User talk:Fartherred

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

Hi, I'm Juliancolton (talk · contribs). I'd like to personally welcome you and thank you for your contributions thus far. As you probably know, Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia collaboratively written entirely by volunteers. If you ever see anything that can be improved—be it correcting a typo or writing a new article—feel free to fix it yourself! Don't worry about making mistakes; one of the many editors will probably notice and quickly correct it. If you have any questions, just place the text {{helpme}} on your talk page, and an administrator will help you shortly. Alternatively, you could join the #wikipedia-en-help IRC channel, where dozens of friendly helpers await. You can find out more about the project here, but I won't bore you with statistics and rules. Just remember to be civil to other editors, to always cite your sources, and to write articles from a neutral point of view, and you should be good to go.

Wikipedia is a huge website; with 5,449,299 articles, it is the single biggest encyclopedia in the world. Additionally, there are thousands of policy and process pages, so it can be a bit overwhelming, even to experienced users. When I was new, I found the Tutorial particularly helpful. You might also want to check out the glossary. The Reference Desk serves as our library reference desk, where you can ask nearly any question imaginable.

The Featured Articles and Good Article pages are good places to look for some of our most well-written and comprehensive articles. On the other end of the spectrum, we have thousands of articles that require cleanup of some sort, so feel free to help out.

I hope you've found this advice helpful. Feel free to contact me for more information. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

/Archive 1

A fund-raising appeal that no one will read[edit]

I do not contribute every year. Bunching my contributions up and sending them in one year saves on postage and my contributions are small enough that that makes a difference. I do not have e-mail. I do not trust using my credit card over the internet. You can take that risk if you like, but I send a check by mail. I heard from my bank that Wikimedia cashed the check. I turned off the fund-raising banners. Everyone else should do their part too. Charitable organizations might contribute most of the funds, but contributions from users are right and just. You know what you can reasonably contribute. You know how much Wikipedia benefits you, and it is a noble cause. Do the right thing. Fartherred (talk) 05:47, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Editors Barnstar Hires.png The Editor's Barnstar
A barnstar for you. Your friend, Billy (talk) 02:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Charles Dickens Anniversary[edit]

Charles Dickens is 200 years old as of the 7th of February 2012. Fartherred (talk) 19:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Shame, if we had known in advance we could have proposed a "special" motto for his birthday, quoting him. Also, i have left a reply to your question on my talkpage ~ benzband (talk) 16:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


Check [[Project Orion (nuclear propulsion)]].

Fartherred (talk) 08:01, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


I admit placng it was a bit preemptive but it was based on discussions on the talk page and what was likely to happen and currently happening. Simply south...... flapping wings into buildings for just 6 years 21:26, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure. It seems to be working fine for me. Simply south...... flapping wings into buildings for just 6 years 17:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Writers Barnstar Hires.png The Writer's Barnstar
I know you didn't do a lot of edits, but what you said about the God and the comma thing, which was a long time ago, and you probably didn't know what I was talking about. And you changed it to improve it even more. Thank you, you probably don't deserve this barnstar, but I'm just giving it to you cause of what I said. Your friend, Billy (talk) 09:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Colossal carbon tube entry[edit]

check colossal carbon tube entry at Specific strength

Fartherred (talk) 03:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

thanks for the heads up[edit]

I meant to say, thanks for the heads up you gave me on the AfD of a page I had an edit note about. Wingman4l7 (talk) 01:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

It all worked out in the end; I got a copy of the deleted page in case there was anything worth merging into the generation ship article. Cheers! Wingman4l7 (talk) 10:05, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Reorganization of Meteoroid proposed[edit]

Hi Fatherred, I believe that the meteoroid article is currently poorly structured. I have proposed a re-organization at Talk:Meteoroid#Re-organization needed. Perhaps you could look over my proposal at User:HopsonRoad/sandbox and make a recommendation. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 02:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Check reference in [[Brown dwarf]][edit]

Do not forget. - Fartherred (talk) 02:20, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I replied on my talk page. Cheers, – SJ + 04:13, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Your edit at Dyson sphere[edit]

While I agree in principle with removing the Halo entry, please be aware that it is about a novel based on the VG series, and not the same thing. I've moved it to the Popular culture article. Also you characterizing the entry as "some nonsense" is rude at best. Please be more civil.--Auric talk 20:39, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Handling requests for removal of classified information[edit]

In case anyone wants to know, I edited Talk:Legal and Community Advocacy/Statement on France at 05:05 hours on the 14th of June 2013 and again at 05:47 hours and at 14:43 on the 23rd of June and again at 14:51 hours on the 24th of June and again at 20:49 hours on the 29th of June 2013 - Fartherred (talk) 20:57, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of the Back contamination article[edit]

Hi Farthered, as we've talked in the past and you've been sympathetic, just to mention that my attempt to edit the back-contamination article has also been reverted and the admin Robert McLenon doesn't show much sympathy for me, has just written on my talk page:

"Stop whining about having been topic-banned. It is getting tiresome.

Your edits were too long, and that may be one reason why they were reverted rather than changed or cut."

WP now proposes deletion of the article.

I feel the way I have been treated throughout this affair was outrageous, by WP, BI, and also Robert McLenon here - he seems to have taken a grudge against me because of a mistake I made during my help desk session with him and never forgiven me for it. VQuakr also hasn't treated me too well either.

I'm wondering where to go next. One idea I had was to post an incident on the administrator's incident board. Another idea was to re-open the original AfD which was improperly conducted in many ways and I think merits a deletion review.

I'm not too keen on the idea to just give up and leave wikipedia with only WPs highly biased edit on the MSR mission page for backward contamination issues. I don't understand why there has been so much opposition to notable material with every sentence often backed up by numerous citations, with no discussion of the sources at all.

It might be that the "human colonization of the Mars surface" lobby in the US has been so effective the majority of those interested in spaceflight there believe them. That's about the only thing I can think of to explain it. If so it might be hard to get this dealt with in an admin incident report.

Anyway am discussing what to do with anyone I can find who might help, and if you have any thoughts do say. I will "watch this page" so you can answer here if you prefer. Robert Walker (talk) 06:23, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, Robert, I have not been giving much time to this issue because I have off-Wiki concerns that are pressing. If it seems to you that the only reason for editing Wikipedia is to promote the importance of contamination issues related to manned missions to Mars, particularly in a way that is in disagreement with most other editors, then your account may be regarded as an SPA. I can understand people not looking favorably on your concerns. Once you have been topic banned, you have the choice to edit only other topics until the ban expires, or to stop editing articles. This is not your website. You are a guest here. If you make yourself an unwelcome guest, all editing privileges can be withdrawn. Wikipedia is not the most important thing in the world. You can do other things or start your own blog. If you want to edit Wikipedia, you must get along. - Fartherred (talk) 19:46, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
That's okay, Farthered, of course, and thanks for your perspective. Oh I contribute to wikipedia in many ways. On project Mars I also contributed material on surface habitats for life, though that was also deleted, also small edits just correcting details of facts in articles e.g. recently highest temperature recorded by the Viking orbiter. I also contribute on maths, rhythms, music and other topics.
I haven't been topic banned, it is just that all my contributions on contamination issues were removed from wikipedia, by Warren Platts, and he will revert if I attempt to add them in again. It is because the contamination issues topics are the ones removed that I may seem to have an obsession with them, but it is really he who has the obsession focusing on just those topics amongst my contributions to wikipedia, and also due to the edit warring they are the only things I've focused on for the last month or two. Normally they are just one of many things I write on.
He is now removing most of the material on planetary contamination issues throughout wikipedia. That doesn't seem right to me. But probably there is nothing I can do about it. Thanks for your help. Robert Walker (talk) 20:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
One thing though at least I've got all the drafts in my user space, and they can be re-used under CC By. So if it comes to it and I can't use them here I can contribute them elsewhere, e.g. my science20 blog or start a new wikie on contamination issues or some such. Robert Walker (talk) 01:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Good for you that you have your own blog. My mistake in suggesting that you might be considered an SPA was just carelessness because I was not taking the time to consider details. I think that WarrenPlatts' efforts result in an unbalanced POV, but I cannot support your work in [[Manned mission to Mars]] that he removed. It had faults. My limited ability will not set things right for some time, if ever, but I am not in a big hurry. I apologize for all of the rudeness that you have been subjected to, but it is outside of my proper scope to take any corrective action. It seems likely to me that you will be unable to improve things in the Mars project. A posting on Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents would be likely to get you into more trouble. I hope that you can accept limitations and be satisfied with doing good elsewhere. Informing me of problems that I might be able to help remedy is more helpful if communications are less frequent, somewhat corresponding to my ability to address them. - Fartherred (talk) 16:37, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, that's great, yes I came to the same conclusion. Actually got as far as drafting out an incident report in my sandbox, slept on it, and realised it would just cause much more trouble.
That's okay you have always been considerate and never rude yourself, and have give me valuable advice. It was a natural misunderstanding to suppose I was a SPA. You are not responsible for the rudeness of the others. Hope that we will be able to work together agai in the future.
I agree the section I did for Manned mission to Mars had many faults, and you couldn't be expected to support it in its most recent form. Wish I had had the time to rewrite it, I would write it differently if I wrote it now.
I've posted one of my user drafts as a new post on "Mars Sample Receiving Facility and sample containment" to my blog, under CC By SA of course, where it is getting hundreds of views right now (always most when first released). Wavelength on the Environmental Project suggested I try again a year from now. So I might do that, things might well have changed in many ways. A year is a long time. May well work with you again then, and appreciate your help so far. There is no urgency about replies, other editors may rush about and do lots in a single day (including myself sometimes) but is no need for others to get caught up in the rush, a slower pace of replies is all to the good :). Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 19:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

One more thing Robert, you seem to get flustered and make mistakes when someone makes derogatory statements about you. This quality makes it likely that you would do poorly in contributing to a [[WP:ANI]]. So, if it should happen that your name is mentioned in such a proceeding, the best thing for you to do would be to decline to comment and if particularly asked for comment, write: "I prefer not to comment. I will let the record speak for itself. I will accept whatever decision is made here." I wish you well. - Fartherred (talk) 07:56, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes Farthered, you are right I do get flustered and make mistakes in those situations. Good advice. Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 09:34, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Was your advice on Robert Walker's talk page to Robert Walker? I agree that he should leave the evidence as it is and not reply to the replies. I intend to leave the evidence as it is. You are right that Requests for Arbitration are long and tedious, but I don't see this as a case that can be handled effectively at AN or at ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:26, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes it was for me, I'm sure. Fartherred has give me excellent advice in the past, and glad to hear you agree with his advice. That is exactly what I'll do. Thanks. Robert Walker (talk) 20:52, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Did Eddington really notice a discrepancy in solar mass?[edit]

I added your comment and my (not too helpful) reply on the article talk page because I think we may need specialist help. Thanks for your input, Timpo (talk) 08:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for you quick response. talk-back template removed - Fartherred (talk) 17:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

An error of mine[edit]

User:The Herald reverted an edit I made to US 708. I would not have even known the damage that I did to the article if I had not come back to check on it. I noticed that The Herald had to take the trouble to revert my edit. I had lost trak of what I was doing half way through doing it and you can see the result. If I start to do things like that often, I will need to stop editing. - Fartherred (talk) 14:48, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Uncivil behavior[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm N2e. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so I have responded to it on the Talk page where you left it.

Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page.

I have placed a response to your comments in the Talk:Space_habitat#An_off-topic_link Talk page section.

I do think that civil behavior on your part would further your aims better than your currently chosen course of action.

I would recommend that the best course of action might be for you to go back and clean up your comments in any articles where that line has been crossed (I have neither the time nor inclination to go look for other articles where you may have done the same thing) and remove the uncivil comments. I think that would get us on the best path for returning to work on the encyclopedia, and would be taken by me as an explicit act of good faith. Cheers. N2e (talk) 11:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC) N2e (talk) 11:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Uncivil behavior is more apropriately a topic for a user page than an article talk page. This is from: Wikipedia:Civility#Incivility "(another behavior) ... or to treat constructive criticism as an attack, are in themselves potentially disruptive,...". I think your complaints are based on misconceptions about civil behavior, as I have explained at the "Space habitat" talk page. However, if you wish to limit your contribution to talk subjects that I have contributed to, to complaints about imagined incivility, that is your choice. - Fartherred (talk) 21:50, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

July 2015[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Your edits at carnism and speciesism were inappropriate. You also made an inappropriate revert at antireligion. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 14:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

February 2016[edit]

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Internet of Things, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Please refer to the article's talk page for discussion before resuming your personal editing campaign. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 21:43, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


I have no idea how your talk page entry got reverted, with my name as the reverter, as I have never followed that article and know nothing about it. My apologies, even though I had nothing to do with it. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 19:58, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your timely apology. If the reverting at Talk:Main sequence was caused by someone hacking your account or hacking a Wikipedia server or just a disinterested software bug, at least we were able to set the record straight. - Fartherred (talk) 22:14, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Fartherred. 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)

Gary Brooks Faulkner[edit]

Thanks for the heads up - I've now put in two "speedy deletion" requests. My first ones, so very exciting! Snori (talk) 03:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)