User talk:Faithlessthewonderboy/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Brian McBride

Let me just say first that I am truly shocked that a user with a long edit history such as yours would become hostile at a user requesting strong sources on the project. That being said, surely as an administrator you understand the need for sources and properly citing material that could be controversial or challenged. Surely you also understand that citing a piece of information with a news article that says nothing about what needs cited, is wrong. Surely you also understand that using the same article, printed in two different places, and making it appear as though you have provided two separate sources, is also wrong. Neither source you presented specifically said that McBride had been named captain, not matter what terminology you might think is analogous with "captain." Skipper may mean leader, a team leader is not always captain (see Paul Scholes or Ryan Giggs). Secondly, skipper is not always used to mean captain. Your sources, quite simply, were poor, and your hostility when challenged was quite immature and wholly unwarranted. If you feel that a user challenging the validity and strength of a source is "wasting everyone's time," then perhaps you shouldn't be editing wikipedia. If you feel that a user requesting only that sources used to cite information in an article ACTUALLY cite what they're purported to cite is "wasting everone's time," then again, perhaps you shouldn't edit. I do apologize that your feathers got ruffled by me requesting that sources meet a higher standard than what you felt they should meet, such is life when many users are contributing to one project. 98.220.177.162 (talk) 00:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

You come across as an intelligent person, which makes your behavior particularly irksome. Here are the facts: you came across an assertion (which, let's not forget, was absolutely correct), and because you didn't know it to be a fact, you removed it (with the rather smarmy edit summary of " find a source that says he's captain"). You didn't initiate a discussion on the talk page, you didn't place a {{fact}} tag, and you certainly didn't do a five minute Google News search to find a source. You just removed it. So I went and did your work for you, found sources and reinserted the information. You then began an edit war, with more condescending edit summaries ("Keep lookin", and shouting using all caps). So I went and found another source that not even you could possibly object to, and you still wouldn't let it go, using the edit summary of your next edit as a platform to spout further nonsense. So basically, you removed correct information because you weren't willing to look for a source (or even ask for one), then you have the gall to suggest that I am somehow in the wrong for improving the article rather than deleting out of my own ignorance, as you did? That is absolutely laughable. If you're interested in improving the encyclopedia, that would be great. You certainly seem to possess the intelligence to do so. But deleting every unsourced assertion, no matter how innocuous, is not a constructive. I consider the matter closed. faithless (^speak) 01:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Quite wrong, you used the same article, two times, to source a bit of information that wasn't covered in the article. Nowhere in that article did it state that McBride was the captain of the Olympic team, yet you tried to imply that it did. Again, as an Admin, I should think you'd want to see references that actually source the information that you're saying it does. I fail to see how requiring that a source actually cover information it's being used to show...is "wasting everyone's time." If you cannot see the fundamental point in that, perhaps you shouldn't be an admin. 98.220.177.162 (talk) 21:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Sigh...first, they are not the same article. Second, "McBRIDE SKIPPERS AMERICAN SIDE" says it all. You acted inappropriately, and you continue to do so. You were wrong, I proved you wrong, and now you continue to whine about it even after I told you I consider the matter closed. Take your insults and arguments elsewhere, I'm not interested. faithless (^speak) 21:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Wrong, they are the same article, and "McBride SKIPPERS AMERICAN SIDE" does not say "McBride to Captain American Side" now does it? No, i'm quite sure it doesn't. As I mentioned previously, "skipper" has any number of meaning, and without a source specifically saying that he was "captain" and using that key word, anything else was original research. I am not acting inappropriately, you were by using non-existant text in a source to cite a piece of information. You didn't prove anyone wrong, I never said McBride wasn't captain, I merely pushed you to provide a source which actually said what you were trying to make the others look like they said. I don't care if YOU consider the matter closed, my discussion on a topic doesn't end at your whim or say so.98.220.177.162 (talk) 21:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Clearly you did not even read the two articles if you think they are the same. They are indeed very similar, probably culled from the same wire service report, but they are not the same. 'Skipper' as used in the article means captain - anyone with even a passing knowledge of sports would recognize this. To argue otherwise shows either complete ignorance or petty argumentativeness. For the third and final time, this discussion is closed. Some of us actually enjoy contributing constructively to the encyclopedia rather than engaging in squabbles with IPs over dead issues. You were wrong - move on. faithless (^speak) 21:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

thankspam

Thanks to everyone who participated in my RfA, regardless of their !vote. I have withdrawn the nomination as a failure at 19 supports, 45 opposes, and 9 neutral statements. As has been written and sung, you can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you get what you need — and what I need is to go back to working on our shared project. Not everyone has to be an admin; there is a role for each of us. After reflection, I feel I don't have the temperament to secure community consensus as an admin at any point, and I will not be applying again in the future — and hey, that's all right, 'cause I stay true to the philosophy that adminship is no big deal: I tried, I failed, and now I'll return to doing what I've always done. I have an extremely strong belief in the consensus process, and the consensus was clear. I will be devoting my energies to volunteering at MedCab and working up a complete series of articles on the short stories of Ernest Hemingway, among lord knows what else. Thanks again to everyone who spared the time to weigh in on this one. It was made in better faith than it probably seemed. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 14:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the consideration at RfA. I had missed the original Ali'i RfA you referred to in your comment, I believe. Anyway, I did intend this as an earnest RfA, but I think it had too little chance of passing to be interpreted as such. I have a weird way of doing things generally, which can't have helped. Anyway, I've decided that I want to serve the project in other ways, and I look forward to working w/ you in the future in those capacities. Cheers! Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 14:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The Streets

Why did you revert my edit to the Streets article? I fail to see how it was vandalism. As for being back, I have no idea what you're talking about. I am simply a legit editor who felt the article could benefit from the addition of the word "tender".--The Tender Man (talk) 11:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

So it's just a coincidence that about eight - ten months ago there was a vandal who tried his best to be as annoying as possible by adding the same unnecessary and inappropriate word you did to the article, then recruited his little friends to do the same once he was blocked (even going so far as to create a Facebook group encouraging people to vandalize Wikipedia), and here you are doing the same thing? You can't honestly expect that to fly. Protip: when creating a single-purpose account, don't make it so obvious. faithless (^speak) 12:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes --The Tender Man (talk) 13:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

71.116.96.92

Thanks for that. It's a bit of a shame - I was trying to assume good faith (look how long I waited before giving him that final warning), and help him to make his changes a bit more POV, and telling him to include citations, but he couldn't it seems. Also, he is possibly on a dynamic IP. While it probably won't change in the next 24 hours, should it be treated as a "new user", or should I carry warnings over onto any new IP it moves on to? (The original edits from just over a week ago were here, under 75.49.248.24).
Once again, thanks for taking care of that. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 09:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem at all. I also put off taking any earlier action since you were obviously trying to work with him, but once I saw the repeated personal attacks he was making, something had to be done. Generally speaking, when I deal with a dynamic IP/sockpuppet/what-have-you, I'm somewhere in the middle of what you described. For example, if a user is blocked after the customary four warnings, then a new user comes along that I'm 99.999% positive is the same as the blocked user, I will be much less lenient (by, say, giving only one or two warnings before blocking, depending on the severity of the infraction, of course). Since this user is inserting unsourced negative information into a BLP, he ought to be kept on a relatively short leash. Hope that helped - I'm here if you need anything else. faithless (^speak) 10:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Talking to either you or dreaded is clearly harrasment, so I guess I'm going to be blocked for writing this. But, actually looking at the posts and the harrasment that dreaded was causing to me has led me to the fact that you are buddies. hence dont mess with people who abuse their powers. In the future, for new users I invite you to contact them, and not abuse your blocking powers with non justified reasons. Dreaded says that he was trying to work with me when it was I who was trying to clearly work with him. Final warning was givin while I was trying to work with him. As you can see I cut out what he said he didnt like, and the other information was from the articles that were on the cite. I dont understand how you see him "trying to work with me" thats porposterous. I even made first contact. Repeated personal attacks as well?. True I called him something out of fustration and I apoligized for it. Thats not repeated personal attack. Unless calling him a fan is an attack. Which its not, and he admits that he is. Again the information is sourced. I invite you to read the articles on the site. I am also under the opinion that your block came swiftly and without means because you think I'm not a new user. I am and unfamiliar with wikipedia otherwise I would of got an administrator to really deal with this problem instead of dealing with the harrasment. As I mentioned to Dreaded I invite you to look up inclevity, harrasment, and wikipedia's 5 pillars. So you usually give 4 warnings before blocking someone? YOU GAVE ME NONE. Honestly in the future I invite you to contact the user and give the warnings, not to come to the aid of a buddy, to protect him and abuse your powers. If you still feel that I was harrasing dreaded and the block was worthy. Know that I have shown the argument to different people and they dont see it as harrasing on my end. I'll admit I've been known to be sarcastic in my wording. However that isnt harrassing. Remember the internet is world wide and communication is different from your own backyard. It is very easy to pull something out of context if you want to. Some of the worlds greatest writings can mean many different things. It all depends on how someone reads it. FYI I know stuff on here is spelled incorrectly, I don't really care. You can still read it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.49.248.24 (talk) 16:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Why is it that whenever an IP is blocked they think that they're is some vast conspiracy against them? I've never spoken with Dreaded before or since this incident. Take a look at our edit histories. After I blocked you, you requested an unblock three (!) times, and all three requests were declined. There is nothing else to say. You were grossly uncivil, and received a block for it. Move on. faithless (^speak) 22:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

the The

Yes folks, it’s the The time again. You might like to add your opinion (whatever it may be) on this page.--andreasegde (talk) 14:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Turn that frown upside-down

(Not that you're frowning...I just needed a catchy title.)

If I hadn't mentioned it yet, thank you for helping with userfying those couple articles.

I may come to you with others in the future, if you wouldn't mind.

I appreciate you work here.

VengeancePrime has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Vengeance is mine, saith the Prime  ^{14:49, 10 Aug 2008 (UTC)}
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

WikiProject San Francisco Bay Area roll call

Hello from WikiProject San Francisco Bay Area!

As part of a recent update to our project main page we are conducting a roll call to check which members are still active and interested in working on bay area related content. If you are still interested in participating, simply move your username from the inactive section of the participant list to the active section. I hope you will find the redesigned project pages helpful, and I wanted to welcome you back to the project. If you want you can take a look at the newly redesigned:

• Main Page
  
• Talk page
  
• Cleanup listing
  
• Template list
  

As well as the existing pages:

• Assessment
  
• Article Worklist
  
• Watchlist
  
• Deletion sorting (California)
  

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at the project talk page, and add it to your watchlist, if it isn't already.

Again, hi!  -Optigan13 (talk) 07:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

RE: Stop

I'm not playing at anything. i was told that wikipedia does not Host copyrighted images and therefore i am removing them. there is no game, but rules are put in place for a reason and if 1 person has to follow them, everyone does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmett-Rosalie-Cullen (talk • contribs) 03:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're playing at, but stop removing images from Harry Potter-related articles. faithless (speak) 02:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not playing at anything. i was told that wikipedia does not Host copyrighted images and therefore i am removing them. there is no game, but rules are put in place for a reason and if 1 person has to follow them, everyone does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmett-Rosalie-Cullen (talk • contribs) 03:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's image policy. Copyrighted images are acceptable if accompanied by an acceptable fair use rationale and used appropriately. faithless (speak) 03:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, i already have sweety. see, i did exactly that i provided everything i needed, and they said that it was still copyrighted and that they were deleting it. 2 people doing the exact same thing and only 1 person gets in trouble for it, that's not right. sry, but rules are rules.

Again, Please Stop

If you continue to remove images from articles, you will be blocked from editing. If you have a specific question, I will help you. Or you could go to the help desk or the village pump. But if you continue removing images, you will be blocked. faithless (speak) 03:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

What questions would i have? i tried to add images to some articles and i did EXACTLY as i was supposed to, i provided all the information and yet my images were still deleted, saying that they were copyrighted images? so what questions would i have except 1. Why is it my images were deleted, and yet other people can post copyrighted images and them NOT get deleted. if you can answer this for me, i'd really appreciate it--Emmett-Rosalie-Cullen (talk) 03:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Did you upload the image to Commons? If so, it would have been deleted, as Commons is for free content only. To upload a copyrighted image, you must upload it directly to Wikipedia. faithless (speak) 03:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I already tried to upload it directly to here. but everytime i click upload file, it says about me logging in, When i am already, and then it suggest i create an account at the commons, which i did. i upload files there and it gets deleted. and it won't let me upload here. if you can fix this problem where i can upload images for articles WITHOUT them being deleted, than i'd say we'd have no problem. but it just seems to me that i'm the only 1 here that can't contribute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmett-Rosalie-Cullen (talk • contribs) 03:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

There are several images i would like to use. I was trying to update harry and ginny's profile pics with an OOTP head shot. got it from the Harry and Ginny network and i got their permission to use it. A couple other pictures i would like to upload are Rosalie, Emmett, Alice, Jasper, Carlisle, Bella, Edward, and Esme from Twilight. I got them from another site. BellaandEdward.com and i got permission to use them as well.--Emmett-Rosalie-Cullen (talk) 04:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Are these pictures of the actual actors portraying the characters? If so, it is highly unlikely that the fansites you mentioned own them, and therefore wouldn't be able to grant you permission to use them. If they aren't, and they're fan art or something along those lines, they are inappropriate for Wikipedia. As far as Harry and Ginny go, those articles already contain copyrighted images, so there really is no reason to add more.

It also looks like the articles for most of the Twilight characters will soon be merged into a "list" article. There is a guideline (which I vehemently oppose, but c'est la vie) that says non-free images shouldn't be used in such articles. Therefore, if you were to upload pictures for all of those minor characters, there is a good chance that they would be deleted if/when the articles are merged. faithless (speak) 04:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

That's what they said, but me personally i don't think they should be merged. and the pics weren't of the actors themselves but of the characters. and like i just said, i don't think that the twilight characters should be merged. it's not right becuase the story isn't just about Edward, Bella, and Jacob. The other Cullens play a huge part as well. Me personally i think that the people who want to merge them are Edward and Bella nuts who want all the attention on edward and bella and make it out to see that the other cullens are not important. I wish there was something i could do to stop them from doing it. The official twilight saga guide will be released in a couple months and that will have full character biographies, geneoligical charts and NEW information and much more. so whoever is saying that we don't/won't have enough information is wrong.--Emmett-Rosalie-Cullen (talk) 04:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Albus Dumbledore

What exactly was this edit for? Green caterpillar (talk) 20:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Those two names are already linked in the article. faithless (^speak) 20:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

But rollback is only for blatant vandalism, banned users, and for one's own edits. I don't see why it was used there. Green caterpillar (talk) 20:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Yoshi

He appears to not care about what an Admin says. The funny thing is, he was blocked for reverting the same material back on August 10, but immediately unblocked because he undid is "last" revert. Then, 2 days later he started coming back and putting "action film" back into the article. He apparently never learned from the warning the previous Admin gave him.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess his intentions are more clear now.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

He's quite a handful, huh? haha Well I was going to wait until tomorrow to see if he actually went through with his threat to continue edit-warring, but it seems he's been blocked already. :-) faithless (^speak) 07:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, it appears the original admin that blocked/unblocked him before came back and blocked him.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Harry Potter

Could you explain how the images you have restored pass POLICY WP:NFCC#8, please? Black Kite 16:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Please see the article's talkpage. faithless (^speak) 16:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Death Eaters and their crimes

Hi Faithless. I saw your last edits in the DE's article, and I notice that the removal of some content from some Death Eaters (for example, removing that Wilkes was killed by Aurors, or that Crabbe/Goyle/Nott are the fathers of the Slytherin students) is not that pertinent, as all those characters do not have individual sections (as Bellatrix or Wormtail do) because their involvement in the series is too little. That's why I retrieved some content (some other I think you did okay to remove as was too overdetailed or redundant for a general background table), and added the name "Background and known crimes" instead of only "Known crimes" to the table in order to make it clear that being Goyle's father or being killed by Aurors is not a crime. I hope this doesn't bother you. Cheers! --LøЯd ۞pεth 22:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem, Opeth. faithless (^speak) 23:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20