11,900
edits
User talk:Force Fire/Archive 10: Difference between revisions
User talk:Force Fire/Archive 10 (view source)
Revision as of 16:49, 23 October 2019
, 23 October 2019→Ash's Rowlet and Pumpkinking's block: new section
Nescientist (talk | contribs) (→Ash's Rowlet and Pumpkinking's block: new section) |
|||
| Line 1,645: | Line 1,645: | ||
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) | 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) | :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) | |||