User talk:Fly by Night

Year 2010
Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr
May	Jun	Jul	Aug
Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec

Year 2011
Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr
May	Jun	Jul	Aug
Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec

Welcome to my talk page. Please feel free to leave me a message regarding anything. Questions, queries and comments are always welcome. If there's anything I can help you with then do please ask. I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

RfA Reform update

Hi. It's been a little while since the last message on RfA reform, and there's been a fair amount of slow but steady progress. However, there is currently a flurry of activity due to some conversations on Jimbo's talk page.

I think we're very close to putting an idea or two forward before the community and there are at least two newer ones in the pipeline. So if you have a moment:

Have a look at the min requirement proposal and familiarise yourself with the statistics, I'd appreciate comment on where we should put the bar.
Any final comments would be appreciated on the clerks proposal.
Feedback on the two newer proposals - Pre-RfA & Wikipedia:RfA reform 2011/Sysop on request. Both are more radical reforms of RfA and might run along side the current system.

Thanks for reading and for any comments that you've now made.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 21:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Sci-Fried page has been improved... Can you tell me if I have avoided the speedy deletion....

Dreamfnder (talk) 01:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC) dreamfnder@aol.com[reply]

Your message

I think that what you have said on my talk page is wrong, more or less from start to finish, but that engaging you in a debate about policies that you appear not to understand, and policies that, as far as I can see, don't exist, and the apparent factual errors in your description of what has taken place, would not help either of us. In particular, your edit summary "Zzzz... Zzzz... Let's let the people decide. Tagged for merge." at the start of this, and the nature of the proposed merge itself, causes me to wonder whether you have at any time been taking any of this seriously at all, and whether I should even respond to you at all, because I honestly don't know what to make of any of it. James500 (talk) 04:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When you repeatedly remove requests for discussion about possible mergers from articles ([1], [2], [3], [4]), especially articles that you have written yourself then you are engaging in edit warring; as WP:EDITWAR says: "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion." Moreover, you are displaying ownership of articles. As WP:OWN says: "Any disagreements should be calmly resolved, starting with a discussion on the article talk page." By repeatedly and unilaterally removing these merge templates from articles you started then you are actively stopping any discussions taking place, and so are deliberatly acting in direct contravention of both the wording and spirit of WP:EDIT WAR and WP:OWN. This is not a matter of anyones understanding of policy, or lack of it; but a matter of fact. — Fly by Night (talk) 13:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to reply further to this thread. Under any circumstances whatsoever. No matter what you say next. I do not think that it would be constructive to do so. James500 (talk) 05:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

inre The British Guide to Showing Off

As you can tell from the AFD, I really think you were too quick to send to AFD when there were so many better guideline and policy encouraged ways to deal with the article neeeding sources... actually addressing the concerns proactively being only one of them. I am sorry if you feel my response was too strong, or my presumption that a brand new article was likely not abandoned lacked foundation, but your nomination makes it appear as if you did not research the topic nor consider alternatives. And as I have personally gone to the article to perform some minor cleanup and sourcing so as to address your concerns, will you please consider withdrawing the nomination? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello Fly by Night! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

File:Limit circle FbN.jpeg missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:Limit circle FbN.jpeg is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:34, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk Back

Hello, Fly by Night. You have new messages at Northamerica1000's talk page.
Message added 09:46, 8 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Assume Good Faith,

What I said was "I find it hard to assume good faith" NOT, "I don't assume good faith." I still think the nomination was premature and I have nothing to retract. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your right to believe the nomination was premature even though as the consensus stands, you are the only one to feel that way. However, that does still not allow you to imply that the nomination was not in good faith. I am very sad that you feel unable to retract your inappropriate comments. — Fly by Night (talk) 15:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removing AfD template

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Viktorija Rajicic. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. This is an automated message about this edit, where you removed the deletion template from an article before the deletion discussion was complete. If this message is in error, please report it. Snotbot t • c » 01:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the template after withdrawing my own nomination. — Fly by Night (talk) 17:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snotbot is an automated process, so can't understand you (here or at the AfD). See this task it's programmed to do. I think its automated message could usefully mention that it's a bot, not just that it's an automated message. But as a general rule of thumb, if you see the word "bot" in a username, it's either a bot, or it should probably be reported as a problematic username. Hope that helps. --Dweller (talk) 18:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dweller. I know that snotbot is a bot. (Hence my Help Desk post entitled Bot on the loose.) I left a message so that anyone reading my talk page would know that I'm not in the habit of removing AfD notices without die cause. — Fly by Night (talk) 20:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. --Dweller (talk) 10:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the AFD process goes, even if the nominator withdraws his nom the AFD still stands until an admin has closed it. I've seen a few AFD's closed as "Nominator withdrawn" and others left to run their full course.--Salix (talk): 11:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting. I've had a certain admin (who shall not be named) on my back a few times asking me to withdraw AfD nominations that s/he didn't agree with. I'd come to assume that if the nominator withdraws the nomination, and there' relatively little activity on the discussion page, then the AfD is closed. With the article in question: The only delete vote had been withdrawn after new evidence was given. I'd withdrawn my nom (based on that new evidence) and all of the other !votes were keep. It made sense to close the AfD. I've also seen many non-admin closures to discussions that are speedy keeps. — Fly by Night (talk) 17:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Signature

Hello Fly by Night!

Would you be so kind to remove the <span style="white-space:nowrap;"> and </span> from your signature? I am unable to see your username and talkpage links on Wikipedia:Help_desk because of that nowrap thing. Thanks in advance, Von Restorff (talk) 17:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. You're the first person to experience this problem. Maybe you will be able to remedy the situation with a slight change of browser settings. — Fly by Night (talk) 17:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. I did a bit of testing. In Chrome and IE I can see them. So I switched Ad Block Plus off, and that fixed it. I had a custom rule that disallowed white-space:nowrap! Meth is a hell of a drug. Another explanation is that I bashed enter too quickly while using the Element Hiding Helper. Von Restorff (talk) 17:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! Yes, meth is quite a drug. I recommend you Google "Peter Griffin does crystal meth". — Fly by Night (talk) 20:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Luckily I do not have a tattoo on my lower back. Von Restorff (talk) 20:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Sexting in suburbia

Hello, Fly by Night. You have new messages at Download's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello Fly By Night!

I was looking through my messages and saw one from you about the page I created, Sexting in Suburbia. Although it sounds absurd to me now, you told me that I deleted a speedy deletion notice on the page. Although I had no idea what I was doing and meant no harm, it sounds like a jerky thing for an editor to be guarding a page, regardless of its quality. I just wanted to let you know that it was a complete accident if you hadn't already assumed that but I mostly wanted to thank you for pointing that out for me and for your diligence noticing what I did. You are a great editor for Wikipedia and I aspire to get to your level of helpfulness to the site. Thanks.

Metsfreak2121, User:metsfreak2121 —Preceding undated comment added 21:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

You're really very welcome; I am glad I could help. Don't forget to sign your posts with four tildes, like this: ~~~~ — Fly by Night (talk) 22:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lorentz factor

See here. Furthermore - why don't you propose changes here on the Wikipedia talk page instead of complaining about "lack of involvement"??? You can't expect people to be constantly watching this page even for months at a time - there are so many other articles that people will look at so they'll generally miss a fairly low-importance one (such as this article). Please reply on that talk page or mine when you can - anyway thanks for at least criticizing my re-write on what you think. -- F = q(E + v × B) 08:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me, but I fail to see the need for such a confrontational approach. I added a {{merge}} template on December 28. I removed the template on January 15, i.e. 18 days later. In that time, one person had contributed to the merger discussion. Given that only one person had gotten involved in the discussion, I concluded that there mustn't be any support for my suggested merger and I removed the {{merge}} template citing a lack of involvement, i.e. a lack of interest in the proposal. I do not recall "complaining" about the lack of involvement, but simply observing that there was one. Nor do I recall criticising your rewrite. I wish you all the very best in all of your future endeavours. — Fly by Night (talk) 21:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ehm... sorry not to have good faith in accusing you of complaining and direct criticism =(. I just became a bit frustrated, since I really couldn’t see the best way to re-structure the content as soon as you wrote "wrong order", in spite of such efforts to make it so. In principle it could be merged, but then where could you draw the line (many articles make use of it)? Lorentz transforms itself would be the main candidate but it might bloat a little. The current article seems fine in itself, at least for now. Though please forget what I said now - again apologies and hope you make good of wikipedia also. =) -- F = q(E + v × B) 00:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! You make some valid points. I think that I may have been over eager in suggesting a merge. As they say: it's easier said than done. Thanks for your reconciliatory remarks. Take care. — Fly by Night (talk) 18:38, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You too! =)-- F = q(E + v × B) 20:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thank you for helping me with my first page!\ and for contributing so much knowledge to Wikipedia. Metsfreak2121 (talk) 01:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for your support at my RfA. I will do my best to live up to people's confidence in me. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Traackr Page

Thank you for your feedback on the Traackr page. I will rewrite it following the guideline you pointed out (Wikipedia:ORG). Is a page like PeerIndex a good exemple of a page following the principales of notability? Dchancogne (talk) 03:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request to remove speedy deletion nomination for Princess Theodora von Auersperg

Hello -- As you suggested, I have updated and annotated the article much more thoroughly, and I have also addressed the copyright issue, though there still seems to be a minor dispute over the wording of the email I received from the Princess herself. I intend to have that resolved quickly. Still, I believe that the reasons for your nominating this page for deletion have been addressed. Please let me know what you decide. Thank you. (Tonypanaccio (talk) 01:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Fly by Night. You have new messages at ConcernedVancouverite's talk page.
Message added 22:48, 3 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 22:48, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Oren Wilkes

He has features in Vibe Magazine, Essence Magazine, Huffington Post, AOL News, along with tons of top celebrity entertainment blogs. He is the face of one of the largest skin care brands in the world alongside Rihanna and he isn't credible? He also runs the flagship men's lifestyle blog apart of Glam Media ( they rep some of the biggest sites on the web). I can provide you with over 30 credible sources. He is probably one of the bigger black male models working in the industry right now and has been signed with Wilhelmina since college. There are so many articles on here about irrelevant models who havent even done half the work Oren has. This is the 2nd time my article has been deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Josepha (talk • contribs) 20:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Message

I've replied to your message on Talk:Teresa mummert. Regards, RomeEonBmbo 16:13, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ulof4

Yeah, i'm need help for my articles, if you can help me would be fantastic. Thanks, good bye:

from Santiago de Chile, Ulof4

And also your edition about O'Higgins de Rancagua, there is much that shows that your edition was translated of the Spanish page, which by the way shows quite a few deficiencies.

Point Inside

Disclaimer - I am a Wikipedia rookie. I saw you a Notification: speedy deletion nomination of Point Inside, Inc.. Can you please help me modify the page if something is wrong with it? I'm an expert in the mobile space and saw that many of the major companies are missing - like Point Inside. I was going to fix Aisle 411 and Nearbuy Systems next. I appreciate your assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Egm427 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You need to use enough reliable sources so that people are able to independently verify that the subject of the article meets the appropriate notability criteria. The last one is the key. Existence is not a sufficient condition for inclusion in an encyclopaedia. — Fly by Night (talk) 23:10, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

St Kilda dandelion

Hi. I chanced upon your nice article on this subject. In looking at the references it seemed the specific name should be Taraxacum pankhurstianum, so I changed it and moved the page. As a result the link on your user page is a double redirect, but I have not intruded to change it. I hope this is OK. Kind Regards Mcewan (talk) 09:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for that. I'm not sure what went wrong. — Fly by Night (talk) 15:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - I had a similar moment myself recently [5]. What is quite interesting is to track how far Taraxacum panormitanum spread. And again, nice article. Mcewan (talk) 16:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Talk:ResearchGate

Hello Fly by Night. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Talk:ResearchGate, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: restoring article. Thank you. SmartSE (talk) 22:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Slender(video game)

Hello Fly by Night, I'm Erico72 and I am contacting you because you said I edited the Slender video game page. First I did not know what you meant because I never heard of nor visited the page. However my kid brother was om my computer the other day and it seems that he edited something by mistake. I apologise on behalf of him and myself for letting this happen. It won't happen again, sorry! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erico72 (talk • contribs) 08:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! The edit was made yesterday. You don't need to apologise for editing. But in this case, material was removed and the edit had to be undone. — Fly by Night (talk) 18:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Thank you for participating in my RfA, I really appreciate your sentiments. =)

When I first saw your username, I was thinking you'd be pretty active in editing articles relating to one of rock music's most distinguished acts. It came as something of a surprise to see that you are in fact a mathematician. Major respect from me, math is the perennial key to exploring the mysteries of the universe.

Take care. Master&Expert (Talk) 23:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of rainwater harvesting in the UK

You proposed deleting rainwater harvesting in the UK 16 days ago. I'm not the creator of the article, but I thought the topic had merit, even if the content was, well, terrible. I've made some substantial changes to it, and I'd like you reevaluate your position and possibly even contribute to the article, if you feel so inclined. -NorsemanII (talk) 21:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for your message. The consensus on the article's AfD is that it be merged into Rainwater harvesting, and I'm inclined to agree. — Fly by Night (talk) 14:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've substantially improved the article since last time. What do you think now? -NorsemanII (talk) 19:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to hear from you again. The issue about a merger has little to do with the content of the article, and more with its subject. Rainwater Harvesting in the UK is too specific when we already have an article on Rainwater Harvesting. The content of the article will essentially be cut-and-pasted into the larger article. Having too many small, intricately titled articles makes it difficult for a user to be able to find what they're looking for. — Fly by Night (talk) 00:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]