User talk:Floquenbeam: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:54, 3 February 2016

Notes

Normal humans: I'm not online very often these days, and when I am, I don't have much stomach for anything complicated, stressful, depressing, or time consuming. You're still welcome to post here, but it's unlikely I'll be able or willing to help in a timely manner.
Admins: I'm not online very often these days, so if you think an admin action I've taken in the past is wrong or no longer useful, go ahead and undo or change it without feeling like you have to talk to me first.
WP:SOLVED
WP:LIGHTBULB
WP:VOGONS
WP:BEDFELLOWS

Folly, thou conquerest, and I must yield!
Against stupidity the very gods
Themselves contend in vain. --Friedrich Schiller

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by .

DYK for Julia Kronlid

On 27 January 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Julia Kronlid, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Swedish politician Julia Kronlid has worked as a volunteer at a hospital clinic in Papua New Guinea? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Julia Kronlid. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:03, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little disappointed that I have to share credit with other editors on this; with all the effort I put into this, I've come to think of it as "my" article. Now, where's my invitation to the content creators' cabal? --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just oversight them out of existence. Or threaten to block yourself. BTW, need Girl Scout Cookies? I'm also selling cheese. Just ask LadyofShalott. Drmies (talk) 18:51, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'll gladly give anyone who wants it my niece's GS cookie link! LadyofShalott 18:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you dare cutting in on my action. Remember, I'm on ArbCom. I can disappear you whenever I like. Psst...they have different flavors in Georgia...shall we meet up for some illegal exchanges? Drmies (talk) 19:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No cookie orders from me. Our office is large enough that there are easily half a dozen parents (possibly a dozen some years) all leaving their daughters' order forms out in the lunch room. I did an informal study a couple of years ago, and discovered (as I suppose one would expect) that the higher up the corporate totem pole the parent is, the more people order cookies from that kid's sheet. So in an act of rebellion, I always order a few boxes from the 3 kids who have the fewest orders on their sheets. Fight the power. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:48, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Winkelvi's block

I have put forward an unblock proposal for you at User talk:Winkelvi#January 2016 2. Have a read and see what you think. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Winkelvi? The one who left almost nothing on Hana Blažíková, and now others - like me - have to bring it back? That soprano is so wonderful that we tried to get her, she was even willing, just the date didn't fit. - The content cabal is here, btw. Nice infobox on "your" DYK, Floq. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ps: making an infobox disappear works like this, and once you did that, make a fuss on the talk as if you were threatened. I am thinking about a reply, - help? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:22, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what the solution is, Gerda, that's why I'm such a firm believer in not worrying about infoboxes. I sometimes see that same group comment in rapid succession to agree on removing an infobox after one of them comments. I sometimes see a core group of people in favor of infoboxes all comment in rapid succession to agree on having an infobox after one of them comments. If people are going to follow each others' contribs (and everyone does), and if everyone's opinion is so firmly in place that no one will ever, ever change their mind from article to article, and if everyone thinks this is critically important, and as long as the two sides are (roughly) evenly matched, and if decisions are going to remain article-specific, then it's going to end up being Team A vs. Team B. In theory, you would comment there, and they would comment, and some uninvolved person would come along in a while to evaluate the points raised and close the discussion based on consensus. In practice, it's all about who has the better ground game (link to dab page intentional; you can pick what you think I mean). --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The rules of the game are different, as far as I see. They are: whoever improves the quality of an article can dump what others created. Is that a good rule? That is the question? How about the readers? Only today, Dank made a link to Madagascar, saying that not all our readers know what it is. The same, the writers of the article about that TV star probably know it's a TV star just by the image. We others - I at least - would like to see at a glance when he was born where, died when and where, and why he is notable. Models for that are around, just look at Percy Grainger ((FA) and Beethoven (community consensus). I would like to have that date of birth in some templated form to be useful in comparisons, translations and calculations, not in prose. Did you know what I found in the Italian Wikipedia? They have a template "bio" with these things, which translates not to a box, but a lead sentence. No redundance! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes? Nooooooooooooooo! (but thanks re: Madagascar) - Dank (push to talk) 21:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dank: tell me the difference in a link to Madagascar and the info that Mr. Grainger and Mr. Beethoven are composers, and when and where they lived (something that Persondata used to supply but doesn't now). To me, both try to help someone who wants to learn. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean "no inboboxes", I mean "no I'd rather not talk about infoboxes" ... at least not at the moment, I'm busy with a project of cataloging and sorting copyediting edits. - Dank (push to talk) 22:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about my misunderstanding. Do you think some others also might mean only "not talk about them" when they scream nooo? - I am looking for a new name because the old one is so loaded. How is pdbox? persondatabox? ideas welcome! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. - Dank (push to talk) 23:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking forward to the "ground game" here. re: the block - all I will say is that there is a likable quality to that editor from my view. — Ched : ? 22:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Ched. I like Superbowl Sunday too, the stores are nearly empty and shopping is more fun. - Dank (push to talk) 22:46, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PP

Thanks very much for that. I really appreciate the help. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 01:49, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. It's late and so I got confused by the typo in Tb's fix, but I think it's all sorted now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:51, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

I allowed my frustration with that editor's continual attacks on the Crats to morph into a bit of sarcasm at the cratchat talkpage. Hallward's Ghost ^(Kevin) ^{(My talkpage)} 18:22, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

?

Why did you revert this Krett12 (talk) 19:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am going through your talk page history, and your recent edit history, to see whether the many mistakes you are making is going to require an indefinite block on your account. That was one of your mistakes. Expect to see more reverts of your edits in the next few minutes. Then I'll decide whether to block or not. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but you didn't answer the question, what about this one as well ? Krett12 (talk) 19:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The first, because it was not a false positive, Cluebot correctly caught some silliness, and you reverted Cluebot to put it back. The second, because you're warning an IP address for having a misleading account name. Neither make any sense. This is in addition to all the other things you've been warned about on your talk page today. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was warning an ACCOUNT for having an IP address name. I saw the user creation log in recent changes. Krett12 (talk) 19:51, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You just said it was your IP. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:53, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An account CALLED my IP. Krett12 (talk) 19:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 82: / Line 82: @@
 ::::No, I was warning an ACCOUNT for having an IP address name. I saw the user creation log in recent changes. [[User:Krett12|Krett12]] ([[User talk:Krett12|talk]]) 19:51, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 :::::You just said it was your IP.  --[[User:Floquenbeam|Floquenbeam]] ([[User talk:Floquenbeam#top|talk]]) 19:53, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
+::::::An account CALLED my IP. [[User:Krett12|Krett12]] ([[User talk:Krett12|talk]]) 19:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)