RingofSauron
Welcome!
editHello, RingofSauron, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
- Introduction and Getting started
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article
- Simplified Manual of Style
You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Biblioworm 21:14, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for getting rid of that Ugly red link. :-) RingofSauron (talk) 21:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Revert
editHi RingofSauron, are you willing to stand by this restoration [1]? Because I'd removed promotional vanity content, mostly primary-sourced, and without indication that any of it was notable. It wasn't even close to encyclopedic in quality. I explained the rationale in my edit summary. 2601:188:0:ABE6:5D65:637D:D70A:E45F (talk) 02:42, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- You could be right, but you removed a huge chunk of content. For that I think it would be better to discuss it on the talk page. If you start a discussion and wait a few days then go ahead. Just note that in the edit summary. Most of its been there for a while, it'll wait another couple days. RingofSauron (talk) 02:45, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- That's a reasonable approach if any of the content was worth keeping. WP:BEBOLD applies to this sort of cruft, and cruft is a kind description. Drmies is editing it in a more incremental fashion, though i suspect the conclusion will be similar. 2601:188:0:ABE6:5D65:637D:D70A:E45F (talk) 02:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- That's fair to say. I won't revert you again if you feel compelled to delete it again but that doesn't mean someone else won't. If you start a discussion and wait a couple days to see what response you get and then use that in the edit summary it would be a pretty compelling reason to not revert it for most. Drmies seems like he knows what he's doing. Oh he's an admin, makes sense. RingofSauron (talk) 02:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- That's a reasonable approach if any of the content was worth keeping. WP:BEBOLD applies to this sort of cruft, and cruft is a kind description. Drmies is editing it in a more incremental fashion, though i suspect the conclusion will be similar. 2601:188:0:ABE6:5D65:637D:D70A:E45F (talk) 02:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Project tagging
editYou don't need to tag every subpage with project tags. For example Portal talk:Seattle Sounders FC/box-header is nothing but a header template. Nthep (talk) 20:32, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- Ok thanks, I was just trying to include the remaining few. It looks like almost all the others have already been tagged. I just figured it would help the WikiProjects (US/WA and Seattle) and anyone who may want to change something if they wanted to have a discussion. RingofSauron (talk) 20:36, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Block Notice
edit| CheckUser evidence has determined that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely to prevent abuse. Administrators: CheckUsers are privy to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy, and therefore must be consulted before this block can be removed. Administrators undoing checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser risk having their administrator rights removed by the Arbitration Committee (per this announcement). -- Mike V • Talk 17:58, 23 August 2015 (UTC) |
- Mike V So I wonder who requested this check or was this just a random fishing expedition to see if you could catch some socks? I don't think its generally allowed to just checkuser accounts randomly. RingofSauron (talk) 18:01, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Mike V, Chillum, Fluffernutter, Nick, Worm That Turned, Newyorkbrad, and Floquenbeam: If you guys want to continue to create a disruption by deleting my positive contributions your only destroying the project. If you don't want to collaborate with others and build an encyclopedia it would be better just to leave so the rest of us can build one. Because I am not going to stop contributing. I can create new accounts forever and I will continue to edit positively forever. I'm not going to stop making positive contributions just because a handful of people aren't here to build an encyclopedia. All you're doing is creating a disruption. I would greatly prefer it if the admins of ENWP could just follow the community decision to unblock me so people like Mike and Chillum will stop disrupting the project. RingofSauron (talk) 19:57, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Mike V, Chillum, Fluffernutter, Nick, and Worm That Turned: My hope is that someone will tell Chillum and Mike V to stop causing a disruption by deleting positive contributions against policy. Even better still someone should unblock my account like the community said to do months ago so we can all go back to editing. All this disruption is a direct cause of the admin culture on this project and the we can do anything to editors attitude. I admins like Chillumm the Arbcom and Mike V weren't creating a disruption, there wouldn't be a disruption. I really don't know why you would continue to contribute to a project you don't even care about and aren't here to improve, but get out of the way and let those of us who are here to edit and improve the project do that. Because you aren't helping. RingofSauron (talk) 03:49, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Mike V, Chillum, Fluffernutter, Nick, Worm That Turned, Newyorkbrad, and Floquenbeam: If you guys want to continue to create a disruption by deleting my positive contributions your only destroying the project. If you don't want to collaborate with others and build an encyclopedia it would be better just to leave so the rest of us can build one. Because I am not going to stop contributing. I can create new accounts forever and I will continue to edit positively forever. I'm not going to stop making positive contributions just because a handful of people aren't here to build an encyclopedia. All you're doing is creating a disruption. I would greatly prefer it if the admins of ENWP could just follow the community decision to unblock me so people like Mike and Chillum will stop disrupting the project. RingofSauron (talk) 19:57, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
- Mike V So I wonder who requested this check or was this just a random fishing expedition to see if you could catch some socks? I don't think its generally allowed to just checkuser accounts randomly. RingofSauron (talk) 18:01, 23 August 2015 (UTC)