User talk:Clarinet Hawk/Archive 2
 |
Vandals
Please list the names/IP's of potential vandals here. Also, if possible, tell me the page(s) they vandalized so that I can verify the claim and assess the damage. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 02:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
88.111.78.199 was advertising links into SSBB character pages, I did revert most (if not, all) of the damage that he did. I gave him a warning. I just wanted to let you know, if he does it again. (Wolf O'Donnell (talk · contributions) 17:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC))
Eebrozgi and Jonttutan have made two joke Smasher articles.
(along with their respective talk pages) (Wolf O'Donnell (talk · contributions) 00:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC))
- With Smasher and User pages, we generally won't delete them unless there's offensive material on them. Lot's of people lie about where they live, so someone saying on Mars is at least being honest about being dishonest. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 14:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Facts
The fact I wrote that you removed doesn't need to be interesting. It just needs to be a FACT- which it was. I agree that the Bob-omb part was unnecessary but you shouldn't have removed the whole thing. -Schewe (talk) 03:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- No, facts that go on the main page do need to be interesting. The point of the main page is that it's catchy. If all our facts were just in the line of "Fox's reflector has set knockback" it would be quite boring. Only about a third of the facts that get put up remain up for more than 24 hours. We want the information to be interesting so that people have a reason to continue reading this wiki. As for your specific fact, we had something very similar a few weeks ago and it too got taken down for not being interesting. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 04:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank You & Apology
Thanks for warning Zmario. It irritates me to no end when people think this is an image-hosting service. He removed the speedy deletion template four times on his Smash Card. I've told him again and again to upload it to an image hosting site, but he won't.
I made categories to unattended articles, yet not marking them for deletion. That just puts more work on you and the other sysops, you have my apologies. (Wolf O'Donnell (talk · contributions) 05:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC))
I have some things I'd like to tell you/ask you. I don't want to announce it in public, so could we please discuss in email? (Wolf O'Donnell (talk · contributions) 23:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC))
Opinions On Users
Wolf O'Donnell and I were discussing this issue last night. You see, Zmario, Kperfekt, and I all have a section on our user pages titled "My Opinion On Other Users". Basically, we type a user's name and describe what we think about them. However, Zmario's section got deleted by Randall, because he believed it was a form of a personal attack. However, I read Zmario's section myself, and he had nothing offensive on there. So, I turn to you in this confusing predicament. What do you believe defines a personal attack? If you simply state that you don't like someone, is that a personal attack? Was making a section of this nature a potential personal attack to begin with? - GalaxiaD (talk) 16:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- I've seen each of your "opinions" sections and no, they don't constitute personal attacks. However, I really don't think there necessary on this wiki either. As much as I am glad that you all think I'm a great sysop, Randall has a point that they could turn into personal attacks. Some of the comments about him in particular were quite close and I can see why he would take them as an attack at him. If you want to let users know what you think of them, use there talk pages but be respectful and polite. But for the sake of ending drama that never needed to be started, let's get rid of the "opinions on users" sections. I'll let each of you take care of it yourself. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 19:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- Alas, their continued correspondence is riddled with personal attacks and petty name-calling--thanks for trying to mediate all this, CH, I appreciate it. But they're as good as banned as soon as I find the time. This is not a constructive environment with this garbage at the forefront and from my point of view, it'll be tough to get the wiki back on its feet unless they take a light vacation. --RJM Talk 22:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
yo
well, uh first I came here to ask you if paragoomba348 (or whatever those numbers are) got banned. also, whats up? lol Kperfekt722 (talk) 19:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- Paragoomba got banned for 50 hours for removing deletion tags from an advertising article that he made. His ban is now over. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 19:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- yayyy lol. Kperfekt722 (talk) 20:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Super Smash Bros. Rush
I'm sorry for bothering you, but could you please help with the decision regarding Super Smash Bros Rush's deletion? (Wolf O'Donnell (talk · contributions) 23:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC))
Regarding the article(s) that are advertisements, I like your "standard". (Wolf O'Donnell (talk · contributions) 18:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC))
