561
edits
DatNuttyKid (talk | contribs) |
m (Reverted edits by Wpvandelicer (talk) to last revision by Destinithompson) Tag: Rollback |
||
(8 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) | |||
Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
:I blanked the page because it, at the time, was almost entirely poorly done -- as evidenced by the fact that in your recreation, the only returning element was the infobox -- and I wasn't sure what exactly a fighter page with no available information should look like, so it seemed more reasonable to request deletion until such a time as there was enough information to justify a full article (which is likely to be in the next couple of days) or someone who did know what the article should look like came along. Now that I know what it should look like, I'll make sure if it ever comes up again I'll do it properly. Do you have a suggestion for what I can do in another case where I don't know what the proper page would look like? I guess just leave the article as-is, regardless of sloppiness? | :I blanked the page because it, at the time, was almost entirely poorly done -- as evidenced by the fact that in your recreation, the only returning element was the infobox -- and I wasn't sure what exactly a fighter page with no available information should look like, so it seemed more reasonable to request deletion until such a time as there was enough information to justify a full article (which is likely to be in the next couple of days) or someone who did know what the article should look like came along. Now that I know what it should look like, I'll make sure if it ever comes up again I'll do it properly. Do you have a suggestion for what I can do in another case where I don't know what the proper page would look like? I guess just leave the article as-is, regardless of sloppiness? | ||
:I also regret not properly addressing my thoughts with the user in question and instead just leaving it to vague and blunt edit summaries... hopefully, I didn't deter them from helping us and becoming more informed... [[User:DatNuttyKid|DatNuttyKid]] ([[User talk:DatNuttyKid|talk]]) 00:18, 20 August 2017 (EDT) | :I also regret not properly addressing my thoughts with the user in question and instead just leaving it to vague and blunt edit summaries... hopefully, I didn't deter them from helping us and becoming more informed... [[User:DatNuttyKid|DatNuttyKid]] ([[User talk:DatNuttyKid|talk]]) 00:18, 20 August 2017 (EDT) | ||
::Follow-up question: does the datamine belong in leaks? Or do we need more evidence of its accuracy first? Is there a place for just rumors...? [[User:DatNuttyKid|DatNuttyKid]] ([[User talk:DatNuttyKid|talk]]) 00:19, 20 August 2017 (EDT) | |||
:::We're having a discussion on it at the [[ARMS Institute talk:Policies/Leaks and Rumors|talk page for the rumor policy]] right now. [[User:Nyargleblargle|Nyargleblargle]] ([[User talk:Nyargleblargle|talk]]) 16:13, 20 August 2017 (EDT) |