Flosssock1

Me.

Well, the name is somewhat of an 'inside thing'.

I enjoy editing on Wiki, however I find it rather annoying by the amount vandalism, or the posting of uneducated or bias views. However it's always pleasing to see someone there to repair it swiftly.

If there is anything that you would like to talk to me about or if you would like notify me on a matter, please post it below.

Thanks, Flosssock1 (talk) 15:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Modifying others' posts

Hi. Modifying others' posts on talk pages is severely frowned upon and against WP talk page etiquette. Please do not do it. Thanks The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 20:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

It also states something about spelling. Flosssock1 (talk) 20:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Er, where does it say it is ok to delete all references to a misspelled username? Fine if you want to correct it. But don't delete it. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 20:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Reverting Valid Information

You reverted the Iraq War page for no reason meaning the information is now out of date and wrong, please do not do this again.

--Spazturtle (talk) 22:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

No I didn't. Flosssock1 (talk) 22:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Please do not vandalize the United States infobox

.gov, .mil and .edu have been reserved for the U.S. since the very beginning of the Domain Name System. Please read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Thank you for your attention. --Coolcaesar (talk) 19:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I did not vandalise. .gov and .edu are internationally used. Flosssock1 (talk) 20:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring on United States

I'm sorry, but you can't keep removing that sentence; please engage in discussions on the talk page before reverting someone again. Thank you, —Ed (talk • contribs) 01:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Sun never sets

You seem a little obsessed with trying to add this to Wikipedia. It's been diacussed and it didn't meet with consensus. So please stop adding it. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Good to hear from you again, just as our last discussion is soon to gain support I believe. However, until then, I recall you advising me to take my argument elsewhere. Now I have done, you persist.

What I have just posted is of distinct relevance to preceding paragraph. I fail to see the problem. Flosssock1 (talk) 00:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

You may think it's relevant but it reads like unencyclopaedic trivia. I can't remember exactly what I said to you before but I certainly didn't say go and add it somewhere else. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I would not have minded my post being re-worded. That was just an initial idea, as the rest of the paragraph points towards a conclusion of such a type. And I believe you told me to 'try putting' it on the page I did or the empire on which the sun never sets page. Flosssock1 (talk) 01:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I did tell you to do that. I don't think this belongs anywhere in Wikipedia. As I've told you repeatedly, the reason the phrase is even mentioned is because it once was a commonly used jingoistic phrase for describing empires, not because of the "interesting" fact that it was true. Noone says this about the BOTs (quite the contrary - it would be very politically incorrect in an age when empires are frowned upon). The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Ofcourse, the days of large, growing empires on earth are gone, probably forever. However, what is left of previous empires is in most cases 'Overseas Territories'. Obviously there is no doubt about the fact that the UK's 14 Overseas Territories are what are left of the British Empire, and my point being is that sun does not set on them. I understand that it is originally stated becuase it is (and was) commonly said about the British Empire. So, having stated that, considering it is also a fact I thought that it was appropriate to state elsewhere that it still is a fact. We must remember that Wikipedia is to provide infomation, not interpret it. Flosssock1 (talk) 01:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 13:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Well done. I have, however, previously read that document. Flosssock1 (talk) 13:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I hope this has sorted things. Flosssock1 (talk) 20:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

If you mean "I hope this conversation means I can put it back", which I presume is the case because that's exactly what you did, no it does not "sort things". Now another editor has reverted you, please stop readding it, or post on the article talk page to reach consensus. (Consensus means everyone is OK with your modification: it doesn't mean simply the act of posting a comment). Otherwise what you are doing constitutes disruption and people get blocked for that. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I know what consensus means thank you. And well we'll have to see if my argument gains any more support won't we. Regards, Flosssock1 (talk) 22:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Once again, I find myself writing on your talk page about this matter. Just because you managed to sneak in something you've been trying to repeatedly, concealed within a series of edits, an edit that has garnered no support from anyone on any related page, and just because noone spotted it for a week (and it was a week, not a "couple of weeks" as you tried to portray, not that this matters), this does not suddenly make it OK to go against the consensus. If you want to raise it again on a talk page, fine, do it, and then wait to see if you get consensus. If you readd this material, I will have to report you for disruptive behaviour. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Well actually someone else added that information some time ago, what I was doing was simply concluding it. I will consider taking it to the talk page, and if it gains enough support then we will see about re-adding it. Flosssock1 (talk) 12:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

You might like to know I put this information on Wikinfo, where a lot of Wikipedia's rules don't apply. Peter jackson (talk) 11:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom

Howdy, would ya make a proposal at that article's talkpage? It's a waste of time for others, having to revert repeatedly. GoodDay (talk) 17:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah no problem, I was going to take it there if it was reverted again. Flosssock1 (talk) 18:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

List of Afghan security forces fatality reports in Afghanistan(Update)

Please add below information starting in this article.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_security_forces_fatality_reports_in_Afghanistan

Afghan security forces losses in other time periods

In 2010, 20 policemen and 16 soldiers were reported killed.

• January 14, 2010 - A police officer was killed and six others were wounded Wednesday in a roadside bombing in Ghazni province.

• January 17, 2010 - Several taliban attacks in country killed 2 Afghan soldiers, 5 policemen and an Afghan district chief.

Afghan private security guard losses

• January 13, 2010 - An Afghan PMC killed by a gunfire during a protest.

I'm sorry, I don't understand you.. Flosssock1 (talk) 21:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Please note that this IP editor is User:Mujahid1947 attempting to evade their indefinite block. Nick-D (talk) 07:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks Nick Flosssock1 (talk) 16:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Legacy

The subject matter of that paragraph does not solely apply 1997 and onwards, as should be obvious if you read beyond the article's headings. This is a general paragraph on the impact of the BE around the world, over its four centuries of existence up until "the present". For example, people in the United States did not suddenly start speaking English in 1997, and the Palestinian conflict did not suddenly start in 1997. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 13:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand, and apologise. But maybe this could be something to work on, just since the rest of the article is structured with dates, maybe. Flosssock1 (talk) 20:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see why this needs "working on", many chronologically arranged books on the British Empire end with a legacy chapter, and this was not raised at the review [1] which took the article to Featured Article status. I have to say, I find your edits increasingly bizarre. Is this meant to be a joke [2]? If you seriously believe that we should refer to a group of individuals from an era three hundred years ago in the present tense (tense is spelled with a "s", incidentally), I seriously recommend that you refrain from editing Wikipedia. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 21:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

It was just an idea. Thank you for spotting my mistake (ofcourse I was just making sure you were concentrating). But my point there was that loyalists still exist. My edits are not at all bizarre. Flosssock1 (talk) 23:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Commanders in war articles

There is currently a discussion on how to handle commanders in war articles at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Commanders_in_War_articles. Your input would be appreciated. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 20:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: UK Command: [3] ^walk victor falk ^talk 20:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Changing British Empire related articles to the present tense

Please stop this pattern of changing historical articles relating to the British Empire to be in the present tense, Flosssock1. Your latest change, suggesting British West Indies is a term still in use today, is utterly incorrect. Note the presence of the word formerly in this definition [4]. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I apologise if this has tickled you somewhat. I have been simply improving articles. In the stated case the article was mentioning current British territories in that region, I was simply improving the English. Flosssock1 (talk) 13:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Improving articles is a noble thing to do, but why do you think changing historical articles to the present tense (usually to give the impression that the British Empire is alive and well) is improving anything? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 14:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I would never change a whole articles tense to give the impression of any such thing. I changed tense of the North American loyalists article to show the exsistance of a remaining minority of loyalists, as I may have done with other British Empire related articles to show the exsistance of remaining territories - which I believe do not form an Empire in themselves, but do form what is left of one. Flosssock1 (talk) 14:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you familiar with the policy of no original research? You, and perhaps a few jingoists, may think that the BOTs form what remains of the British Empire, but that is not how the vast majority, in the media, in governments or in the BOTs themselves view it. So, please do not change articles to imply that this is the case just because it seems that way to you. Of course, you are welcome to provide reliable sources that demonstrate I'm wrong. Incidentally, I'd be interested to know why you think there is a loyalist movement in the USA. Do they have a website, or meet regularly to voice their opinions on the Mall? For a patriotic nation reared on stories of the tyranny of Great Britain and King George, which has its children pledging allegiance to the flag every morning, and which celebrates independence from Great Britain every year, I find this incredible to believe. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 21:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

So hang on, if they do not form what is left of the British Empire, then why are they even mentioned on the British Empire article? And I did not state how many loyalists there are, but I have a friend who was born and bred in America and he is, admittedly, a 'loyalist', he has told me of other loyalists that he knows and communicates with, but I do not know the details of this. Moral of the story, they exsist today. Flosssock1 (talk) 01:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

So Wikipedia should have information on something because your friend says it's so? If you don't understand why that is wrong, you really should not be editing here. Please read Wikipedia's policies on no original research before doing any further editing. As regards the BE, of course the BOTs are the bits of it that never became independent. But the point is that the British Empire is considered by all to be a thing of the past. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 02:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say 'information', I changed a few words to imply the correct tense. And I wouldn't say 'by all', can you guarantee that every single person on this planet consider the empire to be 'a thing of the past', I doubt it. Flosssock1 (talk) 02:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course I can't prove that (it is difficult to prove any negative), but Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a repository of every crackpot view out there in the world. See WP:UNDUE - "generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all". Again, you are welcome to prove, via presenting reliable sources, that this is not a minority view, but the onus is on you to prove that, not on me to disprove it. Until you have done so, via presenting reliable sources on the article's talk page, please do not make any more of these edits. I'm serious that the next time you do this, I'm going to report you for disruptive editing, and you will get a block. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 12:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Anything to do with you? [5] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 17:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Nothing to do with me, thats not just original research, its completely incorrect. Plus I am not one for sockpuppetry, I address my issues honestly. Flosssock1 (talk) 17:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

OK. I thought you had made that edit before. Apologies, then. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 18:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

No worries Flosssock1 (talk) 18:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Taliban active fighters strength

On 3 March 2010, US estimate that 36,000 Afghan taliban militants are active in Afghanistan. These are some links.

http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/International/03-Mar-2010/MajorGeneral-Richard-Barrons-puts-Taliban-fighter-numbers-at-36000-report

http://www.upiasia.com/Top_News/US/2010/03/03/Taliban-fighters-estimated-at-36000/UPI-67591267620358/

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/03/03/Taliban-fighters-estimated-at-36000/UPI-67591267620358/

I think that first one link is best.Because The Nation newspaper is Pakistan's most popular newspaper and its also too much femous on internet.

Update the talibans strength and total strength of all militants which is 98,100 total militants in war in afghanistan article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.29.16 (talk) 22:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Taliban active fighters strength

On 3 March 2010, US estimate that 36,000 Afghan taliban militants are active in Afghanistan. These are some links.

http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/International/03-Mar-2010/MajorGeneral-Richard-Barrons-puts-Taliban-fighter-numbers-at-36000-report

http://www.upiasia.com/Top_News/US/2010/03/03/Taliban-fighters-estimated-at-36000/UPI-67591267620358/

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/03/03/Taliban-fighters-estimated-at-36000/UPI-67591267620358/

I think that first one link is best.Because The Nation newspaper is Pakistan's most popular newspaper and its also too much femous on internet.

Update the talibans strength and total strength of all militants which is 98,100 total militants in war in afghanistan article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29119.152.29.16 (talk) 22:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Coalition Casualties Update

http://www.icasualties.org/OEF/Index.aspx

1707 killed(US:1032, UK: 279, Others: 396)

8,938+ wounded(US: 5,393, UK: 3,545) 119.152.83.251 (talk) 09:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

You may be interested in this...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Decolonization#Requested_move_.282010.29 MrTranscript (talk) 22:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 14:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)