User talk:Bullwinkle

Jump to navigation Jump to search

About this board

Not editable

Writing Style

12
Bullwinkle (talkcontribs)

You guys are absolutely determined to bury the lead as often as possible. Get a clue. Readers don't want to sift through a wall of text to find the useful bits. Put the useful stuff in the opening sentence!

Yoshida Keiji (talkcontribs)

I’m sorry to see you frustrated about the methodology. It is an all Wikipedias across and wide standard format you are single handily challenging alone. Is there any other Wikipedia that follows the pattern you intend to apply here? You need to understand that changing the layout of a page means modifying all other pages as well, which is a massive scale rework. Such a large performance cannot be taken so lightly and if it were to ever take place, it first needs to be addressed through the Proper Channels which means:

  • Suggesting a Formatting guideline for items,
  • Gaining consensus approval by the entire Community and
  • Lastly, reworking all other 970 pages as well.

It is very unlikely that such a measure will take effect coming from a new user with few edit counts and no considerable amount of input enough to make a name for yourself.

14:57, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Bullwinkle (talkcontribs)

A bad policy is not a good reason to do something.

Mehni (talkcontribs)

> It is very unlikely that such a measure will take effect coming from a new user with few edit counts and no considerable amount of input enough to make a name for yourself.

Ideas should be judged on merit, not by who brings them forth. Bullwinkle's idea most certainly has merit.

Ever written a paper? The abstract comes before all else. An executive summary is used for long forms of written communication in all corporations. A summary is the lead in for all newspapers. The official Wikipedia has a policy of putting a short summary at the top of the page. Does that suffice for you, Yoshida?

The idea has merit.

Yoshida Keiji (talkcontribs)

Here we are addressing the Revision number 63.510 on the page Bionic stomach. Now..., I’m gonna be bringing forth some insight with the sole intention of helping readers grow as Wikipedians and also prevent people from committing future self embarrassments, it is not meant in any way to derogate or laugh at others.

1.- Yes, the first paragraph must be a summary in long pages. But...

2.- No, Bionic stomach is “NOT” a large page, it merely has 1.500 bytes, it’s a small article with three paragraphs of few sentences. I can read it all even from my iPhone 8+ (which has a larger screen that the iPhone 8 standard).

Expertise certainly weights heavier than apparent merit. I can easily tell that the two of you are “Young Wikipedians” (not referring to Real Life age) and there’s nothing wrong about that, I was once new to Wikis too. The thing is that I carry the experience of a little less than 10 years editing wikis, and what I’m about to tell you guys, you can verify yourselves with close friends who also carry expertise on their own shoulders.

Back in the days when I first started (not when wikis started), the Wikis had a Notification message that would pop-up to any user who happened to click “edit” on a page that weighted 10.000 bytes. Now if you were to enquire about this notice, you would receive opinions such as that value is not really thaaaat heavy but a value of 50.000 bytes is more accurate in regards of page length.

Now, as a Wikipedian myself, I actually outstanded in two fields. My first was AI analysis for more complex games than RimWorld. And the second was “Article Overhauls” as in Rewriting pages, I was praised and accepted enough by the Community to move freely, so I really really really know what I’m saying. Now the articles I would be tackling down those days, were in fact pages that exceeded 100.000 bytes. This is because casual members have the erroneous habit of overwhelming adding redundancy carelessly. And to anyone like myself in Article Overhauls, you need to understand that complaining that a 1.500 bytes page is “long” sounds terribly bad as it equals barely 1% of a problem to us “Rewriters”. You can say this kind of stuff here, and I will show you your mistakes but if you say the same thing elsewhere, it will likely cause people to look funny at you. This is why I stated above that my intention is to help you grow and avoid future embarrassments.

3.- The Procedure in which this particular revision was done is also incorrect. Duplicating content on a same page is never good, even worst when the repeated text is right below/above the other.

Have I ever written a paper? You asked.

If you were one of my own employees and you bring me a report with two identical paragraphs one after the other, I would definitely be giving you the “bad look”. It is not bad enough to warrant a kick out of the corporation though.


Now... my question is how serious are you guys about this matter? Like Melanie Janine Brown said: is that what you really, really, really want?

I have now realized that the Community Portal talk page has lost early days discussions with the wipe performed by Tynan’s crew on the Discussion section... maybe JimYoda still holds the original content, but I remember addressing these matters literally 2 years ago.

From the Contributions list of my own profile:

11:39, 25 April 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+253)‎ . . N Special:Badtitle/NS90:RimWorld Wiki talk:Community portal/We need a General Formatting guideline ‎ (New thread: We need a General Formatting guideline) (current)

And the closest in time that I can point out now is this:

https://rimworldwiki.com/wiki/RimWorld_Wiki_talk:Community_portal#Formatting_guideline_for_.22Weapon.22_pages

Understand that Policies is a field I’m very comfortable in as I have previously dedicated a good portion of my Wiki-Life into “Patching Loopholes” in Policies from previous experiences. Whoever can do that, is someone who is very well acquainted in most policies if not all of them. And I don’t see many people that can do that.

https://rimworldwiki.com/wiki/User:Yoshida_Keiji/Sandbox3

In this example you can already read this:

Short concise description Please describe the weapon by itself without making comparison or references to others but address it on its own.

Which is enough proof to “debunk” any misinterpretation people may have about me not knowing how to write an article. The Weapons formatting guideline “draft” dates already 2 years old... which means I’m 2 years ahead of everybody else here already...

Now... pay attention A LOT to what I’m about to say next:

We live in a time when a lot of people want to “Be Right” but few who will be “Responsible” when the time comes.

Remember the Gottoni incident at the beginning of this year? It is very easy to make a comment as of now “today” and it is also very easy to criticize somebody else “after the fact” with lines such as: “-You could have said this better.-“ or “-You could have than that better.-“ This or the other, etc. But what really matters is “who” actually DOES IT when the time really comes. It is always easier to point at somebody else and say something, but few are those who will the taking the problems to their own hands. When the shit hits the fan… who came around to stand and address the Gottoni issue? It was just me alone… alone… alone… and Zesty came in because I called him myself. A lot of people can come and say what Policies or Laws or Rules we can create… and just as in Real Life, we will just end up with countless Laws that are useless, help no-one , make no sense at all. When the real time comes to “DO” something about it, it will only be me “handling” the shit… So why oh why would I have to listen to those who left me just by myself? Nobody else showed up.

Understand, that the Draft for Formatting Guideline for Weapons has been sitting there for over two years now… and nobody else came to talk about yet… These guidelines are very important to have in any home wiki because every time that a new user accidentally “breaks” something, a Moderator has to come in to explain the problem and more often than not, be looked upon as the “Bad Guy” because I say: “-No, you can’t do that.-“ A Guideline can simplify a lot of Procedure and even prevent new comers to commit these type of “accidents”, but no one helped me yet. Of course, we can always refer to the traditional mother of all Wikipedia as a source and from there all Policies to be considered here in a mirrored fashion, but then again, most new users will not be aware of this anyways. This is pertinent to this discussion as the Assault Rifle page was recently affected alike. A new user wanted to challenge a large scale dedicated work performed in this case by XeoNovaDan, who is a well known member, who actually went and single handled all weapons pages in a very consistent pattern and not just one weapon out of all of them. The weapon descriptions are all perfectly in harmony … and the contesting argument was what? “-Hard to read.-“ Now when we put all the pieces of the puzzle all together…we are listening to a new user who finds a 1.500 bytes page…long… The real problem is entirely on the reader side. And I personally read a lot of articles on a daily basis on topics that are extremely much more delicated. I know that Bionic stomach is a fast read article.

Don’t take Policies so lightly. A new user who within his/her first 10 edits is already engaging in disputes over methodology, formatting layouts and without knowledge of common practices is certainly going to rig some alarms, we can’t have this behavior show up every single time that somebody new comes around.

Mehni (talkcontribs)

Your response to "articles are vague and don't get to the point" is a vague reply which doesn't get to the point. Shame.

What's also a shame is that your actions scare away new users. The wiki will forever be stuck in A17 that way. It's good to question things. You as a wikipedian should know that multiple edits and revisions are what improve quality, not plain reverting things because you don't happen to like them.

The Assault Rifle page starts with "relatively, slightly shorter, moderately, slightly longer" -- those are all meaningless quantifiers. That's not a good stand-alone informative intro.

Yoshida Keiji (talkcontribs)

Yeah, of course... We can always listen to what User:Sex Pistols says and switch back to "Anarchy in the U.K." mode, that way we can end up with Revisions like number 62234 which is what you would call as "Progress", right?

Mehni (talkcontribs)

If you're going to start a strawman argument, at least get it right. It was [[1]] which kicked off the fun. I wrote it because people on reddit complained about how awful the article was prior to my mild vandalism.

It was well received. Even Tynan and Zesty endorsed it. https://www.reddit.com/r/RimWorld/comments/5gktm4/the_wiki_page_for_trees_is_masterfully_written/

So yes. That is progress as well. After I rewrote it, the attention the article received led to a rejuvenation until it was slowly rewritten by more serious people. That's fine; I sparked something and now it's a much better article than it was before.

To the point you were trying to make, but didn't: I acknowledge that not everybody liked the rewrite. That's fine, it's a wiki and anyone can edit. To the credit of my critics, they recognised my edits had merit and didn't blindly revert it. They didn't throw out the baby with the bath water. Something which I can accuse you of doing: you are reverting things simply based on personal preference rather than "this is factually incorrect" and *that* is a disservice to the wiki.

Yoshida Keiji (talkcontribs)

Now I see what your problem is, you are very confused in many points. You just shot yourself to the foot and I can “win” the argument by simply using your own words. But before that I will clarify you some points:

  • I always had a good impression of you, and I still do even after this discussion.
  • I don’t have the need to resort to dirty methods, and it’s not really my way of things.

Now getting into this matter. The biggest problem that you have at the moment is that you are extrapolating different social platforms. Reddit is Reddit, the Forum is the Forum and the Wiki is the Wiki. You cannot apply the rules, methods or validation scores from one to another. What happens here, happens here and what happened elsewhere…happened elsewhere. You have to solve your problems at the place where they generated and whatever achievements you reached, are valid only in those specific places. This is a very basic and standard social concept which I will assume you can understand, or we just won’t be able to proceed at all.

Reddit is a platform in which whatever is posted is either “Upvoted” or “Downvoted” for the RANDOMNESS possible of reasons. Whatever you post can simply be destroyed just because someone just doesn’t like your face, for example. This, of course, is completely unacceptable in the Wiki. Because of that… whatever “Greatness” you may have achieved in Reddit, has no single value at all here in the Wiki. Reddit, is a joke next to the Wiki. Because of this, it helps you “Nothing” to post me links to there, which I will not even bother to check out. And I don’t care if you got glorified by Tynan, Zesty, God, Britney Spears or Kim Kardashian.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus#Pitfalls_and_errors

Off-wiki discussions. Consensus is reached through on-wiki discussion or by editing. Discussions elsewhere are not taken into account. In some cases, such off-wiki communication may generate suspicion and mistrust.


Quoting your own wording:

Quote: “-it was slowly rewritten by more serious people.-


You are DAMMM right about it. The Wiki is serious, Reddit is not.

Now, stop arguing here and do some homework, spend A LOT of time studying Policies, and someday, we will be able to have Real Conceptual discussions at the same level of understanding. Here I leave you some pointers. This discussion is hereby closed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Focus_on_content

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Disengage

Mehni (talkcontribs)

By that logic:

The RimWorld wiki is not Wikipedia. I could well argue that the addition of the "impressive template" to the Trees article in revision 43173 by the wiki admin themselves holds more weight than an off-site link.

So I disengaged over the weekend. If you want to talk about Dispute Resolution: - The intro states wikis are not about winning, but you're the one to bring it up. All I want is better articles. - The normal protocol was not followed. By this I mean, instead of a revert, edits should have been made to improve the article. I don't see a justification for your revert other than "I dislike it." - I fail to see how you adhere to "Focus on content". You dismissed the idea on the amount on edits made by the idea proposer, rather than merit.

As you use bold letters to attempt to close the discussion one-sidedly rather than try and actually resolve the issue and discuss it based on merit, I feel obligated to ask Zesty for a third opinion. I must admit I am shocked at your tone and attempt to shoot me down, and I feel it's creating a bad environment for the wiki.

Zesty (talkcontribs)

Yoshida Keiji,


This isn't the first time I'm getting complaints about you being non-cooperative with users. I've knocked you down from moderator to regular user. Moderators are here to make sure that the wiki isn't being maliciously vandalized, spammed, etc; not to police every edit. Please work to cooperate with other wiki users in the future.


Bullwinkle raises an excellent point. People use the wiki to get information in a quick and efficient manner.


Mehni is also correct: this is a video game wiki. It resemble Wikipedia, but it's not Wikipedia.


Thanks to the users that reached out to me.

Bullwinkle (talkcontribs)

This is not a happy environment for me to work in. My future contributions will be limited because of my lack of satisfaction with the management here. I will continue to contribute, but it will not be much.

Terminology

3
Yoshida Keiji (talkcontribs)

I see you using the term "Modern Tier" in your latest edits. Where did you get that wording from? Asking because so far, we have been used to Neolithic, Medieval,Industrial and Spacer which are terms that come straight from the game. Is that your own expression?

22:02, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Bullwinkle (talkcontribs)

I don't know who "we" refers to, but perhaps you can search this wiki for "modern." It is not "my own expression." It is already a part of this wiki, which is where I got my info.

PigeonGuru (talkcontribs)

The weapon classifications were apparently based on an earlier version of the game, which classified them using these terms inside the game files. I checked the game files now, and it does seem that these terms are no longer used. Guess I'll get around to fixing it.

There are no older topics