User talk:Fl/Archive 11

DYK Purge bot
Hi Foxy. In view of your efforts at Bot_requests, would you be so kind as to generate a bot per the Bot_requests/Archive_24 request. Thanks. -- Suntag  ☼  17:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm going to start work on it soon. Foxy Loxy  Pounce! 23:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

No need
Hey Foxy Loxy. :) There would have been no need for that and that. After I had done this edit I was going to relist the debate at the old and the new log. However, I noticed that you had done that already. Therefore I continued relisting other debates, when I (coincidentally) noticed that you had reverted your edits. There would have been no need for doing that. If I had not noticed it (as already mentioned I noticed it only coincidentally), probably no one would have relisted this debate. Of course, that would have been bad. To avoid that, no need to revert something like that in the future. :) Best wishes, —  Aitias  // discussion 01:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I hadn't noticed that you had already placed the relisted template on the page and presumed that you had finished the entire process when I saw it and I had just repeated it, so I reverted my edits. Thankyou for letting me know. Foxy Loxy  Pounce! 01:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! :) —  Aitias  // discussion 02:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

CC-BY-SA for bots
Using CC-BY-SA for bots (or any code) really isn't a good choice. Creative Commons is designed to protect creative works like photographs and doesn't have the protections that apply to source code. It also doesn't require users to share modifications. You should consider looking at the GPL but even then it doesn't require sharing changes made for private use, no popular licenses do because it isn't really enforceable. BJ Talk 22:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, good point. Perhaps the GPL is a better option. Thankyou for you input. Foxy Loxy  Pounce! 22:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Lead sections
Hi Foxy Loxy. I was doing a bit of drive-by tagging for problems with lead sections, and someone reverted me saying that even featured articles aren't required to have references in the lead. That seems unlikely to me. Do you know anything about this? PSWG1920 (talk) 08:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know how I missed this before. Although it does not give a definite answer as to whether an article can be GA or FA without references in the lead. PSWG1920 (talk) 16:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe I can give the answer to that question.
 * The lead is generally meant to be a summary of the entire article. Therefore, it should have no original information in it (information that is not also found in the body of the article) and so, doesn't need sources unless they are backing up a direct quotation.
 * That quote is from the 2nd review of the Xgrid article that I nominated for GA. The article passed and is a GA, but when it passed and even now, it doesn't have refs in the lead. Foxy Loxy  Pounce! 01:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I appreciate that. PSWG1920 (talk) 01:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Kanonkas
Thank you Foxy Loxy for voting in my successfully closed RfA! I'm glad that you trust me. Ping me if you need anything! Best regards, -- Kanonkas : Talk  20:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Night of the Day of the Dawn

 * The full AfD page name is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Night of the Day of the Dawn of the Son of the Bride of the Return of the Revenge of the Terror of the Attack of the Evil, Mutant, Alien, Flesh Eating, Hellbound, Zombified Living Dead Part 2: In Shocking 2-D (2nd nomination)

Hi Foxy Loxy. I understand your thinking, however The Night of the Day of the Dawn AfD had only been open for one day, and I've seen AfDs change on the last day, let alone after one day. I suggest you read Speedy keep carefully and see where this AfD fits into the criteria there. As it stands the nominator could call for a DRV and the AfD could be overturned as not following process. I've known DRV overturn decisions as "closed too soon" where the close was made after 4 days. Also, it would pay you to revisit Snowball clause, as the guideline does say: "Allowing a process to continue to its conclusion may allow for a more reasoned discourse, ensures that all arguments are fully examined, and maintains a sense of fairness. However, process for its own sake is not part of Wikipedia policy." The idea of SNOW is not to shortcut an AfD, but to cut through process for the sake of it.

I would strongly suggest you undo your closure and let this AfD run the five days.  SilkTork  *YES! 17:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thankyou for your comments, my main reasoning behind the close is outlined in point 3 of WP:NAC's Appropriate closures section, which itself is an interpretation of the snowball clause (which is, of course, an interpretation of IAR). I am also awake that WP:SK cannot be invoked for that particular discussion, hence it did not receive a mention in the closing statement. I do have a policy of if a non-involved party (or someone who voted with the group that had consensus) suggests reopening that I do so, because of this the debate has been restored. Foxy Loxy  Pounce! 02:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It appears that User:Tone (who is an administrator) has closed the AfD as Keep also, 17 hours after my reversion of the closure (no new !votes had been placed). Foxy Loxy  Pounce! 04:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:NAC reversions
You reverted my reversion that requested discussion reverted my request for discussion on the talk page at WP:NAC here saying to See [the] TalkPage, I have checked the talk page and there are no posts from yourself, or anyone else for that matter, since January 10th. I trust an explanation is forthcoming? I would appreciate discussing this change. Happy editing! Foxy Loxy Pounce! 01:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Foxy. Sorry for the long delay between restoring my edit, and then leaving the full explanation on the talkpage. I did get distracted by real life! I'm a little uncomfortable with your phrase "reverted my request for discussion". What happened is that you did a total revert of my edit, and then I restored my edit. I didn't revert any request of yours that I am aware of. Help:Reverting explains about the nature of reverting and gives some very good advice. I'm aware at this moment that there may be some tension between us now because I left you a message about a Snow close you had done, and then you revert an edit I made on Snow closures, and I overturn that revert. I do hope that you are not reading more into this editing than is there. I was not critical of your Snow closure in the Night of the Day of the Dawn AfD - as I said, I understood your reasoning, and I myself had left a comment in that AfD to keep the article. I was, however, concerned that the nominator might use the Snow close as a reason to call a DRV. And, as a general principle, I feel there is nothing lost and much to be gained from letting a standard AfD run the five days. I hope my fuller explanation in the WP:NAC talkpage is satisfactory, and I'm quite happy to discuss the matter further - though we should be aware that it's the wider Wikipedia consensus we need to be aware of when giving advice, not just the consensus on that essay. Regards  SilkTork  *YES! 01:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I have changed my above phrase to remove any ambiguity from the statement. And thankyou for the the thought in linking to Help:Reverting, but I do understand what a reversion is and accidentally wrote my statement with some ambiguity. I would also appreciate if you do take into account that I am not a new editor here (I only registered my account 3 months after you did) and your replies are coming off as a tad condescending, please don't take that the wrong way, I am in no way angry. I shall have a look at your talk page comment as soon as I can. Thanks and happy editing! Foxy Loxy  Pounce! 02:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Cookie!


Maddie! has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Maddie talk  00:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Bates method
I'm sorry that you would restore a personal attack and disrupt an article talk page in such a manner. Your WP:POINT has been made. --Ronz (talk) 00:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * how is that any less of a personal attack than what i said? -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 01:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry Ronz, but the comment was stricken, you do not just go removing comments on a public talk page as you please, even if you do not like them. Talk:Bates method is not your talkpage, it is the community's talk page. Furthermore, it appears that the consensus on that page may be that your edits are nonconstructive and it would be wise to accept that, if that is the consensus. Foxy Loxy  Pounce! 01:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC) Also, the "personal attack" made by Zappernapper is an example of the perfectly within policy action of Commenting on content, not on the contributor, the comment made was a description of your actions, nothing more, nothing less.  Foxy Loxy  Pounce! 01:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * First, to Zappernapper: I'm not doing this on an article talk page.
 * Second, the fact is that a comment that I clearly felt was a personal attack, was restored by an outside editor. This editor made no effort whatsoever to discuss the situation with me first.  Personal attacks are disruptive.  I think that WP:POINT fits this situation well.
 * Third, consensus is not reached by violating multiple policies and ignoring basic dispute resolution. --Ronz (talk) 01:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:NPA applies everywhere, and this is a case where you clearly commented on me, and not my actions, so this is a personal attack.
 * I believe a conflict of interest exists when you say a "personal attack" on you is a personal attack. I re-added the comment as you don't remove other editor's comments from a talk page (that is not yours), you either ask them to do so, or ask them to strike it. Zappernapper struck his comments, that is all that should be done. If you want something further done, you ask the editor in question (NEW TEXT: and wait till they say yes). It is interesting that you are complaining that I didn't ask you about restoring an edit which in turn you didn't ask Zappernapper get Zappernapper's permission if you could remove it the first place (and Zapernapper made it clear, from the reversions made, that you had no such permission). Updated 02:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No one appears to understand what your version of consensus is. Repeated attempts in asking what you mean and to remove tags have been met with answers such as The problems look fairly obvious to me. You may have to wait until I have more time to point them out.. Your interpretations of policies seen to be at ends with the other editors on the page. Foxy Loxy  Pounce! 01:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * in all fairness, Ronz did ask me to remove the comments, i just said "no". and to Ronz, no one but you feels the article is violating multiple policies, there may be small issues here and there - like with any article, but on the whole editors from across the board (who don't give two poops about the Bates method) haven't found any problems with neutrality or undue weight. You might want to read more of WP:POINT, your actions seem to be reminiscent of not getting the point, an argument by ad nauseam. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 02:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I only just noticed your talk page conversation with him then. I've modified my comment to reflect that. And yes, I agree with your statement. Foxy Loxy  Pounce! 02:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "WP:NPA applies everywhere" I'm happy to refactor anything that you feel is a personal attack.  I see none.
 * "I believe a conflict of interest" Huh? You're aware of the situation now. Could you explain in light of what you now know? I don't understand why you haven't struck out the entire #2.
 * "No one appears to understand what your version of consensus is" LOL. You want to stick by this?  I've pointed out the problems, the solution, and am working with editors on that solution.  Unfortunately, I don't have as much time to work on it as necessary, especially when the article talk page is once again being disrupted by Seeyou.  Until we get this latest problem with Seeyou under control, the other stuff is going to progress slowly. --Ronz (talk) 16:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Ronz, I've said what needs to be said, do with it what you will. You're not really addressing the main points of this thread and I think it's time everyone dropped the sticks and backed slowly away from the horse's carcass. The entire point of my responses is to tell you this:

Some people feel you are being disruptive, many of them don't like the tags kept adding to the article or you removing their comments from the public talk page, I suggest you stop, before someone goes and blows this out of proportion on the drama board or similar venue. Try to respect that you aren't the only viewpoint, and your view might make up a minority.

Now that is not something that can be argued, I am merely stating the facts as I see them from Talk:Bates method. Again, do with it what you will. Happy editing! Foxy Loxy Pounce! 22:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry that you don't have time enough to follow WP:DR and WP:CIVIL more closely when you make your cursory examinations of articles that have multi-year disruption problems. --Ronz (talk) 17:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)