User talk:Mr. Simon Green

Welcome
Hi Simon - I see you like contributing to articles on fictional characters, so you may be interested in our writing about fiction guidelines. I hope this helps! Thanks, Marasmusine (talk) 18:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * As you might see, I like editing RoboCop-related articles (mostly). So thank you for your offer but I need help of what that box above is trying to offer.

Speedy deletion nomination of Epic Win


A tag has been placed on Epic Win, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article that does not provide sufficient context to identify its subject. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template  to the article and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Wilbysuffolk  talk  01:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Removing Speedy at Epic Win
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from Epic Win, a page you have created yourself. If you do not believe the page should be deleted, you can place a tag on the page, under the existing speedy deletion tag (please do not remove the speedy deletion tag), and make your case on the page's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. - SDPatrolBot (talk) 01:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

April 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Alex Rodriguez, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Echoedmyron (talk) 07:21, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four halfwidth tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 15:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Greetings! A stub template or category which you created has been nominated for renaming or deletion at Stub types for deletion. The stub type most likely doesn't meet Wikipedia requirements for a stub type, through failure to meet standards relating to the name, scope, current stub hierarchy or likely size, as explained at Stub. Please feel free to make any comments at WP:SFD regarding this stub type, and in future, please consider proposing new stub types first at WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals! This message is a boilerplate, left here as a courtesy, and should not be considered personal in nature. Dawynn (talk) 09:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Black Canary
Please do not unilaterally dismantle articles like that. - J Greb (talk) 20:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I thought since two characters need two articles. So sorry for that. Mr. Simon Green (talk) 21:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Long and Short: Neither works well, but "Animation" and "Live action" at least avoid arguments of what exactly is a "film".

Also: Please start using the edit summaries to explain your edits when you make them not to goad others. You may also want to look at WP:BRD and start using article talk pages.

- J Greb (talk) 00:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If you are not going to use the edit summaries or discuss your edits on the article talk page, please stop editing. What you are doing right now is disruptive and discourteous. - J Greb (talk) 01:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Comics related articles
With Dick Grayson that two, or four depending on how you count, that your edits have been contrary to the intent of Wikiedia articles and Comics project consensus and guidelines.

Please, before you do any more bolde editing of these articles, take the time to get familiar with the relaven style and naming guidelines.

Thanks,

- J Greb (talk) 18:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Wheatmen and you
Please do not bring issues from outside of Wikipedia here. At this point it is apparent that you and know one another outside of this project and are not on good terms.

So:
 * 1) Do not edit that users talk page maliciously. This is a general policy on Wikipedia
 * 2) If you do find the need to use their talk page, restrict you comments to Wikipedia relate matters. And keep your posts civil.
 * 3) A section of their uset talk page has been removed due to policy on identifying users. You may self identify if you so choose, you don't get to do it for others and or force them to do it themselves.

Thank you,

- J Greb (talk) 19:56, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * My apoligies. I got carried away. It won't happen again. But what gives him the right to archive my talk page? Mr. Simon Green (talk) 20:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Nothing. And that has been pointed out to him. - J Greb (talk) 23:17, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I've always have a positive adittude. I don't usually get mad. It's just when people don't listen, you know! I'm sorry for identifying him. It's just a problem outside of here. I know you don't want to get in the middle of it. Mr. Simon Green (talk) 19:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Just one thing... and I hope you understand this since you have problems when others don't listen to you. What part of "Use edit summaries to explain your edits" don't you understand? - J Greb (talk) 20:21, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I do use edit summaries. It's just you don't like me cleaning up Black Canary's page the way I do.Mr. Simon Green (talk) 20:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * When backed into the corner, some times, yes. And what you are using is either incomplete ot contrary to your edits.
 * Frankly, when other editors are undoing your edits (and no, I'm not the only one) you need to re-evaluate what you are doing and how you are doing it.
 * - J Greb (talk) 22:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Tony Montana
what about that merge? I was wondering

Invitation to take part in a study
I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to Main Study. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates about 20 minutes. I chose you as a English Wikipedia user who made edits recently through the RecentChange page. Refer to the first page in the online survey form for more information on the study and me.cooldenny (talk) 02:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Looking at John Stewart (Justice League) et al
Please, stop blithely creating these content forks.

- J Greb (talk) 01:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * OK... you've hit the point where your editing style is disruptive and you are either unable or unwilling to use article talk pages.
 * Reverting and trying to debate edits in edit summaries is not how it works.
 * "But other stuff exists" is not acceptable reasoning to whittle articles down by splitting off sections that strike your fancy. It's worse when what you are pointing to is much more notable than what you are trying to create.
 * Massive swaths of plot are not acceptable. Splitting off a section to get more plot in is worse.
 * Inserting sections on conjecture, comentary, or production history are good, but they need to be supported by relaible and verifiable source. Adding a large section without them, or only one, is going to be suspect.
 * - J Greb (talk) 02:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And frankly the method you're using to revert to get your way is called edit warring, something you can get blocked over. - J Greb (talk) 03:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Last couple of thing:
 * Infoboxes: Generally less is better, each section of an article doesn't need one. And with comic book article we don't add one for the comics, the TV shows, the films etc.
 * Take a look at WP:NFC for the policy basic guuide lines on using non-free images and content.
 * - J Greb (talk)

Regarding this: Yes, if you had bothered to start a section on the talk page. Something you never bothered to do with Black Canary. - J Greb (talk) 03:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Yena Do


The article Yena Do has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners or ask at Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. KarikaSlayer (talk) 22:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Yena Do


A tag has been placed on Yena Do requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 22:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Cat-Man (Holyoke)
This is an automated message from VWBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Cat-Man (Holyoke), and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.seattleluxury.com/encyclopedia/entry/Cat-Man.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) VWBot (talk) 01:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Considering the text was ported in to your initial version of the article, it's been deleted.
 * And saying "Didn't get it from there" doesn't hold. Be very careful when starting articles that you are not copying.
 * You ma also want to look at what a disambiguation page is before recklessly splitting up an article on a topic that should not be treated as two separate things and replacing it with a "dab" page. It's more disruptive than actually helping the encyclopedia.
 * - J Greb (talk) 01:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Huntress (comics)
Lets see...

10 edits. 1 useless edit summary.

Edits included:
 * Breaking the coding in the info box. 1) If it's just one title the is no need to add  . 2) The indicia of the two series differ in using "The", one is The Huntress the other is simply Huntress''.
 * Elimination of the section header "Publication History" is not a good or desired thing. Lengthening the lead should not be done simply by eliminating this section.
 * Pointlessly restructuring the character section headers.
 * Pointlessly "fixing" the call for main.
 * Applying personal preferences to the IOM section over an already acceptable layout.

Now, are we going to get a disruptive revert you your preferred version or are you willing and able to propose your change on the article's talk page?

And are you willing to stop trying these same types of edits over and over and over again on new articles?

- J Greb (talk) 21:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok. I see, i thought the title was a mistake. Ok. I unserstand that you perfer sections than lists. Well someone did that to the Catwoman article. I didn't know so i wont do it again but i would reconsider that someone has been doing the same thing as me. Mr. Simon Green (talk) 01:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Batman character lists.
Based on your edits to: It has be come clear that you have no desire to actually explain your edits or discuss them with others.
 * List of Batman Family enemies - 18 edits with only 1 edit summary.
 * List of Batman enemies in other media - 5 edits with 1 edit summary. After being directed to the talk page.
 * List of supporting characters in Batman: The Animated Series - removing categories that are relevant and allowed.
 * List of villains in The Batman - 124 edits with 5 summaries.

What you have done is:
 * 1) Bloat a list with material cover the article it points to by creating the League of assassins table in the Batman Family list.
 * 2) Bloat the same list by forcing the list of villains from the TV shows other than The Batman into it.
 * 3) Edited selectively to produce an apparent bias. If the list of characters from the previous TV shows are non-notable, why are those from The Batman notable? More recent? Your personal tastes? What?
 * 4) You in essence vandalized the redirect by removing valid categories.
 * 5) You restructure the list of The Batman villains into one massive, unsourced plot dump. Damaging the article in the process.

At this point:
 * Do NOT edit the articles to restore your changes.
 * IF you truly feel that the changes need to be made, propose them on the various talk pages and discuss them there.
 * Do NOT just add a "Merge" tag and walk away when you have been reverted and are told to suggest it. If you want a merge, or a split for that matter, you need to provide your reasons. This forms the basis of the discussion to see if there is consensus for what you want.
 * STOP pushing for plot only content. Read WP:WAF.
 * USE edit summaries on each edit to explain what you are doing.

These have stopped being requests. This is in essence a formal warning. You are editing in a disruptive manner and in many cases to the detriment to the articles you touch. Continued editing in this way can eventually lead to temporary suspension of your ability to edit articles here.

- J Greb (talk) 15:13, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * What part of Discuss your desired changes can you not understand? Or are you being deliberately obstinate to get blocked for being disruptive? - J Greb (talk) 18:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * In response to this. You have made it painfully clear you cannot get you head around "Use the talk page". - J Greb (talk) 23:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The new stuff... - J Greb (talk) 03:06, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Try not to be disruptive of the article in your editing. And hell yes, your method is disruptive.
 * 2) Do not nuke the lead out of hand even if it is one line.
 * 3) Do not create arbitrary "ratings" for the characters. Listing in alphabetic order is neutral and natural.

Edit summaries
Either start using them consistently or pleas stop editing to include swaths of plot and editor speculation.

Some of what you do looks potentially helpful. But since you never bother to explain your edits it makes it impossible to figure out what to undo and what to keep.

And as for the character infobox at Batman in film, you were told essentially "Wrong place" once. Putting it back smacks of "I don't care, I want it". Right now it's disruptive. Keep it up and it will look like vandalism by harming the article instead of listening to others.

- J Greb (talk) 02:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Enough already. now your on to RoboCop (character) and doing the same damn thing. A long string of unexplained edits and when you are prodded to explain each edit you made you fall back on "It was broken and I fixed it." on a massive reversion edit.
 * If you are intent on "fixing" the article, or any article, do it one edit at a time with a clear explanation of what you changes and why in the edit summary.
 * - J Greb (talk) 18:13, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok. I understand now. Sorry to frusterate you. And to cheer you up, Osama Bin Laden is dead. I just thought that woupd help. If you think it's an insult, Sorry. Mr. Simon Green (talk) 19:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think you understand. Or you don't want to understand.
 * Once again:
 * USE edit summaries.
 * If you CANNOT fit a clear explanation of you edit there, SPLIT the edit up and remember the above point.
 * If you edit has been contested DO NOT just revert it with either a misleading or incomplete edit summory OR point to a ramble on the article's talk page. If you are going to use the talk page, then use it instead of just reverting.
 * You've done this across multiple articles. Try learning instead constantly repeating this disruptive behavior.
 * - J Greb (talk) 19:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Good idea for list of the batman villians. Tables are much better altogether. Mr. Simon Green (talk) 19:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

As for RoboCop, this is the last time I will list the changes. I promise. Mr. Simon Green (talk) 19:43, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No... and you evidently don't want a discussion either since you essentially reverted to what you wanted and went on your way. - J Greb (talk) 22:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edit.
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to List of villains in The Batman. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. -=- Adam Walker -=- 21:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Stop making mass changes, even over massive numbers of edits, without explaining them. This has gone beyond disruptive becoming unintentional vandalism. What is it going to take to actually get you to inform your fellow editors about why you changed an article? Are you going to keep this up until you are blocked from editing for a short period?
 * - J Greb (talk) 18:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

RoboCop creations and redirects
I find it very troubling comparing your edits to Clarence Boddicker and Anne Lewis (RoboCop).

The first you redirect without explanation to a list article. The assumption would be that it's an unsourced, plot only stub.

But then you create the second, which is also a plot only, unsourced stub.

You cannot have it both ways, and trying to damages the good faith that is assumed with editing. If you are going to redirect these types of article you should not be creating them. If you cannot see that they are the same type of article, you should stay away from articles on elements in works of fiction.

- J Greb (talk) 18:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The function of and infobox and lead
Both the infobox and lead are meant to summarize the article, the information included in them needs to also be in the body of the article. Moving cast information into the infobox is contrary to this, so is the wholesale moving of an article section into the lead. And this is without getting into WP:MOSTV.

- J Greb (talk) 20:31, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Block
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 6 months for repeated disruptive edits and article creation. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

I have looked over your edit history and interactions with other users, and you have engaged in a variety of disruptive behaviors. While I believe you are honestly trying, you need to spend a little more time learning how Wikipedia operates before you are ready to have editing privileges again. I encourage you to read the notices that have been made on your Talk Page, and to read the various policies that are in place about how to edit Wikipedia. Best regards, Evilphoenix Talk 22:07, 15 May 2011 (UTC)