User talk:129.108.97.167

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thank you. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 22:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] April 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Zumwalt class destroyer, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Zumwalt class destroyer was changed by 129.108.97.167 (u) (t) deleting 27930 characters on 2008-04-30T23:45:38+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 23:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Adult Swim. Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. -FeralDruid (talk) 02:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Explanation

Ok then, why is it soooooooooo important to note that the ion storm that disabled communication with the GDSS Philly also brought down a GDI command ship, and why do we need to know that Paul cortez was the cammander of the GDI base using the call sign southern cross? Wouldn't it be better to simply eliminate these uneeded points and note that the in Philly's absence southern cross assumed command of GDI forces? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.108.97.167 (talk) 12:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Probably because of the very simple fact that it's relevant information to an article dedicated specifically to all things GDI. So I'm going to reverse the question -- why is it "sooooooooo" important that these parts are removed, exactly? Kalamrir (talk) 12:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry. I'll be sourcing these sentences in your honor in the very near future. I thank you for bringing that issue to my attention. Secondly, the "average guy or girl" reading this article will either already posses a background in the lore of the C&C games, or will soon obtain it considering they are showing interest in the information provided by articles which are dedicated entirely to specific aspects of that lore. In short, I disagree with your assertion that this information "confuses" readers, as you put it. Lastly, don't put words into my mouth -- I did not at any point remark that your edits were supposedly "bad" as such. However, when an anonymous IP removes information which I as a senior member of the C&C task force consider to be relevant to an article, and this without providing any form of rationale or edit summary, then this can and will lead me to believe that that user may be comitting a bad faith edit, and perhaps even an act of vandalism. This holds especially true for anonymous users whose talk page seems to contain multiple remarks about unconstructive edits, as in your case. Thank you. Kalamrir (talk) 13:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

My position as a senior C&C task force member is not a result of me being a registered user, nor it is the result of the fact that I have been actively editing these articles for a period of nearly two years. Instead, it is merely the result of the extensive knowledge on the development background and the in-game lore of this franchise which I can to contribute to these articles. This is exemplified by the fact that, for example, I am able to bring the content that you have been disputing in line with Wiki guidelines to a point you no longer find yourself with the means to remove it under a reasonable rationale. This may be well be indicative of a few things.

Secondly, when I state that you have removed relevant information from an article without providing any edit summary or rationale, I am stating a fact. The notion that the warnings on your IPs talk page may have been the result of other users was taken into consideration by me from the beginning, but at the same time I had no confirmation that this indeed was the case. These two things combined prompted me to revert your edits. And rightfully so.

Lastly, all I have received from you throughout this discussion is a dismissive attitude, accusations and presumptions of your own. It has been enough. Feel perfectly free to take your case to other editors or to call in a third opinion on the talk page of the Global Defense Initiative article. I'm quite used to these sorts of discussions. I'm also quite used to eventually having the final say in them. Incidentally, that too tends to be the result of matters entirely unrelated to my supposed "ego" or "sense of entitlement". Kalamrir (talk) 14:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 13:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

---

This is the discussion page for an anonymous user, identified by the user's numerical IP address. Some IP addresses change periodically, and may be shared by several users. If you are an anonymous user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other anonymous users. Registering also hides your IP address. [WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • Traceroute • Geolocate • Tor check • Rangeblock finder] · [RIRs: America · Europe · Africa · Asia-Pacific · Latin America/Caribbean]