User talk:Flata

If you leave me a message here, I will typically respond here, on my talk page.
If you would prefer me to respond on your talk page, please mention that in your message.

make

I see that you have contributed lots to this article, good stuff. But it seems you have also removed lots of content from the article which is not so good. May I ask why? Please, in the future, when you delete entire sections it would be nice if you could copy the removed section to the pages talk page so that the issues are simpler to resolve. Eric B. and Rakim 18:57, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote the article, you say that like I added a bunch of stuff and removed a bunch of stuff, which may be what it boils down to, but that doesn't really capture it. I felt some of it was inappropriate, not informative, and so on. The only thing I genuinely removed that I "shouldn't have" was the example Makefile. I wanted to do something better that was actually informative rather than just misformatted enough to intimidate one away from fixing it up. Something better has appeared, and I'm really happy for that. I deleted all the sections, I literally sat down and wrote line by line, there were one or two times where I was saying the same thing, or where I was making a citation, and I stuck to the original. But what the fuck? You've got a valid point. I should have made an archive under the talk page or something like that, right? I mean you can go back and click on the version before my rewrite, but that requires actually looking through the history, instead of just looking through the talk. I just want to be clear that I wasn't going through and saying "fuck this bullshit, I'm editing out this paragraph", so it'd have been hard to do anything but just archive the whole page. Thanks for your understanding. --Flata 05:43, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of 'liberals wikipedians' category

Hi. I saw you're (like me) listed in this category which is up for deletion. Hoped you'd like to vote in favor of keeping it... Thanks! Larix 23:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for voting! Larix 16:01, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stable versions

Hi! I don't know if you're aware that currently under discussion is a stable versions policy which seeks to restrict the freely-editable nature of Wikipedia by protecting articles once they are deemed to be "stable" and moving them to a separate namespace. This policy represents a structural change in the open nature of Wikipedia, and inhibits the freedom of users - even logged-in ones - in instantly updating an article, since openly-editable versions of articles will be called "working drafts" under the new proposal. For me, as a liberal Wikipedian, the proposed policy is quite unacceptable. You can express your opinion at Wikipedia talk:Stable versions. Thanks, Ronline ✉ 08:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

trolling

I am not trolling, nor am I not being helpful. Please stop hounding me on my talk page. Im not perfect, and neither are you. 5aret 17:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not "hounding" you, I was trying to get my concerns taken seriously over inaccuracy and a lack of attention to detail in your massive attempts at patrolling vandalism. Your reversions are still not very well done, you seem to be paying more attention to how many you do than doing them correctly -- for example on Doctor Breen, where you left behind vandalism. The fact that you blanked a comment I left on your talk page regarding your vandalism of my talk page was very disappointing, and so when you were still making unrefined edits, I reiterated my concern. You'll note that I do not take the approach that my edits and my actions on Wikipedia are unquestionably correct, as you were doing with regard to your counter-vandalism work, on your talk page. In my time as a Wikipedian, you'll note that I have pissed off very few people, too. --Flata 22:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

violence at funeral

hi, i posted this paragraph below on the discussion page of the hate group WBC. if it seemed like i gave an "ultimatum" then I admit that I was wrong. I just want to see this bullet point put in the right context, (although i would prefer to see it removed completely) and then forget about it, as i don't normally devote a lot of time on this site. The way it is right now seems misleading to me and there should be some more clarity.

The big issue I have with what's currently up there is that it might give the impression that their story is more than an allegation because it's in a section called "Violence against Westboro" that discusess how "they (WBC) themselves have been victims of attacks." Shouldn't it belong in a section called "Alleged Violence against Westboro" or something like that? Or how about editing the sentence below to say "they claim to have been members of attacks" ? I guess that would create another problem because some of the other bullet points above it might be legitimate stories. (So I don't want a bogus unconfirmed allegation in the same section with some that have been confirmed.) Point is, this particular bullet point does not belong in this context. Later today I'll post some links to news stories about the funeral that mention the picket, and do not contain any confirmation about someone getting punched in the face. You're right that an official denial would count for a lot, but the sheriff's office never issued any kind of official statement because they didn't take these people seriously. Since no one else did either there was no need to make such a statement. You make good points about the need to not be one sided since that would just be acting like these crazies, and i'm sorry if i gave the impression that i gave an ultimatum... i just wanted to give the other guys a chance to edit it in a more appropriate way. I'm not a wikipedia member, just somebody who wants to see the record set straight. Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Westboro_Baptist_Church"

Hey there. I've responded on the talk page again. Thank you for your patience on this, and I hope we can figure out how to set the record straight. --juli. ^{t ?} 22:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grave

This message is from a user living with Hepatitis C and/or HIV.

Oh, I think Hepatitis and HIV are very grave. But hey, we live with them. No, I'm not reverting your modification of methamphetamine... just making cute commentary. ℬastique▼^parℓer♥^voir♑ 17:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adiu!

Ai vist que parlas occitan! Avem besonh d'ajuda e de contribucions per far avançar lo projècte en lenga d'òc... Ès benvengut se vols participar! :)

A lèu! [[1]]

Cedric31 21:11, 21/02/06 (UTC)

The Shamen

was he drowning in a particularly tragic manner? remove POV/tautology/fanwank/whatever.

It's certainly not POV (i.e. biased) - find me a source that says his drowning is a good thing. "Fanwank" is a bit rude, but I see where you're coming from. Tautology, possibly. Good edit? Yep, and I should have zapped it myself, but there's no need to be a smart arse about it. --kingboyk 21:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean is that it breaks stride and appeals to the reader. It's probably a tautology, too, but maybe one could argue that one can drown tragically or not, and that maybe the normal case isn't for it to be tragic. Moreover, it leads the article into sounding like it has a subjective point-of-view, not so much that it has bias. Multiple words used to try to narrow in on the correct reason why I hate seeing such things. No one word was meant to be a perfect fit, and no offense inteded. Thanks for the feedback, that said. --juli. ^{t ?} 21:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, thanks for not taking offence. I thoroughly agree with your edit and your reasoning, by the way. Furthermore, the article goes on to quote a fellow member who calls it a tragedy, so the usage of the word was redundant too. --kingboyk 18:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. You missed one :P - At Will Sinnott, linked article. I'll zap it now. --kingboyk 19:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Also: your work on the The KLF article is great, keep it up. Are you on the KLF mailing list? --juli. ^{t ?} 19:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In theory, yes. I get the digest but I don't have time to read it. Amazes me that there's still so much traffic after all those years! I first signed up in the early 90s (Stephen Kennedy / kingboyk - haven't posted for years).

Perhaps you could let them know that I've been working on this. Bill Drummond and 3 a.m. Eternal need attention, there are some red links for notable albums and singles, and I'd like some more pictures e.g. the Brits performance, a fair use logo.

Anything of note happened since the first Blacksmoke EP? Any new list boots or owt? I have Lars MP3s, and most of Marek's videos (VCD quality really). Never got the Waiting vid or the Omnibus film. --kingboyk 19:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's the Transit Kings stuff and The Orb's "ORBsessions Vol. 1" which includes a track "Mummy Don't" which is either the track that became 3am Eternal, or from a common ancestor in those days. mh79 has been posting huge numbers of remixes and covers in the past month, it's really astounding. Some of them are really fantastic. Someone was doing DVDs of TWR with both soundtracks a couple of months back, including the KSTJ promo and the like. There's a lot of regurgitation of stuff into better formats with DVD burners becoming common and people having the disk space and bandwidth to pass stuff around. I dropped the idea of a KLF-specific Wiki a bit ago, because with all the minute detail the lot of us carry around in our heads, that would be useful. Does the average Wikipedia reader care that LTTT and Go To Sleep are the same song? Not really. They don't care about GTS at all, in fact. To say nothing of "this sample was from this, this was reused in that" sorts of things. We'd end up with something like the articles on Doctor Who, though KLF are perhaps a bit less notable than Who. People seemed aware of the Wikipedia article and pointed out that KLF fans might be prone to inserting falsehoods. I may drop a mention of it, though. The article is much better, now. --juli. ^{t ?} 19:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm planning to launch a free WikiCities type wiki host, when I can get off my lazy arse. I have hosting, I have Mediawiki, it could be done. Do you think there would be enough interest? I could get one set up by the end of the week, it just wouldn't have the bells and whistles I plan, a working Help: namespace or anything like that. Nor would it have the "import a page from Wikipedia" or the help of a spider, but they're in development. All these things could be added later.

I'm trying to limit the "fan cruft" of the KLF articles, which is why I've limited the red links. Agreed re the falsehoods. It would be quite amusing on a KLF wiki but not appropriate here.

I suppose I'll have to come back to the list some time then. My MP3s are fine - a few ommissions, not many - but I'd really like to get the DVD quality material. --kingboyk 20:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was offering to set one up on justifiedancientsofmu.mu, and there didn't seem like enough interest. So instead it's just an MP3 of Go To Sleep I can point people at when they're like "Oh yeah, the KLF. I loved what 'when is love' song!!!" --juli. ^{t ?} 02:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The KLF

Man, that anon IP has edited 4 times just to insert the words "sheep"(s) and a link to the Norwegian wiki. (Rolls eyes). --kingboyk 02:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, some people are really special. --juli. ^{t ?} 02:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calling programmers

We need coders for the WikiProject Disambigation fixer. We need to make a program to make faster and easier the fixing of links. We will be happy if you could check the project. You can Help! --Neo139 09:21, 5 August 2006 (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) 12:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]