FANDOM

A FANDOM user
  Loading editor
  • In case you didn't see it, I am reposting what I said below: Arquetion, I see that you deleted this thread originally. This was a good faith effort to attempt to understand why you were undoing him (without comment on why in your edit summary, I might add). Then, when he attempted to actually contact you, you deleted this and marked it as spam.

    So now I want you to answer to me - why did you not even bother to respond to this user, and why are you undoing all of this edits? This isn't acceptable behavior on this wiki. It's not welcoming to new editors, it's not in the spirit of collaboration, and when you're not even hearing people out it's a stretch for me to say that you're editing in good faith.


    And if you did already see it, to be clear, this is a serious enough offense that a ban is being considered. My question wasn't rhetorical - I am actually looking for you to justify your actions.

      Loading editor
    • View all 8 replies
    • 15 weeks seems excessive to me, I expected a month or 2 weeks.

        Loading editor
    • What you did was essentially to harm the wiki because you decided to discriminate against new users. That's bad on several counts - it includes the targeted undoing of a new user (at the time he came to my wall, you had actually undone EVERY edit by this user), the damage done to the pages as a result of your actions, and the dismissal of genuine attempts to work collaboratively with you in good faith. Fifteen weeks in the number we collectively agreed on.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • Hi,



    I added a couple of nominations for deletion to articles which either had no actual users or which were superfluous combinations of powers which are already extant on the wiki. You reverted my nominations. It's inappropriate to revert nominations for deletion that are not obviously in bad faith. If you disagree with the nomination, the appropriate page to discuss it is the article's talk page. I am going to re-nominate the articles. If you disagree with the nominations, again, discuss it on  the talk page.



    Thanks!

      Loading editor
    • I also notice that you removed a factual correction without comment. Again, if you disagree with an edit, please discuss it on the talk page or bring up a souce that supports the inclusion of a user before reverting.

        Loading editor
    • Arquetion, I see that you deleted this thread originally. This was a good faith effort to attempt to understand why you were undoing him (without comment on why in your edit summary, I might add). Then, when he attempted to actually contact you, you deleted this and marked it as spam.

      So now I want you to answer to me - why did you not even bother to respond to this user, and why are you undoing all of this edits? This isn't acceptable behavior on this wiki. It's not welcoming to new editors, it's not in the spirit of collaboration, and when you're not even hearing people out it's a stretch for me to say that you're editing in good faith.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • Currently there are no other true examples in fiction.

    As every other example I have seen falls under Supernatural Reflexes instead.

      Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • mangahere or mangakakalot

      Loading editor
  • If you are implying that consciousness pertaining to awareness originates in the brain, then I am inclined to agree with you. If you are implying that consciousness pertaining to the self/identity originates in the brain, then that is not a fact. That is an opinion held by materialists/physicalists that has yet to be proven to be true and has yet to have any sufficient evidence supporting it. Correlation between the mind and brain does not mean causation.

      Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • Actually it does-

    2877-3 is a piece of rainbow-colored metal that causes surrounding matter to act strangely, forming compounds that shouldn't exist.

    I'm not sure why you keep arguing about my edits. I have always proven they belong on the page in the end.

      Loading editor
    • SCP-173 is actually the most recent reincarnation of The High Golem, a creature unintentionally created by the First Murder (ie cain and abel).

      Its stated that no matter how many times its destroyed, it will simply come back in a different form and that there is no real way to ever be rid of it.

      Even the destruction of reality means nothing to it. It will always come back.

      Please stop removing users when you don't know the backstory. I already did the research and found this out.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • Um, buddy, if you're going to remove my edits, the least you could do is provide a reason.

      Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • Much later in the story, after he became a creator god in order to be able to marry Aze.

    All his powers transcended their previous rules/limitations. Being able to do things he couldn't do with them before based on how they were defined.

    It happened in the web novel.

    I already explained it on the page itself.

      Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • Earlier, I removed Tracy Strauss from Tactile Telepathy, which I explained in full detail she never in-canon. 

    Twice.

    But you seem adamantly opposed removing her name from the page. Will you please explain why she would stay?

      Loading editor
  • "It was an All-in-One and One-in-All of limitless being and self—not merely a thing of one Space-Time continuum, but allied to the ultimate animating essence of existence's whole unbounded sweep—the last, utter sweep which has no confines and which outreaches fancy and mathematics alike."

    Age has nothing to do with it. If the nameless mist was the all in one, Lovecraft or another author would have said so.

      Loading editor
See archived talk page
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.