User talk:Asgardian: Difference between revisions
→Block reset: new section |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== |
== For the Record... == |
||
1. |
|||
Hi, thanks for writing on my wall page. Now that you've pointed the Kang article out to me I see what you're trying to do, and yes the X-Men did indeed debut in 63, but I still don't see how the way you're doing it is the best way. So I'm going to attempt some constructive criticism - hope that's OK! |
|||
I believe [[User:jc37]] made an incorrect decision, but subjectivity is Wikipedia's greatest drawback. I was editing Scarlet Witch, and because it is such a lengthy process the computer timed out and so the entries came from the IP address, not a username. Reverting an automated bot - and said bots have not been at the top of their game lately - to keep a series of constructive edits is hardly a breach. Another editor, yes, but not a bot. |
|||
I don't think initially reducing the article size by discarding over 50% of it is the best way of doing things. I think it's better to work with the article, going through it and improving what's already there instead of deleting large chunks of it in the name of POV, under the intention that you'll rewrite it later on. |
|||
2. |
|||
In other words, what you're doing is deleting half the article, and then over the next few days rewriting it. I think it's better to, in each edit, rewrite a section, using what's already there as much as possible without lessening article quality. As otherwise, doing it your way, you leave the article in the lurch between the first and last edits, and also you might inadvertently delete something good in the mass deletion stage. |
|||
I note with some regret that [[User:CovenantD]] has returned. A "welcome back" is not in order, as this user became seriously addicted to Wikipedia and was editing (check history) almost 24 hours a day, which is a major health risk. In fact, Wikipedia ''needs'' to explore this area and prohibit users from ''being capable'' of this. Just as some are addicted to video games, there are some that I am sure that are addicted to Wikipedia. His Talk page shows comments regarding me that are highly inappropriate, and he has been advised as such by another user. I am guessing he is now [[User:Pairadox]], who also shows the same obsessive attitude to editing. Is the length of time spent on Wikipedia by this user on the 16 - 17th January healthy? |
|||
I hope you can see why I naively assumed that you were just deleting large chunks of articles, and I would still find it much more reassuring if you didn't do that, but instead improved articles the way I suggest. |
|||
Footnote: any comments by either user here will be deleted. |
|||
One final thing. At articles like Secret Wars and Acts of Vengeance, you often are deleting the bibliography sections - now I don't know if there's some Wikipedia policy relating directly to that kind of section, but I for one find their inclusion a very useful reference, so I would appreciate it if you don't do that. |
|||
3. |
|||
If you have anything more you want to say, please write again - [[User:Rst20xx|rst20xx]] ([[User talk:Rst20xx|talk]]) 16:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Sock puppetry? No - just one clever impostor who fooled Wikipedia but not me. I'm better at IT than most and worked it out - no mean feat. Done and dealt with. That said, I can't help but note the irony as I agree with the edits. |
|||
== Blocked == |
|||
You've been blocked due to your two recent edits on [[Scarlet Witch]] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scarlet_Witch&diff=prev&oldid=182087202 here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scarlet_Witch&diff=next&oldid=182131757 here]). As per [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Asgardian-Tenebrae#Remedies]], you're restricted to 1RR per week. Though you may be blocked for up to a week at first, I've chosen to block you for 72 hours for now, though be aware that the time will continue to escalate on further violation of the Arbcom ruling. |
|||
4. |
|||
As an aside, I'd also like to note that the first revert had no edit summary, something ''else'' which was and has been a concern. - [[User:Jc37|jc37]] 10:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
I'll flag any vandalism etc here after I've used my one revert, although if I can add to something rather than just be revert, so much the better. If not, I'll post them here for some other diligent editor to swoop on. If folks are feeling idle and want to help with something right now, keep an eye on the edits of [[User:DavidA]]. He means well, but has this habit of playing "match-ups" in the Powers and abilities sections of entries. By this I mean "so and so is more powerful than so and so", which is not an effective way to guage the abilities of characters. He also needs to acknowledge that the Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe is not a recognised source. |
|||
:As well as use of an IP to avoid the arbcom decision. [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Asgardian]] [[User:CovenantD|CovenantD]] ([[User talk:CovenantD|talk]]) 23:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
5. |
|||
::Block extended to 1 week, per checkuser result. - [[User:Jc37|jc37]] 00:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Not illegal to wipe Talk Pages. Why archive old conversations when 99.9% will never be relevant again? |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
==Orphaned non-free media (Image:IronMan-55.jpg)== |
|||
[[Image:Nuvola apps important blue.svg|25px]] Thanks for uploading '''[[:Image:IronMan-55.jpg]]'''. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a [[WP:FU|claim of fair use]]. However, it is currently [[Wikipedia:Orphan|orphaned]], meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. [[WP:BOLD|You may add it back]] if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see [[Wikipedia:Non-free content#Policy|our policy for non-free media]]). |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "[[Special:Contributions/{{PAGENAME}}|my contributions]]" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described on [[wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Images.2FMedia|criteria for speedy deletion]]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Orphaned --> [[User:BJBot|BJBot]] ([[User talk:BJBot|talk]]) 21:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Block reset == |
|||
I have reset your block, since a [[Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Asgardian|checkuser case]] showed that you have evaded it. As a blocked user, you aren't entitled to use alternate accounts. -- [[User:Lucasbfr|<span style="color:#002BB8;">lucasbfr</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Lucasbfr|<span style="color:#001F7F;">talk</span>]]</sup> 15:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 14:02, 18 January 2008
For the Record...
1.
I believe User:jc37 made an incorrect decision, but subjectivity is Wikipedia's greatest drawback. I was editing Scarlet Witch, and because it is such a lengthy process the computer timed out and so the entries came from the IP address, not a username. Reverting an automated bot - and said bots have not been at the top of their game lately - to keep a series of constructive edits is hardly a breach. Another editor, yes, but not a bot.
2.
I note with some regret that User:CovenantD has returned. A "welcome back" is not in order, as this user became seriously addicted to Wikipedia and was editing (check history) almost 24 hours a day, which is a major health risk. In fact, Wikipedia needs to explore this area and prohibit users from being capable of this. Just as some are addicted to video games, there are some that I am sure that are addicted to Wikipedia. His Talk page shows comments regarding me that are highly inappropriate, and he has been advised as such by another user. I am guessing he is now User:Pairadox, who also shows the same obsessive attitude to editing. Is the length of time spent on Wikipedia by this user on the 16 - 17th January healthy?
Footnote: any comments by either user here will be deleted.
3.
Sock puppetry? No - just one clever impostor who fooled Wikipedia but not me. I'm better at IT than most and worked it out - no mean feat. Done and dealt with. That said, I can't help but note the irony as I agree with the edits.
4.
I'll flag any vandalism etc here after I've used my one revert, although if I can add to something rather than just be revert, so much the better. If not, I'll post them here for some other diligent editor to swoop on. If folks are feeling idle and want to help with something right now, keep an eye on the edits of User:DavidA. He means well, but has this habit of playing "match-ups" in the Powers and abilities sections of entries. By this I mean "so and so is more powerful than so and so", which is not an effective way to guage the abilities of characters. He also needs to acknowledge that the Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe is not a recognised source.
5.
Not illegal to wipe Talk Pages. Why archive old conversations when 99.9% will never be relevant again?