User talk:Doctorfluffy/Archive 7

Enlightenment
I apologize if this is not the right place for "talk" - I am a new user of Wikipedia. I wrote the article myself - it is not a copy of someone else's work - and so I don't see any reason for it not to be posted. --JPSCastor (talk) 21:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Wa
While I am certainly no motivated soldier of Forgotten Realms, it seems your edit goes against MOS:DABRL. That Special:WhatLinksHere/Wa_(Forgotten_Realms) is empty doesn't matter in my understanding, as long as there is text that corresponds at the end of the other link, i.e. Kara-Tur. Did you not notice or are you aware of some other loophole? I could fix it, but it would come across very WP:POINTy without mentioning it to you first. M URGH disc.  02:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm going off of the first and second lines of MOS:DABRL; "Wa" has nothing that links to it now, and it's not likely that it's a notable enough topic to have its own article. Non-crucial fictional elements are generally deleted or listified. Since the appropriate list already exists, I'll just directly link to it from the DAB page and that should solve the problem. :-) Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 03:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That works. Cheers. M URGH disc.  03:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Why spam?
hi there, i've posted a link and then it was gone and marked as 'spam'. i don't understand this?


 * You need to be more specific. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 22:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * ah, ok. i've posted a link to a conversion tool on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_time and it was removed. maybe it was not wise to post a link as a new user? i don't know.Oxigeno —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC).
 * I removed the link because it didn't appear to do anything differently from the several other converters already there. Perhaps "spam" wasn't the right word, but there's no need to clutter the External Links section with virtually identical pages. If you really care though put it back and I won't remove it again. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 00:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey doctor fluffy, stop removing my contributions to the online dating list. It's a LIST of Dating sites, I am adding several Dating sites to the Dating Site List. Duh. Who made you all supreme god of know it all? My entries were valid and verifiable. Why not check my sources? Huh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sddarkman619 (talk • contribs) 07:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Removing content
Once you have boldly removed content, and it has been reverted, you must discuss it on the talk page and get consensus before removing it again, or you are likely to be considered as starting an edit war. Needly to say, I'm not going to take administrative action with respect to popular culture, but don't assume that others will tolerate this either. DGG (talk) 04:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * What are you referring to? Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * popular culture & so called trivia sections of several different articles. eg,   .DGG (talk) 05:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Did off-wiki communication bring you here initially? Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 06:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Your redirection of a major Shakespeare character (Ferdinand (Shakespeare)) recalled your work to my attention.DGG (talk) 16:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * How did you notice that redirection? Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 16:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Because I watchlist individual plays, and other major works that have sometimes been attacked in similar fashion. That's what got me interested in the whole fiction problem. DGG (talk) 03:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 15:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

America's First Region (AFR)
I am the Communication Manager for the Hampton Roads Partnership, referenced in the article, "Hampton Roads."

The "America's First Region" (AFR) moniker is a copyright owned by the Partnership. The Partnership also owns a new website recently launched by the Governor's Council for Virginia's Future, HamptonRoadsPerforms.org. I have attempted to add both external links to this page.

Could you please advise as to why my edits are being removed, so that I may properly edit the information on this page? Thank you.

HamptonRoads08 (talk) 06:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You were adding links to the main text, which is generally avoided per WP:EL. Put them in the external links section, but only if you're sure they're relevant to the text of the article. By the way, it's not a good idea to list contact information here; I've removed it for you. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 16:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

L'Absent
Hi Doctorfluffy! The article I created, L'Absent, has been improved, expanded and kept since you last viewed it. I would be truly obliged were you to take the time to view it again and give me your opinion. Thanks for your time and guidance.--Iswearius (talk) 04:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Fifth wall page
While I appreciate your enthusiasm in trying to help Wikipedia, your changing of the article "Fifth wall" to a redirect (to "Fourth wall") was unfortunately disruptive. In doing so, you failed to restore any of the "Fifth wall" content to the "Fourth wall" page, or to remove a link to "Fifth wall" within the "Fourth wall" article itself. Because your change (while you no doubt meant well) did more harm than good, I have reverted your change. Please keep this in mind for the future. Thanks. —MarsJenkar  (talk | contribs) 23:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the lesson. I'm removing the entire IPC section and stubbifying the article as it all fails WP:V, WP:TRIVIA, WP:OR, or WP:NOTPLOT. The article was already deleted once and, after a brief search for sources, I don't thnk it would survive AFD. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 01:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, I suspect you may be right about the overall notability of the article. However, that wasn't the issue.  The problem is that the removal of a page (which that essentially was) often affects other pages—specifically, those pages that link to the removed page.  On the "Fourth wall" page itself, there was a section called "Fifth wall" where the content was:


 * Main article: Fifth wall


 * Such a recursive link should have been dealt with in advance, or at least immediately after your change, since an unprepared user might have been rather frustrated by it. In addition, some of the "Fifth wall" article—or at least a brief definition of the term—might have been incorporated into that section, which would have been rather empty without the link. ;-)  Also, you can't ignore possible red links, double redirects, or other issues that might result from such a change.


 * It's easy to miss things like that, and we all make mistakes. I've made some rather embarassing mistakes on Wikipedia myself.  But when making such a major change to one page, do try to think of what effects that change may have on other pages.  —MarsJenkar  (talk | contribs) 20:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I really don't care about the specifics of a hypothetical merge. The circular redirect isn't a big deal and the content could be pulled from the page history. It's unclear to me why you are trying to make this seem like a big deal when it's a trivial editorial matter. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 01:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of SDF-1 Macross
SDF-1 Macross has been nominated for deletion and you were involved in a previous AfD about a different article involving the same cartoon series. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Articles for deletion/SDF-1 Macross. Thank you.--Sloane (talk) 00:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Faith in Place rewritten
Hi, this article has been rewritten, if you could please revisit Articles for deletion/Faith in Place to see if your concerns have been addressed. If not I would be happy to address any outstanding issues. Thank you! -- Banj e b oi   10:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Reverts without an edit summary
title changed as you weren't actually using rollback. Protonk (talk) 18:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Whatever you think of A Nobody, do not revert his edits as vandalism without an edit summary outside your userspace. I noticed he has done the same to you, but that doesn't justify it (arguably it makes it less justifiable). Edits which are not blatant vandalism should not be reverted without an edit summary. Just to make this clear, his edits aren't blatant vandalism. you aren't using rollback to do it, but an edit summary is still critical. Protonk (talk) 18:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't revert anything as "vandalism". It's unclear to me what you mean. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * That's my fault. I noticed that he was rolling back your edits, so I left him a note per WP:ROLLBACK about that, then started to leave you a note.  Midway through, I realized that you don't have rollback and so weren't using it, so I had to edit the message to match.  I missed some spots as you can see.  Basic takeaway is, please don't revert his edits without an edit summary anywhere but your user and user talk space. Protonk (talk) 18:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to touch on the nature of his specific edits in this case, but why exactly should I use more than the automatic summary? Edit summaries are not strictly required and the 'undo' function explains the edit well enough. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, it slows the process down, which I think is important, and it provides a venue for communication. I'll be frank, your undoing his edits isn't as bad as his rolling back your edits, but that comes simply from the use of a tool which brings certain rules along with it.  I also know edit summaries aren't strictly required but I'm imploring you to use them when reverting user comments.  And I think we can get into the specific nature here.  He obviously feels that your edits are inherently bad faith and/or vandalism.  That's not a defensible position in my view, but w/e.  I don't know specifically what you think about it but I can bet it isn't that distinct from his thoughts on you.  A situation like that is a recipe for an edit war.  If the use of edit summaries stops or slows that war, we are better off. Protonk (talk) 19:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I really don't want to delve into a policy discussion regarding his edits, but removing content from another editor's userspace under the obviously false claim that it's NPA material is indisputably vandalism. Removing Jack's comment from his editor review isn't as bad, but I find it unacceptable for one to invite opinions and then remove all those which are negative. Is there past discussion on censoring editor reviews in such a manner? Also, it's absurd for him to once again dig up my alleged sockpuppeting from 1 and a half years ago on his review page. If I wanted to play the game he is playing on Edgarde's page, I would remove that content as it's a personal attack to continually bring up accusations of misconduct that have long since been resolved. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not vandalism. I'll agree that it is obviously disruptive.  But it isn't vandalism.  Removing jacks comment from his editor review is just as disruptive (and indicates that he intends to WP:OWN the process), but it isn't vandalism.  I also agree that his dredging up your past from one and a half years ago is disruptive.  But it isn't vandalism.  This is a refrain.  Vandalism is a very narrow category of edits which most disruptive behavior does not fall in.  I still think the best bet it to not play the game.  It doesn't benefit anyone to revert and re-revert over this stuff. Protonk (talk) 19:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes yes, not vandalism is the strict, policy-based definition, but it's vandalism in the sense that the edits damage the project. Perhaps I could have worded my statement above better, but, again, I wasn't marking them as vandalism while reverting and didn't use the word at all until you brought it up. I do avoid his games and generally stay away from him unless he is doing something obviously disruptive or unless he wikistalks me and starts reverting my legitimate edits. I also rarely engage in edit wars and avoid disputes that require lengthy discussion, so I would probably drop this entirely after a few reverts, regardless of your message. I was just undoing edits that in my opinion were not constructive. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

User space edits on User:Edgarde/tools
Thank you for reverting these edits. Generally I like to revert my own vandalism, so a talk page comment is preferable. In this case, my sub-page was protected because of the revert war that occurred while I was AFK. That said, I still very much appreciate your intervention. / edg ☺ ☭ 23:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem, next time I'll leave you a note instead of reverting myself. Btw, I enjoyed your edit summary for the removal of the sections. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 17:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sure enjoyed it as well. One can reasonably assume it will be trotted out in future disputes. Thanks again. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Re Articles for deletion/Faith in Place
Just a note that an article whose AfD you commented in is now the topic of a Deletion for Review discussion. Deor (talk) 02:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up, but I generally stay away from DRV. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 03:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Articles for deletion/The Motley Moose
Ahoy, mate! To follow up on my comment from the thread, I was just looking for some more in-depth feedback on what you didn't like on the references, so that if, indeed, the deletion is ratified, we can fix them up before we re-submit the article. I appreciate your input! Thanks! Ks64q2 (talk) 05:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Unholy Alliance (geopolitical)
Check out the more encyclopedic rewrite. Remember, this is still really a "stub" for a larger article which having the stub there enables. BTW, how can it be NEO, SYNTH, or SOAP if used or referenced in more than 1100 books? -74.162.153.126 (talk) 00:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Cloudbuster: Keep or redirect and merge?
The 2nd Articles for deletion discussion for Cloudbuster closed as "keep," with the note that "any merge/redirect discussions should take place at the relevant talk pages". However, the article was immediately merged and redirected into Orgone energy. The editor who participated in the discussion and then performed the merge believes that the merge/redirect is supported by consensus. I am posting this notice to the talk page of each of the editors who participated in the discussion, including the nominator, to ensure that this is the case. -- Shunpiker (talk) 18:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review
Hi. As a participant in the deletion discussion, you may be interested in this deletion review. - Biruitorul Talk 17:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Heads up
You're being discussed here, in regards to that Sheree Silver articles for deletion. The creator, Spring12, seems bound and determined to belittle and discount anyone who voted delete. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 04:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 15:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And sorry if I upset you with my comments, I didn't mean any harm. Spring12 (talk) 15:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Midnight (Warriors)
If you were planning on adding a simplified version of the plot, go ahead, but your edit removed the ending, etc. The plot tag was mainly there to get people to expand non-plot sections.--Res2216firestar 02:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I see you reverted back. I'll leave it, but could you please explain why we have to kill half the plot instead of simplifying it and focusing on non-plot sections?--Res2216firestar 18:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Thx.
Well, that was the one combination I didn't try. Thanks. --KP Botany (talk) 05:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. Sorry for modifying your comment, even if it was just a formatting change. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 17:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Rescue used as a voting guide
Hello, Other editors have been criticized for just walking the rescue tagged articles and voting "keep" on all. You have clearly done the same thing but !voted delete on all. In at least one case it was pretty clear you didn't read anything to do with the AfD or article (NOTNEWS was the only real reason for deletion, you argued sources didn't exist that met WP:N). I'd ask you be a bit careful here. Thanks, Hobit (talk) 13:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't done anything wrong. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 15:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I would actually agree, as long as you are reading things you are !voting on. AMiB has been arguing that walking the rescue templates and just !voting blindly is a problem and I noticed some of your !votes looked odd, then noticed they were all deletes and all from rescue.  Others have been accused of doing bad things when doing the same thing and !voting to keep.  No biggy to me, just an FYI.  Hobit (talk) 21:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Aight. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 22:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll point out another case. At Poleconomy you claimed there were no mentions in reliable sources.  The !vote above yours (mine) linked to two and at the time of your !vote there were plenty of RSes cited in the article itself.  Please read the AfD and the article before !voting in a AfD. Hobit (talk) 12:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Jeans - a symbol of American cultural influence in the world
Can't see why it was necessary to remove this sentence from the article. Please explain.Пипумбрик (talk) 17:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's original research without a source. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought it was just stating the obvious: Jeans were invented in America and became popular all over the world. Jeans are a part of our material culture. Who would argue with these facts?Пипумбрик (talk) 00:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I get what you're saying, but the statement that they're a symbol of American culture is debatable and requires a source. My personal opinion, or yours, isn't relevant. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 02:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Merging Book's page
I undid your edit of Book and started a discussion on the talk page so there will be some consensus before a move of that magnitude. Zybthranger (talk) 14:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Every other character aside from the captain dude has been merged. Content can be pulled from the page history if anyone cares. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 16:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you please stop mindlessly redirecting the page and wait until there's some consensus. Just because you think it is the right course of action does not mean that it actually is. The point being that when the other characters' pages were merged, it was decided that these two were good enough for their own page, and were not just forgotten as you seem to be assuming.  If you think it should be merged or redirected, please come up with some actual reasons besides 'it looks like someone forgot to do this' because that is incorrect.  Again, please talk before you start making major changes, especially when somebody asks you to explain yourself and to wait a second but you do it again anyway.  Zybthranger (talk) 19:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Consensus obviously already exists as every other supporting character has been merged. What about this is unclear to you? Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What am I unclear about? The fact that you say there is a consensus.  If you look at some of the discussion of the merge, there is not obvious consensus to merge this article.  Perhaps merging would be the best plan, but we need to talk about it first.  So please stop making these major changes without talking about it.  Zybthranger (talk) 19:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Stop crossposting. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 20:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright. Since you were the one that started crossposting your replies here, it looked like that is what you preferred.  The following is a bit of a rant, so feel free to completely ignore it.  A couple of quick things that have bothered me about what you are doing.  Why are you just worried about Book's page and not Mal's?  They both have comparable pages, especially compared to the other main characters.  It seems that this is because you only looked at the original AfD, which doesn't mention Mal or River, and based your opinion of consensus on that, ignoring that a mediation started after that to further look at the issue.  And that just doesn't seem to be the correct course of action to educate yourself on a topic and start doing stuff.  Also, you just redirect the page, not merge it.  This just seems completely nonsensical and irresponsible to me.  You keep saying the consensus is to merge the pages, so why aren't you merging the pages?  Why would you simply redirect the page and say essentially 'If someone wants to, they can fix it.'  That's basically saying that what you're doing is not the right course of action.  It's not a solution.  Merge means merge, not redirect and let someone else do the work.  Zybthranger (talk) 19:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Two things
Sorry, I realize I'm probably coming across as an ass given that above, but... Thanks, Hobit (talk) 18:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) I'm not part of the rescue squadron. I am largely on the inclusionist side of things however.
 * 2) I believe you are in violation of 3RR on Midnight (Warriors). I'd ask that you please revert yourself.  You've also managed to revert some simple corrections to the article unrelated to the point of disagreement.  At the least please repair those. Missed that someone else had reverted you already.
 * I know. I was referring to Le Nobody, Ikip, and Schmidt.
 * Look again. I haven't violated 3RR.
 * Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess I don't know the 3RR rules then. I thought you'd done three reverts in 24 hours and that wasn't allowed.  Never quite got those rules and I try to stay way clear of them.  Hobit (talk) 19:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 3RR is more than three reverts in 24 hours. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah. Hobit (talk) 00:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Paradox spam
Thanks for spotting that one. How embarrassing. ^_^ Paradoctor (talk) 06:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No doubt. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 15:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

ThankSpam

 * Keep up the good work. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Drv for List of extraordinary diseases and conditions
An AfD for this article, which you participated in, was recently closed as "no consensus." I have request a deletion review here .Bali ultimate (talk) 16:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for alerting me. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 16:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

77.103.10.70 (talk)
Could you please have a look at my request of May 27 in Talk:Sourdough? Related to link spam reversion by you of 77.103.10.70 (talk) Further background detail in email sent to you via Wikipedia email service. Many thanks. Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 14:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I actually only enabled email for a one time thing using a disposable account that I can no longer access. That IP kept adding links to news articles that didn't fit WP:EL. Is the gist of your email that you think the same user is now back on a WP:SPA account with a vendetta against you? Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 15:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. However, problem has been solved by editor Tedder's fix. No further action needed. Many thanks. Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 22:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Jessica Simpson
Hello there, You continue to delete Joe Simpson's comment about his daughter in his WP entry. Despite requests by multiple users to outline your reasons for this continued deletion, you've failed to offer anything more than "trim," "it's no good," and a vague, terse questioning of the source (which you also refused to outline). Before once again excising this very well-known and widely reported incident from his entry, please outline in detail your reasons for believing it should not be part of his entry. Thanks much! --Vaudedoc (talk) 17:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Sunfish sailboat, external links
Hello,

I'm curious why you feel the link to Sunfish_Sailor, Owner's Support group isn't a valid one.

The group is free to join, it's resource materials are free to download, and the web site contains more origial historical reference materials than any other Sunfish web page.

Both Sunfish Netherlands and The Sunfish Forum reference the archives of this site and post some of it's articles in their own FAQ and KB areas. This link is one of the most comprehensive resources world-wide for information about these boats.

Sailfish&amp;Sunfish (talk) 05:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Lysistrata
Hi. You recently removed some 'misplaced text' from the introduction to Lysistrata. This 'misplaced text' is a list of Aristophanes' extant plays and I intend restoring it because it is a fundamentally important piece of information. It includes links to the other plays but it is not a navigation box. All the articles on Aristophanes plays feature the same 'misplaced text' in their introductory section. Esseinrebusinanetamenfatearenecessest (talk) 22:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * None of them should have it. It is not appropriate to put poorly formatted navigation aids below the lede, especially when there is a template serving the exact same purpose at the bottom of the page. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 22:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest in these articles. I hope you can contribute something else to them. Your argument seems to be that links are not allowed in the introduction to an article - whose policy is that? The list is not a navigation box. It belongs in the introduction and the links are a commonsense convenience. Esseinrebusinanetamenfatearenecessest (talk) 22:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC) I now see that you have removed the list from all the articles. Point me to the Wikipedia policy that says I can't use links in the introduction. Esseinrebusinanetamenfatearenecessest (talk) 23:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks like you simply copypasted the markup right out the template of the bottom of the page. Navigational templates almost always go at the bottom of the page. You should never break up in the "meat" of the article with clunky images that create ugly whitespace and collections of wikilinks that interrupt the flow of reading. WP:FOOTERS and WP:NAV relate most of what I am saying. I don't see why you want this stuff right under the lede when it's already easily accessible in the position (that is, the bottom of the page) that matches virtually every other article on Wikipedia. Although it's unclear to me why you'd insist on doing such a thing, if you're absolutely certain that you want to have these links at the top, despite the fact that it goes against most convention here, then you should use template:sidebar or something similar to keep the navigation box from infringing on the article content. However, I think this would be overkill because, again, the existing template is perfectly fine for these plays. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 23:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Since you seem to have such a great interest in classical literature and in the plays of Aristophanes in particular, perhaps you would like to create an appropriate side-bar for the list. It is my belief that the information boxes will get in the way of a side-bar but perhaps you know more about this too. The navigation box is not the right place for important information - it is at the bottom of the page and it is practically invisible in a long, properly researched article. Esseinrebusinanetamenfatearenecessest (talk) 23:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Almost every navigational template on Wikipedia is at the bottom of its article. Just as two examples in a subject area you seem to be fond of, check out the way Aeschylus and Euripides are done. I'm not trying to be a nuisance, but this really is the standard layout; I was just editing the Aristophanes to conform. Maybe I'll help with a navbox later, but it's Friday night where I am, so it's booze time. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 00:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Article Martin Krafft
The dispute over article Martin Krafft was not settled and you replaced it by a redirection to a book. Martin has offered to provide supporting evidence if needed, but noone replied. The removal is backed up by the belief of some WP contributors that content should be concentrated on single pages, not faceted across multiple pages. Please provide continue the discussion until consensus is found instead of removing pages, which could be called an instance of vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.75.157.73 (talk) 22:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You're obviously Martin Krafft. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 22:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not. But I know him. Please discuss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.75.157.73 (talk) 05:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You just admitted to be a meat puppet. In terms of Wikipedia consensus, you and him count as one person. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 16:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * He was not even acting on my behalf. I am going to raise this issue at COIN and ask you to please refrain from further changing the article until a consensus has been found. So far, it's two people arguing against me, and I do not like this position myself, due to WP:COI and other aspects. I am going to invite two other people into the discussion to be continued at the COIN noticeboard. If it turns out that the article cannot exist longer, we can start weeding out many free software programmers' pages and similar. I think that would be sad. madduck (talk) 06:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You are the lone dissenter. Your meatpuppet (see directly above) does not count as a separate person. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 16:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You apparently just don't get it. I've moved the page into my user domain until this is resolved. Deletionists like you really diminish the value of wikipedia. It's a shame. madduck (talk) 17:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You can't have a redirect to userspace from the mainspace. I fixed it for you. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Derrial Book and Malcolm Reynolds
Managed to get Alansohn and Abce2 to stop classifying the merge of Derrial Book and Malcolm Reynold as vandalism. And yes, the consensus now is full delete. 65.120.179.226 (talk) 02:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Rock'n'roll. But they should be redirects instead of blanked pages. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 02:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I just saw what you're doing. I think that you're someone who I've had a disagreement with in the past and that you signed out of your account to follow me around and make it look like I am socking. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 02:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I've blocked them for a little longer than simply for edit warring--that sort of wholesale deletion was disruptive, and the potential stalking aspect didn't help any. Jclemens (talk) 06:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * All right. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 17:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Fluoroquinolone Articles
Appreciate you interest in these articles. I did however have to revert your one edit regarding the Adverse Reactions to the Fluoroquinolones. In regards to the hundreds of forums directly related to these adverse events, they are not simply being reported upon. These sites are a very strong lobbying effort (ongoing for over a decade now) that has resulted in numerous changes to the package inserts, most recently the addition of the Black Box Warnings concerning tendon ruptures. Though I understand and ever appreciate your efforts to downplay this with your edit, simply stating that there are reports of such sites grossly distorts the facts in this case. These are groups that have actively worked with the medical community, Congress, Public Citizen, the Attorney Generals, the FDA, etc, to bring about public awareness and updated warnings since 1999. They are far from being a few disgruntled patients as your edit would imply. They are in fact tens of thousands of patients who have organized themselves to bring about constructive changes and public awareness. They include doctors and other members of the medical community, researchers, educators, etc., from all walks of life. Hence your edit I would consider to be inappropriate, though well intentioned. Perhaps there would be another way to state that sentence to reflect this without it being considered sensationalistic to some folks. I am open to constructive suggestions.

In regards to the trade names being present within the introduction to the Levaquin article I do not feel strongly enough about this edit to revert it. But I thought I would take a moment an explain why they were placed there in the first place. Levaquin is used world wide under a variety of different brand names. A person taking Tavanic may NOT be aware that in fact they are taking levaquin. Nor would a person be aware of the fact that they were prescribed an eye or ear drops that contain levaquin. We have asked that editors use links for the various brand names linking them back to this article to avoid such clutter. But the few that were included in the introduction was done deliberately to alert the reader to the above. And we had limited this to the most common ones. So perhaps you might reconsider. Or if you care to discuss these issues further feel free to leave a note on my talk page. Regards, Davidtfull (talk) 04:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Although the meaning is clear to us, "any number" is an unacceptable phrase for an encyclopedia as it's too easy to challenge (see WP:V). At the very least it should be changed to "many" or whatever word you like the best which conforms with WP:TONE. A cite for the fact that there are a large number would be nice.
 * In simple terms, the first sentence of the lede should always be the sentence one would reply with if an uninformed layperson asked "What is X?". If random stranger asked you "What is Levaquin?", it's doubtful that you would start rattling off trade names. Check out WP:LEDE to get a better idea.
 * My edits are simple things that improve the article's readability and help it to better conform to the standards here whereas the general tone of your comments indicates that are under the impression that Wikipedia is a medical forum, patient guide, or consumer alert bulletin when it is in fact an encyclopedia. Your userpage shows that you have clear bias on the subject matter and I'd direct you to WP:COI, but you state that you've already read it. Frankly, the whole article stinks of WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV issues. There is way too much dedicated to adverse effects, controversies, etc. and it all started with your edits in February. The article is 10 times larger now and it's almost entirely "this bad stuff will happen to you!". It's admirable that you want to raise awareness about an issue that you perceive to be important, but Wikipedia isn't always a venue for that. Honestly, if you really want to respect the spirit of COI and the encyclopedia in general then you should probably stay away from this article and the related ones entirely as you obviously have extremely negative feelings about the topic. Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 06:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Kimber Henry article
You requested that somebody "add some sources to this article... then to indicate [its] notability???" (your quote). I did just that, adding links to articles, interviews and clips as well as episode titles. With that in mind, I can't comprehend why you redirected the page once again. From where I am all I see is somebody being vindictive for the sake of it. What else can I possibly do to fix this article to suit your standards and stop it from being redirected? maxpower03 (talk) 12:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Updated the Kimber article again, once again updating it to suit both Wiki's and your own standards. More detailed information is in the Kimber Henry discussion tab. Please visit there and discuss. Thanks. Apologies for being antagonistic in the previous statement above. Unnecessary. maxpower03 (talk) 10:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Maris Crane redirect
How is Maris Crane a non-notable character? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.66.143.29 (talk) 07:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * She's a minor character who is never actually seen. She's rarely, if ever, the focus of anything significant in the plot and is typically used for one line jokes and the like. There were no sources to indicate notability on the article and I couldn't find any on Google. Furthermore, the content of the article was just plot summary, original research about her personality, and trivia. Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 15:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Just because she's never seen doesn't make her a minor character. Her actions and influence have been very significant throughout the show. Just take her and Niles' divorce. Not only did it have immediate ramifications on Niles and his lifestyle, it changed the course of the rest of the show. Never being seen is simply a comedic character quirk. She was very important to the show. 162.84.48.162 (talk) 19:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Find reliable sources that cover her specifically. This does not include blogs, fansites, self-published material, or anything of that nature, nor does it include single lines from legitimate articles that focus on the series itself. Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 21:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

What do you consider a reliable source? You're not going to find a page for her on something like IMDb because she was never portrayed by an actress. The Maris character is an unusual case in that respect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.48.162 (talk) 22:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:RS and WP:N are the pages for Wikipedia policy on reliable sources and notability, respectively. Specifically, the general notability guideline is a good primer for the principles of inclusion. I'm not disputing that Maris Crane exists on the show or that she doesn't sometimes influence the plot in a roundabout way, but it's unlikely that she's notable in the Wikipedia sense of the word. Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 02:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Jucy Lucy removal
Hi - If you think that Jucy Lucy should be removed and replaced with a redirect, please come discuss it on the Talk:Jucy Lucy talk page instead of just unilaterally taking those steps. Thanks! --R27182818 (talk) 14:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Seven of Nine / Annika Hansen change
Wanted to let you know I have changed the spelling back to Annika. We have several sources,, , , , and Page 659 of the expanded ST Encylopedia ISBN 0-671-03475-8. Just wanted you to know why it was reverted since i hit rollback by mistake instead of undo and forgot an edit summary. This information is all listed at Talk:Seven of Nine. Ejfetters (talk) 04:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read the sources, it is 2 n's. I have listed eight sources on the Seven of Nine page if you would like to review them. Ejfetters (talk) 07:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Could you please explain further...
I saw your comment on Articles for deletion/Shona Holmes (3rd nomination)

I thought I had already offered a coherent counter-argument to the assertion that Holmes's article was not a BLP1e. (1) precedent setting court case in 2007; (2) controversial ad of questionable honesty that triggered controversy in the USA; (3) controversial ad of questionable honesty that triggered controversy in Canada. I'd appreciate it if you could see your way clear to explain why you discounted my counter-argument.

Similarly, several contributors suggested renaming the article to something like Shona Holmes incident, or Shona Holmes incidents. You didn't address this suggestion. If your concern is that there was something lacking from the article to satisfy your idea of a biographical article I'd appreciate learning what further concern you have that prevented you endorsing the rename suggestion, so it was, officially, an article about the notable incidents? Geo Swan (talk) 00:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Kimber Henry article, other character articles on Wiki
You probably won't reply to this, as you didn't with my last comments on this page, but please be aware of the many, many pages for TV characters across Wikipedia, all of which feature less references than the Kimber Henry article, and are just as "notable" (or in your eyes) "non-notable" as she is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orson_Hodge

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Donaghy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Green

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jax_Teller

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Campbell

There are of course many, many others, including (ironically!) almost all the character pages dedicated to non-Kimber Henry Nip/Tuck characters.

I do not understand AT ALL why you appear to have no problem with these other articles, and you appear to not be hunting them down and redirecting them. Yet, for whatever reason, Kimber Henry's article MUST BE RE-DIRECTED AND REMOVED.

And, yes, a lot of the references are for episode recaps. But it's obvious that they feature references to specific plot points that are mentioned in the Wiki page for Kimber. I have no idea what I can reference to if clips, episode recaps and articles/interviews are not good enough. You have offered no advice on improving the article, and trashed every step I've taken to improve it so far.

Please remember I'm not going to let this go. I'd be happy for an independent perspective on the page to be called for, but please be aware that if Kimber's page is deemed unnecessary and worthy of shrinking and re-directing, then there needs to be a rapid restructuring of Wikipedia itself, as I see no reason for a series regular on a major TV show to have her page removed, yet series regulars on other major TV shows (as well as the rest of the Nip/Tuck regular characters!) can stay untouched.

Like I said before, I'm not going to let this go. maxpower03 (talk) 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Kimber Henry article, yet again
I gave firm evidence of her notability, which you supposedly ignored as you did not respond at all to my latest edit, instead just redirecting regardless. Are you willing to cooperate and debate the article at all? Or have you just decided to ignore me?

This has gone on so long that I would really like some independent perspective on the debate. It's getting completely ridiculous and I feel as if I'm the only person actually invested in wanting to create a compromise here. You seem to just be pushing your opinion with absolutely no regard for my own personal feelings on the matter.

Please respond.

maxpower03 (talk) 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Please visit WP:EAR where a thread has been opened on this. Thanks.  Sp in ni ng  Spark  19:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)