User talk:Rottingflesh
From A KoL Wiki
|
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for deleting talk. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. |
|
Removing content from talk pages is a big no-no. Deleting an entire 32k+ page isn't too kosher either, but really the talk page is the problem here. That and the self-fellating clan declarations. Now I've gotta learn how to delete and partially restore pages. --Flargen 10:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Hmmm.. So, even though he's clearly putting in a lot of work, trying to make the wiki better, you block him for one week? I may not be an admin who has to deal with people spamming or whatnot, but it's quite clear that he's not some riffraff that's trying to vandalize. --MindlessGames 11:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- I understand the reasoning behind the policy, and all...but this seems like a pretty strong "warning", given that the info in the help page states: "Also, editing or deleting other people's comments is generally not appreciated, although discussions may be archived." There's no mention of or link to information about how to archive, and certainly no warning that you'll be banned for deleting comments. --Kirkpatrick 12:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- I've deleted his "edits" to that page, so you probably missed the part where he said something like "THIS PAGE DELETED BECAUSE THE HOGS HAVE CLAIMED IT FOR A REWRITE". Not exactly going to ingratiate you to...well, me at least. If some other admin wants to reduce/remove his ban duration, I won't complain, but I hope it suffices to say that he didn't exactly go about his rewrite in an appropriate fashion. --Flargen 16:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- He said "THE HOGS OF DESTINY CALL DIBS ON REVAMPING THIS WIKI ENTRY". --CG1:t,c,e 16:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- I've gotta say, I think this is a little harsh. RottingFlesh was clearly working hard to improve things-- I watched last night as he gave a ton of attention to the old and outdated Hardcore Skill Analysis page, a page that nobody had revised in ages. There might have been a few missteps here and there, but blocking him for a week? When you fire a warning shot, it's generally across someone's bow, to alert them, not square in the middle of their hull. --Southwest 18:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- He said "THE HOGS OF DESTINY CALL DIBS ON REVAMPING THIS WIKI ENTRY". --CG1:t,c,e 16:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- I've deleted his "edits" to that page, so you probably missed the part where he said something like "THIS PAGE DELETED BECAUSE THE HOGS HAVE CLAIMED IT FOR A REWRITE". Not exactly going to ingratiate you to...well, me at least. If some other admin wants to reduce/remove his ban duration, I won't complain, but I hope it suffices to say that he didn't exactly go about his rewrite in an appropriate fashion. --Flargen 16:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- I understand the reasoning behind the policy, and all...but this seems like a pretty strong "warning", given that the info in the help page states: "Also, editing or deleting other people's comments is generally not appreciated, although discussions may be archived." There's no mention of or link to information about how to archive, and certainly no warning that you'll be banned for deleting comments. --Kirkpatrick 12:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- One week is a warning shot. Blanking a page and saying you (and you alone) are going to revamp a page is not in the cooperative spirit of a wiki. If the admins wanted to sink them for good it would have been a permanent ban, not a one week suspension. --Lordebon 18:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed. Deleting entries (whether Talk or otherwise) and 'claiming' them for editing purposes later is neither constructive nor helpful. If revisions want to be done, then just do them. If you're doing a major revision, stick it in the talk page for debate over whether the change was helpful or not. Also, if standards dictate you don't delete talk pages, then you don't delete talk pages. The ban is both warranted and just.--Mr. Green 19:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Standards dictate that you can't do that? Where? (seriously, where). Tradition dictates this, but I see no standard. He probably could have been a bit more diplomatic about it, sure. However, there are many pages and re-writes that do a lot better when it's one person, or a small group of people doing the re-writing. Especially when it's a focused page, or one that's incredibly out-of-date. Collaboration may be what the wiki is theoretically about, however, there are many pages on this very wiki which are best written by people who have full knowledge of the thing at hand (It can very readily be the case that there are only a handful of people that fully understand the subject!) And banning someone like RottingFlesh, who has clearly shown that he wants to help with the wiki is only setting the precedent that if someone wants to help too vigorously, they can and will get banned, even if they do an admittedly non-tasteful thing like "lol, this page is ours, we're going to make it awesome." A User Talk-page warning would be better for people that are clearly avid editors, and do something "out of line." Just a simple thing like "Hey, we can see that you're being helpful, but <whatever> is unnecessary, please refrain from doing that." If it were a spammy noob, sure, go ahead and ban them. But someone knowledgeable and willing to help clean up old/incorrect pages? Seems excessive. --RoyalTonberry 19:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed. Deleting entries (whether Talk or otherwise) and 'claiming' them for editing purposes later is neither constructive nor helpful. If revisions want to be done, then just do them. If you're doing a major revision, stick it in the talk page for debate over whether the change was helpful or not. Also, if standards dictate you don't delete talk pages, then you don't delete talk pages. The ban is both warranted and just.--Mr. Green 19:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Fuck you, Fred. Rottingflesh 20:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
