User talk:Deathlasersonline

This user has asked for Wikipedians to give him feedback at an editor review. You may comment on his edits at Wikipedia:Editor review/Deathlasersonline.


Userpage	Talk page	Adoption	Email	Awards	Contributions

Archives

User talk:Deathlaser/Archive<

Status: Unknown

Thank you for visiting my talk page! Please abide by the following guidelines while posting:

..

Be polite, no bad behavior.
If I have reverted your edits and not notified you, please be aware I use sticking and usually revert with a single click.
If something I have done seem bad, please AGF.
If one of my reverts seem bad, please give relevant diffs and explain why.
Finally, I am sorry for any bad behavior in advance.
Please click here to leave me a new message.

Wikipedia vandalism information
(abuse log)

Moderate to high level of vandalism

[view • purge • update]

4.02 RPM according to EnterpriseyBot 17:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update this page

{{User:MiszaBot/config ....|algo = old(5d) |archive = User talk:Deathlaser/Archive}}

Mechanical pest control assessment

I suggest requesting assessment from WP:WikiProject Agriculture. LadyofShalott 14:44, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stubs

On all of the Copelatus articles you created, please add correct interwiki links to the bottom of them before making any more articles. Regards, ⇒T A P 20:48, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WWF

Given that you are back from your short break, can I please direct your attention to this discussion? This is not meant to be badgering, but it would be nice if we could help you out; wikifying is common, although not always done properly, and there's no time like the present to learn new tricks. :) Cheers, Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 03:17, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re : Talkback

Hi Deathlaser,

I've done a little housekeeping on your user page so that it does not contain any personal information.

Incidentally, I'm also an oversight so let me know if you need any further assistance or have difficulty handling the situation. Feel free to archive this message once you have read this.

- Mailer Diablo 09:02, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stub creation assistance

If you want to continue to make stubs about topics, I really do think it might be a good idea to contact User:Dr. Blofeld about some pointers on that. He is probably the most prolific article creator ever here, and I think he might be able to help you create short articles which would be able to both stand the test of time and be useful for other editors who might want to further develop the content of those articles. John Carter (talk) 19:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Deathlasersonline. You have new messages at WilliamH's talk page.
Message added 21:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

WilliamH (talk) 21:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

.....................................................................aaaaaa aaaa aaaa aaaa

Mechanical pest control

Hi Deathlaser, I see you are trying to get Mechanical pest control to GA status, yes? You're doing a good job, but it's a little way from being acceptable yet. There are a few simple things that you can do to get it there.

To pass GA, an articlemust be in accordance with our standards for lead sections. A lead is supposed to summarise the entire article - this means that everything which is found in the article is mentioned in the lead, just in less detail. Consequently, there must be nothing in the lead that is not found elsewhere in the article, and there must be no major sections in the article that are not covered by the lead. Presently, the lead seems more like an introduction. To make the lead a better summary, I suggest splitting the lead section into two paragraphs: one on the history, and one on the various kinds of control. In those paragraphs, write a brief summary of what you have already discussed further on in the article.Y
A minor point, but having inline citations in the lead is generally frowned upon. If you follow my advice above, then everything in the lead will be mentioned elsewhere, so you will not need to reference anything in the lead. (Does that make sense? I hope so.)N-Do I have to
This is not essential, but I think you could improve how the sections of the article. You have one section on history - that is absolutely fine. The next three are all on different methods of pest control. I suggest you create a level two section (called 'Methods'), and then make the three methods you have subsections of that.Y
The entire article needs a copyedit (nothing major, but to clean up a few errors here and there). Once you've done everything else, read through the article quite slowly - whenever you see a mistake, or something that reads difficultly, fix it.Y-Reads more professionally now!

I hope this advice helps - as I said, you've done a great job and the article should be ready for GA soon. If you have a go at everything I've said above, let me know and I'll give it another review for you. Good luck. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you calling me "Deathlaser", I don't know any Deathlaser's.--Deathlasersonline (talk) 16:10, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good start, but the lead section is still a problem, and you've made very few changes to it since my comments. I suggest you rewrite the lead according to the advice I gave you above - at present, it falls a long way short of the GA standards. If there is anything in the lead that you think is useful and you want to keep, incorporate it into another part of the article - it cannot be in the lead alone. It will take a little time to get the lead up to standard, but achieving a Good Article does take some dedication; once you've done that, it's probably close to being ready. In reply to your note on the inline citations, that should be really easy if you rewrite the lead. Although it's not critical, keeping the citations there demonstrates the problem: there should be no need for them because the information should be mentioned and referenced somewhere else in the article. If that is not the case, then there's a problem.

Can I make a suggestion? I'm sure you're more than capable of writing a really good lead. Create a page at User:Deathlaseronline/lead and just try to summarise the article you've written - write me a paragraph on the history and a paragraph on the methods, summarising what you've already written in the article. Don't worry about references or the current lead of the article; just see it as a summarising exercise. Let me know when you've done it and I'll have a look. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:20, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is wrong?!--Deathlasersonline (talk) 17:41, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done--Deathlasersonline (talk) 12:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That looks much better - I am impressed, well done. A minor point, but the article puts the history forst and the methods second - do you think it would be possible to do the lead in that order too? If you want, I can give the article a once-over to fix any major problems I see. Let me know how you get on. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

that would disrupt the order, method always comes before history!--Deathlasersonline (talk) 14:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In which case, you need to change the order in the article itself. It doesn't matter which way round it is, but the order in the lead should mirror the order in the article. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done.What now.--Deathlasersonline (talk) 15:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Give me some time - I'll give the article another review later and give you feedback again. Please be patient though, I'm a little busy - I should get it done by tomorrow at the latest. In the meantime, have a look yourself to see if there's anything else you could improve. Also, please don't use talkback templates on my talk page - I'm watching your talk page. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your feedback

Thank you for your feedback and thank you for your contributions! For more help on getting started, please look at Help desk and the help pages.

If you need help editing,

Check out the tutorial.
Wanting to create an article? Use the article wizard.
See the manual.

(Click Here to Reply)

TOW talk 17:26, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Break?

I notice you got a message from some guy with a similar name, Deathlaser, at the top of your page. I'm just kinda curious why you give such prominence to it. Also, you might be interested in maybe archiving some of your talk page. At the very least it could help reduce the possibility of confusion regarding that message. H:ARC has some good pointers for how to archive. John Carter (talk) 19:55, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deathlaser renamed to Deathlasersonline. Regards, ⇒T A P 20:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question about User Pages

I really like the badges, and the whole theme to your user page, but I'm a bit fearful of doing anything right now. I know that many people monitor anything that is edited on Wikipedia, and as my current user page sparked some debate. I am staying off the radar, as far as editing right now. But as soon as I think the sharks won't attack me, and I can see they attacked you once. I would really like to pick your brain. Thanks for your time, and awesome work over here. _ Jason West Jones (talk) 23:42, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's mainly content that matters, more then code in most occasions. But if you are really good you can make invaluable user-scripts (that's if you are really good with .js).--Deathlasersonline (talk) 09:51, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See

Take a look at my initial start at Talk:Mechanical pest control/GA1. Regards, ⇒T A P 12:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA reviews

Hi Deathlaser, I know there's a GAN backlog drive going on right now but I'd suggest you slow down and take more time with your reviews. Perhaps you could read WP:WIAGA and Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles before going any further. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 15:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you take the good advice given above. Having looked at your three reviews, so far as they currently exist, Talk:Ruby Tuesday (restaurant)/GA1 is just about acceptable, but Talk:Worthington Brewery/GA1 and Talk:Thessaloniki/GA1 are clearly not acceptable. From the time stamps both the latter two reviews took three minutes each to do (and that probably including looking at the article). I would suggest that you make use of the "hold" to improve your reviewing skills. Pyrotec (talk) 20:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DL, thank you for your enthusiasm in wanting to help reduce the backlog. However, I think that GA reviewing is not something you are ready for yet. Please withdraw from doing any GA reviews for now. Get some more general editing experience under your belt. Get some more experience building articles. There's no need to rush into things like this. I've been here since 2006, have one GA and another article nominated for GA; yet I've not yet felt confident to tackle a GA review. :) LadyofShalott 13:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disingenuous edit summary

Why on earth would you make this edit summary when you you good and well you added that information and reference to the body of the article after I added the cn tag? You implied that I didn't look at what was really there, when in fact it had not been there when I requested the citation. Thanks for adding the reference; no thanks for the disingenuous comment. LadyofShalott 14:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mechanical pest control

I think its best you let this one pass. It is a very difficult article to write and isn't of GA quality. i'd pick an easier topic which is less generalized to tackle which is of interest to you. In regards to DNB entries, replied on my talk page. In the future if you have written something and believe it's GA class, ask my opinion on it before nomming.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User request

Hi Deathlasersonline, I've declined most of the "user request" speedy deletion nominations that you made because you were not the only contributor to the articles. Had the only other edits been minor changes such as categories or small spelling fixes this would have been fine but this wasn't the case. -- Mrmatiko (talk) 16:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I'm sorry to tell you that following the discussion at ANI I have blocked you for a year. Despite the fact an indef block would be justified, I have settled for a year in the hope that a year from now you will have developed the maturity necessary to edit Wikipedia. If that is not the case then your block will be extended, likewise for if you attempt to evade this block or abuse this page. Please take this year to focus on other things, and come back as a constructive member of the community--Jac16888 ^Talk 18:17, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To his defense, he did create some OK stubs on DNB entries which needed only minor edits. but I would have to agree that your editing is problematic because I don't think your writing skills are mature enough yet to edit wikipedia seriously. This is evidence that you lack the maturity to edit wikipedia]. Stem has put a bit of work into that. What were you thinking? You only have yourself to blame and creating a revenge page too.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC) Certainly not as a reviewer or writer of good articles. What I suggest is that you try hard over the next year in cultivating your writing skills and I think you could develop into a good contributor when you're ready. By all means you can practice writing articles in your sandbox and I will provide assistance if needs be and help you edit and will move into the mainspace for you. But I'm sure the others will vouch for this that you're high maintenance and difficult to keep track of and its not fair on us, who are also busy.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, I don't think he physically can edit any page other than his user talk page while blocked, not even his user page or subpages. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think thats right. Wanting to mass delete pages because his friends think he's becoming a nerd really isn't acceptable, and neither was the really inexcusable revenge page. Having said all that, he does at this point have a year to both improve his writing skills, as Blofeld said above, and also find some good sources he can use for articles. John Carter (talk) 20:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse this block. Deathlaser(sonline)'s recent behavior was way out of line - and as his mentor, I think I didn't do a good enough job - he graduated as soon as he finished the course, and after that, I didn't really offer sufficient help to him. Deathlaser is a user who has done some decent work here on Wikipedia, and although he often makes mistakes and tries to learn from them, his recent utterly INAPPROPRIATE behavior (his improper G7 tagging, flaming, ALL CAPS SCREAMING, and creating the "revenge" subpage) is enough to draw to the conclusion: as of right now, he does not have the maturity nor the competency to have a place here. Given that he did an excellent job at my adoption school, he should know much better... →B music ian 07:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disappointing. But looking at the previous email incident, I have one question for Deathlaser. Were you editing under the influence/orders of another person? - Mailer Diablo 03:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to CheckUser, he was a sockpuppet of User:WOLfan112.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 14:30, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's what Mailer Diablo was asking. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:09, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It has been 2 months now and I believe I have matured. Give me another chance, If I continue to be problemetic by all means block me again. But please, a lst chance would be appriciated.--Deathlasersonline (talk) 13:24, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note: you've persisted in creating sockpuppets since (and before) your block. Thine Antique Pen (public) 13:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After working several instances of confirmed socks with Wolf, I would say that unblocking is not likely to happen and that this is a waste of time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And after having to deal with this user's trolling, disruption, and block-evading on IRC, I second that this is a waste of time. Any claims of maturity here are, shall we say, greatly exaggerated. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, based on the comments above, I have to say that two months probably hasn't been enough. I have no particular reservations about some sort of "last chance" being at least potentially possible, but I think under the circumstances that we would probably want a bit more time to elapse, as two months really isn't that long given the length of the history of misconduct, and also a rather clearly defined and agreed to set of conditions which would have to be abided by for the editor to return. I don't see any clear indication that any such terms have been devised, and I don't think that there is much if any likelihood of the block being lifted unless and until the editor has agreed to abide by certain clear and specific conditions, which would almost certainly include an indefinite block and ban should those conditions be violated. John Carter (talk) 15:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed since the last confirmed socking was on July 28 (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WOLfan112/Archive), it's been closer to two weeks than the two claimed two months. WOLfan, stay completely away - do not sock at all - for a solid YEAR, then think about asking back if you can be more mature. LadyofShalott 17:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What about you unblock me and I edit constructively rather than socking?--Deathlasersonline (talk) 12:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? Will you continue socking if you are not unblocked now?...As the users above said...why don't you wait for some time(an year)...get some more maturity and then try again?..remember that socking will further decrease the chance of you getting unblocked.Cheers TheStrike Σagle 12:43, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You wanna know why I made the socks, it's beacuse you are all liers. As soon as one little event occurs you lot pretend to forget all my positive contributions and pretend I am some hated vandal. Why would you pretend like that? To show off!? I am angry you liers wasted FIVE months off mine and absorbed, drained and wasted all those + contributions from me!Deathlasersonline (talk) 12:50, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All that time I spent vandal-fighting and wiritng articles for you guys, all those articles I made. All those times you said I wouldn't be blocked, were you JUST acting?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by deathlasersonline (talk • contribs) 12:57, 14 August 2012 (UTC) [reply]

~~Just for the record...how old are you Deathlaser? TheStrike Σagle 13:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]

Deathlaser, you weren't going to be blocked, until you engaged yourself in seriously disruptive activities. "Wiritng articles for you guys": you don't write them for us. You write them for the encyclopaedia, not for us. The majority of your creations needed instant cleanup, copyediting, links, categories and more after creation. I'd like you to explain this edit. You were only blocked because the community had noticed the scale of your disruptive activities. They got worse and worse, and the decisions of the community had changed. Later, with the socking, and the fact that you are a sockpuppet, it amplifies the case. This type of socking could mean that you get banned from the site. Thine Antique Pen (public) 13:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am 10. told you that on IRC.--Deathlasersonline (talk) 13:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Imagine what can you do when you get to become much older(atleast as old as me A break of one year will really help you.~~You can do great things...but you act immature sometimes..natural for your age.Don't worry, no socking and you might be unblocked by next year at max Cheers TheStrike Σagle 13:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You engaged in very disruptive activities, and after being blocked, you have continued to create multiple sockpuppets. Now you have another tantrum where you call people "liers [sic]" (the word is liars), continuing to show your immaturity. No one has lied to you - you were blocked for being disruptive - and your continued misbehavior does not demonstrate that you will be of benefit to Wikipedia if allowed to return at this time. LadyofShalott 13:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not wasting any more time here.--Deathlasersonline (talk) 13:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please Forgive me

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I no longer wish to be unblocked, its never going to happen... I simply want forgiveness for my immaturity-I am sorry for any time that I may have wasted. I do not want to be unblocked any more-so I hereby say that I will keep away from Wikipedia-from this point on! Please forgive me?--Deathlasersonline (talk) 17:32, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't use the helpme template unless you need editing help. And yes, I forgive you. Mdann52 (talk) 16:20, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]