User talk:STS01

Archived Talk Pages: User talk:STS01/Archive1

Paul Finebaum
Any idea who this is that keeps adding this same material to Finebaum's article? We could actually keep some of it if there were sourced cited, but there aren't. Realkyhick 18:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Can we see about semi-protection? This is getting a little ridiculous. Realkyhick 15:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I already tried. There wasn't enough vandalism to merit protection. Just keep reverting those IP edits. I'll try again if it continues. --STS01 22:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I put back the mentions of Finebaum's stint with WIAT and the Tommy Charles book, because they are relevant. The book is sourced by its ISBN number. I know the stuff about the TV reports from his radio studio isn't suorced, but I'm workign on getting it somehow — and I know this part is valid, because I actually sat in the studio while he did one of them. (I was serving as chauffer for Gene Stallings one day when he was speaking at a fund-raising banquet I was a part of, and we booked him on Paul's show that day). Realkyhick 19:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected
That should at least cause things to slow down, for you STS. SirFozzie 14:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

We have a problem
OK, I can perhaps understand deleting the stuff about Finebaum doing TV sports reports from his radio studio, since I don't have a source to cite for that. But the Tommy Charles book does exist — an ISBN number is assigned, and links to the book do work. It is relevant to Finebaum, his show and his career. This is beginning to appear personal. What's your reasoning? Realkyhick 15:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The Tommy Charles book is not one of Finebaums publication. The other items that I removed are not relevant. Not personal. http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/button_sig.png Your signature with timestamp

Edit summaries
It is just as unfair for you to call the removal of cited information a "correction" as it is for the anonymous editor to call your edits "vandalism". If you have a helpful opinion about the validity of the Langham and Bowden stories as part of the article, then bring it up on the discussion page. Otherwise it looks like you're applying a POV. --Dystopos 14:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Check the other edits from the IP user. IMO the information I removed is not worth of inclusion. It's just Alabama and Auburn football fans using this article to diss one another. --STS01 17:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Deleting accurate, cited information contributed in good faith is inappropriate. If you feel something is not worthy of inclusion, you should make the effort to reach consensus with other editors. --Dystopos 20:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Please assume good faith among fellow editors. --STS01 20:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That is precisely why deleting accurate, cited content is inappropriate. I'm sure you did act in good faith, but to trample on the contributions of others falls short of extending them the same courtesy. It is not inappropriate because it's vandalism - it's inappropriate because it undermines the role of consensus. --Dystopos 21:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * NERD ALERT! - jeez dude lighten up & get a life. Time to move on.

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)