User talk:LittleFirzen

Instead of simply reverting me (and violating GW:1RV), you need to discuss my removal on Talk:Destroyer --JonTheMon 16:18, December 15, 2009 (UTC)
 * Please stop violating GW:1RV. If you continue, you will be blocked.  &mdash;Dr Ishmael Diablo_the_chicken.gif 19:38, December 15, 2009 (UTC)
 * For starters someone else reverted my edit; not me reverting yours. So by principle that person is violating GW:1RV, so know what you're talking about before you do.--LittleFirzen 20:09, December 15, 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter who starts it or who joins in afterwards, no one should revert it until the issue it settled.
 * Look, everyone here is just trying to make the wiki as accurate as possible. It's common knowledge that Destroyers are immune to burning. It's also possible that there's a certain one that isn't, that everyone missed because no one tried to set it on fire. If that's the case, please provide proof, or at least a name and place, so someone else can go see for themselves. If you're right, we'll gladly change the wiki and we won't even hold a grudge. Otherwise, we'll have to accept common knowledge in the absence of proof. --Macros 21:28, December 15, 2009 (UTC)


 * You need to know what you're talking about first, please. 1RV says that any edit can be reverted once, but re-reverting that reversion without discussing the issue first is not allowed.
 * Jon reverted your initial edits about elemental damage. You re-reverted him, breaking 1RV.
 * Jink reverted your change saying that not all destroyers are immune to burning. You re-reverted her, breaking 1RV again.
 * In both these cases, you re-reverted the article, and someone else had to start the discussions. As I warned you above, if you continue to re-revert, you will be blocked.  &mdash;Dr Ishmael Diablo_the_chicken.gif 21:57, December 15, 2009 (UTC)