User talk:Gargyloveswolfy

---

Hey Gargy! That's a neat image from The Fix. I went ahead and removed it for now because we shouldn't use spoiler images in non-spoiler articles. But it's a great find anyway! Maybe you can put it on Spoiler:The Fix instead for now?--Hardvice (talk) 15:21, 24 January 2007 (EST)

• But, I am putting it back up after it airs. --Gargyloveswolfy 15:23, 24 January 2007 (EST)
  • Hence the "for now" :) --Hardvice (talk) 16:07, 24 January 2007 (EST)

Edit summary tone

Please don't tell other editors what they are and aren't allowed to change. That's not how a wiki works. If someone adds incorrect information, then change it back. There's no need for hostility.--Hardvice (talk) 16:01, 6 February 2007 (EST)

• What happens if they continually change it back to how they want it (one-sided and all) to reflect their needs and I have to continually change it back to the correct format? Do they get banned? --Gargyloveswolfy 16:03, 6 February 2007 (EST)
  • There's no "correct" format for subjective content. The best answer is to make sure both viewpoints are clearly expressed. If the edit war persists, both editors will probably be warned and, if necessary, banned, but it's never come to that yet. Life on a wiki is much smoother if you just let go of the notion that you "own" any articles or any edits. If something needs to be changed, change it.--Hardvice (talk) 16:14, 6 February 2007 (EST)
    • In this particular case, one one side was being presented.........they totally edited out the part about Zach never explicity stating his sexual orientation. That would look one-sided agenda, now wouldn't it!? --Gargyloveswolfy 16:21, 6 February 2007 (EST)
      • And like I said: correct it. Don't tell other people what they can and can't do. That's unacceptable from anyone here.--Hardvice (talk) 16:25, 6 February 2007 (EST)
        • Very well, but I just want to point out one little fact (because there is no way it's a corciendence this is all taking place today of all days) that Nathan was revealed as Claire's bio-daddy and that some Paire shippers are feeling vandictive. --Gargyloveswolfy 16:30, 6 February 2007 (EST)
          • Well, of course. It's not like I want to spend all day on this article, either ... particularly the day after a new episode when there are better things I could be doing. I just don't want it to degenerate into a warzone, and hostile tones will do that.--Hardvice (talk) 16:35, 6 February 2007 (EST)
            • Fine. But, I'll be in a editing back-n-forth war zone myself all day. --Gargyloveswolfy 16:37, 6 February 2007 (EST)

Talk pages

• Hi, Gargyloveswolfy. I restored the content on the Clach talk page since we don't remove discussions from talk pages. In time after there are no more additions to the discussion it'll be placed on an Archive page off of the talk page, but discussions never actually get deleted. (Admin 13:58, 10 February 2007 (EST))

• • Okay, but I hope you understand why I did it. I was hoping to resolve the whole Clach vs. the detraction with Zach's de-gaying. I realize I started it by adding it in the first place. However, I am hoping that the segement will be simply history for now on, understand? --Gargyloveswolfy 14:01, 10 February 2007 (EST)
    • I understand completely. :) Now that the controversy section has been removed from the article there's probably not even reason for anyone to add to the relevant discussion on the talk pages. If someone does chime in, best to probably ignore it since it's moot now anyway. Once the discussion's been dead for about 30 days or so it will go onto an archive page and hardly ever even looked at again. :) (Admin 14:04, 10 February 2007 (EST))