User talk:Mister Flash 

Contents

Hebrides

(Copied from my Talk page) Trouble is it's a crap reference. It's a Scottish Tourist Board site - What will they know about geology? Stroll on! No reference is better than a bad reference. I'm putting it back to what it was when I first came across this article, like last year. Mister Flash (talk) 13:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

And who were you last year? Seeing as how this account appears to have specifically set up to revert this change? Tell you what - seeing as how you're calling my reference crap. In the absense of any reference at all, a crap reference is certainly better than none. You come up with a less crappy reference that states "British Isles", and then we'll change the article and put the onus on me to trump your reference. Until then, the choice is to go with a reference or remove the claim. --HighKing (talk) 19:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, you've done exactly that. Nice one. And your reference is slightly less crappy than mine too. OK, onus is back on everyone else to trump your reference seeing as only crap ones seem to exist anyway. For now, I'll leave it as is. --HighKing (talk) 19:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
There's good references out there if you want to find them. And since when was it your reference? You just put it back after I'd removed it. I wasn't anyone last year, but I'm right here, right now, looking for crap. Mister Flash (talk) 19:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

St Kilda

'Romantic, a.& n. Characterised by or suggestive of or given to romance, imaginative, remote from experience, visionary' (OED). The fantastic notion that the separation of Dun from Hirta was a result of the impact of a Spanish galleon is nothing if not 'imaginative' and '`remote from experience'! Dhmellor (talk) 11:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Mister Flash. Thanks for your quick response to my St Kilda edit. You wrote 'I dare say it is incredibly romantic - to some. But it's unencyclopaedic. We're here to disseminate factual material, not write a novel'. I entirely agree that an encyclopaedia should 'disseminate factual material'. That is why I contributed that part of the St Kilda article, correcting the previous statement alleging that the two islands were separated when an escaped galleon from the Spanish Armada was wrecked there. That is just a romantic legend, and it is appropriate, and entirely encyclopaedic, to refer to it as such. Dhmellor (talk) 14:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

"Let's resolve this in the usual way"? Is that where you revert my edit (twice), make sure currently it's your version, and then engage in discussion? Ok, let's go for it. My point is, as stated in my most recent edit summary. It's really just is not encyclopaedic to have such statements. It's not really factual enough, but I won't lose any sleep over it if you feel so strongly. Maybe you can suggest an alternative that we can agree on? Mister Flash (talk) 13:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a battleground

If you insert this disruptive message again I will block you per WP:POINT. You're on bad enough terms as it is above, so going forwards respect our policies please. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Great stuff. :) Just don't distrupt Wikipedia. You've had your warning in black and white now, and that's all you and I need to move on. Thank you and good luck. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
This is precluded in my warning. Just let it go, period. Take a look at our Wikipedia:Introduction page if you want to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
What on earth are you talking about?! The links don't work, but I'm not bothered. Please stop trying to boss people around here. As I understand it, being an admin gives yoou no rights at all over content. Mister Flash (talk) 13:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
It does when content is threatened or damaged by distruptive users or it is at odds with our principles and policies. Take my actions as you will, but encouraging other users, particularly new ones, to breach policy against the guidance of an administrator is not conductive to a productive usership whichever way you look at it. --Jza84 |  Talk  14:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't wish to appear offensive, but you're talking absolute rubbish. I've emailed the user to suggest he looks at his Talk page edit history, since you seem intent on censoring the remarks of others. Remember, it is a User's Talk page, not an article that's at issue. My suggestions to him were valid, and not against any policy. Mister Flash (talk) 14:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I have blocked your e-mail function and deleted the offending messages. Another breach of WP:POINT and you will be indefinately blocked. Do not game our system, it is distruptive and could get you blocked. --Jza84 |  Talk  14:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Please unblock

{{[[Template:OK, let me restate: this is a malicious block imposed by an admin who took offence to what I said, and had no reason to do so. I made a perfectly reasonable comment on a user's talk page, that's all - please read it. Please also check the actions of the blocking admin - he disabled my email, blocked my talk page and blocked me, for three months for absolutely nothing. Have a look what others have had to say about this: User talk:Jza84#Notification. Yes, I was blocked for disruptive editing. problem is, any reasonable person would not call it disruptive.|OK, let me restate: this is a malicious block imposed by an admin who took offence to what I said, and had no reason to do so. I made a perfectly reasonable comment on a user's talk page, that's all - please read it. Please also check the actions of the blocking admin - he disabled my email, blocked my talk page and blocked me, for three months for absolutely nothing. Have a look what others have had to say about this: User talk:Jza84#Notification. Yes, I was blocked for disruptive editing. problem is, any reasonable person would not call it disruptive.]]}}

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

I have reviewed this further and given the opinions on the cited page further consideration. Having reviewed the diffs carefully, I can't see that there was any need for a block. A three month block coupled with restrictions on e-mail and talkpage use was unnecessary. In light of all this, the block appears to have been overblown and unnecessary, and certainly not in keeping with the spirit of our policies. Given that I am overturning an block without obviously having the support of the blocking admin, I request that discussion with me takes place before the imposition of any further block in relation to these incidents. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Request handled by: Fritzpoll (talk) 14:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I was also reviewing this request, more slowly, and I agree with Fritzpoll. Mister Flash was not advocating disruption at all, and it was inappropriate for his comments to be removed. Mangojuicetalk 14:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you both for your support. I hope this is now an end to it. I do hope to contribute positively to Wikipedia in the future. However, I will be away for a short while now. Regards. Mister Flash (talk) 14:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)