User talk:Flexdream

Now we have Grokopedia then Wikipedia is obsolete. Great news, I won't be back ..--Flexdream (talk) 10:46, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, didn't even know this was a thing. It'll take some time for it to compete, though the lack of political bias should aid it...hopefully.Halbared (talk) 11:30, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's making rapid progress, you can suggest new articles, and edits to existing articles - check out https://grokipedia.com/. Edit wars and meaningless disputes on article talk pages are history. Have a go, see what you think. Flexdream (talk) 19:35, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I shall take a gander, thank you. And here...well...some disputes can go the right way with the right sorts and enough good voices... ;) Halbared (talk) 20:43, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think both can co-exist, at least for now, but inevitably the machines will eventually take over =:o Flexdream (talk) 18:42, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes...but while we few still exist, we can still fight the good fight in the right places. ;)

We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;

For he to-day that sheds his blood with me

Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,

This day shall gentle his condition;

And gentlemen in England now a-bed

Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here,

And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks

That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day. Halbared (talk) 17:15, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse that message! :) Flexdream (talk) 21:49, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Archives

Archive 1

January 2026

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contribution(s). However, as a general rule, while user talk pages permit a small degree of generalisation, other talk pages such as Talk:Scott Adams are strictly for discussing improvements to their associated main pages, and many of them have special instructions on the top. They are not a general discussion forum about the article's topic or any other topic. If you have questions or ideas and are not sure where to post them, consider asking at the Teahouse. Thanks. Marcus Markup (talk) 20:04, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Troubles, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

FDW777 (talk) 19:39, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sharp Practice (wargame) (January 15)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Rambley was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
reliable
secondary
independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit it after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Sharp Practice (wargame) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Rambley ^{(talk / contribs)} 21:16, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Flexdream! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Rambley ^{(talk / contribs)} 21:16, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Epstein Files Full PDF

January 2026

Introduction to contentious topics

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sharp Practice (wargame) (January 15)