This is an archive of past discussions about User:Flewis. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hello, Flewis, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!
You aren't going to get an answer from XLinkBot, since it is a bot (it isn't controlled directly all the time by a person, but it was designed by one). If you want it to not revert your edits, you have to remove the YouTube links, since it's not accepted as a reference source on the wiki. It'll auto-revert all edits that have youtube links in them. miquonranger03 (talk) 02:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh wow...you're absolutely right. I'll trout myself a few times for all this :D I'll ask the creator of XLinkBot about this immediately, since it auto-removes YT links. miquonranger03 (talk) 02:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Here's the scoop. XLinkBot removes links that are legit by policy but have a policy of being abused by new/inexperienced users. It auto-reverts users who are not in the auto-confirm group (a method of drawing apart the good users from the bad which means at least 4 days of no warnings for vandalism and at least 10 edits) so if you repost it all, and XLB takes it off, I'll replace it, and it should stay there. You seem like a fantastic user anyway. :D miquonranger03 (talk) 02:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of Enema cocktail
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Enema cocktail, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.
Only if the articles themselves pass Wikipedia's notability/verifiability guidelines and policies. Remember - the purpose of disambiguation pages is to provide clarification between existing articles with similar names - they're not there to be used to list all possible articles which may or may not ever exist on WP. CultureDrone (talk) 11:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for those kind words :), umm for starters it's going to need better prose, so the lead will have to be a bit more detailed in explaining the Mark of the Year and all other related subjects needed in the lead (with reliable sources of course. Then you will have to format the table, and make the key into a table and instead of having the references external links make them references.--SRX13:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that there is a large group of editors who feel that any school is inherently notable. Accordingly, schools fall outside the scope of the A7 criterion. There are a number of other criterion that could get a school's article deleted (A1, A3, G10, G12), but the presumption is that being a school is an assertion of notability. —C.Fred (talk) 16:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
ChamalTalk± has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hi, I would like you to voice in on the removal of the MacDonald phrase on the Bush Doctrine article. It is blatantly anti-Semitic, fully objectionable and purports a non-NPOV view. It sabotages the reputability of the article and Wikipedia. I appeal to you for voting at Talk:Bush Doctrine#Central criticism. Also, you accusation of me vandalizing the article I have been contributing much to is incomprehensible to me - could you please explain further your rationale? I wanted the phrase removed, while User:Korny O'Near kept reintroducing the phrase. I subsequently asked for at least a compromise to include the full sentence - which you judged as vandalism. I find that utterly confusing, and do not understand how you would support something so non-NPOV as that anti-Semitic statement in an article on US foreign policy. It frankly baffles me... Please add you vote on the Talk page, since you have already been part of enforcing the phrase in place. Thanks. Scierguy (talk) 06:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok, sir thats what I was asking you, the original question stated, Did you revert edits to Vince McMahon's Article? I was probably mistaken, but I thought i would ask becuase on my watch page your name showed up last. Sorry for the inconvenience sir, just curious. Thank you and happy editing.
It looks like this article too, is not-notable. The only external links seems to be the official website. I've listed this article up for deletion. You can comment on it here. --Superflewis (talk) 02:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be enough vandalism to request page protection. The protection policy states that the article has to be subject to persistent vandalism. While there has been vandalism on thes article to a certain extent, I don't think it merits Page Protection. --Superflewis (talk) 02:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Chimera (X-Files)
Hi. It seems like your recent addition to Chimera (The X-Files) is copied directly from imdb. That's just not acceptable; you have to put everything in your own words. I do believe the topic of the article is notable, and I have some sources that might help establish that, but we can't just let a copyvio sit there. Zagalejo^^^01:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Leaving copyright issues aside, it's still somewhat unethical to lift phrases from other sites without clearly presenting them as someone else's work. (And just adding a footnote is not good enough when you're using exact quotes.) With that in mind, there are still some problems with the plot section. Try to paraphrase everything as much as you can. A phrase like "Mulder learns to enjoy the creature comforts of a well-tended home..." is way too close to the source. Zagalejo^^^02:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't know why you added the hoax tag to Barnafeochaig. True it isn't of first importance, but every wordo f it is 100% true. The best proof i can give you is this:
[5].
This will open a PDF file. Please type the word "Barnafeochaig" there and get the answer for the veracity of this article.
User:Hameshooamam—Preceding undated comment was added at 08:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC).
Hi there, I couldn't manage to find "Barnafeochaig" within the pdf article. Though you may be entirely correct, and I don't doubt that you are, the article has been placed up for deletion for a few reasons (Not vandalism related):
The article is Not Notable, this is highlighted by the fact that there are only 2 hits on Google, non of which directly relate to "Barnafeochaig"
Though this may not be a hoax, unless the article has 'inline citations', external links, and other articles linking to it, there are chances that the article will be deleted.
Wikipedia has a policy, which states that Reliable sources are necessary into to verify the veracity of the article. (This means, that you could be writing the article while standing in Barnafeochaig, but if there are no sources for you to prove that it exists, then it may be deleted.)
I unspeedied the article because I was totally incensed by a {{db-vandalism}} tag. It was patently not vandalism and to tag it as such was pure newbie biting. The reference is on page 37 of the PDF, if you had bothered to search for it. I do however agree with your point about notability and will suggest that Hames starts with the Clachan Seil article. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 08:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
While the speedy tag may have been inappropriate, the article was certainly deserving of deletion. I did search for "Barnafeochaig" and indeed I found this quote
“
It is requested that the settlement boundary of Clachan Seil be amended to include land surrounding Barnafeochaig Beag currently zoned as Countryside Around Settlement, to permit development.
”
-All this proves, is that Barnafeochaig exists. It mentions no details or other information. As for wp:bite I do admit that I erred somewhat, and I have offered the user my help for any his future endeavors within the project. --Superflewis (talk) 08:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed your edit here. You did not leave an edit summary so I'm not sure what your intentions were with that edit. Thank you for any clarification you can provide. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 14:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Except that the edit I'm referring to was clearly and obviously not vandalism. This editor is new and has no idea what he's doing. He came to WP:EAR for help. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 14:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
When you're in my situation reverting 15 or 20 vandalism-related edits per minute and a 'repeat offender'-with 4 warnings, continues to do the exact same vandalism to the exact same article without getting a hint that there 'may be a slight problem', then you simply assume that all of their edits constitute vandalism, and you don't take account their experience (or in this case inexperience) with wikipedia policy and guidelines. --Superflewis (talk) 14:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I am the user in question. You say you are assuming that all of my edits constite vandalism. I provided an edit summary as you yourself requested, yet you ignored it. Now User:Arichnad says that the edits were 'clearly and obviously not vandalism'. Do you now acknowledge that your assumption was in error, and if I make the edit now will you refrain from reverting it as vandalism? I will not make any further edits until I hear from you or another editor on the matter. -80.42.161.45 (talk) 15:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Your repeated edits removed established content from the article. Usually before taking on such drastic changes, its best to discuss them on the article's talk page, or, if you disagree with a users reversion (i.e. in this case me), discuss the problem with them on their talk page. Repeating the same edit over and over again is not helpful. --Superflewis (talk) 15:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I refer you to the section of Wikipedia:Vandalism on "What is Not Vandalism": "Wikipedians often make sweeping changes to pages in order to improve them—most of us aim to be bold when updating articles. While having large chunks of text you've written removed or substantially rewritten can be frustrating, simply making edits that noticeably alter the text or content of a pages should not be immediately labeled vandalism." My changes were not vandalism. You reverted them, wrongly, as vandalism. YOU should have discussed the matter with me on the talk page, not simply gone ahead and reverted without cause. -80.42.161.45 (talk) 15:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
removing ... significant parts of pages' content without any reason
”
Now take a look at your original edit to the article. You gave no reason - I inferred it was vandalism. After I reverted your edits as vandalism you subsequently reverted my reversion multipletimes, without stating a reason. And, as the author of the dubious content, you in fact had the responsible to explain your actions on the talk page, not me. --Superflewis (talk) 15:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
You are quoting the section on 'blanking'. I did not blank the article by any definition. The very next line of WP:VAND says "However, significant content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism where the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself". Was the reason apparent? Yes, it was. The content removed was flagged as inappropriate due to weasel words and a lack of neutrality. -80.42.161.45 (talk) 16:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
No, you misunderstood what I said. I was referring to your edit on WP:EAR. I was not referring to your edits on Van Allen radiation belt. Your edits on Van Allen radiation belt were not obvious one way or the other. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 15:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Very well. Other users have since said the same thing; my edit simply does not fit the definition of wikipedia vandalism, and is in fact included in the definition of what is not vandalism. -80.42.161.45 (talk) 15:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Superflewis, if you are reverting vandalism so fast that you don't have time to determine whether or not it is in fact vandalism, then you need to slow down. To "simply assume that all of their edits constitute vandalism" is detrimental to Wikipedia. Gnome de plume (talk) 15:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Gnome de plume, I appreciate the advice, however the issue here is not one of speed, rather, it's an issue of protecting the integrity of the project. Most of the users that I have listed through AIV have been blocked ~ and for good reason! This is an extremely controversial case and i'm still not quite sure whether 80.42.161.45 is at fault or not. I reverted his edits in the first place because they were unexplained and removed a significant amount of content. 80.42.161.45 has gone out of his way to accuse me of [6] of "having a vested interest in the material (he) removed, and going one step further to state "His problem with them has always been with the material (I) replaced, he's been quite clear about that." - quite a libel eh :D? Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but this strikes me as a violation of WP:ATTACK. --Superflewis (talk) 15:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
WP:ATTACK isn't an excuse to pretend that people don't watch and revert pages to support a particular point of view. It's not a personal attack to make an allegation about a relevant conflict of interest. If that allegation is false, then I apologise, but merely being erroneous does not make it a personal attack, any more than your erroneous accusations of vandalism violate WP:ATTACK. -80.42.161.45 (talk) 17:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Take a look at the page's history. You'll see that my reversion of your "vandalism" was the first time that I have edited that particular article. You seem to think that I have some ulterior motive in preserving the orginal content. The answer is of course no, as I've stated multiple times. Accusing me, and saying that "[I have a] problem with the material [that was] replaced), does constitute WP:ATTACK, becuase if you had bothered to read the first line, you would have seen the following:
“
Comment on content, not on the contributor
”
.
Also, you bring in the accusation that ([Superflewis has] been quite clear about [his] intentions of removal of content) - I challenge you to prove this to me, if you are unable to, then your insulting comments do constitue a "libel".
Lets get one thing straight here. I have no interest in pursuing your vendetta-of removing as much content as possible from Van Allen radiation belt and inserting your own material. I do consider it a duty of mine however, to protect the integrity of the encyclopedia. Not explaining the reason that you removed content, and mindlessly engaging in an edit war with me and two other editors ((User:Fieldday-sunday and User:Epbr123 - {an admin}) is unacceptable. How hard is it honestly, to explain your actions on my talk page, if you have a problem with my edits (or the talk page for that matter), rather than crying 'righteous indignation' and accusing me of vandalism?
I have considered this matter settled. I think it would be appropriate though if you plead inexperience and unfamiliarity with wikipedia policy and apologize for your acerbic comments. --Superflewis (talk) 03:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to confess that my revert of the article was actually an error. I was about to reverse my own reversion, but someone did it first. I don't think the removal of unsourced content tagged as POV is a clear case of vandalism. If there is any doubt that an edit is vandalism, it's best not to revert. Epbr123 (talk) 11:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
3RR
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Van Allen radiation belt. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. .
Even with the best of intentions, editors can exceed the limit of three reverts in 24 hours. Please be careful in case admins start enforcing the rule on this article. Reverts of vandalism are not counted against 3RR, but it has to be simple and unquestionable vandalism, which it may not be in this case. EdJohnston (talk) 20:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi there,
I reverted these edits as vandalism, by a new, anonymous, ip editor who was making his first contribution on the article, by removing a significant amount of content and inserting his own material, whithout stating a reason [7][8][9][10] While there have been 2 large discussions on this issue here and here, if you check the page's [history], you'll see that I was not the only editor who believed that the ip's edits were detrimental to the article - (User:Fieldday-sunday and User:Epbr123 - {an admin} also reverted his/her edits). In retrospect, I have stated multiple times during the aforementioned discussions that the original content of the article and indeed, the ip's new material does not bother me. I simply understood the ip's persistent, unexplained, removal of content from the article to be detrimental, so I reverted them in order to protect the integrity of the project. --Superflewis (talk) 02:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Your position is arguable, but it may not save you from a 3RR block if the same situation comes up in the future. The integrity of the project does not require you to get into a revert war with every single editor with slightly strange views. You could simply have reported the IP at the 3RR noticeboard, for example. All editors, including admins, are expected to obey 3RR. EdJohnston (talk) 02:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
On 18 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Drifts Crisis, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
With removal of the AFD tag - I use a script to perform non-admin closures, however this one particular occasion the script has seemed to malfunction. Unfortunately it did not remove to {afd} tag on the article's page. --Superflewis (talk) 15:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Re: Popcorn_(instrumental)
How does this constitute vandalism? The article is not about one artist out of hundreds that have performed cover versions. Why does that band get top billing? I do not see how they are relevant at all. Noisejunky (talk) 16:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Though it may not have been your intention, you managed to remove most of the article's content. Not once but twice. This is consider Blanking, and generally against wikipedia policy. If you need any further help, feel free to leave me a meesage --Superflewis (talk) 23:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I must say that I, too, disagree that his/her actions were vandalism. Please remember to assume good faith about this new user. I think he/she was genuinely trying to improve the article. Please don't drive away new users with vandalism warnings; talk about the issue more gently. And if you reply, please don't template me with your response. Thanks. The Jade Knight (talk) 09:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jade Night, I appreciate your concern and indeed quite a few people over at RC and AIV including myself recently, have been accused of displaying bad faith and newbie biting. While I can't help but disagree occasionally with the handling of a few unfortunate cases and concur with accusations of 'unnecessary zeal" regarding anti-vandalism handling, there are numerous cases including this one, in which the editor has quite clearly committed an act of vandalism regardless of the intention (there is no justification for removing large amounts of good quality, referenced content - unless via debate and strong consensus on the talk page) - though looking at this editors history, I do agree that this s\he may have a genuine will to improve the encyclopedia.
These days we can never be too careful handling vandalism, and its unfortunate that of the numerous new editors who edit solely to vandalize and destroy project, that there are a few well intentioned newbies who do accidentally make misguided mistakes. --Superflewis(talk)10:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
If by "being too careful" you mean not carefully discriminating between intentional vandalism and an actual (though slightly misguided) effort to seriously improve Wikipedia, then I do indeed feel one can "be too careful" "handling vandalism". And next time a user requests that you not template them, please consider being polite, and honouring that request. The Jade Knight (talk) 09:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Jumping in with my unsolicited opinion, one must assume good faith until vandalistic intent is obvious. Once again, you cannot expect new users to have any understanding of our policies and guidelines, especially if they have not even been welcomed. Templated messages are fine to a point, and they are handy and fast if used appropriately. Sometimes we need to take the time to educate and invite people to think. We must educate and discuss and inform. A very important quality in an admin or admin candidate is being able to recognize well intentioned but inconstructive edits. It is not appropriate to treat a well intentioned user as a vandal. From your response I feel that you not only miss the distinction, but the need for the distinction. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 13:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
The basis upon which the article was deleted had become irrelevant because the article now fulfills WP:V and WP:N. Non-admin closures are permitted if the reason for deletion has been rendered obsolete --Superflewis (talk) 01:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi there, the primary reason for reverting his edits, was that the user removed the speedy deletion tag. After creating the page, it was nominated for deletion - the user subsequently blanked the article - which is enough to re-speedy under the {db-g7} template. The user's persistent efforts to remove the template were reverted several time by user:Jonathan - see history: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scott_Slutzker&action=history
Eventually, he copied and pasted his user-talk warnings diff into the article. I was keeping an eye on him. By the time I reverted his edits, he had already accumulated multiple warnings (incl. final warning for vandalism). I was suspecting 'foul play' once more --Superflewis (talk) 01:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
All true, just happens that the first edit of his I checked was his adding a hang on tag, the next edit was him adding a reference to the article, the next edit was the reference being removed. The edit history makes it look like an editor trying to get started. It is really tough to write an good article when multiple editors are trying to delete your work in progress. Perception is what drives us; you saw a vandal, I saw a struggling editor. Had the roles been reviresed between you and I, we would have likely also switched perceptions. If he was a vandal or a struggling editor we may never know, he has been chased off, and probably will not return. Jeepday (talk) 01:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Concur with Jeepday. More helping/coaching, more care in actually looking at what you are reverting, and less "vandal fighting" would be the way to go. Clearly this editor was struggling to create his first article. The CSD tagging was inappropriate, as were the mass warningas. It would have been far more productive to add the hangon while replacing the speedy, without reverting constructive edits, and to let the article creator know that that was all that was needed. Then again, if you'd actually read the article, you'd have seen the assertion of notability. I also find troubling your argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Slutzker. It completely overlooks the issue at hand there, that the subject was clearly, reliably, verifiably notable. While he probably became panicked and confused due to the barrage of inappropriate warnings, he did go on to correct that error. I find it more troubling that you removed references in your zeal. Perhaps you should review WP:BITE. Dlohcierekim 04:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
In retrospect I see that I together with a few others handled the situation with unecessary zeal and forcefulness. To assuage the situation, and more importantly to convince the user to return to wikipedia, i've offered a proposal for adoption. I hope that we can all overcome this unfortunate incident and continue to contribute and improve the encyclopedia --Superflewis(talk)12:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Anne Dodington, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached.
Hi, careful when you revert multiple successive occurences of vandalism, as you end up reverting to a vandalized version. I requested semi protection of the page, and reported the vandals on AIV. EquendilTalk13:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for applying to access the account creation tool. I have approved your request. You may now access the tool here. Before you do so, please read the tool's guide to familiarize yourself with the process. You may also want to join #wikipedia-en-accounts on irc and/or the mailing list. Keep in mind that the ACC tool is a powerful program, and misuse may result in your access being suspended by a tool administrator. Don't hesitate to get in touch with me if you have any questions. Thank you for participating in the account creation process. —— RyanLupin • (talk)13:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the welcome, I do appreciate it. I'm wondering what precipitated it? Specifically, was it my forgetting to sign others' talk pages several times in a row? If so, sorry, and I did go back and sign them once I noticed... whoops. MrNerdHair (talk) 05:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, thanks a lot. I checked out your talk page after having you beat me to the punch on several reverts, and was introduced to Twinkle by your userbox, which I'm now using. It is awesome. I've got to go now, but I look forward to RCPing with you again. MrNerdHair (talk) 05:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello There
Look at my history cur) (last) 01:11, 24 September 2008 Malcolmxl5 (Talk | contribs) m (empty) (Blanking in lieu of deletion. All gone ...) (undo)
Why does J.delanoy's opinion matter more then Malcolmxl5 and Wikipedia itself? I understand what J.delanoy said, but I would like my page to be reverted to Malcolmxl5 revision of having my paged cleared and not completely deleted.
I'm not really familiar with the account creation process so I'd rather another admin reviewed your request. I recommend you put a request in here. Hut 8.512:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for Signing
Thanks a lot for signing my guestbook...I really appreciate it!
Artichoke-Boy (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed with a count of (154/3/2). I appreciate the community's trust in me, and I will do my best to be sure it won't regret handing me the mop. I am honored by your trust and your support. Again, thank you. –JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone19:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Your issues with my edits
I received a message from you asking me to stop "vandalizing" pages and that you have objections to changes that I have done. Can you please explain what you mean by vandalizing? The only change I made was updating an out of date link that already existed. It points to the same page as the previous version. So, actually, I really did not change anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.15.81.46 (talk) 04:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I reviewed the IP user's edits, and found them to be helpful. The only one I wasn't sure about was here, where the user linked to a page that wasn'tthe target ofthe redirect left at androphile.org. Our anonymous friend may have made a mistake here, or maybe it's me - I don't know much at all about homosexuality in Japan. Please do be more careful, though, when rolling back edits while on RCP; please try not to bite. Thanks, WODUP05:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi there, you were absolutely right. I reverted your edits, because they looked a little alarming [12] i.e. with a link such as "gay-art-history.org/gay-history", I assumed it was simply spam (I encounter large amounts of vandalism and unnecessary links). My mistake for wrongly reverting your edits. --Flewis(talk)05:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
My mistake. Both the IP addresses in question start with "76." and end with a 4. I thought they were the same - I was trying to restore this revision. Sorry for the trouble; I will try to be more careful in the future. —Remember the dot(talk)08:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Your doing a great job - best to stay calm and not feed the vandals [13] - we'll be there to back you up and then you can just take a moment to develop an ever so slightly glib, private smile.--VStalk11:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Flewis. I noticed that you did a spell check on Melbourne. It seems that you changed several words to American English spellings rather than Australian English spellings, e.g. recognised vs. recognized. As it is obviously an Australian article, Australian English spellings and conventions should be used. Thanks for all your work on the article so far and hopefully we can get it back to GA where it belongs! Mvjs (talk) 03:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Sparta-Helots
I added sourced material to Sparta about a modern day view about Helots. Why did you leave a message on my page saying the edit was "unconstructive"???
It appears you have an ongoing problem of wrongly treating edits as vandalism. I for one do not appreciate your such efforts. I see on your page other instances of such behavior, for example "Superflewis, if you are reverting vandalism so fast that you don't have time to determine whether or not it is in fact vandalism, then you need to slow down. To "simply assume that all of their edits constitute vandalism" is detrimental to Wikipedia. Gnome de plume". Your removal of sourced material I had added to Sparta without explanation itself is vandalism. Please desist from such behavior in the future. LuxNevada (talk) 15:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi there, of my 6000 edits, I've only received 12 complaints (including this one) regarding my 'wrongful' reversion of vandalism (0.2 % Complaint rate), all of which have been sorted out and clarified. While I do admit that I'm in the wrong (we all are human, after all), I occasionally revert suspicious edits as a precaution - for example, what in the world does the ancient city-state of Sparta have to do with Hitler's invasion of the USSR? (now that you have clarified, I've checked out the source in more depth). Per my better-to-be-safe-than-sorry demeanor, I find it more constructive to revert "possible vandalism" and later get a complaint of "false accusation of vandalism" and "wrongful reversion", rather than hold back, and take the chance of possibly allowing vandalism to take place before my eyes. While there are those that may disagree with me, I find it to be an effective way of protecting the integrity of the project. Apologies for the inconvenience. --Flewis(talk)12:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions about User:Flewis. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Van Allen radiation belt. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. .
-_Good_pic.jpg)