Singularity42 (talk | contribs) |
→Question: new section |
||
Line 45: | Line 45: | ||
:The key word was "unexplained." That user explained their removal and I dropped the issue like a hot potato. I truly believe that you should not be allowed to remove ''anything'' but blatant, intentional vandalism unless you provide an explanation. Since there is no such rule (I don't think), people who do those kinds of seemingly drive-by removals without taking six seconds to explain what they're doing shouldn't be surprised when they're reverted. And that IP user who reverted on Evan Roberts's article would seem to agree, since they reacted to getting reverted by explaining what they were doing. |
:The key word was "unexplained." That user explained their removal and I dropped the issue like a hot potato. I truly believe that you should not be allowed to remove ''anything'' but blatant, intentional vandalism unless you provide an explanation. Since there is no such rule (I don't think), people who do those kinds of seemingly drive-by removals without taking six seconds to explain what they're doing shouldn't be surprised when they're reverted. And that IP user who reverted on Evan Roberts's article would seem to agree, since they reacted to getting reverted by explaining what they were doing. |
||
:I'll keep an eye on sources more. That was a failure on my part. But I'm still going to view absolutely any unexplained removal of content with plenty of skepticism and a fast revert hand. For every situation like that, there's tons of no-explanation removals that are entirely inappropriate. [[User:Silvercitychristmasisland|Silvercitychristmasisland]] ([[User talk:Silvercitychristmasisland#top|talk]]) 02:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC) |
:I'll keep an eye on sources more. That was a failure on my part. But I'm still going to view absolutely any unexplained removal of content with plenty of skepticism and a fast revert hand. For every situation like that, there's tons of no-explanation removals that are entirely inappropriate. [[User:Silvercitychristmasisland|Silvercitychristmasisland]] ([[User talk:Silvercitychristmasisland#top|talk]]) 02:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC) |
||
== Question == |
|||
Why do you hate Jews? |
Revision as of 22:41, 29 July 2011
I've been following their career for a long time and I know their history quite well. I'm trying to help with the accuracy of this article as I am pretty much an expert on the band. I do indeed believe that they should have a page on wikipedia, it's been long overdue:)
Speedy deletion of attack pages
Thanks for your enthusiasm for nominating attack pages for deletion. One thing to note though, please blank the page to reduce the number of people who actually see the attack page between nomination and deletion. --Mrmatiko (talk) 19:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Got it. I was wondering why, when I warned that guy, the warning was just a generic thing even though I included the article's name in my warning. Now I know. Thanks! Silvercitychristmasisland (talk) 19:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, I don't think that is why the warning was generic. I think that the reason it shows a generic attack template is probably because it uses the attack template rather than anything more specific and from what I can tell it doesn't take any parameters. My guess would be that creating an attack page is so serious that the warning doesn't need to be specific to the page.
- The reason to blank the page is to protect the victim of the attack page from casual browsing of Wikipedia by people who might use it against them.--Mrmatiko (talk) 19:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- I typed (well, copy pasted) this: "subst:CSD-warn|csd|pagename" (with brackets instead of quotes) and included the page name and changed the "csd" to the code "G10" and it wiped the page name. Which is fine. That's how it should be anyways. Silvercitychristmasisland (talk) 19:48, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Edit war at Orc (Middle-earth)
Hi there. Since you've been involved in yesterday's incident with IP 68.205.7.47 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) at Orc (Middle-earth) I'd like to inform you that we're now discussing the matter on ANI. Regards, De728631 (talk) 09:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- And I wander back here too late to do anything about it. The discussion is closed over there, and there's not much more I can do regarding deletions of an expert's claims (and accompanying snotty remarks) are called "good edits." Silvercitychristmasisland (talk) 17:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Nice try
I don't recommend trying to reason with that user that keeps removing content from Small Soldiers pages. Nothing works. Virtually all their edits involve vandalism to Small Soldiers and related articles. Weird and kinda disturbing. I normally refrain from personal comments, but that person obviously has some issues. --Jtalledo (talk) 02:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
- See all the history of the page, that's why I gave him an only warning. The next step you should have done is a report to AIV. ۞ Tbhotch™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 02:38, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
User:Bart simpson rules
Why did you tag this guy's user page as a candidate for speedy deletion? Thatotherperson (talk/contribs) 22:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- Why not? It's a possible copyright violation, and it's completely unhelpful. See the user's useless addition to Smash Mouth in case you're wondering if they're here to help. Silvercitychristmasisland (talk) 22:56, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- A copyright violation to use the name Bart Simpson in his username? I highly doubt it. Even so, tagging his user page for speedy deletion wouldn't delete his account. If you really have a problem with someone's username, there's a noticeboard for reporting that. I'm not sure which one, but it shouldn't be too hard to find.
Thatotherperson (talk/contribs) 23:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)- And it's a userpage, not an article. My mistake. Silvercitychristmasisland (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- Alright then. Thatotherperson (talk/contribs) 23:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- And it's a userpage, not an article. My mistake. Silvercitychristmasisland (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- A copyright violation to use the name Bart Simpson in his username? I highly doubt it. Even so, tagging his user page for speedy deletion wouldn't delete his account. If you really have a problem with someone's username, there's a noticeboard for reporting that. I'm not sure which one, but it shouldn't be too hard to find.
Just an FYI, we almost never delete user talk pages, see WP:DELTALK. In this case, I blocked the editor because their username is promotional, though they can feel free to create a new account or request a new name per WP:CORPNAME. I also replaced their talk page content with the block notice (so the advertisement is now gone). I just wanted to let you know, thanks. -- Atama頭 21:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- Got it. Question, though: That page, even though it was a user talk page, was still not good and needed its promotional content removed. (It was tagged as such, with "Tag: Possible self promotion in userspace," upon its creation.) Should I just blank content like that, replace it with some antipromotional template, or anything? And where can I go to report problematic (i.e., promotional) usernames? Thanks. Silvercitychristmasisland (talk) 22:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
89.244.72.165
89.244.72.165 Now blocked from editing their own talkpage. Cheers, Tonywalton Talk 23:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- Cool. Thank you. Silvercitychristmasisland (talk) 23:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Careful reverting
Please be more careful in the future when reverting due to "unexplained removal of content",[ that the source supports the content it purports to support, especially for BLP-sensitive content. Best,--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- The key word was "unexplained." That user explained their removal and I dropped the issue like a hot potato. I truly believe that you should not be allowed to remove anything but blatant, intentional vandalism unless you provide an explanation. Since there is no such rule (I don't think), people who do those kinds of seemingly drive-by removals without taking six seconds to explain what they're doing shouldn't be surprised when they're reverted. And that IP user who reverted on Evan Roberts's article would seem to agree, since they reacted to getting reverted by explaining what they were doing.
- I'll keep an eye on sources more. That was a failure on my part. But I'm still going to view absolutely any unexplained removal of content with plenty of skepticism and a fast revert hand. For every situation like that, there's tons of no-explanation removals that are entirely inappropriate. Silvercitychristmasisland (talk) 02:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Question
Why do you hate Jews?