User talk:FlashSheridan

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

P.G. Wodehouse[edit]

I thought I knew my Plum, but I've never heard any of his novels being called "buzzer novels", as you did in you Edit Summary. Which ones are those? - DavidWBrooks 20:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

"Buzzer" was a term used by at least one Wodehouse critic (I'm afraid I've forgotten his name) for a class of protagonist: young, male, and overly-confident but good-hearted. My particular favorite is Uneasy Money, but there are many others. FlashSheridan 05:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


List of fictional expletives[edit]

Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors. See Wikipedia:Assume good faith for the guidelines on this.

---

It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Attacking another user back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors and leads to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks!

Davidkevin 06:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


"Of course, there's a difference between assuming good faith and ignoring bad actions."
FlashSheridan 15:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


That's where I failed, because I didn't ignore bad actions.
People like you strike me as why Wikipedia has a bad reputation in some quarters. I've read that book a dozen times, and wrote what I wrote in my entry entirely in good faith based on a reasonable reading in context and some idea if what Heinlein was intending. [citation needed] If you had just rewritten it, fine. But you were compelled to rewrite it further just ninety minutes later, and had to stick in a bad faith jab at me to boot. This kind of Obsessive-Compulsive action drives good writers out of Wikipedia as other editors like you, to paraphrase Heinlein, "pee in it. then like the flavor."
Davidkevin 04:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


Follow-ups to Davidkevin's user page, where there are a number of other disciplinary issues, some of which he has archived. Please also avoid using improper language on my page.FlashSheridan 06:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Stop hand.svg
It seems to me that you are acting in an uncivil manner. Please remain civil and don't resort to making personal attacks or instigate edit wars.
Davidkevin 07:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Re : Deletion of PocketSensei?[edit]

The article has been restored as a contested prod. Take note that the article may still be liable for an article for deletion nomination, so please improve the article to meet Wikipedia's inclusion standards to increase its chances for inclusion. - Mailer Diablo 19:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

BBC Television Shakespeare article[edit]

Thank you for your contributions to this article. I have inserted into the article the section you put onto the "discussion page." This is helpful. If you have any further information on this topic, I would ask that you look in from time to time.--Drboisclair 18:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Spidey 3[edit]

Sorry for my double revert, I don't really have a vendetta against The New Yorker or anything. Lately I think that section has basically gotten overstuffed with every reviewer, and I went to prune it of unspecific comments. Alientraveller 15:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, if Fox News is worthy of inclusion, the New Yorker surely is. If pruning is needed, please remove the former.
FlashSheridan 16:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)



Beowulf[edit]

Information.svg Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Beowulf (2007 film). Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 18:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

What I added was footnoted, and hardly personal, though a later editor removed the references.
FlashSheridan (talk) 05:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


Diefenbaker (wolf)[edit]

Hi. Thank you for speaking up for Diefenbaker (wolf) in the recent deletion proposal. Unfortunately, we failed to secure a Keep and the article has received a Merge/Redirect. I would like to have seen the article kept as I believe it could be further improved in the future by other editors, but I don't think I could make a strong enough case to challenge the decision. I have raised the issue of the merge with the admin as information hasn't actually been merged yet, and am awaiting a reply. Once again, thank you. GalaxyHound (talk) 04:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of Phillips Exeter Academy alumni[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of Phillips Exeter Academy alumni, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Phillips Exeter Academy alumni. Thank you. --BJBot (talk) 04:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Antony Hope[edit]

I noticed that you have edited Anthony Hope. If you are still interested in that article, please have a look at the recent changes I have made. Any additions or clarifications would be most welcome. Thanks! BrainyBabe (talk) 19:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

A quick look at the intro looks good, thanks. I'm afraid I'm no longer actively watching or contributing financially to Wikipedia, given the recent censorship in the name of clean-up, but I wish your endeavor well.
FlashSheridan (talk) 17:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Camelot - Kennedy[edit]

Thanks for your edit on the article, but we need to have the correct citation. If this is from Lerner's book that is cited in the article, we just need the page number. If it is from a different book, we need the title and date of the book. Please either add the citation or send me the info, and I'll be happy to add it for you. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, as I said in my check-in comment, I'm merely following the Alan Jay Lerner article.
— Flash

Wikipedia censorship[edit]

As noted above, I’m no longer actively watching or contributing financially to Wikipedia, given the recent censorship in the name of clean-up. Here’s the latest example:

Barbara Bauer dab Barbara Rylko-Bauer[edit]

I removed the disambiguation again from the article. Red links are for when there is need for an article, since this article was deleted and salted there is obviously consensus that there should be no article. If consensus changes and an article gets created the disambiguation can of course be added again. Garion96 (talk) 19:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


> there is obviously consensus that there should be no article

Is this a joke? I accept that there may be a valid but secret reason for the censorship of the original article. There may even have been a valid but secret reason for the censorship of the discussion of the reason for the censorship. Perhaps there was some justification for censoring my mention of the censorship in the disambiguation page. But given the press coverage of the controversy, and the similarity in names, there is obviously a need for disambiguation. And saying that the invisible consensus is obvious is laughable, whether intentionally or not.

FlashSheridan (talk) 02:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)



Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holy Hell (film)[edit]

Hi - I would like you to read the article Holy Hell (film) and then put your opinion on the absurd proposal to delete Holy Hell (film) -- please vote on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holy Hell (film), if you would. Thank you... Geĸrίtzl (talk)



List of tools for static code analysis[edit]

I want to comment on this edit. Please proceed carefully. Make good arguments on Talk pages and try to go forward from there. If you restore a link to a specific product to an article, even if it is open source, you may not be treated sympathetically. I don't think this kind of edit summary will win any friends: Correct ill-informed cleanup; LLVM is infrastructure. EdJohnston (talk) 17:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I long ago won the argument on that talk page against editors who don’t know the subject and don’t obey even their own made-up rules, much less Wikipedia’s.
FlashSheridan (talk) 06:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


I started a new section on Talk:List of tools for static code analysis‎ to discuss your reversions. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

(Moved to proper section FlashSheridan (talk) 16:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC). Please be careful at least when you’re editing my page.)

Edit summary "Falsify of claim"[edit]

In the edit summary to your post on the merger proposal (here) you suggest that there was a falsification of the claim of unanimous consensus. This problem began with the posting of the nomination of the incorrect talk page. An editor nominated the UCLA International Human Rights Law Program for merger with the UCLA School of Law page, but posted the nomination on the UCLA talk page, instead of on the UCLA School of Law talk page where it belonged. I stepped in to change the merger proposal, to knock out a merge to UCLA as a candidate, whereafter the separate topic of merger to UCLA Law School would have ideally taken place.

You disagreed with merging it to UCLA and the others agreed with merging it to UCLA Law School, which uniformly add up to "disagree with merging to UCLA." That clarified, I want to make sure that you have no bone to pick with me over this portion of the evolution. I am not aware of a subsequent merger proposal to UCLA School of Law; it seems to merely have been done based on majority consensus from the previous malformed merger proposal (malformed because placed on the wrong talk page).  –Newportm (talkcontribs) 15:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

In other words, you’re not claiming that there was unanimous consensus, which was my point.
FlashSheridan (talk) 21:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I think you refer to the merger; I was not responsible for it. I was responsible for clarifying the consensus on "merge to UCLA" only. Please help me understand; isn't the distinction similar to three people voting for "glass half-empty," and three others voting for "glass half-full," which two options can reasonably said are equivalent?  –Newportm (talkcontribs) 17:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Facebook and the E Book[edit]

Hello. You deleted this reference with the statement, "the E Book, the Academy’s rulebook, was distinct from the Facebook." This is partially correct. In earlier years, the book of photographs of PEA students sported a red cover that said, 'E Photo Address Book.' It was referred to by PEA students as the 'E Book.' Only later did the book of rules and such come to be called 'the E Book.' I'm not sure what year that changed. I'm looking right now at a photograph of the original 'E Photo Address Book,' but I can't upload it here as it's a friend's. I'll try to find a photograph (or cite) for the relevant book. Incidentally, I agree with your change to a 'classics diploma.' Regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 10:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

You are invited to join Stanford's WikiProject![edit]

View of Hoover Tower from Main Quad.

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject Stanford University, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Stanford University. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks!

ralphamale (talk) 22:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 9[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Foundation Trilogy (BBC Radio), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Cain (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:19, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 5[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lynne Featherstone, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Mulholland (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 00:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

July 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to California's 17th congressional district may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • [[File:NewCA17th1.png|thumb|California's 17th Congressional District]] {{{{Cleanup|reason=missing NewCA17th1.png}}

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, BracketBot; now fixed.
FlashSheridan (talk) 15:16, 11 July 2013 (UTC)