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

From MTG Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
VisualWikitext
im>Wickeddarkman
No edit summary
im>Wickeddarkman
No edit summary
Line 14: Line 14:


==Discussion==
==Discussion==
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 agree that a voting page is fair way to settle the despute of formal vs unformal, however it is very unfortunate that you have placed it in the salvation forum because I have no e-mail. I will attempt to create an account without e-mail, but if I cant, I will either need a page in the wiki, or someone who can "voice out" my replies... [[User:Wickeddarkman|Wickeddarkman]] 03:36, 24 January 2007 (CST)


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).
That was a typical ending. Just no luck. I cant access the page :P


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)
So what do we do now ???
 
==VestDan==
Welcome to the MTG Salvation Wiki!.
: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???  
 
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.
 
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.
 
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...
 
Regards [[User:Wickeddarkman|Wickeddarkman]] 21:32, 23 January 2007 (CST)
 
Tell ya what, I'll make a thread on the Salvation wiki discussion forum to discuss this. Fair?[[User:VestDan|VestDan]] 21:37, 23 January 2007 (CST)
 
Thread created. Also, I personally agree that clan pages aren't worthwhile articles, as they are only topics of interest to those involved in said clans.  However, not being a clan member myself, I have taken a hands-off approach to that section, allowing people more involved in them to police them. The projects which you have started are interesting concepts, I think, but simply contrary to my conception of what a Wiki is about. I don't mind being heavy-handed in enforcing the rules, but I don't want to be tyrannical about ''setting'' them. Right now this discussion is just between you and I. I suggest we move it to the thread I created on Salvation proper, titled "Character of the Wiki" or something close, and see whose conception of the Wiki MTGSalvation prefers. Can't get more fair than that, can we? [[User:VestDan|VestDan]] 21:57, 23 January 2007 (CST)
 
No, I agree that's a fair way to settle it, however it is very unfortunate that you have placed it in the salvation forum because I have no e-mail. I will attempt to create an account without e-mail, but if I cant, I will either need a page in the wiki, or someone who can "voice out" my replies... [[User:Wickeddarkman|Wickeddarkman]] 03:36, 24 January 2007 (CST)

Revision as of 09:48, 24 January 2007

Workbook

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.

card tags: Glimpse of Nature

Title

subtitles

more subtitles

etc.

  1. REDIRECT Glimpse of Nature
  • you can sign in the talk pages by writting ~~~~

Known individuals

MORTVestDan

Discussion

I agree that a voting page is fair way to settle the despute of formal vs unformal, however it is very unfortunate that you have placed it in the salvation forum because I have no e-mail. I will attempt to create an account without e-mail, but if I cant, I will either need a page in the wiki, or someone who can "voice out" my replies... Wickeddarkman 03:36, 24 January 2007 (CST)

That was a typical ending. Just no luck. I cant access the page :P

So what do we do now ???

Retrieved from "https://mtg.wiki/index.php?title=User:Faceless_Wanderer/User_talk:Wickeddarkman&oldid=90587"