User talk:67.235.213.159

Re: Xeworlebi
If you read the before and after you would see that it's better. No need for the snide comments like "again." You removed the posts so quickly that the message was not recieved until after the edit page was saved. On your own page it reads, "Don't be hasty." Try anylizing the contribution before immediately deleting it and pushing away yet another wikipedia member. Don’t worry I won’t disturb your precious little page ever again or use Wikipedia for that matter. Have fun on your mighty horse. 67.235.213.159 (talk) 20:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * All I saw was 3 edits that removed content, possibly because of spoilers in the episode summary which is not done per WP:SPOILER, I found them not better as they contained only less information than the previous one. I left the rest of your edits because they were good edits.  X  eworlebi (t•c) 20:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

A paragraph long rambling episode description is not a short summary. Summary: a concise statement of the main idea. Meowies rewrote the episode 20 summary the same way. Going by your "less information" opinion, it should be reverted as well.


 * A Summary is a summary of what happened in the episode not a teaser, it should contain the main story including the ending, the guidelines say 100–200 words each. And you're right, I missed that edit by Meowies, I've reverted it now, thanks for pointing that out.  X  eworlebi (t•c) 20:49, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

You are arrogantly incorrect. Merriam-Webster defines summary as, “covering the main points succinctly.” What you are describing is a synopsis, “a condensed statement, outline or narrative.”  Stop ruining people’s contributions, and help by linking the page to an episode synopsis since you have deemed yourself the deity of wiki editing. 67.235.213.159 (talk) 23:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The ending is part of the main story, removing it is not helping. A summary summarizes, a synopsis is about the same only with more detail, and for fiction they're called plots here, as they are on each individual episodes article. A teaser however does not cover the main points of the story, by leaving out the ending. I have no problem with condensing a summary, I do however have a problem with the countless IP's who try to remove spoilers from pages, so that it doesn't "cover[ing] the main points" at all let alone "succinctly" and so diminishing the quality of the article. Linking the page to what synopsis?  X  eworlebi (t•c) 23:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Your conceited point of view is nauseating. Disagreeing with Merriam-Webster and holding a blatant prejudice toward “countless IP's” damages Wikipedia as an information source. Reverting to the loquacious descriptions makes the page look chaotic. Since you have no clue about linking pages, you obviously do not review the pages before you destroy them. If your ego can handle it, you will clearly see episode 16, Sabotage, has a nice concise summary. Users can click on Sabotage to view the information you pointlessly endeavor to keep on the main page. 67.235.213.159 (talk) 00:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not disagreeing with Merriam-Webster at all, but you seem to mistake a summary for a teaser, a teaser teases and does not contain "the main points succinctly" it misses the biggest point of the story which is the ending. And Sabotage is written like a teaser and not a summary. Sabotage is already linked to that page what do you need help for linking it? And this is not my point of view, this is based on the guidelines on WP:MOSTV: "…main plot points or a tabular format that sections off each individual episode with its own brief plot section (approximately 100–200 words for each, with upwards of 350 words for complex storylines)" and WP:SPOILER: "Spoilers are no different from any other content and should not be deleted solely because they are spoilers." Removing critical information from a summary is destroying it, putting it back is restoring it. If you remove information how does that help "Wikipedia as an information source"?  X  eworlebi (t•c) 08:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Who mentioned anything about a teaser? You fabricated it in an attempt to prove your pathetic point. The fact remains; if you personally disagree with someone’s input, you completely obliterate the contribution. Evidently, you are incapable of considering the time spent writing the entries you capriciously delete at a whim. Would it be that arduous for you to analyze the differences and insert the few lines you feel so passionately about? Is it too excruciating for you to trounce your self-endowed god complex on this completely free and volunteer site? Your idiosyncratic amputations dispirit the desires of countless individuals able to provide a plethora of valuable information. 67.235.213.159 (talk) 03:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with 67.235.213.159 (talk).

 X  eworlebi (t•c) is a horrible person, and I'm glad he was rightly put in his place by 67.235.213.159 (talk). People like  X  eworlebi (t•c) should be banned.71.156.49.55 (talk) 06:38, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

June 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from List of Stargate Universe episodes. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.  X  eworlebi (t•c) 18:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.