User talk:Fxmastermind/archive2

How many Wikipedians does it take to Change a Light bulb?
3,573

1 to create the article

1 to point out you are recreating a page that was deleted

1 to add a speedy delete tag

3 to object to the tag

17 to discuss if it should be deleted

1 Admin to delete it

2 Admins to undo that

23 to protest the decision

1 to blank the page

1 to undo the vandalism

6 to request protection for the article

1 Admin to protect it

5 to protest that action

1 Admin to unprotect it

3,478 to make edits

23 to discuss changes

8 to argue over NPOV

etc etc

(add your own to this list, there is no end to this joke ...)

It's even funnier if you look at the revision history of Light bulb, which is no longer an article.Fxmastermind (talk) 03:07, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Also, despite being told Wikipedia is not a dictionary, both a and change have articles.

Secret to surviving Wikipedia
Treat it like an online forum. Don't piss off those in charge, ignore the trolls, and try not to take it too seriously. It really is a bunch of people on computers. FX (talk) 18:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

In the 12 years since that sentiment, it is no longer true,

Fxmastermind (talk) 03:11, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Current Commentary on Talk
In the last few days I ran into an interesting situation here, which was interesting enough to earn my first warning from a Wiki authority figure. I'm assuming it was, because they used a cool warning template that looked all official and they threatened my ability to edit if I didn't do what they said.

This resulted in the parties, who were constantly reverting edits with out talking about them, finally using the talk page rather than the edit summary boxes to comment. Much more interesting. I feel bad that I started doing the same thing, except it was sort of funny. The entire incident resulted in understanding an essential truth about something here that has been nagging at the corners of the thought process for years.

Suddenly it all made sense.

When I get the time I am going to try and flesh it out, so anybody reading can understand it. Rather than try to rough draft it out here.

If you are bored and have nothing better to do, here is part of the drama - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vaccine_controversy#CBS_News_reports, except you have to look at the edit history of the main article to see all the commentary in the edit summary, and go find some user talk pages. If that sounds confusing and like work, I know what you mean. FX (talk) 14:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Formatting
I think that the only formatting problem in this edit lies in putting spaces at the beginning of a line. The wiki software interprets this to mean that everything until the next hard return should be on a single line in a box (and possibly puts it in  tags as well). I am sure that this is very useful for some people, but I have never seen the feature used except accidentally. - Eldereft (cont.) 17:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe you have answered the mystery.

Thank you so much. FX (talk) 20:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

From the Thimerasol controversy
The problem with that ...

.. is you don't provide any sources. Anecdotes, like yours, are not evidence, nor is anything you said. Wikipedia is not about trying to determine the truth, but putting together an encyclopedia of stuff that other sources have amassed. Those who try to promote their agenda, their view, are against the NPOV which is the standard for Wikipedia articles. This is why original research is prohibited.

If all the information is available, from all the credible sources, then that is the knowledge on a subject. Those who want to edit out sources, and decide what is true, rather than let the reader have all the facts, are trying to promote their view, not help build a free encyclopedia. You know who you are.

Those who fight to restrict information, are the enemy of knowledge. Those who want to spin things their way, are the opposite of a NPOV.

If CBS or CNN or any real News outlet does a story, and you think they are wrong, you don't get to delete the story reference. If another credible source disagrees, you put that in as a counter. I know, some idiots think they should be the arbitrators of what is allowed to be read on the Internet. They are not only stupid, they are small minded. To them, I always say, you are not the authority. You don't get to decide. Get a clue and quit trying to control information. It is not your job to censor the Internet.

FX (talk) 03:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC) The point, diluted as it may be, can be summed up, in regards to the article, Thiomersal controversy, is that the entry is about a controversy. It isn't about deciding the controversy, it isn't about presenting one side to try and convince somebody. This is true for both sides, all sides.

Let me say it clearly.

A Wikipedia article is not a battleground to decide the truth.

It is not a soapbox, it is not an ad, it isn't propaganda, and it isn't about winning, getting your views heard, and suppressing your opponents.

It says this in plain English

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

It is also against a guideline for me to harp on this on this talk page. FX (talk) 20:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Having ignored several rules already, let me NPOV this by saying if the article was biased the other way, I would several times more disgusted by the effort to use a Wikipeida article to try and have your view dominate. Because I have bias of course.

Which everybody knows. We all have a point of view. An article about a controversy, that tries to tell you there is no controversy, by preventing all sources regarding a controversy, because you don't like the sources, is censorship.

This page is not about deciding who is right. Obviously that goes on, but it is against the very spirit of Wikipedia to try and have your say, and prevent anybody you disagree with from presenting sources that ILLUSTRATE the controversy.

This and several other "controversy" articles suffer from that very problem. FX (talk) 20:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a rough outline of the obvious. FX (talk) 20:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Now it makes sense
The formatting error was due to copy and paste of a quote, which is indented.

I see now why that auto feature would be useful however. Just putting a space creates a sort of quote box.

Like this. Making it easy to separate without adding a tag.

FX (talk) 20:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * That does make a non-wiki "quote box", but it also sends a long quote off the screen. That's why it isn't an official method for formatting quotes here. Take a look at this link for ways to format quotes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_edit_a_page


 * The simplest and most common method is simply to indent using a colon. That way the quote isn't too "bold" and noticeable, since the same format should be used for all quotes on a page. If one quote is made more noticeable by one editor (who shares that POV), that can be a not-so-subtle method for editorial POV to creep into an article. Both pro and con quotes should use the same formatting, so the colon method is the simplest, easiest, and most common method, even though other methods are allowed. -- Fyslee / talk 01:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't get it. This is a quote?

It doesn't look like a quote This looks like a quote box FX (talk) 05:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's make an experiment with three different methods and compare the results.


 * If we put a large amount of text (let's borrow text from above) in your homegrown version (here at Wikipedia it's considered an accident), it will run off the screen, even with my large 24" screen:

The simplest and most common method is simply to indent using a colon. That way the quote isn't too "bold" and noticeable, since the same format should be used for all quotes on a page. If one quote is made more noticeable by one editor (who shares that POV), that can be a not-so-subtle method for editorial POV to creep into an article. Both pro and con quotes should use the same formatting, so the colon method is the simplest, easiest, and most common method, even though other methods are allowed.


 * Here's another suggested method using the same text:


 * Here's the version that is often used, just using a colon (here using two colons because I'm already indented):


 * "The simplest and most common method is simply to indent using a colon. That way the quote isn't too "bold" and noticeable, since the same format should be used for all quotes on a page. If one quote is made more noticeable by one editor (who shares that POV), that can be a not-so-subtle method for editorial POV to creep into an article. Both pro and con quotes should use the same formatting, so the colon method is the simplest, easiest, and most common method, even though other methods are allowed."


 * The last version has quotation marks because it isn't inside a box. That makes it clear it isn't part of the other text, in this case my remarks.


 * Do you see the differences now? -- Fyslee / talk 06:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I like the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Quotation

I don't know how I missed that while searching.

But hey, what the heck do I know? FX (talk) 13:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Another suggestion: "quoted text"
 * This produces: "quoted text" that's also easy to read as a separate quote, though it doesn't have the neato little box like quotation. &mdash; Scientizzle 15:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

FX (talk) 22:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 17:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

WP not soapbox
RE your recent postings on talk:Gardasil. Article talk pages are for discussing article improvement, not for publicizing views WP:NOTSOAPBOX, disparaging drug companies, discussion or attacking other users WP:NPA, etc. (i.e. Wikipedia isn't a general forum WP:NOTAFORUM). Thank you. Zodon (talk) 02:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It is obvious that some users here engage in Information suppression, as defined by Wikipedia guidelines:

A common way of introducing bias is by one-sided selection of information. Information can be cited that supports one view while some important information that opposes it is omitted or even deleted. Such an article complies with Verifiability but violates NPOV. A Wikipedia article must comply with all three guidelines (i.e. Verifiability, NPOV, and No original research) to be considered compliant.

Some examples of how editors may unwittingly or deliberately present a subject in an unfair way:


 * Biased or selective representation of sources, eg:
 * Explaining why evidence supports one view, but omitting such explanation in support of alternative views.
 * Making one opinion look superior by omitting strong and citable points against it, comparing it instead with low quality arguments for other POVs (strawman tactics).
 * Not allowing one view to "speak for itself", or refactoring its "world-view" into the words of its detractors.
 * Editing as if one given opinion is "right" and therefore other opinions have little substance:
 * Entirely omitting significant citable information in support of a minority view, with the argument that it is claimed to be not credible.
 * Ignoring or deleting significant views, research or information from notable sources that would usually be considered credible and verifiable in Wikipedia terms (this could be done on spurious grounds).
 * Concealing relevant information about sources or sources' credentials that is needed to fairly judge their value.

Thus, verifiability, proper citation and neutral phrasing are necessary but not sufficient to ensure NPOV. It is important that the various views and the subject as a whole are presented in a balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to their best ability.

Please stop doing that. Thanks. FX (talk) 14:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Information suppression
It is obvious that some users here engage in Information suppression, as defined by Wikipedia guidelines:

A common way of introducing bias is by one-sided selection of information. Information can be cited that supports one view while some important information that opposes it is omitted or even deleted. Such an article complies with Verifiability but violates NPOV. A Wikipedia article must comply with all three guidelines (i.e. Verifiability, NPOV, and No original research) to be considered compliant.

Some examples of how editors may unwittingly or deliberately present a subject in an unfair way:


 * Biased or selective representation of sources, eg:
 * Explaining why evidence supports one view, but omitting such explanation in support of alternative views.
 * Making one opinion look superior by omitting strong and citable points against it, comparing it instead with low quality arguments for other POVs (strawman tactics).
 * Not allowing one view to "speak for itself", or refactoring its "world-view" into the words of its detractors.
 * Editing as if one given opinion is "right" and therefore other opinions have little substance:
 * Entirely omitting significant citable information in support of a minority view, with the argument that it is claimed to be not credible.
 * Ignoring or deleting significant views, research or information from notable sources that would usually be considered credible and verifiable in Wikipedia terms (this could be done on spurious grounds).
 * Concealing relevant information about sources or sources' credentials that is needed to fairly judge their value.

Thus, verifiability, proper citation and neutral phrasing are necessary but not sufficient to ensure NPOV. It is important that the various views and the subject as a whole are presented in a balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to their best ability.

Please stop doing that. Thanks. FX (talk) 14:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You know, after 13 years I suspect nobody read that. Fxmastermind (talk) 03:00, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

August 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Port Alberni, British Columbia has been reverted. Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): \byoutube\.com (links: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=debpg8ncpia). If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy and therefore probably should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file. Video links are also strongly deprecated by our guidelines for external links, partly because they're useless to people with slow internet connections. If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 06:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Annoying Bots!
Just when I think it can't get anymore difficult to add information here, a stupid Bot is now editing articles, which I'm sure is fine due to the ever present evil spammers, but when I look for information on using video from YouTube, it doesn't even appear on the info page, and I mean the word YouTube, youtube, doesn't show up, I despair of the state of wikipedia.

OK not really, but if I still cared at all I would.

FX (talk) 17:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

OK I sniffed around where I left a comment, and is often the case, the reply doesn't show up so a user can know it is there. But I did find it, and it says:

From WP:EL: "There is no blanket ban on linking to YouTube or other user-submitted video sites, as long as the links abide by the guidelines on this page (see Restrictions on linking and Links normally to be avoided). Many videos hosted on YouTube or similar sites do not meet the standards for inclusion in External links sections, and copyright is of particular concern. Many YouTube videos of newscasts, shows or other content of interest to Wikipedia visitors are copyright violations. Links should be evaluated for inclusion with due care on a case-by-case basis. Links to online videos should also identify the software necessary for readers to view the content.". There are many problems with these links, though there are good cases. You might want to re-read that guideline, and if you still believe that the link is adding to the page, you can revert the bot's edit. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

So I go look again, at the page linked to, and the words youtube, as well as "you tube", do not appear anywhere on the page. Madness.FX (talk) 17:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

OK I found the problem, it is YouTube, and only YouTube that appears, but the instructions don't really answer the question. Is a historical video hosted on YouTube a source or not?

Going by guidelines, the whole paragraph about the tsunami that started this should be removed, as there is no longer a source used for the information. Port_Alberni,_British_Columbia

FX (talk) 17:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well that was a complete waste of time, wasn't it? Fxmastermind (talk) 03:01, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

September 2009
Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. I removed the following link(s): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hWZJ2teAMw (matching the regex rule \byoutube\.com). If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy and therefore probably should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file. Video links are also strongly deprecated by our guidelines for external links, partly because they're useless to people with slow internet connections. If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 21:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) [[Image:Information.svg|25px]] Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added  do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the  before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.

Tsunami
I found the main article: 2009 Samoa earthquake. Totnesmartin (talk) 22:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Desiree Jennings controversy
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Desiree Jennings controversy. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Desiree Jennings controversy. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Marking edits as "minor"
Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Crowsnest (talk) 13:00, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

That made me laugh. Thanks. FX (talk) 01:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Batik Sehir


A tag has been placed on Batik Sehir requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Eeekster (talk) 21:34, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Hypercholoric Acid
Since this is an old name for Perchloric acid, I have redirected the article to exactly that. — Fly by Night  ( talk )  18:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Your signature and your edits
Please fix your signature. I noticed here that you were using a confusing signature. It should either have your complete registered name (if there is no link), or a link to your user and/or talk page (if you want to use a different name like FX), or a combination of the two. It isn't an option, per WP:SIGN: "Any posts made to the user talk pages, article talk pages and any other discussion pages must be signed." (emphasis in original). This implies that the signature be attributable to the person doing the signing. This is pretty flexible, but it should be so that someone isn't forced to go through the contribs to determine which editor left a particular message, which is the entire purpose of that requirement. Please fix this as soon as possible. Your own sig, with FX that linked to your page, was perfectly fine. Thanks. Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 23:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Testing FX (talk) 23:28, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You may also be interested in commenting in this discussion, which is about you, in order to explain your adding or removing text that is in direct conflict with WP:Reliable sources. Flyer22 (talk) 23:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I replied on my talk page and will continue to reply there to any future comments you make there about this. Flyer22 (talk) 00:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I replied on your talk page and will probably continue to be confused by the conversation method here. FX (talk) 01:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've sought to get you some editing assistance so that you aren't so confused about some things at this site. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention. You should weigh in there. Though you are confused about more than one thing, be clear there about some of the things you are not familiar with. They should be taken care of one step at a time. Flyer22 (talk) 12:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

FYI, Dynamic theory of tides nominated for deletion
It's redundant with tides and theory of tides and shouldn't have been created. Perhaps it can be merged, but personally I think that would be more trouble than it's worth. I'd support blanking the content and redirecting to theory of tides as an alternative to deletion.  Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 11:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

That is original research of the worst kind. Along with your deletion of the talk history, it reeks of a personal motive, rather than trying to add to the world's knowledge of things. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dynamic_theory_of_tides&direction=next&oldid=496810475 It is the type of destructive effort that makes Wikipedia a mockery of an encyclopedia, rather than one where anyone and everyone is welcome to add information, along with sources. From experience I know it's an even bigger waste of time to argue about it. Fxmastermind (talk) 17:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of The Global Warming War


The article The Global Warming War has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * WP:TooSOON. No reliable independant sources to establish notability of this unreleased film

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TheLongTone (talk) 23:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Talk:The Global Warming War
Talk:The Global Warming War, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:The Global Warming War and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Talk:The Global Warming War during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. TheLongTone (talk) 22:37, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of The Global Warming War for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Global Warming War is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/The Global Warming War until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TheLongTone (talk) 22:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Userfied
Hi, Fxmastermind. The article has been speedy deleted per your request at Articles for deletion/The Global Warming War. I did, however, userfy it in your workspace at User:Fxmastermind/The Global Warming War. It's there should you wish to work on it in the future and to resolve the issues of notability and referencing. Good luck with your editing. — Cactus Writer (talk) 15:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hope this is a satisfactory solution pro tem. Incidentally, I think this film particularly needs good third-party references because judging by the kist of contibutors it presents a controversial point of view.TheLongTone (talk) 19:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I was shocked to see how much improvement was made on the article. Fxmastermind (talk) 00:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of GMS Drums
Hello Fxmastermind,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged GMS Drums for deletion, because it seems to be inappropriate for a variety of reasons.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Vvvaggot (talk) 01:56, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


 * You might want to go through AFC or just create a draft - you made no assertion of importance whatsoever. If you want me to restore to your userspace drop me a note. § FreeRangeFrog croak 04:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm just happy to know Wikipedia is safe from yet another article on a drum maker. And when kids read about the Stone Temple Pilots drummer, where it says "In the Core era, Eric Kretz used a Yamaha Rock Tour Custom drumset before switching to GMS Drums in late 1992/early 1993.[2] ", they won't be confused by an article on GMS Drums. Fxmastermind (talk) 23:28, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Astronomical theory of climate chang
Hello Fxmastermind,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Astronomical theory of climate chang for deletion in response to your request.

If you didn't intend to make such a request and don't want the article to be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Itsalleasy (talk) 17:42, 21 May 2015 (UTC) bye bye Fxmastermind (talk) 21:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Talkback Cloud reflectivity modification
Jesse L Reynolds (talk) 06:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Climate of Antarctica
You have been reverted by multiple editors at this article. Continuing to insist on your version of the article without obtaining consensus for your change jeopardizes your editing privilege. Please read WP:Edit warring and WP:Bold, revert, discuss cycle.  Tide  rolls  15:28, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

First, it's not "my version", so to be uncharitable, you are engaged in deceit, or if you actually didn't read what happened, simple laziness and ignorance. The consequence is the same in either case, you are warning me, but based on a falsehood. This makes you wrong, but of course you can't see this. Hence any conversation with you based on a falsehood of yours will only get worse for me, since you hold the threat, and opened with it.

Do you disagree with any of that?Fxmastermind (talk) 16:23, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Please read the linked pages in my post. We are not discussing content, it's your behavior that has brought me here. You do not need to duplicate your posts on my user talk. I'm watching this page and will see any question or comment you may have.  Tide  rolls  21:24, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia jargon listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia jargon. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia jargon redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so.  Wishva de Silva  &#124; Talk 03:07, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Calcium club


The article Calcium club has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern:
 * Phrase invented and used in one article - does not seem encyclopedic.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Pam D  18:29, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Mao Sugiyama
Hello Fxmastermind,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Mao Sugiyama for deletion, because it doesn't appear to contain any encyclopedic content. Take a look at our suggestions for essential content in short articles to learn what should be included.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Cat 5120 (talk) 10:05, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Desiree Jennings (February 22)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Legacypac was:

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Desiree Jennings and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Desiree Jennings, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "db-self" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Desiree_Jennings Articles for creation help desk] or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Legacypac&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Desiree_Jennings reviewer's talk page].
 * You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Legacypac (talk) 20:11, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Desiree Jennings concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Desiree Jennings, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:21, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Desiree Jennings


Hello, Fxmastermind. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Desiree Jennings".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! JMHamo (talk) 18:55, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:January 12-14, 1964 North American blizzard
Hello, Fxmastermind. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:January 12-14, 1964 North American blizzard, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 15:02, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Draft:January 12-14, 1964 North American blizzard


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Draft:January 12-14, 1964 North American blizzard, was deleted as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, or you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Liz Read! Talk! 00:45, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

How to make a redirect page
Hi, I noticed that you were wondering how to make a redirect. I'm here to help. Just create a new page and add this line to it:  Replace Example with the name of the target page. Happy editing! Helen (💬📖) 18:44, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Super galaxy


The article Super galaxy has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Term never used in the astronomical literature. The classifications we have for giant galaxies are D and cD types, which are already covered by the Type-cD galaxy article"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. SkyFlubbler (talk) 13:44, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Spite store for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Spite store is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Spite store until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. —  Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:43, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Another article where the deletion happy Mods refuse to discuss the article on the article's talk page
This is a copy of what will also be deleted with the article.

It doesn't help anyone
The redirect just goes to the season, not an explanation of what a "spite store" is, or was, or what it means. Even if the redirect went to the correct episode (anchors anyone?) it isn't explained in the plot summary of the episode. Fxmastermind (talk) 15:21, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Of course nobody responded to that before deleting information. If you are changing an entry to a redirect, which does no help a curious reader, you are killing Wikipedia. Fxmastermind (talk) 16:21, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

When you wonder what to do
When you wonder what should or should not be in an article, ask yourself what a reader would expect to find under the same heading in an encyclopedia.

A spite article
Urban dictionary does a better job than Wikipedia on this one. Fxmastermind (talk) 15:25, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Experience has shown editors that want to remove information never discuss it first
Will this be any different? Fxmastermind (talk) 12:53, 12 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Do you have any evidence that this subject passes WP:GNG? Jalen Folf   (talk)  20:05, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Of course. Fxmastermind (talk) 07:35, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Because you seem oblivious to facts, the term is also the name of the 100th episode of a famous TV series, which not only makes in extremely notable, it makes your deletions an absurdity. That you don't know this is so absurd to me, I didn't think I would have to explain it.  But now I have. Fxmastermind (talk) 16:39, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

This is a spite edit
Which only somebody who watches Curbed will understand. Fxmastermind (talk) 07:35, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

It's ironic and hilarious that anyone cares so much they don't want an article about the Spite Store
Ironic and hilarious both have no article, which makes it far more humorous.

But then humorous also has no article. Good job fellow editors.

Fxmastermind (talk) 17:13, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

I told you there would be no discussion
The user Jalen Folf  just deletes content, then refuses to discuss why. I suspect Mod powers and bots being abused. Nobody in the real world has time to make a thousand edits a day, every day, for years. If an actual human conversation was required before deleting information here, how could anyone delete hundreds of pages each day?

And if you think I am talking about you, I certainly am.

Fxmastermind (talk) 16:14, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

ask yourself what a reader would expect to find under the same heading in an encyclopedia
The specious argument is that "spite store" isn't notable, so it should redirect to the article on the TV series where is certainly is notable. This is absurd, it would be like making lightsaber redirect to a page about the Star Wars movies. Without the reader having any idea what a lightsaber is.

Because the editors who are constantly editing here don't understand how things work, they tend to want to remove anything they don't understand, never thinking of the reader, the person looking something up. If you don't respond to this argument, and just revert to a redirect, you are in direct violation of Wikipedia poloicy. Fxmastermind (talk) 16:27, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

If there was an anchor at season 10 episode 10, the redirect would make sense
Why is there no way to put an anchor on a page? As it is now, a redirect offers no information for somebody curious who comes to Wikipedia.

No, I don't expect any Mod or Admin to actually discuss this here. Fxmastermind (talk) 16:35, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

JUST TO HELP OUT HERE
The Spite Store is ALSO the name of episode 100, or episode 10 season 10, of he most famous, well know, most written about TV series in history.

That anyone would ask if it qualifies as notable is one of the funniest things I have ever read on Wikipedia/ Fxmastermind (talk) 16:47, 4 September 2022 (UTC) Fxmastermind (talk) 06:16, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Just realized why some trolling and vandalism gets past the protectors
They are using bots, not actually looking at edits or new articles. If a vandal knows how the bots work, they can constantly vandalize articles (or worse) and no human knows it. I know this because as an actual human, I read articles, I don't trust a bot to alert me. Fxmastermind (talk) 11:25, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Note regarding AfD
Hi there. I notice that you've been recently posting a lot of messages on your talk page regarding an ongoing AfD, as well as on the talk page of the AfD itself. This is a friendly reminder that the discussion related to the AfD should take place at the AfD page, which is linked in this sentence. If you believe that you have policy-based reasons for keeping the page, please express them there in a relatively succinct way rather than spreading the discussion across a bunch of pages. This way, people can see the comments in one place and the discussion can remain focused. —  Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:41, 10 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree. Fxmastermind, you are just making comments to yourself here on your talk page and on the talk page of the article that is nominated for a deletion discussion. No one will see your comments here or there, they are following the discussion on the AFD page. If you are just airing your thoughts and don't care that they are unseen, go ahead but if you want to contribute to the debate or address the concerns other editors have expressed about this page, it's better to participate in the deletion discussion. And please stop with the personal attacks towards other editors, we can disagree with each other on what is best for the project but please keep the discussion civil. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 22:07, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It says reply to Liz, but the reply appears out of of order, making it confusing. How does anyone who hasn't spent years, and endless amount of time here, ever navigate any of this?  Not the editing of articles, but the administrative nonsense.  This, what I am doing right now. From a relative outsider POV, it's chaotic and confusing and very very unproductive.  I'm sure there is somewhere a vast complex page explaining the answer, how a convo on your user page works, but how do you find that?  (don't point me to it, tell me how to do a search for it) Fxmastermind (talk) 02:49, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * (2nd reply to Liz)
 * If you think I made a personal comment about, especially an attack on anyone, please show me where this is? Accusing me of such vile behavior, without providing at least one example, seems like you are attacking me personally. Fxmastermind (talk) 02:53, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You have made literally 1300 edits to Wikipedia since I replied to you. Fxmastermind (talk) 14:50, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

(edit) The following is a response to the first response to Red-tailed hawk, but it appears out of order now. At least on this page. I have no idea what is going on elsewhere.


 * I'm not exactly sure how any of this works anymore. Commentary on this page is no doubt just a way to make a record of things, because a deletion removes all record of an article, including the talk page.  Which in this case, isn't even being used.  That would be the talk page for the article, not the Afd page talk page.  I know that will stick around.
 * As for the technical obstacles. I'm not sure if you will see this reply.  Nor do I know if Liz will see it.  Do I have to make a seperate response to her comment?  Please don't spend much time trying to explain it.  This is mostly commentary on how difficult the system is, and I am no stranger to using computers to communicate with others.  I've been doing that for 35 years with no problem.  The magnitude of obstacles to overcome, and tribulations to endure, required to simply expand knowledge here, about a very simple thing, is far more problematic than some Mod deleting an article. Fxmastermind (talk) 02:46, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

It often seems nobody reads, much less responds here, also I need to archive this shit

 * And please stop with the personal attacks towards other editors,. Liz Read! Talk! 22:07, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * (2nd reply to Liz)
 * If you think I made a personal comment about, especially an attack on anyone, please show me where this is? Accusing me of such vile behavior, without providing at least one example, seems like you are attacking me personally. Fxmastermind (talk) 02:53, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * If you think I made a personal comment about, especially an attack on anyone, please show me where this is? Accusing me of such vile behavior, without providing at least one example, seems like you are attacking me personally. Fxmastermind (talk) 02:53, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Super galaxy for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Super galaxy, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Articles for deletion/Super galaxy (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 17 September 2022 (UTC)


 * You are not only a bot, you are an inhumane bot, a stupid bot, an almost worthless bit of code. But, for all I know, insulting a bot is some sort of thoughtcrime here lol Fxmastermind (talk) 06:49, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

No, a discussion is not taking place on that page
Just like no discussion has happened on the Spite Store deletion page Fxmastermind (talk) 11:38, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

It's so ironic that a bot created a topic on my talk page. Can you make Wikipedia any more nonhuman?

Yes, yes you can!

I can say with certainty, that it isn't just the ignorance and hostility here
the actual tools and interface also create a huge barrier to anyone who might know something, but either can't or won't embrace the madness of this interface. It's stuck in 2001, while most of us live in 2022 Fxmastermind (talk) 06:47, 20 September 2022 (UTC)