User talk:FlightTime/Archive 40

New message from Discospinster
... disco spinster   talk  01:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

CaseOh
Hey - you just reverted Special:Diff/1214706230, though in my edit summary I mentioned it was calculated from the VentureJolt source. Did you perhaps mean to revert a different edit? stwalkerster (talk) 17:15, 20 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Yeah, thanx :P -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 17:17, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

A message from WiinterU
Hello, this is Winter. I have noticed that some of your edits to McDonald's may have negatively affected the article. The company type and key people sections always have to be linked according to the documentation here.

WiinterU (talk) 03:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Please convey your concerns to, the author of the script used. Cheers, -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 00:25, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

A message from Hellbus
I forget how I ended up on your talk page, but I have to say Daisy looks just like my sister's dog Poppy. Please give your flower girl a treat on behalf of the one in my life. Hellbus (talk) 03:24, 31 March 2024 (UTC)


 * ✅ She says thanx, give your's a hug for a stranger :) -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 00:27, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

A message from Bazkar gromti ovar
Quick ping to understand if you are still willing to discuss the changes to the Signs (Five Man Electrical Band song) article as per my talk page.

Bazkar gromti ovar (talk) 15:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Deep purple Machine head
Hi my name is red Jenkins so on the page for deep purple’s album machine head there has been an IP address that has been posting a discrepancy on the release date The album was released on march 25 but the person keeps on saying that it was released in April 1972 I just wanted to know if you could give me a definite answer if it was released in March or April 1972 because I don’t wanna keep on putting heads with the guy thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reedjenkins1234 (talk • contribs) 14:53, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 25 March 1972 - FlightTime Phone  ( open channel ) 15:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Chrysler Building
Really appreciate your "Thanks" for the Chrysler Building edit. Best Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 20:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

A message from QwertyForest
Hi! I noticed that you reverted my edit to the username policy, stating that the previous link was not broken and linking to a guideline about bypassing redirects. I think there may have been a misunderstanding here. The previous link goes to the section of the sockpuppetry policy that deals with legitimate alts as a whole. This can create confusion. Also, when viewed on a mobile, the paragraph about doppelganger accounts is not visible. However, the redirect I replaced it with goes to the paragraph about doppelganger accounts. This improves clarity and navigation, particularly for mobile users. I hope this has cleared something up.

QwertyForest (talk) 16:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Best send them to the beginning of the section, they know what they're looking for. FYI no need to ping a user on their own talk page. Cheers, -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 17:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

A Cheeseburger for you!


The Master of Hedgehogs (converse) (hedgehogs) has given you a Cheeseburger! Cheeseburgers promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a Cheeseburger, whether it be someone you've had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy eating!

A cheeseburger, because you're awesome!

Spread the goodness of Cheeseburgers by adding {{subst:Cheeseburger}} to their talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cheeseburger on the giver's talk page with {{subst:burger-munch}}!

The Master of Hedgehogs (converse) (hedgehogs) 13:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

User:The Snake Squad
Just noting that pages created by now blocked users are not eligible for WP:G5 deletion; they need to be evading an already-existing block. I don't necessarily think it needed a U5 as was later done, but I'm not that fussed. Just thought I'd mention the G5 part. Primefac (talk) 13:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

A message from Dour1234
, I was wondering why you reverted my edit on the page about J. R. R. Tolkien. I cited the secondary source where I found the name Philip from, "What’s in a Name? Tolkien and St. Philip Neri" by Dr. Holly Ordway. On my talk page, you claimed that my edit was disruptive. Despite that, however, I do not see how it was disruptive in any way. I followed the cite web template when citing the source and I kept the page at J. R. R. Tolkien because that is the name that most people know him as. If you explain all this to me as well as what I need to do to add the name to the page, that would great. I look forward to and await your response.Dour1234 (talk) 20:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Dour1234 (talk) 20:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Well, just off the bat why in the fuck did you change his name ? -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 20:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I did not change the name of the page, but I have added some information that wasn’t previously on the page. I noticed on many Wikipedia pages that while the page name is the most well known name, the bolded name is almost always the full name of the person the page is about.Dour1234 (talk) 20:27, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, you're wrong. Please stop posting here, use the article talk page -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 20:28, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

A message from Dour1234
, I was wondering why you reverted my edit on the page about J. R. R. Tolkien. I cited the secondary source where I found the name Philip from, "What’s in a Name? Tolkien and St. Philip Neri" by Dr. Holly Ordway. On my talk page, you claimed that my edit was disruptive. Despite that, however, I do not see how it was disruptive in any way. I followed the cite web template when citing the source and I kept the page at J. R. R. Tolkien because that is the name that most people know him as. If you explain all this to me as well as what I need to do to add the name to the page, that would great. I look forward to and await your response.Dour1234 (talk) 20:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Dour1234 (talk) 20:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Well, just off the bat why in the fuck did you change his name ? -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 20:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I did not change the name of the page, but I have added some information that wasn’t previously on the page. I noticed on many Wikipedia pages that while the page name is the most well known name, the bolded name is almost always the full name of the person the page is about.Dour1234 (talk) 20:27, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, you're wrong. Please stop posting here, use the article talk page -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 20:28, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

User:The Snake Squad
Just noting that pages created by now blocked users are not eligible for WP:G5 deletion; they need to be evading an already-existing block. I don't necessarily think it needed a U5 as was later done, but I'm not that fussed. Just thought I'd mention the G5 part. Primefac (talk) 13:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

A message from 98Tigerius
There's an error on the file page I requested to be move, please double check it.  98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂  •  [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺]   20:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * - FlightTime  ( open channel ) 13:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

A message from W;ChangingUsername
Please revert my edits to the erythema migrans page. You couldn't have read the page (how it is now) if you think it's in any way acceptable, and, using your own "personal opinions aren't valid sources" - the page was clearly written by someone who got a tick bite, or keeps getting conditions, and spent too much time editing the page with their own findings. I didn't reference it, but I revealed my source in the discussion on my talk page in response to your comment. In my opinion, my version of thr page is much better, and, for the record, the information I added did come from a source and not my own things that I made up except for the "right ear" part. Thr right ear being affected is something I may have read somewhere I don't know.

I'm not bothered about the methamphetamine pregnancy category think and I know thst was a risky edit. I'm sorry for thst edit. I'm also sorry for the STATE that erythema migrans is in.

W&#59;ChangingUsername (talk) 16:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)


 * The correct thing to do is open a discussion with your concerns on the article talk page. -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 16:35, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Revert the edit to be the current, and ill do that. That way i can discuss this with YOU as well. Tell me whats wrong with the page and ill make it better. The page makes me feel sick. The source for all of the information was written down from the OCHM and maybe the NHS website. No offense, but the page as it is now seems to be written with more personal anecdotes and the editors own experiences than my version
 * I'm not going back to the page even though I worked hard on it. If the edit it reverted, though, I can go back and make changes which need to be made if you would like me to do that. W&#59;ChangingUsername (talk) 16:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I don't know the article subject, I just know we don't accept OR. Regular page watchers will discuss your concerns. -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 16:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Then the article as it stands does not meet wikipedia guidelines
 * I am citing sources, throughout every sentence I added to the page. I've said I am. The article is very neglected W&#59;ChangingUsername (talk) 16:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Please discuss this on the talk page, not here. -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 16:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

"So"?
What does this mean ? --Joy (talk) 16:42, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It was a misclick, I've fixed it. -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 19:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Testing One click archiver
g'pdrjg]rpogi]wi =0O4TOA]0KE[GKRT =\42-8G]-G[HK 55t7G=H9B*63294\/3W H'Y;-]UN[PYO34MWE9AUJHB;2P3owpgh;]n ,HPbkvl,p'qor;ito5=]y=j[hgvds

Not working :P -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 14:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)


 * You can use User:Evad37/OneClickArchiver.js :) – DreamRimmer (talk) 14:28, 7 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanx for the poke, but still no dice. It seems maybe a .css problem, hasn't worked for a couple days now. -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 14:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Works :) -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 02:46, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

A message from Chappsnet
I can’t understand why you continue to undo my edit for the fresco of the Pompeii amphitheater. The old image is very low res - mine is very high res and can be downloaded in larger sizes. Further, mine is color-corrected to match the fresco in the MANN. I do this professionally for archaeologists, universities, et al. So please stop reverting the edits.

Chappsnet (talk) 15:34, 10 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Have you read my edit summaries?  -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 18:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)


 * You know what, I'm done, do what you want. -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 18:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

User warnings
Regarding the dispute on Emilio Estevez, warning a new editor for sockpuppetry is a bit much when it looks more like logged out editing from a new editor. You also are linking to a sockpuppetry investigation that doesn't exist in your warnings. Please consider replacing your warnings with. It would also help to try to educate the editor about sourcing and other Wikipedia guidelines rather than leaving bitey warnings about disruptive editing with lengthy boldfaced text right off the bat. While the edits may be misguided, they appear to be good faith edits. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 20:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ The editing pattern are the same, just so you know.-  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 21:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd be surprised if it wasn't the same person. And the image changes were terrible. The point is that the first user talk page communication with a good faith editor really shouldn't be orange and red warnings complete with boldface "shouting" and the threat of being blocked. As the guideline says: The last part might be tough, but the rest is not that difficult for most editors making edits similar to this. My experience is harsh initial warnings also tend to result in reversion wars more frequently.
 * You might want to sign the updated warning and please do consider doing something more educational on the registered account's talk page. Thanks! Daniel Quinlan (talk) 21:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

A message from 69.131.80.236
69.131.80.236 (talk) 22:31, 21 June 2024 (UTC) Why do you think I disrupted Wikipedia?
 * Did you read the warning I left? The reason is stated in there. -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 22:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I do not want to be blocked from editing anonymously. I promise I will never make any false summaries again. 69.131.80.236 (talk) 22:35, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Please respond. 69.131.80.236 (talk) 22:50, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Nothing more to say, just stop leaving false edit summaries. -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 22:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

A message from AutoMan45
Proof that Real Madrid has 15 UCL titles https://www.realmadrid.com/en-US/the-club/history/football

AutoMan45 (talk) 17:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Don't put it here, put it with you edit(s) -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 17:23, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay thank you, I'm new to editing here AutoMan45 (talk) 17:25, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

A Dyson sphere constructed by extraterrestrial plants
This is not an important discussion, so you may wish to disregard it entirely—or simply delete it! But I found certain ideas that you raised curious, and wondered if it was worth exploring them with someone else who might have considered some of the implications!

I saw your edits at Dyson sphere, and could not see anything to quibble with, apart from the edit summary—but given the behaviour of certain editors I sparred with at length earlier this year when I argued that notable depictions of Dyson spheres in fiction ought to be described, at least in terms of how the objects are portrayed, I suspect that your change of "in fiction" to "in popular culture" will not last long. At the time there seemed to be very strong ownership behaviour, and a former article of long standing by the title "Dyson spheres in popular culture" was deleted by one of them after the other had cleared nearly all of its contents as either unsourced (despite clearly identifying the works that they appeared in; apparently secondary sources have to attest both their appearance and why they're important enough to mention in the first place, but details of their depiction are merely "trivia" unless described in detail by secondary sources that constitute serious scientific literature, and are not themselves concerned primarily with fiction). I say that I "suspect" this will be the case, because they have thus far been quite restrained in their editing since that long and frustrating argument—after years of reverting nearly all other editors' changes to the article, I haven't seen them doing so recently.

But, to return to the main point: extraterrestrial plants couldn't build a Dyson sphere? Well, it's an open question as to whether anyone can! But your change was of "extraterrestrial life" to intelligence. And we don't know that extraterrestrial plants wouldn't be intelligent, or even mobile; science fiction has long posited the existence of intelligent plants (and of course, science fiction isn't reality, but since we don't even know if extraterrestrial life or intelligence exists, let alone Dyson spheres, we are really dealing with imagination here). Although the owners of "Dyson Sphere" have shown great disdain for Star Trek in particular (the conflagration was over an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation prominently featuring a Dyson sphere, and the description thereof), I'll note that an episode of Star Trek: The Animated Series actually featured intelligent plants.

However, whether intelligent plants could exist somewhere in the cosmos may be questionable due to the current taxonomic definition of "plant" in biology. Fungi, for instance, despite generally being "planted", i.e. rooted to the ground or other things, as opposed to "animal", i.e. motile, are no longer considered "plants" because they aren't genetically descended from the same lineage as plants, but are roughly as different from plants as are animals. And while the development of life elsewhere in the universe might theoretically involve complex organic molecules such as DNA and RNA, it would not be lineally descended from either plants or animals as those terms are currently defined in biology. Which would be quite a poser if we ever discover things that we would typically describe as "plants" or "animals", based purely on their resemblance or function, on other worlds: we would need a whole new vocabulary to categorize each type of organism on each planet where it had evolved; under our current definition there could be no plants or animals anywhere but earth! But perhaps we would then revisit the narrow definition currently in use.

Not sure I've said anything actually useful here, but would love to hear from you if you have any thoughts on the above! P Aculeius (talk) 17:57, 4 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Easy, its just a phrase, that if a DS does exists, it's safe to say intelligent life is involved regardless of form. -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 18:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not worked up about it—just found it a curious line of thought: what's the objection to intelligent plants? And is the real objection taxonomic rather than functional?  Oh, well!  Just thought I'd float a balloon on the topic!  P Aculeius (talk) 19:33, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

A message from Milladrive
I thank you for the recent attention to the film Winchester '73. It occurs to me that a film about a rifle should contain a link to the Wikipedia page defining what a rifle is. Should it not?

On another point, I was unaware until now that it is overkill to link the U.S. states in which cities are located. If I may respectfully ask, what is the criteria? Thanks in advance. :)milladrive (talk) 04:18, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

milladrive (talk) 04:18, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

milladrive (talk) 04:18, 4 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Avoid linking common terms per OVERLINKING. (Most people know what a rifle is) -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 12:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Rename
If you don’t mind me asking, why did you put Masterpinapple421’s rename request on hold. Just curious, since I don’t see any immediately obvious reasons why it would be put on hold. GrayStorm(Complaints Dept.&#124;My Contribs.) 22:56, 7 July 2024 (UTC)


 * See here -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 02:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Gotcha, thanks for the response. Happy editing :) GrayStorm(Complaints Dept.&#124;My Contribs.) 02:56, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

A message from Freakychakra987
Hi FlightTime!

I'm not sure if I'm doing this right... I'm new to editing Wikipedia!

I tried making a number of corrections and improvements today to the Santa Susana Field Lab wiki. If I'm reading this right, you've reverted all my edits using Twinkle? If this is true, I'd like to ask you to undo your blanket reversion, as it's not clear to my why you would revert all of my edits.

It seems like you have a problem with the opening section, the third paragraph; you wrote "Unexplained removal, no sources to support changes." When I compare your change to the version that came before, I am confused, because it does indeed look like I simply deleted a whole chunk of text without any explanation or sourcing. That confuses me, because that is not the edit I intended to make; I made a smaller change to that section, and did provide a source.

I think I understand what happened though when I look at at edit that was made earlier today, by Adflatuss. When you compare my edit to the edit made by Adflatuss, you can see that Adflatuss thought that all of the material in that section should be moved to a different section of the wiki article, and so Adflatuss moved the material. Somehow, when you looked at it, this then made it look like I simply removed a bunch of content, when in fact it had simply been moved by another editor to elsewhere in the article.

Does this clear things up? I'm hoping we can resolve this, and that you can restore not only this edit but all the other edits I made on this page today. I think when you look at the quality of my edits, you can see that they are generally well-justified, well-sourced, and not vandalism.

Thank you! Freakychakra987

Freakychakra987 (talk) 00:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Review some of the links in that welcome template, most of your edits are a waste of time, changing the "best known" and "professionally known" don't need changing, unless it's a spelling error or incorrect English, I,'d leave it alone until you get more experienced. -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 00:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi @FlightTime,
 * Can you please respond more substantively to my message? I don't understand your response. It's pretty patently untrue that "most of my edits are a waste of time." Most of my edits were substantive changes that corrected inaccuracies, updated dead links, added relevant context... I'm not sure what you mean about "best known" and "professionally known," I don't believe any of the edits I made today used those phrases. And again, I don't think it's fair or acceptable use of Wikipedia to revert all of my edits on a page because you disagree with parts of them. Freakychakra987 (talk) 00:20, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

A message from Reedmanwiki
Hello, on June 13th I added a link the Sammy Davis Jr. arrangements at the New York Public Library using the "archives at" template. You deleted it not long afterward, saying I needed consensus. Why is consensus needed on the addition of a featured link to the archives of a person? It's not a disputed fact about Davis, it's simply a link to archival material. I've added this kind of link to many other entries and nobody has ever complained. The reason the "archives at" link exists is to draw attention to original documentation of subjects. If you're against its use, I'm curious as to why. Thank you.

Reedmanwiki (talk) 13:09, 11 July 2024 (UTC)


 * It looks like I was suggesting a discussion due to the location of your addition, between the infobox and the lead is not a normal place to insert links. -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 15:54, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It's meant to be a prominent feature for people to notice, therefore it's place under the quick facts box at the top right. If you really don't like it there I'll put it down with the external links but that defeats the purpose. Reedmanwiki (talk) 17:08, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, it don't belong before the lead. -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 17:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

A fox for you!
Hi FlightTime, I hope you are having a wonderful time. Enjoy your day my friend!

– DreamRimmer (talk) 11:03, 12 July 2024 (UTC) 