6,225
edits
User talk:Miles of SmashWiki/Archive14: Difference between revisions
User talk:Miles of SmashWiki/Archive14 (view source)
Revision as of 20:47, March 13, 2015
, 10 years ago→Waking ban?
| Line 289: | Line 289: | ||
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) | :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) | ||
::The edit was clearly in good faith. Maybe he thought that there was an overwhelming amount of information on the page and wanted to make it easier to read. Explain it on his talk page why you're not supposed to remove stuff on pages before you unnecessarily block him. [[User:Ac2k|<span style="color: red;">'''Awesome'''</span>]] [[User talk:Ac2k|<span style="color: red;">'''Cardinal'''</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Ac2k|<span style="color: red;">'''2000'''</span>]] 20:47, 13 March 2015 (EDT) | |||