Difference between revisions of "User talk:RogerWilco"

Latest revision as of 20:19, 26 March 2012

Welcome!

Hello, RogerWilco, and welcome to the Paragon Wiki! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Feel free to fill out your personal user page so we can get to know you. There is a collection of Userboxes you can easily add there. Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date.

Don't forget to drop by and introduce yourself in the forum. If you need help, ask me on my talk page or ask on the forums and someone will try to to answer your questions shortly.

Also, make sure you take a look at the Help page. There are a lot of preloaded images, missions, and contact info templates, and what you want to add might already be there.

Again, welcome! -- Eabrace 04:31, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Updates

Thanks for your updates to the wiki. However, I have noticed a couple times now that you've simply deleted information from the wiki instead of updating the text to current information. (For instance, removing the overview on Advanced Worktable instead of updating it with I13 details.) In the future, please update text instead of removing it; for instance, removing the overview on the worktable gave the impression that the worktable no longer has a use, but it does, it is simply different than before. Updating the text instead of removing it brings the wiki in line with current game data. ~ AGGE talk/cons 03:13, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

o,o explanation: we try and avoid removing old out of date info, and instead move it to historical sections so that we have something to compare things to at a later date. This way someone can easily go check how many times the debt cap has been reduced, or see how the original Galaxy City differs from the shadow version through ouroboros. Obviously many minor tweeks are still lost, to the sand of time, but it allows for a greater perspective of the game as a whole (and lets ppl returning after, for example, 3 years absence to go look up something and confirm that they aren't going crazy, such and such did do this back then). We do love that your looking into things that have been missed somehow not updated yet though! --Sleepykitty 06:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I read on your page that I need to answer here. As far as I know, I've only removed lines from the Advanced Worktable and some of the travel powers. In both cases there was already a Historical section mentioning the change. For the Advanced Worktable the only line in Overview was an exact word for word copy of what was in the Historical section except that it didn't mention is was obsolete after i13. Removing the line just left and empty Overview. I could have made a copy of the single line in the Description.

As to the Travel Powers, the Historical section already mentioned that you didn't need to be level 6/14 any more. Instead removing the line mentioning the level requirement, I could have written that you need to be level 4, but the other powers in the power pool never mentioned that. I have had to add it to all power pool powers that can be selected at level 4 to be consistent. As you simply can't select from power pools before level 4 and this is mentioned in the Overview, it seemed to be redundant information to explicitly mention that you needed to be level 4.

I thought I had been quite reluctant to remove or edit anything. I've often only added comments to the discussion page if I thought something was outdated. I've only removed things if they were already in the Historical section, but the main text still also had the old description. From now on I will just refrain from editing any text, and just comment on Discussion pages RogerWilco 12:32, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

That's a little bit of an histrionic response, but if that's what you prefer, OK. The less histrionic response would be to reword things instead of deleting them (see my fix of your Advanced Worktable edit). ~ AGGE talk/cons 19:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Roger, you obviously have an eye for finding things that need to be updated, and that's much appreciated. However, might you want to reconsider simply mentioning those things on the article talk pages and just go ahead and make the changes? As it is now, someone will have to go back through all of your edits to find what you noticed and then make the changes themself. If you make the changes as you find them, they'll be done much quicker and be less likely to be forgotten or overlooked. Don't worry, we'll help guide you if you're unclear how to do them. We want everyone to feel welcome in contributing. :) -- Blondeshell 12:54, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Most of the stuff I'm finding is about features of the game I do not yet have access to. I'm finding them because I'm researching stuff before I get access to it. For example at level 30 I've started investigating Ancillary Power Pools and Patron Powers, but I only turned 35 this weekend. If I can't test myself if the page is indeed outdated, I will just make a remark that I think it is. In other cases it's just a lack of time to figure out how a template is supposed to work, this wiki uses a lot of templates. RogerWilco 01:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I am quite certain that nobody here is trying to be critical. I know firsthand that it is very scary to jump in and start changing pages. What if you break something?! What if they get mad about it?! What if you just don't know what you're talking about and they all do?! The good news is that every change you make is logged on the history tab of that page. And it is very easy for someone to roll back your changes if you make a mistake. (Although I notice from watching the pages I edit that usually they just come back through and re-edit your edits, keeping the good stuff while rewording the bad.) I can understand that it is frustrating to be "called out" for making a logical edit, especially when you are new to both the game and the wiki, but hang in there. We are only trying to help you learn, not to criticize what you are doing. Don't give up on us yet! (Why yes, I am including myself in the us. Why yes, I did start editing all of five months ago. Why yes, I do still feel horribly intimidated every time I click that edit button. Is that a problem?  ;) )-- Kahzi 13:57, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm an experienced wiki contributor on Wikipedia, Wowwiki and elsewhere. In most cases I'm an expert on the topic though, or I can easily check the facts. Most of the things I notice are just contradictions between pages, but I can't check which one is right. Therefore will restrict myself mostly to the discussion pages. I'm not intimidated by Edit buttons, but I am a bit by the reactions I get here.RogerWilco 01:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I guess I am confused. Someone merely pointed out that there was a better way to go about one or two of your early edits, and your response was to say "I guess I won't edit here anymore." I would think that your reaction was a bit more inflammatory than the one you seem to be upset about. It also seems a bit passive-aggressive to continue to post what's wrong on discussion pages but adamantly refuse to fix the errors for some reason. Just my thoughts. —Thirty7 03:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I have made edits where I felt confident enough. In most cases I can only spot that pages are in conflict, without being able to check which one is correct because I don't have access to the feature described. I can at best guess based on date of last edit and such. For example, at first I only noticed that the Ancillary Power Pools for Blaster had different ranges than for Brutes. Only after finding a line in the Issue 21 changes could I guess that the Blaster was likely correct and did I add a message to the Brute APPs that they might be outdated. Before that I had only noticed the difference and just assumed it was because they were different Archetypes.RogerWilco 12:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure why you're intimidated by someone requesting that you update data instead of deleting it, and then giving an example of how to do so. ~ AGGE talk/cons 04:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

My instinct would be to undo your edit, because I feel it doesn't add any information. This means that I don't trust myself to make correct edits in such cases because the style of the wiki isn't in line with what I'd do instinctively. Basically I don't see what I did wrong. I have read your reply, but I don't understand why you'd need an Overview if the Description is one line and you're basically just repeating yourself. the reason I stopped doing edits like that, was because I actually wanted to avoid long discussions like this. Finding possible errors seemed a better use of my time than arguing about the Advanced Worktable. You might want to have a look at what I changed in Player vs Player to see if that's o.k. with you, it's another case where I felt the text just repeated itself in slightly different words. RogerWilco 12:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Something that may not be clear is that the "Description" section is usually reserved for the description given in-game. So on a badge for example, the description is the text you see in the list of badges when you look at it in game. The "Overview" section is something we use to give an overview in our own words. I agree that, in the case of Advanced Worktable, the Overview and the Description both provide effectively the same information. I would personally remove the Overview too because it doesn't add anything. My guess is that it's being kept for consistency reasons with other base item articles. (However, the base item articles are, in general, a huge mess so I'm not sure consistency can be said to apply...). But in any case, the "Description" being in-game text is something done in a wide variety of articles, and unfortunately we do not make it clear that this text is in fact in-game text. -- Sekoia 20:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)