Open main menu

UESPWiki β

User talk:Downstrike

Welcome!Edit

Hiya Downstrike! Welcome to UESPWiki. It's great when we get new members. Just thought I'd send you a welcome with some helpful info. Check out the following links:

If you would like to spice up your userpage, take a look at the Userboxes page: a near complete list of userboxes, including a guide to making your own.

When you're editing, it's always a good idea to leave edit summaries to explain the changes you have made to a particular page, and remember to sign your talk page posts with four tildes ~~~~ (do not sign edits to articles). Also, the "show preview" button is a great way to view the changes you've made so far without actually saving the page (patrollers really appreciate it!).

Feel free to practice editing in the sandbox or discuss the games in the forums. If you need any help, don't hesitate to contact one of our mentors. Have fun!

— ABCface◥ 06:01, 28 January 2013 (GMT)

Thanks ABC! I'm sorry I didn't thank you before, but I had thought a bot had left that comment, until I recently spotted an unbotlike comment you made elsewhere. Downstrike (talk) 02:51, 10 April 2013 (GMT)
The welcome itself is a template, but it's always made by a legitimate editor. Bots don't leave comments, and if they do, you'll know they're a bot :) Vely►t►e 02:54, 10 April 2013 (GMT)

AdviceEdit

Hey there! I see you are rather active lately. I would very much like to direct you to the Assume Good Faith and Etiquette guidelines we have on this wiki. This edit is very inappropriate. It accuses a user of vandalism ("the vandalized Bug") when it was removed due to being either irrelevant or due to a misunderstanding--an edit made in good faith. It is not nice to assume that one is vandalizing. In addition, calling someone names ("arbitrary-delete-monkey") and accusing them of being stupid ("without comprehending the difference between what s/he/it has deleted and what s/he/it has used as an excuse to delete") is rude and not appropriate.

I also ask you to reword the comment yourself to remove such insults. We don't need such negativity on the wiki.

The indented paragraph in which you describe the problem you see, however, is fine. Please refrain from making personal attacks and assuming bad faith in the future. Thanks! Vely►t►e 22:41, 18 March 2013 (GMT)

Thank you Vely. I will reword those remarks. Meanwhile, how would you suggest I address this user's harassing deletions? Downstrike (talk) 22:56, 18 March 2013 (GMT)
Harassment is still rather snide to add to a talk page and I would not have used that term, but oh well.
If you believe Jeancey is causing huge problems and is harassing you or others with his edits, I suggest admin to discuss the problem in-depth. However, I personally think that a friendly post on Jeancey's talk page would clear up problems easily, especially if you are specific about your concerns. It is up to you. Vely►t►e 23:09, 18 March 2013 (GMT)
I was already composing a message on Jeancey's page, and toned it down after seeing your message. Your feedback about it is welcome. Downstrike (talk) 23:18, 18 March 2013 (GMT)
(edit conflict) Jeancey isn't harassing you or anyone else by deleting or modifying any text on the wiki, so nobody needs to go "addressing" anything with him.. I can assure you he's an editor in good standing and he's very friendly and more than willing to talk to you, if you politely initiate conversation on his talk page. Just talk it out, figure out how you can reword your note, and everyone can go about their business. :) Snowmane➚(talk•email) 23:13, 18 March 2013 (GMT)
I understand that Jeancey doesn't necessarily intend to harass others, but repeated arbitrary deletions have the effect of harassment. Downstrike (talk) 23:18, 18 March 2013 (GMT)
Repeated? One revert. Arbitrary? An edit summary was provided. Harassment? No, not on your life. Please read talk posts before deleting? One users report is not enough to justify inclusion, bugs may be confined to a single players game and may not be found in others. Nothing Jeancey did was out of the ordinary, the only harassment is actually coming from you. Tone it down even more please. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 23:27, 18 March 2013 (GMT)
Just because you haven't examined the other arbitrary reverts Jeancey has done to work I and others have contributed doesn't mean they haven't happened. If these reverts are appropriate, why do Jeancey's remarks indicate that he missed the point of what he reverted?
Meanwhile, I have only contributed to the wiki information about problems I've seen occur on more than one PC. Further, I never assume that it's going to happen to everyone, but state that what I mention, "may" happen, while some contributors seem to assume that if it happens to them, it happens to everyone, or that if an article mentions anything vaguely similar, that it covers everything new that's reported.
Why do I get the impression that this is more about ganging up on someone who is complaining about your friend, than it is about doing what's right for the wiki? Downstrike (talk) 00:10, 19 March 2013 (GMT)
I can see that he (jeancey) has reverted your edits on multiple occasions, so I understand why you're pissed! I don't think it was nice to delete this and this wholesale, for example, although jeancey's edit summaries make sense. Rather than add a new bug or note when basically the same stuff is said above, it would have been fine to just edit/add to the existing thing. Weroj (talk) 03:11, 19 March 2013 (GMT)
Thank you Weroj, for demonstrating that not everyone is ganging up on the n00b! BTW, the Improved Infinite Arrows, to which you link, isn't my contribution, so I know that I haven't been singled out for deletions. Downstrike (talk) 05:41, 19 March 2013 (GMT)

(←) (edit conflict) Hey Downstrike, I see you mention on your profile that you're "the n00b on this particular wiki". We all made noobish mistakes when we started out here, assuming that someone had edited one of our contributions maliciously. I've been guilty of that myself in the past. But, to be honest, the revert by Jeancey does not look like it was malicious to me. What Jeancey appears to have noticed, that you may have missed, is that there is already a Note on that page, which reads "If you cure the Kwama Queen before being assigned this mission, Darius will not recognize that you've done so right away. If you return to the queen's chamber after being given the mission however, you will receive the proper journal update upon entry." and therefore your addition to the Bugs section, of practically the same information, was not necessary on the page. I hope this helps to explain the situation further.

Some other helpful advice, when adding a bug to a page, it is best to use the {{Bug}} template, as had been done in the Bugs section of that page. Bugs can be tricky things to catch, and one person's "bug" is another persons "feature". That's why there is a |confirmed= variable in the {{Bug}} template. Another handy tool is the {{VN}} template, which essentially invites other editors to verify a statement before, for instance, it gets put in the Bugs section of a page. Personally, I consider myself too much of a n00b in the TES games to go declaring something a bug, so I generally put it on the Talk page first, such as this example, and wait for more input before I would declare it a bug. – Daric↝talk 23:40, 18 March 2013 (GMT)

I'm sorry Daric, but you didn't read the Gnisis Eggmine Discussion page any better than Jeancey did.
Thank you for the link to the Bug Template; I've copied and pasted from another Bugs section when I could find one, but the template is what I needed. Downstrike (talk) 05:41, 19 March 2013 (GMT)
No problems, happy to help. Oh, and I'll admit that I don't even own Morrowind yet, so I don't even know anything about the quest in question (pun intended). The reason I responded to your post initially was because it came up as an unpatrolled edit in my list, and it seemed from my brief investigation that your contribution to the Bugs section was a duplication of the existing information that was already in the Notes section, which seems to be the same assumption that Jeancey made when reverting your edit. On delving further into this, I can see now that your comment "Even though General Darius has assigned you this quest..." implies a very different scenario than the existing note "If you cure the Kwama Queen before being assigned this mission...', where the latter Note indicates that General Darius has NOT assigned this quest to you yet, while your Bug infers that the situation occurs even after General Darius has assigned the quest to you. The difference, in hindsight, is glaring, but initially it seemed to me that your contribution was practically the same as the existing Note. I'm sure this is what happened for Jeancey as well, and the revert would not have been malicious. – Daric↝talk 07:13, 19 March 2013 (GMT)
Thank you again. I've understood from the beginning that the deletions were not malicious, but I also understand that most vandalism of wikis is well-intended. You should see some of the nonsensical additions and subtractions that have to be reverted from Wikipedia articles about minority subcultures, day and night. That is what the word, "vandalism", means among WP editors, and that is the context in which I use the word.
Meanwhile, I get the impression that there is an ongoing tendency on this wiki to revert just about any contribution that was added by anyone one doesn't know, without giving it a second thought, or even reading discussions, in order to win awards for doing the most reversions of new edits.
You can tell that I eventually looked at Jeancey's page, can't you? This isn't all his fault, but is the result of rewarding this kind of behavior. He has apparently, in effect, been manipulated into behaving this way. I'm sure that too, started off with the best of intentions. Downstrike (talk) 11:28, 19 March 2013 (GMT)
Hey, I have been gone for a few days which is why I haven't responded as of yet. I sincerely apologize for any mistakes I have made in reverting your additions. If there is ever any edit that you believe I have made in error, be it a reversion or the addition of new information, please feel free to either revert me with an edit summary explaining it or post something on my talk page with a link to the edit or edits in question and I will take a much closer look at the edit in question, and, in the past, I have self reverted my own mistakes. In general, I usually only revert information added, and I post on their talk page if they have reverted my edits. I am always open to constructive criticism of my edits. :) Again, I am sorry for any mistakes I may have made. Jeancey (talk) 21:07, 19 March 2013 (GMT)
Thank you very much Jeancey for your reply and apologetic attitude. I hope you understand, as some obviously don't, that I never meant to say that you did anything wrong intentionally or maliciously. Downstrike (talk) 00:08, 20 March 2013 (GMT)
(edit conflict) May you please ease off with the accusations and what I find to be rather aggressive behavior? Not every user verifies talk pages before each edit. Most edits have no relation to the talk page, and each individual edit explanation isn't documented there. He was a redundant note, and he removed it. It's not a grand conspiracy against new users, it's not us against you, and every edit is carefully reviewed with the rest of the page before it is marked as "patrolled", and what Jeancey saw -what I saw as well- was a redundant note that appeared to not have any unique difference to it than an older note.
Like I said above, a rewording to make your message clearer on the page is what's appropriate, not accusing other users of "vandalism", which has a harsh context, or insulting users, like your calling Jeancey the "Arbitrary delete monkey", and insisting on the article's talk page that this is "harassment" of you. Like has been mentioned above, ease off and be alittle more civil, and less aggressive, because I am looking at enough reasons to give you a warning for violating Etiquette. Please just relax, take a breather, and come back willing to discuss this civilly. We are all willing to work it out and get this cleared up and decide its noteworthiness, we just don't appreciate being accused of random conspiracies. This is all I've got the desire to say for now on this. Snowmane➚(talk) 21:09, 19 March 2013 (GMT)
Will there be some point in time when more people will stop showing up to harass me about wording that I already deleted?
Meanwhile, I have now learned that although Wikipedia editors have for years referred to well-intended harmful editing as "vandalism", and continue using Wikipedia's anti-vandalism tools to combat rampant well-intended editing, Wikipedia has been trying, at least since 1997 to get editors to stop using the word that way, calling that usage, "harmful".
That's the word from the granddaddy of all wikis, so I accept it and apologize for using that word, and will now remove it. Downstrike (talk) 00:08, 20 March 2013 (GMT)
Oh! Wait a minute! I already did! Congratulations; you guys succeeded in brainwashing me to think that it's still there. I suppose you deserve a LOL at my expense. Downstrike (talk) 00:14, 20 March 2013 (GMT)

(←) Since everyone seems to be getting a bit snarky here, let's end the conversation? Point's been discussed, everything's understood, etc. No need to keep going if it's going to be with attitudes like this. Thanks. Vely►t►e 00:18, 20 March 2013 (GMT)

Things Could be WorseEdit

During my self-education about wiki editor slang, I came across this, which indicates there have been times at WP when things were much worse, so I hope you get some more LOLs: Wikipedia:Village stocks

Retrieved from "https://en.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Downstrike&oldid=3116928"
Return to the user page of "Downstrike".