User talk:FrozenUmbrella/Archive1

Discussion below is from Feb 2005 to December 2005 and is kept for archival purposes. For any new discussion, see my talk page. Thanks. Brendanfox 04:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review

Hi Brendan, I see that you would like us to peer review Split Enz (an excellent band, btw). Would you be able to create the peer review page? make a 3 level heading up the top, then put a little note what you'd like to see peer reviewed and then sign using the ~~~~ to sign the page and add a date stamp (helps with archiving). Please do note that we'd really appreciate that you action any feedback as it discourages other editors when the time is not taken to respond to them. Good luck with getting this to featured article status! I personally will be gunning for you on this article :-) Ta bu shi da yu 03:36, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks mate. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:33, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Shins

With Wikipedia:Editing policy and WP:BOLD in mind, I think I did no wrong. There is a difference between delete and merge and redirect, Brendan. No information was lost since it was already covered in The Shins. Besides, "Reasons for removing bits of an article include duplication", and that's exactly what those articles were.

Why you haven't left notes on the talk pages of the other "reverters" beats me. But I won't start an edit war, and probably won't touch those articles again. Sorry for treading on your toes, Punkmorten 08:49, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lateline

"restoring aust. current affairs content, as this program is much more notable than a US sitcom that was cancelled during its first season"

"LateLine" (the sitcom) was cancelled during its second season.
"LateLine" (the sitcom) has aired in several countries (including Canada and the UK).
Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but I assume (based upon your edit history) that you're Australian. I'm American. It hardly seems fair for either of us to unilaterally deem his country's "Lateline"/"LateLine" more notable than that of the other country (given that Americans are as unfamiliar with yours as you are with ours).
Arguments of comparative notability aside, it seems absurd to me that one stub should take precedence over another. —Lifeisunfair 09:31, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Revert on ID

Apologies - I was reverting a series of edits going back about 6 versions, all the way back to 06:37, 13 November 2005 FeloniousMonk version. Go History, and compare my Rv to the previous version. I thought I had checked all edits done in between, but I missed yours - Please do check the history, I don't want you thinking I rv'd your change and left a misleading comment. KillerChihuahua 22:31, 13 November 2005 (UTC) Oh and the revert which ate your edit was the earlier one, (Rv: Id is a controversial assertion, not a Theory. Please see talk page.) not the most recent (Rv "unguided evolution" please do not use neologisms) just in case you did not realize that. KillerChihuahua 22:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Religious attacks

Ben attacked me on religious grounds. That is utterly intolerable. I don't see why you feel you should re-instate his disgusting edits. Guettarda 01:33, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't taking sides? You post a response and then revert without letting me reply? Nice. Guettarda 02:02, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan, I hope you won't be offended if I jump in here - Guettarda, you're right, Ben's attack was unjustifiable and unacceptable. May I offer a suggestion? Don't accept it - but don't pursue it. Deleting is not necessarily the best way to handle this.

And Brendanfox - if Ben doesn't object to the deletion of his hostile attacks, why should you? Ben may very well be just as happy those attacks are not on the page. He may not be, of course. But that's up to him.

One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua 12:13, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, no I think we agree about this. I reverted Guettarda's original action which was to remove the ENTIRE thread/discussion because I personally found many elements of it useful and because it contained many productive thoughts and ideas. When Ben offered to remove the offensive parts only, I suggested Guettarda take this option, I've no wish to have offensive attacks on the talk page, I just wanted the useful stuff to stay! --Brendanfox 13:52, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't I feel silly - here I am trying to defuse what looks like its shaping up to be a revert war, and y'all have already resolved this. Sorry for intruding. KillerChihuahua 14:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hahah, no probs KC. --Brendanfox 14:17, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Obesity

I'm wondering why you chose the introduction of that article for your cite of Sorensen. It is not normally the best place to address "recent research". JFW | T@lk 08:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for following up on my talk page. I've posted an explanation on the Obesity talk page, and look forward to discussing it further. --Brendanfox 10:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brendanfox, you need to be aware of the Three-revert rule. Reverting the same article more than three times within a span of 24 hours will get your account blocked from editing. You seem to be over the limit on Obesity.--Srleffler 06:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But those are reverts back to entirely different versions of the introduction. I may have misunderstood the policy, so I wont revert anything for the next 24 hours. Thanks for pointing that out. --Brendanfox 06:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]