Editing[]
Hi. It seems as though this article is protected for everyone but sysops and content moderators; however, I would like to make some edits to it in order to fix a few mistakes. Could someone temporarily unprotect it?
―PapíDimmi (talk) 05:35, June 19, 2016 (UTC)
What is it that you want to fix? PikovajaDama (talk) 07:09, June 19, 2016 (UTC)
- My fixes would definitely improve the article, but I would rather make the edits myself, otherwise I wouldn’t get credit for the edit.
―PapíDimmi (talk) 07:13, June 19, 2016 (UTC)
I doubt I am allowed to unlock the pages anyway, because changing our policies is a matter of consent of users, then carried out by the admins. But even if I was allowed to unlock them, I will definitely NOT open them up to anyone without knowing what they're up to. If you have issues with our policies, you can post them here and we will dedice what we do about them, and IF it is necessary to do something anyway. PikovajaDama (talk) 07:27, June 19, 2016 (UTC)
- I am not going to change the policies or add anything thereto. I am just going to make some small improvements thereto.
―PapíDimmi (talk) 07:29, June 19, 2016 (UTC)
No clarity from you, not happening. Sorry. PikovajaDama (talk) 07:32, June 19, 2016 (UTC)
- Oh well, that sucks for this wiki. There are several mistakes in this article which should be fixed.
―PapíDimmi (talk) 07:33, June 19, 2016 (UTC)
- You are the first person having a problem with our Rules of Conduct I've encountered, actually. If this wiki sucks so much for you just because you don't get your way, then why you not go elsewhere? PikovajaDama (talk) 07:39, June 19, 2016 (UTC)
- I never said that this wiki sucks (I don’t think that it does). However, there are several small problems with this article. These are not opinions but rather small problems. Fixing them won’t change the meaning of anything but would rather improve the article. If the article were to be unprotected for a minute, I could make the improvements. I’m not stupid; I know that any vandalims could be undone and I could be blocked; however, I don’t intend to vandalize, nor will I.
―PapíDimmi (talk) 07:43, June 19, 2016 (UTC)
- I never said that this wiki sucks (I don’t think that it does). However, there are several small problems with this article. These are not opinions but rather small problems. Fixing them won’t change the meaning of anything but would rather improve the article. If the article were to be unprotected for a minute, I could make the improvements. I’m not stupid; I know that any vandalims could be undone and I could be blocked; however, I don’t intend to vandalize, nor will I.
I think this whole discussion speaks volumes as to the character of the concerned party. From my understanding, Papi wants this page unlocked not so much to help his fellow editors, or improve the wiki, despite his claims, but merely... and I quote... so that he "get[s] credit for the edit". The words 'dubious' and 'sketchy' come to mind almost immediately. MDGeistMD02 (talk) 07:49, June 19, 2016 (UTC)
- Incorrect. I would like to make a few minor edits in order to help improve this article and wiki alike, but I do not wish to tell anyone else about the edits which I wish to make, so that they can make the edits, because I would like to edit the article myself, so that it shows that I made the edit in the article’s edit history. You have nothing to worry about. From your view, I will either improve the article or the opposite. If I vandalize, you can reprotect the article, block me, and undo the edit, which would result in, essentially, no change being made in the first place. However, I’m not going to vandalize; I would not do such a thing.
―PapíDimmi (talk) 07:50, June 19, 2016 (UTC)
Please don't edit my posts... as I do not do that to yours. This constant changing and rearranging of these posts that you are doing again speaks of your need to control everything, including the posts of others. MDGeistMD02 (talk) 07:55, June 19, 2016 (UTC)
- I did not edit the posts, I just fixed the spacing of them (to correspond with Wikipedia’s style guides), so that the talk page is more neat and organized. However, since you do not wish for it to be so, I have undone my edits to the spacing of the posts. I think that the talk page looks rather messy in its current state, but I am not the one to decide.
―PapíDimmi (talk) 08:01, June 19, 2016 (UTC)
If getting the credit for an edit is more important to you than get an issue fixed, that does indeed speak volumes. I told you what your options are to get this fixed. I will not unlock a policy. End of discussion. PikovajaDama (talk) 07:58, June 19, 2016 (UTC)
- I never said that getting credit for an edit is more important than getting an issue fixed. I would like to improve this article, because it includes several errors, but I would like to do so myself, because otherwise it wouldn’t say that I made the edit in the article’s history.
―PapíDimmi (talk) 08:01, June 19, 2016 (UTC)- Do you believe you are the only one capable of fixing the issues? If not, please respect the page protection set by the admins. If you really need that credit for the changes, how about the one making the changes includes "...as suggested by User:PapiDimmi" in the edit summary? You're not going to get a better deal than this.
—Blood Ox (talk) 08:16, June 19, 2016 (UTC)- There are general errors in this article which should be fixed. It wouldn’t benefit me fixing them whatsoever, it’d benefit this wiki. If the administrators would like me to improve this article, they can temporarily unprotect the article. If not, the discussion’s over and the article will stay as it is. I don’t think permanently fully protecting it is a good idea. Unless this page experiences frequent vandalism, which it does not, because it has been protected forever, it shouldn’t be protected (in my opinion).
―PapíDimmi (talk) 08:18, June 19, 2016 (UTC)- So, the credit isn't important at all to the 'improvements' you wish to make... because you're all about helping people. However, you won't help the people unless everyone knows you are the one who did it, thus getting the credit for it. Okay, gotcha. ;) MDGeistMD02 (talk) 08:24, June 19, 2016 (UTC)
- Incorrect. I don’t want to improve this article unless I am the one who makes the edit, but I don’t need everyone to know about it. I simply want my edit to be in the history of the page. I don’t care if nobody knows about it. There’s no danger in unprotecting the page for one minute to let me fix the general errors in this article, because it can all be undone.
―PapíDimmi (talk) 08:27, June 19, 2016 (UTC)
- Incorrect. I don’t want to improve this article unless I am the one who makes the edit, but I don’t need everyone to know about it. I simply want my edit to be in the history of the page. I don’t care if nobody knows about it. There’s no danger in unprotecting the page for one minute to let me fix the general errors in this article, because it can all be undone.
- So, the credit isn't important at all to the 'improvements' you wish to make... because you're all about helping people. However, you won't help the people unless everyone knows you are the one who did it, thus getting the credit for it. Okay, gotcha. ;) MDGeistMD02 (talk) 08:24, June 19, 2016 (UTC)
- There are general errors in this article which should be fixed. It wouldn’t benefit me fixing them whatsoever, it’d benefit this wiki. If the administrators would like me to improve this article, they can temporarily unprotect the article. If not, the discussion’s over and the article will stay as it is. I don’t think permanently fully protecting it is a good idea. Unless this page experiences frequent vandalism, which it does not, because it has been protected forever, it shouldn’t be protected (in my opinion).
- Do you believe you are the only one capable of fixing the issues? If not, please respect the page protection set by the admins. If you really need that credit for the changes, how about the one making the changes includes "...as suggested by User:PapiDimmi" in the edit summary? You're not going to get a better deal than this.