1,651
edits
User talk:Playerking95: Difference between revisions
→Permanent block warning
Playerking95 (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Force Fire (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 154: | Line 154: | ||
Playerking... please take a look at the history section of the Jessie's Mimikyu file and tell me how many times '''your''' name appears with the word '''reverted''' next to it. You have '''clearly''' not reverted only once. Yes, there is everything wrong with reverting, especially in your case when you're a serial reverter. You are allowed to replace an image, but '''not''' revert someone just because you have a different opinion. You have '''not''' discussed anything with Rahl. You '''never''' discuss anything with '''anyone'''. You just run around reverting around because you just simply have the power to. And yes, you are made to follow a specific rule for you because "taking stuff to the talk page rather then reverting" seems to be such an abstract concept for you to comprehend that it had to come down to this. Sorry for being so hard, but this is the kind of harsh reality you need before you get yourself permanently blocked.--[[User:Force Fire|Force Fire]] ([[User talk:Force Fire|talk]]) 06:05, 12 December 2016 (UTC) | Playerking... please take a look at the history section of the Jessie's Mimikyu file and tell me how many times '''your''' name appears with the word '''reverted''' next to it. You have '''clearly''' not reverted only once. Yes, there is everything wrong with reverting, especially in your case when you're a serial reverter. You are allowed to replace an image, but '''not''' revert someone just because you have a different opinion. You have '''not''' discussed anything with Rahl. You '''never''' discuss anything with '''anyone'''. You just run around reverting around because you just simply have the power to. And yes, you are made to follow a specific rule for you because "taking stuff to the talk page rather then reverting" seems to be such an abstract concept for you to comprehend that it had to come down to this. Sorry for being so hard, but this is the kind of harsh reality you need before you get yourself permanently blocked.--[[User:Force Fire|Force Fire]] ([[User talk:Force Fire|talk]]) 06:05, 12 December 2016 (UTC) | ||
:You're wrong. I have discussed things, so this isn't some "abstract concept" and don't act like it is. And I have looked at the file in question. I reverted each image once. I uploaded an image, it got changed, so I reverted it and then it got changed and I uploaded another image, that got changed, so I reverted that image once. Reverting once isn't a problem. So, no, I shouldn't be made to follow a specific rule when I'm not edit warring anymore and I'm not the only one involved in these things. And if I haven't discussed things with specific members, then that is simply because doing so would be a waste of time when they stupidly are targeting me and won't listen to what I have to say and if they ever happen to magically listen, then I'll ride a flying pig. [[User:Playerking95|Playerking95]] ([[User talk:Playerking95|talk]]) 07:28, 12 December 2016 (UTC) | :You're wrong. I have discussed things, so this isn't some "abstract concept" and don't act like it is. And I have looked at the file in question. I reverted each image once. I uploaded an image, it got changed, so I reverted it and then it got changed and I uploaded another image, that got changed, so I reverted that image once. Reverting once isn't a problem. So, no, I shouldn't be made to follow a specific rule when I'm not edit warring anymore and I'm not the only one involved in these things. And if I haven't discussed things with specific members, then that is simply because doing so would be a waste of time when they stupidly are targeting me and won't listen to what I have to say and if they ever happen to magically listen, then I'll ride a flying pig. [[User:Playerking95|Playerking95]] ([[User talk:Playerking95|talk]]) 07:28, 12 December 2016 (UTC) | ||
::No. You have not discussed things. Otherwise, you would've went to Rahl's page and asked why his image was good. But that's a waste of time, so lets waste more time edit warring. "I reverted '''each''' image once". Is that not edit warring? Yes... yes it is. What you described is the very essence of edit warring. Just because you reverted each image once doesn't mean you've only reverted once, that's not how it works. You're under the presumption that this rule is from this incident. It's not. It's from '''every single time you've edit warred on the Archives and the Wiki'''. We didn't look at this incident and say "lets make a rule", we looked at your '''entire history''' of edit warring and came to that conclusion. And users don't listen because you don't engage with them and ask why they reverted you. Someone has to take the initiative, if they're not going to come to you, go to them.--[[User:Force Fire|Force Fire]] ([[User talk:Force Fire|talk]]) 09:04, 12 December 2016 (UTC) | |||