User talk:Gearzein

Hey -- thanks for all your work here lately! One thing though, you tend to be a little harsh in your edit summaries when reverting edits. I get a little sarcastic myself sometimes, but it's best to reserve that for blatant and intentional vandalism. When someone makes an edit they think is helpful, please remain kind, even if the edit seemed "stupid". Thanks :)  Equazcion ( talk ) 02:12, 16 Nov 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, I didn't figure anybody actually read those... I'll try to keep them less abrasive in the future. --Gearzein (talk) 03:53, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Any Recent Changes dwellers like myself most definitely read them. ;) Chrisf1020 (talk) 01:56, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Dear Gearzein I am new here I noticed you changed my post and I have a picture to confirm that it is true can I send it to you some how? Thanks. Sincerely: Fuddlercrafter

Overlinking
The overlinking thing is subjective enough to warrant some leniency. On Wikipedia, for example, it's not considered overlinking to include the same link within an infobox, a template in the article body, and then another within the article text. Also when duplicate links are separated by a couple of sections and/or screen lengths. When it would probably help readers to not have to scroll back to find the first mention of a term, a bit of duplicate linking isn't a bad thing. It just becomes a problem when it's overdone, ie. several duplicate links close to each other, that don't help and only distract.  Equazcion ( talk ) 11:34, 25 Nov 2014 (UTC)
 * My bad. Assuming we're both referring to the same incident, I may have been overreacting. Even so, that particular editor's past edits were mostly just adding links to as many words in an article as they could. I left a note on their talk page and received what I thought to be a rather backhanded response, so between a perceived intention to troll and their almost machinelike pattern of adding brackets to words in random articles without making sure they linked properly, I started to view their edits as vandalism. In retrospect, I assumed bad faith, which is of course not a great way to approach a situation, but diplomacy had failed so I just hit undo a bunch and called it a night. --Gearzein (talk) 20:00, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I missed his response to you. Those profile page comments they don't come up anywhere. :) Anyway, yeah that response didn't look promising, I agree. Still it's good to continue examining edits on their merits and keeping the ones that might make sense, regardless of who made them. A generally unhelpful person can sometimes end up making an edit that benefits the page, like this one for instance, which I thought was pretty decent. There's also always the possibility that the person actually is a good-faith editor who's just learning and improving, hopefully :)  Equazcion ( talk ) 20:27, 25 Nov 2014 (UTC)