Thanks for uploading Image:Patfinucanecentrelogo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 05:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted this your revert since the edit was properly sourced and within the article's scope. Since you marked your revert a minor edit, I assume you reverted because of a false positive vandalism alert. The reverted IP is shared and has caused trouble before. If your revert however was content-related, I am open to discussion. Regards Skäpperöd (talk) 12:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was pretty sure you wouldn't mind, but it's good to know for sure. I'm overly cautious in editing user pages, but blanking seemed a bit much. Thanks for the encouragement. See ya 'round. Tiderolls13:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi FlyingToaster, I've replied to your post on Neuro's RFA. Thank you for your civil observations regarding my position. You are doing well by the candidate. Cheers, Keeper | 7618:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, FT. I received a nice comment today from GlassCobra about considering the mop, so I wanted to touch bases with you again on that same subject. Between work and helping out with plans for a family event that takes place later this month, I think early May would be a good time for me to RfA, and I'd appreciate your Nom or Co-Nom at that time. I started up some RfA musings in my sandbox which I'll be expanding. Let me know if you have any comments, ok? Cheers, --Rosiestep (talk) 20:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Toast. I noticed that on my RfA nom it says it is "scheduled to end 00:51, 17 April 2009". Will this date be reset if and when I actually accept th nom? And am I under any time constraints/ expectations as far as when I can or should start? Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My RFA passed today at 61/5/4. Thanks for participating in my RFA. I appreciate all the comments I received and will endeavor to justify the trust the WP community has placed in me. Have a nice day. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 21:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Top 100 Greatest Villains was created as a reference for the topic The Joker (comics) as per reference number 2. Where they reference is done in first paragraph (Wizard's list of the 100 Greatest Villains of All Time ranked the Joker as #1.[2]) please look at The Joker (Comics) before deleting the Top 100 Greatest Villains article. Regards Abdowiki (talk)
Well the page was deleted. But I hope someone can bring the information of the Top 100 Greatest Villains up. I might try to place the information without the list just as a general idea of the contents of the list. Maybe then it will be my own wordings. Thanks for your time anyway. Abdowiki (talk)
Thank you to all who participated in my RFA- regardless of whether you supported or opposed, all feedback is important to me. I look forward to proving in the coming months that the trust placed in me by the community is not misplaced. Mizu onna sango15
Thank you to all who participated in my RFA- regardless of whether you supported or opposed,
all feedback is important to me. I look forward to proving in the coming months that the trust placed in me by the community is not misplaced.
—Mizu onna sango15Hello!
These are NOT incorrect edits NOR vandalims but the documented truth as per the confession of Narciso Yepes (private and in a radio interview) and as per the official Yepes family account and has also been published in a book by the widow of Yepes. I will add the citations later.
Hello, FlyingToaster. You have new messages at Rosiestep's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello, FlyingToaster. You have new messages at Download's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Its the Cookie Monster (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
Thank ya kindly for the welcome but i already got one from dreamhaze so piss off!
Ha ha just kidding you. Thanks for the welcome anyway. I find it takes awhile to sign with my wiki name, can i not simply sign my name as "Matt"? (Matt's my real name BTW)
-download|sign! has given you a bubble tea! Bubble teas promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a bubble tea, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy drinking!
Spread the bubbliness of bubble teas by adding {{subst:bubble tea}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!
sorry I have not been on, but I need to ask you a question.
Is there anyway I can change my name on wikipedia? I don't mind having to get a new account(actually I'd prefer it), and how can I get my other account, MidKnightTheDarkHunter, removed as well? If you are wondering why, I've just gotten tired of being MidKnightHunter. I know it's superficial, but a ton of other people have the same name(these are the things I search on youtube 9_9). —Preceding unsigned comment added by MidKnightHunter (talk • contribs) 21:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to everyone who took the time and trouble to take part in my RfA whether support, oppose or neutral. All comments are valued and will be considered carefully in the coming weeks. Feel free to add more advice on my talk page if you think I need it. SpinningSpark23:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] In case you're wondering, the image is a smiley, just a little more aesthetic, but not as serious as the Mona Lisa
Thanks for your participation in my recent Request for adminship. You mentioned that you had "Good experiences" with me; I wish I could say I remembered them. :( Well, hopefully there will be future good experiences, happy editing! :) BOZ (talk) 02:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk note: When filing an SPI case, please file under the name of the master (i.e. Nishantfoods) rather than the latest suspected sock. Thanks. Mayalld (talk) 11:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
i just wanted to change my name because i thought it was unique, but looking back on youtube, everyone has a MidKnight name. will my history still be stored on wikipedia as MidKnightHunter, or my new name? and by history, i mean before i changed my name.MidKnightHunter (talk) 01:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to say hi - how was the meetup? Sorry I couldn't make it. My work has turned into a many-tentacled timemonster and I was stuck here grappling with it. How goes your wikipeding? I've been having fun at AfD lately. Gonzonoir (talk) 10:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, what do I want to get out of adoption? That's quite a question. I would like to learn Wikipedia ethics and when to edit an article and when to just leave it alone. I need to know weather I should focus on a field I know about or stretch and try to take care of everything. I need help! So far my Wikipedia experience has been as a tourist, I want to be a native. Help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thesavagenorwegian (talk • contribs) 20:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Toast. Thanks for taking part in the discussion over my candidacy for adminship. I appreciated your kind considertaion and your thoughtful involvement in the process. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is an automated message. Your editor review is scheduled to be closed on 2 May 2009 because it will have been open for more than 30 days and inactive for more than 7. You can keep it open longer by posting a comment to the review page requesting more input. Adding <!--noautoarchive--> to the review page will prevent further automated actions. End of line. DustyBot (talk) 10:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, FlyingToaster. You have new messages at Rosiestep's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
FlyingToaster, thanks, that'll be great. I've answered the 3 questions and am ready to move forward but, to be in compliance with WP:RFA/N#Warnings, I'm awaiting your co-nom before I transclude. --Rosiestep (talk) 23:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. I just noticed that your talk page archives are misnumbered and /Archive 3 is actually the one with the oldest messages. I think you should fix this before MiszaBot filled /Archive 2 and starts mixing new threads from here with the oldest ones in the already existing Archive 3. If you already knew that, just ignore my message^^ Regards SoWhy12:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FlyingToaster has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, so I've officially declared today as FlyingToaster's Day! For being a valuable and experienced wikignome and one of our kindest, most civil users, enjoy being the star of the day, dear FlyingToaster!
SoWhy would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact SoWhy to accept or decline the nomination. A page will then be created for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/FlyingToaster 2. If you accept the nomination, you must state and sign your acceptance. You may also choose to make a statement and/or answer the optional questions to supplement the information your nominator has given. Once you are satisfied with the page, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.
I have created the page to allow you to answer the questions now and to invite other people to co-nom you if you know anyone who has already signaled to be willing to do so. Since I am currently sitting in a university class, I'll write the nomination later this day (on my lunch break most likely), so you are good to go this evening (UTC). Regards SoWhy07:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, glad to see it's up: I'll get around to adding my actual support soon. As for my statement, it's 9:00am here where I live, so I hadn't long been up when I wrote it; I'm glad you like it though. ;) Acalamari16:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! Oh, I don't think that's "fool who can sit around and talk all day." Those things on the side of the head are probably really good at keeping people focused! And I like the mystic "W" at the end of the staff. But it would be better with epaulettes. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
TheSavageNorwegian has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!
That depends on whether you consider 65% to be a "vast majority". ;) But I'm happy to see that your RfA is going well so far. Everyking (talk) 20:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
May I also drop in to offer you my congratulations as well. I notice you got a wave of opposes at the end - good luck and prove that the closure was the right one! Camaron | Chris(talk)17:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a bit late, but sometimes pile-ons are good eh? ;). You certainly deserve this :). Don't let the mop get in the way of your great work - Kingpin13 (talk) 11:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations on passing your RfA. Should you need help, I'll try to help you in any way I can, as will any other administrator you decide to ask for assistance or advice. If you need information on the admin interface, Wikipedia:New admin school is the place to go. :) Best wishes. Acalamari16:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to undelete it. We both made the same mistake: not checking the history properly. I quickly reverted my CSD-tag, but I guess our edits crossed. Yintaɳ 21:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. First, contratulations on passing your RfA.
I wanted to note that restoring only one revision of an article is likely to separate the article from its attribution history, which is not allowed under our licensing. GFDL requires that we give credit to content contributors. The only thing that User:Grutness (whose edit was the sole you had restored in this article) had contributed was a template: [1]. I've restored the article's history so we comply with our licensing terms, which keeps us from infringing on the copyright of our own contributors. This is just a heads up for future. In this case, I've just reverted back to the pre-vandalism version. If you want to delete the advertisement altogether, the procedure is set out at Wikipedia:Selective deletion. I use this sometimes in obscuring particularly egregious copyright infringement, although under many circumstances reverting is sufficient.
Also, I have restored the talk page, since G8 no longer applies. This is a good idea not only in case there are conversations about the article that need to be retained but also to avoid wikiprojects having to duplicate project work, like rating articles. --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome! Maybe now you lot can come back to the crown? I think pledging yourself to some tyrannical, unfair system is about equal to being +sysopped. Ironholds (talk) 10:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. :) Amalthea13:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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. –xenotalk15:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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? –xenotalk15:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. SoapTalk/Contributions15:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a screenshot of the "modern" flying toasters module.[2] 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)[reply]
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. SoapTalk/Contributions15:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. FlyingToaster16:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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? SoapTalk/Contributions20:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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. Gimmetrow16:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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(talk)02:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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, FlyingToaster06:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 | contribs07:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Groan. It's even worse than that. The article says "Christian Wolff wrote that a semiotically classified representation of philosophical sciences [snip] ..." which is completely plagiarised from here [3], 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 | contribs08:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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, JehochmanTalk22:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)? JehochmanTalk22:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 | Talk23:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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. JehochmanTalk03:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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. AniMatedraw00:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would love to look over your record, but like several other users I am currently going through your contributions looking for plagiarism. AniMatedraw00:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 - Kingpin13 (talk) 05:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kingpin13, sysop tools are not to be used boldly. Please refrain from giving out bad advice. Bold admins eventually get -sysop.JehochmanTalk11:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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". - Kingpin13 (talk) 14:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have nothing to say regarding Giano, except to wish him well and ask that he be treated with the respect every person deserves. FlyingToaster18:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You made mistakes, you were fixing them, and now you're letting the bullies win? I'm disappointed. //roux18:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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. FlyingToaster18:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.//roux18:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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. FlyingToaster19:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are mistaking a vocal and histrionics-prone miniscule minority for 'the will of the community.' People make mistakes. Unfortunately on Wikipedia, 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? //roux19:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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. //roux19:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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. //roux19:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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. //roux20:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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... //roux20:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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. //roux01:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
<< 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 Wikipedia" 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)[reply]
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. BigDuncTalk20:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"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 | contribs20:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"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. //roux20:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.BigDuncTalk20:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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. BigDuncTalk20:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Wikipedia 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(talk)19:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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. Acalamari19:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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//discussion20:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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 Wikipedia 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, TheSavageNorwegian20:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes, I didn't realize that rollback was That easy! Thanks!
Thank you for your civility unusually sincere politeness, humility, and kindness throughout what must have been a very trying process for you. Wikipedia 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)[reply]
You did the right thing. I don't think you are a bad person in any way, and you always meant the best for Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]
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 Wikipedia with you. Cheers for now, Kingturtle (talk) 20:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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. ~ mazcat|c22:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. – iridescent22:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
–Juliancolton | Talk 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!
Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:WikiPint}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
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 | Talk23:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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 SoWhy08:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FT, Your intelligence, collaborative spirit, honesty and cheerfulness are missed already. After you've had a chance to de-stress and gain the perspective that time brings, I hope you return. If you have a chance to stop by at Maker's Faire, let's get some iced tea. --Rosiestep (talk) 23:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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. FirestormTalk23:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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. Synergy23:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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, HJMitchellYou rang? 00:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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'ShaelMindMeld06:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...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. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden09:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
...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. ZabMilenko19:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Antivenin21:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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. AGK16:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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)[reply]
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. ceranthor00:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I see you dropped by last week. I'm glad you haven't totally given up on looking in from time to time. I'm keeping my fingers crossed that this may mean an indication that you're gathering your strength back. The place seems kinda empty without you here, and I hope that a return is in works. You've done such great work here, and helped so many others become better Wikipedians, and better people. Just letting you know that you are not forgotten, and you were, and hopefully are, a cherished asset to the project. Hope to see an all gala affair in the near future, as FT considers a return to family. Let me know, and I'll be the first to roll out the red carpet! Cheers. ;) — Ched : ? 05:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah seriously, come back. We need people like you on here with your newly acquired mop & bucket. Don't let the naysayers get you down. Valley2city‽07:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yea :) Wikipedia needs more users like you :) You are the best adopter wikipedian could EVER have :D We need you at wikipedia or it will break :( We miss you! Irunongames • play20:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
tldr coming up here. I've started and canceled this post at least a dozen times over the last couple days FT. I was honestly shocked and honored that you took the time to support my RfA ... but that's not really the reason I'm here. I admit, I truly had a lump in my throat when I read your words - and it reminded me of what a great and wonderful asset we have available to us. I do understand the need to step back and reflect, I do it often myself. I am also quite aware of what a tremendous talent we have sitting on the sidelines at the moment. I am in no way trying to pressure you into stepping back into something you're not willing or wanting to do. There are people here for all different reasons. Some wish to concentrate on the technicalities, and focus on "encyclopedic content" only. That is not a bad thing, although their posts may seem hurtful, they only focus on their own beliefs of what is best for "the encyclopedia". They too have their place and value in our family. You have such tremendous abilities to offer our family FT, your focus on humanity and your realization that we are all living human beings is beyond reproach. To be perfectly blunt ... If I saw an RfA tomorrow with your name on it ... I would support in a heartbeat. Anyone who would question your work with new and young editors looking for help here ... would be a fool. I truly hope that a bit of time and reflection will give you the strength and encouragement to step back into our family circle (however dysfunctional it may be), and become the beacon of hope, encouragement, and collaboration that you have the talent to be. The concise version? ... I miss you FT, and I hope you come back soon. — Ched : ? 06:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to drop a word here and say "Hello!" I hope that all is well with you, and I sincerely hope this will be a wonderful summer for you. :) Pastor Theo (talk) 01:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A poll is up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll on Ireland (xxx). This is a vote on what option or options could be added in the poll regarding the naming of the Ireland and Republic of Ireland and possibly the Ireland (disambiguation) pages. The order that the choices appear in the list has been generated randomly. Sanctions for canvassing, forum shopping, ballot stuffing, sock puppetry, meat puppetry will consist of a one-month ban, which will preclude the sanctioned from participating in the main poll which will take place after this one. Voting will end at 21:00 (UTC) of the evening of 1 July 2009 (that is 22:00 IST and BST). -- Evertype·✆18:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I just wanted to say thank you for coming back to Wikipedia in support of my RfA. Your presence and input on this site is sorely missed, and I hope that on your next visit that you can stay somewhat longer. Be well. :) Pastor Theo (talk) 11:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Celebrations for 2nd Anniversary of Wikimedia Hong Kong
Wikimedia Hong Kong has been founded two year ago. Today, we would like to invite you to a great event for our second anniversary celebrations, that is co-host by us - Digital Content Jam 1.0, which is belongs to The 3C Digital Creativity Dialogue Series -- Creativity, Content, Community.
Thanks for uploading File:Empress and the warriors poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. FileBot (talk) 20:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a member of the Aviation WikiProject or one of its subprojects, you may be interested in testing your skills in the Aviation Contest! I created this contest, not to pit editor against editor, but to promote article improvement and project participation and camraderie. Hopefully you will agree with its usefulness. Sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here. The first round of the contest may not start until September 1st-unless a large number of editors signup and are ready to compete immediately! Since this contest is just beginning, please give feedback here, or let me know what you think on my talkpage. - TrevorMacInniscontribs00:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Arsh.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.
A tag has been placed on File:Clear background2test.gif requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --Rrburke(talk)03:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A NobodyMy talk is wishing you a MerryChristmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Thanks for the removal of speedy-delete and insertion of under-construction tag. Boy, can't the bots give us a few minutes to kick start a new page nowadays? ;) Fred Hsu (talk) 03:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following has been moved here by myself. It was originally posted on Giano's talk page. Giano removed it from his talk page and paste it to WP:AN. I am moving it from WP:AN to here. FlyingToaster22:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following has been moved by me (Giano) from my talk as it is clearly meant for a wider audience than mu humble talk page - delete it of you want, just don't return to sender. Giano 22:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Giano. I don't believe we've ever spoken directly, until now. Perhaps speaking to you now is a bad idea, but especially if I'm going to leave forever, I feel like I need to know: why do you have such strong feelings towards me? I understand that you do not think highly of IRC, and that you don't think my work here is of high quality, and you didn't have a high opinion of my friend Neuro. But why is this personal to you? I'm not interested in arguing... I'm just curious. FlyingToaster05:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your first point, it's not possible to be personal with something called a "Flying Toaster" which one has never met or even interacted, so let's kill that one stone dead. I am completely indifferent to whether you stay or leave. However, I am not completely indifferent to "your" work because much of it is not your work is it? I find it a disgrace, if not totally surprising, that a person who has so little knowledge of Wikipedia and its content's authenticity can garner tens of votes for their adminship off-site on IRC to such an extent that they can even win that Adminship. You only resigned your tools because, after you were exposed, an overwhelming number of people agreed with me. Even now, you seem to feel you have been wronged and have done little to redress you blatant breach of copyright law. Yes, law! We rightly don't do legal threats here, but even Wikipedians are subject to the law. Your editing and ignorance brought the project into disrepute; that, cannot be tolerated. As you waltz back here, you appear surprised and wounded not to be welcomed back and instantly promoted to Admin - I find that astounding. Regarding your friend Neuro, isn't he the person who had to apologise for libelling me on a the website of a highly respected national newspaper? - so I don't think we really need to go there - do we? I survive here because on occasions I am bloody useful to the project - when you can say honestly the same then I may feel more kindly disposed towards you. You might also like to note that one does not need Admins' tools to have power here. In fact, one can often be more powerful without the tools. Giano 08:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the reply. I did want to address a few of your points.
I never asked anyone on IRC to vote for me. I assure you those logs would have surfaced if I did; there were several people looking for them.
I had no idea about neuro's off-wiki comment when I nominated him for admin. He'd forgotten about it himself. When they came to light, he and I discussed them and decided he should withdraw. Had they come to light earlier, I would not have nominated him. I don't endorse that kind of behavior against anyone.
I don't like writing articles much. People like you are incredible at it. I just liked taking care of backlogs, and that's all I wanted to do. If you'll look at my edit history, you'll see writing articles is an incredibly small portion of what I was doing. I was maintaining, not creating. I wanted better tools to fight backlogs, and knew I should at least get some practice writing articles before an RfA, so I tried a few. Parts of those were insufficiently paraphrased - an easily fixable problem - and now I'm basically being told I should retire my account in a black mark over it. If Peter Damian had brought article concerns to light a week before my RfA, I would've failed, learned, and passed in three months. Since they were brought up immediately after my RfA, people seem to think I can never again be in good standing, and even creating a new account is some form of treachery. And really, after people were trying to disturb my off-wiki life over this, is it really worth all the pain just to fight vandalism? I'm sure you can understand my frustration. A simple mistake over something I was doing only for practice means I can never do what I actually want to do, which is valuable to this project if you value its contents. As an article creator, at least you will always be able to do what you want to do, and you do it well.
Anyway, you don't need to respond if you don't want. I just felt there was something unresolved with you, and I should give you the opportunity to tell me what it is directly. Sincerely, FlyingToaster18:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hope you don't mind me dropping in here FT (and Giacomo), but I commend your civil reply here to Giano, who to my mind worded his comments to you here and on WP:AN more harshly than was necessary (though I do agree with the gist of his concerns). I also wanted to point out that I don't think most people were saying you "should retire [your] account in a black mark over it," meaning, I assume, that you should retire it because you "can never again be in good standing." I think some, including me and also Durova, were saying you should move on to another account if you were still concerned about harassment stemming from the last incident. If that's not a major worry for you at this point I would strongly encourage you to continue editing as FlyingToaster, and this is what most others said as well. Only a couple people seemed to be saying you needed to start over with a new account because this one was sullied, and I think that was bad advice. The key messages I would take away from the AN thread if I were you (and obviously you don't need to listen to me) would be as follows: 1) An RfA would be necessary if you want to regain adminship, and the AN thread did rub some people the wrong way; 2) People definitely still want you to stay here as a contributor and encourage you to get back into the mix; 3) That should start with cleaning up any copyright problems on articles you created or expanded; 4) After x amount of time making good contributions and demonstrating that past problems have been remedied a number of people would be willing to consider supporting you again at RfA. Obviously there are some who will never be willing to offer support and will essentially oppose automatically, but a large number of others will be willing to give you a second chance. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs18:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FT. I concur with BigTimePeace. There are a number of users who are deeply upset by off wiki discussions that then have ramifications on wiki, but that doesn't mean that all IRC users are contentious any more than everyone who posts at WR is. Until the copyvio business you were supported at RFA by a large enough majority to constitute consensus. Fix the copyvio stuff and you could make admin yet, but I'd suggest forgetting about RFA for a few months. As for Giano, you've offered an olive branch, no need to interact with him again if you don't want to. ϢereSpielChequers22:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted you to know I read you message on your User page and from time to time I feel the same way, I hope to never see that dreaded "Last Straw". No matter what kind of people are here it's still a great place. Have a great day, hope to see you back ! Mlpearc MESSAGE13:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After reviewing the source article that came due to close today on WP:CP, I also noted that your userspace draft began as a direct copy of your infringing article. Your rewrite, in particular in its step-by-step approach, constitutes an unauthorized Derivative work of the original and remains a copyvio. On top of that, even in its draft state, the parts you had rewritten remain a close paraphrase of the sources.
The way you're going about this is, unfortunately, a surefire method to produce more of the same issues. To minimize the risks of perpetuating the problems, I've found it helps to start with acting as if copying and pasting did not exist in the first place. Reading your sources, then walk away doing something completely different for an hour or two, then summing these up in a new article is an approach that tends to produce text that is much more your own, and avoids turns of phrases or overall structure borrowed from the source. That being said, it becomes increasingly difficult to do so with every attempt.
I understand that this is disheartening. Alas, once an article has been identified as posing a copyright issue, there is little room left to produce borderline replacement text. The new effort has to be in the clear, and this was clearly not the case here. We do however appreciate the effort provided and are willing to help you with the cleanup effort to produce such in-the-clear content. MLauba (talk) 10:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That really is the only way. I'm old enough to remember when the admonishment "do not write essays with scissors and paste" was meant literally - modern tools have only made it worse. The only way to avoid creating a derivative work is to treat all sources as if they are in library books, and you are making notes. Structure the article how you want to get the information across, then fit your notes into that structure without looking back at the source text (as if the book is still in the library). Only go back over the sources after you have done this, to make sure you haven't missed or misinterpreted, or incorrectly ascribed. Rewriting paragraph/section by paragraph/section is guaranteed to produce problems.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated Morgan "Bill" Evans, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morgan "Bill" Evans. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
A tag has been placed on File:Argeseanu Gheorghe2.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. IngerAlHaosului (talk) 17:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A discussion has begun about whether the article Harry Q. Bovik, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.
You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there! In the past, you've expressed an interest in local meetups of Wikipedians. Well, here's your chance! On Saturday, June 25, we'll be joining Wikipedians in cities all over the country for the first annual Great American Wiknic -- the picnic that anyone can edit! We'll meet up at a park in SF -- hopefully in the sun -- all other details are still in deliberation!
Clerk note: When filing an SPI case, please file under the name of the master (i.e. Nishantfoods) rather than the latest suspected sock. Thanks. Mayalld (talk) 11:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Congrats — looking forward to the thankspam — Athaenara ✉ 19:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
){kind=link}
![[2]](http://www.samwaters.com/uploads/FlyingToasters.jpg){kind=link}
){kind=link}
