User talk:76.188.100.220

To get the admin's attention when you want to delete a page, just put this template on it:. This puts it in the Category:Candidates for deletion and any admin will see it there. Cheers. --Macros 01:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * K, thx BTW this is Roland Cyerni
 * If you're trying to make a redirect use #Redirect User:Roland Cyerni  Viruzzz 21:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Was mostly just incase anyone clicked on my name, but thx 76.188.100.220 21:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

"You are all weaklings!"
What baseless reason is "no u trivia" have to do with the addition I've added? Explain. 77.164.17.245 20:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Rawr
Sign in. &mdash; Balistic 22:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous and poorly-judged edit tendencies
Hello there. You removed my edit to Vital Blessing on the grounds it promotes "bad skill usage". Well, no, it doesn't. It's a suggestion for an alternative, emergency use for the skill (which does not jump out, because it's a maintained enchantment and one tends to think of those solely in terms of fire-and-forget play). I did not recommend people take it explicitly for that purpose and in fact specifically referred to it as "crude". Did you miss all of this?

You're going on a bit of a spree of haughty, hasty edits it seems. Consider discussing changes &mdash; or at least contemplating what you're editing &mdash; before wiping away information with nothing to justify it but a dismissive comment. -- AudreyChandler 23:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually I think the bit about using vital blessing as a burst heal was unnecessary, since all skills that increase max health function the same way. Besides that, if you're in a situation where using vital blessing is the only alternative to letting your comrades die, you are most likely using all the rest of your skills poorly.  You admit that it's a crude idea, so should it even be mentioned? --Raj4h 00:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The point was that it casts very quickly and, if you have nothing else suitable on your bar, you can use it to try to buy a few seconds (not everyone is endgame GvG, and some people are making due with what they have so far). This is only worth mentioning because maintained enchantments are not usually associated with quick reaction, since they tend to be long-casting apply-and-forget buffs. It's not a bad trick to plant in people's minds when it's appropriately clarified that it should not be used that way primarily (which I did).


 * However, I don't really care about whether you support the Note or not. It's entirely legitimate to disagree based on your own play experiences or opinions and usage. In fact, please do; argument helps make collaborative efforts much stronger.


 * And that's what does bug me to no end: the chronic habit of people (because anonymity is cool & stuff) to leave cursory, dismissive, sometimes outright smug or sarcastic edit notes and not discuss anything before reverting people's edits &mdash; because it's much easier to delete than actually add things, right? I always make a point of explaining my content deletions on the Talk page so that people can assess and discuss it.


 * If people don't like my idea for Vital Blessing... lol, oh well. But if people are encouraged to just delete Notes (or anything else) while randomly browsing just because they don't like them, it creates an atmosphere where new (or even old) editors just throw their hands up and stop bothering. It's the editing habits this user is displaying, not their particular disagreement with my ideas, that made me say something. -- AudreyChandler 00:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Seven edits this year, three of which are on talk pages and all of which are at least reasonable on the merits constitutes a "spree of haughty, hasty edits"?
 * What is the advantage of using 10 energy plus whatever you lose from maintaining it for a temporary heal rather than using an actual heal such as, say, Heal Other? The only advantage I see is that a protection monk could do this if the actual healers are out of energy, but if that happens, you're probably going to die pretty soon anyway, and this only delays it slightly.  And doesn't this belong on the Vital Blessing talk page, anyway?  Quizzical 01:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Reverting is part of "being bold," isn't it? Don't get annoyed by it or take it too personally.  --Raj4h 01:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes I agree, my "spree" comment was out of line (and inaccurate). I have a pet peeve, and it's insta-reverts without explanation or discussion (usually with a side of snarky & unhelpful edit summary). I would have edited that one comment of mine out 5 minutes after first posting here, but, you know, intellectual honesty & all that. It was a hyperbolic reference to another edit on the Fevered Dreams page which was equally heavy-handed, taking important information completely off the page instead of modifying it into a useful form.


 * No, this does not really belong on the VB talk page, because that page is about VB and the VB article. For the last time: this was a specific issue I had with the user's editing style, not that my VB got reverted (which I have clarified several times already). Likewise, I am not here (on his talk page) to argue about a trivial note about a mediocre enchantment. It was a springboard to complain about something that chronically bothers me on Wikis (and any collaboration where anonymous removal of content is quick & easy).


 * I follow a policy that if someone does something that bothers me, I try to bring it to their attention and discuss it. Things usually work out better that way. I am not interested in "winning" a debate here (or whatever).


 * And for the last time (I really have explained this, I think), the idea was to point out an alternative use of the ability for situations where it's on your bar anyway because it casts fast enough to possibly make a difference. Whether it's something you'd want to do often is not the point (I said as much); the idea was to put the idea in people's heads, since the possible uses for the quick cast time of the skill didn't sink in for me until I had used it for a while.


 * If it is really that important to someone that this Note not appear on the VB page, be my guest and leave it off. I feel it's harmless and might give someone a useful idea; you seem to feel otherwise. I will gladly discuss this trivial quibble as long as you like and in as much detail as you wish, but for the record (again) my concern here is not whether my VB edit gets to stay on its Wiki page. My concern was with an edit style that leaves people with no clue why their content was deleted, and nothing to respond to, and thus discourages new editors. There's a difference between axing someone's idea with a note that indicates it was barely read, and axing someone's idea but explaining why it was not considered suitable for inclusion.


 * That's why I posted here. If the general preference is that I say nothing and just give up when something bothers me (or be chastised for trying to discuss it), then, lordy, let me know so I can stop now. -- AudreyChandler 01:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Fine then, let's look at the Fevered Dreams edit. The note basically said what both the full skill description and the concise skill description already said.  Having that as a separate note is superfluous.  Furthermore, the edit didn't merely remove the note.  It also explained the reason to remove it:  what the note said was already in the skill description.
 * It is necessary to remove things from pages from time to time, especially on a wiki as big and well-developed as this one. The page for Fevered Dreams has 88 edits.  The one for Vital Blessing has 73 edits.  And these are for skills that aren't even all that useful.  To say that people can't remove notes, or can't remove them without a lengthy justification, wouldn't be the difference between two notes on the page and three.  It would be the difference between two notes and perhaps twenty.  Most of the twenty would be pretty useless, and burying the two among them would make them hard to find and usually go unnoticed.  That makes a page less useful, not more.
 * What all too often happens is that everyone comes by and wants to add his own pet comment. Fill a page with that sort of random comments and it becomes an unreadable, incoherent mess.  A number of mission pages have had exactly this problem.  Trying to explain line by line why every single note needed to be removed in a cleanup operation of such pages could easily take hours.  But even if you want to demand a justification for every bit of removed content, the author in question gave such a justification in both of the edits you cite.  I don't see what the problem is.  Quizzical 02:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's correct to bring this to the attention of the user with whom you take issue, rather than on the article talk page, given the circumstances. What Roland (the IP) intended by his summary, I'm sure, is that people might see the note and say "Hey, this skill is flexible and merits use," when in fact it's a terrible skill in all but a few niches and should never be taken. A blank skill slot would generally be better.


 * When it comes to good revert notes, it's general consensus that a detailed edit summary is good, and an even more detailed talk page section is ideal. The problem is that people are generally too lazy, and we have no intention of enforcing such actions because the primary goal of a wiki is not courtesy but usefulness, and bad notes are not useful. Also, a revert policy would most likely discourage editors, of whom we already have precious little these days.


 * In other words, no one likes their edits being reverted with little or no perceived reason, and it's perfectly understandable to be miffed, but it's not something you can force people to do. Taking it up with individual users is probably the best way to make any progress. So... good. [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 02:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Although no one seems to believe me, I'm really not "miffed" (quotes for accuracy, not derision) that my edit was reverted. If people agree it wasn't worth having there, that's fine. I personally believed &mdash; and still do &mdash; that there's a difference in methodology between a sound edit and a poor one (speaking in terms of effect, rather than content). For example, the removed note *on Fevered Dreams was:
 * *Note that a condition only spreads when it is applied on a target that does not have that condition, as per the description. For example, if you apply burning to a target that is already burning, Fevered Dreams does not take effect.
 * With the justification,
 * (→Notes: actually read the skill description?)
 * Alright, let's look at the skill description:
 * For 10...22 seconds, whenever target foe suffers from a new condition, all foes in the area suffer from that condition as well. If target foe has two or more conditions, that foe is Dazed for 1...3 seconds. 
 * What exactly is a "new condition"? Does it mean whenever a "new" condition skill is targeted on the foe? Does it mean when a condition falls off, then is reapplied? It is very vague, and I can at least personally say that first time I saw the skill I read the description, re-read it, and still assumed wrong about the effect. The removed note may not have been well-formed, but it was hardly useless. It clarified something vague. But then it was randomly lopped off with a sarcastic edit summary, and so anyone browsing to the page to try to understand the skill's mechanics would once again be out of luck.


 * That is what I mean. Edits that are, in spirit, well-meaning but don't stop and think about why the content was added in the first place. I try to re-integrate messy Notes rather than just deleting them entirely if I can see any rational and useful intent behind them; this note clearly had that. Yes, a Wiki is about being essentially one giant sandbox (give or take) and nothing should be considered too sacred. But if edits aren't done with some degree of thought and reason (rather than just visceral reactions), then the freedom provided by a Wiki just becomes an uphill struggle against the most aggressively opinionated editors.


 * I hope my replies here aren't overly long; I'm a naturally verbose person. I'm not trying to Wall-of-Text-crit anyone, and I'm not upset, and never was. I fully admit coming across too brashly at first, which was unintentional (and that's my chronic problem), and I do apologize to apparently Roland if I said anything unfairly harsh; it was not the original intent. I am overly clinical at times.


 * Truly I just want an environment where people feel like putting time into the Wiki means something, or at the very least they can learn from their mistakes in a positive way. Making people feel like irrelevant idiots (which I fear happens too often) can be momentarily efficient but harmful in the long term. There's certainly a fine line between that and letting the Wiki turn into a soup of misinformation and clutter, and I am appreciative that you put such effort into trying to prevent that. I would never encourage a revert policy &mdash; reverts don't bug me, but lack of thought and care do. Unfortunately, of course, that sort of judgment also ends up coming down to personal opinion, which is why I just take it to Talk immediately so it can be hashed out peaceably. Reverting a (well-meaning) revert without discussing it seems childish to me, and so I avoid doing so, even if I feel justified. -- AudreyChandler 04:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * "Reverting is part of being bold" &mdash; no, Raj4h, it really isn't. Reverting without a proper reason puts a damper on the reverted person being bold. We don't have a GW:BOLD policy, but we do have GW:AGF, and it asks you to explain your reverts. "be bold" does not mean "treat others whichever way you like". -- ◄mendel► 09:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Err... we don't? [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 18:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * To be fair &mdash; lest it be misinterpreted otherwise &mdash; I don't think the IP Formerly Known As Roland was being outright harsh to me or others (though I have seen many edits by other users that were, either because of impatience or arrogance, which is partially what sensitizes me to the whole issue on Wikis in the first place). I believe he did see his reason as proper (indicated by at least providing an edit summary), but the problem is, that's a very easy thing to feel since people tend to be biased toward their own decisions.


 * What one person sees as justification may just be a dismissive and possibly confusing half-sentence slap to the person they edited, and editors need to be careful about that. Technically, everyone should just process what occurs like a robot and react in step with the guidelines (for efficiency), but realistically people have emotions and can be discouraged easily. Modifying someone's work to make it better is always preferable to abolishing it entirely, in my opinion. At the same time, I don't want people to feel scared of removing content that genuinely should be &mdash; it's a very difficult balance, and that's why I just try to Talk it out. :/ -- AudreyChandler 18:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)