User talk:Flayof
| This is Flayof's talk page, where you can send messages and comments to Flayof. | |||
|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||
Accounts[change source]
Can I ask why you have two alternate accounts? Like I had said, I think it's a really bad idea for you to have more than one account since you're banned for sockpuppeting at En. Either way (talk) 20:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- I accidently created the account. It was created automatically. So I might as well use it. But now it's just confusing so I'll stick with one account now. Flayof (talk) 20:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Nice to see you again[change source]
Haven't seen you lately; I'm glad you're back. Cheers, Lauryn (u • t • c) 08:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- I took a little break. Flayof (talk) 08:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Your edits[change source]
Your edits lately have been pushing a point of view. You say your edits are to make things neutral, but really what you are doing is pushing an anti-family, pro-orphan type view into these articles. Please refrain from putting your views into the articles. Either way (talk) 02:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe I am getting a bit carried away. Sorry. Flayof (talk) 03:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Again[change source]
Again I have concerns about your edits. You are making a lot of changes that are based on your own opinions and thoughts and not based in facts. Please stop doing this. Please only add statements if they have citations to back them up. A "slut" is a derogatory term, no one actually is a slut as your edits to the article suggest. A troll is not necessarily a "troublemaker" as your edit suggests. Again, please base this on citations, not on your opinions. You are walking on thin ice here, and with the fact that you are only allowed one strike on here before an indefinite block, I would be careful, Either way (talk) 16:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- It's a wiki, which means it's open to errors. They can't block me if I make mistakes. However if I reinsert the same errors to the same article repeatedly, okay then fine, I deserve the block. But I didn't do it. So they can't block me indefinitely. Flayof (talk) 01:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- It's okay, Flayof. Everyone makes mistakes. :) It's just that we have to be careful. Why don't you have a look at Wikipedia's Manual of Style and its neutral point of view? Those two pages can be very helpful. Sincerely, Classical Esther (talk) 02:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. I will read it. Flayof (talk) 03:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- You can be blocked for a pattern of disruptive edits. Inserting your own opinions and points of views into articles is disruptive. You did this in the anti-family, pro-orphan edits I mentioned above and you continue that here. Again, please use reliable sources to back up your edits. Either way (talk) 04:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- It's okay, Flayof. Everyone makes mistakes. :) It's just that we have to be careful. Why don't you have a look at Wikipedia's Manual of Style and its neutral point of view? Those two pages can be very helpful. Sincerely, Classical Esther (talk) 02:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
And in your first article edit after this discussion, you continue. I just removed this statement. It is uncited and unrelated to the article. How does the fact that some kids get stressed playing sports from losing enhance our understanding of what a sport is? It in no way does. Either way (talk) 11:43, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sorry. I'll try not to add my opinions in the article. Flayof (talk) 19:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- And yet you did it again at suicide. Your rant on the talk page is not appropriate for the talk page of an article. Your removal of the text in the article as "POV" is inappropriate as well. Nothing was POV in that statement. It stated the fact neutrally. It is considered a crime in some places and it is considered a sin by most major religions. Nothing is POV about that. Knock this kind of editing off or you may be blocked. Either way (talk) 12:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- Now you put references, before there weren't. Flayof (talk) 02:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- The fact there were no references does not change the fact that the rant you have on the talk page is soapboxing. It also does not change the fact that removing it as "POV" is inappropriate. Either way (talk) 02:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Why don't you oversight what I say if you think I am violating Wikipedia's policy of "soapboxing"? You don't oversight it, so how am I violating anything? Flayof (talk) 02:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Because oversight is not used for that purpose. Oversight is used for removing edits that reveal personal information or other extreme situations. Soapboxing is not an extreme situation. I will, however, remove it from the talk page as it does not help improve the article. Either way (talk) 02:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- You mean personal information on minors? Sure I agree but for everyone else there shouldn't be a reason why it shouldn't be revealed. After all they are adults. No one will hurt them. They aren't cute little children who need to be protected. Flayof (talk) 06:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- WP:OVERSIGHT. Read that for details on when it is used. Either way (talk) 00:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- You mean personal information on minors? Sure I agree but for everyone else there shouldn't be a reason why it shouldn't be revealed. After all they are adults. No one will hurt them. They aren't cute little children who need to be protected. Flayof (talk) 06:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Because oversight is not used for that purpose. Oversight is used for removing edits that reveal personal information or other extreme situations. Soapboxing is not an extreme situation. I will, however, remove it from the talk page as it does not help improve the article. Either way (talk) 02:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Why don't you oversight what I say if you think I am violating Wikipedia's policy of "soapboxing"? You don't oversight it, so how am I violating anything? Flayof (talk) 02:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- The fact there were no references does not change the fact that the rant you have on the talk page is soapboxing. It also does not change the fact that removing it as "POV" is inappropriate. Either way (talk) 02:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Now you put references, before there weren't. Flayof (talk) 02:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- And yet you did it again at suicide. Your rant on the talk page is not appropriate for the talk page of an article. Your removal of the text in the article as "POV" is inappropriate as well. Nothing was POV in that statement. It stated the fact neutrally. It is considered a crime in some places and it is considered a sin by most major religions. Nothing is POV about that. Knock this kind of editing off or you may be blocked. Either way (talk) 12:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- Poor Flayof! I must admit I wasn't that neutral too, when I was a beginner. Why don't you read over the guidelines Esther gave you again? The more I read it, it made me understand wikipedia more. But suicide is supposed to be a sin, at least, in Korea, where I live in, it is a big and serious one. Remember, this isn't a sort of report: you can't write your own opinion. You have to only write the facts. Well, I hope you be able to fix your habit before you get blocked! God bless, ♥ Belinda ♥ 12:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
ED[change source]
Try contacting Alison; she's an admin there. Lauryn (u • t • c) 14:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- She doesn't use it too much. And she didn't respond to my messages that I left on her talk page. So who should I ask? Flayof (talk) 14:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Difficult words[change source]
Hello, I just wanted to clarify what you meant when you said that we should use more difficult words but link to them. Do you mean that we should not shy away from using them if they fit, or that we should intentionally try to use them so that people will learn them? I ask because it's a difficult balance to strike because this project is based upon Basic English, and in some cases (such as with words like "extraordinary", there are words in Basic English that would probably work better. Thanks! Kansan (talk) 21:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- Agree with Kansan. I have reverted your edit to autism. Please stop adding links to English Wiktionary articles. These are too complex for us to be linking to. Your changes there made it too complex and again pushed your "not everyone has a family" agenda. Either way (talk) 21:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- If children are reading the Simple English Wikipedia, we should at least encourage them to learn difficult words. How do you expect them to learn difficult words, then? Studying difficult words during your junior year for the SAT is not particularly helpful when they never used it before. It's kind of cheating. It should be done many years before that. Flayof (talk) 21:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- The point of Simple Wikipedia is for them to be able to read the articles in an accessible, Simple, basic English. It is not meant to teach them better vocabulary skills. Either way (talk) 21:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- This site isn't only for children; it's also for adults with learning disabilities and for people who aren't native English speakers, among other people. Also, it isn't the job of this site to teach people to read difficult words or to succeed on their SATs, since not everybody takes those (or even goes to college). It's simply to help them learn things in language that they can understand. It can be frustrating for somebody to read something and not understand every third word; instead of clicking on the words every time, they'd probably be more likely to just stop reading. Kansan (talk) 22:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- Well then maybe adults with limited English skills should read the Simple English Wikipedia then. Children are encouraged to have better vocabulary skills. Flayof (talk) 22:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- ...Yes, we want them to read the Simple English Wikipeda. But you're trying to force them to read complex words in the Simple Wikipedia articles. So then they wouldn't be able to read the articles. Either way (talk) 22:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- Well then maybe adults with limited English skills should read the Simple English Wikipedia then. Children are encouraged to have better vocabulary skills. Flayof (talk) 22:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- This site isn't only for children; it's also for adults with learning disabilities and for people who aren't native English speakers, among other people. Also, it isn't the job of this site to teach people to read difficult words or to succeed on their SATs, since not everybody takes those (or even goes to college). It's simply to help them learn things in language that they can understand. It can be frustrating for somebody to read something and not understand every third word; instead of clicking on the words every time, they'd probably be more likely to just stop reading. Kansan (talk) 22:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- The point of Simple Wikipedia is for them to be able to read the articles in an accessible, Simple, basic English. It is not meant to teach them better vocabulary skills. Either way (talk) 21:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- If children are reading the Simple English Wikipedia, we should at least encourage them to learn difficult words. How do you expect them to learn difficult words, then? Studying difficult words during your junior year for the SAT is not particularly helpful when they never used it before. It's kind of cheating. It should be done many years before that. Flayof (talk) 21:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Poseur[change source]
I have left a comment on the talk page --Peterdownunder (talk) 21:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Final warning[change source]
If you continue to disrupt Simple English Wikipedia, you will be blocked. Griffinofwales (talk) 02:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not disrupting Wikipedia. Flayof (talk) 02:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Blocked[change source]
I have blocked your account indefinitely. It is clear to me that you cannot edit this Wikipedia without inserting your point of view or trying to change what this project is all about. Your edits indicate you want to add your opinions into articles which is completely unacceptable. You also want to change the scope of our project through the articles by making it about complex vocabulary and teaching people complex vocabulary. That is not our goal here. You cannot seem to understand this and understand why this is disruptive. Your discussions and surveys at the main page only re-emphasize this point. Because of your indefinite block on the English Wikipedia, you had one chance here and it is more than used up, Either way (talk) 10:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators said no to this unblock request. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not unblock the user without a good reason. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Flayof (contribs · deleted contribs · block log · filter log · global contribs)
Request reason:
I'm sorry for disrupting the project. I was reasonable and I didn't continue inserting the same thing over and over. I thought that's what we do on talk pages to discuss the content and that's what I did. If there are disagreements in the articles, then we go to the talk page for it. I wasn't doing it on purpose to disrupt the project. Please give me another chance. I have changed since I received warnings and I stopped doing it. I have improved. Look at my edit contributions. They haven't reverted my edits. I wasn't trying to re-emphasize my point. I was just trying to get a discussion going. I think different opinions should be tolerated instead of saying they are disruptive. I thought this project was about allowing people to discuss on things. But now I know that different opinions are not welcomed and I need to be more careful in the future. I promise I won't do this again. I will provide references from now on.
Decline reason:
Sorry, fully agree with this block and I very nearly did make it myself - instead opting for another warning at Talk:Main Page. You're blocked at ENWP and show no different behaviour here, so why should we believe that you have changed when you've been blocked before? Not now, sorry. Perhaps come back in a few months, but no; as far as i'm concerned, the block stands. Goblin 11:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Yottie!
This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators said no to this unblock request. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not unblock the user without a good reason. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Flayof (contribs · deleted contribs · block log · filter log · global contribs)
Request reason:
I'm sorry for disrupting the project. Can I please come back?
Decline reason:
Your request for unblock was not very convincing, so I offered you the chance to explain in more detail how you have changed and why you would be good for the Simple English Wikipedia. Your answer to my question was, like your request, not convincing. If you did not have such a bad past here as well as at other wikis, I may have unblocked with strict editing conditions (as we need the editors). Taking your history, along with your request and answers into consideration, I am sorry but I must decline your request. You are of course free to appeal my decision, but such an appeal should be done at our mailing list. simple-admins-l@lists.wikimedia.org Thank you. -- Gordonrox24 | Talk 02:42, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
- I would use simpler words and not push point of views. I won't be continuously disruptive. If I am disruptive, I will learn from my mistakes instead of being more disruptive. I learned during my block is that I shouldn't be disruptive when making a point. It's better to help the project instead of being disruptive. Flayof (talk) 02:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)