User talk:Huey45

This is the talk page for Huey45.

Your edit at Twelve Olympians

Hi Huey. Can you explain why you "undid" my edit at Twelve Olympians? Who is "Paean – Universal healer", if not Paeon (god). Paul August ☎ 13:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to tell you yesterday when I did it, but I couldn't figure out how. Anyway, from reading the Iliad, it appeared that Paean didn't only heal the gods; he healed mortals as well, so labelling him "healer of the gods" or something along those lines would be misleading. (Huey45 (talk) 10:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC))

Paeon, is commonly referred to as the "physician of the gods" e.g. see [1], [2], [3] [4], I've never seen the term "universal healer" used. And by the way I believe there are only two references to Paeon in the Iliad 5.401 and 899 and in neither case do I see a mention that Paeon treated mortals. And in any case the link ought to be to Paeon (god) the article about the god, not Paean the article about the song form. So I'm going to redo my edit. We can discuss this further if you still disagree. Regards, Paul August ☎ 15:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Sunrise (TV program)

Seriously, what is your problem with the paragraph concerning Justin Beiber's canceled Sunrise performance? To me there no are major problems with how it was written, and in addition references support was is written. At least you could point out what's wrong with it so I can improve on it instead of deleting it whole. Misterkillboy (talk) 14:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I already did. Read the discussion page and stop breaking the rules.(Huey45 (talk) 09:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC))

Justin Bieber

I removed the hat section - please point me to the discussion where "this issue had already been discussed and most of the editors involved were in favour of keeping it". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Neiln, it's on the discussion page for the same article. Here's a link to the specific section:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Justin_Bieber#Justin_performance_cancelled (Huey45 (talk) 13:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC))

Yes, and I don't see where "most of the editors" were in favour of keeping the hat section. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

If you want to discuss that article, its own discussion page is the appropriate place. Believe it or not, but I never saw this as a personal issue. (Huey45 (talk) 04:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC))

So I'm guessing your statement on my talk page was incorrect? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I wrote on your talk page to ensure you would see it. The rules specifically say:

"When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page."

You went against the proper procedure; I'm just the one who reminded you not to. (Huey45 (talk) 05:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC))

Perhaps you should read WP:BRD: Make a change, revert, discuss. Not make a change, revert, accuse of disruptive editing and refer to a discussion that doesn't exist. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The discussion did exist, even before you took it upon yourself to delete the whole paragraph. If you genuinely don't believe me, just look at the time stamps.(Huey45 (talk) 05:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC))

I removed the hat section. There was no discussion on this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

There doesn't need to be any previous discussion anyway; you were the one who was changing things around, so it was up to you to explain yourself. Maybe you're getting so upset about it because you're a fan, but I'm quite sick of you harassing me about this pointless issue. I don't even like Justin Bieber; I'm just looking after the encyclopaedia. This is not a case of BRD. (Huey45 (talk) 05:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC))

Never heard any of his music so obviously I'm not a fan. It's not up to me to explain the initial change and I provided an edit summary of why I was doing the change. And I'm posting here to get clarification on a discussion which you say existed but now doesn't. This will be my final post here on the matter. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Catholic sex abuse cases

Dear Huey! The argument that you mentioned is on the subject article. Please note, that I have not made any personal attacks, merely pointed out that unfortunately, one of the editors kept on inserting information that seems biased, is either badly sourced, not sourced at all, misrepresented its sources or is off topic. By the way, is it me you were referring to as “a troublemaker”? --Dvd-junkie (talk) 08:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, that's good to hear. I mentioned personal attacks because I suspected that there would be some in the near future or even some that had already been written. I didn't bother reading the whole section because it was absolutely enormous. I didn't refer to you as a troublemaker. I remember writing something about troublemakers, which I assume is what you're referring to, although I can't find it now. Anyway, I don't think I was referring to you.(Huey45 (talk) 09:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC))

The remark I referred to was an edit summary.[5]

These debates can get quite heated – sometimes that's half the fun but, lately, I found it to be somewhat exhausting. On the other hand, it made me read up on a topic that I had never before considered (because these claims are just too outlandish).

Have fun!--Dvd-junkie (talk) 10:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Templates

Please see Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars — Hyperdeath^(Talk) 09:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Civilty

Please, avoid posting welcome, advice, or threat on my talk page. You are not welcome there.--71.163.232.225 (talk) 11:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

IP editor, I suggest you read the rules. I posted warnings on your user talk page for repeatedly engaging in vandalism. You even edited your page to hide the warnings, which I can guarantee won't help you. (Huey45 (talk) 11:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC))

I suggest you read the rules as well:

• Read WP:NOTVAND and WP:AGF before accusing other people of vandalism.
• Read WP:BLANK before criticising other people for blanking their talk pages.

— Hyperdeath^(Talk) 13:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

This guy is a repeat offender when it comes to making trouble. He just came here to complain because he doesn't want me to warn him about being a nuisance. Anyway, User:Afterwriting says that nobody is allowed to blank talk pages for IP editors.(Huey45 (talk) 14:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC))

It now appears that I was wrong about IP users not being allowed to blank "their" (sic) talk pages - although the policy also seems to contain some contradiction of this related to a "shared" IP. How are we to ever know with any certainty whether an IP address is a "personal" or "shared" one? I don't agree with the policy but will respect it. As for Hyperdeath's comments, it should be obvious that the last thing the anonymous IP editor ever does is respect any policies - especially any related to BLP issues or assuming good faith! Afterwriting (talk) 14:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

With a bit of detective work it wasn't too difficult to discover that our anonymous IP editor is in fact a blocked user. Who would've guessed?! Afterwriting (talk) 17:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Press Barnstar

Thanks for pointing out Vanity Fair's mention of my edit. Of course, I'm absolutely humiliated that my name has been publicly associated with Justin Bieber! Bradley0110 (talk) 17:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion

Posting threats on my talk page are unwelcome. Assume good faith, or consider sticking with another hobby apart from posing as a Wikipedia admin. StealthCopyEditor (talk) 22:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)