User:Superastig/Secret
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|||||||||||||
A VISIONARY, VISION IS SCARY.
Quotes of Cr...
[edit]BaGsIk Is FiErCeNeSs In EnGlIsH, yOu MuSt ReAd ThE dIcTiOnArY.
Edi ikaw na magaling.
Old Pieces of Sh...
[edit]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)
- A few comments. First, if you're going to accuse an editor of a pattern of misconduct, you must provide diffs in support of your claims. Second, generally a user has a right to remove warnings from their talk page. Finally, you should have notified the editor of this report; I've done so for you.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, Bbb23. Here are the last two. The first is the false edit MGM Records article at [1] which he stated incorrectly that Warner Music Group owned the rights to the pre-1986 MGM soundtracks. WMG's Rhino Entertainment had the license which has since expired. The digital download license is held by Hallmark Records as shown at [2]. Time Warner's Turner Entertainment unit owns the rights to the pre-1986 MGM soundtracks. The other glaring error is in Superastig's edit in the Parlophone article at [3] that EMI Records was sold to Warner Music Group which is clearly wrong. EMI Records is now a unit of Universal Music Group which made it part of the Virgin EMI label group. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:46, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that these diffs show a pattern of misconduct, but let's just take the first one (MGM). There's an assertion in the article, which he changed and I guess you changed back. The source in the article doesn't support the asssertion. Why not? Now, I'm not saying you're wrong, just how can such claims be evaluated? This is a textbook example of why material needs to be sourced.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:26, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- This 1997 source from Billboard at [[4]] shows that at that time, Rhino had the rights to the pre-1986 MGM soundtracks which the article states are owned by Time Warner's Turner Entertainment unit. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:25, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that these diffs show a pattern of misconduct, but let's just take the first one (MGM). There's an assertion in the article, which he changed and I guess you changed back. The source in the article doesn't support the asssertion. Why not? Now, I'm not saying you're wrong, just how can such claims be evaluated? This is a textbook example of why material needs to be sourced.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:26, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, Bbb23. Here are the last two. The first is the false edit MGM Records article at [1] which he stated incorrectly that Warner Music Group owned the rights to the pre-1986 MGM soundtracks. WMG's Rhino Entertainment had the license which has since expired. The digital download license is held by Hallmark Records as shown at [2]. Time Warner's Turner Entertainment unit owns the rights to the pre-1986 MGM soundtracks. The other glaring error is in Superastig's edit in the Parlophone article at [3] that EMI Records was sold to Warner Music Group which is clearly wrong. EMI Records is now a unit of Universal Music Group which made it part of the Virgin EMI label group. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:46, 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. HiwilmsTalk 14:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- Looks like there is enough blame to go around with both of you arguing. I'm not inclined to throw sanctions at someone for saying "ok if you say so". You both are making points on the talk page, but you are talking past each other, treating it like a battle. At this point, it is purely a content dispute and I don't see any reason to get involved. I would also add, you need to have thick skin to work around here, and be able to look past little comments. No need to tolerate personal attacks, but this is miles from that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:51, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not looking for an argument and I'm not interested in arguing with any editor. However, I tend to blow up whenever an editor whines over my edits. This has happened a few times before. I was just fixing parts of the draft. It would've been better if Hiwilms was bold enough to fix it rather than to bring his complaints to the draft's talk page (or my talk page). It's. That. Simple. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 00:42, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Superastig: First of all, I have explained all my edits via the edit summary yet you kept reverting it, hence the notice on the draft talk page. You have did 2 reverts already on my edits and was heading towards WP:3RR so I stopped pushing my edits. Despite explaining on the talk page why my edits should be kept (with basis on the WP:MOSTV guidelines), you said that you "honestly found [your own edit without a plot summary in the lead] much neater to follow. So, BE IT." You even ended your conversation with two editors with "Sige, pre. Sabi mo, eh" which comes off as rude. HiwilmsTalk 11:56, 5 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)
- This clearly cannot continue. If this were a brand new editor, I would say point them at WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOR#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, leave a uw- template about it, and have a talk conversation with them about why proper sourcing is important. But this editor has been here since 2009 and absolutely knows better already. A topic-ban might be in order to prevent more improper sourcing in these articles, and the behavior does seem localized. It could even be a very narrow and specific one, like: "
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)