Ask The Tropers

It is. Please send them a PM so they can explain themselves, ideally linking to this query.

The X-Pac Heat page itself has also been desecrated (probably an overstatement, but I can't think of another word right now) by the same user. Many examples have been removed (such as every instance in WWF/E before the 2000s) others sound like complaining and the introductory paragraphs have been re-written in such a way that it's hard to tell what it's supposed to mean. And of course, these edits were done without explanation. It's a fucking mess.

"Vandalized" might by the word you're going for.

DMed them with a link here.

A couple of points:

1. As often happens with thecarolinabull01, he hasn't edited this article in quite some time, and some of his past edits were questionable, e.g. "The name Kane can't even be mentioned online without dozens of comments that can be summed up as "He sucks. Retire already!" That is the definition of a Base-Breaking Character, not on-screen "heat."

2. Here is the introduction from before I started editing the article 1-2 months ago. "''The live audience in professional wrestling is considered to be in-universe because it is such a major part of the show. When the reaction is obvious and on-camera, examples involving it can be considered objective, unlike those involving the viewers at home or other media." This is an important point, because it delineates "X-Pac Heat" from normal (i.e. intentional) heat and/or subjective opinion, the latter of which belongs in YMMV entries. You'll note that my introduction is identical except for the later addition, "An X-Pac is not the pro wrestling version of The Scrappy. A Scrappy can elevate other wrestlers simply by getting beaten up in the ring. No one benefits from working with an X-Pac; most of the time it actually lowers their stock." My hope was that this paragraph would clear the air regarding what "X-Pac" heat and prevent future edit warring and bloat. Naturally, I welcome discussion since the very concept of this trope is shaky at best.

3. Most, if not all of my recent deletions consist of my own edits. I'm not sure this calls for strong language like "vandalism" and I fear this is another example of thecarolinabull01 being obtuse and not understanding what his fellow editors are trying to do. To my knowledge he has never opened a discussion tab, scrutinized my edits, or reached out to me before alerting the mods.

None of that explains why you're removing crosswicks...

um....because I haven't.

Yes you have, it's right there in the edit history. You're deleting examples from the X-Pac Heat page and "moving" them to work pages. That's not how it works. The entry is supposed to be on both pages, that's what "Crosswicking" is.

I see. Well, I didn't think those examples were appropriate because they didn't derail the show in a noticeable way. And not to repeat myself, but weren't those were my edits? And the crosswicks weren't deleted, per se, but moved? Not sure why anyone would be up in arms about that.

1. The entire point of "crosswicking" is that both pages link to eachother. That's why it's called "cross" wicking.

2. I don't see what them being "your edits" has to do with anything. The whole point of this topic is that "your edits" are removing crosswicks, which is against editing etiquette and borders on vandalism.

I don't know enough about pro wrestling to say whether you're right about them not being examples, but the way you're going about dealing with that problem is... not correct.

Fine. I'm obviously not going to persuade you, so tell me how to proceed so we can satisfy everybody and back to other things.

"As often happens with thecarolinabull01..."

Oh, boy...

"he hasn't edited this article in quite some time"

According to the history page, my last edit to X-Pac Heat was September 30th. Which, while not recent, isn't like it's been years.

"The name Kane can't even be mentioned online without dozens of comments that can be summed up as "He sucks. Retire already!" That is the definition of a Base-Breaking Character, not on-screen "heat.""

I wrote that several years ago when I was still new to the site and unfamiliar with how things worked and what the terminology meant.. I have learned a few things since then. That being said, it was a misuse and my naivete doesn't excuse it.

"And I fear this is another example of thecarolinabull01 being obtuse and not understanding what his fellow editors are trying to do."

How can I know what you're trying to do if you don't leave behind edit reasons for such big changes? I've looked and most of your edits either have no explanation, or explanations like "Moved to [X}" which, as others have pointed out, is not kosher.

"To my knowledge he has never opened a discussion tab, scrutinized my edits, or reached out to me before alerting the mods."

I do participate in discussions, but I try to avoid talking to other Tropers it unless absolutely necessary (or unless it's here or Image Pickin) because A)I don't have the desire or patience to participate in discussions and B) a lot of people I've interacted with on this site have been rude as hell, some even outright insulting me. I go straight to the mods because it cuts out the middleman and I tend to be biased on pages like this and perhaps they can see things more clearly than I can to determine whether or not there's a problem. The introduction on the page for Sting has been frequently re-written by a ban-evading troll with poor writing skills and I had to report them several times. So I tend to be a little overly suspicious of edits like this.

Bottom line, I don't care what other editors do as long as it makes sense. I didn't really see anything wrong with the former description and while the one you posted has some great points (particularly the introductory paragraph) I don't feel like it clearly defines what X-Pac Heat actually is. For example:

"Any reaction is a good reaction is a maxim which is repeated ad nauseam, rather than actually studying the feedback an audience is giving you. Heat is only of value when it can make you money and get opponents over as babyfaces. An "X-Pac" gets heat, but it never goes anywhere or benefits anyone around them, and can actually drive fans away. Other terms for it include "the wrong kind" of heat, "Go away heat" or "Change the channel heat"."

It's kinda confusing and leaves out some important things that the original description had (or even some earlier edits of yours), such as what exactly X-Pac Heat is and why it occurs. I'd elaborate, but then my post would be way too long for ATT. I think a discussion would probably be warranted at this point, but I don't know when I'd be willing to do it.

I don't watch modern wrestling anymore and haven't for a few years. I have un-followed all wrestling pages I used to follow except for Sting's (just in case the vandal comes back) I hadn't visited the X-Pac Heat page for a while and only came across it after participating in a discussion regarding a potential image for it (which was rejected and instead, the page quote was changed) and the changes took me off guard. Probably shouldn't have said "desecrated" and I apologize for that.

Ooh this is getting spicy.

MOD: This is popcorning. Don't do this.

"Heat is only of value when it can make you money and get opponents over as babyfaces. An "X-Pac" gets heat, but it never goes anywhere or benefits anyone around them, and can actually drive fans away."

With respect, I don't see how much clearer it can get. If the definition is still hazy to some people, then this trope is in serious jeopardy and will probably get axed at some point, because there's way too much subjectivity.

However, we can halt editing on the page for a while and open a discussion tab if that pkeases everyone.

For what it may be worth, there's another ATT report concerning ~worldbeater, this one involving making such a mess of YMMV.Babylon Five that most people feel a mod revert is needed to make sure it's cleaned up.

The troper has been suspended.