Difference between revisions of "User talk:Kaejer"

Revision as of 19:31, 9 December 2020

Feel free to leave messages/topics of potential improvement of the wiki with header tags.

Admin

Hi, thanks for your high-quality additions and edits to the wiki. I've made you an admin, among other things you can edit templates, the main page, etc. You can also edit/delete auction tracker prices (see "ADMIN" link on individual item pages).

--Ravhin (talk) 08:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh wow thanks, didn't even know that could be a possibility. I'll be sure to edit stuff for the greater good! - Kaejer 08:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Loly Taa

Can we talk? I am the real Loly Taa of TMO. I am not misreporting anything. It's time to tell the truth.

Removed the personal info from the page, misreporting what? I'm not sure what you are talking about. - Kaejer 07:17, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Potential Problematic User

I caught a recent edit by this user Special:Contributions/Burtmacklin which was an inappropriate comment. Since you're the active admin I just wanted to give you a heads up. I'd normally do this sort of thing via a PM on the forums but I don't know your username there. I undid their edit but I think it may be worth a quick browse of their past edits, they seem to like removing things.

Thanks, I'll keep an eye on him. I don't see any other major issues at the moment. - Kaejer 18:29, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Revnan

Another user that is making large changes to class pages. Special:Contributions/Revnan

At first I was excited to see some improvements to class pages but the more edits this person does the more non-objective they're becoming. They're in fact removing information in favor of their opinion. I really don't know how this should be handled. Their motives seem good but the edits will dramatically affect how people make decisions about the class(es). --Baler (talk) 20:38, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

In fact they outright deleted a section on the wizard page. https://wiki.project1999.com/index.php?title=Wizard&diff=prev&oldid=292757

If they didn't put in so much effort to change the text I'd wonder if they were a troll. --Baler (talk) 20:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I think they're just a very opinionated person and were annoyed at an anecdote about neckbeards when explaining min/max reasonings on the Enchanter section. I tried to merge the old and the new to a shorter version that still has all of the useful information. The Wizard one I undid because it was just deleting out a lot of stuff. Improve, not remove. - Kaejer 22:38, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you on your assessment. The problem is he's misleading people with information that's more fit for a player guide. Making bold changes to a class page dramatically affects how thousands of people decide on that class. I'm not against revnan improving the wiki but I am against non-objective information. He even uses terms like "I" and "my" in his edits which directly shows he's pushing his opinion onto the page. He doesn't know how the wiki works or the flow of the wiki. I've tried to communicate through talking on his discussion page and he responds in the middle of my talk page. This shows he lacks the basic foundation of how the wiki works. I just want someone to talk to him and get a feel for if he's a problematic user or a valuable contributor. --Baler (talk) 13:40, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Please take some time to read the changes he's making to class pages. It's full of opinion and non-objective information. It's not an improvement and it's better suited for a player guide than the official P99 class pages.

--Baler (talk) 17:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I posted a note on their Talk page, it looks like they are going through again and making some minor tweaks to try to make it objective. I'll probably look at later and see if there's anything that's missing at that point. I do like the shorthand format more than paragraphs of theorycrafting on the section, though. - Kaejer 18:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

If you look on our talk page you can see the attempt I made to request specific information they feel could be improved. The response was a trigger storm only part of which can be viewed on this page. As far as being opinionated, the group of us discussed each amendment and it reflects experience playing those classes. Discussion and reasoning with us would have been more effective than threatening. It looks like you started and then abandoned this approach. It appears that you desire balance in the articles as opposed to objectivity, objectivity being entirely free from opinion. Is that what you meant? To address the specific item you mentioned Kaejer in the monk article I had accommodated for the stamina viewpoint, flagged it as controversial (which means we all don't agree) and preambled regarding full buffs and fantastic items, or if you prefer, raid conditions. More fine tuning to come. As to objectivity, the previous versions of these pages were awash in non objective language, outright errors (see Wizard page stating stamina adds to how long you can swing a melee weapon before becoming tired), these problems were no problem, and preferred by your actions. We do not understand this. Sloppy, bulky, confusing no matter which viewpoint you hold (See old enchanter). Our changes have improved the objectivity, flow and value, albeit not made it 100% objective, an undesirable state. 100% objective pages would be sterile of any player experience (their opinions based on experience) and each class writeup has had experienced class players weigh in. Is your intent to sterilize all player experience from the wiki? The claim that your problem with the work is objectivity is not correct, the purpose and practice of this site would be diminished greatly otherwise. New and old players want veterans to share the benefit of their experience and wisdom in playing the game, which requires them to give their experienced opinions. If you hold differing opinions tell us politely and we will addend. Further to the point, this wiki is entirely full of non objective language and much stronger opinions so why single us out? You have written non objective articles, Baler does as well. Grouching is not the best way to have contributors who care continue to benefit thousands of people, can we agree? We have had a number of people reach out to express great appreciation including Baler before the trigger. Stop and think about what you actually want, and no it is not objectivity, and let us know. I'm sure we can figure it out.

Respectfully, Revnan (talk) 19:12, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not going to let this become a flame war on my discussion page. At this point, try to keep it objective, and if either of you don't like it change it to something else. Some of the information that had been removed was useful to people, so I will likely add a little more detail to it. I do appreciate the shorthand bulleted method that was setup, because it's more clear cut than some of the pages that had paragraphs of unneeded explanations. Revnan - do not delete entire sections of pages unless you replace them with better/reworded information (such as on the Wizard page that I had to undo). I very quickly block people from Wiki editing access if you delete information off of the Wiki for no reason. - Kaejer 19:20, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

The reason was that each statistic was explained more concisely and well in the bonus allocation page. We removed a duplicate, a poorly done one at that. DOes that make more sense now?