User talk:Fyyer

Archive 1 - Archive 2

[ Click here to message me]

Question
How can winchburgh have a population of over 4 million ? also it does not have a professional football team managed by jose mourinho —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.168.135.32 (talk) 13:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's the national consensus, I'd recommend you stop vandalizing the page like you did on this revisions: .   Fyyer    14:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

scotland has a population of just under 6 million Scotland The 2005 Census recorded the population in Winchburgh as 2562 persons www.statemaster.com/encyclopedia/Winchburgh and jose mourinho is contracted to Real Madrid —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.168.135.32 (talk) 14:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a good point, and looking at the source, it's no longer a valid link, so I think we should remove that part until a proper source can be found. But also, that still doesn't mean you should vandalize the page. :)    Fyyer    14:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

touché, good sir/maa'm (delete as appropriate) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.168.135.32 (talk) 14:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Not vandalism
You cited "vandalism" as the reason for removing the following addition to the "House of Saud" page: "There has been significant controversy over the actions of the more prominent members of the House of Saud with regard to Islamic extremism and terrorism. Critics claim that the House of Saud not only tolerate extremism but actively promotes it[1]. They highlight the fact that around $87 billion of Saudi money has been spent funding an extreme sect of Islam known as Wahabism. Many Mosques, schools, academies and Islamic publishing houses are funded by Saudi money to further the spread of extremist Wahhabi Islam in Europe and North America[2][3]. Evidence also shows that Saudi Arabia remains the largest financial supporter of Al-Quada as well as a number of other terrorist groups[4]"

I fail to see how this was vandalism, it IS a concern held by many people, and therefore is a legitimate addition to the page, it was referenced, and it does not violate the neutrality policy as I put it across as the view of a certain group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.115.102 (talk) 10:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * There's nothing WP:NPOV about "Despite their rhetoric, the Saudi government is not only tolerant to extremism but actively promotes it." from your edit | here. That, along with your similarly worded entries in other related Saudi Arabia articles tells me you have an agenda, and by the nature of it, isn't NPOV.  Take it to the articles talk page in order to see what other people think of it.    Fyyer    10:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Your edit to Foreign relations of Saudi Arabia did not meet WP:RS because you claimed that "$87 billion" has been spent but the article you allude to makes no mention of this figure. Indeed your edit claimed that "the Saudi government is not only tolerant to extremism but actively promotes it" but there is no mention of this in the Sunday Times article (and yes that is what you should have quoted, not some blogsite copy). You also quoted "the largest financial backer of Al-Qaida and a number of other terrorist groups" but your source is clearly someones personal website and therefore does not stand up to WP:REDFLAG and WP:SELFPUBLISH. Your edit to House of Saud looked like vandalism because you added "mItalic textodern" in place of the word "modern". One of the sources you quote in that edit is from the website of the "Jewish Federation of Northeast Pennsylvania", whose mission as stated clearly on their website is to "...support Israel..." so they are clearly not a neutral third-party saying these things, and indeed they got the article from the personal website of their executive director, so another case of WP:SELFPUBLISH. In that same edit, you cited the LA Times but you failed to mention the essence of that article, which is that "...the Saudi government had not taken important steps to go after those who finance terrorist organizations or to prevent wealthy donors from bankrolling extremism through charitable contributions, sometimes unwittingly..." There is nowhere in that article that says the House of Saud tolerates extremism as you claimed in your edit. I agree with Fyyer that you appear to have an POV agenda. Green Giant (talk) 11:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Not at all, you sure deserve it :), surprised you haven't got one yet. Enjoy :) - Kingpin13 (talk)

I've seen the work you've done
You're welcome! -- Abce2 | Access  Denied  23:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

August 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Your test on the page Transformation (genetics) worked, and has been removed. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing and its related help page for more information. Thank you. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 12:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my bad. I clicked the wrong button. :( DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 12:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. Good work on the vandalism patrol otherwise. ;)    Fyyer    12:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * :-) DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 12:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

William Shatner's Kidney Stone
I'm not sure whether this is the right place to put this, but William Shatner's source states that his Kidney Stone was sold for $75,000 and the Wikipedia page for goldenpalace.com says that they sold it for $25,000. The next sentence in the Shatner page says that he donated $25,000 to habitat for humanity, which seems to make the $25,000 number more likely. 18:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.113.93 (talk)
 * Thanks, I made note of it on the William Shatner discussion page.    Fyyer    22:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

too fast!
I'm going to take a break from vandal hunting tonight; every time I get there, you have already rolled it back! Nice work! J. Edgar Vekilnik, Jr. (talk) 00:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Fix one side of wikipedia and another side is being vandalized, it's a never ending process!    Fyyer    00:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
For cleaning for my userpage of vandalism. :) And another thing...


 * Anytime, and thank you.   Fyyer    17:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Greens are Socialist Commies
Yes i do, communism kills. You should be ashamed for supporting such leftist commies. Research, dont jsut be nieve about how fluffy and comforting a politcal party might sound , research where they sit on the Political Spectrum

Left – socialist, social engineering, communism        <<<<< greens and labour are here :) research fool :P Centre – moderate, democrat Right – conservative, nationalist Far right - fascist  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.203.186 (talk) 10:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have an agenda, or any relation whatsoever to that article or its beliefs. You appear to though and made it quite obvious with this edit as well as with this edit, which means there's a Conflict of Interest.    Fyyer    10:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

My agenda is of no conflict of intrest whatsoever, as the green political party is a self admitted leftist party. That being the case, you are the one who has an agenda, being that you revert changes to the article to hide this fact.

like i said research before you critize my amendments, as your insinuating that them being leftists is  ( vandalism ) <<< get it .. vandalism, when it is clearly amending to correct facts,  greens is not an ideology , its a color.

Communism, conservatism , universilism , capitalism , these are ideologys , get it right —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.203.186 (talk) 10:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I reverted your edits because by using after changing the ideology of the particular articles, it tells me you're trying to stress something.  You have a conflict of interest, and when you use such language as Go back to china you and the rest of the greens you stupid commies. as you did here on Barrylb's talk page, it means you're also violating WP:NPOV.    Fyyer    11:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

i used the big tag cause you jerks keep on changing my posts ..i thought incase your glasses fell off id put it in big letters.

i was the one who started the amendments, i logged in to do some up keep with research and blogs and news sites, and came across the greens article in my travels. Saw the Incorrect Stance, made amendments.

you are acting like the God father of all that is truth on wikipedia, your probly not even from australia. therefore butt out

Do you even know anything about the Australian Greens, if not then you should not revert changes based on something you do not know. Your just making changes, cause thats what you do , you and your so called and vandalism squad are like the grammer nazis , who ban every one from chat rooms and just cause they cant spell words rite or resort to shorthand texting.

Greens are a Leftist, Communist Party and this is truth , Now Butt out and let wikipedia consensus determine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.203.186 (talk) 11:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Feel free to let the WP census determine it, and to do that you're supposed to use the articles talk page here, and especially so in this case, since what you're editing is likely to be disputed. Until then stop disrupting the article.    Fyyer    11:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit
My edit was most certainly constructive. You know it and I know it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.131.92.123 (talk) 05:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This one? No, it wasn't.    Fyyer    05:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Thx for the revert :)
Thx for reverting the vandalism on my page. It seems like vandalism patrollers are often the target of vandalism themselves lol. Anyway, thx for helping out :) WDavis1911 (talk) 05:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Anytime.   Fyyer    05:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

wtf man!!!!
james is a bad man what you talki9ng about!!?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.75.107 (talk) 12:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I am one of the network administrators for this unit. The command has requested that this page be deleted. It provides information that should not be available to the general public. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.27.1.18 (talk) 22:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you Fyyer; both for restoring my talk page and for reporting that silly jackass to AIV; it's genuinely appreciated. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 22:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem.   Fyyer    03:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

 * Hi. Thanks for reverting that vandalisms on my userpage.--TeleS ( T PT @ C G) 09:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure.   Fyyer    13:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

IP edits
I noticed your recent comment on an IP's edit. User:24.5.89.166 made an edit that I undid with an edit summary using twinkle, and then proceeded to vandalize my talk page. You seem to acknowledge this, yet offer an apology. Good faith edits that aren't formatted correctly should be fixed, and indicated to the editor. The editor's subsequent edits are more than enough to suggest something other than good faith. Shadowjams (talk) 10:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I just went over it again, it was in the wrong format. I was explaining to him his fault was in name calling on talk pages, and I didn't notice why the edit was removed at first.  He was originally acting in good faith, and instead of just warning him for the talk pages I wanted to make it more clear to him what was going on.     Fyyer    10:40, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Nice work...
You have a good way positively influencing people who have otherwise been negatively influenced by other wikipedians. Honey/vinegar and all that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.89.166 (talk)

Talkback
Guoguo12 --Talk--   15:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Problem IP
This IP deleted your message on his talk page and has been making disruptive edits with threatening edit summaries: User talk:98.229.63.165. What should be done? -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Membership of the Counter-Vandalism Unit
As you may know, the Counter-Vandalism unit is inactive. So for reviving the WikiProject, we will need to sort out the members. So if you are active, please put your username at the bottom of the list at Wikipedia talk:Counter-Vandalism Unit.

You are receiving this message as a current member of the CVU.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Counter-Vandalism Unit at 00:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC).

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)