1,162
pages
ALL POSTSEditing Plan 2
Currently I would like to edit the article concerning Rithmere and potentially related articles e.g. Rithmere Games.
(Edited by Jdogno7)
<div class="quote"><i>
<p>Archer of Az-Zure wrote:
Honestly Jdogno7, having a different opinion is fine, however wikis are communities and thus it is up to the majority, I'll leave it in the hands of the admins now. Knowing your history Jdogno7, you should honestly think very hard about what makes an effective and beneficial contributor. Here is an excerpt from a wiki community article on what makes a successful wiki. You should probably have a good hard look at this in regards to your editing.
</p><p><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:10.5pt;">"On a small community, each individual is important. The top contrinutors on a small community are probably the administrators. They're the people who understand the structure. They're the institutional memory. They're the people who mentor new contributors, and help to referee disputes. If you lose an active contributor on a small community, there isn't necessarily anybody there to take that person's place. If you lose two or three of the most active contributors, then your community is in big trouble.</span>
</p>
<p style="margin:12pt0cm;"><span>The flip side of that coin is that an individual can also do a lot of damage to a small community. One vandal, or one babbling kid, can't do much to harm Wikipedia -- the database is too big, and there are plenty of folks who enjoy finding and reverting nonsense. On a small community, there aren't as many people around to clean up the mess. If there’s no one around to clean it up, the community could lose contributors.</span></p>
<p>
</p> <p style="margin:12pt0cm;"><span>Therefore, you need to pay attention to each individual on a small community. Each contributor needs encouragement, mentoring, and appreciation. You also need to set boundaries that make the productive contributors feel safe and happy."</span></p> <p style="font-weight:normal;color:rgb(58,58,58);font-size:14px;"> </p> </i></div>
<p>"Knowing your history Jdogno7, you should honestly think very hard about what makes an effective and beneficial contributor.": Are you saying that I am deliberately making detrimental edits? </p>
</p> <p style="margin:12pt0cm;"><span>Therefore, you need to pay attention to each individual on a small community. Each contributor needs encouragement, mentoring, and appreciation. You also need to set boundaries that make the productive contributors feel safe and happy."</span></p> <p style="font-weight:normal;color:rgb(58,58,58);font-size:14px;"> </p> </i></div>
<p>"Knowing your history Jdogno7, you should honestly think very hard about what makes an effective and beneficial contributor.": Are you saying that I am deliberately making detrimental edits? </p>
(Edited by Jdogno7)
<p>Hello there.
</p><p>Jdogno7 everyone on this wiki has been patient with you and willing to help you improve your editing skills. However, time and time again, you have ignored what we have said while fainting innocence and constantly editing articles simply because you think it looks better a certain way, as was the case with the Fire bead article, and the Rithmere article. This is not taking into account your actions back in 2015, where you argued over the order the companions should be listed, and argued over the use of the colon and the semi-colon—an action you did not learn from given your current behaviour.
</p><p>So to answer your question, yes, it does look like you are making detrimental edits. Instead of looking through our Articles in need of improvement section, you are editing pages that, frankly, are complete or near completion, and making unessisary edits. And when we explain why the edits were not needed, you argue over it, as was the case with the messages you left on my page about the Fire bead article.
</p><p>Consider this your last warning. Once again, everyone has been willing to help you improve and has tried to explain why your edits weren't good—and in a few cases, we've half-agreed with you. My advice for you is to pick your battles and try to make actual productive changes to the wiki, like adding in information that is missing, instead of minor gramatical fixes like semi-colons.
</p><p>Otherwise, if this behaviour continues, you will be banned again.
</p>
(Edited by Samaru163)
<div class="quote"><i>
<p>Samaru163 wrote:
Hello there.
</p><p>Jdogno7 everyone on this wiki has been patient with you and willing to help you improve your editing skills. However, time and time again, you have ignored what we have said while fainting innocence and constantly editing articles simply because you think it looks better a certain way, as was the case with the Fire bead article, and the Rithmere article. This is not taking into account your actions back in 2015, where you argued over the order the companions should be listed, and argued over the use of the colon and the semi-colon—an action you did not learn from given your current behaviour.
</p><p>So to answer your question, yes, it does look like you are making detrimental edits. Instead of looking through our Articles in need of improvement section, you are editing pages that, frankly, are complete or near completion, and making unessisary edits. And when we explain why the edits were not needed, you argue over it, as was the case with the messages you left on my page about the Fire bead article.
</p><p>Consider this your last warning. Once again, everyone has been willing to help you improve and has tried to explain why your edits weren't good—and in a few cases, we've half-agreed with you. My advice for you is to pick your battles and try to make actual productive changes to the wiki, like adding in information that is missing, instead of minor gramatical fixes like semi-colons.
</p><p>Otherwise, if this behaviour continues, you will be banned again.
</p>
</i></div>
<p>"However, time and time again, you have ignored what we have said while fainting innocence and constantly editing articles simply because you think it looks better a certain way, as was the case with the Fire bead article, and the Rithmere article.": There is a difference between ignoring someone and disagreeing with someone because you have a different point of view. "Fainting innocence"? Do you mean "Feigning innocence"? How have I been "feigning innocence"? "...editing articles simply because you think it looks better a certain way...", that doesn't mean that was necessarily wrong. "as was the case with the Fire bead article, and the Rithmere article.", I was not completely wrong in the changes I wanted to make (to say some of them were not bad changes). "This is not taking into account your actions back in 2015, where you argued over the order the companions should be listed, and argued over the use of the colon and the semi-colon—an action you did not learn from given your current behavior.": With the listing order of the companions, I accept that I was outargued there but the use of the colon and the semi-colon, I was not necessarily wrong on that particular point. </p><p>"So to answer your question, yes, it does look like you are making detrimental edits.": Are you saying that I am deliberately doing so? "Instead of looking through our Articles in need of improvement section, you are editing pages that, frankly, are complete or near completion, and making unnecessary edits.": That is your view. "And when we explain why the edits were not needed, you argue over it, as was the case with the messages you left on my page about the Fire bead article.": Disagreeing with someone is not the same as disrespecting them. </p><p>"Consider this your last warning. Once again, everyone has been willing to help you improve and has tried to explain why your edits weren't good—and in a few cases, we've half-agreed with you. My advice for you is to pick your battles and try to make actual productive changes to the wiki, like adding in information that is missing, instead of minor grammatical fixes like semi-colons.": "My advice for you is to pick your battles and try to make actual productive changes to the wiki, like adding in information that is missing, instead of minor grammatical fixes like semi-colons.", I have added in information that is missing at times. Most recently I added in that a Fire bead was used against the Glus in the anime. Those "minor" grammatical fixes are not necessarily wrong. </p>
<p>"However, time and time again, you have ignored what we have said while fainting innocence and constantly editing articles simply because you think it looks better a certain way, as was the case with the Fire bead article, and the Rithmere article.": There is a difference between ignoring someone and disagreeing with someone because you have a different point of view. "Fainting innocence"? Do you mean "Feigning innocence"? How have I been "feigning innocence"? "...editing articles simply because you think it looks better a certain way...", that doesn't mean that was necessarily wrong. "as was the case with the Fire bead article, and the Rithmere article.", I was not completely wrong in the changes I wanted to make (to say some of them were not bad changes). "This is not taking into account your actions back in 2015, where you argued over the order the companions should be listed, and argued over the use of the colon and the semi-colon—an action you did not learn from given your current behavior.": With the listing order of the companions, I accept that I was outargued there but the use of the colon and the semi-colon, I was not necessarily wrong on that particular point. </p><p>"So to answer your question, yes, it does look like you are making detrimental edits.": Are you saying that I am deliberately doing so? "Instead of looking through our Articles in need of improvement section, you are editing pages that, frankly, are complete or near completion, and making unnecessary edits.": That is your view. "And when we explain why the edits were not needed, you argue over it, as was the case with the messages you left on my page about the Fire bead article.": Disagreeing with someone is not the same as disrespecting them. </p><p>"Consider this your last warning. Once again, everyone has been willing to help you improve and has tried to explain why your edits weren't good—and in a few cases, we've half-agreed with you. My advice for you is to pick your battles and try to make actual productive changes to the wiki, like adding in information that is missing, instead of minor grammatical fixes like semi-colons.": "My advice for you is to pick your battles and try to make actual productive changes to the wiki, like adding in information that is missing, instead of minor grammatical fixes like semi-colons.", I have added in information that is missing at times. Most recently I added in that a Fire bead was used against the Glus in the anime. Those "minor" grammatical fixes are not necessarily wrong. </p>
(Edited by Jdogno7)
<p>Hello there
</p><p>I'm saying it <i>looks</i> like you are making detrimental edits. You always seem to need the last word; you are arguing minutia points, and when people try to explain why these edits are not worth fighting over, you make a big deal about it.
</p><p>Look at the lengh of this page and the other ones we have spoken on. Is all of this really worth it for a few colons and semi-colons? No. Everyone on this wiki wants to improve it and the articles, but we can't do that when someone chooses to make edits that the majority have already decided were not problems in the first place. The semi-colon and colon debate was already agreed upon, so that's the end of discussion. Az-Zur had to edit the Rithmere article four times because you wouldn't listen to him.
</p><p>Once again, if you truly want to improve the wiki, make changes that are worthwile. Listen to what everyone has to say about your edits—Az-Zure and CreativeDream have been trying to help you. If these debates keep taking up time, effort, and keystrokes, then it would be best for you to just walk away.
</p>
(Edited by Samaru163)
<div class="quote"><i>
<p>Samaru163 wrote:
Hello there
</p><p>I'm saying it <i>looks</i> like you are making detrimental edits. You always seem to need the last word; you are arguing minutia points, and when people try to explain why these edits are not worth fighting over, you make a big deal about it.
</p><p>Look at the lengh of this page and the other ones we have spoken on. Is all of this really worth it for a few colons and semi-colons? No. Everyone on this wiki wants to improve it and the articles, but we can't do that when someone chooses to make edits that the majority have already decided were not problems in the first place. The semi-colon and colon debate was already agreed upon, so that's the end of discussion. Az-Zur had to edit the Rithmere article four times because you wouldn't listen to him.
</p><p>Once again, if you truly want to improve the wiki, make changes that are worthwile. Listen to what everyone has to say about your edits—Az-Zure and CreativeDream have been trying to help you. If these debates keep taking up time, effort, and keystrokes, then it would be best for you to just walk away.
</p>
</i></div>
<p>"I'm saying it <i>looks</i> like you are making detrimental edits.": But that doesn't mean I am. "You always seem to need the last word; you are arguing minutia points, and when people try to explain why these edits are not worth fighting over, you make a big deal about it.": "You always seem to need the last word...", not true. "...you are arguing minutia points,...", not so minutia that other people don't seem to have a problem for some reason or other. "...and when people try to explain why these edits are not worth fighting over, you make a big deal about it.", in other words I should just accept that if there is a disagreement that everyone else is always right and I am always wrong. </p><p>"Look at the length of this page and the other ones we have spoken on. Is all of this really worth it for a few colons and semi-colons? No. Everyone on this wiki wants to improve it and the articles, but we can't do that when someone chooses to make edits that the majority have already decided were not problems in the first place. The semi-colon and colon debate was already agreed upon, so that's the end of discussion. Az-Zur had to edit the Rithmere article four times because you wouldn't listen to him.": "Everyone on this wiki wants to improve it and the articles, but we can't do that when someone chooses to make edits that the majority have already decided were not problems in the first place.", just because the majority agree upon something does not mean that they are right about it. "The semi-colon and colon debate was already agreed upon, so that's the end of discussion.", I was told that a colon is used before a list of items, a quotation or an explanation. But when I use it in such fashion I am being berated for such. "Az-Zur had to edit the Rithmere article four times because you wouldn't listen to him.", there is a difference between not listening and not agreeing with someone. </p><p>"Once again, if you truly want to improve the wiki, make changes that are worthwhile. Listen to what everyone has to say about your edits—Az-Zure and CreativeDream have been trying to help you. If these debates keep taking up time, effort, and keystrokes, then it would be best for you to just walk away.": "Once again, if you truly want to improve the wiki, make changes that are worthwhile.", "worthwhile" is a subjective term. "Listen to what everyone has to say about your edits—Az-Zure and CreativeDream have been trying to help you.", listening and agreeing are not one and the same. "If these debates keep taking up time, effort, and keystrokes, then it would be best for you to just walk away.", would you do the same? </p>
<p>"I'm saying it <i>looks</i> like you are making detrimental edits.": But that doesn't mean I am. "You always seem to need the last word; you are arguing minutia points, and when people try to explain why these edits are not worth fighting over, you make a big deal about it.": "You always seem to need the last word...", not true. "...you are arguing minutia points,...", not so minutia that other people don't seem to have a problem for some reason or other. "...and when people try to explain why these edits are not worth fighting over, you make a big deal about it.", in other words I should just accept that if there is a disagreement that everyone else is always right and I am always wrong. </p><p>"Look at the length of this page and the other ones we have spoken on. Is all of this really worth it for a few colons and semi-colons? No. Everyone on this wiki wants to improve it and the articles, but we can't do that when someone chooses to make edits that the majority have already decided were not problems in the first place. The semi-colon and colon debate was already agreed upon, so that's the end of discussion. Az-Zur had to edit the Rithmere article four times because you wouldn't listen to him.": "Everyone on this wiki wants to improve it and the articles, but we can't do that when someone chooses to make edits that the majority have already decided were not problems in the first place.", just because the majority agree upon something does not mean that they are right about it. "The semi-colon and colon debate was already agreed upon, so that's the end of discussion.", I was told that a colon is used before a list of items, a quotation or an explanation. But when I use it in such fashion I am being berated for such. "Az-Zur had to edit the Rithmere article four times because you wouldn't listen to him.", there is a difference between not listening and not agreeing with someone. </p><p>"Once again, if you truly want to improve the wiki, make changes that are worthwhile. Listen to what everyone has to say about your edits—Az-Zure and CreativeDream have been trying to help you. If these debates keep taking up time, effort, and keystrokes, then it would be best for you to just walk away.": "Once again, if you truly want to improve the wiki, make changes that are worthwhile.", "worthwhile" is a subjective term. "Listen to what everyone has to say about your edits—Az-Zure and CreativeDream have been trying to help you.", listening and agreeing are not one and the same. "If these debates keep taking up time, effort, and keystrokes, then it would be best for you to just walk away.", would you do the same? </p>
(Edited by Jdogno7)
<p>I am really willing to help you, I still am but please be honest with yourself and look at you how are acting. It is no coincidence that other people respond to you in the way they do. People are fed up with your behaviour.
</p><p>Look everything in your eyes is basically subjective, which means that we will never reach a conclusion. In your opinion everything can be argued about and then argued about a hundred times more. It just brings us nowhere in the end! A discussion is great in my eyes because it can lead to great results and changes. However, you need to realise when a discussion is over because a majority agrees on something. You can either accept it or ... well, leave.
</p><p>I am offering you my help once again but I want you to reconsider your attitude. Otherwise this is a story with no end. Do you understand this Jdogno7?
</p>
(Edited by Creative Dream)
<div class="quote"><i>
<p>Creative Dream wrote:
I am really willing to help you, I still am but please be honest with yourself and look at you how are acting. It is no coincidence that other people respond to you in the way they do. People are fed up with your behavior.
</p><p>Look everything in your eyes is basically subjective, which means that we will never reach a conclusion. In your opinion everything can be argued about and then argued about a hundred times more. It just brings us nowhere in the end! A discussion is great in my eyes because it can lead to great results and changes. However, you need to realise when a discussion is over because a majority agrees on something. You can either accept it or ... well, leave.
</p><p>I am offering you my help once again but I want you to reconsider your attitude. Otherwise this is a story with no end. Do you understand this Jdogno7?
</p>
</i></div>
<p>"I am really willing to help you, I still am but please be honest with yourself and look at you how are acting.": "...you how are acting.", do you mean "how you are acting."? If so, in terms of what? "It is no coincidence that other people respond to you in the way they do.": What do you mean? "People are fed up with your behavior.": What behavior is that? </p><p>"Look everything in your eyes is basically subjective, which means that we will never reach a conclusion.": All I am trying to say is that in certain cases there is not necessarily a definite right or wrong answer. "In your opinion everything can be argued about and then argued about a hundred times more.": You can argue with something that has flawed logic. "It just brings us nowhere in the end!": It does if people are unwilling to prove their points or admit they are wrong when they can't. "A discussion is great in my eyes because it can lead to great results and changes.": True. Assuming people can be humble enough to admit when they are unable to back up their view or admit they were wrong. I do not exclude myself from this. "However, you need to realise when a discussion is over because a majority agrees on something.": There is a difference between a majority consensus of opinion where the subject of discussion is open ended and a case where there is a definitive right and wrong answer. In the latter case, majority opinion does not make it right. "You can either accept it or ... well, leave.": That sounds like a threat to agree with the majority view or suffer the consequences. </p><p>"I am offering you my help once again but I want you to reconsider your attitude.": In terms of what? I am just trying to understand not be aggressive or defiantly challenging. "Otherwise this is a story with no end.": True. If people can't be humble enough to accept a flawless argument when they see it. "Do you understand this Jdogno7?": Assuming I can get clarification for what I am uncertain of. </p>
<p>"I am really willing to help you, I still am but please be honest with yourself and look at you how are acting.": "...you how are acting.", do you mean "how you are acting."? If so, in terms of what? "It is no coincidence that other people respond to you in the way they do.": What do you mean? "People are fed up with your behavior.": What behavior is that? </p><p>"Look everything in your eyes is basically subjective, which means that we will never reach a conclusion.": All I am trying to say is that in certain cases there is not necessarily a definite right or wrong answer. "In your opinion everything can be argued about and then argued about a hundred times more.": You can argue with something that has flawed logic. "It just brings us nowhere in the end!": It does if people are unwilling to prove their points or admit they are wrong when they can't. "A discussion is great in my eyes because it can lead to great results and changes.": True. Assuming people can be humble enough to admit when they are unable to back up their view or admit they were wrong. I do not exclude myself from this. "However, you need to realise when a discussion is over because a majority agrees on something.": There is a difference between a majority consensus of opinion where the subject of discussion is open ended and a case where there is a definitive right and wrong answer. In the latter case, majority opinion does not make it right. "You can either accept it or ... well, leave.": That sounds like a threat to agree with the majority view or suffer the consequences. </p><p>"I am offering you my help once again but I want you to reconsider your attitude.": In terms of what? I am just trying to understand not be aggressive or defiantly challenging. "Otherwise this is a story with no end.": True. If people can't be humble enough to accept a flawless argument when they see it. "Do you understand this Jdogno7?": Assuming I can get clarification for what I am uncertain of. </p>
(Edited by Jdogno7)
<p>Of course, in some cases it is true that the majority is wrong but I do not recall this happening in any discussion on this wiki about your (recent) edits. Then again if an admin makes a certain decision then in some cases you cannot argue against this because admin have certain rights. The only option in that case is to accept it and move on.
</p><p>What I meant is that you can argue about every word in a sentence but that is going to lead to wasting hours on destructive conflict. There is simply no point and in such cases a decision is made by an admin and that is it. I am not trying to sound rude but the vast majority on this wiki has little to no problems with editing correctly but the majority of your (small) edits leads to an issue. Don't you think that is a bit conspicious?
</p><p>Also, you are really perfectionist when it comes to editing which is not always desired.
</p>
(Edited by Creative Dream)
<div class="quote"><i>
<p>Creative Dream wrote:
Of course, in some cases it is true that the majority is wrong but I do not recall this happening in any discussion on this wiki about your (recent) edits. Then again if an admin makes a certain decision then in some cases you cannot argue against this because admin have certain rights. The only option in that case is to accept it and move on.
</p><p>What I meant is that you can argue about every word in a sentence but that is going to lead to wasting hours on destructive conflict. There is simply no point and in such cases a decision is made by an admin and that is it. I am not trying to sound rude but the vast majority on this wiki has little to no problems with editing correctly but the majority of your (small) edits leads to an issue. Don't you think that is a bit conspicuous?
</p><p>Also, you are really perfectionist when it comes to editing which is not always desired.
</p>
</i></div>
<p>"What I meant is that you can argue about every word in a sentence but that is going to lead to wasting hours on destructive conflict. There is simply no point and in such cases a decision is made by an admin and that is it. I am not trying to sound rude but the vast majority on this wiki has little to no problems with editing correctly but the majority of your (small) edits leads to an issue. Don't you think that is a bit conspicuous?": "What I meant is that you can argue about every word in a sentence but that is going to lead to wasting hours on destructive conflict.", how does a disagreement about wording necessarily lead to destructive conflict? "There is simply no point and in such cases a decision is made by an admin and that is it.", in some cases there is a point to be made. "I am not trying to sound rude but the vast majority on this wiki has little to no problems with editing correctly but the majority of your (small) edits leads to an issue.", how am I not editing "correctly"? "Don't you think that is a bit conspicuous?", in what sense? </p><p>"Also, you are really perfectionist when it comes to editing which is not always desired.": Why is it not always desired? </p>
<p>"What I meant is that you can argue about every word in a sentence but that is going to lead to wasting hours on destructive conflict. There is simply no point and in such cases a decision is made by an admin and that is it. I am not trying to sound rude but the vast majority on this wiki has little to no problems with editing correctly but the majority of your (small) edits leads to an issue. Don't you think that is a bit conspicuous?": "What I meant is that you can argue about every word in a sentence but that is going to lead to wasting hours on destructive conflict.", how does a disagreement about wording necessarily lead to destructive conflict? "There is simply no point and in such cases a decision is made by an admin and that is it.", in some cases there is a point to be made. "I am not trying to sound rude but the vast majority on this wiki has little to no problems with editing correctly but the majority of your (small) edits leads to an issue.", how am I not editing "correctly"? "Don't you think that is a bit conspicuous?", in what sense? </p><p>"Also, you are really perfectionist when it comes to editing which is not always desired.": Why is it not always desired? </p>
(Edited by Jdogno7)
<p>It is not always desired because there is a lot of other work to do instead of making small grammar changes that are not even really necessary. Okay, Jdogno7 have you not seen what happened when you openend the discussion about the fire beads article? That is what a call a destructive conflict.
</p><p>All of your edits so far have led to issues while the majority of people edit pages with no issues. Now, if you still do not get it, read that sentence again. This has been mentioned before but maybe and just maybe you should reconsider your editing style. You can also opt to add more information to an article in need of information instead of just making really small (undesired) grammar/punctation edits.
</p><p>And Jdogno7, I should really watch out if I were you. People are trying really hard to work with you but I can tell you that there is little to no patience left. It is your attitude, I could lecture you about constructive/destructive conflicts and how it works and were it goes wrong with you. But don't you get it already?
</p>
(Edited by Creative Dream)