User talk:Fyyer/Archive 1

Message

Hello, Fyyer. You have new messages at Addshore's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 11:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting edits

Hey, no problem, I see now why you thought I was vandalising. Thanks for taking another look. (Sorry for posting here, I have no idea how to send a message on wikipedia).

re: pawtucket page. Hi, you have reverted my edits to the Pawtucket ri page. I'm not sure why. Please leave it, it is relevant and in the correct section. I have also added a reference.

Sorry

Sorry, I think something went wrong with reverting somewhere.... Sitethief~_{talk to me}~ 19:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good Work

I've just been watching your anti-vandal patrol and it's good. However, my edit at 119 (number) was Ok, and I'm not sure about John Adams - maybe check that one again. Cheers, 82.20.44.6 (talk) 20:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. This is the third time this has happened to me in so many weeks, twice under my account - I'm not logged in right now as I'm just passing the time on a public machine. Think I might be doing something wrong?

I can see why this would happen, and Wikipedia needs people who own up to their mistakes much more than it needs people who don't make them. So thanks. --130.232.106.75 (talk) 14:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May 2009

Thank you for your attention to Greek, but please read the rationale in Talk:Greek#Anal_sex which explains why my contribution was not vandalism.

Thank you. --86.5.88.230 (talk) 15:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a test

Shut up.75.130.172.97 (talk) 21:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. Are you telling me you were vandalizing then? :) Fyyer 21:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I final-warned the user for personal attacks, which followed quickly with me being called a stalker, at which point I blocked for 55 hours :) Don't worry about stuff like this Stwalkerster [ talk ] 21:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Or Alive: Code Chronos

A user by the name of New Age Retro Hippie is constantly deleting the information page for the videogame Dead or Alive: Code Chronos. His reasoning for is claiming that there hasn't been any new information on the game by the developer. However, the game hasn't been confirmed as cancelled (and shouldn't be considered as such) as the user is trying to claim and has been merely considered Vaporware. The user is speculating with no valid evidence to support their claim. All attempts to try and reason with the user have ended up fruitless in a reverting war. The user appears to revert moreso as a personal vendetta than anything else.Beem2 (talk) 23:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened up a discussion on the articles page, I would recommend both you and New Age Retro Hippie discuss it. Try to get more opinions from the people who are contributed significantly to the article or who have contributed significantly to an article similar in nature. Such as Dead or Alive (series). Fyyer 01:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indian English

It's a mess and I am trying to clean it up. Please wait till I am done then take to discssuion seciton. Thanks. 75.101.11.171 (talk) 21:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just trying to help. Normally I make tiny edits, but the page is a big mess. Its easy for you to revert me, you can do so at any time. But I ask that you take a look in the discussion section at comments people have mae about how the article has strayed. I have also added a discussion section and asked people to review my bold edits. Most likely admins won't let it stand because they are so cautious about vandals but I had to try. 75.101.11.171 (talk) 22:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're fine, it was my mistake, removed your warnings. :-) Fyyer 22:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boudica

Surely the article should use British English? Dougweller (talk) 16:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it should, which is why I haven't reverted it since. Fyyer 21:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks, I just wanted to discuss it with you to make sure we agreed, which I thought we probably did. Dougweller (talk) 08:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michio Hoshino

The photo referred to in the links IS a fake, and since people often go to wikipedia for confirmation the correct info would seem helpful rather than leaving the speculation there. But perhaps it would be better to remove the link completely. ~~Anyway, I'm leaving the incorrect info there, since you obviously prefer it that way.~~

Damn, you caught me in a pissy mood yesterday, sorry. I removed the erroneous link completely now instead, and made a note of the blog/photoshop issue on the talk page for those who want more info since it really doesn't belong on the main page at all. Apologies for the attitude, just something about the impersonality of the instant revert and the form message that ticked me off. 83.226.153.222 (talk) 08:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, yes it would be best to remove that link entirely. I would have removed it myself had I read a little closer. Thanks for removing it. Fyyer 08:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CVU

Sir, I'm really scared about my level 2 wikipedia vandal standing. Since you are a member of the CVU I was hoping you could tell me when my wiki-court date is and how many wiki-dollars it costs to clean my terrible, horrible, disgraceful vandalism. You see, I just haven't been my self since I started huffing that nasty paint thinner, but you know, we all have our delusions- mine happens to be the tingly hug I get from those delicious fumes, and yours is apparently the feeling of power and importance you manage to squeeze out of eliminating cyber-vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.65.250.9 (talk) 23:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's obvious you're not here to build an encyclopedia. So please stop vandalizing. Fyyer 23:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's the internet, stop taking it so seriously.

Koh-e-Murad

Not to seem pushy, but you seem to have reverted my cleanup on the Koh-e-Murad article - a page connected to the Zikris, which in itself is a mess and something I attempted to piece together. Just wanted to inform you that I'm not some vandal or anything. :) 96.238.41.5 (talk) 00:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Those were good faith edits, my mistake. :-) Fyyer 00:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! You seem to be doing some great work - keep it up! 96.238.41.5 (talk) 00:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll stop adding NPOV tags...

When the authors of those pages devote equal time to ALL relevant points of view! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.122.133.58 (talk) 01:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The articles are about their particular fields, not the validity of the fields in your eyes. The main article space is not the place to spam tags based on your opinion, use the discussion page. Fyyer 01:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

De La Soul

Dude, this edit was not an "unconstructive edit."

Did you bother to read my summary? "Removing refimprove; there are plenty of references and currently no ^{[citation needed]} tags." If there are citations all over the page, and not a single "citation needed" to be found, doesn't that justify removing "This article needs additional citations for verification."?

I see that you also reverted my previous change, which added a citation for AOI III. I already reported this as a false positive to ClueBot. It was not vandalism, nor was it an unconstructive edit.

I'm going to go ahead and put those edits back in. I would appreciate it if you would just leave it alone.
- 71.187.32.39 (talk) 06:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted this edit, particularly because I saw AOI III coming............still!!!!, that was a good faith edit, apologies. Fyyer 06:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for understanding. I was pretty angry at the time I wrote this, so I apologize for the rudeness. - 71.187.32.39 (talk) 07:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

For changing my talk page back.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 07:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. :-) Fyyer 07:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re: Impersonating

No problem at all, I thought it did't sound quite like Abce2 ;) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 15:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know what it is now on the FED Page?

It is a display error in the Firefox browser with nothing wrong with wikipedia at all! This is just sad about the Federer page! I guess just use IE! Enlarge the text, and you will see for yourself. TennisAuthority 03:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your vandalism notice you sent to me was in error

If you had looked carefully you would have realized that when I reverted the article "Sturmabteilung" in May of 2009 I eliminated an insulting phrase that a vandal had managed to insert into the article. It is possible that there was something else in there that I missed but to my knowledge that revision fixed the problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.186.76.124 (talk) 20:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]