User talk:Semidelicious

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents


[edit] Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Semidelicious, 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:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Eyrian 19:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blue Beetle

The split was suggested here by CovenantD. Though it has been stalled.

It is possible, depending on how some of the project debates run, that the Garret portion will be split off, just like the Robins, Green Lanterns, and Flashes. But it's just as likely that the Reyes article could be folded back into the BB main.

— J Greb 12:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conflict resolution

If you think a good piece of information should be deleted, you're supposed to say why on the article's discussion page. - Shaheenjim 13:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I've seen your circular arguements against concensus so I'm going to avoid that completely.--Semidelicious 09:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
First of all, my arguments aren't circular. If I repeat myself, it's because they repeat arguments that I've already proven to be invalid. For example, they say "If X were true, then you would be able to find a source for it." And I say, "There are lots of things that are true, but don't have sources. Take Y for example. So we should be able to readd X even though it doesn't have a source." Then they just repeat, "If X were true, then you would be able to find a source for it." What am I to do but repeat what I said before?
Second, there's nothing wrong with going against consensus. The wikipedia guidelines on dispute resolution say that the number of people on each side don't matter. Only the strength of their arguments in the discussion they're supposed to be having matter.
Third, if the discussions don't go anywhere, you're supposed to move to the next step in the wikipedia resolution process. You just don't abandon them altogether.
Fourth, the discussions on the article for The Job are mostly in consensus with my view, so consensus isn't a justification for going against my edits there.
Fifth, if you think I'm breaking wikipedia policy, you can report me to an admin. But you aren't supposed to just break wikipedia policy yourself and revert edits without going through the discussion process. - Shaheenjim 12:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)