| Revision as of 21:21, 26 January 2010 view sourceApparition11 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers76,340 edits Review, per request← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 23:09, 10 January 2025 view source Amaury (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers98,545 editsmNo edit summary |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
<templatestyles src="User:Amaury/styles.css" /> |
|
<div style="border:1px solid #0000FF; background:#ddcef2; width:100%; padding:4px; margin-bottom:10px"> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<div style="color: #FFFFFF; background: #001932; border: 5px solid #000000; padding: 1%;"> |
|
{{UserStatus}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{editnotice |
|
'''''It is currently {{Utc|- 8}} where I am''''' |
|
|
|
| header = Welcome to my talk page! |
|
|
| headerstyle = text-align: center; |
|
|
| text = Today is {{#time: l, F j, Y|now-8 hours}}<br />The current time is {{#time: g:i A|now-8 hours}} (PST) |
|
|
| textstyle = color: #FFFFFF; background-color: #324B64; border: 1px solid #000000; font-weight: bold; font-size: 200%; text-align: center; |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{editnotice |
|
{{User:Zhang He/Navbar}} |
|
|
|
| header = Attention! |
|
|
| headerstyle = color: #FFFF00; |
|
|
| text = Due to persistent disruption by an immature block-evading IP, this page has been indefinitely semi-protected. Newly registered users and IPs are not able to post on this talk page. ] • 07:05, 9 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
| textstyle = color: #FFFFFF; background-color: #324B64; border: 1px solid #000000; font-weight: bold; font-size: 200%; text-align: center; |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Archive Statistics == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
* The numbers in the cells indicate how many total discussions there are for each year, each month, and overall. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{| class="wikitable" |
|
{| class="messagebox standard-talk" style="width: auto;" |
|
|
|- |
|
|- |
|
|
! Month |
|
| |
|
|
|
! 2008 |
|
|
|
|
|
! ] |
|
|<center><big><big><big><big>'''{{fontcolor|red|Hello! Welcome to my talk page!}}'''</big></big></big></big></center> |
|
|
|
! ] |
|
|
|
|
|
! 2011 |
|
---- |
|
|
|
! ] |
|
<center>Please feel free to to leave me a message, whether it's informing me of something <br>I screwed up, just to say hello, or anything else! I won't ]!</center> |
|
|
|
! ] |
|
---- |
|
|
|
! 2014 |
|
|
|
|
|
! ] |
|
I have a few requests that I hope you'll respect while posting here: |
|
|
|
! ] |
|
#'''First and above all, be ].''' |
|
|
|
! ] |
|
#*If you don't agree with an action I made—be it reverted you and left a warning, marked your page for deletion, or anything else—please be calm and polite. I am a reasonable man, and we'll straighten it out a lot quicker without screaming and name calling. |
|
|
|
! ] |
|
#'''Please sign your posts with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>)''' |
|
|
|
! ] |
|
#'''Please start new conversations at the bottom.''' |
|
|
|
! ] |
|
#'''I generally like to keep conversations together.''' |
|
|
|
! ] |
|
#*If you post here, I'll reply here and leave you a message informing you of my reply. |
|
|
|
! ] |
|
#*If I leave you a message on your talk page, I'll keep watching it, but if you want to make sure I notice it quickly, leave me a {{tl|talkback}} template (although not necessary). |
|
|
|
! ] |
|
#**I always keep conversations together. If we separate the messages, no big deal, I'll probably go back and cross post here. |
|
|
|
! ] |
|
|
|
|
|
! ] |
|
---- |
|
|
|
! Total |
|
|
|
|
|
|- |
|
<center><big>'''Since that is out of the way, please click and leave a message!'''</big></center> |
|
|
|
| January |
|
|
|
|
|
| – |
|
|
| 12 |
|
|
| 11 |
|
|
| 0 |
|
|
| 0 |
|
|
| 0 |
|
|
| 0 |
|
|
| 0 |
|
|
| 8 |
|
|
| 13 |
|
|
| 7 |
|
|
| 17 |
|
|
| 5 |
|
|
| 3 |
|
|
| 6 |
|
|
| 0 |
|
|
| 2 |
|
|
| |
|
|
| 84 |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| February |
|
|
| – |
|
|
| 13 |
|
|
| 35 |
|
|
| 0 |
|
|
| 0 |
|
|
| 0 |
|
|
| 0 |
|
|
| 0 |
|
|
| 9 |
|
|
| 9 |
|
|
| 8 |
|
|
| 12 |
|
|
| 10 |
|
|
| 5 |
|
|
| 2 |
|
|
| 1 |
|
|
| 1 |
|
|
| |
|
|
| 105 |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| March |
|
|
| – |
|
|
| 11 |
|
|
| 24 |
|
|
| 0 |
|
|
| 0 |
|
|
| 1 |
|
|
| 0 |
|
|
| 42 |
|
|
| 6 |
|
|
| 13 |
|
|
| 10 |
|
|
| 8 |
|
|
| 7 |
|
|
| 4 |
|
|
| 1 |
|
|
| 4 |
|
|
| 0 |
|
|
| |
|
|
| 131 |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| April |
|
|
| – |
|
|
| 20 |
|
|
| 25 |
|
|
| 0 |
|
|
| 1 |
|
|
| 0 |
|
|
| 0 |
|
|
| 38 |
|
|
| 6 |
|
|
| 11 |
|
|
| 14 |
|
|
| 10 |
|
|
| 14 |
|
|
| 5 |
|
|
| 2 |
|
|
| 1 |
|
|
| 1 |
|
|
| |
|
|
| 148 |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| May |
|
|
| – |
|
|
| 23 |
|
|
| 13 |
|
|
| 0 |
|
|
| 10 |
|
|
| 12 |
|
|
| 0 |
|
|
| 15 |
|
|
| 4 |
|
|
| 18 |
|
|
| 15 |
|
|
| 7 |
|
|
| 5 |
|
|
| 1 |
|
|
| 5 |
|
|
| 0 |
|
|
| 1 |
|
|
| |
|
|
| 129 |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| June |
|
|
| – |
|
|
| 14 |
|
|
| 4 |
|
|
| 0 |
|
|
| 1 |
|
|
| 39 |
|
|
| 0 |
|
|
| 10 |
|
|
| 6 |
|
|
| 15 |
|
|
| 14 |
|
|
| 9 |
|
|
| 3 |
|
|
| 9 |
|
|
| 4 |
|
|
| 4 |
|
|
| 2 |
|
|
| |
|
|
| 134 |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| July |
|
|
| – |
|
|
| 20 |
|
|
| 3 |
|
|
| 0 |
|
|
| 1 |
|
|
| 14 |
|
|
| 0 |
|
|
| 18 |
|
|
| 12 |
|
|
| 13 |
|
|
| 20 |
|
|
| 16 |
|
|
| 4 |
|
|
| 2 |
|
|
| 5 |
|
|
| 2 |
|
|
| 1 |
|
|
| |
|
|
| 131 |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| August |
|
|
| – |
|
|
| 8 |
|
|
| 34 |
|
|
| 0 |
|
|
| 0 |
|
|
| 3 |
|
|
| 0 |
|
|
| 7 |
|
|
| 12 |
|
|
| 19 |
|
|
| 13 |
|
|
| 14 |
|
|
| 4 |
|
|
| 0 |
|
|
| 2 |
|
|
| 1 |
|
|
| 0 |
|
|
| |
|
|
| 117 |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| September |
|
|
| – |
|
|
| 8 |
|
|
| 5 |
|
|
| 0 |
|
|
| 0 |
|
|
| 0 |
|
|
| 0 |
|
|
| 9 |
|
|
| 9 |
|
|
| 6 |
|
|
| 13 |
|
|
| 5 |
|
|
| 4 |
|
|
| 7 |
|
|
| 5 |
|
|
| 3 |
|
|
| 1 |
|
|
| |
|
|
| 75 |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| October |
|
|
| – |
|
|
| 24 |
|
|
| 5 |
|
|
| 0 |
|
|
| 0 |
|
|
| 0 |
|
|
| 0 |
|
|
| 6 |
|
|
| 21 |
|
|
| 16 |
|
|
| 10 |
|
|
| 5 |
|
|
| 1 |
|
|
| 6 |
|
|
| 8 |
|
|
| 2 |
|
|
| 0 |
|
|
| |
|
|
| 104 |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| November |
|
|
| – |
|
|
| 11 |
|
|
| 0 |
|
|
| 0 |
|
|
| 0 |
|
|
| 0 |
|
|
| 0 |
|
|
| 4 |
|
|
| 9 |
|
|
| 7 |
|
|
| 13 |
|
|
| 9 |
|
|
| 5 |
|
|
| 3 |
|
|
| 4 |
|
|
| 5 |
|
|
| 5 |
|
|
| |
|
|
| 75 |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| December |
|
|
| 0 |
|
|
| 9 |
|
|
| 4 |
|
|
| 0 |
|
|
| 0 |
|
|
| 0 |
|
|
| 0 |
|
|
| 5 |
|
|
| 13 |
|
|
| 18 |
|
|
| 15 |
|
|
| 8 |
|
|
| 10 |
|
|
| 6 |
|
|
| 6 |
|
|
| 3 |
|
|
| 6 |
|
|
| |
|
|
| 103 |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| Total |
|
|
| 0 |
|
|
| 173 |
|
|
| 163 |
|
|
| 0 |
|
|
| 13 |
|
|
| 69 |
|
|
| 0 |
|
|
| 154 |
|
|
| 115 |
|
|
| 158 |
|
|
| 152 |
|
|
| 120 |
|
|
| 72 |
|
|
| 51 |
|
|
| 50 |
|
|
| 26 |
|
|
| 20 |
|
|
| |
|
|
| 1,336 |
|
|} |
|
|} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== January 2025 == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
=== ] at ] === |
|
'''<big>For 2009 discussions, please visit the following link:<br> |
|
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Zhang_He/2009</big>''' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== January 2010 == |
|
|
|
|
|
===You and overly aggressive editing and commentary=== |
|
|
I will repeat here comments I made on |
|
|
|
|
|
"Timberframe's edits and justification were correct. It was nothing remotely like a person attack. "find another hobby" was a little flippant, but wasn't offensive, and largely to the point for those with thick skins. Zhang He, your comment previous to Timberframes' edit, "If that's true, then the same can be said for the YouTube and Twitter links. Do not remove again." shows a lack of understanding of Misplaced Pages policy, and makes an unjustified implied threat." |
|
|
|
|
|
You were both incorrect and offensive. ] (]) 14:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Ishik university=== |
|
|
Hey there!!! |
|
|
|
|
|
It might not be a mistake but you tagged this article with CSD G7 whereas I do not think that the author request deletion. If possible look into this. |
|
|
|
|
|
Ciao!!! |
|
|
|
|
|
]] 07:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:It was already tagged that, but it was vandalized, so I reverted it to a cleaner version, but I reverted too far, so I re-tagged it. - ] (]) 15:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===]=== |
|
|
Thank you for helping with CSD tagging, but the tagging of this editor's user page as vandalism was incorrect. User pages are given a certain amount of leeway. It is just an excitable girl making her first edits on Misplaced Pages, not vandalism. -- ] (]) 08:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:I thought it was an article. My apologies. - ] (]) 15:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Thanks=== |
|
|
I appreciate your catching my typo . ''']''' '']'' 20:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:You're welcome. - ] (]) 23:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Vandalism accusations=== |
|
|
Read before reverting and accusing. --] | ] 17:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:Check your talk page. - ] (]) 17:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::Apology accepted. I was swearing. But your reversions and accusations of vandalism helped me realize what I had thought at first, Bwilkins' words were grossly inappropriate for anywhere and anytime on wikipedia. Thanks. --] | ] 17:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Lol, what?=== |
|
|
What was for? IP69.226.103.13 is an established contributor. Sure his username can be... confusing, but that wasn't vandalism. <span style="background:white; font-family:Segoe Print;">] ]</span> 17:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:Yes, now that I go back on it, I realize I was wrong. I misunderstood the edits and thought he was the one swearing. It was never his name, though. My apologies. - ] (]) 17:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===User page=== |
|
|
NP. I do the same thing. I noticed someone reverting. Look at my user page and see that they were the third person in a week. ] ] ] 17:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
===Regarding links=== |
|
|
you do not place links to use as information. especially from an unreliable source as PSUpedia. Links are used as external links and sometimes refernces if it's on the exact page. it is not used as a substitute of information to lead you to another page.] (]) 19:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:PSUPedia is not unreliable, and if that's the case, then the same can be said for Misplaced Pages. <br>If you remove them again, you'll be warned. - ] (]) 22:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)</br> |
|
|
::PSUpedia does not hold reliable sources, it's all based upon fans giving information, PSUpedia even allows trivia where as Misplaced Pages strictly is against it, that is the very reason why PSUpedia is an unreliable source, unlike Misplaced Pages. and the whole point is to fix Misplaced Pages into having sources and to allow it to become a reliable source of information. it's like placing Wikia in here, and other wiki's simply because those other "pedia's" claim to be a reliable source. First of all, those are primary sources that merely claim and have no way to back it up, that needs to be backed up by secondary and third sources in order to be verifiable. |
|
|
::second, you clearly do not understand how to place information. you do not put up links up to allow another site giving us information about the characters. instead Misplaced Pages should have the information and have references to back it up. you do not put up links, ever. Unless you put them as external links or as refs, you do know how to put refs in do you? |
|
|
::Third, the information is simply trivial on all counts and if it was kept it would make the article in an In-universe style.] (]) 15:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::The links are useful. Misplaced Pages does not have the templates to support those things. <br>I've just warned you on your talk page. Do it again and you will be reported. - ] (]) 16:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)</br> |
|
|
::::what are you talking about? links should be used to a minimum. Do you know anything about rules? again the list of NPC's are clearly trivial, and should not be mentioned in such a form. If it were kept the article would be an in-universe style. ALSO you are using the links improperly and you know it. Misplaced Pages clearly speaks about in-universe style and trivia and how it should not be used. Please look at this. and there are many other things you could possibly be accused of.]. Look at ] this article is a nutshell, meaning it's the official guide on how to use links. Instead, of reporting me right away, be considerate and discuss it in the discussion section, if you have a problem, then discuss it in the discussion section.] (]) 16:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Okay, fine. For now, though, let's leave them up until a resolution has been made. - ] (]) 16:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Unfortunately, WP:ELNO, already said to avoid using links about other Wiki's. and since it's an actual wiki-guide, we should enforce it.] (]) 16:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::There are exceptions, so just leave them up until a resolution has been made. You must really want to get on my bad side. And, please, when you reply, format your replies with the proper amount of "colons". - ] (]) 16:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Yes, there are certain exceptions, but in order for exceptions to occur there needs to be certain situations that differentiate from the common one, which in this case holds none. Unless you have any proof of how PSUpedia be an exception, than it might be taken to consideration, but not likely. besides, it is said to keep links to a minimum. Also the list of NPCs is really not necessary and is considered trivial. No other article related to games formats there characters like this and i don't know why this one is formatted as such. and no I'm not trying to get on your bad side. you are clearly new or someone who has not read all the guidelines. please consider good faith and that I'm not attacking you personally. and again, the article is not using those links properly. even if they were reliable.] (]) 17:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::No, I am not new. I've been here since December 30th, 2008. - ] (]) 17:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::you should know most of the rules by now then. anyways....there are more than enough reason to remove it, the list is in-universe, trivial, and of course using improper links. many people have removed it in the past and for some reason it just keeps coming back, now i know the reason why it keeps coming back.] (]) 18:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::You are correct. I do know the rules, which means you should not be questioning me or arguing with me. - ] (]) 01:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::And it's all the more reason why you should listen to me. you should know them by now, you are being over zealous and not even trying to back up your reason for keeping it. Also i'm not trying to get on your "bad side" there an article for that too for those who take things too personally, do you want me to show it to you or do you want to learn that this isnt personal on your own? either way the majority of what your going is by ]] (]) 15:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::No offense, but you should actually be listenting you me. Let's look at our join dates, shall we? Let's see here... I joined December 30th, 2008; you joined May 1st, 2009. Hey, what do you know? It looks like I've been here longer than you. Again, no offense, but it's the truth. - ] (]) 15:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::Sorry, but join date doesn't really mean spit (see ]). What's far more important is what is more in-line with policy. I joined December 20, 2007, but that doesn't mean that if I gave an opinion here, that everyone should automatically agree with me, or if someone who joined before me swooped in, we should automatically agree with him/her. <font color="#330099" face="Cooper Black">] <sup>]</sup>/<small>]</small></font> 16:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Thanks for the revert on my user page=== |
|
|
Though I did kind of like the "Stop undoing my edits" badge of honor... Must be doing something right. ;) ] (]) 17:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:You're welcome. - ] (]) 17:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===]=== |
|
|
isn't really vandalism. The IP is trying to change some content and doesn't know how to add references. He's at 3RR right now so hopefully he'll stop and ask for help. --] <sup><font face="Calibri">'']''</font></sup> 18:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
===]=== |
|
|
Hi. Thanks for your speedy reversion of vandalism to my user page. ] (]) 19:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:You're welcome. - ] (]) 19:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Your review, per request=== |
|
|
I looked through you edits as you . I saw a few curious edits that I'll cover in the first part. The bigger concern for me though is your handling of disputes, which I'll cover in the second part. |
|
|
|
|
|
* revert was faulty, though understandable. The IP did insert a profanity, but the song does actually say that. |
|
|
*These reverts ( ) removed sourced information... Why? |
|
|
*What was the reason for reverting ? The new user incorrectly formatted the refs, but helping would be more beneficial than reverting. That is unless there was a reason to remove them, but you gave no explanation so there is no way to know. |
|
|
*Regarding these date "fixes" ( ), you should avoid changing date formats per ]. |
|
|
*Saying that you need to use a spell checker as an editor did is is no way a ] as you claimed . It may have been said in a snarky and unnecessary tone, but there is nothing personal about it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Could you ] ] (]) 22:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
Here is where my main concern lies. We have to work collaboratively to accomplish our goals, and, at least in this month, it seems that in all of your disputes, you are not being very collaborative. I really believe that you need to give these pages a read-through: ], ], and ]. |
|
|
|
: {{Re|Deepfriedokra}} Thank you for the message. I will start off by saying that I don't claim to be perfect, and mistakes certainly happen. |
|
|
:* Diffs 1 and 6 were already answered by other users. |
|
|
:* Diff 2 was a mistake that I did not catch. |
|
|
:* Diff 3 was in violation of ] a common word. This disruption has been a long-term problem in slow-motion from various IPs since at least September 2020, unless I missed something in the article history. I will going to ] the next time it happens. It wasn't happening frequently enough that I didn't know if a request at WP:RFPP would have been approved, but it's getting old and will be going there next time. |
|
|
:* Diff 4 introduced cast and characters that were not recurring, with the exception of Iggy and Young Alisha. Non-main cast and characters with a credit of guest star or higher need a minimum of five appearances to be considered recurring. |
|
|
:* Diffs 5, 9, and 10 introduced category/template bloat. |
|
|
:* Diff 7 broke code formatting, which is often ] that people do. |
|
|
:* Diff 8 introduced unsourced content. |
|
|
:* Diff 11 was a partial mistake, as the edit did introduce problems, so it was roughly 50% bad. This is also another area of sneaky vandalism, as people often make up or guess what characters' full names are, which is in-universe ], unless there's a reliable primary or secondary source, such as the credits (primary). |
|
|
:* Diff 12 introduced a sentence fragment, as well as intentionally breaking the formatting with that line break, despite the user claiming they were correcting grammar. |
|
|
:* Diff 13 violates ]. |
|
|
:* Diff 14 introduced unnecessary sourcing. The series' credits serve as the primary source. Once an episode airs, a source is no longer required since the episode itself serves as the source. For example, if a secondary source says John Smith as The Great Apple will appear, once that episode airs, the secondary source is no longer required, since the actor and who they portray will be listed in the primary source—the credits. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
: Having said all that, I don't appreciate a random user who I don't know stalking my edits and trying to cause trouble by blowing a potentially small problem out of proportion, especially a user who not only has ''far'' less edits than I do, but has also been around for ''far'' less time than I have. 14 edits out of my almost 90,000 edits overall or out of my almost 1,500 edits for 2024 that are potentially a problem don't show a pattern; otherwise, this would have been raised long ago. Unless I'm going around making severe personal attacks that require immediate attention, which I am not, they need to find something better to do with their time than to follow me around just to look for me to mess up. I'm only human, I'm not a robot. This isn't your fault, of course, and I do appreciate the message once again. ''']''' • 03:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
* the editor who removed the external links gave a reason. When you reverted with an ] argument and proclaimed "''Do not remove again''". What exactly does "Do not remove again" accomplish? It really just makes you look bossy and certainly doesn't help your cause. |
|
|
|
::Hi Amaury, I don't think anyone is saying these reverts were all wrong, so no one is asking for a long justification for each of them. They are saying (and I am too) that the edits you reverted were, with 2 exceptions, good faith edits, certainly not obvious vandalism, and so they needed more than an unexplained rollback. This is not 14 edits out of 90,000 (nor 1,500), it is 12 edits out of the 57 edits you made between 12/21 and 12/30. As I said at AARV, all that is needed is a recalibration of your "obvious problem edit/bad faith edit” criterion. But that recalibration is needed, or else someone is going to remove your rollback permission. It doesn't need to be a big deal, but it does need addressing. Nobody is asking you to be perfect; all we're asking is that you take feedback onboard. Indeed, it looks to me like starting on the 31st, you did stop unexplained rollbacks. A simple "ok, my bad, some of those times I shouldn't have used rollback, and I've started explaining the reverts" would have nipped this in the bud. ] (]) 15:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
* you are starting out a discussion in a heated matter. This is not helpful at all. You have to learn to stay calm. Calling people stubborn could be considered a personal attack (albeit not a severe one, but regardless, it accomplishes nothing but to enflame the situation). And also, you seem to claim in that post as well as that the consensus was to merge, which was not true, the consensus was to redirect (). |
|
|
|
::: {{Re|Floquenbeam}} Thank you for the message. I could and should have clarified more, but the whole "my bad" is basically what I was at least trying to get across with my not being perfect and make mistakes comment. While I can admit that what was construed as ] by another user wasn't the best of arguments, I still personally feel that the rest of the point I was trying to make is valid. AP was trying to make a mountain out of a molehill and it's pretty clear that they were following me around just looking for me to mess up just so they could have their five minutes of fame and make a report, at least in my opinion. Why so quick to go to a noticeboard to look for possible sanctions after only one message on my talk page? Then to start out with the whole "I don't like that it had to come to this, but..." just sends the wrong vibes. I don't mean for this to sound like I'm whining, because I'm not trying to, that's just what it felt like to me. |
|
**Also regarding this sitution, looking at , it seems that you were ], which is great. Then you were reverted which is also fine. However, then you reverted back and asked the other editor to take it to the talk page. Instead, you really should've followed the ]. Instead of edit warring, take it to the talk page. |
|
|
**During , you were heated (though the other editor remained calm) and your only arguments were ] and ]. I'm not saying whether or not it belonged, but frankly, instead of proclaiming that you know more about the rules, you should show and not brag about it. |
|
|
* is in bad form. You shouldn't "warn" good-faith editors who are abiding policy because you disagree with them. The removal seemed to be an explained and justifiable removal of inappropriate external links per ]. That doesn't seem like a warnable offense to me. ] #2 clearly says ''External links should not normally be used in the body of an article. Instead, include appropriate external links in an "External links" section at the end of the article, and in the appropriate location within an infobox, if applicable.'' The link itself may be applicable to ] #12, ''Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. Mirrors or forks of Misplaced Pages should not be linked.'' Although the link may be acceptable, in no way is removing them a warn-able offense (unless against consensus, which was not the case). |
|
|
**Further, throughout , despite the other editor giving reasons for the removal, the only points I've really seen you give are ], ], ], you're being stubborn, and you're trying to get on my bad side. You did argue that it was reliable, though really, the argument was about ], not ], so that section really doesn't matter either way. For the record though, Wiki's, including WP, are not reliable sources. See ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::: I do see the point you're making about looking at the edits between December 21 and December 31, but I feel it's also important to look at my edits as a whole. That's the point I was trying to make, in which more often than not, I do use edit summaries for reverts like the highlighted ones in this report. If only looking at the edits between those two dates, it makes it look bad for me, as if I'm always that way. One final point is that I wasn't ignoring AP, I just don't edit Misplaced Pages as much as I used to, as seen by my edit statistics on my user page and the long time it took to update them and my talk page archives. (The really high edit counts are when I was regularly fighting vandalism.) It's a combination of being busy in real life and just not currently having heavy interest here, so I'll normally only get on for a bit and revert any problematic edits I see. If I see I have a message, I skim it and end up forgetting about it. I can be more careful moving forward, but I also don't want to feel like I have to walk on eggshells in fear of, so to speak, AP reporting me again. ''']''' • 20:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
When in disputes, you need to focus on your points, not the other editor. Proclaiming that being here longer means you know more and are correct; calling others stubborn; claiming they are are trying to get on your bad side; and issuing inappropriate warnings really doesn't reflect well on you. Instead, show where your edits are appropriate per our guidelines and policy and/or how it improves the article (if it really helps and others agree, guidelines can always be ignored). In order to gain a consensus, you need to help convince others what you are doing is best for the encyclopedia, which is rather difficult if you just berate editors with opposing views. I'm afraid that if you keep up this sort of "discussion", it won't be long before, at best, a ] thread gets started. <font color="#330099" face="Cooper Black">] <sup>]</sup>/<small>]</small></font> 21:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC) |
|