User talk:YamiWheeler

Welcome
Hi, welcome to DigimonWiki! Thanks for your edit to the Patamon (Adventure) page.

Please leave a message on my talk page if I can help with anything! -- Ryo205 (Talk) 15:02, February 1, 2012

Warning
This is a warning for edit warring and personal attacks at Patamon (Adventure). Personal attacks are forbidden, and any repeat will result in a month-long block from editing. 16:27, February 1, 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) I gave a clear reason.
 * 2) G-SANtos gave a clear reason every time after the first; for the first one, he was adding to your edit, rather than reverting it, as you can see by the fact that he didn't just rollback your edits.
 * 3) You threw personal attacks around in nearly all of your edit comments. You also went headlong into an edit war. Each of these is forbidden on all wikis. You're also using the fallacies of "other pages exist", "why don't you fix it?", and "assuming bad faith", all of which are derided by official policy on wikipedia and most wikia projects.
 * 4) You just personal attacked again, so goodbye.
 * 5) However, I'm compelled to notify you that we do allow for commutations and removals of blocks for users that demonstrate that they will not vandalize again. 16:36, February 1, 2012 (UTC)


 * I was not "vandalizing." But fine. I don't give two shits, frankly. Sorry for trying to make a Wiki that you neglect look nicer. I won't bother with it again.--YamiWheeler 16:39, February 1, 2012 (UTC)
 * Personal attacks and edit warring count as vandalism on all wikis. Also, throwing a tantrum about the capitalization and verbs used in one short paragraph doesn't really "make the Wiki look nicer", even if you were correct.
 * On a personal note, cutting off your nose to spite your face doesn't work when you're the one trying to advertise yourself to the face. Pretending like you're being oppressed and leaving in a huff when you've not only been rude, broken clearly stated rules that exist across all wikis, and been offered a clean slate if you will only promise not to piss in the well water again...fools no one.
 * As to the verb capitalization thing, it isn't something we made up. Verbs should not be capitalized except in special circumstances, even if they are derived from proper nouns. 16:45, February 1, 2012 (UTC)


 * I may have participated in a "personal attack" by calling that other admin retarded, but I did not in any other way. Calling you crooked is an observation of how you're using your power, which to me looks exactly like an abuse of authority. For example, when I first edited the paragraph, you reverted my edit without any given reason. That is against Wiki policy. I have a right to revert your edit if it is incorrectly reverted for no good reason, which is exactly what it looked like. Not only that, but the other admin also participated in edit warring. I don't see their warning. As an admin, you should know to contact a user on their talk page to discuss edits, rather than participating in warring yourself. I'm not an admin, you are. Instead, you choose to use your admin power to throw around warnings over any comment you feel over-sensitive enough to be offended by and use your high horse to justify your actions. Once again, I'm not interested in participating in a Wiki with crooked staff. I'm a good editor on other Wiki sites, and frankly, it's your loss for throwing your weight around.--YamiWheeler 17:00, February 1, 2012 (UTC)
 * The first edit I made was not a revert. I was fixing the episode linking that you had added in. The first edit G-SANtos made was not a revert...you're the one who started reverting and using personal attacks.
 * The other admin was bringing passage in line with the wiki's Manual of Style, even if you were not clear on that. Afterward, he explained how your versions were out of style. We're not going to allow violations to the manual of style to stand just because someone is disagreeing on it, and we consider edit warring to be "reverting for the sake of reverting" -- as you stated here, you reverted solely "because it's your right to if his edit comment isn't clear", instead of claiming that his version was a violation of any wiki policy or rule of grammar. More to the point, though, your warning was for the personal attacks. If you had just been warring, I would have simply locked the page and had you two hash it out.
 * As to your accusations against me, there's a reason wikipedia says "Assume good faith". I gave you a warning for slinging personal attacks, something you have yet to even deny, and you immediately accuse me and the wiki of being corrupt. Dude, the warning even stated that you had another chance, and my block notice notified you that you could have your block removed if you promised not to break the rules again. I hardly see how I'm trying to "silence" you.
 * I don't see how it makes any sense for a wiki's admin, the one who is familiar with the wiki manual of style and general policies, should have to wait for an anon to agree to an edit on their own user talk page, rather than explaining the policy's while fixing the page. That's ludicrous. G-SANtos and I are intimately familiar with the manual of style and how pages should be written; why should we have to prove our case to you when it's already been discussed and become the wiki consensus for ages? Not even wikipedia has this rule; in fact, wikipedia's policy for edit warring is to "revert the page to the last safe revision and lock it", rather than trying to incorporate your changes with fixes from our MoS, as G-SANtos and I did.
 * "Instead, you choose to use your admin power to throw around warnings over any comment you feel over-sensitive enough to be offended by and use your high horse to justify your actions."...you're complaining about G-SANtos and me "reverting" your edits wholesale (which I'm not sure we ever actually did, given the diffs) without clear explanations, and then complaining when I respond to your rebuttal of a block notice with diffs and explanations of policy? What.
 * "I'm a good editor on other Wiki sites, and frankly, it's your loss for throwing your weight around."—dude, nobody cares. We've said several times that your block will be removed if you just promise that you won't edit war or sling personal attacks again. We're not even asking you to apologize or admit fault, for crying out loud, we're just asking you to make pay lipservice to policies that are enforced on literally every wiki. Either you're willing to make that token promise...or you are dedicated to the belief that edit warring and personal attacks are how a wiki editor is supposed to behave...which really speaks for itself in terms of it being "our loss". 17:49, February 1, 2012 (UTC)


 * You're right - no one cares. It sums it up pretty well. No one cares at all about how much time you dedicate to a website or how many Wiki rules you've studied to make sure you know it all. No one cares (luckily for you) that you seem too stupid to understand that this is a revert. You reverted the changes and then added something on the end. That is a revert. It even has the automatic revert description. No one cares, or cares to read your giant walls of text as you repeat yourself over and over, ignoring the points that have been made. No one cares that you take your admin status on a Digimon Wiki far too seriously. You already blocked me, so what is it that you want? Stop bothering me, you're starting to come off as desperate.--YamiWheeler 19:21, February 1, 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's YOU who is coming off as desperate. Compare this and this. Don't see what I'm pointing out? Okay, them look at this. KrytenKoro wasn't reverting, he was "incorporating your changes with fixes from the MoS", like he said. If it has the automatic reversion message, it's because he clicked on "undo" and added something more without editing the edit summary. Clicking on "undo" and adding something more at the same time is not a reversion. At least try to understand what he's telling you. 20:36, February 1, 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe YOU are the stupid one here. 20:39, February 1, 2012 (UTC)
 * ...G-SANtos, now I have to give you a PA warning. Seriously dude, don't let him troll you.
 * YamiWheeler: You asked for an explanation of the "revisions" and disputed the warning and block, so I answered them. I've notified you that wiki policy is that if you want the block erased, promise not to make personal attacks and edit warring anymore. I've given you the notifications I am required by policy to give you, whether you are willing to agree to follow policy or desire to keep attacking others is on you. Personally, I think that you are much too rude and have too much of a victim mentality to be able to work in a team effectively. 21:16, February 1, 2012 (UTC)
 * Which part of my edit was "retained"? Everything I added was REVERTED in his edit. The rewording, the link to the CD drama, everything was replaced. How can you not see that?--YamiWheeler 20:59, February 1, 2012 (UTC)
 * Look again at this. This one was retained, he just adapted to be in our Manual of Style, how can YOU not see that? 21:05, February 1, 2012 (UTC)
 * Link to drama: Like most wikis, we write the fiction sections in-universe, and use storylink templates to cite the serials. Your link was retained and converted into the proper storylink.
 * Rewording: That bit I thought was incidental, and in any case it was wrong, so I changed it back to the previous version. Honestly, I thought you had been complaining about the link being changed. Fine, yes, my edit was partially a revert of yours with no reason specified. That is still not considered edit warring on this wiki, nor would your edit have been considered edit warring if it was my version that was grammatically and factually in error. Honestly, the only reason I even mentioned edit warring at all in your warning is because you started doing it with the justification of "because no reason was given", which is wikilawyering at best and trolling at worst.
 * Therefore: I was incorrect when I stated that my first edit was not a revert at all. It was a revert in part.
 * Finally: Everybody, wiki policy (which I am following to the letter here, seriously) is that if Yami shows that he's not going to do the personal attacks and edit warring again (policy does not give a shit if you disagreed with the staff on grammar), then this whole thing is completely erased. Why did this argument even continue after I stated that policy? Seriously, Yami, what is the point? 21:16, February 1, 2012 (UTC)
 * ... So, the only thing that was retained was the link. The wording edit was still removed without a reason why initially. I don't even know why I'm talking to you. Just get lost.--YamiWheeler 21:07, February 1, 2012 (UTC)
 * "Wording edit was removed without a reason why initially" has no relevance to your block, any wiki policy, or any part of the matter. Can we seriously drop beating a dead horse about that? All that needs to happen is for you to say "I will not personal attack anybody, I will not edit war". We have an extremely strict definition of edit warring anyway, it's almost impossible to violate without being malicious, so seriously it shouldn't be something we disagree on. 21:16, February 1, 2012 (UTC)


 * Ugh, you're trying to lecture me about beating a dead horse? Frankly, even if I did say it, I don't think it'd get through to you, because I've very plainly stated that I don't want to be involved with you, and yet you still try to justify yourself to me like I care. There's nothing more to be said. Just let it go.--YamiWheeler 21:19, February 1, 2012 (UTC)
 * " I don't think it'd get through to you,"...dude, this whole time I've been following our policy to the letter. If I was allowed to be corrupt about this, you would have already been perma-banned with no ability to edit talk pages, 'cause I'm really disgusted at you taunting G-SANtos and putting on this whole "victim" pretense. Seriously, I just had to give my friend a PA warning because he rose to you. Again, I'm required to make it clear to you that the second you promise not to do these things anymore, this whole mess gets erased, literally.
 * ...anyway. So that I don't have to go through this script any further, can you please either make the promise, or make it clear that you understand the policy and are accepting the month-long block? 21:24, February 1, 2012 (UTC)


 * Lol, so I'm to blame because "your friend" couldn't control himself? No one was even talking to him. If he loses his rag that easily, I'm surprised he's still an admin. Then again, he's your friend, so I guess that's why he's here. Anyway, stop talking to me. I told you I want nothing more to do with you, therefore I'm accepting the month block. Perma-ban me, if you want. I really don't care. Just shut up.--YamiWheeler 21:28, February 1, 2012 (UTC)
 * ...dude, really? More personal attacks? I can't say I'm unhappy about it, but yes, further personal attacks with a statement of refusal to follow policy does result in a permanent ban.
 * It is seriously astounding that you took a disagreement about grammar and managed to force us to perma-ban someone who wasn't spamming porn. I think you are the first, for that. 21:33, February 1, 2012 (UTC)