User talk:DrBat

User talk:DrBat/Archive 1
User talk:DrBat/Archive 2
User talk:DrBat/Archive 3
User talk:DrBat/Archive 4
User talk:DrBat/Archive 5
User talk:DrBat/Archive 6

Stewie

It's a little irritating. Before now there was a case to leave it unlabelled, but now editors seem to come to the page with their real-world cultural understandings of age and sexuality and labels and then try to apply them beyond the sources at hand to a fictional character. Is there a centralized discussion taking place? I believe the old one on the talk page got archived.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 15:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Stewie

STOP your vandalism against Stewie! Get a new consensus if you want the category added! CTJF83Talk 22:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, what is your problem?? CTJF83Talk 22:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

How many consensus do we need before you accept the consensus. CTJF83Talk 22:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

You think by now you would have learned not to keep reverting, and to get a consensus CTJF83Talk 22:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

"Ultimately, Stewie will be gay or a very unhappy repressed heterosexual" CTJF83Talk 22:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, recount this has nothing to do with our dispute. CTJF83Talk 23:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

So where does Seth say he is gay now, all I see is future tense. CTJF83Talk 23:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Your counting is wrong CTJF83Talk 23:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

September 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Stewie Griffin. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Don't re-add the category. Instead, take the discussion to the talk page. tedder (talk) 00:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Note

Time to start writing! See here: [1] I'm all for it, but let's have no reversions to the inferior material. Many thanks. Asgardian (talk) 04:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Deliberately messy is a point of view, and you just blindly reverted. Do you really think the poorly written colloquial additions to VG that you just retained are an improvement? I'll start the ball rolling. Asgardian (talk) 04:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

That said, I did appreciate the contribution earlier on Secret Invasion. Thank you. Asgardian (talk) 04:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Further to this, I think you need to study the changes at Abomination, as more information is being added daily. The lead and peripherals are all fine and in accordance with Wikipedia Guidelines, and the PH is being reworked and improved upon. Blindly reverting to an inferior version does not help at this stage. Asgardian (talk) 00:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd advise against the constant reverts to inferior material. You've been warned about this (and blocked), and still seem to be making the samekneejerk reactions you were making over 18 months ago. More material is going to be added to both Abomination and the Rhino, and these will be valid edits. We also need to retain the Wiki-correct material. Claims that something is a "mess" and "too much work" do not help your cause. Finally, the claim there is no need to cite every appearance of a character is untrue. Thank you. Asgardian (talk) 03:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

We add appearances to present the whole picture. It if it worth doing, it is worth doing well. As for blocks, I've learned and don't ever make blind reverts, certainly not just on opinion. But, it seems I'll be the only one doing the research. Asgardian (talk) 05:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)