User:Faceless Wanderer/User talk:Wickeddarkman: Difference between revisions

From MTG Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
im>Wickeddarkman
>Yandere-sliver
No edit summary
 
(54 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
==Workbook==
*[[User:Wickeddarkman|Wickeddarkman]] ([[User talk:Wickeddarkman|talk]] <small>•</small> [[Special:Contributions/Wickeddarkman|contribs]])
Your [[Counterbalance]] still focused on concept and not fact. need a preliminary section about the card--the set(s) it is from, when  released, what playformats. how successful they have been.
*[[User:Birdmaiden|Birdmaiden]] ([[User talk:Birdmaiden|talk]] <small>•</small> [[Special:Contributions/Birdmaiden|contribs]])
*[[User:Faceless Wanderer|Faceless Wanderer]] ([[User talk:Faceless Wanderer|talk]] <small>•</small> [[Special:Contributions/Faceless Wanderer|contribs]])
----
{| width="100%" align="center" cellspacing="3" style="border: 1px solid #000000; background-color: #F8EFFF; margin-bottom: 0px;"
|align=center|'''This is the [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Talk_page#User_talk_pages|user talk page]] for [[User:{{PAGENAME}}|{{PAGENAME}}]] '''
|}
{| width="100%" align="center" cellspacing="3" style="border: 1px solid #000000; background-color: #F8FCFF; margin-bottom: 3px;"
|align=left|
{| width="100%" align="left" cellspacing="10" style="border: 0px solid #000000; background-color: #F8FCFF; margin-bottom: 0px;"
|align=left valign=middle|Please sign your comments using four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;). Place comments that start a new topic at the bottom of the page by [{{fullurl:{{ns:3}}:{{PAGENAMEE}}|action=edit&section=new}} starting a new section]. If you are new to MTGS Wiki, please see [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Introduction|Welcome to Wikipedia]] and [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:FAQ|frequently asked questions]] on Wikipedia, and [[Help:Contents|the help pages at MTGS Wiki]].
|}
|align=right valign=middle|
{| width="90%" align="center" cellspacing="3" style="border: 1px solid #000000; background-color: #F8EFFF; margin-left: 20px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-right: 3px;"
|align=center|'''[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines|Talk page guidelines]]'''
|-
|align=center|Please respect [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Wikiquette|Wikiquette]], [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith|assume good faith]] and [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks|be nice]], and bear in mind [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not|what Wikipedia]] [[Help:Contents#MTGS_Wiki_Policy|and MTGS Wiki are not]].
|}
|}


card tags: <c>Glimpse of Nature</c>
==Known individuals==
=Title=
(listed alphabetically...)
==subtitles==
[[User:Fishysua|Fishysua]], [[User:Magic Mage|Magic Mage]], [[User:MORT|MORT]], [[User:VestDan|VestDan]]
===more subtitles===
 
====etc.====
==Reply to MTGSalvation forum: Ready for copy/paste==
#REDIRECT [[Glimpse of Nature]]
As far as I can see it people in here return to two basic opinions.
* you can sign in the talk pages by writting <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>
The first and foremost is that any contents in here have to be fact.
The second is that this fact shall be expressed in an unbiased way.
 
Well, those two basic opinions are actually destroying almost every single page ever been written in here. I'll argue for that.
 
Take for example the few pages on cards. In an academically unbiased wiki all cards would have to be treated with equal importance. To focus on black lotus and not on pearl unicorn is indirectly a very biased action, so either you make a page for every existing card or you delete all cards previously focussed on, that’s the only way to do it in an academically fair way. Also, magic continuously release new cards that change the "cardscape" so any claim that we should only focus on the best cards is doomed. The metagame is changing so fast that all pages in here will be hopeless behind. So we can’t say that any of the "paged" cards are built on immutable facts. CONCLUSSION: In the spirit of the current wiki, delete all card-related pages.
 
Next topic, hmm MTG fantasy novels. Some of you will probably state that everything in these books is fact. WRONG. Many forums discussing the novels have found inconsistencies between them. They state different facts about the same things. So since the academic view is that fact is fact that just won’t work! Furthermore the novels have been created with the intention to bring emotional reactions to the readers. People will respond differently and interpret differently. There will be no "true" interpretation of any of these literal productions, you cannot favour one "version" instead of another, that would be a bias against any minority view. CONCLUSSION: In the spirit of the current wiki, delete all book-related pages.
 
Well what about the magic jargon/terminology I hear you say, it has been on the net for long and it is technically facts? WRONG! Language is biased; it depends on the generation reading it. Jargon mutates as well, if you intent on keeping that in the wiki we will all soon be etymologists. A gay person was a happy person once, people were proud to have family names like Gaylord. Look at the word now, only a few people knows its original meaning, and we can’t be sure that it didn’t have an even earlier meaning. Language in itself can never be a fact, it is too slippery. Game mechanics may be altered. There will be different wordings. MTG terminologies can become obsolete (or is it buried?). CONCLUSSION: In the spirit of the current wiki delete all pages on terminology, wordings, errata and such.
 
Oh, you say, what about ... WRONG!!!
 
I deny you of all pages. Your current rules should consequentially lead to the deletion of your precious unbiased academic wiki...
 
I say free the wiki; remove the tyranny of restrictions, because nothing in here is truly allowed if you really follow your rules.
 
You just haven’t been shown how dumb your "laws" are.


==Known individuals==
Now I would like to point to the attention that one person replied that my replies still sucked, none of you wanted to know how I intended to convert your wiki into a living metamind.
[[User:MORT|MORT]][[User:VestDan|VestDan]]
 
According to the laws I stated I lost. CONCLUSSION: You may now delete my reply. It doesn’t belong here anyway...


==Discussion==
Wickeddarkman, opposer of tyrants, has tried to .... .... ....
VestDan I believe you are acting beyond your legitimate actions as a moderator, you have been deleting pages made by me since the second I made them which I think is a pretty immature way to solve problems. What would you feel like if I started an attack against your mtgsalvation posts? But I am not like you so I wont! I notice that you have started to become pretty biassed against people taking interrest in the few pages I have made. That tells me that you are a territorial tyrant. Your sole reason for being a mod in here is probably because of your skills in the mtgsalvation forums. You seem to have a personal crusade against me, and I urge you to stop that and return to a usefull dialogue or I will act accordingly. [[User:wickeddarkman|wickeddarkman]]


I have no personal crusade against you, and in fact appreciate all the effort you are putting into the wiki. However, many of the pages you have been making -- the ones I have been deleting -- are simply inappropriate subjects for a wiki. I have tried to explain each time ''why'' each page is inappropriate, and have left pages of yours that have topics which can fit within the purposes of a Wiki, even if the article as you posted it could not (for example, the statistical analysis article and counterbalance). Again, the only articles which I have deleted are the articles which, simply put, have no place here, as I have explained in each instance. If you find my explanations inadequate in each case, please just ask for a clarification. Trust me, I have absolutely no reason to wish to run off someone who is obviously so enthusiastic about the project! (much less embark on a 'personal crusade' as you put it, with no clear motive or goal).
== I speak on this but once ==


Anyway, I'm not trying to discourage you, but leaving pages up that have no business being on the wiki helps no one. This has been my sole reason for taking said pages down. [[User:VestDan|VestDan]] 20:13, 23 January 2007 (CST)
Ok, I know how you feel.  Believe me.  What you want to do isn't that far out there in my opinion.  And I need someone who will expand the wiki in ways related to my research. Your methodologies could use some work. I'm going to talk with VestDan about how I see the wiki and what I'd like out of it.  So, I'm going to talk to you about how you need to improve your work.


Welcome to the MTG Salvation Wiki!.
You need to read carefully and critically before you change an article. This may even include discussing with those who've written before any points you don't understand. Their clarification may even become either a sub-section or a minor article depending on its circumstances. If the original poster isn't around try someone who is, most of us are glad to help. Use the history feature to dope out who worked on what, and remember the biggest contribution to a page is usually just one edit surrounded by a bunch of minor corrections.
:That's what the front page claims... Now there is nothing there stating it's an encyclopedia.
The only refference to such a thing is when you read the rules in here, but when you do that you will discover that those rules are just links directly to "wikipedia" where the mention of encyclopedia is necessary because that REALLY is a wikipedia. Now when you enforce that academic style you actually obey the rules of a quite different place. You are bound to meet others like me that will adress that difference. You are upholding the wrong law's, and by doing this you block the developement possible for a true wiki.  


I think this is something that needs to be adressed to the general public in here, so a choice can be made, wether this place has to stay academic or become something more alive. This place has a tremendous informational technology, and you want to make it into a library???
The wiki is semi-formal, yes, even here on MTGSalvation.  Therefore, a formal, third-person tone is important.  As are correct spelling and grammar.  I would suggest composing your articles in Word or some other word-processor with spell and grammar check.  That will greatly improve the readability of your text and, because life is not a formal debate, the impact of your message.  Please, also capitalize card names.  Post more cautiously, if you have an edit to make use the preview button. Single, or worst-case double, updates make both Special:Recent changes, a article's history, and your user contribution page much easier to deal with.  I have looked at all three of those this week for most of the pages you've contributed to, of course, I was too late to see whatever was deleted.  And don't sweat the stylistic if what's important is content then revise when someone has a stylistic issue.


Libraries already have evolved far past the dullness of past libraries. Most of them have embraced the internet. Acumulated knowledge technology!!! Stop the academic methods and embrace the full capacity of wiki's, besides it will make your job as a mod far more easy when you dont have to stop people from placing a heart between the pages, like in the Colorwheel/Colorpie where you also try to "calm down" another creative person.  
Placement is also important. Remember to use categories correctly. <nowiki>[[Category:Magic Theory]]</nowiki> is your friend if you can be thorough, professional, and concise in your articles.  Also, your idea for a "Combo-brary" is not too far from feasible provided you avoid cheese like calling it a "Combo-brary."  And also avoid trying to list ever interaction ever.  Much more relevant here is what has had impact in the past.  You should look to Combo deck for a place to build a conservative structure.  The most direct method of expanding from there would be to create deck pages for some of the decks mentioned.  A second way to expand it would be to create a short discussion on limited combos with links to pages for each block, say Ravnica Block (Limited) might be a good title.  (Have you looked at Talk:Dark Confidant).


The biggest reason why I have been pissed is that we are told to be academic, while pages like the "Clanpages" obviously are above such rules, they seem to have no academic function at all except to describe the epic life of moderators!!! They have no relation to magic at all, but they are part of this place because they tell about the history of this wiki. I am not biased against these, just jealous of their obviously "ruled preservation". I have seen countless pages referring to outside linked pages with no magic relevance too. Such as some pages from mtgsalvation showing the 2005/2006 awards. They too seem to be moderator whimsical behavior, instead of the "usefull" academic suppression style. Again I'm just jealous of how other pages have precedence when contents are regarded.  
I'd like to end by saying that I appreciate your work with Simulations. I'd like to see you expand it, think structure.


Please direct me to a page in here where I can express my belifs in a general change in the rules that will lead to a full use of the wiki instead of the horrible userbiased version of the rules that seem to dominate this place. And it is biased. I personally see no future in a fully academic/encyclopedic version of a wiki, because it purely lacks a soul that so many wants to add. The Clanpages are an obvious evidence towards that...
--[[User:Fishysua|Fishysua]] 12:17, 29 January 2007 (CST)


Regards [[User:Wickeddarkman|Wickeddarkman]] 21:32, 23 January 2007 (CST)
''Cleaned up (spelling, suntax, and grammar) by MM. P.S. If anyone wants to crusade against the wiki, they're not going to get as much slack as Faceless Wanderer; he was a rebel without a cause and I forget why he was put up with to the extent he was.'' <FONT FACE="Arial Narrow"><small>'''[[User:Magic Mage|<sup>M</sup><sub>M</sub>]]''' '''<sup>([[User_talk:Magic_Mage|talk!]])</sup>'''</small></FONT> 07:11, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

Latest revision as of 12:20, 27 May 2018


This is the user talk page for Faceless Wanderer/User talk:Wickeddarkman
Please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). Place comments that start a new topic at the bottom of the page by starting a new section. If you are new to MTGS Wiki, please see Welcome to Wikipedia and frequently asked questions on Wikipedia, and the help pages at MTGS Wiki.
Talk page guidelines
Please respect Wikiquette, assume good faith and be nice, and bear in mind what Wikipedia and MTGS Wiki are not.

Known individuals

(listed alphabetically...) Fishysua, Magic Mage, MORT, VestDan

Reply to MTGSalvation forum: Ready for copy/paste

As far as I can see it people in here return to two basic opinions. The first and foremost is that any contents in here have to be fact. The second is that this fact shall be expressed in an unbiased way.

Well, those two basic opinions are actually destroying almost every single page ever been written in here. I'll argue for that.

Take for example the few pages on cards. In an academically unbiased wiki all cards would have to be treated with equal importance. To focus on black lotus and not on pearl unicorn is indirectly a very biased action, so either you make a page for every existing card or you delete all cards previously focussed on, that’s the only way to do it in an academically fair way. Also, magic continuously release new cards that change the "cardscape" so any claim that we should only focus on the best cards is doomed. The metagame is changing so fast that all pages in here will be hopeless behind. So we can’t say that any of the "paged" cards are built on immutable facts. CONCLUSSION: In the spirit of the current wiki, delete all card-related pages.

Next topic, hmm MTG fantasy novels. Some of you will probably state that everything in these books is fact. WRONG. Many forums discussing the novels have found inconsistencies between them. They state different facts about the same things. So since the academic view is that fact is fact that just won’t work! Furthermore the novels have been created with the intention to bring emotional reactions to the readers. People will respond differently and interpret differently. There will be no "true" interpretation of any of these literal productions, you cannot favour one "version" instead of another, that would be a bias against any minority view. CONCLUSSION: In the spirit of the current wiki, delete all book-related pages.

Well what about the magic jargon/terminology I hear you say, it has been on the net for long and it is technically facts? WRONG! Language is biased; it depends on the generation reading it. Jargon mutates as well, if you intent on keeping that in the wiki we will all soon be etymologists. A gay person was a happy person once, people were proud to have family names like Gaylord. Look at the word now, only a few people knows its original meaning, and we can’t be sure that it didn’t have an even earlier meaning. Language in itself can never be a fact, it is too slippery. Game mechanics may be altered. There will be different wordings. MTG terminologies can become obsolete (or is it buried?). CONCLUSSION: In the spirit of the current wiki delete all pages on terminology, wordings, errata and such.

Oh, you say, what about ... WRONG!!!

I deny you of all pages. Your current rules should consequentially lead to the deletion of your precious unbiased academic wiki...

I say free the wiki; remove the tyranny of restrictions, because nothing in here is truly allowed if you really follow your rules.

You just haven’t been shown how dumb your "laws" are.

Now I would like to point to the attention that one person replied that my replies still sucked, none of you wanted to know how I intended to convert your wiki into a living metamind.

According to the laws I stated I lost. CONCLUSSION: You may now delete my reply. It doesn’t belong here anyway...

Wickeddarkman, opposer of tyrants, has tried to .... .... ....

I speak on this but once

Ok, I know how you feel. Believe me. What you want to do isn't that far out there in my opinion. And I need someone who will expand the wiki in ways related to my research. Your methodologies could use some work. I'm going to talk with VestDan about how I see the wiki and what I'd like out of it. So, I'm going to talk to you about how you need to improve your work.

You need to read carefully and critically before you change an article. This may even include discussing with those who've written before any points you don't understand. Their clarification may even become either a sub-section or a minor article depending on its circumstances. If the original poster isn't around try someone who is, most of us are glad to help. Use the history feature to dope out who worked on what, and remember the biggest contribution to a page is usually just one edit surrounded by a bunch of minor corrections.

The wiki is semi-formal, yes, even here on MTGSalvation. Therefore, a formal, third-person tone is important. As are correct spelling and grammar. I would suggest composing your articles in Word or some other word-processor with spell and grammar check. That will greatly improve the readability of your text and, because life is not a formal debate, the impact of your message. Please, also capitalize card names. Post more cautiously, if you have an edit to make use the preview button. Single, or worst-case double, updates make both Special:Recent changes, a article's history, and your user contribution page much easier to deal with. I have looked at all three of those this week for most of the pages you've contributed to, of course, I was too late to see whatever was deleted. And don't sweat the stylistic if what's important is content then revise when someone has a stylistic issue.

Placement is also important. Remember to use categories correctly. [[Category:Magic Theory]] is your friend if you can be thorough, professional, and concise in your articles. Also, your idea for a "Combo-brary" is not too far from feasible provided you avoid cheese like calling it a "Combo-brary." And also avoid trying to list ever interaction ever. Much more relevant here is what has had impact in the past. You should look to Combo deck for a place to build a conservative structure. The most direct method of expanding from there would be to create deck pages for some of the decks mentioned. A second way to expand it would be to create a short discussion on limited combos with links to pages for each block, say Ravnica Block (Limited) might be a good title. (Have you looked at Talk:Dark Confidant).

I'd like to end by saying that I appreciate your work with Simulations. I'd like to see you expand it, think structure.

--Fishysua 12:17, 29 January 2007 (CST)

Cleaned up (spelling, suntax, and grammar) by MM. P.S. If anyone wants to crusade against the wiki, they're not going to get as much slack as Faceless Wanderer; he was a rebel without a cause and I forget why he was put up with to the extent he was. MM (talk!) 07:11, 20 August 2008 (EDT)