User talk:69.182.180.123

Drunkard

Talk:Alcohol#Merge seems to have wound down with little favour for putting lists of alcohol on pages which don't need it. You also still have an outstanding GWW:1RV. Please address this. G R E E N E R 09:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Matter of opinion if it is needed or not. The problem many people seem to forget is that the wiki is a reference for the players. Why unnecessarily make it harder for people to find info they want and/or need, just because someone who works on the wiki hasn't yet seen the need for it, or thinks it isn't needed? So the information CAN be found somewhere else, so what? Why not have it where it is the most useful, i.e., on the page that specifies what level drinks to use in the best recommended manner? 69.182.180.123 23:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Please read the GWW:1RV link. This is not concerning the appropriateness of the content. This is concerning your previous edits. G R E E N E R 00:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Appropriateness of the edits and the info contained should be considered as much. Instead, it seems that people are more likely to remove actually useful information because some of the edit is not wanted or needed (in their opinion only) instead of adjusting the edit, and leaving the useful information in. Instead, the entire edit is revereted, including the useful information. Once again, not looking at it from a player viewpoint and what is actually useful. 69.182.180.123 03:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure what is unclear at this moment, but I will try to explain. The comments above and on your old IP User talk:69.183.31.172 are not concerning the content of what was written. Discussions of that take place where they should, on the talk pages. When consensus is reached, action is taken. The GWW:1RV is designed to stop one person from imposing their thoughts on others. This is why you were temporarily banned. Please read the page which I've posted three times for you, and take the appropriate action. Not doing so simply wastes our time here, taking concentration of from where it can be better spent. G R E E N E R 05:45, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I have read it, and once again, being reverted simply because a portion of the info added or adjusted was in (well intentioned) error is not cool. It seems that only applies to certain people, that they can make changes, and others either can't or are reverted just for the sake of it, as many seem to have been done, because one small part was apparently not acceptable. I get the idea behind the revert thing. However, reverts just because should also not be done, and that is what you appear to not be understanding. You not getting that wastes time as well, because I apparently have to re-explain it again and again. 69.182.180.123 06:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

1RV is about edit warring, plain and simple. The merits of the text don't matter for the policy; the reasons for the revert don't matter to the policy. --JonTheMon 06:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

And reverts should not be made just as a blanket fix either. If there is some small detail of an otherwise good edit, then fix the problem, don't sit there and nit-pick like you have many times Jon. Oh sorry, you just nitpicked again about the policy, my mistake. 69.182.180.123 07:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

At that point, if you don't like the revert, you discuss. Oh wait, that's what the policy says. --JonTheMon 13:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

You nit-pick and make reverts based on a small portion of the edit, and then, oh wait, you nit-pick about the policy to justify your nit-picking. I am a player of GW, not someone who is going to sit here, wasting game time to read every little bit about the wiki. I am looking to the wiki to be a game reference, and NOT my be-all end-all reason for existence. You would expect a player to, and I know it is a wild idea, play the game MORE than reading the reference about it. 69.182.180.123 18:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

If you come here as an editor, you play by the rules here. Plain and simple. And it's not nitpicking to say the spirit of the policy (don't keep on reverting, discuss). --JonTheMon 02:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I come here as I already said, as a player of the game, looking to use the wiki as a reference. And as a reference if I see something missing that I think will be helpful to others, I will add it. And it IS nitpicking no matter what you say to try to justify it Jon. If that is the spirit of the policy to remove helpful information because some small part of it is not right, then the spirit needs to change. 69.182.180.123 03:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Nicholas Sandford

Please note that you are also in violation of GWW:1RV on Nicholas Sandford. [1] [2] [3] --Silver Edge 19:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Please note that people remove valid information for no good reason. (See above) 69.182.180.123 02:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The point is, if someone removes it, you can only replace it once. After that, you are in violation of the policy, and you need to take it to the talk page and discuss why you feel the information should be there. Regardless of whether you think the information is valid, and their reason to remove it isn't, you have to discuss it until you have a consensus, you can't just keep replacing it. -- Wyn talk 03:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The point is, that people are removing helpful and valid and useful information for no good reason, and the person who added it is now the one who has to justify adding that information. That is bull. In this case, somehow it is allowable and acceptable to have references from far outside the game and somehow that is OK, but this information that is from WITHIN THE GAME ITSELF is not allowed. How does that work again?

If something is not wanted (other than the obvious someone deleting the page info and replacing it with "your mom sucks" repeated over and over, then the person trying to have it removed should be the one justifying why it should be gone, not the other way around. 69.182.180.123 03:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, you have the option to replace it once, period. The policy is designed to foster discussion rather than edit warring, and everyone has to follow it. So, just go to the talk page in question and provide your reasons to want the information on the page. If it truly is useful relevant information, then others will agree and you will gain consensus. It's really not rocket science. Your only other choice is to propose a change to the policy, and you will find it much more difficult to gain consensus on that than on adding pertinent information to an article. -- Wyn talk 06:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

And everyone will sit here and spout policy like that makes it ok, that once again, the person who adds the information is the one that has to justify it, instead of the other way around, and that STILL, no matter how many times you quote "this is the way it is done because it is policy" STILL doesn't make it right. 69.182.180.123 06:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Then have a go changing the policy to "make it right". Unfortunately, until the policy is changed, it is the way it is. To continually fight against it without taking the steps to change it within the structure that the community has established is just foolish. -- Wyn talk 08:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Since it appears to have been missed the other two times I said it, I am a player of GW, and as I also said before, I am not going to waste game time going through and reading all the little things you people do to keep others from being able to add helpful and useful information to the wiki, and then use the "policy" to justify it.

So you can think about this, again, I will attempt to explain it once again. There is no issue with references from WAY outside the game being in here, and that is ok, but someone puts an IN-GAME reference in (in the case of the heading this is under) and it isn't OK. Not only that, the person who put it in is the one that has to justify it? How can I further justify something that is in-game already for anyone to read? I didn't program the game, I didn't come up with the game idea.

The whole idea that someone wants to add something useful and relevant to the information, and then has to justify it being there is ludicrous. The person who should have to justify anything is the person who wants that information removed, and some better explanation than "well, it is policy". I am not disputing that policy is whatever it is, I am disputing the enforcement of it, and the use of it to justify bullshit, under the claim "the spirit of the policy". What about the spirit of the REFERENCE, the wiki? Doesn't that take precedent over the policy? It is supposed to be a reference for people like me (a player) to be able to use. 69.182.180.123 22:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Who are you to decide what is useful and relevant? We're players too. How is your voice any more important than ours? How is it so important that we just waive policy for you? --JonTheMon 23:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

How is it that YOUR opinion is more important than mine if it is relevant or not? How is it that having MORE information is less desirable than LESS information? If you were players more than editors, you would be wanting the information to be here rather than doing everything to take it out unless certain people put it in. Just a thought, but if it applies to the game, then it is probably relevant, not the other way around. And since the reference in Nicholas' dialogue (and I am pretty sure this is the case) for the gifts refers to Skalefin soup, and there, and here is a wild idea, actually IS Skalefin soup in NF, then more than likely, it is a VALID in-game reference. 69.182.180.123 23:43, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Still haven't addressed why 1RV doesn't apply to you. --JonTheMon 01:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

You are still making this personal. It's not personal. The GWW community sat down and decided on a set of policies that apply to everyone that chooses to edit here. You happen to not like the way this particular policy works, so you tend to simply ignore it and you justify your actions by saying the policy doesn't make sense. Whether you feel it makes sense or not, you have to abide by it, just like everyone else here. As I said before, if you want to change the policy so that it makes sense in your opinion, then there are steps you can take to change it. Namely, propose the change on the policy's talk page and add it to the Requests for comment and see if you can get enough people to agree with your proposal to make a change in the policy. Until then, you are required, like the rest of us, to abide by the policy the way it is written. -- Wyn talk 03:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Jon, you still haven't justified why you and others have removed other pertinent and valid information from edits. You want validation or justification? Why is it something I say is valid? It is in the game, and is a part of the game. That is about as clear as I can get. If you remove the entire edit because of one little piece of information that isn't quite up to your exacting standards, instead of editing it, or slightly correcting it, then you remove the whole thing, how is that not nit-picking again? If you still want to refuse to see it, then that is on your head. I am not making this personal. 69.182.180.123 04:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The merit of an edit does not apply to 1RV. That is about as clear as I can get. --JonTheMon 06:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The use of a policy to justify removal of valid and accurate information does not hold water, and yet you still don't get that. I get the edit or not has nothing to do with the 1RV and I understand you also get this. You asked why something I posted was valid or not, I am answering that. And no matter how clear I get, you still apparently don't get it. 69.182.180.123 07:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The continued problem is that many people will see that "joe blow" (who instead of adjusting whatever small part was needed) or whatever has removed an edit, and will presume that if it is put back, instead of basing it on the merits of the edit, will just remove the edit again, thereby making it harder for people to be able to add pertinent information.

So, to make it clear for you Jon, I (and others I am sure) have added in-game information, documentable, repeatable, etc. and because someone like you decides it isn't valid (which brings up the point, how do you decide if it is valid or not over what someone else says it is), then that person has to justify (which you often refuse to see anyway) why this is OK. Case in point (again), since it is under this heading. The note or trivia (I forget now) about the dialogue for skale fins, a valid in-game reference, but that has issues being allowed to stay, and yet other references from outside of the game are perfectly fine, apparently. So, you can sit there and use as an argument against something being valid (when it IS valid, because it is a part of the game) that the person who puts it in is in the wrong, when you sit there and do the same exact thing to them; use the "discussion point" how do they say what is valid or not. 69.182.180.123 07:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Your arguments right now are pertinent to a policy change, and should belong on the relevant page. I doubt anyone will enter into a discussion about what is right or wrong about a policy here, despite your best wishes for them to do so. This page is designed for members of the community to contact you. G R E E N E R 07:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I personally think this is gone a bit far. If you look through the revision history of the Nicholas Sanford page, you will notice that several people made adjustments to those notes since your original post. You seem to be pretty pointedly singling out Jon to "justify" his removal of it, which he actually didn't, he simply simplified it, as that level of detail is really unnecessary. The fact that the word soup in the actual dialogue text is linked to the Skalefin Soup page seems to eliminate the need for a specific note imo, as the reference is inferred. -- Wyn talk 11:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Bosses

Please read Boss#Special traits, where the 4th point states, "Bosses have a profession-specific colored aura surrounding them." This characteristic, with the aide of the others, defines a boss. The statement you have been adding would imply to the average reader that a uniquely named NPC should be a boss, but this particular NPC is an exception. A unique name has never defined a boss. Please stop tagging redundant and misleading information on NPC pages. G R E E N E R 22:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)