User talk:Flowerparty/Archive 1

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:


 * To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type &#126;&#126;&#126; (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; (4 tildes).
 * Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
 * Follow the Simplified Ruleset
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Remember Neutral point of view
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

Meelar (talk) 15:23, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. By moving your talk page I'm pretty sure you've broken the new messages notification. Re: the Brunswick Centre photos. Black and white is more commonly used in architectural photography as it highlights the shape of the building. I am not sure whether I have the colour originals - but to illustrate the architecture I think black and white works better anyway. Secretlondon 08:06, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

KMA
Thanks for the tag. I knew I forgot something! Pburka 22:28, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Rv blanking on My Messenger
You've reverted blanking on the above article twice now... Notably, a vote of deletion has been placed on the article by its author and only editor who had blanked it. I am a relative newbie, so please explain if there is a reason that it should be unblanked, and not just speedy-deleted...? --jnothman talk 08:44, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thank you for your support on my RfA! When I submitted it, I was unsure of how I'd do, but the support was great. I promise that I won't do anything too stupid with the trust you've given me. humblefool&reg;Deletion Reform 19:44, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * P.S. Stop by Deletion reform!

vfd
You should have kept it in sandbox until the entry was ready. DyslexicEditor 22:10, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Style Manual
The link in your comment to the Style Manual is a dead link (it's red). I tried to find something like that, but couldn't, so I just assumed the articles I was looking at were sloppy. However, I do think some of the changes I made were appropriate, like making separate sections for the card series vs. the movie, and deleting a dead external link. Jason Donaldson 19:30, 2005 August 9 (UTC)

Thanks for your support
Thank you for voting to support my RFA. I've been promoted, and I promise to wield the mop with good faith, patience, and fairness... except when I'm exterminating vandals with the M-16 recoilless nuclear Gatling mop. --malathion talk 07:49, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Songs/Album colors
Thank you for pointing that out - both sides were incomplete, and gosh it was hard to kind the key. Noticed some inconsistencies so i went in to clean up - thanks for pointing out the extra table. though it doesnt seem to include a couple other single categories, like the lightblue for 12" MAXI singles. Barrettmagic 12:20 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * You responded saying there shouldnt be additional color codes for singles. Too late :) - they already have been.


 * (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Like_a_Virgin_%28song%29) I didn't make the color code, but it made sense so I added it to the album table (see Madonna's MAXI Single list for example - (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Like_a_Virgin_%28song%29) all in lightblue.


 * so they all need to be adjusted to yellow, or this additional category which seems to be in place needs to be promoted. :) Barrettmagic 12:29 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Func's RfA :)
Flowerparty, I want to thank you for not being rude and supporting my adminship, thank you very much! :)

Please never hesitate to let me know if you have concerns with any administrative action I may make.

Func( t, c, e, ) 19:13, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

More Gopal Das!
Regarding the Rami Nuri and Gopal Das articles, which were the subject of that dramatic VfD; they now have a category, and that category has four articles in it. Looking through those four, however, they're rather stubby; I was thinking about merging them into a new article called ECK masters, and explaining what the hell an ECK Master is. Looking at the Eckankar website, there's more of these guys, and researching them and writing on them would be a learning experience for me, which is always welcome. It would also make them less vulnerable to VfDs; "ECK Master" gets a substantial number of Google hits, whereas "Rami Nuri" performs dismally. In fact, the second thing that pops up is that note you left on my talk page. What do you think? CanadianCaesar 19:57, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that sounds like a sensible, nay excellent idea. Much more managable, anyway. I thought about tidying up the Eckankar page before but was kind of worried about showing my face 'round there, and never got much past the first paragraph; "brought forth"? "...for spiritual upliftment"?! But if you're feeling bold I'll have a look at it. I think it's got a long way to go before it follows Xenu, though! Flowerparty talk 22:59, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The Eckankar main article has problems. So do the subarticles, actually.  But, I'm just writing to say that I took out a book in the university library and am going through the website, and the new article is going to be different and thoroughly referenced.  It has the potential to be just as horrifying as Xenu.  It's a work in progress, but none of it is yet saved in Wikipedia, just on my computer.  CanadianCaesar 00:13, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * ECK masters CanadianCaesar 00:29, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Rubik's Cube
Sorry about that; I'm not sure what happened (I was editing the external link section). I've switched back to mathematics, but I think it's better to not use the main article format. I've heard that using "main article: " is only used when that section is about twice the length of the lead of the article being linked to, and in any case, the section doesn't treat just the contents of that article. The article I split off is just about math, not about physics, so the main article link doesn't really belong there, in my opinion. --Spangineer (háblame)  18:23, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * What do you think of my latest change? We lose the link to group (mathematics), but it's easier to find the more important link. --Spangineer  (háblame)  18:49, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Cookie Day
Awww no, i cannot give information for cookie day on an external link yet but hopefully there will be a site for it soon. I suppose we will have to wait until then

Signature
Howdy. Did you know your signature shows up like this ? If you're intentionally using white text on a white background, I don't mind; just curious. Cheers. android 79  00:32, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, thought it would add some excitement to my life, though it's clearly just annoying. The background's not quite white, though. Flowerparty  talk 00:39, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll go with this for a bit: Flowerparty  talk 01:12, 18 August 2005 (UTC)... chic!

Fernando Rizo's RfA
Flowerparty, I was promoted last evening, thanks in part to your support. I appreciate your confidence. Fernando Rizo T/C 18:08, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Me too, thanks for supporting my adminship. And I'm glad you liked the cubes. :D Coffee 08:40, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for catching the vandalism on my user page. Mackensen (talk) 20:12, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

2d3
Was me - seem to have been logged out in the middle of the withdrawal. Sorry about the confusion! Dlyons493 06:39, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia widow
As the author and after further reflection under more sober circumstances I have tagged this article for speedy deletion as I believe it meets the criterion of General article 7 (1.2.7) at WP:CSD. hydnjo talk 20:45, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. Since you're the only author, and you've explained yourself reasonably, I don't think there'll be any problem there. Flowerparty 20:56, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * That's what I thought but Ryan Delaney seems to think otherwise. As an Admim I suppose his view trumps ours. BTW, thanks for your astute vote, I was just feeling whimsical at the moment and wasn't trying to inrtroduce a new phrase into our vocabulary (neologisms are not allowed). hydnjo talk 23:14, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Template:MikeWatt
Instead of suggesting that the template be deleted, why wasn't I asked to edit it down? I attempted to do but someone reverted it back to its "unmanageable" format. Needless to say, I am not amused. Cjmarsicano 23:15, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I replied at Templates for deletion. Flowerparty 23:26, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Robert Johnson
sorry for not returning your mesage earlier, sorry if I came off mean by editing your "Clapton's band" part but I thought that you meant like most ignorant people do that Clapton was the leader of the band, you understand that wasn't true as you stated its like Ringo Starr's band The Beatles, sorry for the misunderstanding but now that its so long but I nor you have touched the the page of Johnson so I don't really think it mattered much to you or me so I'm glad there was no editing war. I think we should just let the article stand as it is and just leave it. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Thanks, Patman2648
 * Hey, I'd completely forgotten. But yeah, I'm happy to leave it as it is. Thanks. Flowerparty 03:41, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi Flowerparty:

Thanks for support and your confidence in me in my recent RFB nomination. I'm now WP's newest bureaucrat. :) Regards, et merci beaucoup =Nichalp   «Talk»=  20:08, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Award
I, Dave C., would like to thank you for your tireless efforts in updating Frank Zappa's albums with album infoboxes. Cheers! -- Dave C.talk 04:26, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Wow, thanks very much. You make my page look very pretty! Flowerparty 04:34, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

My RFA
Hi, thanks for voting for me in my RFA. I was really touched at how many people voted for me! --Angr/undefined 22:48, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

The Black Keys
Good job with the NPOV edits on The Black Keys page, I was struggling with how to phrase most of those sentences. It just needed a freshpoint :) nicely done -Elysianfields 19:22, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
 * :) Flowerparty 09:27, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Android79's RfA
Thank you for your support on my RfA and for your kind comments. android 79  22:39, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Nandesuka's RfA
Thanks for supporting my RfA. I'll work hard to try to live up to the confidence you're showing in me. Nandesuka 01:04, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Template:Watt
Apparently posting a revised, smaller, more functional template doesn't wash in your eyes. As far as I'm concerned, you're being a total prick by suggesting the speedy deletion of this new version.

I demand the immediate withdrawal of the deletion request. Cjmarsicano 20:01, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank You 4 Da Help
Hey Flowerparty! Thank you for making me comfortable over the past month about using Wikipedia! Crew29 23:04, September 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * No problem. I'm glad you appreciated the welcome : - ) Flowerparty ■ 23:44, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Project Starter
Dear Flowerparty, I want to thank you again, right now I am starting a project on Wikipedia, I am going to give all the football (soccer) teams in the W-League an article. Check out my new user page! From, Columbus Crew 29 16:09, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * That sounds like an excellent project. That'll be a big help for WikiProject Football. By the way, if you want to welcome users yourself, have a look at Welcoming committee, and you can make your own template or just use &#123;{welcome}}. Flowerparty ■ 17:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Welcoming
Dear Flowerparty,

I have already welcomed three users (DaaNet, Liz Yuleborn, and Missrin) 23:53, 22 October 2005

Columbus Crew 29

Hey Flowerparty
Hey will you contact me regarding page Sean.com. My AIM is pittypotty and my email is stuball84 at aol dot com
 * If it's important you can post it here or I can be contacted via the 'email this user' link above. Flowerparty ■ 04:36, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages with links/Guide
Please review. Cheers! BD2412 talk 05:24, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm new to Wikipedia
And have no clue whatsoever how to include the neccasary infoboxes for The Fall's The Marshall Suite, I noticed you have been quite prolific in creating album pages, and as a newbie, I am asking you for your help with this. Thank you so much! Muggwort17 01:17, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

afd helper
I have built a script to speed up voting on AFDs and am looking for feedback. Please have a go! jnothman talk 03:25, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/List of music videos by year
In an effort to have this vote go as swimmingly as Articles for deletion/List of music videos by name, I'm pointing it out to all the people who voted on the previous one, as it's basically the same information, differently arranged. Had I known it existed at the time, I would have included it in the AfD. Too late now. Thanks. -R. fiend 01:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Album articles
Hi. I just thought, as you seem to be interested in such things, that WP:ALBUM and its associated template Template:Album infobox have been updated to more closely follow WP:MOS. You might want to drop by and see some of the changes that have happened. Thanks, and enjoy your editing. Jkelly 08:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * No, there wasn't any specific concern on my part. I dropped the note above after noticing you move some album articles to proper capitalization.  Given that you are working on album articles and in the MoS, and not knowing if you kept up with WP:ALBUM, that you might like to know that we have deprecated wikilinking every year in the infobox, removed the min/sec time format, and made other style changes.  Keep up the good editing!  Jkelly 17:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

BD2412's RfA
Thank you, Flowerparty, for your support in my RfA - I'll do my best as an admin to make the reality of Wikipedia rise to the level of the dream. bd2412 T 17:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Buffyverse Wikipedia articles
I was having trouble adding my vote to this AfD and I noticed it's a redirect. Do you use the AfD helper javascript? Your vote was on the redirect page, but you moved it to the target page (or redid it)... I'm just curious. (I watch talk pages so you can reply here if you want) ++Lar: t/c 01:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. I wondered what had happened there. I didn't realise I'd edited the redirect page. Flowerparty ■ 03:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Changes edit
I changed the edits because instead of typing in that dahs mark, the one I replaced, I thought it would be easier to just add a - mark instead. It really doesn't matter because there isn't really a diff in the two. — M o e   ε  01:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Quick note
Thanks for the tip! Metebelis 03:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Are You Missing Winner
D'oh! I'd forgotten that most album pages have this type of problem. Cricketers are also difficult, and I've had dozens today. Thanks for letting me know. Rich  Farmbrough. 16:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Délifrance Article
Thanks for correcting the mistakes I made when I created the article. How do you put pictures in Articles? Anonymous anonymous 10:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Ces ne sont pas des chapeaux.
Hello, you said in an edit summary that "ces ne sont pas des chapeaux" was ungrammatical French. How would it be written grammatically? J I P | Talk 08:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Adminship?
Hey Flowerparty, I was wondering if you'd be interested if I nominated you for adminship? CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 07:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Crikey. Uh.. ok, thanks. I'm not really sure I'm ready, but I guess it'd rude to refuse. I'm a bit busy this week, though, so I probably won't be able to fill in the form until the weekend. Wow, cheers. Flowerparty ■ 11:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't feel pressured or anything. But you look like an experienced editor to me.  The RfA is written; (just not on Wikipedia, yet).  CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 18:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Requests for adminship/Flowerparty CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 02:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Date links
You have discussed date links before. It seems that more and more people are becoming interested in the debate in many talk pages. I do not know if you have seen the discussion and votes at: new bot application. Voting may have ended, so I am not soliciting your vote. But I thought that you might like to read what has been said by other editors. Several editors feel strongly about it and the issue will inevitably be discussed again. bobblewik 11:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
I'm leaving this macrophage, a particularly hungry white blood cell on your talk page, I just finished a rewrite of its article and realized they're not so different from administrators, as they keep their surroundings clean, doing away with anything that's not supposed to be there... Anyway, with that short lecture on cell biology done with, I'd like to thank you for your vote on my RfA, which passed with (49/2/0), I'll do my best to not let you down, and if you see me heading towards a common newbie mistake, please nudge me in the right direction :) -- O bli (Talk) ? 20:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Your Contrib to Musical Artists WikiProject
Thanks for the feedback on the Musical Artists project. I wasn't sure if you were watching the project's talk page, so I just wanted to let you know I responded. By the way, I am watching that page, so there's no need to tell me when you respond. Thanks again! bmearns, KSC(talk) 17:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Archive: 27 May 2005 – 10 March 2006

You're a sysop!
Hi,, Congratulations on Becoming a Sysop Hey there. I'm pleased to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator! You've volunteered to do housekeeping duties that normal users sadly cannot participate in. Sysops can't do a lot of stuff: They can't delete pages just like that (except patent nonsense like "aojt9085yu8;3ou"), and they can't protect pages in an edit war they are involved in. But they can delete random junk, ban anonymous vandals, delete pages listed on Votes for deletion (provided there's a consensus) for more than one week, protect pages when asked to, and keep the few protected pages that exist on Wikipedia up to date.

Almost anything you can do can be undone, but please take a look at The Administrators' how-to guide and the Administrators' reading list before you get started (although you should have read that during your candidacy ;). Take a look before experimenting with your powers. Also, please add Administrators' noticeboard to your watchlist, as there are always discussions/requests for admins there. If you have any questions drop me a message at My talk page. Have fun! =Nichalp  «Talk»=   =Nichalp   «Talk»=  14:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)




 * Congratulations, Flowerparty! - Tangotango 14:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations, here is a nice juicy admin required situation for you, since you did ask. :-)

User:Keystrokes, at the article Freemasonry

Prodego talk  15:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Mmm, that looks suspiciously like the deep end. Flowerparty ■ 16:41, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yea, thats why I de-involved myself as soon as I saw it wasn't simple vandalism. ;-) Prodego  talk  17:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Congraulations, and thanks for the hippo, I'll keep him in a fish bowl as he wasn't much larger than 100 pixels -- O bli (Talk) ? 15:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations. All the best, and Greetings from India. --Bhadani 17:18, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Here's a shiny mop to help with your administrative duties. Thanks for the friendly puffin! :)  Sango 123   (e)  20:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Congratulations Flowerparty, good luck --Ugur Basak 23:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Late congratulations (different time zones and all)! Best of luck, here's to many more deletes to make way for moves.  CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 01:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, everyone! Flowerparty ■ 01:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Congrats! You certainly deserve this and best of luck for the future. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  14:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Support, I didn't get to vote before it closed... Congrats -- Samir  [[Image:Flag of Canada.svg|25px]]   (the scope)  14:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations, and thanks for the puffin! Mushroom (Talk) 15:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Congratumalations! - Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 19:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Love that puffin, reminds me of home... go gettem Deizio 01:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

My RFA
Nacon kantari  e |t||c|m 23:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Congrats
Congrats on becoming an admin! I was hoping you could help with something. In deletion review (and the deletion process for that matter) and article was deleted that I believe should not have been. User:Tony Sidaway agrees. The article was deleted for notability, but the person in question was mentioned in about a dozen different mainstream media articles, included a recent front page article in the New York Times. Can you take a look and vote accordingly? The review is here. Deletion Review. Thanks. -- Alpha269 04:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Best wish for your adminship.--Jusjih 06:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Holi greetings
Hello from an Indian wikipedian. I am wishing you a happy Holi, the unique Hindu celebration of color and brotherhood among all members of the humanity. The festival falls on 15th March 2006. By the way, I have been around here for about a year, including being an administrator from 18th September 2005. I request you to kindly do me the favor of providing me your valuable comments and suggestions on my contributions, activities and behavior pattern. I shall be awaiting your free and frank opinion, which you are most welcome to give here. Thanks. --Bhadani 06:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Welcome new admin!
Congrats on your adminship Flowerparty. I'm currently sending you (and in fact all recently promoted admins) a quick request to use your new admin powers to assist in an important area: deleting images that have been tagged as having no source information after 7 days. The category is at Category:Images with unknown source. Most of the images have been removed from articles, but some may have been skipped. It would be fantastic if you could assist in this matter! - Ta bu shi da yu 14:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

My RFA
 Thanks  Thanks for your recent support on my RfA which passed 91/0/0. If you ever need anything, feel free to leave me a message! Gflores Talk 06:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

How's it going?
Doesn't the top of your screen look more complete? :) Hmmm... I was accused of being an anti-British POV pushing vandal today. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 13:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Not bad, you? It's true, the extra buttons do make the top of the page look happier, but I keep going to move stuff and being prompted to "confirm protection". I suppose I'll get used to that. I wouldn't worry about the anti-British thing, a bit of post-colonial anxiety is perfecly healthy ;) Flowerparty ■ 00:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of Segall and Sons
Why was my article on Segall and Sons deleted? If you want to start deleting articles that you find to be "obscure," why not delete others like W.T. Grant or Woolco to name two. There are some of us out there that like to learn more about little-known businesses and places.Freddyboy 19:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, Segall and Sons was nominated for deletion on 11 March - you can read the discussion at Articles for deletion/Segall and Sons. I merely closed the discussion, and, since three people thought the page should be deleted and one person left a comment that seems largely indifferent, I deleted it. The objection that people had to the article was that it did not establish the company's notability ('nn' stands for 'non-notable'). Was the article missing any information that would assert why the company was important? Flowerparty ■ 00:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It is just funny to me that I posted the article on 10 March, and it was nominated for deletion the next day??? I don't have anything that makes the chain especially notable, nor did I realize that an article had to be so notable.  Seems to me any bit of information that expands knowledge would be welcome.  Like I said earlier there are other defunct companies that are still listed that I do not see as anymore notable.  Is it not policy to at least contact the author of an article to give them a chance to vote?Freddyboy 03:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No, there's no obligation to notify the author, unfortunately, though it's usually polite to do so. If you add the pages you've started to your watchlist and check that you should see when other people have edited them. Deletion is a curious beast, really. There's no official threshold for what constitutes 'notable', and I'm sure there's plenty of stuff in the encyclopedia that's less worthy of inclusion than Segall and Sons. Generally a thing needs to have some verifiable significance outside of its own context to warrant an article. Have a look at WP:CORP - if it meets (or would have met) any of the criteria there, then there's a case for having an article. If not, there's plenty of other articles that need your attention! :) Flowerparty ■ 05:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Musical Artists
WikiProject Musical Artists has officially been started at WikiProject Musical Artists. Thanks for the input to the pre-project, I hope you'll continue to be interested and participate in the project. bmearns, KSC(talk) 19:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

AfD on Molinology
Hi! Do you think there's evidence for a speedy keep on Articles for deletion/Molinology? Obviously it's only been up for a while, but the result looks like it's going to be pretty clear-cut. --BillC 23:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Infoboxes
Why are you removing images? This was discussed at the albums Project, and the consensus was to keep images. There's still indecision about which images, but that's another matter. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 20:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, it was actually at the village pump (there's a link at the end of the discussion at the Albums project) &mdash; but the discussion has been deleted. It'll take a while to track it down and resurrect it; I'll do that tomorrow. --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 22:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Musical Artist Wikiproject renamed
The project has been moved to WikiProject Musicians (or shortcut WP:MUSICIAN). I wasn't sure if you're watch list was automatically updated for the move, so I just wanted to let you know.  B. Mearns * , KSC 21:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

doom


that's what i'm going by. if you have proof its different, then go ahead. --HasNoClue 21:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Turducken Day
Hey! You deleted our Turducken Day page!

We worked pretty hard on it- and we're about to start planning next year's. It's a big event, requiring a LOT of planning, and it raises money for charity and... dammit.

Does it exist anywhere else? It's not a "scurrilous hoax."

-Jason (headrubby at yahoo dot com)

Impersonators
Thanks for blocking them, you did the right thing... Now I wonder who would be wantingto impersonate me???! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Peel category
Thanks for the comments - I did think about it for a while and decided on a capital S as they have almost become a proper noun with the release of so many 'Peel Session' albums etc. As you say it can be changed if people feel otherwise. Many of the bands/artists recorded are still quite obscure and don't have a Wikipedia article (and will probably stay obscure) - so it may never be complete but I thought I would have a go and people will add to it.

Copyedit request?
Hi Flowerparty, I was wondering if you would be interested in a grammatical look at one of my articles on WP:FAC? CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, sure. I had a brief look at it yesterday, actually, but was too tired to concentrate. Yeah, I'll have a go. Don't expect me to understand any of that technical mumbo jumbo, though. Flowerparty ■ 23:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I need sleep. I'll have a proper look at it tomorrow. Flowerparty ■ 02:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's a little longer than I'd hoped it would be because people wanted more information about their favourite sections despite the fact that each section has its own article. :). Otherwise I hope this satisfies your concerns? CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Anyway, it's about the same size as United States Bill of Rights. Thanks for your contributions! CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 04:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Flowerparty, I'm so sorry but I'm hoping you can have another look at it. Don't worry- just the history section.  It's just that many edits have been made to it and I can't read it anymore without going insanely frustrated.  Thanks a lot.  16:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'll have a go later. It's ok to take a break from the article if it's getting too much, you know. Go and have a long cup of coffee, or something :) Flowerparty ☀ 17:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Web jetadmin
Hi Flowerparty,

Question: what makes you and others want to delete the Web Jetadmin article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.33.20.74 (talk • contribs).
 * Well I can't speak for others, but I'm explicitly staying neutral on it. If you think it should be kept you should present your argument at the discussion page. Flowerparty ■ 00:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

A KISS Rfa Thanks
Thank you, I've been promoted. psch e  mp  |  talk  01:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

AFD
Hey, thanks for pointing that out! I've updated my scripts to reflect this, it will now leave them up for 6 days, and will add them to old going into the 7th day. We'll see if it works as intended tomorrow :P I've run my update current script, and all 6 now appear. As for the old, I manually edited it (I can't have it autorun, doesn't work that way :P).

As for permenantly replacing? I'm not sure. AllyUnion kinda disappeared, I'm just filling in until he comes back (if he does). Cheers! -- light darkness (talk) 01:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

A WikiCookie For You


Take Care and have a nice day Ω Anonymous anonymous Ψ: &#39;&#39;Have A Nice Day&#39;&#39; 00:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * That's very kind of you :) It's always a pleasure to help new users. Well, if you need me in future, just follow the trail of WikiCrumbs :D Flowerparty ? 01:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * :) ok, good day to youΩ Anonymous anonymous Ψ: &#39;&#39;Have A Nice Day&#39;&#39; 14:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Cat sorting
Yeah, "invisible" sort keys are probably not going to work out. (To think I always considered myself to be against that kind of thing.) –Unint 00:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Barnstar
Thank you so much :) I guess I'll continue to pop up on your watchlist since this AWB stuff is just great :) Once again, thanks. Jogers (talk) 09:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello!
Cookies, jelly beans and now chocolate? If I didn't know better I'd start making accusations of some wild conspiracy here :) Thanks! Flowerparty ☀ 01:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Super Mario 64
Thank you for your kind words. I plan on recording other articles (mainly video game, sports, and music related) in the future, and I hope you enjoy the other ones as much as you did SM64. Anthony Hit me up... 15:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

FAC
Yeah, I was worried it might be a bit choppy. My style, as you might have noticed, is to write longer sentences, divided only based on what I feel flows. Not popular at this FAC, apparently. I was also worried about grammar, I just can't look at the thing closely anymore. And yes, the FAC is just dragging on. I wish they closed it the last time- I think, yesterday- so I guess I'll wait another week. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 07:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, and thanks. Sorry, I'm a bit tired.  I'm (trying) to write this essay, it's a take-home final exam.  That time of year... CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 08:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It's my most edited article now, I've always known that- anonymously, it was also the first article I ever edited. But, once this is over I plan not to touch the thing again for quite some time.  BDA wants to expand Freedom of movement, I may move on to there.  CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 08:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Snooker championship pages
Thanks for the compliments! It struck me when I was doing some editing while watching a match that it would be a good idea to document the knock-out progression. From there I did a little bit of experimenting to see if I could throw something together as a table, before deciding that it would be best to modify some of the world cup knock-out charts to create a snooker template. The rounds colours don't really have any significance; I just thought I would be nice to differentiate between each round in the heading! Hopefully in time I can get a good few of the other years filled in, the only problem being finding things out from years gone by isn't so easy. SFC9394 15:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah the colours do add a bit of life to the pages, but I don't hold any special attachment to them so please feel free to change the template if they are not making much sense (it is the type of thing that I arbitrarily just chose some colours to brighten when I was creating the template in my sandbox!). The only one that does make sense to keep is the gold for the final bar, which highlights it and makes sure that the user is more easily aware of its existence (also it has the gold = winner connotation).  Nice work on the past winners page, I just dumped across the old table but it makes much more sense to have it all nicely laid out and have the all time league tables by person and country.  SFC9394 12:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I just watched the snooker during the server downtime!! SFC9394 13:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Afd
I know! I had to revert myself; would you like me to get the rest of the Afds?  K ilo-Lima|(talk) 18:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Guess My Name Challenge
You have been invited to participate in the:

<B><FONT FACE="Chiller" SIZE="6" COLOR="green">GUESS MY NAME CHALLENGE</FONT></B>

(Try to guess my name and put it in my Talk Page under the section Guess My Name)

I think that it will be interesting to see what people think my name might be.

Challenge Ends at June 2006 Ω Anonymous anonymous Ψ: &#39;&#39;Have A Nice Day&#39;&#39; 00:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Re:How many guesses?
You can have up to A BILLION Guesses. Ω Anonymous anonymous Ψ: &#39;&#39;Have A Nice Day&#39;&#39; 00:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

People are starting to get my name right.

Mary Jane W______ R______

Template:extra chronology
Hi. Since you protected the page Template:Extra chronology, I was wondering if you could edit the usage instructions to reflect the current name? Thanks in advance!! -- <FONT COLOR="#FF0000">getcrunk</FONT> <FONT COLOR="#0066FF">juice</FONT> <font face="Tahoma" color="#000033"> contribs 23:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Oops, good idea. Done. Flowerparty ☀ 23:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The (Mighty) Fall
Thanks for yr message. I noticed your name in some of the album histories - always good to know there are Fall fans about, a clear sign of quality in my book. Ac@osr 13:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Those album infobox TfDs
I haven't thought of this. Good idea :-) Jogers (talk) 13:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Snooker infobox
Hi,

I have made some changes to the Snooker infobox, check it out at the Marco Fu article. Thanks. - Nick C 19:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I responded at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Snooker. Flowerparty ☀ 20:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Please go to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Snooker, we need a category to put all the snooker stub articles in! Thanks. - Nick C 19:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes
Please join us in discussing a topic concerning a Rotten Tomatoes % in the Wikifilm infobox. Your opinions would be appreciated.

Template_talk:Infobox_Film--P-Chan 23:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. I might respond later, if I've anything to say. Flowerparty ☀ 23:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Infobox
Actually, like many people, I don't subst. the infobox &mdash; I copy it from article to article. That's largely because it's much easier most of the time, partly because it protects infoboxes from vandalism of the template, and partly because it's better for the servers if hundreds of thousands of articles aren't constantly calling on the template. Is there a reason for preferring the use of the the unsubst-ed template? --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 08:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry not to have responded sooner; for some reason I missed your message, and I've only just spotted it. I hadn't known that the template is protected (I can imagine why), but is it permanent?
 * Probably because I've been using it so much, I find the subst-ed text easier, though it's also more flexible for those cases where the standard infobox makes unwarranted assumptions. I'll have to think about it, though &mdash; the issue is clearly not one-sided. --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 16:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Closing Afd on Sequoyah Middle School
Hi. I see you've closed Articles for deletion/Sequoyah Middle School, however on that page you said the result was keep (which seems correct), but your edit summary says "deleted". I'm guessing the edit summary is simply a mistake, but I wanted to be sure. --Tango 10:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry about that. Yes, it's definitely a keep. Flowerparty ☀ 16:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Smile
<div style="float:center;border-style:solid;border-color:blue;background-color:AliceBlue;border-width:1px;text-align:left;padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}} or {{subst:smile2}} to their talk pages. Happy editing!

AfDs
Hey Flowerparty, good job on closing those AfDs. Meanwhile, it's finally happened- I've become an evil administrator. I've carried out more deletions than I have edits to Wikipedia name space. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 21:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and congratulations! Can true evil be harnessed just by deleting crap? Wow. There goes my childish plan to replace the main page with a gallery of penises ;) No, really, that's some excellent evil-doing. My puny delete-edit ratio salutes you! Anyway, I'm off to upset some Americans. Flowerparty 01:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Knowing your page moveish ways, I've always imagined you making it Main Page on wheels! if anything. ;) CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 01:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Invasion of Afghanistan and the Iranian Revolution
I'm not really complaining, because it's a WP:SNOW case anyway ... but did you notice that Invasion of Afghanistan and the Iranian Revolution was added to the AfD page only 4 hours before discussion closed? Henning Makholm 15:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh right, no I think I must have overlooked the timestamps. I did notice that 2 people had endorsed its deletion though, and since the other one was unanimous it seemed reasonable to delete both. I guess it should have been left to the lions of prod, if you want to be really wonkish about it. Thanks for the heads up. Flowerparty ☀ 18:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

AfD
Oh jeez! I'm sorry about that, thank you for telling me. Yanksox 12:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Paul Shannon (UK Author)
Why was this page overwritten? We have multiple books by this author in our library, and were waiting on some kind soul to expand on the article. The fact he also teaches at a local school would mean you've deprived them of a small piece of fame by having a teacher on Wikipedia. Though, small pages about little known authors might not be desirable in terms of Wikipedia rules.

Just curious. Siraphec 17:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well nobody contributing to the discussion thought it should be kept. I merely closed the discussion, so.. I don't know - ask them? Flowerparty ☀ 23:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Although no consensus was reached in the end, I still wanted to thank you for your vote in my recent RfA. Thank you very much. Fritz S. (Talk) 17:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I hope you could be of some assistance
Hi you welcomed me earlier today, and I was wondering if you could help me out. I was editing that, and I made the the link to Crocker. But that's not the town. I've noticed there isn't one for the actual town, so do I leave it as "Crocker" or do I make a new one for the town? If the second option is applicable, how would I do so? Thanks again. Cheers. PerfectStorm 23:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Offensive user name
Hello, it's me again. I've stumbled upon this. He/she haven't made any contributions, but the name is offensive, and warrants a block I think. Thanks again. PerfectStorm 20:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, well spotted. Looks like the user has already been blocked. Flowerparty ☀ 00:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

AfD bottom
Ouch. Yes I know there's a bottom, I guess I just blew it, I'll be more careful in future. Herostratus 04:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Scarcity
I do hope the scarcity of your editing is a result of summer holiday and not part of a growing trend. I hope you're having a good summer. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 00:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, you too. I'm sure I'll be back sooner or later, I just haven't felt like doing much editing recently. Flowerparty ☀ 23:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

`

Template:Football player infobox
I'm impressed by your incorporation of Template:Football player infobox2 into Template:Football player infobox. However, I'm not sure how the infobox knows whether a player is retired or not. Can you tell me which is the key field which activates the retired player look? Or even better, you could add it to the "usage" section of the template talk. Thanks. <font face="Verdana">  Slumgum   T.   C. ''  20:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Think I've figured it out - it seems to be Current club, pcupdate and ntupdate. I've ammended the talk page, correctly I hope. <font face="Verdana">  Slumgum   T.   C. ''  23:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the big thumb. You seem to have got your head round my changes okay. I'm working on incorporating the manager info as well, which may confuse people. I'll try not to abandon the usage instructions this time :) Flowerparty ☀ 01:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Musicians Article guidelines
Because of you interest in th past, you input is welcome here.--Esprit15d 17:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

how to...
Hi Flowerparty,

you recently welcomed me to wikipedia and offered your help should I ever have any questions, and I want to thank you for that. And here is my first question: how do you delete an article? The article that imho should be deleted is "Distibution of terms" which exists only because of the missing 'r' in 'distribution'. An article with the correct spelling is already in existence, so I couldn't move it there.

Thanks very much --Arno Matthias 21:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Only administrators can delete things. I deleted that page so thanks for telling me about it, but if you find anything else which needs deleting, have a look at Deletion policy. Flowerparty ☀ 22:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

reader wanted
Hello Flowerparty,

thank you for deleting "Distibution of terms"!

Can I ask another favour of you? Since I am not a native speaker I fear (I'm sure in fact) that my contributions are not always in proper English. For example, I have just expanded the "Distribution of terms"-article - would you mind looking it over? Thanks very much again! --Arno Matthias 10:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Flowerparty,

thanks very much for the flowers (regarding my English)!

Articles (like my "distribution of terms") should, at least that's what I think, be helpful and comprehensible for people who are studying the subject, don't you agree? If someone has no interest in, say, logic they would not go there, and if they already know all about it, well, the same holds. --Arno Matthias 16:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The Halo's RfA
<div class="boilerplate metadata rfa" style="background-color: #fff5f5; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid darkgreen;">

Adeptus Custodes
Thanks for doing this move: Adeptus Custodes is correct (as you moved it to). We screwed up in the past and had it as Adeptes Custodes, which is probably why you were slightly confused... Cheers --Pak21 08:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * no problem. Thanks for clearing that up. Flowerparty ☀  22:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Album infobox conversions
Hey, I noticed you were once active at converting old infoboxes. Well, I've found a bunch that need converting, as I noted here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Needs infobox conversion. Cheers, Alcuin 03:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey! You deleted our Turducken Day page!

We worked pretty hard on it- and we're about to start planning next year's. It's a big event, requiring a LOT of planning, and it raises money for charity and... dammit.

Does it exist anywhere else? It's not a "scurrilous hoax."

-Jason (headrubby at yahoo dot com)

Peel Sessions artist category deletion
Hi Flowerparty - They are discussing deleting the Peel Sessions artist category that you had a hand in last year. If you want to make your feelings known please...  Tony Corsini 02:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your kind comments about my contribution to this article. I jumped ship cos I couldn't be arsed with unhelpful BarnstarGazers whose sole contribution to Wikipedia is a content deleting Bot that leaves rude messages saying you haven't conformed to point 87 of such-and-such policy relating to 'Fair use disputed for Image' bollocks. Some people need to get out more, lol. Thanks again. MuteJoe 13:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Haha, yeah I gathered. Seems you can't even go for a shit without falling victim to some bot these days. Give me warm, fuzzy human incompetence over cold-blooded bot-wrath, any day. Flowerparty ☀ 15:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

You're a plant
You may find this amusing, next time you're around. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 02:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Plantal? good word. Flowerparty ☀ 06:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Snooker request
As a member of WikiProject Snooker, it is requested that you watchlist at least the following pages: Keeping in touch with the rest of the team via the project pages, and keeping an occasional eye on core articles will go a long way to strengthening the project and protecting the articles. Thank you for your time and attention. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 03:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * WikiProject Snooker - if the project members do not pay attention to changes at the project page, especially its talk page, effective collaboration will be nearly impossible and the project would eventually fail.
 * WikiProject Snooker/Wanted snooker bios - this is an important part of the project's to-do list.
 * Snooker - our main article, frequently subject to vandalism and nonsense edits that (historically) have sometimes taken hours or even an entire day to be fixed
 * Snooker season 2006/2007 - another important article
 * Snooker world rankings 2006/2007 - another important article
 * One or more player articles of your choice that you'd like to "adopt" as a guardian against vandalism, PoV-pushing, etc.

RfA thanks
Thank you very much for your support at my RfA. Regards, Jogers (talk) 09:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Hendry
No abuse, just clarification. Hendry really is one of the many snooker players to appear in a televised poker tourney; it's a bit of a cliche how many snooker players play the game and I've seen several on TV, including Thorne, Davis, Hunter, Williams, O'Sullivan and Stevens. Oh and Jimmy White too. Change it back by all means, but you'd be wrong.

Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freeece (talk • contribs) 19:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok. I've altered the wording a bit, since it seems a bit pointless to say "he is one of the many.." - perhaps it's not worth mentioning at all, really. Know if there's any references for these poker appearances? Flowerparty ☀ 16:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you
But your username is very pretty. :) Wannabe Wiki ( talk ) 10:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hehe, thanks! Flowerparty ☀ 17:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:American country music songwriters
Even though we have "Category:American foo music" all over the place, all the other songwriter categories are just "American foo songwriters", not "American foo music songwriters", so I think some consistency is in order. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 16:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * replied at cfd. Flowerparty ☀ 14:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Advertising deletion
Whoops, that was definitely a mistake on my part. Thanks for letting me know. I did a lot of G11 speedy-ing the other day and it must've fallen in with that. Apologies and best, PeterSymonds (talk)  00:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Cheetah Girls
Not a big fan of the Cheetah Girls myself, and pulled a lot of their stuff out of Route 66 (song) about six months ago, but I would like to hear your logic. A lot of songs have the template from every group that covered it in the article. What makes this one an exception? If we put aside any personal distaste we have for the group, what makes their template unacceptable on that page? Kww (talk) 12:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There shouldn't be any artist templates for the same reason there's none at St Louis Blues (song) or Louie Louie - it's just been recorded too many times. Any single template will be irrelevant clutter for nearly everyone who visits the article. I've got nothing against the Cheetah Girls in particular; I'd never heard of them till yesterday, to be honest. Flowerparty ☀ 20:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Film
Can you please revert the change you made to this template? An edit request was not made, and the code in my userspace was not meant to be copied in it's entirity - a number of other changes have now been carried over to the template which were entirely seperate from this proposal, not to mention unfinished and untested. PC78 (talk) 00:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops, sorry bout that - I didn't check. The links look good though. I've taken out the extra lines. Flowerparty ☀ 00:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have to agree with PC78 - if you can revert all of your edits on the template today for the moment. Many thanks, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, can do. But what's the problem? Flowerparty ☀  00:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

No offence, but I'm not entirely comfortable with you making arbitray changes to a protected template without prior discussion. Is there any reason why you couldn't have suggested this compromise on the talk page first? PC78 (talk) 23:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No reason, it just seemed like such a trivial issue. But ok, I'll be more patient in future if that's how it is. Flowerparty ☀  00:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

TfD
Please don't alter your posts, especially after they have got a response. If you need to change something you should use strike through, and make it clear that it's a later amendment.  Ty  02:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I was actually changing that word and got an edit conflict - hence the edit summary. I've struck it. Flowerparty ☀ 02:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_November_2
These CfD Headers were removed but the categories have not been renamed per the CfD. What's up with that? -- Carlaude (talk) 00:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, these things don't happen instantly. Moves and merges are done automatically from a list at WP:CFD/Working. But we have to wait till a bot gets round to performing the move. It usually takes a few hours. Flowerparty ☀ 00:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

hi, thanks for letting me know...however, as I said in the piece I put, Mark himself referenced it in an interview, so doesn't that make it "real"? I sighted in the footnote an actual interview that I was totally unaffiliated with. Basically, my friend and I made it up and put it on Wiki, in hopes people would take to it. It was, as you would expect, removed by someone on Wiki but apparently not fast enough because two weeks later the interview turned up with the quote from Mark. As you can imagine, I was as shocked as anyone and awed to discover that Mark had become aware of it! To my eyes, if it has a quote from the man himself, I don't see what makes it any more or less legitimate than anything else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlyssaPandaEyes (talk • contribs) 06:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Redirect of A Date With Destiny
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on A Date With Destiny, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because A Date With Destiny is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1). To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting A Date With Destiny, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 13:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Request for clarification
Please explain your rationale for the closure. - jc37 21:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_November_5
 * Yes, what do you want clarified? I did read the discussion. There was no consensus to take any action. You were the only one explicitly favouring deletion. Flowerparty ☀ 08:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that this was a bit more than a simple "keep".
 * Would you please expand on your analysis of the discussion? - jc37 09:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The question marks seem to be over definitions and scope, not the existence of the cats. I don't see how it could have been closed any other way. Flowerparty ☀ 10:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * CfD isn't just a "keep/delete" debate. What do you see in regards to "definitions and scope"? - jc37 11:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, but I don't know what you want me to add. How would you have closed it? Flowerparty ☀ 11:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "but I don't know what you want me to add." - I'm trying to ask (while attempting to avoid prompting you), in order to try to ascertain your thoughts about the discussion as closer, beyond just "keep"/"delete". You said you read the discussion. What do you felt you read, and what (if anything) in the discussion may have had consensus, and what (if anything) did not have consensus. And what (if anything) had no consensus? - jc37 11:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any consensus to take any action. Are you tilting at separating out the comics characters from the main cat? If so, just go ahead and do it. You don't need a mandate from cfd to create categories. Flowerparty ☀ 12:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that anything needs a "mandate from CfD", especially not to Be bold.
 * But that wasn't what I was asking.
 * I'm asking if you would expand upon your closure more than just "keep", or even "I don't see any consensus to take any action.".
 * Please explain the "why". What you saw and didn't see.
 * That said, I'm starting to feel like I'm hitting a brick wall. If what you're saying is that you don't wish to explain how you came to the determination of the closure, then please let me know, and I'll desist from requesting for clarification of this particular closure, here. - jc37 15:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I honestly don't know what you want me to clear up. I've read the discussion several times now and I'm sure you have too. On the central question of whether the categories should exist or not it's a clear keep. You state at the bottom, "there seems to be a consensus to at least not include comics-related articles". I don't see where you got that from. Only the anon seems to support this. Do you disagree? In any case this does not require any adminny action. If there's something specific you think I've missed then please tell me what it is instead of making me guess. Flowerparty ☀ 15:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to "make you guess".
 * And I'm not trying to be obtuse, (or difficult).
 * Let me try to rephrase the question...
 * When someone closes a discussion, they examine the discussion and attempt to determine what, if any, consensus is to be found.
 * And once closed, if there is a question about a closure, an editor may go to the closer and ask them to clarify the close, and even to explain what evidence in the discussion supports their closure (both regarding perceived consensus, and/or lack thereof).
 * This is little different than how every editor commenting in an XfD discussion needs to provide "evidence" (typically policy and guidelines) to support their comments in the discussion, else their comments may be discounted. Especially when it comes to content. (Presentation and style thereof allowing for editor opinion. Content allowing only for policy.)
 * So at this point, I'm asking how you came to the conclusion you did. What was your thought process, what factor(s) helped you to come to the conclusion that you did, etc.
 * I hope this clarifies. If not, please feel free to ask, and I'd be happy to try to further clarify. - jc37 16:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I closed it as "keep" because four people were saying keep against one saying delete. We are talking about the same discussion, right? If there's something else you want me to add you're going to have to tell me because I'm lost. Flowerparty ☀ 17:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "We are talking about the same discussion, right?" - I believe that we are.
 * "I closed it as "keep" because four people were saying keep against one saying delete." - If that is your sole thought process on this, then that indeed answers my questions.
 * "If there's something else you want me to add you're going to have to tell me because I'm lost." - I was (and potentially still am) looking to find out what your thought process was in attempting to determine consensus in the discussion. The how" and the "why" of the determination.
 * But if you're suggesting that your sole reasoning was that you "closed it as "keep" because four people were saying keep against one saying delete", then there would seem to be nothing further to clarify. - jc37 12:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

If you wanted to accuse me of counting votes as a replacement for weighing the arguments then I wish you'd just come out and said so in the first place. I thought I'd answered that by saying I'd read the discussion, but obviously not. For what it's worth, I did read it and I did think a case could be made for deletion and I still do, but I'm not sure I see that case made in the discussion. I don't see a compelling reason to keep anywhere in the discussion either - beyond "it's useful". But given that the default is "keep" and that four people were saying "keep" against one saying "delete", I figured the thing wasn't going anywhere and that I might as well close it. I still don't understand how you think I, or anyone else, could've decided otherwise. Presumably you don't still think I could've deleted it when the votes were 4-1 against? Even if I had been bowled over by the veracity of your arguments I wouldn't have closed it as delete - I don't fancy that shitstorm of accusations. I guess I could've written "no consensus" instead, but given that the outcome is essentially the same I don't see what difference it makes. I'm sorry if I've not answered your questions in the way you want me to, but if I haven't it's because you haven't asked me a straight question. If you want to believe I'm some sort of pebble-counting idiot then fine, but please don't try to make me prove your suspicions by making me answer pointlessly sneaky questions. Flowerparty ☀ 16:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstood and misunderstand me and my intentions.
 * For one thing, I was attempting to not accuse you of anything. If my goal was to "Je' accuse", I would have done so from the beginning.
 * My goal was to do exactly as I continually requested: Please explain what you were thinking. Please explain the how and the why.
 * Not once throughout it all did I say that you were a "bean-counter". Though, as I note in my last post, your (as we now discover - intentional) lack of clarification except to say: "I closed it as "keep" because four people were saying keep against one saying delete" - definitely leaves one to wonder.
 * If you weren't "bean counting" as you say, then explain what you were doing.
 * This had nothing to do with "sneaky questions", but instead a good faith request for clarification. It's what I said from the start, and what I clearly intended, and concretely requested (over and over again).
 * So you were so concerned about what "sneaky questions" I may have been asking that you weren't actually answering the simple question?
 * What's the worst that I could possibly do? WP:DRV? Shrugs. I still could. So? Wouldn't it make more sense to try to any some simple questions than acting in (what apparently turns out to be) standoffishness? (And I will say that I find it ironic that, in this last post, you actually finally answered my question, by clarifying your closure. So thank you for that at least.)
 * And incidentally, requesting clarification of a closure by a closer is exactly what is suggested at DRV. So not only am I not "out of line", but I'm following Wikipedia guidelines.
 * If you can't handle responding to a simple request for clarification, then perhaps you shouldn't be closing discussions. - jc37 18:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought I'd explained that I wasn't merely counting beans. Whatever. I don't know how I could convince you otherwise or why I should even try. I give up. And I'm sorry you're choosing to interpret terseness as standoffishness - I guess I could've given you a lengthier answer at the start, I just didn't see the point stating the obvious at length when there was clearly some specific question you wanted me to answer but didn't want to explicitly ask. And yes, I've clearly misunderstood you, but I hope you recognise the possibility that this was because your questions weren't very clear. If you'd simply asked "Did you agree with my arguments to delete?" I would've answered your question first time. Instead I've had to guess that that's what you were asking. (I'm assuming this is essentially what you were asking.) Flowerparty ☀ 20:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Whether you agreed or disagreed with me would be irrelevant, I would presume? If it was a question of whether you agreed or disagreed, then you should/would have commented in the discussion. A closer reads a discussion and interprets consensus, they don't close based upon whether they agree with comments, but instead weigh the comments (based upon policy/guidelines), both stated in the discussion, abd based upon their own knowledge of policy/guidelines.
 * And this never was about whether you should "convince" anyone "that [you weren't] merely counting beans".
 * "And I'm sorry you're choosing to interpret terseness as standoffishness - I guess I could've given you a lengthier answer at the start, I just didn't see the point stating the obvious at length when there was clearly some specific question you wanted me to answer but didn't want to explicitly ask." - Even this comment suggests standoffishness, in that you suggest that you felt there was: "clearly some specific question you wanted me to answer but didn't want to explicitly ask". Rather than accept the premise of the question, you instead back away, and essentially not answer.
 * In other words, it now seems to me that you presumed bad faith of me from the start. When all I did was ask for a clarification of your closure. And I attempted to do it in as neutral a way possible, and without "prompting" you for anything.
 * And instead I receive this.
 * Yes, it's just a CfD discussion closure. But now I am sincerely wondering if I should pity the newbies who don't know the policies well enough. Would you dismiss their request in such a way?
 * There is so much that I feel is just wrong with this "discussion".
 * If in anyway it's my "fault" for trying my very best (at the start at least) to presume good faith, and to follow the guidelines laid out at DRV (and elsewhere). I'll happily apologise.
 * But atm, I'm rather stunned at these revelations. - jc37 20:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, one thing is clear: we're coming at this from very different directions. I don't see the point in responding further if whatever I say you're just going to twist my words and use them against me. Please don't respond here unless you've got something sensible to say. Flowerparty ☀ 21:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm merely quoting you and responding. If you feel that I am misunderstanding you, then clarify.
 * And as far as "guessing", I've asked for clarification from you from the start, which you state you didn't wish to do because you felt that "there was clearly some specific question you wanted me to answer but didn't want to explicitly ask". (Presumably suggesting that I was out to somehow "trick" you in some way.) So your presumption of "bad faith" (I'm not sure what else to call it) left me guessing, since you were repeatedly refusing to clarify/explain, despite my repeated requests.
 * As for "sensible", the only thing I did above that perhaps wasn't "sensible", was perhaps presuming too much good faith from the start. But then, it's been repeatedly suggested that perhaps I'm naive that way.
 * As for the original topic (my request for clarification, and now, the presumable "next step" if I wish to take it), I'm still on the fence concerning DRV. If I do decide to, I'll drop you a notice. If I don't, it'll be because you did finally clarify your closure, and also, at one point in the discussion above, you noted that perhaps it should have been a "no consensus" close. (Noting, of course, that there actually is a difference between "keep" and "no consensus".) The fact that you actually did go back and re-read/re-assessed the discussion, and perhaps were re-thinking your closure, suggests at least "something" positive to me.
 * One last thought (at the moment anyway): As closers, we're expected to do more than just look at what is "actionable". People are offering their opinion, ideas, evidence, et al., in good faith. And we should be willing to assess all of it. Not just whether something is "actionable with admin tools". The main necessity of being an admin to close a discussion is whether something is to be deleted. Otherwise, just as it notes in policy, technically anyone may close a discussion. So perhaps reading for content, rather than just looking to see whether an admin's tools should be used, might be a bit more appropriate.
 * Despite what you may think, I still indeed wish you a good day. - jc37 15:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

So you've been hounding me for 3 days because I wrote "keep" instead of "no consensus"? Good grief. Well I've no desire to discuss this ad nauseam. If you want to carry on the lecture then please take it to drv. I'm not sure what you'd hope to achieve from doing so, but good luck with it. And thanks for not leaving this with a completely sour end. To hold a grudge against you over a such a trivial issue would be absurd, so you can assume I won't. You too have a good day. Flowerparty ☀ 16:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry that you think I've been "hounding" you.
 * And no, my goal all along was to find out what you were thinking. I want/wanted to know what you felt that the actual concensus is. And not presume what you were thinking, not to ask what you "agreed with", and particularly not whether you agreed with me. If I wanted to know any of that, I would have asked.
 * When a discussion becomes potentially complex, it's nice to know what factors went into a closure so that one can better understand concensus. It's why we close discussions at all.
 * And if you think my initial goal was to cause you to change a closure to "no concensus", then you're mistaken. I only noted that above, because it indicated (it showed through evidential support), that there at least was some thought process, and that I can potentially believe that concensus was actually determined. That's the main goal of DRV, after all, to see if there is a fault with the closure. And so, above I was noting that you going back to look suggests that there was some thought process involved in the determination.
 * Anyway, Hope this clarifies. - jc37 16:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

John Peel & Ozit
Meh, I've come across this lot & their spamming before, but other than that, what have you got against them (or Chris)? -- Rodhull andemu  17:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * They've released a lot of dodgy Beefheart material. There's a fair bit of criticism of their stuff on the beefheart.com site. I can't be bothered to look through everything google turns up, but see this for an example. Essentially they appear to be reissuing bootlegs and not paying royalties - it's all very untransparent. Flowerparty ☀ 17:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Who's Chris, btw? Flowerparty ☀ 17:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I didn't know about the Beefheart stuff, although you can't fault them for their taste. I had an email conversation with someone from Ozit about a year ago about editing Tractor (band), his name was Chris I think. -- Rodhull andemu  17:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah? Fair enough. No I agree, they've released some decent stuff, except the actual releases tend to be pretty low-quality and I'm just not sure how much of it's above board. Whatever, I don't suppose there'll be any wider coverage of this Peel thing, so it doesn't belong in his article. Flowerparty ☀ 17:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Manual of Style (Info box)
To answer your question:

Can you stop reverting my edits as they do NOT constitute vandalism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.110.125.85 (talk) 12:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * These edits here imparticular. [First] [Second] [Third] [Fourth]. These edits are a change in policy, without consensus or a discussion. What has happend is that the policy was changed to reflect the [template]. Is there precident for that? Further more, the template was changed [here] over a year ago, by a user who had no consensus, no discussion, and no authority to to so. I may just be pulling at the bit here, but it all seems a bit strange how this has all happened.--Jojhutton (talk) 13:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

wp:album
(re. an edit to Third (Soft Machine album))

The project guidelines are not law, although some editors unfortunately seem to treat them as if they were. You shouldn't give them so much weight - common sense trumps the album project. Flowerparty ☀ 16:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see any problem with the standards for splitting albums sides using section headings, even though this album has one entry per side. The listing looks "familiar" compared to other articles about albums.  I am not over-riding my own common sense with project guidelines; I like the appearance of the article, and was quoting the project instructions for weight.  I think I did test-remove the track numbering at one time to see if I liked the look of that, and I didn't.  Sorry we're disagreeing, but I just don't see anything wrong with headings. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 16:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Please replace category "Churches and other Spiritual Centers"
I note that you deleted this category, which I had introduced. The two terms are not redundant. Not all spiritual centers are "churches" in the Websters Dictioinary definition of "Christian place of worship." Religious Science, for example, is not "Christian," since it is based on a number of religions, not just Christianity. Therefore, it should be re-instated. Thanks, --Wonbillions (talk) 04:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean. Are you referring to this deletion discussion? I don't see how your article would fit in that category anyway: Religious Science is a movement, right? Whereas a spiritual centre would be a building? Flowerparty ☀ 17:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Into The Labyrinth (Saxon Album)
Hi Just FYI, I recreated Into The Labyrinth (Saxon Album) as a redirect to Into the Labyrinth (Saxon album) since that title has been around for two months, and there are even active wikilinks pointing to it, so it shouldn't be speedily deleted per WP:CSD. Hope you don't mind. Cheers, Amalthea  04:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, good catch! Thanks for letting us know. Flowerparty ☀ 08:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

"Wrestled" deleted?
Why? Won 'no significant awards'? Huh? Not true at all!

Significant media reviews:

Dan Lothian, NBC News on Wrestled

“Wrestled… is a thought provoking film that wrestles with a spiritual quandary…the battle to change a life in an unconventional and controversial way. ... wrestled is a gritty film and a wonderful gem that leaves you asking for more.” (Dan Lothian, West coast Correspondent NBC News)

Also, "Wrestled" is currently airing on The Independent Film Channel all month long in IFC's December short film showcase. Research helps! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.6.51 (talk) 19:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

More on "Wrestled"
Phil Donlon's "Wrestled" on IFC: http://www.ifc.com/episodes/SH000202650000/IFC-Short-Film-Showcase

no significant media coverage you say?

you can even get it at Public Library's....an example of one here: http://overdrive.dclibrary.org/C343ACEC-0DE3-40EF-B667-DFFAC671F853/10/323/en/ContentDetails.htm?ID=%7BF62BD622-99BB-4BD2-B641-17D36DDFC961%7D

Was featured in Issue #3 of Relevant Magazine in 2004. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.6.51 (talk) 19:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I've restored the article. Feel free to improve it by adding some of this information. Flowerparty ☀ 00:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Infobox Film
Can you please revert the other changes you made to the infobox (font size, etc.) - these were not discussed and not part of the change that was requested. Thanks. PC78 (talk) 18:47, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Please note this item at WP:AN/I. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 11:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:I Conjure Series.jpg)
 Thanks for uploading Image:I Conjure Series.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 23:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

HI —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.9.70 (talk) 19:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

reconsider
Thanks for reading this. First of all, I must say that this is no "sock puppetry". The reason of setting a new wiki on this topic (Maria Duval) is not to deceive or mislead but to present the truth about this person as the owner of the original wiki on this topic repeatedly undo my editions to put forward the truth. In fact, the title of the original article, "Maria Duval Scam", is obviously very biased and negative as it contains shades of personal attack on a real living person. I think this does not match Wikipedia's neutral unbiased point of view. What I trying to post is the biography of this person. Why not allow me to set up a new wiki about her biography and life?

Decce
 * You have a point about the title. I've moved it back to its original name. We shouldn't have competing articles on the same topic, however. If you want to add biographical information to the article feel free to; factual claims should be backed up by reliable third-party sources as always. Flowerparty ☀  15:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

remove scam from title
Hi Flowerparty, may you remove the word "scam" for "Maria Duval" from the wiki title? This is misleading.

With lots of thanks. Decce —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.191.221.164 (talk) 09:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

ignore
Flowerparty, my apology, you have already done it. Thanks Decce —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.191.221.164 (talk) 09:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Jeremy Paxman's middle name
Thanks for this. Could you add a reference to the edition of Who's Who that you consulted? — Cheers, Truth's Out There  –talk– 03:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It was the online edition. I don't think this needs an explicit reference in the article, it's easy enough to verify. Flowerparty ☀ 07:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think it would be helpful if you did add a reference. Otherwise, someone else may come along and change it back to "Dixon", and there will not be any objective way to verify which spelling is correct. — Cheers, Truth's Out There  –talk– 08:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There clearly is an objective way of checking the spelling else I'd never have found the correct version. By your logic we'd need a reference for practically every word in the article, which would make for very difficult-to-read prose. Flowerparty ☀ 11:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

That's a bit of an exaggeration. I think references should be provided for important facts such as the spelling of names (particularly middle names that are not well known) and dates of birth and death. Anyway, you have the reference at your fingertips, so it shouldn't be too difficult to provide a reference. Also, in the context of the article in question, we have been ding-donging between "Dickson" and "Dixon" on and off, with "Dixon" predominating; providing a reference would end this once and for all. — Cheers, Truth's Out There  –talk– 08:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh right, I wasn't aware of the history, I assumed it had just been misspelled from the off. Well the ref, if you want it, is ; corroborated by this article form the Indie. Again though, I don't think we really need to put this in the article itself just because there's been some internal squabbling over the spelling. I'd be more inclined to post this on the talk page. Anyway, I'll leave it with you. Flowerparty ☀  10:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

R/West
Flowerparty,

I appreciate your compliment on my work on the R/West page.

Matthiashess (talk) 17:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome mate, that was a good save. Flowerparty ☀ 11:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Ticket to Ride
A special thanks for sorting out me and 2 other editors and get this back to normality. Who said the drugs don't work? --Richhoncho (talk) 14:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, Cheers. Flowerparty ☀ 14:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll add my thanks directly. I tried to undo the move User:Lowellian did, but botched it up and asked an admin friend for help. Before he could respond, you stepped in. Thanks. &mdash; John Cardinal (talk) 14:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm... Care to clean up one more loose end? I think Ticket to Ride (dab) can be deleted. I created it, and shouldn't have. &mdash; John Cardinal (talk) 14:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Done, no worries. See you round. Flowerparty ☀ 14:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to warn you, our friend has reverted all your good work. Please take another look. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Richhoncho is right. Prior to you moving things back earlier, I asked User:Lowellian (talk) to seek consensus before moving it back. He ignored that request and has moved the page again. Clearly, I think that Richhoncho and I are right, but that's really secondary. Given we objected to the move, I think Lowellian should have sought consensus before moving it again. Can you intervene in some way, or give advice about what to do? I was going to add a move request at WP:Requested moves, but it wasn't clear how to deal with moving it back, or explain what has occurred. &mdash; John Cardinal (talk) 23:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I was going to move things back again but I see it's already been done. I think that's fair, given wp:brd. I'll stay out of the discussion, seems healthy enough without my input. Flowerparty ☀ 09:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Mass changes to snooker player articles
I have some concerns over multiple changes to the snooker articles. Can you please let me know what you think at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Snooker Betty Logan (talk) 14:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Your closure of Articles for deletion/Leyden ball
I'm not taking it to DRV because I'm in favour of keeping the page, but I believe the consensus to merge to 20kLUtS was strong enough to at least explain why keep succeeded. Mark Hurd (talk) 18:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, I didn't mean to declare that consensus was to keep, only that the content should be kept. If you feel like merging then by all means go for it. Flowerparty ☀ 18:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The Beatles article
Please add your input concerning various issues about The Beatles article in the Talk:The Beatles page. Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I might have a look later. It looks like you're talking at cross purposes with the other editor there. Such things are rarely fruitful in my experience, if I were you I'd take a step back for a bit. Flowerparty ☀ 15:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I suggest you say that to User talk:PL290 as well. Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

TMR
I have uh dream... to work TMR up t' FA status. Do you know what I mean? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely! There can be few worthier pursuits on the wiki. It really does deserve better. I actually started pulling bits together for a push to FA a few months back with an eye on the fortieth anniversary coming up, would've been a good day to get it on the front page. I was too lazy to follow through with it though. If you're serious about getting it there then I'm with you. I'll have a look tomorrow maybe. Do you have a plan set out? Flowerparty ☀ 20:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Btw, is there really an extract from Sketches of Spain in Sugar and Spikes? I can't hear it, and I love that record. Flowerparty ☀ 20:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure is. In "Concierto de Aranjuez (Adagio)" it's the theme that starts around 8:30. You'll recognize this as the melody DVV sings to the "pies steam stale, shoes move broom 'n pail, moon in uh dime store sale..." bit in SnS.
 * I think the 40th anniversary would be a bit too quick for TFA, unfortunately. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I hear it now. Well I never. 50th anniversary then, let's do it! Flowerparty ☀ 22:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

WHY!!!!
Why wuld yu delete derek fisher (dfish) i feel it had great significance and explained  importance of him ur so lame  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.16.149.220 (talk) 04:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Your insult is less than devastating, good luck with the skating career. Flowerparty ☀ 22:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Nocturnes (Chopin)
Thanks for deleting the unnecessary redirect page and changing the title for the Nocturnes (Chopin) page.

It's appreciated. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaron8895 (talk • contribs) 01:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, :) Flowerparty ☀ 22:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Celestial Heights
Please explain the reasons why the article Celestial Heights was deleted. Your deletion does not have enough votes to support, just on your point of view. The article has many reference to support the existance of the building.

If you don't know the background of the building, you would better search it in the Internet or ask other people first, rather than deleting it as quick as possible. If you think the article is just an advertisement of real estate, why other private housing estate articles in Wikipedia can be reserved? In the same point of view, a lot of housing articles are helping the property developers to promote their properties in fact!

I think you recover it and hold an open voting to other editors and readers. I don't like someone abusing deletions. If Wikipedia cannot tolerate the facts, it's better to keep Wikipedia closed to allow only administrators to edit the articles. Ricky@36 (talk) 10:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Someone proposed the article for deletion a week ago, and no one objected. Since you disagree with the deletion I've restored the article and posted a section up at Articles for deletion so people can express their opinion on it. Flowerparty ☀ 10:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Flawless (Dance Group)
Looked more like a merge to me, don't you think?--Otterathome (talk) 12:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, I don't see anyone complaining if you want to merge it. You don't need my permission, go ahead. Flowerparty ☀ 12:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well that would be really bad practice seeing as I'm the one who nominated it. I suggest you do it instead.--Otterathome (talk) 12:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. Anyone can undo a merge if they disagree. Flowerparty ☀ 12:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)