User talk:Dcflyer/archive 1

=Archive 1= (18:02, 4 February 2006 to 16:38, 10 July 2006)

You have new messages (last change).

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Dr Debug (Talk) 00:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

"Verifiable Source"
Look, I doubt you have bothered to look at the discussion page at Aylesbury Grammar School. You will see that a general consensus was reached that if a source such as the magazine was found, "Big Steve" was included in the article. Therefore, will you stop messing around and allow us to edit the article.
 * I have read the discussion. The only consensus reached was to find a verifiable source.  You have not provided one.  This magazine cannot be read online.  -- Dcflyer 20:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Your VP program isn't even letting me edit my own user page
STOP IT, WILL YOU 88.105.47.17 18:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Your VP thingy keeps messing up legitimate edits!
Hey, can you stop messing around with Aylesbury Grammar School please. What I'm putting on is legitimate. Have a look at the discussion page first please before you remove any more stuff. Cheers.

Micronation
Hey man we share some similar political views, oh yeah and if you want to you can join my micronation

Bush Crimes Commission
You are invited to vote in Articles for deletion/Bush Crimes Commission (2nd nomination) Morton devonshire 03:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

URGENT! Your vote needed
Come vote here please to decide this important matter! i trust that you'll make the right decision--Rictonilpog 17:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

3RR
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.
 * PS: Even when you're right you still shouldn't revert more than 3 times in a day. Please discuss this on the article talk page. -Will Beback 23:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Understood. I will abide by the above. Dcflyer 23:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!
Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Dcflyer! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Computerjoe 's talk 10:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Seven-Year War
Why did you revert my edit in Seven-Year War? Honestly, did you READ the edit made by Dondegiri?
 * My apologies, I am using new software. Reverted back to your version.  Thanks for pointing this out and your contributions to Wikipedia.  In the future, please add an edit summary.  Thanks again. --Dcflyer 12:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Why
did u revert my changes, I reverted an edit that made CheGuevara look like mickey mouse in the first photo. I deman an apology. --70.79.13.144 01:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

No apology? I helped, just check out the history of the article. Before me, Che looked like a mickey mouse. What did I do wrong? --70.79.13.144 01:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I am sorry. I am using new software and did not realize that you were helping to revert the vandalism.  My apologies and thank you. --Dcflyer 01:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Apology accepted. And I'm sorry for reacting kinda harshly, honest mistake, eh. Cya around. --70.79.13.144 01:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Removing my link
My edit link was not vandalism, I was contributing. The case about Jessica Lunsford could be considered by some to be an example of Missing white woman syndrome, and therefore my link was legit. Get your facts straight. --75.8.104.20 06:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi
Please be careful with your reverts with Vandalproof. You added Ceiling cat to Blowpipe missile and then warned me for vandalism for rolling it back. -- Samir  धर्म 06:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

TradeMe edit
210.246.13.183 07:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)We are just trying to enforce the publics RIGHT to choose where to do there business, how can they do this without some form of notification.

VandalProof and François Viète
Hi. I noticed you reverted vandalism on the François Viète page using VandalProof. While appreciated, the software reverted the page to a previous vandalised version. The last correct version was even further back in history. This looks like a flaw in the software. I'm just letting you know so you'll watch out for it. Anyway, thanks for helping keep Wikipedia clean! -- Ritchy 18:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Wat Si Sa Ket picture
Following your message ... Here are a few explanations : I didn't vandalize or experiment : I have edited the picture of the Wat Si Sa Ket in Vientian... because, despite its (not so acurate) name, it's not a pic of the Wat Si Sa Ket. Please look for the new infos on Wikipedia Commons.

Chaoborus

Please comment on plagiarism
Thanks. Here you go. ____G_o_o_d____

University of Phoenix
Check the history on this further. There is a clear violation of Wikipedia policy by 68.70.10.165 clearly controlling the article as if it's his own. There have been several users who have added a controversy section yet he is the only person to remove it.

On July 2, he removed the entire controversy section. He believed someone had an "ax to grind" with the University. I believed that his point was sort of correct and I modified the controversy section to not include any pov type references and cut the section in half. Upon restoring the controversy section on July 3rd, 68.70.10.165 removed it and verbally attacked me, "(there is no controversy only in your little tiny brain. Get over it!)"

I feel that we need some sort of intervention on this article and I noticed you recently made some changes to the article, so I'm asking for your help. Binarypower 04:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)