User talk:Fangz

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks very much for your contribution on Spiderweb Software, but I was confused. Was it about Spiderweb or Electronic Arts? Thanks very much, Meelar 00:59, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

P.S. You can read more about our formats at

Yo Fangz, this is Conover from ifMUD. Good to see you here! Thanks for the addition to Photopia! --Conover 18:54, Apr 5, 2004 (UTC)

beta Systemic Bias section

Hi, if you wish to help contribute to a beta version of a Wikipedia page section designed to counter-act Wikipedia's systematic bias, please sign the bottom of this section on the Village pump - Wikipedia:Village_pump#Systemic_bias_in_Wikipedia. If not, no worries.--Xed 03:34, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well then heck with the JP II in state photo

As far as I am concerned you can do what you darn well please with the picture of JP II lying in state. I'm not going to play games with you or anyone else when it comes to John Paul II.
JesseG 01:04, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Duck and Cover

I want to move Duck and Cover (film) back to Duck and Cover. Why did you move it in the first place? -Litefantastic 01:55, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Because there used to be two articles differentiating by case. People tend to expect Duck and cover to be equivalent to Duck and Cover. In any case, there is no reason to expect that an upper case on cover makes it a reference to the film, and a lower case makes it a reference to the tactic. Someone else was complaining about this in an IRC chat, so I thought I'd fix it. In my opinion, and the opinion of the people I asked, the new scheme is clearer since you get what you expect to get.--Fangz 11:41, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

election

agree - I'll put exit polls back on the main page - I removed by mistake

Hello. I answered you and some of your colleagues...

Fangz, I briefly reply to you and your wiki colleagues...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terri_Schiavo#RickK_deleted_quotations_to_the_law_-an_inappropriate_cencure.

Thank you for weighing in. I may be able to make improvements in my final product...

Gordon Wayne Watts, Lakeland, FL, USA 17:46pm, May 9, 2005 (EST)

Quoting you, Fangz, from Fuel Wagon's talk page: (here's a copy in case you don't see my reply on Wagon's page.) "...and then he'll shut up." Well, I've decided to shut up and make FEW if any edits or changes herein -- (are you happy, now?), because, as I've said before, it's NOT a good investment to make many changes and improvements if many of them are reverted. (A better investment of my time would be either editing MY web pages or, for example, cleaining my room, which has gotten cluttered while I spent time in court and other places.) Yet, in short, as "frusterated" as I am, I not withdrawing because of any anger at you all. (I hope y'all have a good time, and so on.) Furthermore, regarding your comment "...not notable. He can't counter that," let me "counter" with this question: What if my edits or additions are notable? Hmm... I think you said once before that others would mention my links if they're notable, and the same is probably true of my edits in general: I trust that if my edits are good or "notable," then others will defend it -which, in many cases, has happened, so I'm not going to complain too much. By the way, it is too counterproductive to check these WIKI pages too much, therefore, if someone wants to get in touch with me, a more convenient method is email, telephone, or U.S. Postal Mail, which "contact information" is on my talk page -and on my "user" page, the front page on WIKI. Try to get along with one another and turn out a "halfway normal" WIKI encyclopedia. Later, --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 18:23, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quotation marks

Ah, I see. It seems a previous user used smart quotes, and my edit was actually an implementation of User:Humanbot (a human-guided spellcheckig bot), which seems to have a few bugs, including an inability to handle smart quotes. Notice that, for example, there are smart quotes in the edit before mine. – ugen64 20:22, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Redlinking researchers

Fangz, your intentions are noble, but if we were to redlink every single researcher, it would detract from the article. The average graduate student does not have the notability that will make them the stuff of Wikipedia articles. The professor test deals with this. Unless you can prove that each researcher in the oxytocin paper has inherent notability, I tend to disagree with the notion that each author is worth a link. Just imagine a heavily-referenced article like obesity with all its red links (why is Jeffrey Flier a red link)! JFW | T@lk 18:35, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, thank you...

... for stepping in at Hypnosis -- I've been getting so discouraged and frustrated with Sam's one-sided demanding of sources that I didn't know what could break the deadlock. The irony is that I've found some sources but his double standard was so blatant there was no point in showing those sources, as there was no fair evaluation waiting for them. Thank you for coming in; maybe together we can make the article accurate and fair to all sides. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:50, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image source

Hi. It looks like you uploaded Image:SlashdotEffectGraph.png, right? Can you put a license tag on it, {{gfdl}} or whatever applies, so that it can remain in Wikipedia without any concerns about its status? Thanks. -- Kbh3rd 17:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Slashdot

Just playing around. --SPUI (talk) 00:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

replied at the ref desk talk page

Hey! Thanks for citing your concerns. I replied at the reference desk talk page.--Urthogie 21:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asteroid deflection strategies won!

Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive.
This week Asteroid deflection strategies was selected to be improved to featured article status.
Hope you can help…

Asteroid deflection strategies

I added a bunch of NASA and similar linkages, which seem to me to be pretty reliable. I guess I ought to move the 2006 prediction to a separate main article on what Science Fiction and other unrealistic sources have to say on the topic. User:AlMac|^(talk) 07:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment at Shortpacked!

A simple, elegant and obvious solution that had completely eluded me. A small thing but it made my day. --Kizor 13:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guitar Hero II

Hi, I'd just like to explain that the CVU tags were added because the same people over the last week have been adding songs to the list despite comments being left that the songs need to be citable as officially confirmed by harmonix or Red Octane. I had assumed good faith for the most part of the week, but how many times should the same person add the same removed and uncited song before it's classed as vandalism? The Kinslayer 13:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The way I see it, vandalism is an issue of intent. I think it's clear that whatever the case is, these people don't intend to damage wikipedia. There are other ways (e.g. RFC, etc) to deal with such cases. Using the word 'vandalism' is very unlikely to help things, in my experience. Also, since the editors involved are IPs, it's entirely possible that they didn't see your comment - they probably don't know to look at histories, and their IPs are dynamically assigned so they miss out on talkpage messages. I'm totally an outsider to this issue, but it does seem to me that the editor involved just hasn't got the message yet. In any case, I've added the comment to the end of the confirmed songs list, so hopefully they will see it if they try to edit it again? (Perhaps a better arrangement would be to add an explanatory paragraph to the start of the list, but I've way too lazy to do that)--Fangz 14:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, In point of fact, a different user just ignored your comment and added the same song. I agree that this is likely an honest mistake in the case of this user, but it proves that your comment has also been ignored and asking nicely isn't working unfortunately. But hey, maybe we can work something out between us that might get the message across? The Kinslayer 14:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another problem we have is that people will arbitrarily add their favorite song by their favorite band when there isn't even a rumour going around about them, much less a confirmation. I feel this does count as vandalism under 'Posting nonsense' as apposed to being a mistake. The Kinslayer 14:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SVG Map of UK

I found your lovely UK Boundry map at Image:2005UKElectionMap.svg Do you have one with counties and one with just a UK outline that is of such high precision? — Nicholas (reply) @ 12:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: CCD and cellphones

It is, however, our responsibility to exercise editorial discretion. Wikipedia policy says that we do not include every fringe and conspiracy theory just because someone manages to get a few minutes of attention. We include serious and credible theories based on reputable sources.

This is not a serious theory. Per our policies and long-standing practices, we present competing theories in proportion to their acceptance by the people who actually understand and write about them. No serious bee researcher is writing about this "cell phone" theory except to laugh at it and to complain about the gullibility of certain members of the media.

Please see the CCD article's Talk page where the issue of fringe theories has been specifically addressed. Rossami (talk) 03:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:SoldatScreenShot.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:SoldatScreenShot.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 '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. BetacommandBot 03:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Girlgeniuspromopic.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Girlgeniuspromopic.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rette tast 12:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Girlgeniuspromopic.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Girlgeniuspromopic.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. ~ Wikihermit 23:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Orderofthestick.gif

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Orderofthestick.gif. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Orderofthestick.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Orderofthestick.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Linus Pauling and Quackwatch

Hi, did you see this? ImpIn | (t - c) 01:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly happy with the changes you made now. I just HATE AND DETEST the citation needed tag.--Fangz (talk) 15:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hate the tags at the top of article pages more. See the why tags are evil essay. ImpIn | (t - c) 01:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Goatse.cx

Hi, Fangz. We appear to have independently found the reference in "The Scotsman". Good work. :-) I'll keep looking. Axl (talk) 22:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Desk Craziness

Hi Fangz, I've added another question to your list. The original can be seen here. 20I.170.20 (talk) 21:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moff

While I suppose I'm fine with (or, rather, don't care enough for the time being about) "moff" being a quasi-disambiguation page, I take exception to your suggestion that a talk-page discussion and ~a year of the "article" being a redirect didn't reflect "any attempt at making a consensus". Please be more mindful with your edit summaries. --EEMIV (talk) 03:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the discussion page, I see two people saying they approved the article in its current form, and you posting some time after saying you thought it should be a redirect, at which point the page was redirected and no thing else happened and no one else replied. That isn't a discussion - a discussion needs someone on the other side, and I find it hard to see if anyone else was even aware of the article being there. As far as I am concerned, turning an article into a redirect is equivalent to a deletion, and so, it requires a similar amount of care and due process.--Fangz (talk) 03:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Brian Crain

The article Brian Crain has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No indication of notability per WP:MUSICBIO.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Top Jim (talk) 15:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review on Phillip Greaves

Regarding your comments at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_January_6#Phillip_Greaves, I was most pleased by your input regarding the actual content of the article. It is a shame that it took this long for it to be said. Your other comments, however, hurt my feelings more than a little bit. Because you were so right about the content, I mean, it cut me up when you said I was "dictatorial" and I had "issues of bad faith."

You may note that prior to your comment, I've only made one contribution to the discussion. In that I propose a home for the deleted material, The Pedophile’s Guide to Love and Pleasure publication controversy. You could also go see that on my talk page at User_talk:Aaron_Brenneman#BLP1E I'm engaged in perfectly nice chat with one of the editors who wanted to keep, but chose not to go to DRV. In that chat I propose several ways that the material might be incorporated into the encyclopaedia.

In short, you made several assumptions about me that were demonstrably untrue, and aired those assumptions publicly. We've all done it, so "no harm, no foul" really. But I would ask that you please go and redact. If for no other reason that this doing so will make it much more likely that people will continue to come to my talk page and ask nicely about getting material into the encyclopaedia.

Thanks for listening,
Aaron Brenneman (talk) 16:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:NarbonicVolume1Cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:NarbonicVolume1Cover.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. 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 media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quote on "Effect of spaceflight on the human body"

On Effect of spaceflight on the human body you cited the NASA technical report titled "Rapid (Explosive) Decompression Emergencies in Pressure-Suited Subjects". This appears to be NASA CR-1223, November 1968. The problem is that the quote that follows, beginning "At NASA's Manned Spacecraft Center" and ending "water on his tongue beginning to boil.", does not appear anywhere in that report. Where did the quote come from, if in fact it's genuine? SeanWillard (talk) 18:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Effect_of_spaceflight_on_the_human_body&oldid=12345627

Okay, it's hard to figure out what I was thinking 7 years ago. I think the fact of the matter is that the incident did happen, and there's a formal report on it as part of that technical report - see page 47, and one of the sections in the appendix. The more informal quote on the matter came from, probably, http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970603.html which was likely written up using the technical report (and maybe personal communication?) as a source. --Fangz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.211.97 (talk) 19:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to comment at Monty Hall problem RfC

You are invited to comment on the following probability-related RfC:

Talk:Monty Hall problem#Conditional or Simple solutions for the Monty Hall problem?

--Guy Macon (talk) 17:13, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

I found the user from Occupymelbourne.net responsible for the article and expressed my concern about the over reaction on their account, and requested they respect your right to privacy and remove your personal details from the site. The person responsible is a fringe member of the community and tends to get very paranoid. Again, I apologize.

Speedy deletion nomination of Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six: Siege

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six: Siege requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. — ASCII-002 I ^Notify_Online 14:05, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Phil Plait for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Phil Plait is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phil Plait until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. KDS4444^Talk 18:24, 30 January 2015 (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) 22:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Poster-Joe-Louis.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Poster-Joe-Louis.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 19:50, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Fangz. 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]

MfD nomination of Talk:Mersenne Twister/to do

Talk:Mersenne Twister/to do, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Mersenne Twister/to do and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Talk:Mersenne Twister/to do during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 22:19, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Fangz. 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 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed 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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed 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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Qiushufang (talk) 02:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Thrasher incident, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Colin Simpson. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 17:54, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Fangz. Thank you for your work on Carpet (jammer). Another editor, SunDawn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Good day! Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia by writing this article. I have marked the article as reviewed. Have a wonderful and blessed day for you and your family!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 15:46, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest King

The {{Pov section}} template is not to record your personal opinion, but to alert editors of an ongoing discussion. There is no ongoing discussion, so the template may not be placed and will be removed. You need to start a discussion on the talk, with appropriate references to sources supporting your proposed changes. Thank you. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is an ongoing discussion, you seem to have missed it. Fangz (talk) 23:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no ongoing discussion. I will have to report you if for disruptive editing you keep it up. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I literally linked it! The anglophobia section! Fangz (talk) 00:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean seriously, why would I lie about there being a discussion? You need to chill out. Fangz (talk) 01:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arco (game)

		The Original Barnstar
		As someone who also has never received a barnstar before, good work with the article and all the edits you have made over the past 21 years. cyberdog958^Talk 20:15, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Fangz (talk) 20:55, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pohl quote

Hey, I don't have an objection to including the quote, we just need to have an acceptable source. Per WP:THESIS, masters theses generally can't be used unless we can demonstrate that the thesis specifically had a significant impact on the historiography. Parsecboy (talk) 14:31, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can probably change the references to the sources Manson cited, but the downside is that those sources are going to be much less accessible than something open access.

How's this as an argument for the thesis having significant impact on historiography: I believe it reappears as the first third of her book (as assistant professor of history at Kansas U) "Diplomatic Ramifications of Unrestricted Submarine Warfare, 1939-1941". (Review at https://www.proquest.com/openview/637f8fcd7a6b815b5f571bc8a6604efe/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=1819215 ) However I can't quite track down and reference the book itself. Fangz (talk) 15:48, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's Manson's own book, so I don't think that makes the cut as far as establishing credibility of the thesis. Curiously, she seems to have done a fair bit of work in the area, but doesn't appear to have published a book based on the masters thesis (at least not that I could find). Of course if it is mentioned in the 1939-1941 book, we could just cite that.

A good point about the availability of Görlitz - Worldcat shows only 9 copies in North America. What might be a work would be to cite Görlitz but note that it's also available online in the thesis. Parsecboy (talk) 16:01, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well my argument is that the book seems reasonably well reviewed and if the book includes the thesis then... I can't really guarantee that but the review of it suggests there's a substantial WWI section in it. But it's an out of print book for 80 USD and I can't find a copy within several hundred miles. Maybe you have better luck. https://search.worldcat.org/title/645774921

What's the thought on including *both* the Gorlitz ref and the Manson thesis ref? I really want to include something that's accessible, is my main point. I don't think Manson is particularly saying anything controversial but it's useful to have something that isn't a crusty old tome. Fangz (talk) 16:18, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's a copy in my local university, but I can't promise that I'll have time to get over and check it out any time soon.

The idea is to basically say, it's cited from Görlitz, but you can also see it in this thesis - like <ref>Görlitz, pp. 62–63; quoted in Manson, pp. 74–75</ref> Parsecboy (talk) 17:01, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like Görlitz is on the internet archives after all. I still like the Manson ref for the wider context she adds. Well, if you get around to finding her book it would be good. Fangz (talk) 18:38, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]