Welcome!
Hello, Furry-friend, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your messages on
discussion pages using four
tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!
Will Beback
talk 20:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Brilliant! — James Cantor ( talk) 19:38, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- To put this in context, the article had twenty to forty dubious sources which were much worse than Masters theses, and were left in the article without contention until I raised the issue. Furry-friend ( talk) 09:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Please do not make edits to this or any other article which have been discussed on the article's talk page, and for which there is no consensus. Editing against consensus is a serious action. Get a consensus for your change before you try it again. BMK ( talk) 20:56, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
-
BMK You're wrong,
"no consensus" is not a reason to revert an edit.
Furry-friend (
talk) 07:16, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
- That is an essay, and not not one that's well-accepted.
BMK (
talk) 15:25, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
- Here is the relevant policy the essay is based on. If you disagree with my edit, you can revert it, but you need to have a valid reason other than "no consensus". You gave a reason ("these are not studies"), to which I replied ("these are studies"), but no further discussion occurred. You ask for discussion but do not participate in the discussion. Furry-friend ( talk) 10:50, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
- That is an essay, and not not one that's well-accepted.
BMK (
talk) 15:25, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Please review WP:BRD. When your Bold edit has been Reverted by another editor, the next step, if you continue to think the edit is necessary, is to Discuss it on the article talk page, not to re-revert it, which is the first step to edit warring. During the discussion, the article remains in the status quo ante. Thanks, BMK ( talk) 13:08, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
- You were asked to discuss this repeatedly and instead of discussing you shifted tactics from "no consensus" to "POV pushing", the first is not a valid revert reason (why aren't you discussing?) and the second is simply false. Take part in the discussion instead of edit-warring. Furry-friend ( talk) 13:12, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Your micromanaging of the Close proposal is self-defeating. Let admins handle it, and handle the result. That's why they are admins -- they are experts in fairly assessing consensus and in deciding outcomes. If I were you I would just step completely away from the thread now, and probably remove your hidden comment entirely as well. I don't know if NeilN is going to handle closing the thread/proposal, but he is one of the best admins we've got. The more you participate in the thread, the more uncivil and litigious and retaliatory you look. My two cents, for what it's worth. Softlavender ( talk) 09:30, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry. Will stop. Furry-friend ( talk) 10:14, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
This revert was of my comment. Don't you do that again. Doc talk 10:35, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- I didn't edit any of your comments.
You refactored Mundi and my comments. Goes against
WP:TALKO.
Furry-friend (
talk) 14:47, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- (
talk page watcher) Let me summarise. He refactored you (= good); you refactored me (= bad). Check :)
Muffled
Pocketed 14:57, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- I didn't refactor you. I only moved my comment. I never moved or edited your comment. First Doc refactored my comment into a different section, then you posted in the new section, then I asked him politely two times not to edit or move my comment, then I moved my comment out of Doc's section, never moving or editing yours or putting it under a different section. I can see how this sequence of events is confusing, thankfully there's an edit history that provides a full record. Furry-friend ( talk) 15:14, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- (
talk page watcher) Let me summarise. He refactored you (= good); you refactored me (= bad). Check :)
Muffled
Pocketed 14:57, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
The thread served its purpose...BMK was watching it closely, I assure you...he wasn't going to be blocked this time but he was chastised by enough people for his behavior...and I think he's done interacting with you and those articles, right? 68.48.241.158 ( talk) 21:30, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- That solves the issue for one person and one article. BMK has used similar tactics to enforce his version of an article before, and with some likelihood will continue to do so. This isn't his first rodeo.
Furry-friend (
talk) 21:33, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, he's done it for years, but he'll probably stay well clear of you. I'd advise you to let it go. Don't forget what happened, but move on. It's a big project, after all.
Mackensen
(talk) 02:44, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
- Mackensen: As expected, BMK continues to revert helpful, guideline-backed edits with obtuse reasons ("no"), and deliberately breaks article formatting in ways that go against the MOS (and simply look ugly) despite lengthy discussions with him about guidelines being consensus which he needs to respect, and of course his uncivil behavior which needs to stop regardless. In fact he took to making two WP:POINT edits and an uncivil comment targeted at me when I mentioned his disruptive behavior. This issue is not resolved; not for me and not for the rest of Wikipedia. Furry-friend ( talk) 11:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
- Another revert-and-stonewall using the non-policy non-consensus argument of "status quo" when WP:V and WP:ONUS clearly sate the disputed material may be removed. Furry-friend ( talk) 00:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, he's done it for years, but he'll probably stay well clear of you. I'd advise you to let it go. Don't forget what happened, but move on. It's a big project, after all.
Mackensen
(talk) 02:44, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
regentspark I think you should re-open the AN/I. The tactics used by Beyond My Ken against AldezD are the same before. Revert to "status quo" (i.e. "better before"), claim consensus, further revert the edits despite the discussion showing Wikipedia policy supports them and a WP:THIRDOPINION supporting them, and threaten reporting the other contributor to admins. This is repeated and persistent behavior of claiming consensus where there isn't any, trying to pass non-consensus edits as consensus and vice-versa, and attempting bullying to solve a content dispute. Furry-friend ( talk) 14:23, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- The ANI thread is too old to be reopened. You should start a new one that references the old one and adds any fresh information. -- regentspark ( comment) 14:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Hello, Furry-friend. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Based upon your recent edits and reactions to other edits, you may be interested in participating in this discussion. AldezD ( talk) 21:58, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
-
AldezD I completely agree with you, however I recommend you get an impartial
WP:THIRDOPINION. In the meantime you should definitely remove the unsourced material for the following reasons:
- WP:V: "any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed."
- WP:ONUS: "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." BMK wants to include unsourced material, the onus is on him, you are free to remove unsourced material.
- There is no "status quo" policy. The material has been unsourced for years and may be removed. If BMK restores it, he is edit-warring. Feel free to copy-paste this. Furry-friend ( talk) 00:41, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Furry-friend. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
I can get one for the article easily. Since you replied, I'm asking you. Should I get the title screen, the main menu, the character selection screen (if so, which two characters), or two characters about to face off (again, which two)? What about an image of the pixel lobby? Dogman15 ( talk) 02:19, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Furry-friend. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Welcome!
Hello, Furry-friend, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your messages on
discussion pages using four
tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!
Will Beback
talk 20:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Brilliant! — James Cantor ( talk) 19:38, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- To put this in context, the article had twenty to forty dubious sources which were much worse than Masters theses, and were left in the article without contention until I raised the issue. Furry-friend ( talk) 09:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Please do not make edits to this or any other article which have been discussed on the article's talk page, and for which there is no consensus. Editing against consensus is a serious action. Get a consensus for your change before you try it again. BMK ( talk) 20:56, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
-
BMK You're wrong,
"no consensus" is not a reason to revert an edit.
Furry-friend (
talk) 07:16, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
- That is an essay, and not not one that's well-accepted.
BMK (
talk) 15:25, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
- Here is the relevant policy the essay is based on. If you disagree with my edit, you can revert it, but you need to have a valid reason other than "no consensus". You gave a reason ("these are not studies"), to which I replied ("these are studies"), but no further discussion occurred. You ask for discussion but do not participate in the discussion. Furry-friend ( talk) 10:50, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
- That is an essay, and not not one that's well-accepted.
BMK (
talk) 15:25, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Please review WP:BRD. When your Bold edit has been Reverted by another editor, the next step, if you continue to think the edit is necessary, is to Discuss it on the article talk page, not to re-revert it, which is the first step to edit warring. During the discussion, the article remains in the status quo ante. Thanks, BMK ( talk) 13:08, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
- You were asked to discuss this repeatedly and instead of discussing you shifted tactics from "no consensus" to "POV pushing", the first is not a valid revert reason (why aren't you discussing?) and the second is simply false. Take part in the discussion instead of edit-warring. Furry-friend ( talk) 13:12, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Your micromanaging of the Close proposal is self-defeating. Let admins handle it, and handle the result. That's why they are admins -- they are experts in fairly assessing consensus and in deciding outcomes. If I were you I would just step completely away from the thread now, and probably remove your hidden comment entirely as well. I don't know if NeilN is going to handle closing the thread/proposal, but he is one of the best admins we've got. The more you participate in the thread, the more uncivil and litigious and retaliatory you look. My two cents, for what it's worth. Softlavender ( talk) 09:30, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry. Will stop. Furry-friend ( talk) 10:14, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
This revert was of my comment. Don't you do that again. Doc talk 10:35, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- I didn't edit any of your comments.
You refactored Mundi and my comments. Goes against
WP:TALKO.
Furry-friend (
talk) 14:47, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- (
talk page watcher) Let me summarise. He refactored you (= good); you refactored me (= bad). Check :)
Muffled
Pocketed 14:57, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- I didn't refactor you. I only moved my comment. I never moved or edited your comment. First Doc refactored my comment into a different section, then you posted in the new section, then I asked him politely two times not to edit or move my comment, then I moved my comment out of Doc's section, never moving or editing yours or putting it under a different section. I can see how this sequence of events is confusing, thankfully there's an edit history that provides a full record. Furry-friend ( talk) 15:14, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- (
talk page watcher) Let me summarise. He refactored you (= good); you refactored me (= bad). Check :)
Muffled
Pocketed 14:57, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
The thread served its purpose...BMK was watching it closely, I assure you...he wasn't going to be blocked this time but he was chastised by enough people for his behavior...and I think he's done interacting with you and those articles, right? 68.48.241.158 ( talk) 21:30, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- That solves the issue for one person and one article. BMK has used similar tactics to enforce his version of an article before, and with some likelihood will continue to do so. This isn't his first rodeo.
Furry-friend (
talk) 21:33, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, he's done it for years, but he'll probably stay well clear of you. I'd advise you to let it go. Don't forget what happened, but move on. It's a big project, after all.
Mackensen
(talk) 02:44, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
- Mackensen: As expected, BMK continues to revert helpful, guideline-backed edits with obtuse reasons ("no"), and deliberately breaks article formatting in ways that go against the MOS (and simply look ugly) despite lengthy discussions with him about guidelines being consensus which he needs to respect, and of course his uncivil behavior which needs to stop regardless. In fact he took to making two WP:POINT edits and an uncivil comment targeted at me when I mentioned his disruptive behavior. This issue is not resolved; not for me and not for the rest of Wikipedia. Furry-friend ( talk) 11:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
- Another revert-and-stonewall using the non-policy non-consensus argument of "status quo" when WP:V and WP:ONUS clearly sate the disputed material may be removed. Furry-friend ( talk) 00:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, he's done it for years, but he'll probably stay well clear of you. I'd advise you to let it go. Don't forget what happened, but move on. It's a big project, after all.
Mackensen
(talk) 02:44, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
regentspark I think you should re-open the AN/I. The tactics used by Beyond My Ken against AldezD are the same before. Revert to "status quo" (i.e. "better before"), claim consensus, further revert the edits despite the discussion showing Wikipedia policy supports them and a WP:THIRDOPINION supporting them, and threaten reporting the other contributor to admins. This is repeated and persistent behavior of claiming consensus where there isn't any, trying to pass non-consensus edits as consensus and vice-versa, and attempting bullying to solve a content dispute. Furry-friend ( talk) 14:23, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- The ANI thread is too old to be reopened. You should start a new one that references the old one and adds any fresh information. -- regentspark ( comment) 14:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Hello, Furry-friend. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Based upon your recent edits and reactions to other edits, you may be interested in participating in this discussion. AldezD ( talk) 21:58, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
-
AldezD I completely agree with you, however I recommend you get an impartial
WP:THIRDOPINION. In the meantime you should definitely remove the unsourced material for the following reasons:
- WP:V: "any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed."
- WP:ONUS: "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." BMK wants to include unsourced material, the onus is on him, you are free to remove unsourced material.
- There is no "status quo" policy. The material has been unsourced for years and may be removed. If BMK restores it, he is edit-warring. Feel free to copy-paste this. Furry-friend ( talk) 00:41, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Furry-friend. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
I can get one for the article easily. Since you replied, I'm asking you. Should I get the title screen, the main menu, the character selection screen (if so, which two characters), or two characters about to face off (again, which two)? What about an image of the pixel lobby? Dogman15 ( talk) 02:19, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Furry-friend. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)