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.
...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.
I am aware that the caption was not visible. In fact, that was my intention. The same situation occurs on pages including, but not limited to, Bend Time and Dark Vision.
I put the table after Trivia as it was at most a trivial addition and I thought that putting it high up on the page would lead to strong negative feedback, with those who were against it saying that it took up valuable space high up on the page.
So basically we are at the point again where you just go ahead and add things without thinking them through properly or discuss them. If you were unsure yourself, having in mind/fearing that some might say it took up valuable space, then why didn't you just go ahead, write a comment, say, hey, I made this table listing all the clockworks with their numbers, and wait if people deemed them useful?
I did think it through properly, I believed my course of action was the best one available to me. Now, why didn't I discuss it in the comments? Because I have no confidence that any question I ask will be acknowledged or resolved. After all, they were not answered here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here, and not resolved here, here, here, here, here and here, so why should my question be resolved in this case?
In this case, where I did get an answer, it wasn't from an admin, and over here was a case where a single admin overruled a decision by multiple people, so it seems that the only course of action is to wait for an admin to answer a question. In this case, I instead pressed ahead and it turned out alright, but I can't say for sure it will every time. I mean, it certainly did not this time.
Over here, where I eventually did get an answer, I had to leave three separate comments to get that answer, and using this as an example again, even three comments was not enough to get an answer.
As shown here, the only way I know I will get feedback is if I go ahead and make the edit anyway and see what people have to say afterwards. Now, I don't like this situation any more than you do, but even when I take my questions directly to an admin, like I was told to do at the bottom of that page, they are ignored.
Piko, here you expressed irritation at having your question go unanswered for nine days. I posted directly to your wall 209 days ago with questions that had already been unanswered for over a month.
To be clear, I am not saying my questions are never answered, as there are cases, such as this, when they are resolved. It's just that so often they are not resolved that I no longer trust the correct process.
(Note that there are questions, such as this, this and this, which I have not included in this list as it seems unreasonable to expect you two to have answered them.)
So, you're basically saying that you ask a lot of questions. Much more so than the average user here.
Also, it is hubris to think that YOU are the sole victim of unanswered questions. I had to answer one of my own questions after a year and then the answer I gave was merely a revision of the previous question. Again this harkens back to your impatience and obsession over things.
209 days without saying a single word more on the subject is not impatience. If I was obsessed over things to the degree you are implying, I would have put a lot more messages on walls and in the comments sections around the wiki.
At no point did I state or otherwise imply that I am the sole victim of unanswered questions. I was asked why I didn't leave a comment to discuss the edit, and that is why I didn't. The fact that there are other people whose questions also go unanswered simply makes me more convinced that my position is the best one to adopt under these unfortunate circumstances.
For not being 'obsessed' about questions not being answered, you sure knew exactly where to find a good portion of these so-called questions you posted yet got no reply, and in a relatively short time.
While you may not have implied that other editors do not have unanswered questions, you do frequently play the victim here.
I also find this particular part of your previous response interesting:
"To be clear, I am not saying my questions are never answered, as there are cases, such as this, when they are resolved. It's just that so often they are not resolved that I no longer trust the correct process."
To me it seems you admit that you know the correct process which the admins have explained to you several times, but you neither trust it nor apparently feel the need to adhere it. I'm sorry, what?
You've repeatedly made unnecessary changes such as either altering a picture's size at the top of an article citing The Manual of Style, or remove a period at the end of a quote portion at the top of a page because you "simply have to go with how it's normally done" even though no such rule exists.
So, when you want to follow the rules, you do and use them as a shield to explain your reasoning; when you don't want to, then you feel obliged to ignore them, and other times you just make up rules on the fly. I'm not sure how that works.
Finally, I checked a good portion of your links. Many seem more your opinion than actual queries. Another grouping seems more complaints than questions. A select few, such as the questions about picture categories and other talk pages are in such obscure locations that they can be easily missed; I personally never visit those unless I am directed to do so.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
... 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.