Jump to content

User talk:68.55.153.254

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 68.55.153.254 (talk) at 22:14, 31 October 2010 (→October 2010: false positive reported and removing). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Re:Template:X-Men

Yeah I know how you do the villains but the way it is determined can turn out the same way of the members list if we are not careful. But mainly the reason why I talked to J Greb is because of the Members list because the way that's being determined is that they are going to be more and more in the near future. I was purposing that it could be more like Template:Teen Titans because listing members doesn't have to be important for the members list articles are already more specific. I already showed J Greb how that looked like and here it is down below. I am pretty sure you don't approve but I wanted to show you what I was talking about in a certain comment to J Greb. Jhenderson777 (talk) 22:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, 68.55.153.254, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Drmies (talk) 01:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

October 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Tifa Lockhart. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. FYI, Be careful... Sven Manguard Talk 23:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
Hello, 68.55.153.254. You have new messages at Sven Manguard's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Final Fantasy articles

Regarding your latest comment, I have no problem talking with you. As I admitted various times, the consensus was right in the first time, but then it wasn't as the sentences were more in context than most in the others. The meanings of the sources weren't changed, and the result was adding more reception about the characters such as Sephiroth's popularity, Barret's continuous comparison with Mr. T, Vincent's with vampires, and Cloud's role. In the case of Aerith, I decided not to work in that considering it only talks about her death, which has been repeated lots of times.Tintor2 (talk) 14:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you keep removing the sources without another reason than "consensus reached" considering it was from the old versions and the link just links to the talk page. No discussion or guideline. Just removal of content. Why is such removal? Could you explain? There is no consensus for that.Tintor2 (talk) 01:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The whole thing has been explained to you a dozen times in the talk to which I have linked each time. If you don't get it by now, I don't know what to tell you. You have about 4 or 5 users against you alone to remove the link altogether, no matter how you word it. That is a consensus. Period. Continue to add them back in, you will be reported, again. 68.55.153.254 (talk) 23:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing you said is "consensus" which goes against the guideline Wp:consensus. As it was already stated, the source doesn't break crystalball (even the article's name says it's not happening), it's not trivia (the sources' informations are relative to all the previous one) and it does not change the meaning of the article. As I asked you various times, what is the reason for removal? Removing thing saying its "consensus" is not a valid reason. Number of editors does not matter also.Tintor2 (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yet again, more than "consensus" was said on the talk page, you are just ignoring it. Just because you feel that it doesn't violate anything, doesn't mean that others agree with you, nor does it mean you are right. And you continually saying that I'm violating consensus doesn't make it right either. Taken from the consensus page itself under the second little paragraph of "What Consenus Is": "Sometimes voluntary agreement of all interested editors proves impossible to achieve, and a majority decision must be taken." Considering you are refusing every point brought up against the article in question, a full agreement is obviously out of the question, so we are going with a majority, which is to remove the article, because you are in the minority as you are the only one who has said to keep it. That is a consensus. Move on already. 68.55.153.254 (talk) 00:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And no valid point was given to remove it. Why do you say it violates anything? No reason was given. More over Wikipedia is not a democracy, number of users don't matter unless users give valid reasons for a consensus, which has not been brought.Tintor2 (talk) 01:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
YET AGAIN, there were plenty of valid reasons, you just didn't agree with them, which makes them no less valid. I'm not going to waste my time pulling them out yet again for you just to say "no they're not" again and again. And did anyone put the thing into a vote? No. So you claiming we turned it into a democracy thing is not valid either. Everyone who disagreed with the link being in the article just said so and gave their reasons why, including several policies showing it should not be in, and no one but you said that it should stay. THAT is a consensus. Move. On. 68.55.153.254 (talk) 01:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I told you for the third time that I revised them to avoid such violations, but you just keep saying consensus without reading the articles. Besides, the editors' commented on how the source's information was used, not that the source was violating guidelines.Tintor2 (talk) 01:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And now you're the one assuming bad faith in that I didn't read the articles. I did, and it still doesn't matter. The source itself is the problem as everyone has said. Both Axem and Mythsearcher pointed it out to you on several occasions as well as myself and others. Consensus was reached through proper guidelines. You don't have a personal stake in the link, and it's not the end of the world that it's not on Wikipedia anymore. Move on. I am, and if they're removed again, I will report it for edit warring again. 68.55.153.254 (talk) 01:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The editors pointed about how it flows it previous sentences, and not that's it's a bad soruce. Moreover, it's a feature article from a reliable source and it's not any different from others sources such as reviews, top "" characters, analysis of series, etc. used in the article as it only adds character reception. That's why they pointed undue or trivia in old discussion. Such guidelines point to article's informations, not sources.Tintor2 (talk) 01:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And this is why others have said that dealing with you is tiring. You're acting like problems brought up in the past don't matter, just because you reworded something, when they still hold ground. The whole start of the discussion was about the source itself. I know, because I'm the one that started it. That was always the main focus of the discussion. YOU are the one who is focusing on how it is worded, not everyone else. Respond all you want to this, but I'm done. Consensus was reached and it was done so through proper guidelines. Remove them again, and I will report it. 68.55.153.254 (talk) 01:45, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And again, your pointing of wording contradicts the fact the focus of the discussion. Moreover, read the opinions: MythSearcher said "Also, I think WP:TRIVIA is also a good pointer to these kind of info" Axel said "There's no lack of reception at the moment so one piece won't be missed, and you'll save yourself effort down the line when you have to defend it at a more structured process like FAC." while there is no guidelines about amount of reception. All the opinions directed to the information used in the article, not the source.Tintor2 (talk) 01:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:68.55.153.254&oldid=394054558"