User talk:199.94.74.239: Difference between revisions
From MediaWiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
mNo edit summary |
m →AHM #15 |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
If you keep up the reverts when people have explained why your edits are being overturned, you're just going to get yourself banned. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 19:23, 11 October 2009 (EDT) | If you keep up the reverts when people have explained why your edits are being overturned, you're just going to get yourself banned. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 19:23, 11 October 2009 (EDT) | ||
:OK, I'll stop. While I still don't agree that it's an error, I'll stop changing the article. This is the first thing even approaching a rational explanation for the reverting of my edits that I've heard. Thank you, at least, for that. | |||
:Can you see where I was coming from, though?--[[Special:Contributions/199.94.74.239|199.94.74.239]] 19:46, 11 October 2009 (EDT) | |||
::Well, you already got some explanation on the matter the last time you brought it up on the AHM #15 talk page, and Nu-Priest explained the rationale in his edit summary while reverting your revert, so I dispute that bit. | |||
::And no, I don't see where you're coming from. It's an error--or at least an oddity--based on what we know, and we don't refrain from pointing such things out because they ''might'' get explained later (especially in a series that has a track record of never explaining such contradictions). | |||
::I just figured I'd spell all this out so as not to read another go-round of baseless whining on the IDW forums again. I'm going for clarity here, not for being sympathetic to the fanboys who piss and moan because we dare to point out the mistakes in AHM. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 20:03, 11 October 2009 (EDT) | |||
Latest revision as of 00:03, 12 October 2009
Please go back and re-read IDW's Transformers comics in their entirety before disputing our edits. --FFN 06:46, 25 September 2009 (EDT)
AHM #15
[edit]If something makes no sense based on what we know up until this point, it's notable as being unusual and contradictory. If it later actually gets explained, then it'll come off. So chill. Pointing out continuity contradictions might be nitpicky, but it's not close-minded or thick-headed, sorry. We're just as nitpicky about everything else, so I don't see why we should give AHM special treatment.
If you keep up the reverts when people have explained why your edits are being overturned, you're just going to get yourself banned. --Jeysie 19:23, 11 October 2009 (EDT)
- OK, I'll stop. While I still don't agree that it's an error, I'll stop changing the article. This is the first thing even approaching a rational explanation for the reverting of my edits that I've heard. Thank you, at least, for that.
- Can you see where I was coming from, though?--199.94.74.239 19:46, 11 October 2009 (EDT)
- Well, you already got some explanation on the matter the last time you brought it up on the AHM #15 talk page, and Nu-Priest explained the rationale in his edit summary while reverting your revert, so I dispute that bit.
- And no, I don't see where you're coming from. It's an error--or at least an oddity--based on what we know, and we don't refrain from pointing such things out because they might get explained later (especially in a series that has a track record of never explaining such contradictions).
- I just figured I'd spell all this out so as not to read another go-round of baseless whining on the IDW forums again. I'm going for clarity here, not for being sympathetic to the fanboys who piss and moan because we dare to point out the mistakes in AHM. --Jeysie 20:03, 11 October 2009 (EDT)
