70.24.124.252

Visual Works

Your edit on Visual Works made no sense. Visual Works originated as the CGI department for Square, thus, the merger summary about the company is entirely valid for the article. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 21:45, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

1) The information that Square and Enix merged is certainly entirely valid for the article. The technicality that Square was dissolved by Enix, however, isn't. This belongs on the Square Enix page.

2) I've never said anything "about a merger of equals". You're the one who assumed that I had refer to it as a "merger of equals" just because I had limited the information to a merger instead of going into the details. Yes, Enix absorbed Square, but it was done in the form of a merger. You seem to think that it's either absorption or merger when in fact it was both. Enix just didn't decided to purchase Square, shut it down and renamed itself Square Enix. That's not what happened. A mutual agreement was reached between Enix and Square in 2003 to merge, a company had to be the surviving between the two and it was decided that it would be Enix Corporation. This is why all references refer to it as a merger. And even the few sources that refer to Enix as the surviving company (ex:Japan Times), still mention at the same time that it was merger. Going into details about Enix having absorbed Square adds nothing to the Visual Works article other than distracting readers and making them lose focus on Visual Works.

3) Don't come out here on my talk page with an attitude telling me that my edit makes no sense when you're the one who is too incompetent to edit Wikipedia in harmony with other editors. Seeing that you almost got blocked by an administrator last June for a similar incivility in another user's talk page [1], I would refrain from making this kind of confrontational comments again in the future if i was you. I'd hate to have to report you.

Stop getting offended because I told you that your edits made no sense. If you had a shred of humanity, you wouldn't try to find dirt to ban me just me just because I questioned your edit. I would have been happy with your reason 1) and reason 2) responses because they were logical, but 3) response is disgusting. You are personally insulting me as an individual by calling me incompetent. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 20:58, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

@Nick:, This user called me incompetent. Surely, this falls under Wikipedia:No personal attacks?

Not a personal attack. WP:COMPETENCE is required to edit Wikipedia. If you don't have it (as you have shown over the past two years), that means that you are incompetent to edit Wikipedia. Simple as this. That's not a personal insult.

It's one of a number of statements made by yourself and the IP which are problematic. I can see enough antagonism from both sides to warrant a block of both parties, particularly as there's an element of edit warring. I don't know if that would be particularly helpful. It would be best if both parties could begin to communicate in a more conciliatory manner and work together to improve the article. I'm assuming you're both here editing as you want the article to be the best it can be, so perhaps stop fighting and get on with making it better. Nick (talk) 21:17, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Do you even know what incompetent means? do a Google search of the word and see what words are synonymous with the word with incompetent before claiming that you are not personally attacking me. For context @Nick:, reverting one edit is not an edit war. If you look at the Visual Works article history, you can see that I reverted one edit, and that edit was then modified. Since then, I have not made any further attempts of reverting. Matter of fact, this user is suspicious to begin with because here they are preaching rules when their Wikipedia contribution history is minimal. The fundamental issue with this user is that they will pull at straws to defend their edits to the point where they will get dirt on a persons past transgressions to defend their questionable behaviour. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 11:49, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Coordinates from Wikidata via Template:Wikidatacoord

My change was swept up in your undo of someone's unexplained removal of references—was this intentional? There seems to be a consensus that it would be useful to use Wikidata but only if its entries were accurate and could be trusted/verified. The current coordinates reference a point somewhere in the area of The Palladium and is just as accurate as Wikidata at the moment. A salient point that someone made is that a contribution to Wikidata would be a contribution to the 280+ wikis that utilize/link to/pull data from it and by using that as a central repository for such data we could help ensure accurate data in those places that choose to use it via e.g. Template:Wikidatacoord — Preceding unsigned comment added by ASiplas (talk • contribs) 00:29, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Please see

I opened up a new discussion that could be common interest. Feel free to leave any comments there. Lordtobi (✉) 07:55, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

---