• KeepOnKeepingOn
    KeepOnKeepingOn closed this thread because:
    Resolved
    16:38, April 26, 2019

    Theres alreafy been a duscussuon and admins have weighed in. Please stoo making mistajes just because you've fallen behind.

      Loading editor
    • Really? Because similar edits you made previously have been reverted. Could you please link me to the discussion? If it's been agreed upon, fine. I just want the wiki to be consistant.

        Loading editor
    • Ya. Go to my contributions (as I've already instructed you to do). All the links are there. Right there. Plain sight.

        Loading editor
    • This guy even got permanently blocked for reverting it. Just so you know.

        Loading editor
    • No need to be forceful, dude.

        Loading editor
    • If you think I'm about to scroll through 400+ contributions because you can't be asked to link a discussion, you are sadly mistaken. I'm not asking for your conributions, just proof that you got permission from an admin. Shouldn't be that hard to provide.

        Loading editor
    • I'm not. I'm annoyed. How many times does something need to be explained just because someone doesn't get it?

      I always explain myself in my edit summaries. There's no reason for this to be a big talk every few months.

        Loading editor
    • You have already stated that you've seen reverts in my contributions list so you have already admitted to happily going through my contributions list.

      Party on, dude!

        Loading editor
    • Just because you explain yourself doesn't mean you get to do whatever you want. If you got permission, fine. If not, you can explain yourself to the Moon. Doesn't make a difference.

        Loading editor
    • ...and you can revert yourself to the moon with no explanations?

      My contributions list prove you are wrong with your "always doing it that way."

      I clicked on my contributions list and talks are right there. Look. Easy peasy.

      Links to websites stating that that is the correct way of doing it are also there. Look. Easy peasy.

      Is there an admin telling me I'm wrong? No.

      ...and who are you?

        Loading editor
    • I looked at them, yes. I thought it would be simpler than arguing with you, but it seems to me that you either don't understand what I'm asking, or you're diliberately being dodgy. Now could we please stop arguing like children? Just link me to the discussion you've had with the other members and/or an admin.

        Loading editor
    • No.

      I've told you where to find it.

      Go look.

      I'm not your servant and you're not my boss.

      Everything you want is right there waiting for you. You're the one who wants to see it so go find it.

      ...and quit telling me I need to show you what you've been told the location of.

      Do your research, dude. I'm perfectly fine.

        Loading editor
    • Cebr1979 wrote:
      ...and you can revert yourself to the moon with no explanations?

      My contributions list prove you are wrong with your "always doing it that way."

      I clicked on my contributions list and talks are right there. Look. Easy peasy.

      Links to websites stating that that is the correct way of doing it are also there. Look. Easy peasy.

      Is there an admin telling me I'm wrong? No.

      ...and who are you?

      Ah, so you never actually had a discussion. Good to know. Look, I didn't even say I disagreed with you. I would just like for the wiki to be consistant. According to the explination you provided, every single character of every race and ethnicity needs to be changed, and you only seem to be changing the hispanic ones for some reason, It's a herculian task which would take a very long time. That's why I wanted to start a discussion instad of just editing it. Cause then other people could help with that, and they wouldn't revert your edits. Isn't that easier than constantly having edit wars? Have a good one.

        Loading editor
    • "I didn't even say I disagreed with you."

      I stopped there.

      A revert is a disagreement.

      Please start making sense.

        Loading editor
    • Cebr1979 wrote:
      "I didn't even say I disagreed with you."

      I stopped there.

      A revert is a disagreement.

      Please start making sense.

      I disagree with you editing without a discussion. That's it. This conversation didn't need to be so hostile. You made it that way because someone dared to revert your edit. This has became a pointless argument, so I don't see the need to continue.

        Loading editor
    • Finally.

      I've never seen a need for it to have started?!

      Have a good one!

        Loading editor
    • Fair warning Cebr; acting rude like this again simply because you got annoyed at someone is not okay. Try to have a civil discussion next time.

      Glad this is over though.

        Loading editor
    • I had a civil discussion.

      That's what explaining one's self is.

      ...and then I kept getting reverted and bossed around.

      Glad it's over too.

      It never should have started.

        Loading editor
    • You were not entirely civil. You acted rather rude from the get go. Sorry dude but next time try to explain yourself and the discrepancies more calmly instead of telling Dale to go look over and over. Dale made numerous attempts to stop the argument but you were still acting a tad uncivilized.

      I’m just letting you know for next time dude.

        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.