Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-6771148-20130322232024/@comment-4484220-20130323033403

I'm sorry, but that's not the way this wiki works.

The only way to legitimately change the result of a completed battle on this wiki is to have the necessary support for a rematch (which you do), make your own blog post for the rematch, have your own voting period, and write your own simulation that doesn't copy that of the original author. While there was much controversy surrounding it, Hawk's victor and voting system was nonetheless condoned in the end, so the warriors' current statuses are valid despite what's been said on this thread until a proper blog post with votes in favor of Master Chief mark him as the winner.

You are not allowed to edit other people's battles. That is their own work, and it is only with their permission that the simulations can be edited. Not even spelling and grammar fixes are allowed without their ocnsent. The other parts of the page are fair game provided they line up with our good faith policy, but editing simulations are considered vandalism.

In addition, when a battle is redone, the original simulation stays on the page, but the old status is not mentioned in the battle status. The only circumstances under which the author's work is removed from the page is if the simulation never had a blog post, if the author blatantly disregarded who the votes favored, or if the battle was won by sock-puppets employed by the author himself.

Yes, there are blog posts going on, but there's no harm in starting another on top of that. It's a sign that this wiki is growing in number of battles per week, and there is nothing wrong with that. All battles and rematches need to have blog posts.

I will not hold much against you considering that you are new to this wiki, but know that you absolutely must have a blog post for a battle, not matter how obvious the victor is to others. Your edits to Master Chief and Boba Fett's pages have been reverted.