25
edits
User talk:Tiddlywinks/Archive 1: Difference between revisions
m
→Pokemon Type Combinations
Tiddlywinks (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 1,408: | Line 1,408: | ||
:In point of fact - the very point I made above, in fact - "permutation" is not mentioned on [[Type]] at all. That is ''every'' difference. That usage of "unique" is ''highlighting'' a quality of "combinations". That ''is'' brevity, economy of words. It's not important for the Type page to go to the pains that the abundance page does, so it does not, but highlighting the difference between possible ways to assign types, which may have some "repitition", and combinations is still valuable. | :In point of fact - the very point I made above, in fact - "permutation" is not mentioned on [[Type]] at all. That is ''every'' difference. That usage of "unique" is ''highlighting'' a quality of "combinations". That ''is'' brevity, economy of words. It's not important for the Type page to go to the pains that the abundance page does, so it does not, but highlighting the difference between possible ways to assign types, which may have some "repitition", and combinations is still valuable. | ||
:Your primary interest here is arguing against "unique combinations" just because it wasn't right on the abundance page. But that fails to take into account the significant differences in both pages. Language does not always follow the exact same rules for things that ''appear'' the same. [[User:Tiddlywinks|Tiddlywinks]] ([[User talk:Tiddlywinks|talk]]) 14:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC) | :Your primary interest here is arguing against "unique combinations" just because it wasn't right on the abundance page. But that fails to take into account the significant differences in both pages. Language does not always follow the exact same rules for things that ''appear'' the same. [[User:Tiddlywinks|Tiddlywinks]] ([[User talk:Tiddlywinks|talk]]) 14:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC) | ||
I have to say you've been quite rude, intolerant, and narrow-minded. By refusing to acknowledge the double-standard and hypocrisy of allowing the redundant use of ''unique combinations'' to be disallowed on one page but allowed on another. Not only that but claiming that fixing a minor error is pedantic behaviour. Your intolerance and narrow-mindedness is excessive and your unwillingness to accept that perhaps you can be wrong is disgusting. You revert to edit wars, Ad Hominem, and downright pretentiousness as evidence to your beliefs. Your immature and child-like methods grow tiresome. --[[User:Disgraced|Disgraced]] ([[User talk:Disgraced|talk]]) 14:53, 14 August 2014 (UTC) | |||