Since the bloathole in question decided to set it so he cant get PMed and isnt a real mod and therefor doesnt have a help desk I am just gunna put this here.
Dear 9909,
Not sure who made you God's Gift to the wiki but the next time you nuke a page you should have the fortitude to say something to the writer/owner of the page. Or even better how about learning to give a warning to get to standards (whatever the hell those happen to be that a well kept history of the clan is fit for deletion) before acting.
All right. I wouldn't noticed this were it not for a uptick in new registrants and my not checking votan's profile (to PM votan). I'm supposed to be busy with real-life things to the point that I completely cut MTGS activity.
Since the bloathole in question decided to set it so he cant get PMed and isnt a real mod and therefor doesnt have a help desk I am just gunna put this here.
Dear 9909,
Not sure who made you God's Gift to the wiki but the next time you nuke a page you should have the fortitude to say something to the writer/owner of the page. Or even better how about learning to give a warning to get to standards (whatever the hell those happen to be that a well kept history of the clan is fit for deletion) before acting.
Sincerely,
One Pissed Off Clan
First and foremost, look, understandably you are rather miffed, having invested so much time and energy into your current clan's page, and I apologize for any distress or inconvenience that I may have incurred. As such, please accept my sincerest apologies; though, if you should choose not to, that is your prerogative as well.
I believe that votan, my fellow MTGS Wiki system operator, has replied to this well, and I am very blessed and thankful to have votan amongst my peers. (Thanks, votan. I also don't mean to sound condescending if that's how things sound; text is what it is.) If votan has not, or you feel that votan has not, you and I may, say, discuss this, should choose to, via personal message, perhaps with the blessing and under the auspices of the rest of the MTGS Wiki staff and MTGS forums staff.
I shall take your post on board and consider some of the more interesting parts, and I heed the fact that I could have - yes, I certainly could have - notified significant contributors to articles that have since been deleted. For this, I rightly apologize again.
If you should wish for your article to be restored, please contact me or another MTGS Wiki system operator so that we may, if it is that, rectify this issue as soon as feasible. In the interest of the wiki standards and policy, please acknowledge the fact that the article in question, Clan Mono-Black, so I am lead to believe, in its time did not make a case, by the merit of the article itself and the clan, for the article's existence; but, this is really only one issue amongst many. Please don't feel as though I've targeted you individually or you collectively or had or have any intent to anger you.
This was by and large the thing that baited me into reply. Shazbot, I would like to direct your attention to the "User:" preceding the article name, "Magic Mage"; please duly note the page space. The "User:" page space is not the main article page space and is less stringent in its adherence to policies.
If it pleases you, and I hazard that you would or you probably wouldn't have brought it up, would you care to clarify "pages like this"? Or, have you chosen that specific user page for other, perhaps more personal reasons?
Other than that, I do not have a reply or further comment to your question, an interesting one. I hope that you can be kind enough to understand.
If you have anything to contribute - ideas, visions, etc. - you may do so via contacting any active MTGS Wiki staffer or posting in the Wiki subforum that we are so fortunate to have. I shall be taking a step back due to real-life commitments and I have faith that the guys can better handle anything than I could, can, and have (so you won't necessarily have to deal with me or, via my posts, my weight or worth, however much that is).
Yea I don't think Votan is correct on all user pages being gone, I know several are still there .... infact some belonging to members who are not even members anymore.
As a consequence of some back and forth, we have moved to move these to user pages.
In accordance with discussions, we have moved to shift the direction of MTGS Wiki more to matters of or pertaining to Magic: The Gathering as opposed to MTGS topics of interest, trivial or otherwise. Although I cannot completely divulge the entirety of discussions (as I hope you can appreciate and I am certain that you, as someone who has been in a proper post, can understand), privacy was, and remains, a consideration in the retention of pages on the current MTGS Wiki. I hope you can support this current paradigm. (... I've forgotten what I had in mind. It had do with integrity. Pardon me. It's late.)
Then again I never really took the wiki seriously as like the real wikipedia it is rife with inaccuracies.
Rx: Please take with a grain of salt.
If this post is thanked, I'm not sure for what; though, this post was thanked before the edit, so I'm pretty sure things aren't endorsed or have the support or thanks of thankers after this point.
It was decided among the Wiki Sysops that we wanted to distance the Wiki from the actual site (and make more game related and less Sally related), so the decision was made to delete all clan and Personal pages (even my beautiful personal page was cut :crying:).
Sorry if this sounds paternalistic but the fear for your safety, the gray areas of a staff user/article page, and the high upkeep of such a page.
You can create a user page if you want, votan. If we kept the old page, it had too much history and details that were visible to even bots that patrol the Web.
Also, Tordeck, I don't want to sound like an utter arse, please don't throw around the phrase "abuse of power". If you really want it, I can counter - and I don't mean to be argumentative - that 236,672,457* ways from Sunday. I've thought this through and I don't want to sound as though I'm making a threat or some such (and, even if I were to make a threat, wouldn't it only be proper to be able to follow through? :raise:).
By the way, I am thankful for your association with MTGS Wiki to date and your contributions (even they have been hidden from plain view). I also thank you for your apparent interest in the integrity of the wiki and the wiki in general.
*OK. That's a wee bit of hyperbole. More like 20 or so.
Shazbot, I would like to direct your attention to the "User:" preceding the article name, "Magic Mage"; please duly note the page space. The "User:" page space is not the main article page space and is less stringent in its adherence to policies.
If it pleases you, and I hazard that you would or you probably wouldn't have brought it up, would you care to clarify "pages like this"? Or, have you chosen that specific user page for other, perhaps more personal reasons?
Wow, that is a little confusing. Could you (anyone?) please rephrase and simplify this?
Wow, that is a little confusing. Could you (anyone?) please rephrase and simplify this?
What MM is saying is that prior to the sweep, there were two types of user pages.
The pages attached to an account, which were preceded with the denotation "User:" and then pages that were part of the general wiki, similar in nature to every other article.
Many of the pages eliminated were not "User:" pages, but instead just general articles that we, as a collective, felt did not match either the priority or the standard of the wiki. Where possible, MM moved the general article information to the appropriate "User" page, but a lot of the pages had a glut of inappropriate information as well.
Wow, that is a little confusing. Could you (anyone?) please rephrase and simplify this?
What?
The most confusing this is the "name space" stuff but otherwise it's comprehensible to anyone, well, who can read; I mean, you wouldn't expect a newborn to ... well, of course...
Would Tordeck be able to relocate his information onto a user page?
As a token of good faith, I have restored - not his (Tordeck's a he?) information but - the information on his clan. Initially, it was essentially no strings attached; but, as I don't want a repeat of this, I have stipulated that the page must conform to standards of quality.
If this sounds absolutely authoritarian and it's probably controversial or a point of contention that you might want to thrash out, well, so be it; but, you don't own content on the wiki.
What MM is saying is that prior to the sweep, there were two types of user pages.
The pages attached to an account, which were preceded with the denotation "User:" and then pages that were part of the general wiki, similar in nature to every other article.
Many of the pages eliminated were not "User:" pages, but instead just general articles that we, as a collective, felt did not match either the priority or the standard of the wiki. Where possible, MM moved the general article information to the appropriate "User" page, but a lot of the pages had a glut of inappropriate information as well.
Yes. Thank you, Barinellos.
Shazbot (and everyone else), if it's okay with you (and everyone else), I've also taken the liberty up cutting down the number of pages by merging things such as theme decks into one page so that you don't have to click four or five links to view the theme decks of sets. (Because I'm not narrow-minded dolt, I've also considered the trade-offs of this, and that was, say, getting too much information than you wanted and correspondingly using up more of your Internet data plan.) Subtle things really.
I suppose as this is a personal/human interest story or -like, I could have notified everyone. What is is; but, in future, whereabouts would be good for me to inform you - whomever has edited pages, editors, users of MTGS, users of MTGS who otherwise have no interest or association with MTGS Wiki, or whatever - of sweeping changes? My ears are open to suggestions.
The most confusing this is the "name space" stuff but otherwise it's comprehensible to anyone, well, who can read; I mean, you wouldn't expect a newborn to ... well, of course...
Comparing my intelligence to a newborn? I don't see how that is helpful to anyone.
If you must know the truth, I was trying to be polite. Your writing style is needlessly byzantine, soporific and generally weird. But hey, you asked!
As a token of good faith, I have restored - not his (Tordeck's a he?) information but - the information on his clan. Initially, it was essentially no strings attached; but, as I don't want a repeat of this, I have stipulated that the page must conform to standards of quality.
I don't have a horse in this race. I simply noticed that the wiki still had some non-vital information, and wondered what the OP needed to do to make his page work.
Comparing my intelligence to a newborn? I don't see how that is helpful to anyone.
If you must know the truth, I was trying to be polite. Your writing style is needlessly byzantine, soporific and generally weird. But hey, you asked!
No offense 9909, but Shaz is right. I tried reading through your post several times and it was poorly worded and verbose. Maybe you can simplify it for us newborns in the future.
Comparing my intelligence to a newborn? I don't see how that is helpful to anyone.
Mhm.
If you must know the truth, I was trying to be polite. Your writing style is needlessly byzantine, soporific and generally weird. But hey, you asked!
Okay.
I don't have a horse in this race. I simply noticed that the wiki still had some non-vital information, and wondered what the OP needed to do to make his page work.
No offense 9909, but Shaz is right. I tried reading through your post several times and it was poorly worded and verbose. Maybe you can simplify it for us newborns in the future.
Okay, listen, this has been pretty well resolved.
This thread should probably be closed down since I don't think there's much more productive to be said here.
Okay, listen, this has been pretty well resolved.
This thread should probably be closed down since I don't think there's much more productive to be said here.
Dear 9909,
Not sure who made you God's Gift to the wiki but the next time you nuke a page you should have the fortitude to say something to the writer/owner of the page. Or even better how about learning to give a warning to get to standards (whatever the hell those happen to be that a well kept history of the clan is fit for deletion) before acting.
Sincerely,
One Pissed Off Clan
Infraction for Flaming.
-:ER:
The Family
Pages like this are in no danger of being deleted?
All right. I wouldn't noticed this were it not for a uptick in new registrants and my not checking votan's profile (to PM votan). I'm supposed to be busy with real-life things to the point that I completely cut MTGS activity. First and foremost, look, understandably you are rather miffed, having invested so much time and energy into your current clan's page, and I apologize for any distress or inconvenience that I may have incurred. As such, please accept my sincerest apologies; though, if you should choose not to, that is your prerogative as well.
I believe that votan, my fellow MTGS Wiki system operator, has replied to this well, and I am very blessed and thankful to have votan amongst my peers. (Thanks, votan. I also don't mean to sound condescending if that's how things sound; text is what it is.) If votan has not, or you feel that votan has not, you and I may, say, discuss this, should choose to, via personal message, perhaps with the blessing and under the auspices of the rest of the MTGS Wiki staff and MTGS forums staff.
I shall take your post on board and consider some of the more interesting parts, and I heed the fact that I could have - yes, I certainly could have - notified significant contributors to articles that have since been deleted. For this, I rightly apologize again.
If you should wish for your article to be restored, please contact me or another MTGS Wiki system operator so that we may, if it is that, rectify this issue as soon as feasible. In the interest of the wiki standards and policy, please acknowledge the fact that the article in question, Clan Mono-Black, so I am lead to believe, in its time did not make a case, by the merit of the article itself and the clan, for the article's existence; but, this is really only one issue amongst many. Please don't feel as though I've targeted you individually or you collectively or had or have any intent to anger you.
This was by and large the thing that baited me into reply. Shazbot, I would like to direct your attention to the "User:" preceding the article name, "Magic Mage"; please duly note the page space. The "User:" page space is not the main article page space and is less stringent in its adherence to policies.
If it pleases you, and I hazard that you would or you probably wouldn't have brought it up, would you care to clarify "pages like this"? Or, have you chosen that specific user page for other, perhaps more personal reasons?
Other than that, I do not have a reply or further comment to your question, an interesting one. I hope that you can be kind enough to understand.
If you have anything to contribute - ideas, visions, etc. - you may do so via contacting any active MTGS Wiki staffer or posting in the Wiki subforum that we are so fortunate to have. I shall be taking a step back due to real-life commitments and I have faith that the guys can better handle anything than I could, can, and have (so you won't necessarily have to deal with me or, via my posts, my weight or worth, however much that is).
As a consequence of some back and forth, we have moved to move these to user pages.
In accordance with discussions, we have moved to shift the direction of MTGS Wiki more to matters of or pertaining to Magic: The Gathering as opposed to MTGS topics of interest, trivial or otherwise. Although I cannot completely divulge the entirety of discussions (as I hope you can appreciate and I am certain that you, as someone who has been in a proper post, can understand), privacy was, and remains, a consideration in the retention of pages on the current MTGS Wiki. I hope you can support this current paradigm. (... I've forgotten what I had in mind. It had do with integrity. Pardon me. It's late.)
Rx: Please take with a grain of salt.
If this post is thanked, I'm not sure for what; though, this post was thanked before the edit, so I'm pretty sure things aren't endorsed or have the support or thanks of thankers after this point.
Edit:
Sorry if this sounds paternalistic but the fear for your safety, the gray areas of a staff user/article page, and the high upkeep of such a page.
You can create a user page if you want, votan. If we kept the old page, it had too much history and details that were visible to even bots that patrol the Web.
Also, Tordeck, I don't want to sound like an utter arse, please don't throw around the phrase "abuse of power". If you really want it, I can counter - and I don't mean to be argumentative - that 236,672,457* ways from Sunday. I've thought this through and I don't want to sound as though I'm making a threat or some such (and, even if I were to make a threat, wouldn't it only be proper to be able to follow through? :raise:).
By the way, I am thankful for your association with MTGS Wiki to date and your contributions (even they have been hidden from plain view). I also thank you for your apparent interest in the integrity of the wiki and the wiki in general.
*OK. That's a wee bit of hyperbole. More like 20 or so.
Wow, that is a little confusing. Could you (anyone?) please rephrase and simplify this?
What MM is saying is that prior to the sweep, there were two types of user pages.
The pages attached to an account, which were preceded with the denotation "User:" and then pages that were part of the general wiki, similar in nature to every other article.
Many of the pages eliminated were not "User:" pages, but instead just general articles that we, as a collective, felt did not match either the priority or the standard of the wiki. Where possible, MM moved the general article information to the appropriate "User" page, but a lot of the pages had a glut of inappropriate information as well.
Would Tordeck be able to relocate his information onto a user page?
The most confusing this is the "name space" stuff but otherwise it's comprehensible to anyone, well, who can read; I mean, you wouldn't expect a newborn to ... well, of course...
/tangent
As a token of good faith, I have restored - not his (Tordeck's a he?) information but - the information on his clan. Initially, it was essentially no strings attached; but, as I don't want a repeat of this, I have stipulated that the page must conform to standards of quality.
If this sounds absolutely authoritarian and it's probably controversial or a point of contention that you might want to thrash out, well, so be it; but, you don't own content on the wiki.
Yes. Thank you, Barinellos.
Shazbot (and everyone else), if it's okay with you (and everyone else), I've also taken the liberty up cutting down the number of pages by merging things such as theme decks into one page so that you don't have to click four or five links to view the theme decks of sets. (Because I'm not narrow-minded dolt, I've also considered the trade-offs of this, and that was, say, getting too much information than you wanted and correspondingly using up more of your Internet data plan.) Subtle things really.
I suppose as this is a personal/human interest story or -like, I could have notified everyone. What is is; but, in future, whereabouts would be good for me to inform you - whomever has edited pages, editors, users of MTGS, users of MTGS who otherwise have no interest or association with MTGS Wiki, or whatever - of sweeping changes? My ears are open to suggestions.
Cheers. What?
Comparing my intelligence to a newborn? I don't see how that is helpful to anyone.
If you must know the truth, I was trying to be polite. Your writing style is needlessly byzantine, soporific and generally weird. But hey, you asked!
I don't have a horse in this race. I simply noticed that the wiki still had some non-vital information, and wondered what the OP needed to do to make his page work.
No offense 9909, but Shaz is right. I tried reading through your post several times and it was poorly worded and verbose. Maybe you can simplify it for us newborns in the future.
Okay.
I know that I myself am all ears.
Don't misinterpret me or put words in my mouth.
This thread should probably be closed down since I don't think there's much more productive to be said here.
I agree with this sentiment.
Thank you, B and all.
WUBRGPauper Battle BoxWUBRG ... and why I am not a fan of Wayne Reynolds' Illustrations.