User talk:Skarl the Drummer/Archive 1

good eye
Hey thanks for bringing that to my attention I think I was reverting vandalism too long, ill try to be more care full next time, Im not used to IP addresses reverting vandalism, thats my bad totally, thanks again for pointing that out. --Zaharous (talk) 02:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

By the way it looks like your new to Wikipedia if there is anything I can help you with please feel free to contact me it took me quite a while to learn some of the "hidden WikiFeatures" it has. --Zaharous (talk) 02:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. -- Skarl 09:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Re:Barnstar
Thanks a lot for your appreciation!! LeaveSleaves talk 13:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem. -- Skarl 13:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Millay stub
It's not extraneous, leave it alone, please. -- Davidkevin (talk) 18:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's unncessary. By definition, a Missouri politician is going to be a US politician. -- Skarl 18:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * They are not identical categories. One can look for only Missouri politicians and not find her because you've erased her from the category.  Not Acceptable.  -- Davidkevin (talk) 18:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What on earth are you talking about? She's in Category:Missouri politicians. -- Skarl 18:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * What part of she lives in Missouri and is therefore a "Missouri politician", a separately defined category from "United States politicians", are you incapable of understanding? -- Davidkevin (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Category:Missouri politicians is a subcategory of Category:American politicians (well, by one remove). It isn't usual to insist on both. See Categorization. -- Skarl 19:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Nor is it over-categorization. This refusal to properly list a minor-party politician is typical POV mistreatment of minor parties and minority viewpoints. -- Davidkevin (talk) 19:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Dude, I'm British. I have no POV on US parties. -- Skarl 19:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Then I could say, "Mind your own business."


 * As it happens, I created the original article, and have carefully improved it several times. Your accusation of "bad faith" is itself bad faith, gamesmanship, not legitimate.  If anyone is guilty of bad faith, it's you.  You're degrading the article by removing relevant information, not improving it.  -- Davidkevin (talk) 19:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You've attempted to characterise my edits as "vandalism" purely because you disagreed with them. And now you complain of my lack of good faith. That's rich. -- Skarl 19:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * They are possibly vandalism because you are disruptively insisting upon your deletions and the degradation of the article even after it's been stated how it's been degraded. Yes, you do appear, to me, to lack good faith beyond the point where it should be assumed.  -- Davidkevin (talk) 20:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * And you appear, to me, to lack an understanding of categorisation. Which, really, is the whole point here.  You don't know what you're doing. -- Skarl 20:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)