User talk:Falcon8765

Please post new messages at the bottom of my talk page. Please use headlines when starting new talk topics. Thank you.

re Kwahwi

Kwahwi is an important linguist doing important work with endangered indigenous languages [see for ex. http://ogmios.org/ogmios_files/335.htm]. I don't think it's wise to revert her edits out of hand.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Drwonmug (talk • contribs)

Seems to be a trademark to delete things out of hand, "I am a god on the internet, DELETE DELETE DELETE", very Darlek esque. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.71.32.68 (talk) 22:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Annoyed

Stop with the censorship already, you're as bad as the Australian government.

Have you any idea how hard it is to find citations for an Opinion Paragraph? Use some common sense.

You are not the Wikipedia Police, stop attempting to change public opinion on a PUBLIC page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.71.32.68 (talk) 23:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. Wikipedia doesn't work that way. It has to be verifiable.Falcon8765 (talk) 00:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

G-Man

Please read the "No Original Research" article, and stop scoffing, and stop deleting comments based on your own personal opinion, theories and generally considered variables are acceptable, you are vandalising an article and I would appreciate if you stopped. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.71.32.68 (talk) 20:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I am well familiar with Wikipedia's verifiability policies. If it doesn't have a source, it probably shouldn't be included. Falcon8765 (talk) 00:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand that you are trying to improve the article, but if can't you see how if we don't have some reliable source reporting on it we have absolutely no confirmation that it is anything beyond your own personal opinion, which thousands of anonymous editors strive to input into articles every day. Falcon8765 (talk) 00:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes it's my own personal opinion, despite the fact with the last edit I gave two sources, the edit was deleted a few hours later. -.- Grow up.

Stop deleting decent edits that have source, to quote you "Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to G-Man (Half-Life), you will be blocked from editing."

The point in this article is that it's got an Identity section, since we don't know his identity we can only reliable cite theories, if you want to delete some origional research go delete the page on Dark Matter, there isn't any conclusive evidence for that either. Child. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.71.32.68 (talk) 18:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Give it a rest and just accept that you are in the wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.71.32.68 (talk) 18:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Another editor removed the sourced content, not me. Falcon8765 (talk) 21:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Trying to understand

Hello, you keep editing my article and I am a bit confused as to why.

First, I understand why "award winning artist" may seem tainted however, directly after that I have entered a reference to a list of all of the awards that this artist has one. That's like saying you can't say "gold medal winner" in when referring to an Olympic athlete, because that taint's the article, even though they did win a gold medal.

Second, this orphan article issue. I have linked almost every possible Proper noun, profession, industry, company, and organization, to other articles in Wikipedia. Other then the articles, such as "A", "AN", and "THE", and verbs such as "IS", i don’t know what more I can do to have you stop adding this to my article. Even in the suggested links that appears in the Orphan tag box I am given NO SUGGESTIONS.

Third, since you are continually going into my article and editing it, perhaps you could do something constructive, as opposed to destructive and fix the reference list. While I have entered the article into Wikipedia, I do have problems with some of the programming language. Therefore, as you can see, I have four or five of the same book referenced, and it's starting to look ridiculous. Maybe you could fix that instead of just writing "needs citation" next to everything. While I am not an expert, as far as I am concerned the point of Wikipedia is to add to the content of information in the world. While I understand your position as to the importance of accuracy of content, simply pointing out parts of an article you seem to have a problem with, without referencing how to improve upon them is just as irresponsible as someone adding an article with no substantive facts.

J11mcdowell (talk) 00:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The maintenance tags are not any intended slight on your editing ability, but serve to draw attention to problems with the article and get other editors to fix them. When an article is tagged, it gets placed into patrolled categories and will eventually get looked at. As far as the orphan tag is concerned, you've confused the blue internal links within an article to blue links on other pages that link to the article in question. You can see what links to an article via Special:WhatLinksHere. There is consensus on the 'award winning' in lead situation. As an example, people who have won a Grammy Award don't have 'Grammy Award-winning' included in the lead. As far as my edits to the article are concerned, I fixed what I could during my available time. Falcon8765 (talk) 00:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Just combined the references for you. Falcon8765 (talk) 01:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Alexa Rae Joel - regarding a statement in the Suicide attempt section

I am contemplating removing the following text from the "Alexa Rae Joel" article, to wit:

This is because homeopathic medicine has no active ingredients and they are essentially all placebos.****"Why Placebo's Didn't Kill Alexa Ray Joel". Livescience.****

This statement is extremely controversial and the referenced source is not qualified to speak on the subject. His degree merely being a B.A. in Psychology. Thus the statement is not encyclopedic.

I noticed you had reverted a couple of prior edits removing that text, so I wanted to run this by you before I make the edit, as well as making clear this is a legitimate edit and not vandalism. Safiel (talk) 03:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 February 2010

• News and notes: New Georgia Encyclopedia, BLPs, Ombudsmen, and more

• In the news: Labor squeeze revisited, journalist consultations, philosophy bungles, and more

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Singapore

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

James Rossant article

If you're tracking the James Rossant article, I have just added citatations/references, as requested. (Saw your name in the history.) Tnx Aboudaqn (talk) 18:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Tag clutter

Hey sorry, I wasn't logged in, but my general rule is to remove ~year old tags on sight. I figure if a year has gone by without the person who tagged the article getting around to fixing it themselves, that's their problem. If it hasn't been fixed due to intractable disagreements on the talk page, then the tag is just as pointless, and I consider delving through the archives hardly ever to be worthwhile. And if someone doesn't like it, they'll just put it back. But I don't think I violated any policy here, in fact as I'm working on WP:HANDLE just lately, old tags should, imo, probably be on that list. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. The maintenance tags get the article looked at for the tagged issue eventually as they are all placed into categories based on the tag date. Falcon8765 (talk) 00:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

But you can remove it if you want. Falcon8765 (talk) 00:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Meh, I don't really care, I just showed up there from an off-site link. Happy editing! -- Kendrick7^talk 00:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Libelous?

Please explain how adding someone's middle name to a page is libelous? You have refused to allow me to add the full names to any of the people listed on the Charlotte Country Day School page saying that it is "controversial" and "libelous". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.134.206.210 (talk) 03:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Adding 'Gaylord' as a middle name with no reference could be construed as vandalism, especially on a school article. Someone could use it insultingly. Falcon8765 (talk) 03:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is the reference: http://www.whitepages.com/search/Replay?facebook_count=0&linkedin_count=0&lower=5&more_info=1&search_id=65221361464914188462&search_type=findperson&twitter_count=5 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.134.206.210 (talk) 03:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

lol get a life

it was just for jokes haha i dont respect them anyway lol