Jump to content

User talk:Flat Out/Archives/2014/January

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Vandalism

sorry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Louiscozz24000 (talk • contribs) 10:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Public Sector Transparency Board Edit

Hi Flat Out, Thanks for your message relating to the Public Sector Transparency Board article that I recently edited. The edit that I made was purely an update to the membership of the group, and did not contain any subjective information. My reference source was listed as https://www.gov.uk/government/policy-advisory-groups/134 which contains the current list of group membership. Please advise if there is anything contentious in the article for me to review, or if I have not followed protocol correctly. Best, SamRoberts21 (talk) 12:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

SamRoberts21 Please do not edit articles where you have a conflict of interest, you can suggest changes in the articles talk page.Flat Out let's discuss it 01:38, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

COI

greetings mr or ms flatout, I did not write the article but rather dr. assaf shelleg the musicologist. he interviewed me on skype quite a number of times in november and december and knows quite a lot of my music. because of time pressures he asked me to put the article that i got from him in a word format into the wikipedia format which i did sincerely. this is from the wikipedia Assaf Shelleg (אסף שלג), an Israeli musicologist and pianist, is the Schusterman Visiting Assistant Professor of Musicology and Jewish Studies in the Department of Religious Studies at the University of Virginia. Richardmichaelfarber (talk .

Richardmichaelfarber , you did create the page and you have a conflict of interest and should not be editing the article. See WP:COI. Flat Out let's discuss it 01:42, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 January 2014

Mohabbat Subha Ka Sitara Hai

I want to know why you put Deletion log on page? and clear me in detail what criteria is needed to make a reliable article. Reply Fast Please. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Fushan007 I have nominated the article for deletion because I don;t believe it it meets the general notability guidelines. You can read about reliability here. Flat Out let's discuss it 08:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Flat Out, i am providing a reliable sources, since i previously provided links, but you remove it, now i am trying to provide reliable source for every claim, please remove a deletion tag. Talk 16:17, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
The links you provided were not reliable sources. I'm sorry but I don't believe the film is notable enough to have an article.Flat Out let's discuss it 08:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
This is not an film this is an Pakistan Drama serial, and is notable to have an article. Previous links may not be reliable, but the providing one is reliable do check and please do not delete. Please its a genuine article and i am working on it right now. Talk 16:30, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Flat Out, check out the page, i ahve provided reliable sources and links, please give it a check and please remove the deletion tag. Talk 17:17, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
AfD templates can not be removed.Flat Out let's discuss it 09:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
So give me suggestions what should i do? Talk 21:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

IP user

This guy, who has used five IP's that I know of ((User talk:79.177.163.151, User talk:79.182.111.44, User talk:79.182.49.102, User talk:79.180.177.93, and User talk:109.65.137.240) has now begum to harass me by following me wherever I make an edit to try to cause a problem. He edited the Inland taipan page, but I discovered numerous violations including WP:POV, WP:Weasel, WP:CP, and others. So an admin protected the page, now he's angry at me and is harassing me. Commiting more violations like 3RR, he has been warned numerous times on all the different IP talk pages he uses, but to no avail. I hold two degrees that relate to the subject and he is an immature amateur (his attitude is "my snake is deadlier than yours"). I joined Wiki to expand and try to attain GA status for as many venomous snake articles as I can, so I started with the Black mamba, which after a rigorous review has achieved GA status due to my work. Now I have nominated two other articles, the forest cobra and the many-banded krait for GA status that need a lot of work. I have over 140 technical books and field guides on the subject and access to online journal articles. Look at the copyright vios I discovered that were violated by this IP user (its just a short list of the many):

Now he is edit warring on the Snakebite page, which I have put in the majority of the work. He has made 2 reverts so far. One just minutes ago. I have rollback option, but I am not going to do anything about it. I am leaving it to the admins. Admin User:Mark_Arsten is aware of this guy and is on to him, but nothing has been done other than prevent him from editing on Inland taipan page. Two other users tried to engage him in discussion, but he is interested in his own POV.--DendroNaja (talk) 15:17, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi DendroNaja, I don't understand why you are posting this on my page, you should take it to ANI if you believe you are being harrassed but it looks like a content dispute to me. Flat Out let's discuss it 23:30, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

article was written by dr assaf shelleg

dear mr or ms flat out. i did not write the article. it was written by dr.assaf shelleg who interviewed me intensively on skype in november and december. he asked me to put the article on to wikipedia for him which i did. there are no subjective statements in the article . . . just some basic biographical information and a partial list of works. in the future dr. shelleg is planning to write in detail about specific works . particularly the symphonies and operas. sincerely richard — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardmichaelfarber (talk • contribs) 10:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Richardmichaelfarber that is a nice story but you created the article, and have continued to edit it despite having a clear conflict of interest.Flat Out let's discuss it 23:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Adding an external link to the Java section of the Expect article

Hello,

I'd like to edit the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expect#Java section to add an external link to yet another open source library that implements the described functionality. The section already contains links to three other alternatives. Just want to self-promote my own version which, I believe, is quite competitive. I've seen that my attempt to do that was reverted by you. Please advise Alexey1Gavrilov (talk) 19:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Alexey1Gavrilov, I reverted the edit because wikipedia is not here for self-promotion, see WP:SOAP. Flat Out let's discuss it 23:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Drama

Man, you get all comers showing up at your talk page. I'm glad I stalk you on a regular basis. Happy hunting! Chris Troutman (talk) 06:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Mate I'm a magnet for it in person too :) Flat Out let's discuss it 09:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence
Great work patrolling new pages! Jianhui67 talk★contribs 13:30, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Jianhui67 I'm really glad you stuck with editing and have gone on to contribute so extensively. I have just returned after a break and I see you are catching up on my edit count, so I best get editing ;). Best wishes Flat Out let's discuss it 13:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Lol. I was slacking with my edits in mid-December. Unfortunately, you will not see me editing much this year. Busy preparing national exams. :( Jianhui67 talk★contribs 14:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Exams are important and wikipedia will always be here.Flat Out let's discuss it 14:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
You can see me more active in either Commons or Wikidata my friend! Not so active here though. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

vandalizing Girl, Boy, Bakla, Tomboy

i caught 112.198.90.151 vandalizing Girl, Boy, Bakla, Tomboy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.207.248.114 (talk) 18:51, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

rejection

I tried to write a new article on the subject but got sent to that page: 

	Submission declined on 7 January 2014 by MatthewVanitas (talk).

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Spirit instead. Guess I can't win

babylonortruth you can contribute to that article, but you can't promote your website as a source. Flat Out let's discuss it 02:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

suspected edit warring

Tambolong26 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knightrider21o (talk • contribs) 16:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

i caught Tambolong26 vandalizing List of highest-grossing films in the Philippines

article marked for deletion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Devcoin

Hi. I'm replying to your post in the link above. I asked for some advice in the teahouse which I think relates to your point. I'm a little confused as the requirement for notability seems to run counter to that of no self-promotion (i.e. taking a more humble approach to publicity makes being able to write a neutral article about an important global project impossible?).Weisoq (talk) 23:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Weisoq and thanks for your message. For a company to be notable, it needs to be the subject of significant coverage by independent, secondary and reliable sources WP:CORP WP:RS. Using the company website for a reference is a primary source, its not independent therefore it can't be used to support most content.Devcoin, while it may be a worthwhile project, is not yet notable because it hasn't attracted widespread coverage, see WP:TOOSOON
Self-promotion is a separate problem, where someone connected to the company seeks to promote that company WP:NOPROMO. . I hope this helps Flat Out let's discuss it 23:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
So that would amount to major outlet news and/or relevant periodical articles? Devcoin is open source itself, the code is listed and verifiable, it's on multiple exchanges contributing to other projects. That creates another problem where it's not really in the interest of many 'reliable' sources to headline an open source project that is trying to build a wider open source infrastructure and community. The entire point of the project is to have natural growth through real interest and adoption, and not try to build a mass-marketing enterprise for notability's sake.
Weisoq, There are plenty of open source projects that have received widespread coverage. Flat Out let's discuss it 23:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I've spent a long time writing and editing a page I thought was ok. Could you tell me how long before it's deleted or if there is anything I'm missing as to what I could change/remove to better fit wiki requirements? ThanksWeisoq (talk) 23:49, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Weisoq, The article will likely be deleted in the next few days by an admin who closes the AfD discussion. You can't save an article that doesn't meet notability guidelines. Read this, it says it all Flat Out let's discuss it 23:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your help. I've received a 'conflict of interest' message. Could you clarify that decision is on the basis of previous discussion rather than a non-neutral submission (I was editing an already soon to be deleted article in the hope it wouldn't be). This would help a lot for future reference. RegardsWeisoq (talk) 00:07, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
If you are completely independent of Devcoin, then ignore the message.Flat Out let's discuss it 00:10, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Fair point, although was with the best of intentions and I thought objective in the wider context. Regardless, perhaps to be revisited in the future. RegardsWeisoq (talk) 00:55, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Rachael MacFarlane

Then what is. Can you look fir it then, since clearly the stuff that I've put is somewhat un reliable Monterrosa

Monterrosa, the onus is on you to find a reliable source fr your edits.Flat Out let's discuss it 01:11, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 January 2014

FYI

You've probably noticed, but I've blocked some users who were making legal threats against you. Let me know if any more socks show up and I'll block them too. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:40, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikilinking

Hi, and thanks for your work on the English Wikipedia.

I noticed an article you worked on. Just a short note to point out that we don’t normally link:

  • dates
  • years
  • commonly known geographical terms (including well-known country-names), and
  • common terms you’d look up in a dictionary (unless significantly technical).

This even applies for infoboxes, too.

Thanks and my best wishes.

Tony (talk) 08:11, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Tony1, I can't see where ive made like youre referring to. Flat Out let's discuss it 09:23, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Tsk, yes, people have commented so now I'm including diffs. article. No big deal [[User:Tony1|>

Jan 2014

So a vandal who's clearly insulting all types of people shouldn't be told that he's being ugly? I don't like people that are racist and xenophobic. And wikipedia certainly isn't the place for filth like he's doing. Sometimes I get bored and decide to go through the recent changes and when vandals attack, I strike back hard. Survivorfan1995 (talk) 05:59, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't like people who are racist or xenophobic either, but no personal attacks applies. Report the behaviour, don't attack the user.Flat Out let's discuss it 06:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi - re Lightning Process

Hi,Firstly, great shot of your les paul on your home page:) I'm the guy who designed the Lightning Process (LP) - but I'm not very familiar with wikipedia so would appreciate so help/ guidance in improving the content of the wiki page on the LP. Some of it is great but some of it is quite biased and inaccurate- that isn't surprising as there's been a smear campaign (even resulting in death threats against the medical research team leading the RCT into the LP) going on against it for some time now. Looking at the history there seems to have been a lot of edits that have been overturned and then re instated. Would you be interested in discussing what is factually accurate and what isn't and what has been included in an attempt to smear - so we can get it to be a decent authoritative reference piece? Look forward to hearing from you. Phil Researchpsyc (talk) 08:59, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Researchpsyc, thanks for your message. I am happy for you to point out where you see incorrect or biased information, but pleased keep in mind that wikipedia articles are supposed to be an accurate summary of what reliable sources have to say about a subject. Flat Out let's discuss it 22:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Format fixes

Hi Flat Out. Hope you don't mind me doing this format fix to your talk page archives. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Flat Out let's discuss it 05:16, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

King

I've explained my edits on the Talk page there and will add sources in future edits. LudoVicar (talk) 05:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I have responded on your talk page. Flat Out let's discuss it 05:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Taken out film producer; other changes covered in article below. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LudoVicar (talk • contribs) 05:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

LudoVicar, you also removed sourced content and replaced it with unsourced content, again, and failed to seek consensus to change the lead despite my comments on the article's talk page and your talk page. This is not how we do things here; especially when another editor has tried to point you in the right direction.Flat Out let's discuss it 05:27, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry I'm not very high tech and am fairly new to editing. If those are the rules I won't edit any more. Don't know how to reference newspaper print sources as opposed to online. LudoVicar (talk) 05:31, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
LudoVicar you don't have to use online sources, but your sources do have to be verifiable.Flat Out let's discuss it 05:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I really don't want to breach rules so I won't continue editing especially if they get reverted - what's the point? All fairly trivial anyway (like adding the odd comma!). Apologies again.LudoVicar (talk) 05:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
LudoVicar the point is improving the article. If you have good sources and can improve the article then you should. You last edit, however, should be undone because it removed sourced content on the subjects convictions.Flat Out let's discuss it 05:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Can you explain to me how to add sources from print publications that are not online?LudoVicar (talk) 05:47, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I have replaced the source accidentally omitted LudoVicar (talk) 05:51, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
ThanksLudoVicar, I appreciate that and will remove the edit warring notice on your page; Re: citations, have a look at the examples here. Flat Out let's discuss it 05:53, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I still don't quite understand how to cite sources that are not online. Do I just put in date, publication etc and, if so, where do I put that info?LudoVicar (talk) 05:57, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @LudoVicar: All you have to do is put the relevant information from the publication (name of newspaper, date, page number, etc.) inside ref tags. We do have citation templates like {{Cite news}} and {{Cite book}} that have fields for you to fill in. Paste in the template, add information about the source that way. A great many sources are not available online and we couldn't write without them. WP:CITE is our guidance on citing sources. Chris Troutman (talk) 07:06, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Flat Out - I tried to do objective edits and was met by a barrage of abuse and bulk reverts so have given up but suggest, as you seem to be an honest and uninvolved editor, that you take a peek at King's talk page for my comments. It strikes me that Wikipedia is like Chinese whispers - the facts get subtly changed as they are passed along. I don't accuse anyone of having a malicious agenda or being a sock puppet (lovely words) - I think it's human nature to turn ordinary people into saints or sinners. Since all my 21 edits were bulk reverted - some simply correcting spelling - and I faced being blocked for changing them back, I've decided to end my very short editing career (I've only tried a few times). Also I have to say, my archive is a pile of old print magazines and - as mentioned above - I really cannot scan pages. But I suspect the remaining honest editors who care about accuracy will eventually take back the high ground. Best wishes and thank you for your good manners (sadly absent from other editors - some of whom, I notice, have also been accused of being sock puppets!) LudoVicar (talk) 07:24, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Oops - posted this after you sent me your message! My points on King's talk page were meant to address specific changes that I felt might help editors since I'm no longer editing. LudoVicar (talk) 07:32, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

WChanges to Emma kennys page

Hi , I did a page for Emma Kenny with a lot of info on there which was all true. I saw you had changed it so i have had to sort it out and re do it. I have had to speak with the wikipedia guys and replace it with truthful and relevant sources. including her government register number for her qualifications. hop this is now sorted for you as the source you put up was liable and an untrue blog source. sorry to have undone your work and i hope ive managed to get up what is the true facts about emma kenny regards Pete Smith — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petesmith2013 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)@Petesmith2013: Oh really? Which "Wikipedia guys" did you speak with? Did you call the Wikipedia 1-800 number? Surely you can't count talking to this guy with your nonsense "some other (obviously jealous) members of wikipedia have gone onto the page and edited it with lies and slander". Next time Flat Out makes edits, you just say thank you and move on. You don't own the article about Emma Kenny and anyone can edit it. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:14, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Hey, I think that I am that guy, and I didn't answer because I was working. I know that it is shocking, but active Wikipedia editors actually have real lives. I did quickly glance at the article and simply couldn't find the lies and slander you claimed, Petesmith2013. Maybe you can identify the "lies and slander" and provide proof of your charges? If so, please do so. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

petesmith2013, I stubified the article because it was largely unsourced, not neutral in its wording, was promotional in tone and did not meet WP:BLP. The blog I referenced is written by the author and is reliable because it supports the claim that the the subject of the article uses the title psychologist, and the BMJ article supports the claim that her qualifications do not meet the standard for use of that title. I have opened discussion on the article's talk page and you should respond their before making reinstating any changes. I note your message to Jim and suggest you read and understand WP:AGF.Flat Out let's discuss it 04:19, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Redirect

Hello Flat Out this is JimmyCrocus. I was wondering how do you redirect a page title — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimmyCrocus (talk • contribs) 23:11, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Throwdini?

Clever user name, huh? Throwdini advocated for the "pay to play" Record Holder's Republic going back to five years ago, before I ever edited Wikipedia myself. If tenure predicted compliance with Wikipedia's policies, we would both have to step aside. But it doesn't, pal. At this point, I am sorry that I advocated keeping the Roy Maloy article back when we first met. Please accept my apologies. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:53, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Emma Kenny

Hi flat out.

Hope you are well. Im sorry for getting off on the wrong foot with you. im quite new to this (not an excuse really)

Im just concerned about Emma Kennys page you see. I understand where you are coming from regarding what you have included. Im just trying to get the real facts up that show her BACP register nu,br etc, This etitles her to practice as a psychologist in the UK . She has a Masters in counselling plus a degree and an Advanced diploma is psycholgy too so it makes the article that you have sourced unreliable . I must apologise again for ranting before. I just dont want to cause Emma Kenny any harm and i am as this is affecting her family. It is me that put this page up , not her and to have untrue facts can damage a life of someone who just helps people. this is all im trying to do. can you advise me in what i would need to put up which is ok ?

regard

p — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petesmith2013 (talk • contribs) 05:54, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

emma kenny again

sorry dude. for taking over you rpage. the help oard asked to to show you my source for her BACP register number which removes any credibility from the margeret macartney article. hope this helps

http://www.bacpregister.org.uk/check_register/result_details.php?personid=1227178 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petesmith2013 (talk • contribs) 06:02, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

that source doesn't support your claim at all, it simply confirms she is registered with that organisation Flat Out let's discuss it 06:05, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


Hi ,

Thanks for responding. really appreciate it. Im dont work for Emma and ive done this page as i just wanted to be helpful. having a wikipedia page is really useful for people when they need to help people in life. How can i possibly work out with you how to remove the biog that says she doesnt have the quals to practice. The BACP register is an government acknowledged register in the UK which enables her to practice. The term psychologist is not a protected title either.the only protected title are in the link [1] 

the BACP organisation is all that you need to practice . She is mainly a counsellor also of which she has her Masters in. here is another link which states that beong called a psychologist is not illegal [2]

hope alls well. sorry for going on. just trying to sort this out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petesmith2013 (talk • contribs) 07:05, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Would you please sign your posts? Unless you have some reliable sources pls stop wasting my time, and shopping your opinion doesn't strengthen it one bit Flat Out let's discuss it 07:14, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


Hi , sorry about that. still getting to grips with this. I have just realised i should be leaving posts on the talk page of the actual page i am on about. really sorry for ranting in your personal page. it will now cease. Bit of a newbie. regards

pete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petesmith2013 (talk • contribs) 07:26, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

hi, i never said I wasn't involved, I do all her PA. The thing is that when I set this page up, I had no idea what to do and found you guys really helpful. I had no idea I couldn't know her? It was so she could have all her qualifications up and her HPC registration so that people could easily access her information. Last night I genuinely thought that someone had changed it as n attack? I understand now that this is far more complex than I realised. I just feel massively confused. She is legally allowed to be known as a Psychologist, practices in therapy and has all the quals to support this. At no point has she ever written that she was chartered or a Phd. You can understand that its really scary to see all the positive info removed and replaced by things based on one article that has been complained about. I guess I just want the page deleted as I don't want her to have this negative page associated with her as she doesn't deserve it. Please understand that this is unfair and that the least that should happen in the page should be deleted. Thanks

Petesmith2013 (talk)pete —Preceding undated comment added 09:10, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Record Holders Republic

You are incorrect. Do your homework. RHR is universally recognized as an authority in world records. It is YOU that has an agenda and is out to deny information about Roy Maloy. I would be happy to discus this with a legitimate truthful person at Wikipedia. You are not objective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.182.127 (talk) 08:39, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand how Wikipedia works. If you believe that record holders republic is a reliable source, you can make your case at the reliable sources noticeboard. If you gain consensus from other editors it can be used on this article. You should also read about sock/meat puppetry at WP:SOCK. Flat Out let's discuss it 08:45, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

What makes you think that stating facts and listing someone's world records is grandstanding, self-promoting, or anything other than the truth? Before passing judgement on me or Record Holders Republic why don't you visit the site. It's been up for over 10 years and has aired over 20 TV shows in which world records are set or broken. You obviously have an agenda and I'm curious what it is and for whom you're acting as a front to discredit Roy Maloy. I'd be happy to discuss this with your supervisor as you seem to be incapable of making a rationale decision. Dr. David R. Adamovich US President RHR — Preceding unsigned comment added by Throwdini (talk • contribs) 10:15, 18 January 2014 (UTC) −

As president of the organisation, you should not be promoting the website through addition of spam links. If you read the article's talk page you will find a link to consensus that RHR is not a reliable source. Flat Out let's discuss it 10:22, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Misleading Info On Emma Kenny

Hello I am a client of Emma Kenny's and the accusation that I am guilty of 'sockpuppeting' is ridiculous. You can easily check that from my IP address and compare to anybody else who has commented in the history of Wikipedia. I can vouch for Emma's qualifications and so including a source to an article that was speculative as opposed to factual, makes no sense. Please remove that reference. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbins123 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Complaint regarding emma Kennys article

I am not editing this article in a bias way. I am basically putting facts up .You are purposefully tweaking this article to suit you. I have not removed your sources etc but added to them in accordance with Wikipedia rules. I am not sure why you intend to cary on with this. I am going to report you to the administrators board.You keep removing notable sources. Petesmith2013 (talk) 11:51, 19 January 2014 (UTC)pedros (talk)

You have violated WP:3RR and have been reported for editing warring, which you were previously warned for. Feel free to report me but watch out for the boomerang.Flat Out let's discuss it 11:54, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


Hi , I understand this. I have no malice or personal problems with your good self. Ive just been trying to discuss with you on how to get the article factually sorted. All of the elements you included are factual and relevant as so are the ones i have sourced. All i have been trying to do is place neutral facts and information up but on one hand you have been helping me but on the other hand removing things that I have tried to prove are correct. I admire your work you do on this site as it obviously takes a lot of skill and expertise. i have never meant to come across as arguing with you as all i want to do like your good self is to have facts on the article. Sorry if i ever offended your work just trying to get the article where its neutral and factual for the subject.

Petesmith2013 (talk) 12:42, 19 January 2014 (UTC)pedros (talk)

Self-promotion?

Hi. I've reverted your edit to Jonathan Wild, an article I watch. Did you realize the old URL, that you reverted to, was dead? I mistakenly reverted your similar edit to Luigi del Riccio, too, but have self-reverted there and added a deadlink template instead, because it turns out the new link is dead also… Perhaps User:Rictornorton can fix it. I see you warned him for adding links to his own site, but those were replacements for pre-existing, dead, links, and it's surely better for Wikipedia to have working links. Bishonen | talk 13:36, 19 January 2014 (UTC).

Hi Bishonen, thanks for picking up my mistake. I have removed the warnings. The edits were flagged but I should have checked the previous links. Flat Out let's discuss it 22:10, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 January 2014

This week's article for improvement

File:Oseberg ship head post.jpg
An animal-head post found in the Oseberg vikingship, an example of Nordic art
Hello, Flat Out.

The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection:

Nordic art

Previous selections: Gopher (animal) • Meal

Get involved with the TAFI project! You can...
Posted by: Evad37 [talk] 01:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Help on repeated vandalism

Hi I am aware that you are watching the tiger vs lion page. A user called Golden Prime has just made 9 lengthy vandalizing edits - no source, pure opinions, quoting from pure fictions, or made-up statements by combining sources to imply something that the original text didn't say at all. The user can be traced to a few lion fanatic sites. Because he made too many conflicting intermediate edits some edits could not be undone. I manually changed them back to the last accepted version but based on his actions in other sites I expect he won't stop. Is there a way to semi lock the page or revert all his changes with a single click? Thanks! --BigCat82 (talk) 06:02, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

BigCat82, edit warring is not the solution to a content dispute and you have far exceeded WP:3RR which puts you at risk of a block for edit-warring. You should step aside and leave this one to other editors until the situation has settled down. Flat Out let's discuss it 06:05, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Got it I leave it to other editors. Note that my first series of edits to revert his actions back to the last accepted version should be considered a single revert edits according to wikipedia definition and I think I haven't violated the 3RR yet :) --BigCat82 (talk) 06:22, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I count at least 4 reverts by you in 24 hours. You don't have to hit rollback for it to be a revert. 4, 3, 2, 1. Flat Out let's discuss it 06:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Got it. I only counted the edits to revert golden prime's actions and didn't know the minor edit on others made earlier are also counted. I have stopped right after you reminded me the first time but Golden Prime continued to revert to his own versions and far exceeded the 3RR. I will leave it to you and other editors to resolve thanks for your help again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigCat82 (talk • contribs) 11:07, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

BigCat82 please stop posting discussion of your opinion on this article's talk page, talk page is not a forum. Please also note that discussion forums are not reliable sources.Flat Out let's discuss it 11:12, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Tiger versus lion

Golden Prime Replying about: This people are not giving any tangible evidence in what they are claiming, they are claiming the data I provided was vandalizing...pure B.S on their claims, they are just lying and lying, I provided the root article/source for everything, via books, newspaper archives ect, which exact content has no source? Which is pure opinion? This is not a forum, this is a site that upholds factual sources...as I provided, in fact...please admins and moderators, banned them for they are sabatoging the very core ethics of this site, and what its supposed to up hold, hence the external links Jackjacksonj site, is filled with lies and trash photoshoped that has been exposed exploited and dismanteled on more than 10 websites (Redacted)

(Redacted)

I can assure you, I havent removed and replaced one thing in todays revisions that has anything to do with fiction, (you can read the content yourself if you may) but what already was in place was a pot of pure bullshit, cherry picking, lying, obscuring and twitsing facts, its beyound basics, lesser than common knowledge of what is availiable to assests, study and show a logical conclusion that all the data is being withhold from a bias nut job who has issues.

I can grab every artical that shows the 1909 fight in coney island dident have one article that specifically states the lion died and or was killed only a suggestion of 1/3 saying might, not did, or John vartys website that doesnt mention a dam thing about him saying the tiger would win every time... along with every article and source I provided has its reliable source to go by. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Golden Prime (talk • contribs) 06:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Golden Prime, it doesn't mater if you are right or wrong you can't keep reverting an article to get your way - especially after you received a warning not to. It isn't worth the block that you are going to receive, so when you are unblocked try reading WP:CONSENSUS. Flat Out let's discuss it 06:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Lion vs Tiger

Long post

Hey flat out, I must apologize for the accusations I implyed specifically and only to you, not Bigcat82. And thanks for reverting it back to a more reliable and fair assement, for there is and no consenses done on that topic, on here, as Bigcat82 has only pro-data on his bias POV, who he is hypocritical to his own Guidelines. As given, he is ubscuring, cherry picking and using flawed information to suit his patheological compulsive lying issues, as his IP can be traced to over 30 websites from Blogs, to forums and Youtube of this specific subject and has even exposed himself by having over a 100 aliases talking to himself acting like others agree with him.

As I in my vigilante mode, adressed his compulsive bias issues of spreading Propagnda, and his selfish, insecurity of erasing or hiding pro-lion or anything even that mentions a fair assesment/consenses where any factual content that supports the lion is erased.

I have no problem excepting anything pro-tiger, but atleast allow the world to view the other half of the coin, the problem is, none of his content is reliable, his poor explaination of Guidelines is only being applied to his Bias POV and is not being upheld both ways...in any case, The guide lines should be strictly at its core Credability/Qualifications.

Hence.

--History-- Should only be answered by a licensed Historian, who has the highest form of education, Via Specifically Ph.D or Masters degrees...I removed his source of Romans favoring the tiger, simply because he hid the sources credability and its full content (Contradicting his own guidelines mentioned in Talk), The source is from william bridges a zoo keeper, heres the article:

http://jackjacksonj.webs.com/ewtwet.jpg

(Redacted) http://jackjacksonj.webs.com/tigervslionaccounts.htm

I replaced his unqualified opinion, I dont know why you are insisting to use William bridges over Ken spiro who has a much higher credible stance: http://www.aish.com/authors/48865437.html

But as I stated before, he has been exploited and exposed for mainly using a few real incidents and the rest are repeating the same occaisons then hiding its full details to act/pretend and lie that they are differnt occaisons by only showing a snip, cut and paste or another source thats merely stating the same account.

You see, in that example? Where was his, "we need to show the whole abstract" Guideline, he cherry picks things out of his own Bias point of view in articles and books and then doesnt mention the essential things on subject, like william bridges...

1.) Doesn't have a Ph.d or Masters in history, hes just a Zoo keeper.

2.) He did in fact give his opinion on the tiger (only slight), but he doesnt have any self observation so it doesnt really mean anything, since others I have given are by self observation and basing it on actual experince.

3.) He stated the lions mane does protect the lions throat to an extant (hiding content)

So in verse, it is removed from its designated catagorie of History, since it is not qualified specifically. But to also add, more hypocrisiy, (if you dont know by now) (Redacted), which I would gesture from the get go, allowing him to remain on subject is promoting a bias POV from the start, as he admited his intentions along with his prior history of 10 years cherry picking, hiding and twisting facts, and it goes beyound there, he degrades, insults and humilates a animal (the lion) by chastizing it, posting sickly stariving versions and laughing at them, goes way off topic and shows lions being killed by everything possible by humans, animals ect.

You want another example of his contradicting? He stated to you in the Talk section that he offered up a source that disputes the Mane protecting factor just so you would agree to remove Clyde beatty's statement so he could then in process have a reason to hide that Clyde beatty stated he lost some 50 tigers killed by his lions, which in case 80% Individually (over the years) are backed up by numerous newspaper archives, some with even stating it was witnessed by thousands as goes it is a circus performance accident after all...but...in case, the site/source he mentions doesnt qualify scientifical or not to dispute anything...

Why?

Well if you read it for one, there is conflicting information upon (Opinion) that is easily comprehendable to see that the information is not provable in their case, since...

A.) It was tested on manican lions, a method that doesnt offer any credability higher than discovering how a dog will attack a bear by letting him attack a stuff'd teddy bear, no live specimens = No actual testing.

B.) In that same source, they offer no rejection with proof other than opinion, to dispute George B schallers claim (which is in the very same Pdf), saying he was bias is not a factual implication to prove any point.

The fact is, there is substantial proof by numerous occaisons, displays video and wriiten abstracts from Observers experts, trainers, zoologist and other walks of science (on hand), I am not claiming that the lions mane is a bullet proof vest, I am applying that to an extent, even a bullet proof vest is subject to be penetrable as people have died where the bullet went through, the same thing I am specifically consenting that the mane offers a medium and base protecting factor so even if 1 or 2 acounts show a maned lion being killed by a tiger, doesnt dispute its original propertys and uses since over 10 occaions specifcally mentions, written and video shows it already did protect the lion against a tiger (specifically), as once again, Bigcat82 hid the aray of experts (Redacted), who states the lions mane offers protection:

John varty. http://www.jvbigcats.co.za/

Again, Bigcat82 hid, and where on there did Varty say the tiger would win every time? No where. He just added in quotes of what he said on his video interview about the biting power and lied that Varty said every time.

As so its plastered right on its first abstract from Darwins accident when a tiger ambushed a lion, and Charles Darwin stated the mane did save the lions neck from being harmed. Also the two other experts I provided...Clyde beatty and terrell Jacobs, both qualified to opinionate, since they are going off self observation upon numerous experinces, that the lions mane is a protecting factor. So in conjunction, Bigcat82 is merely cherry picking, and is subjective to bias POV while lying and hiding full abstracts at the same time contradicting his own Guide lines...as for how you adressed him...I totally agree, this is not a forum to try and refute things, there should have only the factual content of the highest credability. As I started off saying...

Q="Qualifications"

---Historians--- Q. With Ph.d/Masters Specifically in History

---Physical comparisons--- Q. Including all Sub-species from Ph.D Biologist no cherry picking involved

---Accidental Fights--- Q. If it has a credible source it should not be removed, and for futher credability, the whole bio should be mentioned of both favoring the lion and tigers cuased, not just showing the whole detail of the lions story and hiding the facts of genders, ages, and conditions of the tigers to remain hidden.

---Experts Opinions--- Q. The person who is leaving an opinion, must have a verbal/writen abstract showing it is based on observation, not guesses, hypotheticals, and POV's with no experince in specifically seeing them fight, also it cannot be assumed, just because of their titles, a root source straight to the quota/statment should be verified

Again, you are right, this isnt a forum, and thanks for that 1 time reverting back to the fair assement revision you did, I dont care at this point, since he wont stop his charade, I will deal with him later esle where away from this site and exploit and expose him the proper way, he can have all the fun he wants sabatoging wiki as hes been doing for years now, but we both know hes not having fun, where ever I go he has a mental break down because I speak the truth and show people what kind of person he really is, but its no biggie for now...later I'll take out the trash...

Thanks again any ways...Tootles ^_^ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.151.19 (talk) 01:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Golden Prime coming out of a block and starting up the same edit warring on the same article is going to lead to another longer block. My friendly advice is to discuss your concerns briefly on the article's talk page and provide sources for each point you wish to contest. Please do note edit on this article while logged out. Flat Out let's discuss it 01:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Flat out, I dont know why you keep notifying me, I explained I cant view my emails at the momement...so I am relying soly on the talk option...and again, what was the reason for reverting to a more less reliable, bias, cherry picking revision? Do you even read and comprehend what you do? If so I will meet you in the (Lion vs Tiger:Talk) Exactly Right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Golden Prime (talk • contribs) 02:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Golden Prime I am not emailing you or notifying you, I am posting on your talk page. Try reading the posts I have left you about edit-warring which is the reason you were blocked. I am not debating the merits of the article, I am trying to explain to you that edit-warring is not the way to make changes. Please sign your posts. Flat Out let's discuss it 02:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Declined speedy

I declined the speedy at XOLO because there is just enough there for it to squeak by a speedy deletion, namely the partnership with Liverpool F.C., so the best next course of action would be to take it to AfD. I've strongly cautioned the article's original editor about finding reliable sources, among other things. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Tokyogirl79, thanks for the heads up. I'll have another look and see if it warrants AfD. Flat Out let's discuss it 22:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Seriously what is wrong

I don't want an automated message now. Whenever I add primary sources, they add a tag to add secondary sources, and whenever I add them, YOU REMOVE THEM -_- — Preceding unsigned comment added by PrajayXG (talk • contribs) 01:30, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I will respond at your talk page Flat Out let's discuss it 01:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Charles Denham Article

Could you respond to my edits on the merits, please, rather than simply insisting I find agreement with a user who violates NPOV and will not discuss his edits? And please only revert my edits on the merits of the edit, not your perception of the dispute. Thank you. Ceekay215 (talk) 03:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Ceekay215, I reverted your edit because you reinstated it without gaining consensus from other editors. Further, the editor did in fact respond to your post at the article's talk page. You are edit-warring on this article and my friendly advice is that you stop. Your report of the editor for edit warring was unwise seeing as they had made only two reverts and it is likely cause a problem for you. Flat Out let's discuss it 03:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Flat Out, for your information and consideration: WP:AN3#User:bluerasberry reported by Ceekay215. —Josh3580talk/hist 03:30, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Flat Out. You have new messages at Ceekay215's talk page.
Message added 06:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

My bad.  —Josh3580talk/hist 06:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 January 2014

Hey man, don't threat me. What the hell is that to threatening me? I am giving this edits in references. What did I done and what I commit and crime and offense of personal attacks? Strange! I will complain Jim. 103.9.114.58 (talk) 06:19, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Threating Me

Hey man, don't threat me. What the hell is that to threatening me? I am giving this edits in references. What did I done and what I commit and crime and offense of personal attacks? Strange! I will complain Jim. 103.9.114.58 (talk) 06:19, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

103.9.114.58, if you wish to leave posts for other editors, then be civil. Do not swear at someone - instead you should assume good faith. Flat Out let's discuss it 06:21, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
103.9.114.58, you started out great this evening, trying to improve things in good-faith, and I tried my best to assist you. Then you turned nasty against some very reputable editors. Please see WP:NPA, you should not call other editors names. Comment on content, not on the contributor. You are painting yourself in a corner by refusing to take advisement from more experienced members of the community. They mean you no offense, are trying to guide you to what needs to be done, but nevertheless you seem to mean offense at this point. —Josh3580talk/hist 06:51, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Fremont High School (Indiana)

I noticed you reverted this article. Can you seriously tell me it looks better now than it did with my edits? 24.225.67.106 (talk) 07:20, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Could you please use edit summaries to assist other editors keep track of changes, and discuss your edits on the article's talk page when you have been reverted? Flat Out let's discuss it 07:23, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Are edit summaries obligatory? 24.225.67.106 (talk) 07:28, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
No, but they help especially when you are removing content - that's why I said please. Flat Out let's discuss it 07:31, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Edit summaries tell people what you are doing. So perhaps you should use them. This helps recent changes patrollers to see what editors are doing while they are patrolling for vandalism. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 07:34, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
I would have been far more receptive to the suggestion and inclined to follow the advice had you asked prior to blindly reverting. Now I'm just a little too pissed off to care, well done for that. 24.225.67.106 (talk) 07:38, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
I guess that's what happens when you don't register an account, spread your multiple edits across a number of I.P addresses and reinstate content without discussion. Flat Out let's discuss it 07:41, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Oh, how often reviewers mention using the Talk page after making a bad decision, but you'll need to explain what "spread your multiple edits across a number of I.P addresses" means before I can answer, it sounds like an accusation. 24.225.67.106 (talk) 08:03, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: User:Akone Consulting

Hello Flat Out, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of User:Akone Consulting, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. DP 11:59, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for removing the personal attack against me/us. I hate that guy got so riled up so suddenly. I didn't realize that *shrug* could be taken as an insult in Mali. —Josh3580talk/hist 15:58, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement

The Low Countries as seen from space
Hello, Flat Out.

The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection:

Low Countries

Previous selections: Nordic art • Gopher (animal)

Get involved with the TAFI project! You can...
Posted by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Evad37 (talk) 01:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC) • Opt-out instructions

Redirects

Hello Flat Out, I've been wondering how to redirect a page title. User:JimmyCrocus — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimmyCrocus (talk • contribs) 02:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi JimmyCrocus, let me know which page do you want to redirect and I'll explain how. Flat Out let's discuss it 02:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Ross University School of Medicine

The Ross University School of Medicine page relies heavily on a single four-year-old news article. The data cited in this article is long out of date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HI302 (talk • contribs) 14:42, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

HI302 please raise this as an issue on the article's talk page. Flat Out let's discuss it 02:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

JS Group

The page of JG Group is full of personal attacks. land Grabbing Case was against owner, not its group. so it must not be shared at JS Group page. Allegations of Sunday leader was fake as no reports of SECP are found or lodged. Finally, Sprint Energy is not owned by JS Group, it has shares in it. Bonus to Ali siddiqui is nothing to do with company operations. So kindly tell me how these information can be removed from page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Creative factor (talk • contribs) 09:57, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.sgcp.org.uk/sgcp/publications/international-coaching-psychology-review/editorial-to-be-or-not-to-be-registered-is-that-now-the-question-for-coaching-psychologists$.cfm
  2. ^ http://www.clinpsy.org.uk/wiki/article/all-psychology-graduates-are-psychologists-aren-t-they
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Flat_Out/Archives/2014/January&oldid=1136187973"