Welcome!

Hello, Fladrif, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!—ScouterSig 21:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fladrif, please be careful about accusations of vandalism. See WP:VANDALISM. TimidGuy (talk) 15:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked per WP:OUTING on the Talk:Warnborough College page. Dreadstar † 16:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can't be serious.Fladrif (talk) 17:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|I'm sorry and it will never happen again I thought simply asked the question about who User:Warnborough was, given the user's self-identification as a representative of the school. But, I see that could be interpreted as crossing the line. Sorry. It won't happen again. I think that I have otherwise been a highly responsible contributor who's added a lot of valuable content and documentation on a variety of topics.}} Fladrif (talk) 17:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is being discussed with the blocking admin. Standby. - auburnpilot talk 18:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Per discussion with the blocking admin and your assurances that you will not speculate or comment on the likely identities of other Wikipedia editors. Doing so will result in an immediate indef block. Request handled by: - auburnpilot talk 19:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. Fladrif (talk) 19:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to thank you again for the recent rewriting and reorganization. It really improved it. I feel pleased every time I look at it. I actually feel like the article is close to being done. There are about 4 small things that I may eventually suggest be changed, but overall it really seems to be shaping up. TimidGuy (talk) 18:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind words, and for your own input and perspective on the article. Fladrif (talk) 19:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for correcting Adams. I mostly agree with you, but the context in which he mentions it would necessitate looking at the other decision to see why he's contrasting it in order to understand his point there. And thanks for correcting my point about the footnote. Don't know how I made the mistake. I think you're pretty weak on characterizing a point as "uncontested" that the document itself contradicts. And it was wrong to delete the attribution to Markovsky. I think we've both reached the WP:3RR limit. If you revert again you could be blocked. Gotta run. TimidGuy (talk) 22:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is enough. It is a blatant personal attack on another editor. You will restrict your comments to the editorial content of the article and make no further comments about other contributors per WP:NPA and WP:CIV or you will be blocked Dreadstar † 16:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been previously cautioned by another administrator about making uncivil comments directed to other users. It appears from this edit made yesterday that your personal attacks have continued, nonetheless. Please do not make it necessary for me to block you to prevent further disruptive activity. The talk pages are only for discussing article content, not attacking or impugning other editors. This is your final warning.  JGHowes  ^talk 03:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When copying text from one article to another, you must include in the edit summary where you found the text. This is necessary to comply with the Gnu Free Documentation License, under which Wikipedia is released. Please make a dummy edit now to include attribution. Thank you, - Eldereft (cont.) 01:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will be applying for formal mediation shortly. Please let me know within the next two days if you will be available for mediation or not. This does not mean you accept the mediation, but just that I can include your name as party to the mediation. Thanks. (olive (talk) 14:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

...for taking on the job of changing Maharishi to "the" Maharishi. Its a tedious task and I'm glad you're doing it and not me :o).(olive (talk) 18:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Just curious -- does your name come from the Lord of the Rings (Fladrif the Ent)? Omnedon (talk) 21:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for helping with the Ottawa Street Power Station article. I didn't know how you came into that article until i just saw your comment of congratulations to a new RfA, so now i figure you saw mention of it at my own Talk page. (Also, I don't think i want to be considered a barbarian, but no offense taken.) Anyhow, thanks for simply doing a good job with the Ottawa Street Power Station article, settling the situation there well, I think, knock on wood. doncram (talk) 15:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks from me, too, in resolving stuff at this article. Hmmm...my niece wore a really cute barbarian outfit last Halloween...lots of pink furry stuff...I believe I'll embrace barbarianism. Lvklock (talk) 16:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Leopold Bros..gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --J Milburn (talk) 19:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Leopold Bros..gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 18:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would remove another editor's comments on the talk page if they were unconstructive. I'm here to improve the encyclopedia, not take part in some weird bureaucratic experiment in democracy. In what way could this possibly be viewed as an out of procedure nomination? I believe the image should be deleted, so I nominate it at IfD? I previously nominated it at PUI, where it was kept, rightly, due to the fact I pressed the wrong button. IfD is the correct venue in this case, and ranting about procedure in a discussion about a specific image is not appropriate. As such, I will remove the comments again. If you have valid points, raise them on my talk page. If you want to rant, get a blog. J Milburn (talk) 18:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines generally, the IFD guidelines, the fact we can ignore rules if they're obviously broken, and so on and so forth. That discussion is to determine whether an image should be deleted. I believe the image should be deleted- you may believe otherwise, you're welcome to present your argument. The IP poster is interested only in ranting about some imaginary process that I'm clearly not violating- if they want to do that, they can leave messages on my talk page where they can be replied to, ignored, deleted or acted upon as appropriate. Cluttering a deletion discussion is not acceptable. J Milburn (talk) 18:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, if you're holding that kind of position, it's clear that we needn't discuss that issue any further. I'll leave the comments there, but don't expect anyone to take any notice of them. Care to explain to me why you believe this nomination is out of process? J Milburn (talk) 19:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I admit, I considered the use of pseudo-speedy deletion, but I felt (rightly) that the deletion may be contested, meaning that a discussion was warranted. (I meant to send it to IfD rather than PUI in the first place.) Now that it is there, why not have the discussion there? Why go through the process of me tagging the image as replaceable, you claiming it is not, and sending it to IfD so that a consensus can be reached? J Milburn (talk) 19:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fladrif, just a friendly reminder to be careful with your edit reverts. There are some limitations and consequences. For more information please see WP:3RR. Peace! --Kbob (talk) 17:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment. I was using a computer that belonged to another person that is also a Wiki editor and that person was logged in when I did my edit - hence the error message. Bigweeboy (talk) 16:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to take a moment to delivery a personal thank you (not "thank spam" :)) for your involvement in my RfA. (It passed 117-2-7 in case you hadn't seen.) Your comments about my dispute resolution skills meant a lot to me and I was glad that you offered them. I am honored that you consider me "thoughtful" and "a strong addition to the admin ranks," and hope I can continue to serve the community well in my new role. If you ever need any administrator assistance, please don't hesitate to ask, as I will be glad to help.

Thanks again, ThaddeusB (talk) 05:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fladrif. I really enjoy participating with you and the other editors in the cut-and-thrust debate on the TM article in the talk pages. However, I would prefer if you comments, while containing good points of criticism, do not include name-calling and abuse. Many thank. See you on the TM Discussion pages. --BwB (talk) 16:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fladrif, please remember it is very bad Wiki form to refer to editors in a derogatory or personal way. Sentences like "kool-aid drinking pro-TM true believer" simply have no place in Wikipedia. All editors are just that: editors, and should be referred to in no other way. If this is in any way unclear, please refer to WP: ATTACK, which, at the very beginning of the page states "Comment on content, not on the contributor." --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 18:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So funny, I laughed a nice cup of tea all over my laptop. It is good to at least see one intellect on certain wiki pages :-) Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th) (talk) 19:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I even thought I detected some uulating, thought I can't be entirely sure about that"

Alas, another day, another keyboard. Shocking dear girl/boy; quiet shocking :-) Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th) (talk) 18:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fladrif, this clarification and apology sort of got lost in a flurry of edits this morning, so wanted to point it out in case you missed it. I enjoy working with you, Woonpton (talk) 19:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thanks, I guess I'd never come across a web page before that you have to drag around to see all of it instead of scrolling to see it, I apologize for my ignorance; it still doesn't seem a very efficient way to read an article, since every time I'd drag a bit to see some more of it, then the page had to reload, a very tedious way to read an article. But having read it, I'm still of the opinion that it's not a very good source for the statement that's cited to it. The only straightforward statement about quality of research in the article comes from the NY Times, (if you wanted to cite that statement, why not cite the NY Times directly?) and quotes Otis, who isn't exactly one to talk about quality of research. So, thanks for giving me the hint I needed to be able to read the article, but I still don't think it's the best source for the assertion. Woonpton (talk) 21:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. I've been reading more carefully through the TM talk page; I had missed some of the discussion and now am all caught up. I see you've been ahead of me all the way; I was trying to make the point today that the research section should be no more than a few sentences, and I see that earlier, you had even suggested a quite adequate mockup of what that paragraph might look like. And I also see that you've been way ahead of me in arguing for significant inclusion of the findings of the Ospina metastudy. I saw a reference back to a previous discussion about that study, so I went back and read that too. That discussion was painful and frustrating to read; the arguments were so inane and off the point and so obviously grasping at straws it was really annoying. I said in a post on the talk page today that I've been watching the article for 18 months, but I realize now that's not quite true; I got weary of the futility of watching something that it didn't seem as if I could do anything about, and took it off my watchlist for several months, so I missed that discussion. Had I been watching, I would have participated then, although you said everything I would have said. Thanks for paying attention to my comments and taking them into account. Woonpton (talk) 05:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Bleep, that was some experience; that's where I met these guys. The odd thing is that I think if TG had actually thought about it, or if he really understood how bad the Maharishi Effect research is, he wouldn't have meant to lure a statistician to the Maharishi articles. But I never would have had my curiosity piqued if he hadn't come to my talk page from Bleep to tell me that I should look at a MUM-generated "rebuttal" to Park's comments about the Maharishi Effect, after I said on the Bleep talk page (based on my own look at the data) that the ME, which is mentioned favorably in Bleep, was refuted by its own data; there's just nothing in those crime data to justify that claim. I don't know if you've looked at that Rainsforth rebuttal (if not I think the link is still on my talk page where TG left it more than a year ago); it's a terrible rebuttal, not really a rebuttal at all (it doesn't address the substance of the criticism, but is a lot of smoke and mirrors and posturing) but after reading it I went on to read Park, for which I should probably thank TG. I'd never heard of Park before (Voodoo Science), but it's a very good book, sensible and scientific and right on about several different fringe "science" topics while being eminently readable and entertaining at the same time. And then I read the original ME "study" which just about took my breath away (not in a good way).Woonpton (talk) 23:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick comment on Fladrif's assertion that "ME research is utterly incompetent wishful thinking", here is what Bruce Russet, editor of the Journal of Conflict Resolution had to say about a ME study published in his journal: "... the hypothesis seems logically derived from the initial premises, and its empirical testing seems competently executed. These are the standards to which manuscripts submitted for publication in this journal are normally subjected. The manuscript, either in its initial version or as revised was read by four referees (to more than is typical with this journal): three psychologists and a political scientist." (Bruce Russet, editor, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 32 (4), p. 773, 1988). --BwB (talk) 16:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't be so sure it's not already in there somewhere; the ME made Clinton's approval rating go up, after all. I notice you don't have email enabled; I'm curious whether that's a privacy concern or if you just prefer not to communicate off-wiki. Woonpton (talk) 04:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another request to please participate in a civil manner on the talk page and to speak to all editors in a civil and respectful way. If you would like some specific examples of your most recent inappropriate comments, please check your talk page contributions on the TM talk page for August 6th. Thank you.--Kbob (talk) 16:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fladrif, personal attacks such as these, which are only 2 days old (unlike the 6-month old thread you reported to me), will not be tolerated: [1], [2]. And if you're going to make accusations such as these, provide proof and/or enough evidence to file an SPI report: [3], [4]. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]