User talk:Silverwing235

From Dwarf Fortress Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

*Wandering janitor puts down mop and bucket*[edit]

Yes, I know, not a very interesting placeholder.....but a beginning nonetheless. EDIT: On the other hand "If it looks wrong, it gets fixed" is my rule, which is why spot-edits will be preferred to blind-reverts around here. Silverwing235 (talk) 23:22, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

DF2014:Centaur plural[edit]

In case you were wondering - your edit didn't offend me at all, but in cases where there are multiple possible plurals, we try to stick with the one in the raws (click "show" next to the Raws box on DF2014:Centaur, for example, or click on the "Raws" link itself). That's what DF uses in-game, and it's consistent with DF:Rule G. Just something to keep in mind. —Lethosor (talk) 01:47, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

On paragraphs[edit]

A paragraph is a group of closely-related sentences with a central theme. In several recent edits you have combined multiple paragraphs that do not share a central theme. In addition to being grammatically incorrect, this also makes it more difficult for players to skim the article for relevant information. For example, this edit attached the sentence about challenges for experienced players to a paragraph that begins "Most new players...". Please cease "fixing" short paragraphs by lumping them in with other, tangentially-related paragraphs.--Loci (talk) 22:37, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Looks like there's already paragraph heading? I'll place this here, then: What's the logic/why merge these paragraphs while also not merging them with the text preceding them? (not the only paragraph merge I've seen, just a recent example) --Fleeting Frames (talk) 07:23, 11 September 2020 (UTC) the extent they make sense as components of a single paragraph. Thanks for the reminder, will implement shortly. As for logic, being a part of the autistic community as I 'reader's aesthetic' got irked, I suppose you could say. Silverwing235 (talk) 13:10, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing[edit]

Warning: Repeatedly modifying acceptable page layouts and punctuation to suit your personal taste is disruptive. Further disruptive edits may result in a ban. --Loci (talk) 19:40, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

While I agree that some of the edits in question weren't necessary, others were constructive - at least the first half of wood, for example. I don't think reverting everything is a good solution, and I would be unwilling to block someone for this. —Lethosor (talk) 20:13, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
With all due respect, this has been an ongoing problem since July. Roughly one third of my edits since then have been dealing with issues caused by this one user. I have spent a fair bit of time explaining why edits were problematic ([1], [2], [3], [4]) and saving "constructive" changes ([5], [6], [7], [8]). However, Silverwing235 has continued to make the same types of problematic edits across more and more articles. While I still review each Silverwing235-edited article individually and only revert those which are problematic, I no longer consider it worthwhile to explain yet again why sprinkling in unnecessary commas and deleting newlines isn't acceptable, nor do I salvage minor "constructive" bits that happen to be included with disruptive edits. This is a fine example: is changing the capitalization of "item hauler" worth burying information about architectural value at the end of a paragraph about sand gathering? No.--Loci (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. It's pretty much the standard I attempt to hold myself to when editing around here as a rule, Lethosor - and also explains why some edits were marked as minor, in an attempt to avoid being blind-reverted like this, w/out apparent consideration of merit. You should both expect forum PM's about this in due course. Silverwing235 (talk) 21:46, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Resurrecting an old topic here: while I admit I haven't been monitoring the situation here very much, I've noticed that I don't always agree with some edits you make. Some are good, and I don't have opinions on some others, but some are (in my opinion) not correct - for example, the one that was reverted here. I don't have a particularly good policy in mind, and I don't think everything you do should be reverted by any means (so don't feel discouraged from fixing things), but I'd like to suggest that you pay closer attention to which edits are being reverted and why. Hopefully that will cut down on some editing disagreements I've seen in the recent changes list. I really don't want to make any decisions on the matter, but I think that making specific types of edits that tend to be reverted isn't productive for anyone involved (noting that this doesn't apply to a majority of your changes that I've seen, in my opinion). —Lethosor (talk) 20:58, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Again: I don't want to have to block you, or anything like that, but this sort of edit is not okay. If you have a disagreement with another editor, take it up with them; don't engage in edit wars, particularly not with edit summaries like that. (Note that I have not been very active as of recently, so I don't feel that I'm familiar enough with the entire situation to do anything yet - maybe that was just one of a handful of problematic edits. This one is definitely okay, for instance. But please try to avoid the sorts of edits that are apparently getting reverted regularly.) —Lethosor (talk) 04:37, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

From AIV, my thoughts on your four edits that were reverted by Loci today:

  • [9]: I think the revert was appropriate - although the original edit wasn't malicious, the section title that you removed was useful for readability, and the section seems to be entirely about wild animals. Perhaps nesting this section under "Breeding" would have been better. The comment about mods also wasn't really necessary - you can mod pretty much anything in DF, and listing all the possibilities everywhere would just clutter things up.
  • [10]: the second "each" is technically necessary, since each marksdwarf and each hunter needs a quiver. Granted, I think it's clear what the sentence means without it, but it shouldn't have been removed. Also, "flimflammery" in the edit summary is not helpful - in general, your edit summaries could stand to be shorter and clearer about what you're actually changing, which might help avoid some annoyances when others look over them.
  • [11] - I think both the previous version and yours were confusing, so I tried to reword it myself. (Basically, you're right that dwarves can't view bodies that fell into magma, but they can view bodies that are in stockpiles, so saying that viewing bodies only applied to bodies left on the ground wasn't right.) A very similar edit that you made had also been reverted, though. I'm suspecting that you just forgot about that, since it was so long ago, but in general, reintroducing changes that have already been reverted could be considered edit warring, which is not something I want to deal with.
  • [12]: the core disagreement seems to be around singular "they" (mentioned in another section on your talk page). In my book, this is a personal preference. Since your changes have led to some disagreements, I'm going to ask you to avoid changing any existing content related to singular "they" (this applies to things that use it and things that don't). This applies to other users too. I think this is the simplest way to avoid behavior that could be considered edit warring.

Lethosor (talk) 02:17, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

And Silverwing235 makes answer:

1: "Perhaps nesting this section under "Breeding" would have been better." Something along those lines was what I was trying to do, and thought I had done, before 'Loci, Vandalfinder Mod' came along with their reverts (Not that I want anyone to take on that role with regards to me in particular, it's rather annoying - please do assume apologies when necessary).

2: "Also, "flimflammery" in the edit summary is not helpful" IOW, refrain from scribbling in the margins, or mental ngathsesh, as the dwarves would have it, yeah, got it. One can only try, anyway.

3 & 4: Not much to say here, other than: thanks for the assist and I wholeheartedly agree with you about the personal preference thing? Silverwing235 (talk) 11:54, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Singular they[edit]

Regarding this edit:

General use of "they" as an ungendered singular pronoun is controversial. If you feel compelled to remove the gendered pronoun, common advice is to reword the sentence to avoid the appearance of pronoun disagreement. In this case:

The better focused a dwarf is, the swifter she finishes all her tasks.

could be rewritten as:

The better focused your dwarves are, the swifter they finish their tasks.
A focused dwarf finishes tasks more swiftly.

It is generally easy to alter the wording, and always better than swapping one acceptable-yet-problematic form for a different acceptable-yet-problematic form that you happen to prefer.--Loci (talk) 00:51, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Just in case people are wondering why....[edit]

...such things as talk pages with topic 'Verification page/verification' and 'ignore this' are popping up, the answer should be obvious if it wasn't already - preparation. That, and that my particular 'style' leads me to not be a fan of unnecessary redlinks - something like Occam's Razor, really. :D --Silverwing235 (talk) 10:57, 5 February 2019 (UTC)


Regarding this edit:

That's not a "sentence fragment"; it's an appositive, a restatement of a noun for clarification.

Regarding this edit:

Adverbs are comma-offset when they apply to the sentence as a whole, not the active verb. Since "usually" is plausibly modifying "are", the added comma is incorrect.

Incidentally, these are good examples why inserting every possible comma is problematic. Commas can change the meaning of a sentence, and that possibility makes it more difficult to parse comma-saturated sentences.--Loci (talk) 22:40, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Egg production editing shenanigans[edit]

I have a deep feeling that guy is right, about the kobolds at least. I shouldn't have removed that much stuff from the original table anyway. Yes, I plan on reverting that, this time also adding giant animals & animal people, max age column, and sorting out the rest in a coherent way, just give me some time. The original edit took me nearly 2 hours. DarklingArcher (talk) 14:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Let's not stress about DF2014:Stress[edit]

Regarding this edit

  • talking with the spouse
  • In my opinion, "the" means here that the person in question is talking with his/her spouse (not just with any spouse), so it may be justified.
  • caught in a freakish weather
  • While I admit this is wrong ("weather" is uncountable), I would keep it the original way as it is consistent with Rule G and doesn't seem that jarring to me.
  • grim satisfaction at somebody's death
  • This appears when you kill people in adventurer mode
  • So it's not about seeing somebody's death, but causing it yourself
  • And the two typos you found were actually mine, feel free to correct these if you find more. I haven't seen Toady make typos yet. --DarklingArcher (talk) 15:00, 31 March 2019 (UTC)


This just so happens to be kind of the direction I was going anyway. Thanks. Silverwing235 (talk) 19:28, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for removing things where people confused entities with creatures. ive been seeing people on the forum confusing the two lately and like it when teh wiki sticks to what Tarn actually calls things

public/private articles[edit]

So, you've enjoyed a continuity around here that I lost, hoping you could give me your spin on what is "policy" in this regard. Came across the article Cacame Awemedinade, and it strikes me as pure vanity, something that belongs under a Username/<article> rather than in the public space. Yes, there is a long forum thread behind it, but that, alone, doesn't seem apt justification - or is it? Or has this one just been grandfathered in, but similar posts are discouraged? Either way. Albedo (talk) 13:59, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

My impression is that it's notable enough (or was at the time it was written), similar to Boatmurdered. I would personally be fine with keeping it, but would discourage creating many similar pages, particularly for newer and less historically-relevant content. (This discussion might also be more suitable for the article's talk page.) —Lethosor (talk) 01:49, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, since it was started here, we may as well finish it - or attempt to do so, at least. I concur with Lethosor's view on this. I also concur on the notion of moving any further similar matters to appropriate talk pages - this being the first time I've had to deal with something outside my pay grade like this (came on around 43.05 and quickly restricted myself to copy editing and "janitorial" work (spelling, grammar, etc)). Silverwing235 (talk) 14:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Works for me, tho' BoatMurdered is, at least for me, on a whole diff level. I placed the discussion here (rather than there) b/c it was more a question re "general policy" and editorial SOP, rather than one applicable solely to that one article. Albedo (talk) 07:09, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Official complaints in AiV - oh dear.[edit]

( is the first time, I must say, that my edits always being marked as minor had specifically been called out (be it known, anyone else with that issue can either be referred here, or check their own user profile settings for the relevant option - when I started here from my similar-named Bay12 account, I didn't intend to continually make public, non-hideable announcements of spelling and grammar corrections or the like.) There has, however, very recently been quite a bit of... overreach, I suppose, in that context. Continually chasing after 'ghost' run-on sentences despite somewhat overly subtly-worded orders to desist, was almost certainly particularly unwise, for which I apologise, and shall henceforth strive to not repeat (not that I'm sure that's what the complainant wants, anyway - AIUI, I'm being painted as some kind of menace to the wiki, quite needlessly IMHO 'the 'style be dammed' comment in one of my edits was actually me getting pretty annoyed with the revert-flavoured individual, as people will do with these things. Irregardless of fault, Lethosor, my sincere apologies for that... edit mini-war, I think?) Silverwing235 (talk) 22:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I see you've beaten me to starting a discussion on this. In this particular case, I do think you identified a run-on that could be improved in [13], but I think your fixes might have changed the meaning of the sentence. I'm still not sure about this particular case myself, honestly. This was close enough to an "edit war" to make me concerned, so I would suggest that you either attempt to find an alternative way of rewording sentences when this happens (as opposed to redoing simple edits that have been reverted) or taking the discussion to the talk page. For example, [14] clears up the original confusion I had about where to split the sentence in this case.
Also, blank edit summaries or summaries like "fix scuff-up" or "scrub nonsense" aren't necessarily clear to other editors without more context. Something like "fixed run-on" or "clarified that the plot involves theft, not the agent" would give editors a better idea of what you were trying to fix, and hopefully make it easier to identify a better compromise if they don't think your edit was correct. —Lethosor (talk) 03:08, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

[emptyspace] [/emptyspace]

....(There was an overly-sharp point made here by another user (honestly enough to be more than usually emotionally distressing - *shrug* part of Silverwing235's experience of high-functioning autism circa pandemic, I suppose.) about phrasing someone as a saboteur and incivility of the context, all of which, contextual shortcoming included, has since been analysed, noted, and - hindsight always being 20/20 - been adjusted for.) (Note to self, must take more care on wiki userpages.) In regards to reasons for certain portions of my user page having been deleted - I simply did not wish to deal with whatever matter or matters was/were the topic of discussion at the time IIRC, and unfortunately lost the way back, as inevitably happens with these things. Silverwing235 (talk) 21:27, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

DFW vandalism definition VS dictionary definition, if different[edit]

...Just to be certain, Lethosor, the context in which 'vandalism' is usually used on this wiki versus in the mostly agree w/each other, right? (thought I'd take a leaf from this wiki's admin book, try and contain the winding-down of my negative press, biased as it appears to be, to somewhere more appropriate than AiV.) I mean, surely edit-wars such as the one I was recently part of, don't constitute vandalism, per se? Silverwing235 (talk) 21:58, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I would consider "Vandalism" a subset of "Disruptive editing", but the page is named "AIV" because most incidents of disruptive editing on this wiki have also been vandalism (I'm not intending to refer to your edits in this case). I would prefer to keep discussion in one place as much as possible, but I could move the AIV discussion to a separate "DF:" page, I suppose. —Lethosor (talk) 01:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)


Please refrain from making edits in this vein (summary: “rewrite bias-esque stuff (bourgeoisie was 200-300y ahead of (non-magical) 1400s tech level, IIRC)”). I will elaborate.

  1. I don't know what you mean by “bias-esque,” but if the use of the word “bourgeoisie” here might serve to express some particular bias that bears discussion, please explain. Personally, I don't see it; absent an explanation, I cannot make sense of your statement.
  2. As for your historical note, first: it's wrong; please see Bourgeoisie - Origins and rise. Second, the correct usage of a word is generally determined by its contemporary sense; the historical origin of a term doesn't generally circumscribe its use except in special contexts where historical senses might conflict with current ones. In the case of “bourgeoisie,” since the article's context is neither the French Revolution nor Marxian sociopolitical/economic theories, there is no potential for such a conflict. (Even if there were, most senses of “bourgeoisie” and “bourgeois” are so closely related that it would make little difference. Also, note that the article is about a computer game in a fantasy setting with specific fictional elements borrowed from the real world without regard for historical relationships between them.)
  3. A side note to the previous point: as feudal structures in Europe faced challenges in the High and Late Middle Ages, a segment of society variously coalesced which both required and impelled the transformation of those structures. Thus, in 1789, when the Assembly declared the abolition of the feudal system in France, it expressed the disposition of an extant class toward an established order.
  4. A further side note: etymologically, the word “bourgeoisie” is a late-feudal way of saying “town-dweller.” In that light, the choice of bourgeoisie seems not only correct, but richly descriptive and illuminating. Whoever chose to write that sentence in the first place might even have been aware of that fact. (All of this is incidental to the point, however.)

It would be helpful if this kind of edit could be avoided, in general. To that end, notice that your summary ended with "IIRC" (regarding hypothetical information as part of your justification). But clearly, a little self-checking would have revealed to you that you didn't recall correctly. After all, why guess, especially when there is nothing actually wrong with the sentence you propose to revise? A significant proportion of your edits seem to fall into this category. Please consider exercising restraint when you feel an urge to make elective edits, especially when they would remove another author's work without resulting in something better. And you should categorically not make such edits without being sure they are, in fact, correct, as you did in this case. οɼѕаk 02:25, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

BODY_SIZE help[edit]

Hi, I seen you play with some advanced features, any chance you know what this translates to?


--Jan (talk) 14:59, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Biome layout[edit]

Personally, I like the up/down orientation I find it easier to read than the alternatives and overall saves space. But if it bothers you here is a quick mockup of the alternatives: #1-current up/down, #2-roatation, #3-big black blobs, #4-something else?, #5-revert to previous. What do you prefer? --Jan (talk) 14:05, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Pretty much # 3 - I can barely read that header text otherwise; and I strongly suspect anyone else who contacted you about it would've had much the same issue. Silverwing235 ) 14:30, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I wonder if this has anything todo with chosen font ( I didn't pick it) maybe something more legible/familiar with higher weight would have been better. Regardless, this is good enough for me, I changed it to #3. Let me know if there are any other issues or just be bold about it ;) --Jan (talk) 14:47, 14 January 2022 (UTC)


Hi silver. I am not sure about this recent addition. On most other articles I would love some editing condensing long list into more human form, however, Token is more of a technical documentation, listing all the different types of tokens and their usage, and despite the similar names [Item token] and [Item definition token] they seem to be different beasts with each deserving an entry. Although full disclosure I have passing familiarity with modding from what I see here on the wiki. --Jan (talk) 17:39, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I admit that one in particular was something of an alternative-formatting editing experiment/gaffe on my part, anyway - its been reverted. Silverwing235 17:51, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Also experiments are good, and the Token and modding pages as whole deserve some attention. Btw if you see one of my experiments miss the mark feel free to just fix/revert it. --Jan (talk) 18:04, 28 January 2022 (UTC)