Misplaced Pages

User talk:Doctorfluffy: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 02:33, 30 October 2007 editDoctorfluffy (talk | contribs)8,695 editsm AfDs: typo← Previous edit Latest revision as of 20:18, 13 February 2023 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB 
(454 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Not around|3=December 23, 2014}}
Let's chat! :-)


{|style="float:right; background:Khaki; color:black;" border="1" cellspacing="2" cellpadding="5"
!colspan="5" |'''Archives'''
|-
|align="center"|''']'''
|align="center"|''']'''
|align="center"|''']'''
|align="center"|''']'''
|align="center"|''']'''
|-
|align="center"|''']'''
|align="center"|''']'''
|align="center"|''']'''
|align="center"|]
|align="center"|]
|}


== Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring ==


There is a discussion at ] that involves you. ] (]) 04:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
==Welcome==
Hello, '''Doctorfluffy''', and ] to Misplaced Pages. Thank you for ]. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the ''']''', where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type '''<code>{&#123;helpme}}</code>''' and your question on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
We hope you enjoy editing here and being a ]! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If you have any questions, see the ], add a question to the ] or ask me on <!-- ] (broken) --> my talk page. Again, welcome! ] 19:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


== DE / basic translations ==
==trying out my sig==
]<br \>
Test. <span style="color:darkred">]</span> 18:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
"Reverted to revision 414894728 by Doctorfluffy; not useful, we don't include translations of basic foreign words."
:Test2. ] 18:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay. But in that case, shouldn't the meanings "of" and "from" from some languages be removed from the article as well?] (]) 18:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
::Test3. ] 18:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
:::Test4. ] 18:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC) :Yes.] <small>(])</small> 18:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
::Too bad, I generally find it quite handy to find a short description of such things on disambiguation pages. Does make me wonder why you only removed my addition and not the other meanings.] (]) 00:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Test5. ] 21:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
:::I noticed your specific edit because I have the page watchlisted. I didn't clean up the entire article, but of course you can do so if you like. ] <small>(])</small> 16:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
:Back to plain sig. ] 22:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
::I agree with you; I think even when customized, simple sigs are always the best. -]<span style="font-size: smaller;"> (] · ])</span> 23:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
:::Yeah, I've been moving away from elaborate sigs on most wikis. Let people focus on what I'm saying, not how UBER L33T my sig looks. ] 23:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


== Cricothyrotomy in popular media ==
== Your edit to ] ==


Hello,
Hello. Please do not needlessly change spellings in articles from one variety of English to another. Misplaced Pages accepts both American and British English. We have a guideline on this at ]. Thanks, ] 19:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


I would like to draw your attention to the ] of the ] article, where I have explained my reasons for restoring the “Cricothyrotomy in popular media” section of that article. I hope we can, on that talk page, have a conversation about our differing points of view as it regards whether that section should be there or not. ] (]) 22:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
:I am aware of WP:ENGVAR, the first tenet of which is '''"Consistency within articles"'''. As such, since the rest of ] uses American English, I changed the spelling of "standardize" to be consistent with that version of English. It was not a needless edit. ] 20:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


== ] ==
::All right, then I'm sorry - I meant to write it in British English, but it seems my English is a patois of British and American English. I can't tell what's otherwise American about it. ] 21:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


Now I'm really intrigued - I always assumed that was ]. Can you reference it? Particularly the tier 8 multi-dimensional quantum thingy? ] (]) 19:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
==WikiLove==
Oh hi, I have to thank you for the wiki love. I appreciate your efforts on editing articals because we all want wikipedia to be better. Lets all have some smiles and love. ] 03:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)<!-- Template:smile -->


==AfDs==
I have noticed you posting rapidly in multiple AfDs lately, something I once got in trouble for last year. So, I just wanted to caution you about not repeating the mistake I made. Also, here are some other tips for discussions: you posted in a discussion; please read . You posted and ; please read . It is important to elaborate on reasons and to avoid words like "cruft" or "I don't like it" arguments. Best, --<font face="Times New Roman">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 18:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
:Thanks. I am familiar with ], but that however is only an essay, whereas many of my votes are based on ], which is actual policy. The WP:NOT collection is really just a formalization of the arguments I typically make; listcruft = ], gamecruft = ], futurecruft = ], etc. In fact, using shorthand terms ("cruft" and "per nom" included) is specifically mentioned in the ]. That said, I suppose could reference specific policies more often, instead of using the common slang that many people employ. ] 18:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
::I've looked at your !votes and noms so far, and i agree with about 3/4 of the ones on subjects I think I have some understanding about, which I is more than I do with quite a lot of people. . But I think it will add to credibility if you make it clear what sort of articles you do say keep for--just as I !vote delete about one-third of the time when I think an article deserves it and i have something particular to say. It also will help to give somewhat more extended reasons. Not only quote the policy, but explain just how the article meets them. Saying "for x-cruft" says only "I think it is ....", but if you say why you think it is, it may convince other people. It's an argument, not a vote. ''']''' (]) 00:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)



:::I wouldn't participate in an AfD where I would vote 'keep' since my primary goal is to trim down Misplaced Pages and I have only finite time. I don't like the term deletionist since it connotes forceful removal, so I generally prefer to identify myself as a . The analogy in that link is an apt one and it adequately explains my philosophy in its few sentences. This is going to sound trivial, but if I had more time, I would vote to preserve articles which are notable by my own intepretation of ], which I believe to be the most important policy here. As it stands, I believe notability is too broadly defined, but there is little I can do to change that, so I do my best to remove the "deadwood" by involving myself in AfDs and tagging articles.
== Holiday cheer ==
:::I understand your comment about credibility and fleshing out votes, but having participated in a fair number of AfDs now, they almost always degenerate into a simple listing of policies followed by the latecomers merely reiterating the votes of the first few editors. I've read many of the policies and precedents in place here and the theory of an AfD being a discussion, rather than a majority vote, is a nice one, but in practice that's rarely the case. The system evolved into its current form independently of me and I have little choice but to participate in that system as it currently exists in the way that most editors do. Besides, strictly speaking, any vote is a contribution to the discussion, even if contains no rationale whatsoever. It may not sway the closing admin as much, but it still let's them know that there is one more person who has a sufficiently strong opinion about the matter to cast a vote. Thanks to technology, that only takes a moment, but traditionally an official declaration of one's viewpoint "on paper" is rather weighty in the eyes of authorities. ] 01:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

{| style="border: 3px solid red; background-color: #FFFAF0;"

|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | ]

|rowspan="2" |

|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''Holiday Cheer'''

|-

|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 2px solid blue;" | ''']''' '']'' is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes ], and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a ] and a ], whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings.

|}

== ] ==

With you removed several refences and a {{tl|refimprove}} tag, leaving the article unreferenced. I did a fair bit of research around this a while back: I could find references (added to the article) for tiers 0-7, but none for the negative tiers or the >8 tiers. Do you have any references for these, because on the face of it these tiers look like ], and without a comment accompanying the edit I can't see the logic in reverting to an unreferenced version of the article. ] (]) 12:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

== Proposed deletion of Zoe (talking and emoting head) ==

Thanks for informing me of this. I very rarely start new articles on this project, but did so because it really took my fancy and I thought, to quote my edit summary, "Seems like a breakthrough with huge possibilities, but I have created stub from a single (reputable but possibly biased) source only, so any editors wanting to research further and improve the article are very welcome".

But... I know little about animatronics, and there must be (at least) thousands of editors here who know more about it than me. Yet, in two months, none of them has seen fit to add any further information to the article. Perhaps they have not yet noticed it, but listing it as RFD, and on your talk page, will make it more visible, and if it is still unloved after that, then it will be fairly clear that I was wrong, and it is neither notable nor of interest.

With that in mind, I will not add any new info myself (and articles entirely by one author are unhealthy anyway). So if no one else improves it within a week, it should be deleted. (Since it's so short, I will however copy it to my user talk page for my own benefit -- it still fascinates me, even if no one else is interested!)

I'm taking the liberty of correcting one error in your notice, changing "single reference is sourced from project itself" to "single reference is sourced from project's sponsor's website" which I think is more accurate. Although it's clearly based on a press release, I am fairly sure that ] do not just print any press release they're given by their researchers or JVs...which makes them more discriminating than most local papers, and for an article in a local paper, I don't think you'd say "from project itself". Revert if you disagree. ] (]) 08:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

== ] ==

{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/MassMessage}} ] (]) 17:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52/list&oldid=692057745 -->
== Bumfuck listed at ] ==
]
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ]. Since you had some involvement with the ''Bumfuck'' redirect, you might want to participate in ] if you have not already done so. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 21:58, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

== Doctor Bobert listed at ] ==
]
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ]. Since you had some involvement with the ''Doctor Bobert'' redirect, you might want to participate in ] if you wish to do so. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> –] (]]) 04:18, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
== Woof alert listed at ] ==
]
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ]. Since you had some involvement with the ''Woof alert'' redirect, you might want to participate in ] if you wish to do so. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 19:37, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 20:18, 13 February 2023

This user may have left Misplaced Pages. Doctorfluffy has not edited Misplaced Pages since December 23, 2014. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.
Archives
1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

There is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Doctorfluffy reported by Jb 007clone (talk) (Result:) that involves you. VQuakr (talk) 04:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

DE / basic translations

DE
"Reverted to revision 414894728 by Doctorfluffy; not useful, we don't include translations of basic foreign words." Okay. But in that case, shouldn't the meanings "of" and "from" from some languages be removed from the article as well?W3ird N3rd (talk) 18:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes.Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Too bad, I generally find it quite handy to find a short description of such things on disambiguation pages. Does make me wonder why you only removed my addition and not the other meanings.W3ird N3rd (talk) 00:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I noticed your specific edit because I have the page watchlisted. I didn't clean up the entire article, but of course you can do so if you like. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 16:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Cricothyrotomy in popular media

Hello,

I would like to draw your attention to the talk page of the cricothyrotomy article, where I have explained my reasons for restoring the “Cricothyrotomy in popular media” section of that article. I hope we can, on that talk page, have a conversation about our differing points of view as it regards whether that section should be there or not. Reuqr (talk) 22:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Seven tiers of disaster recovery

Now I'm really intrigued - I always assumed that this was nonsense. Can you reference it? Particularly the tier 8 multi-dimensional quantum thingy? Mcewan (talk) 19:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


Holiday cheer

Holiday Cheer
Michael Q. Schmidt is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings.

Seven tiers of disaster recovery

With this edit you removed several refences and a {{refimprove}} tag, leaving the article unreferenced. I did a fair bit of research around this a while back: I could find references (added to the article) for tiers 0-7, but none for the negative tiers or the >8 tiers. Do you have any references for these, because on the face of it these tiers look like a hoax, and without a comment accompanying the edit I can't see the logic in reverting to an unreferenced version of the article. 82.70.49.110 (talk) 12:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Zoe (talking and emoting head)

Thanks for informing me of this. I very rarely start new articles on this project, but did so because it really took my fancy and I thought, to quote my edit summary, "Seems like a breakthrough with huge possibilities, but I have created stub from a single (reputable but possibly biased) source only, so any editors wanting to research further and improve the article are very welcome".

But... I know little about animatronics, and there must be (at least) thousands of editors here who know more about it than me. Yet, in two months, none of them has seen fit to add any further information to the article. Perhaps they have not yet noticed it, but listing it as RFD, and on your talk page, will make it more visible, and if it is still unloved after that, then it will be fairly clear that I was wrong, and it is neither notable nor of interest.

With that in mind, I will not add any new info myself (and articles entirely by one author are unhealthy anyway). So if no one else improves it within a week, it should be deleted. (Since it's so short, I will however copy it to my user talk page for my own benefit -- it still fascinates me, even if no one else is interested!)

I'm taking the liberty of correcting one error in your notice, changing "single reference is sourced from project itself" to "single reference is sourced from project's sponsor's website" which I think is more accurate. Although it's clearly based on a press release, I am fairly sure that CUED do not just print any press release they're given by their researchers or JVs...which makes them more discriminating than most local papers, and for an article in a local paper, I don't think you'd say "from project itself". Revert if you disagree. Enginear (talk) 08:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Bumfuck listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Bumfuck. Since you had some involvement with the Bumfuck redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Nowak Kowalski (talk) 21:58, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Doctor Bobert listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Doctor Bobert. Since you had some involvement with the Doctor Bobert redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 04:18, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Woof alert listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Woof alert. Since you had some involvement with the Woof alert redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 19:37, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Categories: