User talk:Fluous

Hello, Fluous, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

  Introduction

 5    The five pillars of Wikipedia

  How to edit a page

  Help

  Tips

  How to write a great article

  Simplified Manual of Style

  Fun stuff...

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Abductive (reasoning) 21:08, 6 March 2013 (UTC

Hi, I reverted your change to Eastern Orthodox opposition to papal supremacy because it is a direct quote from a linked source, and we do not edit direct quotes for grammar or spelling. If the grammar or spelling were incorrect, it would be appropriate to add {{sic}}, but in my opinion, it is not incorrect. Elizium23 (talk) 04:04, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My bad! I used a bot. I'll double check to see what changes the bot makes a little more closely; should have been just the citation info. Thanks for the message! Fluous (talk) 04:17, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Double whoops; wasn't a bot! I had searched for the term. Sorry about that! Fluous (talk) 04:18, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chiesa di San Cataldo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 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) 19:39, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lova Falk talk 09:11, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You added a {{criticism}} tag to the Kuzrweil article. Did you think the criticism section should be cleaned up or integrated into the article? Any ideas you have please add them here. Thanks. Silas Ropac (talk) 00:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Seven Tubs Natural Area, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. 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) 09:30, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your helpful edits to Trail. I reverted some of your changes, but you got me thinking further about the problem with organization. Hope my recent edits to this article make sense.Rwood128 (talk) 13:49, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Tobyhanna State Park page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Words to avoid has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. Cambalachero (talk) 17:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Fluous,

The Editing team is asking very experienced editors like you for your help with VisualEditor. The team has a list of top-priority problems, but they also want to hear about small problems. These problems may make editing less fun, take too much of your time, or be as annoying as a paper cut. The Editing team wants to hear about and try to fix these small things, too. 

You can share your thoughts by clicking this link. You may respond to this quick, simple, anonymous survey in your own language. If you take the survey, then you agree your responses may be used in accordance with these terms. This survey is powered by Qualtrics and their use of your information is governed by their privacy policy.

More information (including a translateable list of the questions) is posted on wiki at mw:VisualEditor/Survey 2015. If you have questions, or prefer to respond on-wiki, then please leave a message on the survey's talk page.

Thank you, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 23:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fluous. Just in case you missed it, I replied to your Teahouse question. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cordless Larry: Hey, thanks for your reply. The article I had in mind was cultural appropriation.

I doubt that there's an article structure guideline that would apply to that article, but you could try asking for advice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sociology. I think your idea to get suggestions for the structure from review articles is probably a good one. Off the top of my head, some obvious sections could include one on the history of the concept (covering who first coined the term, its theoretical development, etc.), different types of cultural appropriation, different theoretical perspectives on cultural appropriation, criticisms of cultural appropriation (and criticisms of the term itself, which I see is already a heading in the article). Cordless Larry (talk) 22:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 17:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fluous, I notice that your August 16, 2017 edits to Talk:List of monuments and memorials of the Confederate States of America are not visible. Not sure if it is a browser problem at my end or something in the format. Could you check it? Woodlot (talk) 14:06, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, what's that about? It's so weird. Not working here, too. Safari/Mac. —Fluous (talk) 14:26, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm using Microsoft Windows 10 and Mozilla Firefox. Edits are visible here, but not on the Monuments Talk page? Woodlot (talk) 14:49, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I've noticed a removal of one of your paragraphs. As follows:

"Historians have found that Confederate monuments were not built primarily as historical markers, but were instead intended to glorify and commemorate the Confederacy.[9][1][10][11] Most Confederate monuments were built in periods of racial conflict, such as when Jim Crow laws were introduced at the start of the 20th century or during the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s.[9][1][10][12] New Confederate monuments continued to be proposed in recent years, and some have been built.[13][14][15][16]"

Was this removed because this was found to be an unsupported claim? Afrotastic (talk) 23:32, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, @Afrotastic: I think that was removed by an unregistered user with the IP address 83.98.240.178. That person wrote: "(Removed reference to statement out of a very recent opinion pieces. As tensions around these statues are currently very high, best practise seems to be to keep the page objective and factually based.)" I can't speak for that person, but that appears to be that user's motivation. Fluous (talk) 23:43, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be glad to change it. I didn't realize it was a big deal. Can you refer me to instructions? deisenbe (talk) 09:31, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re [1] - nah, Carptrash is a legitimate editor, however much you and I disagree with them. The bad habits and WP:TENDENTIOUSness is sort of rubbing off on them, which is too bad. D.Creish is another story. Volunteer Marek  04:01, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. While the SPLC is the source for many of the individual street names we still need to provide Verification that such-and-such street in this-or-that town is named after a CSA figure. So I suggest the following. Put the info into a single entry with something like "Mission City, AL: Lee Street, Jackson Streeet, etc.^[cite/SPLC]" I leave it up to you. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 05:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Srich32977: The SPLC study is verification enough for me and for Wikipedia. Fluous (talk) 15:45, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please adopt a different approach to Carptrash - your warnings for talkpage formatting [2] are starting to verge on harassment, and nobody's likely to take administrative action for the mortal sin of untidy colons. Acroterion (talk) 19:42, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Acroterion: Hello. Unfortunately, "formatting warnings" is an incomplete and inaccurate summary of my editing concerns. I warned Carptrash chiefly for repeatedly straying off topic. And also for his personal attacks and edit warring. At any rate, I just archived the discussion. In the future, I will be discussing Carptrash's repeated failure to stay-on-topic in more formal spaces, as informal dispute resolution has been fruitless. Fluous (talk) 20:13, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We generally deal with "straying off topic" by ignoring it in others and staying on topic ourselves. I'd be interested to see diffs for personal attacks and edit-warring. You may be aware that Carptrash was targeted by a serial sockmaster who participated in discussions concerning Confederate monuments at the United Daughters of the Confederacy and at RSN. In reviewing that matter I saw a disturbing tendency to obliquely characterize Carptrash as a fellow-traveler with extremists, initiated by Morty C-137 and to some extent amplified by other editors. Morty is blocked, but I am concerned that he has influenced the conversation and other editors. I would appreciate it if editors who participate in those discussions refrain from personalizing comments, and that they please remember that Carptrash's work over many years on this subject is the reason why Wikipedia has such extensive coverage of Civil War monuments to argue about. Acroterion (talk) 20:29, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Acroterion: Thanks for the tips and background information. I guess I'll just have to ignore any off-topic digressions. The personal attack was here. He accused me of being biased and tailoring the article to fit a political agenda. His words. I'm not too beat up about it; I mean, I just think that kind of thing is clearly not something that belongs on an article talk page. Another editor thought it was a personal attack, too. It is a fairly contentious article subject but everyone has been making a concerted effort recently to treat each other more professionally. We all have to be better editors. I'm definitely open to suggestions when someone says "this is how we do things here" or "that's not what a good editor does; they do this." It's a learning experience. Anyway, thanks for your time helping me clear up some things. Fluous (talk) 20:50, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As personal attacks go, that seems awfully mild. Given that Morty deployed this gem [3] in a Godwin's Law-like attempt to shut down discussion, which got approving nods and defense from editors who should know better, Carptrash is a model of restraint. Speaking as an administrator who has dealt with real Nazis, who has been watching for trolls, bigots and nitwits at the SPLC page for years, I am dismayed at the conduct of a number of editors in those discussions who are trying to pin a false political position on Carptrash for the offense of daring to offer mild disagreement in a newly popular editing area. You'd be touchy too. Acroterion (talk) 00:21, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I'm really not interested in what Carptrash has been through. To be sure, it's a shame. That must have been hard for him. But if his experiences here have made him more susceptible to rule breaking, (it appears that they have) then perhaps Carptrash should take a break from editing. Regardless, we must all follow the same rules. No exceptions. One of those rules is to refrain from personal attacks. (Right? I mean, can you point to me where in Wikipedia "mild personal attacks" are permitted?) All I want him (and everyone else) to do is to stay focused on the article, stop personally attacking each other, stop discussing conduct disputes on an article talk page. From now on. Going forward, I'll try to set a good example with my own conduct. Thanks again for the input. Fluous (talk) 02:48, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am interested in what editors have been through, and I'm not inclined to dismiss a troubling trend in the way editors who've jumped on a hot topic treat other editors. The diff you offered is far below the threshold where we start sanctioning for personal attacks, and is not even close to insinuations of being a fellow-traveler with far-right extremists. I appreciate your commitment to being civil, we all must do our best, and Carptrash has admitted that he hasn't been the finest example himself. Please do your best to assume good faith, and remember that other editors are real people. Thanks for being willing to talk. Acroterion (talk) 03:01, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you User:Acroterion and User:Fluous too, for discussing this here. I was having some related interaction with Fluous, in my reverting Fluous twice where they had deleted a comment by Carptrash and had archive-boxed another Carptrash comment, at the Talk page of the Confederate monuments article. And Fluous posted at User talk:Doncram#Deleting comments on a talk page. Fluous, I do appreciate your view that discussion of this behavior stuff can/should be at a user Talk page and appreciate that you offer it can be here at yours. Similar to Acroterion's comments, what I had said in this diff includes my view that Carptrash's comments were mild relative to any standard for admininistrative action and that it was not justified to remove them. I was not aware of previous history that Acroterion describes, but I am aware that Carptrash has been an extremely civil and constructive editor in a different topic area (e.g. at Talk:List of pedimental sculptures in the United States), and I am aware of their participating constructively and patiently at the Confederate monuments page. Please do note that Carptrash has now been deemed "correct" in their criticism of the graphic, by editor Sandstein's closure of the RFC about it. C expressed themself carefully and politely throughout that RFC and related stuff, yet received an inordinate amount of attacking back at them. I myself participated some but couldn't stand it, and I cannot and have not been able to read all the ... garbage, to put it politely ... on that Talk page. In my diff with comment directed towards you, Fluous, I tried to be fair-ish and suggest possible over-involvement by you and possible over-focus by you upon Carptrash, though I acknowledge here that I did not review your participation on that page. Again, though, like Acroterion states, the Carptrash comments which you focused upon were fine and appropriate in my view. I will watch here and respond if necessary. --doncram 03:37, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	Formatting fastidiousness
	A clean colon is a happy colon. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:50, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regularity is important! Fluous (talk) 23:04, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you saw this: User_talk:K.e.coffman#Karen_Cox_book.2F_free_pdf. Please feel free to reach out. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:09, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@K.e.coffman: Emailed just now! Thank you! Fluous (talk) 01:13, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I seem to have brought an edit war onto this [4] article as they seem to be going back through my logs and deleting links. ApologiesC. W. Gilmore (talk) 18:26, 5 November 2017 (UTC).[reply]

It looks like the editor has given up for now. Hope it stays that way. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 05:24, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating List of monuments and memorials to Christopher Columbus, Fluous!

Wikipedia editor Cwmhiraeth just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

This is an impressive list and a useful addition to Wikipedia. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

To reply, leave a comment on Cwmhiraeth's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

	Happy Holidays
	Wishing you a happy holiday season! Times flies and 2018 is around the corner. Thank you for your contributions. ~ K.e.coffman (talk) 01:46, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I provided reasoning in edit summary and talk page. I'd appreciate a better revert reason here. Arkon (talk) 23:02, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Arkon: take it to the talk page. We're discussing that section right now. Fluous (talk) 00:15, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are we? I don't see your name in the discussion, much less a valid reason for the revert. Arkon (talk) 00:23, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of plain English words and phrases 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/List of plain English words and phrases until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:11, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider adding a comment to the discussion on the Second Amendment sanctuary talk page. --Mox La Push (talk) 08:08, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ýou can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

You can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

Ýou can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

You can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list