User talk:Force Fire/Archive 10: Difference between revisions

User talk:Force Fire/Archive 10 (view source)

Revision as of 19:05, 23 October 2019

9,448 bytes added , 23 October 2019

→‎Ash's Rowlet and Pumpkinking's block

Nescientist

Administrators

11,917

edits

@@ Line 1,624: / Line 1,624: @@
 Why did you undo all of my edits, without giving any reason?[[User:Huntress|Huntress]] ([[User talk:Huntress|talk]]) 09:59, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
+:I reverted the Bellossom/Sirfetch'd trivia because it wasn't unique to one Pokémon and the other two because the wording should be relevant to the article (so in this case, the wording ''should'' be "X has Y along with Z" not "X and Z has Y" because the page is about X not Z).--[[User:Force Fire|<span style="color:#EBC600">'''F'''</span><span style="color:#EBC600">orce</span>]][[User talk:Force Fire|<span style="color:#D8B600">'''F'''</span><span style="color:#D8B600">ire</span>]] 12:00, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
+::The Muk and Mew thing isn't UNIQUE to one Pokémon, I think the Bellossom and Sirfetch'd is still notable without being unique[[User:Huntress|Huntress]] ([[User talk:Huntress|talk]]) 12:33, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
+== Pokesean and PokéSean ==
+I just noticed {{user|PokéSean}} shares virtually the same name as {{user|Pokesean}}. Care to look into that? [[User:GrammarFreak01|GrammarFreak01]] ([[User talk:GrammarFreak01|talk]]) 04:31, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
+:The latter joined 10 years before the former.--[[User:Force Fire|<span style="color:#EBC600">'''F'''</span><span style="color:#EBC600">orce</span>]][[User talk:Force Fire|<span style="color:#D8B600">'''F'''</span><span style="color:#D8B600">ire</span>]] 04:57, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
+::Oh, okay. So that wouldn't count as a sockpuppet? [[User:GrammarFreak01|GrammarFreak01]] ([[User talk:GrammarFreak01|talk]]) 05:28, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
+:::Highly unlikely it's a sockpuppet.--[[User:Force Fire|<span style="color:#EBC600">'''F'''</span><span style="color:#EBC600">orce</span>]][[User talk:Force Fire|<span style="color:#D8B600">'''F'''</span><span style="color:#D8B600">ire</span>]] 05:34, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
+::::Oh, okay. Thank you. [[User:GrammarFreak01|GrammarFreak01]] ([[User talk:GrammarFreak01|talk]]) 21:07, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
+== [[Shipping talk:ApprenticeShipping]] ==
+This talk page is getting really out of hand with the pedophilia comments, which I think are just personalized comments that do not belong there. What do you think should be done about this? [[User:GrammarFreak01|GrammarFreak01]] ([[User talk:GrammarFreak01|talk]]) 21:06, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
+:I've blanked the page because of the controversial content full of personal views but a user is insisting on keeping all of it. We need to draw a line on this. [[User:GrammarFreak01|GrammarFreak01]] ([[User talk:GrammarFreak01|talk]]) 21:12, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
+== Bisharp and Pawniard ==
+I think the trivia you removed is still worth mentioning, as it is no longer possible for any Pokémon to have a double resistance to ghost, meaning they were the only ones to ever have it.--[[User:Rahl|Rahl]] ([[User talk:Rahl|talk]]) 12:19, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
+:Why do admins push for users to use talk pages if none of them ever respond? Lately it feels like I can't an answer from any authority figure despite seeing them make edits.--[[User:Rahl|Rahl]] ([[User talk:Rahl|talk]]) 13:35, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
+== Ash's Rowlet and Pumpkinking's block ==
+I've decided to go the respectful and polite route and bring this up to you directly.
+I really don't want to discuss trivia, but as far as I can tell, I tend to agree to what Pumpkinking said (i.e., the content). It's one thing to disallow adding a trivium with a hidden note (and generally, one thing I already don't particularly like), but it is certainly another one to do so for different reasons than what your hidden note says (which is what apparently happened here).
+I cannot understand why anyone would do that, or why anyone would repeatedly undo other users that try to correct that.
+From what I can tell, your first reaction (or at least one of your first reactions) was to take it to the talk page. That's good - but why would you then just ignore all the talk page discussion? My (outside but subjective) take is you've basically been ignoring all of Pumpkinking's legitimate concerns, and went ahead exactly your way anyway (backed up by pulling authority rather than reaching a consensus).
+If your next reaction continues to be "Stop disobeying staff", then that, in my opinion, displays a kind of behavior I would rather not see from a staff member; it encourages other users to ''not'' discuss or challenge bad decisions but rather to just "obey" and do what staff has done regardless of its meaningfulness. (For a lack of edit summary, I do not certainly know Grammarfreak's reasoning for undoing Pumpkinking's final edit, but I would imagine it's just that.)
+Based on your message at Pumpkinking's talk page, you were the one to set the block duration all on your own, is that correct? If that's the case, then that ultimately means you went for a harsh penalty for what could very well have ended in a consensus. (As for that message: I also see a "lapse in logic", so I can't understand why you postulate there was none.)
+I genuinely hope this message helps you self-reflect and reconsider your actions. I'll be waiting to read your response soon. Sincerely, [[User:Nescientist|Nescientist]] ([[User talk:Nescientist|talk]]) 16:49, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
+:1) There is no other reasoning. The reasoning in the hidden note '''is''' the reason why that trivium shouldn't be allowed. The whole "working on the assumption that one..." comment is something that doesn't need to be said and is just understood by the context of the trivia itself. It is '''not''' the reason why the fully evolved trivia is not notable.
+:2) I told Pumpkinking to take it to the talk page. Which he did. But he still reverted the edit anyway even after leaving a message, prompting me to lock the page for a day. You do '''not''' leave a message on the talk page and continue to revert an edit. You leave a message and '''wait''' for a response, which Pumpkin apparently did not have the patience for. I also did not ignore Pumpkin's comments, I responded to each one. Not sure how you missed my comments when my signature is bright yellow.
+:3) Is continuing to revert the edit after staff told him not to not disobeying staff? What would it be then? Had he actually listened and not reverted my edits, then I would not have blocked him.
+:5) I went with a harsher tone in the edit summary and harsher tone in the message because Pumpkin has a '''history''' of ignoring staff messages and continuing edit wars. You have not be here long enough to know how Pumpkinking edits and behaves. He has been blocked before for similar behaviors. Don't act like you know Pumpkinking's editing patterns. If it was anyone else with such a long and "decorated" history, I would've also given them a harsh penalty based off that.
+:6) There is nothing to "self reflect" on my end. Pumpkinking was being the usual stubborn Pumpkinking he has always been. Not sure why you think this was necessary when 1) you don't know his history and 2) the matter has been resolved (for now).--[[User:Force Fire|<span style="color:#EBC600">'''F'''</span><span style="color:#EBC600">orce</span>]][[User talk:Force Fire|<span style="color:#D8B600">'''F'''</span><span style="color:#D8B600">ire</span>]] 17:36, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
+::First of all, thanks for answering.
+::1) That makes it all the more weird. Pumpkinking laid out how that reasoning doesn't make sense (and "Claim 1 doesn't imply Claim 2"), from their very first edit summary all the way down the talk page. As I said, I tend to agree.
+::2) I didn't defend their behavior, so we're fine here. (And by "ignore", of course, I meant that you ignored their legitimate concerns, not that you literally didn't answer.)
+::3) You said that after he had done a totally different thing, one that I'd have digested as the talk page's consensus of sorts. (But in general, you're right of course, edit warring is bad.)
+::5) I've been active for more than three years, which means I've witnessed more than 8000 of Pumpkinking's edits. I won't pretend I know every single of them by heart, but if I claimed I knew his editing patterns, you could hardly call that acting. Anyway, I wasn't arguing that at all; ultimately, I was saying exactly what I was saying: that you went for a harsh penalty for what could very well have ended in a consensus.
+::6) Frankly, lack of self reflection, too, is behavior I would rather not see from a staff member. If you're being honest, you're being just as stubborn. I wouldn't know how I'd need to know Pumpkinking's history before writing what I wrote. And finally, you just declared that matter resolved after you blocked the other party; I would hardly call that "resolving". I already said I tend to agree, so you could've realized it's not resolved from my end.
+::I left a message on abcboy's talk page, requesting a third party (or fourth, idk) to help re-evaluate, resolve and oversee the issue. (Of course, feel free to invite any other staff member.) [[User:Nescientist|Nescientist]] ([[User talk:Nescientist|talk]]) 19:05, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
+== Inconsistency ==
+For a good time now, I've been bugged by the fact that the downloadable PWT tournament about the Unova League is title as "You Can Challenge the '''Isshu''' League Too!" while another downloadable tournament is titled "Challenge the Champion '''Lance'''". Shouldn't the Unova League tournament's title be translated as "You Can Challenge the Unova League Too!" for consistency's sake? --[[User:FinnishPokéFan92|FinnishPokéFan92]] ([[User talk:FinnishPokéFan92|talk]]) 17:13, 23 October 2019 (UTC)