I originally removed the picture as the witch in question was not of the pictured kind, the Brigmore kind. You have since put up a new picture, one that I don't have any issues with, provided it's made clear that the witch in the picture is not the same kind as the witch who owns the diary. So it's the same issue that it was before, but this time it can easily be solved by clarifying that the witch is of a different kind. That is the confusion I believe to be present with the current caption. Could you please explain why you believe it to not be a potentially misleading caption?
The majority of the "flaws and issues" you seem to have appear to be personal ones with how you want or think things should be presented.
There have already been numerous instances that I (and others) have had to correct you with your edits, due to either ignorance, or simply not bothering to check before you make them.
As to the point of this particular instance with the caption, there is nothing wrong with it, as it is not a falsehood. There was also nothing wrong with the original picture on the page, and it should have been left alone.
I don't see how is it not misleading. It is implying that the pictured witch is the same as the kind that is performing the ritual, which is untrue. Could you please explain to me how that capacity for error does not exist?
There isn't a name that I've found either. However, as the Brigmore witches disbanded after Delilah was Voidified, and reformed later away from Brigmore manor and the ones in D2 are clearly different subtypes, that witch cannot be a Brigmore witch. The painting of Campbell is in there, so the diary cannot have been there since before D1, and after that the Brigmore witches disbanded, so it can't be a Brigmore witch. Now, is it one of the new witches that formed from the Brigmore coven? Personally, I don't believe so, but that cannot be proven either way. What can be proven is that it is not a Brigmore witch who wrote the diary, so as there is a picture of one there, I believe that there should be a clarification that the author is not of the pictured kind of witch.
The diary is from a witch. It doesn't say which witch (yep made a pun there). It could be that the diary is from one of Delilah's minions. Nothing, and I mean absolutely NOTHING indicates otherwise.
Even if the writer is not one of Delilah's current coven, the witch again could have been one of women who was part of the original Brigmore Witches coven, then left the group after Delilah's first defeat and decided to not rejoin her coven a second time. She could have traveled to Serkonos and got an apartment at the Campo Seta Dockyards.
"Nitpicking" is simply being consistent to an extreme degree. One of the first times we clashed, it was because you couldn't see how an edit I made was consistent, and so argued against it on grounds of it not being so. Most of the time, I'm on the pro-consistency side, yet you oppose me. And for this case, surely the removal of the word Brigmore is also nitpicking?
I agree. However, the critical word there is "could". What you said all counts as speculation. My edit, clarifying that the witch pictured is a Brigmore witch, does not prevent the series of events you presented from being true
By the definition you just gave, it seems that removing the word is nitpicking.
With that definition, I have to say that I do not view my actions as nitpicking, as I view each thing that I bring up as a necessary discussion as I believe it to be wrong, misleading or some other thing that validates the change.
Because the witch in the picture is a Brigmore witch, and we cannot say that the witch who wrote the book also is/was.
You go back and forth so often, it's hard to actually understand where your actual stand on anything is. First you're nitpicking, then you're not. which is it?
As for my meaning of the word, a lot of your edits are simply you rewroding or reorganizing something as you see fut as opposed to making a better 'whole'.
You've been told this by multiple editors here, as I have shown.
As to our current debate, reverting an unnecessary change (with your inclusion of the word 'Brigmore') is simply that. Reverting an edit.
Finally, I may have used a pic from that also appears on the Brigmore Witches page, but pictures can be used on multiple pages and not be/mean the same thing. Besides, who says the witch is strictly from the first coven and hasn't moved on or is still with the new version of the coven?
The latter part of the definition states "especially in order to criticize unnecessarily." I have never done so. Have I been "looking for small [...] errors or faults"? Yes, absolutely. I do that all the time, not just on this wiki. Have I been "looking for [...] unimportant errors or faults"? Not in my opinion, I believe everything I bring up to be important. I fit part of the definition, I don't deny that, but not the majority of it.
Indeed they do. But the witch pictured is of the Brigmore kind, from the first game, and the witches there are of the master or novice kind, and they were all disbanded afterwards, many becoming "part of [Delilah's] new coven in Dishonored 2." This means the Brigmore witches disbanded, and the witch in the picture cannot be the same kind of witch (though it could be the same person) as the one who wrote the diary.
In canon, it does appear that way. But regardless, that's the manor in the background. My point is, that is a Brigmore witch, and the author of the journal cannot be at the point in time that the journal was written.
I'm not, as I'm not attempting to criticize unnecessarily. And they are not small or unimportant either. I am pointing out that the majority of the definition you have provided does not apply to my actions.
Canonically, the witches can still look similar to that after the DLC; it's been shown. And the manor? LOL - you are splitting way too many hairs. If you didn't like the manor being there, you should've left the original picture (sans background) as it was.
And yes, you are nitpicking about completely unnecessary elements.