User talk:Mak1457

Welcome!

Hello, Mak1457, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions to The Cosby Show. I hope you enjoy it here and decide to stay. Here is some information 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. Additionally, the sandbox is available if you wish to test your editing skills.

All in all, good luck, have fun, and be bold! SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit to The Cosby Show

Well played! SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

November 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Adventures in Odyssey, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Adventures in Odyssey was changed by Mak1457 (c) (t) deleting 27928 characters on 2007-11-30T15:59:54+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot 16:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

December 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Adventures in Odyssey, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Adventures in Odyssey was changed by Mak1457 (c) (t) deleting 31847 characters on 2007-12-09T01:30:47+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 01:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. —αἰτίας •discussion• 01:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mak, I took a look at your edit, and I agree that you were trying to clean up what is an extremely excessively long article, with poor wording and poor sourcing. I have restored your version, and it should remain now, for you to continue working. I'd suggest that you do smaller edits, individually, rather than large huge blankings, to avoid triggering the bot, as yes, they do occasionally revert valid edits. I'd also suggest that you make a note on the article's talk page about your edits, and explain your reasons, to allow other editors to know what you've done. Cheers! Ariel♥Gold 01:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

March 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Calvin and Hobbes, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Calvin and Hobbes was changed by Mak1457 (u) (t) deleting 18576 characters on 2008-03-12T16:31:58+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 16:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

March 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Calvin and Hobbes, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Calvin and Hobbes was changed by Mak1457 (u) (t) deleting 29088 characters on 2008-03-24T01:32:23+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 01:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Calvin and Hobbes, without explaining the valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Anomie ⚔ 19:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

response

This is not right. I don't claim to be a Wikipedia expert yet but the Calvin and Hobbes article was terrible - not becoming to a classic comic strip at all

Calvin and Hobbes

Quoted from User talk:Anomie:
“	I trust this is the right way to do it. As I understand it, anybody can edit ANYTHING in Wikipedia. I considered the Calvin and Hobbes article very, very poorly written - lots of repeat information, plus unecessary block quotes. If a person wants to write this much information on Calvin and Hobbes, he ought to write a book instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mak1457 (talk • contribs) 01:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]	”

Have you actually read through the awful mess you made of the article? It would be better if you copy the article to your userspace (say User:Mak1457/Calvin and Hobbes rewrite), edit it there until you've fixed the formatting problems, and then bring it up for discussion on the talk page. Just deleting huge swaths of text and then reverting when people undo your mistakes is not the "right way to do it". Anomie ⚔ 01:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody can edit and Wikipedia states you CAN BE BOLD in your editing. You don't have to like it but saying I made a big mess, o please give me a break.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mak1457 (talk • contribs)

As a past contributor to the Calvin and Hobbes article, I'd like to offer a few thoughts:

It's great that you want to improve the article. Thanks for your interest.
Everyone is invited to edit Wikipedia articles as part of a community effort. Please remember that nobody owns articles; that means you can contribute, but you should not seek to impose your unique vision upon the article over others' objections. Seek consensus for your changes if people express concerns about them.
Large-scale changes, while bold, are better suited for articles that everyone agrees are horribly broken and need rewriting, or that are paralyzed under a weight of endless argument on the article's talk page. That's not the case here. For an article such as this, that is still a Featured Article (despite recurring additions of fancruft), the type of large-scale changes that you have done will do some good, but also undo a lot of good that others have done to get it to the Featured status. To avoid undoing a lot of good past work, it would be best to break the corrections into smaller bits that can be individually accepted, reverted, or otherwise addressed.
It can help to identify the problems you see, in concrete terms, on the talk page so that you and others can find common points of agreement, and then propose ways to solve those problems. You've been bold, which is encouraged, but Anomie has reverted; now the appropriate step is to discuss rather than press onward. See Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle.
Anomie's suggestion to rewrite the article in your own userspace was a good one, and is a popular practice among established editors to avoid disruption.

I'm glad you're here; I wish you well in your efforts to work with the other editors at Calvin and Hobbes to improve the article. I think if you modify your approach you'll have greater odds of success. alanyst ^/talk/ 03:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestions. I'm not trying to be ugly and I know I still have a ways to go in understanding Wikipedia. I love editing and hopefully I'll get better as time goes on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mak1457 (talk • contribs)

Hey, everyone was new here once. Don't feel bad. Regarding the article: it looks like this edit was to eliminate redundancy and excessive detail from the introduction. I think it's a pretty good edit. For nearly every edit you make, you should put a brief description of your change (or, better, your intent) in the edit summary box before submitting the change. It's very helpful for other editors to see what you're trying to do. For the edit above, I would have summarized it as "eliminating redundancy and excessive detail from the introduction." (That should sound familiar!) Then it's clear at a quick glance to editors like myself that your change is not, for example, random deletion of sourced content for some unknown reason (which is what it looks like when one doesn't examine the edit closely). One more tip, if you don't mind: sign your talk page comments (but not article edits) with four tildes (~~~~) so it's clear which comments are yours and which belong to others. Happy editing! alanyst ^/talk/ 03:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Audio theatre an article to audio dramas

Please if you have time and you know anything to it (I have seen that you have made edits in the article area which owns relations on it) , please look on the article Audio theatre, somebody placed a erase discussion on it. after we have had a merge discussion. It would be interesting what you would say to the merge and the delete discussion. And possibly it could help to contact other people that they should help also. )-: Merry Xmas --Soenke Rahn (talk) 17:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pensacola Christian College

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Pensacola Christian College. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. jfeise (talk) 00:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Escape from the Island of Aquarius

The article Escape from the Island of Aquarius has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable book

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Dronebogus (talk) 00:33, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]