User talk:FlightTime/Archive 26

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
← Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 →


Dealing with Arlington TX Article

Archived discussions

The following page 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 page.

Hey FlightTime. I just was looking at the Arlington, Texas article, and noticed that you were dealing with User:Fands578. You certainly were going by policy, but I'm a bit bothered by how the whole thing panned out, and think you might have come off as a bit WP:BITEy. It's far from obvious to a newcomer that the COI guidelines are as strict as they are now (if I'm reading them right, I will admit I'm a bit out of date). Especially in this context where the user (while in some sense paid to make the edits he made) was making purely factually correct edits without making any color commentary or puffery, and was up front about their COI, I think it's broadly worthwhile to extend a hand in good faith rather than templating. I can see as a non-experienced user it's quite strange that these factual edits would be reverted even given their COI, and providing some context can really help bridge the divide. I've blocked the sock account the user was using, but the fact that it got to that is pretty suboptimal. NativeForeigner Talk 05:20, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Received. - FlightTime (open channel) 12:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A message from AlternativeMusicEdits19

Hey about the SR-71 Edit, Two of the songs of the album are Nu-Metal. That's why I added the Genre to album article. Just listen to "Truth" and "Tomorrow" they're nu metal tracks. BTW None of the tracks are Punk Rock. The Tracks "She was Dead" and "Lucky" are pop-punk song written in a four chord pattern. AlternativeMusicEdits19 (talk) 21:42, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@AlternativeMusicEdits19: regardless, you need reliable sources and consensus for genre changes, and AllMusic is not a reliable source. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
AlternativeMusicEdits19 says I did not Use allmusic as source for the genre, I simply put genre on the article based on the charcteristics of the two songs.
OK, my error, you still need sources and consensus. Happy editing, - FlightTime (open channel) 21:59, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A message from Yoda956

Why are you changing all my edits? Yoda956 (talk) 15:49, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Yoda956: Because they are all unsourced and none of them have consensus, which is required for all genre changes. Same thing you were blocked for. - FlightTime (open channel) 15:53, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BN post

You can't have meant a neutral vote. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:55, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dweller: Well, yes I did, maybe I just don't under stand how a neutral !vote is seen. One good reason I'm not a crat. You asked for non-crat comments, well, there one is :P - FlightTime (open channel) 16:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Dweller: Maybe an "empty oppose" would make more sense? - FlightTime (open channel) 16:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A message from Dman54321

Hello @Flighttime I read I was to remove the deletion message so I did. I'm new but hope not to distrupt any correct ways of doing work on here. I'm open to follow correct ways. Can you help me? @FlightTime: Dman54321 (talk) 19:37, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Dman54321 (talk) 19:37, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dman54321: Where exactly did you read this ? - FlightTime (open channel) 20:00, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@FlightTime: On my talkpage Dman54321 (talk) 20:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Dman54321: It meant remove it from your article, you were removing it from Wikipedia. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:22, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A message from SomePersona

Hello!

I have just noticed that you reversed my previous edit in the Signals article, and I would like to discuss why I believe the content needs to be added as well as state any other edits that I feel need to be made to the same article as well. I understand that you want to keep Wikipedia free of clutter, and I would appreciate discussing this with you.


SomePersona (talk) 03:14, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SomePersona: It's not a clutter issue. You made some major changes to an high profile music article and you should see what the community feels about these changes first. - FlightTime (open channel) 03:21, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The changes in question added well-sourced information about the album's reception, as noted at various music review websites. This seems a legitimate edit. WP:CONSENSUS is not to be wielded as an axe to prevent any progress at Wikipedia. Consensus is needed over controversial issues, but not every edit requires consensus. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:41, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiDan61: Please remember to voice your opinion in the discussion. Again, please honor my request - FlightTime (open channel) 14:29, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiDan61: We can have a discussion anywhere you want, just not on my talk, my request was four months ago, why are you here today ? If you want to talk about me requesting consensus, wouldn't the article's talk be a good place ? - FlightTime (open channel) 16:17, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Linkin Park reverted edit?

Hey what's good, I see you reverted my edit on the List of Linkin Park members page in good faith. Although I'm glad you do realize it was done in good faith, why was it reverted? The claims I added also fitted with the source that was provided (which was The Guardian article). It states his sexual abuse, and how he remembered his eventful childhood during a visit to his mother's house, almost beginning to cry. Chester goes on to say that it's no wonder that he took drugs; With literally all of this pointing to depression, which Chester actually struggled with for much of his life. So I don't know how my claim is wrong, can you clarify? Thanks. USMCLP (talk) 13:33, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@USMCLP: I'm merely asking for you to source your claim, BLP area article's require higher standards for Verifiability. - FlightTime (open channel) 15:23, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So I have to submit a definitive source for a claim that pretty much has it's own source already? Lmao well okay. Rules are rules. Thanks for clarifying. USMCLP (talk) 21:53, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@USMCLP: The source that were there did not support that claim, so yes, a claim of sexual abuse of another person listed in an Encyclopedia need stated proof. - FlightTime (open channel) 00:46, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, clarify again. The claim you're referring to is that these events led to his depression and addiction right? Because if you're saying that the sexual abuse claim I put there is wrong, then you're wrong yourself because Source 18, which is The Guardian article, directly states that. USMCLP (talk) 02:28, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@USMCLP: Where do I say, "you edit" is wrong ? - FlightTime (open channel) 02:38, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is source 18 I don't see any conformation. - FlightTime (open channel) 02:42, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no I'm not saying you're saying I'm wrong, but I'm just trying to prove the source of my claim. And lol it's my fault I've confused sources with references, I'm referring to Reference 18, which is the article that supports my claim. Here's the link, hope that settles up the confusion. Scroll down a little: https://www.theguardian.com/music/2011/jul/07/linkin-park-moscow-interview USMCLP (talk) 02:59, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@USMCLP: Great, that's fine. If you would of had that included with your edit the first time, we wouldn't be here. - FlightTime (open channel) 03:08, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lmao yeah whatever. USMCLP (talk) 07:32, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@USMCLP: You really except a reader search the whole page and read every reference to see if that information is correct ?" Why don't you review Help:Referencing for beginners and put that reference next to your edit just like I've been trying to get through your "lmao whatever" head. - FlightTime (open channel) 12:49, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Violation

The "Cutting back" was meant to say I'll cease and desist for the time being. Thanks for reminding me about this issue. Supreme Dragon (talk) 15:32, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Re: AiC generalizing intro genre which was changed by a random account recently

This section is about the Alice in Chains article. - FlightTime (open channel) 18:59, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]


It's to generalize the intro genre. Rock has been there since the very beginning. Check the history. Recently it was changed to alternative metal by a random account without any discussion or citation.--Oderinnn (talk) 07:55, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to --Oderinnn (talk) 11:00, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Oderinnn: Thank you, I have gone through the page history and rock has been the norm. Looks like it got messed up in a IP genre war. Thanks for your note :) - FlightTime (open channel) 22:43, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]


My edit of Howie Mandel's page

Any further comments, discussion or questions, should be made on the articles talk page

The following discussion/section 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/section.

Excuse me, but when you adopt children, they are legally your children! If you get a divorce after you adopt children, there will be a custody battle and the non custodian parent (usually) pays the custodial parent child support. Therefore, I believe that my edit was correct and should stand. It wasn't opinion at all, but fact. Paje music aficionado (talk) 02:35, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm still new and I don't know if I can edit after I submit a "talk." There's a typo I didn't notice. It should say "non custodial." Autocorrect victim. Paje music aficionado (talk) 02:40, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Paje music aficionado: I removed it due to you not including a reliable reference to support the change you made, I did not remove your edit because I thought it was incorrect. We have strict guidelines on articles about living people. - FlightTime (open channel) 02:49, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Really? It says he adopted his nephews on the bottom of the page! It was already there! Paje music aficionado (talk) 03:01, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Under personal: He met his wife Terry in high school and married her in 1980. They have three children: daughters Jackie and Riley, and son Alex. He also has two adopted nephews, Austin and Zack Mandel Paje music aficionado (talk) 03:07, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Paje music aficionado: The information you refer to was also unsourced and has been removed. Please review the links I posted above, especially about Biographies of living persons. - FlightTime (open channel) 03:22, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I replied with two sources that confirm he did indeed adopt his two nephews, but for some reason, it didn't appear. Paje music aficionado (talk) 03:28, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you aren't even going to bother checking facts, rather than just deleting, I don't think I will be contributing further. It took me two seconds to Google it and find out that he adopted his nephews. Paje music aficionado (talk) 03:30, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to overstep my boundaries here, but in my humble opinion, instead of deleting the part someone else wrote about him adopting his nephews (because it was unsourced) you could've just researched it (as I did) to confirm its authenticity and left it. Paje music aficionado (talk) 03:39, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Paje music aficionado: Then it should be easy to find a reliable source and add it with the changes you want to make. You are making a claim and the onus to provide support for your claims. - FlightTime (open channel) 03:41, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, I changed a number, so I wasn't required (according to your guidlines) to provide a source. The person who originally wrote about him adopting his nephews was obligated to and did not. I guess I will go back and edit and put that back in and source it myself. Or should I allow the original writer the opportunity to do that themself? I am really not trying to be difficult. I honestly think my suggestion about you verifying and adding a source, rather than just deleting, makes perfect sense. Paje music aficionado (talk) 03:46, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand at all.

I tried having a reasonable discussion with you about my edit being removed, and I feel I was met with dictator- like responses. When I gave, what I felt were good suggestions and ask a question concerning how I should handle the information being added back, I was ignored. I think I will be deleting my account now. Have fun ruling. over your little kingdom. Goodbye Paje music aficionado (talk) 20:31, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Paje music aficionado: Please take your argument to the article talk page. Were're done here. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:14, 29 July 2017 (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 page.


User talk:82.132.246.172

Can you keep an eye of user talk page if he/she blanking? 183.171.182.176 (talk) 17:27, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relax.

Foxx and Page's friendship is well-known, and is mentioned on both of their pages. Disruptive? Hardly. DetroitWheels74 (talk) 13:13, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DetroitWheels74: Then source it and don't write it like it's your personal opinions. - FlightTime (open channel) 13:15, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think you need to un-clench, my friend. (It can't be as bad as all that, can it?) DetroitWheels74 (talk) 13:51, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Alone again (Naturally)

Hello, don't see any reason, why you undid my revision on "Alone again (naturally)". The version does exist, I quoted a print source. So, I don't See any reason, why you deleted my revision and undid it. Still would like to know why you delete my revision?! All best! Theatermann (talk) 00:22, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Theatermann: You need to seek consensus for inclusion, just because something is true and sourceable doesn't make it notable. Please start a discussion on the article's talk page and see if the community wants it included. - FlightTime (open channel) 01:22, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]


User 4TheWynne is back at it again

It seems he's persistent on changing the AiC lead by discarding the warning note again and again and again. And he's quite clever at it. As sneaky as his previous attempt. --Oderinnn (talk) 07:06, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Oderinnn: Yeah, 4TheWynne (IMO) has had a WP:OWN attitude/issues since he showed up, then he'll back off and in a couple days go around to the back door and restore his preferred version in hopes no one will notice. I'm frankly tired of dealing with his trickery, so someone else can carry on, I just don't have the energy anymore. 4TheWynne if you're here to comment, please don't, I'd just rather you stay away from my talk from now on, happy editing. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:40, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]


A message from Djfunkfunk

Please seek help from another user or the help desk, it's obvious I'm not getting through to you. Cheers!

The following discussion/section 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/section.

@FlightTime:But then you should also give your justified reason why you are disputing my additions!

@FlightTime: I noticed you also reverted my contribution on the Purple Rain (album) page, by stating that I need to seek consensus on the article talk page. But the content was not discussed by anybody. So why then would you want me to follow the procedure Wikipedia:Consensus#Through_discussion to gain consensus when Wikipedia:Consensus#Through_editing would suffice since there was nobody disputing my contribution???

@Djfunkfunk: What? your changes need to be discussed, that's why I removed them, it's easy to conclude that if an edit is removed that means it's disputed. Again good luck with your discussions. - FlightTime (open channel) 00:04, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@FlightTime: Hello, you asked me to take my proposed changes to the article Prince (musician) to the article talk page using Twinkle. I have no idea how to do that. I enabled Twinkle but what then? I can choose from CSD XFD, etc. Which one to choose? And why this sudden procedure? I have made several improvements to articles over the years on Wiki (and quite a few on Prince) and always by making changes in the article. ~According to Wikipedia: this is the most common way to do so! I have looked on the Prince talk page and it states: "Prince (musician) has been listed as a level-4 vital article in People. If you can improve it, please do." I also don't see a lot af activity on the talk page. What if I put my request there and nobody answers in 10 days? Why can't I get a response that pursues the content of my changes instead of a procedural response? My changes are an improvement! I'm a bit frustrated so if you can advise me what to do - with or without Twinkle - I would be very grateful. DJ FunkFunk 17:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Djfunkfunk: You need to have a discussion to gain consensus for the changes you wish to make, the process is explained here. Good luck, - FlightTime (open channel) 17:41, 13 August 2017 (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 page.


A message from WildRose13

Discussion closed

The following discussion/section 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/section.


WildRose13 (talk) 21:55, 13 August 2017 (UTC) What is meant by consensus is needed? Do you mean I need to get a consensus to request edit for clear writing? If so, obviously that's not going to happen; if not, please explain.[reply]

Also, why do caps bother you so much? It's commonly used in journalism communications. Are you just intolerant, or do you have a legitimate reason?

Anyway, thanks for the hard work in putting together the page.

@WildRose13: See WP:Consensus and all caps is not common at Wikipedia. Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel) 22:04, 13 August 2017 (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 page.


Yowza

Hi FT. When I saw the "angle" of your talk page this was my first reaction. Then I remembered that every fight in this version of Batman took place at various versions of the same. Thanks for bringing a smile to my Sunday. It was much needed. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 17:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MarnetteD: LOL. You're very welcome for the smile and I'm sorry about your head . - FlightTime (open channel) 17:57, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
HeeHee. MarnetteD|Talk 17:59, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]


A message from ICAgemstone

Hi Flight Time, sorry for any hassle... I am an employee of the ICA and I was just trying to update the links of Wiki's gemstone articles that already have a link to our website as an external link. This is because we are updating it and have new URLs. Is this a problem or COI? Should I do this differently? Should I send somebody the list of new URLs? Or just leave the broken links? Or do a re-direct? Thank you for your feedback, no harm intended. Hope we can still let Wiki readers link to ICA's information. Cecilia ICAgemstone (talk) 16:10, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ICAgemstone: Please review Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Username policy - FlightTime (open channel) 16:18, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]


List of electronic cigarette brands

@QuackGuru: Why are you leaving warning templates on my talk page ?

I did not leave you a warning. I left a note on your talk page. You wrote "External links in article body". They are not in the body. Refs are required. QuackGuru (talk) 23:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@QuackGuru: Those were not references they were external links, you might want to review Help:referencing for beginners. - FlightTime (open channel) 23:49, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
These are refs. They were bare refs that were not yet formatted like the others. The others that were formatted you did not delete. You deleted the ones that were not formatted. QuackGuru (talk) 23:51, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I rest my case. Please be a little more careful with those templates. - FlightTime (open channel) 23:53, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary

Subject closed, move on

The following discussion/section 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/section.

Those were all references you deleted, but your edit summary suggested they were external links. I have read Help:referencing for beginners. The references were used to verify each entry. Please read WP:ELDUP. "Links to these source sites are not "external links" for the purposes of this guideline, and should not normally be duplicated in an external links section." Each reference was placed after each entry. Do you agree you won't delete the references again to verify each entry? Please see WP:V policy. QuackGuru (talk) 13:29, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The links I removed were not formatted as references at the time I removed them, get over it, replace them as references if you want. Subject closed, move on. - FlightTime (open channel) 13:58, 17 August 2017 (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 page.

A message from Ghan210

Hi, Curious to know what I did wrong with an edit to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Calling_Occupants_of_Interplanetary_Craft&action=history as you reverted it shortly after? I was adding a further song usage reference as had already been done in the line above. Ghan210 (talk) 01:38, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ghan210: Well, two things, 1). External links are not placed in the article's body. 2). Not notable, however, you can seek consensus on the article's talk page. - FlightTime (open channel) 01:51, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A message from LADLAKLALLAR1102

https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/6295/when-a-word-ends-in-s-or-x-do-you-add-s-or-just-an When did people add to 's to names ending in s ? LADLAKLALLAR1102 (talk) 05:48, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@LADLAKLALLAR1102: No, sorry I don't, however you should be able to find an explanation here Apostrophe or you can ask this question at the help desk. Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel) 06:09, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Who discography

Can you change the RIAA certification of Who's Next in The Who discography page from 3x platinum to 4x platinum and in the the Who's Next page from 3x platinum to 4x platinum[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.99.13.163 (talk) 19:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.greasylake.org/the-circuit/index.php?/topic/131086-the-who-usa-album-sales/
Well, no. Your reference is a website that allows anyone to join and post information, which is not a reliable source. If you disagree you are of course free to make another edit request on the article talk page. Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel) 19:44, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Not to be too rude but I was only following up on past experience and trying to add in a missing credit to Michael Dorn's name since I used to watch the series Martial Law on CBS and Spike TV a long time ago which I confirmed Dorn's involvement since I was also watching Star Trek. Dorn only did a one-episode appearance portraying a corrupt councilman trying to gain control of a football team for himself. I do understand that since the episode aired in January 8 2000, there aren't really any good sources anymore and I am not trying to start an edit war despite my distaste for Wikipedia's rules. You could either got the DVD or watch the episode online are the only real options left besides using TV.com and IMDB, which I admit is often the issue when it comes to using sources for things produced so long ago people could barely remember. -2601:1C2:4E00:BB1:B005:7074:5B1:915F (talk) 19:13, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Grisham

Thank you for the suggestion, it is the sanest thing I have heard all day. I appreciate it and will do it.Earl E. Smith (talk) 19:43, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]


A message from Wikipageedittor099

You left a message on my talk page to say to stop changing genres without consensus, when that wasn't what I did. I reverted a revision that was a genre change without reasoning. So i was helping, It wasn't an opinion, I was reverting vandalism. ~// This is an edit by The Edit King 👑 \\~ 20:13, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikipageedittor099: Ok, then please review why we should use edit summaries. Thank you, - FlightTime (open channel) 20:32, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Then when

With 90% of its text removed, when will this page be considered standard and unnecessary to have maintenance templates? There is already a disclosure of connected contribution on the talk page, is that not enough? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArtFer1 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ArtFer1: You're still editing the article. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:13, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thats completely contextual, I stopped editing over 2 weeks. It was untouched for two weeks, had 90% of its text removed and it still has the template for non-neutral text and disclosing connected contribution.

You just seem to targeting connected contributors and their contributions. A lot of the text I put in this article is seen in similar hotels articles, yet they remain there, and much of the content of wikipedia is written by paid contributors but they just dont disclose that information.

You will not be impeding connected contribution by heavily editing out every information on the page, you´re only causing future connected conntributors to not disclose the information at all and just do as they please.

Do you not show comprehension and tolerance to connected contributions at all? You´re really only hurting your own community, you and I both know you´re not actually following the spirit of things here.

We should try to find a way to concede both ways, neutrally, not just through the concession of connected contributors. @FlightTime: 

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArtFer1 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lord of the Rings (film series)

You quoted my statement "every single film poster, filmmaking credits on DVDs, and movie information/guide on television" has nothing to do with Wikipedia. However, I was using that as a reference. It seems that the casting order on the Lord of the Rings (film series) page is aimed to correspond to the very things I mentioned. I mention them because it does not correspond accurately, which is what Wikipedia aims to do.

A.L.


75.142.100.7 (talk) 18:01, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss on article's talk page, not here. - FlightTime (open channel) 18:07, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Instruments

Fair enough. Still doesn't explain my point about inconsistency. Why are several artists listed with instruments no one ever knew they played (i.e. Liam Gallagher and Ian Brown like I mentioned, plus countless others) without sources? Yet when I tried to do it with one group's members, I get blocked? User talk: Stt13 Stt13 (talk) 10:34, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Stt13: Yeah, I don't know how to explain it, but many artist have instruments listed even if they've never touched it, an example I can give is, having drums listed in Elvis Presley or Michael Jackson infobox is ridiculous, yes, maybe they've sat at a kit once, twice in their career, but..... anyway thanks for your understanding. Happy editing, - FlightTime (open channel) 15:19, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A message from R.F. Groot

Why did you undo my revision to The Damned ? I added a citation to the source on which I based the edit... R.F. Groot (talk) 19:38, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature

The "open channel" part of your signature is way too bright. I checked it using a color contrast ratio gadget, and the result is that it is almost unreadable. The number was 1.4; it should be at least 4.5. —MRD2014 Talk • Edits • Help! 01:15, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. - FlightTime (open channel) 13:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Answer me in your old talk page. I sent you a message and you ignored it

@FlightTime:

@ArtFer1: You're still editing the article, so when an uninvolved editor determines it's no longer an issue, they can remove the template, end of story. - FlightTime (open channel) 14:02, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes sure, end of story, still does not explain some of the behaviour witnessed or some of the issues I mentioned, but I have noticed that furthuring this conversation would only escalate the situation rather than becoming a neutral exchange. Thank you for your time.

@FlightTime:


A message from Statik N

I noticed you warned Strangeguy91 about his genre warring edits. He is still doing it but on different articles: the grunge, post-grunge, Sixteen Stone and Razorblade Suitcase articles. After being blocked before for the edits he made, he continues to make these edits, ignoring warnings from me, you, and others, and even removing sources, with his edit summaries saying "feels more right" or "better like this". Statik N (talk) 22:26, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A message from Folkhistorian

Hey. Why do you keep deleting my edits to Newport Folk wikipage? I'm an über fan and this page is majorly out of date.

I added this to sustainability: "The festival has made efforts in being green-friendly, teaming with many groups to do so over the years. They partner with Bike Newport and Spindrift to provide free bike valets to festival attendees – 13% of all festival goers biked to Fort Adams in 2017. Spindrift also underwrites all volunteers to help recycling and composting efforts onsite – resulting in over 2.7 tons of recycling and 2.2 tons of composting in 2017. They also work with Klean Kanteen to provide free water stations – over 6,700 gallons of water resulting in the avoidance of over 72,000 plastic water bottles from ending up in landfills and the ocean in 2017."

That si directly from their recent facebook posts about their 2017 greening efforts. What you have their is inaccurate and out of date.

Please advise.


Folkhistorian (talk) 00:19, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Purple Rain (album)

It appears Djfunkfunk has gone ahead and added his changes to Purple Rain (album) without actually getting consensus. Ss112 02:59, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ss112: Then revert it, this isn't the principal's office. - FlightTime (open channel) 14:49, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, okay? There was no need for the rude comment. I was informing you because I thought you would want to revert it as you told him to seek consensus. Ss112 14:55, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ss112: Sorry, didn't mean to be rude. I hardly keep track of specific users over a lenth of time, that's more of an admin activity. - FlightTime (open channel) 15:07, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Page mover granted

Hello, FlightTime. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, and move subpages when moving the parent page(s).

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! — xaosflux Talk 17:02, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Xaosflux: Thank you, I will be careful. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:36, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A message from Golta

Golta (talk) 02:00, 10 September 2017 (UTC)Hello FlightTime. Thank you for your message. The reason I didn't add a reference was that the quotation was part of an already cited material. Please check page 29 of this source(already cited) to find the quote I had added: https://www.scribd.com/doc/35129788/Casey-Affleck-Motion[reply]

I do request that you undo the revision, please. Thank you. (Golta (talk) 02:04, 10 September 2017 (UTC))Golta[reply]
@Golta: Our readers do not know to "look elswhere" for references to verify a claim. Please include a <ref name="" /> with your claim. - FlightTime (open channel) 02:06, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@FlightTime: [1] What I meant was that it was already referenced in the same paragraph. But I will add that. Thanks.

References

  1. ^ https://www.scribd.com/doc/35129788/Casey-Affleck-Motion

Hi FlightTime. I was wondering why you reverted my edit. One part of the edit "after she left the project" is actually incorrect information(date of the quoted email: March 2009, Date of leaving project: April 2009). The other edit is part of the email exchange and balances both sides. It is important in terms of how the plaintiff had behaved before resigning. This is an important issue and I think the addition was correctly cited and fair. Thank you! --Golta (talk) 02:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)Golta[reply]

@Golta: I already gave my reason for my revert in the edit summary. - FlightTime (open channel) 02:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you're busy but can you respond to what I wrote here, please? Part of my edit was to correct an incorrect piece of information. It's easily verifiable. The other, in my opinion, is not trivia at all. The argument presented against the plaintiff is that she had never complained about work environment before. My addition, which was cited, suggested that she had. I hope you don't mind me messaging you again, but the current version is not correct and neutral. Do you mind if I edit it in another way? Thank you. --Golta (talk) 02:44, 12 September 2017 (UTC)Golta[reply]

@Golta: I reverted your edit as non-notable trivia. You can start a discussion on the articles talk page and see if you can gain consensus. - FlightTime (open channel) 03:00, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. Can I edit the incorrect info? I will do what you suggested about the other part. I'm sorry about the back and forth and appreciate the response. --Golta (talk) 03:09, 12 September 2017 (UTC)Golta[reply]


The Doobie Brothers

Please explain why this, this, this, this and this is not a violation of the three revert rule and why I do not have a cast-iron policy based reason to block you? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:16, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The user was blocked by Oshwah for consistently adding unsourced date changes after numerous warnings to stop doing so. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:21, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTTHEM Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


message

Hi my friend, you warned me that I may be blocked for put some information in Malaimagen without source. The links that I put aren't considered sources? I create the page, so obviously im not a vandal, as you can see...--Sarmiento 007 (talk) 03:22, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarmiento 007: I have no idea what edit you're referring to. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:25, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It was this one. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:17, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The page 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 page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FlightTime/Archive_26&oldid=1149837154"