| Revision as of 23:02, 16 September 2013 editNinjaRobotPirate (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators147,920 edits →Ultraman cleanup← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:20, 19 September 2013 edit undo199.123.13.158 (talk) →Indiscriminate deletion sprees: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 59: | Line 59: | ||
| :It looks like the articles need to have been created while they were blocked. I didn't look at all of them, but the ones I looked at seem to have been created before he was banned. ] (]) 15:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC) | :It looks like the articles need to have been created while they were blocked. I didn't look at all of them, but the ones I looked at seem to have been created before he was banned. ] (]) 15:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC) | ||
| ::Yeah. Because the sockpuppet investigation used these articles as evidence, I figured it was probably a waste of time to check them. Even though they may not qualify for speedy deletion, this may help get them cleaned up with less debate. It's hard to believe that they sat here for this long. ] (]) 23:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC) | ::Yeah. Because the sockpuppet investigation used these articles as evidence, I figured it was probably a waste of time to check them. Even though they may not qualify for speedy deletion, this may help get them cleaned up with less debate. It's hard to believe that they sat here for this long. ] (]) 23:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC) | ||
| == Indiscriminate deletion sprees == | |||
| ] Welcome to Misplaced Pages. At least one of ] did not appear to be constructive and has been ] or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Misplaced Pages, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the ] which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use ] for that. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-disruptive1 --> | |||
| You keep ignorantly and ignorantly saying that various things you either know nothing about or just don't like are "not notable in the real world", which makes no logical sense. Your edits violate either or both ] and ]. For example, declaring that a toy (say from ''Transformers'' associated with a billion dollar cinematic/cartoon/video game/comics franchise is not notable to people in the real world is flat out ludicrous. These are built by people in the real world for a global audience of collectors and fans and have economic significance in the toy and film et al industries beyond their relevance to fans. Yes, these articles should be improved, but to dismiss them in such an over the top and insulting way is absolutely unacceptable. Your edits demonstrate no real knowledge of how to actually source or improve articles and rather reflect just indiscriminate nominating in a spree fashion of fiction related articles for no honest reason. The fact that according to your block log you were previously sanctioned for this kind of disruption and yet have apparently returned only to do the same shows that you have either not learned from past mistakes or simply don't care what this site's editors and readers have told you in the past. You are accordingly trying to force your way by flooding deletion discussions with so many nominations that editors are simply overwhelmed. Moreover, you are copy and pasting the exact same nomination non-rationale for everything you nominate rather that taking the time to actually discuss the individual item nominated by mentioning specifically where you looked for sources. As such you list a memorable role from a film like Ivan Drago with the same copy pasta that you have for a minor toy and that you have for countless other apples and oranges items. It is as if you are trying to hurry up and disrupt as much content as possible before you are inevitably blocked again. So, I must ask do you really just hate knowledge and are this inconsiderate about what matters to other people or are you simply trolling for laughs? Just because you do not know about or care about something does not mean it is not significant to maybe even millions of other people around the world and across decades. If you seriously don't think that something like Ivan Drago, a memorable roll in a major film in a major actor's career that is illustrative of Cold War cinematic mentality and has indeed been covered accordingly has no real world importance and is in the same class as say a random fictional element in a more minor work of fiction than you simply do not know enough about fiction to be nominating these things for deletion or redirecting them. Do you think people are blinded by this indiscriminate and careless editing? Do you really get off on trying to destroy the work of others? My God! --] (]) 16:20, 19 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:20, 19 September 2013
 | Please keep all discussions on their original talk page. If I start a discussion on your talk page, please respond there, and if you start one here, I will respond here. |
proper AFD protocol
Please remember to inform the creator of an article when you have nominated it for deletion. Dream Focus 03:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
- The majority of the people who created the articles I'm nominating have been gone for years, so it seems pointless to auto-spam dead talk pages. TTN (talk) 19:52, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Do not redirect a merge
You redirected without merging as stated in the AFD, this is not a valid response in my eyes and its been so long that a proper merge be done or it rebrought to AFD. Gundam is now within my focus and my desire to bring a lot of A&M articles to GA and FA, but losing content wholesale strikes me as a bit wrong, especially when it was "merge". ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:44, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
- TTN's right however. An AFD that closes as merge + redirect means that the the article that was at AFD can be redirected w/o impunity. The pre-redirect content is still available to any editor (via the page history), so nothing is lost, and it is up to editors that want to retain info to make the merge work. If it was merge + delete, the content would have to be moved into place before deletion. --MASEM (t) 02:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
- It is not visible and I have just recently starting the mess at the Gundam articles - merge is not redirect. The complexity and size of Gundam is far more than a languishing A&M project can handle and given the spat there, I doubt much cooperation or unity or focus can be given to it. The page is not stand alone worthy it seems, but the content should still be up until the merge is completed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
- It is visible. That's what the history tag is for. And it's a bit hard to have any sympathy for having 5 years to "fix it". Fortunately, none of the contributions on that article are being lost due to the redirect, so if there's anything to merge, it is still there. --MASEM (t) 03:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
- The article was already merged, but the merge target was also deleted. There is no mandate that the information must exist somewhere, especially if it is shown that the information is not wanted like that. Merge results on a fiction AfD generally just end up being a paragraph or a straight redirect if the target article already has a suitable summary anyway. TTN (talk) 07:51, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
- It is not visible and I have just recently starting the mess at the Gundam articles - merge is not redirect. The complexity and size of Gundam is far more than a languishing A&M project can handle and given the spat there, I doubt much cooperation or unity or focus can be given to it. The page is not stand alone worthy it seems, but the content should still be up until the merge is completed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Invalid deletion rationales
I believe that some of your recent deletion rationales are using invalid reasoning. The articles themselves should be deleted, on that we agree, however the reason you state doesn't fit the deletion policy. For example, at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Twin Tail you gave the deletion rationale "This is a collection of fictional details without any real world importance.". The issue is that 'collection of fictional details' describes most of our coverage of fiction topics, and 'without any real world importance' is entirely subjective. The real issue is one of notability - that there simply isn't coverage of the topic in reliable third party sources - and while I get the feeling that that's what you meant by 'without any real world importance', it would be much better to just directly say that there's a notability issue. Saying 'without any real world importance', to many readers, is saying 'this should be deleted because I think it's unimportant', which is the wrong message. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:05, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- I agree, also from what happened at Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Hanali_Celanil, you should try to stick as much as possible to the GNG wording (ie "lacks significant coverage from reliable secondary sources independent of the subject or its creator/or those with a strong connection to them") otherwise you open yourself to the nitpicking of hardcore D&D fans ready to use any excuse they can think of. Besides that, well done for tackling the D&D mess (you'll probably make yourself a few enemies along the way, but just don't let them harass you, ignore them and know what you're doing is for the good of WP).Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:35, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
- Just commenting that I beleive these are fair assessments on the deletion rationale and do agree that TNN should try to start off that they fail the GNG because they don't show any real world significance. (They otherwise appear to be otherwise valid deletion targets). --MASEM (t) 17:40, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Ivan Drago merge discussion
Talk:Rocky_IV#Merge_for_Ivan_Drago_into_Rocky_IV An AFD you participated in that just got closed today, is now at a merge discussion. Dream Focus 19:29, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Welcome back!
An editor returns after four years of inactivity and all they receive is criticism? Figures... Welcome back, TTN! Goodraise 21:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's quite the resurrection. I think the most I went was a year of hibernation. It's always good to see editors come back to the project. Plus, I approve of his campaign against cruft. It's inspired me to get more involved in the AfD process. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:04, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/IFF (software)
Hi. I randomly selected your talk page from Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Computing. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/IFF (software) requires additional input and I thought perhaps you might be willing to provide one, if it isn't much trouble. Thank you. 91.98.79.60 (talk) 13:11, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Ultraman cleanup
Not sure if you'll notice this on a random AfD discussion, so I figured I'd mention this here, too. I just realized that most (if not all?) of the Ultraman articles you've nominated for deletion were created by sockpuppets. The sockmaster himself was banned in part for his disruptive editing, which included the creation of esoteric categories and articles, such as the Ultraman cruft that you've been cleaning up. While I haven't bothered to check if the articles qualify for speedy deletion (seems doubtful, as it requires a few stringent criteria), this is probably relevant to any deletion discussion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- It looks like the articles need to have been created while they were blocked. I didn't look at all of them, but the ones I looked at seem to have been created before he was banned. TTN (talk) 15:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah. Because the sockpuppet investigation used these articles as evidence, I figured it was probably a waste of time to check them. Even though they may not qualify for speedy deletion, this may help get them cleaned up with less debate. It's hard to believe that they sat here for this long. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Indiscriminate deletion sprees
Welcome to Misplaced Pages. At least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Misplaced Pages, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you.
You keep ignorantly and ignorantly saying that various things you either know nothing about or just don't like are "not notable in the real world", which makes no logical sense. Your edits violate either or both WP:DICK and WP:TROLL. For example, declaring that a toy (say from Transformers associated with a billion dollar cinematic/cartoon/video game/comics franchise is not notable to people in the real world is flat out ludicrous. These are built by people in the real world for a global audience of collectors and fans and have economic significance in the toy and film et al industries beyond their relevance to fans. Yes, these articles should be improved, but to dismiss them in such an over the top and insulting way is absolutely unacceptable. Your edits demonstrate no real knowledge of how to actually source or improve articles and rather reflect just indiscriminate nominating in a spree fashion of fiction related articles for no honest reason. The fact that according to your block log you were previously sanctioned for this kind of disruption and yet have apparently returned only to do the same shows that you have either not learned from past mistakes or simply don't care what this site's editors and readers have told you in the past. You are accordingly trying to force your way by flooding deletion discussions with so many nominations that editors are simply overwhelmed. Moreover, you are copy and pasting the exact same nomination non-rationale for everything you nominate rather that taking the time to actually discuss the individual item nominated by mentioning specifically where you looked for sources. As such you list a memorable role from a film like Ivan Drago with the same copy pasta that you have for a minor toy and that you have for countless other apples and oranges items. It is as if you are trying to hurry up and disrupt as much content as possible before you are inevitably blocked again. So, I must ask do you really just hate knowledge and are this inconsiderate about what matters to other people or are you simply trolling for laughs? Just because you do not know about or care about something does not mean it is not significant to maybe even millions of other people around the world and across decades. If you seriously don't think that something like Ivan Drago, a memorable roll in a major film in a major actor's career that is illustrative of Cold War cinematic mentality and has indeed been covered accordingly has no real world importance and is in the same class as say a random fictional element in a more minor work of fiction than you simply do not know enough about fiction to be nominating these things for deletion or redirecting them. Do you think people are blinded by this indiscriminate and careless editing? Do you really get off on trying to destroy the work of others? My God! --199.123.13.158 (talk) 16:20, 19 September 2013 (UTC)