Remember the third word of RBI... HalfShadow 07:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Just responding with sarcasm once in a while. . . I don't take their edits too seriously, otherwise this place would eat me alive ;)--Flewis^(talk) 07:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Generally, if a user blanks a page and they're the only substantial editor (bot edits, interwiki links, maintenance templates, etc... do not count as substantial), it's considered a CSD A7 ("Author requests deletion") deletion request.

Instead of reverting the blanking in that case, it's better to simply add a {{db-author}} tag and wait for an admin to delete it.

Thanks for all the hard work. :) Kylu (talk) 07:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Huggle normally does that automatically. . .It must have malfunctioned slightly this time 'round --Flewis^(talk) 07:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, just wanted to say good job with handling that vandal who then proceeded to litter his own talk page about you.

And P.S. - I like your style. Shall we be friends? Partnership against vandalism? Knippschild (talk) 07:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

 consider it done --Flewis^(talk) 07:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello Flewis, thanks for taking corrective action to address the vandalism reported at Xavier Institute of Management, Bhubaneswar, Cheers for the spirit of Wikipedia and it's ever vigilant sad bastards !!!

Kamal (talk) 10:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem! --Flewis^(talk) 10:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I did not mean for the link to Oasis Academy: MediaCity: UK to be an advertisement, just a link to show where I got my information from and to prove its existence. I thought the link was meant to be placed there. I wouldn't want to advertise it, I go to the school at the moment and it's rubbish! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.99.222 (talk • contribs)

Ok, assuming good faith - I have reverted my edits. Just make sure to write an edit summary in the future, so that those down at RC don't get confused and mistakenly revert your edits. Thanks --Flewis^(talk) 11:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

If somebody made factual revisions to an article, and it still gets reverted, is there any way to not make it get reverted? its freaking dumb —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raydae2003 (talk • contribs)

Hi there, make sure your edits are always Reliably sourced for verifiability. The content you wrote up isn't bad, however without reliable sources within the article, there is no way to ascertain what is 'true' and what is 'false'.
WP:V (this is mostly to make sure that the stuff that in wikipedia isn't complete crap.)--Flewis^(talk) 11:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Flewis, is it possible if you could explain what you mean by "unconstructive" means? (Do you mean it literally, because if its used in the sense of "does not seem to contribute anything" then I would go about justifying it by saying that its to counter the image of deliberate anachronism in the article.) I am guessing that its a form letter from Huggle, but as I said in the edit summary, I won't put it back in. 118.90.65.233 (talk) 12:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, after looking back on your edits, I see they were not "un-constructive" at all. That was an error on my behalf (Unfortunately this is one of the very few times that editor's such as myself mistakenly revert good-faith edits among the thousands of vandalism-related edits). I've re-instated your version. Apologies for the inconvenience. --Flewis^(talk) 12:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I had a feeling that that (the long list of IP edits) was the case. 118.90.65.233 (talk) 12:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Lulubon (talk) 13:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC) Hi, please revert your change to page Simona Pauca. Page Simona Pauca should be a redirect page to page Simona Păucă. Simona Păucă is the correct name and spelling of this person. Please check the Romania page http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simona_Păucă. Thank you. I appreciate your message, indeed I should have explained better the reason for my edit.

 Done --Flewis^(talk) 13:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give Simona Pauca a different title by copying its content and pasting it into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is considered undesirable because it splits the page history which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other articles that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. As others have already requested, please slow down and actually look at what edits you are making and reverting. --DAJF (talk) 13:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Lulubon (talk) 13:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC) Hi, thanks a lot for your comment. I tried first to move the page by using the "move" tab but I did not manage to write symbols like ă, Â, Ỹ in the "To new title" tab. Please if possible, could you tell me how to do that? Thanks.

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my subpage. I didn't even know it was there. I guess I should put it on my watchlist, eh? ... discospinster _talk 18:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Anytime --Flewis^(talk) 04:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

For helping pick up the slack on the Musicane spam. Much appreciated. Montco (talk) 04:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

No Problem --Flewis^(talk) 04:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for interjecting in the edit issues at Long Beach Poly. Unfortunately a edit war ensued and now the article is under edit protection for a couple of weeks. I would like to invite you over to the talk page and help the editors come to a common ground. Thanks! Manorin (talk) 05:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification - I'll see how I can help --Flewis^(talk) 05:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to say thanks for keeping on top of things. My mistake for not writing a comment Eight88 (talk) 05:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the edit summary notification - It really does help in distinguishing between vandal/good-faith edits.--Flewis^(talk) 05:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I'll put my templates on my user page.--10000 Walls (talk) 06:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, you fixed it. thanks.--10000 Walls (talk) 06:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, noticed the image with your DYK hook for 10/20 is dead. Peace, delldot ∇. 21:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

On 21 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Local Void, 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.

Gatoclass (talk) 03:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks --Flewis^(talk) 03:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Nikki DuBose has asked me to remove the photo I posted of her which is why I removed it. I would also like the photo to be removed from the Wiki Database but don't know how to do it.

thanks........ Glenn

Glenn Francis (talk) 09:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as you uploaded the image, if you want it deleted, consider pasting the following onto the "file" page pf the image: {{db-author}} - this basically means that the uploader of the photo (i.e. you) requests deletion. An administrator will review the request and decide whether or not to delete the file. --Flewis^(talk) 12:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank You! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toglenn (talk • contribs) 15:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

On 21 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Richard Marson, 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.

thx Victuallers (talk) 09:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

What a great idea! I could have taken it to AfD with the amount of support it was receiving, but I prefer the merger, which is receiving even more support. Enjoy! Timeshift (talk) 11:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I prefer it this way - the content remains intact, and that's the most important issue. Mindlessly sending this to Afd wouldn't have achieved anything. --Flewis^(talk) 13:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Going by your 'strong object', i'd say you're just saying that to save face. AfD would have deleted the article (as has been done by default with the merger). But i'll leave for you to ponder as it has now been done :-) Timeshift (talk) 07:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Its not as big an issue as you make it out to be. I have no problems with the outcome. Buy hey, at least with this result you earned some "wikipoints" to use at your next RFA, and of course another 'article deletion saga' to "cite" while pursuing your 'deletionist' agenda. It's sad that you take this so seriously - P.O. Advice: stick to making dour jokes on your user-page, rather than going for the quality content that you dislike. Nuff said --Flewis^(talk) 08:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

While this is a hobby for us all, there is a serious side to it. We have obligations to those we write about, and if we don't live up to those, there are real world consequences for them. I was troubled by your image caption in particular in the original version of the article - we are meant to be professional and detached, not sensationalist. Having dealt with politicians by email before on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation and in other capacities as well, I can say we have a *lot* of ground to make up with them. I would suggest as starting reading material the July 2008 report by Asher Moses in the SMH, which appeared in an edited form on the front page of the print newspaper, to see just how poor relations are and our need to build a reserve of good faith with them. In essence, our stance to them should be "no, we won't censor your articles the way you like, but we will be completely fair to you for better or worse whether Labor, Liberal, National, Green or other, and we will take our obligation not to defame or demean you seriously." Once they know where they stand with us, the situation looks a lot less like an open declaration of war. Keeping in full compliance with Wikipedia policies (especially BLP and UNDUE) will largely ensure this. A very recently concluded RFAR at this location reaffirms ArbCom's view that BLP is now the overriding policy at the encyclopaedia. Orderinchaos 13:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I've never gone for an RFA, I wouldn't want to. And i'm not a deletionist, I just think that utterly non-noteable articles are inherantly of no quality. Like yours. Nuff said. Timeshift (talk) 08:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. If this user makes more edits to / or reverts Thurgood Marshall again drop me a line and I'll give him a further warning. We don't want you being accussed of edit warring!

Happy editing TINYMARK 14:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern, however edit warring does not apply to vandalism reversion. See WP:EW for more info --Flewis^(talk) 14:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I added categories to Ananda Central College and tried to improve the article. -- Eastmain (talk) 14:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I raised a few more concerns at Afd. This article will require major work if you wish to keep it. The issues are listed in the article. Thanks, --Flewis^(talk) 15:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I will be glad to look at it. I had added it to the backlog when it was three days old and have not dug through the diffs to see why it was removed without a review. Should get to ti in the next 24 hours or so. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

On 21 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Laughing Baby, 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.

Cirt (talk) 17:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello there!

You have been invited to enter C4v3m4n's Contest!.

The contest is designed to provide users with a challenge while still having fun! This month's contest is focused on Movember, a month designed to to raise awareness and funds for men's health issues, such as prostate cancer and depression in Australia and New Zealand.

Follow the link given above to find out more information. Hope to see you there!

04:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I saw your report of vandalism on Deacon's School at WP:AIV. From looking at it, it is apparent that the edits are not vandalism, and that you are having a content dispute. I have protected the page, and I encourage you to discuss the content on the article's talk page. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask. StephenBuxton (talk) 09:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with the content. I do however, have a problem with the user's persistent vandalism. Despite the fact that the his last couple of edits may be considered 'positive', I fail to understand why he will not receive a reprimand or temporary block over such edits as [1][2][3][4]. --Flewis^(talk) 09:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that User:BenGriffiths has indulged in persistent vandalism, and the recent block was appropriate. It was easy to mistake his edits to Deacon's School as vandalism, given that all his other recent edits to school articles have been, but I don't think there's a real dispute at that article. Kanguole (talk) 09:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

When I review the evidence presented on AIV, I always go to the most recent edit and check the change, along with the time of it (to ensure that it has indeed occured after the last warning). When I reviewed the evidence you presented, the most recent one did look like a content dispute (demolished versus destroyed, amongst other things). I then checked the penultimate piece of evidence you presented, and that too looked like content dispute. I looked at the first one, and that was another content disagreement. At that point I decided not to check the rest, I made my comment on the AIV, and protected the page to encourage content discussion.

Now I see that if I had checked every single item of evidence you had presented (all 6 of them) I would have found one piece of evidence. Had you have posted the links you present above on the AIV, my actions would have been different. I wouldn't have protected the page, and BenGriffiths would now be blocked. I do appreciate your efforts in fighting vandalism, but please can you make sure that when presenting evidence of vandalism, it is actually vandalism you are showing. StephenBuxton (talk) 11:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, just wanted to say thanks for your efforts in fighting vandalism here on Wikipedia. Cheers! 206.211.166.17 (talk) 12:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear, Flewis or The Paul Kersey, whatever your name is, you are really getting on my nerves. On the page, List of U.s. and Canadian box office bombs, I added the film, "Swing Vote" (2008) to the table. Yet you keep on deleting it, it's an official flop, okay! The film ended its theatrical run at the box office with $16,289,867 under its $21 million budget; and the worldwide gross ($583,075) didn't help make the film a box office success. A "box office bomb" is when a film fails to generate enough money to exceed over its production budget. Please discuss this with me so future editors won't delete the stuff I add onto it. talk 21:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you have me mistaken with another editor. I have never edited the article in question! If you are referring to this editor: The Paul Kersey (talk · contribs), it may be best to post him your complaints, as I have nothing to do with this. --Flewis^(talk) 00:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I'm so sorry, Flewis. I didn't mean this and falsely accused you of something you didn't do. However, it was great to meet you. Happy editing! talk 22:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

This message is being sent to all editors who made edits to this article in 2008, except IP and simple vandalism corrections/reverts. Chergles (talk) 20:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry - I've moved it back. No date has been set, and there is still a chance that someone could form a government, which means there wouldn't be elections until 2010. The current article title is standard for future elections, and is consistent with Next United Kingdom general election, Next Irish general election, Next Japanese general election etc.

Also, for future reference, the date on election articles goes at the end, e.g. Israeli legislative election, 2006. Cheers, пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok sure, I wasn't aware of that policy. --Flewis^(talk) 12:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the vandalism on this page. AaCBrown (talk) 14:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Any time --Flewis^(talk) 06:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Flewis! Thank you for the support and warm comments in my RfA, which passed yesterday :) The comments are much appreciated and I hope to use the newly-given tools for the good of the project! -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. Thank you for notifying me that you eliminated my additions to this subject's page. I am an assistant to the subject and I've been dealing with a lot of hostile editing lately (as you probaby could tell on the History page). I thought it would be a good idea to finally add some detailed content regarding her career and other aspects to grow the page from a "starter" or effectively a "stub" to something more substantial. While I appreciate you being there and acting on additions (considering the troll the page has been dealing with) I do think my additions were quite relevant and fit within the style of many of the wiki pages of Ms. Bruce's peers who are writers and broadcasters. Could you expand a bit on what exactly the issue was? It's funny, I've been trying to get the wiki administrators to reverse POV and vandalism on the page (which I have to do myself), and then I add significant background and get immediately reverted. If you could elaborate I'd appreciate it.Obsessivelibrarian (talk) 07:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for message. To avoid any further reversions of the content that you add, you must cite any claims you make, using reliable sources (This is just to make sure that wikipedia's content isn't complete crap! - See WP:V). I understand that you are personally acquainted with the subject, and although that may be helpful in some instances, such editing is generally discouraged on wiki (see WP:COI for more info). As for the "troll" I suggest that you continue to discuss any potentially controversial changes you make (or that s/he has made) on the article's talk page. This is often more helpful than engaging in an edit war, and allows you to sort out the article's problems through dialogue. If you have any more queries, feel free to message me once more. --Flewis^(talk) 07:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so if I understand you correctly, what I published did not have enough sourcing. I will go back and assess what I added, and make sure it has a *public* source, and if not I won't include it. I will also review the articles you suggested. Re the troll, this comes from an editor who has already been blocked previously because of edit wars targeting Fox News personalities. We're not dealing here with legitimate content-based disagreements--from his own Talk page it's clear this is someone who targets the pages of those he perceives to be conservatives and attempts to cast them in a bad light. At any rate, thank you for your help and suggestions. I do appreciate it. Obsessivelibrarian (talk) 08:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Correct. If the editor in question continues to make controversial, vandalism-related changes, or failes to adhere NPOV, be sure to alert an administrator - and if the offense is blockable, you may consider reporting him/her to WP:AIV. --Flewis^(talk) 08:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

This article needs to be deleted i made one called Georgia Jagger how it sould be called. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Killerqueenn18 (talk • contribs) 07:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I redirected the article to Georgia Jagger, because its an identical copy of the aforementioned article. --Flewis^(talk) 08:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello! I got your message:

"Your test on Equestrian vaulting worked, and has been removed. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox."

... but I'm afraid it left me a bit confused (I'm new to this).

I see that the unsupported assertion that I challenged has been removed, which leads me to think I did something right (which is my fervent intention). But the talk of 'my test', and of experimenting further in the sandbox, makes me think that I did something inappropriate.

I suspect that I just need a brief lesson in Wikipedia editing jargon. Could you point me to one?--212.36.48.46 (talk) 11:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure, just in the future, don't add your signature to articles. Other than that, your edits look good. --Flewis^(talk) 11:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, brilliant. I just copied the example from a help page. In fact I realise that I am guilty of Cargo Culting! Oh, the shame. Anyway thank you very much. I will go ahead and register, I think.--212.36.48.46 (talk) 11:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Great. Happy editing! --Flewis^(talk) 11:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Please send me a copy of the email you refer to - complete without adjustment so that I can reconsider as necessary the block. That email will be kept by me in complete confidence.--VS ^talk 11:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• Response sent via email - Will await your forwarding.--VS ^talk 11:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Okay thanks - have read, please let me know via email if you get any more. Keep up the good work - remember RBI.--VS ^talk 11:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Thanks for all the help --Flewis^(talk) 11:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you please tell me, my supposedly more learned friend, how removing an ad from an article, removing an unknown song and replacing it with a more known one which fits much more neatly into the 'Popular Culture References' of Ares constitute vandalism? (Well done for reverting it back to the ad by the way. Stellar job against wikipedia guidelines.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.234.217.155 (talk) 12:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The supposed "advertising" was a link to this: Ares Galaxy. If it contains relevance within the paradigm of the article, why not include it? I don't see how this breaches wiki policy per se. --Flewis^(talk) 02:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on DC Chat requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Flewis^(talk) 04:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

LOL! I do that all the time :D J.delanoy^gabs_adds 04:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh crap. . . fancy seeing that here! --Flewis^(talk) 04:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Didn't even have to bother to run it through the process. . . Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DC Chat --Flewis^(talk) 04:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

What's really funny is when you tag a page for deletion .0002 seconds after someone deletes it. I think did that once with a page named something like Jake is a gay faggot. Then I had to tag it with db-author and endure the amusement of whoever came by to delete it ;-) J.delanoy^gabs_adds 04:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

so a section on jewellrey page titled "where to buy from", lisitng several sellers, would be unacceptable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.27.167.173 (talk) 05:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Please read the pages Flewis linked to in the note he gave you. Wikipedia is not a business directory, and external links should provide encyclopedic resources that the article cannot. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 05:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

To Fred Lewis, [ed: This is not my name!]
I was wondering why the following addition, along with media-links, has been deleted by yourself from the Wikipedia 'Body Lice' article.... There is recently a newly discovered variety of lice dubbed 'super lice' by the media. Some proport that they are normal lice but are now drug-resistant, while others conclude that they always existed but have spread through economic globalization and trade. They appear different than normal lice. They are very very small, and crawl on the body, causing intense discomfort. They have also been known to burrow into the skin to lay eggs. Burrowings appear as acne, many times with a white head and a reddish ring. I have also heard of situations where they can get quite comfortable in the victims nose and/or ears. Once settled in, they breed and multiply. The lice then spread out over the body. Evidence of this is skin surrounding the ears will be pock-marked, as the bites are very small.

External Links added and deleted by FLewis: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26627227/ http://www.nydailynews.com/lifestyle/health/2008/09/12/2008-09-12_parents_battle_pesticideresistant_super_.html

Thank You. 69.121.132.99 (talk) 05:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)Feedscrn

Replied --Flewis^(talk) 06:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean to be rude, but you have just removed information (again) from the Descent page, specifically, descriptions of the 10 weapons available.

I challenge this removal, based on the fact that parallel information is included in the Descent 2 page.

I would like to know why you considered this information worthy of removal, and if there hasn't been a misunderstanding, suggestions on how to beef it up.

I am making an effort to improve this page, so please provide feedback. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shentino (talk • contribs) 10:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

No offense taken :D - I suppose your message is in regards to this edit? - Just because information is verifiable or even well sourced, does not mean that it merits inclusion into wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a "game guide". Nor is it an 'indiscriminate collection of information'. Adding a 'list of weapons' into game-related articles is generally frowned upon and seen as un-encyclopedic.
If you wish to improve the article or even get it to "Good Article status", I suggest initiating a peer review. That way, a range of experienced editors will provide you with a specific list of exactly what the article is lacking. Hope this helps! --Flewis^(talk) 10:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm under the assumption that this information is equally valid under either article. As in...if it is worthy under descent 1, it is worthy under descent 2, and vice versa. Having contradictory "case law", so to speak, on two such closely related articles is something I find awkward.

Check out the item list on descent 2, and you'll see what I mean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shentino (talk • contribs)

Yes, other stuff exists - but that is no justification to include a weapons list per guidelines that I listed above. I suggest starting a discussion about this issue (of whether or not a weapons list should be included in either of the 3 Descent games) and transclude it onto their respective talk pages.--Flewis^(talk) 23:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Flewis, and thanks for supporting my successful request for adminship. It was nice to see all the kind comments I got from my supporters and I hope that I will be more useful to the community now that I have the tools again.--Berig (talk) 15:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Your revision of Les Maîtres du temps was unneccesary and reverts to a less-accurate plot description; given that it occured within 1 minute of the information being added, I sincerely doubt you even read the section. It is, I admit, a somewhat outlandish film, but nothing innacurate was added; indeed, the present plot summary is inaccurate in several places. eg. the "crew of misfits" do not travel to Perdide; the two stowaway creatures which are central to the escape from Gamma 10 are not mentioned.

Would you please review (assuming whatever means you detected the change and reverted it by isn't "protecting" your talk page as well, in which case you will probably never read this) the changes you made and either revert to the accurate version (feel free to watch the film again and verify it, or check it at the links given on the page as-is) or rewrite the inaccurate revision in a manner which conveys a coherent plot summary.

Cheers. 92.4.186.169 (talk) 17:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Just spotted I spelled "inaccurate" wrong up there. And some others, probably, so you may want to run a spellcheck too... :) 92.4.186.169 (talk) 17:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The confusion here lies in the fact that 99% of the time, anonymous editors who add large amounts of content are vandalizing the article. Coupled over with a lack of an edit summary, I mistook your edits as being in Bad Faith. I've reverted my edits and restored your content. In light of this, I've reverted my edits, and reinstated your content. To avoid any such confusion in the future, I highly recommend creating an account, and using an edit summary at all times. Apologies for the inconvenience --Flewis^(talk) 00:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

S'quite alright, you're the courteous kind of wikipedian. I have my reasons for being an IP, and I expect a little of this... probably should have altered the edit summary though, you're on the money there. Thanks for the revert and the vigilance. 92.4.186.169 (talk) 01:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 12 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Duloxetine. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. – Zedla (talk) 05:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

{{unblock|See below (I'm unable to place diff's in this template for some reason)}} The ip in question removed sourced, good quality content from the article. In fact I was not the first user to notice this discrepancy. User:DiverseMentality reverted similar edits by the same user-in-question a day ago [5]. There is no 'content dispute' - as I was merely reverting what was perceived as vandalism on the behalf of the ip. Following my original revert to the article, the user attacked the encyclopedia. From then on, I proceeded to re-revert his/her edits which constituted a clear instance of vandalism and content removal. The three-revert rule doesn't normally apply to vandalism reversion, so I'm still a little baffled as to why I have been blocked. --Flewis^(talk) 05:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

It is borderline whether that truly was vandalism, but this block, hammered in with no warning, is very inappropriate, especially given your track record. I have left a rantnote on your blocking admin's page. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 05:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

(Non-Admin comment) I support the unblocking of Flewis since the IP was removing large amount of sourced content without any discussion on the talk page. Flewis is a good faith and valuable editor to Wikipedia. Bidgee (talk) 05:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I've lifted the block with apologies, I see Flewis's point but please keep in mind editrevert warring can be just as disruptive. The typical advice even when you are in the right is to look for help elsewhere (WP:AIAV, WP:RFPP, etc) or let someone else pick up the revert instead. (see also WP:DFTT) – Zedla (talk) 05:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for lifting the block. Also thanks to J.delanoy and Bidgee for the support. I really appreciate it --Flewis^(talk) 05:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I see you've been warned about 3RR before over Antonio Luján, you have no excuses next time if it isn't obvious vandalism... – Zedla (talk) 06:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

3RR with an editor that was subsequently blocked by VirtualSteve for 'disrpution' and then once again by EVula for a month--Flewis^(talk) 06:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Sorry to pile on with the dire warnings, but you really need to be more careful in the future. When using Huggle, it is easy to get into the "OMG!!! Everything even close to vandalism needs to be reverted!! By MEEE!!!" mode. Take it easy, and remember that there are hundreds of people who fight vandalism. Even now, even though I am an admin, I will rarely revert someone more than 3 times, unless it is extremely obvious (like blanking pages, using the "n-word", etc.) If it really is vandalism, someone else will get it. When I was a n00b Huggler, I did that, and I found that reading WP:AGF in its entirety every few days helped. Vandal-patrol is (or shouldn't) be a race. If you have any question, and you're about to go over 3rr, just leave it. If it really bugs you, bookmark the page and come back later and see if someone else reverted. 99 times out of 100, some will have. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 06:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Cjl1995's block for 'disruptive editing' was probably over 3RR, and whatever he/she did at Antonio Luján couldn't be called obvious vandalism. We really appreciate your vandal fighting, but I sincerely hope you take my "typical advice" and J.delanoy's above to heart. – Zedla (talk) 07:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be ongoing vandalism from anonymous or new users. Did you want me to semi-protect it? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

No thanks --Flewis^(talk) 05:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I have taken a second look at the article and left more comments on the peer review page. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for identifying the hoax. Choose a barnstar to put that sentence with if you're into that --NE2 14:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

meh, it really makes no difference to me (barnstar/no barnstar). Thanks anyway --Flewis^(talk) 05:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I notice you have deleted links to two web sites on the Kerr Lake article: one for Clarksville Days and the other for the Hydroplane Races. Could you provide a reason for these deletions? While I did not add them to the article, I think they are legitimate links as they relate to the recretional use of this resevoir. I look forward to reading your comments. LLDMart (talk) 16:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

On face value it seemed as if (Clarksville Lake Country Chamber of Commerce [6]) + (Ceda [7]) were promotional websites, dealing with issues that did not directly pertain to Kerr Lake. This first link would be more appropriate in this article. The second link dealt with competitive sports on the lake - while not directly related to the geographical or topographical features of the lake, I would be stretching it to say that this link is inappropriate. If you wish to include the second link in the article, I recommend that you write a paragraph or two about 'hydroplane racing' on the lake, and include the link as a reference. --Flewis^(talk) 05:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your reasoning. I actually like the idea of a paragraph regarding hydroplane racing, and shall work on adding that information soon. LLDMart (talk) 22:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

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

⇔ ∫Æ_S dt @ 07:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.222.236.63 (talk) 08:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar! It's my first! :) Also, I incremented your page vandalism counter by one ;) ~Pip2andahalf 09:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering when someone would next 'vandalize' my talk-page. . .:D --Flewis^(talk) 09:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

It happens :P I've had mine hit a couple of times. I like your little message. It's neat-o. Also, your user page is hilarious with the flipped text. I can *almost* read it without doing a headstand, but it started to get annoying, so i just took a picture of it and turned my camera upside down ;) Also, maybe you know this, but whatever text flipper you used doesn't flip numbers, apparently. I noticed when I was reading upside down and it looked like it said you found out about the Wiki in '05 and have been editing since '09. xD Anyway... Cheers ~Pip2andahalf 10:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, I noticed you are "seeking to adopt" users, according to your user boxes. Am I too established to be adopted? I've only been very seriously editing and reverting vandalism for a month or two, and I sure could learn a lot more, but I don't know that I'm ready for a review or whatever. ~Pip2andahalf 10:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Adoption is generally a formality, and an 'unofficial' wiki-mentoring program of sorts whereby I will have the opportunity to mentor you along the way, as you learn about wikipedia, its policies and its guidelines. If you feel that you need someone to ask the odd "wiki-question" once in while, or some help rehashing on policy (or wiki guidelines) then I'd be glad to adopt you! --Flewis^(talk) 10:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Mmkay. I'm probably not really a good adoption candidate then. I'd probably just be better suited asking the random question here and there, and then eventually requesting an Editor Review. I do have a question for you, though - I also noticed you have a committed identity hash on your userpage, and I got pretty hungry thinking about has browns, so I was wondering if you could help me make some. :P (I know it was bad, sorry... xD) but seriously - I wonder if you could assist me in creating one. When I first saw one the other day I went to the page and read it, but I must admit I didn't get how to create one out of it... Thanks!! ~Pip2andahalf 10:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

It's simple. Go to this website [8] and enter your secret message (which will be "unhashed" if your account is compromised, to verify the owner of the account - i.e. you). Copy + paste your SHA-1 hash into a template like this: {{user committed identity|525d49ec614e98538262a124126a6ddb36406f3a|SHA-1}}, and then paste on your user-page. All Done! --Flewis^(talk) 10:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Your secret string should not be easily guessable based on what you have publicly revealed about yourself. For example, if you use your real name on Wikipedia, your address or telephone number might be guessable, so be sure to make part of your string an unguessable secret. --Flewis^(talk) 10:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Beautiful. That web site was what I needed. Thanks so much! And yeah hehe I did get that out of the article, on top of my previous knowledge of hashing. I just didn't know how to implement it into the identity for wikipedia, nor where to find a hashing program. Thanks again!! ~Pip2andahalf 01:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Any time --Flewis^(talk) 01:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your message, but how can formatting her birth name (which appears elsewhere in the article) in the correct WP style be even remotely construed and "negative" or "controversial"?!?!?!?! Hundreds of WP editors do this exact same thing each day! Look forward to hearing from you! 81.151.38.166 (talk) 09:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the welcome, but would still like you to point out (preferably with reference to WP's guidelines) how my edit was in any way unacceptable. 81.151.38.166 (talk) 10:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Ok, I see my mistake, so I've reverted my edits. I accidentally mistook your edits for vandalism, because Huggle doesn't have an option of showing me the entire article, so I wrongly assumed that you inserted false info. --Flewis^(talk) 10:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, OK. Thank you for letting me know. Seems Huggle needs to be taught WP:AGF :-) Have a good day! Chris. 81.151.38.166 (talk) 10:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Please restate your reasons for removing links, I dont believe you are justified in your actions —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.44.69 (talk) 22:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Blogs are driven by user-generated content, which makes them unreliable as external sources or citations. See WP:RS for more info. --Flewis^(talk) 01:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I just reverted a reversion you made here. I think you accidentally reverted to an edit that was vandalism. No worries, I fixed it. Just letting you know :-). ~Beano~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I've re-reverted your edits . "Moron" in this case is not used as a derogatory term, rather a historical adjective. The edit that I reverted substituted moron for "margaret manion" - someone without an article, and (even if they had an article) a gross violation of BLP --Flewis^(talk) 05:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

My apologies. I re-read the page. Your edit was actually the good one. I'm too used to fixing other people's reverts when vandals make more than one edit in a row. Have a good day and nice to meet you :-) ~Beano~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I forgot to fill in the edit summary. Well I reverted the edits back to mine, and added an edit summary so it's not mistaken for vandalism. My bad.--71.213.192.115 (talk) 06:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The edit-summary really does help! Thanks for the message --Flewis^(talk) 06:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)