User talk:Leflyman

Welcome to Leflyman's Talky Page  Please feel free to leave me a message, although I may not reply, seeing as how I'm rarely on Wikipedia anymore.

Stopped by once in the last decade, to clean up this page. 
 * "Not a Fan site" proposal
 * Archive 01: Oct 2004 - Sep 2005
 * Archive 02: Sep 2005 - Dec 2005
 * Archive 03: Jan 2006 - Feb 2006
 * Archive 04: Mar 2006 - Apr 2006
 * Archive 05: May 2006 - Jun 2006
 * Archive 06: Jul 2006 - Aug 2006
 * Archive 07: Sep 2006 - Oct 2006
 * Archive 08: Nov 2006 - Dec 2006
 * Archive 09: Jan 2007 - Feb 2007
 * Archive 10: Mar 2007 - Apr 2007
 * Archive 11: Aug 2007 - Nov 2015

Proposed deletion of File:Goldenplunger.gif


The file File:Goldenplunger.gif has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "unused, low-res, no obvious use"

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 file's talk page.

Please consider addressing 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 files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:BRD
Please read and follow WP:BRD. When your edit to a long-standing page is reverted, you don't rerevert but start a talk page discussion. Fram (talk) 13:36, 19 July 2022 (UTC)


 * @Fram: As noted at WP:BRD, it's an essay, with an opening that specifically says, BRD is "an optional method of seeking consensus. This process is not mandated by Wikipedia policy..."
 * WP:BOLD is the primary principle, and takes precedence.
 * However, in line with my summary, a talk page discussion was begun, although you didn't wait to re-revert.
 * I get that you feel WP:OWN for the article you created in 2008; that's a long time for information to have slipped through, and you may be unhappy that it's finally being changed to follow WP:RS. That's the way Wikipedia is supposed to work. LeflymanTalk 15:02, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Have you actually read WP:BOLD? It explicitly references WP:BRD and warns that after your bold edit gets reverted, you shouldn't repost it to avoid an edit war... Instead, you re-reverted at 12.47 with the edit summary "Shakespeare neither a "fictional author" (he was a playwright) nor are there sources for sales. See Talk", which I reverted again as there was no talk page discussion despite your claim, and you were not following WP:BOLD. Only then did you start the talk page discussion, some 30 minutes later, and immediately reverted again. No, that's not "the way Wikipedia is supposed to work", and your completely incorrect readings of policies are about as bad as your false attacks at the talk page discussion. Fram (talk) 15:08, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Fram: Did you consider that the Talk page comment was actually being written, when you reverted? No, instead you continued with the WP:OWN habit of reverting to your preferred original text. You should probably step away from this and realize you're arguing to keep something just because you included it originally, not because it actually makes sense.
 * As for reading WP:BRD -- did you?
 * It specifically notes,
 * * BRD is not a justification for imposing one's own view or for tendentious editing.
 * * BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. LeflymanTalk 15:17, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Removing the sources best-selling author from the list of best-selling authors on spurious grounds is not "improving a page". I let many changes to that page stand, as they are improvements or clear attempts to improve it. I reverted yours as it doesn't fit that description. But please keep wikilawyering about why your reverts are somehow good and generally accepted, while mine are a one-person struggle to impose a widely disputed version. Fram (talk) 15:24, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Fram: You appear to continue to take WP:OWN on a long-standing article you originated, deciding for others what are "improvements" and what are "spurious." As you're doubtlessly aware, that's not how Wikipedia works. Although it can be beneficial for editors to monitor pages that they favor, it obviously leads to a presumption that theirs is the only "correct" way. You are welcome to ask for a WP:Third Opinion or take this to WP:ARB if that would please you. LeflymanTalk 15:35, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * More shows of ignorant wikilaywering. Replying on your talk page is now evidence of WP:OWN? Right, sure... "or take this to WP:ARB"? You may try to find someone else to impress with your "knowledge" of our policies and guidelines, I'm done here as you are clearly way out of your depth and have no knowledge of how things actually work here. Fram (talk) 15:38, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Fram: "I'm done here as you are clearly way out of your depth and have no knowledge of how things actually work here" -- along with your other comments above are indeed evidence of your lack of WP:AGF.
 * It's a shame when long-standing editors such as yourself are unable to step away from emotion-driven responses which clearly do not reflect the positive efforts they've put into the project. You may note that I started on WP over a year before your account; I'm quite familiar with "how things actually work here." LeflymanTalk 16:02, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)