Talk:Gnarls Barkley/Archive 1

Archive 1

Amateur Reviews

Since when was wikipedia a site for amateur reviews. I'm taking it out. --Gantlord 15:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I am guessing your an adolescent, why else would you make thoughtless comments rather than placing your own oppinion. Unless you have come here to cause an arguement, which i will need to report you if so. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.135.163.82 (talk • contribs) .

What Gantlord did was absolutely correct. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. If he hadn't removed it, I had. --Fritz S. (Talk) 21:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Fritz, I'm glad you've stepped in here. I don't understand why this could be interpreted as "starting an argument". There is no emotion nor even opinion in my original post. The only thing anyone could rightly complain about is the fact that I carelessly omitted a question mark in my original post. I chose to explain what I had done when I could just have edited it out without comment. I do not appreciate being threatened with the wikiPolice for choosing to uphold the most central of tenets of wikipedia, namely that material appearing in it should be derived from reputable sources exterior to wikipedia. The thought has just occurred to me that it is only my posting etiquette and not my actions in editing the original article to which you object. If that is the case then I only wish you could have pointed out this minor slip in wikipedia etiquette is a more reasonable manner. To start threatening to report me on the strength of this seems excessive. I am not an adolescent, I am a professional who really should be working right now. As you have threatened me in your post, I'll make a little threat of my own, made to no-one in particular. The next time I feel I have to take 20 minutes out of my working day to defend myself over a 30 second edit will be the last time I ever participate in this little project. One more imperfect editor with the best of intentions will have fled wikipedia's growing cabal of self-serving pedants. --Gantlord 12:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Fritz i will be more explicit, the message i wrote was meant to be a view that Gnarls Barkley will become the biggest selling artist of 2006. Im sorry if my message had the wrong connotations, but my comment was not meant to be judged as a "original thought" but rather stating what i feel is becomming obvious (4 weeks atop UK charts). Best intentions intended. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.159.152.203 (talk • contribs) .

This actually had nothing to do with your comment here on the talk page (I assume it was you who added the comment at the top), but with this edit to the article by 81.97.40.195, which Gantlord removed. --Fritz S. (Talk) 19:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, i guess we all make mistakes just i thought he aimed the "amatuer review" comment at me. Apologies all round.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.159.152.203 (talk • contribs) .

Yeah, I'll sit down now too... :-) --Gantlord 11:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)