Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

You are not Chinese. You don't know how important this event is. If this article should be deleted, why does Dihydrogen monoxide hoax exist? Dihydrogen monoxide hoax is only a joke! In developed countries, incidents such as "Change water to oil" is nothing at all because people have better science knowlege. However, in China of 1980s, few people have enough knowledge about conservation of elements. Don't always think things in your way. Alonso McLaren (talk) 10:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Unless you can provide some reliable sources, the article may be deleted because of verifiability and original research concerns. This article also shows the subject in a negative light, which potentially violates WP:BLP - if that is the case, then the article may be placed for speedy deletion as a BLP violation. Notability here is also a big issue, with a Google search yielding no results whatsoever. --Flewis^(talk) 10:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

What about the new version? It is impossible to find it on Google indeed. But you can search "水变油" in http://www.baidu.com http://www.baidu.com/s?wd=%CB%AE%B1%E4%D3%CD Alonso McLaren (talk) 10:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC) You put so much "citation needed". How can I explain? This is a translation from Chinese wikipedia.Alonso McLaren (talk) 11:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC) Don't proclaim yourself as a policeman of Wikipedia just like the USA does in the world.Alonso McLaren (talk) 11:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia differs from Chinese Wikipedia in the sense that here, all claims/assertions require a source for verification (See WP:CITE for more info on this matter). The problem with this article, is that it simply contains too many unverified claims. I found a couple of sources in Chinese, but those alone may not be enough to keep the article.--Flewis^(talk) 11:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

You had better send this article to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 November 8 ‎and let others to discuss, instead of judging by yourself.Alonso McLaren (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 11:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC).

Hey there Flewis, I just stumbled across the article Change water to oil. Forgive me if I am wrong, but I think anyone can remove Prod tags from articles, even if they created them... It's only speedy tags that article creators shouldn't remove. Perhaps you should consider nominating the article for deletion? Cheers Nouse4aname (talk) 11:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, I've placed the article up for AFD here if you're interested. . .--Flewis^(talk) 11:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

No worries. For what it's worth, I agree with your reasoning, and have expressed my opinion at the AfD. It's a shame that we can't find any sources, as it seems like an interesting topic, I kind of hope some can be found! Have a good day! Nouse4aname (talk) 12:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

My final (rather long) post here (now archived) didn't get any response there, so as I said there I am following up on people's talk pages to try and clarify what will happen in future cases, and then I'm moving on. Are you happy to agree that snowball deletes are not needed for suspected hoax articles, and that they should be allowed to run the full length of time at an AfD debate? Carcharoth (talk) 11:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that AFD's should be allowed to run for at least 24 hours in such cases. Indeed, I proposed re-opening the debate, however in this particular case, the community (via ANI) raised no objections in deleting the article, so it seemed to be an 'obvious' (if I may say so) candidate for deletion. I do agree that the AFD was handled rather hastily, however no-one seems to have any regrets over the deletion and as yet, no-one has found sources contradicting the allegations - a sure sign that the article was, in fact a hoax. --Flewis^(talk) 12:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but I'm not disputing that people think the article is a hoax. My point about AfD and speedy deletions stands regardless of whether it was a hoax or not. The point is that AfD has a wider range of article editors reading it than ANI. You (I think) asked for Civil War experts and people who would know about 19th century African-American lawyers, but you were asking that question in the wrong venue. ANI regulars are unlikely to know that. There was also no link from the AfD to the longer ANI debate. The other point is that someone had asked at the MILHIST US Civil War taskforce, but only one person replied there, and they said the article has been deleted, so the process fell down there as well. Would you agree that it looks bad when someone asks at a WikiProject for opinions on something, and then the article gets deleted before anyone at that project has a chance to offer an opinion? My point is, and always has been, that if this had turned out to be a genuine article, we might have missed something that others would have spotted. Hence the need for a full debate. I'm not even sure that 24 hours is enough, though I will concede that a snowball delete after less than five days might be OK. But only if the sources have been thoroughly debunked. There is a different between a snowball delete based on the initial (flawed) comment by the nominator, and a snowball delete after several different sources have been checked. There are some people that think even if something isn't a hoax, that it is OK to delete and then undelete if someone later spots something, but there is no reason to bypass the checks and balances - there are reasons why those checks and balances are there: the years of experience some people (not me) have had in deletion debates. Carcharoth (talk) 19:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned previously, I would be happy to re-open the debate on this article to assuage any any doubts (I didn't post to ANI mindlessly!). Otherwise, in general AFD should generally run the entire length, unless the article warrants a speedy deletion. In this situation the length of the AFD was debatable, but as a couple of editors mentioned on ANI - there is no point arguing over it any longer unless you're prepared to re-open the AFD discussion. In my opinion the hoax creator acted with premeditation - continued hyperbole and time-wasting following the deletion of his/her article is exactly what they had in mind. . .--Flewis^(talk) 23:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

And as I said, one day someone will insert a not-really-a-hoax, and celebrate when that gets deleted early because it was dressed up to look like a hoax when it wasn't. That is why hoax debates should be allowed to run the full length of time and treated dispassionately - when done well, there is no way initially to tell if something is a hoax or not, and I'd prefer to err on the side of caution, rather than delete something too early. If it is a hoax, it will still end up deleted. If it is not, then the full five days gives people a chance to work out what is going on. I made all these points at the ANI thread, so quite why I'm repeating them here, I don't know. Did you read what I said at the ANI thread? I'm sure you did, so no need to answer that. But I hope the points I am making are getting acrosss. Trust AfD to get the right result after five days. There is no need to pre-empt that process in the case of suspected hoaxes. Carcharoth (talk) 00:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes I read through your entire post, however I didn't feel the need for discussing this situation any further. I didn't close the AFD debate, nor did I delete the article, so I'm unable to justify the early closure on behalf of the admin, however often in such cases, it is helpful to use common sense and delete the article if it is a clear hoax. Once again I agree that in the future such debates should be handled less hastily, however in this case I'm sure that the article was in fact a hoax and I see no need for any further excessive loquaciousness. --Flewis^(talk) 02:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Flewis. There are many bullshit entries on the NexusTK page. I was simply trying to correct them, having been a player of the game for 8+ years now, I know my shit.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.42.185.99 (talk • contribs)

"Knowing your shit" without providing sources constitutes "original research". In any case, removing content without an explanation is the easiest way to get someone on RC Patrol to revert your edits :) - if your into that stuff, that is. --Flewis^(talk) 14:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey there Flewis, how are you today? Had to throw any vandals in Wikiprison yet? :) DJ MeXsTa (talk) 15:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I have, but they keep breaking out! I'm looking for a maximum-security solution, but as yet, nothing is working. On a separate issue, I see that like me, you love fighting vandalism on wikipedia. Have you thought about installing Twinkle - its an easy wiki feature that allows you to revert vandalism in the blink of an eye. Try and give it a go. Once you get hooked, you'll never go back :) --Flewis^(talk) 15:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I've tried and despite one of the Admins created the monobook.js page, i cant seem to bypass the cache on Firefox (I've done what it said), Any ideas? As for the vandalism bit, i'm not that good because i just read through the Wikipedia page about Vandalism and it seems the things i think are vandalism..... aren't. You got SR2 on X360? Everyone on my list is on GoW2 and won't come join me. DJ MeXsTa (talk) 15:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

To bypass you cache on Firefox hold down Ctrl+Shift+R - (twinkle doesn't work with IE) or delete your browsing history, restart Firefox and re-log in. You'll know that Twinkle has been activated once you see extra tabs at the very top of the page. Also, a great way to start of reverting vandalism is with the Lupin Anti-vandal Tool. Install that in you monobook.js page and see how you go. On a side note, I don't have an Xbox :( - but PC isn't really that bad! Cheers --Flewis^(talk) 15:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Lol, from your last comment i'm guessing you get bored on your PC... Join the Microsoft Revolution and get an Xbox then lol. Much better than the Playstation 3 in my opinion because of the fact that the NXE (well, parts of it) come out on 19th November and that's gunna be awesome. You considering getting a Games Console? DJ MeXsTa (talk) 15:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I've always been an Xbox fan, 'just never got around to buying one!--Flewis^(talk) 15:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

They're not that expensive now. 20GB Xbox 360 Premium is about £170.00 (GBP) in GAME...... Or are you a bit lazy and cba to go buy it? lol. If you got a other half, get him/her to get it :P DJ MeXsTa (talk) 15:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Guess Im a little lazy :) - just can't be stuffed by a new console now. Thanks for the advice anyway - I'm logging off, real-life intervenes. . . --Flewis^(talk) 15:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Gah! The monobook.js thing still won't *beep*ing work (Sorry for the language). I've restarted Firefox, I've re-logged in, I've done the buttons.......and still nothing's happening... DJ MeXsTa (talk) 15:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC) ---- You can ignore that now, it seems to be working now. Thank you and have a nice day. DJ MeXsTa (talk) 15:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		For being the twenty-fifth person to sign my guestbook, and for complimenting my userpage. Ollie Fury Contribs 15:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :) --Flewis^(talk) 15:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Flewis, thank you for reverting the edit, unfortunately its been vandalized again, but I will reset it. Thanks again for your help —Preceding unsigned comment added by Satanoid (talk • contribs) 19:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Flewis, the article is getting vandalised and I feel Extremists may be bullying some admins with limited knowledge into being cowed and deleting the articles they dont agree with. In fact Singh6 is referring to many source references such as the BBC (where much of the information was gathered), CBC, The Times, Evening Standard as POV ? Seriously are these POV sites ? They seem neutral to me - Anyway, I wont be editing on here for a while and see where it leads to ? Thanks again

Hello Sir, Please see the history of this respected user who has created this POV article:

User Talk: Satanoid alias His Blocking Biography alias User talk: 90.192.59.43 (his previous IP) alias User Talk: 90.196.3.37 alias User Talk: 90.196.3.246's past and new acts have been duly documented by several editors on User Talk: Master of Puppets in several sections. This respected user was blocked several times.--Singh6 (talk) 09:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

He had tried getting permission from Admin User Talk: Master of Puppets to create this article and instead he has received a warning with heading "Hi Again". He has come up with this account after getting numerous warnings to his three IPs, i.e. 90.196.3.37, 90.196.3.246 and 90.192.59.43.--Singh6 (talk) 09:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Sikh Extremism means using an abusive word for an entire religion. Extremism is there in every other religion, but it does not mean that we allow such hatered (POV) on wiki. I request you to go through this (extremely new) respected editor's history (provided above).--Singh6 (talk) 09:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Even Admin User talk:DJ Clayworth has called this article an Insult to Wikipedia.--Singh6 (talk) 09:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, this article is not POV as some suggest, its simply dealing with the issues surrounding Sikh religious fundamentalism no one is suggesting all Sikhs are extremist, but some may well be- its s fact of life. (I wIll be taking this to the discussion page) I will stress again, that bullying admins into removing subjects surrounding religious fundamentalism is not in the interest of free speech or Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Satanoid (talk • contribs)

Regarding this article, there are a few things I would like to say. First of all is whether or not this article should be included in wikipedia at all. As the it currently stands, the article has some WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTH issues which must be fixed if this article is to merit inclusion into the encyclopedia. A topic of this nature must provide reliable sources (from both sides of the spectrum to eliminate NPOV) to establish verifiability. To be fair such articles are a necessary part of the encyclopedia (e.g. articles on: Islamic terrorism, Jewish terrorism, Christian terrorism, Hindu terrorism and Religious terrorism exist for a reason) however unless the above problems are fixed, this article may have to go. I suggest starting the article from scratch and heavily sourcing each and every claim within the article (or else the article will have to go). As of now, continue the debate on the article's talk page. If you need professional editor assistance I suggest taking this issue to the Mediation Committee. Otherwise, let's keep the comments civil and constructive, so that we may each conclude with a satisfactory outcome. --Flewis^(talk) 12:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Flewis, the article looks to have been re-examined from an Indian/Asian perspective, but it does warrant information from a UK/US/EU intelligence perspective as was set out previously, I think if you take into consideration the fact that Babbar Khalsa International and the ISYF have been banned under international terrorism laws as these links prove. http://www.milnet.com/tgp/data/sikh.htm http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/1734 It will be worth adding to the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Satanoid (talk • contribs) 17:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Flewis, for what it's worth, I'm sorry about the abuse that was being heaped on you by the anon. No one deserves to be spoken to in that way. I've blocked the anon for now, and if they come back after the block with the same language, or if they start up again on some other account and continue to disrupt, please let me or any other admin know, and we'll try to take care of it as quickly as possible. The reason that there was resistance at WP:AIV, is because that's a very fast-moving page which is only for really blatant cases of vandalism. Since the anon was just being abusive and wasn't (technically) vandalizing, things just got clogged in the bureaucracy. Sorry, I know that this must have been frustrating, since you were on the receiving end of some insults. Anyway, things should be straightened out now, and if there's anything else that I can do to help, please let me know, --Elonka 00:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your warm words :) - I receive ip/anon harassment quite often, and usually the offenders are blocked after a brief posting to AIV. I guess there was simply a minor mix-up and the admin didn't properly check the extent of harassment. Anyway, thanks for all the help! --Flewis^(talk) 00:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm wondering why you reverted my change to your vandalism ticker. it was at 58 and then I vandalized your page and was kind enough to increase the number by one for you. Was that wrong to do? Also, you reverted my edit to the !!!F*ckyou!!! article which was to censor a swear word, why did you do that? And why did you call it vandalism? 64.230.94.183 (talk) 03:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored, see also Wikipedia:Profanity - I've reinstated my vandalism ticker to 59. Thank you for your "concern"--Flewis^(talk) 03:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Have a good one!

Also you might want to consider removing it, considering it's what made me want to vandalize in the first place.64.230.94.183 (talk) 03:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll pass --Flewis^(talk) 03:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I have cleaned up the article, but I'm afraid that this version won't long last as Canadian gaddars would vandalize it: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sikh_extremism&oldid=250677918

Please keep a watch. Thank you. 59.164.100.127 (talk) 17:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Flewis, this article is unreadable - its got extremists vandalizing left right and center. The Sikh Federation, an offshoot of the banned ISYF seem to be having a field day especially from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Roadahead

Its a well known fact that the ISYF is a banned terrorist group by EU/US/Canadian Governments, and references were provided. Exposing the truth wont be easy due to extremists blocking an article that deals with many issues concerning themselves. Thanks Satanoid (talk) 09:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Flewis, it seems they've put every tag under the sun even though as I and others predict the article wont probably see the light of day unless proper research is done form non pov sources ie mainstream Western media or when one looks at specific banned Sikh terrosist groups that have links to Al Qaeda and thier offshoots. Satanoid (talk) 09:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I suppose one could also surmise from some of these commentators that there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? --Sikh-history (talk) 17:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Flewis, would it be possible to include some of this information in the article Sikh extremism ? Thanks http://www.thestar.com/article/278833 Satanoid (talk) 13:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I've added a little paragraph under Sikh_extremism#Sikh_extremism_in_Canada. Feel free to expand. --Flewis^(talk) 13:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Flewis, thank you for allowing me to expand on the article.

I have these links, they are very deep and am not sure which parts would or could be included in the article without vandalism:

http://www.freeman.org/m_online/bodansky/axis.htm http://www.tribuneindia.com/2002/20020405/main3.htm http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries/india/states/punjab/terrorist_outfits/ISYF.htm Satanoid (talk) 18:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I have changed the Veveo article to the new rules you and Ckatz have introduced. I will also change the articles for all other search engine company articles, according to those new rules you and Ckatz have invented. Rick.nolan (talk) 09:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

This link that you inserted is nothing but spam [1]. It has absolutely nothing to do with the article subject, and hence has been reverted. Please brush up on WP:RS.--Flewis^(talk) 09:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

[2] —Dark ^talk 09:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I fail to realize why this is not considered a blockable offense: Malicious speedy deletion tagging: [3][4][5]. Spamming: [6][7][8][9][10][11][12]. Blatant advertising . Disruption [14][15]. Surely your not gonna let this off the hook simply because "he hasn't done anything since you removed him here last time". This is clearly a vandal/disruption only account. A preventive measure may need to be taken to deter any further detrimental behavior --Flewis^(talk) 10:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked anyway by Redvers--Flewis^(talk) 13:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

In this case, AGF is necessary; you as a vandal patroller should know that blocking him will not do anything besides promote further aggressive behavior, far from getting him to contribute positively. This situation arose from a miscommunication of information, the account was far from vandalism-only in the beginning. It was clear that the user was trying to contribute positively and got aggravated by a speedy deletion tag on the article. —Dark ^talk 06:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Please try to remember that blocking is a last resort, the editor's behavior was far from malicious (misguided and brash maybe) when you filed that report. —Dark ^talk 06:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Please see NPOV edits by SPAs.-Bharatveer (talk) 11:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

On 10 November, 2008, In the news was updated with a news item involving the article(s) Russian submarine K-152 Nerpa, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently updated or created article, then please suggest it on the In the news candidates page.

--Spencer^T♦C 21:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the barnstar you gave me, it was a welcome surprise so here is a smile to hopefully brighten up your day!

An article that you have been involved in editing, Sikh extremism, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sikh extremism. Thank you. Singh6 (talk) 08:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

On 11 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Barack Obama presidential acceptance speech, 2008, 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) 09:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Greetings Flewis, and thank you for looking at my work on Angels of Bataan. I was a bit uncertain about why some of the text I added was removed, but I am not an experienced Wikipedia user and I would welcome comments. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksibley (talk • contribs)

Hi Ksibley, I reverted you edit because you inserted un-sourced and unverifiable content. The content you wrote up isn't bad, however without reliable sources within the article, there is no way to ascertain the what is 'true' and what is 'false' (see WP:V for more info). For the time being i've reinstated your version of the article. Just be sure in the future to cite as much within the article as you possible can, using reliable sources. Hope this helps. --Flewis^(talk) 13:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that is helpful! Give me a few days to add a few more footnotes and then it would be great if you would check again. Presently, I am adding footnotes, but they don't seem to appear at the bottom of the page. I will look into this and try to fix, but if you look again in a few days and comment that would be great. Also am trying to remember to do the signature and the edit summary Thanks, --Ksibley (talk) 13:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Flewis for for the DYK nomination and the feed-back. I have added a few more details, and now I need to let this entry alone for awhile as I get back to my day job. Will see how it goes for awhile and then add some more details. Best regards, --Ksibley (talk) 17:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

On 11 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ann Nixon Cooper, which you recently nominated. 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) 15:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello Flewis, I think this AfD has run its course but don't know how to close it (am I allowed to close it myself?). As you are experienced with AfD's please close the AfD, I think the consensus is clear - the article now has enough sources, just needs a page move. Thanks. - Unpopular Opinion (talk) 21:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Unpopular Opinion, both of us would be unable to close this Afd for a couple of reasons: Non-admin closures only allow for clear or unanimous "keeps". Normally in such a case, the AFd would be relisted to generate clear consensus, however that too must be left too an admin [16]. Also, you are not allowed to close an Afd in which you have voted or nominated - (mostly to avoid systematic bias). This closure would be best left to an admin. --Flewis^(talk) 21:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh ok thanks. - Unpopular Opinion (talk) 21:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

DMan727 explained things and I don't think he really vandalized my comment, because are in agreement on the Ann Nixon Cooper notability and our comments are otherwise rational. Mistakes happen. I would feel bad if it goes any further. Thanks. MMetro (talk) 21:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've left a note on their talk page clearing things up. This was just an unintentional mistake - no harm done. --Flewis^(talk) 01:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, Flewis, I am back now. I guess I should say Im sorry for some of the things that I said to you. I am learning that just because Wikipedia says that it is not sensored doesn't mean what it sounds like.

I want to thank you for helping me learn a valuble lesson. When I read your words that you left on my talkpage, it gave me a new perspective that I did not have before that now I do have. Wikipedia God 96 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.234.45.208 (talk) 01:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad that you have the will to change, however actions speak louder than words, and this doesn't indicate you have a "new perspective" on WP:ATTACK at all. --Flewis^(talk) 02:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I've also reverted these edits of yours [17][18][19]. My rationale is explained here, here and here respectively --Flewis^(talk) 02:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

It looks like you are maybe just picking on me. That 3Ws thing doesn't need sources if someone is smart enough to be able to count the sylables. "The-three-dub-bul-use" has five sylables, and "The-Who-What-or-Where-Game" has six sylables. And you say I have no sources, but nether did the person who wrote the part that I was correcting. I think you are just trying to trip me up. And about that woman, I see your point, I just thought that it should say it right away. But your probably right about that one. But I think your wrong about the 3 Ws. Wikipedia God 96—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.234.45.208 (talk • contribs)

The addition of that information is unnecessary, and serves no benefit to enhancing the reader's knowledge on the subject (this is an encyclopedia after all). Also once again, I've reverted this edit - and I strongly recommend that you brush up on WP:POINT. Remember, this has nothing to do with your previous behavior - just try in the future to avoid controversial or disruptive edits that could get you re-blocked. --Flewis^(talk) 02:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The addition of that information is unnecessary, and serves no benefit to enhancing the reader's knowledge on the subject I would very much apreciate it if you could make yourself clear. I have edited several articles and refered to more than one in my comments, so your comment is now unclear. WHAT information "is unecessary"? Which addition are you talking about? And your revert of my deletion is wrong, too, because we are supposed to revert unsourced information. I put something true in, and you reverted me, I took something unproven out, and you reverted me. 74.234.45.208 (talk) 02:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Per the IP's request to my talkpage, I reviewed this situation. I think that the IP was making contributions in good faith, but most of those edits did deserve to be reverted for the reasons given. The only one that seems a little suspect is the removal of the trivia section, which could and should be removed per WP:V - the motivation behind an edit is not always important, provided that edit improves the encyclopedia. In your first revert, Flewis, you indicated that you reverted for unsourced information. The IP could then reasonably be assumed to have learnt, and simply applied this policy to the article. In fact, you'll notice that the next edit to the article actually removed the entire trivia section, and remains unreverted. Perhaps, if possible, you two should steer clear of each other - I know there's been some issues that resulted in the IP being blocked, so other people are watching the contributions. I'll be cross-posting this to a couple of pages Fritzpoll (talk) 08:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Replied --Flewis^(talk) 12:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I keep trying to add to this page, and you keep reverting it even though it is properly sourced and does not present him in a negative way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.11.207 (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia takes biographies of living persons very seriously, and unless any additions/assertions that you add can be verified with reliable sources, they will generally be reverted. Could you please pont to me exactly which source states that Richard Polanco fathered an "undisclosed" child? --Flewis^(talk) 04:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

What if I told you I was the undisclosed child, then what.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.11.207 (talk) 04:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Gentlemen, do you really think it makes sense for a page on a 300+ year-old society to have, in its header, a clearly POV section about Burma? The matter was clearly not one of great public debate, and its importance is vastly overstated through such placement. Furthermore, whoever added the sections about Burma added them in places where they absolutely do not belong. The "Criticism" section at the article's bottom is the relevant place for such paragraphs. Allowing such sections to stand in such prominent positions simply dilutes Wikipedia's claim to NPOV entries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.57.22 (talk) 04:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

You removed well-sourced verifiable content [20][21] without an edit summary (that in itself being no justification). Bear in mind that I come across large amounts of vandalism/content removal, and generally content removal by an anonymous user such as youself constitutes vandalism. In this case, I would recommend that you follow up the matter on the article's talk page. Via consensus, the wikipedia community will decide whether or not these paragraphs should belong in the article. --Flewis^(talk) 04:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello Flewis!

I recently edited the Snow Falling On Cedars page to change all references of Kabuo (The Character in the novel) to Kazuo (The character's name in the film - god only knows why they changed it, but they did.). The changes were reverted, but a closer examination of the page reveals that the cast list below lists the characters name as 'Kazuo', which I changed the article to reflect.

Could you please re-examine this article and see what you think?

Thanks for your time and concern,

Anonymous Editor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.139.113 (talk) 04:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, and thanks for the message. The character's name is in fact "Kabuo" as per these sources: [22][23][24][25][26][27]. I've also changed the name in the character list section [28]. Thanks, --Flewis^(talk) 04:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

All those sources refer to the novel rather than the film. The name was changed for the Hollywood movie, as is noted in all film reviews ^[1], IMDB^[2], and the discussion notes for the wikipedia page itself^[3]. It is my opinion that the page should be updated to reflect this. Check it out and see if you agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.139.113 (talk) 04:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I see you rationale. I've restored your version [29] --Flewis^(talk) 05:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Cheers dude, scholar and a gentleman. Not sure if it should be mentioned on the page that the name was changed, but either way the facts are there. thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.139.113 (talk) 05:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing Samoa Technologies!!--Funandtrvl (talk) 17:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem --Flewis^(talk) 07:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Please try to use it when you are rapid fire reverting. This should have been a gigantic red flag for you (i.e. that the article is riddled with copyrighted material). John Reaves 21:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

In retrospect, I agree - the problem was, that at the time, there was considerably more detrimental vandalism at hand (page blankings + vandalism by blacklisted users) which was *at the time* a bigger issue. Thanks for keeping an eye out though, unfortunately I cannot (when rapid-fire-reverting) inspect every edit in depth and consequentially I don't always remove the vandalism in its entirety. Bear in mind that this is quite common among those on RC patrol (as seen within the same article, moments prior to my reversion [30][31]) - that is, reverting immediate vandalism, rather than initiating a thorough inspection of the recently vandalized article. --Flewis^(talk) 07:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Seems like the edit summary would have tipped you off. John Reaves 19:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey Flewis, should i get semi-protection reinstated on Saints Row 2 page incase Vandalism starts again? Write back DJ MeXsTa (talk) 10:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

You would only need semi-protection if there is enough vandalism to justify it (see WP:SEMI). Unfortunately, I'm not an administrator so I'm unable to protect the page, however try lodging a request at WP:RPP, and a suitable admin will decide whether or not to protect.--Flewis^(talk) 10:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, its just, the current protection expires this afternoon (UK time) and i'm worried the vandals might return and well.......you know what happens then. I'll keep an eye on it. DJ MeXsTa (talk) 11:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Template:Internet memes has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Otterathome (talk) 14:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

While I agree that lotro:mom may be obscure way to access The Lord of the Rings Online: Mines of Moria, reason I created redirect in first place is because it was how I tried to access it. Seeing that there is Lord of the Rings Online: Shadows of Angmar, somebody who knows that he is looking for expansion specifically may see fit to access via lotro:mom instead of just lotro and then looking for expansion link in article. Please reconsider your edit. Melmann (talk) 08:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Rather than placing the redirect up for speedy deletion, I'll place it up for discussion, and you could voice your arguments there --Flewis^(talk) 08:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I see that these redirects are used quite commonly (e.g. Lotr:rotk, Lotr:twc). In light of this, I've removed the speedy tag. --Flewis^(talk) 08:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad we reached agreement. I'm about to set up similar redirect for original game on lotro:soa. Just so you know. :)Melmann (talk) 08:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Just in the future, be careful not to redirect disambiguation pages like this one to a single article. The purpose of these pages is to lists articles associated with the same title, so the prospective reader can decide exactly what topic he is looking for --Flewis^(talk) 08:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I see. Well, to me it seemed pretty obvious. I chose to redirect to source material instead of adaptation of this source material. I though that even somebody who might look for expansion would appreciate seeing article about source material upon which game is based. Even if they are not, link to expansion itself is right there. That kind of redirecting to article that has higher priority or is source material is quite common on Wikipedia in my experience. Oh well, I'm not gonna try to revert your revert of my edit, but is there some kind of policy page instructing to do what you mentioned or is it just spoken rule? Melmann (talk) 08:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Listed here: Wikipedia:Disambiguation --Flewis^(talk) 09:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for supporting my successful Rfa! Hope to work with you in the future!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Flewis. You left a message about my username which you suggest I should change. I am in the process of usurping User:Caspar, but the bot (I think) is incorrectly reporting that I have left no usurp request message on the user's talk page, when I have done. How long does the usurp request message have to be posted for for it to be registered? What's happening here? I wouldn't have to do this if people got their facts RIGHT (talk) 18:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

At the moment everything looks fine to me - you've left the correct message, and your usurpation request looks reasonable. In a few days, a Bureaucrat will investigate the request, and (assuming nothing goes wrong), he will change your username. --Flewis^(talk) 23:52, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've just been to the page a few minutes ago and it now shows as recognizing the fact that I've left the usurp message. So now we wait... Thanks anyway Flewis...I wouldn't have to do this if people got their facts RIGHT (talk) 00:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I like the improvements to Mark of the Year. If it weren't a list it would be B-class and well on its way to becoming a WP:Good Article, possibly even featured. I found a couple of FL-blocking issues that MUST be addressed as well as several others that SHOULD be addressed before FL status is granted, see the FL discussion page for details. I did some minor cleanup work to push this along. FL status should be achievable by the end of the month if the necessary citations and missing information can be found. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

On 16 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Angels of Bataan, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thank you for your nomination! - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 10:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6