Talk:Beginner's guide to playing a ranger - Revision history

GS4-XERAPHINA: GS4-XERAPHINA moved page Talk:A beginner's guide to playing a ranger to Talk:Beginner's guide to playing a ranger: naming convention, removing "a"

2024-10-31T00:24:28Z

GS4-XERAPHINA moved page Talk:A beginner's guide to playing a ranger to Talk:Beginner's guide to playing a ranger: naming convention, removing "a"

← Older revision

Revision as of 19:24, 30 October 2024

SARAH3: /* Statistics Section */ comments

2015-02-20T15:28:16Z

Statistics Section: comments

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:28, 20 February 2015
Line 83:		Line 83:

	The current statistics section contains way too much detail for this page and none of it is relevant only to rangers. The statistics section here seems to contain more general detail on statistics than the actual [[Statistic]]s page. Some of this information should possibly be moved over there. For the rest, there is already a [[New_Players%27_Guide#Stats\|section on statistics]] in the beginner's guide, which should be linked and a description of how statistics should be set for a ranger should be added. [[User:SARAH3\|SARAH3]] ([[User talk:SARAH3\|talk]]) 01:06, 18 February 2015 (CST)		The current statistics section contains way too much detail for this page and none of it is relevant only to rangers. The statistics section here seems to contain more general detail on statistics than the actual [[Statistic]]s page. Some of this information should possibly be moved over there. For the rest, there is already a [[New_Players%27_Guide#Stats\|section on statistics]] in the beginner's guide, which should be linked and a description of how statistics should be set for a ranger should be added. [[User:SARAH3\|SARAH3]] ([[User talk:SARAH3\|talk]]) 01:06, 18 February 2015 (CST)
			:Much of the original information about statistics from this section has been moved to the [[Statistic]]s page and this section has been replaced with a description of how different statistics affect rangers in particular which is hopefully useful and relevant to beginners. If you see anything that's missing or seems out of place, don't hesitate to edit or comment on it here (if you don't feel like editing the text). -cheers, [[User:SARAH3\|SARAH3]] ([[User talk:SARAH3\|talk]]) 09:28, 20 February 2015 (CST)

	== Skills ==		== Skills ==

SARAH3: /* Skills */

2015-02-18T10:44:06Z

Skills

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:44, 18 February 2015
Line 87:		Line 87:

	I put together a very general section on skills a ranger might wish to train heavily influenced by the way the skills section is laid out in the [[A_beginner's_guide_to_playing_a_sorcerer\|sorcerer guide]] since I thought that one was very nicely done. This is intended to give a very broad overview while also providing new players with a lot of useful information. It is not intended to serve as a replacement for guides on specific weapons. I have left a few ??s in the '''Additional Skills''' table because I'm not actually sure that there's actually a very general way to train these and it is my impression that it really depends what you want your ranger to do. If that is the case, then the question marks are probably fine (unless you think they're ugly and a blank space is better), but if there's some standard threshold (e.g. for MIU), then feel free to add it. Also, if there are skills that are important and I missed them, please add those to the tables as well (unless you don't like playing with tables, in which case, tell me here and I will add them). If you add to the '''Core Skill''' table, please update the '''Total''' at the bottom of that table to reflect these changes. -cheers, [[User:SARAH3\|SARAH3]] ([[User talk:SARAH3\|talk]]) 02:27, 18 February 2015 (CST)		I put together a very general section on skills a ranger might wish to train heavily influenced by the way the skills section is laid out in the [[A_beginner's_guide_to_playing_a_sorcerer\|sorcerer guide]] since I thought that one was very nicely done. This is intended to give a very broad overview while also providing new players with a lot of useful information. It is not intended to serve as a replacement for guides on specific weapons. I have left a few ??s in the '''Additional Skills''' table because I'm not actually sure that there's actually a very general way to train these and it is my impression that it really depends what you want your ranger to do. If that is the case, then the question marks are probably fine (unless you think they're ugly and a blank space is better), but if there's some standard threshold (e.g. for MIU), then feel free to add it. Also, if there are skills that are important and I missed them, please add those to the tables as well (unless you don't like playing with tables, in which case, tell me here and I will add them). If you add to the '''Core Skill''' table, please update the '''Total''' at the bottom of that table to reflect these changes. -cheers, [[User:SARAH3\|SARAH3]] ([[User talk:SARAH3\|talk]]) 02:27, 18 February 2015 (CST)

			:Update: I removed the ??s and left them blank. Everything else applies. -cheers, [[User:SARAH3\|SARAH3]] ([[User talk:SARAH3\|talk]]) 04:44, 18 February 2015 (CST)

SARAH3: /* Skills */ ...forgot to bold something.

2015-02-18T08:28:08Z

Skills: ...forgot to bold something.

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:28, 18 February 2015
Line 86:		Line 86:
	== Skills ==		== Skills ==

	I put together a very general section on skills a ranger might wish to train heavily influenced by the way the skills section is laid out in the [[A_beginner's_guide_to_playing_a_sorcerer\|sorcerer guide]] since I thought that one was very nicely done. This is intended to give a very broad overview while also providing new players with a lot of useful information. It is not intended to serve as a replacement for guides on specific weapons. I have left a few ??s in the '''Additional Skills''' table because I'm not actually sure that there's actually a very general way to train these and it is my impression that it really depends what you want your ranger to do. If that is the case, then the question marks are probably fine (unless you think they're ugly and a blank space is better), but if there's some standard threshold (e.g. for MIU), then feel free to add it. Also, if there are skills that are important and I missed them, please add those to the tables as well (unless you don't like playing with tables, in which case, tell me here and I will add them). If you add to the ~~core~~ ~~skill~~ table, please update the '''Total''' at the bottom of that table to reflect these changes. -cheers, [[User:SARAH3\|SARAH3]] ([[User talk:SARAH3\|talk]]) 02:27, 18 February 2015 (CST)		I put together a very general section on skills a ranger might wish to train heavily influenced by the way the skills section is laid out in the [[A_beginner's_guide_to_playing_a_sorcerer\|sorcerer guide]] since I thought that one was very nicely done. This is intended to give a very broad overview while also providing new players with a lot of useful information. It is not intended to serve as a replacement for guides on specific weapons. I have left a few ??s in the '''Additional Skills''' table because I'm not actually sure that there's actually a very general way to train these and it is my impression that it really depends what you want your ranger to do. If that is the case, then the question marks are probably fine (unless you think they're ugly and a blank space is better), but if there's some standard threshold (e.g. for MIU), then feel free to add it. Also, if there are skills that are important and I missed them, please add those to the tables as well (unless you don't like playing with tables, in which case, tell me here and I will add them). If you add to the '''Core Skill''' table, please update the '''Total''' at the bottom of that table to reflect these changes. -cheers, [[User:SARAH3\|SARAH3]] ([[User talk:SARAH3\|talk]]) 02:27, 18 February 2015 (CST)

SARAH3: /* Skills */ new section

2015-02-18T08:27:13Z

Skills: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:27, 18 February 2015
Line 83:		Line 83:

	The current statistics section contains way too much detail for this page and none of it is relevant only to rangers. The statistics section here seems to contain more general detail on statistics than the actual [[Statistic]]s page. Some of this information should possibly be moved over there. For the rest, there is already a [[New_Players%27_Guide#Stats\|section on statistics]] in the beginner's guide, which should be linked and a description of how statistics should be set for a ranger should be added. [[User:SARAH3\|SARAH3]] ([[User talk:SARAH3\|talk]]) 01:06, 18 February 2015 (CST)		The current statistics section contains way too much detail for this page and none of it is relevant only to rangers. The statistics section here seems to contain more general detail on statistics than the actual [[Statistic]]s page. Some of this information should possibly be moved over there. For the rest, there is already a [[New_Players%27_Guide#Stats\|section on statistics]] in the beginner's guide, which should be linked and a description of how statistics should be set for a ranger should be added. [[User:SARAH3\|SARAH3]] ([[User talk:SARAH3\|talk]]) 01:06, 18 February 2015 (CST)

			== Skills ==

			I put together a very general section on skills a ranger might wish to train heavily influenced by the way the skills section is laid out in the [[A_beginner's_guide_to_playing_a_sorcerer\|sorcerer guide]] since I thought that one was very nicely done. This is intended to give a very broad overview while also providing new players with a lot of useful information. It is not intended to serve as a replacement for guides on specific weapons. I have left a few ??s in the '''Additional Skills''' table because I'm not actually sure that there's actually a very general way to train these and it is my impression that it really depends what you want your ranger to do. If that is the case, then the question marks are probably fine (unless you think they're ugly and a blank space is better), but if there's some standard threshold (e.g. for MIU), then feel free to add it. Also, if there are skills that are important and I missed them, please add those to the tables as well (unless you don't like playing with tables, in which case, tell me here and I will add them). If you add to the core skill table, please update the '''Total''' at the bottom of that table to reflect these changes. -cheers, [[User:SARAH3\|SARAH3]] ([[User talk:SARAH3\|talk]]) 02:27, 18 February 2015 (CST)

SARAH3: /* Statistics Section */ new section

2015-02-18T07:06:35Z

Statistics Section: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:06, 18 February 2015
Line 79:		Line 79:

	p.s. For wiki purposes, when engaging in discussion, remember to use four ~ to sign your note! [[User:GS4-SCRIBES\|GS4-SCRIBES]] ([[User talk:GS4-SCRIBES\|talk]]) 15:39, 17 February 2015 (CST)		p.s. For wiki purposes, when engaging in discussion, remember to use four ~ to sign your note! [[User:GS4-SCRIBES\|GS4-SCRIBES]] ([[User talk:GS4-SCRIBES\|talk]]) 15:39, 17 February 2015 (CST)

			== Statistics Section ==

			The current statistics section contains way too much detail for this page and none of it is relevant only to rangers. The statistics section here seems to contain more general detail on statistics than the actual [[Statistic]]s page. Some of this information should possibly be moved over there. For the rest, there is already a [[New_Players%27_Guide#Stats\|section on statistics]] in the beginner's guide, which should be linked and a description of how statistics should be set for a ranger should be added. [[User:SARAH3\|SARAH3]] ([[User talk:SARAH3\|talk]]) 01:06, 18 February 2015 (CST)

GS4-SCRIBES at 21:39, 17 February 2015

2015-02-17T21:39:37Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:39, 17 February 2015
Line 53:		Line 53:
	:::::It's not at all about "owning territory" but making the wiki itself consistent. When I come and see that generalized statistical information is being re-syndicated from other places without any emphasis on rangers, it is in the wrong place. There is a sub-section of the new player guide which has statistical basics, and there is the general statistics page, and there are the individual pages for each statistic. I would kindly direct you to improve any of those generalized pages where you feel they are lacking, and focus on the points relevant specifically to rangers on this page. Copying a table from another page is not a good way to fill a page, since is divides future editing work to many locations. I will kindly remind you once again that wiki is a collaborative effort, and insist that you to be polite and professional to all the other editors with more objective descriptions of problems. I fail to see how replies on a topic when no consensus or middle-ground is reached might entice anyone to describe the situation as having the "discussion closed." Particularly in these kinds of situations, it is important for all editors to understand topics such as [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring Edit warring]] which is more carefully elucidated on Wikipedia, "Note that an editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring". I point this out because I will be planning to edit this article in the near future for conformity; I feel it is useful to point out that the attitude expressed here may lead you to revert any and all changes made by other editors in this way, which is unacceptable. Thank you for your patience and fast replies. [[User:DAID\|DAID]] ([[User talk:DAID\|talk]]) 11:43, 16 February 2015 (CST)		:::::It's not at all about "owning territory" but making the wiki itself consistent. When I come and see that generalized statistical information is being re-syndicated from other places without any emphasis on rangers, it is in the wrong place. There is a sub-section of the new player guide which has statistical basics, and there is the general statistics page, and there are the individual pages for each statistic. I would kindly direct you to improve any of those generalized pages where you feel they are lacking, and focus on the points relevant specifically to rangers on this page. Copying a table from another page is not a good way to fill a page, since is divides future editing work to many locations. I will kindly remind you once again that wiki is a collaborative effort, and insist that you to be polite and professional to all the other editors with more objective descriptions of problems. I fail to see how replies on a topic when no consensus or middle-ground is reached might entice anyone to describe the situation as having the "discussion closed." Particularly in these kinds of situations, it is important for all editors to understand topics such as [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring Edit warring]] which is more carefully elucidated on Wikipedia, "Note that an editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring". I point this out because I will be planning to edit this article in the near future for conformity; I feel it is useful to point out that the attitude expressed here may lead you to revert any and all changes made by other editors in this way, which is unacceptable. Thank you for your patience and fast replies. [[User:DAID\|DAID]] ([[User talk:DAID\|talk]]) 11:43, 16 February 2015 (CST)
	:::::I would also really appreciate not having factual inaccuracies spread to cast my position under a false light. I have indeed posted several times in the thread in question. I have also created substantial content on the wiki outside the more mundane editing work. I would also question the application of "incessant" to a phenomena which has occurred twice (beyond the term's lack of place here for the uncivilized nature). Please refrain from making claims of further falsehoods about myself or other editors, because it is not constructive. [[User:DAID\|DAID]] ([[User talk:DAID\|talk]]) 20:06, 16 February 2015 (CST)		:::::I would also really appreciate not having factual inaccuracies spread to cast my position under a false light. I have indeed posted several times in the thread in question. I have also created substantial content on the wiki outside the more mundane editing work. I would also question the application of "incessant" to a phenomena which has occurred twice (beyond the term's lack of place here for the uncivilized nature). Please refrain from making claims of further falsehoods about myself or other editors, because it is not constructive. [[User:DAID\|DAID]] ([[User talk:DAID\|talk]]) 20:06, 16 February 2015 (CST)

			== FYI via Scribes ==

			Hola guys,

			I will make a similar statement on the wiki (all right, I may just cut and paste, don't judge me) on the disagreements that have been boiling up and over concerning the beginning ranger's guide.

			First off, obviously people are motivated and passionate. That's awesome.

			Second off, per the contest rules and winning rewards, authorship is not important, it's contribution. Those two sound very similar, but someone can author a guide, but then someone else can come in and add an additional 100% of information. They've done the same thing, but they are different. As the irrational arbiter of this contest, I will be ignoring the idea of authorship and looking to contribution (obviously, authorship can be recognized as a contribution).

			Third off, the essence of the contest was to inspire a communal effort to produce fantastic guides. Most of the ranger guide posts have reflected this, but this is not a contest of, "Whomever writes the BEST guide" wins. It's a contest of contribution where everyone wins, but the degree of the reward rests on how much effort they put into it.

			Fourth off, the nature of wikis is one of communal ownership. No one owns an article or a page because everyone has the right to make changes or edits to it. The principle behind it is that society as a whole will land on a consensus that favors the best information over the work of any one individual. if someone wants to create a page entitled, "Joe's Ultimate Guide to Rangering" they are welcome to do so. They do not own that page, either, but it seems that KP has a history of respecting individual's efforts to present their vision unaltered within its realm. I personally do not see a problem following this tradition, either, hence my note to Whirlin on the wiki contest page. However, for the pages that were setup for this contest, no one owns them. No one has a preemptive right of edit, or prima editore or first amongst equals or whatever you want to call it. If someone attempts to build a wall around one of these articles, they will incur my wrath (stop laughing!), but consider this a fresh start for anyone(s) who may have made certain statement(s) to the contrary.

			Fifth off, for those of you are having problems with seeing drafts altered in the middle of drafting. This is a problem as old as wikis and drunk 10th Century monks. It was recommended to use a sandbox. This is a great suggestion and even if you're not comfortable enough to create one on the wiki, then use the old fashion version, a word file. One potential way to work this problem out, create your guide elsewhere, and then invite others to adapt it to the existing material.

			Sixth off, thank you to everyone who has spiritedly engaged in this endeavor. I know while tempers and frustrations have arisen, these are not vain glory projects, but earnest attempts to create helpful guides to new players. That's fantastic! So thank you again!

			Seventh off, please feel free to contact me with any concerns or questions. I want this to be a fun, not infuriating, event. Even if you just want to blow off steam, shoot me an email or catch me on GMail Chat (GMScribes).

			Thanks, guys and gals!

			GM Scribes

			p.s. For wiki purposes, when engaging in discussion, remember to use four ~ to sign your note! [[User:GS4-SCRIBES\|GS4-SCRIBES]] ([[User talk:GS4-SCRIBES\|talk]]) 15:39, 17 February 2015 (CST)

DAID: /* Edit Reversions */ please refrain from inventing falsehoods about editors

2015-02-17T02:06:51Z

Edit Reversions: please refrain from inventing falsehoods about editors

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:06, 16 February 2015
Line 52:		Line 52:
	::::It's not just about wanting them to read the highlighted article; it's also about WHEN I want them to read the article. Highlighting it in this way serves that function. I want to direct the reader's attention. Concerning your incessant and ridiculous assertions that everybody should feel free to crap all over an article -- you're still wrong. Absolutely no good can come from multiple people attempting to author the same article. The last statement I made above was intentional, and I am claiming authorship of the page. If everyone thinks they're free to alter what I've written, and I feel free to alter what they've written, everybody loses. When people work together to see an article form to an idea (you seem to be more concerned with owning the territory than with creating valuable content), things tend to be more successful. The thread on the forums about this article is over 100 posts long, most of which are people contributing to the idea (to which you have contributed nothing, btw). Now I'd like to stop repeating myself, so you may consider the discussion closed. -Sepher --[[User:PENNINGTONB1\|PENNINGTONB1]] ([[User talk:PENNINGTONB1\|talk]]) 10:34, 16 February 2015 (CST)		::::It's not just about wanting them to read the highlighted article; it's also about WHEN I want them to read the article. Highlighting it in this way serves that function. I want to direct the reader's attention. Concerning your incessant and ridiculous assertions that everybody should feel free to crap all over an article -- you're still wrong. Absolutely no good can come from multiple people attempting to author the same article. The last statement I made above was intentional, and I am claiming authorship of the page. If everyone thinks they're free to alter what I've written, and I feel free to alter what they've written, everybody loses. When people work together to see an article form to an idea (you seem to be more concerned with owning the territory than with creating valuable content), things tend to be more successful. The thread on the forums about this article is over 100 posts long, most of which are people contributing to the idea (to which you have contributed nothing, btw). Now I'd like to stop repeating myself, so you may consider the discussion closed. -Sepher --[[User:PENNINGTONB1\|PENNINGTONB1]] ([[User talk:PENNINGTONB1\|talk]]) 10:34, 16 February 2015 (CST)
	:::::It's not at all about "owning territory" but making the wiki itself consistent. When I come and see that generalized statistical information is being re-syndicated from other places without any emphasis on rangers, it is in the wrong place. There is a sub-section of the new player guide which has statistical basics, and there is the general statistics page, and there are the individual pages for each statistic. I would kindly direct you to improve any of those generalized pages where you feel they are lacking, and focus on the points relevant specifically to rangers on this page. Copying a table from another page is not a good way to fill a page, since is divides future editing work to many locations. I will kindly remind you once again that wiki is a collaborative effort, and insist that you to be polite and professional to all the other editors with more objective descriptions of problems. I fail to see how replies on a topic when no consensus or middle-ground is reached might entice anyone to describe the situation as having the "discussion closed." Particularly in these kinds of situations, it is important for all editors to understand topics such as [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring Edit warring]] which is more carefully elucidated on Wikipedia, "Note that an editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring". I point this out because I will be planning to edit this article in the near future for conformity; I feel it is useful to point out that the attitude expressed here may lead you to revert any and all changes made by other editors in this way, which is unacceptable. Thank you for your patience and fast replies. [[User:DAID\|DAID]] ([[User talk:DAID\|talk]]) 11:43, 16 February 2015 (CST)		:::::It's not at all about "owning territory" but making the wiki itself consistent. When I come and see that generalized statistical information is being re-syndicated from other places without any emphasis on rangers, it is in the wrong place. There is a sub-section of the new player guide which has statistical basics, and there is the general statistics page, and there are the individual pages for each statistic. I would kindly direct you to improve any of those generalized pages where you feel they are lacking, and focus on the points relevant specifically to rangers on this page. Copying a table from another page is not a good way to fill a page, since is divides future editing work to many locations. I will kindly remind you once again that wiki is a collaborative effort, and insist that you to be polite and professional to all the other editors with more objective descriptions of problems. I fail to see how replies on a topic when no consensus or middle-ground is reached might entice anyone to describe the situation as having the "discussion closed." Particularly in these kinds of situations, it is important for all editors to understand topics such as [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring Edit warring]] which is more carefully elucidated on Wikipedia, "Note that an editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring". I point this out because I will be planning to edit this article in the near future for conformity; I feel it is useful to point out that the attitude expressed here may lead you to revert any and all changes made by other editors in this way, which is unacceptable. Thank you for your patience and fast replies. [[User:DAID\|DAID]] ([[User talk:DAID\|talk]]) 11:43, 16 February 2015 (CST)
			:::::I would also really appreciate not having factual inaccuracies spread to cast my position under a false light. I have indeed posted several times in the thread in question. I have also created substantial content on the wiki outside the more mundane editing work. I would also question the application of "incessant" to a phenomena which has occurred twice (beyond the term's lack of place here for the uncivilized nature). Please refrain from making claims of further falsehoods about myself or other editors, because it is not constructive. [[User:DAID\|DAID]] ([[User talk:DAID\|talk]]) 20:06, 16 February 2015 (CST)

DAID: went ahead and broke this down into sections. If someone can try to clean up the discussion and add more headers to the initial discussion, it would be helpful

2015-02-16T21:44:18Z

went ahead and broke this down into sections. If someone can try to clean up the discussion and add more headers to the initial discussion, it would be helpful

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:44, 16 February 2015
Line 1:		Line 1:
			==Initial Discussion==
	Hi, everyone.		Hi, everyone.

Line 9:		Line 10:
	Nuadjha's "The Art of the Bow":<br>		Nuadjha's "The Art of the Bow":<br>
	http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?49785-quot-The-Art-of-the-Bow-quot-GSIV-Archery-Guide		http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?49785-quot-The-Art-of-the-Bow-quot-GSIV-Archery-Guide


	Second, I'd like to talk about the organization of the guide. I'm not entirely sure how I envision the whole thing laid out, but we can (and will, I'm sure) make alterations to the general layout as the guide progresses. Some basic modules that comes to mind are:		Second, I'd like to talk about the organization of the guide. I'm not entirely sure how I envision the whole thing laid out, but we can (and will, I'm sure) make alterations to the general layout as the guide progresses. Some basic modules that comes to mind are:
Line 40:		Line 40:

	::::::Well, in principle, when [[User:DAID\|DAID]] and I get the floating pages working, they should be easy to add and remove from different pages, so if nobody likes it on this page and we just want to run with a link, it can be removed without losing the work. [[User:GS4-SCRIBES\|SCRIBES]] is actually the one who suggested adding a buff spell section to the beginner profession pages when I asked on the officials, but we can certainly see how it works here. :) -Astru [[User:SARAH3\|SARAH3]] ([[User talk:SARAH3\|talk]]) 04:43, 13 February 2015 (CST)		::::::Well, in principle, when [[User:DAID\|DAID]] and I get the floating pages working, they should be easy to add and remove from different pages, so if nobody likes it on this page and we just want to run with a link, it can be removed without losing the work. [[User:GS4-SCRIBES\|SCRIBES]] is actually the one who suggested adding a buff spell section to the beginner profession pages when I asked on the officials, but we can certainly see how it works here. :) -Astru [[User:SARAH3\|SARAH3]] ([[User talk:SARAH3\|talk]]) 04:43, 13 February 2015 (CST)

			==Edit Reversions==

	I am going to undo the recent changed to the Race section because I feel some of the purpose and organization was lost in the edit. There are also POV issues, among other grammar problems with the edit. I will borrow some of the language to reedit the section. Too much was changed to warrant minor editing repairs, thus the reversion. Also, please leave the article highlights as they are, because I want readers to go to them. These articles are filled with so many links that people can become numb to them. -Sepher --[[User:PENNINGTONB1\|PENNINGTONB1]] ([[User talk:PENNINGTONB1\|talk]]) 20:57, 13 February 2015 (CST)		I am going to undo the recent changed to the Race section because I feel some of the purpose and organization was lost in the edit. There are also POV issues, among other grammar problems with the edit. I will borrow some of the language to reedit the section. Too much was changed to warrant minor editing repairs, thus the reversion. Also, please leave the article highlights as they are, because I want readers to go to them. These articles are filled with so many links that people can become numb to them. -Sepher --[[User:PENNINGTONB1\|PENNINGTONB1]] ([[User talk:PENNINGTONB1\|talk]]) 20:57, 13 February 2015 (CST)

DAID: reply to indicate that articles are not owned by editors, and edits will commence soon on the main text.

2015-02-16T17:43:14Z

reply to indicate that articles are not owned by editors, and edits will commence soon on the main text.

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:43, 16 February 2015
Line 49:		Line 49:

	::::It's not just about wanting them to read the highlighted article; it's also about WHEN I want them to read the article. Highlighting it in this way serves that function. I want to direct the reader's attention. Concerning your incessant and ridiculous assertions that everybody should feel free to crap all over an article -- you're still wrong. Absolutely no good can come from multiple people attempting to author the same article. The last statement I made above was intentional, and I am claiming authorship of the page. If everyone thinks they're free to alter what I've written, and I feel free to alter what they've written, everybody loses. When people work together to see an article form to an idea (you seem to be more concerned with owning the territory than with creating valuable content), things tend to be more successful. The thread on the forums about this article is over 100 posts long, most of which are people contributing to the idea (to which you have contributed nothing, btw). Now I'd like to stop repeating myself, so you may consider the discussion closed. -Sepher --[[User:PENNINGTONB1\|PENNINGTONB1]] ([[User talk:PENNINGTONB1\|talk]]) 10:34, 16 February 2015 (CST)		::::It's not just about wanting them to read the highlighted article; it's also about WHEN I want them to read the article. Highlighting it in this way serves that function. I want to direct the reader's attention. Concerning your incessant and ridiculous assertions that everybody should feel free to crap all over an article -- you're still wrong. Absolutely no good can come from multiple people attempting to author the same article. The last statement I made above was intentional, and I am claiming authorship of the page. If everyone thinks they're free to alter what I've written, and I feel free to alter what they've written, everybody loses. When people work together to see an article form to an idea (you seem to be more concerned with owning the territory than with creating valuable content), things tend to be more successful. The thread on the forums about this article is over 100 posts long, most of which are people contributing to the idea (to which you have contributed nothing, btw). Now I'd like to stop repeating myself, so you may consider the discussion closed. -Sepher --[[User:PENNINGTONB1\|PENNINGTONB1]] ([[User talk:PENNINGTONB1\|talk]]) 10:34, 16 February 2015 (CST)
			:::::It's not at all about "owning territory" but making the wiki itself consistent. When I come and see that generalized statistical information is being re-syndicated from other places without any emphasis on rangers, it is in the wrong place. There is a sub-section of the new player guide which has statistical basics, and there is the general statistics page, and there are the individual pages for each statistic. I would kindly direct you to improve any of those generalized pages where you feel they are lacking, and focus on the points relevant specifically to rangers on this page. Copying a table from another page is not a good way to fill a page, since is divides future editing work to many locations. I will kindly remind you once again that wiki is a collaborative effort, and insist that you to be polite and professional to all the other editors with more objective descriptions of problems. I fail to see how replies on a topic when no consensus or middle-ground is reached might entice anyone to describe the situation as having the "discussion closed." Particularly in these kinds of situations, it is important for all editors to understand topics such as [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring Edit warring]] which is more carefully elucidated on Wikipedia, "Note that an editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring". I point this out because I will be planning to edit this article in the near future for conformity; I feel it is useful to point out that the attitude expressed here may lead you to revert any and all changes made by other editors in this way, which is unacceptable. Thank you for your patience and fast replies. [[User:DAID\|DAID]] ([[User talk:DAID\|talk]]) 11:43, 16 February 2015 (CST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:06, 16 February 2015
Line 52:		Line 52:
	::::It's not just about wanting them to read the highlighted article; it's also about WHEN I want them to read the article. Highlighting it in this way serves that function. I want to direct the reader's attention. Concerning your incessant and ridiculous assertions that everybody should feel free to crap all over an article -- you're still wrong. Absolutely no good can come from multiple people attempting to author the same article. The last statement I made above was intentional, and I am claiming authorship of the page. If everyone thinks they're free to alter what I've written, and I feel free to alter what they've written, everybody loses. When people work together to see an article form to an idea (you seem to be more concerned with owning the territory than with creating valuable content), things tend to be more successful. The thread on the forums about this article is over 100 posts long, most of which are people contributing to the idea (to which you have contributed nothing, btw). Now I'd like to stop repeating myself, so you may consider the discussion closed. -Sepher --[[User:PENNINGTONB1\|PENNINGTONB1]] ([[User talk:PENNINGTONB1\|talk]]) 10:34, 16 February 2015 (CST)		::::It's not just about wanting them to read the highlighted article; it's also about WHEN I want them to read the article. Highlighting it in this way serves that function. I want to direct the reader's attention. Concerning your incessant and ridiculous assertions that everybody should feel free to crap all over an article -- you're still wrong. Absolutely no good can come from multiple people attempting to author the same article. The last statement I made above was intentional, and I am claiming authorship of the page. If everyone thinks they're free to alter what I've written, and I feel free to alter what they've written, everybody loses. When people work together to see an article form to an idea (you seem to be more concerned with owning the territory than with creating valuable content), things tend to be more successful. The thread on the forums about this article is over 100 posts long, most of which are people contributing to the idea (to which you have contributed nothing, btw). Now I'd like to stop repeating myself, so you may consider the discussion closed. -Sepher --[[User:PENNINGTONB1\|PENNINGTONB1]] ([[User talk:PENNINGTONB1\|talk]]) 10:34, 16 February 2015 (CST)
	:::::It's not at all about "owning territory" but making the wiki itself consistent. When I come and see that generalized statistical information is being re-syndicated from other places without any emphasis on rangers, it is in the wrong place. There is a sub-section of the new player guide which has statistical basics, and there is the general statistics page, and there are the individual pages for each statistic. I would kindly direct you to improve any of those generalized pages where you feel they are lacking, and focus on the points relevant specifically to rangers on this page. Copying a table from another page is not a good way to fill a page, since is divides future editing work to many locations. I will kindly remind you once again that wiki is a collaborative effort, and insist that you to be polite and professional to all the other editors with more objective descriptions of problems. I fail to see how replies on a topic when no consensus or middle-ground is reached might entice anyone to describe the situation as having the "discussion closed." Particularly in these kinds of situations, it is important for all editors to understand topics such as [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring Edit warring]] which is more carefully elucidated on Wikipedia, "Note that an editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring". I point this out because I will be planning to edit this article in the near future for conformity; I feel it is useful to point out that the attitude expressed here may lead you to revert any and all changes made by other editors in this way, which is unacceptable. Thank you for your patience and fast replies. [[User:DAID\|DAID]] ([[User talk:DAID\|talk]]) 11:43, 16 February 2015 (CST)		:::::It's not at all about "owning territory" but making the wiki itself consistent. When I come and see that generalized statistical information is being re-syndicated from other places without any emphasis on rangers, it is in the wrong place. There is a sub-section of the new player guide which has statistical basics, and there is the general statistics page, and there are the individual pages for each statistic. I would kindly direct you to improve any of those generalized pages where you feel they are lacking, and focus on the points relevant specifically to rangers on this page. Copying a table from another page is not a good way to fill a page, since is divides future editing work to many locations. I will kindly remind you once again that wiki is a collaborative effort, and insist that you to be polite and professional to all the other editors with more objective descriptions of problems. I fail to see how replies on a topic when no consensus or middle-ground is reached might entice anyone to describe the situation as having the "discussion closed." Particularly in these kinds of situations, it is important for all editors to understand topics such as [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring Edit warring]] which is more carefully elucidated on Wikipedia, "Note that an editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring". I point this out because I will be planning to edit this article in the near future for conformity; I feel it is useful to point out that the attitude expressed here may lead you to revert any and all changes made by other editors in this way, which is unacceptable. Thank you for your patience and fast replies. [[User:DAID\|DAID]] ([[User talk:DAID\|talk]]) 11:43, 16 February 2015 (CST)
			:::::I would also really appreciate not having factual inaccuracies spread to cast my position under a false light. I have indeed posted several times in the thread in question. I have also created substantial content on the wiki outside the more mundane editing work. I would also question the application of "incessant" to a phenomena which has occurred twice (beyond the term's lack of place here for the uncivilized nature). Please refrain from making claims of further falsehoods about myself or other editors, because it is not constructive. [[User:DAID\|DAID]] ([[User talk:DAID\|talk]]) 20:06, 16 February 2015 (CST)