Difference between revisions of "User talk:UmJammer Lammy"
(Created page with "==Revision of My Edit== We'll talk more on some other congruent subjects, but for now, this is solely about my edit, and the need to do it right. On November 18 2021, you und...") |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Revision of My Edit== | ==Revision of My Edit== | ||
We'll talk more on some other congruent subjects, but for now, this is solely about my edit, and the need to do it right. On November 18 2021, you undid an edit I made about Chris's attraction to cartoon characters. Your reasoning was "Removing this both for being poorly-written and because Chris isn't exceptional in this regard." So, I went back and made an in depth edit with links to other pages on the site which serve as proof, and overhauled my prose to fit what I felt was the Cwcki's neutral wiki standard POV. I removed *Channer terms like "rule 34" and explanations thereof, believing that such things were what you and 4CentUser considered as "poorly written". So, no condemnations, not even a hint of condemnation. No opinions. No silly willy channer talk. Just notations of instances of Chris expressing sexual arousal to cartoons and anime, and it was perfectly in line with the other sub headers. It went down like this: 1. Homosexuality 2. Pedophilia 3.Bestiality and than 4. Schediaphilia. And yes, I research too, the scientific term for this kind of sexual attraction, according to Urban Dictionary is "Schediaphilia" from the Greek word for "Love of Drawings". So here, I felt that my edit meets the standards. But no, because then on November 25 2021, I see my edit removed again, with your reasoning being: "Chris isn't exceptional in this regard, it just reads like you have a personal agenda against things you don't like just because Howard Stern said so." So now, I really trying hard here, to meet the standards of this CWCki. What am I doing wrong? And if Chris being attracted to cartoons is not notable, then would that mean the "Is Chris a furry?" segment is not notable or "exceptional" either? [[User:TippyToesTommyTalarico|TippyToesTommyTalarico]] ([[User talk:TippyToesTommyTalarico|talk]]) 18:49, 25 November 2021 (UTC) | We'll talk more on some other congruent subjects, but for now, this is solely about my edit, and the need to do it right. On November 18 2021, you undid an edit I made about Chris's attraction to cartoon characters. Your reasoning was "Removing this both for being poorly-written and because Chris isn't exceptional in this regard." So, I went back and made an in depth edit with links to other pages on the site which serve as proof, and overhauled my prose to fit what I felt was the Cwcki's neutral wiki standard POV. I removed *Channer terms like "rule 34" and explanations thereof, believing that such things were what you and 4CentUser considered as "poorly written". So, no condemnations, not even a hint of condemnation. No opinions. No silly willy channer talk. Just notations of instances of Chris expressing sexual arousal to cartoons and anime, and it was perfectly in line with the other sub headers. It went down like this: 1. Homosexuality 2. Pedophilia 3.Bestiality and than 4. Schediaphilia. And yes, I research too, the scientific term for this kind of sexual attraction, according to Urban Dictionary is "Schediaphilia" from the Greek word for "Love of Drawings". So here, I felt that my edit meets the standards. But no, because then on November 25 2021, I see my edit removed again, with your reasoning being: "Chris isn't exceptional in this regard, it just reads like you have a personal agenda against things you don't like just because Howard Stern said so." So now, I really trying hard here, to meet the standards of this CWCki. What am I doing wrong? And if Chris being attracted to cartoons is not notable, then would that mean the "Is Chris a furry?" segment is not notable or "exceptional" either? [[User:TippyToesTommyTalarico|TippyToesTommyTalarico]] ([[User talk:TippyToesTommyTalarico|talk]]) 18:49, 25 November 2021 (UTC) | ||
==Exceptionalism== | |||
On another note, just so that we're on the same level of understanding, what do you mean by "exceptional"? I browse Kiwi Farms a lot sometimes, and there, "exceptional" is the word filter word for "retarded". So when you say "Chris is not exceptional in that regard", do you mean he is not notable enough in that aspect? Or do you mean that this aspect does not make him stupid? [[User:TippyToesTommyTalarico|TippyToesTommyTalarico]] ([[User talk:TippyToesTommyTalarico|talk]]) 19:13, 25 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:13, 25 November 2021
Revision of My Edit
We'll talk more on some other congruent subjects, but for now, this is solely about my edit, and the need to do it right. On November 18 2021, you undid an edit I made about Chris's attraction to cartoon characters. Your reasoning was "Removing this both for being poorly-written and because Chris isn't exceptional in this regard." So, I went back and made an in depth edit with links to other pages on the site which serve as proof, and overhauled my prose to fit what I felt was the Cwcki's neutral wiki standard POV. I removed *Channer terms like "rule 34" and explanations thereof, believing that such things were what you and 4CentUser considered as "poorly written". So, no condemnations, not even a hint of condemnation. No opinions. No silly willy channer talk. Just notations of instances of Chris expressing sexual arousal to cartoons and anime, and it was perfectly in line with the other sub headers. It went down like this: 1. Homosexuality 2. Pedophilia 3.Bestiality and than 4. Schediaphilia. And yes, I research too, the scientific term for this kind of sexual attraction, according to Urban Dictionary is "Schediaphilia" from the Greek word for "Love of Drawings". So here, I felt that my edit meets the standards. But no, because then on November 25 2021, I see my edit removed again, with your reasoning being: "Chris isn't exceptional in this regard, it just reads like you have a personal agenda against things you don't like just because Howard Stern said so." So now, I really trying hard here, to meet the standards of this CWCki. What am I doing wrong? And if Chris being attracted to cartoons is not notable, then would that mean the "Is Chris a furry?" segment is not notable or "exceptional" either? TippyToesTommyTalarico (talk) 18:49, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Exceptionalism
On another note, just so that we're on the same level of understanding, what do you mean by "exceptional"? I browse Kiwi Farms a lot sometimes, and there, "exceptional" is the word filter word for "retarded". So when you say "Chris is not exceptional in that regard", do you mean he is not notable enough in that aspect? Or do you mean that this aspect does not make him stupid? TippyToesTommyTalarico (talk) 19:13, 25 November 2021 (UTC)