User talk:Doctorfluffy/Archive 8

Internet_In_Thailand

User:Sethnessatwikipedia Yesterday I wrote a first draft of a new section: "Internet speeds in Thailand". Today I returned to edit & add some references, only to find you'd removed the section entirely. I can find no way to discover WHY you removed the section. Please, let me know the "why" so that I can make more acceptable additions in the future. Sethnessatwikipedia (talk) 10:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RFA spam

Thank you for participating in WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 3

Sometimes, being turned back at the door isn't such a bad thing

—Kww(talk) 18:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you stick with it. I read the crat discussion and it really was a close call. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moved discussion to Wikipedia talk:Notability

I moved the discussion to the Wikipedia talk:Notability as it's more appropriate for the survey. Any concerns please direct over there. Robert9673 (talk) 05:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Bunsen

Like you I do not understand why there is constant vandalism on this page: a while ago I made a request for some protection for the page but it seems nothing has happened. A lot of time is being wasted when each occurrence of vandalism needs to be reverted.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 09:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

regarding Cairhien

The reason for my undoing of your blanking was due to references from Places in the Wheel of Time series, in which I mean that they all need to be taken into consideration of deletion and not only one of them which have own articles. _→AzaToth 19:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chronology of Star Wars

An AFD discussion that you have previously participated in has been reignited. See here for more the new discussion. Dale 10:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Belial in popular culture

Please stop unilaterally redirecting this article. You have been bold and have been reverted, now it is time to discuss on the talk page. Thank you, NW (Talk) 20:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming good faith, but your message comes off as condescending. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 00:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies if my message sounded condescending. I didn't want to impose any sanctions on any editor to stop the edit warring, so I hoped that a firm message would get the discussion going a bit faster. Turns out I made my message a bit too strong. My apologies. NW (Talk) 03:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 03:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - don't edit-war, and beware of tag-teams. Oh, and don't eat yellow snow. pablo_hablo. 22:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 00:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wimpy

It's not trivial when Wimpy is a character who appears not very often in popcult. Sach (talk) 20:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a few seconds in a single episode. That's the definition of trivial in popcult. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 21:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that's not the case. A few seconds can be significant or not depending on context. Sach (talk) 12:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement is based on your personal opinion. I am challenging the notability of the material. Find a source indicating its notability. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 16:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Answered on the talk page. Sach (talk) 20:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop reverting and join the discussion on the article's talk page. Sach (talk) 20:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 20:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

November 2009

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 55 hours to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. NW (Talk) 21:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Doctorfluffy (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Elaborate. There is no explanation other than the block template above.

Decline reason:

And there is no explanation as to why you should be unblocked. — Daniel Case (talk) 04:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Doctorfluffy (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Daniel, I'm simply asking for clarification. How can I possibly provide a justification for an unblock without knowing the reason of the block itself?

Decline reason:

You were blocked for edit warring. Your unblock request will need to address that as well as the troubling insinuations that you will continue editing anonymously/with another account, as you mention below. TN X Man 14:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Doctorfluffy, this thread explains why you were blocked. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok, thanks. This block appears to be punitive, not preventative, as I had already started participating in a discussion on the article's talk page with the other editor. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 06:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's preventative in the sense that if someone knows they might get blocked for it, they're less likely to edit war. Your best bet if you wanna get out of the block is to promise to adhere to some kind of restriction, a restriction that prevents you warring for a while. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not necessary. I have no problem editing anonymously for 2 days. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 06:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't; I'd rather not have to extend this block indefinitely. Block evasion tends to be dealt with harshly here. Anyway -- you going to stop edit warring? Just commit to not doing it; it's not a restriction other than one we all live with. Then the unblock is easy. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 07:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had stopped the alleged "edit warring" before I was blocked; See my first response to Deacon of Pndapetzim a few lines up. I don't really care if I am unblocked or not. The vast majority of my work is vandal reversion and MOS formatting and there is no particular reason those edits need to be associated with this account. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 08:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you were both reverting and discussing intermittently.[1][2][3] There was no way of knowing whether you were "done" or not. An administrator can unblock you, but only if you promise not to repeat such behavior. NW (Talk) 11:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's unclear to me why you and the others above regard an unblock in this manner. Like a mother with an agitated child saying, "you can have your toy back, but only if you stop yelling." The tone of it is belittling and it isn't helping foster a sense of a community that I want to rush back to. If you think I am going to continue the behavior that you contend is disruptive then don't unblock me. If you think I won't then do unblock. It's up to you. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Krishna Kumar

An article that you have been involved in editing, Krishna Kumar, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Krishna Kumar. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Rockpocket 09:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trick 'r Treat Plot synopsis

I understand your good faith edits in regards to contributing to the Trick r' Treat movie page, but simply mass deleting the synopsis down to a movie teaser explanation, not giving any actual reason other than citing MP:PLOT policy incorrectly, and not being a willing participant in a discussion on the talk page leads your actions to be little more than edit warring and vandalism. If you would please discuss and get a consensus on your proposed edit that would be far more acceptable than simply undoing my edits. I have followed MP:PLOT as closely as I think warrants the needs of the movie's plot and I have edited several hundred words from it as well, distilling each individual section of the film to it's bare essentials. I don't want to sound crude or start an edit war but please stop ignoring my requests on the edit page to join the discussion on the TALK PAGE. Thank you! (Deftonesderrick (talk) 07:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Each sub-story in the movie deserves at the absolute most a short paragraph (5 lines). The version you keep restoring is several times too long, describing every single event in great detail. For example, the section on the film's opening is only a few minutes on screen, yet there are 200 words of synopsis. Plot summaries are not meant to be a substitute for the real thing; they exist merely to give the reader a brief overview of the events in the work. Also, I appreciate your efforts to educate me on policy, but you got the name wrong. It's WP:PLOT, not MP:PLOT. I knew what you meant though since I've been here for three years and I have more than 15 times as many edits as you, 1/4 of which are to the project namespace. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 07:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, first off, I don't want to start an edit war with you, I simply saw a problem and was trying to deal with it. First, i am taking steps at this moment to make the plot summary to fit an anthology film plot synopsis such as Four Rooms by making a each story only about 2-5 sentences long. Second, I understand what is involved with WP:PLOT and only typed M by mistake. I don't doubt your capabilities as an editor but I've been trying to keep this particular page free from vandalism and unexplained edits for some time now and editing a summary that drastically sets off an alarm. I'm not questioning who has more experience editing but I've dealt with more than a few people who have done this type of editing. Your edit has merit, but while my edit may have been too detailed, yours wasn't detailed enough. Again, sorry for the confusion and contacting an admin. but I was going off the repeated attempts to get you to contribute to the talk page first before editing and your history of edit warring. I am posting my new edit of the summary in a few minutes. (Deftonesderrick (talk) 08:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Cool. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 08:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DSA

Hello Mr. Deletionmaster. Can you please explain why you deleted the reference of 'Distributed Systems Architecture' in the list 'DSA' as long until it was linked to the article about GCOS where Distributed Systems Architecture is explained in more detail, while on the same list there is 'Detect See Avoid' listed with just a link to an article where this term is NOT mentioned nor explained? I await a detailed explanation!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.106.95.168 (talk) 20:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 01:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ThunderCats (video game)

Greetings. I noticed that you removed a large amount of content that was added to the Thundercats video game. Your justification for the removal was that the removed portion was considered game guide material, and therefore not appropriate for a wikipedia article. However, having reviewed the wikipedia article on what the typical contents of a game guide are, I disagree with your decision. The content you removed does not contain things like hints, cheats, tactics, or walkthrough material. I beleive the material is descriptive of the gameplay, but not to the point where it would be advantageous to player, simply informative. Therefore, I will revert your removal of the content, unless you wish to discuss this further. Elnauron (talk) 00:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're not very active. I'm going to wait a few days until you've forgotten about this and then revert again. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 03:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that is a very good idea at all. I have asked why this was done on the article talk page - please respond there. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SIP

Hello, was there any reason why you reverted my addition to the SIP article? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's an orphan redlink which are not included on dab pages per WP:MOSDABRL. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 05:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meme discussion on Ducreux page

No, we don't want the Ducreux page cluttered with macros, but you'll have to remind me how you define a "real" source for the Ducreux meme. The knowyourmeme.com website (for example) doesn't have the encyclopedic tone of Wiki but is probably one of the most comprehensive source on the most popular Internet memes available, which is why I used it as my source. The image macro phenomenon is recent enough that sources about them in publications of record (newspapers, for example) are practically non-existent, the only notable exception being the lolcat meme.

I was tempted to cite the google search info on Ducreux, which has shot up since late 2009, but that is arguably original research.

Unless it's the notability of the meme that you dispute?

(crossposted to Ducreux talk page) --MikeyFuccon (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

moar silliness

fyi, you might care (or not) to visit this.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 19:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. It's nice to know that Le Nobody has fond memories of our time together. It's so cute that he made his own little wikia where he can play "I'm the the boss!". Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 23:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flavor Flav

I am very new to this. How to I provide data & verify that it is true. I have a contract with Flav to produce, market & sell alcoholic beverages. I have both a Federal Import & Federal Wholesale Permit, to produce and import. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonycaps (talk • contribs) 15:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any independent, published source of this? Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 23:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VOA

How is "see also" better for the page rather than "Other Useful Information/Links"? 71.94.158.203 (talk) 00:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Umihara Kawase link

I was wondering why you removed my external link from the Umihara Kawase page whereas other external links, with a lot less relevant content, are allowed to stay there... I didn't add the link to spam the article but because I thought it had unique content that totally illustrate the article (box art, media etc...) - and yet it was removed unlike other links. Thanks for your help and understanding... --Lkermel (talk) 17:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it looks like I'll never receive an answer from an admin. Oh well. For the sake of it, you should know that people have been copying information, and sometimes whole reviews from my site, without citing their sources. This is why I started to add links to my site... this is particularly unfair if random contributors can copy my work to Wikipedia but I'm not allowed to add links to my site... anyway, I thought I'd mention it. Take care --Lkermel (talk) 19:21, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks for removing my link from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Zone_(video_game) - did you realize that the creator of the page copied the entire review from my site ? Do you think it's fair that now you remove my site from the external links ? I wish there was more communication going between admins and webmasters like me who work hard to get all this information online, just to see it copied onto wikipedia without even a mention of it. I hope you understand what I'm trying to say... thanks for your help. --Lkermel (talk) 19:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chemotherapy

Not entirely sure why you reverted that edit. The content that was added after some guidance by myself was fairly good. JFW | T@lk 00:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please watch your tags

I removed your "orphan" tag from the Sex (TV series) article. Why was that my job? If you took enough interest in the article find that nothing linked there at one time, why couldn't you use the "What links here" tool occassionaly? It is available on every page. I clicked it today on the article in question. It reported six links. When was the last time you clicked that tool on that page? When was the last time you checked the status of a tag you left nearly three years ago? - 71.166.118.63 (talk) 14:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged it two years ago. Naturally, I don't watch every article I tag. You're clearly a troll. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 16:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've actually restored the tag. Only one non-DAB, mainspace article links to the article. It's clearly an appropriate use of the orphan tag. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 16:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, the personal attack was inappropriate.

Second, the period from January 2008 to October 2010 is "two years" only by truncation. My statement of "nearly three years" needed no correction.

Finally, I see some duty on the part of one who places a tag to have enough interest in the article to monitor it. Preferably, if they see a problem that bothers them, they will fix it instead of tag it. If an editor has no interest in an article and the fault is so inconsequential (an orphan status is irrelevant to content), then they should leave it alone. Wikipedia is not a make-work-for-others project. It is a flaw in Wikipedia that there seems to be no accountability in placing tags. There is nothing trollish about calling for some accountability on the part of those who criticize.

So now the tag remains, perhaps as a political statement, and others will have the similar reaction to mine: six links is plenty for the article in question. That they aren't the right kind of links seems silly to me, but I'm done. - 71.166.118.63 (talk) 22:12, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 01:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vor of Barrayar

Hello good sir/Maam: I would like to ask why you turned Vor of Barrayar into a redirect without an AfD? (By all means, please send me to the AfD page if I missed it.) I was under the impression that it was preferable to go through the community process rather than just obliterate the page. Note: I am not arguing the merit of the page itself, which I understand your stance on, though I disagree. I am arguing the redirection process you used, which from where I'm sitting, it looks like you stumbled across the page, said "This is garbage POV, in-universe, GTFO," and redirected it to the main site; as opposed to opening an AfD.

I'm not going to start a reversion war, because quite frankly, in the strictest sense of the Wikipedia laws, you're probably right-er (not right because Wikipedia does not have firm rules). However, I would like to know why you did it the way you did, and what you'd use to justify your action. Please do not bring Be bold up as an argument, as I could use that as an argument for restoration.

Please let me know. Thank you. Happy wiki-ing! Dachande (talk) 13:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking back now, Vor of Barrayar was AfD with NO CONCENSUS two years ago, so I'm REALLY Curious why you decided to just blow it out. To be clear, I'm in now way trying to attack you for your action, I'm just questioning it, and trying to understand why you went that route. Have a good one. Dachande (talk) 13:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article was unimproved over the course of years and was still just a mess of plotcrap. I was going to AFD again, but I figured a redirect was simpler. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that redirects require an AFD when it's in fact a standard action for non-notable topics. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 17:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking back, I just realized you were the AfD nominator for it back in 2008. Huh. Anyway, like I said, I'm not going be a dick about it. I was toying with the idea of trying to make the redirect send you to the Vorkosigan Wiki's article on the subject, but I don't think you physically can, AND I could easily see a stickler such as yourself objecting that would be functionally the same as the page in Britannica pointing you to a fan website. (By the way, to be clear, nothing wrong with being a stickler. It balances jackasses like me. :-) ) So anyway, thank you for doing your best to improve wikipedia. I love Wikipedia, and the concept of wiki. Thanks once again. Have a great weekend. Dachande (talk) 00:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

F.D.S.

hey, why did you take out the "flux difference splitting" part in the disambiguation of "F.D.S"? there is no article about it on WP but it's a well known technique people might be looking for. 213.180.180.229 (talk) 20:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]