User talk:Skittles the hog

Cyberman continued
To answer questions you left yesterday, I think Dalekcaan14 is probably not expressing himself fully. Whatever is at the core of what he's trying to convey probably is true, because he's studied the scene too many times for him to be just making it up. That's why he needs to start a discussion on the page. As it was last worded in the history, I'm obviously with you and Revan: it doesn't make much sense. But, again, he made a good faith edit that, in its current wording, is incorrect. That's not vandalism.

As for the "not wanting him to voice his opinion" bit, well, I'm of course not saying that you ever prevented — or even threatened to prevent — him from talking. And you did a good thing by at least explaining to him why you were editing a substantial part of his contribution away. I suppose what I'm saying is that I haven't yet seen genuine discussion about his edits. It started well enough, with you enumerating why you didn't agree with what he wrote, but then that was sorta the end of it. You'd made up your mind and dug in, he was equally frustrated with you, and the perfect storm brewed for an edit war. There was never a phase where we got to ask questions like, "What do you mean, exactly?" and "Could you explain that point a little more?" And, believe me, I understand why the conversation didn't go on those lines. You totally believed the information was just junk — there wasn't any question of that in your mind — and so you were bending over backwards to leave him even that message. And 90% of the time, that would've been fine. If it was junk, the user who added it would've just rolled over and likely not responded to your explanation. But this time, Dalekcaan14 is just a little too determined to simply write off this stuff as "bad information">

In fact, he's posted to my page now, insisting again that his interpretation is right. Users who are intentionally putting bad information on a page don't do that, not after being reverted several times, then blocked. Somewhere in this paragraph is a truth that we can't see yet. I've encouraged him to start a proper discussion on the talk page, rather than these bilateral discussions on user talk pages. Hopefully he'll do it and we can ask the sort of questions that might shake his truth out of the trees. 12:47:10 Fri 15 Apr 2011

User you blocked
I've unblocked User:TheArtistBox. There was no reason to block him. I was hardly a personal attack, and like User:CzechOut said to me here, you should have got another admin involved if you though he deserved a block, which was a bit unfair considering he aimed nothing directly at you. It's also a bit unfair to block in the middle of a forum discussion, if it gets really bad, I will block him for you, middle of a discussion or not; but to block them in the middle of a discussion, for an indirect comment was a bit harsh. ". If someone attacks you, please go to another admin to seek blocking. Otherwise, it'll easily be construed as a distasteful abuse of power. Admins, in any case, should have thicker skin about such matters" as CzechOut said to me. Mini-mitch\talk 21:38, April 22, 2011 (UTC)

The Impossible Astronaut
I found an error in the Story Notes section. Here it is: A prequel for this tory was released on the offcial BBC website. Could you correct? Sorry about the forum thing btw... K'jal'mar ( The talk| Contribs) 17:19, April 23, 2011 (UTC)

Why is the story plot for The Impossible Astronaut being reverted?
I have no idea why you reverted the plot back to a way earlier version. I am sorry if that's because me calling reverters stupid but here I am really frustrated because that takes out a lot of effort that I put into the plot line. If you want to make edits, please make on individual paragraphs... not on the entire thing... A very polite thanks, Arunreginald 17:30, April 24, 2011 (UTC)