User talk:Sizzle Flambé
|This is Sizzle Flambé's talk page, where you can send messages and comments to Sizzle Flambé.|
- 1 Triple Goddess
- 2 Welcome from WikiProject Hinduism
- 3 WP:3RR
- 4 iota
- 5 October 2009
- 6 Sic transit gloria lensman
- 7 Sovereign Citizen Reverts
- 8 3RR at Hecate
- 9 Z's
- 10 The Resilient Barnstar
- 11 Human Disguise
- 12 Human disguise links
- 13 Barnstar
- 14 And another Barnstar!
- 15 Aw, thanks, you folks...
- 16 er, Sizz.....
- 17 Byron
- 18 assertions
- 19 Your comment on D4D community ban discussion
- 20 Signature
- 21 For the record
- 22 Hotlinking HERMIONE
- 23 Nomination for deletion of Template:Uw-rikrolblock
- 24 HERMIONE COI
- 25 Copyright problem: Uw-rikrolblock
- 26 Thanks for fixing My Life Without Me!
- 27 user warnings
- 28 Thanks
- 29 Thanks and one more favor to ask
- 30 Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal
- 31 RfC on Community de-adminship
- 32 Nomination for deletion of Template:Other people4
- 33 Care to comment?
- 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)
- 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)
- 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. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 17:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
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. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 20:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- «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)
- (See further at Talk:Demeter#"Triple Goddess" link and these changes by 188.8.131.52.) — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 03:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Welcome from WikiProject Hinduism
|Welcome to WikiProject Hinduism|
Notice board — contains the latest Hinduism-related announcements
Portal — a portal linking to key Hinduism-related articles, images, and categories
For more links, go to the project's navigation template.
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)
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)
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)
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)
- 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)
Sic transit gloria lensman
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)
Sovereign Citizen Reverts
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)
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. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 20:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- 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)
The Resilient Barnstar
|The Resilient Barnstar|
|I am proud to award you this barnstar for your continued excellent work improving Human disguise. Such efforts greatly inprove the project. Good job! Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)|
- 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)
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)
|The Helping Hand Barnstar|
|Thanks for improving my userspace without even being asked! ThemFromSpace 21:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)|
And another Barnstar!
|The Barnstar of Good Humor|
|I hereby award this barnstar to Sizzle Flambé for saving Human disguise with constructive edits to that fine article along with resolute, well reasoned and above all LOLish contributions to the AfD debate! FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)|
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)
Aw, thanks, you folks...
Now I must get a BARN to put them on...
and to raise lots and lots of MOUSIES to munch upon
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 , that's what you need to post.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
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)
- 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.
Your comment on D4D community ban discussion
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)
- 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)
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.
- 08:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
For the record
- 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)
- 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)
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)
Copyright problem: Uw-rikrolblock
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:
- If you have permission from the author to release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Uw-rikrolblock and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure you quote the exact page name, Uw-rikrolblock, in your email. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
- If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0, or that the material is released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Uw-rikrolblock with a link to where we can find that note.
- If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Uw-rikrolblock. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.
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.
Thanks for fixing My Life Without Me!
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)
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)
Thanks and one more favor to ask
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)
- (Answered at User talk:Hudavendigar, with WP:Move and brief summary.) — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 16:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal
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
- ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
RfC on Community de-adminship
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.
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)