If you are looking for Information about PSU Clementine, Go check their Wiki
Difference between revisions of "User talk:BRayJ"
From The re-PSUPedia
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
-Oh and on a personal opinion do you think the name Lovejoy Alistair (one of my characters) is a good name? [please comment] | -Oh and on a personal opinion do you think the name Lovejoy Alistair (one of my characters) is a good name? [please comment] | ||
| + | |||
| + | *FYI* LET ME KNOW ANY MONSTER PAGES WHICH ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO SEE FURTHER DEVELOPED. I WILL BE ABLE TO WRITE AND RANT ABOUT IT SO PEOPLE KNOW WHAT THEY'RE UP AGAINST. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | == Two points == | ||
| + | I do appreciate your intent on expanding the scope of this wiki, but take two things into consideration. | ||
| + | |||
| + | *I don't mind you making any changes to any articles. However, locking an article up in a back and forth revision war without stepping into discussion and debating it instead is counter productive. You did an article on Dinalzen, I did an initial cleanup and posted precisely what I was doing in the summary box. You edit it back another way, I edit the talk page giving my two cents on what is wrong and edit it back. You then, revert some of the edits without providing counter points at [[Talk:Dilnazen]]. Now, we could merrily edit this article back and forth. But that would lead to a fight, and that would waste both of our time. And then admins would have to waste time playing mediator and I'd rather not waste their time. If you edit Dilnazen in a completely different direction rather then redoing what you just did in the first place, I won't mind in the least bit though. Heck, you could throw out the entire paragraph and write a new one from scratch that is cleaner and I wouldn't care. I may clean up anything that looks funky when I read it but when we get locked in a back and forth war without you stepping out and discussing it then we don't move forward, we just waste time. I am giving you a few days to go to [[Talk:Dilnazen]] and give explain your edits and convince me your way is better. If you do not say anything I'm going to edit it purely as I see fit. Little pointer, put four ~ in a row at the end of any discussion post you make, it'll automatically convert into your name an date when you post up the block of text. Very handy for signing posts. | ||
| + | |||
| + | *"Show Preview" is your friend. The recent changes log shows something like seven edits in a row on Bil De Vear alone. It makes for a neater recent changes log if you keep using the show preview button as your edit your article until it's done to your liking and then you post it up. I mean I can understand 2 or even 3 edits in a row on something because you forgot something minor. But seven edits in a row, that's not forgetting something minor. It's making it harder for me to dig back into the backlogs. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Check it out, I'm using the four ~ right now ---->[[User:Ccelizic|Ccelizic]] 21:31, 12 June 2007 (BST) | ||
Latest revision as of 20:31, 12 June 2007
if u want to talk about me heres the place to do it... Also please let me know what changes were made to any monster pages that ive personally worked on. Ive devoted myself to letting the public know about monsters who haven't gotten the attention that needs to be focused on. Especially certain bosses...
-Oh and on a personal opinion do you think the name Lovejoy Alistair (one of my characters) is a good name? [please comment]
- FYI* LET ME KNOW ANY MONSTER PAGES WHICH ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO SEE FURTHER DEVELOPED. I WILL BE ABLE TO WRITE AND RANT ABOUT IT SO PEOPLE KNOW WHAT THEY'RE UP AGAINST.
Two points
I do appreciate your intent on expanding the scope of this wiki, but take two things into consideration.
- I don't mind you making any changes to any articles. However, locking an article up in a back and forth revision war without stepping into discussion and debating it instead is counter productive. You did an article on Dinalzen, I did an initial cleanup and posted precisely what I was doing in the summary box. You edit it back another way, I edit the talk page giving my two cents on what is wrong and edit it back. You then, revert some of the edits without providing counter points at Talk:Dilnazen. Now, we could merrily edit this article back and forth. But that would lead to a fight, and that would waste both of our time. And then admins would have to waste time playing mediator and I'd rather not waste their time. If you edit Dilnazen in a completely different direction rather then redoing what you just did in the first place, I won't mind in the least bit though. Heck, you could throw out the entire paragraph and write a new one from scratch that is cleaner and I wouldn't care. I may clean up anything that looks funky when I read it but when we get locked in a back and forth war without you stepping out and discussing it then we don't move forward, we just waste time. I am giving you a few days to go to Talk:Dilnazen and give explain your edits and convince me your way is better. If you do not say anything I'm going to edit it purely as I see fit. Little pointer, put four ~ in a row at the end of any discussion post you make, it'll automatically convert into your name an date when you post up the block of text. Very handy for signing posts.
- "Show Preview" is your friend. The recent changes log shows something like seven edits in a row on Bil De Vear alone. It makes for a neater recent changes log if you keep using the show preview button as your edit your article until it's done to your liking and then you post it up. I mean I can understand 2 or even 3 edits in a row on something because you forgot something minor. But seven edits in a row, that's not forgetting something minor. It's making it harder for me to dig back into the backlogs.
Check it out, I'm using the four ~ right now ---->Ccelizic 21:31, 12 June 2007 (BST)
