Difference between revisions of "Talk:PDA"

From DoomWiki.org

(Not best course of action; deserved discussion.)
 
(Mass deletion of info)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
==Mass deletion of info==
 
==Mass deletion of info==
 
Aren't we supposed to have a discussion before something is single-handedly deleted? And yes I believe a 200 KB subtraction from an article constitutes an effective deletion. I'm aware of the copyright issue and have been for some time, but had been thinking about how best to deal with it. I do not agree that the action taken was the best way to deal with it - you just deleted my own primary reference for Doom 3 canonical timeline information. That will '''really''' help me in my work on the rest of the Doom 3 articles. --[[User:Quasar|Quasar]] ([[User talk:Quasar|talk]]) 05:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 
Aren't we supposed to have a discussion before something is single-handedly deleted? And yes I believe a 200 KB subtraction from an article constitutes an effective deletion. I'm aware of the copyright issue and have been for some time, but had been thinking about how best to deal with it. I do not agree that the action taken was the best way to deal with it - you just deleted my own primary reference for Doom 3 canonical timeline information. That will '''really''' help me in my work on the rest of the Doom 3 articles. --[[User:Quasar|Quasar]] ([[User talk:Quasar|talk]]) 05:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 +
 +
: Thank you for explaining further (I saw the IRC posts first).  I honestly am not comprehending how my action could possibly have the effect in your last 2 sentences — apologies if I'm overlooking some simple point.
 +
 +
: Obviously I don't own this article; in the long term it might look completely different from my edit today.  But IME an edit has to be made, or discussion is extremely unlikely.  People just don't feel like posting about copyright [http://doomwiki.org/w/index.php?title=File_talk:Green_and_pissed.gif&oldid=51370] [http://doomwiki.org/w/index.php?title=File_talk:The_Romero.jpg&oldid=75145] [http://doomwiki.org/w/index.php?title=File_talk:ImpProfile.jpg&oldid=92212] [http://doomwiki.org/w/index.php?title=File_talk:Dr_Sleep_thumb.jpg&oldid=75179].  They don't even feel like it when the thread begins by saying the rules might be at fault [http://doomwiki.org/w/index.php?title=File_talk:DoomRPGrocket.gif&oldid=30640], even when their own contributions are being directly discussed and they're already active [http://doomwiki.org/w/index.php?title=File_talk:MiniHereticLogoIcon.png&oldid=79201] [http://doomwiki.org/w/index.php?limit=2147483647&tagfilter=&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Gez&namespace=&tagfilter=&year=2011&month=11].  So here I am, trying a different method to get discussion going.    [[User:Ryan W|Ryan W]] ([[User talk:Ryan W|talk]]) 06:53, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 01:53, 1 May 2015

Mass deletion of info

Aren't we supposed to have a discussion before something is single-handedly deleted? And yes I believe a 200 KB subtraction from an article constitutes an effective deletion. I'm aware of the copyright issue and have been for some time, but had been thinking about how best to deal with it. I do not agree that the action taken was the best way to deal with it - you just deleted my own primary reference for Doom 3 canonical timeline information. That will really help me in my work on the rest of the Doom 3 articles. --Quasar (talk) 05:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining further (I saw the IRC posts first).  I honestly am not comprehending how my action could possibly have the effect in your last 2 sentences — apologies if I'm overlooking some simple point.
Obviously I don't own this article; in the long term it might look completely different from my edit today.  But IME an edit has to be made, or discussion is extremely unlikely.  People just don't feel like posting about copyright [1] [2] [3] [4].  They don't even feel like it when the thread begins by saying the rules might be at fault [5], even when their own contributions are being directly discussed and they're already active [6] [7].  So here I am, trying a different method to get discussion going.    Ryan W (talk) 06:53, 1 May 2015 (UTC)