User talk:Snow93/Archive of Old Discussion from June 2-3

Block?
Thank you very much for recognising my hard work with a block, Snow. I work hard to make this wiki usable. I reorganised the structure so that it would be professional and easy to navigate. I redesigned the Frontpage and regularly update it each wendsday. And what do I get in return? Quote: "blocked "User:MikaelGrizzly" with an expiry time of 2 hours anononly,nocreate: Edit wars, reorganising the wiki without discussion.". Which is ironic, considering that you said "We have decided (or I have decided) on one name, with (place name)".

I try to make this look professional. You stated that this is an in-character wiki. As such, I strive to make it an organised, elegant resource for knowlodge that mostly maintains a formal tone. This includes decapitalising article names where it's unneeded (Wikipedia doesn't do it, why should it's Tiberian Universe equivalent do it?), reorganising categories etc. What do I get in return? A block.

Thank you very, very much. You sure know how to kill someone's enthusiasm and interest. -- Mikael Grizzly


 * Well, you weren't an admin, so it would be a good idea to check with some people before you change the Main Page. Also, it wasn't anything personal, I just needed time to reorganise a few things. I had a choice, of 2 hours, 1 day, 2 days, several weeks, several months, several years, and forever, to block you, so... errm, well, I mean, just look at other new users, they edit articles, but they don't blank them and rewrite them. I've been talking to Dthaiger, and is is annoyed that you replaced the TWII article with a new article. So yes, you have lots of enthusiasm, which is great, but that doesn't mean you're in charge. What it does mean is that you'll be in charge eventually (or at least an admin), I mean I'm not stupid, I do make rea;lly hard working people admins. I gave you rollback rights, as a step towards increasing your powers further. Things like the category system, also, it is not a good idea to go through pages one by one changing the categories, there are bots to do that sort of thing.


 * Finally, "professional" doesn't mean "new". On the other hand "enthusiasm-without-being-highly-destructive" does mean "potential adminship".


 * If you really want to talk about this, then send me your MSN or google talk. --Snow93(talk)(contrib) 19:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Oo, and by the way, the policy here is over-capitalisation, sorry if I didn't make it clear.


 * 2 hours isn't that much.


 * And "We have decided (or I have decided) on one name, with (place name)", I see your point, but a) that was obvious policy, and I was just implementing that particular part of it, and b) loads of that comment got cut off by the character limitation.


 * My MSN is the same as my mail address here. As for the rest of the points... the block was a stab. It was kind of like getting stabbed in the back by your coworker. As for the other stuff... the Second Tiberium War article, with all respects to Dthaiger, was really bad. He attempted to forcefully put together the two campaigns, leading to very, very strange occurences - the same Scrin battleship crashing two times in a row (nevermind it was grounded permanently the first time it crashed) or Slavik captured despite there being no mention of it in the GDI campaign (with the Montauk never recovered, despite the fact it was used later by Slavik and Oxanna until the end of the Nod campaign). I took the liberty to edit, and recut it into a logical overview of the Second Tiberium War's storyline.


 * Also, I don't know how to make bots, so I do the work by hand. This is also something that was hurtful - I revised the categories month, two ago and nobody protested it. Then, you came and reverted my changes, despite there being a general consensus that they're good, since nobody else protested it.


 * Also, since when am I highly destructive? If I was destructive, the EVA Database would be smaller and I wouldn't care less about the frontpage. I am pretty skilled at making stuf look pretty on Wikis and, well, I think you cn't say that the frontpage is crap. As for removals... I remove things that are baseless assumptions - for instance, the Tactics sections are more or less baseless, as they base on in-game performance, which, as we all know, isn't indicative of their TU performance (remember how drastically different Mammoth Mk. II's performance was in the FMVs and in-game?).


 * There's also the issue of professionalism. You say that this isn't synonymous with "new". I agree. BUT! It includes redesigning and rewriting in order to achieve a high quality article and wiki. That's what I aim for.


 * As for the "isn't that much"... I don't care about the length. I care about the fact that it was done. >:3 19:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, I see your point, it's just something needed to be done (the cabal of cncwiki was discussing it), and 2 hours while I sorted things out as best as possible was the smallest block time I could find to make my point. I think there needs to be a serious discussion about whether "professionalism" means articles being a short to medium length, or being more detailed, probably depending on the subject matter. --Snow93(talk)(contrib) 20:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * WHY! Why did you ruin the frontpage? >:3 20:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * See the edit summary; I kept all your content except the opinions which I moved to the tiberian main page. Anyhow, it has more content and is easy to follow (imho). Anyway, it is unprotected . But anyway, don't go ahead and nuke it, discuss it. We could possibly protect the main page, but leave the templates editable like wikipedia etc.


 * any suggestions? --Snow93(talk)(contrib) 20:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's cluttered. Hard on the eyes. Unclear. You have to scroll to get to content. I'll redo my version and post it. Also, why keep featured articles for three separate universes? RA2 has barely anything to feature. >:3 20:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You know, I'm not interested anymore. Thanks for screwing up everything I worked hard on. The clean, elegant frontpage costed me two days of work. Thanks for destroying my work. I wanted it to look properly. Now, it's unclear and ugly. >:3 21:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Frontpage
If you are interested in having a frontpage that isn't ugly, consider my version: User:MikaelGrizzly/Frontpage. Tell me, why the hell did you revert my changes instead of editing it? NOBODY complained. Only you. >:3 21:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * sorry. I don't want a conflict, I just don't want everything to happen at once. There are more users than just us two. Look, put up your style on a test page like User:MikaelGrizzly/Frontpage, and I'll have a look at it. Better yet, use it for the RA2 main page, seeing as that's what you're steward of.

All that ^ I wrote before seeing your new post, btw (funny that, maybe our minds work the same way).

Also, saying this in a non-aggressive way, consider before complaining about reverting and such. Look, I hate exercising authority, and I've got to go for about half an hour now (it's 10:15pm where I live).

No-one complained because no-one currently on the wiki is a new user, and if the new user doesn't get the information on the front page, they can't complain because they don't know it's there to complain about.

Look, I'll cool down by going for half an hour. and look at your front page then. Perhaps you could put it on the RA2 page. --Snow93(talk)(contrib) 21:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Forget it. I don't care anymore. With a few hasty decisions you just destroyed ALL my enthusiasm for the series and the project. I hope you will have fun contributing here. I won't keep the wiki alive anymore.
 * I patiently contributed every week to the main page. Patiently edited. Patiently did the goddamn templates for use. Kept the integrity and rewrote. I don't want to anymore.
 * As for the comparison, I edited it for clarity. Your version had everything jammed together into a heap of hard to read boxes. Mine was an attempt to sort it out, give integrity to the frontpage so that it'd fit on a single screen without having to scroll anywhere. Apparently, accessibility and ease of use aren't what you want here. Have fun on YOUR wiki. >:3 21:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Good point about fitting on one screen. Maybe we could merge the two designs, so that useful information does occur in a nice screenful, with less important stuff further down. I'm not sure about the coloured boxes, but then I'm not sure about just having no neat dividing lines, what do you think? --Snow93(talk)(contrib) 21:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As I said, I don't care. My version was done with ordering and accessibility explicitly in mind. You reverted it. So fend for yourself. I wanted to help, my help was rejected. MikaelGrizzly 21:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

To be absolutely honest, your design did not look like a final solution to me, mainly due to the lack of colour. I kept your featured articles, and additions to the info to new users because it was a better solution. Sorry if it looked like I was rejecting anything out of hand. Perhaps we should work together on this. --Snow93(talk)(contrib) 22:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The frontpage does NOT need colours. Look at the logo. Does it have colours? No. The frontpage was made to fit the logo. Colors make it look amateurish and unprofessional currently. Also, you removed the formatting I did to keep it intact, readable and useful, dividing it needlessly into various boxes that clutter up the screen especially since the width is limited, due to the ads and toolboxes.
 * As for working together... I already said no. You see, I kept the Wiki alive and kicking. I worked on it, fixed the broken "Help" link when making a new article, revamped existing templates, redesigned the frontpage so that it is coherent with the aesthetic of the logo, regularly updated the featured article and quotes slots, rewrote articles so that they are useful and informative, kept trolls at bay... then you come in, proclaim my version of the frontpage crap by reverting it and temporarily block me. Sorry, but I cannot work on anything knowing that my work will be useless and instead of getting any recognition, I will get a temp-block.
 * So no, fend for yourself. I already did more than enough for this Wiki and now regret it. MikaelGrizzly 22:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, okay sorry about the block, I misunderstood the situation, and to the best of my knowledge, I did not try to imply that your main page design was bad. The page had changed around lot over the past few months, and I had some free time, and decided to put some new material into it, while retaining the original material. Sorry if that offended you. Can we just put this behind us? It's just a bit of formatting, and a tiny block to do with a now-finished edit war. When you're a sysop you can do the same too! Now I've even put you on the Command and Conquer Wiki:Administrators page under something or other. I certainly don't regret most of what you've done for this wiki. --Snow93(talk)(contrib) 22:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * All you had to do was ask to revise it or redo. I'm a sysop at another wiki, the Gothic Almanach, and I know how to format and make articles look good (which I did). I'm willing to reconsider continuing work on the project, IF you try to be a little less heavy handed when it comes to administrating and I get those damn deletion rights (there's a truckload of obsolete entries on the Wiki). MikaelGrizzly 23:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've now read through this discussion. First of all I'd like you to know that I just registered in order to comment on this explicitly without being anonymous. I'm not someone who comes by everyday, either, but I like to drop by now and then. Second, I know Mikael, but I'll try to be neutral on this. :) Honestly, I think neither of the two versions of this Wiki's frontpage is perfect, but Mikael's version was - at least in my opinion - a step towards a better way of introducing the reader to the Wiki. The main problem I have with the current frontpage is its size. You just have to scroll around for an extended period of time in order to find what you're looking for (that's if you don't use the search function). Sure, you get lots of information that way, but if I'd like a quick overview of the contents I'd prefer something like MikaelGrizzly did. No, it's not perfect (I'd like to see more separators, for example, visible or not). You just are not ready for all the information squares on the current frontpage (especially not if they're shaded with this eye-repellent green colour). What I'd like to suggest is the following: think about what you really want the users to see when they first open the page. Maybe draw it on paper, only a rough draft, if you need more than one page - rethink, it probably contains too much information. And please - change the green to a decent blue (similar to the one in the logo, perhaps) if you're going to keep colours on the page ;) As for the procedure here, I think you could've discussed this before thoroughly. I've yet to see any dispute about the page that took place beforehand and that really should've been the case. Please, if I've overseen anything please inform me, I'm just another noob at English language. - Jasiri 23:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I think the green is a relic from the old logo, and yes, we'll do stuff about it.
 * Mikael, could we talk on MSN, it's just there's a few things I'd like to say that I can't really put here (not expletives). --Snow93(talk)(contrib) 23:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * mikaelgrizzly/gmail.com is my MSN. MikaelGrizzly 23:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)