Template talk:Padding weighting table

I rolled this back due to the changes made to official information provided by Wyrom at the bottom. I have asked follow-up questions on the officials, please wait for the responses. VANKRASN39 (talk) 05:39, 27 August 2017 (CDT)

I rolled back your rollback because there was no reason for it. Please do not remove edits I worked hard on because you are waiting for questions to be answered. If new information provides further insight then make the changes then. Kithus (talk) 10:13, 27 August 2017 (EST)

I'm sorry, but you changed information that was official. That is not permitted and I will report it. VANKRASN39 (talk) 21:26, 27 August 2017 (CDT)

Please cite the exact rule that states players cannot update relevant information on the wiki without your permission. Kithus (talk) 10:13, 27 August 2017 (EST)

From Help:Style: "As GSWiki is considered official documentation and the place where all players new and old are sent to read up on any topic, grammar, style, and formatting should be considered carefully in editing so that the site as a whole will be as professional-looking as possible." You are not to change official documentation provided by GMs. Your chart did just that, and you removed the ranges. Your verbal harassment via LNET private chats, which has been sent to staff, is not appreciated. VANKRASN39 (talk) 21:57, 27 August 2017 (CDT)

I took into consideration proper formatting and kept it similar to what existed before. There is nothing in what you link that says we cannot update mechanics information provided by GMs with new, more up-to-date information provided by GMs. You just didn't want me to change anything until YOU had all your questions answered. As such you removed relevant information from the Wiki because you're on a power trip. I'm glad you forwarded my comments on you to staff, it's not like I haven't told several of them exactly what I think of you. I have also presented a complaint to feedback about your continued tyranny.Kithus (talk) 4:04, 28 August 2017 (EST)

The following is part of an email I sent to Wyrom showing all of the evidence so far, and fully explains my decision to revert rather than simply correct the official information that was in fact changed (besides the time issue) due to the incomplete information about the in between numbers:

Now that the system has been released, the suspicions behind my inquiry were confirmed and the numbers in between the effective combat numbers are assessing as higher than they should be.  With the extended range of 1-5000 instead of 1-50, players need to be given the actual service number that the item is at, the assess description is not good enough.  

I've posted this inquiry twice, and since the release yesterday two more people have asked almost the exact same question I have been asking since day 1.  

my two inquiries:
http://forums.play.net/forums/GemStone%20IV/Hunting%20and%20Combat/Weighting%20and%20Padding/view/139
http://forums.play.net/forums/GemStone%20IV/Hunting%20and%20Combat/Weighting%20and%20Padding/view/224

https://forums.elanthia.online/topic/390/wps-chart/6

Sacru:
"Got 26 damage padding services performed on already crit-padded armor. Assesses now as "fairly" damage padded, which is not congruent with the chart posted above."

That chart on the Elanthia forums by Alastir pretty much matches what Kithus created, thus the chart, as I suspected, is wrong.

SVEN2010's posts:
http://forums.play.net/forums/GemStone%20IV/Paid%20Events:%20Adventures,%20Quests,%20and%20SimuCoins/Duskruin%20Arena/view/8081
http://forums.play.net/forums/GemStone%20IV/Paid%20Events:%20Adventures,%20Quests,%20and%20SimuCoins/Duskruin%20Arena/view/8088

VANKRASN39 (talk) 12:28, 30 August 2017 (CDT)

---

This is a long response to all of the above. Some of this will be going into one of the Help pages to clarify for future editors, but to spell it out and apply it to this specific situation:

When a mod has rolled back edits or asked for edits on a page to go on pause, please follow the mod's instructions -- the mod is doing his/her job i.e. moderating information of the wiki for both style and accuracy. If there are salient points as to why your edits were moderated that you would like addressed or wish to express, you are welcome to civilly discuss the content of those edits on the Talk page. The Talk page is where you can note that you disagree with an edit. Re-rolling back a moderator's rollbacks and/or creating a "bypass" to essentially continue the rolled-back edits elsewhere -- after having been given a specific reason that the rollbacks were made (whether or not you agree with that reasoning) -- is not an appropriate course of action.

Harassing and demeaning wiki moderators, whether via private communication or public channels, for doing their job is not acceptable behavior in any way, shape, or form. If you feel a mod has overstepped in his/her moderation role, you are welcome to forward your concerns to staff (for the time-being, this means an email to both Wyrom and Kaikala). If you're taking this step, you'll need to include a link to the relevant wiki pages and Talk pages involved. If some of the "talk" was done in the Slack wiki channel, include reference to that as well.

In this particular case, this template effects multiple pages -- it is expected that a moderator was/is concerned about accuracy. Additionally, the template, which was based on previously officially approved information, changed rather drastically (added new sets of information, not just the existing columns of info). The mod in question here was waiting until certain info was confirmed, and specifically noted that. Waiting for that accuracy to be confirmed would have gone a long way -- the edits themselves could have easily been carried over after the fact given that the formatting was still intact and easy to grab within the History pages. And it might have sparked discussion of the best formatting overall for the new information sets, which was/is needed (and has been brought up by another mod in one of the affected pages).

In general, with any major template or system page change, it's a great idea to touch base with the mods (or use the Talk page) to see if someone is already working on updates, actively gathering info, or working out what the best approach will be to displaying the new information/updates if the previous display will no longer fit the existing framework. This isn't to say that people can't make edits or changes to the relevant wiki pages when a system has a major update -- but they also need to realize that at least one, if not several, mods and possibly other editors who are communicating with the mods, may already be working toward this in the background on it. Regarding officially confirmed information and how to know if a page has that sort of 'stamp of approval' on it -- we're discussing ways to make it clearer so that you guys know when it will be worth your while to use the Talk page prior to starting a big edit. Communication on the wiki isn't always intuitive -- it's certainly a work in progress -- but the Talk (and now the Research) and Slack wiki channel are hugely useful tools in this regard and can really help with ensuring that time editing the wiki is well-spent for all parties concerned.

GS4-KAIKALA (talk) 18:53, 11 September 2017 (CDT)

Also, I'm unlocking the page so that we can let everyone get back to editing. GS4-KAIKALA (talk) 18:58, 11 September 2017 (CDT)