User talk:Flatscan

Welcome to Wikipedia!!!

Hello Flatscan! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. You may also push the signature button located above the edit window. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! -- Kukini 08:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC) Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects Getting your info out there Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy Getting more Wikipedia rules Policy Library Getting Help New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions Getting along Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Wikipedians Conflict resolution Getting technical Cleaning up vandalism Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

Taser and Taser controversy articles

Last week, after hearing several recent news stories about Taser deaths and other incidents, I looked up "Taser" on Wikipedia, only to find that there was no article titled "Taser." Rather there was a section under "Electroshock Weapon" about Taser to which Taser redirected. Given the high profile nature of the Taser, I went and created a separate article called "Taser" by copying all the information from the Electroshock Weapon page, and adding various sections on the controversial aspects of the weapon, including some notable Taser deaths. Unbeknownst to me at the time, there was already an article called "Taser controversy." When I discovered it, I found both articles had some overlapping information, some of that was contradictory (not because sources were inaccurate, but because some were out of date). I promptly suggested merging these articles.

Fact is, if I entered "Taser" looking for information on the topic, so would many others, therefore, it makes sense to have an article titled "Taser" as the basic source of information on Tasers.

Here are some ideas as to solving this problem:

1. Merge "Taser controversy" into "Taser" and clean up
2. Make the "Taser" article's focus about what the Taser is, with a "main article" or "see also" tag directing readers to the "Taser controversy" article for information about the controversy
3. If the list of notable Taser deaths grows to be quite long, make that into a separate article.

Which do you think is the best approach? Shaliya waya 14:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Copied message to Talk:Taser#Suggested merge with Taser controversy at 01:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC) and left a note for Shaliya waya a few minutes later

Taser content

Hi, Flatscan. I'm not accepting your unilateral decision to quarantine Taser from justified critical content ("controversial" or otherwise.) Please review your action or prepare to face full scrutiny and criticism yourself. See my discussion proposal. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 07:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I will discuss at Talk:Taser. Flatscan (talk) 04:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Study

Comments from Flatscan originally made at and copied from User talk:Canyouhearmenow#Reverted edit to Study (historical revision)

Hi, you reverted an edit I made to Study. I had reverted edits that I felt were unencyclopedic and informal. My revision is identical to a revision that has been maintained since July 2007. Would you mind taking another look? Thanks.

By the way, your header link points to junebug52. Flatscan (talk) 03:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello Flatscan. Yes, I did make an edit reversal to the study article. [1] That statement is not encyclopedic and it is POV. Now, if you could cite it where the statement has been used by a third source, then it can stay in the article. Otherwise, I feel the edit was appropriate and edit should remain. When we are writing these things, we have to make sure that we are doing it in a non POV fashion and that everything we put in has a cite or source. Thank you for contacting me and bringing it to my attention. I hope you will enjoy your time here at wikipedia. Canyouhearmenow 12:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Unfortunately, I do not follow your reasoning, in particular, why my edit fails WP:NPOV. The Study article is a disambiguation page, and it seems odd to require citations on brief descriptions. I was not able to find any relevant guidance at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). The revision isn't really mine — as I noted, it is a reversion to a long-standing previous revision. I can see that the revision that I reverted ("Studying, an excuse used to eat and hang out with friends") could be considered humorous or tongue-in-cheek, but it clearly lacks the primary definition of studying. Flatscan (talk) 01:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Flatscan, I appreciate your passion on this matter, however, even by definition the disambiguous page tells us, "There must then be a way to direct the reader to the correct specific article when an ambiguous term is referenced by linking, browsing or searching; this is what is known as disambiguation". The link that you added the verbiage to links right to an article on studying. You would have to link it somewhere so that your statement makes sense for the disambiguation. Canyouhearmenow 02:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for continuing this discussion and putting up with my persistence. I can see your latest point, particularly when comparing my revision to your latest revision (diff), as the description is better with "study skills" removed. However, I still fail to see why my edit merited outright and unexplained reversion. Did you use the Wikipedia:Rollback feature?

In consideration of my difficulty in understanding your points, would you mind if I asked CBD to help us? I noticed that you've contacted him in the past. Flatscan (talk) 01:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I have submitted this issue to CBD and I will wait on his response. I do feel that my edit is proper unless I am misunderstanding the rules, but they seem clear to me that if you are goingn to add verbiage and then link it, there has to be a union of the disambiguation and the link. In this case, I am not sure as to how the verbiage that you added had anything to do with the link for studying. If one searches for studying, I do not think it will link to the statements or additions that you made. This is why I made the original revert. Yes, I use the rollback feature. Thanks for your attention. Maybe you and I will learn something new here? Canyouhearmenow 03:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion continued after 1-month hiatus

Flatscan, I wanted to wait until I was sure of my revert before I notified you about the addition that you put up on the Study page. I was thinking that it was going to have to be removed to to being unencyclopedic and I was correct. IN the disambiguation, it has to point to a direct article or subject and not just a ramdom thought or action of the disambiguation. I hope this makes better sense to you. I also appreciate your input on my talk pages in reference to the rollback issue. It was not clear as to how to edit with rollback since it does not allow you to enter an explaination of the edit. So, now I am going in manually and reverting the vandalism. Takes more time but hey, we have to do our part! Thank you for being civil with me and I think above all things we both have learned new things here! Let me know if I can ever help you. Canyouhearmenow 03:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I am going to hold off on replying to some of them until we resolve the core dispute/discussion.

The definition the editor originally gave was attached to studying. I reverted that edit in the beginning and that is when the editor then linked it to study group. I never reverted the edit to that one. The edit I did was up ontop for studying. Then I put the correct disambiguation in there. I was waiting on CBD to get back with us so I never reverted the edit the editor placed back on which of course was study group. Thanks for fixing it for me. Canyouhearmenow 03:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC) (in response to Bibliomaniac15, diff)

From your comment, it appears that you attribute the following edit to me ("the editor"):

Studying, an excuse used to eat and hang out with friends (diff)

Is this a correct reading of your quoted comment? Flatscan (talk) 03:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I hope that you are not going to stop editing! That would be a shame. We need good editors and you are very passionate about your contibutions. Please reconsider being more active. Canyouhearmenow 04:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

February 2008

Hi, the recent edit you made to Taser has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Party!^{Talk to me!} 21:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Re:Taser

Well, i was a bit too fast on the trigger! *bad pun intended*. But i did a check, and found out you were right, so i used a rollback on A good faith :) --Party!^{Talk to me!} 21:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I've moved the article back to the original title. I agree with your reasoning. -- Longhair\^talk 01:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back Flatscan!

I see that you are not editing that much, but you have been sneaking in from time to time! I do hope that you will come back and help me whip this place into shape! I would hate to think that an editor such as yourself would not devote time to what it is they love to do. I devote at least an hour a day to editing. It helps keep my mind active and it also stops my wife from killing me! She said I needed a hobby and now I have one! I just wanted to send you a little encouragement. Smiles! Canyouhearmenow 12:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Well it's about time! This place is crawling with vandalism and lack of committment to mainspace. Please try not to leave us like that again! It's very stressful! LOL Welcome back friend.. Canyouhearmenow 03:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep it up

You're doing a commendable job, especially at Taser controversy. Some editors can work hard on an article for a long time and not get any recognition, so I thought I'd drop a little note by to let you know you're doing great! Keep up the good work! ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 00:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Excited delirium

I added the section since I couldn't find any reference to "excited delirium" in the Taser article. It's possible I just misspelled it when I was using the search function. In any case, in Canada, it has been a major issue relating to the use of Tasers and is mentioned in numerous articles I've read in the past few months and it seems clear, at least from the testimony given in Canada, and the defence given by Taser and its defenders, that it is an important aspect of the Taser story. Both articles that I cite discuss excited delirium in relation to Tasers (though I might not have pulled the most pertinent information from the source material). Reggie Perrin (talk) 05:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Please see the main source article here. I had intended to write the paragraph in a way that gives both Taser's side and the critics' side of the issue but I think I leaned too far towards the side of critics since , to my mind, "excited delirium" looks like junk science. Since Taser is raising the phenomenon it does merit mention in the main Taser article. Reggie Perrin (talk) 05:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Undue weight?

I don't understand how a paragraph on excited delirium constitutes "undue weight"? If this were taking up 1/3 of the article then you'd have a point but one small section? I don't think that's a valid criticism. How is it justifiable not to have any mention whatsoever of the issue when it is so prominent in the Taser story? Reggie Perrin (talk) 01:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Anyhow, this is what Undue Weight actually says: WP:NPOV#Undue weight: "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all." If anything this supports inclusion of much of the material that's been removed or that you've tried to exclude as they are "significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source." Reggie Perrin (talk) 07:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Summary style versus POV fork

Hello, Flatscan. You have new messages at Viriditas's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Taser controversy

I'm wondering if you could give your input at Talk:Taser_controversy#Renaming_this_article.3F where I've suggested renaming the Taser controversy article? I think a new name would help define and focus the article and would also help us with the main Taser article. Thanks. Reggie Perrin (talk) 06:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I have no objections to contacting the editors who contributed to the AFD so I think if both of us are ok with that that should be fine. We should probably contact all the editors, though, with a neutral message such as "Thank you for you input on the recent AFD on Taser controversy. The editors involved with that article would like to continue the discussion on how to proceed and invite you to join the discussion at Talk:Taser controversy." As long as the message left on editor's talk pages is neutral and as long as all editors are contacted (rather than a selective sample) then there shouldn't be any problem as far as WP:Canvassing - particularly if we're both in agreement on reaching out in this way. Reggie Perrin (talk) 19:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for my closure; I'm trying to expand my abilities, and I should of thought that out more. Incredibly sorry, and happy editing, Leonard^(Bloom) 23:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Re contacting editors - looks good to me. Reggie Perrin (talk) 01:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

ze da Vinci Barnstar!

		The da Vinci Barnstar
		For your excellent work creating Template:Talkarchivehist, which will allow us to increase the transparency of talk page archiving, I award you the da Vinci Barnstar! –xenocidic (talk) 03:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I'll definitely use it next time I archive a talk page. cheers, –xenocidic (talk) 14:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Lodoss to Senki

That's good info. I requested a history merge because it should be done, and as it stands the redir is going to be kept, I think. MSJapan (talk) 21:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The way I read the instructions, the template goes on the article you want to get rid of (which is usually newer, except in this case, where it's the older Lodoss to Senki redirect/article), and it gets moved into the article space of the article you want to keep (which gets deleted and recreated, and in this case is Record of Lodoss War). If it was the other way around it would require a merge of history and a page move back to the Lodoss War title, which almost defeats the purpose of the merge in the first place, I think. Maybe get someone else more familiar with the process to look at it? MSJapan (talk) 22:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Flatscan and MSJapan. Please see Template:Db-histmerge. It instructs editors to "Place this template on the target article, ie. the page where the text was pasted into." I believe the template should have been put on Record of Lodoss War instead. However, it is not too important as admins will review relevant discussions, and the histories of the two (or sometimes more) pages needing to be merged together. As for this case, I figured out the correct page you wanted to stay because of the RfD. Also, as an alternative, you may put Template:Db-copypaste on the page "from which the content was taken.", which would have been Lodoss to Senki. Best, --PeaceNT (talk) 04:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem at all

Absolutely no problem at all - I'm a bit hopeless when it comes to all that sort of stuff - it's just the page was getting a bit long to deal with. em... while you are at it.. you don't mind seeing if I did the archive right at the Martian ManHunter page do you? I'd be very grateful. --Allemandtando (talk) 08:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I added the template to both Talk:Lyme disease/Archive 2 and Talk:Martian Manhunter/Archive 1. Both of those archives look fine to me. Flatscan (talk) 00:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Adrenergic storm

Hi - thanks for spotting the unsupported info about Tasers in the article. I have amended the Did You Know? hook accordingly (see here). Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 11:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I just wanted to extend my gratitude to you and everyone else for helping out with the Adrenergic Storm article. It was awesome (and, admittedly, quite unexpected) for the new article to garner any attention at all, much less appear on the front page! I'm quite honored but it wouldn't be there if it weren't for ya'll. Thanks again and happy wiki'ing - Mr0t1633 (talk) 00:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Merging question

I figure that if your question did not get answered, maybe a fresh poke at the sleeping dog might wake it up. I don't particularly care where the question is either way. If you feel a burning need to keep the conversation together, I won't object if you move it. SDY (talk) 01:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Robert Dziekański

I think that Robert Dziekański was killed by terrorists. Why delete this category of the article? --212.183.251.103 (talk) 00:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I have responded at Talk:Robert Dziekański Taser incident#Terrorism. Flatscan (talk) 03:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

NYPD subway sodomy scandal

I've seen you around the Sean Bell article so I thought this might be of interest to you. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I've been following the case since it broke in late October. I have some thoughts and sources that I'll collect. Flatscan (talk) 04:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Third Opinion on Taser Incident

Greetings, pursuant to a request on the Third Opinion Noticeboard: I added my opinion to the article's talk page. I hope that my comments help to resolve the dispute. Regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 17:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I will follow up at the article's Talk page. Flatscan (talk) 06:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

January 7th Riots, Oakland, California

Hi, I speedy keep the discussion following the criteria in WP:NAC about the WP:Snowball clause. Thanks, --J.Mundo (talk) 06:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Robert Dziekański

Would like your reasoning against naming the officers involved in this event. I don't see this sort of censorship at BART Police shooting of Oscar Grant‎, or NYPD subway sodomy scandal. Cheers. RomaC (talk) 15:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I assume that this comment is regarding my reversion of an edit by 66.183.46.229. The officer's name was actually the last of a number of reasons, but I included it in my edit summary to indicate that it was removed in the undo.

1. The parenthetical statements contained editorializing and wording that could indicate original research.
2. The edit was not sourced.
3. The name did not add value where it was.
4. (I noticed this later) The first name does not match the name you provided in Talk:Robert Dziekański Taser incident#Officer charged with impaired driving causing death.

One may see that I did not remove your addition of the names. I left a comment in the existing section Talk:Robert Dziekański Taser incident#Names of officers. If you wish to continue the discussion, please comment there. Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 06:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

WQA

You might want to see WP:WQA for Ikip's complaints against Collect and THF, and THF's complaint against Ikip. Collect (talk) 00:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Since I do not have full understanding of the content dispute or the specific behavioral issues, I do not plan to contribute at the WQA. I did notice a number of Ikip's edits that I thought were characteristically questionable. Are you interested in participating in the RfC? Flatscan (talk) 04:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

OK...

There - it is here now User:Flatscan/List of Neopets species. I am not sure where this should end up but is userfied with history intact now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Which reminds me.....

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

i figured it out :)

---

I do have another mess to fix from 2006 regarding history merges.

OK, Now it goes like this:

• Currawong is a genus of birds, which has had an article since 2003.

• There are several species, which were initially redirects to the genus page:

• • Pied Currawong --> [2]. Initallt a redirect to the genus and then I made a page for the sicentific name and made the redirect go there - to Strepera graculina see [Revision history of Strepera graculina its history]

Obviously what I needed to do then (but didn't realise, was Move the redirect ad preserve the history, but now we have this odd extraneous bit at the scientific name which really should be history/merged. Question is, who does it...Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• Ditto Grey Currawong, whose scientific name - Strepera versicolor has this history. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• And lastly Black Currawong, whose scientific name - Strepera fuliginosa has [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Strepera%20fuliginosa&action=history this history]. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes I learnt after this, and was 'learned' at the time, but I figure I now should fix it now I remembered it...Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

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 discussion.

Happy Easter!

On behalf of the Kindness campaign, I just wanted to wish my fellow Wikipedians a Happy Easter! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 06:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

RE: Crediting People?

I would prefer if you were to do it, because I surely would screw up in a way that would cause a crashing of some sort. :) Thank you! CarpetCrawler^{message me} 05:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

		The Minor Barnstar
		For helping me with the minor, but to me complicated task of moving the Curtains article. Thank you so much! :) CarpetCrawlermessage me 19:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar. Feel free to contact me if you come across a similar issue in the future. Flatscan (talk) 04:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Added diff

I added a diff, you are welcome to remove. I am also confused by your bullet points. Ikip (talk) 03:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. Normally I include diffs, but the AfD was very short. Feel free to let me know if I should explain more. Flatscan (talk) 03:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

That page is not very active, maybe a post on WP:VPP linking to it? Thanks Ikip (talk) 04:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

You're right, done. Flatscan (talk) 03:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Concerns

Response to this comment at User talk:Ikip. Additional response in edit summary there. Moved into separate section, added diffs.

Please do not post on my page again, thank you. Ikip (talk) 06:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Received and acknowledged. I will honor your request, including optional or recommended notifications, but I will post notifications if required by Wikipedia process. Flatscan (talk) 04:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Draft

I'm setting up a transparant draft of the RfC/U we discussed earlier here. You're welcome to edit the page as you see fit. Discussion can take place on the talk page there. ThemFromSpace 08:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Ikip is self-blocked until August. Since this is the exact same thing he did last time we tried to set up an RfC I think we should continue through with this for procedural purposes, even if he can't reply there. He can't leave when others grow suspicious of his edits and return like nothing ever happened. ThemFromSpace 13:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the messages. I agree with not rewarding a pattern of developing action → leave of absence → no action, but 72 days is long, over 5 times the length of his last break. I'll think this over and get back to you. Flatscan (talk) 04:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

See WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A Man In Black/Workshop#Ikip added as a party and WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A Man In Black#Involved parties (diff). I intend to add detailed evidence on the pattern of borderline canvassing and behaviors related to those incidents. Flatscan (talk) 04:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Is the canvassing spree within the scope of the arbitration case? I thought the case was centered around AMIB's actions directed at Ikip. Go ahead and add your evidence if you feel it helps with the case and if it seems acceptable than I could back it up with my own findings. ThemFromSpace 03:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)