User talk:Jarcionek

Welcome!

Hiya Jarcionek! Welcome to UESPWiki. It's great when we get new members. Just thought I'd send you a welcome with some helpful info. Check out the following links:

• Policies and Guidelines: UESPWiki standards and expectations
• Help Contents: a list of in-depth Help pages
• Quick Editing Guide: a quick guide to wiki markup
• Getting Started: how you can help

If you would like to spice up your userpage, take a look at the Userboxes page: a near complete list of userboxes, including a guide to making 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 ~~~~ (do not sign edits to articles). Also, the "show preview" button is a great way to view the changes you've made so far without actually saving the page (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!

— ABCface^◥ 22:18, 20 August 2013 (GMT)

Etiquette

Hey, Jarcionek! I just wanted to let you know that comments like this are not appropriate when trying to resolve disputes. It's been a while since I've played Oblivion myself, but the page history has shown for a while that the Bruma Gate quest is supposed to go between the other two, so when you try to change the order, the logical conclusion is that you are incorrect. Silencer was entirely correct to revert the edit to the previous version, and was well within his rights as both an editor and a patroller to do so.

Making demands of other users, particularly those who have been around longer than you and know how things work around here, is not a good way to make sure your voice is heard. Making such demands of patrollers is also a good way to get blocked from editing, which is probably something you don't want to happen. I strongly advise you to review our etiquette policy and familiarize yourself with its contents before you continue editing, as it will save you (and us) a lot of trouble down the line.

If you ever have any concerns or questions about policy, feel free to leave a message for me on my talk page. Thanks! ThuumofReason (talk) 15:27, 3 September 2013 (GMT)

Dear ThuumofReason,

You are sending me off to your policies but "senior editors" here do not respect them at all. As a "senior editor" you should be giving a good example instead of just saying "shut up, I am the only person who's right here". Otherwise what you want is a website with you being the only person with edit rights, not a wiki where people collaborate on improving the content.

According to your policies, The Silencer should firstly assume my good faith and that I do not change correct information without having solid evidence that they are actually incorrect. Secondly, if he disagrees, he should talk to me about it instead of just undoing me changes - which actually comes under politeness and respect section.

I agree I was not polite to him - things would look much different if he dropped me a short message like "hey, I am not sure if you are right, can you show me some evidence? I have reverted your changes for now" - but it never took place. And I actually went with it to his talk page instead of simply undoing what he undone.

Treat me as you would like to be treated by me and I am sure we all will profit of it.

Jarcionek (talk) 19:15, 3 September 2013 (GMT)

I'm not sure you understand what I'm trying to tell you. Let me try again: Silencer is a patroller, and it's his job to make sure all edits made are up to code, so to speak. He was completely within his rights to revert your edit, and he had no obligation to check with you first to make sure it was okay, because the edit was not constructive. That doesn't mean he wasn't assuming good faith; neither he nor I have any doubt that you were earnestly trying to improve the wiki. However, just because you had good intentions doesn't mean you were ultimately making an improvement. We have very clear guidelines in place about what constitutes an improvement, and your edits were reverted because they did not meet those guidelines. Even if your intentions are to improve the wiki, without knowledge of what is and is not considered an "improvement", you end up making work for the rest of us, who have to spend our time fixing your edits instead of handling more important matters. An unintentional mess is still a mess at the end of the day.

Let me also reiterate that you won't win any friends or garner any sympathy by making demands and insisting that your way is right to people who know better than you. I posted the link to our etiquette policy for your reference, and it seems like you didn't really read it before you replied. Our senior editors got to where they are BECAUSE they follow the policies. The one who isn't following procedure here is YOU, not US. If there's an issue up for debate, you have every right to take it to the talk page of an article for discussion, but the revert function exists for a reason, and if you don't learn how to edit constructively, your edits will keep getting reverted.

We're not singling you out and reverting your edits out of hand; we revert ALL edits that aren't constructive, regardless of who makes them. We're also not blaming you or condemning you for not knowing how things work. It's not unusual for new users to not know how things work around here, and it's not a big deal. That's not the problem. The problem is that you're being rude and trying to throw your weight around when people try to correct you or offer you constructive criticism. Most users, when patrollers or admins try and tell them how things work, take the advice to heart and use it to improve the quality of their edits. That's something you should try to do as well if you don't want to be blocked. If you make a bona fide effort to learn our policies and incorporate feedback, nobody will hold a few mistakes against you. I hope I've made myself clear. ThuumofReason (talk) 23:22, 3 September 2013 (GMT)

The only issue here was etiquette, I thought. Jarcionek, we don't always mention undone edits on others' talk pages because the edit summary is usually enough; if we posted on others' talk pages before undoing any edits, the wiki would be a mess of incorrect information and unnecessary discussions. You were, in that case, correct in heading to Silencer's talk as you believed it neeeded more discussion, but you were demanding rather than explaining and discussing (as you acknowledge), which violates etiquette (hence this discussion). Silencer was not assuming bad faith, but rather undoing what he believed to be incorrect information. Also, as Thuum was just giving you a friendly notice on policies, please don't accuse him of working against the wiki--we give notices to everyone to remind them if they seem to violate/miss guidelines.

Thuum, per the end of your first paragraph, Jarcionek is quite alright in following the "be bold" guideline, and just because someone has more wiki rights than others doesn't make them any better (I know you know this, but you keep naming the patrollers group; we just double-check edits--we're not particularly special otherwise). Vely^►t►e 23:57, 3 September 2013 (GMT)

Right. The issue isn't the "what", it's the "how". Making edits isn't wrong, but please try and be a little more open to incorporating feedback in the future. That's all I'm trying to say. ThuumofReason (talk) 00:22, 4 September 2013 (GMT)

• "because the edit was not constructive" - excuse me? Are you trying to tell me that fixing incorrect information isn't a constructive edit, neither an improvement?

• "and it seems like you didn't really read it before you replied" - it seems to me that you didn't read it so let me iterate it for you:

1. "Assume good faith" - as already mentioned I feel that my changes were considered a vandalism and reverted without any verification.
2. "When in doubt, discuss" - Silencer did not want to discuss anything. He disagreed, he should start the discussion (no matter whether he reverted the changes or not) - he didn't.
3. "Be civil when talking to other people, and treat them with respect and kindness" - undoing someone's change with summary "you're wrong" shows no respect and kindness.

• "The one who isn't following procedure here is YOU, not US" - what procedure did I not follow except being rude? What procedures you (or rather Silencer) didn't follow is iterated above.

• "The problem is that you're being rude and trying to throw your weight around when people try to correct you" - I am not trying to throw my weight around. Yes, I was rude on Silencer's talk page. I apologise. I have explained the reasons for this but I see that you are trying to throw all the faults on me, because I am "a new user" while Silencer is "senior editor" so obviously everything is my fault and Silencer is perfect. Being "new user" doesn't not mean that I don't know the policies or I don't follow them. And being "senior editor" doesn't automatically mean that you know and follow the policies.

• "or offer you constructive criticism"" - The only criticism I have received is "stop being rude". I got it. I think someone else should also consider taking this criticism to heart.

Jarcionek (talk) 07:29, 4 September 2013 (GMT)

(←) This has gotten a little too personal, I think. Let's take a step back here and examine what happened in terms of the article edits, without any of the personal stuff. Jarcionek made an edit to improve a couple articles, based on what he believed to be true. Silencer reverted both edits, in an effort to improve the article, based on what he believed to be true. Neither editor did anything wrong here, and nowhere was there an insult or intended offense in those related edit summaries. As Jarcionek has pointed out, there are discussions on the relevant quest pages which indicate that this issue does need to be looked into. So where we should go from here, is to a talk page for one of the articles, with relevant details and links to past discussions, explaining the issue of quest order, and how it can differ. Further CS reseach and in-game testing can be done by multiple editors, who can share their experiences, so that we can either change the quest header(s) if needed, or add notes/bugs to each page regarding the issue. — ABCface^◥ 11:32, 4 September 2013 (GMT)

I will try to redirect all these conversations into one place in talk page of one of these articles later today so we can discuss an issue there. It was raised in talk pages of Blood of the Divines, Bruma Gate, Blood of the Daedra and Silencer's talk page

Jarcionek (talk) 12:04, 4 September 2013 (GMT)