Jump to content

User talk:Dp76764: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
→‎Superbad: new section
Explaining why this whole thing ticks me off
Line 44: Line 44:


Thank you for clarifying [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CRYSTALBALL#CRYSTALBALL why] my section entitled 'Sequel' was deleted from Wikipedia. I know why it was deleted by you and another reason and I now know not to mistake that mistake in the future. [[User:Thegrillman|Thegrillman]] ([[User talk:Thegrillman|talk]]) 17:27, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CRYSTALBALL#CRYSTALBALL why] my section entitled 'Sequel' was deleted from Wikipedia. I know why it was deleted by you and another reason and I now know not to mistake that mistake in the future. [[User:Thegrillman|Thegrillman]] ([[User talk:Thegrillman|talk]]) 17:27, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

== Last Ounce of Courage Edits ==

I'm glad we're starting to work out the issues in the Last Ounce article. I have no interest in an edit war with you, or anyone else. However, I have had strong frustrations with Wikipedia, in terms of editing, which is why I have no editing account. Already in this dispute, we have two Admins come in threatening blocks...over what? One of those same Admins accused me of making "unhelpful/disruptive" edits...according to whom? Blocking is supposed to be the LAST resort, not the first. This makes me want to tear my hair out.

I have certainly had this sort of thing happen before. I don't mind being edited so much, but being reverted, is frankly not a joke. It's why Wikipedia has lost thousands of volunteer editors over the past two years. Too much wikilawyering and ownership.

In my experience, this is how editing Wikipedia goes. 1. You make the edit. 2. Someone reverts it in five minutes. 3. You revert it back. 4. They call it Vandalism and revert it without a word of explanation. 5. You point out that you have added relevant information and put it back in. 6. They call it NPOV, again with no explanation, and take it out. 7. You point out you added balance and put it back in. 8. They accuse you of OR, and take it out, then block you for 3RR. The whole thing feels like a waste of time.

I once tried editing the birthdate of an artist, which was incorrect on Wikipeda, but was correctly cited on the website of the artist AND his best friend. That was called OR. Well, good God, if reading things and adding them is OR, what isn't?

I once added that a famous writer was in a music video, that was labelled Vandalism, then OR, then I got 3RR'd. Guess who told me they were in the video? The writer HIMSELF. AND...he's visibly IN the video! How else would you know??

Once gave it a shot when a wiki article accused a politician of push-polling. I put in that the paper reporting that was owned by the opposing politician's wife! I confirmed it through the state voter checklist...more OR and blocking. I didn't even remove the accusation.

Another time, the wiki bio of a famous actress listed her death location incorrectly. I know this, because...I have her death certificate. Again, vandalism, followed by OR, followed by blocking.

It's amazing anyone not already granted Admin access bothers anymore. [[Special:Contributions/66.87.4.30|66.87.4.30]] ([[User talk:66.87.4.30|talk]]) 02:33, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:33, 24 September 2012

WP:UTM
WP:BLP
Image placeholders
Link Checker

Try to stay in the top three sections of this hierarchy.


Okay, I'll bite: why?

Why?

Diablo II

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Diablo II: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you for helping to protect articles from vandals. -- Fyrefly (talk) 10:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed (see the top of this talk space). I tend to use them less frequently for 1-off, drive-by vandals though; people who edit once, enjoy the laugh they get out of it and then leave. Persistent vandals, on the other hand, get warnings. DP76764 (Talk) 18:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Beatles infobox

There is a Straw Poll taking place here, and your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 02:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Violating TOU

You are violating TOU of Wikipedia. Please read them in future, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.205.24.130 (talk) 16:27, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, that's hilarious. DP76764 (Talk) 16:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wait for the administration to find out that you are misusing your right to edit and violating Terms of Use. Fulfill your ego elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agamemnon s (talkcontribs) 16:47, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Naturalistic pantheism

I noticed you recently made an edit at page Naturalistic pantheism which I have nominated for deletion. Please share your thoughts about it if you have any. Thanks (Allisgod (talk) 18:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Superbad

Thank you for clarifying why my section entitled 'Sequel' was deleted from Wikipedia. I know why it was deleted by you and another reason and I now know not to mistake that mistake in the future. Thegrillman (talk) 17:27, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Last Ounce of Courage Edits

I'm glad we're starting to work out the issues in the Last Ounce article. I have no interest in an edit war with you, or anyone else. However, I have had strong frustrations with Wikipedia, in terms of editing, which is why I have no editing account. Already in this dispute, we have two Admins come in threatening blocks...over what? One of those same Admins accused me of making "unhelpful/disruptive" edits...according to whom? Blocking is supposed to be the LAST resort, not the first. This makes me want to tear my hair out.

I have certainly had this sort of thing happen before. I don't mind being edited so much, but being reverted, is frankly not a joke. It's why Wikipedia has lost thousands of volunteer editors over the past two years. Too much wikilawyering and ownership.

In my experience, this is how editing Wikipedia goes. 1. You make the edit. 2. Someone reverts it in five minutes. 3. You revert it back. 4. They call it Vandalism and revert it without a word of explanation. 5. You point out that you have added relevant information and put it back in. 6. They call it NPOV, again with no explanation, and take it out. 7. You point out you added balance and put it back in. 8. They accuse you of OR, and take it out, then block you for 3RR. The whole thing feels like a waste of time.

I once tried editing the birthdate of an artist, which was incorrect on Wikipeda, but was correctly cited on the website of the artist AND his best friend. That was called OR. Well, good God, if reading things and adding them is OR, what isn't?

I once added that a famous writer was in a music video, that was labelled Vandalism, then OR, then I got 3RR'd. Guess who told me they were in the video? The writer HIMSELF. AND...he's visibly IN the video! How else would you know??

Once gave it a shot when a wiki article accused a politician of push-polling. I put in that the paper reporting that was owned by the opposing politician's wife! I confirmed it through the state voter checklist...more OR and blocking. I didn't even remove the accusation.

Another time, the wiki bio of a famous actress listed her death location incorrectly. I know this, because...I have her death certificate. Again, vandalism, followed by OR, followed by blocking.

It's amazing anyone not already granted Admin access bothers anymore. 66.87.4.30 (talk) 02:33, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]