Please remember that WiKirby contains spoilers, which you read at your own risk! See our general disclaimer for details.
Talk:Nature Notch - Stage 1: Difference between revisions
From WiKirby, your independent source of Kirby knowledge.
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary |
(→Dispute: Edit conflict) |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
::I reverted the revert ''after'' declaring the dispute, since I knew in advance that the reversion would implicitly be declaring a dispute anyways. (Well, technically, what I did was declare the dispute on the talk page, then reverted, then looked up the dispute tag so I could apply that properly.) As for the dispute itself, "be in hot pursuit by X" is not grammatically coherent. "…with X in hot pursuit" would be the preferred arrangement, but I don't think that would work here, so I used a different word choice that would work within the rest of the sentence as written. --[[User:Luigifan18|Luigifan18]] ([[User talk:Luigifan18|talk]]) 00:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC) | ::I reverted the revert ''after'' declaring the dispute, since I knew in advance that the reversion would implicitly be declaring a dispute anyways. (Well, technically, what I did was declare the dispute on the talk page, then reverted, then looked up the dispute tag so I could apply that properly.) As for the dispute itself, "be in hot pursuit by X" is not grammatically coherent. "…with X in hot pursuit" would be the preferred arrangement, but I don't think that would work here, so I used a different word choice that would work within the rest of the sentence as written. --[[User:Luigifan18|Luigifan18]] ([[User talk:Luigifan18|talk]]) 00:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC) | ||
:::Even so, the revert isn't meant to happen until after the dispute is resolved, as I said, not after it's started. Anyhow. I guess I don't mean to belabor the point. You seem to be right about this one, so you can declare the dispute over and keep the change you made. Thank you for actually using the dispute clause instead of trying to engage in an edit war. --[[User:Samwell|Samwell]] ([[User talk:Samwell|talk]]) 00:44, 14 May 2024 (UTC) | :::Even so, the revert isn't meant to happen until after the dispute is resolved, as I said, not after it's started. Anyhow. I guess I don't mean to belabor the point. You seem to be right about this one, so you can declare the dispute over and keep the change you made. Thank you for actually using the dispute clause instead of trying to engage in an edit war. --[[User:Samwell|Samwell]] ([[User talk:Samwell|talk]]) 00:44, 14 May 2024 (UTC) | ||
:::Just regarding the dispute policy, I highly advise you to review it [[WiKirby:Dispute policy|here]]. In particular, read the chain of events that make a dispute be declared, and then right after how it notes "Once all three steps are done, a dispute is declared. Once a dispute is declared, the page should have a dispute template placed on it, and the page must not be altered further along the lines of the dispute until it is settled. Any violation of this rule after being informed of this policy will result in a three-strike offense as defined by the block policy." I will give you the benefit of doubt this time, but if next time you revert a revert, I will just consider it a violation of the dispute policy, and there will most likely be consequences. {{User:Gigi/sig}} 00:45, 14 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 00:45, 14 May 2024
Dispute[edit]
The wording that I changed ("[Kirby] will be in hot pursuit by Spinni") is extremely grammatically awkward, if not flat-out incorrect… so I don't understand the rationale behind reverting it at all. --Luigifan18 (talk) 23:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- Alright, I guess this is how things are meant to be done when editors disagree. From what I understand, the way I phrased it originally is grammatically correct, but you seem to claim otherwise. Perhaps you could explain to me why you believe it isn't? Also, just for future reference, you're not supposed to revert a revert before starting the dispute. That's meant to happen after the dispute is resolved, should it be decided in your favor. It's fine this time, but please keep that in mind going forward. --Samwell (talk) 00:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- I reverted the revert after declaring the dispute, since I knew in advance that the reversion would implicitly be declaring a dispute anyways. (Well, technically, what I did was declare the dispute on the talk page, then reverted, then looked up the dispute tag so I could apply that properly.) As for the dispute itself, "be in hot pursuit by X" is not grammatically coherent. "…with X in hot pursuit" would be the preferred arrangement, but I don't think that would work here, so I used a different word choice that would work within the rest of the sentence as written. --Luigifan18 (talk) 00:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- Even so, the revert isn't meant to happen until after the dispute is resolved, as I said, not after it's started. Anyhow. I guess I don't mean to belabor the point. You seem to be right about this one, so you can declare the dispute over and keep the change you made. Thank you for actually using the dispute clause instead of trying to engage in an edit war. --Samwell (talk) 00:44, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- Just regarding the dispute policy, I highly advise you to review it here. In particular, read the chain of events that make a dispute be declared, and then right after how it notes "Once all three steps are done, a dispute is declared. Once a dispute is declared, the page should have a dispute template placed on it, and the page must not be altered further along the lines of the dispute until it is settled. Any violation of this rule after being informed of this policy will result in a three-strike offense as defined by the block policy." I will give you the benefit of doubt this time, but if next time you revert a revert, I will just consider it a violation of the dispute policy, and there will most likely be consequences. - Gigi (talk • edits) 00:45, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- I reverted the revert after declaring the dispute, since I knew in advance that the reversion would implicitly be declaring a dispute anyways. (Well, technically, what I did was declare the dispute on the talk page, then reverted, then looked up the dispute tag so I could apply that properly.) As for the dispute itself, "be in hot pursuit by X" is not grammatically coherent. "…with X in hot pursuit" would be the preferred arrangement, but I don't think that would work here, so I used a different word choice that would work within the rest of the sentence as written. --Luigifan18 (talk) 00:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
