That category you devised was completely unnecessary. You saw a problem, which is that "Elementalists" are categorized under Professions and you did not like that. That's fine, but you took a course of action that was not very fruitful. Next time, please discuss things first before shifting half the categories in the wiki from one base to another.
We were already wondering how to classify them. Obviously classifying them as "Creatures" in the presence of "Bestiary" (which means Beasts, i.e. Creatures) is meaningless. So, we need to come up with something better. In the mean time, creating Category:Creatures will make new users start using it instead of bestiary and cause all sorts of havoc. In addition, the article Creatures itself is one we need to break apart. It is only there as a to-do list.
Thanks. --Karlos 00:02, 1 Oct 2005 (EST)
- Category:Creatures is not a replacement for Category:Bestiary (I would definitely discuss first before making such a large change). It is meant to fill the void of something that simply encompasses creatures and creature subcategories like Category:Warriors. Bestiary is something different that (by its description) seeks to categorize by species. I did not shift any categories (I made sure not to touch the existing Bestiary links). Anyways, I will take it to category discussion. --Rezyk 03:46, 1 Oct 2005 (EST)
- I also wish you would stop reverting my good-faith edits before discussing them (like when we butted heads in Evade). I don't know if that guideline is different here than from Wikipedia, but if so it seems like I should revert your changes to the skill lists in Signet, Hex, Knockdown, Sacrifice etc, before discussion. --Rezyk 03:46, 1 Oct 2005 (EST)
- At that point it was a question of contributions and history. You had not been around long and you were making modifications which I did not agree with. I'll generally revert your edit and see how strongly you feel about it. You'll either do it again or talk about it in the talk page and we'll move on from there.
- If you wish to discuss those changes in Hex and so forth, by all means. If you did not understand what I was doing, I left notes during my edits explaining. I do not believe that a guide trying to sort all "hex related" skills should call them "hex related skills" but should try and tell the reader what each group does. Now you may disagree with the specific classification of XYZ skill being among "skills that benefit from hexes" which is fine. Go ahead and move it.
- If I butt heads with someone with history (see Tetris), I'll explain in the talk page.
- This is the same thing in Wikipedia by the way. --Karlos 09:03, 1 Oct 2005 (EST)
- P.S.: You moved Undead under Creatures. That does not coincide with the definition you just gave. Undead is a species of creatures which fits under bestiary.
- I strongly disagree with the overall direction of those changes to Hex, Signet, etc, and have been intending to start a discussion on it (when I have more time). My point was whether or not I should go ahead and revert the articles first without waiting to go through the discussion. The wikipedia guideline I refer to here is 9. "don't revert good faith edits" . I do realize it's not a hard-and-fast rule but I thought it worth mentioning because it seems like a common pattern with you. --Rezyk 09:44, 1 Oct 2005 (EST)
- I don't revert "good faith" edits. I correct what I see as incorrect and I am very consistent about it. And as I said, it depends on the contributor. If 84.175 or Rainith or LordBiro made an edit that I do not like, I'll talk with them first. Not because I like them or even know who they are. But because these are people with a history of trying to help the wiki and knowing what they are doing. But, if someone just makes an account then goes about rewriting many articles and not explaining what he is doing, I will scrutinize his work, I will change back (or reword) what I feel needs changing and no, I won't talk to them about it. Because they might be clueless and they might not ever show up on the site again. Now, if they believe in their edits they will come back and defend them and perhaps show me a strong arguement (as you are doing). This is too open a medium and there are far too many irresponsible contributors for me to "discuss" every change I make to "someone's article".
- I am sorry if you felt slighted. It was not intended. If it's of any comfort to you, I am equally indiscriminate in my discrimination against others. :) --Karlos 10:09, 1 Oct 2005 (EST)
- Wikipedia policy is not GuildWiki policy. People tend to think that, because we use a MediaWiki backend, we follow their rules. This is not the case. Wikipedia is a massive community with thousands of users and an unbelievable scope. We are a (reletively) small community with a very specific purpose. The Wikipedia policies simply do not apply well to this environment.
- Tradition around here has been to rollback an edit if disagreed. The burden is then on the contributing editor to make his case in the talk page if he feels the rollback is unjustified. This works well here, and, in light of previous "good faith" edits that caused literally hundreds of hours of work for some of us, we feel it to be justified.
- I'm not the final word on GuildWiki policy (or even a word at all), I've just been here from the beginning and understand pretty well how it works. You're welcome to push for whatever change you feel is justified, including adoption of Wikipedia policy. —Tanaric 11:07, 4 Oct 2005 (EST)
- Without trying to dredge up any undead discussions, is there a page that actually lists these kinds of policies? It's all well and good for the people who have been here a long time understand how things work, but things just like this should be clear to everyone. (I've looked over the large "Helping Out" section off the Main Page, but things like this don't seem to be there... unless I'm blind, which I'll allow is distinctly possible.) Such a list is especially helpful when GuildWiki is different than any kind of standard (such as Wikipedia). Thanks. --JoDiamonds 09:48, 31 October 2005 (EST)
- Why are you guys whispering over here. Talk about it somewhere where people will join in like in the Community Portal or the Main Page talk or something. :) --Karlos 16:00, 31 October 2005 (EST)
Just so you do not miss the note on Talk:Hex, I'll repeat it here so you get the big flashing orange message. Do not change more than one article. Change one, ask for people's opinions and votes and wait. This is not a turf war. Leave the others until we decide which way we will go. If you change more than Hex I will revert them and as fast and as often as necessary. --Karlos 23:40, 1 Oct 2005 (EST)
What's the deal with the ? Were the tables being displayed wrong in your browser?--Cloak of Letters 01:28, 2 Oct 2005 (EST)
- When I was using IE (it may have been an older version), it displayed empty table cells as if they were not "pressed in" from the table border. Adding a non-breaking space point ( ) is the standard way to fix this. --Rezyk 02:14, 2 Oct 2005 (EST)
- Don't make me delete my user page. --Fyren 01:53, 6 Oct 2005 (EST)
- So I am loved! =) --Rezyk 02:26, 6 Oct 2005 (EST)
- Smooooochie!! <3 --Tetris L 02:45, 6 Oct 2005 (EST)
Rezyk: "I'm using Dryder's Defenses!" evade
You're making some pretty wide changes. Editing how all the skills are catagorized. Is there a page where all these changes have been discussed already? Nectarine 19:31, 2 November 2005 (EST)
- Ahhhh.. thanks Nectarine 19:39, 2 November 2005 (EST)
Skill box vote
- Thanks. I actually have been following it but am limiting my participation due to some issues I have with the site in general. --Rezyk 12:49, 19 February 2006 (CST)
(This is a response to.)
- You're being extraordinarily cryptic.
Again, my apologies.
- Do you mean that you disagree with the "banning" process here?
I am against certain banning practices being continued.
- If so, can you be more specific about your disagreement?
I dislike having regular admins be the judge of whether a user is bannable when it is not a case of vandalism or spamming.
- I assume you are well aware that most so-called bans here are only temporary blocks, and that in nearly all cases the blocks are imposed for obvious cases of vandalism or spamming?
- Do you think that a more democratic blocking process would be worth the time and effort, or even likely to work?
For vandals/spammers: no and no. For any users that are not vandals/spammers: yes and yes. Forcing these sort of bans to require a backing of the community would both mitigate strife caused by feelings of possible persecution, and bring the role of the admin more in line with being a simple executor of the consensus will (and generally equal to a normal user otherwise).
- Do you simply disagree with blocking users, and if so, how do you propose to deal with vandals and spammers?
I have had no qualms about the current system regarding vandals and spammers (although it is great that it is documented now and more open to discussion).
- As far as the nomination for admin goes, you have the right to simply decline it; others, like Tetris above, have, and we honor that choice. However, when you say that you think that you are incompatible as a regular user with this wiki, I think it is reasonable to ask for a fuller explanation.
I think there is some confusion here; this particular discontent does not at all factor into my feeling potentially incompatible as a regular user. The main source of that is my consistently reaching an impasse when trying to engage in policy matters.
- You are phrasing it self-effacingly, but buried in your comment above is a severe indictment of the wiki and its participants. You may indeed have noticed some serious defect that is eluding the rest of us. If so, it is best to have it out in the open.
No such indictment was intended. This is merely my opinion, and it is reasonable to disagree with it. Still, it is just not a practice I would be comfortable enforcing as an admin.
--Rezyk 14:47, 17 March 2006 (CST)
- Thanks! --Rezyk 09:09, 25 March 2006 (CST)
You may not read this, but I feel obliged to respond.
The best way to improve a community is to remain active in the community. Your leaving will accomplish nothing, and will inevitably hurt the community—you've been a good contributor since you arrived.
I had hoped I'd made it clear that I thought you had a valid complaint, even though I disagree with the way you sought resolution. You mention that this has occured in numerous previous situations, but unfortunately I have no way to verify or judge those, and the only prior text you linked was from January. Had you a body of textual support between the two periods, I would have reacted differently.
Either way, I hope you choose to stay with the GuildWiki, as it's a worthwhile project and you're a worthwhile member.
Best of luck to you in whatever you decide to do!
—Tanaric 17:18, 13 April 2006 (CDT)
I was just thinking the other day it'd been ages since we'd seen you. There's probably been hundreds of contributors who've left since I've been around but there's only a handful or so that I think about. I'm not entirely sure what you're after, a lot was said at the time, I don't remember who's "side" you were on or when or what you were arguing for, I've obviously done a lot less research than F G. However forgetting all of that for a moment, it's nice to see an old timer drop in ;) --Xasxas256 22:44, 26 September 2006 (CDT)
- Hey Xas, it's nice to hear from you, as always. =) Regarding "what I'm after", I don't think it is much. If I were still active here, I'd probably feel some shared responsibility, pursue wiki stability/justice/etc, and likely end up in a major fight. =P As it is, it's just that I noticed my name coming up a few times lately, and thought it fair to try correcting some of the misrepresentation. I don't even intend to push it since the truth is less believable anyways. *ducks back down* --Rezyk 14:53, 27 September 2006 (CDT)
(I am taking this discussion off the CP talk because I felt it doesn't really belong in the section you started it in. Feel free to move it back there if you want to.)
"Community choice" doesn't always mean democratic choice - in fact, on GuildWiki, it rarely means that. It does mean that everyone gets a say who cares to make their voice heard, although the process is hardly formal. It also means there's a continuity of some kind from past to present.
I don't know what you are referring to with "old feelings about the adminship structure"; I'd be interested to hear more if you cared to write it up, or find a link or two to past discussions. If you don't want to do it publicly, Special:EmailUser/M.mendel. --◄mendel► 21:41, October 20, 2010 (UTC)
- Is that all that "community choice" means here? What if hypothetically everyone (who cares to) discusses an issue, and then a pre-designated person takes it all into consideration and renders his own best judgment for the decision? Everyone "got their say", but it'd really be dictatorship-with-advice rather than a community decision. Or would this not satisfy the "continuity of some kind" condition? That phrase is extremely vague. --Rezyk 06:14, October 22, 2010 (UTC)
- I just looked at your contribs to see how long you've been here, and noticed we discussed this two years ago at Forum:GuildWiki community model.
- Our context now is choosing admins and bureaucrats (editing decisions work differently, and in fact the "pre-designated" people are not supposed to pass judgment there (GW:AUNC)), and yes, with respect to those, it pretty much works the way you describe it, except that it's not a single person, but a group (exception: for a period 2007-2008 we had only one active bureaucrat), and there's emphasis on making that "best judgment" transparent to the community. That's how R.Phalange got promoted, and Rose of Kali didn't. Auron didn't fare well with his decision, creating much drama and damaging his and R.Phalange's effectiveness in the process; mine created less controversy, probably because the impact on the wiki was felt to be less, but I doubt I convinced many people that it was good judgment. (Tolerable judgment, perhaps.)
- Ultimately, our system of adminship and bureaucracy means that you've got to trust these persons' best judgement, or ask them to step down (RfR or similar); and as we're doing with Wikia, the community has an ultimate way to force people who won't comply: take the content elsewhere and set up anew. The difference between me and Wikia is that I would step down if I lost community support, while Wikia won't let go of the wiki.
- If you've got a lot of time on your hands, you might investigate unanswers.wikia.com ; the bureaucrat there made some very controversial decisions there about a year ago, and when the admins and active editors threatened to leave the wiki, he was forced to appoint another bureaucrat beside him; and this summer he ran a RfR which failed, and dispensed with his responsibilities there. I like to think the GuildWiki community could achieve the same if push came to shove -- and I also like to think I wouldn't let it get that far while I'm bureaucrat. --◄mendel► 08:48, October 22, 2010 (UTC)