User talk:Gglazer

Welcome

Hello Gglazer! Welcome to UESPWiki. It's always good to have new members. If you would like to help improve any of our pages, you may want to take a look at the following links:

• Policies and Guidelines: UESPWiki standards and expectations
• Quick Editing Guide: a quick guide to wiki markup
• Getting Started: how you can help

If you, on the other hand, would like to spice up your userpage, take a look at this link:

• Userboxes: near complete list of userboxes, including a guide to make your own

When you're editing, it's always a good idea to leave edit summaries to explain the changes you have made to a particular page, and remember to sign your talk page posts with four tildes ~~~~. Also, the "show preview" button is a great way to view the changes you've made so far without actually saving the page (our patrollers really appreciate it!).

Feel free to practice editing in the sandbox or discuss the games in the forums. If you need any help, don't hesitate to contact one of our mentors. Have fun! –Eshe^talk 13:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Irrelevant Information

Hello and welcome to UESPWiki! Thanks for your interest in the wiki. If you would like to experiment with how to edit, you may want to try editing in our sandbox. Adding irrelevant to UESPWiki articles and talk pages disrupts those pages and forces other editors to spend time cleaning them up. You may also want to look over our style guide and Getting Started guide. Feel free to ask if you have any questions. Ad intellige ^(talk) 03:23, 12 June 2014 (GMT)

Inconsistent Applications of Rules

I disagree with your assessment of irrelevant information. There are many other discussion pages on the wiki in which reasons for how things are named are found and with respect to Shivering Isles, a number of psychological discussions. I therefore claim precedent and that you are inconsistently (and thus unfairly) applying a restriction.

Also, having a single extra line in a wiki doesn't cost anyone anything and doesn't hurt anyone, unlike say, dismissively removing other people's posts. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deletionism_and_inclusionism_in_Wikipedia .

Yours truly,

gglazer

P.S. I edit wikis all of the time for work and admin two for some non-profit groups I volunteer for. I know how to edit wikis and your "helpful" hints about where to go for wiki help are not only not helpful, but make assumptions that border on insulting. — Unsigned comment by Gglazer (talk • contribs) at 00:19 on 12 June 2014

The information you added was irrelevant, plain and simple. Talking about 'goths and emos' (even their psychological issues) on a page about an NPC has nothing to do with that Cutter, your post didn't mention anything about her either. This is standard practice on this site. Dominus did not inconsistently or unfairly apply any rule. •WoahBro^►talk 04:26, 12 June 2014 (GMT)

I suggest you look at the *very first* discussion on the same page. The reference to goths and emos was an *aside*, a reference to that and not the main point. I suggest to you, and I mean this in all seriousness, that a person could well come to this page needing help because they are a cutter and identify with Cutter. When they lie bleeding on the ground, will you still believe that the information is irrelevant? My motivations are kindness and looking out for people. I have no idea what yours are. Gglazer (talk) 16:41, 12 June 2014 (GMT)

If there are other psychological discussions similar to one you made, then they should be removed for not being relevant to the character. A better place to put your information would be on the UESPWiki:Forums or in UESPWiki:IRC, although I am not sure if that is allowed in either location. In regards to my links offending you, I do apologize. They are there only so if you forgot, did not know, or if the topics are different from other wikis. I personally have no clue as to your personal history and life, and had I known of your experience I would not have provided the links. ~ Ad intellige ^(talk) 16:07, 12 June 2014 (GMT)

I think the problem is the assumption by an admin that a post they don't agree with from someone they don't know automatically implies that this person needs help with the technical aspects of wiki editing. Instead of assuming people don't know what they are doing, perhaps you should be a bit more charitable in your actions towards others? On the first point, I don't remember which discussion page it was on, but there was a comment from someone claiming to be a psychologist and discussing how some NPC corresponded to a particular diagnosis of mental illness. Gglazer (talk) 16:48, 12 June 2014 (GMT)

Is that an unfair assumption to make? We don't know you, we have no idea what your experiences are, but someone saw that you made an edit that doesn't conform with our editing policies, so he offered helpful links to a new user because that's what we always do. If you already know, then that's great, but I don't think there's any need to take offense at it, and there's certainly no need to lash out at other people for trying to help.

Also, I highly doubt that anyone will look to a minor character in a video game for some form of emotional support. Intentional infliction of self-harm is a serious psychological issue, and needs to be addressed through the proper channels. Such real-world issues have no place on a wiki documenting a series of video games. There are resources available for people who are at risk of self-injurious behavior, and even the most cursory internet search will provide links to sites that can address the problem better than we can. ThuumofReason (talk) 16:59, 12 June 2014 (GMT)

(edit conflict) (←) I do agree with your post. I just do not believe it is relevant to Cutter. Once again, I provided the links because I was unaware of your previous history with editing. I can understand where you are coming from on the fact that I could be more charitable, but I was doing what I believe every senior editor would do. I do apologize if I am wrong. I would much appreciate seeing that discussion. Please do not take that to be me not believing you, I just want to see when it happened and what all was said. ~ Ad intellige ^(talk) 17:02, 12 June 2014 (GMT)

Thank you for your apology. I do accept that you meant well (even if it came off to your intended audience (me) the wrong way) and it that spirit, shall we simply agree to disagree on this particular post and move on? Gglazer (talk) 17:09, 12 June 2014 (GMT)

Thank you. Yes, that is very good advice :) ~ Ad intellige ^(talk) 17:11, 12 June 2014 (GMT)

Warning

This warning is for a violation of the etiquette policy. Insults and personal attacks are not appropriate means of communication, and can be grounds for an immediate block. If you have a problem with another editor, please seek to resolve those problems constructively instead of resorting to insults. Zul do onikaanLaan tinvaak 21:34, 16 September 2016 (UTC)