After editing my own article last night, with aid by Greenreaper, the article was removed of its infobox and “wikified”. I was fine with that, however it was edited again by a user named Spirou who severally broke the article, added a large number of templates that were un-needed (such as “Not citing References” disclaimers, which was untrue), and added a message saying not to edit the article as it was “currently undergoing a massive edit”. His edits created a number of fragment sentences, removal of information, and esentially vandalized the article. He did this around 2 O'clock. It has been half a day later, and it seems that he has abandoned it again. I have reverted his edits, and with guidance with greenreaper, I will correct the article further.
- Wiki lesson #1:
- This template warns (curators and editors) that a large edit of an article is in progress, and it's common courtesy to not edit such until the editor has finished his current, ongoing edit. No, I don't think Greenreaper has informed you to go ahead and revert the edits while the INUSE template is in effect. - Spirou (talk) 00:28, 3 August 2015 (EDT)
- I told him he should edit, though not that he should revert - all edits should build on the work of other editors. When you hit save, you should be prepared for it to be edited mercilessly. I'm deleting that template now as it is inappropriate for a wiki, which is about quick editing. I know I created it, but its subsequent use has made me uncomfortable for years. Complete overhauls which cannot be made in place can be drafted in user space or a subarticle without leaving an article in a half-working state, or denying others the right to edit. --GreenReaper(talk)
- Sorry that RL life had to take me away from the edit, hence the use of the use of the inuse template, which some editor have abused its use to the record of 72 hours (with no consequences). so here is the question of the day: Taking the granted notion that edits should be almost immediate, what is Wikifur's maximum allotted time after implementing this template (dd:hh:mm:ss?), assuming the maximum used ever (03:00:00:00) as the unofficial benchmark?.
- ...And your comment was edited, making my point to the initial one completely moot. - 00:57, 3 August 2015 (EDT)
- I'm sorry; I was frustrated, and perhaps a little over-caffienated. I don't want to make it hard for people who have other things going on in their life to contribute. We all have other things going on in our lives. It's also reasonable to want to avoid lots of little edits, although I've seen some editors do this when making a series of changes, so as to make it easier to justify each of the edits.
- At the same time, I believe that all edits should stand by themselves - both improving an article and leaving it in a state where others can contribute. Due to time pressure and computer unreliability, it may not be possible to complete all desired changes, and in that case saving a draft in a local file/notepad (I use Notepad++, which has auto-backups), or user space (e.g. User:GreenReaper/Chocolate Chip) may work.
- We should also build on the edits of others rather than reverting good-faith changes. If someone comes along in the middle of a series of edits and makes their own, don't think "that guy got in my way! I'll just undo…" but "wow, I'm glad he did that; now my edit can incorporate his and it'll be even closer to consensus!" New users, especially, must see that their contributions, while being mercilessly edited, are not mercilessly dismissed - and they must feel that they have an equal say in how the article turns out. Encouraging and integrating contributions from new users is perhaps the most important role of a curator; it's crucial that they get a good impression, even if that means spending more time incorporating their changes. --GreenReaper(talk) 01:52, 3 August 2015 (EDT)
- No problem, but it will be a missed feature. I had to quickly tackle a job that had to be taken care, so it helped that I could suddenly had to be put this long article edit aside (so one could come back [reasonable] later on to it). It also helped on dual conflict edits (we had the share of them), but, so we move on. Now that I finished this animation job, I can tackle the subject at hand now (it will be long by the looks of it, but why I saved a edit copy on the desktop and reverted to the prior user edit). Allons-y - Spirou (talk) 02:16, 4 August 2015 (EDT)
I removed a large amount of irrelevant information that has no sense being on the wiki, and most of it other people found odd as well. My views stated in the article have since changed anyway, and I have removed them. Sorry I didn't log in to do it. HTTPS doesn't seem to like me logging in. If you think that it is relevant information, then I can put it back to update my viewpoints, I guess. I will be honest, a lot of what I put there sounds really, really stupid in retrospect. --Chocolate Chip (talk) 19:03, 2 December 2015 (EST)
I want to blank the wiki page. I realize now that I have made no notable contributions to the fandom (yet), and there are people trying to dox me anyway. Greenreaper told me to put the request in the discussion page. I want the page deleted. Any objections? --Chocolate Chip (talk) 19:25, 23 December 2015 (EST)