User talk:Faithlessthewonderboy/Archive 19

RfA thanks

Thank you for your comments on my RfA (which passed 70/7/3) and for choosing to trust me by not opposing despite your misgivings. I do take your concerns about my experience seriously, and even partly agree with them, and can assure you that I will act with due circumspection on all matters administrative while I figure things out. I can only hope that I never act in a way that makes you feel your trust was misplaced. Thanks again! --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 00:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations on your RfA passing! As I said, I have no doubt about your trustworthiness; I just think that, ideally, you would have a bit more experience under your belt. Best of luck as an administrator; I'm here if you need anything. :-) faithless (^speak) 01:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Hogwarts -> Subjects and teachers

Regarding this edit:

What do you mean by "This is in-universe and has no place here."?

The section heading would seem to imply that it does indeed have a place there, and I believe the cross-references are valuable. – 74  03:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Not answering someone immediately doesn't mean they are ignoring you. faithless (^speak) 07:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Which conveniently sidesteps the fact that you are still ignoring my question. But don't worry, I am thoroughly convinced that I shouldn't waste any more time editing articles you own. – 74  04:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

First, mind your attitude. Second, what are you talking about!? When have I said or done anything to suggest that I own any article? Don't make baseless accusations. I didn't answer you because you comments made it clear you weren't interested in an answer, so I didn't want to waste my time. I removed it because it was in-universe information. Hogwarts has a long history; each subject has had many professors, and most of them have had more than one during the HP series. The information was unnecessary, useless, and incorrect by omission. faithless (^speak) 04:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

"First, mind your attitude. ... I didn't answer you because you comments made it clear you weren't interested in an answer, so I didn't want to waste my time." You don't see any hypocrisy there? Anyway, thank you for the (belated) answer. I tend to disagree on a few points: the cross-references are not useless if the people reading the entry would logically desire more information on the course/teachers (which, while available under the section title link to staff, requires knowledge of the professor's name to find); the cross-references are unnecessary, but I would count an encyclopedia article on a fictional castle in a fictional universe technically 'unnecessary' to begin with; and finally, as to "incorrect by omission", I think in the context of a fictional work it could be reasonably inferred that the cross-references weren't an exhaustive list of past professors, but I certainly wouldn't have opposed rewording the cross-reference lead ("Noted Teachers:"? "Referenced Teachers:"?) to make that detail explicit. Several of the subsections already include links to the noted teachers without specifically stating that others have held the position; I saw the sub-section cross-references as a uniform way to collect and present those links. Perhaps future confusion could be avoided by removing "and teachers" from the section heading? I am sincerely sorry if you feel this has all been a waste of time; that certainly wasn't my intent. – 74  00:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

A link to WP:INUNIVERSE would have been quite helpful—not everyone is familiar with all Wikipedia policies and guidelines. – 74  14:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Untitled thread

Dear faithless i don't mean for the Blazing Inferno page to be innapropriate just trying to create an article--Zsm148student (talk) 12:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)zsm148student

Institute for Conflict Management

This is the third time in the past few weeks this article has been created and SD'd. Any chance of a salt? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Done and done. :-) faithless (^speak) 07:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, kind sir! --Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Most certainly. faithless (^speak) 07:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry this is an emotional thing that you deleted

please reinstate the Michol Greene article as it is very important to me because he he and alone saved my life and he is important to many. I completely apologize for my rudeness and none of it was true this is very important to me and it would mean a lot if you would put it back please contact me at Sarah.Kelly@att.net with any questions. Thank you and my deepest apology for my emotional outburst —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilovmypitbulls7 (talk • contribs) 22:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, and I accept your apology. Unfortunately, I cannot restore the article. Wikipedia has certain policies and guidelines; one of these has to do with notability, and only subjects which meet this guideline get articles. Creating pages for your friends is not what Wikipedia is for; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a personal website. faithless (^speak) 22:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

What constitutes "notable"?Ilovmypitbulls7 (talk) 22:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

For the specifics, see the guideline. faithless (^speak) 23:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I checked thank you! Furthermore, you assumed he is just a friend of mine I wanted to give a shoutout page to you are wrong! friend he is an important part of the city of Rancho Cordova ca known for his populist activism and a proponent of the "little man" similar to that of his predecessor pretty boy floyd he is notable for sure ! Since when are Heros not notable and if that is not enough, there is a provision for exceptions based on discretion. This would mean a lot if you could please help me get this special man some documented recognition. I can't expect you to understand it al but please show understanding and compassion in your next reply and actions =) Ilovmypitbulls7 (talk) 00:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC) `

Convey

Hi there - I notice you've reverted a couple of edits on Bobby Convey (not mine, but I watch the page) is it because we have no indication of squad number yet? Might be worth putting something on the talk page of the article about it, linking to the SJE Roster? Am happy to go along with your thoughts on this. Mycroft (talk) 11:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mycroft, yes, that's the reason for the reverts. I've noted twice now in my edit summaries (here and here) that San Jose doesn't appear to have issued Convey a number yet. I considered putting in a hidden note, but in my experience those are pretty ineffective when it comes to IP editors. IPs are going to do what they want to do, I'm afraid; we'd probably just be wasting our time trying to prevent them from making their erroneous edits. Best, faithless (^speak) 20:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

A fair point - looks like we'll just have to keep at it. Thanks for the reply Mycroft (talk) 08:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem. :-) faithless (^speak) 08:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Welcoming users

I was just wondering why you welcomed a user whose one contribution was this. Puzzled, Lithoderm 02:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

That was not the user's only contribution, s/he also created an article, which I speedily deleted. Regardless, why shouldn't the user be welcomed? I often welcome users whose only contributions consist of vandalism, in hopes of persuading the user to contribute constructively. Does it work? Perhaps very rarely, if ever. But if it even works once, it's worth it, in my opinion. Best, faithless (^speak) 02:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Epic Advertising - deleted for " blatant copyright infringement"

Hello,

I trust this email finds you well. I am writing you out of concern for our Epic Advertising page being deleted under the reason of "copyright infringement." What documentation do I need to provide you to prove this accusation otherwise? Our website is www.epicadvertising.com and here you can see that we were previously AzoogleAds and in Apirl 2008 we re-branded the company and changed our name. In addition, we were named AlwaysOn Global Top 250 company, as well as an Inc. 5000 fastest-growing company.

Kindly let me know what you need from us in order to make our page live again. Thank you in advance for your assistance in this matter.

Best regards, Audrey Breheney Manager of Network Distribution —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.236.176.136 (talk) 15:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Before recreating the article, you should be sure to review Wikipedia's guidelines concerning notability for companies and conflict of interest; most importantly, please peruse this policy, specifically this section. To paraphrase those links, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a webhost and certainly not a vehicle for promotion. Best, faithless (^speak) 23:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

New discussion

why did you delete our page "A Call To Remain"? We are a legit band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acalltoremain (talk • contribs) 02:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Please read the box at the top of this page. faithless (^speak) 02:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

LOREX Deleted

Hello,

I don't fully understand why my work was deleted. The information I posted I have posted all over the internet many times. I work for the company so what do I need to do to be allowed to post who/what our company is, on Wiki?

I read some of the Copyrite Laws and 1 part said that if your posting copywrite stuff you need to state so. I looked at the Samsung Wiki to see what they did as we are the same type of company (just smaller) & I didn't see any copyrite info on their page.

Thank you,

Jess King Lorex Technology (TSX:LOX) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingrattus (talk • contribs) 13:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll say the same thing to you as I said to the person two threads above: Before recreating the article, you should be sure to review Wikipedia's guidelines concerning notability for companies and conflict of interest; most importantly, please peruse this policy, specifically this section. To paraphrase those links, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a webhost and certainly not a vehicle for promotion. Again, Wikipedia is not a place for you to advertise your company. Samsung Group has an article because it is a huge international corporation, and it's a pretty safe bet that they didn't write it themselves. If your company is truly notable, then someone else will no doubt write an article about it. You really shouldn't write it yourself. Best, faithless (^speak) 18:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Your protection of Luna Lovegood

Do you really consider it the wisest move to protect this article in your favor after breaking 3RR on it? seresin ( ¡? )  07:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Considering that there was a very recent discussion in which consensus was reached that the article deserved to be merged, and considering the behavior of the IP (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Help handling disruptive editor), I believe the protection was justified, and necessary to stave off further disruption. I certainly see where you would be concerned, and if you feel I acted inappropriately, then I would not object to you un-protecting the article. Given the circumstances, however, I believe the protection was justified. Best, faithless (^speak) 07:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it would have been more appropriate to block. But since he seems to be changing IPs, that may have proven ineffective; so in the end protection may have proven necessary. As an aside, I've added move protection for obvious reasons. seresin ( ¡? )  07:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked two of his IPs so far, but have refrained from chasing him, lest I get a little block-happy (hence the reason I asked for assistance at AN). I thought I had move-protected it, but I don't do that much protecting so I guess I did something wrong. Thanks. :-) faithless (^speak) 07:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Guess I'll get my fun little manifesto out of the way. I'm not doing this to mess with you guys (not completely anyway). I do this because I disagree with the Fictional Notability policies. Normal channels have failed me in the past, and I know I have no chance of changing the policy, but I like to take a little time to remind you that there are those of us out there that LIKE the extra information, the trivia sections, the character pages. Wikipedia only runs on the consensus of a very limited number of people, and for some reason you people feel a Religious like duty to protect that consensus, even though it's false. All very dramatic, I know. But hey, the Internet is serious business, right? 98.180.202.250 (talk) 07:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

As an administrator, it is my "job" to enforce (for lack of a better word), Wikipedia's policies, guidelines, mores, folkways, etc. As it is often put, admins are like janitors (ever notice how the admin symbol consists of the WP logo with a mop in front of it?). We don't necessarily always agree with what we're doing, but we do it because it has to be done to keep things running smoothly. "Wikipedia only runs on the consensus of a very limited number of people" - have you thought about actually trying to contribute constructively? In the real world, if an election doesn't go the way you want, do you start tossing Molotov cocktails into government buildings? You can't always get your way, and one way of ensuring that you never get your way is by trolling, insulting and attacking the system which you claim is so unjust. If you make your case in a calm, constructive, and civil manner, people are much more likely to hear you out than if you go around throwing out childish insults and name-calling. The only thing that will do is get you blocked. And all the IP addresses in the world isn't going to change that. And as far as "messing with us" is concerned, I've never understood why trolls think they're making life so difficult for administrators. It takes about ten seconds and a few mouse clicks to block a vandal, it isn't any inconvenience whatsoever. So if you're getting your jollies by thinking that you're causing me or anyone else some great consternation, I hate to burst your bubble, but... faithless (^speak) 08:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

<redacted>98.180.202.52 (talk) 17:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)