User talk:Faithlessthewonderboy/Archive 21

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Larissa Kelly talk page

I have restored the thread you deleted from Talk:Larissa Kelly after a complaint to WP:EAR. While I agree that the thread started off as "topic chat" (and there would have been no problem if you had deleted immediately) it migrated to a discussion that ended with the article being edited (and reverted) and then the disagreement being discussed. That is certainly what talk pages are for and it is particularly innapropriate for you to delete as you had taken part in the thread yourself. I hope you don't take this the wrong way, I have no investment in the article and have only reacted to the post at EAR. SpinningSpark 19:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The fact that the thread wasn't deleted immediately is completely irrelevant. When the thread was posted, I was in an obliging mood, so I answered the poster's question, while letting him/her know that the discussion was inappropriate, and would soon be deleted. Yes, I could have deleted then and there, but I was being nice about it, as the poster was probably unaware that s/he was violating policy. Again, talk pages are not forums, and using them as such is a violation of Wikipedia policy. Some people may not be happy about that, but that also is completely irrelevant. Policy is policy. If you don't like it, you can try to have it changed, but you don't blatantly violate it. faithless (speak) 21:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
You seem to be misunderstanding a tad. I am not advocating that talk can be used as a forum, I am aware of the guidelines and would enforce them myself. I am certainly not trying to get policy changed. My point is that the thread actually ended up as a discussion of proposed, and then actual, edits to the article. There can be no doubt that this was proper use of talk pages. I felt it was especially important to leave the thread in place as the edits had become controversial and EAR was advising, as it always does, that disputing editors should try and resolve their conflicts on the talk page. It really does not help the situation to become resolved if the thread on the talk page we are pointing editors to has in the meantime been deleted. I am sorry you feel that I blatantly violate policy, I certainly don't intend to, nor do I feel I have. SpinningSpark 22:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
My use of "you" above was in reference to the generalized other, not you in particular. If you feel that the conversation had evolved into something worth-while, you should have restored that (as Croctotheface eventually did), not the entire thread. That discussion was really unrelated to the rest of it, and should have been placed under a new section heading (the IP who started the 'new' discussion was, I assume, unfamiliar with how to properly format talk pages). We probably both could have done better here, but I don't see any point in arguing it further. Best, faithless (speak) 23:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree, that's the right solution, the thread does neatly split in two. SpinningSpark 23:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Kutner

I saw that you edited the Lawrence Kutner page, please remove the statement about Neal Patrick Harris being the suspect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkebegley (talkcontribs) 00:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, I've fixed it. faithless (speak) 00:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Page protection

I just noticed you protected the page Lawrence Kutner. Definitely a good move. I have seen the kind of activity like what occured happen before, and I have considered introducing a new "current event" box, something like this, and would like your opinion:

What do you think? ~ PHDrillSergeant...§ 00:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I like it, but I think you'll run into a lot of opposition if you try to implement it. There are a lot of people who hate current event templates in any form. If you start a discussion somewhere to try to gain acceptance for it, let me know. faithless (speak) 00:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Please extend the protection to 24 hours. I appreciate your efforts but the show is going to air three more times tonight, at 10 EDT in Canada, 11 EDT in the Western US, and 1 AM EDT in Hawaii.--CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 01:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Gwen Gale beat me to it. faithless (speak) 01:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Lawrence_Kutner

It's untowards to wheel war through protection. First the ref tag, now this, along with an edit summary that edges towards personal attack. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? One edit does not a wheel war make. That ref tag was absurd, and there was nothing even close to a personal attack in that edit summary. (Besides, I've always liked you, and have no desire to attack you.) But a spade is a spade. faithless (speak) 21:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I was asked to put up those tags. The article is wholly unsourced, external links aren't citations. All I'm saying is, I wish you'd asked me about it first. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 21:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps I should have. I assure you, no offense was meant. But I'm confused - how can you say the article is wholly unsourced? Did you miss the "References" section? faithless (speak) 21:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
You added that yourself through the protection, a few hours after I locked the article, less than a day ago. No, I didn't see it, but the article is still mostly unsourced. Please understand I don't have any big worries about this and thanks for reading what I had to say. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

RFA thanks

My RFA passed today at 61/5/4. Thanks for participating in my RFA. I appreciate all the comments I received and will endeavor to justify the trust the WP community has placed in me. Have a nice day. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 20:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Chocolate.jpg

Your recent edit to Douglas Adams

When you undid that probably good faith edit, you should have added to the edit summary why you did so -- i.e. I don't think it was vandalism. I believe your revert was probably valid because the edit was unsourced; it just would have been better if you gave that information in the edit summary. Mark Hurd (talk) 04:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

You're right, I should have explained myself. My mistake. Best, faithless (speak) 05:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Your edit to Churchland High School

Churchland High School is located in the unincorporated town of Churchland, VA and is administered by PCPS. But it is not in Portsmouth! I'm also wondering why I got reported for a non-constructive edit when it is a sorta good idea to make sure the information on the page is correct? 75.110.67.118 (talk) 20:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

No. Churchland is an area of Portsmouth. It is simply a neighborhood, just like Park Manor, West Haven, Cradock, Olde Towne, etc. Churchland High School is located at 4301 Cedar Lane, Portsmouth, Virginia, 23703. faithless (speak) 23:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh, that's okay, "just a neighborhood." I only lived there! What would I know as a resident? Silly me! ...The reason why their address is a Portsmouth address is because Churchland doesn't have its own zip code as an unincorporated community! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.110.67.118 (talk) 22:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
It's address is in Portsmouth because Churchland is in Portsmouth! Sarcasm doesn't help make your point, especially when you are just flat-out wrong. faithless (speak) 22:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)