User talk:SOTO: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
Could you please do something about [[User:Connorguy]] and [[User:DoneNothingWrong]]. They continuously insert false information based on speculation and they are consistently edit warring as a result. I have tried multiple times now to warn them, but they continue the tirade. The "speculation" was originally inserted by [[User:Cynical Classicist]]. --[[User:Danniesen|DCLM]] [[User talk:Danniesen|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 22:38, March 26, 2020 (UTC) | Could you please do something about [[User:Connorguy]] and [[User:DoneNothingWrong]]. They continuously insert false information based on speculation and they are consistently edit warring as a result. I have tried multiple times now to warn them, but they continue the tirade. The "speculation" was originally inserted by [[User:Cynical Classicist]]. --[[User:Danniesen|DCLM]] [[User talk:Danniesen|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 22:38, March 26, 2020 (UTC) | ||
:I did not originally post the information. Someone else did, and once you removed it another user added it back. I, a third user, believed that the information was valid enough to be on the page (and since then a fourth user has also contributed). This puts you at odds with several members - if you felt that the information was wrong / false you should have started a discussion on the talk page (like I suggested). However, you continued to repeatedly remove the information despite being asked to stop. [[User:Connorguy|Connorguy]] [[User talk:Connorguy|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 22:43, March 26, 2020 (UTC) | :I did not originally post the information. Someone else did, and once you removed it another user added it back. I, a third user, believed that the information was valid enough to be on the page (and since then a fourth user has also contributed). This puts you at odds with several members - if you felt that the information was wrong / false you should have started a discussion on the talk page (like I suggested). However, you continued to repeatedly remove the information despite being asked to stop. [[User:Connorguy|Connorguy]] [[User talk:Connorguy|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 22:43, March 26, 2020 (UTC) | ||
:: Incorrect. The only 3 users who consistently inserted it were all new members unfamiliar with a large portion of how this wiki works; that's you, DoneNothingWrong and Cynical Classicist. The only other user, who apparently don't realize this is pure speculation (and therefore not allowed), was [[User:NateBumber]], who also simply expanded upon this. Also you apparently didn't read my comment above, which even said who the original "creator" of the content was. I'm not the one supposed to start up a discussion on whether this shouldn't be there. It's you people who need to start a discussion on whether it SHOULD be there. -[[User:Danniesen|DCLM]] [[User talk:Danniesen|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 22:50, March 26, 2020 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 22:50, 26 March 2020
To save you the trouble, just call me SOTO.
Also, please sign your messages. Thanks.
× SmallerOnTheOutside (☎/✍/↯)
If you've come here to request a simple, uncontroversial page move, please consider using {{speedy rename}} instead. This puts all rename requests into a neat little chart that all admin can see and work on.
Audio!!
Would you tell me why you dab the story Revenge of the Nestene as a short story? It's clearly an audio. --DCLM ☎ 21:44, March 26, 2020 (UTC)
Vandalism
Could you please do something about User:Connorguy and User:DoneNothingWrong. They continuously insert false information based on speculation and they are consistently edit warring as a result. I have tried multiple times now to warn them, but they continue the tirade. The "speculation" was originally inserted by User:Cynical Classicist. --DCLM ☎ 22:38, March 26, 2020 (UTC)
- I did not originally post the information. Someone else did, and once you removed it another user added it back. I, a third user, believed that the information was valid enough to be on the page (and since then a fourth user has also contributed). This puts you at odds with several members - if you felt that the information was wrong / false you should have started a discussion on the talk page (like I suggested). However, you continued to repeatedly remove the information despite being asked to stop. Connorguy ☎ 22:43, March 26, 2020 (UTC)
- Incorrect. The only 3 users who consistently inserted it were all new members unfamiliar with a large portion of how this wiki works; that's you, DoneNothingWrong and Cynical Classicist. The only other user, who apparently don't realize this is pure speculation (and therefore not allowed), was User:NateBumber, who also simply expanded upon this. Also you apparently didn't read my comment above, which even said who the original "creator" of the content was. I'm not the one supposed to start up a discussion on whether this shouldn't be there. It's you people who need to start a discussion on whether it SHOULD be there. -DCLM ☎ 22:50, March 26, 2020 (UTC)
