1,651
edits
User talk:Playerking95: Difference between revisions
→Permanent block warning
Playerking95 (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Force Fire (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 156: | Line 156: | ||
::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) | ::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) | ||
:::No, I have discussed, so accept that, because that IS the truth and anything else is a blatant lie. Also, that is not edit warring. One revert is not a war. And I didn't say that it was because of this, especially when I didn't do anything wrong on that file's name and you're acting like all I do is reverting, which again, you are wrong about. And again, you're wrong, they don't engage because they won't listed. I'm not the only one that has to engage first, because as I have said time and TIME again, I'm not the only one in this. [[User:Playerking95|Playerking95]] ([[User talk:Playerking95|talk]]) 09:08, 12 December 2016 (UTC) | :::No, I have discussed, so accept that, because that IS the truth and anything else is a blatant lie. Also, that is not edit warring. One revert is not a war. And I didn't say that it was because of this, especially when I didn't do anything wrong on that file's name and you're acting like all I do is reverting, which again, you are wrong about. And again, you're wrong, they don't engage because they won't listed. I'm not the only one that has to engage first, because as I have said time and TIME again, I'm not the only one in this. [[User:Playerking95|Playerking95]] ([[User talk:Playerking95|talk]]) 09:08, 12 December 2016 (UTC) | ||
::::I don't see you discussing the Jessie's Mimikyu file on Rahl's talk page. I don't know how you're defining what an edit war is, because reverting every time someone uploads a new image '''is''' edit warring. I didn't say all you do is edit war, but how many times you've edit warred. Like I said, someone has to take the '''initiative'''. If they're not going to go to you, '''YOU''' go to '''THEM'''.--[[User:Force Fire|Force Fire]] ([[User talk:Force Fire|talk]]) 09:50, 12 December 2016 (UTC) | |||