User talk:Dcfleck

For your help with April 21, 2005 Stubsensor cleanup project you are hereby given the **Stubsensor award**.

Edit of Taekwondy by 80.137.187.237: I edited this because the History was wrong.

Edit summaries for VfD template

Hi Dcfleck.

In future, could you be sure to make a note in the edit summary when you add the VfD or CSD templates to an article? Just the notation "VfD" or "CSD" is sufficient, if you're feeling concise. I would also suggest not marking such edits as minor; editors watching those pages might not realize the articles have even been nominated for deletion.

Thanks, and keep up the good Wikiwork. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 02:56, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Helpful hints

Everyone on Wikipedia has a task they most enjoy. That role maybe creating articles, editing existing articles or simply being on the lookout for vandalism. I have chosen being helpful to others when and where I can. I offer you the following helpful hint:

When creating wikilinks, there are a few tricks! Plural (-s -es), tense related (-ed -ing) or alternative endings can simply be placed at the end of the wikicode, like this:

Longhand: [[ Computer | Computers ]] = Computers
Shortcut: [[ Computer ]]s = Computers
Shortcut: [[ Computer ]]ized = Computerized
Shortcut: [[ Print ]]ed = Printed
Shortcut: [[ Print ]]ing = Printing

(Disambiguation) links can be tiresome to type, let Wikipedia do the hard work! Just stop at the pipe, and the (disambiguation) portion will not be displayed within the article.

Longhand: [[ Manhattan (disambiguation) | Manhattan ]] = Manhattan
Shortcut: [[ Manhattan (disambiguation) | ]] = Manhattan

I hope this has been helpful. Happy editing!

Guy M ^(Talk) 14:00, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

Label

Thanks. - Taxman 17:59, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Parley P. Pratt

Thanks a bunch for your cleanup efforts around here! I notice you replaced bio-stub with explain-significance at Parley P. Pratt. Was there any particular reason you chose explain-significance, or was it merely an off-the-cuff replacement? Any objection if I simply remove it, with a notice to the WP:LDS project to avoid marking as stubs articles that are as complete as that one? Assuming the latter, I will remove it and make the notice, and you can correct me if I am wrong. Tom Haws 15:19, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

Noticed you question the importance of one of the Latter Day Saint movements founding apostles. From the perspective of LDS history, Parley P. Pratt was a significant voice for the doctrine of early Mormonism and was noted for his writings and hymns which are still referenced today. I revised the topic paragraph to include: "Parley Parker Pratt was a leader in the Latter Day Saint movement and an original member of The Quorum of Twelve Apostles from 1835 until his murder in 1857. He served in the Quorum with his younger brother, Orson Pratt. He was a productive missionary, religious writer and longtime editor of the religious publication The Latter-day Saints' Millennial Star."

Compared to the large "silliness quotient" of Wikipedia content (sometimes even I'm less than amused by all the garage bands and minor pop figures), I would assert that this noted religious minister and writer is worth referencing, even if only to the millions of Mormon out there in the Wiki audience. I have notified the LDS users group of your concern and expect this article will continue to receive attention. Comments welcome. WBardwin 02:09, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Substubs

I was removing the articles from Category:Substubs which is redundant and looks to soon be deleted. Joe D (t) 14:30, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David Helvarg

Hi: Given the extensive help that you afforded me in the early drafting of David Helvarg, I would appreciate it if you could have another look now that I have addressed the several comments that I received at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/David Helvarg/archive1. I understand that you believe that Featured Articles should be about subjects of high notability but that is not current policy and it is my belief that any subject deserving an article should be a potential Featured Article candidate. Given the existing FA criteria, how do you think that this article should be changed to meet them? --Theo (Talk) 23:41, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Great job on condensing Helvarg's career. Ain't collaboration grand? --Theo (Talk) 17:02, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is no deadline for FAC ... it runs until the article is accepted or until open objects have remained unaddressed for long enough to appear unresolvable. --Theo (Talk) 07:00, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was wrong. There is a one-week deadline on FAC so the article failed. I still hope that you will complete the fine abbreviation job that you started. There were three outstanding objections at the point of failure, of which yours was one; I believe that I addressed the others on the day that they were made but the objectors did not revisit the article in time. Sigh ... --Theo (Talk) 23:47, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi: I like the refactoring job. Template:Inote is a method of including invisible notes that can be converted to proper footnotes when the software supports it. I do not know the validity of the specific allegations that Helvarg reported about Northern Ireland; similar cases have been acknowledged as true. I am uncomfortable about the 'he lives in DC' sentence coming at the end of ==Early life== but I cannot see a better place for it now that the article has been recast. Thanks for your help. --Theo (Talk) 15:06, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Harmonics Theory

I'm giving up on fixing Harmonics Theory. Mr. Tomes does not appear to be willing to accept any version of the sandbox article I put forth, and I believe his replacement versions are both POV and factually inaccurate. He's asked for arbitration. Feel free if you like; I'm going to preserve the remaining brain cells I have left. --Christopher Thomas 05:36, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Restubbing

Can you explain why SALT II or Novosibirsk Report are stubs? If not, why have you re-stubbed them? It would be helpful when contemplating changing stub notices, to consider whether the article is a stub at all. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Awe

Why in the world would "vocabulary" be the category to assign to awe?? Someone changed it to "psych-stub", and that seems more appropriate to me. Michael Hardy 00:11, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Why in the world would "vocabulary" be the category to assign to awe??"

Because, in my opinion, the article for Awe is a dictionary definition, and {{vocab-stub}} is where I generally sort dictdef stubs that I can't find a narrower category for stubbing. It's a word, right? {{psych-stub}} would never have occurred to me, though on further reflection it doesn't seem too outlandish. --Dcfleck 01:52, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)

That does not make sense. Dictionary definitions don't belong here; the thing to do with them is to expand them into encyclopedic articles. Michael Hardy 03:06, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hardy Boys Titles

YOU WROTE: "Why are you removing the {{book-stub}} tags from the Hardy Boys book articles? They are clearly stubs. -- Dcfleck 18:25, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)"

There were no book stub tags since I just created all those articles today. You are free to add those tags if you wish. --FWDixon 18:34, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Honeymoon

Hi. I just wanted to make you aware that your April revert of an advertisement for an external link at the Honeymoon article has been made vain, since the original "contributor" has added the same link again right after your deletion. I don't want to mix in, but I think something should be done about this, since it starts to resemble an edit war. Blahma 11:40, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Helvarg

Thank you for your kind words. —Theo (Talk) 9 July 2005 10:44 (UTC)

65.182.172.* is back

He immediatly reverted Italian Beef to the last version that he had written, and then unarchived Talk:Italian Beef. It took a few clicks to revert what he had done, but I think he's going to cause more trouble. I'd appreciate if you helped me with dealing with him. TIA. Reub2000 16:43, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you're still around, you might want to look at the RfC on this user at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/65.182.172.x. - AdelaMa e ^{(talk - contribs)} 05:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

subst

When using template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:test}} instead of {{test}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template.

Thanks! howch e ng {chat} 19:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

moss beach

im sure you were trying to be helpful and aid in NPOV, but you have stricken some important information from moss beach

first, karen brown is one of the most noted contemporary authors in california, having written about 18 different travel guides worldwide. the fact that she lives in moss beach and operates a noted lodging destination is notable. (i am not affiliated with her business in any way; i am a scientist who has studied the moss beach area for 30 yrs). there is a wikipedia article in progress on karen brown...not released ye

second, the Fitzgerald Marine Reserve is an extraordinary biological resource. have you read the wikipedia article or been there?

best regards Anlace 19:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hello, thanks for the constructive dialog on moss beach...ive toned down the adjective on the inn and the reserve. "destination lodging" is a term of art used in the hospitality industry to denote a property to which visitors are drawn on its own merit...not merely as a place to stay in order to visit something else in the general area.Anlace 03:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cypress

Hi Dcfleck - please go easy on re-linking all of these; sometimes leaving pages linked to 'cypress' offers more precision than linking it on to Cupressaceae (e.g. the pope's coffin; one can be fairly certain that a cypress coffin would be made of either Cupressus or Chamaecyparis, and equally certain it was not made with any of several other genera in Cupressaceae such as Juniperus, Sequoia, etc.) - thanks, MPF 11:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken, though I think most people will be able to tell between a type of wood and a place name ;-) MPF 14:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification of source policy

Thanks for pointing that out; I've responded. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-test

Thanks for your kind words of support. I appreciate it. Its been tough going on there over the last few days. Its kind of ironic, i suppose, as this page is very much an swapping of normal roles for some of the anti vivisection brigade and they are sniffing blood, i think. Still, in general most are working towards a good article beneath the points scoring. Thanks again. Rockpocket 01:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anatomical terms of motion

Excellent job with all your work on anatomical terms! The layout and formatting if the anatomical terms of motion article is clear and easily readable, and of what i've seen, all the redirects seem to be going to the right place. To further improve the article, a section of references should be created. I'll see if I can help out, but i'm currently working on some other articles. Another thing which could be condidered is the usage of bold(instead of italics as it is currently) text for all the terms to which it redirects (such as ulnar deviation), becuase it is easier to see them when quickly scrolling through the text to find the particular term. ---Marcus- 14:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion vote

An article you have edited: Petrodollar warfare, has been marked for deletion. I find the stated reasons insufficient, if you have the time please partipate in the discussion. A human 02:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Footnotes

Hi Dc, regarding the footnote system you introduced at Pro-Test, I'd like to draw your attention to WP:CITE, which says editors shouldn't change from one citation style to the other without consensus, and where there are objections, the style used by the first major contributor should be used. I won't revert because I can see you've put a lot of work into it, but perhaps in future you could ask on the talk page whether anyone minds before you go ahead. Not everyone likes these footnotes. I think they look great on the page, but a drawback is that they make the article difficult to edit in terms of flow. If you look at the page [1] you can see it is much harder to check the quality of the writing. Also, it means readers have to go to the bottom of the page before they can click on the link, so it's two clicks rather than one. Having said that, thank you for putting all that work into getting the citations in order. The page does look better. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a note about it here in case you're interested. If there was a way to make the citation stand out from the text (e.g. by having the words in a different font, size, or color), it would make editing easier, but I don't know whether that's technically feasible. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! You've changed it all. I feel bad because that looks like a huge job, but you're right about it interfering less; in fact, not at all. Thank you! SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-psychiatry

Hi Dc. As an experienced editor whose imput i respect, could you do me a favour and have a look at the Anti-psychiatry article. I kind of stumbled on it over a minor issue, but looking more closely i notice it appears to be a forum for a small group of Anti-psychiatrists to disseminate their POV. As it is hugely unsourced, i have asked for sources (those that are there seem to be mainly from their own websites), but as i'm not an expert in that field i don't quite know how to tackle them further, as i expect they are not going to give up without a fight. Any suggestions would be most welcome. Thanks Rockpocket 07:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you help and suggestions. I fear you are right about the admin threat. To be honest, i though i was just dealing with the fanatic who clearly doesn't seem to have grasped the point of Wikipedia, however it appears there is a more reasonable editor involved too. Thus perhaps i was a little too agressive in my citation demands, but at least he and I can perhaps work our way through it together, until the calvary arrives anyway. Thank again. Rockpocket 20:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, mate. I'm glad you stopped by also. I'm always getting distracted by talk discussions instead of just doing the editing - something i need to work on. That reference is pretty useful, though, so thanks. Who'd have though the other editor that initially seemed reasonable just didn't get it, while the one that seemed like a classic POV pusher now appears perfectly reasonable. This place never fails to surprise me ;). Rockpocket 03:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dc. An editor has added a cleanup tag to anti-psychiatry in response to your post in WP:PNA over a month ago (better late than never, eh?). However, i don't think its really required anymore. However, before removing it, i just wanted to check you and the other editor had no objections, since it was on your original request. Rockpocket 05:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FIRE

Hi Dc. I basically agree with your post about "suggestion," upon consideration I think it would represent a synthesis or original research to put what I wrote on the Talk page there into the article, unedited. (Of course, I wasn't suggesting what I wrote as an addition). IF a reliable source analyzed the comings and goings of FIRE's personnel to point out some kind of ideological trend, we could certainly report that, but I haven't looked and it isn't my top priority right now. I was moved to comment here by your use of "pernicious" - maybe I took it the wrong way, but I'm a bit uncomfortable if you were implying something. Best, Kaisershatner (talk) 14:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

Hello, and thank you for your support of my deletion nomination! I would however like to point out that the AfD process is a discussion, not a vote - there is therefore no point in simply stating "per someone" as the reason for deletion, if no other argument is also written. While I do know this practice is very common, it's also very pointless and we'd all be better off without it. Cheers! Plrk (talk) 23:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment.

Perhaps you missed the bit were I specifically re-wrote that comment in clarification to make it very clear I was talking about the media, and not my personal opinions. I wasn’t targeting the United States as a whole. I had to delete your comment as it was in violation of talk page rules.--Sushi Shushi! (talk) 15:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Checks page" ^(^(*^(*DNIUWDHOIEFIUE!!!! Shit. Sorry about that. --Sushi Shushi! (talk) 15:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anatomical terms of motion

Hey there, I was looking to add opposition to your page, however I didn't know if I should add it to the Special motions of the hands and feet or the Other special motions section. Just thought you should know its missing though. --Osteomyoamare (talk) 08:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being minor in the usual way.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. With the script in place, you can continue with this functionality indefinitely (its use is governed by WP:MINOR). If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 18:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Moissac, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lot (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 01:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Monts Dore, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Auvergne, Mya and Romanesque (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Dcfleck. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Dcfleck. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Dcfleck. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]