User talk:Flat Out

DEAN GOULD

GIVE ME A CHANCE TO REVIEW, I'VE NOT BEEN ON WIKIPEDIA. 67.86.28.112 (talk) 00:55, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you have engaged me on this article, but it needs a lot of work. It appears the subject holds, or has held, world records that were verified by Guinness and therefore would meet the standard of notability. Please see the comments I have left on the article's talk page. Best wishes Flat Out (talk) 05:05, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Edward Little (Royal Navy officer)

I understand your issues with the sources in the first paragraph and I'll look more into it. The source that mentions Little and Franklin meeting is the fourth one and the entire meeting is explained in the article that's cited. Otherwise thank you for your input. TomuKdoNasMaRad (talk) 06:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Ferintosh Distillery

Thank you for taking the time to read my submission on Ferintosh Distillery. I believe the uncertainty in the archaeological paper refers to the exact location of the distillery, not whether it existed. I was able to find three other places in Scotland called Ferintosh, or variations thereof, but the description in the Act of Parliament (reproduced in facsimile at https://www.clan-forbes.org/culloden) confirms that production centred on Forbes' estates on the Black Isle. I wonder, would it help if I referenced specific pages within the books I cite? (I just found a full text link to the first book as well, but it does not look like an 'official' website https://www.akel.co.uk/work/books/Whisky.pdf). I am grateful for any advice you can offer to help me make my draft suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. Donaldpayne (talk) 15:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I spent a bit more time on this, and the book you added was most helpful. I have cut out wikitable as unnecessary and can be found at the source cited, and have simplified some of the wording to make it more direct. All of the content I deleted/changed is still there n the previous versions and you can revisit those if you wish. Well done, I found the article very interesting. Flat Out (talk)

Help please.

I want to know whats the rules behind using ChatGpP to wwritean article. Stuxnet.02 (talk) 20:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if there is any specific rule about using AI to wrote articles, but I would imagine that as long as the article is not a copyright violations, is written in a neutral and encyclopaedic tone and is well sourced with reliable sources, that there wouldn't be an issue/ Flat Out (talk) 00:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Stuxnet.02 (talk) 02:28, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see...

the edit summaries of the Jo Koy article, about which you've pinged me. I understand that the predisposition of all registered editors is to defer to other registered editors, over those editing from IP.

But the fact of the matter is that the registered editor's returning the very large block of unsourced material to the text—which out of deference to presently being a non-registered editor, I only hid from view, rather than deleting—are under onus, per WP:VERIFY and other policies and guidelines, to source the unverifiable content (or not return it). Hence, in this case, it is the registerd editor that is acting contrary to WP policies (WP:VERIFY and WP:OR), and beyond. Signed, a former registered editor of two decades, and a former univ. fac. member.98.226.86.66 (talk) 02:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your post, that editor is aware of the 3 revert rule so I am simply giving you the same courtesy. Best wishes Flat Out (talk) 02:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All good here. Without acknowledging error, that editor has returned the cleaner, better sourced variant. I will not engage him, and take the return to good form as a win. By the way, appreciate your choice of name. Cheers. 98.226.86.66 (talk) 02:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's more likely you were reverted because your edit summaries were a bit over the top. That's not a reason to revert someone of course, but maybe dial it back a bit. It's not quite true that everything has to have an inline ref, there's a subtle distinction between verifiable and verified, so while much of the time text should have an inline citation under WP:MINREF, if content is presumed verifiable and noncontentious it's not an issue. Thus, for example, edits like this aren't particularly helpful.

Now once content is challenged on substantive grounds as you did, it's preferable the content not be immediately reinstated. Even so, a quick note on the talk page is well advised if reverted. Bearing in mind that when everyone is reverting and no one is discussing barring the narrow subset covered by WP:3RRNO that often leads to all around blocks.

In sum, a lighter touch would probably have achieved the same outcome with less frustration all around, not the end of the world, but something to keep in mind going forward. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 02:43, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]