A TWC guide is proceeding in the ranger section. However it is largely based on my input at present. A few comments were made and I adjusted. Any others comments and tweaks I would review and add in or not. When I finally put on onto wiki (or have someone do it, I am not even going to try and go there), I am of the mind people wont be cutting-editing content so much as fixing clerical errors or adding in a different style choice for example. Major opinion differences I would think would be offered as a choice, not replacing one already worked on. I certainly do no expect to have someone edit it off as it does not suit their vision of either a how they like to see a guide or how to run a twc ranger.

Anyways, things to do, Ithizir to kill.

John

Thank you Doug. Well said.

>I have no desire to discuss every topic involved in training a ranger that I don't feel is up to snuff on the wiki as a collective body of information.

So what you're saying is that despite claiming to take contributions from the forum, you would really rather not. Furthermore, this is increasingly not becoming a collective body of information, it is becoming just your thing since you ignore when others have said they will contribute and plowed on with your own edits instead.

As an aside though, I have to ask how repeating information that is already available on gswiki on this article is a better use for this space than actually taking suggestions from the community. I mean, we can look at your initial points in your first post and we can see that basically, this is what you've done, to the exclusion of other things.

>GSWiki is not a professional wiki

Neither is wikipedia. It still has standards.

>has no professional moderators, thus its lack of quality in general.

Actually, a lot of the articles on gswiki (and krakiipedia before it) are very useful and well-written.

>I have no interest in trying to solve such an issue. Instead, I am writing something that can stand alone by bypassing the lack of standards.

No, there are standards. You're just ignoring them.

>You may see me as contributing to the problem I just mentioned, but it's a problem that will never be addressed.

So you think it's totally fine to contribute to something you see as a problem rather than work toward a solution? I don't get it.

>You and your husband/boyfriend/whatever (DAID) seem to be working from the assumption that the wiki is perfection and that there's no reason for me to want to preclude information I deem unsuitable (for whatever reason among many) for one particular article.

I don't believe that either DAID or I suggested that the wiki is perfection. While I do think that the wiki system can be generally good, I also recognize that wikis are inherently works in progress. That is their very nature. I do believe that DAID and I have informed you of proper standards on wikis and asked that you uphold those or allow others to repair the article in such a way that it conforms to those standards: a request which you most adamantly refused.

If you want to write your own guide on being a ranger that is exactly how you like it, you can always move everything you've done onto its own page and proclaim it your guide to being a ranger. While someone else might edit it, this is less likely. If you adamantly do not want anyone editing your own work (which I believe is foolish, even good writers need editors), then you should create your own guide on your own website.

>The article is not a discussion between the author and the reader. It is an authoritative guide. Yes, some information is reproduced, and for good reason.

Ah, sorry, you used the word "directive", not "discussion".

Well, you're not creating a focused directive either. You're distracting from an actual guide on how to play a ranger in particular with a totally unnecessary discussion on statistics in general. This could be done in a single paragraph that includes a few links and you could then proceed to the discussion on statistics placement (where I think you might actually contribute something of value instead of rehashing what has already been said in a more appropriate level of detail elsewhere).

>About the only inappropriate comment I made was calling someone an idiot, which was not directed at you (even though you and others have taken great offense for the person in question).

I did not take offense to you calling someone an idiot. I recognized it as an immature flame that surpasses my small joke at the expense of your barely related statements.

Personally I have tried to offer information and discussion here and let Brian make the actual changes to the guide on the wiki as he sees fit, for the time being. As he was the one that brought forth the idea of collaborating here and we have all come on board I would consider him the current "project lead" and have left him the responsibility of making final decisions on the current iteration of the guide. Quite frankly it seems like we've got too many chiefs and not enough Indians in this project. Someone has to make the final call and right now that someone is Brian. Can we please just continue to offer our input, discuss our views and wait to see what the final draft looks like?

Keith/Brinret/Shiun

Be nice to Wyrom or I will cut you!

Excellent. Thank you both for the support. I hope the effort I put forth will produce something that meets with the contributing rangers' expectations (my own included).

~Brian, Sepher's player

Can I just admit I'm being lazy and ask someone to take the ranged guide and get it setup and editted on the wiki?

Keith/Brinret/Shiun

Be nice to Wyrom or I will cut you!

Glad you don't mind the use of your layout style Whirlin. I have to say I have found your bard guide extremely useful while working on my little bard. It is my inspiration for wanting to help offer something similar for new rangers.

Keith/Brinret/Shiun

Be nice to Wyrom or I will cut you!

>I also think because others have made their opinions clear on this topic, that certain people might start to understand how their actions affect others working in the same space (I made myself enemy #1, so my words rarely make any impact).

Uh, making a suggestion on John's page (which has his name at the top) is definitely different from adding to the page you have decided to claim ownership over. That's why I handled it differently (e.g. instead of just straight editing, I kept his text alone and added my suggestion to the page as well, whereas when I fixed your inconsistent wiki formatting and links, I just edited it and explained why).

Apparently I should have handled it differently in John's case and I'm very sorry to have upset him, but I definitely do not regret making changes on the main page. The only reason I haven't lately is that I've decided my time is better spent contributing to pages where someone hasn't already declared their intent to edit war over changes.

>Apparently I should have handled it differently in John's case and I'm very sorry to have upset him, but I definitely do not regret making changes on the main page. The only reason I haven't lately is that I've decided my time is better spent contributing to pages where someone hasn't already declared their intent to edit war over changes.

Works for me. So long.

~Brian, Sepher's player, happy to be left to work in peace.

"If you can't make someone compromise in any way, make them hate being around you."

>Works for me. So long.

Uh, I'm not going anywhere. I'm definitely going to fix the main ranger page once I'm done working on all of the other contributions I'm making to gswiki (which, by the way anyone is allowed to contribute to because that's how wikis work).

>Sarah, I think you are missing the point here. We want help with formatting, we want help with editing. What we are asking here is let us get our rough draft out.

No. I'm not missing the point. While I definitely overstepped on Aurach's page since he had his name on it and I'm sorry to have upset him. Once again, I only meant to be helpful and I will definitely leave his stuff alone now that I'm aware of the actual informal policy on named pages.

However, the main ranger page is for everyone to help edit (yes, that means you too, can edit it). If you want to write a huge rough draft, that should go in a sandbox. If Brian wants to write his own guide then he can. He does not get to prohibit editing on the main beginner ranger page (even while he's getting because that's not how the wiki system works.

>This isn't a bash to you but a post to try to make you understand where we are coming from. We are all obviously not wiki experts but we are all ranger fanatics. Let us get this rough draft down and we will beg you all to help make it look and flow properly.

Considering that Brian has declared that he will revert all edits to the current page and has steadfastly refused to even listen to the suggestion that much of the information he has put on the page so far does not belong there (because it doesn't), I very much doubt that. Editing the main ranger page to fit within the current gswiki standards will involve removing much of that information he has put there or moving it to other parts of the wiki.

I am taking a few days to work on it privately. Other than formatting or a 'TWC ranger' adding in a different view as a comparison, I really would appreciate it being left alone. I have played this character from birth as a TWC user in gem3, I have seen all the variants and changes that came along to the skills and RT etc. If you do not like the way I write, that is fine. I will do the best I can. I certainly wont be re-writing others 'drafts' before they can have a night to rest and reread it and work on it.

Maybe this is all 'how it is done' in the wiki world. But this is the ranger boards and we are working on ranger guides. So, if you want to add input, on our guides, I certainly hope your actually bring ranger experience to the conversation.

As far as I see you did not like the way my opening DRAFT was written so you rewrote it.

I appreciate your effort in alignment and such, and I had said so to you on the discussion block of the wiki page. It is still appreciated.

John

>Concerning the beginner's guide, you may consider it "Sepher's A beginner's guide to playing a ranger" for editing purposes. End of story.

Unless the name of the page is actually "Sepher's beginner's guide...", it's not yours.

This post should serve as my argument for including modules such as 'Character Creation' and 'Roleplaying and Character Developmen' into the beginner's guide for rangers. It is directed at rangers specifically, but also the population in general, in order to solicit opinions and allow arguments for different methodologies. If the general consensus among rangers contributing to this guide is that some or all aspects of this guide should change, I will be happy to amend the guide appropriately.

Now, there have been many times in the process of writing this guide when I've thought, "Why am I reproducing information that already exists?", and I always come back to the same reasons.

Information Control:

This guide is meant for an audience of new players which is a group I believe should be handled carefully. While other articles within GSWiki contain information I think pertinent to this guide, I find in almost every case that I don't want everything there, or that the article is written poorly, or that it is for too advanced an audience, or lacks information I do want included, etc. Frankly, were I to provide links on various subjects, I'd much rather use the guides on play.net because they are more complete and have gone through the process of quality control. On GSWiki, I cannot reasonably control any of these factors, nor do I think it reasonable to try (every linked-to article cannot be everything I want it to be).

Ease of Access:

Whether on play.net or on GSWiki, information is vastly spread among pages and articles. Take races on GSWiki for example: each race has its own page, stat bonus modifiers are on their own page, racial modifiers have their own page, and stat growth has its own page. On play.net as well, relevant information is spread across a variety of pages. In both, it seem unreasonable to expect a new player to find all this information and judge its worth (though play.net is far better about this than GSWiki). I want to make this guide as one-stop shop as possible. I don't want players to have to figure out how to take information from ten different pages and make it meaningful. Doing so will very likely frustrate them and prevent them from focusing on the task at hand, which is to follow the expertise of the guide and create a ranger for themselves. It's taken me quite a while to find everything I want and I'm a highly experienced player. It would be far worse an experience for new players.

That said, I do honestly understand how things should work on a wiki in general and I can empathize with the feelings of those people who are trying to make it into that ideal (or as close as possible). However, like in real life, the world isn't perfect and doesn't always work the way it should (though I would argue that there is no "perfect" world), so is GSWiki. I am working with the world I am in, and that is all I can do.

Lastly, I think there is something to be said about respecting an author's work. Take the main Character Creation article for example: someone put in a ton of work to create that (I should know). I think the article is fine and don't feel that I should change it because it doesn't suit my requirements. The article wasn't written with my intentions for my guide in mind, and of course I'm not conceited enough to think that it should have been (or is even possible). What I can see as reasonable (in general again now), are making suggestions for organizational benefit, for clarity's sake, and to fix mistakes. People who aren't the author of an article should understand that they may not fully comprehend the full extent of an author's intentions and can easily and unwittingly harm the article. This to me does not seem like an unreasonable practice. A general rule of thumb might be (with exceptions, suck as wiki formatting) to refrain from editing an article that wasn't authored by you, but instead work with the author (if they are available) by suggesting improvements. Disagreeing with an author should not be grounds to do whatever one feels like with the author's hard work.

~Brian, Sepher's player

My TWC article is not and was not for the competition. So please stop messing with it. It is for rangers.

Thank you.

John

If anyone wants an RPA/alter for the contest, let me know. I'll email you text and instructions for including something in the guide so you get credit. I know not everyone who has contributed wants to deal with the wiki, and I'd hate to see the contributors who have offered their time and knowledge receive no reward if they happen to seek such.

~Brian, Sepher's player

<<If anyone wants an RPA/alter for the contest, let me know. I'll email you text and instructions for including something in the guide so you get credit. I know not everyone who has contributed wants to deal with the wiki, and I'd hate to see the contributors who have offered their time and knowledge receive no reward if they happen to seek such.

Definitely do this. Credit given is credit earned.

<<So, I should open up the guide to people with no expertise who want to edit the article solely because they think it should follow pristine wiki standards while ignoring those with expertise who are (Frankly, exactly everyone that's both contributed and made comment on this matter) happy with the current proceedings of things? Especially when those standards are followed almost nowhere else on the wiki?

I will take a look at the actual edits tomorrow (my free time is running out) to see what level of information is being edited, versus stylistic changes that have no real impact on the information at hand. Though, one thing that non-experts can add is the perception of the information from the same POV as an absolute beginner. If someone complains a sub section is rather confusing, then it would likely be confusing to a new player. Use that type of information to clarify and boil down.

One thing I did want to mention, due to the yet unfixed status of our search function, it would be helpful to include links, at least, to pertinent articles elsewhere. A new person hunting for information may assume it doesn't exist if it doesn't pop up on the search, so having something for them to click on would be helpful.

Right, so I took a quick look at the edits being made and see something of a 50/50 split between different opinions and just simply different ways to word the same sentence or subject. I'll admit that I have a preference for edits by both parties and find some edits by both parties to be somewhat unnecessary (everybody wins! Everybody loses?)

I think everyone could do with a bit more communication and coordination. One side may need to acknowledge that while the exact wording of what they want to say may not be included, the other may also ask themselves if an edit is necessary as a matter of being wrong or simply not written in a way that suits their preference. The ultimate goal is simplicity and clarity of understanding, and we shouldn't get hung up whether someone changes the form, but not the meaning, of one's sentence. As a working guideline, before making an edit, ask yourself what the basis for your change is. Is it to make it clearer? Is it to fix an obvious wrong? Just because you may not be a big fan of the form, just count to ten and ask yourself if your intent to edit has to do with clarity or correction, and if it doesn't, just let it go.

Together, I do think everyone active in this work could actually make a superior product to the individual attempts. If making any major changes, use the discussion page to hash it out. For minor edits, unless you're fixing a typo, it's probably fine to let it go for now. Let's get the information out there first and then we can concern ourselves about perfecting the presentation.

As someone has already taken me up on my offer to write me, I again make it. We want people to add information to the wiki and I will work to my best abilities to help everyone achieve the goal who wish to do so.

Thank you again, everyone.


GM Scribes

Scribes,

There has been very little editing done to the actual article by anyone save myself (the contributions have come from this thread, generally).

My concern is that DAID and SARAH3 have expressed desire to remove the entirety of the Character Creation and Roleplaying sections because they feel it is general and not focused on rangers specifically (this is true, but lacking context). If you will read my post here (the one with the parenthetical comment about inclusion justifications), you should come to a better understanding of what I'm arguing for. Your comments so far show that have failed to grasp the situation at hand and have not read the other arguments here with any great detail.

I also think that some leeway should be granted for draft editing on the actual document, as most people here (myself included) have never participated in a wiki in a very impactful way and thus are not aware of particular standards (like editing in a sandbox for example). Experienced users shouldn't fight new users at every step, as this comes across as intolerant and worse, unaccepting. As you will see from other comments made recently in this thread, many have expressed reservations about participating for the very issues being discussed in this thread.

~Brian, Sepher's player

https://gswiki.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/The_Archer_Ranger

The Archer Ranger is available and linked to the main guide. Please feel free to improve upon the flow and style. If you'd like to change the substance I would hope we can discuss it openly.

Keith/Brinret/Shiun

Be nice to Wyrom or I will cut you!

>My concern is that DAID and SARAH3 have expressed desire to remove the entirety of the Character Creation and Roleplaying sections because they feel it is general and not focused on rangers specifically (this is true, but lacking context).

No we haven't. We have explained that the information Statistics subsection of the character creation section needs to be moved elsewhere because nothing you have said in it so far is relevant to rangers specifically and much of it has been repeated elsewhere on gswiki. While I personally believe that the role playing section should be moved lower down on the page (and includes a glaring omission of animal companions and their role in roleplay), I think it's reasonable to have it on the beginner's page and I wasn't planning on doing anything major to that (including moving it to another part of the page).

>I also think that some leeway should be granted for draft editing on the actual document, as most people here (myself included) have never participated in a wiki in a very impactful way and thus are not aware of particular standards (like editing in a sandbox for example).

For starters, my comments about the statistics section occurred after you posted here asking for feedback. Additionally, none of my edits have caused a collision and I have usually waited several hours between your last edit before jumping in and fixing things (which again, were mostly fixes to wiki formatting with a little reorganization and minor text fixes). Drafts are made to be revised and often benefit from another pair of eyes when they are in a relatively complete state (as the subsections are when I've come across them).

Also, I should note that I'm not actually an experienced wiki user. I have edited wikipedia a little bit before and have done some work on the Beacon Hall wiki, but I did not have editorial access to krakiipedia so my contributions were limited to suggesting ideas to DAID or telling him where some typos were. That does not mean I do not understand the idea behind wikis.

To Doug's comment:
>While it is certainly possible to simply change things - changing commas to semicolons, injecting tables, moving sections, linking existing articles and making verb / noun agreements more accurate - it is also unnerving to see that an edit has been made and then not be able to understand why it was done. It leads to exactly what we're seeing here, in my experience.

>On TALK, make the request first explaining why, and magic happens.

This is definitely a good suggestion. I will also note that when I make edits, I will typically explain what I did in the comments area and I only edit one section at a time to help make what I did clearer.

<<My concern is that DAID and SARAH3 have expressed desire to remove the entirety of the Character Creation and Roleplaying sections because they feel it is general and not focused on rangers specifically (this is true, but lacking context). If you will read my post here (the one with the parenthetical comment about inclusion justifications), you should come to a better understanding of what I'm arguing for. Your comments so far show that have failed to grasp the situation at hand and have not read the other arguments here with any great detail.

I suppose my suggestion on retaining info rather than linking to it was too vague to refer to this debate? ;)

<<I also think that some leeway should be granted for draft editing on the actual document, as most people here (myself included) have never participated in a wiki in a very impactful way and thus are not aware of particular standards (like editing in a sandbox for example). Experienced users shouldn't fight new users at every step, as this comes across as intolerant and worse, unaccepting. As you will see from other comments made recently in this thread, many have expressed reservations about participating for the very issues being discussed in this thread.

It's a learning curve and this is not the first time I've seen this clashing of new users to those more familiar with the system, it's been going on at Wikipedia since it's inception. But the key word is learning, both parties I believe are learning from each other. As I noted in my last post, I actually suggested leeway in terms of thinking before one makes an edit, and asking yourself "why" you want to make the edit. If it's more than a syntax or typo error, then to use the talk page and discuss it out. You're doing a great job, Brian, but are you waiting for me to make an affirmative decision on the inclusion of the Character Creation and Roleplaying sections? Otherwise, I do think I have addressed the general issues at hand. But, with that said, do you know yet how to link to specific edits/pages at the time of an edit or right before it? If so, then please email me or post here the links to the version of the page and I will be happy to look at them directly.

I do have a little ranger experience in my past, so it's not an alien world for me to examine. ;)

<<The Archer Ranger is available and linked to the main guide. Please feel free to improve upon the flow and style. If you'd like to change the substance I would hope we can discuss it openly.

This. Totally this. Awesome way to handle it.

<<In my opinion, the advice below should be captured somewhere in an introductory note on editing this wiki, perhaps in or linked from the style guide(??). It offers one possible way to use the capabilities available during a collaborative content creation process, and offers suggestion for working through different points of view.

I think this is a good suggestion and I'll look into it.

GM Scribes