User talk:N9103

Comments/Opinions/Rants Welcome Here

"Pointless, unconstructive, and generally humorless. practically vandalism."

In the interests of clarity and cohesion--two values of which I can now assume you praise to at least some degree--it is with regret that I find myself compelled to inform you that your observations, as quoted above, aren't strictly true: The point was to entertain and if I am to take your position seriously I now expect you to strip the Wiki of any similar content. It is not constructive, but neither is a blank page. A homogeneous collection can realistically find no derision of a generality, and "vandalism" is certainly not the word I would select to describe the modifications I made--may I suggest you consider the alternatives?

I anticipate your response on this issue and implore you to consider my stance; that until a better, more informative description is created a little lightheartedness is superior to a lack of anything at all. You are, let us not forget, vandalizing my purely altruistic efforts with your pragmatic attitude and unenlightening blank spaces. ~ Rep

Well, if I can give my advice, not everyting is better than a blank page. I mean, instead of your rather unexplainable sentences, you could have made a little bit of description on the stone (something like "This is a brown stone, found in igenous extrusive layer, it may contain hematite, rock crystal etc etc"). Il will be more constructive than a blank page, and more than your previous modifications, which were effectively useless and practically humorless, altough the intent was nice. Not that this wiki shouldn't have humor (it already has), but it should had least be humoristic and understandable by everyone :) Timst 09:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion has been duly noted, your example scrutinized without any impressions of inadvertent condescension and your position appears clear, so thank you. I suspect, also, from your efforts, you appear to be a prime candidate for what the blank stone pages really require--may I suggest you consider applying your insight to them at some point in the future? It would be somewhat unbecoming for you to now leave them blank. ~ Rep

Timst seems to grasp my position on the matter pretty well, and I'll only add this: I did leave at least one of your additions untouched, because the humor was done in a dwarfy way. Even bad humor, in a dwarven mindset, is acceptable to me.. but yes, I'd prefer no description, to a bad attempt at humor that doesn't even fit the background of the wiki as a whole. I said they were practically vandalism, meaning that while they weren't, the rest of my statements about them applied; The same statements are usually applied to judge what could be considered vandalism. I do appreciate you coming here, rather than starting an edit war, and if I could have put a couple hundred more characters in my undo descriptions, I'd have given more explained reasons, but such is the way it is. Hopefully this won't rub you too badly, and I apologize if any undue grief has been had. --Edward 23:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Problems/mistakes/corrections

Forgive me for the occasional slip up. Just make a note here of where I managed to screw up, so that I may endeavor to learn from my mistakes.