User talk:Faithlessthewonderboy/Archive 28

Crowded Sky

The topic of Crowded Sky was only just begun, due to a computer crash it was not able to be finished, and I would like the opportunity to complete it. If you'd be kind enough to include a short list of what is required and I'll make sure to meet those standards. Thank You Oronius (talk) 23:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Your band fails to meet Wikipedia's notability standards. Best, faithless (^speak) 23:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

J10 Church

I'm still not sure why you deleted the article J10 Church. It was not added for marketing or advertising purposes. It was added because of the notoriety of the organization. I've read over all the documents and I believe this article should be allowed. I have seen many similar articles that have not been deleted. Is there something that was explicitly wrong or anything that would increase it's notability? Mattsaffer (talk) 00:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Your church does no appear to meet Wikipedia's notability standards, and the article appeared to be aimed at raising awareness of the church. Furthermore, you noted in the article that you were recently hired by the church as "a Connections Guy;" while I'm not entirely sure what being a Connections Guy entails, it certainly seems to be something to do with PR/advertising. Best, faithless (^speak) 23:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Brenden Adams

Please add the article of Brenden Adams.

Brenden Adams born: September 20, 1995 height: 7'4.6" location: Ellensburg, WA, USA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.210.152.57 (talk) 06:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't understand this at all. faithless (^speak) 23:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

WT:FOOTBALL

Hello Faithless, could I possibly get your input here? Much appreciated, GlassCobra 20:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey Cobra, sorry for the delayed response. I did have a look at the link the day you posted this; unfortunately this was just well outside of my area of knowledge, so I don't think I would have been able to add anything helpful to the discourse. I hope the responses you received cleared up the situation. Best, faithless (^speak) 23:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Carl Goldstein

This page was deleted in haste. The wording included in the Wiki page as well as the wording on the IMDB website were created directly by Carl Goldstein. There is no copyright infringement. When creating the page on 11/14, Carl Goldstein was present and approved all wording in the Wiki. Please reinstate the page so that we can accurately have a page that is directed to him when someone clicks on a movie, TV, or commercial that his name is associated with, they can learn more about the director. pdd3517 71.106.86.249 (talk) 00:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Aside from being a copyright violation, the article also had notability issues. Best, faithless (^speak) 23:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

joseph ducreux meme

Here's my argument for retaining the information: The meme is fairly notable as indicated by previous references and its current status on digg. Appearing to be "minor, forced" is a matter of opinion. Seeing as it about the painter and the image of the famous painting resides on his page, it at least warrants a mention. Perhaps a compromise would be to have a separate article just for the painting, but I don't think there is enough information out there to justify its creation. Jb 007clone (talk) 07:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Appearing on holytaco.com or knowyourmeme.com does not confirm notability. An internet meme that doesn't even have an Encyclopedia Dramatica entry automatically raises suspicions. To that point, I can't find any mention of this supposed meme more than a few days old. Just because someone makes something up and puts it out there does not mean it warrants encyclopedic coverage. Best, faithless (^speak) 18:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I guess it all hinges on that definition of "notability". It would seem that if it is not in the print version of The New York Times or The Wall Street Journal, then I guess it's not relevant. Encyclopedia Dramatica is a peculiar litmus test. It's only 4 years old and also user-edited, can that be considered a "reliable source"? I wonder. Also, just curious, how many days old does a meme have to be to warrant inclusion? Cheers, Jb 007clone (talk) 20:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, it hinges entirely on one's definition of notability; on Wikipedia, there is a guideline for just that purpose (that is, determining a subject's notability). In short, something is notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources. The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal are two excellent examples of reliable sources, though they are certainly not the only ones. I did not mean to suggest that Encyclopedia Dramatica is a reliable source - it most certainly is not. The reason I brought it up is that ED is a very popular wiki whose sole purpose is to document internet memes. Therefore, one would expect that any meme of any importance whatsoever would be covered therein; however, this is not the case. As far as I can tell, the "Ducreux meme" was simply made up a few days ago by the writer of the article at holytaco.com. It has not been covered by any reliable sources, and quite frankly it doesn't appear to even be a meme. It's just an article published by a minor humor website. Best, faithless (^speak) 21:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit war on Tim Kaine

Hi. You appear to be one of several editors involved in an edit war at Tim Kaine. From reviewing the edits and edit summaries the dispute appears to relate to the inclusion of a signature of a United States Govenor. The facts of the case as I see them are:

• User:Themoodyblue wishes to remove the signature on the grounds that the subject has objected and inclusion is allegedly against local law.
• User:Faithlessthewonderboy and User:Warrior4321 wish to restore the signature on the grounds that the legal objections have not been properly explained and that Wikipedia should not be censored.

I am not sufficiently qualified to make a judgement either way, but I urge both sides to resolve the dispute through discussion on talk pages. As the subject has objected to inclusion of information you may wish to ask for advice at the BLP noticeboard to determine if that alone is sufficient grounds for excluding a signature (if advice has already been provided on this matter then please make the other parties aware). If you are still unable to reach agreement after seeking third-party advice then I would urge you to consider formal or informal dispute resolution.
Finally, I should warn you that further edit warring may result in a temporary block of editing privileges for one or more parties. Please see WP:3RR for more information. Regards. Road Wizard (talk) 21:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi again. I noticed that you made another reversion despite my request above, which has taken you to 2 reversions in 24 hours. In case you are unaware the three revert rule can also be broken by having an extended edit war over a period of time. So far you have restored the signature 9 times in the past 12 days. I know that you have made attempts to resolve the dispute by posting on the other user's talk page and asking for assistance at WikiProject Biography, but further reversions will only help to inflame the situation.

One side or the other needs to back off temporarily to allow the atmosphere to cool enough for constructive dialogue to take place. As an experienced administrator I hope that you will be willing to make the first gesture in resolving this dispute.

However, if you continue to revert I will have to report the matter on the Edit warring noticeboard. Regards. Road Wizard (talk) 00:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Road Wizard. First, let me apologize: I never noticed your message. As you can see below, another editor left a message just three minutes after you, and when I saw the "new messages" banner, I went straight to the bottom of the page. Second, I'd like to thank you for trying to help diffuse the situation. As you have noted, I have attempted to engage the user in a discussion to come to an amicable solution. When this failed, I asked for an impartial party to become involved. Warrior4321 attempted to engage the editor, but his attempts were equally ineffective. The fact is that Themoodyblue is removing relevant content from an article which is found on every comparable article; he has been asked to defend his edits, and has not been able to. This is not a content dispute; Themoodyblue is simply vandalizing at this point. I have attempted to "back off," I have sought the input of other editors, and I have attempted to engage Themoodyblue in a discussion. I obviously wouldn't block Themoodyblue myself, but if this continues, I will take it to AIV myself. Best, faithless (^speak) 01:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

THIS IS A SHAKEDOWN! page

Hello,

I was trying to create a page for THIS IS A SHAKEDOWN! I hit publish instead of preview and kept trying to publish the page, I wasn't done editing - I have an article and I also have sources. Please unblock their page "THIS IS A SHAKEDOWN!" I didn't understand the editing process. I have e-mail the other admins as well.

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maddielynn (talk • contribs) 21:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)