User talk:Faithlessthewonderboy/Archive 27

Excuse me?

I don't appreciate your unnecessarily threatening tone regarding my complaint about an unaccountable subroutine program that cannot be bothered discriminate between legitimate edits and vandalism. Why exactly is your first resort a naked threat of blackballing instead of attempting to discuss the issue? 81.171.241.10 (talk) 19:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

This edit is blatant vandalism. You were trying to use humor to make your point. Unfortunately, any legitimate point you might have will be ignored by the immature way you tried to make it. Please do no make similar edits in the future. faithless (^speak) 22:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

God forbid, apparently, that anyone try to use a method of discussion you disapprove of. 81.171.241.10 (talk) 07:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Method of discussion? Surely you jest? Vandalizing a talk page is not a "method of discussion" by anyone's standard. Like I said, you might have had a legitimate point to make. But instead of doing the proper thing by bringing up the issue on Cluebot's talk page, you decided to make a point by creating a joke discussion on a talk page unrelated to Cluebot or the article on which Cluebot reverted your edit, and now you're wasting my time. faithless (^speak) 18:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Curfew

Dude, there are two additional sources on the talk page that specifically discuss that he was out after curfew. Stop trying to slant the article. 99.169.250.133 (talk) 02:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

No, there aren't. There is a Goal.com article which cites a Washington Post report that suggests that Davies broke curfew, and a Twitter post from an uninvolved party stating it, with no evidence to back up his claim. What you, ESPN, Goal.com and the rest are doing is figuring that "Well, there was a curfew, and Davies was not tucked in bed at the time, so he must have broken the curfew!" That is speculation, which is why those sources used words like "apparently" and "suggest." Exceptions to team curfews are by no means uncommon in the sports world, and for all we know Davies asked Bradley's permission. Even if this were true (it quite probably is) and sourced (it most certainly is not), to argue over this is absurd. It's a trivial detail which doesn't belong in the article in the first place. And don't make baseless accusations. faithless (^speak) 18:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Charlie Davies article

I have reinserted that Davies was out past curfew for multiple reasons. The most glaring being that the first 3 pages of a google search for "charlie davies curfew" bring back source after source saying that he was in fact out past curfew. Including ones by Grant Wahl of CNNSI.com, and Steve Goff at The Washington Post. I'm starting to get the impression that you're against adding the material because it sheds a negative light on Davies. Which, while noble, isn't reason enough to exclude information notable for inclusion. While the IP editor may be a big....abrasive, he has properly sourced the article and provided multiple corroborating sources on the talk page of the article. Please discuss your thoughts there, rather than commencing an edit war. Surely a conclusion can be reached to satisfy all involved parties. SpartanSWAT10 (talk) 03:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

While I appreciate you calmly bringing this up, I have to say that I'm offended by your accusation that "...[I'm] against adding the material because it sheds a negative light on Davies." This is not only completely baseless, but patently untrue. First, I don't think that it would cast a negative light on Davies. Period. Second, the reason I have continued to remove it is that it is completely unsourced! Have you noticed that all of the sources that mention the curfew issue say that he "apparently" broke the curfew (or some similar language)? That is because no one associated with the USSF (the only people capable of making such a statement) has said he did! What ESPN and other media outlets have done is extrapolated from the fact that there was a curfew and that Davies was out past it, that he broke it. That is fine for them to do, but not us. Wikipedia does not get involved in speculation, only what is verifiable. As Wikipedia policy states, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" (emphasis in original). faithless (^speak) 18:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)