![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|||||||||||||
A VISIONARY, VISION IS SCARY.
BaGsIk Is FiErCeNeSs In EnGlIsH, yOu MuSt ReAd ThE dIcTiOnArY.
Edi ikaw na magaling.
User:Superastig, despite repeated warnings, continues to insert erroneous and non-cited info in articles. Read his talk page at User talk:Superastig to see what I mean. Also check his talk page's history as he has been deleting postings criticising his erroneous postings. Steelbeard1 ( talk) 11:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
He has been covering his tracks again as shown at [5] as he deleted more postings about his faulty edits. Steelbeard1 ( talk) 14:41, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
I did some edits on a draft for an article about an upcoming series which will be airing this week. I specifically followed the guide on WP:MOSTV on the lead and succeeding sections. I included a short summary of the plot because the lead is supposed to provide a summary of the entire article. However, User:Superastig has reverted my edits, removing the short plot summary on the lead. In the talk page ( diff here), he explained that he "honestly found it much neater to follow" without the short plot summary. He ended conversations with other users with "Sige, pre. Sabi mo, eh." twice which means "Okay. If you said so.". It comes off a bit rude. This specific edit summary ( diff) in the draft article even says "Fix listing style due to whininess in the talk page.", which I believe is uncivil behavior towards other editors.
I stand by my edits because I believe this is the right thing to do per WP:MOSTV guidelines as it will be under WP:TV once it is published. Hiwilms Talk 14:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
User:Superastig has been told in his talk page [6] not to post unreliable sources such an unverified Twitter account. He insists that "he stands up" to his edits and continues to use the unreliable Twitter account as a reference. [7] [8] [9] He also restored unreferenced TV ratings in two separate articles ( [10] [11]) and claiming his fixed something in the article. TheHotwiki ( talk) 12:40, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
prohibited from using unverified-account social-media posts as sources, from citing sources challenged as unrelialble, from adding information without a source, and from using misleading edit summaries", rather than a broad ban from Philippines TV articles. This edit [12] and one diffed after it are of especial concern as obvious original research (either that, or they're relying on some actual source which the editor WP:POINTedly refuses to divulge, perhaps because it is known-unreliable). While WP:V permits insertion of non-controversial information with no source at all, on the good-faith expectation that it'll be sourced later, in this case these claims are obviously being controverted so that cannot apply. Since Superastig postures as "stand[ing] up" for their edits, they must assume responsibility for them and for the negative pattern they are forming. This all seems especially boneheaded because the Twitter account in question (some random non-notable person going by Yera Calma and whose profile pic is a dog) is just parotting or claiming to parrot an actual publication which looks ostensibly reliable (Philippines Nielsen ratings), so the obvious thing to do is find that publication and cite the real thing. If it or another reliable source cannot be found, it is perfectly fine for WP's article to lack information on the relative ratings of these shows; WP:THEREISNODEADLINE. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:38, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|||||||||||||
A VISIONARY, VISION IS SCARY.
BaGsIk Is FiErCeNeSs In EnGlIsH, yOu MuSt ReAd ThE dIcTiOnArY.
Edi ikaw na magaling.
User:Superastig, despite repeated warnings, continues to insert erroneous and non-cited info in articles. Read his talk page at User talk:Superastig to see what I mean. Also check his talk page's history as he has been deleting postings criticising his erroneous postings. Steelbeard1 ( talk) 11:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
He has been covering his tracks again as shown at [5] as he deleted more postings about his faulty edits. Steelbeard1 ( talk) 14:41, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
I did some edits on a draft for an article about an upcoming series which will be airing this week. I specifically followed the guide on WP:MOSTV on the lead and succeeding sections. I included a short summary of the plot because the lead is supposed to provide a summary of the entire article. However, User:Superastig has reverted my edits, removing the short plot summary on the lead. In the talk page ( diff here), he explained that he "honestly found it much neater to follow" without the short plot summary. He ended conversations with other users with "Sige, pre. Sabi mo, eh." twice which means "Okay. If you said so.". It comes off a bit rude. This specific edit summary ( diff) in the draft article even says "Fix listing style due to whininess in the talk page.", which I believe is uncivil behavior towards other editors.
I stand by my edits because I believe this is the right thing to do per WP:MOSTV guidelines as it will be under WP:TV once it is published. Hiwilms Talk 14:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
User:Superastig has been told in his talk page [6] not to post unreliable sources such an unverified Twitter account. He insists that "he stands up" to his edits and continues to use the unreliable Twitter account as a reference. [7] [8] [9] He also restored unreferenced TV ratings in two separate articles ( [10] [11]) and claiming his fixed something in the article. TheHotwiki ( talk) 12:40, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
prohibited from using unverified-account social-media posts as sources, from citing sources challenged as unrelialble, from adding information without a source, and from using misleading edit summaries", rather than a broad ban from Philippines TV articles. This edit [12] and one diffed after it are of especial concern as obvious original research (either that, or they're relying on some actual source which the editor WP:POINTedly refuses to divulge, perhaps because it is known-unreliable). While WP:V permits insertion of non-controversial information with no source at all, on the good-faith expectation that it'll be sourced later, in this case these claims are obviously being controverted so that cannot apply. Since Superastig postures as "stand[ing] up" for their edits, they must assume responsibility for them and for the negative pattern they are forming. This all seems especially boneheaded because the Twitter account in question (some random non-notable person going by Yera Calma and whose profile pic is a dog) is just parotting or claiming to parrot an actual publication which looks ostensibly reliable (Philippines Nielsen ratings), so the obvious thing to do is find that publication and cite the real thing. If it or another reliable source cannot be found, it is perfectly fine for WP's article to lack information on the relative ratings of these shows; WP:THEREISNODEADLINE. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:38, 12 May 2021 (UTC)