User talk:Tstormcandy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:Datheisen)
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome[edit]

Hello! If you'd like to leave a new message please hit the little + sign or "New Section" up there in the top right, and you'll get your own new area!. Write me about anything! Thanks!

The original welcome message I was sent when I joined Wikipedia:

Hello, Tstormcandy, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! ➜Redverstalk  ❝It's bona to vada your dolly old eek 07:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Last Edited: Tstorm(talk) 13:49, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Archives[edit]

All prior talk page discussion topics: Archive 1, Archive 2

→ !!! For visitors here flustered about edits:[edit]

Read below, then create a new section in the upper-right corner of this page and write all you'd like. Deleting and maintaining general control things can be important and the process is what keeps Wikipedia from collapsing in on itself within a matter of days (or hours). It's also sometimes not the most fun or glorious thing around for me to patrol and patch up. It's even less fun if something you created was changed or marked for deletion. It's entirely normal. Here are a few things to remember that can help solve the situation:

  • No decision at Wikipedia is final. There are all sorts of means and methods and things to work on in Wikipedia's dispute resolution center. That should cover about 99% of troubles if you read through it a few times. I especially encourage a look over the "See Also" section and the menu under it, as it's a large collection of detailed reasoning behind many of our most fundamental guidelines and policies.
  • My actions taken are never intended to be personal: When I'm going through vandalism patrol, civility concerns, incident discussion or other serious matters that can disrupt the encyclopedia, my aim is Justice. That comes first from the template set out by the community here (do note that, technically, we only have 1 rule however), bit also common sense and logic, evidence provided by other users, comments left by users, communications I may have had with other editors about certain situations, etc. There is never one easy answer, but that doesn't mean it's all terribly complicated.
  • If any edit I made is confusing: Please let me know. I make mistakes. Everyone does, and hey I might even do it slightly more than average. "Usually" I can catch my mistakes and will quickly rush to revert the error and write a message of apology. You may also wish to run your username through the general Wikipedia search to see if you are currently seen at any incident boards which might also explain my edits or other unexpected actions.
  • I cannot solve your situation if it will eventually require administrator assistance. Really, I wish I could help people more than I currently can, but we have guidelines for such things and I may need to suggest you take your concerns to an official discussion.
  • Communicate! You'd be shocked at what a large percentage of low-level conflict can be averted or resolved through even 1 or 2 talk page messages between users. Really, it's astonishing, in the 80%+ range I'd say. Be proactive and contact a user if you so much as sense trouble brewing and you will likely never see it go farther. Of all actions taken I've taken at time of this writing, even with some controversial issues, I've only been vandalized and absolutely ignored on having a civil discussion with two different editors. Some messages at the top of sections below might look somewhat heated, but I'm always one to accept responsibility for my mistakes and we end up with no worries.

Generic Greeting to Would-Be Message Deliverers[edit]

I will attempt to reply to any messages left at my earliest convenience. Messages about Administrator discussion or proposed article deleted generally take priority over any other work. Post about any of my actions you take exception to or are just annoyed/disgusted/frustrated with me over, as well. Really, anything. Follow our civility policies and always make an attempt to assume good faith on initial contact and things generally work out for the better. Best wishes, and I hope you enjoy your time at Wikipedia.

Your new section here![edit]

(Enter text here)

Another new section here![edit]

(Enter text here)

Reference Errors on 4 December[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:36, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Fredrick Brennan[edit]

Specific suggestions to make less fluffy? --GRuban (talk) 15:54, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not that the article is, in and of itself, entirely "fluffy". It's also not really the reason I put myself to "weak keep"... That's more of a matter of notability not automatically being inherited from 8chan; Also recentism along the lines of WP:15MOF. The style issue for me is the hinge on the disability and it reading like a human interest story and not terribly encyclopedic until the 8chan section.
There's nothing inherently wrong with the article. It's just a matter of my personal BLP preferences. Tstorm(talk) 20:11, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. So, more on the 8chan section. If there are other suggestions you can make to improve the article, that would be great. I'm not worried about the AFD any more, but, well, improvement is always good. --GRuban (talk) 20:44, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Honestly? At this point I'd personally keep it as short and straight as possible and wait it out awhile. By BLP standards and the "equivalent" internet sites like 4chan that have been around for so long for a near-infinite amount of media coverage to occur? This is brand new comparatively. The article doesn't necessary need to be trimmed but further growth would just welcome edit warring, RS bickering and the NPOV stuff that's mostly stayed away to this point.
I apologize for this being a sort of non-answer answer, but it's my style. I by and large AGF that people who edit the actual content know what they're doing and we have talk pages for this stuff. So, again, I'd just have to recommend that it not grow much for now. Tstorm(talk) 06:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
"The article you wrote sucks. Don't change a thing."? --GRuban (talk) 15:38, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't recall saying it sucks and I'm sorry if that's the impression I was giving. I just have some gripes on a personal style level. That's all. What "quality" means varies heavily from person-to-person. Since I don't believe in any form of ownership I'm not going to claim I know better than anyone else on any other article. I can just give advice based on things I've seen in the past. I'm sorry I couldn't be of much help to you. Tstorm(talk) 03:37, 11 December 2014 (UTC)