User talk:71.115.231.16

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions.

Currently, you are editing without a username. You can continue to do so, as you are not required to log in to Wikipedia to read and edit articles; however, logging in will result in a username being shown instead of your IP address (yours is 71.115.231.16). Logging in does not require any personal details, and there are many other benefits for logging in.

When you edit pages:

  • Please respect others' copyrights; do not copy and paste the contents from webpages directly.
  • Please use a neutral point of view when editing articles; this is possibly the most important Wikipedia policy.
  • If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
  • Do not add unreasonable contents into any articles, such as copyrighted text, advertisement messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Adding such content or editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism.

The Wikipedia Tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. For now, if you are stuck, you can click the edit this page tab above, type {{helpme}} in the edit box, and then click Save Page; an experienced Wikipedian will be around shortly to answer any questions you may have. Also feel free to ask a question on my Talk page. I will answer your questions as far as I can! Thank you again for contributing to Wikipedia. Kukini 07:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Edit Summary Request

I have noted that you edit without an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. An edit summary is even more important if you delete any text; otherwise, people may think you're being sneaky or even vandalizing. Also, mentioning one change but not another one can be misleading to someone who finds the other one more important; add "and misc." to cover the other change(s). Thanks! -- Kukini 07:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:

I apologize too for overreacting. BTW, have you ever considered registering? Wikipedia gives you a lot more freedoms; you can upload images and create articles of your own.--CyberGhostface 14:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Smallville

Now that you are a bit more civil I would be happy to respond to you. First, I don't know where I've deleted anything of yours because I cannot see where you were editing on the Smallville Season 6 page. You may need to refresh my memory, because you are just an IP address and I don't memorize them. But, until then, I shall clarify why I did what I did to Mobile's edit. Mobile put:"One of the traits of the DC Comics character J'onn J'onzz, the Martian Manhunter, was his addiction to Oreo cookies." The first problem in this statement is that he/she is assuming that everyone that watched the episode automatically knew the "shadowy figure" was Manhunter. You cannot do this, as they never explicitly say that he is Manhunter (even though we know that he is). As it stood, the "oreo note" was pure fancruft and not relevant to the episode. What he needed was to explain why he is saying that, as in, explain that the "shadowy figure" is a character known as Martian Manhunter. To do this you need a source, a citation, that proves that this unnamed person is in fact the Martian Manhunter. Per Wikipedia's own policy, it is not my responsibility to provide a source for someone else's edits that require them. I have the option to simply delete it until it can be source. Covenant came in with a source, and I took what Cov brought, and (out of courtesy to Mobile) included the oreo comment and merged them together to make a more "encyclopedic" statement. Now, in essence it really isn't that relevant for an encyclopedia, but since there was an interview revealing the character, and explaining that he wouldn't be named initially, I decided that it would be ok to keep it. Now, I did make in error in not providing an edit summary for Mobile as to why I deleted his comment, but I did apologize for that. Sometimes you have to look at the edits from the outside. "Do they belong in the first place," "are they just fancrust information," "can they be salvaged as encyclopedic info?" Mobile's initial edit couldn't, because it didn't have relevance to the article. The fact that it was on the Oreo page doesn't mean it belongs on the Smallville page, because the Oreo page was using it as part of their "Pop Culture" section. Sometimes fans want to include things that do not belong in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fansite, and we have to regulate what is placed in the articles. Bignole 13:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you've gone through my edits, or my talk archive, you'll notice that I do help plenty of other "new" editors. You are requesting that I help EVERY "new" editor, and I simply don't have the time to do that. There isn't a "if you can't help the new editor, please don't delete their mistakes" policy. If you are expecting every editor to help every new register then you'll find that it's really lacking. Even editors that help most new editors don't help EVERY new editor. You are assuming a lot with this. I don't know Cov's track record, because I don't pay attention to what they edit. They edit a few pages that I edit, but other than that they have their own stuff. How they edit is their personal preference, and if they follow the rules set by Wiki then there's nothing to be done about it. You are asking for constantly leniency regarding edits because you are new, or that other editors are required to teach you everything because you are new. This is why Wikipedia has a tutorial for editing, because it isn't the responsibility of other editors to teach. If editors took the time to read those (speaking of which, I am going to go add that to Mobile's talk page, because he/she should have gotten a "Welcome" tag from a bot) tutorials, and then simply made some "careless" error, then I'd have no problem explaining the situation. But something says that neither you, nor Mobile has taken the time to read those. Now, I have to cut Mobile some slack because he is seriously new, as in registered the other day, but your IP address has enough edits to say that you aren't new to this. Bignole 14:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
That's it, I never said no one makes mistakes, and I definitely never claimed I never do. Go into my archive you'll see where I lost control of my sense and got into a stupid edit war with individuals that were just as stubborn about adding irrelevant information as I was about keeping it out. What I'm saying is, just like everything else in my life when it comes to helping others, I love to help people but you have to ask me. I do not do anything when people "assume" that it's my responsibility to help them. Even if they assume that, maybe it isn't my responsibility, but just the "right thing to do" is still kind of assuming that I'll help them without them saying anything. One thing I've learned is that people can get pissed if YOU assume that they need help and try and talk to them as if they don't know how to edit. I've seen editors that have massive contributions but most of them do not follow any of the rules and regulations of Wikipedia. If someone comes to me, before or after a conflict (usually happens after) and asks for my help in what should and shouldn't be done, then I'm happy to help to the best of my ability and I will make sure that I find some time to help them. I just don't have the time to sit around going to every IP address and newly registered user going "do you need help?" Especially when I battle most of the day with vandals that like to dust of their spray cans on other articles. So again, if I make an edit/correct/reversion to something that someone did and they don't know why, even if I did supply a summary or not, they just have to come to me and ask. Or, after a couple reverts I will go to them and explain it out in detail, but not after the first incident. Mobile's edit was reverted by me originally, and then reverted by someone else while I was out of town. That was why when I returned and saw what he wrote in the summary I went to them and explained why what HE put was incorrect and was removed. It wasn't malicious on his part and I know that, but it wasn't valid for the article. He was explaining something that itself needed to be explained, and explained via a source. As for my first start, I started with Smallville (Season 5).Bignole 14:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't mean it as asking them as if they are mentally handicapped. I've been polite to people that have insulted me afterward because they didn't like the fact that they couldn't incorporate something they liked, even though it was a clear violation of policy. Not everyone is that understanding when it comes to accepting help, even if the help is offered in a civil manner; this is why I stay out of it unless the person asks for my help. I'll give them a detailed rational for why their stuff is being reverted, point them to the correct pages if needed, but unless they specifically ask for my help then I'm not going to offer it. You cannot help those that do not want to be helped, and those that want to be helped on here will ask for it. Everything's basically anonymous when it comes to people. As for the "second nature" thing, it is second nature for me to help people, but again I say that when it comes to Wikipedia I do not offer it out of the blue, you have to come to me. In the real world it's a different story, but on here you come across a majority of different people that with different temperments and it's rather hard to correctly tone something in "text". People jump the gun real quick of they think they are being insulted or someone is being rude to them (when in fact they may not). I've had people think I was yelling at them because I use captial letters to emphasize where I want them to pay attention, because I can't very well do that with my own voice to show that I'm not yelling but just emphasizing. Bignole 15:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Justice League Unlimited

I've looked at your recent edits on the JLU page. I'm not sure about the value of the information you placed, especially the bit about Divided we Fall. It would fit well in a trivia section, not in the series overview. I'll leave it be for a while, perhaps you can work on it, like moving it in a new section. Atlan 12:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletions?

I hope you plan to create this new section soon with all the information you just deleted. 21:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I was talking about these deletions: [1],[2],[3]....among a few. Could you direct me to where you moved it with a link please? - Kukini 07:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tummy Trouble

That was a mistake on my part; I've reinstated the info you added. —tregoweth (talk) 07:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tales to Astonish

Hiya, and thanks for writing me. I'd simply mentioned in the edit summary that reprints should be in their own section, rather than stuck in the middle of the article. Some comics articles have these, but mostly reprints aren't listed (as they are not at, say, Spider-Man and Iron Man), or if they are, they're listed under the character himself (The Spirit). --Tenebrae 21:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I tried to give a reasonable response, and you throw around labels and insulting terms. I'm afraid I don't see how suggesting that a list of reprints go in a reprint section, as they do in other comics articles, is "shooting first" or not assuming good faith. I'm sorry you feel that way. --Tenebrae 21:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Secret Wars

Great sourcing! An interview with the producer/story editor — now that 's straight from the horse's mouth! My kudos and compliments for finding that. --Tenebrae 15:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../7/1/2E/User_talk%7E71.115.231.16.html"