User talk:BalthCat

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

Oxygen toxicity[edit]

Because when the Oxygen toxicity article was developed (late 2008/early 2009), Hyperoxia had been a redirect to oxygen toxicity for the previous four years:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hyperoxia&action=history

So the only useful link was to the dictionary definition of hyperoxia (which was in wiktionary of course).

The current hyperoxia article arguably contains nothing that's not already in the oxygen toxicity article, apart from the dictionary definition. I can't see that your change gives the reader any more information than they had before, but I won't worry over it. --RexxS (talk) 00:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

You won't worry, but you will leave a passive aggressive post about it. Linking to the other article is certainly no more useless than the link to Wiktionary, which is essentially the same as the sentence in which the interwiki link was found. Shall we link to a redundant phrase, or a redundant article? Well, as a user, I wanted the article, to see if there was anything else. -BalthCat (talk) 11:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Don't be so fucking rude. There's nothing passive-aggressive about explaining why Wiktionary was the obvious choice when the link was made, after you left the edit summary "why wiktionary? wtf". So now you know. Did you find anything else in the article? Thought not. --RexxS (talk) 14:55, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Clearly I interpreted your message not as motivated in a spirit of education but rather in passive aggressiveness. After a brief explanation of the former status quo, "your change sucks, but I won't worry about it" seems pretty rude to me. You could have just explained and left it at that, or even reverted my change. (It would have mystified me, because Wiktionary is, as I said, practically the same as the sentence in which the link is found, whereas at least the other allegedly superfluous article has more allegedly redundant information to benefit the reader in case they hadn't made it to the bottom of the first article yet. However it wasn't, and isn't, that important to me.) Your "I won't lose sleep over it"/"whatever makes you happy" tack is not a friend-maker. Neither is your smug "Thought not", as if I've gone back to weigh the articles on their merit. (I haven't & won't.) This is a lesson to me, though, not to be flippant in my edit summaries, in case someone misunderstands my rhetorical "wtf" for otherwise and takes it as an excuse to "educate" and belittle me. BalthCat (talk) 11:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Dig Your Roots[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Dig Your Roots has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No sourcing or reviews found, not notable per WP:NALBUM in any way

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 20:33, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Dig Your Roots for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dig Your Roots is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dig Your Roots until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 00:39, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for waiting for me to edit the talk page of the article. - BalthCat (talk) 00:41, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, BalthCat. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, BalthCat. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)