User talk:Flyguy649: Difference between revisions

(These two replies are to posts on the user's pages and are regarding the username of Alibutt004 (talk • contribs)).

• Ohhhh My Fault.. I forgot that Butt is also a pakistani surname(me stupid).. I hope you wont delete him..Sorry..--Cometstyles 18:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi there, I'm not an admin but I was just generally patrolling AIV and saw that and left the appropriate template, however at first I was not sure but I came to the conclusion it was inappropriate, if it is a common name then thats alright but as you mentioned if maybe found offensive by some users. Thanks for taking the time to leave me a message!! Tellyaddict 18:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• (Links on both user's talk pages direct to here) I'm not sure if the first reply [note added: Cometstyles' reply above] here is sarcastic or not... I'll assume good faith. I'm just another regular editor who happened to see an WP:AIV action that I didn't think was warranted, but that I believe was commenced in good faith. I'm just trying to clear the air. Regards, Flyguy649^talk_contribs 18:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where you talking about my reply possibly being sarcastic? I had no intentions to sound sarcastic but everyone has the right to their opinion and I respect that! Regards - Tellyaddict 18:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry I wasnt Sarcastic its just that My Grandparents are from India and I watch a lot of Hindi Movies and Cricket but I completely forgot that butt could also be a surname like that of Pakistani Cricketeer Salman Butt..Sorry Again..--Cometstyles 18:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All is good. Regards, Flyguy649^talk_contribs 18:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not take your comment the wrong way (Flyguy649), I was just wondering, your opinion is valued and I respect that in every way, I'll remove that tag from the user talk page as it seems suitable if it is a common name, thanks for your comments and civility! Regards - Tellyaddict 18:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. HAve a good one! Regards, Flyguy649^talk_contribs 18:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Mr. Henessy, i know you're probably still just steaming about thet maple leafs loss to the sabres saturday night... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lovelydmb (talk • contribs) 19:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Oooo-kay. I assume the user thinks I'm a teacher. I left a message for vandalism at Hamburg High School (Hamburg, New York). Flyguy649^talk_contribs 19:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(This user was vandalising at Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit, I warned [1]. That is all. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 20:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

You [aspirate]...you will not make this putt, ya [male donkey]! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.32.91.122 (talk • contribs) 20:40, March 6, 2007 (UTC) [edited for content]

Thank you for your insightful comments. Regards, Flyguy649^talk_contribs 20:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey you!!! Yeah you!!! Make a page about how much you suck...ya [male donkey]! <SKITZ_KILLA> —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.32.91.125 (talk • contribs) 17:48, March 7, 2007 (UTC)

Hey, make a page about me...the most notorious vandalism expert this website has EVER SEEN! <SKITZ_KILLA>—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.32.91.125 (talk • contribs) 20:24, March 7, 2007 (UTC)

(this is regarding edits to Pyramid of Ameny Qemau.)

sorry for vandaling that article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ghilman789456123 (talk • contribs) 23:23, March 8, 2007 (UTC)

Too bad you continued to vandalize. And then you got blocked. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 03:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SIR, i respectfully rejet the page i posted on the critically aclaimed euphoniest, philanthafest and my personal hero, the great GABY O'SHEA. What you so carelessly refer to as "nonesense" i consider a life worth emulating, and at least a spot on this rag of a site.

Sincerly,

Dirtynagger

P.S. How do i become a New Page Patroller? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dirtynagger (talk • contribs) 06:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Sure but the weird thing is that your page has been vandalised for nearly 5 hours and nobody saw it..hmm..Cheers..--Cometstyles 13:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flyguy, Thanks for your notes. I did read the Wikipedia's neutral policy as you recommmended, and it says: "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly." So, at the least, I think it's fair for Wikipedia to mention fact that there are strong opinions about the ethics of animal training and animals in circuses. We could even go really nuts and say that animal training can involve -- gasp -- pain. That's true -- and isn't the Wikipedia about truth? Kathy—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anon15 (talk • contribs) 20:15, March 12, 2007 (UTC)

Hi Kathy, actually Wikipedia is about verifiability. I reverted two of your contributions. In the first case, [2] you don't provide any reference to the information. It may be true -- it probably is. But Wikipedia requires that you provide references. In the second case, [3] you put an eternal link right after the preamble, where it does not belong. It might be permissible in the External links section, (see WP:EL for guidelines), but the Circus article already has external links that I believe support your POV. If you feel that this site should be there, by all means add it. In addition, the article has a section that deals with cruelty to animals. Your note, "See www.circuses.com for more information about animals and circuses," is also not neutral point of view since you use the site to convey your POV. That said, the site is interesting and informative. One other suggestion. When you edit articles, it is helpful to other editors to leave a brief note in the Edit Summary explaining what you have done. Regards, Flyguy649^talk_contribs 20:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• (This user had blanked a redirect page. I reverted)

EXCUSE ME SIR, Please do not revert my changes as I was worked hard to make use of the Jackson_Brown wiki page to make a significant entry about Jackson Brown. Thank for NOT interupting my work.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheRealG (talk • contribs) 04:50, March 14, 2007 (UTC)

(My comment/reply is here) Flyguy649^talk_contribs 05:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(regarding my comment here)

Thanks for informing me. I was attempting to add a completely different article to the deletion log, but something went wrong with the template. Will hopefully fix soon. Kevinsam 06:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(this is re attack article: Dominique Withers)

I didnt mean to attack him it was an idiot move and im srry. it wont happen again!--Dj Free 16:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flyguy649, I am really new to this so maybe this isn't how I am supposed to respond to your comment. Before I make any name changes, I am wondering if you could be a little more specific in your complaint against my name. I recently read through Wikipedia's usage on "Weasely words" and your comment seems to apply. "Some people might find it offensive." Who are the some people? Is it you? Why would they find it offensive? Traditional Christian doctrine says that all Christians are sons or daughters of God, and this is the sense in which I meant it. Whom does this offend, and why? I am not necessarily opposed to a name change, but your statement "Some people might find it offensive" was extremely vague and weasely. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Filiusdei (talk • contribs) 00:28, March 15, 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. My concern isn't really my own. I have been following discussions at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names (RFCU)and several religion-based names have come up recently. The relevant part of the User name guidelines is here under inflamatory usernames: "Usernames of religious figures such as "God", "Jehovah", "Buddha", or "Allah", which may offend other people's beliefs. Usernames partly comprised of these terms are not always necessarily prohibited but may be subject to review." Many names have come up recently that I think are marginal that go through the RFCU process and, by concensus, get blocked. Like I said, I think yours is marginal; I have no problem with it. It was more that I wanted you to be aware that you might have people complain about your username. Hence the "Some people might find it offensive" comment. Unfortunately, that seems to be how User name appropriateness has been decided at RFCU. If you'd like, you can test your name at RFCU. Like I said, I'm ok with your name. It's up to you. Regards, Flyguy649^talk_contribs 02:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you think this is a real concern, you should run it through RFCU. I think I personally would likely argue for "allow." But then, I also pay attention to the arguments brought forward in the process and sometimes change my position. Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 03:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Flyguy, I'll have to agree with Kukini on this one, I don't think its offensive (in fact, I don't even know what the username means so you should probably disregard my comments!), if you have any concerns though, you could take it to WP:RFCN, speak to the user (as I've seen you have done) and see what they have to say Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 09:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So far his one and only edit has been vandalism, and based on it, I don't think he's Pakistani. :) RJASE1 ^Talk 04:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{we left notes for each other at the same time. See his talk page) Flyguy649^talk_contribs 06:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, you probably won't be seeing this sockpuppeteer again for some time. We tracked down his IP address to Southern Hills Middle School and got their school administration involved who assured us "The students have been somewhat identified and have been spoken to." --  Netsnipe  ►  06:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to devote one ore two lines to Stubacca. An individual who has an axe to grind because he could not push his comments and views on some Wiki articles. - + - + As a result he now accuses me of being a puppet of someone else. How sad. Rather than starting a proper dialogue supported by facts along proper Wiki etiquette lines, why my views differ from his; he prefers to accuse others of policy violations and ultimately puppeteering - what a frustrated civil servant this guy must be (Pot v. Kettle Policy, I know) - + Please note: that Stubacca already received a warning for his vandalism on the Cruyff page and those of other footballing greats. He justified his actions based on inconclusive evidence. His personal discussion page is littered with 'conflict' with others, although I leave it up to others to decide whether this is a trend in his online behaviour.

Now obviously you must sense that I feel falsely accused. As a new wiki user I do not know what I can do in my defence or as accepted counter action, because I do feel that users like Stubacca should not be allowed to get away with this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brasileiro1969 (talk • contribs) 15:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Relevant discussion at

→ Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Marlon.sahetapy

can you make fun off people if you no them cos dom really does av a massif 4head so really its just a fact on observations of the real world.....im bein educated [attack removed] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kielinski (talk • contribs) 20:22, March 15, 2007 (UTC)

block me you nob ill make a new acount —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kielinski (talk • contribs) 11:16, March 17, 2007 (UTC)

...and it'll get blocked as well. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 14:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(I changed a warning from 2 to 3 and let the editor know) Flyguy649^talk_contribs 21:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No probs. Thanks, Gnanapiti 21:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(This is regarding the vandalism4im warning on User talk:Sonenshin on 9 March 2007. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 00:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC) )[reply]

Wow youre so fly. Waving your finger to strangers on wikipedia really makes you look masculine. Great job! --Sonenshin 00:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You left this edit with the Edit Commentary, "I verbally abused Mjcooj2000." on User talk:Mjcooj2000. I gave you a vandalism4-immediate warning for the severity of this attack. You attacked Mjcooj2000 for leaving this edit on Jessica Simpson (which I reverted). While that user's comment was vandalism, he/she was warned (with vandalism2). Your comment wasn't appropriate, or civil, or even slightly over-the-top. It was blatant and profane, and I stand by the warning I gave you. Please play nice. Regards, Flyguy649^talk_contribs 00:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Yah, I saw those guys - bit suspicious. I figure to keep an eye on them. You may want to do the same. Natalie 04:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You take yourself way to seriously. If you have the time to find my small humorous edit about Coors light and immediately delete it you must be one cool guy with an exciting social life. Your not an administrator. Chill out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Takingbackhenry (talk • contribs) 17:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Heyyy! Sorry I am new to wikipedia and I didn't realize what I changed was not useful I'm sorry! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Losemybreath12 (talk • contribs) 05:29, March 17, 2007 (UTC)

(My reply is here.) Flyguy649^talk_contribs 14:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why would u change the ketchup chips page? That was uncalled for. Its a part of Canadian culture.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nickmoe (talk • contribs) 17:45, March 17, 2007 (UTC)

I also left a related comment at Talk:Ketchup chips. I disagree that it was uncalled for; ketchup chips are already mentioned in Potato chips. And that they are a part of Canadian culture alone does not mean that it warrants an article. That said, if you feel strongly that Ketchup chips deserve their own article, feel free to write one. Just please be sure to cite sources and not add silly things like [this or this. See also [[Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia#Create new articles] and links therein for more advice. Regards, Flyguy649^talk_contribs 17:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I made the change to {{Welcome5}}. Silly little things like that go unnoticed so often, don't they! :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 19:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering why you felt it was appropriate to delete the link to the HG information I provided for people who suffer from hyperemesis gravidarum. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Whining puker (talk • contribs) 19:18, March 17, 2007 (UTC)

Because it's a link to a book, therefore it's advertising a product or service, and is a link to be avoided. The policy is to remove such links. I have just reverted your addition again. Regards, Flyguy649^talk_contribs 19:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So are you telling me that the free pamphlet on how to help a sufferer with HG can't be shared on Wiki because an ad appears on the website? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whining puker (talk • contribs) 19:43, March 17, 2007 (UTC)

It's not just a link to a free pamphlet. It's a link to a website for the book Beyond Morning Sickness; the link to the pamphlet is available on that site. Since the HG article is about HG in general, and not the book, I feel that linking to the book's webpage is not appropriate; it advertises the book. That said, that is my opinion. I think we should see what other editors think. Do you agree? Flyguy649^talk_contribs 20:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessary. I read through the links you included, and based on Wiki's guidelines, you're absolutely right. I'm new to Wiki and was just trying to help people (who suffer from HG) find relevant information. But, even though it's a great resource for HG sufferers, and even though there is free information there, it IS a book ad overall! Thanks for your help. —The preceding comment is by Whining puker (talk • contribs) 20:49, March 17, 2007: Please sign your posts!.

Hello, Can i ask why my article on keeping and breeding Drosophila has been removed? Thanks in advance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.13.28.6 (talk) 21:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Hi there. The link you have added to many pages (e.g. [4]) is a link to a site that sells these insects, thus it is promoting a commercial venture and not allowed (see here). The article may be interesting, but if anyone wants to learn how grow raise insects, they can do a websearch (see WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE). Regards, Flyguy649^talk_contribs 22:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It really isn't...infact I rarely sell insects or have any in stock. I have developed the website into more of an information database, than a store, as you can probably see for yourself.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.13.28.6 (talk • contribs) 11:02, March 18, 2007 (UTC)

Good idea; in fact, I should design something similar to it, and then suggest it as a new template. It could be handy to have on talk pages. It's easy to see, and it's not irritating at all. Acalamari 17:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want to draw your attention to the fact that a recent edit you made to Wikipedia talk:Administrator intervention against vandalism apparently resulted in the page being reverted to an earlier version, with all recent discussions being erased (see diff). I am going to assume good faith from your side, and mark the edit off as an accident. Please be more careful in the future. CounterFX 22:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]