User talk:Flyte35

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

Happy New Year[edit]

Savvyjack23 (talk) 07:58, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Middlebury College[edit]

Feel free to propose new criteria for whether people should be included in Middlebury College‎. But the criteria - old, current, or proposed - can't contradict core policies e.g., WP:N. ElKevbo (talk) 19:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what someone's working on now, but the earlier guideline in the article: "Only people who already have a Wikipedia article may appear here" didn't contradict wikipedia policy. WP:N states that for lists within article "the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles." But, again, please discuss on the article's talk page. Flyte35 (talk) 19:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
The policy clearly states that "The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article." In practice, we often make a (mental and unspoken) shortcut through WP:N to WP:DUE but that isn't clear to new editors. We should be explicit if we're going to set a high bar for inclusion in an article and it shouldn't be implicitly based on "notability" but other criteria that (a) don't contradict policies and (b) are understandable for all editors and are clearly more stringent that notability in the Wikipedia sense e.g., has had worldwide impact, most prominent in their field. ElKevbo (talk) 19:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Please discuss this over in the talk page for the article. Flyte35 (talk) 19:59, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Resolution: Original criteria retained. Flyte35 (talk) 23:59, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Burr Steers[edit]

Keep fighting the good fight. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 01:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC)


The article refers to the OED for the origin of outsourcing being out-resourcing. Though it seems very reasonable, the OED online entry does not mention this. Could you please send me a screenshot of the referenced dictionary definition? MironGewrstmann (talk) 11:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I think you might have meant this message for another editor. I didn't add the name origin information to the article. The information you're asking about was added by user Lightendark on May 22, 2015. Flyte35 (talk) 18:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I will try him. MironGerstmann (talk) (talk) 06:43, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Grand Canyon University[edit]

Please read comments added to talk secion on 5/5/16 User:VChapman User_talk:vchapman

Keiser University[edit]

Referring to this edit ]] at Keiser University....It is simply wrong to say that non-profit is a standard term and not-for-profit is not a "standard" term. [1] I believe most accountants would say that not-for-profit is technically a better term. In any case, it is definitely NOT non-standard, as you assert. Jacona (talk) 18:16, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's essential to mention the tax status of the institution in the lede. Certainly most regular colleges with wiki articles are just characterized as "public" or "private." But in the articles here where editors felt compelled to mention that the colleges were not for-profit corporations, the term used is generally "non-profit." See, for example, Western Governors University, Davenport University, and Burlington College. I see no reason why this article benefits from using a different term. Flyte35 (talk) 23:38, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Exactly. It's your opinion, not the "correct" term, but your edit caption asserts that the term was "standard". The fact that it's written that way in a couple other articles doesn't make it correct, or standard in anyway. It's not any standard, just your preference. It's ok with me, you can appoint yourself king, if you want to. Jacona (talk) 16:09, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Resolution: My edits retained.Flyte35 (talk) 18:28, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Anne Holton[edit]

I just wanted to thank you for your recent efforts in cleaning up the article I previously created on Anne Holton, the wife of Democratic Party vice presidential nominee Tim Kaine.--TommyBoy (talk) 04:01, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest that you'd stop wrongly meddling with the entry, please. I'm sorry about the harsh language, but there's no other explanation for what you're doing. You deleted an info that holds the fact that A. Linwood Holton, Jr., was the first GOP governor of Virginia as well as the first elected GOP governor of the state. How do I know that? Take a look at this entry -- List of governors of Virginia -- and see that before his name there were only 3 (!) GOP governors in the Reconstruction era -- all appointed by the local military governor who occupied the south or (1) by a fake assembly. None of these 3 won a real election in the state by popular vote. Archway (talk) 07:32, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

The line you wish to include is unsourced. According to WP:BLP "contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."
I'm not saying what you wish to include is untrue, but an encyclopedia depends on reliable sources to determine which happenings are notable.
Please participate in any further discussion over at Talk:Anne Holton.Flyte35 (talk) 13:56, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
With all due respect, I don't think you understand what "soursing" is all about. It's about providing credibility and avoiding false or misleading information in Wiki; this is not the case. This is a fact. It's like asking me to provide source that Barack Obama is the POTUS. Here's a source [2] -- in which you see that Mr Holton was the first GOP governor since Gilbert Carlton Walker (1870–1875) -- the end of the Reconstruction. Second, you can see that the only 3 previous GOP governors before Holton are "provisional governor" -- which means they were not elected. This is a well sourced fact. We shouldn't continue arguing about facts. 00:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Please discuss this over at Talk:Anne Holton. Flyte35 (talk) 00:46, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Resolution: Questionable information about Holton's father not retained. Flyte35 (talk) 18:43, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Jean-Claude Duvalier[edit]

According to the cited source, the "instruction supplémentaire" was a ruling by two judges in the Haitian court of appeal on a point of law (whether Duvalier could be tried), which modified the earlier "instruction" to try him only for the financial charges. I'm not sure what the technical term in English would be? Maybe just "ruling"? (I shouldn't say this, but, was reverting the edit really the best way to raise this question?) Furius (talk) 01:57, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I think something that narrow and technical probably isn't worth adding to the article. Flyte35 (talk) 03:53, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
But it's not a technical detail - as it stands, the article gives the impression that the Haitian state decided not to prosecute Duvalier for crimes against humanity. The supplementary instruction changed that. Now as it happens he died before he could be charged with those crimes, but it makes a massive difference to an understanding of his legacy and of establishment attitudes to him in Haiti. Furius (talk) 09:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
If you can find a source that explains that legal detail very clearly, such an addition might be useful.Flyte35 (talk) 13:05, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
The initial decision not to charge him for human rights abuses appears in this source 1 (already cited in the article), which explains that it was claimed that the statute of limitations had expired. This source from 21 February 2014 describes how that earlier ruling was overturned En affirmant le principe universel “d’imprescriptibilité des crimes contre l’humanité”, les juges Jean-Joseph Lebrun, Marie-Jocelyne Casimir et Durin Duret Junior ont confirmé que le temps n’absoudrait pas Jean-Claude Duvalier. = "Affirming the universal principle on "statutes of limitations for crimes against humanity," the judges Jean-Joseph Lebrun, Marie-Jocelyne Casimir and Durin Duret Junior have confirmed that time has not absolved Jean-Claude Duvalier"... Revenu de son exil français en 2011, l’ancien président haïtien (de 1971 à 1986) est visé par de nombreuses plaintes pour arrestations illégales, tortures, emprisonnement et exil forcé de ses opposants. Les avocats de Jean-Claude Duvalier, qui considéraient les plaintes irrecevables car elles portaient sur des événements remontant à plus vingt-cinq années, ont été déboutés par les juges. La justice ouvre donc une nouvelle enquête, au terme de laquelle elle décidera de poursuite ou non à l’encontre de l’ancien dictateur. = "On his return from exile in France in 2011, the old Haitian President (1971-1986) was faced with numerous accusations for illegal arrests, torture, imprisonment, and forced exile of his opponants. The lawyers for Jean-Claude Duvalier, who considered the accusations inadmissable because they concern events that happened more than twenty-five years (ago), have been rejected by the judges. The justice system thus opens a new enquiry as a result of which it will decide whether or not to prosecute the old dictator." Furius (talk) 13:42, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
What's confusing about this is that the last line now in the Return section has him pleading not guilty to charges of corruption and human rights abuse in 2013. So what happened here? Then in 2014 Haiti opened a new inquiry as a result of which it would decide whether or not to prosecute the old dictator. But it reads now like Haiti already started the prosecution process, in 2013. Flyte35 (talk) 16:35, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
You're right. That is odd. The source cited is this article, which is opens with " Duvalier faced corruption and human rights charges in a court on Thursday for the first time since a popular revolt forced him into exile in 1986, and denied responsibility for abuses under his 15-year rule." and "During the hearing Duvalier was asked by the judges about more than a dozen of the most notorious cases involving alleged extra-judicial killings and detention of political prisoners," but then it says that "The pretrial Appeal Court hearing was held to determine what charges Duvalier may have to face". This source clarifies "In January 2012, an investigating judge ruled that the statute of limitations had expired on the human rights crimes of which he was accused. His victims appealed. In February 2013, an appeals court ordered Duvalier to testify, as did many of his government’s victims, but only in February 2014 did the court re-instate the charges, saying that international law barred the use of statute of limitations for crimes against humanity." So, I'd be inclined to insert a few sentences spelling all that out and one of the quotes from the 2013 appeals hearing (Probably the one from this article on the 2013 hearing, which seems to be the only time he personally appeared in court). The articles from while the trial was in progress stress that it was "historic" and the HRW article from after his death says, “Duvalier’s death robs Haiti of what could have been the most important human rights trial in its history.” As such, I think it is important to have the details of his case's progress through the court spelt out. The details of the trial are I think as notable as those of the various prosecutions of Augusto Pinochet - which wiki describes in some detail. Furius (talk) 20:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
I think it's probably best just to go with a summary from one of the obituaries, rather than trying to do play-by-play from news articles. Those things often don't quite get legal stuff right, and don't get corrected later on. The details of a trial would have been notable, yes, but no Duvalier trial took place. Flyte35 (talk) 21:37, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Resolution: No addition of new legal information retained. Flyte35 (talk) 18:33, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Flyte35. 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)

Maximilian von Götzen-Iturbide[edit]

You can not PROD Maximilian von Götzen-Iturbide again. It was deleted via PROD before and recreated, that is a clear objection, plus I removed one already. You must take it to WP:AFD if you want to see the article deleted. - GB fan 17:34, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I thought that's what I was doing. Can you help me with this? There's clearly some rules you seem to be very well aware of here. I just know that the subject of the article does not meet the criteria for notability and so I'm trying to delete it, because it shouldn't exist. If I'm using the wrong template, please let me know what the correct template to use here is. Is it the one used at the top of this article. You understand what I'm trying to do here and clearly the article should be deleted. I obviously don't want to waste my time making edits you're just going to revert because of some failure to follow correct procedure.Flyte35 (talk) 17:54, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
That is the template that you will need to use. There is more to it than just adding it to the top of the page. You will need to follow the directions at WP:AFDHOWTO. - GB fan 18:00, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
OK, I tried. Probably still screwed something up, but whatever. I guess that's how we learn. Flyte35 (talk) 22:47, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, here's the article's entry on the Articles for deletion page.Flyte35 (talk) 16:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Resolution: Consensus was that that subject is not notable. The result was redirect to House of Iturbide. Flyte35 (talk) 14:54, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Countess of Rosebery[edit]

Flyte35, the only consensus for your edits I can see on Talk:Hannah Primrose, Countess of Rosebery is you agreeing with yourself. That's not enough for you to reinsert your preferred version as soon as the protection expired, which is what you did. I won't take any admin action in regard to that article, as I might be considered biased by being a long-time friend of Giano, but perhaps the protecting admin would like to keep an eye on developments. Bishonen | talk 16:33, 21 January 2017 (UTC).

I don't think anyone was maintaining there was consensus. It is not necessary to get the approval of other editors before making changes to articles. Flyte35 (talk) 18:09, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
You do realize the article was protected because of the content conflict / edit war? And now you have reinserted the change you previously edit-warred in favour of. You need to try harder to actually get consensus — 3rd opinion or RFC or dispute resolution or whatever — not simply resume the war. Bishonen | talk 18:23, 21 January 2017 (UTC).
I don't have to do anything, but I am aware of the procedures all editors have available in Wikipedia to resolve content disagreements, yes. Flyte35 (talk) 18:54, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Resolution: See talk page. Edits not retained. Flyte35 (talk) 04:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Family of Donald Trump[edit]

That article is under a ArbCom imposed 1RR, so please self-revert immediately. If you do not, I will be forced to block your account from editing. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:03, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Resolution: Another editor altered the text in question and added sourcing. No account blocking or anything. Flyte35 (talk) 04:36, 15 February 2017 (UTC)