User talk:Revnan

I like the additions/changes you made to the necromancer stat section. I'd love to see you expand the other classes in a similar way. Thank You for contributing in an objective manner!

--Baler (talk) 19:20, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I liked what you were doing but you're no longer being objective. You need to be objective and not present information based on personal feelings.

--Baler (talk) 20:33, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Hey,

If you have a specific concern, please make it. Blanket statements aren't as helpful as they sound in your head. I know there is not consensus on every detail, but I do put effort into allowing for differences of opinion. I am looking for constructive, specific criticism. This is all I should see from you. I am happy to look into any of your specific concerns.

Respectfully, Revnan (talk) 02:31, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

You're deleting information off the wiki. This has nothing to do with me or your opinion of me.

Please don't delete info, improve it in an objective way.

--Baler (talk) 12:06, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

In a more positive light. You should write a player guide on classes and starting stats. you'd get more credit for your work doing it that way and you can link to it on the class pages. And again I don't know you, I have no opinion of you outside your contributions to the wiki. My goal is to improve the wiki in an objective manner to benefit thousands of players.

[1]

--Baler (talk) 13:45, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Look it I even made you a page where you can put anything you want. Revnan's_Class_Guide

--Baler (talk) 14:13, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Spending Your Bonus Points

I appreciate that you are wanting to rework some of the older pages on the wiki because some have gotten a bit lengthy for no apparent reason. Looking through the stuff you have added to the Wiki in this category you'll likely want to make another pass to tweak it. The information you've provided on some stats is beneficial and straightforward, but providing a personal ranking on them isn't really objective as well as adding some things such as "In this editors opinion it is the only high impact stat Monks have, you always need it, and always need more" in the Monk page. Which, a lot of people who make characters specifically for end-game raiding, it is not correct because you will get max Strength without those points eventually anyway. It seems like your explanations from what stats to pick are generally from a person who is either new to the server or does not raid. I would recommend making a Player Guide to post all of your thoughts on different stats so people can view them all on one page. If you aren't able to add objectivity back in from some of the Spending Your Bonus Points pages I'll be undoing some and rewriting others. Additionally, I would recommend not deleting entire sections of Class pages as that will definitely get your ability to edit the Wiki revoked if you do it too many times. --Kaejer (Kaejer) 17:31, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Below is the conversation that followed:

Another user that is making large changes to class pages. Special:Contributions/Revnan

At first I was excited to see some improvements to class pages but the more edits this person does the more non-objective they're becoming. They're in fact removing information in favor of their opinion. I really don't know how this should be handled. Their motives seem good but the edits will dramatically affect how people make decisions about the class(es). --Baler (talk) 20:38, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

In fact they outright deleted a section on the wizard page. https://wiki.project1999.com/index.php?title=Wizard&diff=prev&oldid=292757

If they didn't put in so much effort to change the text I'd wonder if they were a troll. --Baler (talk) 20:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I think they're just a very opinionated person and were annoyed at an anecdote about neckbeards when explaining min/max reasonings on the Enchanter section. I tried to merge the old and the new to a shorter version that still has all of the useful information. The Wizard one I undid because it was just deleting out a lot of stuff. Improve, not remove. - Kaejer 22:38, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you on your assessment. The problem is he's misleading people with information that's more fit for a player guide. Making bold changes to a class page dramatically affects how thousands of people decide on that class. I'm not against revnan improving the wiki but I am against non-objective information. He even uses terms like "I" and "my" in his edits which directly shows he's pushing his opinion onto the page. He doesn't know how the wiki works or the flow of the wiki. I've tried to communicate through talking on his discussion page and he responds in the middle of my talk page. This shows he lacks the basic foundation of how the wiki works. I just want someone to talk to him and get a feel for if he's a problematic user or a valuable contributor. --Baler (talk) 13:40, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Please take some time to read the changes he's making to class pages. It's full of opinion and non-objective information. It's not an improvement and it's better suited for a player guide than the official P99 class pages.

--Baler (talk) 17:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I posted a note on their Talk page, it looks like they are going through again and making some minor tweaks to try to make it objective. I'll probably look at later and see if there's anything that's missing at that point. I do like the shorthand format more than paragraphs of theorycrafting on the section, though. - Kaejer 18:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

If you look on our talk page you can see the attempt I made to request specific information they feel could be improved. The response was a trigger storm only part of which can be viewed on this page. As far as being opinionated, the group of us discussed each amendment and it reflects experience playing those classes. Discussion and reasoning with us would have been more effective than threatening. It looks like you started and then abandoned this approach. It appears that you desire balance in the articles as opposed to objectivity, objectivity being entirely free from opinion. Is that what you meant? To address the specific item you mentioned Kaejer in the monk article I had accommodated for the stamina viewpoint, flagged it as controversial (which means we all don't agree) and preambled regarding full buffs and fantastic items, or if you prefer, raid conditions. More fine tuning to come. As to objectivity, the previous versions of these pages were awash in non objective language, outright errors (see Wizard page stating stamina adds to how long you can swing a melee weapon before becoming tired), these problems were no problem, and preferred by your actions. We do not understand this. Sloppy, bulky, confusing no matter which viewpoint you hold (See old enchanter). Our changes have improved the objectivity, flow and value, albeit not made it 100% objective, an undesirable state. 100% objective pages would be sterile of any player experience (their opinions based on experience) and each class writeup has had experienced class players weigh in. Is your intent to sterilize all player experience from the wiki? The claim that your problem with the work is objectivity is not correct, the purpose and practice of this site would be diminished greatly otherwise. New and old players want veterans to share the benefit of their experience and wisdom in playing the game, which requires them to give their experienced opinions. If you hold differing opinions tell us politely and we will addend. Further to the point, this wiki is entirely full of non objective language and much stronger opinions so why single us out? You have written non objective articles, Baler does as well. Grouching is not the best way to have contributors who care continue to benefit thousands of people, can we agree? We have had a number of people reach out to express great appreciation including Baler before the trigger. Stop and think about what you actually want, and no it is not objectivity, and let us know. I'm sure we can figure it out.

Respectfully, Revnan (talk) 19:12, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not going to let this become a flame war on my discussion page. At this point, try to keep it objective, and if either of you don't like it change it to something else. Some of the information that had been removed was useful to people, so I will likely add a little more detail to it. I do appreciate the shorthand bulleted method that was setup, because it's more clear cut than some of the pages that had paragraphs of unneeded explanations. Revnan - do not delete entire sections of pages unless you replace them with better/reworded information (such as on the Wizard page that I had to undo). I very quickly block people from Wiki editing access if you delete information off of the Wiki for no reason. - Kaejer 19:20, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

The reason was that each statistic was explained more concisely and well in the bonus allocation page. We removed a duplicate stat explaination, a poorly done one at that. It includes an explanation for stamina that it adds to the time you can melee before tiring. Wasn't that a useful change? Revnan (talk) 19:55, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Do not patronize me. You did not delete a duplicate, you deleted a huge chunk explaining statistics in general. Rewrite things if you think they're poorly done or merge them if they have overlapping information, DO NOT DELETE. - Kaejer 19:34, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

In this specific instance there were two whole sets of explanations for each stat, if that is a not a duplicate what is? As the writer, I am interested in how I go about merging those sections without removing one of them.Revnan (talk) 19:55, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Please Don't

I understand you have a sour attitude towards the prior situation, but that is no reason to randomly put your spiteful comments into the class pages again. Your opinion of important stats are very different from the server understood good options. Just stick to updating your class stat guide and put the link in the section if you'd like.

Stuff like this is personal and unacceptable on the Wiki - "There is an opinionated group that feel that building for raid conditions and ignoring non raid is the right thing to do, you will see Baelor's recommendation for that below." Kaejer (talk) 00:36, 27 December 2020 (UTC)