|
RedWizard89[]
Will you please stop undoing my edits simply because you're physically able to click on the button? It's getting old. Tfoc (talk) 05:10, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
- How exactly is that complaint relevant to this topic? As I recall, you used American English in this article (which you should by now know is incorrect on this wiki), and altered a quote away from its original form - I fail see a concerning issue here. RedWizard98 (talk) 13:11, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
It is a complaint relevant to this topic in the sense that I made an edit to the page, and as usual, you spotted my name pop up on the "Recent Changes" page and undid it on auto pilot. If I used American English, you fix the spelling, you don't undo the edit. As for the quote's "original form", you'd have to take that up with John Tiffany and Jack Thorne; they wrote the CC, I just copy-pasted text from it. And yes, I did, because the quote is misleading. It was never referred to as Professor Croaker's law on Pottermore/WW, just in CC, and "As our investigation currently stands," isn't part of the law. Tfoc (talk) 17:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
- If users see problems with edits, they have the right to revert it, always. In particular, when it comes to the poor use of English in articles. You need to make sure you use the correct British spellings when editing articles, or me or someone shall not hesitate to revert such incorrect changes. This policy does apply to all users. RedWizard98 (talk) 18:04, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
That's quite possibly the dumbest thing I've read you say. Anyway, take it up with John Tiffany and Jack Thorne; they wrote a recognised canon source in American English, not me. And stop arbitrarily reverting edits just because you can, as I said, it's getting old. Tfoc (talk) 21:25, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
- Well, I'm terribly sorry you think that way. FYI, American English is not to be used in articles in this wiki, you will very well find; and British spellings overtake the use of American English in American book releases (since they are originally British works). This is also a free, public wiki where people can edit and revert whatever pages they please. RedWizard98 (talk) 21:31, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Tfoc, I think you should be careful what you say, being mindful of the warning you have already received for personal attacks. I know you weren't calling Red dumb, you were just saying that what he said was dumb, but still.
So anyways. In the edit, you removed a sentence, changed a word from UK spelling to US spelling, and removed some words and added others here and there, effectively making it a different quote albeit very similar (because it is preferable for quotes to be word-for-word, seeing as how they are direct quotes, after all). You say you were changing it to be a quote from Scorpius Malfoy, however you did not change the attribution and source of the quote to reflect this; your edit left the page saying that the modified version of the quote was by Saul Croker from Pottermore, which is incorrect, as that version was by Scorpius in Cursed Child. As the original version of the quote is preferable (being said by Croaker himself, & all), I see absolutely nothing wrong with your edit being reverted, and in fact I actually attempted to revert it as well for the reasons I have just stated, but Red was of course faster.
I don't think that him often reverting your edits is in any way personal, so I don't think you should see it that way, it was purely because your edit was genuinely perceived to be incorrect. Red is probably the most active user on this wiki, which is why it is often him that catches other users' mistakes. That's all. - MrSiriusBlack Talk 21:54, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you Mr Sirius Black. Those reasons listed above where the reasons I reverted this edit. RedWizard98 (talk) 21:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
The reminder of my warning is appreciated, Sirius, but unnecessary. You said it yourself; my summary of Red's arguing point does not constitute a personal attack, so let's try to avoid digression. That said, I would like to point out that at the time of Croaker's quote from Pottermore, there was no such thing as a "Professor Croaker's law". As per the context of the article the quote comes from, Croaker shared a provisional conclusion in an ongoing investigation into time-magic, which, by the events of CC, had been concluded and fully established to be true, and Professor Croaker's conclusion now constituted "Professor Croaker's law", as quoted by Scorpio. That's my reason for editing it.
And Red, please do get off of your high horse: you already admitted further up on this very page that your primary justification for reverting my edit rather than fixing the attribution and source I forgot about were because you had the "right" to do so, and felt inclined to assert it. It's a bit late to hitch a piggyback ride on Sirius' arguments after an admission like that. Tfoc (talk) 23:13, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
- Well, I have to say I am very glad I reverted this edit, for the above reasons, and I shall not hesitate to revert any future problematic edits. RedWizard98 (talk) 00:02, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
In which case I will, for the other above reasons you apparently resolved to ignore the existence of, naturally have to right behind you to undo the reverts so that the appropriate quote adorns the top of the page, this time with the correct attribution and source. :-) Tfoc (talk) 00:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- It is worth noting that edit warring is counter-productive and against the rules to do it. The original quotation in this article is perfectly fine, as it comes from Pottermore (a tier-one canon source), so it does not need to change in any way. Instead of being endlessly cheeky and argumentative, instead ask an administrator for help instead. RedWizard98 (talk) 00:15, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
To be fair, Cursed Child is also tier-one canon, however I also see no reason to change it, I see absolutely no reason as to why a quote by Scorpius would be more "appropriate" than the same sentence coming from the actual person after whom the law is named, regardless of whether or not the law was a thing at the time the quote was made, it is still the original quote that inspired the law, and so is certainly appropriate. - MrSiriusBlack Talk 00:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Red: Correction: edit warring is usually counter-productive, but just like Dumbledore was sure that it wouldn't matter how many times the Wizengamot questioned a witness in Harry's hearing if the alternative is a gross miscarriage of justice, I am quite sure that it wouldn't matter how many times I undid your edit, rules or no rules, if the alternative was to have incorrect information on the page. :-)
irius; it matters because one quote refers to Croaker's law, and one doesn't. In any case, the "as our investigation currently stands" isn't part of the law. Tfoc (talk) 07:26, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- Scorpius was telling the others about a specific part of Croaker's law that they needed to know about. But that's not to say that the other words found in Harry Potter (website) can't have been in the law too. One doesn't contradict or outdo the other. We have canon tiers, and CC and WW have been put in tier one. I think the original one used in the article was fine. CC tells it was Croaker's law, and WW tells us that they have an ongoing investigation into the subject. So, I would keep the original to include that detail.
- I would like to add too, that an article's talk-page shouldn't be used for any personal grievances and should be focused on politely working things through in connection to the subject of the article. I don't think the explanation for the change was very clear too. If you feel that the user deliberately likes to undo your edits (and I don't think they do or have), you need to take that to a suitable page. It's not appropriate to name the section for a user over the subject you needed to work through or to do that for a grievance, and it's counter-productive to engage in any edit-warring. - Kates39 (talk) 12:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
The part about airing grievances on the appropriate page is duly noted. As for the view that Red likes to deliberately undo my edits, your take on the matter was contradicted further up on the page, when Red saw fit to flaunt just how privileged he is to revert edits he don't agree with. Also, the claim that any and all edit wars are counter-productive... Agree to disagree, although I will try and show a bit more restrain as a matter of courtesy. Tfoc (talk) 14:41, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- Agreed - grievances really don't belong on talk pages... RedWizard98 (talk) 16:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC)