User talk:Faithlessthewonderboy/Archive 11

Update

I've had time to calm down and organize my thoughts better, and thought I'd apprise you of this: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nyannrunning (2nd), since I have included the Jim Morrison multiple editor/same material issue, so you'd know what was occurring. Thanks for removing the attack, also, by the way! Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Redirects and red links

Patience. Or as the essay goes, don't demolish the house while it's still being built. I'm writing articles. But besides that, why would you need to "clean up" redirects to non-existent articles? How do you know they're incorrect redirects if the article doesn't exist and you haven't done your own research on the subject? If you go around undoing the work of others simply because you can't imagine why that work has been done you'll probably be creating a whole lot of wasted effort - both on your part and on the part of other editors. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 10:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

That's all well and good, but isn't it better to lay the foundation before you start painting the walls? I have no doubt you're acting in good faith, but don't you think it's better to create the article first? There's just no point in a hatnote if it doesn't lead you anywhere. Cheers, faithless (^speak) 10:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's simply a matter of preference and habits. To continue the craft analogies, like a jeweler I like to build the web up first, like the gold setting of a wedding ring, then set the article in it like a sparkling diamond. (Okay, that was so ridiculous I almost threw up while writing it. But you get what I mean.) Particularly when creating a stub, I think the intertwingling with the rest of Wikipedia is more important than the stub content itself. The links from other articles, stub templates, categories, etc. are what will lead other people to the article, and so they're more important than the content in ensuring that the article is someday improved, so I try to spend the most time on that stuff.

I'll disagree with you on one point though: the utility of the redirects existing when the article does not is that it serves to ensure, to some degree, that if someone else creates an article in the future it will have the correct name so that my existing redlinks will not be broken. That's the reason I do it.

Anyways, thanks for being patient and not deleting my stuff! --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 11:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're giving me some undeserved thanks, as I actually did remove quite a few of them. Had I known you actually intended on creating the articles, I wouldn't have removed the entries on the disambiguation pages (and won't take offense if you restore them), though I'd still argue that hatnotes ought not be created until the article itself is created. And, of course, plain ol'd redirects ought not be created for non-existent articles, and will be deleted straight away. Hope none of this was taken personally, it certainly wasn't mean to be. Happy editing! faithless (^speak) 11:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Arrgh. Dude... for someone complaining about not creating unnecessary work, you just blew away the fruits of a large chunk of my time. I don't remember exactly what I created and the entries seem to be gone from my contributions page. Do you have some special administrator way to revert your deletions or do I have to go figure out how the deletion log works and put in requests somewhere for those pages to be undeleted?

I also have to say that given how substantial a screw-up this was on your part in terms of the prime directive of improving Wikipedia, your persistence that you're justified in deleting redirects you find unpalatable is a bit out of place.

I am not taking this personally but it's pretty disappointing to have lost all of that and I'm kind of unimpressed that you didn't even offer to help me put it back together. I've spent a good ten hours or more working on this cluster of articles during the last few days. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 12:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Well first of all, I didn't "screw up." Everything I've one is completely justifiable, most of all deleting the redirects to an uncreated page, which can be deleted on sight by any administrator. There is even a specific criterion for the speedy deletion of redirects to non-existent pages (commonly referred to as R1).

Since you've since created the article, I've restored the redirects (as you noticed, deleted contributions are only viewable by administrators). As for the others, I won't be offended if you go back and revert my removals, but I'm not going to do it myself, since I still believe that the articles ought to be created first. I do want to impress one thing upon you, though: adding a non-existent article to a disambiguation page with the intention of creating the article is one thing, and you can even make a case for adding hatnotes to articles as long as you plan on immediately creating the article (though I imagine that most would agree with me that the article ought to be created first), but a redirect to a non-existent article is always going to be deleted. Like I said, you can make your case for how the other two things can be beneficial, but a redirect to nowhere doesn't do anyone any good (and as I mentioned, there is even a specific criterion for speedily deleting such redirects).

Anyway, I think we can agree that we were both acting in good faith, and this is just an unfortunate mix-up. Feel free to let me know if there is anything I can do for you. faithless (^speak) 20:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that, I can see my words were sharper than they needed to be and I apologize for that. Thank you also for linking me to that criteria for deletion, no one else has bothered to do that. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 09:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Danny Welbeck

Hello Back in march after a debate you delated an article on Danny Welbeck of Manchester united as he was not noteable.

Since then he has been an unused substritue in the champions league semi final against Barcelona http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/europe/7368730.stm

To be on the bench for such a big game when you have not played for the team is i would suggest is noteable. Especially given that all the other substitues substitues were full internationals

He has slso been Manchester UNited Youth team player of the year. http://www.manutd.com/default.sps?pagegid=%7BB4CEE8FA%2D9A47%2D47BC%2DB069%2D3F7A2F35DB70%7D&newsid=3496771

Less scientifically i also searhed to find out about him on wikipedia and was surprised to find there was nothing about him —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carltonbrowne (talk • contribs) 13:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC) --Carltonbrowne (talk) 17:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I agree with you, that he is sufficiently notable for an article. However, the community disagrees. I deleted not because I wanted to, but because that's my job as an administrator, to carry out community consensus, whether I personally agree or not. You'll also notice that it has been deleted four five times since by four five different admins. Unfortunately, it looks like we'll have to wait until he actually steps on the pitch to create an article about him. Cheeres, faithless (^speak) 20:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

OK thanks Carltonbrowne (talk) 19:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Milky Mitch

Not Noteable? Take a trip to the towns of Croydon or Ringwood in melbourne, and he is one of the most spoken about company's around. That page was created as a) an advertising tool and b) due to a demand for knowledge about who Milky Mitch was. The comedy with in it is just their Schtik. Members of the Milky Mitch Board are very Displeased, and shall cease all donations under other alias' henceforth. Mitch Tessier, Public Relations Milky Mitch Enterprises (c) 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tessiermitch (talk • contribs) 09:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey, that's neat. It might interest you to know that Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertisement. faithless (^speak) 10:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, thats why multi-billion dollar coporations and politicians pay rediculous amounts in donations so they can delete any negative things from there pages. Your still a tool to the media wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tessiermitch (talk • contribs) 09:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey, that's neat. You might also like to know that we don't cotton to personal attacks around these parts. faithless (^speak) 09:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:HAU

Hello yet again. I regretfully inform you that the bot we were using to update the user status at Wikipedia:Highly Active Users, SoxBot V, was blocked for its constant updating. With this bot out of operation, a patch is in the works. Until that patch is reviewed and accepted by the developers, some options have been presented to use as workarounds: 1) Qui monobook (not available in Internet Explorer); 2) User:Hersfold/StatusTemplate; 3) Manually updating User:StatusBot/Status/USERNAME; or 4) Not worry about it and wait for the patch to go through, which hopefully won't take long. If you have another method, you can use that, too. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Useight (talk) 17:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Soapbox?

Early last month you deleted an my article about a fraternal organization, Alpha Omega Theta. This was simply an article describing a organizaton. If you feel that my article is soapboxing then you should delete all the other Greek organization's articles. They are practically the same. --Triumphant07 (talk) 04:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Triumphant07 (talk • contribs) 04:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC) IS IT POSSIBLE TO RE-POST THIS PAGE?--Triumphant07 (talk) 23:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

the Toontown article

The Toontown article keeps getting vandalized.

I compiled the "list of Toontown inhabitants" after watching and re-watching the movie for several days. I only included characters who either appear or are referenced in the movie.

However, someone keeps adding characters that DIDN'T appear in the movie (some of which were created AFTER the movie was made!).

And when I mention "all of the characters that appear in Tootown that were not created specifically for the movie are characters created in the 20s, 30s, 40s, and 50s", that vandal keeps adding "60s, 70s, 80s, 90s and 2000s", even thought that NOT TRUE (as I said, I watched the movie many times, and no character created after 1957 appears). Hell, how can characters from the 90s and 2000s appear if the movie was made in 1988!

I reverted these edits several times, but the page keeps being vandalized. Can you do something about it?

Christopher Hall (musician)

Hi, I noticed you deleted this page in May 2008 (I was correcting the wiki link in the Stabbing Westward article because it lead to the disimbig. page). This is actually a notable person (he is one of the creator's and lead vocalist for the band, Stabbing Westward). Would you be able to reinstate this page if it was an acceptable article? Thank you--Startstop123 (talk) 19:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I have restored the page and cleaned it up a little. Cheers, faithless (^speak) 20:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your help!--Startstop123 (talk) 16:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the prod ... I needed it

You called me out on splitting that section out, and guess what? I did it finally. It's going to take a lot of work (it creates a real nightmare in the main article with the footnotes) but it needs to be done. Thanks a lot ... it's resulting in some real cuts to an overly long article, and may (I hope) eventually make an FAC run possible. Daniel Case (talk) 17:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Happy to help. :) faithless (^speak) 22:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you for your comments in my RFA. I have to agree with the take it slow when I get RFA part. Doing research before you start is important in almost every setting. You don't go to a new job as a contractor and say "What does this button do?" Hehe. I will try to avoid the wikidrama (although I don't feel I really participated in the one with Giggy). And every other concern/praise you had I will take to heart. :) <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 18:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Grateful Dead article

please stop wasting everyone's time. oops - thought you were the one who made the vandal edit to this page - my mistake. :S Addionne (talk) 21:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Page protection

See my response at the bottom of User_talk:Persian_Poet_Gal#About_the_top_of_your_page, thanks.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 08:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I see your point, but if you look at the history of the featured article it's still constantly bombarded by Grawp wannabes. I have no doubt that you're capable of handling the situation (and admire your persistence/dedication), but I think the fact that so many admins have protected the page already despite the fact you specifically ask them not to is a sign of how much of a nuisance it is to others. However, if your mind is made up, it's made up, I suppose. Either way, best, and good luck faithless (^speak) 08:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Apology

I'm sorry that I voted "Strong Oppose" on Your Adminship's^A RfA. It should have been at most a plain, ordinary "Oppose"; and now it seems that there was a misunderstanding involved, so I shouldn't have "Opposed" your adminship, either. (Or "Your Adminship" :-) With copious respect, ☺ Twiggy (talk) 12:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Apology most certainly accepted. Seems more a case of misunderstanding than anything else. :-) faithless (^speak) 01:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Your Adminship. I'm so pleased that we've worked this out that I've temporarily put up an "Ignore All Rules" banner again on my insignificant talk page. ☺ Twiggy (talk) 16:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Block

Hi. I noticed you had blocked User:Rajkumar234 for creating nonsense pages. I seems however that after the block expired, the same disruptive behaviour continues. Perhaps the block should be renewed. --Soman (talk) 19:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey Soman, so for the late reply. I looked into it after receiving your message buy apparently I got distracted and it slipped my mind, until I just saw your message again. It's a tough situation, since the editor appears to be well-meaning and the is evidently a language barrier. S/He hasn't created a page for almost a week now, so they might have gotten the message; I'll keep an eye on it. Cheers, faithless (^speak) 19:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

SOAPBOXING?

Early last month you deleted an my article about a fraternal organization, Alpha Omega Theta. This was simply an article describing a organizaton. If you feel that my article is soapboxing then you should delete all the other Greek organization's articles. They are practically the same. --Triumphant07 (talk) 23:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Quoted

Hey. If you're interested, I've added you to my list of Quotes. :-) That whole response was literally breath-taking. I salute you!--Koji†Dude ^(C) 23:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm honored that someone would find something I say worth quoting. Cheers! :-) faithless (^speak) 23:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Reporting vandalism

Hi Faithless. This user Ash1597530 (talk) continued with his vandalism in some other articles after your warning, for example in Hermione Granger, Ginny Weasley, and several others. You may give it a look. Greetings! --Lord Opeth (talk) 17:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, Opeth. I've blocked him/her as a vandalism-only account. Cheers! faithless (^speak) 19:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Frank Leslie Walcott

User:Blechnic has apparently found an example of plagiarism in this article, see the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Did you know. Got anything to say about that? Are there any more unattributed statements in the article? Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 05:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. The user was mistaken, there is no plagiarism in the article. faithless (^speak) 05:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Frank Leslie Walcott

On 27 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Frank Leslie Walcott, 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.

--BorgQueen (talk) 12:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! faithless (^speak) 02:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Plagiarism

"So using three of the same words (participation, in, nation) is tantamount to plagiarism?" - sometimes, yes. Just rewriting a source is not always enough. Minimal rewriting can still be plagiarism. It is a tricky thing to get right, and lots of people do it, but exact word-for-word copying is a copyright violation, while minimal rewriting can be plagiarism. Only a complete rewrite ensures that you can't be accused of plagiarism. Please don't take this the wrong way, as this is a tricky thing to get right, and lots of people get it wrong. I've been guilty of this in the past myself. Carcharoth (talk) 14:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

HP articles and Notability

Hey there. I would like you to the discussion taking place in the WikiProject HP regarding the Notability of the remaining articles. Cheers! --Lord Opeth (talk) 17:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reasonings, Faithless. I have to admit I didn't know that you reverted my edits until you told me as I hadn't already checked the page yet. I thought this ghost character was made up by someone (I remember someone added a "supporting character" that was a girl to whom both Harry and Draco were attracted to). As for Cadmus, I actually agree with you, but I remember this discussion, and if the family tree and the Peverells section have the same information, I thought the characters list should have the same as well. I still insist that owning the resurrection stone is a more than a definite proof that Gaunt is Cadmus' descendant, the rest is speculation and maybe OR. --Lord Opeth (talk) 23:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Help on action buttons

I'm not exactly new to Wikipedia, and I'm finally getting to understand exactly how stuff works around here, but, being how you were the one that gave me the introduction, this was my first option to answer this question.

I know, I could have asked this a million other places

How do you create an image, that, when clicked, will modify data (such as a page controlling an image or the image directly)? I tried to decipher {{Emergency-bot-shutdown}} with no luck, and I'm hoping you might have a clue.

Thanks, Graham (talk, contrib) 06:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC) PS like the comment on rather having your own talk page vandalized! In Eastern time, it is 2:26 AM. Please don't expect a prompt response as I may have already left.

Hi Graham,

Well to be honest, I just don't know. I'm pretty sure I know what you're asking, and if you told me specifically what you were trying to do, I think I might be able to pull it off by using the template you cited as a guideline (I've had success in the past tinkering until I figure these things out), but I'm not really all that tech-savvy. I'd be happy to give it a go if you like, or if you'd like to have someone with a firmer grasp of what they're doing, I'd recommend the help desk. Cheers, faithless (^speak) 06:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)