User talk:Batalex 34

Edit warring

Batalex, please cease undoing my reverts of your edits to the pages John Pitcairn and Nicholas Biddle. The reason why they were undone, as I had already explained in the edit summary, is because at this wiki, we follow by an in-universe perspective in our articles. This means that we avoid describing subjects with gameplay language. Instead, we strive to present information as though we are in the world of Assassin's Creed itself, and so if you wish to explain the martial skills of a character, you have to do so in realistic terms that don't heavily imply that you're approaching it like it's a video game. I understand that you may have been confused by this manual of style even after I explained it in the edit summaries, but the proper procedure if you still dispute it is to take it to the article's talk page or contact me rather than continuing to contest it. Undoing reverts repeatedly is called edit warring, and it is a punishable offense especially after committing three rounds of it. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 07:01, April 26, 2018 (UTC)

Batalex, Sol Pacificus is not "harassing" you; you're recent edits to John Pitcairn, Nicholas Biddle, and Edward Kenway have been reverted because they are:

1. Poorly formatted
2. Poorly written
3. OOU (addressing the fact that they are gameplay mechanics rather than being written from an in-universe (IU) perspective)

I myself was forced to revert this edit of yours for the third reason. Simply re-inserting this information following Sol's reversion doesn't address any of these issues and you have been made aware of this (see Sol's message above). I have left Sol a message, as you requested, addressing your complaint and the fact that the pages have been locked down, but I happen to be in agreement with her. If you continue to simply re-insert the information without addressing the reasons for which t is being removed then you are liable to receive an official warning, or more likely a ban, since this has been an on-going affair. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 14:26, April 26, 2018

(UTC)

How long will I be blocked?

The guy who blocked me has lost his grip on putting the expiration date, and I need to know when I'm going to be unlocked Batalex34 21:43, June 10, 2018 (UTC)Batalex 34 (talk) 21:43, June 10, 2018 (UTC)

First warning

	"Have some respect for death, my friend."
	Safety and peace. We have observed that some of your recent activities on the wiki were of ill fate. While your help is just as good as any, please try to refrain from negatively affecting the wiki and its community. Should you require any assistance or have any concerns, please refer to us if need be. This is your first warning. Arrivederci.

Since you returned to edit warring on the aforementioned two pages the very moment their locks expired, I think my choice to protect them for just a day was not unwarranted, especially since it was only because I was refraining from blocking you outright. Jasca explained the situation well for me. Even if we were in error (and we are not), there is no excuse for you not to respond and communicate with us any confusion you may have regarding this. I am hereby giving you an official warning. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 19:56, April 27, 2018 (UTC)

Cristophorus put in a lot of effort to try to resolve the language barrier—which I assumed was the real issue, but not only have you not replied to him, communicated your perspective, nor addressed the problem, but you have went straight back with the edit warring. The reason why your edit to the Karl Marx article was reverted is because it violates a very critical policy we have here which is a neutral point-of-view. This means not making the claim that Marx's ideas were "quite negative and extremist" because no matter how valid that opinion might be, it's still an opinion. I know that our policies have still not been written out fully which is our fault, but you still must explain your own reasons whenever you insist on reverting reverts like that. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 07:24, April 30, 2018 (UTC)

=

Second warning

	"There is still time to clear your conscience."
	Safety and peace. Once again, we are here to inform you of your recent activity on the wiki. Whatever you may have done to receive these warnings, we can assure that all is not lost yet. Please remember that you are working within a community, and cooperation is an integral part of the wiki's maintenance. This is your second warning. Arrivederci.

Your edits aren't irrevocably better than a previous version or that of another user's simply because you made it. Honestly, we are being very patient with you as it is given that you have persisted in incessant edit warring while showing absolutely no effort at communication. Meanwhile other users have provided so much effort in courteously explaining to you the issues with your edits. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 19:05, May 2, 2018 (UTC)

Third warning

	"I learned what becomes of those who lift themselves above others..."
	Patience is a virtue that many of us do not spare lightly, and indeed, we have fairly rationed it, but it seems that we cannot come to an agreement. As a community, what the administration requires from its editors is not obedience, but cooperation. If you cannot offer that, then our ultimatum is such: cease and desist. This is your final warning. Our patience is at our limit. Arrivederci.

I feel that it would be redundant of me to explain myself any further. At the very least, you could reply to one of us addressing our issues with your edit warring rather than ignoring us outright. Virtually every last edit you have ever made have been disruptive. If you are seriously just confused over why your edits are poor, then I'm sorry that we cannot explain it to you any better. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 14:08, May 3, 2018 (UTC)

Your language

May I ask what is your native language Batalex? I mean no offense, but your English is quite poor. That may be a reason why it is hard for us to communicate. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 20:36, April 27, 2018 (UTC)

Batalex, I have already given you my reasons. In fact, I explained quite clearly these reasons at every point: when I reverted your edits initially and whenever I gave you a warning. I have asked a fellow Spanish-speaking user to help translate because I think it's clear that the language barrier between us is a factor to why you have difficulty understanding me. He should be around soon, probably tomorrow. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 22:35, April 27, 2018 (UTC)

He sido contactado para prestar ayuda

Hola, puedes llamarme Cris.

He sido contactado por Cyfiero para explicarte los "por qué", y la solución, a tu problema.

Primero que nada, quiero destacar que Animuspedia y ACWiki tienen políticas distintas, es decir, que los dos siguen una serie de reglas muy diferentes, mientras que Animuspedia acepta casi toda información relacionada con la saga (bien redactada y sin faltas de ortografía), aquí en ACWiki nos guiamos por la relevancia de dicho contenido. Teniendo en cuenta esto, sigamos.

Tus ediciones (en las páginas de John Pitcairn, Nicholas Biddle y Edward Kenway) han sido revertidas por las siguientes razones:

1. No siguen el formato de la Wiki. Aquí es requisito tener una gramática decente para poder comunicar la idea eficientemente. Entiendo que no puedas escribir bien en inglés, pero tus ediciones tenían faltas gramaticales un tanto horribles. Aquí es necesario un nivel básico del idioma para contribuir.
2. No estaban bien redactadas. La idea si bien era describir las habilidades de los personajes, se mezclaba mucho con términos de la jugabilidad y eso puede llegar a confundir a algunos usuarios. Además, no era coherente con el resto del artículo.
3. Describías, pero no explicabas. No debes escribir las cosas desde el punto de vista de las mecanicas del juego, deben ser como si estuvieses explicando las habilidades a tu profesor o profesora, con fundamentos y justificaciones. Tal cual como lo hiciste, no corresponde. Me di cuenta que te esforzaste para escribirlo de forma más realista, pero aún así describías lo visto en el juego como mecánicas y no explicabas el tema com justificaciones de la historia del juego. Créeme, no es necesariamente lo mismo explicar cosas del juego con mecánicas que explicar lo que pasa en la historia del universo.
4. No era relevante. De la manera en la que lo explicaste, tus ediciones carecían de relevancia. Aquí en ACWiki, nos guiamos por la siguiente frase: "Todo lo relevante es relevante, excepto lo irrelevante", toda información sirve si se encuentra en el sitio adecuado. No puedo hablar de limones en un lugar donde se habla de papas, todo debe ser cojerente y relevante para la página, y la descripción de las mecánicas del personaje no venían al caso para el artículo, lo lamento.

Ahora, vamos a ver cómo solucionamos esto.

1. Dirígete con respeto ante los compañeros de la comunidad. Todos podemos entendernos sin necesidad de alterarnos ni de decir malas palabras y menos a insultos. Modérate.
2. Mejora tu comprensión y manejo del inglés, esto aquí es fundamental.
3. Si una comunidad tiene reglas o una serie de políticas, es de mucha mportancia que las leas, las comprendas y las sigas. Es fundamental para tener un buen tiempo en comunidad.
4. Trata de explicar en vez de describir:
   1. Ejemplo: NO digas "Nicholas Biddle era un maestro de la espada, esto puede verse porque reaccionaba a tiempo a todos los ataques de Connor", sino que dilo de la siguiente forma: "Nicholas Biddle formaba parte de la Armada Patriota, por lo que era capaz de defenderse muy bien ante sus enemigos". En el cuerpo del artículo (la sección importante), no expliques nada fundamentando con mecánicas del juego, sino que hazlo usando la historia del juego y la de los personajes.
5. No reviertas modificaciones hechas por otros usuarios de la comunidad, pensando que tú tienes la razón. Aquí no nos llevamos por el orgullo, cualquier conflicto puede conversarse y solucionarse en una discusión sana y de buena fe. Si tienes problemas, dirígete a un moderador y explícalo, pero no reviertas una y otra vez cambios en una página, es molesto.

Finalmente, si no estás conforme con alguna de estas soluciones, aquí te propongo una última:

1. Sigue contribuyendo en Animuspedia. Allí puedes editar en tu idioma, sin necesidad de tener que traducir algo. Puedes también, contribuir con lo que tú pienses que haga falta destacar de la franquicia y ya conoces como funciona esa comunidad. Allí es más sencillo, ellos son más permisivos y estás a gusto.

Lamento que hayas tenido esta experiencia, ojalá todo se resuelva en paz.

Que tengas buen día.

Cristophorus35 (talk) 18:28, April 28, 2018 (UTC)

Re: I will be patient if you tell me one thing

The edit you made were not necessary as most people already know that counterfeit means fake money, so the addition of "fake paper money" is not needed, and it looks unprofessional anyway. As far as other issues are concerned, Sol Pacificus has already explained pretty well what they are. I actually have to say I admire his patience toward you. I am an admin on another wiki and I would have shown a lot less tolerance for your edit warring if you did it over there. The Cat Master (talk) 19:35, May 3, 2018 (UTC)

True, you can counterfeit anything. There is just no need to add "fake money" to the Ratonhnhaké:ton or Thomas Hickey pages, as is assumed as such in the context of the story. It also makes the flow of the effected sentences somewhat weird. It really is best that leave those pages as they are. The information as currently presented was written a few years ago by some capable authors, and there has never been an issue with it until you stared making an issue out of it. The Cat Master (talk) 21:02, May 3, 2018 (UTC)

Warren Vidic

The edit to the Warren Vidic page has been undone because it was poorly written and was kind of hard understand. I'm sure you mean well, but it is obvious that English is not your primary language. Based on the message above it seems that Spanish is, so you may want to consider editing on the Spanish Assassin's Creed wiki. You may have an easier time getting your point across there. The Cat Master (talk) 22:58, May 4, 2018 (UTC)

Very good

Hi, I wanted to apologize for what I did in the Wiki, how can I get them to unblock me exactly?. —unsigned comment by Batalex 34 (talk · contr)

Unfortunately with dozens upon dozens of offenses and infinite bans stacked on top of one another, an apology alone is not enough to overturn your permanent ban. If you are truly sincere with your apology, then I am in turn sorry that it has to be this way. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 01:33, March 26, 2019 (UTC)

I promise that I will not cause more harm, i'm being honest. —unsigned comment by Batalex 34 (talk · contr)