Talk:Asuka Langley Soryu/Asuka's ethnicity (archive)

Rather than have Folken once again try to "game the system" and then accuse me of being domineering when I try to revert his mistakes, who else here honestly prefers what he did over what was here before?

1-it is not "Original Research" it is clarifying what was a confusing point

2-I don't care if I've "hurt your feelings", but...yes, the explanation you substituted wasn't proper English and just said "one quarter German and Japanese" etc.....if I don't like it I should write it better? Yikes. Folken I'm not going to help you in defacing an article

3-once again, you're doing surprisingly little "actual work" but simply quoting rules and "gaming the system" without contributing much of any real value

4-Folken, I'm not going to hand you a crown for quoting rules out of context for your own benefit, nor am I taking such threats seriously. You would use the letter of the law to destroy the spirit of the law.

5-Folken, how many times can I say this? I'll be more direct: you are not an Administrator, and have no real authority or "sticking power" to maintain a revert. I'm going to revert your awful changes, and let me guess; you're going to revert them back and claim "revert war"? Yikes. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 13:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not "gaming the system". Please explain what you mean by that instead of throwing random bad faith accusation. You cannot revert "mistakes" as I haven't done any, contrary to you. Or again, please prove what mistakes I would have committed, instead of blindly reverting and justifying your actions with unsubstanciated and gratuitous accusations.

1) No, making things up about the never-mentionned nationality or appearance of never-seen characters, or about the supposed lives of characters prior to the series (the dual-citizenship) that are never mentionned, is original research. There is no need of "clarifying" with OR a point that is self-explanatory.

2) Again, your words are not the word of God. You can use all the excuses you want, like "improper english", it still won't work as you are unable to prove anything you're saying. And yes, you are going to rewrite instead of remove. Otherwise, it means your "proper english" is just an unsubstanciated pretext. If you refuse to reword, then it means there's nothing to reword and that it's already proper english.

Your bad faith accusation of "defacing" are considered as a personal attack. You have now been warned.

3) "Actual work" includes getting rid of unsuitable edits like yours. And yes, quoting rule is an important thing in WP as rules define how contributors must work on WP. So yes, correcting the edits of users like you who don't give a damn about the rules and make unsuitable edits is a huge "actual" work. Also, you still fail to explain what "gaming the system" means...Don't throw random accusations.

4) "Quoting rules out of context" seems to be your favorite attack. But please explain how what I said would be "out of context". You're quick in accusing and insulting, not in actually proving your point...And yes, I'm serious.

5) I'll be clear, VVVVV, you are not an Administrator, and have no real authority or "sticking power" to maintain a revert. The thing is, you're not going to revert anything, unless you've forgotten your little speech about "consensus" and "community effort"...I have not see you discussing anything about content or asking anyone's opinion. Sure, you've stated all the hatred you have for me, but it doesn't count as consensus discussion.

So, to sum it up, you accuse me of "being an admin" because I oppose to your edits, but you don't have any problem with mass reverting without any justification ? enough of this.Folken de Fanel (talk) 14:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Cooler heads prevailing: yes, I have indeed not changed your reversion, and I will wait for what everyone else has to say. (I didn't mean that last part about "what if I change it back?" literally..nevermind). but on to point 2: specifically, your profile says that English is not your primary language, and you added in a sentence that didn't make sense; leading me to suspect that you are honestly mistaken. Not in grammar or something, I mean it was confusing. Why should I help you make a reversion I disagree with in the first place? And if it's because you're quoting a literal translation of a Red Cross Book excerpt....Folken you honestly know that the literal translation is choppy and needs to be smoothed out. These aren't "my" edits Folken: the article as it exists now is the synthesis of what a lot of people have contributed to it over time. While I've contributed alot, yes, many other people also made this article what it is today, and not just my writing new info, but also in the many deliberations of what should be included or not. I'm upset not that "my" edits were removed, but that after many months I think the article was in pretty good form, and there was no need for you to revert what everyone else finally synthesized here. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 15:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

It's no secret that I'm not a native english speaker. I'm aware of my limits in handling english language. However I still can't see what would be so "improper" in what I wrote, considering the formulation is exactly what native english speakers could read on a website made by a native english speaker.

Maybe the formulation wasn't clear enough (since someone else corrected it already), but I still don't see it as "improper". This goes back to the difference between a neutral comment on my edits, and a bad-faith attack on my person. I hope you'll remember all this in our future exchanges (because no, I won't "go away" and I predict many more clashes like that).

Concerning the following part of your message...These are things I already talked about weeks ago. Obviously you didn't bother reading what I wrote, and you still haven't read any of the Wikipedia documentation for contributors.

WP is a free and open encyclopedia, that anyone can edit at any time. None of its articles are ever finished, they can always be corrected, or deeply reworked.

It's not my problem if unappropriate edits were made before I decided to modify the article. There has not been any consensus discussion that had approved your section, but anyway I'll note that even consensus can change. As you can see, WP is based on flexibility.

And I think I have argued enough, I have explained enough why I considered your section had to be replaced. Honestly, I have not mentionned any personal problem against you or any other questionable motivation, I only remarked that rules had been ignored during the writing of that section, and thus it needed to go. And I really don't see what could prevent me to remove such obviously unsuitable edits (not even your pride).

So, to finish with all that, it is not up to you to decide which article can be edited and which cannot be, or which contributor can edit which article. Because these articles do not belong to you. They belong to Wikipedia, and as I'm a part of Wikipedia, I'm also entitled to modify this article.

You've also the right not to agree with certain edits. In that case, to enforce your opinion, then you need to justify it and to explain what aspect of the rules could be against the modification. However, you do not have the right to prevent edits from being made just because you feel the article belongs to you and that you think your contributions are just perfect and don't need improvement.

You have no right to declare an article closed to further modifications just because you like it the way it is.

What really strikes me in your behavior, is that you actually don't give a damn about the content. Not once since you came to this talk page you bothered to argue about the actual content being discussed, nor tried to show if the rules would allow it. No, what mattered for you was only to find ways to assert your domination on articles. You're not fighting to justify or find qualities in the content, you're just fighting for a right to control articles, to maintain your version as the definite and perfect one, and to prevent people you don't like to touch articles.

This is completely anti-wikipedian. So read No ownership of articles and please stop disrupting WP. If I have to go through a dispute resolution process to make you stop, then I will do it next time you revert me again.

And as I don't see any content discussion here, I consider this debate finished and I won't waste my time answering your claims of ownership.Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying its perfect, no article ever is, and there are still tweaks to be done: but Folken...you have contributed little if anything of value to this; you're just cutting out useful contributions other people have made and then you are claiming ownership by unilaterally declaring previous work to be breaking rules that they really don't. Learn to work with the group consensus, Folken, and stop trying to game the system. Please make useful contributions. You've already been temporarily banned 3 times for violating the 3 Revert Rule, and unilaterally making Reverts like this once again is only digging yourself into a deeper hole. You're not making things easy for yourself.

Back to the topic at hand: what does everyone else think about the "ethnicity" section?--Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 23:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)