User talk:Flashflash;/Archive1

WYBG article
You recently reverted an edit against the guidelines. If you're going to be editing radio station articles you should familiarize yourself with the WP:WPRS guidelines, particularly the following:

"Per WP:NOTDIR, an article on a radio station generally should not list upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, current schedules, etc., although mention of major events, promotions, or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable.

You may add properly sourced, encyclopedic content describing a station's programming, but a simple list of a station's on-air staff should not be added. To a reader who isn't already familiar with the station, a plain airstaff list doesn't do anything to help them understand or get a feel for the topic. Describing a station's programming (see CFNY-FM, for example) gives the reader a much better sense of the station, its personalities and its on-air style than a meaningless list of people they've never heard of." Not to mention you even managed to undo the dab link repairs I did. RobDe68 (talk) 10:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Syrthiss (talk) 15:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Editing other user's comments
This is weird rule, but we have to abide by it. Please, in futre, do not edit other people's comments, even if you are improving grammar etc. Either remove all of it, because it's inappropriate or leave it be or if you're that bothered ask the user who left the comment to improve it, but please don't do so yourself.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  22:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

June 2009
This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive comments. The next time you make a personal attack, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Entirely unacceptable –xenotalk 18:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No. Why should I do what you tell me? Who are you to boss me around? It's true anyway; biggest nooblet I've ever seen on Wikipedia :| -- Flash flash  ;  16:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've reverted your latest personal attack on the same talk page. Don't do that. Any further attacks will very likely lead to you being blocked from editing. This isn't an anarchy, you do 'not get to do whatever you want. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Shi no numa
You keep reverting good information concerning the translation of Shi No Numa. You appear to find it "Zombie Swamp" while a respected user who has had his own translation company and speaks 26 different languages including Japanese finds it "Marsh(es) of death" seen in this section. The same goes for verrückt, which is German for crazy or mad. For confirmation see verrückt. I have posted this on the talkpage as well. If you keep reverting, you will receive a warning. Mallerd (talk) 13:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Andros 1337/Male straight pink
My userbox is for straight males who have no problem wearing pink. If you want to create one for gay males, please make your own userbox. Thanks. ANDROS1337  21:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Revisions in biographical entry for Bem Le Hunte

 * It was good of you to drop me a note and I extend my apologies for the delayed reply. As we devote considerable portions of our time to the advancement of knowledge through Wikipedia, the appreciation of an article's usefulness can be judged by the frequency of its page visits as well as the frequency of helpful revisions within its text.  I appreciate your comments and, regarding reviews, feel that anyone who offers any work or activity which engenders the commentary of critics, should have excerpts of those reviews included in his/her biographical profile in order to present a compendium of balanced views.  For artists, in particular, reviews of paintings, sculptures, musical compositions and written works, especially if those works do not have their own individual Wikipedia entries, present a rounded image of the subject, with the quotation, of course, best selected if it specifically refers to the subject's own persona, rather than simply to the work being reviewed.&mdash;Roman Spinner (talk) 11:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

CoD: WaW
Always glad to help! Torchflame (talk) 20:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: MJ
Why did you remove my short paragraph about the MJ-authored song "You're the One'? It's a beautiful song that MJ wrote that has been almost forgotten entirely.  It's just really weird that someone would yank a paragraph out that someone else contributed without a single comment.  I wrote it, and 30 minutes later, you just pulled it without any discussion whatsoever.  Kind of defeats the purpose of the site to do it that way. 71.142.83.26 (talk) 06:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It was written in the style of a magazine/internet column, and seemed to be copy and pasted straight off the internet. It was poorly written and not needed. If you can go back, and merge it into the article and make it look like it belongs on a encyclopedia, and an internet column, I will not revert. -- Flash flash  ;  09:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, no problem. I just wish they would leave Michael alone.  The Le ft ori um  19:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of MJ, I see you removing content from the article's talk page but not moving said content to the archives. Please do so go back and do this. Additionally, the page is set up to auto archive so you may just want to let the bot do the work. - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here 07:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * These issues were resolved and already put into the article. I was only trying to save space. -- Flash flash  ;  09:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Saving space is fine. Just be sure that when you remove resolved sections on talk pages, move them to the talk page archives.. not just simply remove them. Thanks. - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here 10:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

"Templating" the regulars
Hi, I suggest you read WP:DTTR. While not a rule per se, if you want to avoid ticking people off needlessly, you'll avoid using templates on talk pages of people who have contributed a good bit to the project. Instead, it works better just to drop a polite note written yourself onto the talk page. (Your adding a signature template to User talk:SatyrTN is what prompted this note.) Lady  of  Shalott  03:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't get what your point is. He didn't sign his post so I posted a section on his talk page with it. There's no problem? -- Flash flash  ;  06:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * My point is that since he is a very established user and it was apparently just an oversight, better ettiquette would have been to put a comment along the lines of "Hey your forgot to sign your comment at Talk:Whateverpageitwas. You might want to be careful about that." Using canned templates for established users is considered bad form. Lady  of  Shalott  14:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Some of your edits
I was scrolling through the Xbox 360 talk page history, and noticed that you occasionally remove information that has been discussed as "resolved". I didn't take the time to see if it was moved to the archive (and if it was, disregard my message), but when a issue has been resolved, it is rarely if ever necessary to remove the discussion, as other editors may find the discussion helpful and/or relevant in the future. So I would suggest that instead of removing the information from the talk page, you just move it to the archives, or leave it on the page until it is automatically archived (as most article talk pages are after a short period of time). Again, if I was mistaken, and you did move the information to the archive, completely disregard this message. Thanks,  Ono pearls  (t/c) 07:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Yearly sections in Ryan Seacrest
Why do you feel the yearly sections are needed in the Ryan Seacrest article? Each of these new sections are small and in my opinion do not aid to the flow of the article.

Also, you seem to mark a lot of edits as minor edits when they are not. The edit where you added back these yearly sections,, would not be considered a minor edit. Please read WP:MINOR before marking any more edits as minor. Aspects (talk) 20:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

July 2009
in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text  below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.