User talk:Yoshida Keiji/Archive 6

From Guild Wars Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

This page is an archive. The contents have been moved from another page for reference purposes only, and should be preserved in their current form. Discussion on this page is not current. Any additions you make will probably not be read. The current version of this page can be found at User talk:Yoshida Keiji.


Sup

Hi. I'm considering blocking you for about a month because I believe that your edits are counterproductive (especially your liberal usage of reverts) and require undue amounts of policing to apply corrections. This is a heads up. -Chieftain Alex 13:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

LOL that won't convince anybody who watches RC because you also do reverts but by removing the Undo... in edit summaries even from before promotion. Which can be consider "dirty reverts", hidden so that they won't count as your first and in any case, you should provide talks so that you won't look bad as a sysop. User Yoshida Keiji Signature.pngYoshida Keiji(talk) 14:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
My main problem is that your reverts tend to be filled with grammatical and word usage mistakes. your spell checker doesn't save you from these + due to it not being your first language you are unable to detect that you have in fact lowered the quality of the article. -Chieftain Alex 15:15, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Sucks for your sysop career then. No administrator should give a user a heads up warning based on language barrier, specially on a user that has been seen carrying the "Improvements all around the wiki" Flag, always provides discussion addressing problems, sharing opinions and suggesting alternative solutions. A warning is not to be issued to a user whos edits are intended for the better. User Yoshida Keiji Signature.pngYoshida Keiji(talk) 15:27, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
A warning before a ban has happened before because the user was a bit overzealous in his edits and continued to make edits without concensus. You make flawed edits to articles that don't need a change, correcting all those mistakes you made is quite a pain for a sysop, especially because those articles did not need to be adjusted. Alex is kind enough to let you know the mistakes you are making and gives you a warning so you can correct your behavior instead of banning you immediatly. Instead of going in the offense try to recognise your mistakes and correct them so you can improve your edit skills. Da Mystic Reaper 16:15, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
I was involved into edit wars in the past but it's been very long. I don't ignore any consensus, so that case doesn't apply to me. In any case that is more common in Alex as per Talk:Hero_behavior/Unexpected_behavior#Removing_.22I_Will_Avenge_You.21.22. There is no consensus to re-list that skill but still he did it, and I chose to leave a "for the record" note to avoid Revert War.
"due to it not being your first language you are unable to detect that you have in fact lowered the quality of the article"
I cannot recognise mistakes and correct what I don't see.
Now go check all the edits I did this day, read the edit summaries and see if Alex's reverts were actually accurate or not. User Yoshida Keiji Signature.pngYoshida Keiji(talk) 16:31, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
You acknowledge that you can't recognize mistakes - then why do you attempt to change the edits of other users who have full command of the English language? (@above, sysops administrate users not content, it is a burden not a "career".) -Chieftain Alex 17:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Let's go back to Bay 6:

The wiki has two statements:

  • "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it."
  • "If it pains you to fix, then don't fix."

The first quote is directed towards beginner users. While the second message is geared towards users with "Bookkeepper" capacity. It can be expected for beginner stage users to not know the second message. This can be translated to: If it pains you to sysop, then don't sysop.

If anybody were to put himself into comparing the behavior separately between Alex and myself. I am 100% sure that throught the contribution lists, you will be able to notice that for several months I had already been watching my revert rate and interaction within the community which has already grownth its fruits. It is I who whenever makes a BOLD edit, leave summaries and talk records with links or notices oriented towards future users, for they might someday have the need to follow my trails. The results are already here:

  • When I leave a "removal" message, somebody else who was not involved in any sort of content dispute with me, may come and say: "-I don't agree with the removal.-". To what I have already given my proper response: "-Can you expand your opinion?-" Nobody can say that I don't make room for others.Talk:Fort_Ranik#Removing_false_content_.28Hard_mode_section.29

NOBODY can come and tag me as a "Disturber of Peace", as I have for several months already be showing a more open to discussion stance.

  • People who have seen my last edits can say: "-You have bad word choice, because you wrote in the summary: CRAP.-" But which sense will something like this ever make if that is exactly the "target article naming" linked to, not my own wording. And most of all, which is the point of accussing me of bad word choice when the two sysops that overview this community are already know for their "Bad-Mouthing". Even when I don't want to laugh at others you guys are giving me little choice in this matter. What makes you think it was the reason why Auron bouched for Alex's promotion?: Because they both share the same trait. Then, does this ever makes sense for any other users to receive such kind of warning from them? This is ridiculous at best. And this was already pointed on other talks.
  • People who have seen my last edits can say: "-You have reverted several pages that were legitimate.-". Well I have the perfect answer for that. Because somebody else did that to me too, and I am not keeping any kind of feelings because of that.

http://wiki.guildwars.com/index.php?title=Mursaat_teleporter&action=history

There is this user action that I have selfnamed as "Sidestep edits". Sidestep edits mean to me that when somebody is making an extended overhaul for certain "targeted" article, find the need to "improve" other pages from where content is being taken from, as it happened to me while I was re-writting Iron Mines of Moladune, I have found that there was not article withing the GWW regarding the teleporters and decided to improve two pages SIMULTANEOUSLY. Usually there is user's manner where another user interested in the "target" article of the first, will politely offer a 30 minutes window so as to not interrupt the first user. Here you can clearly see that Konig didn't gave me such gesture by tagging my "Sidestep" article for deletion before I finished and intervined within my half hour window.

http://wiki.guildwars.com/index.php?title=Mursaat_teleporter&oldid=2451094

Taking this as a GWW "common practice". There is nothing wrong if I go and tag in the same way other serveral articles made by a dark user who has left not one but several pages in their "halfway status". Wherever this user's edit window has been 10 times much larger than any of my own edits:

If we were to take this even into Anal-Level. There always is 1 single exception for everything, so try and find when did I ever left a page in its "Half-way" creation status and you will find none. This, of course excludes large scale pages that requiere several days, as I have the need to eat like everybody else.

Anybody who is an "elder" user should expect that those who have been around a year here as well is very likely that he/she will proceed in the same way that current traditions were shown towards the new user ,and what I did doesn't break anything at all that others hadn't done before, and before me.


As understanding "If it pains you to fix, then don't fix" requires a user to have "Bookkeepper" capacity. Understanding another user who has "Overhaul cutdown" skills will require sharing that same level of user grade. I can easily say that those persons who have not ever gone into massive overhauling as I did, will not be able to see through my eyes, in the same way that I see. And I have already confirmed this with proper support.


It wasn't long ago that Alex farted. http://www.gwpvx.com/index.php?title=Build_talk:Team_-_DoA_Trenchway&diff=prev&oldid=1213326

which it generated another "chained fart": http://www.gwpvx.com/User_talk:Yoshida_Keiji#Stop_making_dumb_edits

As I am saying there are certain level of user edits that will require another's opinion of that same user rank. This means whatever I do, will certainly be understood better by another wiki-user who shares the same trait than mine, which is Wikipedia:WikiDragon. So for some time ago already I have been into a personal interest "Ongoing Research" consisting on scouting throughout other standing Wiki Communities in search for other Dragonic-trait users. Because my Wiki-Spider Sense was already tingling and telling me that what Alex said doesn't quite sound right. So while I am in this Magellan type of expeditions through other wikis, I have also ensured myself to go back to: the "Source", the "Original", the "Mother of all Wikis" and went to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page itself which is by far the most advanced, the most sophisticated and the most superior Wikis of all. There I exclusively went to w:Wikipedia:TALK and found out the following statement:


Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Others.27_comments

"Section headings: Because threads are shared by multiple editors (regardless how many have posted so far), no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better header is appropriate, e.g., one more descriptive of the content of the discussion or the issue discussed, less one-sided, more appropriate for accessibility reasons, etc. To avoid disputes it is best to discuss a heading change with the editor who started the thread, if possible, when a change is likely to be controversial. It can also sometimes be appropriate to merge entire sections under one heading (often preserving the later one as a subheading) if their discussions are redundant. In order to ensure links to the previous section heading (including automatically generated links in watchlists and histories) continue to work, one should use one of the following templates to anchor the old title: {{formerly}}, {{anchord}}, {{anchor}}. "

See also: [[w:Wikipedia:Accessibility]]


This writting had two between the lines messages for me:

1.-The first is that I can be certain that at some point in time, there has been a certain number of other Wikipedia:WikiDragonic-trait users who had also found "USEFULL" bookkeeping discussion article headers to improve overhauling process as well as the convenience to have the Table of Content at the TOP Template:TOCright/Template:TOCleft. Which is were the index always is placed. When you open a book, you don't find the INDEX in the middle of it. This clearly shows that for wiki-users who have grown into Dragonic trait understand each other, and for somebody to be able to follow up, you also need to have a background experience of several article overhauls. From my own experience I can tell that once you have risen your counter to 10+ article overhauls you will already be getting "the hand" about overhauling and once you have reached above 25+ article overhauls is when you have mastered Dragonic-trait. This means for me that there is no other GWW user that can actually provide me accurate feedback, and the reason why I go talk to other Dragonic-trait wiki users outside of this GWW. I am already awared that it is not for me to discuss this issues with anybody else here because during the entire length of year 2012, I have NOT witnessed any other user showing the same trait-behavior. And I am very glad to know that the BEST wiki of all supports my editor moves.

2.-The second message that quote has: is telling me that I don't need to hear to everything that Alex says and that he can be mistaken sometimes too. And this second point is something that I am already awared of from very long time. This means that as of these days Alex's reverts are the offensive actions, and its not me.

I can very well state that this "Heads-up Warning" is an 100% Administration fart, specially and more over because I had personally been an Administrator myself for 3 consecutive years in five different communities simultaneously and be known as "The Best":

  • It is no mere coincidence when somebody is recognised as the most brilliant ADMINISTRATOR for years in different groups at the same time.
  • It is no mere coincidence when somebody is recognised as the best OFFICER another's guild has.
  • It is no mere coincidence when somebody is recognised as a "real Guild LEADER" for several years and still has his guild standing.
  • It is no mere coincidence when somebody is recognised as the "most favourite elite area run GUIDE player an entire alliance has.


Any person who is standing among others will sooner or later be given proper ranks when he/she understands that: "-Power is not to be used to be OVER the others, but to be FOR the others.-" It isnt strange at all when somebody who plays at GMT+9 when most Americans are sleeping, manages to gather other 11 players in less than 10 minutes and manages to always get the End Chest. You know when whoever is invited to will certainly leave whatever he/she is doing to join and play with YOU. Anybody who is in a Leader/Guide position will understand at some point that the others failure, the lower rank people's failure is YOUR OWN FAILURE, you will become an authentic and real leader when you make other's mistakes: YOUR OWN RESPONSABILITY and you take their errors as your own fault. A real leader will ask himself: "-Did I fail to instruct that other myself?-" A real Leader will never use his position to cuss on the other's errors and that is if they actually were so, because sometimes its not anybody's mistake. Sometimes shit happens.


When you translate this to a forum, a community or any message based group. A REAL ADMINISTRATOR will also look to himself and ask: "-Am I not giving the wrong example myself?-"


Guild_Wars_Wiki:Sysop_guide#Cultural_reverence_of_sysops "every sysop should be careful to avoid abusing this additional editorial power."


This is exactly why somebody else who is a real administrator and has years of experience will certainly be able to "detect" Alex's fails like a black dot on a white sheet. What can somebody who has just been promoted possibly be able to tell me? That was my first thought. And for more, Alex is administrating a Video Game community when I had experience administrating many Everyday REAL-LIFE communities which are by far much more complex than a Video Game community. You will need to have a very-wide open mind to be able to understand people's thoughts, emotions and feelings across the entire globe, West, Middle and East. My second thought was: What can a Video Game administrator possibly tell me about management?


YOU ARE TO NEVER USE YOUR POSITION TO STEP OVER THE OTHERS, that will make you a real administrator someday, if you ever make it.

Now, the real question that you need to ask youself is. When I write a response towards Alex, which is the spirit that my words carry? Do I type to put others down, or do I write to brighten up?


It is very easy for me to state that any other Wiki Community I may encounter in the future will certainly have "Greener Grass" than here. There is a very big difference when a Community is overviewed by Administrators of the oppressive kind and another Community with more inspiring TEF-like Administrators. This Community is gray scaled in so many ways...but that will be for another chapter. User Yoshida Keiji Signature.pngYoshida Keiji(talk) 12:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Chill out. You get very hyped up over trivial matters.
Disturber of peace:
  1. you tag things with an minorly offensive reason from wikipedia.
  2. you write walls of text when very few words would suffice. using more words implies a weaker argument. examples on nicholas the traveler.
Things on other wikis have no relevance. Don't even try linking pvx.
Changing talk page headers can change the context and implications of posts, adding headers randomly to pages where you have nothing meaningful to contribute benefits nobody. - you could better spend your energy improving articles that need help, like stuff with stub, cleanup and image needed pages.
Asking a non-english user to consider taking less of an active role in copy-editing on an english wiki whereby they damage the readability of a wiki isn't anything personal, its business.
-Chieftain Alex 12:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Now I am going to tell you, how your "business" is failing.

Taking for example only from day 24th:

After checking SE's edit, I thought the article could still be improved because:

1.- The scrolls are accessible for everybody, but alliance exclusive towns are limited to 1000 players max. This was good reason enough to change the order in the same way I have been sorting out all bullet listings like Ecto, Obsidian Shard, Amber Chunk and Jadeite Shard, same procedure for explorable area notes sorting.

2.- Then, for anybody be able to use the Ferry service, that requires the same player to have already been there once, which doesn't really classify as another access method, because it means that player had already been there by any of the other methods stated above.

3.- Then, you just come out of the blue and make your revert, but without leaving any summary, nor link, nor comment.

http://wiki.guildwars.com/index.php?title=The_Deep_%28outpost%29&action=historysubmit&diff=2538250&oldid=2538248

4.- By the time I see the revert. I think to myself: "-That is another Alex's revert fart.-" And since you had provided no trails to catch your motivation, that revert of yours looks invalid and without reason. Since you left nothing to support your revert. I don't see any reason why not revert your own "Revert Fart".


1.-The article writting looks awkward, because when you take the perspective of a reader searching the article, it is more likely that the player will want to know what the challenge it poses and how to defeat it. I believe that the "LORE" interested population is much lower than the "TACTICAL" interested crowd. And so, I make the split moving top the present time status and below the background of that NPC.

2.-Mentioning the skill he uses or any NPC's build is rarely withing the description but either below or at the notes. So I move that sentence down.

3.-Then I can see at Notes section that due to several related suggestion it is possible to just merge all recommendations.

4.- Then, you just come out of the blue and make your revert, but without leaving any summary, nor link, nor comment.

http://wiki.guildwars.com/index.php?title=Lord_Jadoth&action=historysubmit&diff=2538249&oldid=2538238

5.- By the time I see the revert. I think to myself: "-That is another of another of Alex's revert fart.-" And since you had provided no trails to catch your motivation, that revert of yours "again" looks invalid and without reason. Since you left nothing to support your revert. I don't see any reason why not revert your own "Revert Fart".


1.- Starting from the obvious yes, everybody sees a vagina there and nobody should ashame himselt as "-I'm a pervert.-" We all thought about it. The problem is something that it easily spoted for multi-cultural people like myself and less likely to be detected by "there can only be one way" people. If Konig types:

2.-is the mother of the Stygians

Then, you would be implying that there also is a "father" or a "penis" NPC. I VOLUNTEER, except for the claws inside. Any biologyst can tell you that there are very different reproductory systems. We don't actually see the Dreadspawn giving birth so...

3.- leaving the only visible portions of her body

This is also a false input, because that would be implying that at some point within the GW1 lore, we knew of the Dreadspawn prior its "merge" when it had a physical body.

http://wiki.guildwars.com/index.php?title=Dreadspawn_Maw&action=historysubmit&diff=2538245&oldid=2538244


The day 24th's activity already points that you have in one day made 3+ "Revert Farts", and this is the reason why I tell you to "talk more". Now, I have been watching the Recent Changes for year and a half. How many of your "Revert Farts" do you think I have seen during that entire length? I don't want to go to make a list, but do you think I would ONLY be listing 100 cases? Remember, "If it pains you to fix, don't fix.-". Everybody farts from time to time.

So when this is something so common on your actions. Which do you think was the reaction when I read your "warning"? We can laugh together right? Because I don't like to laugh alone.

My first thought was: "-Look who's talking.-" And then you say that "I" am the liberal reverter?


It appears to me that what you really, really, really truly don't like is whenever I revert one or more of your own "Revert Farts". At large between two users:

1.- One who leaves notes, summaries and links is less likely to be involved into actual Revert Wars.

2.- But another who doesn't leave any kind of trail at all, will more likely be involved into Revert Wars.

Who of the two is actually being more cautious?

And that is without mentioning Special:AbuseFilter/22 and all the other things you write on summaries where you know people cannot answer back. You don't look THAAAT clean as to ban another user for the same reason that you could auto-ban yourself too.

You are not forced to fix, if it pains you, leave it. I still remember when you told me your fear of becoming a sysop. And I have never disencouraged you. You know yourself that even after my Ingrish mistakes, at large the result had still be worth it, e.g. Guild_Wars_Wiki:Projects/Mission_articles.


Replying:

"Things on other wikis have no relevance. Don't even try linking pvx"

Now, this is a clear example of how grey this Community can be. What says that ideas, other's work-around methods or practices cannot be IMPORTED here?

In fact GWW:BUILDS is the most awkward convention this Community has taken. By the time somebody like me has gone into several pages were builds are being displayed: It is clear that everybody who ever had the need to show a build has circunvented the concensus by finding an alternative Template to show attributes within a bar. The "block" this community had placed to use a display like PvX, had definetly caused a drawback when you realise articles like Bomber are created in 26 December 2011 when such knowledge pre-dates from long ago. The result of GWW:BUILDS had been titanically a failure, which is probably the most darker decision taken to date.

Regarding headers I thought I could save myself to skip writting about it. But as I said before, if somebody is not an "overhauler at large scale", will never be able to understand another user who is hands-in-to-"overhauling" several pages. I was expecting that at least I wouldn't need to be telling this to you.

User:Yoshida_Keiji/Sandbox#.28toc_toc_toc....29:_Dragon.2C_are_you_home.3F is like a CV I am preparing for when chatting with other Wikipedia:WikiDragonic-trait users outside of this GWW. You should have noticed that everytime I was improving Signal-Noice ratio on extended Mission pages, I wasn't just reducing redundancy only to make it short. If you were able to place a tracker on every link that I checked, you would be able to realise that I am almost manually executing What Links Here and checking every link the mission page has, and then return to the "target" article to provide better information. That is in fact, how my "sidestep edits" process was born, and it is only then when somebody that "overhauls" will not only be double-checking the other source pages but also shaking the talks pages to see if nothing that could be usefull on the "target" article wasn't properly added to the other source pages. As I was saying some time ago, everytime a Wikipedia:WikiDragonic-trait user is "overhauling" I, have more than ten pages open at the same time.

It considerable reduces the overhaul procedure if you can keep tracking the discussions by hitting the Table of Content than having to scroll down half page to find it. How long do you think overhauling a 25.000 bytes page takes in time? Specially pages that are over-bloated and tagged with {{DON'T WALL TEXT ME}}.

As I said, if you are not a Wikipedia:WikiDragonic-trait user, it will be unlikely that others will understand what's going on.

And I can assure you that asking the "whys" is better than your typical "Revert Fart" like you did in PvX.

http://www.gwpvx.com/index.php?title=Build_talk:Team_-_DoA_Trenchway&diff=prev&oldid=1213326

User Yoshida Keiji Signature.pngYoshida Keiji(talk) 11:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

This is kinda ridiculous. Alex, try for shorter bans to start off with, especially if their ban record is clean or they're obviously trying to be a positive force. It took awhile for ariyen/falconeye/etc to work up to month-long bans. Either way, a warning before the ban is totally warranted, so that was good.
Yoshida... damn dude. I have 3 main points that will help you immensely here. Firstly, don't wikilawyer - it never works. You waste hours gathering links to a thousand different pages, and nobody reads them because they aren't relevant (or barely so) and they aren't actually proving a point. I see you've linked to wikipedia articles at least once, so I'm sure you're familiar with the concept of wikilawyering, but read the relevant article again just so you remember why it's bad.
Second, don't make the argument personal. You're attacking Alex directly, trying to bring up his history and his editing, even going so far as to link/mention unrelated wikis that he's edited. That... isn't acceptable, really. It's what we call a red herring. When you're speeding down a highway and a cop pulls you over, he writes you a ticket for breaking traffic laws. If you try to counter it by saying "oh, but you were speeding too!" it doesn't actually change the fact that you were speeding, and you're still going to pay the ticket. If your interest is actually to get the "ticket" nullified, you'd do well to keep the discussion on your own actions and why they are or are not a violation of wiki policy - and not on what Alex does on unrelated wikis for the hell of it. Again, though, this doesn't mean "wikilawyer your heart out." A couple of links to prove your point will suffice, along with an actual explanation as to why your actions weren't against policy (at least the spirit, if not the letter).
Lastly, sysops kind of... have discretion to do what they need to do to keep the wiki clean and healthy. Years ago, when GWW was new, sysops were bound by an incredibly strict code of conduct, and were unable to ban or delete pages outside of a predetermined and discussed list of reasons. It was a disaster and a failure, and any troll with half a brain could wikilawyer their way out of a ban by pointing out loopholes in current policy. Eventually the wiki abolished that strict code of conduct, and opted to allow sysops more or less free reign to take any action they deem necessary to keep the wiki project from harm.
You say you've read Recent Changes for years now. Remember Ariyen? That was a well-intentioned user who was ultimately destructive to the wiki project, both because of her inability to work with others and because of her inability to make productive changes without stirring up drama. Remember FalconEye? He was another well-intentioned user who was causing the project to suffer because he required too many users following his edits to fix/revert/tag for deletion instead of actually contributing to the wiki themselves. They didn't "break policies" in the sense that I could point at a clause in NPA or 1RR or something and say "this is why I banned them," but because sysops have discretion, we were able to take care of the problem without needing to point at a specific clause. They were a detriment to the project, and ultimately, the project is all that matters. Quarrels between users and even users themselves are secondary to the goal - and if any put themselves above it, they get taken out with the trash. Don't be one of those people. -Auron 12:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
You got it wrong, three links:
http://wiki.guildwars.com/index.php?title=The_Deep_%28outpost%29&action=historysubmit&diff=2538250&oldid=2538248
http://wiki.guildwars.com/index.php?title=Lord_Jadoth&action=historysubmit&diff=2538249&oldid=2538238
http://wiki.guildwars.com/index.php?title=Dreadspawn_Maw&action=historysubmit&diff=2538245&oldid=2538244
You tell me: Who is being detrimental to the Project? Me or the sysop? Read again. User Yoshida Keiji Signature.pngYoshida Keiji(talk) 12:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Compare the length of my rebuke to Alex to the length of my rebuke to you. It should give you a hint. -Auron 12:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
So as an administrator...you never ever sighted those Revert Farts while administrating? That would be hilarious, they are spread all over and it's totally Hippocratic to complain about my reverts, when they actually start from his own reverts. As I have said at the beginning, I am leaving talks in discussions to avoid any kind of Revert War and my behavior is much more preventive than when I started. I have been trying to improve myself but it's all pointless if its an actual sysop that ends dragging me down. I am taking all the necesary actions to better interact with others from several months already...and if you don't even know this...where have you been? Don't come to tell me I don't know to interact with others, I have been giving proper responses for months ago and nobody noticed this behavior either? Absolutely all my reverts mentioned about day 24 are matching common practice shown to me by the elders. I am following what others told me to do. User Yoshida Keiji Signature.pngYoshida Keiji(talk) 13:02, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
I think the main thing you're struggling with is that... I don't give a shit about who reverted what. I don't care if Alex reverted fifty times, you reverted fifty times, I don't care if the reverting was done on PvX or this wiki or wikipedia, and I am not really all that bothered if he blocks you for disruption or doesn't. What I'm trying to do is help you avoid a ban. I am offering advice on how to participate in discussions, particularly ones where a ban has been threatened. I gave you three simple tips - don't wikilawyer, don't red herring/stay on topic, and remember that sysops can use discretion and ultimately ban you regardless of 1RV or any other policies. Linking me to diffs isn't going to help your case, I'm not the one who warned you. Calling me or Alex hypocritical isn't going to help your case either, as it is irrelevant to the situation - your edits - and at worst simply makes the other party defensive and more likely to ban.
If you have issues with the way he edits, those issues go on the admin noticeboard. An admin other than him will review them and take necessary action (and yes, admins have been banned for policy violations before). If you have issues with the way he uses his sysop powers, those issues go on his request for reconfirmation page. None of those issues belong here in a discussion of your edits - they aren't relevant and all they do is aggravate people trying to read and comment on the actual topic.
To help you figure out which edits have helped your case - this is gold, staying on topic, staying concise, and providing links to support your claim. This is a bunch of kerfluffle, and is the majority of your wikilawyering. It has little relevance to the actual issue, a lot of links/walls of text that are completely irrelevant, and even has "NOBODY can come and tag me as a "Disturber of Peace", as I have for several months already be showing a more open to discussion stance." despite several past users having been banned for disruption/disturbing the peace despite years of attempting to improve (and failing). Avoid stuff like that - Alex even mentions it in his next post, where the first comment is "chill out." You then respond with another massive wall of text, with the few links drowned out by the ranting and red herring remarks like "It appears to me that what you really, really, really truly don't like is whenever I revert one or more of your own "Revert Farts"". The worst edit by far, however, is this one, where you claim "A warning is not to be issued to a user whos edits are intended for the better." Again, I have personally banned users for wiki disruption despite their obvious intention to help the wiki. Intention only goes so far. If, in their attempts to help the project, they end up causing more harm than good, it is the duty of the sysops to step in and rectify the problem - by bringing up issues/warnings on their talk page so they have time to change what they're doing. Nobody wants to lose a positive contributor, but there have been a number of self-proclaimed positive contributors that ended up doing a hell of a lot of damage out of ignorance and error - and like I said above, the wiki project is more important than any single contributor (or sysop, or bcrat). If someone continuously causes more harm than good and (most importantly) fails to improve, they will be removed. No amount of good intention will save them. -Auron 13:36, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Holy walls of text batman. Yoshida, I think you really should focus on using less words. To quote someone who commented on the same attitude of response from GW2W: "they make it impossible to follow the conversation [...] This locks out other users from mediating or even contributing to discussion because it gets incomprehensible. I wouldn't mind providing input if I could understand the issue."
But I just want to address something that concerns your view of my edits - which if you truly have an issue with how I write, please take it up on my talk page rather than using it in wall-o-text arguments for behavioral issues while giving a rather aggressive syntax.
Re: Lord Jadoth commentary: "1.-The article writting looks awkward, because when you take the perspective of a reader searching the article, it is more likely that the player will want to know what the challenge it poses and how to defeat it. I believe that the "LORE" interested population is much lower than the "TACTICAL" interested crowd. And so, I make the split moving top the present time status and below the background of that NPC." None the less, that is how we write the articles and is how every single article in which the NPC has lore is written and has been written since the dawn of this wiki. Combat information always go into either a Walkthrough section or into the Notes section, and lore always goes to the top where there is no section title. Furthermore, every single article is written with the lore being introduced in chronological order - not starting at point Z then going to point A and forward from there. There are only very rare exceptions - Nicholas the Traveler being the only one I can think of, and that's simply because it has such odd mechanics and was agreed upon to have a unique set up due to said mechanics and the interest in Nick. If you really feel like editing every single NPC article on the wiki to match what you think is better, then go ahead. But I suggest starting a community talk discussion to see if anyone else agrees - so that they're not constantly reverted.
Re: Dreadspawn Maw commentary: "1.- Starting from the obvious yes, everybody sees a vagina there and nobody should ashame himselt as "-I'm a pervert.-" We all thought about it. The problem is something that it easily spoted for multi-cultural people like myself and less likely to be detected by "there can only be one way" people. If Konig types:"
"2.-is the mother of the Stygians"
"Then, you would be implying that there also is a "father" or a "penis" NPC. I VOLUNTEER, except for the claws inside. Any biologyst can tell you that there are very different reproductory systems. We don't actually see the Dreadspawn giving birth so..." It is lore that the Dreadspawn Maw is the "mother" (as it is called in game) for those demons. Just stating that should not lead people to think "it looks like a vagina!" nor should that lore be exempt just because of its appearances and the Fruedian thoughts folks associate with it (oddly enough, I didn't think it looked like a vagina when I first saw it - then again, I prefer my vaginas being without razor sharp teeth - this isn't a porno-horror flick). Furthermore, saying that the Dreadspawn Maw actually does not imply there is a father - let alone a "penis monster." We are outright told the Dreadspawn Maw is the mother, so it is the mother. It's got nothing to do with the appearance. As for your third point - wasn't my writing (was there before my edit) and I don't think it implies we knew of it when it was not part of the land - if it ever was. It simply means that we only see part of the body - nothing more, nothing less.
Final points, though I have no real business here other than responding to your commentary on my edits, is that listen to Auron and do not - ever - expect immunity to being banned just because you're trying to help. Falconeye's only trying to help, but he got banned because his edits often caused problems; hell, I got banned over on GW2W because I was responding to Santax's almost continuous disagreements with my edits (and my disagreements with his edits), despite being on that wiki since it formed and on this wiki before hand helping out. There's no such thing as immunity. And as it stands, you're making a far bigger issue out of this (and other small issues) than others. Not against you, just giving my view on the matter. Konig 14:26, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Finally somebody brighter. There is a very simple comparison to make. I always watch everybody's edits regardless how minor they might be. Everybody here can say it is very likely somebody that pays a lot of attention like Silver Edge will leave little to be "fixed". And whenever I spot a simple mistake, regarless of how minor it can be e.g. typos. I don't go to just Revert Everything which is why I say that Alex reverts are farts. If there is this small, tiny and millimeter size mistake... I go and change that little bit ONLY. But what Alex had been doing for... I dare say over a year is just wiping it all out. So from the three examples given above, there is no need to just undo everything. And when this is something that I have been doing for long, should be noted. Not that I expect any sort of recognition. But if somebody Reverts in a worst way than myself and it comes from a sysop, then that is being detrimental. And because I am sure of my actions, I know there won't be much examples you can bring where I am seen just completely taking out an entire edit by somebody else, without considering how much from the other user I can keep. User Yoshida Keiji Signature.pngYoshida Keiji(talk) 15:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Well from what I've seen (which mind you isn't the full case), Alex's reverts have been focused on articles where the majority of changes need reverting. The problem is not that he's reverting he whole for a small typo, but rather that he's forgetting to not revert that small bit when he reverts the rest (or he doesn't recognize that he's reverting that small correct bit). Konig 17:42, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Little bits that I left out:
  • I am not familiar with Wikipedia, I just check there whenever I see something grey here.
  • Alex is lying, he did the same kind of thing both here in GWW and PvX, same guy some actions, it's just a matter for me to find them. Basically I was shortening topic titles that had the length of two (2) sentences, to a more essay short type header and he came with his usual bullshit as if I were trying to "Sabotage" the Project with his usual crap-talk.
  • User:Ariyen, I don't know but I guess I can check out.
  • Wiki-lawyer, Red Herring will check, don't know atm.
And for last. I totally disagree the saying that Wall of Text implies lesser argument or divertion tactic. To me it has always been better to make a full writting because as guild leader, faction farmer, guide player, etc. it was very unusual for me to have the chat window clean of pms. Because of that my preference so far has been to tell everything to the related subject so that I don't get interrupted again 100+ times. Otherwise I would have had no time for my own gaming, which was very necessary step for time management. And in the case were this Wiki has so many crumbling structures with users who never fore-thought at all and with few elders who would share past time decisions, comments and ideas. A new user will certainly require to interact much more to adquire how the background stories took GWW to this date. Any kind of excuse that shows "lameness" to hide this information to gain advantage over the new user is as much detrimental, specially if sysops behave in a tiranical way. User Yoshida Keiji Signature.pngYoshida Keiji(talk) 12:26, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
You'll note that not once did I say walls of text were bad :p Only when the content in them is sub-par, completely off topic or personally attacking other users are walls of text bad. When you have 2 or 3 links as evidence, 2 or 3 lines to support them, and then six paragraphs of utter nonsense, you're weakening your argument substantially, when instead you could have simply stopped typing and it would have been a lot stronger. If you have enough *content* to craft a wall of text, feel free - but not one of your walls on this talk page contained that much content, nor indeed even the ability to stay on topic. You tend to rant and lose focus when you start writing a wall, and unless you can avoid that, staying concise will only help your posts. -Auron 13:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Accusation 1: Abuse of Revert feature:

Longtime ago somebody wrote at: User_talk:Tennessee_Ernie_Ford/Archive10#Reverting_stuff

"If the revert reason is stupid, you can revert it back and provide more reasoning... just don't revert 50 times or some shit. Sometimes people don't really grasp what the change is or they're reverting out of ignorance, and if that's the case, then revert them. If they want to learn more about the edit, they can discuss it with you. On that topic, I've never been a fan of snarky smart-ass comments and responses in edit summaries [...] I'd rather that discussion come after the initial edit and before the first revert, but sometimes people are dumb and launch into reverting without really understanding what they're doing, and in those cases you have to go into babysit mode and spoonfeed them the explanation."

This being the ideal practice I have been leaving what I self-named "trails" so that whoever comes next can understand the reasons of the "initial edit". I have written plenty of talk page explanations to exactly prevent any sort or Revert Wars, which in my opinion this behavior even "out-bests" that quote because I am actually going one step ahead. But then, Alex is the one that is coming with the reverts which most of the time have edit summaries with comments he knows won't be replied unless opening a new discussion and his typical shitty talk. He is the counterproductive here.


  • Accusation 2: "Tag with an minorly offensive reason from wikipedia" (as in language or bad-mouthing):

Auron introduces to the talk concepts: Red Herring and Wikilawyer. "[...]red herring. When you're speeding down a highway and a cop pulls you over, he writes you a ticket for breaking traffic laws. If you try to counter it by saying "oh, but you were speeding too!" it doesn't actually change the fact that you were speeding, and you're still going to pay the ticket. If your interest is actually to get the "ticket" nullified, you'd do well to keep the discussion on your own actions and why they are or are not a violation of wiki policy [...]"

But...Auron is actually mistaken here as per w:Wikilawyering:

"Wikipedia policies and procedures should be interpreted with common sense to achieve the purpose of the policy, or help dispute resolution. Typically, wikilawyering raises procedural or evidentiary points in a manner analogous to that used in formal legal proceedings, often using ill-founded legal reasoning. Occasionally wikilawyering may raise legitimate questions, including fairness, but often it serves to evade an issue or obstruct the crafting of a workable solution."

Because:

1.- I am actually legitimately addressing Fairness, as per swearing/cursing ratio. Wikilawyering would more likely be in effect here if the two disputing sides were both alike.

Example: An Alex versus Auron discussion when both are known as "Bad-Mouths".

But in my case: Alex versus me, it is not the same statistic. Because if we were to make a scan, I believe the real accurate value would number something like 25:1~33:1. that is to say: Every 33 times Alex swears, I curse once. And this is something that doesn't even need to be mentioned about, we all know about it. The un-balance is too high = unfair comparison/questioning fairness.

2.- Wikilawyering is being applied by Alex actually because he said that: "YK is using minorly offensive reason from wikipedia" . This is a false statement:

  • I would be making a bypassed bad intention if the page I was linking to had an original address Example: [[Bad editor]] and I were transforming the text to [[Bad editor|CRAP]].
  • It is not a bad intended action by my part because the original source article is authentically named CRAP. I did not change the naming of the article www address, nor the page has a pejorative nature.

Now my explanation why I think Falconeye makes a lot of CRAP edits its because 95% of this user edits are "created" and instantly "deleted or reverted" within the hour: redirects, stupid categories (like Category:Coins which was deleted by Aberrant at the time I was removing this tag from Zaishen Coins and other reward trophies). To make things worst, Falconeye also created these incomplete/halfway new pages to link mainspace articles while the "new" pages were still "empty" or barely with any content.

The current common practice for new pages is: A time gap limit of 30 minutes before another user either: fills-up with more content or tags it for deletion.

The example I provided shows that this is a case that only happened to me once and it actually was unfair but I didn't even complain about it, were Konig comes to tag for deletion while I was still within my time limit.

The opposing case I am indicating here are like five pages that were left "half-way"/incomplete for more than 10hs, and then to what I found be hipocrate of Falconeye is that this users creations tagged for deletion are actually "fairly" tagged but contrary to the experience I had myself, he/she "does" actually complain. I believe User:Falconeye doesn't have the right to complain anymore. Because if Guild Wars Wiki:How to help is a guide for new users to become "good users", Falconeye's talk page is a complete and detailed (thanks to TEF inputs) guide of "How to become the worst user ever". Alex had wrongly called my actions as a "YK deleting spree" as if I were doing this to all pages that prompt in Recent Changes. The real fact that shows why there were numerous reverts is directly related to the high number of "Failed page creations" that Falconeye does on a daily basis. Another clear example of this was for: Template:Team Roles nav that navigation template has 6 (six) reverts of Falconeye's failed edits, and this includes each link by themselves too.


  • Accusation 3 by Auron:

"Second, don't make the argument personal. You're attacking Alex directly"

This is a miss-interpreted statement, I have no intention to directly attack Alex, there will be an explanation below but to make it short to not lose focus:

  • The fact that within the GWW Community both Alex and Auron are particularly known as "Bad-Mouthes" precedes me.
  • I am not interested to have the Community telling me the "whys" in the past the two of you self-earned that brand. I don't want anybody to tell me because I don't want to know their weaknesses unless their own personal request for my advice. I do "not" spend my time lurking around other people's mistakes to rape them.
  • I don't know exactly the whens, but it is very clear that such negative reputation was recognize before I started contributing with GoLE around December 11th. And such signs can still be seen during these days.
  • I was never involved with neither Alex or Auron by the time you two were classified as "Bad-Mouthes", I wasn't there and I didn't do anything at all to influence such categorization made by the GWW Community.
  • I am not an aggressive person and the best example I have given of that: is exactly when Auron himself came to my own user page to call me both "Ignorant" and a "Bad Player". I have never retaliated such offense against my person, nor did I ever not even once had gone to somebody else's user page to paint their talk page with the same type of spray Auron used against me.

Conclusion: The fact that both Alex and Auron are called "Bad-Mouthes" its "common knowledge", something that everybody knows, it wasn't me who started calling you two like that. That is something everybody had spoken of in a varied of other talks in which I was not involved in either. So no, this is NOT a Personal Attack. It is the "conscience ghost chasing their owners". My spirit is clear and calm, I can speak freely of whatever I want to, because "There's Nothing to Fear!". But those who have a gray mind will find explaining themselves a stressing action.


How to become a "real" administrator

Alex executed an administrative heads-up warning, but I called it an administration fart.

It was inevitable for me to remember my own personal expertise as administrator who was known of managing 5 different communities, which were always within the TOP 10s and even was mentioned in a newspaper.


  • Basic level:

Administrators gain tools such as: block, delete, protect and rollback. But those are the most basic features. Just because somebody makes "good" use of such features will not mean that they are actually "authentic administrators", the duties adms have towards their Community goes much further to master this higher rank.


  • Advanced level (Puzzle, Sheppard and Chess-master):

Puzzle: Something adms should watch with attention is when enthusiastic users are facing difficulties to move forward and learn what the issue is before they even get to write a complain of any kind.

An example is the Recent Changes patrolling: I complained about it in mid-2012 . Now let's analise user's behavior:

  • Regular users offered opinions.
  • It wasn't until February 2013 that finally Pling helped me. It took 8 months for a user to get the specific answer.

Another example was the Feedbacks bug: Users could not create pages to write their suggestions. Who was the user that shared the manual way-around?

Sheppard: Administrators are to behave as guidance servers and direct sheeps to the right direction: Examples:

Chess-master: A wise administrator is somebody who will easily determine the strength each individual has and make it bloom. Like this example (maybe not the best case but the idea behind it matters): http://wiki.guildwars.com/index.php?title=Talk:Aura_of_the_Lich&oldid=2509651#Skill_history


The most essential goal of the GWW is to document the Guild Wars game, and it will shine and look polished once it manages to run "head-to-head". In the most "ideal" and perfect imaginary case, this Wiki should only be needing to work on articles related to relatively new content. But we all know the wiki has fallen far behind and moves with turtle pace. Probably the greatest disadvantage is that the Wiki started in 2007 while the game was released 2 years earlier, and its understandable. Now, I have scouted the wiki as much as I could and stretched myself as if I were made of rubber.

  • When a non-native English speaker is overhauling Prophecies missions (in 2012), administrators should notice how bad the wiki's shape has turned.
  • Nobody near the end of year 2012 should be needing to sort and reduce redundancy of pages like Glob of Ectoplasm (How often is this subject addressed in daily chat?).

The administrator's duty to his Community is to constantly evaluate the site's shape and design a working strategy with it's userbase. Again: Puzzle solving, guiding and resource management (chess).


Wrong turns, actions administrators should never take:

  • Of course as this is all about, banning users are to be the last resource because even the single loss of a sheep is at the same time reducing your userbase power source. Clearly, when the best you can think of is restricting a user based on Language Barrier, this is an obvious example of how much an administrator lacks creativity, inspiration and imagination. This is when I would be suggesting you to smoke some weed.

Guild Wars Wiki:Helpers could have an extra new category. It already has Policy helpers, Wiki code helpers, Article formatting helpers, User page layout helpers...and why not Ingrish helpers?


  • "[...]sysops can use discretion and ultimately ban you regardless of 1RV or any other policies."

This is by far the most dangerous action of all. And exactly one of the main reasons the Communities I was administrating myself were always hitting the TOP 10's. Not because of us, but because how the competition, rival or challenger Communities took this dark path which basically says:

"-We can ban/kick you whenever we want to, for whatever we want to and as much as we want to.-"

When an administration board issues such notice, the impact is severe. The GWW doesn't really have much tools to analise userbase than Special:Statistics. In the Communities I was administrating we had listings of incoming users as well as leaving users (feature wiki doesn't have), edits per day/average, etc. You have no idea how many people would flee/escape after such notice. The Community matters more than users you say. But a Community without users is a waste too. Specially when such notice is issued by Shadowy Administrators.

Any Community with effective administrators would receive a huge load of feedback from users that are exiling from somewhere else. This is how advanced administrators learn not to make such moves. To be between the best 10 it wasn't always a matter to out-do the others... but the others failure making it easy for us to stand out, and that would give us privilage free cost exhibition/commercial display. And what matters the most an attractive site that would bring in and call for a wider userbase, higher the number, higher the end result.


  • Never ever again in your entire life come up with something like:

"(@above, sysops administrate users not content, it is a burden not a "career".)"

That is actually the weakest comment an administrator could ever say. Anybody who is an advanced administrator will notice that weakness sign as if it were high-lightened with neon color, because that is an obvious copy/paste you borrowed from a Tutorial guide: "Learn how to sysop in 10 days". A real and authentical administrator will know to express himself with his own words.


The final question you have to ask yourself is why would a user bother to dust-off his expertise and indicate you when you farted. Friend or foe?

When I say that I can eagle-eye spot Alex's inexperienced administration moves, it's because I also was once a noob adm, and I may have certainly made the same mistakes he can/will make...nothing to be ashamed for. Again, when I write something like this, do I intend to put somebody down, or to brighten up?

Retrieved from "https://wiki.guildwars.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Yoshida_Keiji/Archive_6&oldid=2549800"