User talk:Roscape

Bot Flag
Hey Roscape,

I've noticed you've done a ton of edits recently, however an edit per 15 seconds is almost unnaturally quick! If you are running a robot, I can get you a bot flag (within two days) so it doesn't spam the wikiactivty feed.

Thanks,

01:14, December 3, 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not using a bot, I'm removing over 100 gear pages from the deleted category 'Gears'. Deleting them from the category only takes a few seconds, and that's why I'm editing them quickly.

Roscape (talk) 01:16, December 3, 2012 (UTC)Roscape


 * Ok, thanks for helping out!
 * Ah, so that's why you're doing it. I think using an actual bot for that may be better, since it does not require any human supervising. I don't consider spamming the recent changes as a problem, since cleaning up the wiki is more important and the recent changes are temporary anyway, but when it's possible to avoid spamming them, it's better to do so. I'm not sure removing all the pages from the category is really important, though, but pages like this should be included in categories through the use of templates, which allows us to change the categories easily. --Mark Otaris (talk) 01:25, December 3, 2012 (UTC)


 * It helps me moderate when edits like these are flagged seperate.

Warning
I saw several pictures added to articles, and deleted. There is no pointsgaming. If you do that again, you'll be banned. Your friend, Wookee8wikiperson (talk) 15:45, December 8, 2012 (UTC)

Concerning categories...
Referring to your edit on the Ugly Sweater Hat page, please don't add categories like Category:Catalog Items or Category:Hats to articles; these should be added automatically by the infobox templates. -- Mark Otaris (talk) 00:44, December 20, 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm adding it because it fits under those. If you want to add an infobox go ahead.
 * Roscape (talk) 00:49, December 20, 2012 (UTC)Roscape
 * You shouldn't add them just because it fits under those; the category system is already enough messed up, we don't need to make it worse. -- Mark Otaris (talk) 00:47, December 20, 2012 (UTC)
 * So you're saying I shouldn't add categories because it's a stub?
 * Roscape (talk) 00:49, December 20, 2012 (UTC)Roscape
 * No. What you should do is simply add an infobox, which will automatically add the categories and fix the infobox at the same time. There isn't really a reason not to, other than the fact that adding an infobox takes some more seconds than adding categories, which is not really even a reason... -- Mark Otaris (talk) 00:51, December 20, 2012 (UTC)
 * I suppose that will work.
 * Roscape (talk) 00:52, December 20, 2012 (UTC)Roscape

About that ban...
Just to let you know, you've been banned due to disruptive editing. You should know a little better not to put several categories on several pages unlogically, which breaks the first univeral rule. I would have given you a warning but it seems you broke your last one. Sorry.

 Your friend, Wookee8wikiperson  23:03, December 20, 2012 (UTC)

Hello Wookee. Roscape has been sending me messages on twitter complaining about his ban. Could you please be more specific about why you blocked him? Ajedi32 (talk) 12:10, December 21, 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't get this ban. There is no reason for it.  12:32, December 21, 2012 (UTC)

Well, when I came, he was removing and putting few categories on several pages that were not logical. Most likely trying to pointsgaming, or removing categories from user pages.

 Your friend, Wookee8wikiperson  15:50, December 21, 2012 (UTC)

According to User talk:Dronian, he created a vandal account in June and used it to vandalize pages. He also removed and put back many times huge amounts of images to get points and badges faster. Finally, he edited pages in a disruptive way yesterday (probably again for pointsgaming, since he was adding and removing categories in a lot of pages, but in a harmful way). I personally think a 2 week ban is justified. -- Mark Otaris (talk) 17:59, December 21, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah that is one of the reasons why I banned him, just I don't want to say it directly.

 Your friend, Wookee8wikiperson  18:01, December 21, 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, as you describe them those reasons do seem like grounds for a ban. However, I am still somewhat unsure. It's usually very dificult to tell whether someone is making vandal edits from an alternate account. What evidence was there that the vandal account in question was controled by Roscape? Also, could be more specific about what you mean by "disruptive"? What negative impact were Roscape's edits having on the wiki? From what I'm seeing in his edit history, Roscape's most recent edits seem to be a well-meaning attempt to organize various pages on the wiki and keep categories more consistent. Ajedi32 (talk) 02:11, December 22, 2012 (UTC)


 * The vandal account, Malcolt3, is Roscape's username on Roblox.  02:17, December 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * And also his Twitter username on the account he used to contact Ajedi32 about this. -- Mark Otaris (talk) 02:24, December 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * Not only just the alternate vandal account, he did pointsgame before like Mark said. I'll try and be as clear about this ban. First, when I came to this wiki yesterday, I saw several pages a second being edited by Roscape. When I looked onto them, he was removeing a few categories. However, he also added categories to some pages that is not related to that page. He was also removing this { { fact } }  on the template, which I thought it had to do something with the template itself that might had a negative effect on the page. Luckly, I do not have a twitter account to intervene with the conversation.
 * So my best answer for that ban has two reasons
 * 1.An alternate vandalist account that hasn't been banned before that should have been banned.
 * 2.Removing some important categories/information from several pages (unlogically).


 * Thats all the evidence I could possibly tell. I may have made a mistake, but I'm just new to being admin recently.   Your friend, Wookee8wikiperson  02:37, December 22, 2012 (UTC)


 * Alrighy, then, let's clear this up, shall we?
 * Yes, the account was mine and was banned. I was angry at the time that some of my work had been deleted. The ban was dealt, etc, etc, as far as I know. If not, it was still long enough ago that any ban sentence would be done.
 * Yes, I did pointsgame a few times in the hopes of getting a badge. The ban was also dealt and served.
 * I removed the fact template because it's useless. Every other sentence on a wiki page is a fact, it doesn't need citations. Obviously the information comes from roblox.com.
 * As to editing every second, it's easy. All you have to do is make changes to the pages and then don't save them. When I'm done with them I publish them all quickly.
 * In the end, none of your points is grounds for a ban.
 * Roscape (talk) 03:26, December 23, 2012 (UTC)Roscape
 * Thanks for explaining, but however, you haven't been banned for sockpuppeting. You might have to wait out your current ban, or other admins lift it.
 * And please, go a little slower when editing, it worries me a little bit when I see it.  Your friend, Wookee8wikiperson  04:35, December 23, 2012 (UTC)
 * And please, go a little slower when editing, it worries me a little bit when I see it.  Your friend, Wookee8wikiperson  04:35, December 23, 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, this discussion ends here. I've unblocked you Roscape because Wookee8wikiperson did not come up with a valid reason for your block. You were not pointsgaming at the time of your block, nor were you breaking any rules. You're welcome to "editing at quick speeds", and there is no problem for that. As for the sockpuppet, I'm pretty certain we dealt with that in the past. We're human, and we are prone to getting angry if something doesn't go our way.  Let's stop using Roscape's talk page as a forum. If you wish to continue this discussion, go on our new forums please.
 * Sorry for the block Roscape,


 * I understand, it's fine. I can see why Wookee might have been suspicious.
 * Roscape (talk) 14:58, December 23, 2012 (UTC)Roscape


 * So in conclusion, while Roscape's past actions may have been cause for suspicion his most recent actions on their own didn't justify a ban. Ajedi32 (talk) 18:21, December 23, 2012 (UTC)

Final Warning
You've been blocked a couple times, and I just unblocked you yet again this morning. Your edit warring is unnecessary and immature. Rather then edit warring, discuss it out with Mark Otaris. If you continue to break our set rules list, you will be blocked indefinitely.

02:07, December 24, 2012 (UTC)


 * I did work it out.


 * Roscape (talk) 03:02, December 24, 2012 (UTC)Roscape

Concerning redirects...
Redirects should not be deleted only because they are not needed. If the redirect is completely irrelevant with the page it redirects to (like many of those you nominated for deletion), then it should be deleted. But it shouldn't be deleted just because it's a typo or because it's not absolutely needed. I recommend you check the following page: Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Redirect -- Mark Otaris (talk) 18:00, December 24, 2012 (UTC)


 * A redirect isn't needed for every single spelling mistake their is. The wiki looks much better when it has one page with one spelling instead of random misspelled redirects everywhere. We don't need Admin (Player) and Admin (player) as separate pages. If we did that we would also need admin (Player) and admin (player), etc, etc.


 * Roscape (talk) 18:02, December 24, 2012 (UTC)Roscape


 * Indeed, we don't need to create redirects for spelling mistakes. But when someone has already made one 2 years ago, there really isn't a point in deleting it. Other pages on the Internet may actually link to these redirect pages, as well as other pages on the wiki (there were links on some talk pages to some of the redirects you nominated for deletion). Deleting redirects, unless they're relevant and therefore can cause confusion and ambiguity, doesn't really do any good to the wiki, especially if they've been there for long. -- Mark Otaris (talk) 18:06, December 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * I suppose we could leave the obvious ones, like Admin (Player), but don't keep spelling mistake ones. Even if they are linked to, it's still unorganized.
 * Roscape (talk) 18:09, December 24, 2012 (UTC)Roscape
 * We should actually keep them, but it just doesn't really matter. These redirects don't do any harm to the wiki by being there and considering they have been there for many years, there may be pages linking to them. But since that is unlikely, I guess you can just nominate them for deletion if you really care. -- Mark Otaris (talk) 18:11, December 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * If the redirect is useful, I'll keep it.
 * Roscape (talk) 18:14, December 24, 2012 (UTC)Roscape

No Title
There was nothing wrong with my article! :(


 * Any specifications as to what article you're mad about?


 * Roscape (talk) 18:42, December 24, 2012 (UTC)Roscape

Really!?
Dude, My thread on 1111dav9 was fine. It wasn't breaking rules.

1111dav10 (talk) 20:00, December 24, 2012 (UTC)

Its Okay 1111dav, I'll remake that page, but it will go to your user profile.

 Your friend, Wookee8wikiperson  20:01, December 24, 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I'm fine with that.

1111dav10 (talk) 20:03, December 24, 2012 (UTC)

Archived
I archived your talk page for you, because you asked me how to do it. --Mark Otaris (talk) 04:44, January 6, 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay, I was just wondering if there was an archive setting anywhere or somehting like that.


 * Roscape (talk) 15:25, January 6, 2013 (UTC)

Editing
Why are you removeing all categorys from things like sound asking

Epiccookie11 21:53, January 8, 2013 (UTC)Epiccookie11Epiccookie11 21:53, January 8, 2013 (UTC)


 * I removed them from the "Classes" category, because Classes does not exist.


 * Roscape (talk) 21:54, January 8, 2013 (UTC)Roscape
 * OH
 * kk
 * Epiccookie11 21:58, January 8, 2013 (UTC)

Warning
Your comment on here was unacceptable. You do not need to tell a new user to "get out" simply because you disagree with their statement. Doing so again will result in a block.

22:36, January 9, 2013 (UTC)


 * If you remove the warning again you'll be blocked.
 * 23:05, January 9, 2013 (UTC)
 * I fail to see the error in telling a stereotyping *ahem* noob to get out.
 * Roscape (talk) 23:12, January 9, 2013 (UTC)Roscape


 * It's harassment.  12:06, January 10, 2013 (UTC)

Do not
Please do not run a bot without permission. Also do not run a bot on your main account. Thank you, 00:30, February 1, 2013 (UTC)


 * Do I have to get permission every time I run a bot?


 * Roscape (talk) 00:31, February 1, 2013 (UTC)Roscape


 * Once you get a bot flag on a bot account, no. 00:32, February 1, 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you get a bot flag for my bot, then?


 * Roscape (talk) 00:46, February 1, 2013 (UTC)


 * Yep, I can get it tomorrow. 00:53, February 1, 2013 (UTC)

Bot
I'm not sure exactly why you removed all pages in Category:ROBLOX screenshots from it. That category is meant to contain all or most ROBLOX screenshot files on this wiki so that we can easily classify them, find them and get a list of them if we need to (and also so that we can attribute their copyright properly). The category isn't harmful and isn't useless either. I'm also not sure why you cleaned up other categories like :Category:Place creators. I think the name of it should have been changed, but I'm not really sure it should have been removed. I think I might understand why you replaced Category:Criticism of ROBLOX by :Category:Controversial topics, but I don't think all criticism of ROBLOX is necessarily controversial either. Finally, I guess I can understand why you changed :Category:Graphical user interface tutorials (contest) to Category:Graphical user interface, though what you might not know is that these pages were in this category because of a contest started by MrDoomBringer, the former manager of the official ROBLOX wiki (not this one, the official one); he asked users to create GUI tutorials and publish them on this wiki and the best one would be put on the wiki. That was quite a long time ago and is pretty much meaningless now, so I think it's understandable to change the category.

Now, I don't know if you have some sort of problem with categories, but they aren't necessarily harmful and unless they are useless, it's probably better to re-organize them than to just remove them all. I used my own bot to clean up most of those that needed to be cleaned up, but some remain and I intentionally ignored some that I thought would require some discussion before being cleaned up. I only cleaned up those that were clearly useless and did not require discussion, and I think you should have notified other users before running the tasks you made your bot run. --Mark Otaris (talk) 03:00, February 1, 2013 (UTC)