Firelement85
 | Firelement85 is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
Welcome! edit
Welcome to Wikipedia!
I hope you like it here and stick around. If you like, you can leave a note at Wikipedia:New user log to introduce yourself.
Before you start doing a lot of editing, you might want to take the Tutorial. It gives lots of basic information to help you to get oriented on Wikipedia.
You can sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (" ~~~~ ") for your username and a timestamp. If you have any other questions about the project, then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Help desk. Alternately, you may choose to send a message to my talk page.
Happy editing! Yuser31415 talk|contribs 06:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Spam!?! edit
Sorry to post this here, but I could not find other proper place ... I was just wandering why do you this that the link *Mobile Dex and other free Romanian dictionaries for mobile devices in the Romanian_language is a spam? It is a link to a explicative dictionary(DEX) of the romanian language for mobile phones/devices —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.126.22.123 (talk • contribs) 06:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC).
- I labeled it as such because that is what it is. Wikipedia is not as collection of links, see WP:NOT#REPOSITORY, the link would be fine if there wasn't already these links just for the dictionaries:
- Online Romanian-English dictionary
- You're just repeating what's already there, especially considering that there is a DEX link already. If someone really wants to find a dictionary for their mobile device they can find it themselves, it shouldn't be that hard. And it's fine to post this here, I thank you for talking about it rather that just adding it again. Remember to sign with 4 of these ~. Firelement85 20:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
external links deleted edit
Before I take any further action, and as a courtesy to you, I want to know why you deleted the external links to our website morgansmaniacs.wetpaint.com.
Both jdmorgan.net and jeffreydeanmorganfans.com are EXACTLY the same type of site as ours, yet they remain untouched. Why?
Naughty007 10:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Reply here. Firelement85 12:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Dean/Jensen Images edit
Hi! In response to your note, yeah, that image thing was really frustrating for me. If we adhere so strictly to the image policy, literally the only photo we could use is one taken by a fan who has allowed it to be "released" with no copyright. You'd think with biographical articles especially, a picture of the person in question would be important enough to be at least a little lenient with this. I would think image copyright holders would have bigger fish to fry than the likes of Wikipedia. I am sorry I uploaded those, but anything "unfree" that was there was bound to get taken down at some point. I actually know some people who have personal photos (that they themselves took) of both Jared and Jensen, but I'm not sure I want to ask them if one of their pictures could be used. According to policy Wikipedia doesn't even allow images that are released solely for use on this site (because a "more free" image hypothetically could be found), and I don't think these fans would want to give up all rights to their own pictures. So... it's a mess. :P Anyway, it hasn't driven me away from the articles at all, although I have become a bit disgruntled with the image nazis. :) Thanks for the note! —simpatico talk 08:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
In the fight against vandalism edit
cmon, firelement. You know Dan Brown's a pathetic writer. You could have left my well written slurs up for just a half hour or something. Just log enough for the other members of my creative writing class to see anyway... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.209.154.101 (talk) 12:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- I actually haven't read anything he's written, don't want to, you can always show them what you did, it remains in the history, that is if the members of your creative writing class are that desperate for kicks. Firelement85 12:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok, sorry for the vandalism, however truthful it may have been. I'm not actually in a creative writing class, it was just for my own personal satisfaction. And satisfying it was! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.209.154.101 (talk) 12:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- So you're done now I hope. Firelement85 12:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that you did a non-admin close at AfD and turned that article into a redirect? That was on day one of the discussion that you also took part in. Your part in that discussion was giving redirect as your solution. Then without so much as a comment from anyone else going and closing the discussion yourself and making the redirect. I don't know, but to me that seems like the wrong thing to do? I can appreciate there are cases for being bold but it seems to be a case of preempting the decision? Sting au Buzz Me... 06:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- It was possibly the wrong thing to do, though I maintain it was correct, if you believe that what I did was incorrect have it overturned. If you were to have commented on the article what would you have said? Firelement85 (talk) 06:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- I've reopened Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White leaf phenomenon. While it's fine for anyone to close a clear keep, or clear redirect, if they've had a fair run (five days isn't necessary if the result is obvious), it's best not to close an XfD if you've expressed an opinion. This isn't just an admin/non-admin thing, admins shouldn't close discussions where they took part either. This is not a criticism of you. Indeed, it's good to see someone being bold! If you see any other XfDs you think need closing, please continue to close them. Just don't be too quick, and don't close ones where you've weighed in yourself. All the very best, Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- My opinion in the article was more letting people know what I intended to do rather than an opinion as such. The article should never have been taken to adf but was probably done by someone who in conjunction with not knowing enough about plants to be confident of the truth and the IP that continually said HOAX!!11, who has only edited that article and if I remember one or two others that was clearly vandalism. I have left a more detailed opinion on the adf though in about 15 minutes I will be away from the internet for weeks and won't be around to see the result. I realise your comment wasn't a criticism, quite the opposite so thank you. Firelement85 (talk) 04:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)