FANDOM


  • I'm sorry but you have been blocked for three days. I've let you be able to comment on your message wall so you could respond to me. You have un-done JAlbor's edits two times already for a feature that the community is adding. This is not the first warning you have gotten and this is not the first issue we have had about you with other users and other members of Wikia Staff. It's gotten a bit out of hand with you're ability to not really accept change. I'm sorry but if this happens again, I have been offered help by Community Support and I will take it.

    If you have any complaints feel free to comment below. I would hate to lose you as apart of this community but this is the only way I feel a change can happen as I've tried to talking to you about this before.

      Loading editor
    • I felt that I should also post that the users can decide if they like the option once it is posted, if they dislike it we can always remove it. Other users have suggested this idea before, JAlbor has just made it better. If you have any issues with the actual idea that is happening contact JAlbor about it, you have only been blocked for undoing his edits after he said for you to stop it and because I have given you warnings in the past for this type of behavior so I needed to take action instead of more giving warnings.

      I don't hate you, I just want you to talk to the person before taking action and have a more open mind.

        Loading editor
    • The site wasn't letting me reply to you for some reason (maybe because Message Walls don't count as talk pages?), so I'll respond now.

      I reverted his edits because I thought you made a dumb decision to allow the change to be made before the discussion was fully resolved.

      "Fully resolved" means that the discussion has ended, and arguments have ended as well. However, the discussion was not fully resolved in this case. Not waiting until it's fully resolved prevents people from presenting their opinions and arguing against what others have said. I was still replying to what JAlbor said, and now I can't respond to what he said because you've blocked me and went ahead and made a decision. By going and declaring it done, you're not allowing us to say what we have to say. I said a bunch of times that in general, we should be supporting the side that can make stronger arguments, and that's why we need to wait until the discussion is fully resolved. If JAlbor had clearly won the argument and I had nothing left to say, the discussion would have been fully resolved and you could have added it in and that would be done. However, that is not the case in this situation. I'll also add that just because I'm unable to respond to what he said doesn't mean the discussion is fully resolved. We wait until the discussion is fully resolved, and then add the changes; that's how it's always been when handling these kinds of things, and that's how it should always be. We don't add the changes and then discuss whether to keep them. We discuss the changes, and then, once the discussion is fully resolved, we add the changes in.

      Your decision ignored the fact that it wasn't fully resolved yet and disregarded the fact that we were arguing. I reverted the decision you made to add it in not because I'm mad that you changed it, but because I think it was a dumb mistake you made. It was not a good idea to go and add it in when the discussion wasn't fully resolved, and that's why I reverted it. I think that users should be able to revert mistakes made by admins if they can explain why it was a bad decision and provide an alternative (which I did). Administrators can make mistakes just like everyone else, and if they make a mistake, there should be a way for other users to reverse that mistake.

      I'm not doing any of this because I'm mad that the decision wasn't in my favor. If I had nothing left to say and had clearly lost, I would be totally okay with you guys adding it in. My reason for removing it had nothing to do with my opinion on the subject. If you had gone and changed it after the discussion was fully resolved, I would not have removed the changes. But that wasn't the case here. You made the decision before we were finished arguing, and that isn't how it should work. I reverted the edit because I thought it was a dumb decision you made, not because I'm not willing to accept change. We wait until the discussion is fully resolved, and then add the changes.

      To prevent stuff like this from happening again, I'll make a list of steps to follow during these change disputes (this is only a rough outline and we can add stuff to it later):

      • The discussion begins when one user makes a suggestion for changes they'd like to include.
      • Users should state whether they support or oppose the changes.
      • Users can (and should) provide reasons for why they support or oppose. Providing reasons will strengthen their viewpoint and may help convince other users.
      • It is okay if disputes occur between users on opposing sides.
      • After the discussion is fully resolved and enough time has passed for as many users as possible to state whether they support or oppose, a decision will be made to either make changes or keep the page as-is.
      • Decisions should not be based just on votes; the decision should favor the side that can support their viewpoints better with stronger arguments.
      • Users and administrators making decisions should not factor in just their own opinion, and instead listen to the opinions of the entire community, as well as their own.
        Loading editor
    • You don't need to go keep the page the way it used to be, since I don't feel like arguing over it anymore (and therefore the discussion would be fully resolved). However, in the future, listen to other users when they disagree with your actions, and don't make any final decisions until discussions are fully resolved.

        Loading editor
    • I have a significant issue with your demands for a specific procedure to follow. Primarily, you still seem to be the arbiter for when something is "fully resolved". You made all the arguments that you could, and I made mine. As I saw it, there was no more productive dicussion about it to be had, at which point, a decision needed to be made. I believe Ultraman made the right one. I felt I made stronger arguments than you did, you disagreed. Neither parties arguing should be the ones to make the call, it should be everyone else as I see it. That was the point everyone came to. It still seems like you are making demands about how things should be run, mainly that you would prefer to hold a filibuster than leave arguments where they are.

      I know your response will likely be that you believe you made stronger arguments, that I nor anyone else proved those arguments wrong, etc. But again, I just believe your perspective on the discussion still seems totalitarian and undermines the idea of equal say that you claim to promote. Sorry to respond, but I felt it was important to say something about statements like "To prevent stuff like this from happening again, I'll make a list of steps to follow during these change disputes", which sound as though you're decreeing how the community should run instead of letting it run itself.

        Loading editor
    • Think about what the term "fully resolved" means. It means that the discussion has ended. For example, an argument that ends with one side complaining, name-calling, and not actually responding to anything their opponent says, would clearly be considered "fully resolved". Other types of cases could also be considered "fully resolved".

      "Primarily, you still seem to be the arbiter for when something is "fully resolved"."
      "But again, I just believe your perspective on the discussion still seems totalitarian and undermines the idea of equal say that you claim to promote."
      I'm not the only one who is making the decisions to declare them fully resolved, and I'm only reversing people's decisions when they made a verdict at the wrong time. There have been times when we were discussing changes and everyone agreed on one solution and/or no one was arguing, and final verdicts were made over those, and those were good times for the discussions to be fully resolved.

      "You made all the arguments that you could, and I made mine. As I saw it, there was no more productive dicussion about it to be had, at which point, a decision needed to be made."
      How do you know that I made all the arguments that I could? I could have responded to more of the things you said that could have been productive. Decisions should not be made when people are still responding to what others said in the way we were.

      "I believe Ultraman made the right one."
      Ultraman made the decision when we were still arguing over it, long before I got blocked, before it was fully resolved. That was not the right decision to do.

      "Neither parties arguing should be the ones to make the call, it should be everyone else as I see it. "
      It's better if someone not arguing should make the call. However, if the person who made the decision did so at a bad time, then others should be allowed to reverse it.

      "Sorry to respond, but I felt it was important to say something about statements like "To prevent stuff like this from happening again, I'll make a list of steps to follow during these change disputes", which sound as though you're decreeing how the community should run instead of letting it run itself."
      Maybe I'm suggesting this policy change because our constant usage of "make the changes now and discuss it later" isn't the proper way to do things? If the way the community runs itself doesn't work, then something has to be changed. I've simply suggested something to make the community run better.

        Loading editor
    • "It means that the discussion has ended. " As I mentioned before, I made my claims and was done. My side of the discussion had ended. You had made your arguments against all of mine as well. I had no other arguments to make other than suggesting your's were not adequate to persuade me. At that point, you declared yourself the winner because, as you saw it, your arguments trumped mine. That seems like an end of a discussion to me, but instead of allowing others to decide, you made the decision yourself.

      It still seems like you're doing that in fact in the very way you declare things to be true. You suggested a policy change because "our constant usage of 'make changes now and discuss later' isn't proper." You are still deciding what is proper and what is not, instead of letting the admins and the other communities weighing in decide. Just because you want the community to run a certain way, doesn't mean it should. Many wikia communities have many different ways of operating. The decision, ultimately, is an admin one (even if it means, as sometimes occurs, users create their own wikia on the same subject), although generally it's encouraged for the community to weigh in as well. In this case, it seemed you were acting against the will of the users weighing and the admin.

        Loading editor
    • "You had made your arguments against all of mine as well."
      How do you know that I was finished responding to the things you said before I got blocked? Arguments aren't about both sides stating their opinion, and then not being allowed to respond to each others' points.

      "At that point, you declared yourself the winner"
      "but instead of allowing others to decide, you made the decision yourself."
      I did not declare myself the winner; I declared the discussion not fully resolved yet. I did not revert the edit because I thought I had won, but because it was not fully resolved yet.

      "The decision, ultimately, is an admin one"
      I said that admins can make mistakes as well.

      ""our constant usage of 'make changes now and discuss later' isn't proper. You are still deciding what is proper and what is not, instead of letting the admins and the other communities weighing in decide. Just because you want the community to run a certain way, doesn't mean it should.""
      I believe that our constant usage of 'make changes now and discuss later' isn't proper. I believe that it's not good for the wiki. I'm letting people respond to this post I made; I posted the suggested policy change, and I didn't write it down or anything right away, and I'm waiting for more people to respond to it. I also doubt that any user or admin here would say that it's not a good idea to discuss something and then add in the changes.

      "The decision, ultimately, is an admin one (even if it means, as sometimes occurs, users create their own wikia on the same subject)"
      On this wiki, regular users have the right to determine how the wiki runs as well. Just because a user isn't an admin doesn't mean their ideas on how to run the wiki should be arbitrarily ignored and discounted.

      As for the revert though, I'm not entirely sure if I was justified in my decision to do so, and I'm not proud that I did it and caused a whole deal of drama to occur because of it.

        Loading editor
    • I'm glad that this is finally being dealt with. I'm sorry for butting in but I have some two cents that I'd like to share regarding your character SMASHFan. I have seen nothing but distaste for you from the majority of the members of this Wiki, which you should take as a sign (the whole walks and talks like a duck thing). You continually display an attitude reminiscent of a child who doesn't get his way. You want these exact figures but they're not always going to be there. Maybe if you live in Black & White Land that could be the case but you don't. You live in a world and within a community of normal everyday people yet you insist on enforcing your own brand of order that just doesn't mesh well with the rest of us.

      See you never stop arguing. The only time I've ever seen a discussion with you end is when someone finally caves to you because they're sick of the back and forth. You rarely if ever budge, you're a classic pencil pusher and pencil pushers halt progress. On top of all that, for someone with the title Chat Moderator you are incredibly rude, regularly referring to other people's ideas/arguments/decisions as dumb or some variation of that word. And while you say you're up for other people attempting to change your mind I have never once seen anyone convince you that your way isn't the right way. You're the worst kind of conversationalist, one who doesn't shut up.

      You need to learn to take the hint and adjust your behavior accordingly. Even when you are reprimanded for your behavior I don't see anything in your responses claiming real responsibility for your behavior. "I'm sorry BUT" is never the way to go. But I do have to say I am loving this. Because I couldn't have predicted more accurately your response to reprimand. Have a little humility, take your lumps and be a better person for it.

        Loading editor
    • Once again, the only reason you guys are mad at me is because I don't agree with your ideas, and you are mad that something doesn't go your way. When I lost the argument over the character portals, I didn't go trying to attack the people who were against me to try and get it my way, like you keep doing. In your long post, you once again didn't provide any legitimate explanation of any bad behavior.

      Arguing is not something to be prohibited on this wiki, and you can't go telling someone to stop arguing because you don't like it and you think it's rude. Calling someone's ideas dumb and stupid is not behavior to be discouraged (You're basically calling my way of thinking dumb and stupid right now). Continuing your argument to try to support your case is not prohibited either, even though you may not like it. If you're mad that you lost an argument, you can suck it up and get over with it, you cannot go calling your opponent "rude" because you're mad that you lost. If you don't like that I'm refusing to change to your way of thinking, what you're trying to do right now isn't helping your case.

      A child that was upset because they didn't get their way would refuse to shut up and continue to scream and cry and call names, and in a similar way, you're continuing to get worked up and try to call me "rude" without actually responding to anything I said. Once again, you tried to call me rude by saying the same exact reasons you said earlier, that I already told you were not prohibited actions. If you are mad that you lost an argument, you can suck it up and get over with it.

        Loading editor
    • You continue to prove just how buffoonish you are. Please keep going. I'm loving this.

        Loading editor
    • I'm actually glad that SMASH is back. He can go back to prevent us from putting in false information or stuff that isn't official. He just trying to stop us from making stupid mistakes on Smashpedia. Besides, I don't like unofficial things, unless it's beta, like the beta version of Super Smash Bros. for Wii U and 3DS.

      A child that was upset because they didn't get their way would refuse to shut up and continue to scream and cry and call names, and in a similar way, you're continuing to get worked up and try to call me "rude" without actually responding to anything I said. Once again, you tried to call me rude by saying the same exact reasons you said earlier, that I already told you were not prohibited actions. If you are mad that you lost an argument, you can suck it up and get over with it.

      If you lose an argument, then you lost the argument. I lost an argument before, It's like losing 1P Mode on Smash Bros. If you go on with an argument and you don't know what else to say, stop. Arguing about something off-topic to what you're arguing about will make it worse.

        Loading editor
    • Now you're just being purely disruptive. You continue to not respond to anything I said. If you're just going to keep going on like this to try to get revenge or whatever, you should not be saying anything at all. I get that you don't like arguing and when your ideas aren't approved or things like that (I don't like that either), but you'll have to deal with it, because those are not prohibited on here.

        Loading editor
    • I am dealing with it. I thought that what you were trying to say. No revenge. As a matter of fact, why revenge?

        Loading editor
    • Wellens
      Wellens removed this reply because:
      whoops
      20:45, January 20, 2014
      This reply has been removed
    • This is the problem I'm talking about. We've told you before what we don't like and what our problems are. The issue is that you either refuse to accept it, try to dispute it, or demand cold hard facts to prove you erred. It doesn't always work that way pal. You very clearly, very obviously do things that upset this community. We've told you why we don't like you or take issue with you. But you continue to fight it. Just suck it up and realize that you have a bad reputation because of yourself, not because of us and adjust your behavior accordingly.

        Loading editor
    • Smash, honestly you can go back and read your message wall and me and countless other users have asked you to change. When you say we won't give up when we "lost the argument" then you haven't given up your old ways when you have been asked.

        Loading editor
    • @Dreb: I wasn't responding to what you said. I was responding to what Wellens said.

      Wellens, I'm not going to respond to what you are saying since nothing productive is going to come out of this.

        Loading editor
    • Oh, my bad SMASH

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.