User talk:Faithlessthewonderboy/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Faithlessthewonderboy. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Why Are you threatening me

Why Are you threatening me? Write to me in polite manner if you can or do not write any thing to me OK!. Here i am not contributing for my purpose, The article Carrom Federation Of Sri Lanka has been improved thats why the tag has been deleted there was not any other reason. If you think that article is again violating the copyright issue then simply place the tag there. Why you are threatening me. You think you are a God. Do not ever message to me like this is rude/Sarcastic manner OK!. I am here to contribute for world not for only you. Sorry if anyline pinches you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hpt lucky (talk • contribs) 11:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

First, I am not threatening you. I merely warned you that removing Article for Deletion templates is not allowed. Second, I do not think I am God. Third, I was not being rude or sarcastic. faithless (^speak) 11:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually (1) i did the same you did to me(Nothing different). That threat comments which i passed were your inspiration nothing else (2) You was not warning me, actually you was threatning me.(3) Your wordings seems me rude. (4) If i do not owns my talk page simply do one thing, rewrite ""My Talk"" to ""Talk Page"". Then it will be ok. Do not provide me facility of ""MY Talk"" oh Sorry ""You Talk"" Page. Well Sorry for all above. (Hpt lucky (talk) 11:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC))

Once again, I was warning you, not threatening you. If you continue to do things such as remove AfD templates, you will be blocked. That's not a threat, it's a fact; I am telling you that so that it could be avoided. On the other hand, User:The Anome has done nothing which would lead to a block, you merely threatened him with a block. That's not good; I am trying to help you, so that you won't be blocked. The first message I left on your talk page is a standard warning template; there is nothing rude about it. faithless (^speak) 12:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, Now i understand, Now i can say it's the warning. Actually that article met with AFD criteria as i copy it and pasted the same article on wikipedia now i have done many changes in it watch the article. Know AFD template should be removed what do you think. Well Mr. Faithless, I deleted the whole content from my talk page but that Mr. revert it back. Cant i delete my talk page??If no then why??(Hpt lucky (talk) 12:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC))

Yes, you can delete posts from your talk page. Archiving is preferred, but you can remove it if you wish. But it is very important not to remove AfD templates from articles, or speedy deletion templates from articles if you wrote the article. faithless (^speak) 12:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Ase Card

An article that you have been involved in editing, Ase Card, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ase Card. Thank you. Optigan13 (talk) 03:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

re WP:AN#What to do...

I have apologised and explained myself there, so the curious and attentive can see as well as you. ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem at all. I knew what you were saying, I just clarified for anybody who might have been reading the discussion. :) faithless (^speak) 21:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

RE: Ben Nagy

Hello! Just FYI, I'm talking with Tauo to explain to him the intricacies of WP and about self-promoting articles that fail WP:BIO. We don't want to bite the newcomers! Cheers!--Sallicio ^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 04:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Universaljag

You deleted one of his hoaxes and gave him a final warning. I found 2 more in his contribs Lukas Bartoi‎ & Anthony Arias. Could you bin them too? English peasant 11:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

and Jaime Barajas. English peasant 11:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Done, done and done. :) faithless (^speak) 11:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

* - The low budget barnstar for service in the war on hoax articles

-English peasant 11:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! faithless (^speak) 12:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Brett Favre

Regarding the Fox Sports addition to Favre's article - do you think readers 10 years from now would actually care about who first reported his retirement? It will only matter WHEN he retired. BlueAg09 (Talk) 22:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The important part is not that FOX was the first to report it, the important part is that it is a reliable, third-party source which is independent of the subject. I used FOX this morning as they were the first and at the time only source reporting it. The source could be changed to ESPN, ABC, NPR, AP, Reuteurs, the important thing is that it's a third-party source which, again, is what's required for a source to be reliable. Cheers, faithless (^speak) 22:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It's true that FOX is a reliable, third-party source, but noting that they were the first to report it is unnecessary. Do you see how it is merely trivial and that future readers would not be interested in WHO first reported the news of his retirement? We only need to cite the official statement from the Packers, which is the source that truly matters. The official statement is more legitimate than the preliminary news reports. BlueAg09 (Talk) 23:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I just realized that my previous post was missing a very important 'not' in the first sentence, which I've just added. The fact that they were first is obviously not important; you can change that if you want. But for our purposes here at Wikipedia, FOX Sports is a much better source than the Packers' site; again, it's all about independent third-party coverage. faithless (^speak) 01:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

We have a different situation here. A newspaper reported a player retirement's BEFORE the official website did. Newspapers are not always 100% right. There have been newspaper reports of player transactions and they never end up happening. Although the FOX report was right about Favre's retirement, there was no certainty about it until the Packers released a statement a few hours later. BlueAg09 (Talk) 02:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

And the purge continues...continued.

Sorry I was a bit confrontational before but frankly the speed with which the article was deleted (less than twelve hours after I posted it) does suggest you were just sitting their waiting. This may not be the forum for this but the deletion is somewhat arbitrary: practically every other character in the show has a page but not good old Mattie (who, as I sort of pointed out in the article if you read it, is one of the longest serving of the current crop)? I tried asking for a deletion review but apparently there's an injunction in place. You've never heard of the show? Where have you been for the past twenty years?Skteosk (talk) 18:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The United States. :-) I assure you, I have no vendetta against you, the article, the show or anything else; I was simply carrying out the will of the community, as expressed at the article's AfD, which is my job as an administrator. Like I said before, I could see the value in having the page exist at least as a redirect, but the community decided that the character did not merit an article. As for the other characters having pages, you seem to be right. I have absolutely no idea why it was decided that this particular character isn't notable but the others are. It wasn't my decision to delete the article; I'm just a janitor around here. faithless (^speak) 18:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Order of Merlin (Third Class)

	The Order of Merlin (Third class)
	The Order of Merlin, the WikiProject Harry Potter Barnstar, is awarded by Jammy (talk) to Faithlessthewonderboy for being fast on the job at reverting vandalism.

Thanks! :D faithless (^speak) 22:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Leonardo DiCaprio

I don't think that Leonardo DiCaprio's real name was Leonardo Leroy-Salta, so I changed it back. fhb3 (talk) 23:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. faithless (^speak) 00:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Bathers

"in New York" most certainly needs adding. The comma form with the NG is entirely ok (as would be MoMA", New York"). Neither London nor New York need linking here per MoS (though you could add NY City if you feel it necessary). Johnbod (talk) 14:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Non-Admin Redirects

Hey Metros, I closed two AfDs today for merge/redirects both of them were clearly consensus and I was wondering if this is alright to continue. I don't intend to touch Deletes with a 10 foot pole after seeing another user go smidge too far and get warned, also as I had reservations about it in the first place... but if you could let me know about the redirects/merges I'd appreciate it. I want to help clear a little of the backlog.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 20:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC) I have also posted this to a few other talk pages in trying to reach the fastest conclusion.

I would recommend closing only those AfDs that are obviously keeps. Since only admins can delete articles, obviously they shouldn't be closed as delete by non-admins, and merge/redirect/no consensus AfDs can be so controversial that I wouldn't recommend closing them unless/until you're an admin. I'd also recommend staying away from any subjects which you're personally interested/involved in, lest your personal views reflect in your closing of the AfD (of course there are some obvious exceptions - use your good judgment). Cheers, faithless (^speak) 21:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. I'm 100% sure the redirects I did today were a good consensus, but I'll make sure to stay mindful. Thanks for following up.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 23:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 13 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Bathers (Cézanne), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Royalbroil 04:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! :) faithless (^speak) 04:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!

for the barnstar and kind words you left on my talk page. BTW the person who told me to stop editing Wikipedia is a bizarre person (he/she wrote so him/herself). Happy editing! Markussep ^Talk 13:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Howdy!

Hello! I have returned for a long wikibreak and i saw the improvements on Wikipedia! Wow! I'll get straight to the point, can i request rollback? --Lolipod (talk) 01:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi,again.

My name is AOEgeek.Ummm....just read my user page.[[1]]AOEgeek (talk) 09:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

New policy proposal that may be of interest

I'm tapping this message out to you because you were involved at the AfDs of Eve Carson or Lauren Burk. Following both of these heated debates, a new proposal has been made for a guideline to aid these contentious debates, which can be found at WP:N/CA. There is a page for comments at Wikipedia talk:Notability (criminal acts)/Opinions should you wish to make a comment. Thanks for your time, and apologies if this was not of interest! Fritzpoll (talk) 15:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

Thanks!

So, yeah, you know how these work... »»»»
Thank you very much for your support in my recent RfA, which closed with a final tally of (75/1/0). Your trust in me is greatly appreciated, and I can assure you it has not been misplaced. I shall use these tools to the best of my ability, and will do my best not to let you down. Thank you once again, and happy editing as always! *Hersfold* ^(t/a/c) 20:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Nom comment

FYI, I removed your nom comment for Ctjf83 (talk · contribs), which was added before the nom was accepted. The nom has since been accepted and listed, so feel free to comment now, sorry about that. Cirt (talk) 05:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The nomination was accepted before you removed my comment. That was completely unnecessary and utterly baffling behavior on your part. Try as I might, I can't understand why you would do such a thing. Have it your way. faithless (^speak) 06:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your support Faithless, it wouldn't have made a difference anyway, if your support was left on or not, as I failed the nom Ctjf83Talk 17:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Faithlessthewonderboy (talk · contribs), my apologies, when I went to go list the RfA, there was a notice somewhere (can't recall precisely where at the moment) that said something like "check to make sure there are no comments before listing" or something like that. Cirt (talk) 21:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Cirt, technically you were right, I shouldn't have commented before the nom was accepted, but this is the sort of bureaucratic behavior that we can do without. No hard feelings, though. Ctjf83, sorry about your RfA; I do believe you have what it takes to be an admin, though. Keep at it, work on improving yourself as an editor, and you'll be an admin yet! You know I'm here if you have any questions. faithless (^speak) 21:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Faithless, thanks for the correction, next time I nom someone, I'll pay heed to what you said, this was the first time I nom'd someone so I had wanted to get it all right, next time I'll be a bit more careful with a bunch of things. Cirt (talk) 21:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Faithless, do you want to provide any help? I think I was ripped off on a technicality where people didn't like my anti-bush opinion Ctjf83Talk 05:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

my RFA

Thank you!

Thank you for your support in my RFA. The final vote count was (73/3/1), so I am now an administrator. Please let me know if at any stage you need help, or if you have comments on how I am doing as an admin. Have a nice day! :) Aleta ^Sing 16:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

respond plz

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Beatles#Let.27s_put_back_the_classic_intro_into_the_opening_paragraph Badboysbadoyswhatugonnado (talk) 00:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Sandbox

Hey dude thanks for the help but Kevin H. Ramirez is a real person I have a source.. but anyway I'm was about to delete that article... So in ths sandbox I could create anything?? Please write back dude.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buddy9391 (talk • contribs) 08:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

No, he isn't. Pretty much the entire article was copied from other articles, specifically John Cena. The sandbox is there for users to experiment with. You can pretty much write whatever you want there, with obvious exceptions (no terrorist threats, hate speech, etc.). Feel free to ask me any questions you have. faithless (^speak) 08:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for rollback

Hi. I would like to request access to the rollback feature. Anything that makes reverting vandals quicker is a useful tool to have. I try to do what I can to help out with vandal problems whenever I'm logged in (checking Recent Changes, watching trouble spots, etc.) When reverting I also double-check to ensure I am not reverting too much/too little. Thanks for considering this request. --- Taroaldo (talk) 19:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Since I don't see any edit-warring or anything similarly worrying in your edit history, I've granted your request. Be sure to give Wikipedia:Rollback feature a thorough read and use it wisely! :) faithless (^speak) 20:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I will. Thanks. -Cheers, Taroaldo (talk) 22:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: "ineligible for speedy delete" (Drilling a Home)

I do not understand how this stub is "ineligible" to be speedy deleted. The song is a brief instrumental track, on an obscure soundtrack album, not a widely-known and often-covered (if ever-covered) song. While the album and film are notable (and both are among my faves, so no bias that way), I do not see the point in having a whole article about this particular track... much less adding a template to it. (I'm not attacking you; I'm simply asking for clarification.) I would still propose this particular article (and the remaining one like it) for deletion, on similar grounds... the track simply isn't notable enough on its own, IMO. Zephyrad (talk) 01:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I don't consider it an attack. In fact, a redirect to the album might very well be the best way to go here. But in order to be speedily deleted, an article must meet one of the criterion for speedy deletion. Songs and albums simply aren't eligible for SD. I hope this clears things up, feel free to ask me any other questions you have. Cheers, faithless (^speak) 02:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I would still propose it for deletion. A redirect, perhaps... if doing a search for "Drilling a Home" wouldn't bring that album's link up automatically. (I'm starting to wonder about the search function; normally it will list mentions of terms, but I struck out looking for "Regent Sounds Studios" today, despite the article on Denmark Street plainly giving the name.) Even though the Beatles remain my all-time favorite group (I'm just old enough to remember seeing them on the Smothers Brothers, though they weren't live), I have most of their solo records, and I studied them extensively in my own musical pursuits (recording engineer, and frustrated songwriter, here)... one of my pet peeves is dealing with people who let fandom cloud their sense of perspective, when it comes to that band, and I think this kind of article is an example of that. (This is why I turned down the invitation to join the Beatles WikiProject; the "Big T vs. little t" issue exactly proved my point, with that one, though in retrospect I suppose if I had joined it might have helped break up the little cabal they seem to have.) Just because they outsold everybody does not mean everything they ever did was wondrous, knowwhutImean? - Thanks. Zephyrad (talk) 02:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I know where you're coming from, and if you want to nominate it for deletion, by all means go right ahead. Since it is a plausible search, I'd recommend a redirect, though. If you want to go ahead and do that, I won't stand in your way. Cheers, faithless (^speak) 03:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead and do which? Zephyrad (talk) 04:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant redirect. Of course if you want to nominate it for deletion, I can't stop you, but I think you'd agree that it has value as a redirect. It's not a stretch to think that someone would search for it, even if it's not incredibly likely. faithless (^speak) 04:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I figured that was what you meant, but I wanted to clarify. I hope if I did nominate it, you would not oppose that (or not strongly); I doubt very many (if any) people would ever do a name search for the song, and if they know about it, then they know about the album already. So the point is moot, I think. Zephyrad (talk) 05:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I did a .mid file of another song from the album ("Red Lady Too"), that's pretty close to the recording, if you want to check it out. It was my way of proving whether I really understood what I was learning in Music Theory, a few years ago. (Had my prof critique the written score, and made the file later.) Zephyrad (talk) 05:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

thanks

for dealing with the pricks problem! Tnayin (talk) 08:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

That's what they pay me for. Er...well, I don't get paid exactly. But I do it anyway! :) faithless (^speak) 08:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Paper Trail

hi Faithless, what was wrong with the last edit i made, i read the article under references and added the producers to the producer list. if i did anything wrong i am sorry i just tried to add further confirmed information. my bad. (Ba11innnn (talk) 01:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC))