User talk:Faithlessthewonderboy/Archive 24

80.179.192.75

If you're online, it would be greatly appreciated if you would block 80.179.192.75. The IP is deliberately triggering abuse filters and has been on AIV for a while. It seems to be taking a break, but a block is overdue anyway. Thanks. —LedgendGamer 07:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. :-) faithless (^speak) 07:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Useless vandals. By the way, what time is it over there? I had to essentially try to hit a specific grain of sand in a sandstorm in the dark with a small feather to find an admin that was online. It would be nice to actually know an admin that edits around this time of day. —LedgendGamer 07:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It's 3.50 in the morning here on the East Coast. Luckily (?) I'm a bit of an insomniac. haha faithless (^speak) 07:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd go all holycrapgetsomesleepbeforeyoukillyourself on you, but I've been up at 4, 5 AM editing too. Anyways, I just realized that I should archive this into a directory of useful admins and their local timezones, if applicable. You're the first entry, unless you object to it. It's really more of an experiment than anything. —LedgendGamer 08:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of of Anton Peterlin (soccer)

A tag has been placed on Anton Peterlin (soccer), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Article is identical to Anton Peterlin (footballer), which was deleted following an afd discussion for failing WP:N and WP:ATHLETE, and was recently speedily deleted for the same reasons

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. JonBroxton (talk) 00:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Tom felton in deathly hallows

Hi,

If you watch Tom Feltons interview on GMTV or simply look at the IMDB you will see he is in the Deathly hallows and it's confirmed:

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0271657/

"Filmography Jump to filmography as: In Development, Actor, Self, Archive Footage In Development: What's this?

  1. Emma of Lulworth Cove (details only on IMDbPro)

Actor:

   * In Production
   * 2000s
   * 1990s

  1. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part II (2011) (filming) .... Draco Malfoy
  2. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part I (2010) (filming) .... Draco Malfoy
     ... aka The Deathly Hallows (USA: short title)
  3. 13Hrs (2009) (post-production) .... Gary

" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.27.215 (talk) 19:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

The reason for my revert was not that that information was inaccurate (but remember, IMDb is not a reliable source), but rather 1.) you re-added a deleted image to the article 2.) you messed up the formatting of the filmography table and 3.) you reintroduced vandalism to the article (specifically, the sentence "He is rather attractive." in the 'Personal life' section). Best, faithless (^speak) 20:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

"openly straight" edits

Thank you for getting in touch with me, and for stating your position with regard to my edits. I am sorry to hear that you feel they are a "joke." The Wikipedia page for B.D. Wong, another actor who stars in Law and Order SVU, states that he is "openly gay." (I quote: "Wong, who is openly gay, began a long-term relationship with talent agent Richie Jackson in 1988.") A search for "who is openly gay" on Wiki reveals 72 hits. Before I edited several articles, a search for "who is openly straight" turned up nothing.

I am sorry, but I cannot accept your position that this discrepancy represents some kind of neutrality. In fact, I believe that my edits were aimed much more clearly at approaching neutrality than is your reversion.

If you insist that the "openly straight" edits be removed, I must insist that the 72 references to being "openly gay" be removed as well. "Openly gay," when used in this way, implies that the individual should have something to be ashamed of, but that they overcame it. I'm sorry -- that's doesn't feel like neutrality to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.147.142 (talk) 03:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Please don't use your edits to make a point, and for that matter please don't insult my intelligence by playing coy. As it happens, I think you're right. But there's something you can do which is much more constructive than editing unrelated articles and leaving me unnecessary messages - deal with the situation! Go to the Wong article and any other that you come across, remove the "openly gay" bit, and explain why in the edit summary. One would think that this would be obvious, but maybe it isn't. What you are doing with your absurd analogy is much more likely to annoy people and make them less likely to agree with you; you're actually hurting your own cause. So if anyone gives you grief when you remove it, just state your case plainly, and avoid false comparisons.

Two more things: first, I never stated any "position," because I didn't even know there was an issue. This is another problem with the way you approached the situation - you ended up attacking an editor who agrees with you because you incorrectly assumed that they hold an opinion which they don't. Before making such assumptions, you should at the very least make sure that the person is even aware that there is a disagreement. Second, how in the world does describing someone as gay imply that they should have something to be ashamed of!? What if you describe someone as female? black? Asian? tall? Canadian? nearsighted? Describing someone as being what they are by using neutral, commonly used descriptors in no way, shape, or form implies that they have something to be ashamed of, and to suggest otherwise is ludicrous. faithless (^speak) 05:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not trying to be "coy" and I was not using my edits to make a point. To the contrary, I was doing what I thought should be done for the sake of neutrality, as I stated above. You suggest that I remove the "openly gay" sections of articles I take issue with. But how is this so different from adding "openly straight" language? They seem like two sides of the same coin to me.

I'm sorry that you felt attacked. I also felt attacked, because you referred to my edits as "jokes" and "vandalism." I realize that was most likely a pre-formatted response, but nonetheless it stung to hear that editing for the sake of parity between gay and straight actors might be seen as "vandalism." For that reason, I assumed you were taking a position on my edits. I apologize for that, and I take it back. I am glad to hear that you agree with me.

Finally, you misquoted me by saying I claimed that describing someone as "gay" implies shame. I said that describing someone as "openly gay" implies this, with an emphasis on "openly." This is precisely the issue here -- to say "openly" straight strikes you as vandalism, because -- well, why wouldn't someone be openly straight? Am I correct? Apologies if I am again misunderstanding you. But I would really -- in all sincerity, no coy-ness at all -- appreciate it if you could clarify for me how deleting "openly gay" from articles is different from (and more acceptable than) adding "openly straight." 208.120.147.142 (talk) 18:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The National Monument to the U.S. Constitution

Hey faithless,

I could use your help in dealing with the The National Monument to the U.S. Constitution article. The sole contributor, Lawrence Creeger, and I have been going back and forth (civilly) for the past few days, but I still feel that it meets at least one of the criteria for speedy deletion. I've tried hard to explain the policies to Larry I think it violates on the talk page, but I'm not sure what else I can say. Could you give me a hand? Thanks. Mad Pierrot (talk) 16:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey Mad, I'm awfully sorry it's taken me so long to get back to you. Things have been a bit hectic lately. Anyway, I see you took the article to AfD, which is probably the way to go. I didn't see anything speedy-able about the article when I looked at it. Best, faithless (^speak) 07:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Sybill Trelawney from Hogwarts staff

hello. as per my edit in section Sybill Trelawney under article Hogwarts staff i'm giving here the excerpt of the entire section from the book.

copyright violation removed

pls note there's no mention Lavender Brown was actually attacked by Fenrir Greyback. she would've been cursed like Bill Weasley in that case.

whew, that took a while. now dont go changing that bit in the page there! :D Krishvanth (talk) 06:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't notice the word "wounds" was there; you're right, that is incorrect. But you can't "attempt" to attack something - you either attack or you don't. Your attack may be unsuccessful, and that's what we have here. Fenrir attacks Brown, albeit unsuccessfully. faithless (^speak) 06:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

actually "attempt to attack" isn't wrong. one, at times, may hear "he's going to attack him" and also "they'll try attacking us from this side" where the 'going to' and 'try' are attempts - to attack. "Greyback attacks Brown, albeit unsuccessfully" may even imply Brown was invulnerable to his attacks, while, "Greyback attempts to attack Brown" would signify an action, wherein an attack is about to be made, but probably gets thwarted, due to various reasons. anyway lets jus not have room for ambiguity. and nice rewrite over there (i had simply extended on something already there at the time due to pure laziness :) ) Krishvanth (talk) 11:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Novato High School

Excuse me. I have just been vandalizing the Wikipedia entry on Novato High school, which I believe you reverted. However, beside a number of pointless, albeit amusing, edits, I standardized the formatting and improved the structural coherence of the wording. However, all of this has just been changed back. I would appreciate it if you could find it in yourself to reset only inaccurate or misleading edits. Also, could you please tell me why you are editing the entries on a high school on the opposite side of the country at four in the morning? Thank you for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nimbus rutilus (talk • contribs) 07:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Or, you could just not vandalize Wikipedia. Novel concept, but give it a go! faithless (^speak) 08:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

True. If I make the changes that were not vandalism, would you mind not deleting them again? I'd appreciate it if you acted more like an administrator than a vigilante. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nimbus rutilus (talk • contribs) 08:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

No, he won't mind, provided you stop making said "amusing" edits. Thank you, MuZemike 08:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate it. Then I won't keep him awake, as I see he's having surgery today. Best of luck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nimbus rutilus (talk • contribs) 08:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Group or band – which one?

We are holding a straw poll (in a very friendly way, of course) to decide if The Beatles should be called a group, or a band. You can add your user signature to one or the other by clicking this link, Group or band – which one?. Thanks.--andreasegde (talk) 23:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Jim Morrison

I hope your surgery went well and was relatively uneventful. I fiddled and fiddled with the change you'd made on this article, and I cannot for the life of me figure out what is causing the wiki software to ignore the first ' in the bolding of his name. I tried. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the well wishes, Wild, and thanks for looking at that. Weird, huh? I think I'll have another look once I get a few minutes. Best, faithless (^speak) 08:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

section ginny weasley from Dumbledore's Army

under section ginny weasley from Dumbledore's Army, before the epilogue paragraph

"there would be time to talk later, hours and days, and maybe years." <- its an actual extract from the book. removed it once but someone's put it back again. Krishvanth (talk) 07:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it certainly does. I'm not sure I follow your point, though. faithless (^speak) 08:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

err... pardon my dumb question but stuff like that has to be removed from articles right? copyright violation and all that sorta thing? Or am i dreaming and this isn't Faithlessthewonderboy i'm talking to anymore?? :) Krishvanth (talk) 12:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Quoting something is fine, as long as it is done in moderation. This isn't even a whole sentence we're talking about. :) faithless (^speak) 12:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

right then... Krishvanth (talk) 05:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

about Grint, Rupert's page

Hi, I am wondering why did you delete my statement on Grint, Rupert's career session about how he is exceptional comparing to others. Could you tell me what kind of revision I need in order to get it accepted? THanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Movieanalyst (talk • contribs) 01:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Cody Arnoux

Please help me with Cody Arnoux, similar situation to Anton Peterlin - both trialled with Everton from the PDL an both agreed a contract but an admin has marked for deletion.

AfD nomination of Ramiele Malubay

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Ramiele Malubay. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ramiele Malubay. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Mark Chapman

I'm sorry that I caused a problem for you with my editing, but that guy is a complete dirtbag, is he not? 69.141.232.168 (talk) 04:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Was there some underlying reason you reverted comments on Talk:Hermione Granger?

Seems to me they were placed in good faith, regarding a section being blanked by another editor. Syrthiss (talk) 17:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, the same message was pasted on several different talk pages, for no discernible reason. The message was rather vague and seemed completely irrelevant to two of the articles. (Not to mention that all three messages were improperly placed at the top of each page; a minor quibble, but one that would require fixing, and as the messages seemed to be little more than spam, I didn't really think it was worth fixing, if I'm being honest.) Since you've raised a concern, I will re-add it to the one talk page on which it was relevant. Best, faithless (^speak) 18:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I see you've already reverted it. It would have been nice to have been allowed to respond to your question before you reverted me. faithless (^speak) 18:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

All I saw was a comment removed with little explanation as to why on an article talk page that I have watched. As the comment wasn't obviously vandalism or obviously outside the scope of the page, I reverted and then came to ask you why. Technically I came to warn you for a test edit, but then when I saw you were an admin I figured I'd ask. I agree he/she needed to put it at the bottom, but figured someone else who wanted to continue the discussion would do that. Syrthiss (talk) 18:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)