User talk:172.56.26.39

Your recent edits

You have gone through several pages and undone my edits because you believe they are part of some "proposal" that hasen't been done. However, you failed to recognize that the primary purpose of those edits was to fix some button images, and thus created a lot of broken links. Be more careful.

In addition, the only "proposal" I see about top-page instructional quotes died due to lack of user interest and doesn't really appear to have been about the same thing, so I decided to start a new standard that is not as disruptive to the page layout. Toomai Glittershine The Prismatic 23:36, July 7, 2019 (EDT)

I apologize for if I created any broken links (of which never showed up in my previews), but the proposals I was referring to was related to the move quotes and origins. The move quote one was about finding a different method to list them instead of using tabbers. So, if that proposal “died” as you said, it means it was a failure meaning that no alternative for tabbers were found. So by that logic, tabbers are what will stay in use. If you found a possible alternative, then you’re suppose to contribute to the discussion instead of ignoring it and claiming it’s “dead”. It’s the whole point of the proposal page in the first place. The origin one was related to the organizing of the move pages, in which you partook in. You stated that the origin was in the incorrect paragraph in the examples and refused to explain why that was the case when it clearly wasn’t. All pages have their origins in the place you said was supposedly incorrect. Even if that were the case, you can’t just ignore the discussion and do what you want. Also, the rules state that undos are not to be undoed. Most will consider these actions as an abuse of administrative power under personal bias. Although all this would support at assumption, I hope we can brush it off as a misunderstanding. If we don’t abide by the rules set in place, then how can we be trusted to be allowed to edit this wiki? At first glance, I thought you were another random user like me, only with a name, but now I see that you are an admin. I don’t want you painting a bad picture for yourself. Fine, brush me off as a random user, but I don’t want anyone to ignore the rules, that includes the admins. I would like to respectfully request that you revert your edits regarding the move quote tabbers and origin locations, and then properly discus them on the wiki as the rules state. If you believe something’s the case when it isn’t, that’s why the rules suggest discussing it on the talk page or make a proposal. I wish good tidings for you irl. 172.56.26.39 00:02, July 8, 2019 (EDT)

You must be talking about a different instructional quotes discussion than I am then. I'm referring to this one, where after I brought up my idea, the discussion started to go towards "hmm yes" and then tapered off.

I can't find the discussion on origin sections you speak of, so you'll need to link it if you want me to comment.

You also seem to talk a big game about understanding rules (which is unusual for a new IP), but you also fail to recognize a few things:

• My edits did not "undo" anything; they created a new layout from scratch in addition to fixing broken images (hmm I wonder if using tabbers would hide broken images from editors? extra reason to avoid them). It is incorrect to claim I reverted any reverts.
• If we had to go through a new proposal (or revive an old-but-related proposal) every time we wanted to do something, we'd never get anything done around here (too much bureaucracy). Since the instructional quotes discussion tapered off, and was trending towards "yes" to my idea anyway, I figured no one would object to it - especially since having tabbers at the top of a page introduces loading issues that cause content to jump around, and thus should be heavily avoided unless no alternative exists (which is not true in this case).

None of this has anything to do with me being an admin; you can check my contributions from years ago and you'd see me doing the same things, kicking off wide-scale conversions of articles from one format to another in the absence of dissent. Now that there is some dissent, I'll stop until it's dealt with. Toomai Glittershine The Multifaceted 09:03, July 8, 2019 (EDT)