395
edits
User talk:DatNuttyKid: Difference between revisions
From ARMS Institute, the ARMS Wiki
→Deletion
(→Deletion: new section) |
DatNuttyKid (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
The deletion of [[:File:Characterleak.png]] you performed earlier was an arguable abuse of your patroller rights, and I'm not too keen on your blanking of the fighter page either. The page and image were clearly added in good faith, and you treated the pages as blatant spam and vandalism by not allowing discussion first. I'm not going to petition to revoke your rights, since it doesn't seem you had bad intentions either, but please be sure to look over [[AI:DEL]] if you haven't already and keep a distinction of "insta-delete" and debatably useful articles and images in mind. Thank you for your understanding. [[User:Nyargleblargle|Nyargleblargle]] ([[User talk:Nyargleblargle|talk]]) 18:54, 19 August 2017 (EDT) | The deletion of [[:File:Characterleak.png]] you performed earlier was an arguable abuse of your patroller rights, and I'm not too keen on your blanking of the fighter page either. The page and image were clearly added in good faith, and you treated the pages as blatant spam and vandalism by not allowing discussion first. I'm not going to petition to revoke your rights, since it doesn't seem you had bad intentions either, but please be sure to look over [[AI:DEL]] if you haven't already and keep a distinction of "insta-delete" and debatably useful articles and images in mind. Thank you for your understanding. [[User:Nyargleblargle|Nyargleblargle]] ([[User talk:Nyargleblargle|talk]]) 18:54, 19 August 2017 (EDT) | ||
:I'll admit that the deletion of the image was probably inappropriate and I didn't really think that through. | |||
: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) | |||
