User talk:Sparky15756

Personal Exclusion
I was wondering if I could have my wiki-thing, Sparky15756, blanked? I'm intending to edit it at a later date but for now I'd rather have it blanked as it's just an egotistical page that I made a few years ago and would rather it not see the light of day (anymore). But I'd like to keep my account on here for when I finally get around re-editing my wiki-article.

~15756
 * Since the reason seems to be more that you didn't like the current article rather than the idea of any article, I had a go at editing it. Please take a look and tell me if you still wish to be excluded. (Also, you can sign your name in discussions with ~ .) --GreenReaper(talk) 03:33, 22 June 2012 (EDT)

I still wish for the article to be excluded, but I do thank you for trying to make it look better. ~Sparky15756
 * As you wish; I have placed the customary 24 hour notice on the talk page, and if there is no objection (likely) I will perform the exclusion. --GreenReaper(talk) 03:49, 9 July 2012 (EDT)

Re-inclusion
Hey again, I was wondering if it's possible to unblank and re-include my article? I've prepared a pre-made article for if/when my article can be edited.


 * Sure. I've removed the exclusion and restored the last version; it is now open for editing. --GreenReaper(talk) 20:15, 29 March 2013 (EDT)

Is it also possible to remove previous entries from the history or is that just something that's not possible? Would be useful so nobody can restore or look at the older entries, as I don't like looking at the past like that. :)


 * It is technically possible; we've done it before to remove real-life information from the history. I'd suggest asking on the attached talk page, and if nobody objects, I can go ahead and do it. --GreenReaper(talk) 05:18, 30 March 2013 (EDT)

And done that, not sure who'd object to it but it's there in my article's discussion page. :)

Edit summaries and signatures
It's a good idea to use the edit summary box to give the reasoning behind your changes, especially if you think they may be challenged by other editors. That way, everyone will see it, not just people you contact specifically, and they won't see the edit before your reasoning for it, as I think may just have happened. (If the reason is too long, put what you can, then use the discussion page.)

Also, on talk pages you can use ~ to sign your name and the date, or just for the name. --GreenReaper(talk) 16:14, 31 March 2013 (EDT)


 * Oh, and you can use any revision as the basis for an edit - just click the date, then click edit. It is not necessary or recommended to undo a prior edit first (though we do usually recommend making changes from the prior edit, so as to include everyone's contributions). --GreenReaper(talk) 16:17, 31 March 2013 (EDT)


 * I've added a summary/reason to the revision of the page but Spirou has changed it back, not sure if putting a summary there actually done anything >.>


 * Well, they could always have disagreed with you, though I agree that curators should not use just the default "undo" message. If you are uncertain, you are welcome to ask them on their talk page. --GreenReaper(talk) 19:50, 31 March 2013 (EDT)


 * Summary added to the latest edit. And again, Sparky, on talk pages you can use ~ to sign your name and the date, or just for the name - Spirou 20:01, 31 March 2013 (EDT)

I'm just gonna ask you to not revert my article back everytime I change it back, I'm actually using what you've put as a base for a new article and in the meantime I'm using what's been put there as filler. Surely you can understand this?


 * Here is a better idea. You don't ask any editor, colleague or not, what to do or not, with any article on Wikifur, and if you are creating a new version of your article based on the template currently in place, use your User Page or the Sandbox to test it in, then when you are satisfied with it, copy/paste it in the current article. Hope this helps - Spirou 20:11, 31 March 2013 (EDT)

A friendly word of advice
Here's a friendly word of advice, Sparky. If you're just here to "create butthurt with some of the WikiFur staff", then you might find yourself getting permanently blocked from editing. You need to remember that this is a Wiki, and, and such, it can be edited by anyone. So ultimately you don't have much say in who writes about you. If this is unacceptable to you, perhaps you should consider personal exclusion once again?--Higgs Raccoon 22:19, 31 March 2013 (EDT)

Edit and Lock
I'd like to request an edit and lock of my article on the grounds that I'm tired of two (unnamed) curators targeting my article with edits upon edits, one even threatening to block me from editing my page because I spoke out against them and even received word that I'm not allowed to talk about them on Twitter.


 * Okay, now you are taking the piss. One, you are just one of thousands of user's articles the Curators and editors strive to format to an modicum of wiki formatting standard. The reason your article was heavily edited yesterday was that you were de-formatting all the edits that were being applied to it, having fun doing so.


 * Butthurt?. No, it just takes a few minutes to revert and repair. As the saying goes, no skin of anybodies ' nose. Sorry you were not happy about it or it didn't conform to your wishes, but most users don't sweat it (point: This is an article about you, not your article. The basic basis of an Wiki entry).


 * Two. The "threat" of blocking was, and it has been applied to other user, for those people that not only disrupt the normal workflow of a wiki, but also brag about making things difficult for the people trying to fix and format any article, not because you "dared" speak against them (the reference paragraph you seem to base this on is a few lines above. No such threaten action was made or implied).


 * Three. Where did this "word" originated that you not allowed to talk about the editors on Twitter?. Not here, nor on your feed. Please don't dramatize the situation.


 * Tl;dr: Again, you article is one of several thousands that hundreds of editors strive to actually make them better. If there is data that's no longer accurate, but all means do make the change. It helps your article, and it diminishes our workload, and, no, you are not being targeted, your article is just being edited. Hope this tidbits of information were informative. Keep Calm and Carry On, lad - Spirou 10:15, 1 April 2013 (EDT)