User talk:Flax5

Thanks for that. I was looking at this and meant to hit the "restore this version" on the first version, not the revert and restore the content. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 22:52, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I get it, no worries. —Flax5 23:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work on the templates! DonQuixote (talk) 22:24, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Always had a thing for templates. —Flax5 22:50, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

		The WikiProject Doctor Who Award
		For your fine work of bringing Doctor Who articles conveniently together via such templates as Template:Eighth Doctor Adventures. Great job!--DrWho42 (talk) 03:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply ]

Thank you! —Flax5 13:48, 10 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 Dermot Morgan page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Count Dracula, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Forbes-Robertson. 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) 08:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flax5. Yes, The Irish Times calls him a "Drimnagh musician/songwriter", presumably meaning he's from there. It even says "Walsh still lives in a flat in Crumlin", but then it goes on ".. Pugwash music resides far outside and beyond its origins." I wonder could the same be said for DLM? I was suggesting that any source actually has to appear, preferably in the DLM article. But does Walsh's nationality (or Hannon's for that matter) determine the band's "nationality"? I wonder where the band does most of its work - writing, recording, etc? It might be London for all I know. Calling it an "Irish band" is fine by me. But I think that would be valid here only if itself supported by a source. Cheers. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the place a band does its writing and recording is of any real importance - they just do it wherever is most practical and convenient for them. A band isn't subsumed into a different nationality just by working in a certain country. When someone refers to the Beatles as an "English band", what they mean is that John, Paul, George, and Ringo were born and grew up in England, not that they worked primarily in an English studio.

I've never heard The Duckworth-Lewis Method's nationality disputed before, but in any case, their official Google Play page refers to them as "an Irish pop group", so that could be used as a reference in the article if needed.

I'm not sure what the policy is for determining the nationality of bands with members of different nationalities. The only example that springs to mind, the Traveling Wilburys, are referred to as "an English-American supergroup". I suppose we could call DLM an "Irish-Northern Irish band", but that seems a little pedantic. —Flax5 19:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Beatles are called an English band (and more often a British band, I think) because they were from Liverpool, i.e. they first came together and played as a band in Liverpool. Even if Ringo was from Dublin, I think they'd still be called British. But then there were four of them. Where are The Duckworth Lewis Method "from"? I really don't know. "Origin" suggests it's something to do with the first place they played. But knowing Hannon's modus operandi, I suspect that could have been anywhere. These days, of course, you can have "virtual bands" whose members never even physically meet. Yes "Irish-Northern Irish band" looks a bit clumsy, doesn't it. But whatever is chosen, I think a source is needed. That one you suggest looks a very reasonable starting point. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:28, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, Flax5

I have recently made changes to The Matrix frachise's page, by replacing the creator as Sophia Stewart instead of the Wachowski brothers which has legally been settled in court with the copyrights being returned to Ms. Stewart. I am going to change it back again and I'd appreciate if you'd let the truth be in there, instead of a stolen lie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nvarcy (talk • contribs) 15:50, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

is rebecca's twitter ok as a reliable source? 66.25.246.226 (talk) 00:26, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, if you cite the tweet as a reference that'll do just fine. —Flax5 10:09, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point me to any of the members of this category that are actually about the moon? Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:44, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I would say that any song referring to the moon repeatedly or using the moon as a central image is "about the moon", particularly considering that songwriting is one of the more ambiguous art forms. For instance, I'd consider both The Killing Moon and The Whole of the Moon as being broadly "about the moon", though the moon seems (at least partly) symbolic in both. Are you saying the category should be reduced to focus on songs that are specifically about the moon on a physical, literal level? (Given its countless symbolic/artistic/metaphorical aspects, there are probably only a handful of those, though it's sometimes difficult to draw the line.) —Flax5 20:33, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I started looking at which were "about the moon" and here are my comments for the few I did:-

In other words, these are just song titles that mention the word "moon" and most certainly not about the moon. You have ignored every linquistic device known to man; moon as symbol of love, as apocalypse, etc etc. Comments? Do you want to review your work? --Richhoncho (talk) 21:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair points, I did essentially count songs that I thought referred to the moon prominently (eg, in the titles or chorus), so I'm sure mistakes crept in. I think we may just have a basic disagreement on what it means for a song to be "about" something – I would say that the writers' decisions to focus on the image/idea of the moon is a defining aspect that ties these songs together, and that (for instance) Waters's choice to use the moon as the song's central metaphor for madness is worthy of inclusion in the category, whereas your interpretation seems more literal (eg, songs about lunar travel). But thanks for the feedback – perhaps culling or even listifying is in order. Are there any Wikipedia guidelines for deciding this sort of thing? —Flax5 21:40, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just taking the Waters' song. It is NOT about the moon, Waters says so, what else do you need as proof? It's a pun on "lunatic." Then what connects it with any other song that uses the word "moon" other than the word "moon?" --Richhoncho (talk) 22:05, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I went through my music collection and added a few, probably not all of them directly "about" the moon, more that the moon happens to be mentioned in the title. Several reference moonlight, such as "Moonlight in Vermont" and "Moonlight Swim". Incidentally, "Blue Moon" does mention the moon in its lyrics: "I heard somebody whisper 'please adore me'/And when I looked the moon had turned to gold". "Blue Moon of Kentucky" has the lyrics "Blue Moon of Kentucky keep on shining". Others are probably safer, such as "Walking on the Moon" which is obviously about that topic. This is Paul (talk) 22:18, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quote from

WP:CAT, The central goal of the category system is to provide navigational links to all Wikipedia pages in a hierarchy of categories which readers, knowing essential—defining—characteristics of a topic, can browse and quickly find sets of pages on topics that are defined by those characteristics.2 (my bold). What do Blue Moon of Kentucky and Walking on the Moon have in common save the use of one word? --Richhoncho (talk) 22:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

ok, there's now a discussion about it here. Feel free to add any thoughts. This is Paul (talk) 22:55, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a

I apologize, but I made a mistake in tagging the edit. I hope this did not disrupt your editing, and have a good day.—azuki (talk · contribs · email) 12:24, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Flax5. 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

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. Thank you for cleaning up the plot section of Alien: Covenant. While I did use the creature names based on how they were referred to in the credits, I was initially considering on changing them to general terms to avoid referring to them in an in-universe way. I realized you already did this and I would like to thank you for doing so in a manner that actually clarifies the broad details of the plot. So once again, thank you. Demented-P (talk) 18:39, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! —Flax5 18:42, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting the vandalism here; should really also have templated it with a warning message. I've slapped one on - in effect, he's had one warning for at least 5 vandalistic acts... All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:57, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, to answer your question. I rearranged the order of events so as avoid flipping back and forth between locations. This has also been done earlier to the previous episodes. Plot summaries should summarize the plot. They need not follow the sequence of events as shown on TV. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:58, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article I Killed My Lesbian Wife, Hung Her on a Meat Hook, and Now I Have a Three-Picture Deal at Disney 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/I Killed My Lesbian Wife, Hung Her on a Meat Hook, and Now I Have a Three-Picture Deal at Disney 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.

Flax5, on the Star Trek Continues page you made a substantial edit with the explanation "there's no need for large tables and charts when the same information can be conveyed more effectively and concisely with simple lists." Yet in the process of this edit, you deleted significant information (i.e. characters' ranks) with no explanation. Can you shed light on why you did this -- or please re-instate the info you (perhaps accidentally) deleted. Thank you. Smegsmegsmeg (talk) 08:25, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't realise the ranks themselves were that important, so I just kept it down to the characters' roles ("Communications Officer" seems more informative and specific than "Lieutenant", etc). No big deal though, I'll put them back in. —Flax5 17:44, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Flax5. 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

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]

Hey! I saw that you edited the article Black Mirror and thought maybe you would be interested in this new user category I created?-🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 01:21, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grandfather Paradox (Doctor Who) 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. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:30, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Malcolm Tucker, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kevin O'Neill (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:30, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Flax5. 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

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]

talk) 18:04, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Orphaned non-free image File:Father Trendy portrait.jpg

Thanks for uploading

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) 02:40, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

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 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 NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply ]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

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 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 NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply ]

Category:Metafictional characters has been nominated for renaming

Category:Metafictional characters has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 16:24, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have the only comment on the cat's talk page, so manually tagging you. - RevelationDirect (talk) 16:24, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Media based on H. P. Lovecraft works

Template:Media based on H. P. Lovecraft works has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:23, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of

Grandfather Paradox (Doctor Who)

for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

Grandfather Paradox (Doctor Who) 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/Grandfather Paradox (Doctor Who) (2nd nomination) 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 until the discussion has finished.

Pokelego999 (talk) 15:46, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of

The Other (Doctor Who)

for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

The Other (Doctor Who), to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted

.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Other (Doctor Who) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Grandfather paradox dwm.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Grandfather paradox dwm.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) 17:15, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Chris cwej seventh doctor and roz.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Chris cwej seventh doctor and roz.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) 02:12, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:The other - doctor who.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:The other - doctor who.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) 02:45, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Monk stories

Template:Monk stories has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Pokelego999 (talk) 14:57, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of unrealized projects by artist has been nominated for renaming

Category:Lists of unrealized projects by artist has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:29, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 21 § Works by setting

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 21 § Works by setting on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:40, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Interquel video games has been nominated for renaming

Category:Interquel video games has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{blaze__wolf} 17:20, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Doña Lupe

The article Doña Lupe has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails

WP:NFILM

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

deleted for any of several reasons

.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:42, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]