User talk:Faithlessthewonderboy/Archive 1

Lol
Lemonflash Ya, it might be hard getting used to the tildes. When I began editing with an account, it took a while for me to remember. Good luck, Lemon flash  talk  00:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Re:Adoption
You just put the userbox on your page. And leave me a comment on my talk page whenever you have a question/concern. And remember to use the tildes :P. Lemon flash talk  01:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I undid your changes to Sigur Ros
Hi, I undid your changes to Sigur Ros as you accidentally removed some text. Hope that's ok. :-) --Brian Fenton 10:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Brian,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you're mistaken. Looking back at the history of the page, the only change that I can see that I made was changing "January" to "August" and since I provided a reputable source (the band's official website), I think it's a valid edit. I'm sure we're both acting in good faith, so maybe I'm missing something? Thanks for discussing the change! :] Faithlessthewonderboy 10:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi again,

Of course I know you're acting in good faith - you're a Sigur Ros fan, that automatically makes you one of the good guys! :-) It's just you accidentally removed some other text about the band's early history in your edit. here's the diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sigur_R%C3%B3s&diff=145598482&oldid=145347392

Try it again and do a Show Changes before saving this time.

good luck

Brian --Brian Fenton 10:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I made the change again. I think I might know why you thought I inadvertently removed some text, but I think if you look a little closer you'll see that it's still there. Of course if it isn't and I am doing something wrong, let me know! :] Faithlessthewonderboy 11:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, you're right and I'm an idiot. I saw the red text in the diff and just assumed it was gone. Sorry about that. Thanks for your patience. :-) --Brian Fenton 13:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem, anyone could have made that mistake. I appreciate you talking about it instead of just making the changes without explanation, as a lot of people would. Faithlessthewonderboy 16:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Fred and George Weasley
You made an unexplained removal to this article, deleting the death date for Fred Weasley. I can't see a reason for deleting this information, so I have restored it. Natalie 02:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * OK. In the future, please use an edit summary that says you've explained yourself on the talk page. I'm not sure if that policy actually exists or not. I know that past practice is to include birth and death dates at the beginning of articles on real people, but I don't know if there is a set practice with fictional characters because they often don't have strict birth and death dates. Natalie 02:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That's sounds fine then. Just explain it in the edit summary. I would also suggest linking to the page where that article was listed on the talk page. Thanks for clearing that up. Natalie 03:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Smile


has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Re: Wow!
Congrats on the first vandalism :) Cheers!  Brianga 06:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Harry Potter characters edits
Er, a bit late on that, FWB. It was mostly discussed and concluded here. Using colors is all quite pretty, but it isn't very encyclopedic, nor is WP a Potter fan-site wherein they are allowed differnt decorative features for the articles. The colors were assigned arbitrarily; indeed, some of the colors, like those for House Slitherin were essentially invisible to someone who is color-blind. If it cannot be consistently and accurately applied to everything within the HP wikiproject, it cannot be applied at all. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  13:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I certainly see your point of view, I just disagree with it. But it doesn't matter, I don't care nearly enough to argue about it. And yes, I was a bit late, about two hours if I'm not mistaken. Faithlessthewonderboy 13:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

What do you say we just do it, and present a fait accompli? Just say the word, and can put the categories up for speedy delete (though I've never done one before) - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  21:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm all for getting rid of them, though I have very little experience with article deletion, and by very little I mean none. But while we're at it, there's a category for Owner's of Slytherin's Locket which IMHO needs to go too. Let me know what I can do, and I'll be glad to help. Faithlessthewonderboy 22:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Minor character infobox info

 * FaithlessWB, to begin with, I am honored you'd even ask me. It appears that you have almost 4 years on me (I've only been editing for about a year here). To answer your question about the house listing, I think it is kinda crufty and unnecessary, especially since it is something that comes up in the body of the article for the character. That said, I am fairly certain that it's encyclopedic to have it in the infobox - one's school doesn't appear to ever change. Of course, the hardest lesson I've ever had to learn about growing up is how to say I don't know, and I think some people in Wikipedia (as in life) haven't learned that lesson just yet. So, when a Potter character shows up without a school or whose school is in doubt, not all that many people are going to enter in the infobox  ' unknown' , much less leave it alone without adding their two pence' worth.
 * My advice would be to present it in the HPWikiProject, and see what they think over the weekend. give it the weekend and then - if no solid obstacles oppose it, make the changes Sunday night. That's where I kinda cocked up the color removal - I didn't ask people, and while i was right to remove it, I should have had worked from a consensus rather than going off half-cocked (I think the admonishment to Be Bold is one of the most abused things in Wikipedia). Give it a whirl, and I've got your back, no matter what decision you arrive at in your approach. You've earned your coin with me, Faithless.
 * As for the Hepzibah alignment, i would remove the house notation immediately, noting that it is incorrect. If someone reverts with solid proof to support it, tell 'em thanks and move on. If you aren't convinced, take it to their page or the Discussion page, leaving their version be for a bit. You don't have to prove she isn't; the other editor has to prove she is. A lot of editors think that Wikipedia is a matter of stamina - 'how long can you wait until the other person's version drtives you nuts enough to change it', and so on. There's merit to the argument, but with a few spectacularly notable exceptions from my own experience, most editors are reasonable people to deal with, and you can always spot the ones mature enough to admit they are wrong or simply don't know. They are rare, but when you find them, you aren't going to encounter a lot of problems with them. It's the stubborn, immature and recalcitrant ass-clowns that make you want to resort to some very un-Wikipedia-like violence and hate editing. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  20:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Btw, nice way of helping along the anon user who wasn't aware of the English/British spelling divergence. Most just tell them to get bent or whatnot. Good job. :) Arcayne   (cast a spell)  05:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Faithless - you have been very polite, but I appreciate your concern that you weren't being such. If you disagree with my pov, you are doing both of us a justice by bringing it to my attention. We may still disagree, but we are dealing with each others as equals, and that is always appreciated (of course, vandals and rude ass-clowns get the boot to the face - lol).
 * I wasn't considering the application of the infobox change for every character in the series - only those who had a significant appearance in the first book and film. I am not saying we have to do it simply because some tool in marketing didn't think Americans could deal with a term like "Philosopher's Stone". I am saying it needs to be done because America is part of the English-language wiki, and that Hollywood spent millions to make a movie with both titles.
 * It also bears pointing out that each of the articles have images in them from the movies. Had we decided not to do that, we would have been forced to use the Grand Pré illustrations...which only appeared in the American versions of the novel.

I am not saying we have to inundate the character list with the change: simply the Infobox and the first mention of the book - naught else. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  06:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * (and dammit, i give up - where is Penubag's secret page? - lol) - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  06:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I did get into it with someone who reminded me of the sort of puke I used to be when I first started editing, and his friggin' temerity got my back up. I think it's a good thing that these wiki-meets are far and few in between: they'd have to set up boxing rings to resolve some grudges, and I think there'd be a long, long line of folk ready to introduce themselves to good ol' Matt. I simply wouldn't bother, as I can spot those editors who are desperately needful of verifying their existence through being dicks in print. They are large targets, but the collateral waste of time simply isn't worth it.
 * Aside from that, I don't mind it if you oppose it - really I don't, and I respect your opinion (even over it not being aesthetically pleasing). It is that crucible of ideas wherein consensus comes out, and usually, the consenseus bears the smartest edit for the largest group of people (so long as it's sane and citable). Some people have addressed it in the Project page, and make some good arguments. Feel free to add your own, if you feel the spirit mov eyou. I certainly won't take offense. :) - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  23:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

In-universe dates

 * I think it is a fabulous idea! I recently did an edit in Avengers: The Initiative wherein something very similar had happened. The states for the various Initiative teams stationed there had links to the actual states. The comparison is the same. Feel free to use it. I say linking the dates to the timeline is a great idea- Arcayne   (cast a spell)  06:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

reply
it wasn't just for you but okay.-- Ho rn et ma n16  (talk) 08:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The Beatles/iTunes
You're right. That section is actually of little use as it's written. I was focusing on the one issue and not seeing the bigger picture (a poorly written, speculative bit of trivia). Cheers. Freshacconci 01:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Using your real name
I strongly suggest you take it off. Very recently an administrator put up his true name and had personal threats to his own and his family's personal safety, forcing him to ask for de-admin and leave Wikipedia. You put in really good edits, like he did, and I would hate to see another contributor leave because of a sour anon. Therequiembellishere 01:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Your welcome, see you around the Community! Therequiembellishere 03:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar
I'd like to thank you for the Barnstar - it was totally unexpected and very good for my morale, given the rather uncivil response from some editors, including an admin who ought to know better (especially since he was lying about how often the register was taken). Many thanks! Happy-melon 17:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Lennon
Yes, BLP is applicable to Lennon for two reasons: 1) Lennon's biography is still a recent occurrence. Any biography is held to a higher standard of citation, to prevent claims of defamation. 2) Two other people,m May Pang and Yoko Ono could claim defamation as the inclusion of this uncited data places the lawsuit on WP's shoulders, and not the source of the statements. WP has a responsibility to be neutral and provide due diligence to support those statements made in those articles. If I say you are a pedophile, and IO turn out to be wrong, you can sue me for defaming your character. If I say that Newsweek called you a pedophile, I am protected from aforementioned lawsuit (but Newsweek isn't). I hope that clarifies matters. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  04:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the assist there. I've removed the comments (and yours, which would be odd, sitting there all by themselves) as distracting. I don't want the little guy to get busted for uncivility, so hopefully, this is the only lesson he will need. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  19:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * More significantly incorrect was his assertion that there were Beatles "experts". Lol - I wonder who uses that on an income tax form or resumé? Clowns, probably. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  22:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Video games notable for negative reception
Because you weighed in on Articles_for_deletion/Video_games_notable_for_negative_reception twice, you might want to look at the rename suggestion (actually a suggestion to restore the article to its previous name). Wryspy 17:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Re:Graduation
No problem. I hope you have a good time editing Wikipedia! - Lemonflash (do something)  21:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Bloody citations
you know, I think they would be fine as no-wiki references, so they don't crowd the infobox. What do you think? - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  22:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Nowiki would be done in the edit window: like (see the edit window to see how it works). -  Arcayne   (cast a spell)  02:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)