Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:02, 28 November 2008

Archives

no archives yet (create)

Shadzar

Hello Gavin.

I thought I would inform you that recent discussion on the WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons talk page, which was caused by your edits, resulted in Shadzar, a member of the project, removing his name from the list of participants. I do not blame you; you were not a part of the discussion, but I thought that it was worth notifying you since you might wish to comment on the discussion.

Once again, I am not blaming you for his leaving because, although your tagging did indirectly cause it, it was the words of another editor that I think pushed Shadzar to the tipping point.

-Drilnoth (talk) 20:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• No comment, as it is not my decision.--Gavin Collins (talk) 09:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

• Fair enough; I just thought I'd let you know. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Ansalon

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Misplaced Pages, as you did to Ansalon. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. shadzar-talk 22:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

• In what sense is this edit unconstructive? There is no evidence that the topic notable, its style is over reliant on an in universe perspective and the article provides no context. I would have thought that the cleanup templates I placed on this article where wholly appropriate. --Gavin Collins (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

• You were asked in March 2008 on the talk page to identify problems, and failed to do so for this many months, and then proceeded to add the tag again, with no explanation. This is what is unconstructive about just adding the tags without discussing the reason for adding them to an articles talk page so that other editors may know what you precise problems with the article that caused you to feel the need for the tag. Without such discussion the tagging of an article is not constructive as it serves no purpose to help other editors improve the article, or your reasons for including such a tag. With inclusion of discussion on an articles talk page when an article is tagged, thee is greater chance that editors will understand why the article was tagged, and what needs to be done to each individual article to resolve the problems within them. Otherwise without such discussion, other editors are left but with trying to read your mind and guess what actual problems you see in the article and guess further still how to fix them, and guess when the time has come for the tags removal through consensus that the tags issues have been resolved. shadzar-talk 00:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

• The reasons are given in the cleanup template. Please do not remove them unless you address the problems they highlight. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Third Party - No Mr. Collins, the reason is not given in the cleanup template. The template provides the type of fault, the exact fault must be given on the talk page for any real hope of correction. If you wish to continue across-the-board blind templating, please provide reliable reasons on the talk page. Many users are beginning to feel like you do not read the article and actually don't have a specific problem on each page. To both prove them wrong and to actually help the wikipedia project, it should be no problem to provide exact reasons on the talk page of each article you tag. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. Hooper (talk) 14:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Quote for context: "Many users are beginning to feel like you do not read the article and actually don't have a specific problem on each page."

As an example, you made the following three edits within a 1-minute period of time: , , . -Drilnoth (talk) 15:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

• Irrelevant. That is how tabbed browsing works. The cleanup templates are still justified. Please restore the cleanup templates unless you actually effect cleanup. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

It is not irrelevant. If you do not read the articles in question you should not be tagging them. I tab browse too. Are you saying you keep multiple windows up, read each article, then go back to each tab and tag them all at the same time? If so how do you know you are correctly tagging from memory? It is very much so not irrelevant. Provide valid reasons for a tag you place, as most editors do, and we'll be more than glad to assist you in any way possible. We all want the same end here. Hooper (talk) 16:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

• I read the articles, add cleanup templates and then close the windows all at once. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Bruenor Battlehammer

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Misplaced Pages, as you did to Bruenor Battlehammer. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. shadzar-talk 23:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

• In what sense is unconstructive? There is no evidence that the topic notable, its style is over reliant on an in universe perspective and the article provides no context. I would have thought that the cleanup templates I placed on this article where wholly appropriate.

• This article includes 3 references to independent/secondary sources. While here you added something to the talk page to indicate what problems you saw with the article, you for some reason are not acknowledging the secondary sources as secondary sources, and the notability tag is unneeded as the providing of secondary sources illustrates that there is notability of the articles subject. Could you offer reasons why the provided sources are not good enough on the articles talk page to help other editors actually improve the article rather than be left to guess what you specifically find failing notability under the guideline in which the article was tagged? shadzar-talk 00:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
• For your information, the sources don't have anything to do with the subject of the article. Please restore the cleanup templates.--Gavin Collins (talk) 08:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)