User talk:Interrobamf

Warning

I am seeing a pattern of reversion of the changes of others with little or no discussion on the talk pages of the articles. The edit summaries are not one sthat would encourage others to work with you. For example these: [1] or [2] or [3] or [4] are not the right tone. Please stop creating redirects without discussion. Please use the discussion pages. Please use good edit summaries. If you continue in this vein you will be blocked. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 00:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't like this edit or the summary [5]. Please remain WP:CIVIL; as far as I can see the user ~~was~~ may have felt justified in removing the eyesore from the page. --Guinnog 01:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was from only 3 days ago. Almost everybody here, including me, was "some faceless anon" at one time. I have more of a problem with the edit summary you made than with the reversion. Please tighten up your adherence to civility; there isn't really a nice way to say this, but many of your edit summaries, when you use them, seem to be borderline abusive, as Lar has observed above. I don't know or even much care who was 'in the right' on the issue you were annoyed about; but I do care deeply that we keep this project a nice place to work. I won't tell you, as you told the anon "Don't like it? Go away." I will take any action necessary to enforce our policies though, and as far as I am concerned civility trumps your right to restore a very ugly message to a talk page. I hope that makes things clearer. --Guinnog 02:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely right in what you say; as we are all 'faceless' in this medium, we have to work extra hard to be nice, especially when things get heated, lest this project degenerate into something like Usenet. I hope you agree. Take care. --Guinnog 02:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(refactored your reply from my talk page, per my policy I prefer to keep conversations threaded. your page is on my watch list, you need not worry ++Lar)

Oh, for the love of God.

You are not doing your research. I don't particularly like to defend myself because it makes me appear whiny, but you are essentially demeaning the time I give to Wikipedia.

Specific edits

[6]? I assume you haven't looked at the talk page?
- The issue here is the edit summary, not the policy of removing items. ++Lar
  - I really question that the usage of "crap" warrants gnashing of teeth. I've seen admins use the word. Interrobamf 21:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[7]? The user has proven himself countless times to refuse to communicate with others. I'm not going to try again in vain.
- Edit summmary again. "(I care about the fact that you believe that people are interested in that a number doesn't perfectly correspond to a bar on a card.)" is not civil. It's a borderline personal attack. Also I see nothing on the talk page for this at all. you need to communicate with all editors, and the talk page of the article is the way to do that. ++Lar
  - Again, that specifc user has proven himself to be a brick wall. Multiple requests to remove copyvio he's added and he shrugs it off as it were nothing. Refusal to discuss criticism of himself on the Transformers project talk page. Interrobamf 21:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[8]? The Raven's Apprentice reverted my edit, as it was bunched in with other edits that the user didn't care for. It has nothing to do with the image. Don't tell me you're offended by my summary?
- "(this image is completely unnecessary and creepy.)" is POV. No talk page discussion I could see. Removing the images of others ought to at least be mentioned.
  - ...As is every edit in Wikipedia. It's POV for that image to be added. It's POV to delete articles. It's POV of you to accuse me of incivility. I don't think singling me out for this is fair. Removing and inserting images is a frequent activity in Wikipedia, and hardly one that needs a pointless note on the talk page. Interrobamf 21:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[9]? I'm sorry, what? You're offened by that?
- "(This is so minor that it's pointless.)" again, insufficiently collegial. Also no discussion on the talk pages. ++Lar
  - I still think you're completely unreasonable with this. The disambig was so minor that it was pointless. That's it. The reason for the removal. Not a personal attack. Simply the blunt explanation of the removal of a disambig link. Sugarcoating is not necessary. Interrobamf 21:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Discussion"

You seem to be under the bizarre impression that every edit merits discussion. Not only does this go against WP:BOLD, I certainly don't see the purpose of discussing reversion of minor edits by faceless anons that contribute to the detriment of articles by incorrect information or overdetailed original research. Reversion of such edits occurs by the second, and it is absurd of you to single me out for doing such.

Discussion pages also certainly aren't places to discuss minor formatting tweaks and addition of templates, which compose most of my edits.

Redirects

The recent redirects I made were [10], which merged two disambiguation pages. Surely this isn't a bannable offense. Other is [11], which changed the redirect to Organization XIII over a minor name in a video game to Kurdish dance, which Dilan is a type of. Interrobamf 01:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the issue of you failing to come up with a sufficient reason to block me. "Not using discussion pages" is hardly a valid reason, from what I see here. Interrobamf 01:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

reply from Lar

I've interspersed some comments directly, but want to address the rest here.

In reading your entire reply to me I am struck by your somewhat contentious manner. My warning to you was couched in gentle terms. "You seem to be under the bizarre impression", "absurd" ... is not collegial. Please address your approach.
- I'm not quite sure what you expect after demeaning the time I spend here. I waste hours plugging templates into images, to get a warning over few edit summaries that weren't particularly distruptive. Interrobamf 22:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The redirects I am most concerned about are the repeated redirects (including some edit warring over them) that have to do with various Japanese monsters.
- Two reverts by me and then apathy isn't what I'd call an edit war. I don't quite see how this warrants a warning. It isn't even anywhere near 3RR. Or are you questioning the large number of articles redirected at once? Regardless, I tried, as you can see here. I accomplished nothing but getting somebody (an admin, no less) insulting me and reverting my edits. Do you see now why I lack optimism for "discussion"? It either amounts to no reponse or a constant stalemate which I do not have the patience or energy for. Being bold has accomplished far more than drawn-out discussions for me. Interrobamf 22:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are a large number of comments on this talk page from a large number of other editors, asking you to change your ways. Perhaps they have a point. When a lot of people at WP ask an editor to change their approach, experience has shown us that it is almost always the editor that is in need of change, not the large number of people. Be softer, be more gentle, explain your work and if there is any contention or reversion, gently give justification. Don't denigrate the contributions of anons, we have a lot of very valuable anons, beleive it or not.
- A "large number"? I see one actual complaint separate from this situation. Don't confuse whining over not getting their way (with fair use images in userspace) with actual complaints.
"you failing to come up with a sufficient reason to block me" ... contentious again. But my approach to blocking is that I post about my block and seek review of it by fellow admins. My blocks rarely get overturned because I seek consensus and only block when it is clear no other approach will work. You are being asked, you are being warned, to be more civil, to be more consensual, to be more collegial. Take that on board, we value your contributions, but we wnat to work harmoniously.... or don't take it on board. It's your choice. I hope that clarifies matters. ++Lar: t/c 16:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I still fail to see what specific part of the blocking policy you're using to justify my possible blocking. Interrobamf 22:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please do not wikilawyer. You've revert warred, although you didn't break 3RR that I've found. You don't, in my view use talk pages enough for the important things. Your manner is adjudged abrasive by more folk than just myself, as I can clearly be seen (whether you agree with the assesment or not) a large number of comments from other users. On balance, you've done a lot of good work inserting templates and the like. But you need to work on that apparent abrasiveness. That "other people" do X is not a defense if X is not a thing to do. ++Lar: t/c 01:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dartz

What is the reason for removing Category:Television villains from the Dartz article? Dartz is indeed a villain in the Yu-Gi-Oh! television series. — Galaeron Nihmedu 02:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Three revert rule warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Gwernol 03:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shiroiwa Junior High School

If you do not agree with the existence of this article, why not put it on AFD, or propose a merger into "Places in Battle Royale" WhisperToMe 03:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let AFD decide that; if the case disputed, an AFD will secure the said notion and the redirect will stay :) WhisperToMe 04:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I heard that, if AFD is not appropriate, then start talking on the talk page about it. WhisperToMe 22:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sorry. I agree that most of those articles were probably unecessary, but the Shiroiwa one does deserve it's own page, I think. It goes into detail about where the kids in the story come from, so yeah. I'd say if you don't agree with it do what WhisperToMe suggested, but stop reverting articles with no prior warnings or anything. (Bishusui 04:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Removal of Infoboxes

Please refrain from removing infoboxes from the pages of fictional companies in the future. Your citation of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (concerning writing about fiction) is entirely baseless, as it in no way forbids their use for this particular subject. This matter has already been discussed to a great extent, but if you insist on bringing it up again, please discuss it on the talk section page in question first. -- Grandpafootsoldier 00:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arcee Page

Rather than just reverting, I tried to rewrite the Arcee page. I added as much as I thought was pertantant, and made references, didn't use any copyrighted into or stuff from other web sites. Please go over it and let me know what you don't think is appropriate and what isn't, and I'll try to accomidate this. user:mathewignash —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mathewignash (talk • contribs) 08:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC) (Mathewignash please use ~~~~ to sign)

This edit of yours to that page has an inaccurate and snippy edit summary. A lot more material than just a "sex joke" (whatever that is) was removed. That material, in my view, is in need of sourcing, but you shold be adding {{citation needed}} tags instead of just removing it without any discussion on the talk. (I checked and I see nothing from you on the 15th). Please discuss your changes and getting consensus. And try to use edit summaries that are more comprehensive and less snippy. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 10:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And in case you think Lar is picking on you, I thoroughly endorse what he says here. If you continue to use edit summaries to put down the good faith edits of others, however "stupid" you think they are, I will block you. --Guinnog 10:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

bibliomaniac15 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

Sorry for engaging in a personal debate with you on the AFD for Vastatosaurus Rex. I hold no personal grudges, and humbly apologize.

bibliomaniac15 04:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editor's Barnstar

		The Editor's Barnstar
		This barnstar is for the general heavy-handed cleanup and reversion you do to remove vandalism, original research and cruft from Wikipedia. Keep up the good work! Axem Titanium 14:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]