|
User talk:Boneless Pizza!
Logged out editingHi. I am Barkeep49 an editor and a checkuser. I would ask you to please review our policies on logged out editing. Some of your edits as an IP violate the policy. Further edits which do so may result in both your IP and this account being blocked. Please let me know if you have any questions. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Kudos for recognizing that you made an error in nominating Timon and Pumbaa for deletion. We all make mistakes sometimes; what truly reveals one's character is the reaction to finding out one has erred. I think this amply demonstrates how much better it is to try to figure these things out together as you, I, and Daranios did rather than jumping to name-calling and the such as too often happens in situations like these. TompaDompa (talk) 15:08, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Thanos (Squid Game).gif Thank you for uploading File:Thanos (Squid Game).gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale. If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. RachelTensions (talk) 17:00, 13 January 2025 (UTC) Fiction guidelinesThank you for this. I agree that is a better version than the one you reverted from, but this would be even better. In the current version, the second paragraph is not very helpful, and the current first sentence of that paragraph gets way ahead of itself. A new article would not realistically "meet basic policies and guidelines". That sentence has been changed a few times in the last month, but that amounts to wasted effort for something that isn't very useful anyway. Thus that paragraph should be removed. In the "Sources of information" section, recent additions around the examples of information found in primary sources make that part even more misleading than it already was. Most of those examples are details that shouldn't usually be included anywhere in an article, and the plot is discussed below. In the next subsection, talk about "secondary information" is confusing. Also, there should be some guidance about where to find reliable secondary sources, which this version includes. Under "Plot summaries of individual works", the Citizen Kane plot summary actually does not use a consistent present tense, so it's quite odd to say that it should. The first part of that sentence might be OK, but it seems redundant to what is just above. In the "List of exemplary articles" section, we should not say "exceptional" unless we remove the mention of GAs, which are only considered satisfactory. Any GA deemed exceptional should be promoted to FA. I further have doubts about that whole list. Several articles have recently had to be removed from it because they were demoted, and who knows how many more will follow. Do we really need such a list at all? Finally, I don't think we can worry too much about who made the edits in question. It's pretty clear from the talk page that the banned user made the ip edits beginning on November 21, but if we reverted to the version before that, the page would be even more of a jumbled, sometimes contradictory mess than it currently is. Thus I would suggest restoring this version and working from there. If deemed necessary, the page could be further protected in order to prevent any more edits by a banned user, but as far as edits that have already been made, we should only go by actual content. Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary might be worth checking out as well, as a similar mass revert occurred there. Interestingly, some of the banned user's edits removed earlier additions by another(?) banned user. 199.204.248.113 (talk) 15:05, 14 January 2025 (UTC) |
|||||||
.gif){kind=link}
.gif){kind=link}