FANDOM

A FANDOM user
  Loading editor
  • As per many messages upon your wall, I am asking you for the final time to stop altering unnecessary parts of the pages/articles. You are linking or unlinking parts of the page that someone else has done simply to fix them to your own personal tastes.

    As per the rules, YMMV is not acceptable here without justification. A primary example of this is this edit. There is NO REASON to take out the word "Sisters" from the link to Oracular Order. It changed NOTHING on the page. You did it simply because that is the way you wanted it presented.

    I don't personally like it when a description says something akin to "This audiograph can be found on the table in Billie's outpost during the mission The Stolen Archive" as it does at the bottom of the page as the edit above. I prefer the word "mission" to be after the mission title or a comma to be used after the word "mission" when necessary. However, I don't use the excuse of an edit on something else to rearrange other parts that are, again, unnecessary.

    You have a habit of asking why someone, usually an admin, starts making a change on something, but then hasn't been doing that kind of correction on previous other edits, such as here. The truth of the matter, Metworst, is that these types of edits/changes get lost to tedium when the admin(s) have to sit through a plethora of about 20-30 edits made at a time with a ridiculous amount of changes during each edit. Therefore, these type of nitpicks of yours, which I might add you have been warned about time after time after time after time after time, need to cease.

    Stop trying to hide them among other edits. As is evidenced by the excessive warnings received on your wall, we have given you ample opportunities to cease this behavior, more so than any other other wiki I have been on. Both our good will and our ability to assume good faith with you is at an end. Therefore, should you ignore any of our previous warnings again, I will remove you from this site.

    - Geist

      Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • ...with trying to match EVERY single picture at the beginning of articles with the 250px size.

    I don't understand what this obsession is that you seem to have to do this every time. This issue has been discussed on the chat LONG before you came to this site. There are pages that we have, as a community, decided to allow to stand at sizes other than 250. This was discussed with several senior members here, and you have been told this before.

    The Arc Pylon pic was sized fine the way it was. Also, the caption you needlessly added isn't even visible. Did you test for that before you made the edit? Did you follow up on it afterwards? I doubt it.

    Consider this a warning: unless the alteration of the picture's size somehow ADDS something to the page, leave it alone. I am not going to issue this warning to you again.

    The same thing goes for your poorly placed Identification section on the Clockwork Soldiers page. I won't bother debating the necessity of such a section as Pauolo and others have made valid points for its inclusion.

    However, the planning, and the execution of the chart was not well thought out. For someone who ALWAYS tries to make everything the same, I am curious exactly why you thought to put this chart after the Trivia section, when like NOTHING goes after Trivia, categories, Navboxes, and references notwithstanding.

    With others editors, such as Pauolo, Ox, or whoever, they routinely ask about the inclusion of something. There are even offsite discussions I have with members concerning changes or edits, or the need of some things. Permission isn't required for every little thing, but it would be nice to have some communication before adding something new, even if it is merely a suggestion for placement upon a page.

    That aside, I am hoping we are not going to have a recurrence of the issues that happened after Dishonored 2 came out.

    - Geist

      Loading editor
    • View all 8 replies
    • I had to search through my contribution history to find the examples I posted. The fact it didn't take too long was simply that I did not have anything else pressing to do.

      Yes, I have made no attempt to deny that I know what the correct process is. All I have said that is there are many times when the correct process does not work.

      As many of those questions can be easily missed, and you yourself have admitted that the system does not always work, a question arises: how is this problem to be solved? In this conversation thus far, no solutions have been discussed. I have tried the correct system, and those examples (which, I might point out, is not a comprehensive list) highlight times where it has not succeeded. I have tried following Piko's suggestion and posting a select few issues directly to an admin's wall, and that has yet to be answered. If I were to post multiple times, on her wall or yours, it is likely I would be accused of impatience, which I am accused of even when giving examples that in some cases are over 200 days old, and there is still no guarantee that I would get an answer in the end. I cannot see what else there is to do, so I have no choice but to ask you, what do you think should be done? I assure you, if we can come to a suitable arrangement, through which the vast majority of questions on this wiki will be answered, you will have very little trouble with me any more.

        Loading editor
    • In my opinion, the suggestion of addressing an admin directly is still my best solution to your dilemma.

      That being said, I also found myself with no pressing matters tonight and decided to go through the last 6 pages of my Message Wall. I specifically looked for the messages in which you either created a new message thread or one in which you responded but weren't the Original Poster.

      I found a total of Sixteen posts which I have linked below. Of those Sixteen, I replied at least ONCE to every initial inquiry you made. The only time I did not reply to your first post was when you were either addressing someone else, or were just leaving a comment.

      Therefore, I have a 100% accuracy when it comes to at least acknowledging or replying to your initial inquiry.

      I then went through and read the discussions. As far as I can tell, Eleven of those Sixteen Messages were resolved successfully. That is a 68.75% resolution rate, which I would say is not bad. Of the five remaining, I think at least three were resolved after the discussion but I am not absolutely certain of that. The final two may have been resolved, but I am not sure.

      The point is, despite what you claim, I have responded at least once EVERY TIME to a thread you have posted that required an answer from me. Also, the success rate of finding a resolution during those messages is at MINIMUM 68.75% with the likely chance of being considerably higher.

      The list is below. The incidents I have with a question mark are the ones I am not completely certain whether or not an agreed upon resolution was reached:

      As you can see, it is inaccurate to accuse or at least imply that the admins never or at least rarely reply to you when you address them directly. I have ALWAYS done so, and have an above average success rate of resolving the issue.

      If we're counting, I have replied to nearly ALL of the Messages on my Wall from ALL editors (there are a few exceptions to this).

      Therefore, as I stated at the beginning of this post, I would again suggest you contact an admin with any queries, concerns, grievances, or suggestions you may have on this wiki. As I have proved, you are more likely to get a response that way.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • Wouldn't Morris Sullivan count as an enemy? I don't know why you removed it.

      Loading editor
    • If you check Category:Assassination Targets, that is already in Category:Enemies. This means that Morris Sullivan is already in the Enemies category, albeit indirectly. On this wiki, we use the most relevant category for each page, and the Sullivan, that's Assassination Targets, not Enemies.

      If you look here, it explains this.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • ...before making edits.

    Piko had asked for confirmation here of the change to the Safe Combinations. She had already planned to take action and was waiting for some reply before doing so.

    This hearkens back to some of the past issues we have had, notably taking action without consideration and a seeming lack of patience. I hope this is not the start of such a recurrence.

    - Geist

      Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • Any reason why you removed those reference tags on Oxrush Flower? What you did was not incorrect per se, but again unnecessary, as both methods are valid means of sourcing, so changing that was unnecessary.

    One more time, if you find something that can be done both ways, LEAVE IT ALONE.

      Loading editor
    • I thought it would look better to have the image on the page directly instead of as an unnecessary reference. As for why the other reference went, during editing I had managed to take the page down to having no references, but then I changed my mind and put one back.

        Loading editor
    • Why you tried to take down the references in the first place? They did no harm. Just you shoving around stuff for the sake of shoving around again.

        Loading editor
    • References do not work as well as in-text links, and there was a perfect place to put those links, one often utilised on other pages as well, and so it seemed that the entire references section could be removed from the page.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • This edit serves no real purpose as it does not alter the information presented.

    Neither does this one.

    You have been warned before about them, and I'm doing so again.

    - Geist

      Loading editor
    • Do edits have to alter the information present? Many times, people have made edits that improve the flow of a sentence, which is what the first one does, and the full stop removed in the second is, on this wiki, incorrect, and correcting grammatical things like that is perfectly acceptable.

        Loading editor
    • Correcting or altering grammar to make a sentence read or flow better is indeed an acceptable reason to make an edit... at least as far as I know. If this is incorrect then I am unaware of it.

      That being said, the first edit doesn't really change the flow as far as I can tell. Personally, I would have made it "...during Dishonored and two of its DLCs, The Knife of Dunwall and The Brigmore Witches", but that's just me. However, all three (the original, my version, and your version) pretty much read the same.

      As for the second, I seem to have missed the actual rule where it says that periods (or full stops as you put it) are not supposed to be in the quote portion of the page. That also being said, you seem to be the only one that removes these periods from that particular part of the quote sections.

        Loading editor
    • That's the thing though, it's not actually written down, I simply have to go with how it's normally done. A previous time something came up that was done but was not in the MoS, I asked for it to be added to the MoS, but it has not been. It is my firm belief that the majority of edits I perform that people do not like could easily be solved if the MoS was more detailed than it currently is, but that does not happen.

        Loading editor
    • There is a difference between a general acceptance for slight deviations of writing formats based on the fact that we have a diverse community of editors, and a nigh obsessive need to bend things into conformity simply because that is how one likes it.

      While you may not be (I don't actually know), your editing history seems to indicate the latter. There are too many examples of this:

      As far as I know, the Manual of Style isn't supposed to be some hammer that you bash articles with so that everything is the same cookie-cutter shape. Rather it is a guide to help steer those who may not know how best to present a page. The purpose of editing should be to make the wiki as a whole better for everyone, not simply scouring every finite detail to see what is not conforming.

      Take this into consideration: if we were to follow the rules here, as presented both from the MoS and the RoC as if they were stone-carved LAW, then by those very tenets you have been warned far in excess of what should normally be allowed, and should probably be banned from this site for at least another month for previous actions you have taken and been warned against.

      However, the admin (and others here) are not so two-dimensional to think in only black and white. There is some leeway allowed, and discussions brought up.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • ... such as the Corroded Man category to the Streets of Dunwall page constitutes an unnecessary edit, as well as violation of the Rules of Conduct and the Manual of Style.

    You been given AMPLE warnings of this (the previous message on your wall here is in regards to categories) and other edits, in particular those considered unnecessary, from fellow editors, admin staff, and myself. You have skirted the rules too often, and therefore are receiving a three-day Ban.

    - Geist

      Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • Please stop your latest category frenzy. Yes, I know the MoS says  "no parent categories", but I remember that the equipment/gadgets were their own special kind of mess which we had some discussions on on chat already before, but there is no solution yet.

    Thank you,

    Piko

      Loading editor
    • Ah, ok. Does this apply only to equipment and gadgets, or should things like the edit I just performed to Blood Briars not be done as well, given that was with different categories?

        Loading editor
    • Just cease your activity with categories at all for the moment, I have no clear head to look into the issue further at the moment.

        Loading editor
    • No problem. Will do.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • I found a way to trigger the randomness of regular bonecharms. If you have some free time, maybe you can test that out to see if you get any of the bonecharm we haven't confirmed yet.

    In A Crack in the Slab, render Stilton unconscious then pass the upper doors to get back inside the manor. Now, saving Stilton will make his new office appear on the map in the present, with a bonecharm on his desk. Each time you reload the auto-save made after entering the manor, the bonecharm will be a different one.

      Loading editor
    • Cool. I should be able to get most of the missing bone charms with my current purchases, I'll try that when I get up to the mission.

        Loading editor
    • Also, you'd better make a save before entering the manor again, in case the auto-save gets rewritten.

        Loading editor
    • Another place where it might work is when entering the Dust District after completing A Crack in the Slab and saving Stilton. 2 regular bonecharms and 1 black bonecharm appear in that area and there's no guard around.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • Stop changing names! What is your problem with her being called Meagan?!

    - Piko

      Loading editor
    • I just did a search of the Travel Log, and it looks like our protagonists refer to Meagan Foster as "Meagan" when not using her full name. Therefore, I would like to do the same in articles.

        Loading editor
    • The point is both Foster or Meagan are acceptable terms for the character. They are basically interchangeable unless there is just cause to specifically use one over the other, such as when quoting a character.

      The changes made were neither called for, nor particularly consistent. Therefore this falls under the purview of unnecessary edits.

        Loading editor
    • I switched the mentions back now. As Geist pointed out, that change was completely uncalled for.

      @Metworst: If I catch you one more time unnecessarily switching names, you will receive a ban. Consider this an official warning.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Stream the best stories.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Get Disney+