User talk:Maxschmelling/Archive 1

Translation
Just how notable is Jody Byrne? She has no Wikipedia article. Too many references and links to her work may violate WP:UNDUE, Notability and Spam. I didn't see all that many references to her when I googled her name and occupsation (translator?) Dreadstar †  21:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your most excellent response, and you did indeed place it in the correct location! I'm wondering why Eurominuteman is consistently trying to add Jody to various articles, it looks like linkspam to me and almost as if he has a COI going.  Dreadstar  †  02:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

-

Ladies and Gentlemen, I am the "infamous" J o d y - B y r n e  and to be honest I'm sick of seeing my name being bounced around on Wikipedia over the past number of months. I have no idea why eurominuteman has such a fixation on my article or for that matter why there is such resistance, and dare I say resentment, to my article from other people here. I personally would prefer it if you would all stop mentioning my name. It's not nice when you run a search in Google and see all of these references to pages where people are having hissy-fits over my article. I don't care what interpretations (correct or otherwise) people come up with in relation to my work. What makes it worse is that people have the temerity to question my credentials or to infer that there is some conflict of interest or other link between myself and eurominuteman. Let me make this absolutely clear - I do not know this person, nor do I want to. Similarly, I do not want to be referenced in your Translation article in view of its current content and focus. I would respectfully request that you delete all references to my name from your talk pages, drafts and discussions etc. (including this one when you have read it).

Incidentally Dreadstar, I am not a female so don't let the name confuse you and there are quite a few references (590+ at last count) to me on the Internet including academic affiliations, publications, editorial boards and conference papers.

Regards, Dr J. Byrne

(Check my IP address to confirm my identity) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.167.26.91 (talk) 12:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Eurominuteman report
I changed the versions to diffs and added the previous version reverted to. It's best to have the diffs. Dreadstar †  00:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the tip. I've never had to report anybody before! maxsch 02:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You did good! I would have blocked him myself, but I was too involved...it was very, very tempting... Dreadstar †  07:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Columbia, MO wikiproject invite
Me5000 14:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

awfully quick to add cleanup tag
The True/False Film Festival page I created was not yet a minute old when I see a note saying "clean it up." I acknowledge that it is not a very substantial article yet, but how about starting with a friendly "hey thanks for going to the trouble of creating this article about a notable film festival in Missouri" before telling me it sucks. yours, maxsch 04:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That is not what the cleanup tag means. It means that the article is in need of work, and notify other editors to this fact.  It is intended to speed up editing.  If I have given offense, I apologize. Michaelbusch 04:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as the text has been restored from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. ThePurpleMonkey(talk&bull;contribs) 18:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Re:Translation
Sorry about the confusion, I know I jump the gun sometimes, and just click the button without thinking first.

Sorry again,

ThePurpleMonkey(talk&bull;contribs) 22:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

"Translation" merger proposal
You might wish to comment here about Kannie's plan to merge "Translating for legal equivalence" back into the "Translation" article. (Kannie is a self-avowed "mergist.") Nihil novi (talk) 02:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

List of English words without rhymes
Another editor has added the "prod" template to the article List of English words without rhymes, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the prod template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 15:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Would you consider taking a look
at "Bolesław Prus"? This biography of a novelist which I have contributed to, has been nominated for Good Article status, in the category of "Literature." Though the article has been accepted for release versions of Wikipedia (under "Literature: Writers and critics—Europe"), the Good Article nomination has been put "on hold," pending review by an editor not involved in the article's production. So far, no one has taken up the challenge: I suspect, because the subject is essentially new to the English-speaking world, though two of this writer's novels have each been translated into twenty languages, including English.

I was not the person who nominated this article for Good Article recognition. But now that it has been nominated, it would seem a good idea to bring the matter to a conclusion. Criticisms that might improve the article, would be welcome. If you are unable to take this up yourself, perhaps you know someone who would be willing?

Thanks. Nihil novi (talk) 10:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your edits and insightful suggestions regarding the "Bolesław Prus" article. As you will see, I've used all your suggestions.  Nihil novi (talk) 08:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Bolesław Prus
Hello Maxschmelling. Thank you for your suggestions. They were really helpful. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Florentino floro
It seems that Ian can't handle the adoption well. I won't blame him for that since he only did so out of goodwill even if he isn't experienced enough to do so. I would handle the adoption myself but I'm not exactly tutor material and it seems that Mr. Floro wouldn't listen to Filipino editors. I helped the guy myself but my patience is also wearing thin. Could you help find a non-Filipino adopter? I don't think he would to listen to me if I recommend adoption myself. Anyways the future adopter can use the rules I set here. -- Lenticel ( talk ) 09:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not sure what I could do. Maybe we should give Ian a little more time. When I went to his userpage recently it said he is taking a break during his exams, so perhaps when he gets back he will become more involved. As far as making suggestions, I'm not sure Florentino wants to hear it from me at this point, even though I'm not Filipino, I have challenged his edits in the past and I am probably not perceived as neutral. I do think your rules are useful--it just doesn't seem to me that Ian and Floro have even talked. maxsch (talk) 15:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that we should wait for further developments, perhaps a month or so. March is the "hell month" for students as most school projects and the last final exams are set here so I know how Ian feels. Should the adoption go sour, I think we need to contact a neutral party in WP:ADOPT.-- Lenticel  ( talk ) 22:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm now back from my Wikibreak and I'm now out to help out my adoptee as of now. My exams are done and hopefully, you can lessen your critisism. -iaNLOPEZ1115 · TaLKBaCK · Vandalize it 05:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It was not I who suggested adoption, but an editor. When I agreed, I set a term: non-Filipino editor. I am not against iaNLOPEZ, since he never bothered me. But due to his schooling, he was not able to guide me on my mistakes. So, I reiterate, I prefer a foreign or non-Filipino editor to be my adopter. Wiki rules can be used and abused by all those Filipino editors who deleted my 2 articles. May I ask if I am allowed to be adopted by a non-Filipino adopter, so that I can freely and objectively air my side and be taught well how to edit. - --Florentino floro (talk) 07:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think my talk page is the place to discuss these issues. As far as I know, you are allowed to be adopted by anyone who wishes to adopt you. I hope no one is against anyone and certainly not for reasons of nationality. maxsch (talk) 05:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Notice
Notice is hereby SERVED of the pending Petition filed against you. --Florentino floro (talk) 09:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Deleting my Edits on Filipino Article
When my 2 articles on Wikipedia were deleted, I fought but lost and I accepted the defeat: however I submitted or proferred Wikipedia's Psalm 109 and Psalm 73, which I did, do recite and will recite until my last breath, reciting at midnights all the names of those who voted for the deletions, (especially last Good Friday, 3pm and 12 noon) as sole personal defense for the sake of truth. It was so efficacious that - I begged my counsel of record Rene Saguisag (on the 2nd floor of Makati hotel last August 29, 2006), to help me beg a job from Corazon Aquino, since I failed from Raul M. Gonzalez, Pryde Henry Teves' Margarito Teves, inter alia; I was elated yesterday when most of my contributions I sincerely and scholarly contributed were beautifully edited by you in the same manner of deletions with great rationality as I read in the edit summary. I know that Filipino crab mentality hunted my judicial career since I was suspended on July 20, 1999 and now my Wikipedia career is in the same manner well surrounded. I understand your dire predicament, and I sincerely know that you are here to have a good recognition of your EGO (as Heidegger and Kant taught us that it must be recognized amid life's pains). I learned a lot from your messages, and I take it as part of my life, since I had included you in my spiritual prayers when I am usually at trance midnights. I am very sorry, that I cursed Ateneo law school 1982, '83 and 84, since I never learned anything from my alma mater, except to spam. Now, I committed many mistakes, and most Filipino editors had a hard time according to them, deleting my edits. Fine, and I have no regrets. If the past would be re-written, I will instead enroll in the best school in our country: San Fernando Pampanga Harvard Law School, where Fr. Eddie Panlilio is well respected. Ateneo failed me, and my English is so bad that I was banned in some foreign forums, since foreigners decided that I was spammer when my English language was so perfect. Here In Wikipedia, I cannot learn, my English is so bad; I cannot even contribute an edit that will be desired by many Filipino editors. But my edits in other foreign articles are well guarded and never deleted by genius Filipino editors. I hope that someday I will be as intelligent as you, so that all Filipino editors will live happily ever after. Yes, I have no 7 dwarves, only 3, however, they will be happy if I learn more from you. Please send me more messages in my talk page so that I will be more educated before I am banned here. A final word. May my 3 world famous dwarves LUIS, Armand and Angel guard your loved ones and flash the violet light of truth midnights. Amen. - --Florentino floro (talk) 05:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Musings
Hi, I am so amused when I opened you contributions: you took great interest in my style and frequency of editing; these 2 days, I am in a rush to file a motion for reconsideration of a civil case, hence, I could not contribute more ... our discussions and debate far from uncivil, might be a good vehicle to expand and improve Wiki and revise the rules to conform to its policies; but I sent you a message here, since, I desire to remind you that IN TIME when you would bow down from this planet or up/on this encyclopedia, you would leave footprints and future readers would desire too, to view your user pages, to see who you really were; I myself, as Daniel Radcliffe bared all, I did expose even the dilapidated house which I rented since 1989, on YouTube, my 23 documentaries here, on Philippine TV; this is not a grim reminder of passing off of earthly matters, but I want you to share you life, pics, and bare all for us and all future users. It is a good idea, since I warned all Supreme Court Justices here to bare all, and hide nothing, for it is the best medicine to cancer, caused by fear; in short, please edit you user page. Thanks and Regards. - --Florentino floro (talk) 05:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

May 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Duly referenced new genera have their place in Wikipedia JoJan (talk) 08:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, I know this is a template you use, but you might have noticed that I did, in fact, put a reason in the edit summary and discuss the edit in the talk page. Yes, duly referenced genera have their place, but as had already been mentioned by another editor in that talk page, this is not usually the place. It may have been a little bit of an overreaction for me to delete the whole section, but once the new species has been officially named I hope you will remember to go back to Orobanchaceae and remove the text that you put back in. maxsch (talk) 17:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Florentino floro's petition to ban you
Just wanted to let you know the Florentino floro has asked for you to be banned on my talk page. You can defend yourself if you wish. . - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 22:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I have replied there. maxsch (talk) 23:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Please rebut, contradict and traverse my 3 specific accusations submitted against you, on: Drugs, on University of the Philippines (on 2008 Charter), and Orobanchaceae. As co-equal editor, I am entitled to hear your evidence on these 3, inter alia. Please be guided accordingly. Further, in my quest for truth and justice, I state that I am a closed Catholic, and under USA/other Constitutions, and International Treaties, my religious beliefs are protected, as atheists or skeptics are also allowed to not believe in God. Please do not evade the squarely raised issues, by citing unsubstantiated motives of mine to edit Wikipedia by vengeance on jurists. Due process of law requires us co-equal editors to assume good faith, and to prove otherwise by competent evidence, if you would accuse me of violation of rules. - --Florentino floro (talk) 08:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * What exactly are those accusations? The reasons for my behavior on those 3 pages are clearly stated in the comments I had already made in those talk pages       . Note that I made no changes to the San Diego State University page. maxsch (talk) 19:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If maxsch correctly and not uncivilly edited my contributions, and if only the above-submitted examples or specifics of my contributions are violative of Wiki rules, why is this user, the only one editing, reverting and continuously deleting my edits? Daily, this user concentrates on all my daily contributions. Even a non-lawyer/laymam would easily find and conclude that there is a hidden agenda (badges of fraud) of this user to be a virtual stalker, dummy, alter or the like, to destroy my contributions. He is so uncivil to his fellow editors. Vide the above harsh words thrown at this user by a veteran editor (shame on you; planet are you). Finally, this user miserably failed to contradict, rebut and traverse my above-submitted evidence versus his stay here. On the contrary, this user would again resurrect by detailing or enumerating my past edits, failing to assume good faith. Premises considered, maxsch is hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of utter violation of Wikipedia rules, and is hereby recommended to be banned or be placed under indefinite suspension. --Florentino floro (talk) 09:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Paul McCartney
How dare you delete a sentence with a reference?

You wrote: (supporting Everton is not a significant element of McCartney's lifestyle) with a reference?...

McCartney is also a known supporter of Everton Football Club.

Shame on you.--andreasegde (talk) 00:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

In your words: "description of divorce hearing is not necessary"

Which planet are you living on?--andreasegde (talk) 00:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, you just left a very unfriendly note. It was so absurdly confrontational, in fact, that I am inclined to take it as irony. Yet you revert. Hmmm. And, you seem to claim that this edit of mine was inappropriate. I beg to differ. There is plenty of text on the Heather Mills divorce case here, and now we get the play-by-play of a 30-second hearing in which nothing really happened. Do you have any idea how many hearings there are in a contested divorce case? There is no way we need details of all of them. As for the bit about Everton, I'm not going to edit war over it, but do you really believe it to be the case that his support for Everton is really as significant as the rest of the "Lifestyle" section? Yes it had a reference, but having a reference does not satisfy notability. maxsch (talk) 03:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

You're not English are you? For anybody in the UK, which team you support is almost a religous faith. If you ever get the chance to vist Liverpool or Manchester (or anywhere really) I suggest you stand in the middle of pub on a Saturday night and say that football is not notable...

As for your complaints about what I said; I think that they were not insulting enough, because you deleted a referenced sentence. That is tantmount to vandalism, or blind stupidity in Wikipedia. What makes you think references are not notable enough, and that they can be deleted? The arrogance of it...

The judge's ruling vindicated McCartney from Mills' lies about him cutting her with a wine glass and letting her crawl to the bathroom. If Mills' was proven to be a liar, I think that is notable enough. Would you think it was not notable if someone said that about you? I think you would..--andreasegde (talk) 12:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Which planet? Shame on you? These words are not enough to put off the disruptive and bad faith editing of this user maxsch. This user had continuously edited by deleting most of my scholarly added edits. Something must be done to this user. What do editors think? Examine please his contributions: Almost 90% of my edits are reverted or deleted by him. And I filed a petition to ban him but my adopting parent ceased to be an adopter. So Please watch all his edits. Let us join force against his bad faith editing. My 3 mystic dwarfs appeared to me and told me to pray Psalm 109 so that this user will be good and not bad. Please, I beg of you andreasegde --Florentino floro (talk) 12:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't remove any content that talked about accusations of lying or crawling around on a bathroom floor. I removed the description of a 30-second hearing that neither party attended and at which no issues of any substance were raised. The description of a formality--not interesting, not necessary. And again, I didn't say that there are no rabid football fans in the UK. I agree it is like a faith to some. Maybe Sir Paul is one of them. But my sense is that he would not attack someone in a pub for saying football isn't that important. If I found a reference that said he was fond of tea, or had a small collection of oddly shaped foreign currency, would you think that belonged at the top of the section about his lifestyle? I was actually trying to keep the article clean and in good shape. I thought that was a goal you shared. maxsch (talk) 16:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Where else would you put it, I ask? In Recreational drug use, Meditation, or Activism? Maybe we could make a new header like, "Things McCartney does on a Saturday afternoon when he's not writing songs". If his choice of football club is not important, then we can take out all the stuff about his mother dying of breast cancer, where The Quarrymen rehearsed, about him going to nightclubs in The Beatles' section, Jane Asher (maybe one single sentence, huh?) calling himself "Apollo C. Vermouth" to produce a hit record, the "You're all pizza and fairytales!" comment by Lennon, "McCartney and Lennon had seriously considered going to the studio, but were too tired", "This led to a disagreement with Denny Laine, who wanted to continue touring", "George was like his 'baby brother'".

Where do you want to stop? Maybe you can delete enough so that it looks like a train timetable. Would that satisfy you? I despair... --andreasegde (talk) 09:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is this: If people put down their scissors, and actually worked on creating articles and actually adding text to them, they wouldn't be so keen to start snipping things out. It's probably because the cutters are bored stiff, and feel the need to do what they do. They sit in their editor's chairs and proclaim that they are only here to clean articles. The fact that they are not interested in the subject, don't know an awful lot about it, and can only view it through a pair of binoculars makes for comments like these. I have created, and/or helped with 31 GA articles about The Beatles, and a few other random articles. How many have you done, and taken to GA? Put the scissors away, buy a book, and start writing. This is what Wikipedia needs.--andreasegde (talk) 09:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Excuse me. I took a question I had about content on the Paul McCartney page, and I put it on the talkpage. There is nothing wrong with that kind of behaviour. No one is questioning the importance of football in British society. I am only questioning its importance in Paul's life/lifestyle. If the consensus opinion is that it is an important part of his life, I will not protest. But don't question my right to ask the question. maxsch (talk) 17:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I have every right to question your edits, but research the subject first before you declare that something is not important. I would never edit an article before I knew something about it.

Anyway, after this little problem, we could probably become good friends (seriously) because we now have an attitude of respect for each other. It happens all the time in Wikipedia; ask Kodster or Realist2. BTW, I wish you the best. :)--andreasegde (talk) 20:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You've got a funny way of making friends, but so be it. I don't hold a grudge. One of my pet peeves about wikipedia is all the crap clutter that people put in articles because they have a personal interest in some little trivial factoid, and maybe it made the news one slow political day. And most of it ends up just staying there because nobody ever bothers to take it out. I'm one of those people who bothers, and maybe that's just a difference in our editing styles. best. maxsch (talk) 20:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Your style of editing, Please review the Rules

 * Please ask the editor who fairly and correctly delivered the right homily to you. The problem is not with me and the other editors. The core issue is you style of editing. It is very negative, disruptive and makes Wikipedia very unreliable. First, your editing, by reverting and deleting with submission of false and bad faith reason demonstrating badges of vendetta, fraud towards vandalism, in the edit summary, is a virtual contempt and insult on the intelligence of co-equal editors. That is negative karma, and a virtual biblical curse per our and democratic spiritual and religious beliefs. Premises considered, your argument and stance is hereby DENIED for utter lack of merit. What will you gain or profit, by the such your modus operandi, scheme, habit, system and style of editing? Nada. None. Nothing. It will be a vicious circle of your editing by reverting, then, homily or like yesterday, insulting words by a very good and honest editor, thereafter, reverting by editors and by myself. All you need is therapy, which I can provide you in yahoo messenger. What is your personal problem. Please learn how to be a good Wikipedia editor. It is for your own good, lest you be into perdition like my lawyer Rene Saguisag, who attacked not myself but my religious beliefs. May you find peace in your troubled mind. I suggest you travel to Iraq or China and Burma. You need fresh blood transfusion to enkindle your kindness of ... if you have one. --Florentino floro (talk) 06:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Notice
I hereby serve you this notice of my complaint against you with my parent. --Florentino floro (talk) 07:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Neptune statue
Please never threaten me of reporting me, as well-respected editor who contributed more than 3,700 edits here of edit warring. It is unfair and personal attack, against Wiki rules. I protest your threat: I issued the ruling, and I hereby notify your about this Neptune article, by quoting to you my reply and 7 reasons for denial of your baseless message:"DENIED for lack of merit. Reasons of my RULING: First, the article is about Neptune (mythology). What is the meaning of mythology? Well, in layman's terms, it is about the Greek's culture, specifically on their religious beliefs on Gods, like Athena, and here, Neptune. Like us, Filipinos, we have idols, like the Rice God, Bul-ol, Bathala, Anito, etc., all considered by our history as culture, religion and folklore and mythology. Second, the discovery was treasure, for it was reported part of the treasure trove, and is not only NOTABLE, but one of the rarest find ever, as far as the bare and like-stub article at bar. Third, your citing of links on other statues are not only irrelevant, immaterial and impertinent to the discussion, since the pivotal issue, is only the notability and propriety of adding the treasure discovery of the statue of Neptune to this article. Why? So what if there other statues or millions of them? Here in Philippines you can find millions of statues of anitos, bul-ol etc. in Baguio, but Neptune's treasure discovered statue, as the report stated, is so rare in terms of time, place and events. Fourth, why don't you discuss in the talk page of the article, the links and citations of other Neptune statues, so that other editors can rebut me or you, for a better and more intellectual discussion of the issue. Fifth, you had been here in Wikipedia, just to edit or revert my scholarly and well-researched contributions, amid other editors disgust upon your method and agenda. Sixth, you never created an article nor had you, like us editors who spent long hours of research to create articles and add edits, we, aired frustration, disgust and were most perturbed by your disruptive editing. Seventh, why are you threatening me, a well-respected editor who had more than 3,700 edits, of editing warring? What is your basis? I spent and wasted lots of time to work for Wikipedia, and then, by reverting or amending your edits, to cure the defects of your bad faith editing, of your stubborn refusal to read the rules, to read carefully the links like in University of the Philippines and lots of articles where I contributed and you reverted without any valid ground. Please read carefully Wiki rules on edit warring and assume good faith. Please be guided accordingly, since I have a pending petition to ban or suspend you. I leave all these matters to my adopting parent, since daily I am currently submitting tons and hard evidence that a) you do not contribute by creating any article nor adding any edit, but b) you solely revert, delete or take off my and your fellow-editors' edits, only to be regularly reverted by us. All rights reserved, none waived." --Florentino floro (talk) 05:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Libel case

 * DENIED for utter violation of Wiki Rules, specifically: "Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research)." Why should you remove or delete my contribution, on the controversy case? I had been here and contributed more than 3,700 edits. I had hundreds of experiences on editing legal controversies of Presidents, Senators, and actors, Philippines and abroad. When you removed the controversy about these actors, just because it was settled, dismissed or otherwise terminated, that is against Wiki rules of neutrality. You are making it appear that the article's subject actor had no case. Besides, you are not a lawyer. I am, and here in the Philippines, like in USA, like this one I edited Same-sex marriage in California‎, the decision is not final until after the lapse of 30 days. And in this case, P 12 million libel suit, is very notable, and removing it would be like in the case of Queen Beatrix and Vatican who were caught by the Wiki scanner of editing their own articles. The RTC had not even acted on the Motion by the parties Lolit, Sam and Milby, since the Public Prosecutor must sign the conformity. I myself was fined P 40,000 because of a similar accusation alleging the Prosecutor had not confirmed the parties settlement. So, the case is not yet finished. And even if finished it must stay since the sources I submitted are reliable. You are misleading the discussion by citing the fact of tabloid. The libel was published in the tabloid, but the case and its current events were not reported by me per tabloid but by top verifiable links. You continously violated the Wiki rules. I have to revert this to preserve the neutrality of the article. --Florentino floro (talk) 06:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Florentino floro v. Maxschmelling

 * Per 100 recent edits in the Hilario Davide, Jr. article, Floro only edited once. I see this edit substantial although there are minor trimmings/merging needed. You only visited once in the article and reverted once and it does not warrant a COI. Also, your summary should not be in that manner. If ever you disliked parts of his edit, a message on the talk page would have been better. Cheers. --Efe (talk) 00:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I succinctly submitted the Philippine Constitutions' provision on the matter. I invited Efe to the discussion, because of the relevant antecedents of the Davide UN appointment. Davide was twice appointed not ad interim, that is, when Congress was in session, hence, having been bypassed twice in 2005 to 2006, he did not assume office and did not receive salary. Now, in this 3rd appointment, Davide was appointed "ad interim," like Raul M. Gonzalez who failed 7 times since 2005, but held office and had salary. Thus, the "ad interim" appointment of Davide allowed his to assume office at NY and earned salary of P 1.8 million per month, BUT, Davide's term expired upon the adjournment of Congress. Until PGMA appoints Davide again, as she did 7 times to Gonzalez (now confirmed at last), Davide is, now, is no longer incumbent UN rep. If PGMA reappoints Davide after July 23, 2008, then Davide cannot hold office nor receive salary until he is confirmed by Congress. For this reason, I invited Efe to share his view and edit if necessary by putting template of current event, so as not to confuse readers.--Florentino floro (talk) 07:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Big Brown
Why did you delete the video on the 2nd Win of Brown at Preakness without even knowing that the 2nd win was the 2nd jewel of the trio: kentucy, preakness and Belmont on June 7. This is already intentional and bad faith plus wrong edit on your part. Why redundant? Kentucky is the first, this is the 2nd. Please study horse racing first, I am in this sport since 1972. This user in bad faith removed this link due to alleged redundancy, without even looking at the video: the You tube link is the only link about the 2nd leg of the T. crown, while the first link I added last time was the Kentucky derby, the first jewel. This editor does not even know that there are 3 parts of the Triple Crown, the last will be on June 7 at Belmont: 20:45, 19 May 2008 (hist) (diff) Big Brown‎ (→External links: rem redundant video link and news link per WP:external links) I have to re-add it. --Florentino floro (talk) 10:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Respect
Will you please discern the meaning of editing and reverting vis-a-vis so many editors and administrators in Wikipedia! Now, did you read the talk page? Here, User:Edkollin stated that my edit is NOTABLE enough even not biggest: ''"Alvin Hellerstein, on July 7, 2008 ruling is the biggest thing ever since 9/11. It is so notable and controversial, since it put to the trash the memories of those who lived and suffered.nysun.com, Judge Rules for City on Search for September 11 Victim Remainsbbc.co.uk, Judge rejects 9/11 burial claimsThese links or reference show the grief untold.--Florentino floro (talk) 12:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not know about biggest thing ever but agree it is notable enough for article. Edkollin (talk) 05:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)"''
 * Amid the reverting by other editors, I usually do not revert my edits nor re-add and amend them since I had been here in 2007, since I respect most editors, rude, rogue or otherwise. Editors, here, whether priests, judges, lawyers, Presidents or Popes and Kings are co-equal and bow only to administrators "not to an administrator." However, among editors there is ranking for RESPECT of edits. I am Most Excellent Grognard,Yeoman Editor, and I am entitled to display and use this as I am entitled to be respected by you, and editors, as editor. Please review my 4,885 edits, which reveal that I never ever revert or retouch any editors' edits, except, yours. Why? You would daily edit my edits, without the benefit of discussing the correctness of the same in the talk pages. Further, review all my 4,885 edits, and not even 2% of them were reverted, deleted, or amended by any Wikipedia editor. IN FINE, I state with certainty that your daily editing of my edits, is the saddest days that Wikipedia ever did had. I repeat, instead of reverting my daily edits, seek first the opinion of established and good editors here with badges of service. Please be guided accordingly.--Florentino floro (talk) 07:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Maxschmelling has every right to revert as many of Florentino floro's edits as he wishes, as long as he is doing it for good reason, in accordance with Wikipedia policy, and not breaking the 3RR. Florentino floro: Please refrain from bragging about your personal accomplishments; just because you are a Yeoman Editor doesn't mean you're always right. - Diligent Terrier  (and friends) 21:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advise and message. I deeply understand that, as I had viewed other editors' boxes, that some editors had more than 100,000 edits. I am not bragging about the yeoman, since, I just cited it, as my right as editor to display nothing more nothing less. It goes clear now, then, that Max can, as any, would, to edit my edits for reasons. Regards.--Florentino floro (talk) 07:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Here This mountain is great. Hope I can find sources later. Good article you created.--Florentino floro (talk) 06:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Was the dispute between the two of you remain unresolved? --Efe (talk) 03:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If you mean the dispute that user:Diligent Terrier hosted, yes, it remains unresolved. Diligent said he would write some conclusion, but he has not done so and is now semi-retired. He suggested the RFC as a means of finding resolution. maxsch (talk) 18:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Although he is semi-retired, it would be better if the two of you waited for his conclusion. Anyway, he'll not leave with unfinished business. --Efe (talk) 07:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ooops, it was deleted: "contribs) deleted 'Requests for comment/Florentino floro' ‎ (two people have not certified basis for dispute within 48 hours)." --Efe (talk) 07:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Reply
I replied on my talk page... - Diligent Terrier  (and friends) 23:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected. Replied on my talk page. Cheers. --Efe (talk) 03:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Mt Pangasugan
I edited, added to Mt Pangasugan, and discussed my addition to the request for clean up. I am certain, the sources reveal the scientific study identifying more species. I really have a hard time editing biology articles, since, I hated this subject, being so poor in this matter (never had any subject on this in college. But I tried my best. Hence, you may edit my work, since this is not my domain. Talk:Mt Pangasugan, Mt Pangasugan.--Florentino floro (talk) 12:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Greetings
Hello! This is the first that I encountered this: Requests for comment/Florentino floro. I am not pretty sure, when and how, I will respond. So, if the pending User:Diligent Terrier/Florentino floro and Maxschmelling (created on 18:38, 18 May 2008 by Diligent Terrier), works like this, as far as the procedure of replying and argument/discussions, then, I cordially invited some Filipino and foreign editors or users, here, to share their views on the matter, as maxsch, also did invite. Hence, I sent messages of invitations to users/admins who had posted in my own talk pages/archives, and who might be familiar with the debate: Filipinos - User:Efe, User talk:Rizalninoynapoleon, User talk:Kguirnela, User talk:Ianlopez1115, User talk:Titopao; and non-Filipinos User talk:NanohaA'sYuri, User talk:Vivio Testarossa,  User talk:Andreasegde, User talk:Viriditas, User talk:BanyanTree, User talk:Royalbroil, User talk:John Carter, User talk:Algabal, User talk:FisherQueen, User talk:Rkitko, User talk:BanyanTree, User talk:Royalbroil, User:Diligent Terrier, my parent.--Florentino floro (talk) 06:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

RFC
The page was deleted since no one "certified the basis for dispute" within 48 hours of the page being created. I restored the page and added my signature endorsing your view. TheCoffee (talk) 08:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I've added my endorsement. I'd like to post my own two cents about it; where do my comments belong? I think with the newest comments there that you've already started to run into the problem I mentioned before--the problem where someone who hasn't had the opportunity to talk to him will assume his edits are of good quality simply because most of his edits are not outright bad, but rather, valid-sounding and debatable at best. --Migs (talk) 13:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. --Efe (talk) 02:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi. In case you didn't notice, I've been posting a lot on the talk page of the RFC; hope you can look over it and give your thoughts. or something. --Migs (talk) 15:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I've added a comment on the talk page of the RfC. I want to add some comments myself, but I'll need more time to review the diffs and other related diffs/pages as well. Thanks --- Tito Pao (talk) 01:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I've added a template message grant on this, and asked for comment on other editors before I fully grant the request of Cma.--Florentino floro (talk) 10:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi
I invite you to please share your views on this.--Florentino floro (talk) 11:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The only reaction I have to this is ho-lee crap. --Migs (talk) 12:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No personal attacks - Insane is personal attack.No Wikipedia editor since I registered here, called me so,or inscribed the word in any of the talk pages. Our Philippine cultural, religious, spiritual, philosophical, Catholic / Christian beliefs, and the like are absolutely protected by our, US, UK, and democratic constitutions, in similar manner that Wikipedia rules and policies do.
 * Jyotiṣa - My Vedic Astrology chart reveals the faith in these sacred beliefs, protected also by all "Manuals of Discipline" of all UK, US and Philippine schools. I have contributed my wisdom in more than 40 websites, 140 forums and I positively made this world a better place for knowledge sharing.--Florentino floro (talk) 10:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

30 days, no votes Rfc
Hi,here, 30 days and no votes. Go here.--Florentino floro (talk) 14:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

the The
If you agree the The should be uppercase, could you sign your name here? Thanks, --andreasegde (talk) 19:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

A different straw poll on Talk:The Beatles
It would be easy to overlook because there are now two polls going at the same time. The newest one is here. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 03:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Another thing
I would like you to please explain and enlighten me, why you changed --Florentino floro (talk) 08:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)1864 to 1870 a.s.l.? Talk:Valencia, Negros Oriental I discovered this patent incorrect edit tending to prove and show vandalism of my contribution vis-a-vis assume good faith; this is not just one occassion; last time in our UP Centennial, you deleted my addition of the enabling law on this, reasoning that it was only a funding law. We waited for 100 years, just for the organic law to be passed to enable UP to be as it is now. It is pathetic that we editors are now afraid of being called unrealiable, as I was tasked in some forums, when I invited others to share in Wikipedia. Your editing is dangerous, since researchers would get the wrong facts, in this case, wrong figure. At any rate, I am giving you a chance to submit to me and to Wikipedia, the link and reference to support your 1870 or why you changed the official website figure of 1864 to the wrong 1870. Please do so. Remember that, if researchers and students would submit this above sea lever meters to Congress, etc. citing Wikipedia, this encyclopedia might be sued for unreliability, just bacause of you and even me. It is sad day for Wikipedia, when I diligently do Wiki, and my good edits on Mt. Talinis would be deleted and worst supplied with wrong area. This is serious.--Florentino floro (talk) 08:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You might have looked at my diff and noticed that I did nothing of the sort. The figure of 1870 was already in the article. What I did, mostly, was remove where you said that that Mt. Talilis is the highest peak in Negros, Oriental. It is not. Mt Canlaon is the highest peak. Since your edit directly contradicted information already in the article, I took it out. You also could have looked at my comments in the Negros Oriental talkpage, where I explained that you added factually incorrect information, as well as the fact that it was not particularly notable. You have also been told in the past that it is not helpful to paste the exact same edit into multiple articles as you did here with three articles. One of the features of wikipedia is that you can link to other articles, thus information only needs to be in one article and others can be directed there by wikilinks or "See also" sections. I welcome the comments of other editors on this, because you are wrong.maxsch (talk) 14:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It gets better. The 1870 figure was put in by Floro. --Migs (talk) 14:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hilarious. I can't believe it. maxsch (talk) 14:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point
The edit you made regarding my adoptions was completely unnecessary, and you were disrupting Wikipedia (and my time) to illustrate your point. Even worse, you lied in the edit summary, saying that I said I was no longer accepting any adoptees. This is very disappointing. « Diligent Terrier    [talk]   19:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I replied on your page too. Yes it may have been somewhat out of line (too bold?). But you have 22 adoptees including one that you ignore in such a way that it emboldens his attacks against me (your reckless adopting is not a victimless crime). You replied to at least one recent request for adoption by saying you were too busy, could he/she find another adopter. Your entry on the adopters page includes a link to a long-deleted page. It was my impression that you don't update your status there very often (you were "Adopting" after having retired from wikipedia and while returned but semi-retired) and might have actually forgotten that you were listed as "adopting". Plus I'm not sure what actually got disrupted--your diligent quest to accumulate ever more adoptees. Who exactly are you helping? So let me rephrase: I would humbly recommend that you stop adopting any new adoptees. Of course, mine is just one voice, do what you will. maxsch (talk) 22:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't any more time for your nonsense. I'm adopting to help out here; I'm not on an evil diligent quest to accumulate more adoptees.  I'm helping Wikipedians that are new, and I refuse to be intimidated by you into stopping adopting and taking your side on every debate involving Florentino floro.  «  Diligent Terrier    [talk]   19:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Replies
Max, there are these things called real life and time that get in my way. You still don't address the fact that your edit to the adopter's page was not appropriate and that I have gone above and beyond what I'm supposed to do as an adopter. I have definitely not been "largely evasive" and I don't know why you think that. Florentino floro will take time to improve and you have to allow for that. I just don't have any more time for this drama where you say I'm not a competent adopter just because I don't comment at every single debate Florentino floro is involved with and take your side. « Diligent Terrier    [talk]   19:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm a bit surprised that you've never seen a user gallery before. The photos displayed there are photos I have uploaded for use in articles, and that page is used to display all of them.  If you look closely you'll see that many of them already are on Wikimedia Commons.  If you think it violates WP:NOT, I believe you need to get a better grasp of what that policy is about.  TONS of people have these, including admins.  But go ahead and WP:MfD it if you wish and it will be snowballed.  Have a nice day.  «  Diligent Terrier    [talk]   19:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, I find it funny that you've decided to bring up something as off-topic as the above. Please reply on my talk page.  Thanks,  «  Diligent Terrier    [talk]   19:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Mount Talinis
The encyclopedic fact is now revealed that Mt. Talinis is one of the rarest biodiverse mountain with many endangered species. Now, the problem with the links I posted, the updating on the existence of some of my-now-your inscribed rare animals are only supported by this latest multi-million dollar funded program hosted by no less than Romi Garduce. I found it so hard to read the names of the species due to fast TV prints, so I spent one full hour to review this video. Without this link, some of the rare species in your article could not be well-referenced, especially, that, the documentary says that, today, very few species could be found, since most of them are handful. But the video team successfully found and had shown the rarest species only found in Mt. Talinis. So, I suggest you re-add this link. This link is the only biological evidence that Mt. Talinis has these, still.gmanews.tv, Born to be Wild: Dumaguete Diaries 08/21/2008--Florentino floro (talk) 13:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Floro, you are free to add useful refs to this article just like any other. Good ref are always welcome. It is not "mine" (see WP:OWN) and it is not yours either. Be careful with your words though, I don't think any of the refs support any "rarest species only found in Mt. Talinis." maxsch (talk) 04:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Trafficking_in_Persons_Act_of_2003
I've not had the time to clean up Floro's latest masterpiece (mainly because of its length), but if you're interested in further cleaning or even bringing this up in the RFC, I just discovered upon closer inspection that a lot of the stuff Floro "wrote" was just copied and pasted directly from his sources. Some sentences are stitched together, and maybe he'll change a few words, but it barely qualifies as paraphrasing I think. As of Floro's initial commit, three phrases I just randomly selected showed up elsewhere in a quick google search. --Migs (talk) 16:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I haven't had much time to look at it either, but I did remove some sections that were completely unrelated to the subject. He has a history of copyvio issues, and I'm not sure here if he has just copied stuff from other articles where he had copyvio text or if this is "original" copyvio material. It is probably worth bringing this up in the RFC, though it seems like that is going to be a dead end. I am continually shocked that he has not been blocked yet. maxsch (talk) 21:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Florentino floro
Hey. I understand what you're saying in regards to my remedy. The reason I added it in was that there appeared to be some hostility that was causing a fair bit of drama. The remedy of you two keeping your distance from each other is in no way a negative judgment on you, but rather I'm hoping if distance is kept, maybe it'll cause the general drama evident to reduce somewhat and hopefully make editing easier for you and others. It is in reality only a suggestion based on the evidence; if you don't feel keeping you and florentino apart would solve anything, then I do not have a measure of enforcing it. Wizardman 23:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. I appreciate the clarification. maxsch (talk) 01:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 21:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

It's him again
I've been a bit too busy to deal with him but a quick glance at his recent edits tells me he's begun his campaign to revert your edits en masse. I only checked one--the article on slavery in the United States--but I'm pretty sure he's reverted that at least once before, when you removed it the first time. At that time I took the liberty of taking his edit out myself. --Migs (talk) 13:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Perlovsky's theory
You wrote:
 * This article is fundamentally flawed and nothing could be done to make it okay. Statements like "Aristotle invented logic" where the ref is from Aristotle are deeply misleading.
 * This article is fundamentally flawed and nothing could be done to make it okay. Statements like "Aristotle invented logic" where the ref is from Aristotle are deeply misleading.

Is that an example of "nothing could be done to make it okay"? Not even a different reference, to a modern author who says Aristotle invented logic? Michael Hardy (talk) 00:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the article reads like an essay. It doesn't describe Perlovsky's theory (as an encyclopedia article should) it argues it. Why is Aristotle even mentioned? It doesn't seem important to the article who "invented" logic, unless the fact that Aristotle did is somehow a part of Perlovsky's theory. But his isn't a historical expose, it's a theory of the mind. There is no reason to have this article outside the Perlovsky article...that's why I said delete. xschm (talk) 00:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Notice
Hi, Max,. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. I filed forthwith a formal complaint to block User:Maxschmelling Thanks.--Florentino floro (talk) 05:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like this long situation may be over. Sorry I couldn't do more to help; i considered myself involved after closing the rfc.  Wizardman  05:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and would u adopt me?
Hello, is it possible for u to adopt me then, of course if you're free. Thanks Albertgenii12 (talk) 22:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC).


 * I'd be happy to help you out if you have any questions (and I know the answers!). But I've never formally adopted anyone before, and I'm not sure I'm the right person for the job. I'm not really adopter material. I don't really have any lessons to share with you, but you can use me as a resource if you have questions. I'm not always on wikipedia regularly, but these days I have been. So fire away! xschm (talk) 23:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, thank you for the WikiCookie, and thanks, cheers.
I believe that IN TIME, because of our Filipino crab mentality, like I had tasted the blue crustacean crabs of Cebu, our side would air. Ever since Judge Florentino Floro and his three dwarves LUIS, Armand, Angel had been WikiRfCd, inter alia, I was predicting this vis-a-vis User:Cma's negative pregnants and accept Floro's destiny. It is finally the sad day for WikiPedia, that I could not wait for. Cheers, --Migs (talk) 04:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

How'd you find Lux Lord?
I noticed that you spotted Floro's sockpuppetry from like a mile away; that was blazing fast. How'd you do it? I tracked down those two I mentioned but you were way faster. I do hope this will justify the case against Floro; an identifiable editing pattern like that is probably good evidence that the problems we see aren't just in our heads. Now he's even impersonating other people and making baseless legal threats. --Migs (talk) 03:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added some pages to my watchlist that he just can't seem to ignore. It was Manny Pacquiao that led me there this time. That weird thread at the Jimbo Wales talkpage seemed to be aimed at you--something about Ateneo affiliates on wikipedia having to identify themselves?!? Pretty transparent, and considering that people have offered to help get him unblocked, he isn't doing himself any favors by violating more policies. xschm (talk) 17:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Just so you know...
...I replied on Lux lord's talk page and noted something that can't be proved on-Wiki (at least, under WP:RS), but--for me---is the most solid proof that LL and FF are one and the same. LL mentioned someone who, by coincidence, was a well-known doctor (now deceased) in the same town as FF. I found the connection difficult to ignore, because I also know the doctor LL mentioned (I even met the said doctor when he was still living), and I can verify that the said doctor did live in the same town as FF's (LL's?) family. (And just to make the point clear: our parish's free clinic was named in honor of this doctor. Hmm...maybe I should take a picture of this clinic? Just in case further evidence is needed. I think the said doctor's name appears on the clinic's signboard :P --- Tito Pao (talk) 13:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Latest Floro sockpuppet
Thought you'd want to know about Floro's newest sock. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Village_Idiot_Sabant I'm hesitant to report at WP:ANI because I'm sure that eventually someone's going to jump to his defense or recommend that he just be unblocked. --Migs (talk) 10:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ugh this account seems to be for the express purpose of reverting our edits. I've reverted several but I'd appreciate some help. I don't know if this counts as edit warring. --Migs (talk) 11:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I reported it anyway. In other news Floro is complaining about us on Commons, talking about how "2 and 1 wealthy and powerful admins" are exerting influence on others to get him blocked. --Migs (talk) 13:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * nice catch... it is however rather frustrating that he could play this new account creation game indefinitely now. What a nightmare. xschm (talk) 17:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I think we may be done here
Just so you know, Floro seems to have decided to concentrate his efforts on Commons and Wikinews. He's moved his userpage to both of them (and there's already a discussion about him on the commons noticeboard, haha), but I think at this point we can finally just let other people deal with him. I suppose Wikinews is a better fit for his choice of subject matter anyway. --Migs (talk) 09:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I had been following this guy, though, and uncovered that his 2nd article was approved-published; it's a rare feat, for sure - as neophyte (having been invited to be a Wiki synthesis-journalist). But watch out this guy's undisclosed edits in W. English. - 08:02, 5 December 2008 Florentino Floro (Talk | contribs) (2,478 bytes) (To CREATE this news article which is very important to those who are involved in this tragedy) -"Passengers rescued from stranded Antarctic cruise ship" Chers. --124.106.80.18 (talk) 05:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Flagged Revs
Hi,

I noticed you voted oppose in the flag revs straw pole and would like to ask if you would mind adding User:Promethean/No to your user or talk page to make your position clear to people who visit your page :) - Thanks to Neurolysis for the template  « l | Ψrometheăn ™ | l »   (talk) 06:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I notice your comment on the FR talk page echoes my own thoughts. See my user page. Any suggestions? Peter jackson (talk) 10:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Grr, argh.
This shouldn't be on Wikipedia, but as usual, Floro's vanity article has the appearance of being legit. It's really annoying how people who aren't closely involved tend to side with Floro just because his article is ridiculously well-sourced and his talk page explanations are so long that they'll assume he knows what he's talking about. I would put it on AfD, but that would probably end with people concluding it's significant. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Office_of_the_Court_Administrator_v._Floro,_Jr.&action=history --Migs (talk) 17:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh boy! There must be a Law related guideline about what makes a court case notable enough to have a wikipedia page. I may try to look into that, but in the meantime I filed a request for checkuser on Bar 2009--it's definitely Floro, so he won't last long in this sock incarnation. Pain in the rear. Thanks for the heads up. xschm (talk) 22:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I already blocked Mr. Bar 2009. :p TheCoffee (talk) 08:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)