User talk:FlamingSilmaril

Note: Due to other priorities, I will probably be editing Wikipedia much less than I used to. If you contact me, I may take a very long time to respond.

This is, obviously, my talk page. This is where your comments go. Or, you know, if you don't feel like writing anything, then don't. --FlamingSilmaril _Talk\^Contribs 22:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

...

-comments- I feel like writing one. xP. This is really random, just so you know. Cruise meerkat 04:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Many thanks for reversing the content removal. The b**d!! I try to keep an eye on this page but when I don't look for a few days I come back and find all kinds of vandalism. Robotics1 21:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I got a message about vandelism and while I probably deserved it because I wrote something when I got angry what happens if the exact same person keeps adding in something that's not true? I keep changing it back to fact and then it gets changed from "Yuuki's love interest is unknown to" "Yuuki wuvs Kaname!" when that's not true as far as the story goes or how far speculation goes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.59.179.30 (talk) 21:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I responded to this on your talk page, which you can find here. --FlamingSilmaril _Talk\^Contribs 21:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

All right, thank you, sorry for the off comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.59.179.30 (talk) 21:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem. --FlamingSilmaril _Talk\^Contribs 00:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi

To everyone but flamingsilmaril: this isn't vandalism. He knows who I am :P. Hi! --Belugaperson 14:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, how's it going? --FlamingSilmaril _Talk\^Contribs 01:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Not bad, but are you really a native speaker of Spanglish? I think not. :P --Belugaperson 23:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

¡Sí, yo es un spiker nativo del Spanglish! ¿Por qué tú thinkas no? --FlamingSilmaril _Talk\^Contribs 00:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks For The Advice

I misunderstood the purpose of the warning levels; I thought they reflected the flagrancy of the vandalism, rather than the number of prior warnings. Thanks for setting me straight! Bws2002 (talk) 05:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Greetings! How does the day find you? I am a student of FCPS and would like to help with maintaining articles related to FCPS. Perhaps you could also assist me as I am a n00b in Wiki editing. --FTWonkerton (talk) 04:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, so far, a look at your contributions shows that you're doing fairly well. References are always a good thing to work on, as are typos. If you want, you can join Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools or any other WikiProject that matches your interests, but you don't have to. Another useful feature is your watchlist. I keep all the FCPS schools on my watchlist, so I can keep track of vandalism or other changes. One final thing: at least for me, someone who uses an edit summary will likely be lent a lot more credibility than someone who doesn't. Happy editing! FlamingSilmaril (talk) 18:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey

Hey, i'm a fellow FCPS student as well. Now, this is old, but i've sitll got a bit of a problem with this one wiki editor named "Sniperwolf" (or something around that).

From what it seems, he's a bit biased towards only deleting things from herndon high school's wiki. For example, he deleted what he called "band propoganda", from herndon's wiki. Yet south lakes has items that can also be called "band propoganda", yet they remain intact, such at this : "Advanced Ensembles regularly receive high scores of "1"s and "2"s at Festival competitions".

Now, basically im just asking if you can either call this guy out on that, or revert most future edits he were to make to Herndons wiki.

And thanks anyways if you can't do anything.

Oh, if you havent heard yet, the ice is going to refreeze and it's going to snow tonight, so maybe we'll get our FIRST SNOW DAY FINALLY. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.48.169 (talk) 23:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Looking at what Sniperwolf deleted, it did look like fairly self-promotional stuff. Though I agree that the South Lakes article isn't too great either. Picking through this stuff and sorting the useful information from the vanity can be a time-consuming process, but if you have an interest in making the FCPS articles better, nobody's stopping you from doing it yourself.

Too bad on the snow day - didn't happen. Hopefully we'll get one SOMETIME this winter. FlamingSilmaril (talk) 22:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Alright, thanks anyways.

And YES!! FCPS finally gave us a snow day!..well more like an ice day, but you know what i mean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.48.169 (talk) 15:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I woke up and heard we had a snow day. The I looked out the window and...no snow. Oh well. FlamingSilmaril (talk) 17:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

FCPS middle school redirects

Then what I will do is divide the "list of middle schools" article by FCPS-operated middle schools, private middle schools, and charter schools if that is needed. If NOT, The article will be renamed to reflect FCPS. That is because public schools that are non-notable ought to redirect to the district or to an article that reflects the district itself. I will remove any "span" K-8, K-12, etc schools from that list. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Also please check locations of schools on Yahoo Maps and similar tools - Many FCPS schools have addresses saying Alexandria, etc. which make people falsely believe that the schools are located in those cities (in fact those cities have their own school districts), so I will verify and adjust locations of schools as indicated on Wikipedia. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

This seems like a good idea. Unfortunately, I have a case of mono right now and I won't be editing as much; I'll see what I can do when I get back. I see you've done some good work already, though. FlamingSilmaril (talk) 22:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Neil the Cellist

Hi there, I noticed you removed the "incomplete" notice on the wiki article for Rainbow Six: Vegas 2. I'd like to note that the section 'is' incomplete, and requires the attention of someone who has actually finished the game so that the article may be finished appropriately. At the moment, the section stands incompleted. Neil the Cellist (talk) 18:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't remove it; I just commented it out so that editors can see it, but it doesn't get in the way for readers. If you want to get an editor who has finished the game to complete the summary, try asking on the article's talk page, or maybe a related wikiproject like Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games. To alert readers that the section isn't complete, you could use Template:Incomplete, Template:Expand, or Template:Recent video game. I see what you mean that the section isn't finished; I just tend to balk at all-caps statements in articles, because they're often used for vandalism or other unconstructive purposes. I hope this clears up my reasoning for you. FlamingSilmaril (talk) 20:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks for clearing it up. Neil the Cellist (talk) 21:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem. FlamingSilmaril (talk) 21:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Warning vandals

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made: You may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 20:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes; I'm aware of this. I use the templates on a case-by-case basis. IMHO, they can be a rather impersonal and brusque way to welcome a potentially helpful contributor, so I don't use them when, for example, a well-meaning but inexperienced editor makes an edit that has blatant OR or non-neutral POV. I do use them for obvious vandalism and purposely disruptive edits. I assume you're talking about this edit, which seemed like it could go either way at the time. In hindsight, though, it might warrant a warning. If you want to warn the anon, I wouldn't mind. FlamingSilmaril (talk) 21:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Garden Party

Hello,

I am curious as to why you edited out so much of the content to the Garden Party (film) page? I don't believe anything was offensive, on top of which you deleted all of the information on the films release and links to theatres, this is a legitimate film with distribution.

Thanks,

andy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lookoutandy (talk • contribs) 00:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I'm sorry if my edit seemed a bit rash, and looking back I may have taken out a bit too much. What mainly concerned me upon reading the article was the tone in which much of it was written. It was very informal, describing Erik Scott Smith as "hanging out" and having "seen quite a bit". When writing articles on Wikipedia, we generally try for a more formal tone; you can find some guidelines regarding that here and a more general guide to style on Wikipedia here. Getting back to the "seen quite a bit" quote - it's a very vague phrase, and effectively serves as a euphemism for whatever trouble he might have gotten into in LA. When you write content for an encyclopedia, it really helps to be specific. This is especially applicable for Wikipedia, which is edited by many people - somebody who comes along later wanting to contribute to the article wouldn't know exactly what you meant by "seen quite a bit" or "which led to nothing but trouble" - what kind of trouble? One last issue I found with the article was in the theatre section. Telling people explicitly where to go to see the movie - especially using the second person to do it - often comes across as trying to use Wikipedia to promote or advertise the movie. We have strict policies about that, for practical reasons; see, for example, Wikipedia:Spam and Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox, especially the fourth bullet.

I hope this clears up whatever misunderstanding there was, and that we can reach an agreement as to what this article should look like. FlamingSilmaril (talk) 00:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Esko

Why did you remove the link to the blogumentary episode that Esko was in? How is that not relevant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheTrackAthlete (talk • contribs) 22:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I removed the link on the page for Esko Mikkola because it was a link to a blog that I didn't see as inherently notable at the time. There are millions of blogs, and if on every biography on Wikipedia we mentioned every blog in which each person had ever been mentioned, the results would be too long and cluttered to be either manageable or useful. Therefore, we have some standards to determine whether something is important enough to be mentioned in an article. My general rule of thumb is if the blog is either famous enough on its own to have a Wikipedia article, or if the mention dramatically changed the subject's life, then it may be included. On my cursory examination of the situation, neither seemed to be the case. If you think the link fulfills these requirements, I'm open to reconsideration though. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. FlamingSilmaril (talk) 21:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the process here but why do you have authority over Esko's page? Do you even personally know him? I really don't see the point in someone like yourself having a rent-a-cop mentality toward an entry like this. He is clearly in the blogumentary episode which is interesting to people who might know him or fans of his. He has never gotten the recognition he deserves. There is no footage of him on YouTube of him and no one is really blogging about him. On top of that I have more to add to the page about him trying to become an astronaut but you will probably try to control that information as well. I knew this kind of entry fighting happened on entries for Hillary Clinton but I would have never figured this would be happening for an entry for someone like Esko. Don't be lame bra. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheTrackAthlete (talk • contribs) 22:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Nobody has "authority" over any article on Wikipedia - any user can and may edit almost any article, excepting those that are protected for various reasons. I edited the article because I chose to do so. Regarding his lack of previous coverage: editing the Wikipedia article about him is not going to help this. Due to its nature, Wikipedia can't be used to synthesize information or get the word out about a cause - it can only be used to tell about information which is already verifiable - i.e., written about somewhere. You'll find an article regarding this idea at Wikipedia:Verifiability. To quote the first sentence of that article: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." Basically, if no one is blogging about Esko, the solution to this problem is not to write about him on Wikipedia. I know this can seem galling, but it's a concept that has been developed for the best interests of Wikipedia regarding the quality and verifiability of the information on the site.

On a side note, I'd appreciate it if you would keep responses next to the conversation in question. I will notice something just as quickly, regardless of whether it's written at the top or the bottom of the page. FlamingSilmaril (talk) 23:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

changes

I don't believe the changes made were incorrect (refrence the Wiki article on the ICOC which has numerous sources that support the minor changes I made) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.149.13.10 (talk) 19:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Note that nobody actually removed the link. We just replaced your message with a more toned-down version. Anybody who wants to read more will still see the link quite clearly. FlamingSilmaril (talk) 19:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Creekside High School (Florida)

I understand the removal of vandilism on the page but the game stays. It was Creekside's first victory in the history of the school. IMPORTANT! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liljose9999 (talk • contribs) 00:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I encourage you to read some of our guidelines regarding what should and should not be included in Wikipedia, including Wikipedia:Notability and, especially relevant to this topic, Wikipedia:NOT#NEWS. Additionally, I think the tone of the section is far too informal and news-style for Wikipedia; you can read more about that here: Wikipedia:Writing_better_articles#Tone. I also added a message regarding this on the Talk:Creekside High School (Florida). If, after reading my comments and the links provided, you still think the section warrants inclusion, please explain why here or on the school's talk page. Thanks, FlamingSilmaril (talk) 00:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice job

Nice job on the feedback you gave newbie User_talk:VAWoman, it was corrective, very clear and encouraging. Thanks for not biting a promising editor. 8D Chuckiesdad (talk) 21:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! FlamingSilmaril (talk) 23:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

You have new messages!

Hello, FlamingSilmaril. You have new messages at The Obento Musubi's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Removing MVHS content

Hello,

I understand you removed large amounts of MVHS page content because you thought it was "overly promotional?" I'm happy to discuss this with you, but I'd appreciate the courtesy of a discussion before you dump large parts of my work. I'm reverting back to the previous version for the time being.

First, what was overly promotional about it? And what's wrong with promoting the school?

Thank you

Stephen (Invelus) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Invelus (talk • contribs) 16:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE: Ok, looking back on the article with any eye towards the "promotional," I can see what you mean. I also took another look at the TJ site...which I can only imagine must set the standard for FCPS pages. So I'm going to re-edit the MVHS stuff. Just do me a fav...please don't go deleting stuff wholesale without first opening a discussion with the other editors.

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Invelus (talk • contribs) 17:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Stephen learns how to sign his name! Invelus (talk) 17:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I see that you've already found some of the promotional stuff in the Mount Vernon High School (Alexandria, Virginia) article on your own. For future reference, one of the core ideas of Wikipedia is that it should have a neutral point of view - that is, it should not be written in a way that endorses any point of view or entity, it should only cover them factually. The article is better, but there are still some wordings that I would prefer be changed. These mainly consist of information that would be perfectly good to include, but that is currently presented in a way that reads like a glowing advertisement for the school, rather than an objective article. Examples include where the curriculum is described as "world-class" - why can't we just state what the classes offered are, rather than applying adjectives to them that don't provide much concrete information? Additionally, in sections such as the one on EmVeeHi, it would be great if you want to write something more about the paper, but if all you're going to do is link to its website, it's not really worth a separate section. We often put such links in an "External links" section.

One final thing - if you're looking for a model towards which to strive, the TJHSST article is pretty good, but the Westfield High School (Fairfax County, Virginia) article has been selected as a Good Article - meaning that it has been peer-reviewed by several editors and selected as a very high-quality article. Happy editing! FlamingSilmaril (talk) 18:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I see. Very useful information. I appreciate you taking the time to explain. Thank you. Invelus (talk) 20:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

On the subject of WT Woodson's commonly held nickname

Sir - I believe you have misunderstood the point of my edit. While it is true that many students do refer to Wilburt Tucker Woodson High School as simply WT Woodson, a significant amount have chosen to adopt a new, more fitting name. This is of course referring to the name I mentioned in my edits, viz. Wu Tang Woodson. Since you are clearly not a student at the school, such as myself, you probably are completely removed from any situations that would force you to realize that the name Wu Tang Woodson is held high among the prides of the school. I would suggest that you realize that you are hardly an authority on life within Woodson's walls, and revert the article back to my edit so that all may benefit from this peak in to Woodson's culture. Sincerely, Richard —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.98.155.17 (talk) 01:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

This is true. The previous poster is not lying, and the students would be ecstatic to see that the Wikipedia article on their school reflects their own moniker for the place where they receive their education. --Mathmagus37 (talk) 01:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

While this may be the case, information that is to be on Wikipedia needs to be verifiable by reliable, third party sources. The word of users is not enough; there need to be published sources asserting that Woodson has this nickname. If you can find those, you're welcome to readd it. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. FlamingSilmaril (talk) 02:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Would a school newspaper or petition be acceptable? If needed I can collect a few hundred signatures from students. ----

That is possible, but not definite - where would you provide the petition as proof? If you can show me the source it would be easier to judge if it is reliable enough. Thanks, FlamingSilmaril (talk) 02:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I have a hard copy of the petition, should a dead-drop be arranged? 68.98.155.17 (talk) 22:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I do not believe you are taking my requests seriously, little to your knowledge this is a serious subject at my school and should be treated as such. I have the petition, and I would rather you accept it gratefully. 68.98.155.17 (talk) 20:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

What format is the petition in? By that, I mean is it a piece of paper with signatures, an online petition, or what? An online petition would be best for verifiability by readers and other users. Even then, I'm not completely sure if it would be considered a reliable source by Wikipedia's guidelines. If you can find a newspaper article or something that refers to the school by the nickname, that would be much preferred. Thanks, FlamingSilmaril (talk) 21:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The format is over 100 signatures collected in two days on a large poster. Or do we need to start a petitionspot petition? 68.98.155.17 (talk) 03:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

That would probably be the most convenient for all involved if it's not too much trouble. FlamingSilmaril (talk) 10:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Middle-earth character infoboxes

Hi there. You're signed up as a member of Wikiproject Middle-earth. There's a discussion on character infoboxes going on here. It's heading towards a fairly inconclusive 'no change' at present. If you're interested please express your views (for or against the proposal, or an alternative) at the WP:M-E talkpage. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 20:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Getting people to give up their names and email addresses on the internet is not easy, so progress is slow. Do you have an idea for how many signatures we need? 68.98.155.17 (talk) 21:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not completely sure, as I've never seen a petition used as a cite before. The best place to get information would probably be the help desk. If they don't know the answer themselves, they will probably be able to direct you to someone who does. FlamingSilmaril (talk) 21:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being minor in the usual way.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. With the script in place, you can continue with this functionality indefinitely (its use is governed by WP:MINOR). If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for edit

Good timing on this edit. I was in the middle of looking through the history wondering when/why the date-of-birth/age was removed from the infobox and while I was doing that you restored the date-of-birth/age. Thank you. :-) --Marc Kupper|talk 22:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Quixotic plea

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Wikipediholism test. Thanks. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 05:28, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, FlamingSilmaril. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)