User talk:Garion96/Archive 18

Archives

please kill yourself

thank you SonnyKingMonk (talk) 10:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

RFA spam

Thank you for participating in WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 3
Sometimes, being turned back at the door isn't such a bad thing

—Kww(talk) 18:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Flags in golfer infoboxes

Flag icons in infoboxes are "discouraged" not forbidden per wp:mosicon. They are commonly used in the golf world (European Tour profiles, PGA Tour profiles, leaderboards on those and other sites, etc. I'm reverting the changes you made to several golfers articles. Tewapack (talk) 04:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

In addition, I think you should perhaps defer to the long-standing practices of editors who actually work on these articles. Removing them in the manner you have, with no substantial rationale or discussion, is frankly not what I expect of an apparently vastly experienced editor (more so given you are an admin). It is precisely that kind of editing that precipitates edit wars. _wjemather^bigissue 09:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Murphy template

You removed them all already, didn't you? My browser was starting to slow down and I need to reboot, then I was going to do that. I, however, was distracted too long. I removed the filmography part of the template and left a note for the creator. Thanks for cleaning up after me, I was a wayward child. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Jude Law

Hi. If you have time, could you please look in at Jude Law and Talk:Jude Law regarding the edits of one editor (essentially a Jude Law single purpose account who first ended up pushing the section covering Law's appearance in Hamlet in Great Britain and the US. It has become a problem. First the section grew until it was as large as either the complete 1990s or the 2000s sections, because the editor insisted on adding every positive review from London that was written, and in a couple of cases, cherrypicked only the small positive parts from a couple overall negative reviews. Another editor reduced the section and left critical review on both sides of the fence. When that happened, the first editor removed all critic reviews citing "no need for any reviews, because of a maintain a neutral, unbiased POV. (WP:NPOV, WP:NPV, WP:NEU)". I returned it and then he came in and challenged everything. This is getting to be a problem. Also, just to mention, he's notorious for not responding. In the 2 1/2 years he's edited on Wikipedia, he's posted once to an article talk page - in late 2007, and once to another user talk page - in late 2008. Other eyes would be great. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

OJ Simpson info box removal

I noticed you removed the infobox that contained legal information about [Oj_simpson]. I believe the infobox was active for quite awhile and it contained very valuable information. Other portions of the article however could use some clean-up. Was the infobox removed because you feel it shouldn't be there or was there a reason it was removed that would benefit others?Woods01 (talk) 04:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Redlinks...

red means stop? It seemed like such a (quite surprising) mixed response that I'm not sure what to say. You're the administrator. :) I think I was fairly clear with what I said - he's deliberately keeping the list free of redlinks, which is not, in my view, at all in the spirit of what WP:REDLINKS says. I was a bit taken aback by the responses. I am anxious to see what Erik says, but he's not been around this week. Maybe on holiday? What do you think? Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

How bizarre. I had no clue you were irrational. Geez, what does that make me? I've begun to notice that I end up involved in nearly as many disagreements as an administrator. Still, I do not want to be one. Let's hope Erik pops in with rationality, eh? Wildhartlivie (talk) 14:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Razzies

Thanks for your comment. I'm not sure I know why the WP:FILM people have not commented yet. I know Erik isn't thrilled with them, but then, he's not been back yet to edit. Any ideas on how to raise the awareness of this discussion? Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)