User talk:Quantum Immortal - Revision history

Infinigon: /* Encyclopedia entry */ new section

2021-01-16T03:00:57Z

‎Encyclopedia entry: new section

74.137.179.27: /* Japanese pronunciation */

2015-10-01T01:14:25Z

‎Japanese pronunciation

Quantum Immortal: /* Japanese pronunciation */

2015-09-30T20:01:03Z

‎Japanese pronunciation

74.137.179.27: /* Japanese pronunciation */

2015-09-30T10:24:04Z

‎Japanese pronunciation

74.137.179.27: /* Japanese pronunciation */

2015-09-30T10:22:47Z

‎Japanese pronunciation

74.137.179.27 at 10:14, 30 September 2015

2015-09-30T10:14:25Z

Quantum Immortal: /* Japanese pronunciation */

2015-09-29T19:18:17Z

‎Japanese pronunciation

74.137.179.27: /* Japanese pronunciation */

2015-09-29T12:14:08Z

‎Japanese pronunciation

Quantum Immortal: /* Japanese pronunciation */

2015-09-28T18:50:28Z

‎Japanese pronunciation

74.137.179.27: /* Japanese pronunciation */

2015-09-28T17:17:16Z

‎Japanese pronunciation

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:00, 16 January 2021
Line 66:		Line 66:
	:::::::::::I tried to change the houchou article. For asmodeus see [[Forum:Edit conflict]]--[[User:Quantum Immortal\|Quantum Immortal]] ([[User talk:Quantum Immortal\|talk]]) 20:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)		:::::::::::I tried to change the houchou article. For asmodeus see [[Forum:Edit conflict]]--[[User:Quantum Immortal\|Quantum Immortal]] ([[User talk:Quantum Immortal\|talk]]) 20:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
	::::::::::::I accept your apology.--[[Special:Contributions/74.137.179.27\|74.137.179.27]] 01:11, 1 October 2015 (UTC)		::::::::::::I accept your apology.--[[Special:Contributions/74.137.179.27\|74.137.179.27]] 01:11, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
		+
		+	== Encyclopedia entry ==
		+
		+	Hello! I've noticed that you had added some incorrect encyclopedia entries to several pages ([[Aleax]], [[Green slime]], [[Garter snake]]). I've corrected these for you now, but for future reference, you can verify the veracity of the encyclopedia entries that you insert into the wiki by using the [[What is#Consulting the encyclopedia\|what is]] command.
		+
		+	Thank you! [[User:Infinigon\|Infinigon]] ([[User talk:Infinigon\|talk]]) 03:00, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:14, 1 October 2015
Line 65:		Line 65:
	::::::::::Both articles you linked prove ''me'' right. Now, are you going to apologize for being wrong? Will you let me fix what you have broken, and will you stop breaking things?--[[Special:Contributions/74.137.179.27\|74.137.179.27]] 10:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)		::::::::::Both articles you linked prove ''me'' right. Now, are you going to apologize for being wrong? Will you let me fix what you have broken, and will you stop breaking things?--[[Special:Contributions/74.137.179.27\|74.137.179.27]] 10:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::::::I tried to change the houchou article. For asmodeus see [[Forum:Edit conflict]]--[[User:Quantum Immortal\|Quantum Immortal]] ([[User talk:Quantum Immortal\|talk]]) 20:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)		:::::::::::I tried to change the houchou article. For asmodeus see [[Forum:Edit conflict]]--[[User:Quantum Immortal\|Quantum Immortal]] ([[User talk:Quantum Immortal\|talk]]) 20:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
		+	::::::::::::I accept your apology.--[[Special:Contributions/74.137.179.27\|74.137.179.27]] 01:11, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:01, 30 September 2015
Line 64:		Line 64:
	::::::::::Did you even read the articles you linked? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_English International English] is not a standard! The article makes that very clear: "International English is the concept of the English language as a global means of communication in numerous dialects, and also ''the movement towards an international standard for the language''." "Sometimes, "international English" and the related terms above refer to a desired standardisation, i.e. Standard English; ''however, there is no consensus on the path to this goal.''" '''An "International standard" of English does not exist.''' There are many, many, many, many standards for English, in different places all over the world, and the fact that there is '''not''' an international standard has caused some problems. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Englishes This article] is one of many articles that talks about this problem more, if you want to learn.		::::::::::Did you even read the articles you linked? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_English International English] is not a standard! The article makes that very clear: "International English is the concept of the English language as a global means of communication in numerous dialects, and also ''the movement towards an international standard for the language''." "Sometimes, "international English" and the related terms above refer to a desired standardisation, i.e. Standard English; ''however, there is no consensus on the path to this goal.''" '''An "International standard" of English does not exist.''' There are many, many, many, many standards for English, in different places all over the world, and the fact that there is '''not''' an international standard has caused some problems. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Englishes This article] is one of many articles that talks about this problem more, if you want to learn.
	::::::::::Both articles you linked prove ''me'' right. Now, are you going to apologize for being wrong? Will you let me fix what you have broken, and will you stop breaking things?--[[Special:Contributions/74.137.179.27\|74.137.179.27]] 10:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)		::::::::::Both articles you linked prove ''me'' right. Now, are you going to apologize for being wrong? Will you let me fix what you have broken, and will you stop breaking things?--[[Special:Contributions/74.137.179.27\|74.137.179.27]] 10:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
		+	:::::::::::I tried to change the houchou article. For asmodeus see [[Forum:Edit conflict]]--[[User:Quantum Immortal\|Quantum Immortal]] ([[User talk:Quantum Immortal\|talk]]) 20:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

@@ Line 62: / Line 62: @@
 ::::::::: What are these then?[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanization_of_Japanese] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_English]--[[User:Quantum Immortal|Quantum Immortal]] ([[User talk:Quantum Immortal|talk]]) 19:18, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 ::::::::::In the ''very first paragraph'' of the Romanization of Japanese article that you linked: "There are several different romanization systems. The three main ones are Hepburn romanization, Kunrei-shiki Rōmaji (ISO 3602), and Nihon-shiki Rōmaji (ISO 3602 Strict). Variants of the Hepburn system are the most widely used." [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanization_of_Japanese#Modern_systems This subheading] explains that different systems are used in different parts of the world, so when I made [https://nethackwiki.com/mediawiki/index.php?title=Houchou&diff=next&oldid=96528 this edit] and said "''there are multiple transliteration and pronunciation standards for japanese''," '''I was right.''' Also, '''"romanization" deals with transliteration, not pronunciation.''' This whole time, you have been acting like romanization has something to do with pronunciation, when it does not. That is very embarrassing. That is a big mistake that shows your ignorance of the subject.
-::::::::::Did you even read the articles you linked? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_English International English] is not a standard! The article makes that very clear: "International English is the concept of the English language as a global means of communication in numerous dialects, and also ''the movement towards an international standard for the language''." "Sometimes, "international English" and the related terms above refer to a desired standardisation, i.e. Standard English; ''however, there is no consensus on the path to this goal.''" '''An "International standard" of English does not exist.''' There are many, many, many, many standards for English, in different places all over the world, and the fact that there is '''not''' an international standard has caused some problems. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Englishes This article] is one of many articles that talks about this problem more.
+::::::::::Did you even read the articles you linked? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_English International English] is not a standard! The article makes that very clear: "International English is the concept of the English language as a global means of communication in numerous dialects, and also ''the movement towards an international standard for the language''." "Sometimes, "international English" and the related terms above refer to a desired standardisation, i.e. Standard English; ''however, there is no consensus on the path to this goal.''" '''An "International standard" of English does not exist.''' There are many, many, many, many standards for English, in different places all over the world, and the fact that there is '''not''' an international standard has caused some problems. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Englishes This article] is one of many articles that talks about this problem more, if you want to learn.
 ::::::::::Both articles you linked prove ''me'' right. Now, are you going to apologize for being wrong? Will you let me fix what you have broken, and will you stop breaking things?--[[Special:Contributions/74.137.179.27|74.137.179.27]] 10:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

@@ Line 61: / Line 61: @@
 ::::::::You have been wrong on other articles too. Here is just one example (there are a lot): https://nethackwiki.com/mediawiki/index.php?title=Asmodeus&diff=prev&oldid=96349 . The line "dark-skinned and -haired" was fine. You changed it because you were not familiar with ''good English'' - your reason for changing it was "''""a bit more international english''". '''"International English" is not a real thing.''' Do you see the problem now? '''You are making up rules that are not real''', and this behavior is because you are a poor English speaker, which you have already admitted. You think you are improving articles, but your bad English skills are actually ''adding'' errors. Do you understand now?--[[Special:Contributions/74.137.179.27|74.137.179.27]] 12:12, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 ::::::::: What are these then?[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanization_of_Japanese] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_English]--[[User:Quantum Immortal|Quantum Immortal]] ([[User talk:Quantum Immortal|talk]]) 19:18, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
-::::::::::In the ''very first paragraph'' of the Romanization of Japanese article that you linked: "There are several different romanization systems. The three main ones are Hepburn romanization, Kunrei-shiki Rōmaji (ISO 3602), and Nihon-shiki Rōmaji (ISO 3602 Strict). Variants of the Hepburn system are the most widely used." [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanization_of_Japanese#Modern_systems This subheading] explains that different systems are used in different parts of the world, so when I made [https://nethackwiki.com/mediawiki/index.php?title=Houchou&diff=next&oldid=96528 this edit] and said "'' there are multiple transliteration and pronunciation standards for japanese''," '''I was right.''' Also, '''"romanization" deals with transliteration, not pronunciation.''' This whole time, you have been acting like romanization has something to do with pronunciation, when it does not. That is very embarrassing. That is a big mistake that shows your ignorance of the subject.
+::::::::::In the ''very first paragraph'' of the Romanization of Japanese article that you linked: "There are several different romanization systems. The three main ones are Hepburn romanization, Kunrei-shiki Rōmaji (ISO 3602), and Nihon-shiki Rōmaji (ISO 3602 Strict). Variants of the Hepburn system are the most widely used." [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanization_of_Japanese#Modern_systems This subheading] explains that different systems are used in different parts of the world, so when I made [https://nethackwiki.com/mediawiki/index.php?title=Houchou&diff=next&oldid=96528 this edit] and said "''there are multiple transliteration and pronunciation standards for japanese''," '''I was right.''' Also, '''"romanization" deals with transliteration, not pronunciation.''' This whole time, you have been acting like romanization has something to do with pronunciation, when it does not. That is very embarrassing. That is a big mistake that shows your ignorance of the subject.
-::::::::::Did you even read the articles you linked? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_English International English] is not a standard! The article makes that very clear: "International English is the concept of the English language as a global means of communication in numerous dialects, and also ''the movement towards an international standard for the language''." "Sometimes, "international English" and the related terms above refer to a desired standardisation, i.e. Standard English; ''however, there is no consensus on the path to this goal.''" '''An "International standard" of English does not exist.'''
+::::::::::Did you even read the articles you linked? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_English International English] is not a standard! The article makes that very clear: "International English is the concept of the English language as a global means of communication in numerous dialects, and also ''the movement towards an international standard for the language''." "Sometimes, "international English" and the related terms above refer to a desired standardisation, i.e. Standard English; ''however, there is no consensus on the path to this goal.''" '''An "International standard" of English does not exist.''' There are many, many, many, many standards for English, in different places all over the world, and the fact that there is '''not''' an international standard has caused some problems. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Englishes This article] is one of many articles that talks about this problem more.
 ::::::::::Both articles you linked prove ''me'' right. Now, are you going to apologize for being wrong? Will you let me fix what you have broken, and will you stop breaking things?--[[Special:Contributions/74.137.179.27|74.137.179.27]] 10:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:14, 30 September 2015
Line 61:		Line 61:
	::::::::You have been wrong on other articles too. Here is just one example (there are a lot): https://nethackwiki.com/mediawiki/index.php?title=Asmodeus&diff=prev&oldid=96349 . The line "dark-skinned and -haired" was fine. You changed it because you were not familiar with ''good English'' - your reason for changing it was "''""a bit more international english''". '''"International English" is not a real thing.''' Do you see the problem now? '''You are making up rules that are not real''', and this behavior is because you are a poor English speaker, which you have already admitted. You think you are improving articles, but your bad English skills are actually ''adding'' errors. Do you understand now?--[[Special:Contributions/74.137.179.27\|74.137.179.27]] 12:12, 29 September 2015 (UTC)		::::::::You have been wrong on other articles too. Here is just one example (there are a lot): https://nethackwiki.com/mediawiki/index.php?title=Asmodeus&diff=prev&oldid=96349 . The line "dark-skinned and -haired" was fine. You changed it because you were not familiar with ''good English'' - your reason for changing it was "''""a bit more international english''". '''"International English" is not a real thing.''' Do you see the problem now? '''You are making up rules that are not real''', and this behavior is because you are a poor English speaker, which you have already admitted. You think you are improving articles, but your bad English skills are actually ''adding'' errors. Do you understand now?--[[Special:Contributions/74.137.179.27\|74.137.179.27]] 12:12, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
	::::::::: What are these then?[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanization_of_Japanese] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_English]--[[User:Quantum Immortal\|Quantum Immortal]] ([[User talk:Quantum Immortal\|talk]]) 19:18, 29 September 2015 (UTC)		::::::::: What are these then?[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanization_of_Japanese] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_English]--[[User:Quantum Immortal\|Quantum Immortal]] ([[User talk:Quantum Immortal\|talk]]) 19:18, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
		+	::::::::::In the ''very first paragraph'' of the Romanization of Japanese article that you linked: "There are several different romanization systems. The three main ones are Hepburn romanization, Kunrei-shiki Rōmaji (ISO 3602), and Nihon-shiki Rōmaji (ISO 3602 Strict). Variants of the Hepburn system are the most widely used." [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanization_of_Japanese#Modern_systems This subheading] explains that different systems are used in different parts of the world, so when I made [https://nethackwiki.com/mediawiki/index.php?title=Houchou&diff=next&oldid=96528 this edit] and said "'' there are multiple transliteration and pronunciation standards for japanese''," '''I was right.''' Also, '''"romanization" deals with transliteration, not pronunciation.''' This whole time, you have been acting like romanization has something to do with pronunciation, when it does not. That is very embarrassing. That is a big mistake that shows your ignorance of the subject.
		+	::::::::::Did you even read the articles you linked? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_English International English] is not a standard! The article makes that very clear: "International English is the concept of the English language as a global means of communication in numerous dialects, and also ''the movement towards an international standard for the language''." "Sometimes, "international English" and the related terms above refer to a desired standardisation, i.e. Standard English; ''however, there is no consensus on the path to this goal.''" '''An "International standard" of English does not exist.'''
		+	::::::::::Both articles you linked prove ''me'' right. Now, are you going to apologize for being wrong? Will you let me fix what you have broken, and will you stop breaking things?--[[Special:Contributions/74.137.179.27\|74.137.179.27]] 10:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:18, 29 September 2015
Line 60:		Line 60:
	::::::::There is no such thing as "most frequent romanization rules." '''That is not a real thing. That is why I have been removing it.''' I have said this many times, but still you do not understand.		::::::::There is no such thing as "most frequent romanization rules." '''That is not a real thing. That is why I have been removing it.''' I have said this many times, but still you do not understand.
	::::::::You have been wrong on other articles too. Here is just one example (there are a lot): https://nethackwiki.com/mediawiki/index.php?title=Asmodeus&diff=prev&oldid=96349 . The line "dark-skinned and -haired" was fine. You changed it because you were not familiar with ''good English'' - your reason for changing it was "''""a bit more international english''". '''"International English" is not a real thing.''' Do you see the problem now? '''You are making up rules that are not real''', and this behavior is because you are a poor English speaker, which you have already admitted. You think you are improving articles, but your bad English skills are actually ''adding'' errors. Do you understand now?--[[Special:Contributions/74.137.179.27\|74.137.179.27]] 12:12, 29 September 2015 (UTC)		::::::::You have been wrong on other articles too. Here is just one example (there are a lot): https://nethackwiki.com/mediawiki/index.php?title=Asmodeus&diff=prev&oldid=96349 . The line "dark-skinned and -haired" was fine. You changed it because you were not familiar with ''good English'' - your reason for changing it was "''""a bit more international english''". '''"International English" is not a real thing.''' Do you see the problem now? '''You are making up rules that are not real''', and this behavior is because you are a poor English speaker, which you have already admitted. You think you are improving articles, but your bad English skills are actually ''adding'' errors. Do you understand now?--[[Special:Contributions/74.137.179.27\|74.137.179.27]] 12:12, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
		+	::::::::: What are these then?[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanization_of_Japanese] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_English]--[[User:Quantum Immortal\|Quantum Immortal]] ([[User talk:Quantum Immortal\|talk]]) 19:18, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:14, 29 September 2015
Line 58:		Line 58:
	::::::Right now, I cannot fix your mistakes, because you think I am personally attacking you. That is why I think I need some other people to help fix this problem. I also do not want an edit war.--[[Special:Contributions/74.137.179.27\|74.137.179.27]] 17:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC)		::::::Right now, I cannot fix your mistakes, because you think I am personally attacking you. That is why I think I need some other people to help fix this problem. I also do not want an edit war.--[[Special:Contributions/74.137.179.27\|74.137.179.27]] 17:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::check the last version please.I had moved "hōchō" to the lead, and i don't know what bugs you with "the most frequent romanization rules for Japanese."--[[User:Quantum Immortal\|Quantum Immortal]] ([[User talk:Quantum Immortal\|talk]]) 18:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)		:::::::check the last version please.I had moved "hōchō" to the lead, and i don't know what bugs you with "the most frequent romanization rules for Japanese."--[[User:Quantum Immortal\|Quantum Immortal]] ([[User talk:Quantum Immortal\|talk]]) 18:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
		+	::::::::There is no such thing as "most frequent romanization rules." '''That is not a real thing. That is why I have been removing it.''' I have said this many times, but still you do not understand.
		+	::::::::You have been wrong on other articles too. Here is just one example (there are a lot): https://nethackwiki.com/mediawiki/index.php?title=Asmodeus&diff=prev&oldid=96349 . The line "dark-skinned and -haired" was fine. You changed it because you were not familiar with ''good English'' - your reason for changing it was "''""a bit more international english''". '''"International English" is not a real thing.''' Do you see the problem now? '''You are making up rules that are not real''', and this behavior is because you are a poor English speaker, which you have already admitted. You think you are improving articles, but your bad English skills are actually ''adding'' errors. Do you understand now?--[[Special:Contributions/74.137.179.27\|74.137.179.27]] 12:12, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:50, 28 September 2015
Line 57:		Line 57:
	::::::You gave a wrong pronunciation - "hoo-choo" is wrong. I was not wrong to remove your mistake. You were wrong again when you restored the mistake, and I was '''not''' wrong to remove it again. This is not about compromise, this is not about bureaucracies, this is not about "daddy admins" - you have done something wrong, and when I talk to you about it, I think your attitude is that I should feel bad for fixing an error. I have learned that there is a language barrier that makes it hard for me to communicate my message to you, and you still seem to be confused about why I am upset with your responses. That is why I have tried to talk to other people and see if they can help me make you understand. I do not have to "propose changes" when ''the thing you wrote is wrong.'' There is no compromise between right and wrong; what I wrote to fix your mistake was okay, and ''you'' reverted it without "compromising." Your ideas about what is acceptable are based on bad English being "okay" enough for you, and I disagree; if nobody cared about good English, the entire wiki would be written in bad English, so I do not believe I should feel bad when I re-write or remove your mistakes. I would like it if you stopped making those mistakes, but you have told me that you do not care. I think it is unreasonable (and very rude) for you to expect other people to continue to clean up your mistakes, when you should not be making them at all.		::::::You gave a wrong pronunciation - "hoo-choo" is wrong. I was not wrong to remove your mistake. You were wrong again when you restored the mistake, and I was '''not''' wrong to remove it again. This is not about compromise, this is not about bureaucracies, this is not about "daddy admins" - you have done something wrong, and when I talk to you about it, I think your attitude is that I should feel bad for fixing an error. I have learned that there is a language barrier that makes it hard for me to communicate my message to you, and you still seem to be confused about why I am upset with your responses. That is why I have tried to talk to other people and see if they can help me make you understand. I do not have to "propose changes" when ''the thing you wrote is wrong.'' There is no compromise between right and wrong; what I wrote to fix your mistake was okay, and ''you'' reverted it without "compromising." Your ideas about what is acceptable are based on bad English being "okay" enough for you, and I disagree; if nobody cared about good English, the entire wiki would be written in bad English, so I do not believe I should feel bad when I re-write or remove your mistakes. I would like it if you stopped making those mistakes, but you have told me that you do not care. I think it is unreasonable (and very rude) for you to expect other people to continue to clean up your mistakes, when you should not be making them at all.
	::::::Right now, I cannot fix your mistakes, because you think I am personally attacking you. That is why I think I need some other people to help fix this problem. I also do not want an edit war.--[[Special:Contributions/74.137.179.27\|74.137.179.27]] 17:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC)		::::::Right now, I cannot fix your mistakes, because you think I am personally attacking you. That is why I think I need some other people to help fix this problem. I also do not want an edit war.--[[Special:Contributions/74.137.179.27\|74.137.179.27]] 17:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
		+	:::::::check the last version please.I had moved "hōchō" to the lead, and i don't know what bugs you with "the most frequent romanization rules for Japanese."--[[User:Quantum Immortal\|Quantum Immortal]] ([[User talk:Quantum Immortal\|talk]]) 18:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:17, 28 September 2015
Line 55:		Line 55:
	::::I am going to try using simple English words to help you understand me: This is not about "ideologies," and I am not new to wikis. The pronunciation you gave for Houchou was wrong. When I told you this, you said there was a "standard romanization rule," but that is not a real thing. You later said that you did not know how Houchou was pronounced, but if you knew that you did not know, why would you correct someone else? You should not make edits about things you do not understand. Also, the two edits I posted above also had errors. You made those errors and many more because you have problems with English. I am asking you to stop making edits like that, because it means someone else has to come fix what you break. The things you changed were not even wrong - your changes to them were wrong. It is a matter of courtesy to not make things wrong. That is what I am trying to tell you.--[[Special:Contributions/74.137.179.27\|74.137.179.27]] 15:40, 27 September 2015 (UTC)		::::I am going to try using simple English words to help you understand me: This is not about "ideologies," and I am not new to wikis. The pronunciation you gave for Houchou was wrong. When I told you this, you said there was a "standard romanization rule," but that is not a real thing. You later said that you did not know how Houchou was pronounced, but if you knew that you did not know, why would you correct someone else? You should not make edits about things you do not understand. Also, the two edits I posted above also had errors. You made those errors and many more because you have problems with English. I am asking you to stop making edits like that, because it means someone else has to come fix what you break. The things you changed were not even wrong - your changes to them were wrong. It is a matter of courtesy to not make things wrong. That is what I am trying to tell you.--[[Special:Contributions/74.137.179.27\|74.137.179.27]] 15:40, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
	:::::Paxed is more for technical problems and isn't here often. And you are too long. I think this is what you are looking for: [[NetHackWiki:Administrators]]. In general admins aren't very active here. I propose you start a thread here [[Forum:Watercooler]]. I actually said, that i didn't know what you wanted that the phrase should say. You didn't like "standard" or "most frequent" (or what ever i said exactly). You didn't propose something, you just reverted. This is not like wikipedia, i'm personally really not in the mood for long edit wars over a little coma or daddy admins or impossible bureaucracies, and i doubt any one else here is. Just propose your change, i'm very reasonable.--[[User:Quantum Immortal\|Quantum Immortal]] ([[User talk:Quantum Immortal\|talk]]) 21:07, 27 September 2015 (UTC)		:::::Paxed is more for technical problems and isn't here often. And you are too long. I think this is what you are looking for: [[NetHackWiki:Administrators]]. In general admins aren't very active here. I propose you start a thread here [[Forum:Watercooler]]. I actually said, that i didn't know what you wanted that the phrase should say. You didn't like "standard" or "most frequent" (or what ever i said exactly). You didn't propose something, you just reverted. This is not like wikipedia, i'm personally really not in the mood for long edit wars over a little coma or daddy admins or impossible bureaucracies, and i doubt any one else here is. Just propose your change, i'm very reasonable.--[[User:Quantum Immortal\|Quantum Immortal]] ([[User talk:Quantum Immortal\|talk]]) 21:07, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
		+	::::::You gave a wrong pronunciation - "hoo-choo" is wrong. I was not wrong to remove your mistake. You were wrong again when you restored the mistake, and I was '''not''' wrong to remove it again. This is not about compromise, this is not about bureaucracies, this is not about "daddy admins" - you have done something wrong, and when I talk to you about it, I think your attitude is that I should feel bad for fixing an error. I have learned that there is a language barrier that makes it hard for me to communicate my message to you, and you still seem to be confused about why I am upset with your responses. That is why I have tried to talk to other people and see if they can help me make you understand. I do not have to "propose changes" when ''the thing you wrote is wrong.'' There is no compromise between right and wrong; what I wrote to fix your mistake was okay, and ''you'' reverted it without "compromising." Your ideas about what is acceptable are based on bad English being "okay" enough for you, and I disagree; if nobody cared about good English, the entire wiki would be written in bad English, so I do not believe I should feel bad when I re-write or remove your mistakes. I would like it if you stopped making those mistakes, but you have told me that you do not care. I think it is unreasonable (and very rude) for you to expect other people to continue to clean up your mistakes, when you should not be making them at all.
		+	::::::Right now, I cannot fix your mistakes, because you think I am personally attacking you. That is why I think I need some other people to help fix this problem. I also do not want an edit war.--[[Special:Contributions/74.137.179.27\|74.137.179.27]] 17:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC)