User talk:Unnamed anon

Archives

1

Thank you for adding that archive link to the reference on List of Teen Titans episodes. I wanted to bring to your attention that I corrected the syntax for the archive link here. You can find out more about the template syntax at Template:Cite_web#archive-url EvergreenFir (talk) 23:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page One Piece (2023 TV series), may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 04:57, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to have to say that your edits - even if made in good faith - are consistently poor and have become increasingly disruptive. You have been asked to make edits one by one, for discussion, but you have ignored that request, and the vast majority of your contributions are having to be reverted or re-written by other editors.

The plot section was when you arrived in an excellent state, and, although improvements of course can always be made, your rapid sequence of fundamental changes mostly made without discussion has significantly degraded it. You are consistently missing every nuance of the carefully-drafted existing description, and do not appear to have a good enough knowledge of the text to be able to summarise it at all accurately. Specific concerns include re-writing everything in American English, adding factually incorrect information ("has a gunshot wound in his forehead", "they initially suspect Vera", "the remaining eight suspect", "believing him to be the killer"), completely misunderstanding legal procedure and terminology ("that the law couldn't incriminate [sic]", that a judge can sentence to death even defendants that "the jury believed to be innocent"), adding unnecessary verbiage (the confession is written "by the killer", a "drowned" body is washed up), repeatedly and without explanation removing text after reasoned reversion ("crudely dressed in the attire of a judge"), and generally poor grammar and clunky phraseology ("explanation on [sic] who", "decided to commit mass murder against other murderers who were untouched"). You are forcing other editors to repeatedly waste time fixing these and other errors.

I have felt obliged to revert the text back to the last good version, and have to ask you to refrain from editing in this disruptive manner. If you want to continue contributing to the article, please respect the time and edits of other users, make small incremental changes with reasoned edit summaries, and use the talk page for proposals of more extensive changes. Thank you. MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:29, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MichaelMaggs: I apologize for the mistakes, I'd like to respond to as many of your concerns as possible:

1. The copy of the book I read a few years ago was an American version that did include periods in Mr. and Mrs., so I did not know that Mr and Mrs did not have periods in British English. I made sure to not add back the American English, aside from one mistake in forgetting the Mr in front of Justice Wargrave.

2. My thought process on the Vera sentence was that the chair being upright was why the police ruled her out as the killer despite her being the last victim, which I felt was a notable missing plot detail. Saying that they initially suspected her, alongside the other mistakes you note, was because it had been a while since I read the book. When that IP pointed out my mistakes, I re-read the book, and the information from re-reading is where the changes since that IP's edits are coming from.

3. The clunky phraseology is something that I was fixing throughout writing; the example you give was changed to "commit mass murder against killers that the law couldn't incriminate" in the latest revision before the IP started editing. I appreciate you pointing out when something I wrote was clunky, but that specific sentence is one I had been fixing throughout multiple edits and was no longer accurate unless you also have a problem with the more recent wording - which if you do have a problem with the more recent wording of that sentence, let me know.

4. On the topic of that sentence, I found "a scheme to mete out what he deemed justice where the law could do nothing", to be fairly clunky and verbose, and didn't even really explain what Wargrave had planned which is why I changed it based off of what I had read.

5. The way I interpreted your edit summary of "Some useful thoughts which could be added back one by one, for discussion as needed" was that the issue you had with my edits was regarding the American English, (which if you notice I did not add back, as I said earlier), and that you were fine with the plot changes, with discussion as needed if they were challenged again (in this case, right now).

6. Respectfully, I have to disagree that the plot summary was in an "excellent state" beforehand. As I briefly mentioned earlier was extremely verbose in many areas; I don't think describing how a fake-dead Wargrave is dressed is a notable plot detail for example. I also can't seem to find where you reason that it's a description worth keeping; the edit where you added it back was about me adding American English and didn't mention that sentence at all. Likewise, "asks if any of the "prisoners at the bar" wish to offer a defence" is an extremely redundant sentence that is already covered by the previous one.

7. The plot summary was also missing details in other areas; for example, "three guests search the island"… which three? Likewise, simply "they can find no satisfactory explanation" doesn't say what they're looking to explain, and adding "a message from the killer" in the last paragraph makes things immediately clear. It's fine that you disagree with my specific changes, but the plot summary really was not in a good, let alone "excellent", state at all.

8. If you look through most of my edits to the page that I had forgotten edit summaries for, most of them were simply condensing sentences and paragraphs in an effort to get the word count down. I figured that merging some sentences would be uncontroversial, but I guess I was wrong.

9. For one the few times I added instead of combining/subtracting, saying Armstrong's body was "drowned" was based directly off of what I read, where the police list the cause of death for everyone. It also makes it clear that he wasn't killed in a different way, such as the fall, or being stabbed then dumped into the sea. Armstrong and Mr Rogers' causes of deaths were notably missing from the plot summary, so I'm not sure why you have a problem with me adding Armstrong's cause of death.

10. I'd also like to respond to your statement that the "vast majority of my contributions are having to be reverted or re-written by other editors", because aside from your recent wholesale revert, it doesn't seem like a "vast majority". In the past week, the only editors on the page were you and one IP user, then I came in two days ago. The IP's reverts to my edits were only to genuine plot mistakes, like my mistakes of Armstrong or Vera being the primary suspects. Until now, your reverts to my edits only reverted the American English changes, and a single time when you removed the guests' belief that Owen doesn't exist. My changes to grammar or phraseology were never reverted aside from the one time where you gave only touted American English as the issue in a wholesale revert.

11. It's fine that you disagree with my edits, but I'd like for you to explain how I'm being disruptive, because I'm genuinely curious. I'm actively re-reading the book to verify plot information, I'm not re-adding any of the minor details or mistakes removed by you or the IP, I'm not acting tendentious on what are minor phrasing changes to a plot summary, and right now I'm clearly showing you that I am willing to build a consensus.

I appreciate you coming here with your concerns, let me know if my responses clear anything up. Because I realized some of those mistakes when the IP reverted a few edits, I decided to borrow the book again and re-read it, and some of the verbiage is based off of the copy I'm reading, which may have its wording slightly changed from what you're reading. I also have to apologize for this wall of text; because you have a lot of problems with my edits, I feel they each need to be addressed in detail. Thanks. Unnamed anon (talk) 00:14, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding here. Following the suggestion of the IP editor, let's continue to work from where we are. MichaelMaggs (talk) 03:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TLDR: explaining why now-contested edits were made in cases where I forgot an edit summary and apologizing for genuine plot mistakes.

Would be worth linking here the continuation to this discussion on my talk page. MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Unnamed anon. I wanted to follow-up on my reply to your moratorium suggestion with the following from MORATORIUM: A moratorium is a general restriction on editors proposing a specific change that has previously been proposed and rejected by the community. Where a proposal is made repeatedly, and essentially the same proposal is made again, without new evidence or arguments, only a short time after the close of the previous proposal, administrators closing the discussion may, based upon sentiments expressed in the discussion or an express request, impose a moratorium on future efforts to repeat the failed proposal for a period of time. A moratorium may also be imposed by a discussion achieving the clear consensus of the community. [...] However, moratoriums should be used with caution, and only within limits, as they run counter to the general practice on Wikipedia that any editor may initiate a discussion on any topic related to the operations of the encyclopedia at any time (though not at any place). The duration of a moratorium should be balanced against the likelihood that consensus will change with time (or new information will develop). An existing moratorium may be lifted early if there is consensus to do so. (Emphasis mine)

To my knowledge, there has not been much or any discussion regarding if Twitter and X are the same or different services. However, if you know of discussions where it has been repeatedly discussed on Talk:Twitter or related talk pages, then please provide them and I will be willing to review my response to your proposal. It is possible I am not seeing what you have seen. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Super Goku V: In the previous requested move before the original moratorium, plenty of users were discussing whether Twitter and X were different services. The RfC 5 months ago that you were referring to was also in response to a Twitter under Elon Musk being moved to X (social network, and a huge mess on whether to consider the Twitter page as either a defunct, rebranded, or replaced website. That came only shortly after another proposal to treat them as separate sites in May. When the site was first rebranded in 2023, there were also constant changes to say that Twitter no longer exists (I can't find the edit right now, but somebody cited a "Twitter obituary" from CNN during that time). The proposals to treat them as separate sites are not as numerous as the move proposals, but they have become noticeably high in recent months. It also feels like a loophole to the current moratorium that goes against its purpose of constant discussions surrounding Twitter's status. Unnamed anon (talk) 19:39, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that does meet the criteria of repeatedly discussed that I mentioned earlier. I don't feel fully convinced that there is an issue, but I will drop my oppose. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]