User talk:Chompy Ace

SEMI-RETIRED

This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia.

NAC at RfPP?

[Bot archived just as I was typing this:] I've protected over 6,000 pages, most by way of this board, and throughout all these years, I have never seen a NAC close a request [t]here. Just thought it was worth noting. El_C 12:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok. Chompy Ace 12:03, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Warning

Why are you overwhelming the revision history of Star Wars: The Last Jedi? You need to stop and not repeat this practice in any other page. I'm puzzled, truly. El_C 17:19, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

It occurs to me that that series of edits may be indicative of a compromised account, so I have blocked this account out of an abundance of caution (until what's what is determined). El_C 17:27, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

It appears Chompy Ace was moving various references by using two edits for each one. Don't know why, but I'll finish what they started while they're blocked. Some Dude From North Carolina 17:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Sounds plausible, but this level of revision history flooding is so beyond the pale, I just can't risk it yet. Needless to say, please do not flood the revision history as well, Some Dude From North Carolina. El_C 18:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Chompy Ace (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The account is not compromised, which applies only to passwords. I will never fluff edits. @El C: Chompy Ace 21:03, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Not compromised. Seems totally in good faith once explained; won't do it again. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 23:04, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it's compromised; I think you did something that set off red flags but was an understandable attempt to do something not incorrect, but unnecessary. If I were starting an article from scratch, I might consider the WP:LDR approach (which I didn't know about until you mentioned it.) But retroactively converting an article into this format -- especially one with this many references -- is WP:BOLD as hell, and probably not a good idea. And it's definitely not a good idea to do it en masse with no comments and no explanation of what you're doing other than in on edit summary. I am inclined to unblock; convince me. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 21:25, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@Jpgordon: I will never fluff any edit in one article and I will use consensus to have the pages the WP:LDR. This account is not compromised. Chompy Ace 21:29, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "fluff" here. If you mean WP:FLUFF, you're not blocked for that. Also, do you see how your 250 consecutive uncommented edits to that page caused concern? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 21:58, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@Jpgordon: Yes (as in the case of The Last Jedi; (Special:Diff/1017944854, which I undid in a manner of the MCU articles format, used to prevent clutter and easier maintenance)), most of them, but sometimes no (Example is the articles relating to Marvel Cinematic Universe do always with LDRs as already placed in a longer time to have MCU articles easier maintenance). I will avoid that unless having consensus to use LDR format. {{Use list-defined references}} linked 1,400+ mainspace articles but others (6,000,000+ mainspace articles) did not. Chompy Ace 22:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC)