Jump to content

User talk:Fasttimes68/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Reply

Hello, Fasttimes68. You have new messages at Talk:Michael Moore#Another approach to a criticism section.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hearfourmewesique (talk) 14:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

re: your message

Hi Fasttimes68, I've left a reply to your message on my talk page -- Marek.69 talk 17:07, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Your request for rollback

Hi Fasttimes68. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

  • Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
  • Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
  • Rollback should never be used to edit war.
  • If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
  • Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! FASTILY (TALK) 20:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

RFC

I have removed your addition of an RFC template at 2011 Southern US drought. RFCs go on the talk page, not in the article, and should be immediately followed by a clear and neutral statement of what other editors are being asked to comment on. You would normally also add your own views in a following paragraph. SpinningSpark 23:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

"Football"

Try the opening sentence of the article. – PeeJay 21:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Merge

We need to talk on Talk:Jim Moran.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 19:33, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

http://www.instablogg.com/UKISjCM — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.183.68.55 (talk) 20:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeHasIssues (talk • contribs) 17:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration and Enforcement

Notified along with noticeboard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeHasIssues (talk • contribs) 18:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Mike O'Meara

>>I'm not trying to be a jerk about this.
Ah, but you have achieved jerkdom. Congratulations!

>>Please respect BRD.
<Becoming incredulous>
What?!?!?!?
There are so many things wrong with that statement.

  • BRD is not a policy. It says so right on WP:BRD. Rather, it is a way of resolving disputes. It is also unenforcible.
  • There were only 2 people that weighed in on this BRD - you and me, and we were on opposite sides of the fence, so no consensus was reached and there is nothing to respect.
  • That BRD was about whether or not Mike O'Meara is still notable. I think the Wikipedia policy that, once a person achieves notability, they are notable for all eternity, sucks raw eggs. But I'm abiding by it.
  • This dispute is simply about the word "former". Once a person is no longer doing what made them notable in the first place, they should have the word "former" (or something similar) attached to their description.

Which is more truthful?

The first entry implies that he still plays for the Yankees. The second makes it clear that he once did, but doesn't any longer.

Isn't the first entry ridiculous?

And isn't this truthful?

</Becoming incredulous>

My compromise is that I'm willing to leave the Mike O'Meara entry in, but I INSIST on phraseology such as "former". Your compromise is - nothing. You want to be proven 100% right at all costs. I can keep on reverting your reversions for as long as it takes. --Tim Sabin (talk) 22:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Please calm down. Personal attacks are not acceptable on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is about consensus, not compromise. As to reaching consensus, let's do it on the talk page or help desk. I'm sure there is a style guideline with respect to the issue at hand.Fasttimes68 (talk) 03:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Well done

A beer on me!
In recognition of your steady servie, particularly for getting the socks and AfD sorted out on the Kara Young article. Well done! — Keithbob • Talk • 14:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Fasttimes68. You have new messages at Calabe1992's talk page.
Message added 15:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Calabe1992 15:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, Fasttimes68. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Calabe1992 15:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Hershebar sockpuppetry continued. Thank you. Calabe1992 18:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Jim Moran article, others

Thanks. I'm hoping to make some substantive additions to the article, but that requires good sources, of course. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 18:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Yup, I noticed that the article was semi-protected. I think it's fairly unlikely that anyone will think I'm a sock of someone else, so no concern there. And I'm unlikely to go back to that article - I don't have any strong interest in the edit I just made. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 18:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janet Pilgrim (model) (2nd nomination)

Thanks and noted. Someone started a ban proposal for this sock farm on ANI. I have no plans at this time to participate in that discussion.Fasttimes68 (talk) 13:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Fasttimes68. You have new messages at Calabe1992's talk page.
Message added 22:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Calabe1992 22:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you. I am just so frustrated that everyone is willing to assume the worst. I didn't know it was such a big deal to share the wiki-joy and my explanations just make me sounds meticulousness. I will show them my lab if they want so they understand sharing computers and everything! Airbring (talk) 13:44, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Georg-Andreas Pogany, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Iraqi and Roche (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

ANI notification

Thanks for your message on my talk page about a discussion I closed and then reopened. I have replied there, and informed everyone who took part in the discussion. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Friendly warning

You are now at 3 reverts winthin 24 hours at Louise Vyent. Night of the Big Wind talk 18:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you have a bit of a sock-complex. Hope you recover quickly Night of the Big Wind talk 19:33, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
And you know these socks are old and stinky. Fasttimes68 (talk)

Talkback

Hello, Fasttimes68. You have new messages at Calabe1992's talk page.
Message added 22:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Calabe1992 22:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

You asked for an example?

You asked on ANI, "Does anyone know of a case where someone was wrongly determined to be a sock? I doubt it has ever happened." Well, I do. I'll post it here since that ANI thread doesn't need any further derailing.

02 December 2011

A couple of VOA needed to be blocked. The reporter attached them to Malik Peters SPI on no particular evidence. Checkuser was done, found the vandals were not Malik, were operating from a public library in England, and blocked 5 other editors from that library. The two who made an unblock request were later unblocked (taking some unwarranted abuse in the process). The other three are still blocked, despite no evidence of either vandalism or sockpuppetry.

I don't make a point of looking for bad SPIs and stumbled across this one by accident. I suspect there are hundreds more equally bad. Kilopi (talk) 20:03, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Blocked <> CU determining a sock, though I get your point. Fasttimes68 (talk) 17:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Warning about "attack"

Here's a piece of advice for you, fasstimes, don't accuse people of a personal attack when there was no personal attack. And don't threaten people when they are engaged in an every day back and forth over an issue which has already been discussed to death.

Consider yourself warned over your personal attack on me. Canada Jack (talk) 14:10, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

What personal attack? I questioned your edit not you personally. Fasttimes68 (talk) 14:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I was accused - wrongly - of an ad hominen attack and warned I was on notice. The "attack" never took place, so you were attacking and threatening me. You have been warned, fasstimes. Canada Jack (talk) 14:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you review WP:NPA, specifically What is considered to be a personal attack? , then review your edit, strike the ad-hominem. Do that and I'll gladly strike the warning.

Uh, no. I made no attack. And I suggest you cease your personal attacks. You have been warned. Canada Jack (talk) 14:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Quoted from WP:NPA "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream. An example could be "you're a train spotter so what would you know about fashion?". Please keep this in mind for the future. Fasttimes68 (talk) 15:07, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Uh, fastimes, in the future, you should read the exchange. In the future, instead of sanctimoniously harassing and threatening someone, you should look actually read what was said. Clearly, you haven't. What was two bells "affiliation"? After he made a sneering remark about "europhiles," I suggested he was an American. He said he was European. So I said "well, you are a European who a) can't read the article as it stands..." etc.

And you expect me to buy the line that that is an ad hominem attack? You can't be serious. Indeed, I don't believe you are serious.

Clearly, you are harassing and attempting to intimidate me here with this bogus threat. And I'm someone who doesn't put up with these sort of tactics from anyone.

Here's some advice for the future, fasttimes. If you choose to challenge me on some policy issue, you better dot your i's and cross your t's, as you clearly haven't done this time. I'll let you off the hook this time as you probably now realize you are wrong, but don't pull a stunt like this again. Canada Jack (talk) 16:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

If you feel that way, bring it to ANI. If you make another ad hominem attack (and this isn't your first instance of this either) then I'll do it myself. Fasttimes68 (talk) 16:56, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

"i mean what I say. stop the attacks Fasttimes68 (talk) 17:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC)"

Are you kidding me? YOU are the one initiating an attack. None of this was an issue until YOU decided to make it an issue. I've pointed out the lunacy of your "ad hominem" claim and your threats and your harassment - And now you are calling this exchange here an "ad hominem" attack?

While your tone on this page certainly straddles the line of being uncivil, I'm making no such claim that you are making ad hominem attacks on my talk page. I am referring to you edits on the GDP talk page. Fasttimes68 (talk) 22:20, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Pray tell, did you issue a similar warning to Two Bells? And, did you also warn him about vandalizing pages? Or do these sanctimonious warnings only go to editors you happen not to agree with? Canada Jack (talk) 19:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Where did Two Bells make a personal attack? I'm also not aware of him vandalizing pages. It looks like he is getting dangerously close to 3RR so perhaps he should be warned. Regardless those edits are a far cry from from being vandalism and to make such an assumption shows a lack of good faith on your part. However your points all red herrings. The issue at hand is your behavior, not mine and not TwoBells. Fasttimes68 (talk) 22:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Jim Moran Undo

I'd like some specific indication why you believe that Jim Moran's stance and true action to repeal the RFS (and thus collapse the domestic alternative energy industry) is something that isn't relevant. If you need a source to the proof of this: Here you go. http://www.opisnet.com/biofuelsheadlines.asp

Sorry, I'm not a wikipedia expert, but I would have to say that it's very relevant to the environment section on his wiki, especially since it's entirely contradictory to everything that was said in the prior paragraph. Please disclose if you are a staffer in his office, or related to this man at all. I believe this would be a conflict if so?

96.248.4.11 (talk) 23:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC) 4.11

Your edit was completely unsourced. Find sourcing that backs the addition. If you want, propose the addition again on the talk page for the article and I'll see if I can help you find some sourcing. Fasttimes68 (talk) 00:04, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, does the link to the industry news page count as a source? The one above? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.248.4.11 (talk) 00:19, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Here is a better source, because it contains rebuttal. I'm not certain if there is a way to get congressional e-mails. Here is some additional data. http://www.ncga.com/news-stories/499-ncga-applauds-reps-shimkus-and-peterson-for-bipartisan-defense-of-ethanol/ Thanks for the help 96.248.4.11 (talk) 00:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)96.248.4.11

Both of those sources MIGHT be considered reliable, however I fail to see how they reference your edit stating that Moran claimed he has the support of Military organizations. I'm not even sure what RFS is supposed to be. Fasttimes68 (talk) 00:44, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

You are confusing me with someone else. I only edited the section under Environment. the RFS is the Renewable Fuel Standard, which is can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Policy_Act_of_2005

Of note, OPIS is the THE source for energy news. I can validate that and so would many more. 96.248.4.11 (talk) 14:47, 11 May 2012 (UTC)96.248.4.11

I'm a little confused as to what you would like to do. I suggest you go ahead and be bold and make your edit. If someone has a problem with it, they will revert the edit and then everyone can discuss the merits of the edit on the article's talk page. Is that ok? Fasttimes68 (talk) 14:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. As i noted, I'm totally green and don't know the proper procedure required to edit. thanks for your help! 96.248.4.11 (talk) 19:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)96.248.4.11

Misuse of quotation marks, poor format for citation, duplication

In this edit, you added the following to the Jim Moran article:

In June, 1999 Moran's wife called the police after an arugment because she claimed "the former boxer grabbed her". No charges were filed, but the next day she filed for divorce.<ref>http://reason.com/archives/2000/11/06/an-election-eve-corruption-sto</ref>

Here's what the article actually said:

... In June 1999, his wife called the cops on him during an argument in which she claims the former boxer grabbed her. Moran, who told police he was only trying to restrain his wife, avoided arrest and no charges were ultimately filed in criminal court. But his wife filed for divorce the following day. ...

Notice, please, that the article does not show Moran's wife saying what is in quotes, immediately after the word "claims".

Second, I suggest you read Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners, to see what to do rather than just inserting a naked url as a footnote.

Third, I note that the information you added to the article was already in the article; as such, adding it again seems to be giving the issue excessive weight. I've removed it as duplicative, but I did keep (and move) the source you cited (and improved the citation), since that source wasn't used elsewhere. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:58, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Reverts

That's quite funny insta-reverting my addition. It looks like you don't like the content/topic/reference and speedy reverted by using a policy excuse (you used the wrong one though), although there was a problem with using primary source. (If you didn't have any personal disagreements against the content itself or had any POV related to your actions, please ignore my judging and what I've said). I've replaced it with a reliable third source instead of keeping the original primary source that the OP used. - M0rphzone (talk) 18:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I've no problem with the content, POV etc. My summary was terse, but it was meant about the RS not being a primary source as you correctly noted. I do have a problem with articles being factoid with website mentions (even Google) because unless an RS thinks its relevant, it really isn't encyclopedic. Thanks for fixing the edit. Fasttimes68 (talk) 18:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. You should really use a more descriptive summary; they are supposed to explain the editor's actions so that others won't misunderstand the reason behind the edit. - M0rphzone (talk) 19:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

IE9 Issues

Twinkle is just plain not working in IE9. Here some screenshots on Wikipedia's Main page.

Any suggestions? Fasttimes68 (talk) 19:11, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Victoria Silvstedt

Can you point me to the talk page section where this was discussed? Nightscream (talk) 01:54, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

If you're okay with the edits, and no one else has a problem with them, then chiming in on the talk page is unnecessary. Talk page discussions are only necessary for edits that are disputed or likely to be controversial. If anyone objects, then I'll explain my edits in further detail. Nightscream (talk) 21:30, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
If someone objects, do you have a problem restoring the current status until discussion takes place? If not, then I don't object to your previous edit.Fasttimes68 (talk) 02:38, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
If someone objects, then emphasis should be on discussion, not the status of the article. Again, on what basis do you think anyone might object, especially since you yourself indicated that you agree that they're not controversial? Do you dispute that a subject's earnings should not be sourced to their autobiography, per WP:PSTS/WP:COI? That such a matter is a part of their career rather than their personal life? That things like how many languages they speak should be mentioned once in one section rather than twice in two? That statements like "she continues her career" are meaningless promotional statements? Again, if someone objects, we'll address it. Otherwise, I see no reason to obsess over this. Nightscream (talk) 02:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom case

Could you point out the RFAR rules of evidence which prevent or restrict discussion of the case on my talkpage - I have not read all the case pages yet, and am just getting into the case, doing the background reading, etc, so if I'm doing wrong I would certainly welcome you putting me right. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Workshop. ~~ First section notes. Fasttimes68 (talk) 15:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the link Fasttimes, but you've linked to the whole page, and I've scanned it again and I don't see where it says that the case shouldn't be discussed on someone's talkpage. Can you cut and paste the wording for me? SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

98.14.172.174 (talk) 22:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Given that some of the apparently related edits have the subject line "revert blocked sock", who's the (suspected) puppeteer? —C.Fred (talk) 22:12, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

July 2012

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is invited to contribute, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Talk:Stephanie Adams, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Athleek123 22:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

notification - ANI

thank - Youreallycan 23:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from July 24. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. CalendarWatcher (talk) 03:52, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Um, you should be aware...

I ran into an SPI being run on you re: User:NobleDarkling (here), and interestingly enough, the filing editor and one other commenter are low-contrib accounts that are SPAs at best, but probably socks. Since I've not been involved before the most recent AN/I thing, I have no idea who the sockmaster would be, but I thought you might. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 22:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Indeed I do. It is User:An-Apple-A-NY-Day Thanks for the heads up. Fasttimes68 (talk) 04:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fasttimes68/Archive_1&oldid=1146516981"