Jump to content

User talk:Flewis/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Mark of the Year

Please don't take the criticism in Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Mark of the Year personally. However, the lead of the article is far from being featured-content material. With some work it can be made featured content, but it's got a ways to go yet. I made a few quick fixes but I haven't done the hard work yet. In particular, the tone needs to be more like you would find in a printed encyclopedia. Yes, I know Wikipedia is not a printed encyclopedia, but the wording does need to convey a more authoritative and less journalistic tone. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Pictures

How do I upload pictures without violating the copyright rules? I've tried before but there is always something wrong with the copyright info. Any advise?--Bobo44 (talk) 21:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: pictures

I don't know how to send you a picture. So heres the link... Slash and his wife--Bobo44 (talk) 10:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's the pic: Image:Slashandwife.jpg - Cheers --Flewis(talk) 10:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Inform me how to contact an admin

96.224.173.108 (talk) 20:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

May I ask what for exactly? --Flewis(talk) 07:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
To complain about a user's violation of several wiki rules; I suppose there are different admin's to contact for different reasons? Incivility and possible vandalism and harassment, for example, in this case.96.232.231.119 (talk) 06:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
My comments here still stand [1]. This situation is getting completely out of hand, and the extent of your hypocrisy is somewhat humorous - (vandalism, disruption, harassment) this is further worsened by the fact that you're 'ip hopping' (which is termed as WP:SOCKPUPPETRY, here on 'pedia - a {bannable offence}). Once again I urge you to desist from harassing editors (namely LuxNevada (talk · contribs) and Todd Vierling (talk · contribs)) before you receive a rangeblock. --Flewis(talk) 06:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is a list of the ip's you have edited from:

--Flewis(talk) 06:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a rather unfortunate situation. 96.xxx you really need to chill. Your behavior is obsessive. I can't believe that some edits in Wiki have become so important to you. Why don't you take a week off and then return. That way you can maybe gain a different perspective. A week is only a small part of a life. I say all this with your best interests at heart, if I didn't I could have simply ignored your posts. LuxNevada (talk) 08:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I asked how to contact an admin; I did nothing wrong, no vandalism, etc, Flewis you were out of line to edit my user page, another editor noted/posted as to this; you deleted w/o response my posts to you and have been generally unhelpful and uncivil. Instead of coyly asking why I wanted an admin, you try to cover your tracks by accusing an anon poster of not having the same ip and being a puppet - you should understand anon posting, what vandalism is, etc before making those charges; threatening to ban me for not having an account and posting is I believe contrary to wiki; please alert me in good faith to an admin, since you've at least kept this thread on your page and responded to it. It is you guys who are taking things out of hand.96.224.42.29 (talk) 06:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit]

Flewis, I post this from another editor's post to Todd's page to perhaps clear up some of these issues:

Friendly note regarding talk page messages Hello. As a recent editor to User talk:202.156.8.12, I wanted to leave a friendly reminder that as per WP:USER, editors may remove messages at will from their own talk pages. While we may prefer that comments be archived instead, policy does not prohibit users -including anonymous editors- from deleting messages from their own talk pages. The only kinds of talk page messages that cannot be removed (as per WP:BLANKING) are declined unblock requests (but only while blocks are still in effect), confirmed sockpuppet notices, or IP header templates (for unregistered editors). These exceptions only exist to keep a user from potentially gaming the system. Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 15:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Official wikipedia policy has allowed editors -both registered and anonymous IPs- to remove content from their own talk pages since at least January 2006. While I did not necessarily agree with it when someone introduced me to this policy last year, community consensus has confirmed it time and again (as someone said during the last debate at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), edit warring with a someone in their own userspace is the height of futility). Reverts such as these ([1], [2], [3]) are clear violations of the official Harassment policy ("trying to display material the user may find annoying or embarrassing in their user space is a common form of harassment"). Please understand that I am not "yelling" at you or trying to ride your chops about something you never even knew about. Back before I knew better, I inadvertently harassed a lot of IPs about their talk page warnings, and I was lucky I did not get blocked for it. I have no intention to blocking you, removing your access to any of the anti-vandalism tools (which you have been using to great effect to remove vandalism), or going through your past edits and reverting all of the improper reverts. My only goal here is to bring you up to speed on policy. So now that you know ... please stop reverting editors who remove warnings from their own talk pages. Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 18:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC) Hope this helps, at least in part.96.224.42.29 (talk) 07:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC) To clarify further, what you appear to be doing Flewis is threatening me and violating wiki rules repeatedly. I posted nothing harassing to Lux or Todd, merely asked them to review your page and discussed wiki issues. Threatening to ban me is bannable itself and I ask again that you educate yourself on wiki rules and civility; what I have done is wholly w/in the spirit and rules of wiki. False accusations of sock puppetry and vandalism and harassment ARE bannable offenses and I suggest you respond to posts and respond in substance and civily.96.224.42.29 (talk) 07:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

You seem to think that this is some sought of conspiracy attempt to hinder your "pursuit of achieving justice", when really we're just a bunch of editors who are here to improve the encyclopedia and in this case, diffuse this somewhat 'unusual' (if I may say so) situation. Let's take a step back and asses the root of the 'problem': On September 28 I reverted your edit to the article 'Salem Chalabi' (Once again, I clarify - I have absolutely no problem with the content) The reason I reverted your edits was because they looked rather suspicious. After you 'explained' yourself and then re-reverted my edits, I considered the matter closed. However, over the following week, you disproportionately overreacted to something which really was no big deal. Bringing two completed unrelated editors into this "argument" was unnecessary as well - (a polite note on my talk page would've sufficed). For the final time, I request that you simply drop this baseless 'personal vendetta' and cease posting disruptive messages on multiple user-talk pages. --Flewis(talk) 08:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
For the record I posted on your talk page immediately to resolve the issue but you immediately deleted my post and did not post a reply; this happened more than one time and your page was replete w/indications and references to similar pattern of behavior, which is why I contacted one or two other posters to your page to discuss your pattern of behavior on wiki and with me. You then kept posting harassing notes, not engaging in constructive conversation, deleting any posts on your page and mischaracterizing what I did and wiki rules in a histrionic fashion (esp'y re Lux, et.c). I posted no disruptive messages, which you still state, I asked people what to do about this issue or I raised questions, concerns and or info w/them - which is what editing is about; you falsely accused me of sockpuppeting, vandalism, etc, etc. and have yet to apologize or be civil - you continue to name call w/no basis. You need to be flagged in my view, but I asked for admin info and you haven't responded - I asked in good wiki faith to resolve this and stop the adverse posts and descriptions re me and baseless, hostile charges. I do appreciate your not deleting these posts, but I simply asked one question, how to contact an admin, then posted info to guide you, but you haven't apologized, I might note, or registered the info or thanked me for it. I will not keep responding to your page, but i will check it for a response at this point.96.224.42.29 (talk) 05:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I am an admin 96.224.42.29 - Please depart Flewis' page and come to my talk page and tell me succinctly what your problem/s is/are. When I have considered your message I will tell you what next you need to provide or do - but continuing to pursue Flewis and others at this page is not helpful. Please note I have a busy real life also so my response will be as prompt as I can make it.--VS talk 06:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Foxy Loxy's RfA

Hello, this message is to inform you that User:Foxy Loxy has restarted their RfA. The new discussion is located at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Foxy Loxy 2. GlassCobra 09:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Qwest Communications Corporation IP vandal

Safe to assume it's the same person seems to be stalking your edit history and vandalizing the articles and your userpage. Maybe need to look at blocking the Qwest Communications Corporation IP range. Bidgee (talk) 06:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, he's been causing quite some trouble eh? Unfortunately I'm not an admin, so the most I can do at the moment, is lodge a complaint at AI/V and keep reverting his/her edits. Cheers --Flewis(talk) 06:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
You could request temporary protection for your userpage from edits by IP's and new registered editors if you like but want stop them from stalking (I do think an AN/I is now needed since it seems to be rather disruptive stalking in a big way). Bidgee (talk) 07:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I've started a thread at AN/I. Thanks for the help! --Flewis(talk) 07:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism - thanks

Hey thanks for reverting that ip who vandalized my user page. I was wondering who the first to vandlize my page would be. Thanks.--WillC 07:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem. User-Page vandalism is a milestone that unfortunately, we all need to pass. Cheers --Flewis(talk) 07:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I had been wondering since I've been here since February this year and seen alot of users I know get vandalized everyweek. For the past three or so months I've been pissing off alot of ips by giving warnings and reverting edits. I was surprise I had not got hit yet. Plus what is more interesting is how small it was. a Republican. I was surprised what little insult that was. I was expecting one like you just got a little ago. With all the misspelled curse words and German talk. Question: I've never talked to you before, how did you find this edit by this IP?--WillC 07:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Using Huggle --Flewis(talk) 08:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I was wondering since I wouldn't expect my user page to be on your watchlist.--WillC 03:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Pancharatna Kriti and Endaro Mahaanubhaavulu

Hello, Flewis. You have new messages at Drmulgund's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

VasuVR (talk) 09:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin

It seemed like a statement of opinion. If you disagree, you can revert it and take off the warning. RainbowOfLight Talk 08:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Done --Flewis(talk) 08:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/copies from Halopedia

I notice you relisted this discussion. Please note that the relist process has recently changed; the main change is that AFDs should only be relisted if there is low or no participation. This AFD has plenty of participation and should be left for an admin to close. See WP:RELIST for more. Stifle (talk) 13:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Flewis. You have new messages at SoWhy's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

You got a thank you card!

Thanks!

I much appreciate your compliments to my userpage, given when signing my guestbook! It took me a long time trying to code it all, thanks for showing a bit of appreciation :). Regards, Blooded Edge Sign/Talk 18:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Ah what the heck, you didn't have to say anything :). Blooded Edge Sign/Talk 21:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

Flewis, I'd like to thank you for voting in my RFA. Thanks also for expressing your trust in me, and I hope that I live up to your expectations. Don't forget, if you have any questions (or bits of advice), please leave a message on my talk page. Thanks again, SpencerT♦C 02:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

All is for the best, in this, the best of all possible worlds

One of the advantages of not having many supporters at your RFA is that there are fewer people to thank at the end. Thanks for your support and your willingness to look at my complete record. I'm going to try to interpret this resounding defeat as a statement that I should choose my words more carefully in the future, and remember that every statement I make gets recorded forever, just waiting to get carefully transcribed onto my next RFA. I would go insane if I believed that it was repudiation of what I truly meant: that no editor should consciously and willfully ignore guidelines and policies, and editors that repeatedly do so should not be rewarded for or supported in doing so.

I'm sure I'll get back to full speed editing soon, because, after all, , every day, and in every way, I am getting better and better.—Kww(talk) 05:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Melbourne GA Nom

Hi Flewis. I've restarted the Melbourne GA nomination after archiving the peer review. Mvjs (talk) 06:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

If this makes GA, I'd like to try get it for FA. Thanks for all the help --Flewis(talk) 11:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I have submitted a GAN review for Melbourne at Talk:Melbourne/GA2. Best, epicAdam(talk) 16:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Hello Flewis. Thank you very much for your support in my recent Request for Adminship, which was successful with 111 supports, 0 opposes, and 0 neutral. I have to say I am more than a little overwhelmed by this result and I greatly appreciate your trust in me. I will do my best to use the tools wisely. Thanks again. Regards. Thingg⊕⊗ 00:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

Thank you for your support in my RfA, which just recently passed. I appreciate the community's trust. Regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 00:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Local void

Hi. I justed wanted to say: Well done, and thank you, for contributing the article Local void. Very interesting! Aridd (talk) 13:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem. --Flewis(talk) 14:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Update

Please come here to read the update on my genuine attempt to help the editor that was pestering your talk page. I have reached the stage where any further inappropriate edit at any IP listed or related IP will be immediately blocked for disruptive editing. I would be thankful if you would inform me if you see any such edits appear. --VS talk 02:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

hey i dont really know how to go in and make this nicer but i wanted to thank you in the situation with the editor i had in East Paulding High School--EmperorofBlackPeopleEverywhere (talk) 05:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

no problem! --Flewis(talk) 05:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

hey well, it's returned..and truthfully it's getting ridiculous...and i may have had a role in beginning this edit war with this user but all i tried to do was improve the integrity of the article.. if you could please step in and do something about it...it would be greatly appreciated.--EmperorofBlackPeopleEverywhere (talk) 05:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Your revert

Just wondering why you reverted this? Please reply on my talk page! Thanks :)RazorICE 11:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The guy was already blacklisted for page blanking. Despite the fact that the article is up for speedy deletion, I his reverted the edits a precaution. With hindsight, I see it really makes no difference - just a another user looking to get indef-blocked.--Flewis(talk) 11:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Makes sense, thanks for the answer! :) --RazorICE 12:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Nice work

Nice work with pen. He seems to be angry, somhow ;) Chamal talk work 12:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep, It's all part of the job :) --Flewis(talk) 12:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I also noticed the attacks he was making on you on pen, but you got him blocked pretty quickly! By the way, thanks heaps for the barnstar and keep up the great work yourself (seeing a lot of your reverts before I can even react :P)! --RazorICE 12:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Just quietly

You sir know nothing about Fairhills High School. I am a student there, I have the right to add in what I like. It is a joke, about me and my mates. Grow some sort of a mind, and have a laugh. Just because you don't get it, and you think it is "biased", doesn't mean we can't get a laugh out of it. I will continue to edit it, as will my friends. Banning don't mean anything. How hard is it to access a computer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.175.124.6 (talk) 12:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

You're missing the point here. This is an encyclopedia. Inserting random jokes that only you 'get' serves no encyclopedic value whatsoever. If you wish to demonstrate you sense of 'humour', try Facebook, Myspace or a forum. Wikipedia is not the place --Flewis(talk) 12:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Email

Hello can you email me a copy of the article you marked for speede deletion, as i have no copy. Sphere philosophy. r3db0ss Oct 14, 2008 —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC).

Hi, if you would like a copy of the deleted material, you will have to ask one of the administrators (who have the capability to view and restore deleted edits) Unfortunately I'm not an admin, but I'll be glad to help you contact one/ If you have any more questions or queries, feel free to ask. --Flewis(talk) 13:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Xymmax RfA

I'd like to take a minute to let you know that I appreciate your support in my recently-closed RfA, which passed with a count of 56 in support, 7 in opposition, and 2 neutrals. I'll certainly try to justify your faith by using the tools wisely. Happy editing, and thanks again! Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 23:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Heh, thanks for the update on my user page. I guess I forgot the basics, eh? Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 04:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

"Adding internet memes template" edits

The edit summary you're using doesn't mention that you are adding Category:Internet to all these articles, too. That category is very broad, and is marked with {{catdiffuse}} to indicate that it should contain few articles, as most belong in a subcategory. Many, if not all, of the articles you have added the cat to are already in an appropriate subcat - looking at last 4 on your contributions at the moment:

Please revisit the articles you edited to remove Category:Internet except where it is truly appropriate. Thank you. Maralia (talk) 03:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the alert - I won't place Category:Internet in any more articles. I'll remove as much as I can. --Flewis(talk) 03:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the speedy response. Maralia (talk) 04:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Neorhino.ca, 14 October 2008

Flewis, I wanted to clarify. If you have some official status here at wikipedia, then please also let me know that. I did not mean to come across as harshly as I did, but I have a Master's Degree and work as a writer professionally and it seems that every second or third article I write here I have someone deleting or editing it largely because they disagree with my opinion, rather than having a legitimate problem with factual content of style or grammtical substance. If that is NOT why you were editing, then I apologize. If you are on the wikipedia staff, then please let me know what the standard and style is. If you have some official authority to edit as you did then I am sorry. If you are just another user please realize that others who contribute to wikipedia also know what we are doing and have competence, knowledge and experience to share in our contributions.

Either way, I guess I don't understand what your objections are to what I posted. Could you explain them to me and be specific?

Thanks, and I didn't mean to lose my cool earlier. I have just been experiencing some wikistalking on some other articles that has become somewhat abusive and I responded to you in that vein, and I shouldn't have taken it out on you.Themoodyblue (talk) 08:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I responded --Flewis(talk) 08:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
OK, I will consider myself adopted. Thanks, I appreciate it. :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Themoodyblue (talk • contribs) 09:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Brookes

Dear Flewis, I believe the term mediocre is not a weasel word, nor is it not objective. Brookes' ranking is literally mediocre, in that it is not in the top 20 UK universities, nor is it low ranked. Your unjustified reversion of my edit in the face of the facts is therefore unacceptable. 163.1.167.72 (talk) 08:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I replied --Flewis(talk) 08:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I take it you're a Brookes student, then? :) 163.1.167.72 (talk) 08:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Nope --Flewis(talk) 08:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh I'm sure a friendly chap like you would fit right in, though. Toodles! 163.1.167.72 (talk) 08:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Anytime --Flewis(talk) 08:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

IAR-93

Hello excuse me

I'm gaetano56 and i'm italian. I,ve deleted links because in hr, sr and bs don't exist and the page are empty. In this moment i'm not logged. I wrote IAR-93 in italian--151.32.192.170 (talk) 07:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

They do indeed, - OK i've reverted my edits. --Flewis(talk) 07:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Please slow down...

...when using huggle. You'll note that in this edit you actually restored vandalism with it. –xeno (talk) 14:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, my mistake indeed. Anon editors + significant removal of content just screams vandalism. Turns out the problem is that I'm a human, and my species have a tendency to occasionally make mistakes while using huggle. On a more serious note - thanks for reverting my accidental restoration of vandalism. Apologies for the inconvenience, --Flewis(talk) 22:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey!

I attend Northampton High School. There is no internet source to cite. STOP deleting my edits! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.216.125 (talk) 05:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I replied --Flewis(talk) 05:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia.

You will find that my edit to "National Security Letter" is sourced (within the same article, so sources do not need to be cited), and does not give overdue weight to any one viewpoint. Thank you. 69.202.74.136 (talk) 05:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)r

I replied --Flewis(talk) 05:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

No you didn't. You continued to make unjustified edits. Do you disagree that the unconstitutionality is notable enough to be in the top paragraph? The 'discussion' page disagrees with you. Do you disagree that it has been ruled unconstitutional? The citation is within the article already. You appear to have a taste for vandalism for reasons I do not understand. 69.202.74.136 (talk) 06:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC) To quote: Source is citations 17, 18, 19, and 20 on the VERY SAME PAGE. It is not good encylopedia practice to repeat all four citations up top. I agree that "generally considered" was bad, opinion-prone. language. Hence the change to "was ruled unconstitutional". I don't see your justification for reverting that. 69.202.74.136 (talk) 06:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC) 06:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.202.74.136 (talk)

replied --Flewis(talk) 06:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

My apologies for not "assuming good faith". It's been a trying day, and getting reverted for attempting to answer what seemed like an eminently reasonable discussion request.... well, sorry anyway. 69.202.74.136 (talk) 06:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Flewis/Archive_2&oldid=1143004371"