevant to me. Please post on my talk if you need to respond. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Best poem
Template:Uw-rikrolblock made me laugh. I'd barnstar, but it looks like the perfect star for the occasion is already here. Keep up the good work! -- Soap Talk/Contributions 03:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now I must get a BARN to put them on...
and to raise lots and lots of MOUSIES to munch upon
while I am stationed on this planet.... — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 03:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note, because there's been some dramah! with clerks being asked to get tough elsewhere - what you're being asked to do is to take out all the sections of your evidence that argue that this interpretation or that interpretation of the content is correct, as the Arbs won't look at content disputes. That's more or less all of your evidence the way it is written. If you can create a narrative that shows that Ottava's posts are not the problem that (for example) I said that they were [1], that's what you need to post.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since Byron was British, British terminology should be used. Naval personnel are in the Armed Forces, but (except Royal Marines) are not military. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to clutter up the log with personal stuff but do wish to point out that there is a world of difference between Do you often make assertions without checking them and these assertions you've made do not appear to be well supported by facts. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 03:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In reference to the tail end of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#Lord Byron:
- Assertion: "One does not refer to Astronaut Armstrong or Quarterback Favre."
- Response: "26,200 Ghits for 'Astronaut Armstrong'; 30,300 Ghits for 'Quarterback Favre'."
- Renewed assertion: "Astronaut Armstrong is not a commonly used moniker for the astronaut. Nor is Abraham Lincoln commonly called President of the United States."
- Response: more specific examples of the former; 1,530,000 Ghits on the latter.
RegentsPark, since these assertions have just been shown to be factually incorrect, how do you justify having made them? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 03:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, youth! I was talking above about the way you phrased your comment, not about specific arguments re the Lord Byron redirect. However, if you think that the statements above are phrased equivalently in meaning and import, no worries. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 04:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I find the insinuation that being born and raised in the southern US makes one "distrustful of Jews" to be ignorant, insulting, and last but not least, wrong. Perhaps you've confused the southern US with the West Bank. Auntie E. 04:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The idea that all Southerners should be banned as bigots, I brought up as an unfair extrapolation (reductio ad absurdum). That such materials circulate in the South, so that people who live there are generally exposed to them, is true; for a long time, the late J. B. Stoner's Thunderbolt was one extreme example; the colloquialism "to jew" may be less harsh but is much further spread — as Jimmy Swaggart remarked, "Don't ever bargain with Jesus. He's a Jew." If you yourself have escaped seeing or hearing any such thing, congratulations. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 05:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I like the little icons in your sig and have decided to use them in mine. I know they're not copyrighted by you or anything, which is why I'm not asking your permission. I just thought it courteous to let you know that I like them and am now using them. Thanks for the idea. 
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 08:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Grins. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 10:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FTR, what I hoped you had learned is what the term "unsubstantiated" meant here. Of course, you seem like a learned person; I'm sure you do. Tan | 39 20:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The accusation was "substantiated" later; but it had been unsubstantiated when offered as an ad hominem rationale for "keep" !voting. Right? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 21:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, that could be the case - and in that scenario, you and I are on the same page. After I posted the "bizarre" comment on the SPI page, I took a closer look - and admitted in the ANI thread that there was a point to be had - namely, that the !keep votes based on unproven allegations were not very appropriate. I told the poster as such on the related ANI thread and here. Of course, most of the issue is moot now that the SPI resulted in a positive CU. I think Ktr101 won't use these sorts of arguments in the future. Apparently I misunderstood the intent behind your initial post at that page - as it was on the SPI page, I was relating it to that, not to one of the... well, never mind. Peace. Tan | 39 21:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the tips Sizzle - I'm new to web code and Wikipedia, it's a steep learning curve! Hermione p (talk) 13:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Uw-rikrolblock has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Nuclear Lunch Detected Hungry? 06:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the talk page message should suffice (I added the tag to err on the side of caution), but I think we should ask for more opinions first.RadManCF (talk) 22:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Uw-rikrolblock, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a copy from Rick Astley's song Never Gonna Give You Up, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.
If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under allowance license, then you should do one of the following:
It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Uw-rikrolblock saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.
Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing!
As I noted at the TfD, I think this is a licensing problem, so I have listed it at suspected copyright violations.
I did notice your comments saying that you think it is not a copyvio. The notice above is the default notice, I appreciate that it does not properly conform to the problem on the template. Feel free to delete the cookiecutter CPV notice from your talk page, since I know you are informed already.
76.66.192.35 (talk) 08:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
n/t —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.55.204.136 (talk) 11:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth: It's not necessary to start at the first level; rather, you should choose one based on how vicious the vandalism is Wikipedia:WikiProject_user_warnings/Help:Introduction#Using_warnings. Plus there's the do not template mindset, which I actually think works best. Regards. Gerardw (talk) 02:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I want to say thank you for the help in replying to Dbachmann about ephebophilia, and for the help at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. And not that I need to state this, because it seems that you like to weigh in on outside matters, but feel free to weigh in on matters regarding my editing of things or about me any time. Flyer22 (talk) 00:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]
Thanks for your help with the Bitlisi article move. I have another silly question. I have started an article in my user space and now I want to move it to public space, how on earth I do it? Thanks again.--Murat (talk) 14:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (Answered at User talk:Hudavendigar, with WP:Move and brief summary.) — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 16:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.
A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;
- gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and
You are receiving this message because you contributed to Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC and have not participated at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/RfC or been directly informed this RfC has opened. Please accept my apologies if you have been informed of and/or participated in the RfC already.
This RfC has opened and your comments are welcome and encouraged. Please visit Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/RfC. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Other people4 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. -DePiep (talk) 12:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your comments here and would like to inform you that there is a new move request for the article. Would you care to comment here? Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 08:37, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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) 14:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Sonyclassics title has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:58, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Uw-bizlist has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Bsherr (talk) 15:05, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
