User talk:Doctorfluffy

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring
There is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring that involves you. VQuakr (talk) 04:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

DE / basic translations
DE "Reverted to revision 414894728 by Doctorfluffy; not useful, we don't include translations of basic foreign words." Okay. But in that case, shouldn't the meanings "of" and "from" from some languages be removed from the article as well?W3ird N3rd (talk) 18:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes.Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Too bad, I generally find it quite handy to find a short description of such things on disambiguation pages. Does make me wonder why you only removed my addition and not the other meanings.W3ird N3rd (talk) 00:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I noticed your specific edit because I have the page watchlisted. I didn't clean up the entire article, but of course you can do so if you like. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 16:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Cricothyrotomy in popular media
Hello,

I would like to draw your attention to the talk page of the cricothyrotomy article, where I have explained my reasons for restoring the “Cricothyrotomy in popular media” section of that article. I hope we can, on that talk page, have a conversation about our differing points of view as it regards whether that section should be there or not. Reuqr (talk) 22:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Seven tiers of disaster recovery
Now I'm really intrigued - I always assumed that this was nonsense. Can you reference it? Particularly the tier 8 multi-dimensional quantum thingy? Mcewan (talk) 19:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Seven tiers of disaster recovery
With this edit you removed several refences and a refimprove tag, leaving the article unreferenced. I did a fair bit of research around this a while back: I could find references (added to the article) for tiers 0-7, but none for the negative tiers or the >8 tiers. Do you have any references for these, because on the face of it these tiers look like a hoax, and without a comment accompanying the edit I can't see the logic in reverting to an unreferenced version of the article. 82.70.49.110 (talk) 12:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Zoe (talking and emoting head)
Thanks for informing me of this. I very rarely start new articles on this project, but did so because it really took my fancy and I thought, to quote my edit summary, "Seems like a breakthrough with huge possibilities, but I have created stub from a single (reputable but possibly biased) source only, so any editors wanting to research further and improve the article are very welcome".

But... I know little about animatronics, and there must be (at least) thousands of editors here who know more about it than me. Yet, in two months, none of them has seen fit to add any further information to the article. Perhaps they have not yet noticed it, but listing it as RFD, and on your talk page, will make it more visible, and if it is still unloved after that, then it will be fairly clear that I was wrong, and it is neither notable nor of interest.

With that in mind, I will not add any new info myself (and articles entirely by one author are unhealthy anyway). So if no one else improves it within a week, it should be deleted. (Since it's so short, I will however copy it to my user talk page for my own benefit -- it still fascinates me, even if no one else is interested!)

I'm taking the liberty of correcting one error in your notice, changing "single reference is sourced from project itself" to "single reference is sourced from project's sponsor's website" which I think is more accurate. Although it's clearly based on a press release, I am fairly sure that CUED do not just print any press release they're given by their researchers or JVs...which makes them more discriminating than most local papers, and for an article in a local paper, I don't think you'd say "from project itself". Revert if you disagree. Enginear (talk) 08:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Bumfuck listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Bumfuck. Since you had some involvement with the Bumfuck redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Nowak Kowalski (talk) 21:58, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Doctor Bobert listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Doctor Bobert. Since you had some involvement with the Doctor Bobert redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. – Laundry Pizza 03  ( d c&#x0304; ) 04:18, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Woof alert listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Woof alert. Since you had some involvement with the Woof alert redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 19:37, 25 June 2019 (UTC)