User talk:Ridernyc/Archive 1

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Reedy Boy 20:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Striked out as per the discussion on my talk page. Reedy Boy 21:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

what the hell?
that was my user talk page i blanked. look closely before posting stuff like that.

Next time don';t blank your user page to get rid of warnings. Plus a random IP page is not your user page.


 * if you read the discussion i had with Jeffrey.Kleykamp, you'll find that there was no reason for the vandalism warnings - i was, in fact, removing vandalism myself (specifically, someone had written 'm,mmmm' in the description of a picture (look through my edit history and you'll see what i mean). so there was no reason for the vandalism warning. and, as far as my talk page goes, read through the wikipedia guidelines for user talk pages - i can blank it if i want to: "On your own user talk page, you may remove comments from others [...] archiving is generally preferred," but not necessary (and i hardly think it is necessary in this case.)


 * in this case, a random ip page is my user page - my ip doesn't change, therefore it identifies me in the same way that a user page would. anyway, that is completely irrelevant.

ATTENTION!
You cannot put warnings on vandals talk pages unless you are a patroller. Put the patroller user box in your user page to put warnings on.

This has to be the stupidest thing I'ev ever heard but whateverRidernyc 13:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Ohio Valley Wrestling reverts
Looking at the history log, I see you reverted the edits of 67.163.88.215. as you thought they were vandalisms, and then left a warning on the person talk page. While I believe this was done in good faith, if you had gone through the history log, you would have seen that he was not vandalizing the page, but trying to undo the vandalisms of 24.168.119.123 and 74.68.5.217. Nenog 01:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

STAR TREK CRITICISM
please don't put nonsense back into articles just after it's been deleted as part of an overzealous anti-vandalism drive. why should a random website get publicity on Wikipedia? check what someone has deleted before having it reverted. thanks --62.25.106.209 12:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

"Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from Criticisms of Star Trek. Please be more careful when editing pages and do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Ridernyc 12:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)"

I was very careful when editing this page Criticisms of Star Trek, was totally justified in what I did and also explained exactly what I was doing in the edit summary - so please don't post messages like the above on my shared IP's talk page. It looks as if it's some kind of auto-message as well. Maybe you could look into making it work a bit better so it doesn't leave messages that bear no relation to the facts on talk pages. Thanks again --195.92.40.49 12:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

"discuss it on the talk page do not just edit out large sections of articles because you disagree with them". is this your comment too? if it is, please sign your comments. anyway for the SECOND TIME - as i clearly stated in the edit summary i removed this content because it is irrelevant, trivial and simply publicity for one person's personal website. whether i agree with what he says or not is not the point (actually i don't care either way what this guy says). i am removing it back again. (as you'll notice my IP address is changing) --62.25.106.209 12:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I will reply to you hear since you are changing IP's constantly. You removed large portions of the page. Your stated reason was dubious at best, beyond that you removed sectiona that had nothing to do with your stated reason. You stated you weree removing information from one source that you diagreed with but you deleted multiple source and citations. Also if you are going to be doing major edits you really should create an account. Your edit really should have been discussed on the articles talk page Ridernyc 12:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I did not remove "large portions" that had "nothing to do with my stated reason". I removed - i think - 3 paragraphs which were merely references, as i said, to some random person's view of something from their personal website. Do you understand Wiki rules on sourcing information?  I gave a more than sufficient explanation in the edit summary, but just to keep you happy I have now gone into more detail on the talk page.  Are you in fact Michael Wong? --62.25.106.209 13:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * ps - i am not of course obliged, nor is anyone else who wants to edit, to create an account. not least because i made a edit to improve an article, which otherwise i might not have made.  in fact in my experience a lot of anon editors (many of whom work from PCs or networks with changing IPs) do a lot more in terms of constructive work on Wikipedia than many account-holders --62.25.106.209 13:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Removing "- 	Astrophysicist and Trekkie Prof. Andre Bormanis criticized the phenomenon too, saying that the Star Trek series has become a model for collaboration between scientific facts and fiction, resulting in pseudoscience. ."

Had nothing to do witht he reason you stated.

Not going to get into a revert war with. Like said register and you will have much fewer problems. Also yes I do use scripts all editors do. The warning you were given is a standard warning from this page WP:UTM. Pretty much every user whio patrols recent changes uses them.Ridernyc


 * OK that may have been an error (I'm not 100% sure about his standing, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt). But my main point still stands, and that part could simply have been put back in without my changes being reverted wholesale.  The only problem here is because of a revert that couldn't distinguish between a justified deletion of limited material and destructive vandalism. I should not have to register simply in order to avoid coming across this type of automated idiocy (and it might of course not have made any difference anyway) --195.92.40.49 13:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I still disagree with all your edits. It seems like you have something personal against Michael Wong whoever he is. It also seems like you disagree with the article in general and are trying to remove anything negative about Star Trek from the article. Like I said I let them stand only because I"m not going to get into an edit warRidernyc 13:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * OK - I'm glad we're not going to get into a edit war over this, but you seem to be having a lot of trouble understanding what I did here and are making some fairly off-beam assumptions about my motivation, which I've found to be midly irritating. Just so there's no confusion - 1) I don't know 'Michael Wong' and have nothing against him personally; 2) I am not a Trekkie, or Trekker, or whatever they call themselves these days; 3) I have no problem with people who criticise or don't like Star Trek (or any other random TV programme for that matter), and deleted the material because it was irrelevant to an encyclopedia, not because it was negative.


 * I came across the article while looking for something else on Wikipedia during my lunchbreak at work and went into it as it seemed an odd - and trivial - article to have in an encyclopedia. I was also simply curious as to what was in it.  I then noticed that as well as details of criticisms of the show from actors and academics, it also included references and links to someone's personal website.  The former is entirely unsuitable material for Wikipedia - the source has no status, authority or credibility. I don't know this for certain of course, but it wouldn't surprise me if the guy had originally put the material in the article himself.  So I deleted it (as have previous editors before me, although their deletions were reverted by a now-banned editor).  I would have done the same had he said how great Star Trek is.  It's a bit odd to accuse me of "deleting anything negative from the article", as pretty much the entire article is negative (isn't this obvious from the name?!) and I left most of it alone.  My comment about doubting whether the article should be here at all is solely for the reason stated above - that I find it a rather trivial issue to create an entire article around.  Plus I don't like "Criticisms of .." articles generally, since they tend to be little more than vehicles for people using Wikipedia to push their POV.  There's also no need for them unless they are covering a genuinely controversial subject in some detail, as any "criticism of .." content can - and should - go in the main article.


 * Mush as I hate throwing Wiki-rules & guidelines around, I think you really need to read up on those relating to a) self-published sources; b)content/POV forking; and c) assuming good faith on the part of other editors --195.92.40.49 05:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

On again you keep trying to claim you only removed content from one source. You already admited you removed parts of the article that should have been left alone. I agree I"m not even sure that artilce should be on wikipedia. Ridernyc 07:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't "keep trying to claim" I only removed material from one source. I acknowledged a couple of posts ago that removing the other quote/reference "may have been an error" and it could have been put back in (assuming the article is staying). How many times do you want me to say that? Since then I haven't been referring to that part of my deletion. --195.92.40.49 09:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Galactus
Heh. Wasn't finished. Comment and new edit to come.

Asgardian 00:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

You may want to be more clear in your comments from now on.Ridernyc 01:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Bratz
Did you actually READ the article? I reverted back to before it actually WAS vandalized by making a minor grammatical fix to an earlier edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

db-bio
Please read WP:CSD. A7 is does not assert notability, which Ted Frank clearly does assert. Whether it meets WP:BIO is another thing, but it asserts notability, which means this is for WP:AFD to decide. Please be more careful with speedy tags in the future -- lucid 23:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification23:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)