User:Faceless Wanderer/User talk:Wickeddarkman

User:Birdmaiden User:Faceless Wanderer Template:Usertalkhead

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.

I know, I know, but I'm caugth up in a debate, okay???

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

(listed alphabetically...) FishysuaMagic MageMORTVestDan

Discussion

Yadda, yadda, yadda...

Reply to mtgsalvation forum: Ready for copy/paste

As far as I can see it people in here return to two basic oppinions. 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 oppinions 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 inderectly a very biased action, so either you make a page for every existing card or you delete all cards previously focussed on, thats the only way to do it in an academically fair way. Also, magic continously 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 cant say that any of the "paged" cards are built on immutable facts. CONCLUSSION: In the spirit of the current wiki, delete all cardrelated pages.

Next topic. Hmm MTG fantasy novels. Some of you will probably state that everything in these books are facts. 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 wont work! Furthermore the novels have been created with the intention to bring emotional reactions to the readers. People will respond differently and interpretate differently. There will be no "true" interpretation of any of these litteral productions, you cannot favor one "version" instead of another, that would be a bias against any minority view. CONCLUSSION: In the spirit of the current wiki, delete all bookrelated 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 it's original meaning, and we cant be sure that it didnt have an even earlier meaning. Language in itself can never be a fact, it is too slippery. Gamemechanics may be altered. There will be different wordings. MTG terminologies can become obsolete (or is it burried?). 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 tyrany of restrictions, because nothing in here is truly allowed if you really follow your rules.

You just havent 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 doesnt belong here anyway...

Wickeddarkman, opposer of tyrants have 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)