Fan art/fan fiction Edit
Thank you for taking care of the massive revision needed for Rio 3 (film)
- Not a problem. I've seen a lot of people who don't take the time to find out if fan fiction is allowed where they are, and a few that keep posting so much fan fiction/fan art that it turns into spam and vandalism. —RRabbit42 (leave a message) 16:20, July 6, 2014 (UTC)
- No, I am not an admin here, but in the previous times I've talked to you about this, you have not be able to explain how lining up characters side by side and trying to pin a rigid label on them helps readers understand more about that character.
- It's about as useful as saying "That's a dog". Okay, but what breed of a dog? What color are its eyes? What color is its fur? Does it have short, medium or long fur? What is its lineage: is it a mixed breed or purebred? What about the people that own it? Did they find it in a shelter or take it in because it was a stray or were they given the dog because the previous owner had to move or could no longer take care of it? Was it raised to be a family companion or a guard dog or an attack dog or a water rescue dog or a service dog for disabled people or a therapy dog or a drug/bomb-sniffing dog for the government or military? Was its tail docked as is customary with some breeds like Doberman Pinschers or did it lose it because of an injury or is the tail intact? Is the tail straight, curved or curled around in a ball? What is the dog's temperment: does it have some natural aggression that comes with some breeds or is it relaxed and easy-going or is it hyperactive or is it playful? Does it bark and growl, or does it stay quiet most of the time?
- The people who try to put an antagonist label on characters almost always do nothing other than just that. They ignore everything else about what makes that character a character. These are the ones who will repeat over and over again, "That is a dog". In contrast, if we had the answers to the dozen questions I just asked, we'd know more about that dog than just "it's a dog".
- You have also not been able to show how the arguments, fights, edit wars and contradictions over exactly which position in that lineup each character should be is a benefit to a wiki. If one person says "this character is the main antagonist", then someone else says "they are the secondary antagonist", then the first person comes back and says "they are the tertiary antagonist", who is right, especially if the same person contradicts themselves?
- As I have said before, the research I did into this shows that antagonist fussing is harmful to a wiki and I will do what I can to remove that harm. If you disagree, you need to make the effort to show me how it is helpful instead of throwing up your hands and walking away like you have before. —RRabbit42 (leave a message) 06:40, November 21, 2015 (UTC)
- See here, there is labeling characters by species, personalities, and of course ranks. But we've been having this edit war for over a month now, and already caused enough trouble. If you spare me, I'll be a good writer and not use your pages in an unkind manner again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff Meredith (talk • contribs) 23:35, November 27, 2015 (UTC)
You're still avoiding the issue. This isn't a matter of me "sparing" anyone. Labeling a character as an antagonist would be fine if people weren't fighting about it. But they are. As in 161 different ways of fighting over what kind of antagonist Randall Boggs is from Monsters Inc. and Monsters University. As in edit wars as people try to push their specific kind of antagonst on a character. As in people are so determined to label characters as a specific level of antagonist that they'll twist words or make them up to support what they're saying. As in the same person will change their mind so many times about what kind of antagonist a character is that either they're lying, or unable to make a decision, or have some kind of mental illness. As in saying that a character is one kind of antagonist on one wiki, then going to another wiki on the same day and saying that same character is a different kind of antagonist, which means they just contradicted themselves.
I've made this very clear. I took the time to look into this. If I had been wrong and this wasn't as big of a problem as I thought it was, I would have backed down and admitted I was overreacting. But I'm not. My analysis shows that antagonist fussing is harmful and you've not been able to say anything to show it isn't.
Frankly, this is getting to the point where I'm about to consider your edits to be vandalism. One of the consequences of that is even when you make useful edits like you have been on Moviepedia, they're probably going to be removed just as a matter of course. Being good on one wiki while you're behaving poorly on others isn't going to fly.
It's put up or shut up time. Show me how an antagonist level can be helpful when so much about it is harmful, or I will start treating your edits as vandalism. —RRabbit42 (leave a message) 00:32, November 28, 2015 (UTC)
- I wasn't vandalizing! I was only labelling on how much one antagonist is behind a big enterprise more than another. This guy Gaston had plotted to have Tony Jay's character put into an insane asylum, unless Belle agrees to marry Gaston. I was "helpful" with this as much as I could. I wasn't there when other editors fought for those pages. I'm not always right, but I'm never wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff Meredith (talk • contribs) 00:49, November 28, 2015 (UTC)
What have I done?! I'm only fixing the pages! You are very stubborn and you can't mess around with my unnecessary edits! Now you had to do this when we could have talked it out with? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Learnedhand41 (talk • contribs) June 24, 2017, 01:22 (UTC)
- Incorrect. I have attempted to talk with you on many occasions but you have been unwilling to listen and have continued to try and force your point of view on these characters and this wiki. —RRabbit42 (leave a message) 02:19, June 24, 2017 (UTC)
- As you explained about a month ago, you took the time to watch Ice Age: Collision Course to figure out what the Dino-Birds did. When you did that, you set aside what people had put on this wiki. It didn't matter to me what you said, but Gavin and Gertie are reformed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Learnedhand41 (talk • contribs) June 24, 2017, 02:24 (UTC)
The Block Edit
About the block
I have blocked Learnedhand41 for the reasons you informed me about and have seen evidence of on your talk with him
Dino-birds in Ice Age Edit
Hello RRabbit42, I hope you don't mind if we get back on this topic; I casually found a thread that you opened in Learnedhand41's message wall, on May, and I would have like to talk about some things I was interested:
- You were wondering why the dino-birds stole eggs, and I thought: if the eggs were what this kind of dinosaurs ate, I found it hard to believe that Buck kept them from get food, since, as every animal, they needed to eat, and, inter alia, Buck is a weasel, namely a carnivore animal, and so I don't understand why he should have stopped the hunting of other carnivores. I don't think it's possible that they stole eggs for fun, as you said, I mean, Roger proposed to become vegans, and so this implied the eggs had to do with their diet. So I guess they, as you wrote, traded/sold the eggs to someone else in exchange for a different kind of food, and so Buck didn't like they got innocent creatures into it; or maybe their species is vegeterian (even if it would seem strange, seeing their dentition and knowing that they are dakotaraptors) and they are the only ones that stole eggs, and for this reason Buck stopped them, he thought they should have eaten the same food of their conspecifics. What do you think?
- I thought it was weird how Gavin turned good, too, but I don't think he is acting in his own interests, because he could have easily killed Buck after that they stopped the asteroid, but for some unknown and strange reason he didn't do it. The fact that he was at Peaches and Julian's wedding make me think the dino-birds definitively turned good and moved to the Herd Valley, because I guess organizing the ceremony took at least one week, and if they weren't herd's members, they had no reason to remain in the Valley so long, they would have already returned to the Dinosaur World. Plus, the fact that they danced, smiling, would confirm that they became good friends of the herd, despite how this happened will remain a mistery.
- Lastly, regarding if they joined the herd or not, I'm very uncertain. I, until recently, thought they didn't do it, but, on reflection, it's possible that I was wrong. The four proofs that convinced me of that were: *They, at the wedding, were sitting in the back row, away from where the rest of the herd was;
- Peaches didn't look at them when she "went to the altar", while she looked at the confirmed members (except Manny, Ellie, Julian and Brooke, obviously);
- They didn't feature in the last scene, the one during which Manny, Ellie, Sid and Brooke seem to leave the wedding, and around them there are the animals that are talking and dancing, including all the other confirmed members;
- They never interacted with the main protagonists (Manny, Sid, Diego), but only with Buck;
The first two reasons can be justified, because maybe the dino-birds would have "ruined the moment" if they were sitting with the herd, because perhaps that scene had to show how Peaches' uncles and aunt reacted seeing she that got married, and the dino-birds aren't correlated to the young mammoth, and they would have been unnecessary. The third reason could be just a mistake of the screenplayers, I guess. What do you think about the fourth reason?
Plus, there is something else that make me think they could be a part of the herd: if you notice, if Julian and Brooke were the only ones new members, the number of the herd's members didn't raise, because he replaced Louis, she replaced Granny and Buck, despite he wasn't with the herd in the previous movie, was still considered a member by the protagonists. This problem could have been simply avoided by making Granny and Teddy move to the Valley, like Brooke did, at the end of the movie, but they didn't do it, and the reason could be that the writers had in their mind to put in the herd other and more interesting members: Gavin, Gertie and Roger. What's your opinion?
Helping Hand Edit
Thank you for your help on removing the repetive false information from the Rio 3 film page I knew I could count on you!
- It might be time to protect that page and the one for Spies in Disguise since they're the ones this person has been visiting the most. —RRabbit42 (leave a message) 01:02, October 21, 2017 (UTC)
- So far the Rio 3 film page is the only one I'm concerned about right now. However if all of this continues to happen without backup references, mostly the release date since it gets people really excited, then I'll probably do that. Thanks for the suggestion. Blu100-Jewel100 (talk) 16:22, October 21, 2017 (UTC)