User talk:Flowerpotman/Archive3

Re: RTÉ Choice

Thanks for informing me of the mistake with the fada, makes all the difference! :-) Sulmac 18:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reply :O) Replying on your talk page FlowerpotmaN (t · c) 18:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

popups

I'm still scratching my head. How can this be? Pascal.Tesson 02:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Health Warning.

This is a Government Health Warning: overuse of Wikipedia can seriously stain your sheets. Goodbye. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.77.140.114 (talk • contribs)

Oh, that's just an over-reaction. Darn nanny-state nonsense, if you ask me. FlowerpotmaN (t · c) 23:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alistair Darling

Yes indeed, just been watching Newsnight. I'm a bit disappointed that the images weren't put there by an IP address user; I was hoping to run a traceroute, to see if the BBC were in fact the culprits ;D --Leobh 22:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! Replying on talk page :O) FlowerpotmaN (t · c) 22:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder, they could have made it look like the current page if they just scrolled down a little while in fact viewing the archived page. Can't say I noticed if that was the case, but if the programme is available on the website... Leobh 23:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hah, given away by their own web service! He didn't even scroll down, but the screen showing a comparison of revisions was on the screen for so little time it didn't register. Rather disingenuous, no? Leobh 23:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA ...

Hi. Thanks for supporting my request for adminship. It was successful and I am now an admin. If I can ever be of help, please let me know. Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Gnome Week

	Gnomes, unite!
	Hello, Flowerpotman! You are invited to participate in Gnome Week, a mass article cleanup drive between June 21 and June 28, 2007.
	This week, backlogs will be cleared. Articles will be polished. Typos will be fixed. Bad prose will be edited. Unreferenced articles will be sourced. No article will be safe from our reach! The more people who participate, the better Wikipedia will become as a result.
	I would love it if you would participate! - Eddie
Edit message

Re: Quick technical question, seeing as you are online...

Hi! I wouldn't recommend AN/I simply to have the histories deleted. Speedy or proposed deletion is probably more suited to such cases.

I looked in your contributions history and speedily deleted both pages as "attack pages" (CSD G10) as their sole purpose seemed to be to disparage various individuals. I've bookmarked the user contributions pages of the three accounts (1 2 3) involved and will monitor them for a while as they seem to be vandalism-only accounts. Kudos to you for catching this! Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(reply) Thanks! Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SandBox

I must say, thank you for that advice. Although I have been kindly given the name of SANDBOX, i'm afraid i have no clue as to where 'tis found. If I have the means to get there, I may just check it out. Thank you.

P.S: This is a honest question that is asked with respect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194327002cl (talk • contribs)

C'mon youself!

What better place to raise publicity for a film than Wikipedia! Look this country isn't exactly known for it's film industry and I for one just wan't to make it a bit more prominent. By finishing film school in Dun Laoraighe and by ranting on and on the internet about how unapreciated the film industry is here. So nay, I tell you don't give out to me for indulging in a bit of shameless (and indeed desperate) publicity, join me! and together we can rid Wikipedia of that asshole english guy who keeps adding British Films to the bottom of every page about every Irish film on this website. (P.S. Don't tell me you wouldn't try to pimp your stuff here if given the opportunity) - yours faithfully Teknolyze

Errr, no on the last bit. Don't have stuff to pimp, as it happens, and I wouldn't do it here if I had.

The simple answer to why you shouldn't try advertise a film that hasn't been made (or written apparently) is that (almost by definition) it won't satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria, Wikipedia's verifiability criteria and definitely would not pass WP:CRYSTAL.

Oh, and ease up on the name calling. If someone is adding the British Film category to Irish films. revert the change and draw his attention to his error on his talk page. Just don't call him an asshole. FlowerpotmaN (t · c) 20:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Thank you for reverting the vandalism on my user page, your efforts are much appreciated. Trusilver 23:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, you're welcome. :O) FlowerpotmaN (t · c) 23:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Stunt

No problem. I've watchlisted the page and will monitor the edit histories of the three SPAs. I will also leave a message on the registered account's talk page as it may constitute a violation of username policy. Thanks for letting me know. Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism fix

Thanks for reverting my userpage. GDonato (talk) 16:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can't get to a discussion page

There've been some additions to the Disclave discussion page that I really should follow up on. But now when I click on the discussion tab I'm getting . . . nothing. Argh. And since I still get confused and am going out of town far to early tomorrow morning, EST, which hour will make me even more confused for a couple of days, could you reply on my discussion page?

At some point I also need to add a couple of references but as you said, the page isn't going anywhere. Kovar 19:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, of course, having tried several times to access the page, not even getting a "we're busy, call back later", before writing this I can now access the page. Kovar 19:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lame.

Listen here wise guy. We are having fun. If this partypoopering continues, I will not leave 4 squiggles but, a lesser 3. 142.167.135.175 20:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editing 'dream' article

Sir, I would like to bring your kind notice that I am new user. I have yet to understand all technicalities of wiki. I use mobile and that puts me under limitation while editing.

It is not and it will never be my intention to delete any text on wiki.

neo 20:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pickled egg

That's great...I should have took a better look at it but I came upon it as a result of Dude Eggs and kind of "jumped" on it. --Stormbay 00:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dhangadhi or Dhangadi

Dhangadhi is correct although both are used. Thanks. --Eukesh 21:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FM 104 phoneshow

may i ask why you quickly reverted my edit? you seem a little trigger happy in terms of edit reversions. As i stated, my points are valid. If you have an issue with it please politely discuss it with me rather than hastily revert my edits. Clearly it was not vandalism, so perhaps you should use an alternative description next time. Regards Reddysteddybrekky 21:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at your talk page. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 22:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deletion

why do you want to delete the page svetlana orlova? i deleted the things about the moscow times....i did research and you are right there was no interview...WITH THEM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgb-26 (talk • contribs)

Replied at your talk page. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 00:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

evidence

i do have , her myspace website. which belongs to her

if

these people arent real why would i waste time makeing the pages..delete boris orlov's page...but not svetlana's becuase i do have evidence regarding her..her myspace page and personal email

hmmm

"Perhaps you should contribute to the AFD discussion. However, a MySpace profile doesn't normally count as a reliable source" - thats what you said..."normally" what would be considered a realible source

as stated before

jsut becuase you cant find info on a man doesnt mean he didnt exist..... exactly...please revoke your tag for deletion

Replying on your talk page. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 01:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage protection

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my userpage. I go out to run an errand and come back to find it's been vandalized 5 times! I suspect this is the same AOL user who got bent out of shape for being warned in May. I notice he vandalized your talk page too, but someone reverted it. Anyway, thanks again. An administrator has semi-protected my userpage so that anonymous IP addresses can no longer edit it. -Amatulic 06:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, glad to help. :O) I know the feeling, having my user page vandalized a dozen times by the one anon user who was changing IPs. I still don't like having my User Page semiprotected, but I know what can happen. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 19:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war

This is starting to get out of hand. He has been reverting both my userpage and the Tulsa Channels page about a dozen times each. BTW, thanks for reverting some of the vandalism on my userpage. You know it's getting bad when there's an edit war on your own userpage, lol. --FrankCostanza 03:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. :O) Replied at talk page. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 03:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's me again. 68.0.125.230 is back and he's back to reverting the warnings off his talk page. --FrankCostanza 02:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warrior vandalism

I'll take care of any further vandalism on Warrior (wrestler) for tonight. Savie Kumara 04:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re your message: Persistent fellow, isn't he? =\ I blocked that account, too. I don't like protecting Talk pages, but since he moved there and will probably be back, I've protected it for 24 hours, too. -- Gogo Dodo 05:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

stay on toes

Guys, let's keep a lookout for Rangesoap and his sockpuppets four days from now. If he's familiar with Wikipedia policy, he might make another sockpuppet, wait four days, and vandalize again. I have left the same message on Gogo Dodo's talk page. Savie Kumara 05:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FM104

I was also initially reluctant to remove the Adrian Kennedy Phoneshow section indiscriminately from the FM104 article since, as you said, it might deserve mention. However, keep in mind that the information was added by a user who is not only banned, but who has also been the cause of an elaborate and long-term hoax which started all the way back in October 2005 and was only finally stopped this month, after ample discussion and propagating to the rest of the web. Even if the user decided to change his ways and start contributing constructively, why bother setting up four accounts? Thus, I am unwilling to leave any of the information unless it is independently verified by another editor.

Regarding the edit by the IP, I am of the opinion that it should be ignored; firstly, no matter how well-intentioned, it remains too minor a contribution (only involved changing the starting time of the show) to justify debating policy over it; secondly, it was performed after the sock puppetry was brought to light - I am assuming that the IP acted in ignorance of the case. If some editor unrelated to Brian Reddyb decides to reinstate the section, then the IP's contribution may be effected again. CounterFX 13:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replying on talk page , but in broad agreement. :O) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 19:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I stumbled upon the FM104 page solely as a result of tracking the sock puppeteer; thus, I am unfortunately unacquainted with the station and the show, and cannot determine the validity of what had been written. However, given the apparent popularity of the show, I am hoping that it will eventually get mentioned again by another editor who would be able to give a NPOV account. By the way, following a reversion by yet another (newly-registered) account, I requested for the page to be semi-protected, so it should be stable for now. Thanks for your help in handling this issue. CounterFX 23:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is the removal of the FM104 phone show edit really required? Less of this sock puppetry nonsense and lets use some common sense. If you don't like the version produced by Reddysteddybrekky then be my guest and write your own version. Just don't stoop to the ridiculous tit-for-tat level of CounterFX who quite clearly has too much time on his hands. Renegade reddy 10:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I did reply on your talk page. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 21:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks For The Vandalism Revert

So funny how people get bored at their computer screens. :) -WarthogDemon 21:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem :O). Actually I might reply on your talk page later tonight (my time), as I think I noticed something :O) FlowerpotmaN·(t)

Userpage Repair

Thank you for repairing my userpage. :) My first vandalism! And I'd tried to be so helpful to the guy, too. Moonriddengirl 00:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"My first vandalism!" Err, congratulations...O) . No problems on the revert. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 00:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean that to sound celebratory. :) I'd actually been braced for vandalism because of a revert I'd made on a gang page. That guy went away quietly. The one who vandalizes me is the one I took the time to try to explain things to. Oh, well. Oh, and now your social scientist (the one below on your talk page) has vandalized me, too. People. Moonriddengirl 23:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. I reverted the Gangster Disciples and Murdered rappers categories again tonight. I'm not an expert on the subject, but from what I can see, he could add the categories to the articles, as some of the names I checked do have articles, but...

As for the social science experimenter, did you know he is also a "professor in quantum mechanics" as well? I don't know he finds the time, or the budget, to keep it all going. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 23:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thanks for cleaning up my Talk page. Corvus cornix 01:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome :O) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 03:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Message from DrArrupeGupta

Thanks for catching my "updates", I am conducting an experiment on how quickly wikipedia can correct obvious and not so obvious errors. Sorry for the trouble!

AGDrArrupeGupta 21:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Despite my reluctance to, in any way, stymie legitimate scientific enquiry, I tend to think that it might be time to halt this particular experiment. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 21:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Title IX article link removal

While it is true that this link is to a particular law firm, I don't really understand your objection. Did you look at the web site I posted? There is a slide show which contains pertinent and useful information. It tells what Title IX is, discusses the enactment of the law, the Supreme Court and gives further detail on the 3-part test which is discussed in the article. Aren't we all in this to have articles that are unbiased? I am not going to re-post the link because I will consider - and respect - your opinion and ask that you do the same. I believe the link that needed to be removed is TitleIX.info They are SELLING merchandise. It is a direct link to a "Title IX Store". For that reason, I removed it. However, if you feel differently, I am willing to consider your opinion. I think the slideshow link should be put back up, perhaps with the language I pulled from the header about the attorneys removed. What do you think?Wikiechiefeditor 20:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to deal with the link to the presentation on the law firm website first: to be honest, I can't see that any link to the home page of a law firm website, which has contact details at the top, and the phrase "is in the forefront of litigation to achieve gender equity in secondary schools, with lawsuits filed nationwide on behalf of parents of female students.", could not be in contravention of WP:SPAM, irrespective of the wording used in the Wikipedia article link.

As for the TitleIX.info link, the site is that of a campaign rather than a specific firm, despite the fact that they do have a "Store" link. What I think might be the fairest option is to restore that link, and if you feel that the link might be inappropriate, you should pursue the matter on the Title IX article dicussion page. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 23:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about my linking to the home page of a law firm website. I really didn't intend to link to their home page. My link should have been directly to the slide show. This isn't important enough to me to make a fuss about it, but I do want to be completely fair. The link I took down and you restored is owned by the National Women's Law Center. What's the difference, they're all lawyers. I think there is good information on BOTH websites. That said, please notice I did not undo your unedit. Your thoughts? Wikiechiefeditor

Indeed, if the link was to the slide show, rather than the law firm home page, it might be a useful link and would be considered on its merits by people editing the Title IX article. One difference between having a link to the TitleIX.info site and having a link to the law firm site is that the TitleIX.info site doesn't explicitly advertise the services of a particular firm (and it does provide general information about the subject). Perhaps you might consider linking to the slideshow, rather than the law firm home page, and if someone has a problem with that, discuss it on the Title IX discussion page. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 23:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's ten o'clock, do you know where your children are?

We certainly do! Thanks for the cleanup. --CliffC 02:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. No problem :O) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 19:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit] User:Mattclifford

Thank you for putting the CSD on the attack page regarding me! I got him blocked and hopefully he is gone for good and i do not have to start a sockpupet investigation. Tiptoety 02:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Although it might mean that I'm spending too much time on Wikipedia when I can recognize almost every editors' name :O) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 02:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Problem for reverting it, yea he has been marked as a sockpupet and has creation block, so i hope he is gone for good. Tiptoety 02:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ich komme zurück

hee hee hee, i'm baaaaccckk! DrArrupeGupta 23:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)Arrupe[reply]

With the help of a DeLorean, perhaps? Actually, now that you are here, although it might be briefly, you do know that if you had provided a reference for the "The Daily Prophet" being compared to "Pravda" - and there are a couple of them out there, that edit might have stood? FlowerpotmaN·(t) 23:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- He's left weird messages on about four different talk pages. I don't know what this guy's thinking... Nyttend 23:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One last time...

Ok, this is it, i Promise! Again, I was conducting an experiment on Wikipedia to discern how swiftly editors can detect people either abusing or playing with the system. I must say I am impressed, keep up the good work! I'll stop now, pinky promise! —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrArrupeGupta (talk • contribs)

LOL. Bye. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 00:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bye!

Am I in trouble or being kicked off? I no vandalize no more!

Definitely not, since he's been blocked :-) Nyttend 00:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]