User talk:Fleetflame/Archive 1

<-- Back to Talkpage

Horn of Africa
Hi Fleetflame youve recently labelled a post for admin assistance about the defenition of the Horn of africa as being resolved. you did this apparently without addressing the real issue which was a dispute about, the defenition of the Horn of Africa. this is an argument has dragged on for a long time, and you just labelled it as resolved without dissaproving or agreeing with any of the points. .--Liban80 (talk) 15:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

thank you for clarifying your point on the on admin assistance talk page. it was much appreciated--Liban80 (talk) 12:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

WPMHA07
Someone who cares more about putting things in order than being a douche did it for me. You know it doesn't say to "put it in alphabetical order" either :-p Apartcents (talk) 18:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It does now :)))))) Thanks for your help with the drive! Keep up the good work. -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 08:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You might find this Firefox add-on useful: Linky. It opens links in tabs on your browser. This means you can have the sub-worklist itself, plus all ten articles in it, plus their talk pages, open at once. This also saves on mouse clicks!
 * Also, don't strike through and save articles as you go. Delete the tagged ones from the list as you work through, then strike the remainder at the end before saving. You can strike the sub-worklist and preserve its autonumbering by putting the after the first # in the list.
 * Good luck, -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 18:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You're doing it fine.-- R OGER D AVIES  talk 18:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks and Happy New Year
Firstly, let me wish you a very happy New Year and thank you for all your help in the Milhist Tag & Assess 2007 drive.

Secondly, although the Tag & Assess 2007 drive is now officially closed, you are very welcome to continue tagging and assessing until 31 January 2008. Any extra articles you tag and assess during this time will be credited fully to your tagging tally for further award purposes.

Thirdly, if you can find the time, it would be great to have your feedback/comments and participation in the recently-set-up Tag & Assess workshop The idea is to see what lessons we can learn from the 2007 drive to make the 2008 one more efficient and enjoyable.

Thanks again for your help, -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 10:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much indeed for the barnstar. It was both entirely unexpected and enormously appreciated :) Thank you too, once again, for your help with the drive and your comments at the workshop! All the best, -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 07:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

God vs god
Copied from J.delanoy's talk page-- Why did you make this change? If you will do a case-sensitive search throughout this article, you will find that every time the word "God" is used, it refers to a certain deity specific to the religion in subject. If the word refers to "a god," as in this case, it should be lowercase. I'm leaving it alone for the time being, but if you have no objections, it should be changed back to "god." Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 01:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, you're right, there is an inconsistancy in the prayer article, with God being approx, 60% vs god with approx 40%. In my opinion, this is not very strong in either direction, so I will add a thing on the talk page to see which people think is better, as we should probably use on or the other. Thanks for bringing it to my attention, and I apologize for any problems that may have happened because of my edits. J.d ela noy gabs adds  12:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * My question was not about the different capitalizations (see here) but rather why you changed the capitalization in a noun phrase, (e.g. you changed "a god" to "a God." If the statement refers to a specific god, it should say "God," and if not, as in this same sentence, it should be lowercase.  Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 03:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I saw the note you made in Prayer's talk page, and I think you're right, it makes no difference to me what you do. When I made the original change, I had just started patrolling recent changes, and I was a little careless. Sorry. J.d ela noy gabs adds  02:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not saying that you did something wrong, it's just that there's no inconsistency there. Those words are supposed to be capitalized the way they are.  Thanks for understanding :-)  Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 01:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Editor Review
Sorry, but I have removed your editor review on the basis that you are a wholly inexperienced editor, based upon your minute edit counter and inexperience with editing a wide range of Wikipedia articles. A reviewer of other editors must take careful consideration of their prior edits, not including ones in an Edit Counter, and careful analysis must be made of their prior contributions -- especially if the editor has specifically requested it.

With that said, I have over 11,000 edits, and have contributed to hundreds of articles, not just to University of Kentucky and Pullman Square as you indicated. I am also a participant at the Mediation Committee, Wikiquette Alerts, and at Third Opinion, among other noticeboards, and all of those were severely overlooked as well. Please take this in good faith: I am requesting another reviewer. Cheers,  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 00:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I saw you deleted my review. You already told me that you helped with all those things.  If you really just want to hear someone praise all of your good work, then don't waste time at Editor Review.  You said you wanted someone to comment on your "dealing with other editors."  Maybe since that's not what you really wanted, you should change it.  Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 00:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

your note
Copied from Mperel's talk page-- You reverted vandalism on Wart around 01:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC) a couple of times, but you did not warn the vandal (65.95.100.17). Please--whenever you revert vandalism, use the templates at Warn to warn the vandals. Thank you! Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 01:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Leaving warnings on talk pages for ip vandals is often a waste of energy since they typically jump from ip to ip. But sure, for repeat vandals, particularly one's with accounts, it sometimes helps. -- M P er el  01:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, sometimes it does seem rather like chasing the wind, but it's a Wikipedia policy and it's a good one. Not all IPs jump, and if they have not been warned, no one will know to submit them to ARV and they will never be blocked.  Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 01:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Respond to Fleetflame
Copied from Gary King's talk page-- I think it would be safe to tag this for speedy(Marys Dog) under notability or even advertising. Google turns up nothing but a MySpace and another questionable source. Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 22:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I figure that, but the person is also trying to add new content, and I'm just giving them a chance. Although, if an admin passes by it, it'll probably get speedily deleted, anyways. Gary King (talk) 22:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see your point. It really doesn't matter which way the article is deleted, as long as it happens :P  Keep up the good work!  Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 22:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to let you know, article was speedy deleted by User:Anthony Appleyard, I just closed the AfD. Cheers, EJF (talk) 23:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Twinkle oops
haha nice.

I'm not even using anything other than multiple tabs in my browser to combat vandalism (I do have access to rollback, so that helps...)

I guess that means either I'm faster, purely by myself, than twinkle is, or else I got extremely lucky. I'm guessing the latter ;-)

J.d ela noy gabs adds 23:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikihate
Thanks for letting me know. Apparently when a high school kid's article about his and his pals' private joke gets deleted from Wikipedia (The Book (2007) he gets pissy. Make that junior high... Luckily, new page patrol has given me a sense of humour about such things, rather than emotional involvement.  The warning is appreciated and I'm thinking the young man has probably decided to take his in-jokes elsewhere.  Accounting4Taste: talk 16:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

A favour
Hey FF, nice to see you getting another barnstar...

Could I ask a favour please? Environmental issues with the Three Gorges Dam has recently been spun off from Three Gorges Dam and it seems editors have got caught up with the negative aspects again, ignoring some positive environmental benefits of dams. Would you care to take a look at it please, with NPOV in mind... thanks, Johnfos (talk) 06:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Writing for the Signpost
Hello. You expressed interest in writing for the Wikipedia Signpost (sorry for the delay in responding). I'm sending this message to everyone who commented, so if you have any questions I haven't answered, please feel free to ask me, and I'll try to respond to specific questions.

Essentially, what I'm looking for is writers who can step in and write on subjects that are newsworthy from week-to-week. The content of the stories obviously varies each week depending on what's happening; this is discussed below.

There are three major parts to writing an article:


 * 1) Choosing a topic
 * 2) Writing the article
 * 3) Submitting the article

Part 1: Choosing a topic
As said above, topics will vary from week-to-week. For this week, these particular issues may be newsworthy:


 *  Bureaucratship candidacies  &mdash; There are a lot of bureaucratship candidacies this week, for the first time in about six or seven months. I'm personally covering this one for next week, but this is a good example of what might be newsworthy.
 * Encyclopedia of Life &mdash; This encyclopedia of species has been getting some press, and relates somewhat to Wikimedia project Wikispecies.
 * Hidden categories &mdash; For those technically inclined, this is a new feature that has some interesting implications.

For more ideas, and for ideas in the future, check the tip-line -- there are usually some good ideas there.

Once you've decided on a topic, make sure to sign up for it in the newsroom, under "Special stories", so that users aren't duplicating each others' work (though multiple writers are certainly free to work together on a story).

Part 2: Writing the article
Now, you've decided on a topic and signed up for it. To write it, create a subpage in your userspace. For my story this week on the bureaucratship candidacies, for example, I'll create it at User:Ral315/Bureaucratship candidacies. The name isn't a big deal, of course -- I'll change it if necessary.

Formatting the story isn't important; for your first article, you should mainly focus on writing a good story, and I'll take care of the formatting when we publish. Try to write it in a newspaper-like tone, avoiding personal comments and opinions in favor of straight-forward facts. The size of an article varies based on what the story is, but a good minimum goal for most stories is two-to-three good paragraphs. Longer articles are even better, so long as they're well-written.

Part 3: Submitting the article
Now, all you have to do is post a link to the article in the newsroom, where you signed up for it earlier. That's it! You're done!

Again, if you have any questions at all, please contact me, and I'll try to respond as soon as possible.

Thanks for your interest in writing for the Signpost. Ral315 (talk) 03:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

New! BCAD drive from Milhist
Can I invite you to particpate in our new assessment drive? It's strictly for experienced editors and has a degree of friendly competition built-in. It involves re-evaluating around 3500 Milhist B-Class articles to ensure they match our new criteria. As ever, we're offering a range of awards as our way of expressing our thanks. The drive doesn't start until 18:00 (UTC) on March 10 but you can sign up in advance here. It would be great if you can spare the time, -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 05:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)




 * }
 * }
 * }

Lake Buena Vista and Wide World of Sports
This PDF map of the Reedy Creek Improvement District is one of the best maps of Disney's property that I have found (actually, another contributor found it). It clearly shows that WWoS is in Osceola County and not Orange County. IF WWoS was in Orange County, then it would have to be in Bay Lake since it is west of Bonnet Creek. I don't mean to make a big deal about it; I'm just trying to make the article consistant.

Wide World of Sports (and the rest of Disney's property) does use Lake Buena Vista as a mailing address, but most of the property is not physically within Lake Buena Vista. There has actually been quite a lot of discussion on the various WDW pages regarding its location.

Apr1fool (talk) 00:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

HumanRightsDefender
Hi,

Started a thread. Wanna comment? WLU (talk) 23:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Why
Do You want to delete the Hustla article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Signshare (talk • contribs)
 * I provided a link to Wikipedia's policy on notability in the "delete" template. See this paragraph for more detailed information on the subject.  Singles are generally not considered notable enough to have their own articles on Wikipedia; thus they are usually redirected to the album's article, or if that does not exist, they may redirect to the band.  The exceptions are songs that have won major awards or have enjoyed significant chart rankings.  This song appears to be neither.  I hope this clears up the confusion.  Feel free to ask me any other questions.  Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 01:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Environmental issues in the People's Republic of China
Hi FF, Thanks for your persistence with the Three Gorges Dam issue. Have you seen the Talk page of this one? Classic case of a POV fork if I ever saw one. Alan seems to have created many "Environmental issues in xxx" categories and has split articles to fill them up... Johnfos (talk) 03:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's people like this who make the rest of us involuntarily grab for the bridges of our noses. Apparently Alan is another of the editors who read WP:BOLD and assume a "veni, vidi, vici" mentality.  We need a new essay: WP:NOT_ROME.  I hope we can convince him to stop soon; he's headed to no good end.  Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 20:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I take issue with your comments and that I am "conquering" WP. My splitting of articles to improve WP and a difference of opinion between us should not be interpreted by you as my conquering of WP. If you go through my edits you will realise that I have been very cooperative with WP editors. -- Alan Liefting- ( talk ) - 21:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you realise that there were many "Environmental issues in XXXX" articles before I started creating categories for them? I split out two or three env issue articles and it seems to be an issue (he-he!!!) with you. What about all the existing env issues article I did not have a hand in? This is not some sort of personal vendetta is it?-- Alan Liefting- ( talk ) - 21:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess you're right: there is only so much we can say, and then it is ultimately up to Alan to choose to be more co-operative if he wants. It's interesting that some old-school environmentalists don't place a lot of emphasis on people issues, and are all caught up with feathers, fur, and fins. And that such environmentalists are often full of doom and gloom, and say little about more contemporary messages associated with sustainability etc. I read a book recently that gave much food for thought about future directions: The Clean Tech Revolution. Johnfos (talk) 05:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, this article may be a special case--the issues aren't really covered in the main article and I don't see that it was truly split. I do realize that doesn't mean it's not a fork, but this may be notable enough for its own article.  I've asked for a pov check from someone else because I can't decide.  :-)  Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 16:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * What makes you say that I am not being cooperative. I have discussed the issues on the talk pages I have not reverted any of your edits. If you both feel strongly about my article splits why not revert them? Also, you seem to be speculating about me and I suspect it is based on very little research on my actions. -- Alan Liefting- ( talk ) - 21:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't make me laugh, Alan. You provide next to no info about yourself on your user page, then express surprise that people are speculating about you.  You have split many articles without discussion and then express surprise that people are saying you are not co-operative. Don't make me laugh! Johnfos (talk) 01:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no obligation to supply information about me on my user page and if I did so I may well be judged by it. Please judge me on my edits rather than your speculations. Anyway, WP is not about personal stuff. With splitting articles, there is no policy or guideline to say that it must be discussed first. And why do you say I have split "many" articles? Since I abide by policy and guidelines, since I do not revert other editors work back to mine (unless it is vandalism), since I do regularly discuss things on talk pages, since I am part of WikiProjects and since I do help out with such mundane tasks as redlink recovery, categorisation, disambiguation pages, vandal patrol etc I feel that I am cooperating quite well in the WP community. -- Alan Liefting- ( talk ) - 02:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, Alan, three edits in one minute! ;-) Please believe me: this is not a personal issue and your personal level of worth to Wikipedia is much less in question than your splitting of articles. I realize there are several "environmental issues" articles and that is exactly what the problem is--I don't think we need more.  I believe you misinterpreted WP:BOLD because you cited it as the reason you split an article (a process that traditionally requires consensus) and violated WP:CFORK while doing it.  Also, I am not simply reverting your edits for the same reason you are not reverting mine.  I am not trying to assume I know better than anyone else or act highhandedly, I just do not understand why you keep splitting these sections out into articles.  Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 01:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I may be WP:BOLD (occasionally) but I am not reckless and I respect consensus. With splitting articles there is nothing in policy or guidelines that I can find that says I must seek consensus before the split. A recommendation can of course be made using the  tag if there may be doubts about the suitability of a split. Splitting articles is an inevitable process as the size of articles increases. Also, as pointed out elsewhere, you have not interpreted WP:CFORK correctly. The split is neither similar content nor POV. You may perceive it as a POV split but I doubt that any others see it as such which is why we need to get a consensus from at least a few more editors. I cannot see why you think WP does not need more environmental issues articled. Given the importance, the level of interest in environmental matters and the 2.3 million articled WP currently has I would arge that there are insufficient articles of this type. -- Alan Liefting- ( talk ) - 05:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * So now the reason you're splitting articles is "we don't have enough of them"? Alan, as I pointed out already, splitting may not require consensus but it is a process that traditionally only happens after discussion.  I'm willing to get more editor's thoughts on this issue; I believe we need to bring it to a head quickly.  Perhaps this could be submitted to 3O or the Mediation Cabal.  Let me know what you think.  Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 00:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you point me to this WP tradition? The last thing I expect WP to have is any sort of tradition. We have policy and guidelines but I know of know of no traditions apart from those in the Church of Wikipedia!! If an article is in obvious need of splitting I would do it without discussion. If I cannot do it to the WP standard or if it MAY be contentious I would place the tag on it. Things that are not contentious and fit it with WP need not be discussed. I am not only splitting articles because "we don't have enough of them". My first reason for splitting articles is because it is needed due to a section of an article being given too much space and thus upsetting the balance of the topic. Other reasons are: to fit it in with categorisation, or because it is notable enough to justify its own article or because a red link exists for it (which means someone else thinks it is important). Yes, it would be good to involve other editors in order to move on from this stalemate but I don't see what the hurry is. Out of interest are you aware of Category:Articles to be split? -- Alan Liefting- ( talk ) - 03:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Alan, so far the reasons you have given for splitting articles have been: Your reasoning for the rather heated debate are: If you cannot come up with better arguments than these for creating an obvious content fork (yes, that annoying little guideline again), than please consider not splitting any more articles until we can reach a general consensus on the issue. The reason I would like to see this resolved quickly is that I believe having articles like this cheapens Wikipedia's integrity for readers and I believe it should be removed as soon as possible. Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 00:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) The original articles are too long
 * 2) The issues of these environmental impacts are notable, somehow more than others of the same kind
 * 3) I created the category!
 * 4) Someone put a redlink in some article pointing to it
 * 5) We need more "environmental issues" articles
 * 6) WP:BOLD
 * 7) I have a "splittist" opinion
 * 1) You guys just hate me anyway
 * 2) We have a different "philosophical outlook" (my personal favorite)
 * 3) You just don't like the negative aspects of dams
 * 4) I'm siding with the Siberian Crane and the Baiji


 * I don't see sign of a heated debate, all I see is a difference in opinion. If you are getting heated about it I see no evidence of it. Also, please do not twist my comments to make your view seem a better option. In order of priority (very roughly) my reasons for spitting the article is:


 * 1) a section of an article being given too much space
 * 2) it is as a notable issue as the main article so an article should exist
 * 3) the original articles are starting to get too long
 * 4) a category exists and could do with populating
 * 5) a red link exists for it suggesting others see the need for an article
 * 6) given the size of WP there does seem to be a need for more more env issue article given the importance and level of interest in such matters. (there is a List of Pokemon characters and all sorts of unusual articles so why can't I have my articles. :-) )


 * (see a few differences?!?)
 * I see no point in answering to your assumed reasoning for the "heated debate" - that is bordering on incivility. We are trying to create an encyclopaedia here not trying to delve into other peoples motivation. We do really need a wider range of opinion here since this discussion is getting nowhere. Your concern about my article splits as cheaping WP are totally out of proportion with the other problems with WP. Overt, and more importantly, covert vandalism is by for the biggest problem WP faces in terms of "cheapening" the project. And you seem to be concerned about two or three article I created by splitting them for the existing article! You need to get things into perspective. I made no change to content. If they were NPOV in the orig article then they should be NPOV in the new article. You are misinterpreting WP:CFORK. I will carry on splitting articles regardless of your wishes and I will monitor any feedback on these splits (as I do with most of my major edits). If I find that my editing proves to be unacceptable by others I will review my editing style. -- Alan Liefting- ( talk ) - 01:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Alan, don't be ridiculous. I do believe, as I said, that having articles that do not adhere to npov does cheapen Wikipedia's integrity.  I did not say that I thought it did so more than vandalism did.  Don't tell me to get my priorities straight when the only reason they were out of order was your radically misinterpreting my comment.  I also have helped on vandal patrol (although admittedly I do less of that lately) and Newpage Patrol, so I know just as well as you how vandalism effects Wikipedia.  Also, you keep saying that I misinterpreted WP:CFORK.  Will you please show me how?  To the best of my knowledge I have not.  You, on the other hand, have shown you do not understand npov when you said here, "It is POV if the content not the article name is POV."  Now compare that with this paragraph.  If you do not understand npov, you have no grounds to say this article does not violate it.  Finally, you recently said, "If I find that my editing proves to be unacceptable by others I will review my editing style," yet in the sentence before that you said, "I will carry on splitting articles regardless of your wishes..."  How, while taking that mentality and contradicting yourself meanwhile, can you defend yourself as someone who does not run into edit conflicts or arguments about your actions?  Please explain!  Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 00:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * We will have to get other editors to determine whether my split should remain. It seem we cannot agree on WP policy.-- Alan Liefting- ( talk ) - 03:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've requested a third opinion. I hope we can resolve this dispute quickly and with no hard feelings.  :-)  Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 19:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Foo Go
I have introduced guardian.co.uk and BBC.co.uk articles as references and removed the prod accordingly. Dorftrottel (canvass) 07:15, March 26, 2008

Re: Regarding The Great Debate (as I've decided to call it)
It is a difficult issue. I tend to think of admins as forum moderators, in that they are supposed to remove unwelcomed content, warn and block trolls and flamers. Yet while I see much danger in Wiki following the path of unmoderated groups, and becoming a flaming anarchy, I have also seen foras were abusive, full of themselves moderators scared normal contributors away. How can we improve the current systems, and prevent either of those dangerous path from occurring? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 02:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

RE: About flag of Göktürks
The FOTW website got the flags from the first Turkish website (the Ataturk one) that places a disclaimer that those flags are not proved historically. The last two sources talk about the creation of images, not about the verifiability of the flag. And the one source that does mention the flag does not document it well. Furthermore, other flags with better documentation have been removed, so why should one sentence keep this one here? Rcduggan (talk) 12:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I see your point; I was thinking it was generally accepted that that was the flag, but if the sites all link to each other, that doesn't help much, does it?
 * Just please be aware this conflict is not new as far as the image is concerned; it has already survived a deletion attempt because of the information on its talk page. Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 20:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay, I was unaware of that. Thanks for informing me.Rcduggan (talk) 22:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I didn't know there was that whole process for deletion. Should I change it to follow that procedure? Or just remove the deletion notice altogether?Rcduggan (talk) 11:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

History of vehicle registration plates of the Yukon
Did you not notce that there are articles for every other jurisdiction in the US and Canada and they are all in the process of being fleshed out? People pay money for this sort of information you know. Several other basic articles have been created recently and they got fleshed out rather quickly. --Plate King (talk) 12:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

News! Tag & Assess 2008 is coming ...
Milhist's new drive – Tag & Assess 2008 – goes live on April 25 and you are cordially invited to participate. This time, the task is housekeeping. As ever, there are awards galore, plus there's a bit of friendly competition built-in, with a race for bronze, silver and gold wikis! You can sign up, in advance, here. I look forward to seeing you on the drive page! All the best, -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 11:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)




 * }
 * }
 * }

Adoption
I see you are a hard working editor and am glad to be able to accept your offer, which i do. Thank you very much.PandaSaver (talk) 00:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! Thanks for having me.  I've changed the template on your userpage to reflect that you accepted my offer.  If you have any questions, please contact me.  I'll usually reply on this page to comments made here.  Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 01:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Question: How can i request a page to be (semi)protected such as the Independent(religion) article i need to  —Preceding unsigned comment added by PandaSaver (talk • contribs) 20:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Any time you need a page protected, just ask here. I assume you're requesting protection because of the edits of 71.253.7.227.  I've reverted all edits by this IP for vandalism, due to a lack of attempts to establish consensus.  You may not need to request protection if the editing has stopped.  '''[[User Talk:Fleetflame|  Fl ee tf la me ]]''' 02:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Is there an easy way to undo vandilism which takes place over many frequent edits. Such as int he list of the 100 wealthiest people?  That page has been frequented by a vandal over many consecutive edits.  Is there an easy way to fix it?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by PandaSaver (talk • contribs) 20:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes! Rollback is a tool that will erase all consecutive edits by a single editor.  All admins have rollback, but we regular users may request it here.  Also, if you use Twinkle to fight vandalism (which I highly recommend), it comes with it automatically.  Sorry for the late answer; my connection was screwed up for a few days.    Fl ee tf la me   22:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Adoption
Thanks for saying you would be willing to adopt me. That would be great. Formerly 82.46.93.158 (talk) 20:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Should I change the template on my userpage? Formerly 82.46.93.158 (talk) 20:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Question
How can I add userboxes to my page JoeC 4321 (talk) 15:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Another user helped me on IRC, soo I understand now JoeC 4321 (talk) 16:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Might take a look
Hello. Just wondering if you would mind taking a look at a collaborative effort I'm trying to start. Any feedback or ideas would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! DxNate, 29 July 2024 User-Talk-Contribs

RFA thankspam
Thanks for your support in my RFA, which passed with 140 supporting, 11 opposing, and 4 neutral. I will do my best to live up to the trust that you have given to me. If I can ever assist you with anything, just ask.

Cheers!

J.delanoy gabs adds 20:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

AIFA
...or whatever it is... the phone number you cleared is supposedly the cell phone number of that guy who claims to be a league founder. However, if you put that number into Google, you'll find that it's already out there in public. My point being that that might be his number, but it neither proves nor disproves that it's actually him, but it does indicate it's publicly known. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, well, I've just gotten in the habit of removing personal information because people leave their phone numbers and emails and stuff on there and you're usually not supposed to. I didn't bother to check this guy's number.  It still doesn't need to be on there because we're probably not going to call him, but I'll remove the link to WP:Personal information.    Fl ee tf la me   23:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You can be sure I won't be calling him. He might make another legal threat. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you very much indeed for your help with and commitment to Tag & Assess 2008. May I please trouble you to comment at the post-drive workshop? Your feedback will help us to improve the next drive. Thanks in advance, -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 10:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Question
Hi, Fleetflame --

Could you tell me why you redirected "Married and maiden names" to "Family names"? I don't necessarily disagree, but the "Family names" pages is already really long and a few people have suggested breaking it up into separate articles, by country for example. Could you tell me more about your rationale? Thanks, Ricardiana (talk) 22:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't have one, that's why I cited WP:BOLD. :-)  See my comments here.    Fl ee tf la me   00:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Mark-Whitacre-2008.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Mark-Whitacre-2008.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. &mdash; neuro  (talk) (review) 18:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)  -- &mdash;  neuro  (talk) (review) 18:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Ivan Mane Jarnovic
Hi, thanks for your suggestion. I am new to all this and feeling my way around, and couldn't work out how to effect your solution. I have also now had a suggestion to merge info from the article i posted into an existing one I had not seen. But wasnt sure how exactly to respond to the sugggestion in the talk / discuss window. Apologies - but am still learning how to use this. Blarcrean (talk) 14:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, here's the problem: you created the article Jarnovic, but the problem is we already have an article about the same person here. You probably got that much.  Obviously, it's a problem that we have two different articles about the same person - one of them needs to redirect to the other.  Because of Wikipedia's naming conventions and the fact that the other article (not yours) was there first, Jarnovic should simply redirect to Ivan Mane Jarnović.  One of the other assistants at WP:EAR (AndrewHowse) already placed a merge template on both pages, so that's fine.  We got that so far :-)  I realize I'm probably confusing you here, and I know it's hard to figure out the system of how to do things here, but here's what I'm suggesting - copy the content from Jarnovic, click here, and paste it back in.  Then we can redirect that article to the already existing one.  Make sense?  Let me know if I've been confusing (and I've kind of rambled on, sorry).    Fl ee tf la me   18:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks very much. I will attend to this in the morning - it is late at night in Kimberley in South Africa. You have been very helpful. Regards Blarcrean (talk) 19:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Question
I clicked on the random article button and came up with Eroticism

The top section did not seem to match the intent of the article but before I changed anything I thought I would ask since I am new. Thanks

jondn (talk) 19:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If this is what you're talking about, that was just random vandalism and was reverted not too long afterwards. See the page history for more information.  You can access this for any article by clicking on the "history" tab at the top.  More questions?  Let me know!    Fl ee tf la me   00:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Copyright Question
How much are websites protected as far as copyrights go? The Milestones segment of Astra Insurance is copied directly from http://www.asuransi.astra.co.id/index.php?page=profile.index&lang=en&1239101294 I know copied information is wrong unless it is under GFDL but how much are public websites protected? Thanksjondn (talk) 22:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Eh, just what is OP?
Hi, You finalised my one at WP:EAR, but could you (here) explain what means "OP"? Thx. By the way, could I have put the Done-thing there myself? template-name? -DePiep (talk) 23:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "OP" stands for "original poster," i.e. the one who originally asked the question (you). If you're talking about the "resolved" template I placed at the top of the quesiton, absolutely you could have done that.  Just use resolved like this:  .  Any more questions; feel free to let me know.  Cheers!    Fl ee tf la me   00:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * EXAMPLE Well see, I can post here two days after after -01:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC) /EXAMPLE
 * Thanx, OK, Understood, Yes, No more Q's, Clear. The template will be OK with me. I tried "WP:OP", but that was not the right track. Well, eh, since we are here now: where can I read a WP:policy on 'when to post above' (an existing post)? I often want to redo & antidate even my own posts. Bye -  DePiep (talk) 00:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "post above an existing post." Can you be more specific?  Without you being more specific, the only thing I can think of is you mean editing your own talk page posts; and then I would suggest reading Talk.    Fl ee tf la me   01:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it's about changing a or adding to a post after someone including myself posted already a thing, out of sequence. See timed EXAMPLE above, created now. Wikipedia allows this. Is there an WP:etiquette? That's my question. -DePiep (talk) 01:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a such thing as talk page eitquette, but generally speaking (and I can't find it on that page) there's nothing wrong with inserting a comment earlier in a discussion. It might be helpful to let others know you did so, however, so they don't miss it.    Fl ee tf la me   01:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, thx: that's the WP:? I did not know. -DePiep (talk) 01:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

No flagged revisions category up for deletion
The category associated with the no flagged revisions userbox you have placed on your user page is up for deletion at Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009 April 23 and you are invited to share your opinions on the issue. Alansohn (talk) 05:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Kim Schmitz
I have noted your offer to help with editorial issues on Wikipedia and would appreciate your comments on the next step that should be taken for the Kim Schmitz profile Talk:Kim_Schmitz. You will find extensive discussion on a revised version of the profile on the Discussion page. My current intention is to upload the revised content to the main 'Article' page within two days if no further comment is received in that time. --Tturner2009 (talk) 11:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

ePIPE
Was that link at the top of the section for the error category, or the OP's userpage? I couldn't really tell. --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What link?   Fl ee tf la me   18:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Never mind. I didn't actually follow the link, but hovered it; popups doesn't respect the noredirect tag. Question withdrawn! --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

IBMEC => Ibmec
Hello Fleetflame,

I have requested to change the page from IBMEC to Ibmec.

If you go to Ibmec's official website: http://www.ibmec.br/ you will see that the name is Ibmec, not IBMEC.

Ibmec's logo is Ibmec not IBMEC.

If you go inside the website, http://www.ibmec.br/sub/mg/index.php?siteid=2 you will notice that everywhere is Ibmec. If you click in the link "English Version", which is located in the top right, you can see that the correct spelling is Ibmec.

Besides, Ibmec is a Brazilian institution so if you go to the Wikipedia page in Portuguese, you will notice that is the right one: http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibmec

If you have any further questions, please, feel free to contact me.

Thanks,

Daniel G. Rego

--Daniel G. Rego (talk) 01:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

SocialSense
Hi Fleetflame,thank you so much for your offer to help. The conversation on the article discussion page has been somewhat laconic, so I appreciate any additional information I can get. If you don't mind I would like to start with the following questions. Best--PiRSqr (talk) 00:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What is the scope of my editing? I thought that as an editor, it was my responsibility to write the whole article (text, formatting, images, references, etc.) Is it recommended that I just provide the raw text and references and let someone else do the rest?
 * Does Wikipedia use specialty editors for each function (copy edit, formatting, etc)?
 * How do I left align a section caption like “Features” in the SocialSense article? I’ve used line inserts, but there has to be a better way!
 * How long should I expect for this conversation to continue before a decision is made? And how do I now when a decision has been reached.
 * If the article is in fact deleted, can I appeal this decision? And If so, how should I go about doing it.
 * What happens when an article is AfD (I would hate to lose all of my hard work?)
 * How many second\third opinions can I ask for?
 * How many references do I need to use to show notability? Is more better?
 * Hey PiRSqr, I've just found out I will be very busy at my work the next few days, so it may be just a little while before I can put my thoughts together to answer these questions. Don't worry, I haven't forgotten you though!  I'll keep in touch.    Fl ee tf la me   00:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Fleetflame no problem! Whenever you get a chance.--PiRSqr (talk) 00:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Easiteach
I have been searching quite a lot and the only source really that is coming is the website of the company itself. If I took information from there, would it count as advertising? Please could you reply to MY talk page.

Thanks Randomer789 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Randomer789 (talk • contribs) 21:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

June 2009
What are you babbling about? I do own a copy of Meet The Deedles if thats what you mean. Otherwise, no i don't own any rights to it and never said i did. Can you and your friend prove i've vandalized? I have two movies review that cite those things in the movie. And Dabizzi's complaints are slightly off because i wasn't even the one who originally added the mention of Ted Bundy or Marijuana. NitroMan3941 (talk) 22:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You are right that you didn't add the information, but I never said you did. I never called your edits vandalism.  He's not my friend.  I don't know either of you and don't care to, from seeing the discussion.  I'm not talking about your edits themselves or what you have to back them up, or what you added or didn't add; I'm talking about your attitude and the way to treat your fellow editors.  I can see from the page history you've put a lot of work into the article, and I appreciate it.  I can see you would be upset to have someone randomly come along and call your edits vandalism, but that doesn't mean you need to treat them like trash (or do the same to me, for warning you).  On the other hand, he has every right to call them such, and if you can honestly prove him wrong, do it.  You've been warned about civility and ownership of articles: take it to heart.    Fl ee tf la me   01:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps its a matter of opinion, i don't think i treated you like trash. But rather than telling me what was going on you gave me a generic welcome summary followed by this thing about how i don't own the Deedles, so it really did appear to me you were backing him up. I don't particularly care to know you either, i just want to be treated fairly and i don't think the way he's been accusing me of vandalism all over talk pages is fine. I'm not going to personal attack him, rather i'm going to defend myself and my contributions to the end. NitroMan3941 (talk) 01:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, no problem, and I'm sorry if I came on too strong. I should have left you a note instead of the generic template.  I see your side and his, and I'll say I'm glad you two have begun discussion on the article talk page.  I would recommend toning your comments down a little ("You look even sillier than those from IP Addresses," "I have to say, you're quite a card," and "What are you babbling about?" come on as a little bit incivil), but keep discussing it with Dabizi on the talk page and you guys will figure it out.  Thanks!    Fl ee tf la me   01:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I came on a little strong but so did he. I would like to know what you think it will take to resolve this. Because i'm not entirely sure he's not just probing me for his own amusement. NitroMan3941 (talk) 02:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know, and he may be, but if you keep discussing on the talk page you'll find out soon enough if he's just balking. Incidentally, would you be willing to give me the links to the articles?  If you really don't want him to see, you can email them to me (the link is in the "toolbox" to the left).    Fl ee tf la me   02:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but would you mind giving me a little more detail to how to email you the links? I'm afraid i still don't understand, otherwise, yes i'll be willing to send them to you. NitroMan3941 (talk) 02:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * To the left of my talk page, there's a box called the "toolbox" (under the search bar) where you'll see a link "E-mail this user." Actually, that leads to Special:EmailUser/Fleetflame, so you can just go there.    Fl ee tf la me   02:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright. It should be sent out now. NitroMan3941 (talk) 03:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If Dabizi has every right to accuse me of being a vandal, i should have every right to accuse him of being a troll, because i have reason to believe he's just stirring up trouble for fun. Whats more, i think he and this freedom fighter are the same person and he's just trying to accuse me of being him so no one eventually realizes the truth about him. Just thought i should warn you he may just be a troll looking for attention. NitroMan3941 (talk) 17:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you seriously think i can communicate with Dabizi, he's already admitting he has personal issues with me. I knew that from the start because of that mildly rude vandalism note he sent me, but at least now theres proof. NitroMan3941 (talk) 03:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey guys, how's this going? There doesn't seem to be anything more of relevance I can say on the Deedles talk page, and I know I lost any credibility in NitroMan's eyes with my initial heavy-handedness. (Again, mea culpa. I do apologize, but I am simply incapable of feeling that bad over it.) I defer to your (FleetFlame's) judgment on the relevance of Nitro's sources. I'm still interested in seeing them. But anyway, I hope Nitro will similarly submit to your mediation.Dabizi (talk) 05:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Because I have not heard from anyone since I last attempted to communicate with you guys, I have done a major edit to the Meet the Deedles page. Dabizi (talk) 15:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't add the any sources before because you never told me if you looked at it after you asked for it. NitroMan3941 (talk) 23:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Cite News
Hi thanks for the link to the cite news template however I have already started using that kind of formatting in an article and I know consistency matters ... so could you provide me some insight? Thanks. ThaMoonwalker (talk) 04:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I assume, looking at your contribs, you mean Microsoft Security Essentials. I would recommend going through the whole list of refs and changing them to that template; for the websites, we have .  Does that help?  Let me know....    Fl ee tf la me   04:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there any advantage of changing to that template? Other than making it easier? Regards, ThaMoonwalker (talk) 04:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, consistency, because all the refs will be formatted the same way every time, but I like it because it's easier for me to use and can hold all the information.   Fl ee tf la me   04:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you! ThaMoonwalker (talk) 05:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

lol


Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

re: Watchlist / CSS help
I've been researching my problem, it turns out that the watchlist and page history highlighting is due to the mw:Extension:Email notification extension, which Wikipedia doesn't currently have installed, however I have some ideas for alternatives. Would it be possible to edit my monobook.css to make unvisited diff links bold? If not, would it be possible to make all unvisited links on the watchlist show up as bold without changing the appearance of unvisited links on other pages? -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 06:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

help
(Tarushagarwal9 (talk) 05:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC))Can you please help me do that
 * Yes, I can - it appears the article needs formatting help as well; and there are some references that need work, etc....I'll take a look at it later today.   Fl ee tf la me   08:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

IRC Help
Hi Fleetflame. Just wanted to say thanks for the IRC help and notice on User_talk:63.246.174.4. Sure enough, less than an hour after your warning, the person reverted their personal attack, so I submitted a report at AIV. --Rob (talk) 02:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

NCHP help
DEar Fleetflame, Thanks for the ifeedback. Once I have some semblance of the article up, is there someway that I could give you access to the page before it is up so that you could check it out and give me any further tips?

˜˜˜ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Delahaye9999 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. Instead of creating the page (for example) Delahaye9999 is awesome, instead create it at user:Delahaye9999/article.  We call this a user subpage - you can work on the article here at your leisure with much less risk of it being deleted, etc.  When you put it there, let me know and I can take a look.    Fl ee tf la me   21:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Whaling station on Lifou?
Hi. I saw that you put on the Lifou article that a whaling station was established there in 1860. I dealt with this piece of information before, and no one has provided a primary source that shows there ever was a whaling station there. As I said earlier when I had dealt with this issue, a travel guide that doesn't provide a primary source isn't a reliable source. I will be removing said information from the article until you (or someone else) provides a primary source that proves there was a station there. Jonas Poole (talk) 00:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Mark-Whitacre-2008.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Mark-Whitacre-2008.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Cirt (talk) 17:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Possible DYK?
Hi hi, as requested, I've expanded rouge test a bit. Think it's ready? JoeSmack Talk 23:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK Siege of Atorga, Irisk Legion
Hello! Your submission of Irish Legion at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! &spades; B.s.n.  &hearts; R.N. contribs 17:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Ernesto Che Guevara
In your answer to my question, you did not answer it. Felix Rodriquez was a CIA Operative, Mario Teran murdered him. Rodriquez took his watch and flashlight. The question is are these objects at the CIA. Rodriquez     did cop his watch and he was murdered. Does anyone know if these objects are truly t the CIA?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.160.66 (talk) 01:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)