Jump to content

User talk:Firefly322

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Firefly322 (talk | contribs) at 04:24, 20 November 2009 (→Blocked: +). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This user has been loved!


A Barnstar?

For little 'ol me? Wow. Thank you. I will display it proudly. ô¿ô 16:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was my pleasure to award it. --Firefly322 (talk) 17:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re your note

I appreciate your request, but unfortunately I can't do that. Apart from a very few exceptions mainly involving WP:BLPs and obvious vandalism, articles are always protected on the current version. The protection I applied is simply to prevent further edit-warring and does not mean I condone any version of the contents; those are for its editors to thrash out either on the talk-page or via dispute resolution. All the best, EyeSerenetalk 19:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Wim E. Crusio

I have nominated Wim E. Crusio, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wim E. Crusio. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Crusio (talk) 14:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia dying?

Interesting link. Did you follow through to the article being commented on?

http://asc-parc.blogspot.com/2009/07/part-1-slowing-growth-of-wikipedia-some.html

In summary, yes, I think the level of activity has dropped, but not for the reasons the blogger gives. In the beginning, everything needed to be written from scratch. By now, there shouldn't be any major topics that are not reasonably well covered. There will always be more to be done, but not on the scale that there once was.

Cheers, Ben Aveling 21:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What did you mean?

I'm honestly puzzled by your response at the Pokemon DRV. Literally, I have no idea why those things would remotely be related. Care to explain your reasoning in a bit more detail? Jclemens (talk) 05:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think you are quite nice and have the best of intentions. But I think your niceness and involvement in several issues has had unintentional side-effects. --Firefly322 (talk) 15:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the compliment, but I'm still mystified by the alleged cause and effect involved in that decision. Yes, I do engage on a number of topics as an editor and perform a number of roles as an administrator... but none of them bear on Pokemon, which is why I considered myself sufficiently uninvolved to close that AfD. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 17:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commented on you

I just commented on you briefly at User talk:Matheuler. I do not think I said anything to bias the discussion of otherwise inappropriate, but please let me know or remove the relevant text if you disagree. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

September 2009

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
If you continue to make personal attacks on other people as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Visual Detection of Imaginary Roots in a Parabola, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. At more than one specific editor still counts. Verbal chat 18:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation

Let me be the first person to congratulate you on Visual Detection of Imaginary Roots in a Parabola being kept. Unless there is a particular administrator who leans a certain way who closes the AfD, it should be kept.

I am very impressed with your efforts to keep this article. I think I speak for all of the squadron when I say we would be honored to have you be a part of the squadron.

WikiProject Fisheries and Fishing
WikiProject Fisheries and Fishing
Hello, Firefly322.
You have been invited to join the Article Rescue Squadron, a collaborative effort to rescue articles from deletion if they can be improved through regular editing.
For more information, please visit the project page, where you can >> join << and help rescue articles tagged for deletion and rescue. Ikip (talk) 20:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An article you commented on in the past is at AfD

I noticed that you commented in a past AfD discussion of the article Nicholas Beale. After being deleted then, it has been reposted and is now back at AfD again, so you might be interested in commenting again (but you are under no obligation to). Thank you, rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 21:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A very warm welcome!

It is really heartening to see new names in our growing organization. Can I ask how you heard about ARS? I will look forward to working with you! Check out the little tool below which currently lists all the articles currently tagged for rescue.

Here to help articles tagged for rescue!

Hi, Firefly322, welcome to the Article Rescue Squadron! We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying and rescuing articles that have been tagged for deletion. Every day hundreds of articles are deleted, many rightfully so. But many concern notable subjects and are poorly written, ergo fixable and should not be deleted. We try to help these articles quickly improve and address the concerns of why they are proposed for deletion. This covers a lot of ground and your help is appreciated!

If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the talk page, and we will be happy to help you.

And once again - Welcome! Ikip (talk) 00:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--Firefly322 (talk) 12:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)==Nicholas Beale== I think the best way of this article having a chance is to take the original deleted version (not this latest unsourced mess) and put it in userspace, and then improve that version. I can do that for you if you wish. Black Kite 05:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

THANK YOU!

Finally someone who has a brain! Neuromancer (talk) 09:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yw. but I'm not so sure it's a brain exactly that makes me think this way. It's more like a lot of silly people who happen to have high-IQ's (higher than mine no doubt) truly believe that these ideas are sources of ignorance that must fought off. They really are suffering from a conspiracy theory mindset. --Firefly322 (talk) 14:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt seriously that their IQs are all that high. Neuromancer (talk) 14:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denialism (2nd nomination)

Hi there, I've had a look and found some better sources, can you revisit this AfD? Tim Vickers (talk) 18:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did. What else is there to say? --Firefly322 (talk) 12:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern University

I saw you created an article about professor Philip Cary.

Are you affiliated with EU?--T1980 (talk) 04:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not affiliated with EU in any way. Which article? Can u link to it? --Firefly322 (talk) 15:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Refactor?

Would you mind refactoring this comment a little? Dismissing my contributions to the sourcing is fine - AfD is a good place to discuss whether what coverage there is occurs in usable sources. I would, however, prefer that you avoid terms such as pro-denialist camp, both in general and particularly in reference to my editing. Such accusations of bad faith and cabalism detract from the task of building a quality encyclopedia through collegial discourse and editing. I know you are aware of such behavioral norms as WP:NPA and WP:CIV, so please just dial it back a bit. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 20:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to say that you're a bad editor in that you would write lots and lots of silly and obvious POV statements.--Firefly322 (talk) 23:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the barnstar

Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. Thanks for being awesome. --Firefly322 (talk) 04:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

It's evident we have differing opinions, but let's neither of us engage in edit-warring. Agreed? Grsz11 03:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you are an experienced editor enough to be well aware of WP:3RR. I am. Alas, this seems like a redirection away from answering my points on the talk page. Please keep comments there from now on. Thanks. --Firefly322 (talk) 04:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've responded to everything you've ask. Grsz11 04:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great. thanks. look forward to working with you. --Firefly322 (talk) 04:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edits

Hi. I'm concerned that you deleted edits that people should be able to see to evaluate the notability of the article. For now, I'll put the refs/language on the AfD page. But can you do one think in the meantime -- explain why you reverted my chrono move of the litigation to where I believe it belongs (lower down)? Also, we should discuss why you are deleting the material, as I think all or nearly all is appropriate.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had moved the litigation section down one below where it now stands. You moved it up. It is in better chronological order and makes more sense IMHO if it is move down one section again. OK w/you? Also, if you added the Youtube cites, can you pls address them w/Hipo on the article talk page, as he is seeking to delete those footnotes (I wasn't the one who added them)? tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm addressing it now on the talk page. I didn't notice the litigation section move. I'll take a look (probably move it to where u suggest). If I don't remind me and we can talk about it. --Firefly322 (talk) 18:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I noticed that in a recent deletion you deleted the book infor from the body of the article. If you look at WikiProject Books instructions on article structure for non fiction works, they suggest both the template and the information that you just deleted from the body. I'm not sure why, but my guess is that as with most templates, they repeat info in the body of the article (think of every bio template that reflects the date of birth -- invariably also reflected in the body of the article). Make sense?--Epeefleche (talk) 19:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Here's what I understand. Quoting: "A general book article includes:
  1. A brief lead (introduction) to the book and its writers.
  2. A book synopsis.
  3. Information about its publication.
  4. A balanced analysis regarding its reception (abiding by neutral point of view).
  5. Noteworthy citations and sources."
Where does it say that you need to add that info to the body, even if repeated in the box? One of these 5 points? It might I just don't see it. --Firefly322 (talk) 19:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you keep on reading, below it gives greater detail. Under the heading "Intro" it says:

"Infobox (Template:Infobox Book)

  • add into the infobox the first edition and possibly the first paperback edition ISBN, any others would go in ==Release details== section at the end of the article

And then under the heading "Headers":

Release details / Editions / Publication

  • {{cite book}}: Empty citation (help) . ISBN 1234567890. {{cite book}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  • title, author, publisher , year, pages, ISBNs — The Path Between the Seas: The Creation of the Panama Canal, 1870—1914, David McCullough, Simon & Schuster New York 1977 Octavo, pp. 698, ISBN 0671225634, ISBN 0671244094 (Pbk.)—David Hackett Fischer (2004). Washington's Crossing, p. 564, Oxford University Press. ISBN 0195170342.
  • year, country, publisher (ISBN), Pub Date, edition — 1989, UK, Fontana (ISBN 0006165745), Pub Date 9 February 1989, Paperback
  • list the first editions and perhaps the most respected current editions, mention if it is a partial list. Possible order: hardcover, paperback, audio book, e-book....
No problem. Thanks for listening. Do you want to be the one to put it back? (since one of our colleagues has suggested that I was edit warring on that page). Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since you are more expert than I with adding videos, I wanted to make sure you saw this.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NPA

It is inapropriate to accuse others of supporting Sharia or saying that conversations are "disgusting," or comparing people to NAMBLA is never acceptable. Please review WP:NPA and WP:BLP - and follow them. Consider this your final warning. Hipocrite (talk) 21:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was obviously sarcasm, I restored it. --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. "WhenAnwar al-Awlaki wrote warm things about Hasan, he might as well have writen warm things about Nambla."
This BLP talk has gone too far. It enables editors to censor discussion, that is inappropriate and adverse to wikipedia's designation as a free encyclopedia. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Terrible block. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Input requested here. Nathan T 23:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I've blocked you for 55 hours for disruptive editing, for flagrant abuse of BLP. Comparing living individuals in this way is totally unacceptable, and while we normally allow people extra leeway on their user talk pages, this material is defamatory. PeterSymonds (talk) 23:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Firefly322 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

  1. This is my own talk page. I have been accused of edit waring on my own talk page. That seems like WP:wikilawyering to me.
  2. I don't see how I have violated WP:BLP in anyway, since he is sourceablely evil and I have not insisted on keeping it in the redirect discussion page. Just here.
  3. How can one defame someone who thinks the Fort Hood Shooting is justified by God's law?
  4. Also the context of the quote has been removed by blocking admin.
  5. How can my comment on my own talk page WP:DISRUPT wikipedia?
  6. I made fun of Anwar al-Awlaki? What's the big deal?
  7. If unblocked, until there is a consensus one way or the other, I will not restore the comment and will remove the part that remains.
  8. As I told the blocking admin on his talk page, I wish to discuss whether or not the community thinks this talkpage comment is acceptable.

Decline reason:

I am declining this unblock request, specifically because of points 2, 3, and 6, which show a grave lack of understanding of the aims of the project and for the levels of decency required for participation in discussions over living persons. MBisanz talk 00:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I'm not sure what a discussion of whether someone is evil, or how evil, has to do with writing articles. Once it's objected to why not let it go? If you want to discuss the shooting there are other places. But I think there is a principle (not evenly applied) that we don't disparage article subjects whoever they may be. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's a tradition of disparagement on article subjects. Plenty of AFD's are filled with them, especially the ones headed for deletion. This seems in the spirit of Wikipedia not being WP:CENSORED. --Firefly322 (talk) 00:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ChildoMidnight, thanks for sticking up for the facts of the matter on the Incidents page. Considering that you didn't agree with me here, I would have to say it means you're a bigger person than I. I respect that. --Firefly322 (talk) 01:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To say our BLP policies only apply to those we like is against the spirit of WP:NPOV. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 00:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While we're at it, can someone please put up Bert is Evil for deletion?--Epeefleche (talk) 01:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(joking).--Epeefleche (talk) 01:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you see article subjects being disparaged, I suggest informing those involved that their behavior is inappropriate. There is a lot that goes on here that's not constructive, but we should strive to do our best and to aspire to maintain the highest levels of integrity, truth and fairness. Your views on article subjects are perfectly valid, but sharing them may not be helpful to building or improving this encyclopedia. I'm not sure our BLP policy applies to puppets, but I'd be willing to check. There's certainly an argument to be made that puppets are innocent while mass murders and other criminals don't deserve to be treated with any respect. But I think our policies make clear that all human subjects be discussed and treated with dignity and without disparagement. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Remember Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/V.V.L.N.Sastry? I really think that calling this guy "a media talkinghead" was a bad idea (not that my response was any better). Still, in general, I did and would stick up for Sastry, even when I thougt he should be be deleted. --Firefly322 (talk) 02:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Notice that even Wall Street Journal (read what the quote says) has reputation for editors calling each other Nazi's. This too is obviously a strange joke existing even amongst the epitomy of professional editors.--Firefly322 (talk) 02:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Firefly322 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

  1. If unblocked and unless there were a community consensus to do otherwise, I would not restore the comment and will remove the part that remains.
  2. I see that a reviewing admin agrees with the blocking admin. I do and will respect this community feedback.
  3. I didn't immediately realize that an admin was editing my talk page. Had I, I would have not reversed his/her edits since I do understand that as an admin he/she already tends to act on community consensus.
  4. The blocking admin warned me for something else entirely than for making a personal attack on other editors. I was blocked as a preventitive measure since I and another editor were reversing my own talkpage diff's that the admin said were inherently inappropriate. (Though, s/she no doubt looked at my recent edits in deciding what to do and that comment in my edit history looked extra horrible after having had her/his earlier warnings ignored.)
  5. Obviously, I was beyond WP:BOLD and just over-the-top in this situation and the follow-up to the Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion this was taken very badly.
  6. But neither the blocking admin nor I were even discussing reversing that. From the actions s/he interpreted the situation to be one where we on the verge of edit warring over this page.
  7. Also I don't understand someone repeatedly calling this personal attack on other editors. It wasn't. The discussion was already rowdy long before I said anything. I'm sorry for those who honestly interpet it that way, but calling something, which was already water under the bridge, a personal attack again and again against oneself is itself ignoring WP:AGF.

Notes:

  • In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
  • Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=#'''If unblocked and unless there were a community consensus to do otherwise, I would not restore the comment and will remove the part that remains.''' #I see that a reviewing admin agrees with the blocking admin. I do and will respect this community feedback. #I didn't immediately realize that an admin was editing my talk page. Had I, I would have not reversed his/her edits since I do understand that as an admin he/she already tends to act on community consensus. #The blocking admin warned me for something else entirely than for making a personal attack on other editors. I was blocked as a preventitive measure since I and another editor were reversing my own talkpage diff's that the admin said were inherently inappropriate. (Though, s/she no doubt looked at my recent edits in deciding what to do and that comment in my edit history looked extra horrible after having had her/his earlier warnings ignored.) #Obviously, I was beyond [[WP:BOLD]] and just over-the-top in this situation and the follow-up to the Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion this was taken very badly. #But neither the blocking admin nor I were even discussing reversing that. From the actions s/he interpreted the situation to be one where we on the verge of edit warring over this page. #Also I don't understand someone repeatedly calling this personal attack on other editors. It wasn't. The discussion was already rowdy long before I said anything. I'm sorry for those who honestly interpet it that way, but calling something, which was already water under the bridge, a personal attack again and again against oneself is itself ignoring [[WP:AGF]].  |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=#'''If unblocked and unless there were a community consensus to do otherwise, I would not restore the comment and will remove the part that remains.''' #I see that a reviewing admin agrees with the blocking admin. I do and will respect this community feedback. #I didn't immediately realize that an admin was editing my talk page. Had I, I would have not reversed his/her edits since I do understand that as an admin he/she already tends to act on community consensus. #The blocking admin warned me for something else entirely than for making a personal attack on other editors. I was blocked as a preventitive measure since I and another editor were reversing my own talkpage diff's that the admin said were inherently inappropriate. (Though, s/she no doubt looked at my recent edits in deciding what to do and that comment in my edit history looked extra horrible after having had her/his earlier warnings ignored.) #Obviously, I was beyond [[WP:BOLD]] and just over-the-top in this situation and the follow-up to the Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion this was taken very badly. #But neither the blocking admin nor I were even discussing reversing that. From the actions s/he interpreted the situation to be one where we on the verge of edit warring over this page. #Also I don't understand someone repeatedly calling this personal attack on other editors. It wasn't. The discussion was already rowdy long before I said anything. I'm sorry for those who honestly interpet it that way, but calling something, which was already water under the bridge, a personal attack again and again against oneself is itself ignoring [[WP:AGF]].  |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=#'''If unblocked and unless there were a community consensus to do otherwise, I would not restore the comment and will remove the part that remains.''' #I see that a reviewing admin agrees with the blocking admin. I do and will respect this community feedback. #I didn't immediately realize that an admin was editing my talk page. Had I, I would have not reversed his/her edits since I do understand that as an admin he/she already tends to act on community consensus. #The blocking admin warned me for something else entirely than for making a personal attack on other editors. I was blocked as a preventitive measure since I and another editor were reversing my own talkpage diff's that the admin said were inherently inappropriate. (Though, s/she no doubt looked at my recent edits in deciding what to do and that comment in my edit history looked extra horrible after having had her/his earlier warnings ignored.) #Obviously, I was beyond [[WP:BOLD]] and just over-the-top in this situation and the follow-up to the Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion this was taken very badly. #But neither the blocking admin nor I were even discussing reversing that. From the actions s/he interpreted the situation to be one where we on the verge of edit warring over this page. #Also I don't understand someone repeatedly calling this personal attack on other editors. It wasn't. The discussion was already rowdy long before I said anything. I'm sorry for those who honestly interpet it that way, but calling something, which was already water under the bridge, a personal attack again and again against oneself is itself ignoring [[WP:AGF]].  |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Firefly322&oldid=326871051"