User talk:ProfessorOfK3ology
ok coolProfessorOfK3ology' 23:38, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
About this revision you've made
I want you to watch this video (timestamps: 2:02-2:50 but you can watch the full video if you want) so you can understand the point that sentence was trying to make. Thank you! PurrpleKittyCat (talk) 05:47, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- Ah, I see
- At the end of the day, though, I'd say the point doesn't really belong there as colour theory gets into a bunch of technicalities and pedantics that people can't agree on (as demonstrated between us)
- I just didn't want to erase something entirely that was actually constructive. I've certainly erased pointless trivia before, but this wasn't one of those cases.
- cheers
- ProfessorOfK3ology 10:40, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- Even if we disagree, I don't see why remove a trivia point that can be considered a fact as we can just clarify that blue + yellow = gray is digital mixing, which was already clarified in the trivia point (RYB = traditional color theory; RGB = digital color theory) PurrpleKittyCat (talk) 04:02, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah clarifying it better is the way to go if we don't want to remove it completely. Just actually say "using digital color mixing..." and "using traditional color mixing..." or something like that because just having RGB and RYB in parenthesis is what led to my misunderstanding in the first place
- Even if we disagree, I don't see why remove a trivia point that can be considered a fact as we can just clarify that blue + yellow = gray is digital mixing, which was already clarified in the trivia point (RYB = traditional color theory; RGB = digital color theory) PurrpleKittyCat (talk) 04:02, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- edit: put my signature in the middle of a word 💀 ProfessorOfK3ology 10:34, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Edit summary content
Hey ProfessorOfK3ology, it's come to my attention you made an edit "in protest" of another and noted within the edit's summary you think it will "start an edit war". Please note this editing behavior is considered disruptive. If you take issue with other editors over removed content, the best place to address it is in discussion on the related articles' talk pages and/or directly with the user you find to have removed factual content.
From what I can see, it looks like a recent edit of yours was reverted by a staff member because they found it to be overly speculative; the most productive thing to do here would be to start a civil discussion over the matter directly instead of counter-editing other articles that share a relation to the topic at hand in protest. Yoshifan52 (talk) 23:41, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- I'll admit I was a bit mad earlier (I had just woken up lol) but I don't see why this information gets removed for speculation when a new edit was made versus the exact same information is allowed for months on another page. If the extra thirty seconds were taken to remove the same info on the Splatlands page for the same reason, I wouldn't have taken issue with it at all.
- Maybe I'm seeing this through rose-tinted shades but it feels like preferential treatment is given to edits that have already existed versus new edits that were added in the recent past. It's something I see on wikis a lot; it seems to be a subconscious thing, so I can't place a lot of blame, but it's something that bothers me a lot.
- If I were thinking a bit straighter, I would've re-worded the paragraph in the Splatlands page to remove the parts that were seen as speculative instead of deleting it entirely. The "no speculation" thing is a rule I agree with, especially on an encyclopaedic source such as Inkipedia; I just wish that more effort was taken to ensure that said rule was consistent across wiki pages.
- Thanks for your time.
- ProfessorOfK3ology 00:36, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
