Board Thread:Improvements and Issues/@comment-36620412-20191115231026/@comment-957629-20191119214923

Bah it deleted my large reply multiple times. Bah time to redo.

LizzieAdventureStories wrote: i only suggested that a reference should be added to it As I have said, I think its redundant to reference something that already serves as its on reference. The information was taken from notes released with Chapter 615, so feels redundant to reference where it came from as it already states that.

LizzieAdventureStories wrote: the only thing I ever requested was that maybe my notes should be added. Can you clarify what notes should be added?? Honestly, from your original post, it seems like you want to add that Kubo refers to her with Female pronouns and that the Novel does too. However the Manga already does that and, as such, so does her article.

LizzieAdventureStories wrote: wait, maybe i found the part where everyone is confused with what i meant... in the very first line i say that there has been plenty of more "confirmation" that giselle is female, or whatever... i put the "confirmation" in quotes because i don't believe it to be confirmation of anything, just additional notes about the confusion. i don't know if that was it, but i read my posts over again and that's all i've got...? Yes the fact you stated it was a confirmation was rather confusing. Even with the speech marks, it just looked like you knew the pronouns thing was already n shakey grounds because you knew you weren't providing a quote of him stating or confirming anything one way or another. In a text based communication environment, clarification is important hence me repeatedly asking for what assumptions and such when you kept claiming we were making assumptions.

LizzieAdventureStories wrote: I'm also not ignoring you two admins, but if you can't read my posts clearly, i'm not going to keep repeating myself. Speech marks do not make clear what your intent was. As an admin of another wiki, you should knwo that clear communication is important and if you saw that there was confusion from the outset, or crossed wires, then reclarify your position in a different way. Not a hit at you as a person just advice (constructive criticism) as someone who works in the communications industry that if someone misunderstands or has crossed wires from your statements then reword it in another way.

LizzieAdventureStories wrote: i don't know about you guys, but my spare time is limited and i have things to take care of in real life. Yup pretty much like everyone, hence my late reply. Healthy people have a life on and off the web.

LizzieAdventureStories wrote: you had given away your opinion at the beginning of the debate. you said "note that she was assigned male at birth." not note that the notes "say" she was assigned male at birth. but that you consider it fact that she was assigned male at birth which is where the "assumptions" are coming from. I wasn't directing the Occam's razor part at the article. i won't mention philosophy next time, though. Alright, point granted. In my opinion, given its not an extraordinary claim, I see not reason to personally discredit the notes as I have not been provided a contradiction to the notes either way.

HOWEVER

in terms of the article, I have reworded it so tht it no longer says "confirmed" and says "stated" as to keep it neutralthat the notes did state this and there's no more...leaning, even slightly, one way or the other.

LizzieAdventureStories wrote: me and Sun are obviously not getting along too well That's a shame you believe that as I have no idea about you as a person beyond this disagreement.

To be honest, without clarity on your point, you appeared to be constantly making assumptions on contradictions yourself. I still think you are wrong in that the sentence references itself already and that given the discussion I linked, and the many many discussions all over the internet, that those notes exist and are not "so-called" or "alleged" as its not an extraordinary claim, you can see people discussing them in real time and after, so to me you are assuming they don't exist because copyright laws often get links, images and sites removed or closed. Sure, its not the primary source, but its a comtemporary secondary source(s) that discuss the translations of the notes immediately upon release.

Further investigation would require you to look for the specific magazine in question because the wikialready states where the information can be found, like the rest of the references, unless willing to pay for them, you are restricted to copyrights reuploads.

Also, on the topic of politeness and rudeness. Your attitude has been very condescending through out this discussion, or at least it comes across that way.

When you bring up "my wiki" it presents an argument of "I do it this way thus I am better" sort of...arrogance which implies that how we do things is wrong. Honestly, it pointless to reference a sentence that already acts as its own reference. Would be like me constantly adding References in the article for Episode 1 to say tht the information can be found in Episode 1 which, given its an article about the contents of Episode 1, its already a given that the information can be found there.

Also the emte you keep using ( ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ) is very...well condescending again. It is used in a "awk I tried but idiots will be idiots" online and its not the greatest way to promote discussion.

But I also don't take any of is personally, I'm old so I know tha heated exchanges about a particular topic do not define people in general. Me and the guys have had many heated debates in our time, none of it is ever intended personally. We must make allowances for diversity so long as nobody is hurt.

LizzieAdventureStories wrote: I'm going to be honest, i'm super surprised you haven't just banned me or locked the topic yet, though. lol. There is no real reason to ban you, you have not broken any rules. Well, maaaybe one in regard to edit fluffing. What I mean is that you edit your last post eleven times in little over and hour. It sort of floods the Recent Changes and we advise people to use the Preview button to proof read before posting. I mean one or two edits, even 3 after the intiial post sure, but more than that and it looks like trying to artificailly inflate edit count. But thats hardly a banning offense right out the door. Generally takes a few warnings on that before it gets to that point and I made allowances on even giving a warning because hoenstly the whole topic was confusing me.

Right, to conclude, man i hope this post works, I have altered the sentence to say that the notes stated (as opposed to confirmed) it so that there is not any leaning on either side and thus more neutral.