User talk:FlightTime/Archive 42

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page.

means titled by himself, which is probably true of all Bob Dylan's albums. "Eponymous" means named after him. But I’m content to let you pick. Paul Magnussen (talk) 23:52, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Magnussen (talk) 23:52, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul Magnussen: I've found this to be a good explanation of "Eponymous" - FlightTime (open channel) 23:59, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul Magnussen: and what's this about? - FlightTime (open channel) 00:05, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re: James E. Fitzsimmons - race wins removed. I don't understand. Xavier Xavier Newcombe (talk) 14:38, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Xavier Newcombe: I've restored the category, however the other information you added was unsourced and you did not explain either of your changes. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:48, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey FlightTime,

I see you haven't responded in about 2 days. If you're busy, just reply "busy" to this message. I would love to be patient but I would like to hear your thoughts on my messages. (I tried to fix it)

Thanks! Sniper3d107 (talk) 18:39, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm busy - FlightTime (open channel) 02:40, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.Player001eliminated (talk) 22:37, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I don't know if your notifications are broken, but I have mentioned you a couple times at my username change request. I was told that my new name (Ronaldo7M) was the impersonation of Cristiano Ronaldo (CR7), which is a little bit bold to say the least, but either way, I will "state clearly on my userpage that I'm unrelated to him", just like Eden10Hazard...

If you could get this done before mid-night, AKA on 05/05/2025, I would really appreciate it. Barr Theo (talk) 18:59, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FlightTime: Hold a second. So... If Cabayi can't be overriden, then doesn't that mean that the only person who can now change my name is him? Hmm... Listen, I won't talk with him because in my experience, when you try to convince someone to do something that they have already refused, they usually say "no" again purely out of stubbornness.

I don't want to complicate things even more, so, just tell me this. If I repost my request on the 15th or 25th of May (25/05/2025), can you accept, or still don't? Kind regards. Barr Theo (talk) 21:59, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I saw your revert here as a result of your ANI thread -- I agree that the editor has been disruptive, but I did want to state that the content they added does appeared to be supported by the sourcing at Sara (song). Would you be OK with me adding it back with the sourcing provided over there? I ask, because I do not want such an edit on my part to be seen as getting involved in edit warring, so I figured I'd reach out here first. JeffSpaceman (talk) 01:14, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JeffSpaceman: Yes, of course, if its correct info. Thanx for the heads up :) - FlightTime (open channel) 01:17, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for pointing out my mistake here! I didn't notice that I had accidentally added a colon while copying and pasting. Again, thanks! Ɔþʱʏɾɪʊs^⚔ 14:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ophyrius: No problem. - FlightTime (open channel) 13:14, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear FlightTime, I'm wondering why you reverted my edit on the "Petticoat Junction" article (to include the cover of the theme song by the band Betty. If the article includes other cover versions of the song, I don't understand why we wouldn't include this one. I provided citations. Jhlechner (talk) 13:31, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jhlechner: I thought it to be non-notable, just because someone records a cover doesn't mean it's notable. You can seek consensus on the talk page. - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 19:18, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good day, FlightTime. Could you please review my rename request? Thank you. — ArćRèv • talk 00:40, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TheArcRev:  Done - FlightTime (open channel) 00:52, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

The reason for my edit on the Dire Straits template was to emphasise that Mark Knopfler and John Illsley had been in every lineup of the group and thus formed its core.

I edited the order of the others a bit to reflect what I understood the order of joining/recruitment to be but I could have been wrong there. Bostart (talk) 22:53, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bostart: Well, my talk page is not the place to argue your point, please take it on the article page. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:55, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies - this was the only link I could perceive. Bostart (talk) 23:19, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,please rea the information, because i NEVER add anything with out a reference, please indicate wha is correct, because everything is taken by publication Heart of the Tinman: Autobiography by Jack Haley, the image i didnt change so it must have been a previous editor, because it was already that picture there?.

I reverted your changes because there was no discussion or consensus to change the main image, please change it back. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:44, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As is said, i did not change theimage, that was the photo that was there when i went to the article, everything else is correct and sourced under reference 1 and reference 3 inline citations, i always add sources 122.106.2.164 (talk) 16:48, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But if you like the other picture better we can change it, i will change it for you

NO, leave it alone. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:51, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, You reverted an edit I made to the page for A-Ha's video for Take On Me. I'm trying make a good faith contribution to the understanding of the video so would appreciate guidance about how to improve what I've done. I think the influence on the video by Coctoeau's film is really siginificant, both thematically, but also graphically, and this first struck me, almost immediately, in 1985 when I saw the video, as it did a couple of other cineasts, and students of Cocteau's film who I was with when we saw it. I've found commment in the webpage that i cited, and on sites like Reddit, which I appreciate aren't perhaps valid references, but the parallels between the two peices of work are strong, and i would argue, are notable. How might one introduce this as a talking point? Soundofjura (talk) 19:21, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Soundofjura: I don't. Please take your concerns to the talk page and seek consensus for your addition. Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel) 19:56, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we are just blocking IPs, the user is using multiple proxies, and changes the text to evade detection. PhilKnight (talk) 18:10, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PhilKnight: Thanx for the reply, I figured if range blocks weren't being used, that we were just stuck with it. Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel) 18:13, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PhilKnight: I know the list of articles be attacked is long, but would it be feasible to semi them? If so I could compile a list, IDK. - FlightTime (open channel) 18:37, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They keep changing. They are quite flexible. I am not sure semi-protection would work. PhilKnight (talk) 18:39, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, how do I cite a new single from a musician that has been recently released? My edit was removed because I didn’t cite it, but when I tried to cite it, that was removed too. The link I provided was removed because it was a Yahoo url, but it was the Rolling Stone Article on the official release. Yahoo linked the story, they didn’t have anything to do with the content. So was the issue with the Yahoo url or the Rolling Stone article? If I link the Rolling Stone article directly would that be ok? I’m just trying to help and I didn’t mean to make a mistake. I appreciate the help!! —Waymorefan, (talk • contribs) 20:59, June 16, 2025 (UTC)

@Waymorefan: First of all Wikipedia is not a reliable source, so linking to the main article will not satisfy that requirement. Yahoo is never a good source. Wikipedia:Verifiability and Help:Referencing for beginners should answer your other concerns. Cheers, - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 14:51, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted you to know that your support is much appreciated.  Ohc ^{revolution of our times} 10:40, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. - FlightTime (open channel) 13:09, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FlightTime: Hi there, I noticed that flight time phone, Some of my edits were removed because of genre warring although that’s not what I was trying to do. I was trying to revert old edits on Wikipedia and add some new ones. I used to be a Wikipedia editor back in 2007, but things changed in my life. If I am making a huge mistake on Wikipedia, please let me know because I am not trying to vandalize this website. 209.96.222.65 (talk) 18:43, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All my reasons and answers are posted (by me) on your talk page. Cheers, - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 18:45, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm puzzled by this edit. There are two instances of "platinum" in the lead, the first of which is capitalized and the second lowercase. My first edit was to capitalize the second instance in the interest of consistency. You reverted, okay, fine. My second edit was to make the first instance lowercase, again, only in the interest of consistency (I am no capitalization warrior, and in this case am solely concerned with being consistent from one paragraph to another). You reverted that edit with the summary "Lowercase", even though you made it capitalized. I'm assuming you thought I'd capitalized the second instance again, rather than making the first lowercase? This is hardly important enough to edit war over so I'll refrain from making any further changes, but can you let me know if there's something here I'm missing? Thanks. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 16:20, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed - FlightTime (open channel) 16:23, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 16:27, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Apple Valley Senior High School (logo).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free 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. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 06:34, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good day. I've uploaded a higher quality version of the logo. Kindly check if it's okay and revert the corresponding edit on the article. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 14:05, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Minorax: I've already restored the older version which is a bit clearer, a SVG version would be better. Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel) 14:11, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is with regards to you continuously reverting my edits to the lead to The Count of Monte Cristo.

I hope you are aware that the changes I've made where what originally existed on the page and were acceptable to most of us who have read the novel before they were changed by a user, and that I've only changed it back to what it originally was.

I have my reasons for believing the lead should be stated in that particular way as I explained in my last edit which you then reverted, and I do not think the Peacock guidelines about avoiding vague, flattering language are applicable in this case. The reader is clearly informed about Dantes' purpose and mission by the phrase "to avenge himself".

Furthermore, I would argue it is more representative of his personal obsession with exacting revenge than the phrase "focused on revenge". Dantes was obsessed with revenge, it was all that mattered to him, not just focused on it like it was one amongst many other goals to him. I don't think the phrase "focused on revenge" communicates as strongly his deep, unhealthy, obsessive desire to punish his wrongdoers which is a major plot point.

Secondly, the lead, as in the form I've reverted it to, is more succinct than the one I reverted it from. It uses fewer words to communicate the meaning and that's good in general.

If you'd like to revert my edit, I would really appreciate if you could justify your reasons for wanting to do so pursuant to these points I've raised. Good day.

Thecountofmontecristo17 (talk) 07:34, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The last revert was for, overlinking. - FlightTime (open channel) 13:46, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused why you reverted my reliably sourced edits on Joey (Concrete Blonde song) for the reasoning it needs consensus, when you're the only editor who's disagreed with my edits and have given no reason for such. Unless, there's a dispute there's no needs for consensus and you've given no reason for your dispute. Also, are you aware you removed a link to another article in the single chronology and mislabel the band as alternative rock on the lead when their article refers to them as simply rock? What's the reasoning for that? CleoCat16 (talk) 19:36, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Being discussed elsewhere. - FlightTime (open channel) 13:10, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, could you explain why you characterised my copyedits to the Half a Life article as "mass content removal"? I didn't even delete any content. Just moved around some pics and lightly copyedited some sentences. —indopug (talk) 19:43, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Indopug:I call this unexplained content removal, don't care what you call it. - FlightTime (open channel) 13:17, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The explanation is right there, and has nothing to do with the topic at hand—my harmless copyedits. If you had any sense of honour and decency you would revert yourself here, here, here, and here. —indopug (talk) 14:10, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I received your earlier message about overlinks, and I'm trying to follow the rules.

My question concerns the page Dragon International Film Studios.

I would like to add an "External Links" section at the bottom of the page, with its official website. However, it already has its official website in its "sources" section.

Would it be okay if I made the "External Links" section with that same link?

EncyloThesaurus (talk) 20:10, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:ELCITE. - FlightTime (open channel) 13:13, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Rename of Arjun G. Menon to ArtistProgrammer. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:26, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FlightTime: with regards to this, consensus has gone in a very clear direction and the conversation has all but halted. Closing this discussion did not feel remotely contentious—it meets all the closure criteria—but I have added this to WP:CR anyway. MB2437 00:05, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, FlightTime. Per your request, your account has been granted temporary account IP viewer rights. You are now able to reveal the IP addresses of individuals using temporary accounts that are not visible to the general public. This is very sensitive information that is only to be used to aid in anti-abuse workflows. Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer for more information on this user right. It is important to remember:

• You must not share IP address data with someone who does not have the same access permissions unless disclosure is permissible as per guidelines listed at Foundation:Policy:Wikimedia Access to Temporary Account IP Addresses Policy.
• Access should not be used for political control, to apply pressure on editors, or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute. There must be a valid reason to investigate a temporary user. Note that using multiple temporary accounts is not forbidden, so long as they are not used in violation of policies (for example, block or ban evasion).

It is also important to note that the following actions are logged for others to see:

• When a user accepts the preference that enables or disables IP reveal for their account.
• Revealing an IP address of a temporary account.
• Listing the temporary accounts that are associated with an IP address or CIDR range.

Remember, even if a user is violating policy, avoid revealing personal information if possible. Use temporary account usernames rather than disclosing IP addresses directly, or give information such as same network/not same network or similar. If you do not want the user right anymore then please ask me or another administrator and it will be removed for you. Happy editing! – robertsky (talk) 21:41, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, please go check if the edit is now correct in Dua Lipa. I only want to contribute. Thanks. TheMikaelEmanuelsson (talk) 19:43, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TheMikaelEmanuelsson: Regular page watchers will let you know if it isn't. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:02, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FlightTime, I've noticed you've declined a few simple rename requests from new accounts that haven't made any edits. I can't remember if this was ever discussed on the mailing list, but per Global renamers/FAQ § Are zero edit-renames allowed?, renaming such accounts is perfectly fine, so I don't think we should be declining requests from such accounts anymore. Usurpations are a different story, but for simple requests it's A-OK. —⁠k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 02:57, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@K6ka: Just following what's been done regularly by others. But OK, I just won't work any of those from now on. - FlightTime (open channel) 14:47, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@K6ka: Maybe there needs to be a discussion. - FlightTime (open channel) 14:06, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Might just be inertia, I suppose (we used to refuse them back when renames were expensive). For what it's worth, I searched the mailing list and we did have a discussion on zero edit renames back in 2015 that found consensus for accepting them, for two main reasons:

1. You can't register multiple accounts with the same email address; and
2. Renaming preserves your preferences.

I'll leave JBW a reminder about that. —⁠k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 13:37, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@K6ka: I don't see an issue with requests for a hours/couple days old account with no edits, wasting our time. @JBW: I'd be interested in your view. - FlightTime (open channel) 13:41, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

K6ka has also posted about this on my talk page. Here is a copy of a comment I posted there: I have encountered this claim that you can't have more than one account with the same email address before, but I don't know where it comes from. I have the same email address set for both JBW and JBW3, and many years ago, as documented on my user page, I had several accounts, all with the same email address. I have just now sent test emails from JBW to JBW3 and from JBW3 to JBW to check, and both of them were successfully delivered to the same email account.

As for requests for changes of username for unused accounts, I have no personal objection to them at all, and in the case of accounts with any edits, even one (not counting the rename request) it has always seemed to me that renaming to keep the editing history would be better. I have just followed what appeared to be consensus, but if it isn't, then I have no problem at all with being asked to change my practice. JBW (talk) 14:37, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		The Special Barnstar
		I hope there's no bad blood between us. While it might not seem it, I respect you for how long you've kept an eye on music articles. I'd never be able to do that, which is why I'm giving you this barnstar. If you redecide on moving away from music articles, I'll be happy to edit with you. CleoCat16 (talk) 00:28, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CleoCat16 (talk) 00:28, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CleoCat16: Thank you very much No, I've been defending musical articles (from my era) since my first edit. I'm afraid, now that I'm not, shit is going to go down hill, I hope not. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:46, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’d like to raise a concern about the recent reversion of sourced material regarding John Rhys-Davies’ public comments on Islam.

The material was removed as though it were “unsourced” or “undue,” but in fact, there is ample published evidence:

WalesOnline (2004) reported Rhys-Davies warning that Europe would “lose its racial and cultural identity” due to Muslim immigration. This frames Muslims collectively as a demographic threat.

In a 2015 PoliticKING interview with Larry King, Rhys-Davies stated that “we’re too weak to say Islam is not a religion of peace,” a generalization indicting the faith as a whole.

Both are reliable secondary sources and are directly relevant to the subject’s public statements. Per WP:NPOV and WP:RS, the article should reflect these views in proportion to their coverage. Per WP:BLP, negative material must be well-sourced — which this is. Excluding them risks whitewashing.

I propose reinstating the Islamophobia material with clear attribution, properly cited to WalesOnline and PoliticKING. This ensures neutrality and verifiability. 104.195.245.61 (talk) 16:51, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please take your concerns to the article talk page, not here. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:04, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't the book itself count as a source of what's un the book? Should I add the book itself to the references list, besides linking to the book's Wikipedia page? (This is about Petra) Leonardo Ferreira Fontenelle (talk) 23:18, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Help:Referencing for beginners. - FlightTime (open channel) 00:10, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]