This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current page.
I would like my edit to the Rudolph The Red-Nosed Reindeer TV special page to be restored. I was adding additional information to the section about the 2005 CBS version of the special. I apologize for not adding an edit summary.
Nylix4488 (talk) 17:11, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reversion of my edit to Geoff Capes (addition of the Recent Death header)
Hi! I just wanted to let you know why I added the recent death header to the article about Geoff Capes, given his passing. I noticed you'd reverted my change, based on the stabilisation of activity. I counted 24 edits in about 38 minutes, so basically getting edited more than once every 2 minutes, which I considered meant that things would be changing rapidly. I appreciate your removal was due to that activity stabilising, I'm just a little concerned that it's going to keep being repeatedly edited as more and more info comes out. Thanks for your work though, it's appreciated! Dane|Geld17:58, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DaneGeld: Yeah, at this point it more of an advertisement, many edits yesterday and more today, the death information is already set it just copy editing now and the {{recent death}} template is not used to advertise or confirm the death. - FlightTime (open channel)19:05, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
zucchini
@FlightTime:
Excuse me. I've made an edit in the page "zucchini" and you've reverted it twice. I think there's a misunderstanding, it isn't a disruptive edit but a constructive edit. Could you tell me what you think is wrong with it, please? I'll explain everything you need to know, and in case a part of my edit is really wrong I won't continue restoring it. Let me know, thanks!
151.20.19.163 (talk) 22:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
EDIT
Sorry, now I've seen what was wrong with it, your partial revert is okay for me :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.20.19.163 (talk) 22:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would you please explain how this item: "Schwarzenegger saved a drowning man in 2004 while on vacation in Hawaii by swimming out and bringing him back to shore." belongs in this section: "Accidents and injuries". All the other examples relate directly to an accident or injury of Schwarzenegger himself.
My edit comment was "interesting fact, but clearly not an accident or an injury." Your revert comment was "Removal of sourced content without discussion" which did not relate at all to my edit comment. I am sure that either of us can come up with an enormous list of material that, even though properly sourced, does not belong in articles, etc.
If it said in Accidents and injuries that Schwarzenegger drives a Honda Civic, and that was properly sourced, you would object to it being removed? It definitely did not belong in that section, so I removed it. Would you please consider removing it again? Or I will be happy to discuss further.
@FlightTime: How about taking the time to reply to my questions? Are you saying that "saving a drowning man" properly belongs in a section about "Accidents and injuries" toSchwarzenegger? That any properly sourced sentence, about anything, could be placed in that section and an editor should not remove it because it is sourced, without a discussion on the talk page? • Bobsd • (talk) 02:11, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Revert on Monkees
Why did you revert the change on the Monkees page that gave the correct album title? If you don't have a compelling reason, your reversion needs to be undone. Sm5574 (talk) 19:33, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion/section is closed. I've explained three times why I reverted you changes, no time to keep repeating myself. Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel) 02:49, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion/section is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion/section.
Hello, hope you're doing good,
I am here to speak about an edit I did on Miss May I that you have reverted. You reverted my edits due to 'unreliable sources', however you removed the edits which had the unknown section in the director column in their music video list, the link I put on Motionless in White's album Graveyard Shift and a spelling error on the band's page.
Alright, understood. The edits you reverted (except from Ryan Neff rejoining the band) had nothing to do with unsourcing and they were fine as they were and should've not been removed . Doomed Shadow (talk) 01:20, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Hello. I was just wondering what your issue was with the edit I made on the Geordi La Forge page? The VISOR acronym description I added is an acceptable alternate (at least in the Star Trek fan universe realm). I was just trying to add some info. May I add it back in? If not, I will leave it how it is.
SummeRStorM79 (talk) 01:59, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
forum: a place, meeting, or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged.
User talk page: User pages are for communication and collaboration...Its normal use is for messages from, and discussion with, other editors...legitimate uses of user space include...limited autobiographical content
You also reverted both of my photos, one was inside the section header and the other was not. I’m putting that one back now at least. It feels you were overzealous in your decision. Reportersteven (talk) 02:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I put a photo back in the history area. I made sure there were no extra lines. This is similar to where other bands have put photos in the history section. See Pearl Jam. see Nirvana. I no longer wish to continue this discussion on your page. If you have any further comments, let’s do it on the Harvey Danger Talk page and others can weigh in on your thoughts. Reportersteven (talk) 02:29, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, sorry to bother. Just was curious why one of my edits was reverted. I am a bit confused as I linked the Spin Magazine edition so the reader can access the source. Happy to discuss this. Cahlin29 (talk) 22:59, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody switching out an image on an article[1] does not appear worthy of a level 4 user warning like the one you gave here[2]. From what I can see, it's their only edit to the article, they never edited the talkpage, and while I know it might be frustrating to have a bunch of people change something that has already been hashed on on the talkpage, people tend to do those things in good faith and should be treated better than a run of the mill vandal. Is there any context I've missed, or did you press the wrong button? Thanks, GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 21:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi FlightTime; regarding this request; that's a *very* large range, and that range has only edited the Elton John talk page once. A partial block can accomodate up to 10 targets; if we added targets to the list based on a single bad edit, we'd run out of targets really quickly. It's best to only add targets when someone from that range is repeatedly disrupting it. For more isolated cases like this, we can start with a full block on the /64 if they continue. OhNoitsJamieTalk20:51, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
nearly all of these edits have been reverted, but the user has not been responsive to talk page messages. i have no idea how to proceed, since the user's address keeps changing, but i think they're just going to continue creating work for other editors.
173.175.200.238 (talk) 21:06, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Sherry Jackson, About a year ago, you reverted my edit (adding her credit for being on an episode of Perry Mason). You stated reason as; “Not know for that appearance …” Well, she’s known by me, and others that watched, for being on Perry Mason. Please consider undoing you revert. Thank you,
“steffinwolf”
@Steffinwolf: Still, she's not "best known" for that. She might not be best known for any one appearance. If it were up to me, I'd say she's best known for her appearance in Star Trek, but that's my opinion and like yours, opinions don't mean shit here. Both of our opinions are covered in the infobox, lets just leave it at that. Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel)14:11, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
your non-revert edits, to save you that additional aggravation and labor. But I will not agree to large blocks of undated, and unsourced material being returned without citations. Cheers. (A former registered editor, and former faculty member contributor.) 98.226.86.66 (talk) 01:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so we will agree to disagree for the moment, but I will call your reversions to the attention of those believing scads of unsourced assertions should be sourced before returning to view, not before being hidden. Enjoy. The section is garbage and unusable until... 98.226.86.66 (talk) 01:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion/section is closed, no longer productive
The following discussion/section is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion/section.
This is a documented fact as viewed by this writer. None of the other names mentioned in the sentence are reference either. Stop undo these edits or being a wiki-bully. Watch the PBS youtube of the entire proceeding and you will plainly see the tail number 29000. Thus being a VC-25A and pertinent to the entry.
173.28.158.174 (talk) 02:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Redirect suppression
Hi FlightTime. While I was looking at some file moves, I noticed that you still almost always rename file without leaving behind a redirect. Per WP:PMRC, redirect suppression is permitted only for redirects that would have otherwise been eligible for speedy deletion. (Indeed, "a pattern of using the permission to suppress redirects that would not have been eligible for one of the criteria for speedy deletion" is a ground for revocation per WP:PMRR#3.) As I noted to you over a year ago, there used to be a boldly added redirect-suppression criterion PMRC#10 (link to an old page version) for "Moving little-used files when all uses have been manually changed to the new title (WP:CSD#G6)" from 2019 to 2022, but it was removed because there was substantial opposition to deleting/suppressing these redirects, so it didn't have the consensus necessary to be included in a criterion for speedy deletion.
Additionally, when you rename files without leaving a redirect, it seems that you sometimes request deletion of existing redirects for the file as G8. However, that criterion explicitly excludes "Redirects that were broken as a result of a page move or retargeting (these should instead be retargeted to their target's new name), except where R2 speedy deletion would then immediately apply if they were fixed (e.g., redirects to articles that have been draftified)". For example, File:CHowan.png and File:TaiwanBeer Leopards.webp were therefore ineligible for G8.
With that in mind, could you tell me what criterion for speedy deletion (or equivalently redirect suppression), if any, each of the following suppressed move redirects (to pick a few) would fall into?
Sorry, I don't see the problem here. If there are no incoming important links I do not create needless redirects, if a redirect exist that no longer has a target I request deletion, however I do see your point about redirecting the existing redirect to the new target. - FlightTime (open channel)01:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For one thing, suppressing the file redirect will always break the image in old revisions of whatever articles used the image, see
As someone who looks at old revisions of pages fairly often, it's somewhat annoying when the images are broken due to renaming when there was no reason that they needed to be broken – and indeed given that it usually violates policy to suppress these redirects. Additionally, not all incoming links are wikilinks. People do link to Wikipedia from other websites as well as reuse Wikipedia content, which almost always requires linking for articles and sometimes requires linking for images. Since redirects are cheap, they should generally be left unless problematic. See also the discussion I mentioned previously for some reasons people gave that these file redirects shouldn't be suppressed.
I'd also note that you didn't answer my question above. If you don't have an answer, my assumption is that you're not able to point to criteria to support those redirect suppressions. I'll pose another question. Would you rather (A) try to use page mover permissions in a manner consistent with the policy, specifically as it relates redirect suppression (which you always have the opportunity to seek to change by consensus), or (B) no longer have page mover permissions? I would hope that's easy to answer. SilverLocust💬05:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SilverLocust:, Well, "for one thing, I always fix article (file display) links before I even rename a file, any other links ie.. bot reports, user's archive pages, anyone can still click the red link and get the new filename from the move report. I have no control what others' do (permalink), (permalink), (permalink), (permalink) None of those permalink are of my doing. Is this some kind of training issue or a prelude to you removing my move rights? - FlightTime (open channel)14:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know that those permalinks are revisions from before you renamed the file and updated the links. My point with those permalinks is that renaming them without leaving a redirect messes up the image when looking back at the old revisions prior to the renaming. If you agree to stop suppressing redirects that aren't eligible for a criterion for speedy deletion/criterion for redirect suppression, then I would be happy for your page mover rights to remain. If you won't agree to that, then I do think your page mover permission should be removed.
@SilverLocust:, Well, OK. I've installed a script that automatically creates a redirect (in case I forget) when moving files. I didn't use it before, because of the redirect issue, however I will use it because I make other moves besides files and still need my flags. If you have further...... - FlightTime (open channel)14:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
New message to FlightTime
This discussion/section is closed, We agree to disagree
The following discussion/section is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion/section.
I'm pretty puzzled and have never seen such an extensive definition of WP:OVERLINKING. It is not helpful to the reader to remove WP:GEOLINK-compatible links to birth and death locations from the infobox; to do so appears an uncharacteristically dogmatic reading of the guideline. Let me know if I'm missing something. Remsense ‥ 论02:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
—I don't mean to read this as you saying your use of scripts requires little to no additional discretion on your part? Every relevant guideline says otherwise, i.e. one is responsible for their edits regardless of what tools are used, and editors are expected to refrain from making controversial edits at volume using semi-automated tools. Remsense ‥ 论03:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Remsense: I've been using this script since September 24, 2011 and you are the first editor to have a problem with how that script works, I do monitor the changes the script makes, if I think it's wrong, I fix the edit. Please direct your concerns to the script author, the link is above. Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel)07:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I use the script too. I had a problem with an edit you made, and it's not really worth pointing to someone who didn't make the edit as if they did. Remsense ‥ 论07:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Hello,
I believe the messages you left on my talk page were unfair, as the offending edits were actually intended to improve the articles based on what the included sources were saying. None of this was my own point of view, as you have accused. Read, for example, the Tom Robinson edit, where the exact same source used for “pub rock” gives exactly as much weight to “punk rock”, making the latter’s absence completely arbitrary. In fact, it would suggest that the original editor was deploying his own “point of view” in not including it, so I would therefore point at that my own edit brought the content closer to your criteria than it previously had been. I ask that you revisit these edits you found violating and consider what I’ve said. Have a good day,NWK
Nowaykatie (talk) 09:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are using rollback to handle edits in mass and not examining them individually. Why was this edit rollbacked? It was an editor replying on their own talk page, it was not vandalism. You should only use rollback for unambiguous vandalism, you shouldn't be using to rollback all of an editor's edits just because you have questions about one or two of them. You seem to be editing very zealously today and going after editors who are not remotely being disruptive. Please dial it back and assume good faith. LizRead!Talk!02:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=link}
_poster.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
