User talk:Faithlessthewonderboy/Archive 3

Hogwarts
good catch on the locations of the other schools. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  05:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Luna Lovegood: quotation cited
See my update to the Luna Lovegood talk page. Cheers, Deborahjay 09:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey
clueless the wonderboy, please wait until please finish editing, before taking out things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessemonroy650 (talk • contribs) 04:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Above is perhaps the most pathetic insult I have ever encountered. The troll didn't even sign his post! I'd be offended if I weren't laughing at his ineptness. faithless   (speak)  04:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * take it as you like. chill out and get a life, before you edit. meatclerk 04:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Get a life before I edit? Wow. What a sharp wit. I was completely justified in my edit, and you insult me repeatedly. Chill out? You attacked me, completely without provocation, yet I need to "chill out." Sure. faithless   (speak)  05:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Lord Voldemort
Regarding your recent revert in Lord Voldemort; I agree with the revert, but... Your edit summary makes it seem that it would be enough to source the assertion. In fact, the question ought to be whether what Harry believed is relevant to Voldemort; is the fact that Harry (and the reader) may have believed the prophecy refered to Sirius something that ought to be in the Voldemort page? It has nothing to do with him. Cheers, Magidin 05:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Biography Newsletter 5
To receive this newsletter in the future, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. This newsletter was delivered by the automated R Delivery Bot 15:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC).

Georgia
My apologies to you - I sometimes get a little cynical after several hundred disambiguations! I'll try not to use that edit summary again - thanks for the note. Best wishes, DuncanHill 23:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

DYK
No big deal to me. I would note, which I did, and you likely saw, the article is not quite long enough yet, a small expansion should do the trick, it is almost there, nice find on the photo btw. What a cool place. IvoShandor 09:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Saint Paul's Episcopal Church (Norfolk, Virginia), was selected for DYK!
Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 (talk) 06:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Dumbledore
From the source: Rowling said Dumbledore fell in love with the charming wizard Gellert Grindelwald but when Grindelwald turned out to be more interested in the dark arts than good, Dumbledore was "terribly let down" and went on to destroy his rival.

"Rowling said" makes it quote so please stop removing it. Thanks. --  ALLSTAR    ECHO  04:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is continued on Allstarecho's talk page.
 * Hope you don't mind my input, but grammatically, if you say Rowling said Dumbledore is gay XYZ that means it's a direct quote and you need quotation marks. However if you say Rowling said that Dumbledore is gay XYZ that means it's not a direct quote, it's a paraphrase, and you don't put quotation marks. I think that's what you mean to do. -- BlastOButter42 See  Hear  Speak  05:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern
But I think I would be a bit too paranoid if I removed a link to my personal page just because maybe someone could contact me :-) --Heida Maria 04:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

HP Redirects
Hey, I've posted proposals of merging in the talk pages of Gryffindors, Hufflepuffs and Ravenclaws. This is about the new DA members article I created. I'll wait for your opinion on this :) Lord Opeth 22:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Albus, relevancy, etc.
Hi there,

I just re-read my post that you replied to on Talk:Albus_Dumbledore, because I wasn't sure which part you meant by taking shots at other people. I assume you're talking about the line "Simply tossing out the words 'not-terribly-relevant' doesn't make them true", since it referred directly to something you'd said above? I didn't mean it as a personal attack; I was just disagreeing with your conclusion. If it came off as abrasive, I apologize. I really try to avoid flame wars whenever I dip into Wiki'ing.

Seansinc 17:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Dumbledore/Grindelwald
This really shouldn't be too difficult to understand. Just because Newsweek decided to print that the love was unrequited does not make it so. The only available primary source for this issue is Rowling's Carnegie Hall speech. There is no mention whatsoever of Grindelwald's reaction to Dumbledore's affections (or even if he knew of them). To cite Newsweek as a source is to ignore the PRIMARY source, to which we have access. If you would like to make note in the article of the fact that Newsweek decided to deduce or infer that fact... well, feel free... but I don't think it's terribly relevant. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't appreciate being insulted, especially over something I have taken only a passing interest in (whether the love was requited). Do you have a full copy of the transcript? I have not seen one yet; if you know where I can find one, please let me know. (It occurs to me that this may sound sarcastic, but I assure you it is genuine.) Newsweek is a reliable source, and it has in no way contradicted any other source that I have seen (again, if it contradicts the full transcript, please show me), but merely provides additional information. Unless you can prove the Rowling never said that the love was unrequited, we have a reliable source saying she did. faithless   (speak)  20:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if you felt insulted, it certainly wasn't my intent. Like you, I have only a passing interest in this issue. The transcript to which I refer as the primary source is linked from the Talk page of the article, and I feel (even though it acknowledges that it contains paraphrases) that it is a more complete and more reliable source than Newsweek. Note also that Time and other journalistic sources do not refer to the unrequited (or otherwise) nature of the affections, merely noting that Dumbledore had feelings for Grindelwald and leaving it at that. We have at least two reliable sources, disagreeing as to whether or not Rowling said the love was unrequited, and the more complete one says she didn't. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I must have read too much into your opening sentence and saw an insult where none was intended. No harm, no foul. Are you referring to the Leaky Cauldron article? If so, I go back to what I've already said: Newsweek in no way contradicts what TLC reported, but merely adds additional information. And even if there was a dispute between the two, I think Newsweek has to be given more credit than a fan site (even a good one like TLC). Perhaps other sources saw it as too trivial to mention, I don't know. But I would say that unless we have the full transcript of the reading, and it can be conclusively proven that JKR did or didn't say it, we should take Newsweek's word for it. Isn't that the whole point of having reliable sources, so we can rely on them reporting accurately? :) faithless   (speak)  21:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Looking back, I think I see how you interpreted my opening sentence. My apologies, I didn't mean it that way, I should have been more careful in my wording. I agree with your outlook, but reach a different conclusion. Given that Newsweek and LC disagree, I would tend to favor LC. Aside from my own PERSONAL opinions about Newsweek's journalistic integrity, I think we ought to assume that the more comprehensive site did not omit a key issue, and rather that the more obviously summarized site erroneously inferred. It seems we both agree on the core method of determining appropriateness for inclusion (reliability and verifiability), we've just ended up on opposite side of the fence on implementation. :) Suggestions? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I perhaps over-reacted. :) I've grown used to receiving insults on WP, so I think I've come to expect them, good faith be damned. We're really in a spot here; to be perfectly honest, I think you're probably right, that this was a gaffe on Newsweek's part. But I would disagree in that I don't see a conflict with the two articles. It's sort of like TLC reported that the Sun is hot while Newsweek reported the Sun is hot and yellow. They don't contradict each other, one just reports something the other doesn't. Ideally, there would be a full transcript released soon, to either prove or disprove the line. Personally, I think the information should be included (the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette also describes the love as unrequited), though I think I'm done with it, to be honest. It's such a minor detail, and since I have my doubts about it's veracity, I don't think I'll add it back if it's removed. Still, I do think it should be included; after all, verifiability, not truth. faithless  (speak)  22:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Dumbledore vote
Hi. All the arguing over where we should discuss Dumbledore's sexual orientation is proving useless. We need to work out just who is in favour of what and a vote seems the only way to go about it. I'm asking for your opinion since you had a say in the general argument. Thank you. asyndeton 10:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Virginia Newsletter October 2007
The October 2007 issue of the Virginia WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.-- Kubigula (talk) 02:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey there, Drive by!
I'd love to hear an explanation, thanks! Quiest 22:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I am honestly curious why different approaches to editing are condemned? I thought the whole idea was that everything gets fixed up in the end. If someone says "Faithless is:***" and it goes into a four page article that very detailed, with citations, about why you are a terrible person or something, do I need to spend time reading and checking every reference and making a sentence by sentence analysis, or would you prefer that someone make it known ASAP that the things being said about you are indeed ridiculous? I seriously just want to understand and appreciate your kind responses. Quiest 23:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Category:Fiction writers
Excuse me, would this apply for categories such as comic book editors and manga artists? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes! Sorry for replying late, I had my hands tied with some disrupters. Do you mind if I categorize those two? I think animators should also share the fiction writers category. Agreed? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Then I shall categorize the two I first mentioned, that ok with you? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:3RR
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This is absolute nonsense. I was reverting blatant vandalism. If anyone is interested, you can see my reply to this person here. I am going to leave this up, as removing it would be akin to admitting some fault, and this is not the case whatsoever. faithless   (speak)  17:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * V-train said that the content had been there for days, yet the hidden message at the top of the page clearly says to not add any more "gay"-related statements. And even if you were undoing vandalism, there is no 100% guarantee that you won't be blocked, this exception applies only to the most simple and obvious vandalism, the kind that is immediately apparent to anyone reviewing the last edit. The user ReynoldsWrap was actually adhering to the commented out message. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Likewise, if the page was being blanked or other very obvious disruptive edits were made in the article, then these is one of those rare cases where WP:3RR would not apply. It is really all a content dispute, not vandalism. Some feel the data is unnecessary, others don't. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I've replied here and here. faithless   (speak)  19:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I don't care if the section stays or not, when someone writes a hiding message that says such and such content shouldn't be added then I believe it should be brought up on the talk page first. I know how things work around here, I've been an active Wikipedian since March. Also you didn't answer this earlier question. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I've responded here. faithless   (speak)  19:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

After accusing me of vandalism, of making bad faith edits, and threatening me with unwarranted warning templates, I am somehow being uncivil. Simply stunning. faithless  (speak)  20:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Page Protect
Why don't you discuss Spells in Harry Potter's page protection on the talk page instead of the history? =] User: (talk • contribs • count ) 22:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)