User talk:Xeworlebi/Archive 8

Spooks (series 7)

Hi, Spooks (series 7) has been a good topic candidate for a while and I recently came across a post saying it's going to need more comments because so far there has only been two supports and one oppose. So I was hoping since you and I cross paths every now and then, that you wouldn't mind posting your comment on the matter. Thanks. -- Matthew RD 06:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Done, first time involved in FTC, so I took some time to look it over when I got back home. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 17:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Reverting

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Thank you for linking to WP:NOTBROKEN a second time. However, since I clearly linked to it in my own edit-summary you should have been aware that I read it. What that edit-summary said was as follows: WP:NOTBROKEN doesn't say, "Revert anybody correcting redirects." And so it doesn't. What WP:NOTBROKEN means is, don't go about doing it specially. It doesn't tell you to revert people who do it: what is the point of that? ╟─TreasuryTag►assemblyman─╢ 14:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

It clearly says that you should not pipe a link just to avoid a redirect. Stating that something shouldn't be done obviously implies that it should be reverted. The point? you can read those at WP:NOTBROKEN. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 14:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

You clearly haven't read my comment above, which says that I know you're not supposed to fix working redirects but that it doesn't do as much harm as reverting harmless edits does. Since you seem unwilling to properly engage in discussion on this issue, I've requested wider input at WP:VPP. ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 15:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

What? I have read your post, and you say you shouldn't do it yet you did it just to revert me? All I can respond is what I already said: WP:NOTBROKEN lists several reasons why links should not be piped just to avoid redirects, little about the act of doing it but about the end result of the link in the article, which is you geussed it, not piped just for avoiding redirects. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 15:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

You're missing my point, I suspect deliberately. Please could you explain to me, in one sentence, what actual practical harm this edit did? ╟─TreasuryTag►District Collector─╢ 15:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you have an answer to my question above? Because if not, it means you pointlessly reverted a harmless edit: clearly inappropriate. ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 15:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Kinda impatient, do I get the time to respond? I've given my answer serval times now, you just have to click the link and read: WP:NOTBROKEN, I can quote the entire section to you but that seems just unnecessary.

Did you just accuse me of disruptive editing by upholding a guideline, when you reverted that guideline supported edit fully knowing it shouldn't be done in the first place? Anyway, discussion moved to the village pump, so closing this one, as there's no point in doing this at two places at once. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 15:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Speaking of keeping things hidden from everybody...

It is not a common issue but your pushing forward the ENGLISH ONLY has resulted in keeping hidden the fact that Body of Proof has 13 episodes in its first season, and that said season has been seen in a variety of languages all over the planet. But in English only 9 are being shown (Australia and the UK who knows as of writing this, they could show 13 over the next few months). Care to weigh in on this mess your change in policy creates, effectively lying to English readers and keeping hidden the existence of 4 episodes of a show because they have only been broadcast in Russian, French, Italian, Spanish, and who-knows-what-other-languages. Perhaps revert the change in policy. :nodshead:
As to Smallville, it is futile to disagree with Bignole. Much like it is futile for me to disagree with you. But i still do. Perhaps even worse to disagree with him about Smallville because he effectively has final say on anything and everything Smallville related. In one comment last night he lied on 6 different matters as he told me all the ways in which i was in error. Until last night i didn't know July comes before May but according to Bignole it does. I had a laugh at that one. The complete series DVD release of Smallville was announced in late April and it says 218 + Superboy pilot from 1961 and Bignole unilaterally dismisses that declaration from Warner Bros. about the episode count. But he won't accept that in Canada the première was 2 hours and that the DVD release is not a re-edited special made just for that DVD release but rather is the standard debut for the show, which the USA was not privy to. The article itself actually makes that claim without reference and why? He believes it and he damn well knows there is no reference for it. What reference is given for the première DVD doesn't come close to making the claim he is implying is found in the reference used to cite the existence of the DVD release. For the way he meticulously references things there is no other viable explanation. That would be one reason why i usually do nothing more than read the Smallville articles. Damn that day i found the episode list had become skip-numbered and i had the courtesy to read the talk pages instead of unilaterally fixing it. :bang head on desk now: delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 15:25, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Okey, I'm going to tell you this one final time (probably will have to repeat it at another time so,) once more: I do not push "English only". I push not-notable = not-notable, English or not. I have told you this now numerous times, yet you keep putting words in my mouth. Arguing with me is only futile because you make it so. You have given many examples in the past were you claimed I was against certain info, and I have agreed with you on most (maybe even all, can't keep track of every example you have thrown at me) of them, if something is notable then add it if it's not then don't, just airing in a country is not notable to me, be it Belgium, be it Pakistan, be it Canada or the U.S. I (again) have nothing to do with Body of Proof (I am correct in that you are talking about Body of Proof right? If not, please provide a correct link), but I already agreed with you that what you appear to say about Body of Proof is notable and should be added. But looking through those article histories, you have appeared to make no effort to add such info, so I'm not sure what you're complaining about, if you haven't added it why are you then surprised that it isn't on the page? Make your case at that page, complaining to me won't change the article. There is no need to change the guideline because nothing in it says you can't do what you want to do, it even explicitly says you can.

Yes, the Smallville situation is kind-off a mess, mostly because The CW made it so. And Bignole does have a stranglehold over those articles. I kinda gave up on it after trying to get a decent reason for it, which appears to be opinion based. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 15:51, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Quote box color

Well I just chose that color for all of Fringe's quote boxes, so do you have a better suggestion? Perhaps another shade of blue? (I dislike the default grey color). After all, other series' articles have their own colors (like Glee and Parks and Recreation). Ruby2010 comment! 20:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

It's way to dark, maybe take the same color as the infobox on the main article: #bfdfff, it's a lighter blue. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 20:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Better? Ruby2010 comment! 20:46, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Or this? Ruby2010 comment! 20:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Better yes. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 16:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

pronunciation

Per your comments at Nathan Fillion, no, you're not required to use IPA, it's just the standard. There are other options, spelled out at WP:PRON, but it would be nice if you tagged them with {{needs IPA}} so that it can be completed quickly. — kwami (talk) 05:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

What? I did that 7 months ago and four days later someone filled it out, I can't read those things so I have no clue if it was correct or not. But I don't think I ever said you were required to use IPA. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 07:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Unconstructive?

I tidied up dead links (almost all from RS) as well as cites without titles (eg.Killer Queen: A Tribute to Queen).MusoForde (talk) 15:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC).

Nothing tidy about removing URL's. Dead links should be tagged with {{Dead link}} not removed. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 14:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Endgame & your change to the infobox doc

I have revered your change to Endgame which was done per your change to the infobox doc because the change you put into the infobox doc is explicitly non-Canadian and you are applying it to a Canadian show. Canadian shows don't have unaired episodes if the production company and the broadcaster ever want to work again / retain their broadcast license. The way the infobox doc was changed by yourself reflects the American (and a few other countries') practice of discarding shows that are not performing to satisfactory levels which result in episodes not being broadcast. Episodes also have to be shown within a specific time. That is partly why Flashpoint returned to CTV in January while CBS held it back another 4 months. I could give you a pile of links to all of this stuff but i get the impression you wouldn't want to read it (most people don't) so unless you ask for it. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 10:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Irrelevant: "The number of episodes released. In case of cancelation a reliable source is required if the total number of episodes produced is greater than the number aired.". If you think Canadian shows should get an exemption from this, I suggest you discuss that at the template talk page. Although I see no reason to make it even more inconsistent. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 15:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm curious

For future reference, what is the difference between "right" and "upright" for images? --Boycool (talk) 20:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

"|right" puts the image on the right side of the page, which is automatically done when using |thumb anyway, so not actually needed. "|upright" uses your preferences regarding the thumb size but at 75% of the size, it's used for images in portrait mode. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 20:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Talk: List of Falling Skies episodes

I want to remove the nonsense on the List of Falling Skies episodes Talk page. It's silly. Just people arguing and nothing there is constructive.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AllianceApprovedMagician (talk • contribs) 15:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't be done, talk page discussions should not be removed unless they're vandalism and the like. If a talk page gets long it's appropriate to archive them, just removing them isn't appropriate. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 16:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough but if you wan't stuff perfect why has the episode table not been fixed up..? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AllianceApprovedMagician (talk • contribs) 17:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

No clue what you're referring to nor do I see how you made that jump. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 17:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Template:Infobox television season

Regarding your revert, kindly show me where exactly in the documentation of the Template:Infobox television season it says that the num_episodes fields must list (and only list) the number of aired episodes (which it doesn't, and I looked before it made that edit), or where community consensus is suggesting anything like it (nothing on the template talk page, and I looked before I made that edit), and what fault you found in my explanatory edit summary of my edit to just revert it like that.
Amalthea 10:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I note that the documentation of {{Infobox television}} asks to only list aired episodes, I presume you were referring to that. That documentation adds something about number of produced episodes in case of a canceled series, so it apparently does not demand to ever only list the number or released episodes (which, in the case of Game of Thrones, is actually 7, since one additional episode was made available to subscribers on various Internet portals).
Currently the infobox reads "No. of episodes: 6", which at the very least is misleading, as evident by previous changes in this article and in those of most other current TV series. I see no reason against extending the information to list both released and produced episodes, as explained in my edit summary, as long as reliable sources can back it up.
Amalthea 11:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

In absence of a reply I will now restore the change. Amalthea 19:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes I was referring to {{Infobox television}}, guess I didn't look closely enough which page it was, although I don't find having two numbers especially preferable. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 07:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Cripple Fight

I am not sure why you are marking the South Park episode Cripple Fight with a notability tag. It seeems to be a well established consensus that every South Park episode is inherently notable and gets its own article. Not sure why this episode should be treated any differently. In any event, if this article was to be put to AfD, I seriously doubt it would ultimately be deleted, so the notability tag seems pointless. Anyhow, just my observation, I won't push this further. Safiel (talk) 21:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

That's not how it works, if the notability is questioned it should be established by adding reliable third party sources to the article. I'm not treating this episode any different then all the other South Park episodes that don't establish notability. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 07:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

New articles

As someone who has a great deal of experience on Wikipedia, would you mind looking over and possibly rating a couple new articles I've created? I want to make sure I didn't miss anything, and have a third party read over and fix anything I may have done wrong. The articles can be found at Burn Notice: The Fall of Sam Axe and "Pilot (White Collar)". Thanks! Kevinbrogers (talk) 04:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take a look at them later today. On first sight, not that much wrong, some mark-up gripes I usually have, some tense issues and Burn Notice: The Fall of Sam Axe being somewhat short. You can also always request a peer review, which is always a good step if you want to go GA/FA/GT/FT etc. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 07:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I added a request for the Pilot (White Collar) article here. I'll try to expand the Burn Notice article as much as possible soon. Thanks again. Kevinbrogers (talk) 15:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Okey, done some edits at Pilot (White Collar), and gave it B quality, and Mid importance. I have to admit I'm not particularly familiar with the ratings system, and have not been very interested in them, they're WikiProject related, A quality requires some kind of mini review, somewhat like GA, so putting up a GAN is pretty much the same amount of work, and I'e always found A class some weird class anyway. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 15:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Covert Affairs

Could you assist me in developing my new article on Covert Affairs season 1, The draft is right here. mauchoeagle _(c) 20:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Too early for a season article, all relevant information can go on the main article for now, when that one gets to big a season article would be needed, or if the episode list gets to long. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 21:09, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you, Xeworlebi, for your helpful copyediting to the article Santorum (neologism). Much appreciated. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 09:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

No problem. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 09:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Falling Skies episode list

You keep removing my contributions to the Falling Skies episode table. First off, the table is dreadful. It would look better if it looked like List of The Walking Dead episodes. Second, I am trying to fix it up. If you want to fix it up, great. So go ahead then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimmyDarmodyRules (talk • contribs) 12:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely pointless at this point, the show hasn't even premiered yet, there's absolutely no need for a season page nor for a |EpisodeNumber2= column now. What is there to "fix up"? At this point nothing. Also, no not delete comments from talk pages. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 12:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Game of Thrones (season 1) episode descriptions

Hello! I am writing about the episode descriptions that you reverted earlier today [1]. I was under the impression that the content at tv.com is free to use (because it's freely editable by users). I just wanted to say that I am relatively new to wikipedia and wasn't aware that my edits would constitute copyright violations. Apologies for that. --Tuniof (talk) 23:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

No, everything you post to a website usually becomes theirs, even here on Wikipedia. Additionally, TV.com is often a copy from some other website/magazine/press release. Now you know it shouldn't be a problem in the future. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 06:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Nikita

Isn't it common practice to have full season ranking in a table format? That way full season information is easier to find, and prose is used for individual milestone episodes. Jayy008 (talk) 22:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Not really, prose is almost always preferred over tables, only when a table format would be considerably more accessible it should be used. For a single season a table format is quite excessive. If we're several seasons in such format may become ore preferable, for now prose is better. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 06:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Falling Skies Season 1

When will Falling Skies (season 1) be able to re-edited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AllianceApprovedMagician (talk • contribs) 23:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Not sure, maybe in a couple years, when there's a need for. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 06:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Alright, douche... How about you answer me properly! Putting everyone else in handcuffs won't make it easier to edit this site. It's necessary to have the page after it airs and gets a pick-up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AllianceApprovedMagician (talk • contribs) 16:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

First of all, no personal attacks, calling me a douche won't help you in any way. Secondly, the article Falling Skies (season 1) is not protected so can be edited by anyone. Thirdly, calling this putting you in handcuffs is like saying I'm keeping you hostage because you can't leave the planet. Editing that page won't be necessary for the time being. Any relevant info you want to add you can add to Falling Skies, and episode summaries can be added to List of Falling Skies episodes. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 17:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay sorry. It seems I am the douche. But every time I click on Falling Skies season 1 page it re directs me. Can I please just get to work on it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AllianceApprovedMagician (talk • contribs) 18:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I have again no clue what you're talking about. Besides there being absolutely no reason to "get to work on it", there's no-one stopping you from doing so, although reverting probably will happen if you do. Why don't you work some on the main article? _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 18:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Mass tagging

I see you have been adding {{notability}} tags to a large number of articles Buffy and Angel articles, without providing any rationale as far as I can tell. There has been a longstanding consensus that individual episodes of these shows have their own articles. If you believe that should change, I recommend you start a centralized discussion at one of the parent article's talk pages, rather than randomly drive-by tagging a large number of articles. Thank you, rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There's absolutely no such consensus, there's in fact a widespread problem with non-notable episode articles for many shows. Notability is not inherited, if you can't show notability for an article then the tag is perfectly appropriate, if you can add the sourced information to the article establishing notability then by all means remove the tag after you do so. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 16:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

You don't need to cite notability guidelines to me, I am quite familiar with them. The point is, there is a consistent format for articles across a series--it would not make sense for a few episodes to have articles and a few not, so if you believe the articles are not notable then you should make a suggestion to merge all of them into lists, rather than just tagging a few at random. These episodes have had individual articles for years and, as far as I can tell, this has not been challenged. Personally I don't have a very strong preference either way, although I think coverage in reliable sources probably exists somewhere for most of these episodes. I am just saying that, if you think these episodes are not notable, you need to start a centralized discussion about how to deal with all of them; drive-by tagging a select few is not going to solve anything. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I do not have to start a centralized discussion to tag an article, just like I've tagged many Buffy and Angel and many other shows. This is not tagging a few at random, many episode articles do not meet WP:GNG, the tagging is entirely appropriate, you have to start somewhere, this is not tagging a random article, this is tagging one of many. You might be interested in WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:POKEMON. I'll continue tagging articles that fail WP:GNG with {{notability}} as is the appropriate way to do for those articles. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 17:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I have requested editing dispute assistance, as your random mass "notability" tagging seems impossible to resolve. You have not once described what you would consider acceptable noteworthiness (or whatever the word should be), nor have you explained how you are suddenly the gatekeeper for notability on the many episode pages you've tagged. You haven't shown us an example by, say, editing one of the pages yourself to make it notable by your standards so we can follow suit and then remove the tags without further trouble. Nor have you accepted the contention that if all the page consists of is plot, there is no need to demand references, as the episode is its own reference, even though that is acceptable WP policy. Such a page should have a "plot only" tag, but it's absurd to demand references for a page that has, as yet, nothing to reference. You can find my request here: Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests--TEHodson 10:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

My solution is to just revert him, as I just did at Sexual Harassment Panda. - Denimadept (talk) 15:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Do we have to go trough this every time? Thought all the previous discussions made it pretty clear there was nothing wrong with the tags. I suggest you read up on the discussions and all the policies and guidelines provided in them. Reverting is not a solution, a possible solution would be to establish notability per WP:GNG, if you can't do that then the tag is entirely appropriate. By the way, just saying something is notable doesn't make it so. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 15:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

It's part of a notable series. That's enough. I don't feel the need to go further. - Denimadept (talk) 16:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Further, if you have problems understanding why something like that is notable, perhaps you should ASK before tagging it. You may be missing something pretty obvious. - Denimadept (talk) 16:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And this shows that you have not read any of the previous posts either at the previous discussions or just a couple of posts above this, I suggest you do to find out what defines notability. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 16:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

And you seem to not understand "Take it to the Talk page". You're creating a big deal where there isn't one. I've read the articles you mention, and they're not relevant. You've got a history of not liking TV show episode articles. I don't care why. Take it to the appropriate talk page or just go away. - Denimadept (talk) 16:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

There's indeed no big deal, this article simply does not establishing notability. I'm not sure why you think a section called the general notability guideline is not relevant when we're talking about notability, or why you think that several other articles talking about exactly this are not relevant either. I indeed have a history of not liking episode articles full of problems and not notable, I love the ones that aren't problem ridden and notable. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 17:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

List of Band of Brothers episodes

I've made a small modification to the first sentence, see [2]. I did so based on looking at lots of featured lists. I hope it'll be OK, but ff you're unhappy about it, could we please discuss it on Talk:List of Band of Brothers episodes. Cheers!  Chzz  ►  16:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Some advice

Until this dispute at WP:EAR is resolved, I strongly suggest that you refrain from tagging any more television episode articles. While you have every right to do so, it would demonstrate good faith and a willingness to collaborate. I also ask that you refrain from commenting on the IP editor; it is not helping. In the future, it may be wise before embarking on tagging a specific show's episodes, to drop a respectful note on a WikiProject page (if one exists) and the talk page of the main show article a day or so in advance to give interested editors a heads up and a chance to perhaps prepare sources. (If you'd like help drafting such a note, let me know.) Again, not a requirement, but it may smooth things over and hopefully keep the inevitable drama to a minimum. Danger (talk) 12:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Just saw this after I responded at WP:EAR, I'll ignore the IP hopper from now. Problem with dropping notes everywhere is that several shows don't have a wikiproject, and that the people unfamiliar with the guidelines and policies usually don't read those pages, and if they do they'll just say that I can't do that and then use that as a valid reason to remove any and all valid tags. Wikia is indeed the better place for most of this content, which is why it was created in the first place. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 13:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, the WikiProject thing is an issue, but even if there is a WikiProject a lot of people don't watchlist it. So the main article talk (ie Talk:Buffy_the_Vampire_Slayer_(TV_series)) is still a good place to put general notices. (I remember when I worked on WikiProject Tibet that we did this a lot, especially since the WikiProject structure was fubar.)

And seriously, you know it bothers them, calling them a hopper again is not cool.

My god, the hours of my life I've wasted at Buffy.wikia. This dispute couldn't have been about Arrested Development or some children's cartoon, nope... hours of time suck practically required of me. :) --Danger (talk) 13:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

You can do it about Arrested Development if you want. I've been tagging those episode articles as well, they're in an even worse state than the Buffy episode articles, filled with running gags, goofs and other fan-cruft. I've been wanting to start an RfC on these episode articles for some time now, every time I think that I'll let it cool down a bit before starting it, and then it pops up somewhere else. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 13:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Harry potter edit

Hey there. About this edit - I'm aware of the notbroken policy, but when I tried the link it took me to the "others" subsection. I've tried it again a few times and it works correctly now. Weird - must have been a glitch. a_man_alone (talk) 14:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Not a glitch, I corrected the redirect. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 14:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Your edit warring in QuickTime

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Xeworlebi, may I remind you that once a contribution is contested per WP:BRD, subsequent reverts are Edit warring and are not allowed? Besides, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (and it subsection, WP:UNDUE) is a non-negotiable pillars of Wikipedia. Violating it is unacceptable.

If you think I am wrong, please discuss in talk page before committing further reverts. Fleet Command (talk) 19:12, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I saw you made a nonlogical edit and I reverted it. I do not check every page history of every article were someone makes an edit I revert. I started a new section at Talk:QuickTime#OS order because putting Windows first is doing everything you cite should not be done. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 19:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, because one revert by Xeworlebi obviously counts as 'edit warring'. In fact, I see exactly one revert here and the other edit was for punctuation. Please check your facts before needlessly accusing people. Kiranerys-talk 19:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I did check the fact that:

1. Xeworlebi is an active Wikipedian; hence I thought it is unlike him to revert without checking history. But I wouldn't mind; that happens...
2. Xeworlebi performed a revert! There are five places from which he could do that, in all of which he could have perfectly seen my edit summary which reads: "Undid revision 434810997 ..." I am not as active as he is, but when I see the word "Undid..." I discover that either A BRD contest or an edit war is going on.

Which part of my conclusions are wrong? Fleet Command (talk) 06:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The fact that you call a single revert edit warring, which is just a huge over-reaction. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 07:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

One or two doesn't matter: Your edit was a sign of interest in conflict rather than interest in entering discussion. And as far as the article is concerned, there has been two reverts, not one. Apparently, administrator Fastily agrees with me too, since he has locked down the article for "Edit warring / Content dispute". Fleet Command (talk) 08:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I only made one revert, if you must accuse someone of edit warring my I suggest yourself? You who reverted two independent editors, not showing interest in starting an actual discussion but just going to the talk pages of the users accusing them of edit warring, requesting discussion but not bothering to start one themselves. Anyway closing this here, as your only goal here seems to be accusing me and proving that you're right in doing so. I suggest you read the first sentence of Wikipedia:Edit warring which states "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions", and then maybe the definition of "repeatedly", as well as when saying that something is "not allowed" you cite something better than an essay. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 08:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.