User talk:Ratchet and Clank 1995

See also:User talk:Ratchet and Clank 1995/Archive

Comprised of

Perhaps I can't help but be a little sensitive about this since it was recently a small issue, but I just want to let you know that "comprised of" isn't really wrong. While it's not worth it (or, after a fashion, justified) for me to revert your edit, I also just want to let you know that it's not actually something that needs to be "fixed". Tiddlywinks (talk) 01:20, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

As Tiddlywinks mentioned "comprised of" isn't wrong, so it's not something that should be fixed. Also, rather than revert an edit, discuss it with the user that reverted you.--ForceFire 11:12, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Just out of passing interest, I read that article you linked. And I thank you for the laugh. The article is comprised of numerous bits of hilarity. I found it interesting that one user's edit history is comprised of 47,000 edits including changing many quotations. Changing quotations is grounds for dismissal from Wikipedia, and he should be banned. Use of "comprised of" is not a guideline on Wikipedia, but rather one user's warped opinion. Please do not try to enforce the views of someone whose edits are comprised of quotation changes, thereby falsifying quotations, into Bulbapedia. You wouldn't last long here like that, and I will now use comprised of in whatever way I can myself now that this has come to my attention because there is nothing wrong with it. Thank you. CycloneGU (talk) 15:10, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

ForceFire above told you to stop making edits like this, and now you are making more like this and this. You most surely remember this warning, as evidenced in your recent participation in User talk:ShinyGiratina#Comprised. Once again, please cease your war on this phrase. Tiddlywinks (talk) 16:58, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I never actually received a warning, I did about the Kenya thing but not about this. You stated that they were "not needed" but revering them is not needed. You never explained why "comprised of" is incorrect.Ratchet and Clank 1995 (talk) 18:51, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry "correct"Ratchet and Clank 1995 (talk) 18:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I said nothing of "warning"s, and this is not about me, it's about ForceFire's directions ("[comprised of is] not something that should be fixed"; ForceFire being a staff member, on the off chance you weren't clear on that).

Anywho, at this point, it's probably better if I just leave the rest to staff to sort out. Tiddlywinks (talk) 19:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The Preview Button

Instead of editing a page several times in a row, try using the preview button to make sure your edit looks the way you want it to. It's right next to the Save Page button. Please try it out, so as not to clog up the Recent Changes. Also, if you want to edit multiple sections of the page, make sure that you click "edit this page" at the top of the page rather than editing it by section. Thanks! --Tyler53841 (talk) 22:48, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah sorry about that, it was just when I was editing the page, I though I removed all of the irrelevant information but then I kept realising that more information should be removed. I'll try to do what you stated in the future.Ratchet and Clank 1995 (talk) 16:40, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

"Talk:ROM hacks"

Why did you change it? Lokki(Talk) 14:09, 11 August 2015

Talk pages are meant to discuss improvements to the article, per Talk page policy. Meanwhile, the associated page was changed to only list notable hacks. Linking a full list of hacks has little to do with improving an article. Berrenta (talk) 13:42, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Berrenta answered your question for me. I thank him/her for the response. If anything I answered the question in the edit summary, the page should not be used to advertise ROM hacks and should only be used to discuss how the article should be improved. Ratchet and Clank 1995 (talk) 22:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring

If you have a problem with an edit, do not just simply revert them again and again. Discuss it with the user that reverted you. Yes, that is what you did, but you still reverted the edit anyway. Again, if you don't like an edit, go to the user first don't revert it.--ForceFire 12:14, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I did go to your page before, you just took a while to respond, in addition the information in the edit summary didn't really explain why the information should remain on the page.Ratchet and Clank 1995 (talk) 12:31, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Then you wait for my response. No response does not mean you can just revert the edit. Have a little patience.--ForceFire 12:43, 16 September 2015 (UTC)