User talk:Fluterst

Welcome!

Hello Fluterst, and

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a

Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you.

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Hello, Fluterst. Recently, user Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters seeked a mediation case with you. I have been looking through your edits and I must say that I agree with Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters. Although some of your edits do make sense, other blantantly violates NPOV. Please talk on the talk page of Ward Churchill to seek a compromise. Olorin28 04:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Please add your reason for adding the POV tag to the O'Reilly page. Especially given the fact that you have added considerable content to the page. Thanks, Steven McCrary 20:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I put it back. Steven McCrary 20:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, it appears that you reverted some of my edits to improve the referencing. This is not appreciated. Please be more careful. Thanks, Steven McCrary 20:42, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Mediation. I can help to clean up the article. If you have some "beef" about the claims of the article, it is best to try to get it resolved with the other editors. Failing that, then follow the advice given on the Mediation page. Failing that, then take it to mediation. I am trying to get the references straight to see if they address what they claim to address. Steven McCrary 21:05, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "Viewpoint is 'viepoint'" ? Steven McCrary 21:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

According to my dictionary, "viewpoint" is the correct spelling. http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/viewpoint Do you agree? Steven McCrary 21:36, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I am being confused with someone else. I did not change the 30-year journalist phrase. I did however, delete the reference since it seemed to refer to nothing. With apology, please put it back, or I will. Thanks, Steven McCrary 01:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I had no objection to the word journalist being used. Why not add that to what was already there? You must confuse me with somebody who fanatically hates O'Reilly - I don't. I don't care for his program, but my interest in his article is based on it's being a showcase of Wikipedia's shortcomings. The article had a definite anti-O'Reilly slant for the past year, but you've done no better by making it overly glowing and removing much of the controversy from his backstory. I applaud you for outright removing some real trash in there, but then you cut away even more that should have been debated on the Talk page. Now you're protecting each and every one of your edits by acting as a goalie for the page. --relaxathon 07:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry - a "goalie" in certain sports is somebody who stands there and blocks their team's net. Just as you are constantly on Wikipedia and reverting peoples' reverts (or modification) of your many controversial edits. You use the Talk page as an afterthought, after you've already sparked a revert war. Once you're there, you act extremely dramatic and concede nothing. This is a group effort and you have to work with people to smooth out the rough edges. --relaxathon 07:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've been watching your edits to Bill O'Reilly and other articles. I'm an admin on the site. Just some advice for you. First of all, I would suggest toning down the attack mode you seem to be in. You need to

You didn't belay my fears one bit. I would suggest looking at as many articles as you can. Looking at one article and deciding that it shows how bad we are is a bit silly. We have over 800,000 articles on this site alone. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 08:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the article on Wikis and Wikipedia. There is no one "in charge". It doesn't work that way. Admins like myself are able to block users and protect pages, but that's about it. We don't "run things". We are not "high ranking". Wikipedia is a completely non profit company. Not even Jimbo Wales gets paid. It's basically him, a small board (which runs Wikimedia, not Wikipedia itself) and...that's it. I get the impression you have some involvement in the website you mentioned and that you are trying to prove a point. People with an axe to grind don't last long here. Like I said, assume good faith and try to learn about Wikipedia before blasting it. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 09:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest using the Village pump to discuss stuff like that. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 09:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you can see here that there are almost 200 links that you would still have to change. I wouldn't bother as redirects take care of it for you. What would be more of a help would be to fix the links that go to

One more thing when changing pages is that it looks better to write it like this for example: [[Banana, Queensland|Banana]] which would look like this: Banana which looks better in an article but still directs to the other page instead of the disambiguation one. Mithridates 10:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, WRT to your change of (commentator) to (journalist), where is the debate that was held to make this change? Generally, when page moves for highly controversial articles are done, they are debated. This was a non-consensus move as far as I can tell from scanning the talk page. Please let me know and leave similar comments on the article's talk page. -Scm83x 10:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. I've noticed that you didn't respond to my comment and yet have still had edits since I made it, which means you saw it and ignored it. When people wake up in the morning here in the U.S. there will be many dozen editors who will see the changes you've made at each instance of Bill O'Reilly and may come to see what happened at the article. I just want to make sure that we don't waste time/bandwidth making all those changes before a consensus decision is made regarding the article's title. Please respond. Your unwillingness to talk could be considered hostile behavior by other editors. -Scm83x 11:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sry, 2 minutes difference. I was already writing this comment when you made the other one. my bad. I will discuss on article talk. -Scm83x 11:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the move request to the talk page of the article. You can erase what I've written there and add your own reasons for the requested move. Mithridates 12:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not word of mouth: here is where the policy is.

I believe if you asked Bill O'Reilly today whether he considerd himself more a journalist or a commentator, he would immediately pride himself on being a commentator. This isn't a "stunt", it's an encyclopedia. The class action suit being considered (it isn't even close to being filed yet) is a "stunt" and without merit. Likewise, it will be utterly pointless because the Wikimedia foundation has so few assets the costs required to undertake the suit would far outmeasure the capital gained. Regards, --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 13:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. Unfortunately, the consensus disagrees with you, and since it includes people from both sides of the aisle and from all walks of life, that's how we achieve a

neutral point of view. And you're right, the law would apply, which is why that wouldn't happen. I encourage you to read more about limited liability. Thanks, --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 13:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

At any rate, it is only the naming of the page that is at issue; this does not apply to Anderson Cooper. I encourage you to edit the O'Reilly article to reflect that he is a journalist, commentator, author, radio host, etc. --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 13:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Look, all we're saying is that page moves are very big operations that are not easily "fixed" if there are issues — administrators have to get involved and such. If you feel that a page move is necessary, by all means bring it up on the relevant talk pages and get some opinions on it. If, once you do, the consensus agrees with you, then a move operation can take place. We're not being biased, we're simply attempting to make sure that our little encyclopedia is the best and most neutral resource we can make it. I have no personal feelings regarding the page or the journalist in question (I've never touched it) I'm just trying to make sure that you're aware of the various processes that take place on Wikipedia so that you don't get your every change reverted for lack of consensus. Just looking out for you :P. Regards, --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 14:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the vote there was his first contribution, it could be that he is what's called a

sockpuppet (or a meatpuppet). If, once the vote boils down, his opinion is a minority one, then it doesn't much matter. You can ask an upper-level administrator for what's called a "sockcheck" to see if it's another user voting under another name, although it won't matter much unless they also vote under that other name, and are using that account to "run up" the votes. No, that's not the way "left-wing consensus" is built, and I assure you that no such things exist, as would the numerous long-time conservative contributors and administrators. People have opinions, of course, just as you have yours, and they're allowed to voice them, just as much as you are. --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 14:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

Greetings Fluterst, it has only been the overnight hours (here in the US) since I last exchanged messages with you, yet I see how busy you have been. Quite an impressive exchange. Since you are new, I wanted to just emphasize the extent of the warnings that are posted on this page, on Talk:Bill O'Reilly, and other user pages. As I count it now, four or five different editors (one an administrator) placed warnings on these pages regarding certain careless editing practices. Let me put it plainly: If you are trying to gain attention, you have, but, it may not be the kind of attention that you desire. Based upon some of your comments, I gather that you have a rather low opinion of Wikipedia, and are mostly unaware of its processes and policies. That is fine, we are all still learning and growing with Wikipedia. But most Wikipedians are interested in making Wikipedia into a NPOV encyclopedia; not a bloviating, opining, (to coin a couple of phrases from Mr. O'Reilly) discussion board; are you? We all have to put our opinions behind us for the sake of creating NPOV pages. Yes, the process is slow and arduous, but well worth it, in this user's opinion. However, anyone who chooses not to follow policy can be blocked, i.e., administrators can block any user from using Wikipedia. Should this behavior continue, administrative action will be coming. I can tell you that Wikipedia needs your energy and your editing skills, but can you accept the challenge to listen to the opinions of others, to read and follow Wikipedia policies, and to provide NPOV edits? I hope so, but in the end it is your decision. With best regards for a Happy New Year, Steven McCrary 15:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, i'm was the mediator on the RFC regarding Ward Churchill and I recieved notice from Lulu that something was going on. So, I gave it a look and I have some good news and some bad news.

The good news is that what you're doing is not vandalism. I've told Lulu to stop that, and please let me know if that continues. The bad news is that your edits need some refinement because they're currently violating

Thanks to the well intentioned and no thanks to the leftist majority who enforce their will here using every conceivable trick and deceit including vote-rigging, inconsistent application of your own rules, inconsistent and illogical writing, it shows that however nice the idea of wikipedia is that it is only as good as the people involved and those in charge. As Wikipedia flies closer and closer to the sun, you know that the only way is down, presumably as a result of the class action lawsuit brought against Wikipedia and those who run it/own it and even those who contribute behind a cloak of anonymity. Homes may be lost over this so those who disregard this do so at their own peril. Fluterst 22:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And Wikipedia Class Action's website Fluterst 22:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but isn't this essentially a confession?--152.163.100.11 19:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Confession of? Fluterst 21:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not post here Dan T. I find it very intrusive. Fluterst 03:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So your goal is to shut down a website; thus hurting all those that contribute to it, and all who use it because of some petty dispute. That is real honorable. There are those in life who build things and those who tear them down - do you really want to be among those that are destructive. 64.12.116.11 16:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A {{

A discussion has begun about whether the article Phoenix Group, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phoenix Group until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.