FANDOM


  • D1g

    What editors do at wiki:

    [ ] make gradual improvements to wiki
    [ ] create redundant discussions for every insignificant topic to pick one alternative with minimal benefits over other alternatives
    [ ] endlessly complain about behaviour of other editors, pointing to "policies" AND without any suggestions for Main space


    Borderlands wikia was structured (categories, templates) and half-written by me for 1 BL AND 4 DLCS 7 years ago and only minor improvements and refinement were made over what I started; other editors significantly helped me during process.

    It was FUN to explore Borderlands with other editors.

    I WAS TRUSTED AND PROTECTED BY SYSOP.

    WE WORKED TOGETHER TROUGH WIKIA BUGS AT THAT TIME

    What I encountered at http://dontstarve.wikia.com/wiki/ is never ending bureaucracy for sake of bureaucracy.

    Changes are slow. Discussions are NOT FUN. Benefit of the well discussed topic is very questionable.

      Loading editor
    • So....Since you've exposed how GREAT you are throughout the many dram- discussion walls you've been present, could you explain PRECISELY what's wrong in this wikia that's (gasp) clearly not the bordelands one

        Loading editor
    • D1g

      Spiderdian2 wrote: So....Since you've exposed how GREAT you are throughout the many dram- discussion walls you've been present, could you explain PRECISELY what's wrong in this wikia that's (gasp) clearly not the bordelands one

      I doubt it is possible without being too personal. I understand your dra remark. I will stop or give move time for others if it is neccery.

      Even this wiki was "online" for a long time, procedures are NOT established, as O-N-E editor insists.

      I ask for discussions about "established procedures", but get no link to past discussions. Were they discussed off-line? It should be settled on-line (e.g. on forum once) and with bigger delay during discussion.

      1. One infobox per title. Overview page(s) for groups of objects (Weapons). 2. No made-up rules during discussion. 3. No "I'm just an admin here" - this is irrelevant to every question other than direct admin requests. we all "editors" here. Read code of conduct if you question this.

        Loading editor
    • Okay this is getting crazy, I have been reading and following your actions and you are clearly not listening/trying to create drama.

      1) You mentioning the code of conduct is laughable when you are talking to everyone in such a condecending way.

      2) You just showed with this borderlands link that you have been creating the same kind of problems to others community before. What were you trying to proves?

      3) You keep making major and questionable edits without any discusions. And when someone explain it to you, you compare it to others wiki you "worked" in the past which is irrelevant to the way this wiki work.


        Loading editor
    • D1g

      BraisedEggplant wrote: Okay this is getting crazy, I have been reading and following your actions and you are clearly not listening/trying to create drama.

      I want to discuss policies and no to listen "policies were discussed. you don't reading/following them. the end"

      Asking for a discussion about something that was previously discussed or not is not drama.

      BraisedEggplant wrote:

      1) You mentioning the code of conduct is laughable when you are talking to everyone in such a condecending way.
      I intended to said that wiki conventions (not conduct) were undiscussed. At least with me. Every time I start a discussion, they imminently quit "You don't understand/listen again".

      I was patient enough while listening to all of this, but nothing lasts forever.

      What were you trying to proves?
      If you understand every dialogue as problem... Yes, we had have many problems. Can you provide single "problem" or drama from Borderlands space? Conduct policies at BL were always much MUCH more permissive and practical than this wiki.

      Discussions occured only on something really serious. Nobody cared about styling issues or categories or naming conventions beforehand.

      They discussed only when they didn't work, not when everything works.

      Everything works - let's have a discussion first.

      BraisedEggplant wrote:

      3) to the way this wiki work.
      Was it discused to use mutliple info-box templates with single page titile?

      No changes in templates and categories without discussions beforehand is a rule?!! Where it was discussed?

        Loading editor
    • Sorry if there's any grammar mistake here, texting was a bit rushed since I'm still drowning in work and my free time is about to vanish.(yet I still procrastinate :P)


      Well....you got a point, there's no visible "problem" or drama from the BL wikia, BUT, let me again emphasize we are from completely different wikis, despite your past interactions with the DS wiki and the little gem you left in the Spider page

      Many wikias have their own dynamics of making/editing articles, for example, the Transformers wikia has a more coloquial tone within the pages while the Steven Universe has the caste-ish system of titles, that are much like Admin/Custodians, except it's much more precise and organized.

      I have also read some Manuals of Style from other wikis, Inclusively the BL one, through different edits so I'd minimize the chance of missing old/changed rules and.....as far as I've read there's no solid rule in any of them that prohibits multiple infoboxes under a single title, despite most having a single one with some tabbers and such. 

      Sure, some pages(mainly the most recent added[by myself included]) have escaped the determined layout of the manual and might/must be revised later.

      Adding Categories is NOT a big change DEPENDING on what you want to add. We've currently got 3 new categories, that were meant for the new tabs in DST, those are inoffencive to Vanilla articles. But then you try to add a category that will force other pages to be re-edited in order to adequate to the newer categories without any consent....If you tried to ACTUALLY discuss the kind of category you wan't to add instead of forcing them down the throat of everyone that is trying to improve the quality of the pages AND keep making those depthless drama-bait "topics" in the forums.

      Much like the Categories, for me there's no issue in changing a template, BUT you need the approval of the mods/admins before doing/asking for something. [Hey, could you please write Banana in the start of your response, so I can consider you read my long and boring post?]Look at the most recent change, we got the Crafting Description bit in the infoboxes, so they could feel more complete, yet that little change took at least a week to update the major part of the wikia. 

      The agressive "revolutionary" way you attempt to talk with people here always makes me remember Wicker's quote about the Lureplants, for some reason...

      Tl;Dr: Wikis much different, Do actual discussions.

        Loading editor
    • D1g

      Now take this Cave Banana Tree

      Spiderdian2 wrote:

      Well....you got a point, there's no visible "problem" or drama from the BL wikia

      What "drama"?! You are lucky to speak with featured user in this space.

      Spiderdian2 wrote:

      BUT, let me again emphasize we are from completely different wikis, despite your past interactions with the DS wiki and the little gem you left in the Spider page

      Well quote wasn't precise and LITERAL for you to Google it or understand during first read:

      Sign my petition or i'll follow you home and kill your dog!

      I have also read some Manuals of Style from other wikis, Inclusively the BL one, through different edits so I'd minimize the chance of missing old/changed rules and.....as far as I've read there's no solid rule in any of them that prohibits multiple infoboxes under a single title, despite most having a single one with some tabbers and such.

      If infobox creates cateogries, it should NOT be used multiple times per title.

      keep making those depthless drama-bait "topics" in the forums.

      No. This "depth" comes from O-N-E user who raises such important matters when collaborating.

      They are created because LOCAL COMMUNITY WANTS DISCUSSIONS FIRST.

      BUT you need the approval of the mods/admins before doing/asking for something.
      • ABSOLUTELY DISRESPECTABLE TO EVERY SINGLE USER
      • NO SANE WIKI HAVE SUCH POLICY about F...G "ADMINS"

      (use rock image if you read this)

      Yes SOME templates MAY be locked SOMETIMES only to avoid OBVIOUS DAMAGE or when USER IGNORES ANY COMMUNICATION ATTEMPTS.

      Spiderdian2 wrote:

      Tl;Dr: Wikis much different, Do actual discussions.

      No, I can't if other party quits discussion. That's not me not discussing things.

      My questions at forum are still unanswered.

        Loading editor
    • From borderlands wiki, I suggest people read it: http://borderlands.wikia.com/wiki/User_talk:D1g/archive

      There too, he was banned twice, warned multiple times etc.

      This is absolutely a gem, a message from an administrator on that wiki:

      "Do not take on such a massive undertaking without consulting anyone first. We see it as trolling. Whatever you do on other wikis, you do on other wikis, but do not think those concepts are applied to this wiki as well. "

        Loading editor
    • Spiderdian2
      Spiderdian2 removed this reply because:
      adas
      18:36, October 16, 2016
      This reply has been removed
    • Rocks

      I'm currently out of time now, I just came to check the response. But I'll try to respond some stuff.

      Well quote wasn't precise and LITERAL for you to Google it or understand during first read:</p> Sign my petition or i'll follow you home and kill your dog!

      I...didn't google anything. I actually started the quote as a joke, but then decided to make an actual response.

      If infobox creates cateogries, it should NOT be used multiple times per title.

      All the pages that do have multiple infoboxes had their reasons explained. Can you show the ones that have absolutely no reason to exist?

      NO SANE WIKI HAVE SUCH POLICY about F...G "ADMINS"

      If you mean in the sense of the existence of administration in wikis, then we're surrounded by terrorbreaks. It's impossible to have stable anarchic system, regardless of the space you're in. There must be someone in charge of the reins. 

      Try imagine, you create a poll to decide if the main page will have non-game-related stuff from now on, but there's no "sane" people among the hundreds deciding. What will end up happening is a endless mess that might or might not ruin the presentation of the wiki.

      No, I can't if other party quits discussion. That's not me not discussing things. My questions at forum are still unanswered.

      I am no admin, but I'm open to discussion about things  within my range of effectiveness. But the way you do things really feels down the throat to me, I guess that was the point you "lost" the kindness to discuss with the other guys, at THIS point, I don't know how to solve the "relations" here. A fancy call to Deia or Stl to sit down and talk maturely without Capslocking or hyperlinking everything would give you a chance of being taken seriously.


      I'll much likely not respond the next quotes today, since I'm now completely focused in speeding up my To Do list

        Loading editor
    • D1g

      Stl1234 wrote: "Do not take on such a massive undertaking without consulting anyone first. We see it as trolling. Whatever you do on other wikis, you do on other wikis, but do not think those concepts are applied to this wiki as well. "

      You can see this trolling in http://borderlands.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Missions_by_location

      But if you are blind, you can see this:

      I think we can ask mediators from staff.

      If I get harassed so frequently by O-N-E person. http://dontstarve.wikia.com/wiki/Don%27t_Starve_Wiki:Rules

      Why not?!

      I don't mind http://borderlands.wikia.com/wiki/User:Fenrakk101 style/slight aggressiveness towards my faults when we discuss their improvement and fixes.

        Loading editor
    • D1g

      Spiderdian2 wrote:

      If infobox creates cateogries, it should NOT be used multiple times per title.

      All the pages that do have multiple infoboxes had their reasons explained. Can you show the ones that have absolutely no reason to exist?

      NO SANE WIKI HAVE SUCH POLICY about F...G "ADMINS"
      Try imagine, you create a poll to decide if the main page will have non-game-related stuff from now on, but there's no "sane" people among the hundreds deciding. What will end up happening is a endless mess that might or might not ruin the presentation of the wiki.
      Random changes and ideas - yes! Great!

      Missing content at main page? Great!

      Get front page spammed with viagra ads - protect page, unlock afterwards.

      Mess no, thank you. This idea is pushed by O-N-E user who fixes "mess" after "others"

      I can have strong points, but I'm not uncivil to THIS level:

      Red link is removed because it is not making a positive contribution to the wiki. You are literally creating problems for other people to fix. You are basically saying: "This page should exist. I'll create the link, meh, it's now somebody else's problem to deal with. My work here is done."

      I will propose my idea, maybe aggressively. Maybe because I want to implement changes and not because I'm "aggressive"?!

      I would never call other party creating mess.

      A fancy call to Deia or Stl to sit down and talk maturely without Capslocking or hyperlinking everything would give you a chance of being taken seriously.
      If we had respectable discussions in the first place, maybe.

      Maybe I would consider them as trustworthy editors if they simply discussed matters and not harassed me with "policies".

      So terrorbreak (O-N-E) will likely to continue this BS when I leave wiki.

      Spiderdian2 wrote:

      I'll much likely not respond the next quotes today, since I'm now completely focused in speeding up my To Do list

      No problem, your perspective was way more fresh that "you don't follow established policies yadyaada" - thanks!
        Loading editor
    • I was going to visit the Borderlands wiki myself and check your history there, but didn't have time and Stl beat me to it. Still, my suspicions were correct.

      You've caused the same exact problem at the BL wiki, and admins have warned you multiple times. At first, I thought you were making a mistake that will never be done again once understood, but everything is obvious now; this was not the first time you've done this, this was not the first time you've been warned about it, you are not learning from your faults, you don't want to admit your faults.

      You don't understand the difference between minor edits and massive changes to the wiki's structure. Instead, you think that we are saying that you must ask before doing anything, which is not true.

      At this point, this is more of a mental impairment. You only want things to go your way and nothing else, otherwise, you create arguments and just refuse to understand or fully and carefully read what you are quoting. Word of advice, for your own good, you need help. You should see a doctor.

      You are not helping the wiki with your arguments about incomplete pages - you are simply adding a huge eye-catching banner saying that the page is incomplete, when you could've added everything needed to be added yourself, instead, you are basically saying "This is incomplete, I know what's missing! It's X, I'll add it to the reason. Alright, my work here is done."

      And again, the same thing the admin of the BL wiki told you: Each wiki functions differently. Using another wiki's layouts for examples doesn't make sense, and will not help you prove your points.

      Now, let me quote some pieces of your last message.

      Random changes and ideas - yes! Great!

      Great work describing yourself.

      Missing content at main page? Great!

      And what's missing? This one is hilariously contradictory to a previous argument of yours, saying that the main page is cluttered up and over-filled.

      Get front page spammed with viagra ads - protect page, unlock afterwards.

      Wikia puts these ads, not us, so this is irrelevant. And what do you mean by "unlock afterwards"?

      If we had respectable discussions in the first place, maybe. Maybe I would consider them as trustworthy editors if they simply discussed matters and not harassed me with "policies".

      You said it, if we had a respectable discussion first. You didn't make respectable discussions and simply forced your opinions whenever there was a disagreement, not even saying why you had that opinion and why you think it helps the wiki, with an uncivil tone, regularly typing in caps, bold and italic text. And you were complaining about us having an uncivil tone. Then you call us out for harrassing you with policies, which your edits did not follow.

      We've been very patient with you, especially Stl, but you've proven that you aren't helping.

      - Deiaa (Wall)

        Loading editor
    • D1g
      You've caused the same exact problem at the BL wiki, and admins have warned you multiple times. At first, I thought you were making a mistake that will never be done again once understood, but everything is obvious now; this was not the first time you've done this, this was not the first time you've been warned about it, you are not learning from your faults, you don't want to admit your faults.
      I don't think that by misinterpreting messages at my archived wall when all of my work is done at main space and other user talk pages you will get somewhere.

      We do nothing, but laugh at my small "faults": "What happen to grammar late?"

      Kind of attitude I would never expect from YOU.

      My fault? Maybe you're a person (I meant another word here) who belittles efforts of others?

      Do you want to get yourself laughed at?

      Look at this "fault" I was warned twice:

      and many others, my main/file namespace history contains all of my "faults".

      Belittling my efforts at BL space is not acceptable.

      Well, you seems to be special to the universal conduct codes about civility. Not going to comment every nonsense you made-up.

        Loading editor
    • You still don't get it, at all. None of these conversations have ever been about your ideas or proposals. Pointing to article histories is absolutely and entirely irrelevant to the entire issue. This is all about your conduct (means how you behave). As I said before, you can become a good contributor, if you think about these conversations and evaluate your behavior and improve your interactions with other people. This is a community, once you are ready to become part of the community, instead of trying to force the community to be part of you, you'll have a much easier time in this wiki (and everywhere else in your life you are having trouble with). If you are not part of the community, then your ideas won't help the community, regardless of how great they may be.

        Loading editor
    • You don't listen, do you? This wiki is different from the BL wiki.

      The issue here is not your ideas, and pointing to article histories did absolutely nothing helpful.

      I've played (and finished) Borderlands, and it's obviously a completely different game. The way its wiki works suits the way the game works. Don't try to apply the BL wiki's layout and methods of organization and style here, because it won't work. You are basically trying to make apples grow on a banana tree this way.

      - Deiaa (Wall)

        Loading editor
    • D1g

      Deiaa2002 wrote: You don't listen, do you? This wiki is different from the BL wiki.

      The issue here is not your ideas, and pointing to article histories did absolutely nothing helpful.

      I've played (and finished) Borderlands, and it's obviously a completely different game. The way its wiki works suits the way the game works. Don't try to apply the BL wiki's layout and methods of organization and style here, because it won't work. You are basically trying to make apples grow on a banana tree this way.

      - Deiaa (Wall)

      YOU raised topic "my faults at BL wiki". Not about organization of THIS wiki.

      Blaming me is a priority, not discussion how to organize wiki.

      You start pointless off-topic in Thread:162467#13 you're not able explain. But I understand every "fault" behind every request.

      I had hundreds thousands of conversations at MAIN space, at TALK pages, via REMOVED pages (using "Speedy delete templates", "delete templates"), via USER PAGES or USING EDIT COMMENTS.

      Other users contributed in the same way. Discussion occurred only about something really serious (undoing recent work, single time change in parent categories).

      You're terrible admin if you judge person by incoming messages at his wall Thread:162467#13. These are incoming requests, not communication of that person with community.

      In fact, I had more requests to me in edit comments and MAIN space.

        Loading editor
    • Again, you don't listen, do you?

      The faults I've mentioned is making huge changes without permission, discussion, or any sort of conversation with the community. This is something you did at the BL wiki and you were warned about it before, back in 2010. I'd like to see you deny that.

      Other users had common sense, and they never discussed non-major changes, and discussed serious changes. Again, you refuse to carefully understand what we are saying, and just go ahead and continue arguing. I suggest that you carefully read this whole thread first. Then come and reply.

      And again, those requests were in the BL wiki, years ago, and the style you were using may have been helpful there, but it's not here.

      I'll be honest, I'm running out of patience here, and I can safely say that I am a very patient person.

      - Deiaa (Wall)

        Loading editor
    • D1g

      Deiaa2002 wrote: Again, you don't listen, do you?

      I'll be honest, I'm running out of patience here, and I can safely say that I am a very patient person.

      Blaming other person is a hard work now?

      Can you write single message at forum about proposed changes?

        Loading editor
    • D1g wrote:

      Deiaa2002 wrote: Again, you don't listen, do you?

      I'll be honest, I'm running out of patience here, and I can safely say that I am a very patient person.

      Blaming other person is a hard work now?

      No, but trying to make them understand something they refuse to understand is.

      I will condense all my replies that I would've left in the forum into one reply here: "No. This is not how this wiki works."

      You still did not bother to read the rest of the posts above?

      - Deiaa (Wall)

        Loading editor
    • D1g

      Deiaa2002 wrote:

      You still did not bother to read the rest of the posts above?

      They have nothing to do with my proposals.

      You never started a proper discussion about it, other than pointing to LOCAL policies.

      STILL there no messages from you: Thread:162446, Thread:162427

        Loading editor
    • Stl already replied to these, and my reply is unnecessary then, because it's basically the same thing.

      - Deiaa (Wall)

        Loading editor
    • D1g

      Deiaa2002 wrote: Stl already replied to these, and my reply is unnecessary then, because it's basically the same thing.

      - Deiaa (Wall)

      Yes, but please format your points at forum with quotes once.

      I don't think many users would read this thread where 1/2 of the messages about ME PERSONALLY.

        Loading editor
    • I'm not sure what you mean here. Please clarify.

      I still am going to say that it's the same thing. A reply is nothing but redundance, and won't help.

      - Deiaa (Wall)

        Loading editor
    • Even if it is the same thing, I think it would help to have more voices in the discussions (I'd think a support/oppose, or short agreement would do, I do expect other people to participate as well). Otherwise it looks like there is no common opinion, just one individual.

      I know this has been very tiring, I think best thing for us to do is to ignore the noise, and focus on the stuff that we'd normally focus on. There isn't a hint of improvement, despite all our efforts, so I think it is just a waste of our time. It doesn't look like engaging further would bear any fruit, so why would we?

        Loading editor
    • Well, you have a point. I've added my replies.

      I still feel like they were unnecessary.

      - Deiaa (Wall)

        Loading editor
    • An anonymous contributor
        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.