User talk:Atfyfe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

You may be interested in this issue[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Philosophy_topics#Ayn_Rand byelf2007 (talk) 19 February 2012

Modern philosophy[edit]

Your edit summary here [1] is rather unfathomable. Could you explain better the reason for your revert? I was swapping the links so that you can't get to philosophy, by creating a loop. Why was it a problem? Rcsprinter (natter) @ 11:14, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Theory of Art[edit]

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give Theory of Art a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Theory of Art (album). This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. Tassedethe (talk) 00:53, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

If you wish to start a new article on the theory of art please note the correct title would be Theory of art. There is no article there at the moment. Tassedethe (talk)
It's a pity you decided to ignore my comment. Per WP:BRD I have reverted your move. If you feel Theory of art should be at Theory of Art the please open a proper WP:RM. Tassedethe (talk) 02:26, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
I did not see your second comment, but I agree that Theory of art seems like the correct location for the entry. -Atfyfe (talk) 02:31, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Hourglass device on the AFRM[edit]

Hello, Atfyfe. I noticed you created the original JPG images of the ribbons with hourglass devices (bronze, silver, gold) for the AFRM article, which can be seen here. If you have the opportunity and you're interested in spending the time doing it, would you mind making an image for the 40 year award? To complete the set, we'd need one showing a gold and bronze hourglass mounted on the ribbon next to each other, with gold on the left and bronze on the right. Any interest? Thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 12:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Files missing description details[edit]

Dear uploader: The media files you uploaded as:

are missing a description and/or other details on their image description pages. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the images, and they will be more informative to readers.

If the information is not provided, the images may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 08:58, 14 April 2013 (UTC)



You have new message/s You have a new message at CsDix's talk page.

Pragmatism[edit]

I am getting the impression you did not quite understand me about the edit on the pragmatism article. When I wrote that the first sentence's purpose was to "open" the article I was referring to how the lead seaction is supposed to give a short overview of the topic, establishing what the article and topic is about (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section). As I've stated, the sentence you removed attempted to do exactly this, even if it executed the job poorly.

You appear to be knowledgeable of what pragmatism is, given how you seemingly know what it is not. As such - given that you're the one that deemed the previous definition to be nonsense and removed it - I'll ask of you to try create a new, better one. The lead section already states that pragmatism is a branch of philosophy and some characteristics of it, but beyond that, it does not state what pragmatism means. Please give it a try, for the sake of Wikipedia. Sky380 (talk) 15:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:AFRM with M Device.jpg[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:AFRM with M Device.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:25, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Pluralism[edit]

Firstly it is not a "Terrible' entry, it fairly accurately follows the entry in the Oxford Companion to Philosophy. The essence of the problem is very simple. The ramifications of it extend over multiple articles and do not need to be partially included here. Secondly material like 'See the article on ... and make up your own mind' is unencyclopedic language. T----Snowded TALK 06:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC)hirdly, stringing together quotations from one source without any reference that makes it relevant to the subject is original research or synthesis. Finally Brews has been trying to introduce this material on multiple articles and when other editors from the Philosophy pages have engaged he has never had support. You are just encouraging a deeply disruptive editor. I left some of his material rather than just reverting it and if necessary will go through again and do something similar. You are however breaking WP:BRD, better to discuss the improvements you think should happen on the talk page. More than happy to co-operate in that. Other editors by the way (including me in the early days) have tried to find a way to channel Brews energy but sooner or later his refusal to ever compromise becomes problematic and people give up ----Snowded TALK 06:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

The article on pluralism has a TERRIBLE lacking on any discussion on modes of being. Which is exactly the lacking that Brews is responding to. I don't like a good amount of his additions, but I have a much bigger problem with the utter failure in this entry that he is trying to correct. It is good to know about problem with him on other articles, but he is entirely correct about the neglectful failures on this entry. I cannot devote much time to this debate, but if you want my support then you need to be more open to someone (i.e. Brews) who is trying to fix a problem with this entry. The entry should CLEARLY deal with ontological category differences/debates between things like numbers/fictional objects/atoms/space/time/etc. and the fact that the entry doesn't is why I call the entry 'Terrible' (which it is). - Atfyfe (talk) 06:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Agree on that section, the problem is he starts well, but that adds in large amount of material without thinking. I started off with Brews with a very similar attitude to you. However what then happened is that he will not compromise on anything - witness the multiple RfCs and forum shopping on policy. Given you are happy to be involved in this I am making a series of small changes, each of which is explained in the edit summary. I suspect the response will be to reinstate all of his material (included the extended quotations) but I could be wrong ----Snowded TALK 08:22, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
You should also note one other experienced editor (on philosophy pages) is also involved, see here ----Snowded TALK 08:50, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation[edit]

Your upload of File:3acrmotto.JPG or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 11:13, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Another one of your uploads, File:BranchCords.JPG, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:07, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Another one of your uploads, File:Branchlogo.JPG, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:04, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Another one of your uploads, File:CavalrySpurs.JPG, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Another one of your uploads, File:Combatcavalrybadge.gif, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 15:23, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Another one of your uploads, File:Combatcavhat.gif, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 15:25, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Another one of your uploads, File:Combatarmorbadge.gif, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 15:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Another one of your uploads, File:Combatartillerybadge.gif, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 15:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Another one of your uploads, File:Combatengineerbadge.gif, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 15:05, 20 May 2014 (UTC)





speaker monkey[edit]

Just deleted a whole slew of these as G-3. Well, 3 of them. If this is some arcane non vandalistic redirect thing, as I now suspect, please let me know and I'll restore them. Dlohcierekim 08:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:US infantry sidebar[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:US infantry sidebar 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 11:46, 17 March 2014 (UTC)