User talk:Fartherred/Archive 1

Time to do a merge

The "Requiescat in pace" article does not need to violate the Wikipedia policy of no articles about words as words. It can be merged with "Headstone." {{helpme}} There needs to be a redirect to send those looking for "Requiescat in pace" to the "Headstone" inscription section. This will take care of the article being too short at the same time.--Fartherred (talk) 00:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The article Requiescat in pace is well within guidelines. There is no policy of "no articles about words as words"; the policy you are referring to is either no articles about fake words (not an issue in this case), or Wikipedia is not a dictionary (more likely). However, this article discusses the expression from an encyclopaedic standpoint, providing history as well as meaning, and so does not violate WP:DICT. In fact, we have many articles about notable words and expressions, such as Bob's your uncle, LOL, Get a life, amongst others. Intelligentsium 00:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Deletion of that article was recently discussed (as you know since you voted there) and the consensus was to keep it, so unless you have something to say in favor of deleting it that wasn't said there and will propose its deletion at WP:AfD, the article should probably be kept. Svick (talk) 00:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to those who helped

I missed an instruction to answer here so I'll answer here too.

Thanks. It seems to be a general opinion that articles like "Requiescat in pace" are desirable. So I accept it. I had things to write in AfD that were not written because the AfD was closed, but it would probably not have affected the outcome. --Fartherred (talk) 01:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Nanotech age

Someone has stated that the Nanotech age that me, you, and a few other users have worked on is too much like an essay and not enough like an encyclopedia entry. Would you please help me turn this glorified essay into an encyclopedia entry? With all these resources that I have found, I find it's easier to put it in essay form and someone could convert it into encyclopedia form? GVnayR (talk) 03:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

My comments

I am not sure what you want me to comment on. We will colonize space before we realize Justice in any form. Stop expecting life to be fair and you will be much more satisfied with life.--BirgitteSB 19:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Important edit

I don't know how I missed this ... is my first reaction. I went straight to the source to check. And read twice to make sure I wasn't misreading. Nice edit, to put it mildly.[1] Piano non troppo (talk) 23:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Nanotech age

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Nanotech age. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nanotech age. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Venus

I also touched Venus by the way. I welcome your input and revision. gonads³ 19:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Possibly a bit too much use of the word Venusian. gonads³ 19:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Talking to myself

Now, my own evaluation of my own user page. It is a mixture of the serious and the silly, deliberately. The idea is not to give a definite guide to behavior, but to stir thought in particular directions. We must depend upon the individual to act correctly without definite guides because the situations people meet are too various to be covered completely by definite guides. People who handle people's disputes well have skills that I lack. I don't want them to become ineffective because of discouragement. We need them.--Fartherred (talk) 13:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Bohuslav

Hi

Thanks for spotting that one ! I have changed the template so that it shouldn't show like that on any other pushpin maps in the infoboxes :¬)

It was a pretty good catch as the template has been changed to eliminate "the" and I am going to put it down to snow–blindness as there were so many other "the Ukraine" mentions that they did fix that they prob just didn't catch that one.

Anyway all fixed now and thanks for the heads up Chaosdruid (talk) 15:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The automatic wiki numbering of references has failed

{{helpme}} The problem is explained at Talk:Cape_Verde#Misnumbered references. --Fartherred (talk) 03:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Looking... —fetch·comms 03:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Replied at article talk page. —fetch·comms 03:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks --Fartherred (talk) 03:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Space colonization

I was hoping someone would fix that. I wasn't in the mood for an argument at the time. Slightsmile (talk) 20:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Pleased to help. --Fartherred (talk) 04:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

re:A fight with AnomieBOT

Hello! I didn't look too much farther into the Near-Earth object article after reading the source that you'd removed. I did not realize that the same article was used correctly in another instance. I should have looked more closely; I do plenty of work with named refs. I didn't even realize that I'd left the tag <ref name="BROWN02"/> behind until you'd restored it. Anyway, I enjoyed reading your userpage, specifically the "Civility" section. Dawnseeker2000 20:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Journal of Cosmology DRN thread

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Journal of Cosmology". Thank you. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 13:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Here you go. I just want to say that you have been a great part in the Wikipedia community. So I'm giving you this. Your friend, Billy (talk) 03:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

March 2012 MOTD's award for helping the project in a difficult time

		The MOTD Barnstar
		The MOTD Barnstar is awarded to Fartherred for his invaluable contribution to our project, which was experiencing a period of extreme scarcity. Thank you from Motto of the day. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Additional note: Hoping that you feel comfortable with us, we hope and desire that you will want to continue contributing to our/your project. I personally think that if many of us contribute, then about ten minutes per week, by reviewing the existing nominations, and eventually adding new nominations, should be more than enough to get the project going! Once again, thank you from your Motto of the day. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the star. I have been thinking about what I could do to deserve such an award since I have received it.

Good editing, Fartherred (talk) 18:09, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

April Fool Motto

April Fools Day is just around the corner. As such please could you nominate a new motto or comment on existing suggestions at Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/Specials? Simply south...... facing oncoming traffic for over 5 years 16:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I have previously looked over the discussion on the April Fool motto suggestions and did not feel I could add anything constructive to the discussion as I found it. I am not particularly well fitted to suggest good pranks. I would rather tolerate whatever pranks others choose to do and guess it would take a rather outrageous prank to provoke condemnation on my part.

Good editing, Fartherred (talk) 18:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

MotD Nomination for the Opening Ceremony of the London 2012 Olympics (27 July 2012)

We at the Motto of the Day would be extremely grateful if you could review a couple of "special" nominations for the Opening Ceremony of the London 2012 Olympics on the 27th of July 2012. Here is the link to the first nomination, if you can help. The others follow it, and you can add your own ones or improve the existing nominations, of course.
Thank you so very much in advance! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation to participate in MOTD. Though I have found it interesting in the past, current concerns occupy my time much. I hope the crew at MOTD does well. - Fartherred (talk) 05:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Help and thank you

Finally some one with some common sense. I would like to thank you for your input of sensible and useful comments regarding what constitutes edit warring. Can you please point the best way to go about raising the concerns I have with the very bizarre interpretation which has occurred to change the policy to prevent this kind of unwelcome hindrance of what is nothing more than normal editing to maintain article quality. I believe the interpretation makes having a watch list wholly redundant.Sport and politics (talk) 21:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I think we should consider that the 3RR rule slows things down. It is unfortunate for skillful editors but it is necessary because it takes time to establish the benefit of good edits as opposed to the detriment of bad edits. There is no way established to give certain editors precedence. This is deliberate. I have misunderstood the wording of an article in the past and made good faith edits that were poor quality and a patient editor pointed out my mistake. It is hard sometimes to deal with the failures of others, but we need some patience to be good Wikipedians. My suggestion in the ANI that you initiated is still my advice. I can consider any other problem you might think I can help you with. Am I missing anything? - Fartherred (talk) 22:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

No you are not missing anything. I would though just like some recognition that User:Cla68 coming at me and shouting REVERT WARRING is disruptive and uncivil. That is what appears to have been missed most fundamentally. What was also missed was that they only complained about their edits being changed so had effectively take ownership of the edits and took umbrage with modification and removal just because it was their editing being modified or removed. What has also been missed is that I was editing in good faith and more than one contributor especially User:Dreadstar was that I was not editing in good faith. Dreadstar even went as far as to claim I should have been blocked and was lucky not to have been. This kind of commenting has been incredibly hurtful as it is basically saying "piss off you are being a tosser", excuse the language but it shows my frustration with their comments and general attitude towards me. Thank you for your contributions. Sport and politics (talk) 22:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Use of undiplomatic language as Collect pointed out and technically violating the 3RR rule as Dreadstar mentioned are problems. I do not think these instances are of the type that would merit a block, but it does weaken you case to have behavior on your part that an opponent can claim violates rules. Just as you have said: "There is nothing of a personal nature in that comment." and Cla68 should not have taken it personally. The comments of Collect and Dreadstar should be taken with equanimity even though they were critical of your comments. The best way to deal with false accusations is to make simple dispassionate rebuttal and then move on. Often the rebuttal can be skipped. I know people often feel hurt by others finding fault with them, but I am just naturally slow to respond to most negative comments. Try not to let it bother you. Evaluate how you can best improve the situation that you find. Certainly, it is pleasant to read recognition of your good work, and your knowledge of good writing practice has improved the quality of the Olympic controversies article, but some things one cannot change and must accept. I hope everyone can learn something from the discussion and Wikipedia benefits. - Fartherred (talk) 00:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)