20
edits
Talk:Taunt match: Difference between revisions
→Common/Uncommon
(NO) |
|||
| Line 91: | Line 91: | ||
:''Or'' I guess you can start another edit war... but if that's how you wanna do things, then screw that, I'm not playing.[[User:Entrea Sumatae|<span style="color:#4682b4">'''–Entrea Sumatae'''</span>]] 22:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC) | :''Or'' I guess you can start another edit war... but if that's how you wanna do things, then screw that, I'm not playing.[[User:Entrea Sumatae|<span style="color:#4682b4">'''–Entrea Sumatae'''</span>]] 22:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC) | ||
::Gee willakers, everyone is so happy today! [[User:Cafinator|Cafinator]] ([[User talk:Cafinator|talk]]) 22:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC) | ::Gee willakers, everyone is so happy today! [[User:Cafinator|Cafinator]] ([[User talk:Cafinator|talk]]) 22:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC) | ||
:::Address your points on the talk page when the effort has been put forth to open a discussion over an edit war. It is much more helpful than reverting edits and coupling the reverts with a terse and baseless rebuttal in the edit summary. It says: ''"You said yourself that you have had Taunt Matches over Wifi, and that you just don't like them. To prevent an "Edit war", I'll just delete this part of the page."'' Setting aside for the moment that I would never falsify an edit "just because I don't like them", I should also point out that your argument seems to speak to the existence of the article, not the commonality of Taunt Matches. I have already asserted that I'm fine with the article existing and recognize that there's enough dullards in the world doing this for notability. That doesn't make them "common"--in fact, I would argue that ''at least'' 30% of ALL WiFi matches would have to be Taunt Matches in order to lay claim to notability. The thing is, the numbers aren't even close to 30% and you don't need research to prove it. --<font color="000023">'''[[User:Randall00|RJM]]'''</font> <sup>''[[User talk:Randall00|Talk]]''</sup> 23:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC) | |||