User talk:Flowerpotman

; Archives
	Archive: October 2006 — February 2007; Archive: March 2007 — May 2007; Archive: June 2007 — July 2007; Archive: August 2007 — October 2007; Archive: November 2007 — January 2008; Archive: February 2008 — May 2008; Archive: June 2008 — February 2009; Archive: March 2009 — July 2009; Archive: August 2009 — April 2011; Archive: April 2011 — May 2012; Archive: June 2012 —June 2013;

Welcome to my talk page.

Please post your new topic at the bottom of this page.
Please sign and date your entry by inserting "~~~~" at the end.
Please use a new ==Descriptive heading== for new topics.
Please indent your posts with ":" if replying to an existing topic (or "::" if replying to a reply).
I will generally respond here to comments that are posted here, rather than replying via your Talk page (or the article Talk page, if you are writing to me here about an article), so you may want to Watch this page until you are responded to, or specifically let me know where you'd prefer the reply.
If you don't follow each and every instruction given above exactly to the letter, be advised that.... well... it is not going to be the end of the world. Wikipedia won't grind to a halt. If you get the formatting wrong, DON'T PANIC! I'll work it out.

⇒ Start a new Talk topic.

Seeking your arbitration Comment

I noticed that you have had previous input on the article Mohammed Burhanuddin. Well, there is an ongoing dispute between myself and another editor regarding the inclusion/exclusion of a stampede at this mans funeral. Could you please leave your thoughts on the talk page discussion. Thanks.Fotoriety (talk) 23:30, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some stroopwafels for you!

Thank you for pointing out the difference between Examiner.com and Irish Examiner. Laun chba ller 19:35, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and no prob. :) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 20:45, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Geez, that is one small signature! I recommend you increase the font; it needn't be standard size but right now I can't actually read it, and I have very good eyesight.--Laun chba ller 20:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Really? I'll take a look at the formatting, but it appears only marginally smaller than the preceding text on my machine and any other machine I've used, either Windows or Linux based. It's been the much the same signature for the last 6 or 7 years and nobody has had a problem with it, but I'll have a look at the code again. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 21:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When I have access to a computer I can take screendumps from - Windows Explorer does not work on my home computer and thus I have to open and close stuff using Task Manager - I will take a screendump for illustration purposes. I think it's just the font, though.--Laun chba ller 21:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The signature should have been appearing as a small-caps variant (with a drop-shadow) of whatever your default monospace font is; I hadn't specified a named font, although I have put Courier New in as the first option now, despite my inner geek not liking to specify fonts, preferring to leave that to the user. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 21:28, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Much better, thank you.--Laun chba ller 21:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That sort of suggests a system or browser issue on your end, with my money on it being a browser issue. The only change I made was to add Courier New as the first font face option in the old-style HTML code in the signature; the old sig code didn't specify a font face or size, just a general family, so the signature should have used your default monospace font and the size attributes would have been inherited from the page. It was even rendering correctly on my antique Android phone. So maybe you should check what the settings for whatever monotype font the browser is defaulting to? I know I had much the same issue with Firefox dealing with default serif fonts a while back when it decided to use an unpleasant sans-serif font. I never did work out why the default font got changed, but it had. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 22:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	I'm deeply impressed that you were able to correctly identify a multi-year-dormant sock, now confirmed, from the flavor of their hoaxing. As a result, the CU identified at least three additional socks, and as a result, it is likely that the Wiki will have fewer hoaxes once that process completes. It couldn't have happened without you. Bravo! j⚛e decker ^talk 18:30, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks... :) Just looking at the SPI page now. Couldn't find any definites when I was sock-hunting earlier in the week, but I'll start sifting through his most recent contributions and see what pops up. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 18:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Micguffin

Hello please take a look at user Mr Micguffin for he has insulted me and has also tried to vandalise many pages with inappropriate content in articles such as, Tanks,computers and more i hope you put a stop to this. Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.114.172.5 (talk) 15:08, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I like to chase little girls and beat dogs I am a good Wikipedia user even if I am wanted in seven states good day to you sir♥. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.114.172.5 (talk) 15:55, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Link Error

So, how am I to thank you for something you did years ago, including showing me how to handle links, if your Feel free to leave a message link results in an error? Kovar (talk) 23:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Events happening in Dublin

Hi! As you tagged yourself as being in Ireland, I hope you don't mind me reaching out. We know have a recognised Wikimedia Community Ireland User Group and we have been running workshops and other events in Dublin and beyond. In case you are interested our next event will be this Saturday in Collins Barracks, you can find the details here. Smirkybec (talk) 22:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Lyonnet, FRS

I noted he might be the "Pierre Lyonet" listed at the Fellows list. Have you attempted to reconcile the different birth and death date details? Mark Hurd (talk) 00:48, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to come back to this article (and other articles) when I had more time to do a bit more delving for sources, but it looks like the dates in the English wiki article are almost certainly wrong and the dates in the Dutch Wikipedia article are correct. The date of his death in the infobox in the Dutch article is given as 10 January 1789 (rather than 10 October) and that can be sourced from an obituary in The Edinburgh magazine, or Literary miscellany of July 1789, which is available on Google Books here (pages 230 -233). The article confirms his election as an FRS in 1748 as well as giving more biographical details.. (I am not sure if that article was original to the Edinburgh Magazine or a reprint from another magazine. I can't find an earlier publication, but the article seems to have reprinted in more than publication subsequently, or portions of this article were lifted and used in later works) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 17:59, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why I didn't notice this before, but the reference on Pierre Lyonnet, [1] actually lists the RS birth and death dates, so I probably should have gone ahead and adjusted them. (At work now, so I'm not being bold at the moment.) Mark Hurd (talk) 01:17, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go for it. There seems to be a split between a lot of the more modern English-language sources and Dutch. I have noticed that the Encyclopedia Britannica goes with "born July 22, 1708 - died Oct. 10, 1789" and I think a lot of people are using those dates because its ....well.... the Encyclopedia Britannica. I would go with the RKD dates too :) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 18:16, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done -- I note the RKD birth date is two years earlier, but given I've referenced them I've gone with it. Mark Hurd (talk) 16:29, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

woy Hodgson

U made a big error on the Roy Hodgson page, he is actually an owl, and the first one ever to manage the England football team — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yualwayslying (talk • contribs) 19:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for patrolling "Wendy Warren and the News"

I appreciate it! Eddie Blick (talk) 18:48, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that wasn't as much "patrolling" as "reading"

. I have List of U.S. radio programs‎ on my watchlist and I knew I had heard the name Wendy Warren, but didn't know much else about it. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 19:23, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's good, too. I often wonder when I create an article how many people will read it. It's good to hear from someone who did! The Wendy Warren article resulted from my work on an article about Florence Freeman. As I gathered sources for her article, I found enough about the program to motivate me to write about it, too. Eddie Blick (talk) 00:18, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Fraser article

Wow - that was a quick review of my Fraser article - I didn't even get the Talk Page done before I got the message it had been reviewed! Any comments on it? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 19:07, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My first thought was that the depth of referencing made my job easy; I was able to check the salient points immediately and notabilty was immediately established, which from the point of view of someone who has waded through a lot of new articles in my time here, was a joy. The writing was clear; there were no obvious BLP issues; I didn't check every reference of course, but that really isn't the purpose of new page patrolling; it's more a first line of defence and I was happy to let you get on with writing. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 22:37, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. Very helpful. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 06:43, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Message from Aniamoj

Thank you for the heads up :-) I logged back on to give it another shot. Ainamoj.Aniamoj (talk) 19:45, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blake Fitzpatrick

Hi! I thought you would like to know that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blake_Fitzpatrick was deleted and is currently under deletion review after an arguably unreliable second Afd. Filmfan655321 (talk) 12:31, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge

Hi, at Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge we're striving to bring about 10,000 article improvements and creations for the UK and Ireland and inspire others to create more content. In order to achieve this we need diversity of content, in all parts of the UK and Ireland on all topics. Eventually a regional contest will be held for all parts of the British Isles, like they were for Wales and the Wedt Country. We currently have just over 1900 articles and need contributors! If you think you'd be interested in collaborating on this and helping reach the target quicker, please sign up and begin listing your entries there as soon as possible! Thanks.♦ --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Flowerpotman. 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]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Flowerpotman. 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]

The SCP Foundation

Hey, I stumbled upon your April Fools 2009 joke article. Needless to say, I fell for it, and so did many others! I was wondering if you had heard about the website the SCP Foundation, and if you'd be interested in writing it? It's a fictional organization that documents anomalies in a clinical tone. I think you would enjoy it. Please let me know if you are interested in writing for it! UncannyClown276 (talk) 05:58, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]