FluteyFlakes88

Pete! I couldn't sleep. My userpage will tell you what I've been up to all night. Daykart 14:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Why'd you delete Evan's page?

Anarchist template

I see you deleted all that anarcho-c(r)ap nonsense and said that the user who put it in was banned. Who is that, hogeye? Who banned him? And is there consensus as to keeping anarcho-cap out of the template b/c it was called vandalism last time I took it out. Also, there is an interesting discussion on the talk page of anarchism (the article, not the template) under the title "Two anarchisms". You should contribute to it. I have said that by Jan 5, if there are no objections, we get rid of all an-cap mentions in the article. The more support for the issue, the better. 71.143.34.231 01:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

If you go to his user talk page's history, and scroll down you'll see he's already been blocked on this template a few times, the most recent on Oct. 30th for a month. This is partly why he has restorted to using sock puppets to revert the template. I agree that they should all be removed, but maybe leave one reference to a-cap in the bottom section next to council communism and other things that are related but not anarchism. --FluteyFlakes88 19:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Template

Check out WP:RFPP, a request was made to protect the template due to an edit war. I don't like Hogeye's edit or his attitude, but I am not here to pick the "right" version. It won't be long before it is unprotected if you can get a legit consensus vote on the talk page.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 05:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Anarchism

You will need to provide reliable sources to back up your claim. You might also like to comment on the mediation that is going on. Thanks :) - FrancisTyers 05:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

When writing in talk pages on Wikipedia, please try and be civil, making comments like this is not a place to soapbox for small, irrelevent groups or positions. does not contribute to a harmonious editing environment. Just giving you a heads up. - FrancisTyers 06:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete of "User Boxpurge"

I just noticed that the template:User Boxpurge was speedy deleted without explanation. I think you used this box before I knew about it (maybe you created it?) -- do you know anything about this? — Eoghanacht ^talk 17:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I have decided to simply create a pseudo-babel box on my userpage with non-template userboxes. I recreated the one in question as best I could remember. — Eoghanacht ^talk 14:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal status update - Anarchism

Dear FluteyFlakes88: I'm Nicholas Turnbull, mediator and coordinator down at the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal. This is a status update regarding a mediation request that you are involved in, Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-01-07 Anarchism. I have written my initial view on the case and would be grateful if you would please consider what I have written there; in particular, I'd be grateful if you would please carry out the task I asked for to write a single sentence overview of what you think is wrong with the article, so that we can compare viewpoints to come up with a collective solution. Thank you very much for your participation. If you require any assistance relating to this matter please do not hesistate to contact me. Best regards, NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 20:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Participant alert regarding Wikiproject on Advertising

The Wikiproject No Ads, created as a backlash against the Answers.com deal, has served an important function in providing a space for users to express their disagreement with the Foundation proposal. While the current controversies about userboxes raise questions about political and social advocacy on Wikipedia, there should be greater flexibility regarding advocacy about Wikipedia in the Wikipedia namespace. Reported and linked by Slashdot and other press sources as a unique and spontaneous occurence in Wikipedia history, it has apparently had some impact as, despite being scheduled to begin in January, not a peep has been heard about the trial and proposed sponsored link since the deal's controversial announcement months ago. Currently, however, there is an attempt to delete the project or move it off Wikipedia altogether. Since the Foundation has provided no additional information and has not attempted to answer the specific questions that participants in the project raised, it is unclear if the Answers.com deal has been abandoned or simply delayed. Until the situation becomes more clear, I believe the group should still have a place in the Wikipedia namespace. Sincerely, Tfine80 00:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)