User talk:WrestlerHelper1

From Yugipedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Assumptions[edit]

Please don't make assumptions that each season equates to 1 year's difference. While it's true that some of our current age listings lack citations, we'd prefer not making any further unsubstantiated edits to them. --UltimateKuriboh (talkcontribs) 17:07, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Thunder Dragonduo[edit]

Please do not make a stunt like that ever again. Nothing prevented you from moving the page if everyone else forgot. --XBrain130™エックスブレーン130」 11:10, 11 October 2018 (EDT)

Jet Warrior[edit]

What's your rationale for it being related to "Junk"? --UltimateKuriboh (talkcontribs) 22:13, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

i'm not wrestler.
but Jet Synchron directly supports junk, and Jet Warrior requires jet synchron as material, so i think it checks out. • Falminar (talkcontribs) 07:31, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

RE:Warrior of Zera[edit]

If membership for a "The Sanctuary in the Sky" series is dictated by the card's characteristic of mentioning the Field Spell's name in its text, then what characteristic is required for a card to be "related" (and not a member)? --UltimateKuriboh (talkcontribs) 07:05, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

since i guess the discussion for that page is being taken to here, and not the card's own talk page.
i agree that warrior of zera counts as related to the sanctuary series, both because it's a prior form of a card that definitely is, and because while it doesn't mention The Sanctuary with caps, it does mention a "sanctuary" in its text, same wording as the card's name (both in english and japanese), which given the rest of the flavor text is pretty heavily implied to mean that sanctuary.
and i think that's reason enough to list it as related to archfiends too. • Falminar (talkcontribs) 07:31, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Furthermore, I noticed you never addressed my previous question on your page. If you have no rationale for that, I'll revert your edit there, because I still don't understand what makes "Jet Warrior" related to "Junk". If you ignore my most recent question too (7 days from now is enough for a response), and I end up reverting your edit again on the "Warrior of Zera" page (if you don't respond), and you decide to continue this edit-war by reverting with rationale instead of talking it out via Talk Pages, be aware that such behavior would be met with a block.
The reason I'm saying this is because the edit history for "Warrior of Zera" is already clogged up enough, with your constant reverts. This should also be a warning to not pursue edit-wars with users - talk it out via Talk Pages and/or inform an admin about the edit-war. --UltimateKuriboh (talkcontribs) 07:16, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

i feel like the double-revert on your part also counts as participating in edit warring tho. • Falminar (talkcontribs) 07:31, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
I added an argument with my first revert, and added more details with the second revert, and expected that to be sufficient for the page to remain stable. I was wrong, and worse, the user reverted using their same argument with minimal elaboration. I didn't revert with the expectation that this was going to be reverted. --UltimateKuriboh (talkcontribs) 00:56, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
basically every revert tries to be final, doesn't it? each step of an edit war adds some argument trying to convince the other user to agree (and back off from the page). all sides want the page to remain stable, but they want it to be stable on a different version.
that's how wars happen. i think the first time should be enough cue to take it to the talk page. • Falminar (talkcontribs) 01:12, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Read the wikipedia link I already linked here. I don't need a response, I'm just waiting for WrestlerHelper1. --UltimateKuriboh (talkcontribs) 01:18, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
:/
well if you want to cite wikipedia at me, "The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is perfectly possible to engage in an edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so." i think that rule is best applied to a two-user edit war. but if two users make 3 back-and-forth reverts, and then a third one joins in with 2 back-and-forth reverts on the exact same material, i'd say the third one is still clearly edit warring.
other useful quotes from that page are "An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether those edits are justifiable. Claiming "My edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is not a valid defense." and "Once it is clear there is a dispute, avoid relying solely on edit summaries and discuss the matter on the associated talk page".
but i guess someone else's talk page is a poor place for an administrative complaint. • Falminar (talkcontribs) 02:22, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Reverts[edit]

If your edit has been reverted, please don't just add it back with no explanation. The revert will usually include a reason why the edit was undone. If you're reinstating an edit that has already been reverted you must address why you disagree with that reason in your new edit summary. Or even better, you can start a talk page section explaining why you disagree with the reason your edit was reverted.

If you just completely ignore the person who reverted you and put the edit back with no explanation, all you're doing is unconstructive edit warring. --SnorlaxMonster 10:51, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Voice actors[edit]

If you don't insert sources for a voice actor voicing a certain character(s), those edits will be reverted. It does not matter how similar a voice is to a voice actor, as this wiki is littered with examples of people being wrong in their voice actor guesses. --UltimateKuriboh (talkcontribs) 19:37, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Images[edit]

Could you avoid adding "File:" in the image parameter of CardTable? It servers no purpose whatsoever. --XBrain130™エックスブレーン130」 12:46, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Once again, as stated above ^. This is non-negotiable, as this is standard formatting for this wiki. Given your history with admins, you'll be blocked from editing the next time you do it. --UltimateKuriboh (talkcontribs) 04:32, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Edit-warring[edit]

Given that you've already been warned once about edit-warring, and you've still continued to do it (with no variation on your argument; for example, actually try going into specific details on why you are correct), this merits a block. Note: It's generally a sign that you are edit-warring if multiple named users have reverted your edit. --UltimateKuriboh (talkcontribs) 06:44, 22 October 2021 (UTC)