User talk:Mister Flash: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:49, 29 November 2009

Hebrides

(Copied from my Talk page) Trouble is it's a crap reference. It's a Scottish Tourist Board site - What will they know about geology? Stroll on! No reference is better than a bad reference. I'm putting it back to what it was when I first came across this article, like last year. Mister Flash (talk) 13:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

And who were you last year? Seeing as how this account appears to have specifically set up to revert this change? Tell you what - seeing as how you're calling my reference crap. In the absense of any reference at all, a crap reference is certainly better than none. You come up with a less crappy reference that states "British Isles", and then we'll change the article and put the onus on me to trump your reference. Until then, the choice is to go with a reference or remove the claim. --HighKing (talk) 19:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you've done exactly that. Nice one. And your reference is slightly less crappy than mine too. OK, onus is back on everyone else to trump your reference seeing as only crap ones seem to exist anyway. For now, I'll leave it as is. --HighKing (talk) 19:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's good references out there if you want to find them. And since when was it your reference? You just put it back after I'd removed it. I wasn't anyone last year, but I'm right here, right now, looking for crap. Mister Flash (talk) 19:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

St Kilda

'Romantic, a.& n. Characterised by or suggestive of or given to romance, imaginative, remote from experience, visionary' (OED). The fantastic notion that the separation of Dun from Hirta was a result of the impact of a Spanish galleon is nothing if not 'imaginative' and '`remote from experience'! Dhmellor (talk) 11:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mister Flash. Thanks for your quick response to my St Kilda edit. You wrote 'I dare say it is incredibly romantic - to some. But it's unencyclopaedic. We're here to disseminate factual material, not write a novel'. I entirely agree that an encyclopaedia should 'disseminate factual material'. That is why I contributed that part of the St Kilda article, correcting the previous statement alleging that the two islands were separated when an escaped galleon from the Spanish Armada was wrecked there. That is just a romantic legend, and it is appropriate, and entirely encyclopaedic, to refer to it as such. Dhmellor (talk) 14:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Let's resolve this in the usual way"? Is that where you revert my edit (twice), make sure currently it's your version, and then engage in discussion? Ok, let's go for it. My point is, as stated in my most recent edit summary. It's really just is not encyclopaedic to have such statements. It's not really factual enough, but I won't lose any sleep over it if you feel so strongly. Maybe you can suggest an alternative that we can agree on? Mister Flash (talk) 13:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a battleground

If you insert this disruptive message again I will block you per WP:POINT. You're on bad enough terms as it is above, so going forwards respect our policies please. --Jza84 | Talk 13:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great stuff. :) Just don't distrupt Wikipedia. You've had your warning in black and white now, and that's all you and I need to move on. Thank you and good luck. --Jza84 | Talk 13:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is precluded in my warning. Just let it go, period. Take a look at our Wikipedia:Introduction page if you want to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. --Jza84 | Talk 13:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth are you talking about?! The links don't work, but I'm not bothered. Please stop trying to boss people around here. As I understand it, being an admin gives yoou no rights at all over content. Mister Flash (talk) 13:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does when content is threatened or damaged by distruptive users or it is at odds with our principles and policies. Take my actions as you will, but encouraging other users, particularly new ones, to breach policy against the guidance of an administrator is not conductive to a productive usership whichever way you look at it. --Jza84 | Talk 14:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't wish to appear offensive, but you're talking absolute rubbish. I've emailed the user to suggest he looks at his Talk page edit history, since you seem intent on censoring the remarks of others. Remember, it is a User's Talk page, not an article that's at issue. My suggestions to him were valid, and not against any policy. Mister Flash (talk) 14:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked your e-mail function and deleted the offending messages. Another breach of WP:POINT and you will be indefinately blocked. Do not game our system, it is distruptive and could get you blocked. --Jza84 | Talk 14:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please unblock

{{[[Template:OK, let me restate: this is a malicious block imposed by an admin who took offence to what I said, and had no reason to do so. I made a perfectly reasonable comment on a user's talk page, that's all - please read it. Please also check the actions of the blocking admin - he disabled my email, blocked my talk page and blocked me, for three months for absolutely nothing. Have a look what others have had to say about this: User talk:Jza84#Notification. Yes, I was blocked for disruptive editing. problem is, any reasonable person would not call it disruptive.|OK, let me restate: this is a malicious block imposed by an admin who took offence to what I said, and had no reason to do so. I made a perfectly reasonable comment on a user's talk page, that's all - please read it. Please also check the actions of the blocking admin - he disabled my email, blocked my talk page and blocked me, for three months for absolutely nothing. Have a look what others have had to say about this: User talk:Jza84#Notification. Yes, I was blocked for disruptive editing. problem is, any reasonable person would not call it disruptive.]]}}

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

I have reviewed this further and given the opinions on the cited page further consideration. Having reviewed the diffs carefully, I can't see that there was any need for a block. A three month block coupled with restrictions on e-mail and talkpage use was unnecessary. In light of all this, the block appears to have been overblown and unnecessary, and certainly not in keeping with the spirit of our policies. Given that I am overturning an block without obviously having the support of the blocking admin, I request that discussion with me takes place before the imposition of any further block in relation to these incidents. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request handled by: Fritzpoll (talk) 14:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was also reviewing this request, more slowly, and I agree with Fritzpoll. Mister Flash was not advocating disruption at all, and it was inappropriate for his comments to be removed. Mango juice^talk 14:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for your support. I hope this is now an end to it. I do hope to contribute positively to Wikipedia in the future. However, I will be away for a short while now. Regards. Mister Flash (talk) 14:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Military history of the peoples of the British Islands

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Military history of the peoples of the British Islands. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Military history of the peoples of the British Islands. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Derry references

None of the references were "crap", as you said. They all said that in one way or another that Derry had the best city walls in Europe. Although the statement wasn't headlined in the other two, they were still reliable references. You had no right to remove them, and could be considered vandalism if done again.--FF3000 (talk) 21:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Derry. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Canterbury Tail talk 12:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Derry - 1RR Imposition

Please read Talk:Derry#1RR_on_City_Walls_edits. Canterbury Tail talk 14:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

British Isles - name in Welsh

You reverted my change, which had been discussed previously at Talk:British Isles#John Dee first mention issue. Could you please explain why you did that? The only reason I made that edit was to shorten, without changing the sense in any way, the information provided by User:Enaidmawr which explained aspects of the terminology in Welsh and which was not appropriate to that point on the main page. I will copy this to the article talk page. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to hear that you felt the edt notice at British Isles to be stupid. I'm doing my best to inform editors who might not be aware of the editing restriction that's in place to prevent edit warring. If you have any suggestions for alternate wordings - or other approaches to solving this problem - I'd be happy to hear them. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Map

I've a better idea, which was inspired by your suggestion. GoodDay (talk) 18:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a possibility that editors 'might show up' protesting the inclusion of the Republic of Ireland in the proposed maps. There's editors who prefer the article re-named. GoodDay (talk) 20:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm sure they will. The BI article really get 'em going; can't understand why. Mister Flash (talk) 21:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring on BI articles

Since you are already aware of the issues regarding this, and since your account seems to only being used for edit-warring on this issue, it will be subject to a block if you continue to use it for this purpose. Please use the Specific Examples page for discussion on the use of British ?Isles nomenclature. I am sending this message to all users involved in this issue.Black Kite 17:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Jersey

I have blocked the sock (far too obvious) indefinitely, and User:Þjóðólfr for 24 hours. You are now aware of the situation as well, and a repeat of the editing on Battle of Jersey yesterday will result in a block as well. Black Kite 19:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make it clear to everyone

I am posting this to everyone who has contributed to the Specific Examples page recently and this message should not be taken as any criticism of your editing. However, following yet more edit-warring today, I think it's needed to make some things very clear. Editors on BI-related articles may be blocked for

Exceeding 1RR/day on any related article
Persistent edit-warring/reverting over multiple articles even if not breaking 1RR
Following other BI editor's contribs and reverting them, even if not related to BI

I will also, as I have today, be blocking obvious sock accounts and/or IPs if they are obviously being used to game the system. Edits by such accounts will be reverted. This issue is now very close to going to RfAR and I suspect the outcome of that would not be one that many editors in this area would welcome. Black Kite 22:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 83: / Line 83: @@
 ==Battle of Jersey==
 : I have blocked the sock (far too obvious) indefinitely, and [[User:Þjóðólfr]] for 24 hours.  You are now aware of the situation as well, and a repeat of the editing on [[Battle of Jersey]] yesterday will result in a block as well. <b>[[User talk:Black Kite|<font color="black">Black Kite</font>]]</b> 19:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
+== Just to make it clear to everyone ==
+I am posting this to everyone who has contributed to the Specific Examples page recently and this message should not be taken as any criticism of your editing.  However, following yet more edit-warring today, I think it's needed to make some things very clear.  Editors on BI-related articles may be blocked for
+* Exceeding 1RR/day on any related article
+* Persistent edit-warring/reverting over multiple articles even if not breaking 1RR
+* Following other BI editor's contribs and reverting them, even if not related to BI
+I will also, as I have today, be blocking obvious sock accounts and/or IPs if they are obviously being used to game the system. Edits by such accounts will be reverted.  This issue is now very close to going to RfAR and I suspect the outcome of that would not be one that many editors in this area would welcome. <b>[[User talk:Black Kite|<font color="black">Black Kite</font>]]</b> 22:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)