User talk:Miles of SmashWiki/Archive14: Difference between revisions

(→‎Waking ban?: new section)
Line 288: Line 288:


I don't think he deserved banned. His "removal of information" actually appears to be rephrasing to seem more professional- on Shulk's page, the information is rather excessive, while on everyone else's page it uses strange phrasing such as having the Wii Fit Trainer "knee" someone, which he changed to be "a jab with the knee". It seems perfectly good-faith. <small>---Preceding unsigned comment added by [[Special:MyPage|you]]. Or maybe [[User:Nutta Butta|Nutta.]] </small>  20:27, 13 March 2015 (EDT)
I don't think he deserved banned. His "removal of information" actually appears to be rephrasing to seem more professional- on Shulk's page, the information is rather excessive, while on everyone else's page it uses strange phrasing such as having the Wii Fit Trainer "knee" someone, which he changed to be "a jab with the knee". It seems perfectly good-faith. <small>---Preceding unsigned comment added by [[Special:MyPage|you]]. Or maybe [[User:Nutta Butta|Nutta.]] </small>  20:27, 13 March 2015 (EDT)
:Except the user in question was ignoring repeated warnings to stop removing information in the process of rewriting. If you check the involved edits, a great deal of crucial information (such as damage %) was removed, and many of the rewrites did nothing but rephrase existing content. I still agree it was good faith, but counter-productive good faith after repeated ignored warnings deserves something a little more attention-grabbing. I explained as much on their talk page. [[User:Miles of SmashWiki|<font color="dodgerblue"><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;">'''Miles''']] <font color="silver">([[User talk:Miles of SmashWiki|<font color="silver">talk]])</font></font></span></font> 20:33, 13 March 2015 (EDT)