I understand that you're upset about your edits being reverted, but actions such as this are unwarranted and uncalled for. AKB did the right thing and took the discussion to the talk page, as is protocol when there are disagreements over edits on the wiki. I recommend that you log off the wiki for a little while to cool down so you don't do/say anything that you might regret. And in regards to your edit summary here, there is a little list of reminders below the save page button and next to the wiki markup list, and the first point states "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then don't submit it here". •WoahBro►talk 09:32, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- Removing other peoples work is not editing. Ek1 (talk) 15:49, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
- "Editing" is anything that can be done to potentially improve the wiki. When you have a large community such as ours, there are naturally differences of opinion in what constitutes a "good" edit, and sometimes that means removing or altering what other people add.
- I'm truly sorry that you are having a disagreement and are grieved by what was done, but getting used to the community editing aspect of the wiki is part of being an active and regular editor, and understanding that not everyone will agree with you and that you have to civilly work things out is part of being a member of the community.
- I'm someone who has been here for the better part of almost 7 years, and I remember when I first started I had plenty of comments on my talk page with polite and helpful suggestions from a couple of the admins who were active at the time that were offering ideas on how what I was putting could have been done better. If you have any concerns you wish to bring up about content or style, the appropriate venue to do so is on the article in question, as AKB did in the above-linked talk page, or on a user's talk page. There are plenty of avenues appropriate to handling conflict resolution, even going so far as to make a community-wide thread about something on the Community Portal to provoke discussion about it. However, the issue here is that you disagreed with the edit and in the edit summary provided and in the body of the text you were condescending all the way down the body of the text, rather than polite and open to suggestion, and that's what hurt you in that case.
- This is a matter that's been basically closed for the better part of a year, so I hope you and everyone involved are able to set aside your feelings and work at it with a fresh mindset. If you're passionate enough about what you feel should be in the article, then, by all means, feel free to make engage in discussions on the relevant articles or with users on their talk pages, but remember to be civil and assume everyone is making a good-faith change to the wiki. Everyone here is a person with feelings who ultimately wants the wiki to be improved for the better, especially someone like AKB who has been here long enough to become a Wiki administrator, and everything will go a lot smoother if everyone is able to put aside their personal feelings and work from a neutral, friendly, and polite angle to find a peaceful resolution on each article that makes everyone happy with the additions made.
- If you have any questions or concerns, I'm more than happy to talk with you and help you out however I can! You can respond back here, or you can directly email me, post on my own talk page, or get in contact with one of the many mentors who are willing and able to help you out with any concerns you may have.
- The wiki's current state was only made possible by a bunch of fans of the series such as yourself, and everyone's opinion, including yours, is valued and crucial to the success of the UESPWiki, so please do be in touch and willing to talk things out, and we'll be able to help you have a great time and hopefully you can be a regular member of our community! :) -damon talk ♥ contribs 18:58, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi! I've reverted your edit to Online:Lord Warden Dusk where you removed an old quest from the page. The purpose of the wiki is to document information, and this includes deprecated information which is no longer in the game. The quest is quite clearly struck out and marked as old info, so there is no reason for its removal despite it being four years old. In future it would be more constructive if you help maintain older information on articles rather than removing it outright. —Legoless (talk) 15:06, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- Hi! Ah, in that case remember to revert and report all buff, area, item and crow related articles and edits as they don't include the outdated and obsolete information. If you feel including such info somehow brings additional value to the wiki, please include such information to its own section, maybe history or version history, in the very end of a article so that relevant information is presented foremost. Ek1 (talk) 16:19, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Item Set Format Changes
Just FYI, there's little point to changing the format for item set bonuses, as you did Community Portal and then implemented in the bot, so that it's a universal change rather than a one-off., because they're largely bot-generated, so at some point, the bot's just going to come along behind you and . That's not to say we can't change the format at all, just that if we're going to, it should probably be discussed on the
There's also the question of spacing around the <onlyinclude> tags, but that's minor. I think it's probably better not to have any spacing (i.e., we should be doing it the way you did), but the space was there pretty much universally when the bot started updating sets, so that's how the bot has continued to do it, just to avoid any unexpected wrapping in any transclusions. So there again, if we're going to make a change, it's probably better to do so universally and maybe have the bot try to figure out if the vertical space in any transclusions needs adjusted as a result of the change. – Robin Hood (talk) 20:05, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Oh, well. I don't really care at this point anymore. The 'community' has given its sign that discussing and making changes around facts, readability and usability is not of 'their' interest so I am mainly correcting some errors around topics that could be moved to new wiki. Sad fact is that most (collection) pages are bullshit, outdated or unnavigable.
Well clean transclusions area easy to do if the page would be holding the data. With the fancy data dispersion structure thingys keep things up-to-date is pain for everyone else except the one that made the data structure. Having the actual data in the actual page keeps things simple for other editors too. Ek1 (talk) 04:55, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Reverting ESO edits
Hey! I saw that you made several reverts of edits in our ESOspace. Instead of an edit war, you could try to talk it out on a talk page discussion about how to display certain information properly. It's always preferably to reach a consensus. That said, these kind of edit summaries are not acceptable. Besides your language, you removed a lot of relevant quest dialogue without a clear reason. Please be more mindful of other editors and understand that a wiki is a collaborative project. --Ilaro (talk) 11:16, 21 September 2019 (UTC)