User talk:Faithlessthewonderboy/Archive 4

JKR
Your addition was really good, but it really only belongs in Legal disputes..., so I've removed it from the main page. Personally I'm not that keen on including any legal disputes in the main JKR page, because it encourages people to add every legal dispute Rowling has ever engaged in, but an FA reviewer demanded that the Stouffer case be included, so there it is.  Serendi pod ous  07:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * My response is here. faithless   (speak)  08:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The streets
This wasn't a test, it was a serious edit. Why on earth have you reverted it? 213.235.24.138 11:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

As previously stated, this is an entirely serious edit. Please do not revert it in future without good reason. Please do not leave "cut and paste" messages on my talk page(s) (I have three - they all refer to each other, not for the purposes of "sock puppetry") - I am an experienced wikipedian. If you continue to revert my edits on that page, I will report you for vandalism. Please consider this your first warning. 82.0.206.215 (talk) 23:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Ridiculous. Here is my reply. faithless   (speak)  00:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

You demand that I don't "threaten" you (It's not a threat - it's a reality), then threaten me yourself? I suggest that you consider such contradictions in future. It's not even as if I am being pedantic - your demand and threat were in the same paragraph.

My edits are "not encyclopedic"? Would you care to define "encyclopedic"? Would you care to state the wiki policy that I have breached? I suggest that you can't. The fact is that "tender" is a proper and correct word to use here. M-W definition 1 and 2 of the word:

1 a: having a soft or yielding texture : easily broken, cut, or damaged : delicate, fragile b: easily chewed : succulent 2 a: physically weak : not able to endure hardship b: immature, young c: incapable of resisting cold : not hardy

Can you tell me of a child of 5 who does not conform to either definition of "tender"? Does this word add "POV"? Is it original research? (in fact, the whole sentence appears to be original research) Why are you inflicting your inherent biases against  the word tender on this article?

You ask me to invite for "consensus", yet tell me that the word will continue to be removed. I ask you if you truly understand the meaning of the word "consensus" - it is not something that YOU can implement. It is the opinion (after revision, following due thought) and discussion of those who have a stated interest in whatever is being agreed upon. Consensus is not what YOU decide. I am already struggling to assume good faith, given your apparent decision to continue to revert my edit.

Why would I "step down and consider what I am doing"? I have done just that, after the last time I made this edit and you put a "cut and paste" message on my page. I have considered it for quite some time (22 days) Perhaps you should consider it for at least that long before commenting on (or editing) this article again.

I see no reason why I should take it to the talk page. Wiki policies state that this is the job of the "reverter" (as per the whole "edit, revert, discuss" suggestion). I have tried to discuss it with you, and you have then had one of your "sock-puppets" remove it (sorry, I can no longer "assume good faith", not after you have "decided" what consensus on this page should be...) - it is up to you to discuss the removal of this word, and of course I will respect the final consensus....

You state that I will be blocked - well I state that this is your second warning - DO NOT revert (or have one of your sock puppets revert) my edit again, for you will be stepping closer to breaching the "three revert rule" and I will also report it as vandalism very soon.

If you wish to call my edits "ridiculous" in future, I suggest that you back up your statements with policy. In fact, I suggest that you get a citation for that whole statement, or otherwise remove it (though if you do remove it, I may be forced to consider the validity, and other appropriate adjectives, for the rest of the article)

Please respond or start a discussion on the talk page before reveting again. 82.0.206.215 (talk) 01:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This is pathetic. I would remove your empty threats as I don't appreciate being accused of vandalism by a sockpuppeting vandal, but that might lend some credibility to your charges. I'll leave it so that others can have a laugh. Here is my response. faithless   (speak)  01:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The Quiz
You might be interested in this --andreasegde 15:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Club penquin
You put this up for speedy delete because of spam; that was fine, I just went ahead and redirected it to Club Penguin. jj137 ( Talk ) 20:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I see what you mean. I knew it was spam, but I realized it would have at least a little good being a redirect instead of being deleted all together.   jj137  ( Talk ) 20:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

 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.

Liz Phair
Liz is NOT working on a new album. They're no actual sources for this claim whatsoever and they're are tons of spelling errors in the version you reverted to. Shouldn't gossip and speculation be left off an encyclopedic article? --stratford 18:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia truly neutral?
Think about it.

For example, in the Patrick Star page, it calls Patrick "stupid". Now, how can someone call someone else stupid and then say he/she is neutral?

And there are several other pages where Wikipedia calls someone dumb, dimwitted or stupid. That is NOT neutral, in the least.

Also, in the page for Becky of Sin City, Wikipedia calls her a traitor and a coward. Becky is cute, nice, lovable and adorable, and I won't stand ANYONE insulting her.

Besides, there are some issues where you just can't be neutral. Like the recent Iraq War, for example. Bush supporters would tell you that there really are weapons of mass destruction, that they really want to free the Middle East and that oil had nothing to do with it. But the cold, hard truth is that the soldirers in Iraq muder innocent women and children each passing day, the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay are tortured and humiliated, and that all of this carnage is just an excuse to steal their precious oil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agustinaldo (talk • contribs) 14:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Another RfA Spaming
 Thank you for constructive criticism in my recent RFA which did not pass at (18/27/10). I will be sure to improve my editing skills and wait until someone nominates me next time. Thank you for you comments! Tiptoety 00:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Belle & Sebastian
Speaking for Wikproject Alternative Music, I want to say you've done a good job on the Belle & Sebastian article. One thing you need to do to the article right now is list the publishers and publication dates for the website references you've used. For example, if you are citing Pitchfork, your footnoote should look something like this: "Doe, John. "Belle & Sebastian Are Awesome." (24 October 2007). Pitchfork.com. Retrieved on 8 November 2007". Look at some FA articles like The Smashing Pumpkins, "Smells Like Teen Spirit", and Stereolab for example on how to do this. WesleyDodds 02:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey there! I just read over the article for the first time and it looks really good. The one major thing I'd say it needs though is a section on the band's musical (and maybe lyrical) style. I'd also recommend removing the red links to authors' names in footnotes. Good luck with it. --Brandt Luke Zorn 03:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd keep links to the publisher intact (unless they're also red), but most writers are more often too minor to have an article of their own anyway. --Brandt Luke Zorn 04:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows
D'oh! Pardon, faithless. Funny, I made that same mistake for another article quite some time ago, you'd think I'd have remembered from the first time someone told me to read the dang WP:article instead of scanning for a template. Haven't been around lately, but it's no excuse for the lame (yet happily easily-fixed) mistake. Thanks for reminding me! Durty Willy 04:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Lisa Simpson
Keep an eye on the page and that forum. I have a feeling that the user will report this there and then we'll get to deal with meatpuppets. -- Scorpion0422 06:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Help
I know you fixed my signature so it is how it is now..i was wondering if you knew how to put words on my page, specifically "Happy Thanksgiving" under the turkey I have, centered, but in bigger font, than the standard size? Thanks,  C t j f 8 3  22:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * another user told me about the tag, but that isn't working for me  C t j f 8 3  23:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * yes, thank you! you're awesome!!  C t j f 8 3  23:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You're quite welcome. :) faithless   (speak)  23:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * since you're so good at this kinda stuff....can you fix my user page so that all the userboxes are on the right side of the screen, like yours? Thanks!  C t j f 8 3  21:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

You know you're the man! lol  C t j f 8 3  00:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

hey there, mister awesome!
I just finished filing a sock puppet report here. could you check it out and tell me if I cocked it up? - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  05:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Durmstrang
Thanks, your sources are much better—--Pointillist (talk) 12:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit to Daniel Radcliffe
Hey, your comment for your recent revert in Daniel Radcliffe said that the edits which you reverted were identified as vandalism. I was about to revert it myself, and I think the edits done by the IP were done in good faith, because they had put another picture in its place which would have done the job, but the picture before it was better. I noticed you use TW, and I don't know anything about TW, but I thought I'd let you know, in case there's a way to improve your use of TW. Anakinjmt (talk) 02:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * So, apparently, the IP IS vandalizing, because I just reverted 5 edits of his at the Daniel Radcliffe article. I've left him a Level 2 warning. Anakinjmt (talk) 02:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Adbusters
Thank you for sourcing the article. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 10:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * laugh* Yes, it is. It was pretty much worthless before you stepped in though. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 10:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Andrew Hatch
An article that you have been involved in editing, Andrew Hatch, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you. Phydend (talk) 20:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I would just like to Say that while I understand where you are comming from with your speedy deletion of Connections Church, that just because you are "faithlesswonderboy" doesn't mean everything that talks about faith from a neutral or even a positive perspective is incorrect. If we write an article about Mother Theresa we are going to talk in a positive light about the good she's done. In the inernational community of people I know, this organization has done great humanitarian works, and deserves to be noted just as much. You were hasty to delete a page that was stil being edited, it was barely up for a few hours. I knew citations and more had to be added, but give it some time.

Afterall I hate harry potter, but you don't see me speedy deleting every positive edit you make. The page is up again, and I finished some of the citations, and have am including links of all of the other churches who have wikipages. If harry potter can have a wiki page so can a church, that's a true FREE encylopedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Impact2d (talk • contribs) 10:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion
I would just like to Say that while I understand where you are comming from with your speedy deletion of Connections Church, that just because you are "faithlesswonderboy" doesn't mean everything that talks about faith from a neutral or even a positive perspective is incorrect. If we write an article about Mother Theresa we are going to talk in a positive light about the good she's done. In the inernational community of people I know, this organization has done great humanitarian works, and deserves to be noted just as much. You were hasty to delete a page that was stil being edited, it was barely up for a few hours. I knew citations and more had to be added, but give it some time.

Afterall I hate harry potter, but you don't see me speedy deleting every positive edit you make. The page is up again, and I finished some of the citations, and have am including links of all of the other churches who have wikipages. If harry potter can have a wiki page so can a church, that's a true FREE encylopedia! impact2d