Seriously, edit warring is a very, very bad thing. It would have been much better to leave me a note on my talk page rather than simply revert back to the redirect. I'm gonna be honest, I'm somewhat pissed by it, even though I understand why you thought it was okay. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I have deprodded some of your star wards universe characters & suggested changing them to a redirect instead, as the name might well be looked for. since I dont know just where in those pages to redirect to--not being much of a fan--I leave that to you. Or maybe there's a good merge. DGG ( talk) 14:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Anakin tell Padme in episode II that when he is outside meditating that "jedi don't have nightmares" -- Vertigo315 ( talk) 18:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Please be careful when removing backlinks. That is a redirect and so should be deleted itself not just have the link unwikified. JoshuaZ ( talk) 23:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I agree some of them cant hold up as independent articles. But since the terms are likely to be searched for, wouldn't a merge or redirect be more appropriate than deletion? You're more likely to know the right places than I, so perhaps you should do it. DGG ( talk) 23:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
My bad on the content, I have an assignment for one of my classes going right now to edit a wikipedia article, so I figured I would add a bit. I figured it would be gone soon, but I thought it would last more than 8 minutes.... :-(
Not a bad call on the edit though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skavvchill007 ( talk • contribs) 04:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for cleaning up this mess. I don't have time to fix it all, but I'd highly suggested a series of mergers instead of outright deletions. For example, the recently deleted ship-classes should have been merged into their a single list or added to the list of ships in Honorverse. I will clean up a few articles today, but I'd appreciate it if you could do some mergers, too. Also, please notify User:Dotz Holiday of deletions, he maintains User:Dotz Holiday/deleted honorverse articles with the intent of transferring deleted stuff to dedicated honorverse wiki. Thanks, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I have no objections to the prod of church software, EasyWorship and MediaShout. All three articles were created by others and I only worked on them as my recent editing of contemporary worship included some cleanup of related articles. I have updated worship presentation program to include a link to a survey that gave EasyWorship and MediaShout as the two most popular packages. I don't know if that would be considered as a WP:RS but it's certainly my personal experience as well. Whilst they are notable (IMO), I don't feel that a separate article on each is necessary. Sidefall ( talk) 08:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey, a new source will be coming out that you may want to check out. See here. Sincerely, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 15:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Could indeed be an odd bug though, you may have done some unusual sequence of clicks, even a mouse gesture they haven't caught. Gwen Gale ( talk) 14:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello. Just wanted to let you know that I reverted your revert of the blanking of User talk:70.178.56.123, since as per WP:USER, editors may remove messages from their own talk page at will. Thanks, -- Kralizec! ( talk) 12:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, I feel sorry for my "rvv" comment but I don't think that it is a good idea to redirect an article what is well described. Volkov talk 17:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Do you think it's time to think about proposing a range block for our friend? That's what an admin suggested at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection before semi-protecting one of the page-redirects anyway. – sgeureka t• c 14:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I fixed links to all the articles you mentioned in your posts to the exact pages the images came from. Thanks for the heads up. I'll make sure the exact page within the web site is sited in the future. Mathewignash ( talk) 21:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Hey buddy, talk to me here. The pages you are marking as lacking source are pictures of Transformers that are no longer at www.transformers.com, so I removed that info from the page. How do I properly site a page that no longer has the image on it, but once did? Mathewignash ( talk) 01:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, now that the block is off we should talk. When I edited the star Trek page I offered that page the same respect Ioffer any other pages I edit. That is, I didn't remove anyone else's material and use an explanatory heading and made references available (footnotes). I interpreted the blanket reverts by two editors as vandalism. To be fair to you, maybe a better way to handle it would have been to leave it alone (since the two editors were obviously quite passionate about what they thought) and go the diplomacy route, since they weren't willing to initiate that.
However, I do not consider your deciding to invoke a block to be appropriate either, given the context of wha I was trying to do. Had I wanted to engage in an edit war, I would have done things like remove others' material (which they put time and effort into creating) or (other things none of us like?). So I'm doing two things now: First, I placed a discussion section in the Star Trek area regarding what is a fan film, exactly, and what isn't it? Perhaps this will result in all of us understanding that a little better. The other thing I have to do is take your blocking to dispute resolution and admin abuse. I'm not expecting any "satisfaction" per se; however, I've noticed from reading your talk page that others have expressed some dissatisfactio with your judgment. I do not offer an opinion on that; that is between you and them. If my complaint/appeal (whatever it might be called) is simply another data point in that process, that will, I hope, in the long run, get you to reconsider your decision-making. 16:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)Raryel
Hi, I seen you've been involved in the last few days in some Star Wars clean-up - if you have a moment, want to lend a hand at Coruscant. I'll take a stab but it's such a large article filled with details about fictional tourist attractions that I could do with some help. -- Allemandtando ( talk) 11:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I...I.. you could BUILD a bolt gun after reading this, there are even lavish diagrams about bullet construction -- Allemandtando ( talk) 16:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi, yes I was counting the vandalism of his talk page as the inappropriate and misleading tags he had added. I thought those tags were only allowed to be implemented by administrators and therefore thought his edits were vandalism. I am sorry if I was mistaken. Artichoker [talk] 00:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Mostly just fixing vandalism, making revert to versions of the pages from yesterday. - 68.46.118.76 ( talk) 05:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Frankly, it's a bit silly, especially given that the article is given in context of a fictional universe. It's certainly not hurting anything as it is, and does tend to fall into Wikipedia standards otherwise. Any argument against such articles can be applied to a hundred Star Wars or Star Trek articles as well, they are here because this is an encyclopaedia, and should be encyclopedic. GameJunkieJim ( talk) 05:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
The sources on the 'Terminator Page' were YOUR references that I saved from the last edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.71.152.81 ( talk) 06:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Your profile says you're a teacher, so why don't you do the appropriate thing and stop raging over the internet. Grow up. Tomorrow night, delete it all for all I care. But I'll sit here until then and report you if you so much as twitch the article before that. Remember one of Wikipedia's oldest rules. DRINK YOUR TEA AND CALM YERSELF SON! It's a nerdy game article, not something to get so worked up over. 68.46.118.76 ( talk) 06:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC) <--Have some delicious rotating IP.
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. The version that exists per before your reverts (And remember, no more for another 22 hours) will remain there. Thank you! -- 68.46.118.76 ( talk) 06:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
That was fun. Protonk ( talk) 07:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Not necessarily you, but time and time again, I see "apples and oranges" comments in AfDs from a variety of editors. I'd rather not single people out with diffs, but if you look through enough AfDs you'll see that quite frequently people will say things about how some other totally unrelated and different article that no one is arguing we should have is comparable to the one under discussion. Best, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 05:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Regarding your comments on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 July 1: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Although the practices of other editors can be frustrating at times, it's important to assume good faith and be civil. -- Explodicle ( T/ C) 14:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I wrote a new essay with the shortcut WP:DISCUSSCRUFT. This is an essay that is supposed to explain the word "cruft" in neutral terms and promote intelligent discussion about the cruft problem on wikipedia. I know there are already many essays about cruft on wikipedia. But I hope you might be able to give it a read. Perhaps it can be copy-edited or improved in some way. I hope you find it useful. Thank you! Problemchildlsd ( talk) 21:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Not even half as counterproductive as tagging. If you honestly want to see that article improve, you'd do better by it nominating it for deletion. Then people would actually start doing something to improve it.
Let's say for a minute it really has all that many different things wrong with it. Of so many things to choose from, you couldn't be bothered to do anything to address even a single problem. Tagging doesn't count, esp. if its not accompanied by any comment whatsoever on the talk page. After shutterbug ruthlessly hacked away at it, would it really be so difficult to actually do something instead of just slamming every single tag you can halfway justify?
Wait, I just remembered something. You actually used a robot to slam the tags on! Because manual tagging is just too difficult. I'm already exhausted just thinking about it. Slappywag42 ( talk) 21:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello. Where was the prior deletion discussion? Cheers Dloh cierekim 03:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Could you help me with getting more info for the references so it could be more visable on the NOTES Kelvin Martinez ( talk) 00:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
What led you to believing that this was vandalism? I don't use Twinkle, but I'm worried that such a thing might have been automatically flagged. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 01:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
thanks for those links, but can you help me cite this website then? http://www.snpp.com/guides/starwars.html it shows which episodes reference star wars
Also how do I create references? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Profitoftruth85 ( talk • contribs) 04:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
It looks like someone's already removed the deletion tag and you've added a notability one instead. I'm not really sure what the question is here. This is a fusion of two major characters, Galactus and Brainiac who are incredibly notable villains of the Fantastic Four and Superman, longtime mascots of the Marvel and DC universes. This character plays such a role in the Amalgam Universe project these companies worked together on. Tyciol ( talk) 20:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
( ArtsandCraftsHistorian ( talk) 21:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)) Dear Editor,
I am a published author but new to Wikipedia. Thanks for offering to help.
First problem: I just published an article online and need to know how to properly insert external links to it.
I inserted this: http://berkeleyheritage.com/essays.html
A Wikipedia editor wrote me:
You should enter only the direct link to your article:
Is this the correct link? http://berkeleyheritage.com/essays/wilde-worcester.html or Is it this? When no longer the latest, this is the permalink: http://berkeleyheritage.com/weblog/2008/07/oscar-wilde-joseph-worcester-and.html
Second Problem: a) I compiled excerpts from my book into an article on Mission style furniture and posted it on Wikipedia. How do I make the "references" section at the end of the article?
b) I see from guidelines that I need Cite error: A <ref>
tag is missing the closing </ref>
(see the
help page).. Is that right?
Many thanks. Leslie
( ArtsandCraftsHistorian ( talk) 21:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)) Editor,
I have a third problem to ask about.
I inserted links in my article on Mission Style Furniture. But they should have been "external" links. how can I change them to external links?
Many thanks, leslie
( ArtsandCraftsHistorian ( talk) 21:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)) When putting in external links I see a straight vertical line in front of each part of the link. Am I supposed to insert these? I cannot find such a symbol on my computer so I just copied the link above, removed their text and put in the new link. I have a feeling the vertical lines come when I save the edit. Is that right? leslie
Please don't revert an edit without addressing the reason it was done. I explained my edit and you did not, so I have undone your reversion. If you disagree with this, please explain why in the article's talk page and let's work toward a consensus. -- P3d0 ( talk) 04:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
I award you this Alien barnstar for your excellent work removing original research and fancruft from the Space Jockey, Bishop, and other Alien-related articles. Keep up the great contributions! -- IllaZilla ( talk) 16:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC) |