And that's that. Religious freedom doesn't have anything to do with oppressing others or creating hate against them. Locking my posts because of your "disagreement" isn't going to change that. Thankfully you're not an admin who tolerates homophobia and never will be.
I did read, it was you who started with "tolerance goes both ways". In your latest comment you are aware that the user will already be banned for spreading bigotry again, and that it's against guidelines. So if you are aware, why preach to me about tolerating someone spreading of hatred from a user? Next time you want to talk about slander, please don't tell me to tolerate something against your own guidelines. I normally won't try to pick a bone with any person, but when you're saying tolerate bigotry, that had to be an exception.
Wait, your objection is to tolerance going both ways? Instead of just one way? Or what?
More bluntly, what kind of "cancel-culture" bullshit is this? "user will already be banned for spreading bigotry again"
What exactly did you come here today to accomplish? Stoop Davy Dave (talk) 15:00, June 27, 2020 (UTC)
So you showed him that intolerance is wrong by not tolerating his tolerance of intolerance, got it. And then you started lobbying to get his tolerance of intolerance banned, to show that you're clearly the most tolerant of all. Stoop Davy Dave (talk) 15:22, June 27, 2020 (UTC)
Outright, we do not tolerate homophobia. The user who posted the homophobic comment - I have no holdups saying I think they're pretty dumb and I don't personally want to work with them in any capacity. With that said, we also don't block people after one example of being dumb - nor two in this case.
Things I'd like to draw attention to are:
MatteJohnny, you're leading this crusade without much of a leg to stand on. In my opinion, your original post was mildly homophobic in its own right. Whether you intended to or not, it was what is known as a dog whistle, where a majority of the readers could conceive it as a post defending Alan Scott, there's a segment of users that could interpret it as the anti-inclusion, anti-gay proactiveness that I saw through it as. You can't bring up a topic like "Alan Scott shouldn't be gay" and be surprised that idiots in the comments agree with you, and then complain about intolerance.
Also, regarding tolerance, we can block on the grounds of "Intimidating Behavior/Harassing", which homophobia would probably fall under. In the same way that the comment user was allowed three strikes for being dumb, in my opinion, this is your second strike for harassing a user on my side of the database.
Even if you disagree with the way a moderator has handled your post and their decision to lock them when deemed necessary, I find it beyond rude the way you've decided to bring these fights to my side and clog up my feed with this (frankly harassing) behavior, when the discussion moderators have shown impressive level-headed defense in return.
If you hadn't announced your resignation in a discussion post, I would warn you to stop being such a bully when moderators moderate. We promote an inclusive environment here, and any form of antagonism to our users - homophobic or otherwise - is taken with the utmost severity.
Haroldrocks I'm not resigning, just decreasing activity. That's not the same. And you're supposed to be an administrator. Isn't checking something whether it clogs up your feed or not your responsibility? If you don't like resolving an argument between two users, then resign. It's not like I'm posting very long messages like you.
You claim my original post was mildly homophobic to mount a defense for Arise Etrigan. In my post I had clearly said that DC didn't adequately promote new LGBT characters (because Alan Scott is anyway forgotten). Someone homophobic won't say that. While you're okay with the moderator telling me to tolerate something that is explicitly spreading hate and being hateful.
Nothing I said is harassment of any sort. I have simply pointed out what he said. Your threats don't scare me. I confronted someone, that was the right thing to do.
Dear Arise Etrigan,
It has come to my attention that you have recently locked one of my posts, telling me to “read the guidelines” when all I did was ask a question for my project. I would like to know what guideline I broke and find out how I could edit my post in order to make it fit the guidelines.
Why has this page been edited? It was fine as it was. Katar Hol wasnt a police officer until before death. If you read Savage Hawkman Vol 1 and 2 you would know this. Read the comics before you make the wrong edits
No. Learn the Database guidelines before making wrong edits.
As I stated in the notes of the reversion, you wrongly changed the template which is why his marital status disappeared. You also added height without any citation where you got that information from. All height and weight stats must be sourced. All the other info you added was also not sourced.
I also didn't revert anything regarding him being a police officer. I don't known where you got that idea.
If you still believe you are in the right you are welcome to take it up with one of our fine administrators.
I saw you've been filling out a couple JLA issues that included these guys. I made a rough team page but I only have the first two issues on hand at the moment. Any chance you could flesh out the history section a little more?
Yep. I’ll probably only get to it on the weekend though, but it their history won’t take much work. I’ve been less active since I got a real 9-5. I haven’t even been able to finish reading the Lightning Saga.
Unhappily, your citation about demons' vulnerability to iron is invalid... Animated versions of characters aren't "mainstream", only comic book versions (exception: Elseworld stories). Please understand that there can often be glaring differences between the animated and comic book versions of a character. For example, Lobo, who in the comic books gets multiple bullet holes (but not die) is completely invulnerable to bullets in Young Justice animated series. Kowalewski (talk) 10:08, August 24, 2017 (UTC)
Excuse me, Etrigan, how old are you? I collect DC Comics for 20 years and have never seen demons vulnerable to iron in the comics - only fairies. Please, avoid using citations related to animated series and movies (except when referring to them). The mainstream are the comics related to New Earth and Prime Earth. But I don't see any problem with include vulnerability to iron in the article about the animated version of Etrigan :). Kowalewski (talk) 22:56, August 24, 2017 (UTC)
P.S.: Besides, I have a simple logical reasoning about why Etrigan is not vulnerable to iron. Etrigan was summoned by Merlin in the Middle Ages in order to stop an invasion of Camelot. Why would Merlin evoke a creature that was vulnerable to the swords and armor of its enemies when he could have evoked any other creature? Kowalewski (talk) 23:04, August 24, 2017 (UTC)
1. Sorry, I didn't knew about this rule. I was just showing that I'm not a comic book starter.
2. Ok, I stop. But I think that discussion about who is or not an administrator is a bit pointless. I recognize that the dude has a better position than me in this wikia, but I still think we can solve the issue in tranquility.
3. Demons in general. Not a single version of a single demon character. As your suggestion, he could include the vulnerability to iron in a separate header, stating that this vulnerability belongs only to the demons of that particular animated series. I particularly do not remember any DC demons who are vulnerable to iron in any other animated series. Kowalewski (talk) 00:45, August 25, 2017 (UTC)
My age is irrelevant. I'm older than SforHope and Tupka, but that doesn't mean I overrule them in any way. The length of time you've been reading comics is also only relative. You could have read comics all your life and not read the one issue that has pertinent information.
Why are you bringing up Etrigan specifically? The citation in question actually has Asteroth defeated by iron, though it is assumed that Etrigan would also be affected since he disclosed that iron was a vulnerability to demons. As for your logical explanation, comics are not always logical. On top of that, swords are steel, an iron alloy. Perhaps only raw or pure iron affect demons? We don't know.
You've also been asked multiple times by admin not to use the noinclude text on articles.
That Demons page was empty for a very long time. I filled it out as generically as I could while starting a comprehensive compilation of Demons throughout the DC mediums. As SfH stated, it's ideal to separate different continuities like I have with the Philosopher's Stone, but it's hardly worth it in this instance for one individual case which is cited. Common sense from reading the citation is sufficient to know that it is from the animated series.
You're well read in comics, so you know that even within mainstream continuity things don't always line up. Your additions to Hell, for example, some of which weren't cited, only apply to Hellblazer and not all depictions of Hell. Hell isnt even consistent within New Earth, as Reign in Hell showed a completely different, technologically advanced Hell where souls are used as building material.
Sorry, but I used non-Vertigo comic citations in Hell article. See the first paragraph of Hell#Geography. Ok, I will stop with noinclude. I only think that it is easier to refute a popular misconception if it is already contained in the article along with the refutation between noinclude. The publisher who has the misconception in mind would edit the article, see the refutation and leave the article unharmed. Otherwise, the existence of a wikification called noinclude serves no purpose at all.
Yes, I misread the Hellblazer citation, but my point still stands that the Hell location page, which is s generic location page, has mixed continuity citations. And while a lot of Vertigo and New Earth continuity is in sync, a lot isn't, even within New Earth alone, but we don't start disregarding certain information just because we don't like it.
I still have to acknowledge Blood of the Demon despite all it's errors and butchered characterisations.
When creating personal galleries, it's rather convenient to make them in the userspace. Say, have you noticed the "See Also" section of your profile. There's a red link there for your gallery! How cool is that!?!?
I guess you know what to do by now, or do I really need to redirect your attention?
To be fair it's nearly 8am and I haven't slept. I'm just supposed to redirect the personal images to my existing gallery or just transfer the gallery to personal images? I tried the former but it remains Red linked for some reason.
I give you consent to fiddle with my private page if I'm being obtuse. I just write synopses, man.