User talk:SFC9394

Toolbox | ToDo | Sandbox | WIP'S | Commons | Meta-Wiki | Wiktionary

Please click here to leave me a message.

Archives

2006 Archive 2007 Archive 2008 Archive

Hi what was wrong with pork pie edit? It was true. I am unsure how to source please advise.

• Perhaps you would be kind enough to explain why you removed the information I added about her forthcoming baby and the external link that referenced this information? Thank you. Paste ^Talk 10:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The info was re-added with the link placed at the bottom of the article (where I didn't see it), rather than using the standard referencing <ref> </ref> tags - hence I didn't know it was referenced. WP:BLP is very very clear - so there will never be hesitation in removing personal information unless it is reffed. SFC9394 (talk) 21:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have some concerns over multiple changes to the snooker articles. Can you please let me know what you think at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Snooker#Mass_vandalism Betty Logan (talk) 14:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since your "census" a new more clearer professional looking map has been created. The one of Scotland is awful. It shows no rivers, no division areas. I just we review the situtaion and come to a new consensus. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 10:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a contributor to the original teamwork, you may be interested in:

• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Scotland#Scotland_location

Cheers for countering the recent vandalism at my Talkpage. That user is since indefinitely blocked. --Mais oui! (talk) 12:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you realize that you just called "BS" the goals and tools of a multi-million dollar donor to the Wikimedia Foundation? How dare you?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

(Is that a sufficient number of exclamation points and question marks to make my tongue-in-cheek point?) -- Thekohser 00:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I understand why you did the revert on Industrial Revolution due to different varieties of English being accepted, but the new editor that did the change might not. Please try to explain to them why their edits were reverted. For this case, we have a nice template in {{uw-lang}}. Thank you. -- Alexf^(talk) 11:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I judge that the frequency with which those rv's have to be made on the IR page makes it time consuming from my standpoint to have to go around posting notice on every occasion. The language choice is noted on the article talk page banner and the article itself is very frequently Americanized (sometimes in good faith and sometimes not), thus reverts occur all the time. I have a limited amount of time to invest on WP, and on that particular article the regularity of language reverts makes it impractical from my standpoint to be constantly posting notices (my reverts there over the years must number in the hundreds). If such a new editor has any concerns or confusion then they can quickly find the answer on the article talk page or contact me directly and I will happily give them guidance, but I'm afraid I judge that every instance of language change requiring talk notices as impractical - and frankly if it is between that, or me simply not making the revert at all, then I will do nothing - and the whole encyclopaedia suffers. This is nothing personal against your message (which I am sure was intended in good faith), I am just getting fed up with the bureaucratisation of wikipedia. SFC9394 (talk) 13:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

for reverting my very small factual contribution to your article. Your pointy, rude and propriatorial edit summary however is not appreciated. Leaky Caldron 23:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please AGF - if you can't then don't bother editing wikiepdia. Or start edit wars, as it seemed you were about to do until my edit forced you to talk. SFC9394 (talk) 23:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Why did you delete the mindmap? ULahn (talk) 18:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by ULahn (talk • contribs) 18:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better to join the discussion. Edit warring is not a solution. --Obersachse (talk) 22:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not falsely label me as edit warring and imply I am not interested in talking - as the person trying to make the change it is your responsibility to raise the consensus for change - and a 9 word statement on the talk page by you over a year ago does not constitute a discussion or a consensus. I have started a thread on the Scottish Wikipedians page to discuss this - higher visibility than a template talk page that nobody will ever see. I am interested in a discussion taking place and a consensus being reached - not a game of "everything must be the same". SFC9394 (talk) 22:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SFC9394. A new stub, Power Snooker , has been added. It has ben suggested that this stub be merged to main article Snooker. Editors are invited to go to Talk:Power Snooker and leave their views in the debate.Kudpung (talk) 03:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prod templates may be removed by anyone, at any time, for any reason. Please do not re add them after someone has removed them, AFD is the next step, not slapping the PROD back on. Courcelles 16:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An SPA with a likely COI contests and as a consequence 100 laps of bureaucracy (something wikipedia is becoming infamous for) are the outcome, quelle surprise. I have no time for AfD (I have a limited time to dedicate to WP), so the clearly promotional article will thus remain. SFC9394 (talk) 19:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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, guidelines for use at WP:MINOR). 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 all users will still be able to manually mark their edits as being minor in the usual way.

For well-established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. 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) 20:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Stranraer FC Badge.png. 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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 18:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And the utter fucking insanity and downward spiral of wikipedia continues - bureaucrats unite, you have nothing to loose but your interfering nature. We now have a non-free svg, great stuffs, just what the copyright doctors ordered, and I get the notice from some dumb bot rather than whoever uploaded svg's of fair use images. Wikipedia is going to hell in a handbasket. SFC9394 (talk) 22:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SFC, please retract the Question from Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography. I haven't called you a troll. GoodDay (talk) 23:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:SFC9394/WIP4, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:SFC9394/WIP4 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:SFC9394/WIP4 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. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 18:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. If you haven't seen it before, you might want to read User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_126#Qorvis_and_Wikipedia_manipulation. The Washington Post article is a re-hash of this blog post. SmartSE (talk) 23:31, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm User:Parsonscat. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living person, but you didn’t follow WP:BLPSTYLE (on 'Tone') and you didn't engage in the discussion on the article's talk page. Wikipedia has a strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. The Parson's Cat (talk) 09:48, 10 February 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) 13:05, 23 November 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) 13:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SFC9394, I have seen your snooker video and I wanted to know how you did this simulation and in which language and softwares (I use Open GL tools) ? Thanks for answering --Denismenchov08 (talk) 22:12, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've opened a GAR on the Industrial Revolution article for which you are or have been a significant contributor. I have concerns that it does not quite meet current GA criteria regarding a number of issues, including layout, image use, and inline citations, and that length, prose, and use of external links also need discussing. Following the guidelines at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment, I'm letting you know in case you're interested in helping to resolve the concerns, though you are under no obligation to do anything. See Talk:Industrial Revolution/GA2 for more details. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:10, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SFC9394. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SFC9394. 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]

Hello, SFC9394. 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]

Hi SFC9394, You have made a mistake removing that link. That link infect in the guideline of the wikipedia. That article will help users to know how scary phone calls they can get and how to tackle that kind of phone calls. What make you think it is not useful link? Please add that link back or let me know and I will undo your changes. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junagadh86 (talk • contribs) 00:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are linking to a random blog, google summary: "Food, Travel, Beauty, Music and Fashion Blog". That is not a notable website, not authoritative and is not appropriate link to add. You have no other contributions and all you do is add the link to that website. All this tells me it is spam. It will be remove, you will continue to be warned if you re-add it, and that may lead to you being banned from editing wikipedia. SFC9394 (talk) 20:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My changes to the "Rules of Snooker" article most definitely do not constitute vandalism, as you allege in your first undo. I have never and would never vandalize an article. Also, my claims of grammar correction are not "false." They are legitimate. Of course snooker is played by males and females alike, but that is not the issue here. The issue is article readability. Your threats of "consequences" and having me banned are not in the spirit of Wikipedia. We need to work toward consensus. I have no intention of introducing gender bias into the article. I am merely correcting subject-verb agreement issues and thereby making the article more readable. Please let me know if you now understand the edits from this perspective. If so, I will restore them. Let's proceed in a civil and mature way. No more threats, please.Robmbkk (talk) 20:23, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"but that is not the issue here" - no it absolutely is the issue here. The sport is gender neutral - competitions, up to and including the world championship are not gender specific - thus the article should be gender neutral. "I have no intention of introducing gender bias into the article" That is exactly what you have done. This is an active area of concern for the sport, see: [1], [2], [3], [4]. And we should not be reinforcing outdated stereotypes by reinforcing that the sport is only for men to play, see [5]. I am glad you have agreed to leave the article as is - if you obtain consensus for a change then that is fine with me, but I doubt very much that you will find it, for the sport and its participants have no gender, so deliberately introducing one is not ok. SFC9394 (talk) 20:56, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I actually did not agree to leave the article as is, as you say. The crux of this dispute seems to be intent. My actual intent was to correct the grammar in and improve the readability of the article. You assert that the intent was to introduce gender bias and reinforce outdated stereotypes, and that simply is not true. When I made the edits, I actually knew nothing about any issues around female versus male participation in the sport, and that undoubtedly is due to the fact that my cable company shows only male snooker tournaments. Regardless, the point is that I was only attempting to establish proper subject-verb agreement, and I opted for the traditional approach of using the third-person masculine pronoun as a default.

Regarding the issue of gender-neutral pronoun usage, you will see that there is no consensus even in Wikipedia's "Third-person pronoun" article. The bottom line is that options for implementing gender-neutral language in formal writing is an ongoing debate. Certainly Wikipedia has not established any rules or guidelines in this area, at least not that I'm aware of.

I want to be sensitive to the concerns that some people have when it comes to gender bias in language, but at the same time, I want to eliminate the awkward instances of subject-verb disagreement in this article. I will therefore redo my edits using gender-neutral language. Where possible, I will eliminate the pronoun altogether: for instance, instead of saying "his turn ends and the opponent begins to play," I will say "the turn ends." And in those sentences where a pronoun is needed for readability, I will use "he/she." With this approach, the grammar will be correct, the article will be more readable, and there will be no implications of gender bias -- and for that reason, I believe this thread can now be closed.Robmbkk (talk) 05:54, 19 September 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) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 01:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a link to a transcript: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/2qHsm9RPKWWFTs6bNppNcnN/tiger-woods-ethnicity-2-may-1997

I have removed your re-insertation of the paragraph regarding Alistair Cooke's views of the increase in young black men entering the golfing world. I have no doubt you mean well and want to give a full account of his life on the page. However, I ask you please go and actually listen to the broadcast in full to understand his argument. I agree his use of langauge was poor and the word 'infest' in particuar reads incredibly badly. But please listen to the full context of his argument; he is arguing that such celebrity success' encourage young men to enter a career they, like everyone else, have almost no chance of success. To improve the plight of Black America, we need to get people into all walks of life and career rather than a stereotype of rags to ruins that so rarely occurs. Here's the section you had quoted with a little more background; again go an read or listen infull: (Try and look past the out-dated langauge that a man of his era used - he was a man of his time with some views you and I disagree with, but he was not making the overtly racist argument you made it look like)

"After a collage of Tiger Woods driving, chipping, putting, winning, it showed a parade of little black boys, some girls, saying, chanting in turn, "I'm Tiger Woods! I'm Tiger Woods!" You could see from the gleam in their dark eyes that they meant to learn golf and go onwards and upwards and maybe they too, the day after they turn pro, can bag a sponsor, two sponsors, with a collective promise of $60million. Those happy faces with their proud little recitations formed, for me, the saddest image, memory, of the day.

This has happened before. After the emergence of every star basketball player, every black city slum came alive with a square of bare ground and an iron hoop and a clutch of small black boys practising, practising, endlessly at throwing the ball in from every angle. Many black boys, many more blacks than whites, saw basketball as the blessed escape from poverty.

Of course, what it is heartbreaking even to hint to them is that not one boy in 200,000 will ever make it. Though it costs very little indeed to rig up a hoop on a patch of raw ground, but where are they going to get and buy and have access to a 130 acres to play on? The disillusion will set in next year, or the one after.

Like the day after uhuru, the day of freedom for an old colony which is celebrated with bands by day and firecrackers by night. Next day, having knocked down the old regime, they have the awful job of building a new one.

Still, one thing is for sure. There'll be a spectacular increase in the number of black boys, and I do mean boys, teenagers, who begin to infest the public courses in America. And people who still believe golf is an exclusively country club, rich man's game, should know that 65% of all the golf courses in America are public courses."

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:02, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:32TeamBracket-WSC has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Pbrks ^(t • c) 21:28, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Puzzleword.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:38, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]