User talk:Enterprise2001/Whitespace Controversy

What started as a seemly minor difference in coding and writing styles quickly degraded into nastiness because of some miscommunication and a particularly bad day on my part.

Because Gaebrial did the edit first, the conversation started on his talk page:

Oblivion: Making Money

Verification was needed for all the specific details of the Dungeon Types. (See the talk page. That's what it is there for. :-) )

Why did you turn some of my notes into one entry bulleted lists? That's contrary to the definition of a list.

I'm still pretty new here, so thanks for enlightening me, --Enterprise2001 11:41, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

I removed the verification tag because as far as I was concerned, there was nothing to verify. The details of the different dungeon types looked perfectly reasonable to me, based on my experiences.

Putting a bullet point in front of a note doesn't automatically make it a list. I just thought that a bullet point looked better than having Note: in the middle of a section.

I have left the verification tag there for now, although I'm still not sure what it else you want verifying, and I have left the Notes. I have reapplied my other minor modifications - spelling corrections, removing unnecessary white space, and such.

--Gaebrial 02:36, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

Ok, if you DID check to make sure the dungeon type info was correct, you should of said so, not "doesn't appear to be any reason for it" which lead me to believe you hadn't, in fact, checked the accuracy of the data.

When I see a bullet, I expect a list. With only one bullet, that doesn't make sense. The "Note:" highlight seems to be the preferred method on the wiki. I know I prefer it.

The white space makes no difference on the rendered page. It's there simply to make the raw code easier for me to read. (Whitespace is not only common when writing code, but expected to make it easier for humans to read.) You are, in fact, doing it yourself. (Open this page for editing and look up. Those spaces after colons for indenting isn't required, but it makes it easier to read, does it not?) :-)

Cohabitate is, in fact, correct.

In conclusion, I will revert your changes again and then remove the verification needed tag. If the technically unneeded CR's bother you that much, you can wait until after I have completed my total rewrite and expansion of the page and then rip them out with joy and zeal. :-)

I hope our obvious differences in preferred style and coding don't become a serious issue.

--Enterprise2001 12:11, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

Cohabitate may be correct (although it's not in the Firefox dictionary I'm using) but since both entries on dictionary.com refer to cohabit as the main word I'm going to change that back. We also have many pages that use bullets with just one item - it's more of a style thing than anything else. Just an aside, whilst it's great to see the work you've done on this page you shouldn't start to treat it as your own - it's still a page on the wiki and can be edited by anybody at any time. –Rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 12:43, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

Thank you oh so much for stating the obvious, that's one of the few things that instantly #$@*& me off.

Since I am the one that started the major rewrite since no one else had the guts, I expect a certain level of courtesy from others in that they don't make any huge changes while I am in the middle of the rewrite. I certainly welcome small tweaks and clarifications. I know I am not perfect and sometimes I have to get off the computer quickly and don't have time to completely proofread what I've done. But massive changes would only serve to disorient and dissuade me from completing the rewrite. The removal of white space or the deletion of the comments I've embedded, things which do not in anyway change what readers of the page see, likewise only serve to confuse me. (The page is large and the whitespace in the code allows me to scan through it faster and easier.)

If that's too much to ask, then I should not be here.--Enterprise2001 15:15, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

Then moved to mine:

That's quite enough of that

The comments you just made on Gaebrial's talk page are out of order. Calling the editing community gutless is bad enough but you continue to claim some kind of ownership of the article, which goes against everything a wiki represents. If you want to edit an article and not allow others to make changes whilst you're doing so, you could do it in a sandbox area off your user page. You chose to edit the article in the main area of the site so you should expect people to chip in with alterations. In particular you should expect the site's Patrollers and Administrators to make any changes they see fit. I personally hope you continue to be a productive editor on the site, but you are going to have to learn to play by our rules. –Rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 15:26, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

I second what Rpeh is saying, if it is out in the open, it is fair game for edits from others. If you want to have greater control, put it in a sandbox , so patrollers don't have to check all your minor tweaks and half-finished ideas, or at least slap a {{wip}} on it. It's easy to obsess, but remember this is a co-op effort, no need to call people out. --Benould^•T•C 15:55, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

I must apologize: I am having a particularly aggravating day, and the whole stating the obvious (A pet peeve of mind. DUH! THANK YOU!) pushed me a little farther over the edge than it should have... (And you did it again, please stop defining "wiki" for me... This also means that I know I don't own the article. I knew that before I even started. Please stop pointing it out, I KNOW ALREADY! Are we clear that this was never an actual issue now? Great! Please don't tell me again, I'm already feeling aggravated again.) In addition, since I saw no difference in the rendered page, the removal of the whitespace felt to me like the online equivalent of deliberately and malevolently ransacking my desk. I'm sure everyone would be unhappy about that... <DEEP BREATH>

Regardless, you both read way too much into that. I meant that I was the first person in five months to attempt to tackle that page's needed rewrite after the tag was placed. That would seem like a huge number of people would of found said tag and not made any serious attempt. Thus, No one has had the guts until now to tackle the page.

As for a sandbox, that doesn't really work either. I want someone to catch all my mistakes, verify the information that needs it (Which Gaebrial did, by the way, thanks.), and fill in the information I don't know. (I place standard HTML comment tags for what needs expanded/added later. Look for one in the Money Guide for an example. One I already replaced with the needed data.) Does that happen in a sandbox? I'm not sure, but I highly doubt it. Besides, I was making vast improvements and valuable additions to the page. (I thought.) And all readers could immediately benefit with the changes out in the open. As for slapping on a WIP tag, that is pretty much there in the clean-up tag already on the page: "Major rewrite currently in-progress, some errors, quirks, inconsistencies, et cetera are to be expected. Requesting feedback from more experienced editors on the talk page."

Basically this whole situation boils down to the fact that I use "too much" whitespace when encoding pages. (Unless all the generally positive pre-whitespace-issue comments where just yanking my chain.) My use of whitespace has been drilled into me by years of coding in what the industry generally considers to be a "best practice." If my use of whitespace is against the rules, as Rpeh says, then what possible contributions could I make? I'd just be the annoying copy-editor that never uses the whitespace correctly.

Awaiting Verdict, --Enterprise2001 23:54, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

Enterprise, I understand that it can be frustrating when you've put a lot of work into something only to have other people nitpick about it. We really are glad that you're doing the work, and the fact that no major revisions have been made by those of us who watch the site should serve as a pretty big compliment in itself ;).

The point the others were trying to make is that in order for this community to work, we all have to stick to a code of polite, respectful, constructive behavior. It's okay to be frustrated (trust me, try patrolling new edits for about three days and you'll see what I mean!), but we've got to play nice or things turn nasty. It's not exactly polite to insinuate that other editors didn't have the "guts" to take on a particular task; while it is true that some people may lack the confidence (or patience) to take on a major rewrite, it is also true that most of our regular editors are constantly busy with other tasks. Also, some people may feel they aren't knowledgeable enough about the subject to do the task justice, though this is certainly no reason to discredit their abilities as editors.

As for the issue of white space, I don't think it's a big deal in this case. We try to avoid using excessive line breaks, since the formatting doesn't translate well on all browsers, but extra spaces after section headers or {{NewLine}}s aren't a major issue. As long as you don't throw in a ton of them in a row, there's no real problem. Of course, there's also no real problem with deleting them, since they are often not needed.

You really have been doing great work and we're all glad that you've taken on these tasks. Just remember that it's important to remain flexible and to stay calm--we're all just trying to make the site the best it can be :). –Eshe^talk 01:04, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

Looking over the last few days of talk pages related to this issue, two things pop out:

1. Some of the regulars seemed to have forgotten about the problems any new editor will face. The white space was a point of contention from the beginning and Eshe was the first to tell me that it may cause problems with formatting. I didn't see any problems with the white space, and was following the tradition of using white space to make the code easier to read. If I HAD saw it causing the formatting to get whacky, it would not of been there. Browsers completely ignore white space—you can use as little or as much as you want, it matters not. The inability of the wiki engine to handle "excessive line breaks" was completely unknown to me... I would remove a lot of the breaks anyway after the major rewriting was done and I no longer had to scroll through the entire page repeatedly.
2. I have NO IDEA how anyone thought I was trying to lay a claim to Oblivion:Making_Money. I was well aware of that part of a wiki's nature coming in. I felt pretty insulted with everyone telling me over and over again.

To clarify, I viewed Gaebrial's edits basically as minor vandalism: He replaced some of the Note: designations with bullets and created an inconsistency. Something I was trying very hard to eliminate. He removed a VN tag without clearly stating that the data appeared accurate. Finally, he removed white space that had no bearing on the presented page and made a difficult job all that much harder. Needless to say it didn't improve my disposition any...

So, bottom line: Can I revert Money Guide back to its pre-argument version? I will change "cohabitate" to its more preferred form of "cohabit", remove the VN tag as Gaebrial said it was accurate as stated, make all "Note:" bold and not italic as that seems to be the preferred formating of them when used elsewhere on this wiki, and remove the animal pelt rule of thumb as the pelts have an ok value ratio. I think that's it... Will that make everyone happy? Oh, I will remove any line breaks I can live without... :-)

(Ironically I would of most likely completed this page's rewrite by now and moved on to another page had this issue not developed...)

--Enterprise2001 20:34, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

Please do continue doing what you were doing before. If the information needing verification has indeed been verified, we don't need the tag...and consistent formatting is definitely good. Some may disagree as to what exactly the "best" layout is (whether bulleted or not), but that's something that can easily be changed.

This is going to sound a lot like what I said in my previous post, but please be extremely careful about labeling other editors' contributions as vandalism. You should always Assume Good Faith, even when you don't understand why a change has been made. Gaebrial is a respected editor and member of this community; just because his edits interrupted or conflicted with yours certainly doesn't mean he was vandalizing the page. When in doubt, start a discussion.

Thanks for your understanding in this situation and your willingness to work through such tedious projects. Happy editing ;). –Eshe^talk 20:59, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

<Sigh> Again, you tell me what I already know and already did... PLEASE stop doing that, it makes me grind my teeth...

I, in fact, did assume good faith and start a conversation on Gaebrial's talk page. It just spiraled out of control pretty quickly... Partly because he wasn't initially clear on why he deleted the VN tag, our differences in coding styles, and because I was having a bad day and was ignorant of "how things work" around here. In short, we had a lack of communication.

I do have some questions about the wiki and the Oblivion community in general. (If you have the time to answer them, of course.)

--Enterprise2001 22:02, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

This conversation just abruptly terminated there. I never did figure out how I was trying to lay claim to the article. I can only assume that what started as a little style difference between me and Gaebrial turned into more of a lynch mob (that didn't include Gaebrial) and the regulars figured out this newcomer felt throughly bitten and decided to just drop the whole thing. Regardless, this is behind us all and belongs out of the way somewhere.