User talk:FlashSheridan

P.G. Wodehouse

I thought I knew my Plum, but I've never heard any of his novels being called "buzzer novels", as you did in you Edit Summary. Which ones are those? - DavidWBrooks 20:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Buzzer" was a term used by at least one Wodehouse critic (I'm afraid I've forgotten his name) for a class of protagonist: young, male, and overly-confident but good-hearted. My particular favorite is Uneasy Money, but there are many others. FlashSheridan 05:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional expletives

Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors. See Wikipedia:Assume good faith for the guidelines on this.

---

It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Attacking another user back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors and leads to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks!

Davidkevin 06:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Of course, there's a difference between assuming good faith and ignoring bad actions."

FlashSheridan 15:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's where I failed, because I didn't ignore bad actions.

People like you strike me as why Wikipedia has a bad reputation in some quarters. I've read that book a dozen times, and wrote what I wrote in my entry entirely in good faith based on a reasonable reading in context and some idea if what Heinlein was intending. ^{[citation needed]} If you had just rewritten it, fine. But you were compelled to rewrite it further just ninety minutes later, and had to stick in a bad faith jab at me to boot. This kind of Obsessive-Compulsive action drives good writers out of Wikipedia as other editors like you, to paraphrase Heinlein, "pee in it. then like the flavor."

Davidkevin 04:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-ups to Davidkevin's user page, where there are a number of other disciplinary issues, some of which he has archived. Please also avoid using improper language on my page.FlashSheridan 06:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that you are acting in an uncivil manner. Please remain civil and don't resort to making personal attacks or instigate edit wars.

Davidkevin 07:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re : Deletion of PocketSensei?

The article has been restored as a contested prod. Take note that the article may still be liable for an article for deletion nomination, so please improve the article to meet Wikipedia's inclusion standards to increase its chances for inclusion. - Mailer Diablo 19:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BBC Television Shakespeare article

Thank you for your contributions to this article. I have inserted into the article the section you put onto the "discussion page." This is helpful. If you have any further information on this topic, I would ask that you look in from time to time.--Drboisclair 18:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spidey 3

Sorry for my double revert, I don't really have a vendetta against The New Yorker or anything. Lately I think that section has basically gotten overstuffed with every reviewer, and I went to prune it of unspecific comments. Alientraveller 15:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, if Fox News is worthy of inclusion, the New Yorker surely is. If pruning is needed, please remove the former.

—FlashSheridan 16:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beowulf

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Beowulf (2007 film). Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I added was footnoted, and hardly personal, though a later editor removed the references.

— FlashSheridan (talk) 05:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diefenbaker (wolf)

Hi. Thank you for speaking up for Diefenbaker (wolf) in the recent deletion proposal. Unfortunately, we failed to secure a Keep and the article has received a Merge/Redirect. I would like to have seen the article kept as I believe it could be further improved in the future by other editors, but I don't think I could make a strong enough case to challenge the decision. I have raised the issue of the merge with the admin as information hasn't actually been merged yet, and am awaiting a reply. Once again, thank you. GalaxyHound (talk) 04:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of List of Phillips Exeter Academy alumni

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of Phillips Exeter Academy alumni, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Phillips Exeter Academy alumni. Thank you. --BJBot (talk) 04:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Antony Hope

I noticed that you have edited Anthony Hope. If you are still interested in that article, please have a look at the recent changes I have made. Any additions or clarifications would be most welcome. Thanks! BrainyBabe (talk) 19:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A quick look at the intro looks good, thanks. I'm afraid I'm no longer actively watching or contributing financially to Wikipedia, given the recent censorship in the name of clean-up, but I wish your endeavor well.

—FlashSheridan (talk) 17:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Camelot - Kennedy

Thanks for your edit on the article, but we need to have the correct citation. If this is from Lerner's book that is cited in the article, we just need the page number. If it is from a different book, we need the title and date of the book. Please either add the citation or send me the info, and I'll be happy to add it for you. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, as I said in my check-in comment, I'm merely following the Alan Jay Lerner article.

— Flash

Wikipedia censorship

As noted above, I’m no longer actively watching or contributing financially to Wikipedia, given the recent censorship in the name of clean-up. Here’s the latest example:

Barbara Bauer dab Barbara Rylko-Bauer

I removed the disambiguation again from the article. Red links are for when there is need for an article, since this article was deleted and salted there is obviously consensus that there should be no article. If consensus changes and an article gets created the disambiguation can of course be added again. Garion96 (talk) 19:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

> there is obviously consensus that there should be no article

Is this a joke? I accept that there may be a valid but secret reason for the censorship of the original article. There may even have been a valid but secret reason for the censorship of the discussion of the reason for the censorship. Perhaps there was some justification for censoring my mention of the censorship in the disambiguation page. But given the press coverage of the controversy, and the similarity in names, there is obviously a need for disambiguation. And saying that the invisible consensus is obvious is laughable, whether intentionally or not.

—FlashSheridan (talk) 02:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holy Hell (film)

Hi - I would like you to read the article Holy Hell (film) and then put your opinion on the absurd proposal to delete Holy Hell (film) -- please vote on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holy Hell (film), if you would. Thank you... Geĸrίtzl (talk)

List of tools for static code analysis

I want to comment on this edit. Please proceed carefully. Make good arguments on Talk pages and try to go forward from there. If you restore a link to a specific product to an article, even if it is open source, you may not be treated sympathetically. I don't think this kind of edit summary will win any friends: Correct ill-informed cleanup; LLVM is infrastructure. EdJohnston (talk) 17:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I long ago won the argument on that talk page against editors who don’t know the subject and don’t obey even their own made-up rules, much less Wikipedia’s.

—FlashSheridan (talk) 06:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I started a new section on Talk:List of tools for static code analysis‎ to discuss your reversions. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Moved to proper section FlashSheridan (talk) 16:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC). Please be careful at least when you’re editing my page.)[reply]

Edit summary "Falsify of claim"

In the edit summary to your post on the merger proposal (here) you suggest that there was a falsification of the claim of unanimous consensus. This problem began with the posting of the nomination of the incorrect talk page. An editor nominated the UCLA International Human Rights Law Program for merger with the UCLA School of Law page, but posted the nomination on the UCLA talk page, instead of on the UCLA School of Law talk page where it belonged. I stepped in to change the merger proposal, to knock out a merge to UCLA as a candidate, whereafter the separate topic of merger to UCLA Law School would have ideally taken place.

You disagreed with merging it to UCLA and the others agreed with merging it to UCLA Law School, which uniformly add up to "disagree with merging to UCLA." That clarified, I want to make sure that you have no bone to pick with me over this portion of the evolution. I am not aware of a subsequent merger proposal to UCLA School of Law; it seems to merely have been done based on majority consensus from the previous malformed merger proposal (malformed because placed on the wrong talk page). –Newportm (talk • contribs) 15:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, you’re not claiming that there was unanimous consensus, which was my point.

—FlashSheridan (talk) 21:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you refer to the merger; I was not responsible for it. I was responsible for clarifying the consensus on "merge to UCLA" only. Please help me understand; isn't the distinction similar to three people voting for "glass half-empty," and three others voting for "glass half-full," which two options can reasonably said are equivalent? –Newportm (talk • contribs) 17:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook and the E Book

Hello. You deleted this reference with the statement, "the E Book, the Academy’s rulebook, was distinct from the Facebook." This is partially correct. In earlier years, the book of photographs of PEA students sported a red cover that said, 'E Photo Address Book.' It was referred to by PEA students as the 'E Book.' Only later did the book of rules and such come to be called 'the E Book.' I'm not sure what year that changed. I'm looking right now at a photograph of the original 'E Photo Address Book,' but I can't upload it here as it's a friend's. I'll try to find a photograph (or cite) for the relevant book. Incidentally, I agree with your change to a 'classics diploma.' Regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 10:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join Stanford's WikiProject!

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject Stanford University, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Stanford University. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks!

ralphamale (talk) 22:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Foundation Trilogy (BBC Radio), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Cain (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) 12:19, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lynne Featherstone, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Mulholland (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) 00:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

July 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to California's 17th congressional district may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

[[File:NewCA17th1.png|thumb|California's 17th Congressional District]] {{{{Cleanup|reason=missing NewCA17th1.png}}

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, BracketBot; now fixed.

—FlashSheridan (talk) 15:16, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Michael Alsbury for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Michael Alsbury is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Alsbury until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Don Cuan (talk) 10:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Imitation Game

Hi, you changed the opening line of this article to say it is "inspired by" rather than "about" Turing. I have started a discussion about this on the talk page, if you would like to comment there, otherwise unless anyone else objects I will change it back. Thanks. Melcous (talk) 01:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perma.cc

Hi. I'm quietly pseudo-raging right now because I just went to write a Perma.cc article and you beat me to it. Grrrrr. Nice work! :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 18:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Purely selfish, I assure you, as I wanted to use them, first for my own stuff on general principles, then for some references to my supervisor and grand-supervisor. Thanks for the cleanup.

—FlashSheridan (talk) 05:22, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Other Change of Hobbit, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page El Cerrito. 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) 09:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thanks.

— FlashSheridan (talk) 18:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tsakalotos, St. Pauls & Eton

I read Ήτον in the Greek article that I cited regarding his birth family, too. It is possible that he attended both. I'll check some other sources. --Jpbrenna (talk) 04:33, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk: Lensman series

Hi Flash,

Being a fellow enthusiast, I really appreciate your comments in the Talk section (and I agree that retconning made the series mostly worse, not better). But in the Astounding January 1942 section you say:

Cp. Galactic Patrol September 1937 p. 42 and other ret-con difficulties.)

P. 42 is in Eando Binder's When the Sun Went Out. (I inherited the original magazines from my uncle, who was killed in WWII).

Also, I was disappointed to read that republication in the original form is unlikely: judging from the reviews and comments I see, there should be a fairly large potential market. Was any reason given?

Paul Magnussen (talk) 19:23, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch, thanks, I’ll try to fix the mistake soon.

—FlashSheridan (talk) 19:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected to:

(Cp. Galactic Patrol ~~September 1937 p. 42~~ October 1937, p. 62 (book p. 51) and other ret-con difficulties with the inertialess drive.)

Thanks for the correction and sorry for the delay; a battle with the App Store, galley proofs, and travel intervened.

—FlashSheridan (talk) 00:09, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As for the unlikelihood of republication (in general, not just the originals), the reason was Verna Smith Trestrail’a lawsuit against the entities responsible for the Lensman anime, which briefly included publishers. (OTOH I seem to recall my high school library getting an ad for a complete run of Astounding on microfilm, but https://www.technologyreview.com/s/415797/an-astounding-collection/ suggests I was wrong.)

—FlashSheridan (talk) 00:22, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Battlefield (Peter Brook), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael Billington. 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) 10:23, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Thanks DPL bot and apologies to Col. Foster, though I will point out that Michael Billington (critic) did act once at Oxford, as the Priest in The Birds, by Aristophanes,

—FlashSheridan (talk) 17:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, FlashSheridan. 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)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jeeves, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Strand. 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) 10:35, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, DPL bot.

—FlashSheridan (talk) 16:18, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, FlashSheridan. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, FlashSheridan. 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)[reply]

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) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Digital Asset Modeling Language has been accepted

Digital Asset Modeling Language, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Primefac (talk) 23:28, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 01:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Katz

Hi FlashSheridan, I removed your entry to Josh Katz because DAB pages should link to existing Wikipedia content, and I couldn't find any article that mentions the Princeton classicist. Leschnei (talk) 14:34, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:22, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Policy Violation in Blocking

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).

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

Request reason:

No reason was giving for blocking me even when logged in. My initial appeal was denied with no explanation given for the violation of policy: “In nearly all cases, using an account to edit Wikipedia will allow you to do so,” and I was denied the right even to comment on the denial.

Decline reason:

This account is not directly blocked. If you are unable to edit, please exactly follow the instructions which appear when you attempt to do so. Yamla (talk) 17:28, 13 June 2023 (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.

> Decline reason:…

> If you are unable to edit, please exactly follow the instructions which appear when you attempt to do so.

I did from the machine I was logged in on; I was not allowed even to edit my own Talk page, so I followed the instructions and filed an appeal ticket. The ticket was denied with no explanation given for the violation of Wikipedia policy: “In nearly all cases, using an account to edit Wikipedia will allow you to do so,” and I was denied the right even to comment on the denial. Nor was I allowed to file another ticket. I then edited my Talk page from another machine, and you have also denied that request, also apparently without reading it.

—FlashSheridan (talk) 17:46, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This account is not blocked. Without additional information, there's literally nothing we can do for you. --Yamla (talk) 17:49, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

> This account is not blocked.

I never said it was, and in my ticket I provided all the information requested. I can’t view the ticket now: “The server returned a "405 Method Not Allowed".” Here are my notes:

>> Blocking administrator JJMC89

>> No reason was giving for blocking me even when logged in. I am a Comcast user, so blocking me when not logged in may be legitimate, but blocking me when logged in violates policy:…

>> The blocked IP was given as 2A09:BAC1:76C0:6E0:0:0:B:238, which was rejected by the form.

—FlashSheridan (talk) 23:25, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That IP address does not belong to Comcast. It belongs to Cloudflare, a proxy service. You need to disable your proxy/vpn (possibly the Apple iCloud Private Relay service) and wait a full 24 hours for the block to clear. --Yamla (talk) 11:37, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I should not alter the security settings on my corporate machine. I have no objection to Wikipedia’s stated policy, nor to having to log in to edit, even my own Talk page. But the following are obviously unacceptable:

• Blocking me from editing with a misleading explanation.

• Closing my appeal ticket without an explanation.

• Preventing me from adding a request for an explanation to my appeal ticket.

• Preventing me from viewing my appeal ticket.

• Preventing me from filing another appeal ticket.

• Dismissing my appeal on my Talk page by telling to do what I had already done.

• Dismissing my appeal by telling me there's “literally nothing we can do for you,” without reading the information I had already provided.

• Continuing to block me from editing even when logged in.

The conduct of Wikipedia admins is why I have stopped watching my Watchlist and donating to the Foundation.

— FlashSheridan (talk) 23:32, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Book Rights Registry for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Book Rights Registry is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Book Rights Registry until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

CapnZapp (talk) 08:23, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Giant Arc and The Giant Arc

Hello! I noticed that you created the Giant Arc article, but there is already The Giant Arc article which covers the same subject. Would you consider making a redirect to the latter article? Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 15:52, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent point, but someone beat me to it.

— FlashSheridan (talk) 17:10, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Inertialess drive for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Inertialess drive is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inertialess drive (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:04, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"P-hunting" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect P-hunting has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 21 § P-hunting until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 17:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]