User talk:DeathSeeker
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia!
Hello DeathSeeker, welcome to Wikipedia!
Here are some tips:
- Take a look at the Simplified Ruleset.
- Read the Tutorial, How to edit a page and the Manual of Style.
- Find out how to revert, move and merge pages.
- Sign your posts on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~).
- Add yourself to the New user log and a regional notice board
- Ask questions at the Village pump or Help desk.
- Use the Show preview button
- Provide an Edit summary
- Add the correct image copyright tag to any images you upload
- Create a User page
- Be bold
- Ignore all rules
If you feel a change is needed, feel free to make it yourself! Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone (yourself included) can edit any article by following the Edit this page link. Wikipedia convention is to be bold and not be afraid of making mistakes. If you're not sure how editing works, have a look at How to edit a page, or try out the Sandbox to test your editing skills.
If, for some reason, you are unable to fix a problem yourself, feel free to ask someone else to do it. Wikipedia has a vibrant community of contributors who have a wide range of skills and specialties, and many of them would be glad to help. As well as the wiki community pages there are IRC Channels, where you are more than welcome to ask for assistance.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page. Thanks and happy editing, Alphax τεχ 07:16, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Regarding your recent comments on Talk:Xbox 360
Your comment, "regardless of the outcome of this poll the information stays", reflects either a deep misunderstanding or disregard for the process of deciding article content when there is a disagreement. Nothing gives you or any other single editor the right to make a final decision as to article content. I ask you yet again, please engage in the process of compromise rather than childishly reverting to your favored version just because you are unwilling or unable to compromise. -- mattb @ 2006-09-06 06:07Z
- You're correct. Wikipedia isn't a democracy. It's also not a place for you to insist upon your own way over the wishes of several other people. I'm done beating this to death; I'll request outside opinions now. -- mattb
@ 2006-09-06 06:24Z
- DeathSeeker, as someone who just stumbled across this conflict, I have to add my thoughts on this as well. What you said in response to the straw poll on the Xbox 360 page is basically 'I will ignore consensus.' Saying things like that is an extremely quick way to get formerly-uninterested editors to view your position in a much more skeptical light. (Another extremely quick way of doing this is to label content disputes as "vandalism", which you have repeatedly done in edit summaries.) Yes, there are cases where consensus is not the controlling factor; but this is not one of those cases. Kickaha Ota 14:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Microsoft template change
I thought the addition of the BoD was a great addition to the template, but didn't like the space it was taking up. Couldn't think of a way to correct that myself after I saw some user add it. Great fix including last name only.DeathSeeker 00:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC-4)
- Thanks for the note about {{Microsoft products}}. I guess that's one of the good things about WP, two editors are better than one. Now once you get over about 10, then things can get messy, as no one agrees about anything :) And while I'm a fan of the navboxes, overly large ones jump out and say "improve me" Now, if I can just figure out how to have both the "v-d-e" feature along with the "show/hide" feature... — MrDolomite | Talk 04:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Xbox 360
You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on a page. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. Nandesuka 05:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Regarding this edit summary, which policy is that? By the way, you have just violated the three-revert rule. Note that in the exceptions section there is nothing about "Reverting because of being able due a policy". None of the valid exceptions can be applied to your revert. -- ReyBrujo 05:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Oh... are you referring to Wikipedia:Accessibility? I must point out that it is not a policy, but a guideline (something different, it is important to notice the difference). Anyways, I fail to see why your edits/reverts can be backed by Wikipedia:Accessibility, since that guideline (again, not policy) is focused on style (high contrast colors, font sizes, etc) and not content. -- ReyBrujo 05:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
It'd be great if you would stop reverting the 360 article and we'll talk it over and get some consesus of what's to be included. I'm on your side, but I do see validity of others' point of view. Thanks. Kenimaru 06:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Please see the 360 talk page for the new section I opened to reach an agreement. Personally I don't think reverts and re-reverts do any good, please understand I'm just addressing the situation and not pointing fingers at anyone. Kenimaru 06:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- By that, I mean [[1]]
[edit] wiki policy improvements
Hey Seeker
After being illegitimately blocked I realized that the best way to improve this place is to change the policies that are harming it.
I've made some policy proposals for 3RR. I don't know if they would have helped in your case, but take a look and tell me what you think.
They're at Wikipedia_talk:Three-revert_rule#Proposed_policy_changes
Justforasecond 05:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Re: What guideline I was refering to
I see. I do not agree with your arguments, but I won't impose my owns by reverting your revisions.
This is a lose-lose situation, because basically both sides of the conflict are claiming IAR: For one side, we believe (some more strongly than others, truth be told), that your acts are prevent us from improving Wikipedia's quality. For the other side, you believe that our acts prevent you from maintaining Wikipedia's quality. So, we need to find an alternative solution. I have proposed a way of solving this conflict here, which you may have missed. What do you think about them? -- ReyBrujo 05:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 3RR block
You've been reported for a 3RR violation at Xbox_360 and have been blocked from editing for 24 hours. When you return, please try to reach consensus on the talk page. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 11:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Stop disrupting Xbox 360
Let's try this again.
You were warned that your constant reversions of Xbox 360 article were against the clear consensus of the majority of editors. You were warned that you would be blocked for violating the 3RR. You didn't believe me. And then you were blocked for violating 3RR.
Now I'm telling you that your constant reversions of this article are becoming disruptive. You are damaging the hard work of good-faith editors, characterizing it as vandalism, and wasting our time forcing us to clean up your mess. You've been invited innumerable times to stop reverting and instead discuss constructive changes on the talk page. If you don't stop your constant reversion to a revision that every other logged-in editor of the article abandoned a week ago, I believe it is likely that you will be blocked for disruption. Please stop now. Nandesuka 00:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC) My reversions are enforcement of official guidelines and rules.
- It's perfectly fine for later sections to be highly technical, if necessary. Those who are not interested in details will simply stop reading at some point, which is why the material they are interested in needs to come first.
- Do not "dumb-down" the article in order to make it more accessible. Accessibility is intended to be an improvement to the article for the benefit of the less-knowledgeable readers (who may be the largest audience), without reducing the value to more technical readers.
- In many cases, edit wars are based on a premise, that: "such material doesn't belong here, because it belongs in another article." Instead of removing content, it is preferred to have abundance and redundancy of content.
- Improve pages wherever you can, and don't worry about leaving them imperfect. However, avoid deleting information wherever possible.
-
- None of those policies or guidelines give you the right to disrupt Wikipedia, even if you think you're right when everyone else disagrees. Stop. Nandesuka 00:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
All these give me the right to add deleted information, and disallow you to do anything against my readditions.DeathSeeker 00:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- Multiple editors have invited you, multiple times, to add information to the article, as long as such additions (a) improve the quality of the article and (b) don't turn the hardware portion of the article back into the unreadable ugly list that it was before. You have absolutely ignored every invitation to do that. If you're saying now that you'd like to join us in editing the article instead of just trying to disrupt our forward progress, I am thrilled.
- Everyone's edits to Wikipdia may be edited mercilessly. That includes yours, and that includes mine. If you want to "guarantee" the status of your contributions, I suggest you make them of high quality, discuss them in advance and gain broad consensus for them before adding them. Nandesuka 00:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- I see that you've violated the 3RR yet again. I think, on balance, that that was probably an unwise thing to do. Nandesuka 00:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
You were shown your violations. As that you know the policy and guidelines your revisions are vandalism, except by the 3RR.DeathSeeker 01:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 |
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. |
--WinHunter (talk) 02:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] So.
Now you've been blocked for 48 hours. Are you ready to talk about how you can contribute constructively, rather than simply causing more disruption? Nandesuka 02:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Blocked extended
Your block for the 3rr violation has been extended to one week for the use of a sockpuppet to evade your block. Further evasions of the block may lead to longer or indefinite blocks. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/DeathSeeker. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 19:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Nintendo Wi-Fi Template
Please see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 October 22#Template:Nintendo Wi-Fi. There are two delete votes, two merge with hardware votes, and five replace with Category:Nintendo Wi-Fi connection votes. Not one voter on the TfD believed that the template should be preserved separate from a category or another template -- thus the "merge" consensus. Feel free to make a category, but stop reverting the template. The redirect is not useful anyway, so I have deleted the article. Andre (talk) 14:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Future of 123wiki123
Now that you've resumed editing using this account, I suppose you no longer wish to use the account 123wiki123 (talk · contribs)? It you haven't noticed already, I reversed my decision to block that account. -- Netsnipe ► 15:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Blocked
--PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 13:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image:N.U.D.E.@Natural Ultimate Digital Entertainment.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:N.U.D.E.@Natural Ultimate Digital Entertainment.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. — Robotman1974 12:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
