User talk:Nairebis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Nairebis, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Zoz (t) 16:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re:rescue party

That was a friendly fire casualty :-). Thanks.--Legionarius (talk) 17:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I figured that was probably the case. :) I'm kind of glad you wacked that link. I've let it sit there because it's not really a commercial link, and it was somewhat an analysis of the story, but really it wasn't a very high quality, academic analysis. Nairebis (talk) 18:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
The editor left links to his blog all over ACC articles. Check my history, you will see...--Legionarius (talk) 18:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] *that* article

Hi there. While I agree that the article needs merge/cleanup, what you did there was a wholesale revert to that banned editor's revision. Please, by all means, figure out the good from the bad and improve the article, but do not just simply re-instate a banned editor's changes. You have no idea as to the rationale behind their edits nor of the likely implications off-wiki - Alison ❤ 21:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

How about you go through the edits and figure out which edits were good and bad? For example, what do you think their rationale was for making the caption in the image clearer by stating that Brittany is kissing Abby on the cheek instead of just saying who is on the left and who's on the right, which could be confusing unless you say from which directing you're facing? What implications could there possibly be "off-wiki" for making such an edit? For An Angel (talk) 01:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I reviewed all of the edits, and added back all the ones that were appropriate. Since I didn't see any that were inappropriate, I added them all back in (and added one other automatic edit). Let me be clear -- *I* added the information back in. It's is my edit, not some other editor's. I don't know or care where the edits came from -- and I shouldn't have to care. If I have to care where good information comes from, then something is seriously wrong with something behind the scenes at Wikipedia.
Please specify *exactly* which information you don't think is appropriate for the article, and I'll consider doing some further editing. Otherwise, I will improve the article by putting the information back in. Please do not undo my (and I emphasize MY) edits again without a good reason.
And can I be honest? I grow weary of this cliquish, overly dramatic "no idea as to the rationale behind their edits nor of the likely implications off-wiki". If you want to make a case, then point me to the public discussion where I can make an informed judgment. If there is no public discussion, then there is no policy. If it's something in real life, then it should be handled in real life.
As I said before, I'm sure there's some good reason for all this. But this secretive "just take my word for it" stuff just doesn't impress me and damages the reputation of Wikipedia.Nairebis (talk) 04:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Since much of this stuff actually involves the privacy of other people, including off-wiki, then yes, it is a "take my word for it" situation, and I can't say more than that much as I hate leaving it like that. Still, if you wish to claim those edits as yours and are willing to stand over them regardless, then that's fine by me. The banned editor has already ended up in plenty of RL trouble as a result of editing Wikipedia and is actually still doing so (reading this, Mr. Morrow?). All I can do is try to limit his hurting of others - Alison ❤ 04:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
There is no reasonably conceivable way that Nairebis's edit that you reverted could hurt anyone. Are you saying now then that we are allowed to revert your last edit to that article as long as the person who does it is willing to "stand over them" (whatever that means)? For An Angel (talk) 03:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
"There is no reasonably conceivable way that Nairebis's edit that you reverted could hurt anyone" - you don't know that. Seriously. And yes, pretty much - Alison ❤ 03:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)