Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:52, 3 June 2009

linkies: cleanup tags RfA csd criteria monobook newbies needy cleanup ] request >1 year whitelist lame new users

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Thank you...

Thank you for your support

Unfortunately, my RFA was closed recently with a final tally of 75½/38/10. Though it didn't succeed, I wanted to thank you for your support and I hope I can count on it in the future. Even though it didn't pass, it had a nearly 2 to 1 ratio of support and I am quite encouraged by those results. I intend to review the support, oppose, and neutral !votes and see what I can do to address those concerns that were brought up and resubmit in a few months. If you would like to assist in my betterment and/or co-nominate me in the future, please let me know on my talk page. Special thanks go to Schmidt, , TomStar81, and henrik for their co-nominations and support. — BQZip01 —

Thankspam bugs

I see you're fixing the </ div> that was left off the table. It's also shifting all later conversations to the right (an example). There's a misplaced </ span>, but that doesn't seem to be causing it. Any ideas? Shubinator (talk) 12:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'll see if I can figure out what's doing it. Shubinator (talk) 12:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Still not exactly sure what's causing it, but putting a {{-}} at the end fixes it (unfortunately leaves a lot of white space too). I've fixed it at the example above, you can see if it works for you. Shubinator (talk) 12:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The indent stops anyway after a few lines - Kingpin (talk) 12:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

There, that's all of them. No problem. Shubinator (talk) 12:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

It's caused by the left-floating image which is position-relatived a bit towards the top. For some reason, browsers seem to reserve the space where the floating toaster would normally be.
Tables FTW. :) Amalthea 13:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, you messed this up a bit. Oh well. Here's your sysop trophy btw.

Stifle (talk) 13:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• Now that the two toaster images are deleted, the thankspam doesn't display properly. You might want to upload placeholder images to fix that. On a side note, you should register User:Flying Toaster and redirect here. –xeno 15:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • well,you did give us all the most noticeable thankspam of the year (smile). DGG (talk) 16:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose for most excessively-attention-grabbing thankspam ever! ;) ~ mazca 16:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Deserved. FlyingToaster 19:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Spacing outside the box doesn't concern me, but I got the message centered in the box by changing "top: -176px" to "top: -216px" (diff). — Athaenara ✉ 20:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

There have been some wilder ones! Some of them are in my talk archive 000 (my vote for all time greatest thankspam ever goes to Victuallers' image map). — Athaenara ✉ 20:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Clear background2.gif

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Clear background2.gif, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --the wub "?!" 13:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

And File:Flyingtoaster star.gif too. the wub "?!" 13:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I've speedily deleted both images under F9 - Unambiguous copyright infringement. You may have done the work to piece them together, yes, but that does not grant you the right to release the images under a new license. I'm dismayed to see such blatant ignorance of our Fair Use policy to be displayed by a new administrator, honestly. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, it was pretty blatant. The only reason I didn't speedy is to give a chance to clean up. Please be more careful in future Flying Toaster, I realise that one was uploaded a while back but you really should have known better than uploading the second one today. I suggest you read up on copyright and non-free content policy. the wub "?!" 15:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

From what I understand of the image description, she drew them both herself, but they are clear derivatives. Not sure if the "parody" argument holds up. I'm sure if she drew flying toasters which looked a lot more unlike the AfterDark ones, she would be ok? –xeno 15:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd be absolutely okay with it; they just looked exactly like the "modern" (almost a decade old now, heh) updates to the flying toasters module. (I'll try to find a better screenshot to compare against, though) EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I know that there are clones of the Flying Toaster screensaver available as free downloads, and although they're copyrighted, they're not copyrighted by Berkeley Software and as far as I know Berkeley Software has no objection to their existence. (example) I am unfamiliar with the details of Wikimedia's copyright policy and therefore am not sure if this knowledge changes the situation in any way but I am offering it in the case that it might enable FT to bring back the banner or some variation of it that doesn't violate any copyrights. Soap /_{Contributions} 15:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's a screenshot of the "modern" flying toasters module. There's absolutely no doubt in my mind that it's a direct copy (specifically, compare File:Flyingtoaster star.gif to the large toaster in the bottom/middle of the image. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it would appear so. –xeno 15:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

From my knowledge of the screensaver and its history, I'd say if it's a copyvio of anything it's probably of the original screensaver from 1989, since I believe the "big" toaster in the modern image is just an exact copy of that original while the baby stuff is new. But I'm not disputing that the images were copypastes of a copyrighted screen saver, or arguing that the images shouldn't have been deleted; I'm just trying to search for a possible way forward that would lead to the re-creation of the images without violating any copyrights. Perhaps the best thing to would be to find out if there would be any possibility of deletion if she makes toaster images that don't much resemble the Berkeley originals. Soap /_{Contributions} 15:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Soap, on the page you linked to it says "Currently download links are not enabled by request of Vivendi". Vivendi is the company that now owns Berkeley Systems. Also see the lawsuit mentioned in After Dark. But even if they weren't actively enforcing their copyrights, we still have no excuse to violate them. the wub "?!" 15:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I didn't realize Vivendi had anything to do with Sierra and/or Berkeley Systems. Soap /_{Contributions} 15:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey everyone. EVula is right about that screenshot. To be honest, I did a lot of animation awhile ago and have had this image in my graphic asset collection for years - I actually thought I'd made it or most of it, and honestly didn't think it was a screenshot from anything. Certainly my version of Flying Toasters from the 90's looked much different! But EVula's link makes it really clear, so I can only apologize and say I'll (maybe) make a new one that's a real departure from anything published later. FlyingToaster 16:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

If you can quickly whip up some (non copyvio) images and upload them to the exact same names as the old files, that'll be the fastest (and easiest) way to instantly restore the thankspam. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

← The new blank spacer version still shows the old thumbnail, guess that's cached? –xeno 17:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, try clearing your cache, it's gone. FlyingToaster 17:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

ah yes, it's gone now. p.s. you should adopt the reply-in-place methodology. jmho!~ –xeno 17:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

You know, I think I'll give it a try. FlyingToaster 17:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Gotta say, File:Clear background2.gif is pretty damn nifty. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you think it's worth one more pass-through to remove all the links to File:Flyingtoaster star.gif, since it is entirely transparent, and its code is causing whitespace issues on some browsers? It would just take a few minutes with AWB. Also, do you think either of the files should be renamed? Soap /_{Contributions} 20:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

AFD nominations

Hey FlyingToaster. Your /created list was brought to my attention and I was dismayed to see it contained non-notable BLPs. Three of them don't appear to be notable, thus have been nominated for deletion.

• Articles for deletion nomination of Jett Loe
• Articles for deletion nomination of Philip Morrow
• Articles for deletion nomination of Mike Beltzner

Regards, لennavecia 14:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, Francis L. K. Hsu, was recently marked as a copyright violation. You didn't create the article and the plagiarism was there from the start, but it is your 7th-most-edited article. At least one other article you did create follows one of the sources "very closely". That's why I suggested getting feedback through DYK with a few articles. Gimmetrow 16:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

One of the most edited because I added a billion categories. :) FlyingToaster 17:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Beltzer, at least, I think is clearly notable. the others are too far out of my field. DGG (talk) 16:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

mistakes are inevitable

and I'm sure you know to simply fix them and learn from them. There is only one kind of mistake which is unfixable, which is one that chases away a new editor, because they usually can't even be reached to apologize--and i don't think you'll be making that one at least. DGG (talk) 17:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Sweet, there's a mistake I'm not making! ;) FlyingToaster 17:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Note

Seems to be a busy day for you. This is a courtesy note re Misplaced Pages:ANI#User:FlyingToaster RfA... –xeno 20:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll admit, first 24 hours as admin haven't been much fun. Thanks so much for the link, Xeno. FlyingToaster 20:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I know, you have my sympathy. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks error?

Hi! I tried updating your RfA thanks template at User:A_Nobody#Barnstars.2C_cookies.2C_smiles.2C_and_thanks, but something doesn't seem right. If you have a chance, could you please correct the error? Thanks! Sincerely, --A Nobody 20:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. FlyingToaster 20:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Sincerely, --A Nobody 21:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

One to look at

Hi. I went to look at User talk:Peter Damian just to see if there was any clarification as to which articles he might find concerning. Based on User:iridescent's comments there, I've blanked Glencree Centre for Peace and Reconciliation for the moment. I've compared and do see duplication, and I can't find any indication that they have licensing compatible to ours, though perhaps I've missed it. That's the only specific article listed there. Hopefully, he'll prove to be mistaken for the most and part and this will prove easy to resolve. --Moonriddengirl 02:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, Moonriddengirl. I'll begin the complete rewrite of that article in userspace. FlyingToaster 02:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I have given the full list on my talk page, and on WP:BN.

WP:BN

I have raised the issue at WP:BN. My concern is more about your claims of 156 articles you created, during an election where content creation was an issue. You did say that 'some of them' were DABs, but you did not mention that over 40 were mere copies from other internet sources, nor that many of them were DABs or stubs. Perhaps you could break down that figure of 156 into something that is more transparent? Peter Damian (talk) 06:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice, Peter. I provided a list of articles on my RfA so that they would be reviewed, and I mentioned highlights precisely because of the stubs and disambiguation. As I said in my RfA, "As I said in my introduction, rather than writing very long, epic GAs and FAs, I enjoy creating shorter requested articles which can be expanded in time by those passionate about the subject." Thanks, FlyingToaster 06:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Well then please provide a breakdown into which were DAB pages, which were the Roumanian generals and other 'copied' articles, and which were actual articles written and sourced properly by yourself. That would be the honourable thing to do. In your RfA, you said only that 'some of them are stubs'. That in my view is grossly misleading, given that most of them were stubs. You do understand the difference between 'some' and 'most', do you? Peter Damian (talk) 06:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Peter, you do understand the difference between firm but polite questioning, and patronizing and rude badgering, do you? Tim Vickers (talk) 19:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

More article problems, and the larger issue

I'm sorry to make the yellow bar light up again at the top of your talk page and hope I don't cause you any stress, but the more I look into your articles the more concerned I am. I say this as someone who, as far as I can recall, has never interacted with you in the past. You probably also saw my general concern posted here on ANI. Note that that I'm not interested in rehashing the particulars of the RfA (in which I did not participate) or talking about IRC and the like. My concern is with your article work and the degree to which this affects community confidence in you as an admin.

From this list I took a look at some of the "flux" articles which all appear in a row starting at 118 (please note that I know nothing of any of these topics). Momentum flux is a copyvio from here. Sure, you cited it, but you are still plagiarizing, as when you say "It can be associated with either mean velocity components, internal gravity waves, or with turbulent velocity fluctuations. For turbulence, the momentum flux is also called the Reynolds stresses. For waves, momentum flux is related to mountain wave drag" and the source says "Momentum flux can be associated with either mean velocity components, internal gravity waves, or with turbulent velocity fluctuations. For turbulence, the momentum flux is also called the Reynolds stress. For waves, it is related to mountain wave drag." Radiative flux plagiarizes an article from the journal Applied Optics (actually it only plagiarizes from the abstract, which suggests you did not look at the actual article). There is also some copying at Chemical flux, and in addition over there you have cited answers.com as a source which is not something we really do here.

One of your sources for Volumetric flux seems to be a blog talking up a software program called "Unit Converter EX" which does various unit conversions. In the context of basically saying "check out this product," the blog mentions some units which relate to volumetric flux, apparently, and then you mentioned those units in our article. Citing that source seems to me largely along the lines of citing an advertisement, and obviously we don't do that either. Please note that these are just the first few articles I happened to look at on your list since they all seemed related.

I have not done anything with these articles because quite simply I don't know how to fix them short of blanking them (I already basically blanked Homeokinetics) but obviously they need to be fixed and soon.

As I said on ANI I consider this a major issue (i.e. articles based on copyvios/plagiarism) which relates directly to your fitness for adminship, a status which you have obviously recently achieved. I would ask you to consider the fact that, had the points I've raised here and on ANI been raised in your RFA, the odds are extremely good that you would not have passed. The fact that they have only come to light now is, in a sense, merely coincidental, and whatever happens now I hope you take the views of the community to heart even though the RfA concluded successfully (maybe I'll be the only one who sees a big problem here, who knows). Responding to me here on your talk page is obviously completely optional for you, but I would like to hear your rationale as to why someone who seems to have committed obvious plagiarism (I'm sure quite unintentionally) is a good representative, in this case an administrator, on a project that is writing an encyclopedia. I seriously hope that this does not come across as too harsh because I know you are very much a good faith and constructive contributor here, but I did feel it necessary to put these points to you directly. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I only checked one article but the section titled Wolff's view on developing an ars inveniendi is almost identical to the text on this uncited page. The paragraph before that looks like it came from the same source too. This was literally the only article from from your created list that I checked. Is this a systemic problem? David D. (Talk) 19:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Groan. It's even worse than that. The article says "Christian Wolff wrote that a semiotically classified representation of philosophical sciences ..." which is completely plagiarised from here , as you say. But what FT has failed to spot is that the paragraph in question was by Arndt Hans Werner, "Die Semiotik Christian Wolffs als Propädeutik der ars characteristica combinatoria und der ars inveniendi,", so it wasn't Wolff who used those words at all. This is not just plagiarising, it is lazy plagiarising. Peter Damian (talk) 19:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Hang on in there toaster!!

This will all calm down in a few days. Im sure you're too cool a toaster to get stressed by any of this, but possibly as someone who cares about the good of the community you might decide the best thing to do is to resign if only to put an end to the drama. Wed all respect you if you did, but I very much hope you wont – the community needs friendly and helpful admins like yourself. I know you wont see yourself as the culpable for this; the brightest light casts the deepest shadows . But this is reasonable disciplined environment and they can only harass you for so long before they risk getting banned. Some good will come out of this is it results in the guidelines being clarified so editors can be more aware of the apparently narrow golden path between OR / synth and plagiarism. I get the impression certain editors had private conceptions about this but its not be sufficiently emphasised publicly. In short any early mistakes you may have made here seem easily understandable, and overall you’ll clearly be a valuable asset as an admin. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

You might want to rethink how you worded that Feyd. I don't know who "they" are, but my comment is directly above and I certainly do not think it constitutes harassment in the slightest, and indeed I'm not sure I've seen any comments that are truly harassing. These are serious issues we are talking about, and while it's great that you're sticking up for an editor you are friendly with during a stressful time, please don't cast vague, general aspersions on other editors (including other admins) who are pointing out editing patterns that are clearly problematic. Thanks. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that Bigtime, I'll be more careful next time. I wasnt thinking of your comment, which definetly wasnt harassment, and I've no reason to think most of those currently on FTs case don't have the encyclopedia's best interests at heart. As you say theres a serious issue here, and I very much hope it gets clarified for the benefit of other editors. There's been a couple of times when I've took a sentence direct from a source myself and just changed a couple of words; until today I thought those were the parts of my contribution where I was most compliant with policy! PS - as I have a jealous girlfriend I better clarify that Im not friendly with FlyingToaster and nor do I intend to be, I wouldnt even have looked at her RFA if she hadnt chanced to make a good edit on my watchlist. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Another 'hang in there' terrorist fist-bump from me. I've seen the tons of good you do around here. Whatever comes out of the current balagan, that good work means a lot to me. Gonzonoir (talk) 15:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

No Problem

Plesure is all mine, Thanks for the banner too! , Congrads on getting through :D James'ööders 11:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Momentum flux

Dear FT,

Momentum flux, an article you started, is a copyright violation. AdjustShift (talk) 13:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Now deleted. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 18:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Vandalism ahoy

Thanks for the advice on reverting vandalism, I'm doing my best to discern vandalism levels.

TheSavageNorwegian 19:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Your RfA thanks message

I had to add an extra closing div tag to your RfA thanks message fix my talk page alignment. Also, the messages below it are moved a bit to the right for some reason. Would you mind fixing this because I can't figure out how. Thanks. Timmeh!_{(review me)} 20:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. FlyingToaster 20:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Timmeh!_{(review me)} 20:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

It looks great, by the way. :) LITTLEMOUNTAIN5 02:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Re: Vandalism Ahoy

So, If I find that another person has given someone their last warning, how do I block them?

TheSavageNorwegian 20:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Cool, thanks! I'll get right on it!

TheSavageNorwegian 20:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Have a nice wikibreak, I'll be taking one this weekend.

TheSavageNorwegian 12:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Community sanctions

See WP:ANI. I have requested a community sanction against you. This is nothing personal as we've never met before that I can remember. It is a simple fact that if you've been plagiarizing articles, you have no business being an administrator. Your best bet is to resign, fix the errors, and come back later. I'd even support you if you show a willingness to learn and grow. First you demonstrate responsibility, then you get powers; not the other way around. Thank you. Kind regards, Jehochman 22:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI if you're wondering where the thread went, it was zapped. the wub "?!" 22:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I predict that it will reappear in a more serious form in a more serious venue. FlyingToaster, can you answer me point blank whether you wrote those articles yourself or copied them from somewhere else (maybe paraphrased)? Jehochman 22:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Straits of Corfu

I just tagged Straits of Corfu, an article you created in December 2008, as a copyvio. It's far too close to the sources, to the point of duplicating obvious errors (what does "seized" the Security Council mean?). I have to say I'm extremely disappointed in what I've seen since you showed up on my radar, and depressingly I suspect the harder people look, the more of these are going to appear. I'm not normally one for harsh words, but I must add my voice to those urging you to resign your adminship. the wub "?!" 22:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

And Gertrude Comfort Morrow, which I speedy deleted as even more blatant. the wub "?!" 22:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. FlyingToaster 23:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Most of the articles in question were created at least six months ago; it's entirely possible that FT lacked sufficient knowledge at that time regarding copyright, and it doesn't reflect her current behavior. Personally, I find it unfair that so many editors are advising her to resign, when she's done nothing untoward with the tools themselves. –Juliancolton |  23:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that she somehow forgot what she'd done six months ago? --Malleus Fatuorum 01:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It is totally a problem that she claimed to have written articles which were actually copied. The order of operations should be, 1/ make mistakes, 2/ recognize and correct own mistakes, 3/ wait a decent amount of time, 4/ go to RFA. If FlyingToaster wants to have my respect, she needs to resign, fix the mistakes, wait a reasonable amount of time, and then go back to RFA. Jehochman 03:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Completely agree. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Deleting articles

Since you seem unwilling to stand for re-confirmation or give up your newly acquired tools, please don't delete any articles. Your repeated plagiarism and copyright violations lead me to question your ability to correctly apply policy in regards to content. AniMate 00:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I gladly offer my record of speedy deletion for scrutiny. FlyingToaster 00:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I would love to look over your record, but like several other users I am currently going through your contributions looking for plagiarism. AniMate 00:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

If I may interject - I am not going through your contributions, but I am aware of the stress that you are going through and I can understand this is a trying time. If there is anything I can do to help relieve the pressure you are experiencing, feel free to call on me. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Really, saying "don't delete anything" is completely the wrong approach, FlyingToaster used to do NPP (very well I think), and if she comes across something (or finds it as a result of looking) that should be deleted, there is no reason at all, that she shouldn't go ahead and delete it. Please don't ask or discourage editors (or admins) from being bold - Kingpin (talk) 05:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Kingpin13, sysop tools are not to be used boldly. Please refrain from giving out bad advice. Bold admins eventually get -sysop.Jehochman 11:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, she doesn't seem to (from what I've seen, and I admittedly can't see deleted contribs) have any problems with CSD, so simply because she's made mistakes in another area, isn't cause to tell her not to continue her work in CSD. And I don't understand what you're saying about not having bold admins, surely admins should be bold? By "be bold" I'm talking about WP:BOLD, which also says "but please be careful", obviously I'm not saying "be reackless", I'm saying, "when you can do something good, do it". - Kingpin (talk) 14:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Request for arbitration

I've added your name to a request for arbitration. Jehochman 14:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I have nothing to say regarding Giano, except to wish him well and ask that he be treated with the respect every person deserves. FlyingToaster 18:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll be preparing a separate request for arbitration. Jehochman 18:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Beg your pardon?

You made mistakes, you were fixing them, and now you're letting the bullies win? I'm disappointed. //roux   18:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm doing what I think is best for the community and myself. It wasn't an easy decision. Particularly because of incredible people like you, roux. FlyingToaster 18:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Best for the community is standing up to the petty tyrannies of petty tyrants. Best for you is up to you, but I think you are making a fundamentally wrong decision. All the best in any case.//roux   18:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd like to name those "petty tyrants" and "bullies"? --Malleus Fatuorum 19:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

That's a laugh. //roux   19:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Please, I'm begging people not to start again. This isn't a case of "petty tyrants," it's a reflection of the will of the community. And I can only serve with the will of the community. I'm leaving partially because I think this community needs to heal and redefine itself, and that needs to happen without me. FlyingToaster 19:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you are mistaking a vocal and histrionics-prone miniscule minority for 'the will of the community.' People make mistakes. Unfortunately on Misplaced Pages, the ravening hordes pounce on any weakness whatsoever, while remaining obstinately blind about their own. My question is, how is this place supposed to redefine itself when the intelligent and thoughtful people keep leaving? When the voices of reason are so quickly and effectively silenced, how can WP even slow the circling around the bowl, let alone find ways to get better? //roux   19:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

That would be an excellent start, but by definition the remaining people don't care; they're getting their way, so people like you leaving is a net benefit from their perspective. It's tragic, but this is the trajectory of almost any long-running net community. MeFi is the sole exception Ive seen. I had hoped you'd be able to help stem the tide here. //roux   19:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I strongly suggest that you withdraw the accusation you just made in your edit summary roux. It does you no credit. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a quote about finding solutions and taking ownership; "If not now, when? If not you, who?" I strongly suggest you apologise for assuming bad faith. //roux   19:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Your dishonesty does you even less credit than your hypocrisy. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Dishonesty? What the fuck are you talking about? See this google search for the quote in question. I was referring to FT saying the community needs to redefine itself and pointing out that if she as an intelligent person felt she wouldn't be part of that, then who would? I await your apologies for the assumption of bad faith and accusations of lying. //roux   20:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't hold your breath. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

So just to be perfectly clear: you expect me to retract an accusation which I never made, when I pointed out you were wrong you point-blank called me a liar, and yet I shouldn't expect you to apologise? And you had the gall to call me a hypocrite... //roux   20:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

But I'm a petty tyrant and a bully aren't I? What else can you expect of such a sad excuse for a person? --Malleus Fatuorum 22:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

To paraphrase one of my favourite books: I displayed a garment for general fit and you claim it is tailored for you. Quite educational, and of course I realise that this posturing of yours is merely bluster at having come out with guns blazing only to end up with egg on your face. Still, if this is how you wish to be perceived, by all means go ahead. For future reference, generally when an adult makes accusations about dishonesty and is quite conclusively proven wrong he will apologise, or at the very least retract the completely unsubstantiated allegations. That you choose not to is likewise educational. //roux   01:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

<< I'm so sorry to see you be hounded from the project, like this. Please do consider coming back; nobody had any business bullying you in the way that they did; they set upon you, piled onto you; it was horrible to watch, and I understand how you "saw another side of Misplaced Pages" on the receiving end of it. But I'm confident that this will be sorted out. Try coming back in a month, and I'm sure it will have blown over; the way you've behaved over this is likely to earn you a lot of support should you wish to try for adminship again - hopefully enough to outweigh the opposition drummed up by the "petty tyrants" (wonderful phrase, by the way, Roux). ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 19:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

What running away when the first bit of shit starts to fly. All pat yourselfs on the back with superb comments like "petty tyrants" nice bit of bullying. BigDunc 20:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

"Petty tyrants" is not a "wonderful phrase," it's a clear (if vaguely directed) personal attack. Why anyone would think writing that is a good idea, or why anyone would champion someone who wrote it, utterly eludes me. "Histrionics-prone miniscule minority" isn't very friendly either, nor very accurate, since in one sub-thread alone over at BN I counted 14 or 15 editors who thought FT should resign the bit, including multiple admins, and including one or two people who considered her a friend. And no one, no one, hounded FT from the project. That is an outlandish claim. You seem to have confused "I don't think you should be an admin because of some serious issues with copyright" with "go away and never come back." Lots of people have said the former, no one (that I've seen) the latter, and indeed most everyone who expressed concerns simply said resign for now, work on these issues, and try again for RfA later. Both TreasuryTag and roux are doing FlyingToaster a disservice here by framing this entire issue as though it were some sort of witch hunt, instead of one where many members of the community expressed very legitimate concerns about an editor in a usually (but not always) polite manner. I was one of the very first people to call for FT to step down, and as I said on BN I think it took courage and character for her to do so, and I would hope that she would return to editing and maybe even run again some day. I'm impressed by how FT has handled this situation in the end, and I'm sure I'm not the only person who felt she should step down who feels that way. It's worth pointing that out here I think. TT and roux I'm not so impressed by (nor BigDunc for that matter), but I'll say nothing more about that here. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

"usually (but not always) polite" - I think you and I were reading different versions of BN. The ringleaders absolutely made it a witchhunt, and FT was unequivocally bulllied off the project. She was given precious little opportunity to defend herself, particularly because any defence she made fell on deaf ears--yours most prominently, in fact. Meanwhile the cries of 'burn her' kept getting louder and louder, not even giving her room to breathe. As Hiberniantears said, the lot of you should be ashamed of yourselves. //roux   20:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I did not intend my post to be taken as an attack on FT and I apologise if it is construed as one. I was pointing out what I feel is the hypocrisy of certain editors who cry bullying and bully themselves, again apologies to FT.BigDunc 20:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh please. //roux   20:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Roux I don't give a flying fuck what you think my apologie was not intended for you if FT wishes to not accept it that is her perogative so cop on to yourself. BigDunc 20:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, another great editor hounded off the project. My sympathies. Stifle (talk) 09:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Imbroglio

Hi FT. I don't think we've crossed paths before - though I've seen some of the excellent anti-vandalism work you've been doing and so it was an easy call to support your RfA. FWIW, I think the manner in which you've been treated is neither right nor understandable by me. I'm sure that there are many editors who've been watching this imbroglio with the same horror as I have been and just wanted you to know there is at least one person who is seriously disappointed with this community right now. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 19:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

As a relatively new editor, I never had the fortune to cross paths with you, but I can agree with RegentsPark. It's a shame to have to loose someone who already has, but could have done so much for Misplaced Pages as a whole. Hopefully one day you can come back with the same spirit that you held before this mess. I wish you the best of luck in the future. Jozal 19:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Friendly note

It's unfortunate that things ended up the way they did. If you want to talk, you know where I am. You have my best wishes. Acalamari 19:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, it’s very very sad how this went. I really do hope that you’ll be back at some point. Meanwhile, I wish you all the very best. :) — Aitias // discussion 20:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Toast, I don't know the whole story behind this, but I thank you for all your help. I believe that I would have quit Misplaced Pages after a few days if not for your feedback. Thank you for the Rollback rights, I look forward to learning how to use them. I too, hope you come back someday. Sincerely, TheSavageNorwegian 20:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Yikes, I didn't realize that rollback was That easy! Thanks!

TheSavageNorwegian 20:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your civility unusually sincere politeness, humility, and kindness throughout what must have been a very trying process for you. Misplaced Pages could use more cooperative personalities like yours. While the extent of copyvio was exceptionally bad, your handling of the matter when called out was also exceptional, and I value that willingness above other matters. When I evaluate people in any workplace, I try to keep this in mind: "Tasks can be taught, attitude can't." You have a great attitude, the type that can multiply it's value by drawing others in to contribute. It's nice to encounter people like you in the world. Best wishes. Mishlai (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

You did the right thing. I don't think you are a bad person in any way, and you always meant the best for Misplaced Pages and its inhabitants. You just didn't understand some fundamental things. It is us all, as a community, that failed to teach you that properly, and especially failed to check things through during the RfA. It would have been much better if we found those issues during the RfA, failed it, and you had gotten a chance to improve. Instead we got this drama, and we are all at fault. I don't think you should leave Misplaced Pages all together. Don't work towards adminship or for the praise of others, work for yourself and the world. To me, you are welcome to stay, learn from your mistakes, and continue contributing. --Apoc2400 (talk) 20:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

FT, the community has done you a great disservice. Civility is as much an admin virtue as honesty, so it is indeed ironic that some people who questioned your honesty used such uncivil and hateful means to communicate their point of view. I am appalled at the meanness, spitefulness and trolling activities of some of the editors here on both sides of the issues at hand. You handled yourself commendably throughout.

I cannot imagine how awful and grueling this whole thing has been for you. When and if you decide to get at this project in your own unique way, I and many others will welcome you and be more than happy to assist you enjoy Misplaced Pages with you. Cheers for now, Kingturtle (talk) 20:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I do hope we'll see more of you again in future, FT. I wouldn't wish the experience you've had in the last few days on anyone, let alone a dedicated, well-intentioned contributor such as yourself. While there's no doubt you've made some mistakes; the level of spiteful, vicious trolling that some users have inflicted upon you and the project was entirely unwarranted. I thought I'd seen stressful RfA experiences before... but this one crossed into new, unwelcome terrain. My sincere best wishes for the future, whether or not you choose to come back. ~ mazca 22:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I want to say only that I hope you come back soon also, though I can understand why you would want a break for a while.DGG (talk) 22:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Brooklyln accent

I put the speedy deletion template in Brooklyln accent since it's obviously a typo and there already exists a redirect for the correctly spelled Brooklyn accent. Why did you remove it? Jms2000 (talk) 22:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I've deleted it under criterion 3 of Misplaced Pages:Criteria for speedy deletion#Redirects as it's not a likely typo. Even if someone does search for "Brooklyln accent" New York dialect is at the top of the list of results. I presume FT misread what the title of the page was, I did initially. Nev1 (talk) 22:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Redirects from typos are useful too. Redirects are cheap, so why not? --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

In this particular case keeping it would be A Bad Thing because the alphabetization code of the MediaWiki software would mean someone typing "Brookly…" into the search bar would see the mis-spelling in the popup-list before Brooklyn itself. – iridescent 22:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Because it's not an especially likely typo, and doesn't get much traffic (I suspect most of that is from bots etc). Nor is it necessary when "New York dialect (redirect Brooklyn accent)" is the first result that comes up when you search for "Brooklyln accent". If you feel it's worthwhile I suggest you reinstate it and perhaps add a few more such as Brookklyn accent, Brookylyn accent, etc. Nev1 (talk) 22:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Your leave

I would just like to state that I'm totally in agreement with Roux. I hope after a cooling off period (for everyone here), you'll seriously reconsider coming back. I hope this situation serves as an example to the community of what such harassment towards one editor can lead to; a loss of a valuable contributor.

You've handled everything these past few weeks with honest answers and general cooperativeness. That's all we could ask of you. To Central California, Killiondude (talk) 22:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Please, think about this. — neuro 22:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

cheers!

–Juliancolton |  has bought you a pint! Sharing a pint is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a pint, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Cheers!

You've behaved commendably throughout this ordeal, and I, like others, sincerely hope you return with your head clear and your chin up. You have loads of support here—from friends and complete strangers alike. –Juliancolton |  23:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Julian manages to express it perfectly (he often does). While the allegations and the mistakes you made are grave, the way you tried to keep a cool head for so long while the community around you went berserk is commendable. I, too, hope you will return once you feel ready to. Regards SoWhy 08:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Good luck

I'm sorry to hear that you're leaving us, at least for a while. For what its worth, even though I didn't !vote in your RfA, I still think its a raw deal that you're getting. You should not have been treated like this. All the best to you, and I hope to see you activate soon, once the drama clears. Firestorm 23:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Your break

You said I'm leaving partially because I think this community needs to heal and redefine itself, and that needs to happen without me. Well, take a break and in the near future if you feel up to the task maybe you can help redefine the wiki. Just don't let what happened stop you from returning. Synergy 23:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

I was shocked and saddened when I heard about your "semi retirement". You're not an editor with whom I've had many interactions since we seem to have varied interests but, from your reputation, your RfA and from what I learned from other editors and whatnot, you were (are) an asset to the project. Shit happens, but I really hope you'll pick yourself up and rejoin us in the not too distant future. Kind regards, HJMitchell You rang? 00:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Be well

Take as much time as you need to focus on what is valuable to you, and always remember that you are welcome here. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Your semi-retirement

Hi FT. While we have never directly engaged in dialogue, I've seen your hard work against vandalism, and I truly believe that you would have made a great administrator, hence my immediate support of your RfA. If it makes a difference, I agree with several of the other editors in that the way you were treated was unjust. From the beginning, I truly believe it was a witch hunt. You were given minimal time to defend yourself before succumbing to the calls to give up your adminship. I stand as one of the editors that watched in horror as this situation escalated, eventually forcing you to retire from editing. While i remain seriously disappointed with the wikipedia community, I want you to know that you still have friends among the editors, and that we support you now, more than ever, after the way you handled this situation. Thanks, Ono (talk) 02:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more with what Ono has said, Misplaced Pages will be something less without you editing here, Spitfire 04:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree as well. I never interacted with you personally, but I've seen you around. I hope that you find what you're looking for and decide to come back one day. :) Either way I wish you all the best. :) --T'Shael MindMeld 06:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Ditto. Come back soon! LITTLEMOUNTAIN5 17:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Moral support. Thanks for your good contributions. Don't let setbacks, frustrations and challenges get in your way. Shit happens. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

My respect...

...for you has just shot right up. You did the right thing by resigning adminship, in my opinion. Even if you were the witch in a very public witch hunt, your judgement in knowing now is the time to take a break is admirable and a quality I like to see in any user. Remember though: adminship is no big deal. You can still do so much for this project without a delete button. I hope we all remember that. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 09:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

seconded. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with most of the 8 threads above. A hardworking and helpful admin like yourself would have been a great benefit to our mission, both with your own improvements and as your fun and caring nature would have helped you develop the skills of journeyman editors, not of course that you wasnt already doing that without the tools. Still I now think you've made the best choice to step back. I was wrong to try and encourage you otherwise; from your steady composure at the RfA it looked like you had a higher stress threshold than is perhaps the case and Id underestimated the seriousness of the opposition.

This experience will develop your insight in a much more profound way than they teach in any school. You'll develop a deeper understanding of tragic stories and real life events – a consistent theme being how in mature organisations special interests go to great lengths to oppose promotion for thoose rare folk with a strong universal concern for helping others, especially those for whom good takes precedence over adherence to any abstract set of principles. Unless you're operating in a backwater far removed from self serving power plays , one of the few times its beneficial to have an openly good and self confident nature is in a crises. In times of crises such people can have a huge influence on events, both by leading from the front or by advising those already in high office. This holds true at all levels, all the way up to the most effective way of helping those who are struggling in life on the global scale, which is influencing economic policy. A specific example I could point to relates to the global response to the credit crunch , a few people not entirely dissimilar to yourself were able to highlight to policy makers the rare opportunity they had for fiscal socialism, and this was before the Lehman collapse which sent the markets into meltdown mode , a time where the senior consensus was still strongly free market influences , so much so that the Financial Times described the switch to the managed economy as a "stunning reversal of the orthodoxy of the past several decades". Perhaps Im making too much of this as Im gutted about whats happened, but maybe God wanted you to have this experience to give you the wisdom to do more good in other arenas later in life.

Of course , the witch-hunt / self serving opposition motivations are only part of the picture. Were it just those , Im sure youd still be a happy toasting admin – the community here is healthy enough for that. It was our misfortune that your RfA attracted multiple consilient lines of opposition. Some motivated by genuine concern for the encyclopaedia such as the copyright issue. Then theres the political fall out from past events. Also as for some "adminship is no big deal" seems to be an empty phrase , they seem to regard promotion as a badge of honour which should only be awarded to outstanding content builders, whereas in reality the tools detract from ones ability to do the most rewarding stuff here as youre expected to spend more wiki time mopping up – tools should only be a big deal to those who want to help out in that way.

I better say that some opposers were likely entirely motivated by their perception of whats in the best interests of the community, with BigTimePeace being someone falling into that category (your good advice has been taken on board BTP). To sum up Im sure good will come of this, and thanks for the exemplary way you conducted yourself throughout , and also thanks to all the good hearted folk that spoke up for you both before and after the ordeal. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Just what you want to read...

...is all over this page, so I am not going to add to that. You did your part by resigning the flag, so quitting WikiPedia seems a bit hollow to me. I don't think you are quitting, just rightfully frustrated. I (and others like me) find solace in things like WP:DGAF and (something I saw in a recent rfa) WP:BELLY. See you in a few weeks. ZabMilenko 19:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks and good luck

Hello, FlyingToaster. I think I should pop out of wikibreak mode once again given what has happened. First thank you for that lovely RfA card (your own work version!), it was one of the best I have received! I have known you for a while now and we have crossed paths a few times. The copyright issues were serious, there is no doubt about that, but I think you handled the issue fine and you have been surrounded by more drama than you in any way deserve. I respect your decision to resign your adminship, despite me supporting your RfA; I think your good attitude, which is a reason I supported your RfA in the first place, still holds true. I am sorry to hear you are semi-retiring, and like other editors above really hope you return again and show that you can get around these setbacks once you feel ready and everything has calmed down. In any case, I wish you good luck. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Damn

FT, I'm really very sorry it had to come to this. I was hoping you'd ignore Giano and his anti-IRC crap. But maybe it's for the best. The community did treat you harshly, there's really no denying that. I'm really hoping you come back soon. Best of luck. Antivenin 21:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• I was saddened by your note; it always dampens my editing that day when an established contributor pulls out of editing. I do hope you choose to stick around, but I respect your decision, and won't badger you; rather, let me simply say that you have my respect and backing. Best wishes and good luck. AGK 16:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

ThankSpam

My RfA Thank you for participating in my "RecFA", which passed with a final tally of 153/39/22. There were issues raised regarding my adminship that I intend to cogitate upon, but I am grateful for the very many supportive comments I received and for the efforts of certain editors (Ceoil, Noroton and Lar especially) in responding to some issues. I wish to note how humbled I was when I read Buster7's support comment, although a fair majority gave me great pleasure. I would also note those whose opposes or neutral were based in process concerns and who otherwise commented kindly in regard to my record. I recognise that the process itself was unusual, and the format was generally considered questionable - and I accept that I was mistaken in my perception of how it would be received - but I am particularly grateful for those whose opposes and neutrals were based in perceptions of how I was not performing to the standards expected of an administrator. As much as the support I received, those comments are hopefully going to allow me to be a better contributor to the project. Thank you. Very much. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC) ~~~~~

AfD nomination of Letter To America

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Letter To America. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Letter To America. 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) 01:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm so sorry

I was out and about last week, and I just saw this yesterday... I'm so sorry. Like I said here, when you realize your own mistakes, you become a true wikipedian. Think of this not as a failure, but as a new turn around. There will always be challenges in life but, FT, you are and always will be an admin, no matter whether you have the tools or not. ceranthor 00:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Have you gotten this before?

		Zen Garden Award for Infinite Patience
		This is for not exploding once during this whole ordeal. If you're not proud of that, I definitely am. TheSavageNorwegian 21:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

		The Admin coaching barnstar
		For all your help during my re-introduction to Misplaced Pages. TheSavageNorwegian 00:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)