User talk:Skeezix1000/Archives/2007/July

Tim Hortons
Hi, please see WP:OWN. You reverted the last edit apparently without even considering what the actual content of the edit was. I don't know how to persuade you to recognize that having a footnote two words into an article, to a piece of trivia, is non-sequitur. Do you have some actual objection to the statement being elsewhere in the article? Is there some reason it must be a footnote? Really at a loss for words here... Justen 20:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I am well aware of WP:OWN.  Personally, I do not typically believe that anyone that disagrees with me is guilty of offending WP:OWN, but it seems you have a different view.  To each their own. I was well aware of the content of your previous edit.  I simply disagreed with it, as all of the concerns you had raised could be dealt with through a fact tag.  You claim the content is trivia, but then you have edited the article (twice) to elevate it to its own paragraph in the introductory section of the article.  Whereas I believe it is valuable content, I don't share your apparent view that it needs to be more prominent, with its own paragraph (in the introduction no less). I believe that footnotes are very well suited to this type of content, and specifically for this situation.  It isn't isn't that it "must" be a footnote, as you put it, but rather that it is a far preferable treatment than your two solutions (first, to delete the content entirely, or your second solution to add it to the article introduction).  It is a snippet of information that would fit awkwardly elsewhere in the article, and it really relates best to the company name, which is introduced in the lead paragraph and the infobox (really, the footnote could go in either place). You say "Really at a loss for words here... ", but that's really unfair.  You have not pointed to any policy, guideline or precedent which would suggest that the use of a footnote here is inappropriate, so I am unsure as to why you are so perplexed that someone might actually have the temerity to disagree with you.  In fact, Wikipedia guidelines suggest that this is an appropriate use of a footnote. WP:FOOT states: "Footnotes are sometimes useful for relevant text that would distract from the main point if embedded in the main text, yet are helpful in explaining a point in greater detail. Footnotes are also often used to cite references that are relevant to a text." You disagree with the use of the footnote.  Fine.  But since it has been in the article for some time (it wasn't me who added it), another editor disagrees with your edit and you have no policy or guideline that suggests the use of the footnote is inappropriate, WP:CON suggests that your next step is to seek consensus for the change on the talk page.  If other editors agree with you, great - make the change.  But in the meantime, please refrain from suggesting that anyone who disagrees with you must have a nut loose. Skeezix1000 20:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't believe you "must have a nut loose," and I don't believe I ever insinuated that. I do, however, believe that you pretty clearly feel as if you own the article, made clear by your repeated reverts of a formatting edit, and edit that endured, without revert, for weeks while you were away.  Many company articles have "trivia" relating to the styling of their name, and it is appropriate for that to be in the body of the article, not as a footnote.  Please take a step back for a minute, and remember that you do not own the article.  Justen 22:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You need to read WP:OWN, because you appear not to understand its purpose or intent. It isn't intended to browbeat other editors who disagree with your views. It is particularly ironic that you seem intent on making this accusation against another editor, when you are the one who is insisting on a change to the article, despite having no policies or guidelines in supoport of that change (in fact, the one guideline that has been raises suggests the opposite), and you seem to have little regard for the comments I have made.  The last thing I will say in response to WP:OWN is "people who live in glass houses...". You need to step back, understand that other editors can have valid reasons for disagreeing with you, and focus your comments on the content, rather than on baseless accusations of misconduct.  I would be happy to discuss this with you once you are able to engage in a discussion on the merits, rather than throwing around warnings and other nonsense. Skeezix1000 11:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)