<div class="quote"><i> <p>Samaru163 wrote: Hello there </p><p>I'm saying it <i>looks</i> like you are making detrimental edits. You always seem to need the last word; you are arguing minutia points, and when people try to explain why these edits are not worth fighting over, you make a big deal about it. </p><p>Look at the lengh of this page and the other ones we have spoken on. Is all of this really worth it for a few colons and semi-colons? No. Everyone on this wiki wants to improve it and the articles, but we can't do that when someone chooses to make edits that the majority have already decided were not problems in the first place. The semi-colon and colon debate was already agreed upon, so that's the end of discussion. Az-Zur had to edit the Rithmere article four times because you wouldn't listen to him. </p><p>Once again, if you truly want to improve the wiki, make changes that are worthwile. Listen to what everyone has to say about your edits—Az-Zure and CreativeDream have been trying to help you. If these debates keep taking up time, effort, and keystrokes, then it would be best for you to just walk away. </p> </i></div>
<p>"I'm saying it <i>looks</i> like you are making detrimental edits.": But that doesn't mean I am. "You always seem to need the last word; you are arguing minutia points, and when people try to explain why these edits are not worth fighting over, you make a big deal about it.": "You always seem to need the last word...", not true. "...you are arguing minutia points,...", not so minutia that other people don't seem to have a problem for some reason or other. "...and when people try to explain why these edits are not worth fighting over, you make a big deal about it.", in other words I should just accept that if there is a disagreement that everyone else is always right and I am always wrong. </p><p>"Look at the length of this page and the other ones we have spoken on. Is all of this really worth it for a few colons and semi-colons? No. Everyone on this wiki wants to improve it and the articles, but we can't do that when someone chooses to make edits that the majority have already decided were not problems in the first place. The semi-colon and colon debate was already agreed upon, so that's the end of discussion. Az-Zur had to edit the Rithmere article four times because you wouldn't listen to him.": "Everyone on this wiki wants to improve it and the articles, but we can't do that when someone chooses to make edits that the majority have already decided were not problems in the first place.", just because the majority agree upon something does not mean that they are right about it. "The semi-colon and colon debate was already agreed upon, so that's the end of discussion.", I was told that a colon is used before a list of items, a quotation or an explanation. But when I use it in such fashion I am being berated for such. "Az-Zur had to edit the Rithmere article four times because you wouldn't listen to him.", there is a difference between not listening and not agreeing with someone. </p><p>"Once again, if you truly want to improve the wiki, make changes that are worthwhile. Listen to what everyone has to say about your edits—Az-Zure and CreativeDream have been trying to help you. If these debates keep taking up time, effort, and keystrokes, then it would be best for you to just walk away.": "Once again, if you truly want to improve the wiki, make changes that are worthwhile.", "worthwhile" is a subjective term. "Listen to what everyone has to say about your edits—Az-Zure and CreativeDream have been trying to help you.", listening and agreeing are not one and the same. "If these debates keep taking up time, effort, and keystrokes, then it would be best for you to just walk away.", would you do the same? </p>

<p>I am really willing to help you, I still am but please be honest with yourself and look at you how are acting. It is no coincidence that other people respond to you in the way they do. People are fed up with your behaviour. </p><p>Look everything in your eyes is basically subjective, which means that we will never reach a conclusion. In your opinion everything can be argued about and then argued about a hundred times more. It just brings us nowhere in the end! A discussion is great in my eyes because it can lead to great results and changes. However, you need to realise when a discussion is over because a majority agrees on something. You can either accept it or ... well, leave. </p><p>I am offering you my help once again but I want you to reconsider your attitude. Otherwise this is a story with no end. Do you understand this Jdogno7? </p>

<div class="quote"><i> <p>Creative Dream wrote: I am really willing to help you, I still am but please be honest with yourself and look at you how are acting. It is no coincidence that other people respond to you in the way they do. People are fed up with your behavior. </p><p>Look everything in your eyes is basically subjective, which means that we will never reach a conclusion. In your opinion everything can be argued about and then argued about a hundred times more. It just brings us nowhere in the end! A discussion is great in my eyes because it can lead to great results and changes. However, you need to realise when a discussion is over because a majority agrees on something. You can either accept it or ... well, leave. </p><p>I am offering you my help once again but I want you to reconsider your attitude. Otherwise this is a story with no end. Do you understand this Jdogno7? </p> </i></div>
<p>"I am really willing to help you, I still am but please be honest with yourself and look at you how are acting.": "...you how are acting.", do you mean "how you are acting."? If so, in terms of what? "It is no coincidence that other people respond to you in the way they do.": What do you mean? "People are fed up with your behavior.": What behavior is that? </p><p>"Look everything in your eyes is basically subjective, which means that we will never reach a conclusion.": All I am trying to say is that in certain cases there is not necessarily a definite right or wrong answer. "In your opinion everything can be argued about and then argued about a hundred times more.": You can argue with something that has flawed logic. "It just brings us nowhere in the end!": It does if people are unwilling to prove their points or admit they are wrong when they can't. "A discussion is great in my eyes because it can lead to great results and changes.": True. Assuming people can be humble enough to admit when they are unable to back up their view or admit they were wrong. I do not exclude myself from this. "However, you need to realise when a discussion is over because a majority agrees on something.": There is a difference between a majority consensus of opinion where the subject of discussion is open ended and a case where there is a definitive right and wrong answer. In the latter case, majority opinion does not make it right. "You can either accept it or ... well, leave.": That sounds like a threat to agree with the majority view or suffer the consequences. </p><p>"I am offering you my help once again but I want you to reconsider your attitude.": In terms of what? I am just trying to understand not be aggressive or defiantly challenging. "Otherwise this is a story with no end.": True. If people can't be humble enough to accept a flawless argument when they see it. "Do you understand this Jdogno7?": Assuming I can get clarification for what I am uncertain of. </p>

<p>Of course, in some cases it is true that the majority is wrong but I do not recall this happening in any discussion on this wiki about your (recent) edits. Then again if an admin makes a certain decision then in some cases you cannot argue against this because admin have certain rights. The only option in that case is to accept it and move on. </p><p>What I meant is that you can argue about every word in a sentence but that is going to lead to wasting hours on destructive conflict. There is simply no point and in such cases a decision is made by an admin and that is it. I am not trying to sound rude but the vast majority on this wiki has little to no problems with editing correctly but the majority of your (small) edits leads to an issue. Don't you think that is a bit conspicious? </p><p>Also, you are really perfectionist when it comes to editing which is not always desired. </p>

<div class="quote"><i> <p>Creative Dream wrote: Of course, in some cases it is true that the majority is wrong but I do not recall this happening in any discussion on this wiki about your (recent) edits. Then again if an admin makes a certain decision then in some cases you cannot argue against this because admin have certain rights. The only option in that case is to accept it and move on. </p><p>What I meant is that you can argue about every word in a sentence but that is going to lead to wasting hours on destructive conflict. There is simply no point and in such cases a decision is made by an admin and that is it. I am not trying to sound rude but the vast majority on this wiki has little to no problems with editing correctly but the majority of your (small) edits leads to an issue. Don't you think that is a bit conspicuous? </p><p>Also, you are really perfectionist when it comes to editing which is not always desired. </p> </i></div>
<p>"What I meant is that you can argue about every word in a sentence but that is going to lead to wasting hours on destructive conflict. There is simply no point and in such cases a decision is made by an admin and that is it. I am not trying to sound rude but the vast majority on this wiki has little to no problems with editing correctly but the majority of your (small) edits leads to an issue. Don't you think that is a bit conspicuous?": "What I meant is that you can argue about every word in a sentence but that is going to lead to wasting hours on destructive conflict.", how does a disagreement about wording necessarily lead to destructive conflict? "There is simply no point and in such cases a decision is made by an admin and that is it.", in some cases there is a point to be made. "I am not trying to sound rude but the vast majority on this wiki has little to no problems with editing correctly but the majority of your (small) edits leads to an issue.", how am I not editing "correctly"? "Don't you think that is a bit conspicuous?", in what sense? </p><p>"Also, you are really perfectionist when it comes to editing which is not always desired.": Why is it not always desired? </p>

<p>It is not always desired because there is a lot of other work to do instead of making small grammar changes that are not even really necessary. Okay, Jdogno7 have you not seen what happened when you openend the discussion about the fire beads article? That is what a call a destructive conflict. </p><p>All of your edits so far have led to issues while the majority of people edit pages with no issues. Now, if you still do not get it, read that sentence again. This has been mentioned before but maybe and just maybe you should reconsider your editing style. You can also opt to add more information to an article in need of information instead of just making really small (undesired) grammar/punctation edits. </p><p>And Jdogno7, I should really watch out if I were you. People are trying really hard to work with you but I can tell you that there is little to no patience left. It is your attitude, I could lecture you about constructive/destructive conflicts and how it works and were it goes wrong with you. But don't you get it already? </p>

<div class="quote"><i> <p>Creative Dream wrote: It is not always desired because there is a lot of other work to do instead of making small grammar changes that are not even really necessary. Okay, Jdogno7 have you not seen what happened when you openend the discussion about the fire beads article? That is what a call a destructive conflict. </p><p>All of your edits so far have led to issues while the majority of people edit pages with no issues. Now, if you still do not get it, read that sentence again. This has been mentioned before but maybe and just maybe you should reconsider your editing style. You can also opt to add more information to an article in need of information instead of just making really small (undesired) grammar/punctation edits. </p><p>And Jdogno7, I should really watch out if I were you. People are trying really hard to work with you but I can tell you that there is little to no patience left. It is your attitude, I could lecture you about constructive/destructive conflicts and how it works and were it goes wrong with you. But don't you get it already? </p> </i></div>
<p>"It is not always desired because there is a lot of other work to do instead of making small grammar changes that are not even really necessary. Okay, Jdogno7 have you not seen what happened when you opened the discussion about the fire beads article? That is what a call a destructive conflict.": "It is not always desired because there is a lot of other work to do instead of making small grammar changes that are not even really necessary.", why are they unnecessary? Bigger question is: Are they wrong? "Okay, Jdogno7 have you not seen what happened when you opened the discussion about the fire beads article?", which thread are you referring to? </p><p>"All of your edits so far have led to issues while the majority of people edit pages with no issues. Now, if you still do not get it, read that sentence again. This has been mentioned before but maybe and just maybe you should reconsider your editing style. You can also opt to add more information to an article in need of information instead of just making really small (undesired) grammar/punctuation edits.": "All of your edits so far have led to issues while the majority of people edit pages with no issues.", All of them?! I find that hard to believe. "This has been mentioned before but maybe and just maybe you should reconsider your editing style.", What about my editing style is problematic? "You can also opt to add more information to an article in need of information instead of just making really small (undesired) grammar/punctuation edits.", How are they undesired? Of course I will also add information to articles. I added information to both Lief and Jasmine's articles about their roles in the Star of Deltora Series. </p><p>"And Jdogno7, I should really watch out if I were you. People are trying really hard to work with you but I can tell you that there is little to no patience left. It is your attitude, I could lecture you about constructive/destructive conflicts and how it works and were it goes wrong with you. But don't you get it already?": "And Jdogno7, I should really watch out if I were you.", is that a threat? "People are trying really hard to work with you but I can tell you that there is little to no patience left.", Maybe there was little to no patience to begin with. "It is your attitude, I could lecture you about constructive/destructive conflicts and how it works and were it goes wrong with you.", What about my attitude? Well why don't you explain to me about "how it works and where it goes wrong" with me? "But don't you get it already?", in other words I am asking a question that I already know the answer to for no rationale reason including to make a point by getting others to think about the answer. I find that insulting. </p>

<p>They are unnecessary because the article is not in need of improvement (otherwise there will be a template at the top of the page). It was fine the way it was. The only person who thought it was not fine, is you. Then the majority of contributors did not agree with the changes you wanted to make. </p><p>All of them so far since you have started editing again. Why don't you forget about the grammar/punctuation and try to add some information to an article, for a change? </p><p>No it is more like a warning because if you do not change your ways you will risk a ban once more. That is what we are trying to avoid, right? By the way have you not been paying attention?? I had a lot of patience with you when you requested to edit again?? Did you seriously forget that?? </p>

<div class="quote"><i> <p>Creative Dream wrote: They are unnecessary because the article is not in need of improvement (otherwise there will be a template at the top of the page). It was fine the way it was. The only person who thought it was not fine, is you. Then the majority of contributors did not agree with the changes you wanted to make. </p><p>All of them so far since you have started editing again. Why don't you forget about the grammar/punctuation and try to add some information to an article, for a change? </p><p>No it is more like a warning because if you do not change your ways you will risk a ban once more. That is what we are trying to avoid, right? By the way have you not been paying attention?? I had a lot of patience with you when you requested to edit again?? Did you seriously forget that?? </p> </i></div>
<p>"They are unnecessary because the article is not in need of improvement (otherwise there will be a template at the top of the page). It was fine the way it was. The only person who thought it was not fine, is you. Then the majority of contributors did not agree with the changes you wanted to make.": "They are unnecessary because the article is not in need of improvement (otherwise there will be a template at the top of the page).", Maybe some articles are declared complete or perfect a little to soon. Either that or some people don't want to admit that what they wrote can't be improved upon. "It was fine the way it was.", What is your basis for this? "The only person who thought it was not fine, is you.", That does not mean I am wrong about that. "Then the majority of contributors did not agree with the changes you wanted to make.", That is strange I don't remember anyone but you, Az-Zure and Samaru getting involved. That does not count as the majority of contributors. </p><p>"All of them so far since you have started editing again. Why don't you forget about the grammar/punctuation and try to add some information to an article, for a change?": "All of them so far since you have started editing again.", That is an exaggeration. There were some that were okay. "Why don't you forget about the grammar/punctuation and try to add some information to an article, for a change?", I added about how a fire bead was used against the Glus in the anime to the article about the object. I added the "Maze of the Beast" (episode) to the "Maze of the Beast" disambiguation page. So it is not like I have not and will not add information ever. </p><p>"No it is more like a warning because if you do not change your ways you will risk a ban once more. That is what we are trying to avoid, right? By the way have you not been paying attention?? I had a lot of patience with you when you requested to edit again?? Did you seriously forget that??": Yes we are all trying to avoid a ban. I was talking about others not you. </p>

<p>Alright, at this point there is no reason to discuss this any further. Feel free to edit but if admins/the majority do not agree with those edits then your edits will be undone. </p>