User talk:Ralnon

Hi there, Ralnon!
Welcome to our Diablo Wiki, and thank you for your contribution on User:Ralnon! There's a lot to do around here, so I hope you'll stay with us and make many more improvements. I am happy you decided to create an account to make yourself part of the community. Please, take the time and introduce yourself.


 * Recent changes is a great first stop, because you can see what other people are editing right this minute, and where you can help.


 * Questions? You can ask at the community portal talk page, on the "discussion" page associated with each article, or post a message on User talk:Danrr!


 * Need help? The Community Portal has an outline of the site, and pages to help you learn how to edit. And take a gander at the Manual of Style for an overview of the type of writing style required in our pages.


 * And last but not the least, please use the Forums for any kind of discussion regarding the inner workings of this wiki and get an idea of what to do next. It is always a good idea to use the Shoutbox widget to let others know that you're online or even just to say Hi.

I'm really happy to have you here, and look forward to contributing with you!


 * -- Danrr (Talk) 10:46, 27 August 2010

Article Talk
I've removed your additions to Talk:Diablo III and Talk:Angiris Council due to several reasons:
 * 1) You duplicated the same message on two different talk pages.
 * 2) The theories, while possible, are completely unsubstantiated with no grounds and should not be included in this wiki.
 * 3) This also means if it doesn't belong in the article, it has no use in the talk page either.
 * 4) And talk pages are not meant to be used as a forum for creating discussions over the hypothetical.

There are forums here you can use, or you may create a blog concerning this topic. ◄► Tephra ◄► 09:34, November 14, 2011 (UTC)


 * While the complaint did state spoilers, you'll note I did not include that in the reasons I removed your messages. Like I said, if you wish to discuss this topic, I'd suggest starting a blog about it. ◄► Tephra ◄► 22:11, November 14, 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't able to comment, but what you read was some random user's sensationalistic speculation about Diablo III's storyline in the D3 forums, not some official leak from a reliable source. I'll leave my comment here, though, because I've only got one word for it:

Unsubstantiated. Breywood 13:44, November 15, 2011 (UTC)

I think he didn't know that the commenting was disabled. The little box is sometimes unticked automatically (its above the edit summary section).

Fair enough. I'm going to modify it to be a little less harsh. My apologies for dissing you, Ralnon. Breywood 20:21, November 15, 2011 (UTC)

Light
I've got no problem with the Light suffix page being moved, but don't you think an article on the High Heavens' Light would be more appropriately titled " The Light"? ◄► Tephra ◄► 10:07, January 18, 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, it's just that adding "the" to any article title is kind of awkward and almost redundant, most of the time. And besides, there are multiple quotes with characters using simply "Light" instead of "the Light", especially, I think, in the first game, such as Griswold. Besides, if you look at it that way, I guess you could also change pages to "the Prime Evils" or "the Sin War", but I think such changes would be unnecessary. Besides, if users link to "Light" in the future, they would have to be led to some kind of Redirect page anyway if this were so. I myself gave this matter considerable thought before editing to the page as I did, but, really, thanks a lot for your own input. It's always appreciated, Tephra. Ralnon (talk) 01:50, January 19, 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism
Taken care of. Yes, you came to the right person. ◄► Tephra ◄► 03:24, May 13, 2012 (UTC)

Admin
I know you have been around editing for a while now, and I hope you continue to help out as well, unfortunately I am not going to promote you at this time. I have chosen two other new admins for now. Perhaps if you remain dedicated to the wiki and make quality contributions, your time will come at some point in the future. ◄► Tephra ◄► 22:46, May 21, 2012 (UTC)

◄► Tephra ◄► 14:25, May 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * You have done nothing wrong, it's just I was looking for only one or two new admins. Hawki asked first, and though I had my doubts, he demonstrated he could perform. And I already had Breywood in mind before I even posted that blog. If either of them doesn't live up to my expectations, you may be reconsidered.

◄► Tephra ◄► 21:24, May 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I see the connection between your problem and being an admin. I understand your problem, I know that losing your hard work can be disheartening, the part I don't understand is how becoming an admin is the solution. Are you saying you want to be an admin because you'd rather patrol for vandals than contribute content? Or that you want to protect pages you've created? Neither of those would be good reasons...
 * On the Angiris Council, I assume you were upset by the large amount of content Hawki removed from the page in an attempt to streamline the article, I'd suggest you discuss it with him. Perhaps the two of you can work together make that article better. Editing need not be a solo effort, but can be a collaborative project as well. You could also voice your opinions in the talk pages of articles if you object to the changes being made.

◄► Tephra ◄► 21:56, May 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * Like I said, discuss your objections. And I want to make one thing perfectly clear, the administrators here, including myself, do not have the right to do whatever we want to the artcles just because we are admins (in fact, if you see any of the admins abusing their power, saying they can overrule you because they are admins, tell me and I will strip it away from them). As you know I've said before, the wiki belongs to and is built by the community. Your opinions are just as valid as anyone else's. If you think the Angiris Council article has been razed and ransacked, then discuss it with Hawki and find a consensus. I do not think you should stop editing, indeed, it would benefit both the wiki and yourself if you take this opportunity to make your future contributions even better.

Re: Congratulations
Thanks for the congrats. But as that wasn't the main point of your talk...

Looking at your contributions, I can see that we're both pretty much 'lore guys.' Using the examples you mention&mdash;while the articles got out info, I'll be frank, I found said info to be all over the place or at times lacking. With Tyrael, the writing style often broke in-universe format and there was no easy way to incorporate the missing info as it currently stood, such as from Wrath, Demonsbane and Book of Cain. Kept all the images in the article as well. As for the Angiris Council page, while I accept that this was a more subjective rewrite, not only did it still have old speculation that Inarius was a member of the Angiris Council, but had too much info on the individual angels themselves when they've already got their own pages.

Now with all this being said, I don't delete information for the sake of it&mdash;if you want an example, there's the recent edit I did to the Baal page. Had to include everything pre-Dark Exile, and had to do a rewrite of that section itself because of the new lore in Book of Cain. Left the rest as it is because referencing aside, it conveys the facts it needs to convey. Feel it could use expansion at least, but for now, it conveys what it has to.

In regards to future edits-keep in mind that most of the time I'm running damage control, and that in proper wiki time when I set aside time to do big jobs, I also have to factor in StarCraft Wiki work. Looking at the other Angiris member pages, the info wouldn't be deleted so much, but I certainly would re-organize it. Using Itherael as an example, it broadly goes blurb/personality/epigraph/Sin War/quote/Wrath. While styles vary per wiki, the ideal form would be epigraph/blurb/Wrath/Sin War/(DIII events)/personality, with the quote either cut out or streamlined because it's not really a quote at all, simply a block of text with Itherael getting a few lines. I'd personally convert it to epigraph format namely him casting his actual vote for the Sin War section. The information itself is valid, but could definately be presented better. And there's the fact that it's unreferenced.

I understand how you might feel to see certain pages rewritten. I've felt it before. Heck, I even had a falling out with an admin on the SC wiki because of the new series timeline Blizzard had divised. Long story short, I'd done a bunch of work working out the series's original timeline and while much of said work was validated, other parts were rendered null by Blizzard's new dates. End result was an overhaul of timeline info and a new system of timeline referencing, with much of my old work having to be overhauled. Disapointing? Yes. But I don't begrudge the events, as they were necessary. No person's work is sacred. Everything we write is in the knowledge it will have to be edited and I don't have an issue with that myself. Sorry if this sounds high and mighty, but it's certainly something I've taken to heart in wiki editing. I don't want you to feel I disrespect your work, but I still feel the articles could be improved on, if only in regards to formatting and the insertion of new information.--Hawki 23:12, May 22, 2012 (UTC)

Edit: Another example to give would be the Anu page. Simply put, it stands on its own, giving the info it needs. On the other, it doesn't do it well. It makes the God connection at the start (something usually reserved for trivia) then pastes the text word for word. I hesitate to call this lazy, in that you obviously spent a lot of time on it, but ignoring the legal issues of copying verbatim, it doesn't read succintly. There's an overabundance of flower speech that while great for a published work, is not good for a wiki which is meant to be fact, not story based. To add to the issue, by being copy-paste, it doesn't allow for insertion of new information easily. Granted, that info hasn't been made avaliable yet, but it's the same concept as the class pages, where it's simply copy-paste from the Internet. Gives the basics, but makes it impossible to source the other in-universe info. And for some classes, especially for the demon hunter and wizard (protagonists of their site short stories), there's a lot. I wouldn't relish making such an edit, but at some point, the article would have to be rewritten in my mind.--Hawki 23:24, May 22, 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing it up. I'll look things over and see what I can make of it, because the editing has been quite ferocious lately. Tephra is correct, however, don't give up. Most importantly, don't take it too personally, perhaps you can still edit back in some of the details that are important not to leave out, even if someone makes some major changes. Breywood 20:40, May 23, 2012 (UTC)

This is a quick response, so I'll try and keep it in point format. I appreciate your concerns, but so far they've only been directed towards the Tyrael and Angiris page. Pages that you have emotional investment in as opposed to other major edits that I've done, and it seems your main concern is loss of information. So in point form:


 * I did get Tephra's approval for the edits in theory. Griswold was a test edit-I didn't remove the quotes, but I did rewrite it to seperate biography from gameplay. Another example would be Tristram. At the least, I was given a mandate for synthesis-type format.


 * I don't assert my authority over you. Personally, you seem to be better suited to be an admin by virtue of having more edits. I volunteered because Tephra asked, but I accept that I'm in the dark of some Diablo aspects (mainly gameplay).


 * Writing style: I'm making this entry because there's a difference between writing style and edits. Probably stating the obvious, but every edit everyone makes will be overturned at some point. I accept that everything I've written will be added to/altered over time. So in that spirit, you're free to make what edits you want to the Tyrael and Angiris page. As long as that information is accurate, concise, and to the point. There's no objective writing style. I'm not forbidding you from making edits to those pages. Looking at the edits, the Angiris edit was probably more controversial and by all means, add info as you deem necessary, but keep it relevant and non-speculative (e.g. Inarius has no place on the page because as far as I'm aware, there was never anything but fan speculation that he was a member of the Council). The Tyrael page...personally, I don't see this as much of an issue because it was already conforming in theory to the character/gameplay divide. Just it was missing a lot of information and there was a fair ammount of speculation, all of it unsourced. Again, add what info you want as long as it's relevant.


 * Editing Time: Something else to consider is how much time I have to edit. Suffice to say, it's not much, and when I do set aside 'wiki time,' it won't necessarily be spent here. So perform what edits you want in that time.


 * Solutions: So far, you've raised your concerns, but haven't really proposed solutions. If you want to keep discussing this, I'd like to hear your ideas. For the sake of argument, suppose you were looking at the Tyrael and Angiris pages for the first time. How would you, as an editor, suggest they be altered/expanded on?--Hawki 23:55, May 23, 2012 (UTC)

yo, ralnon. Listen, i don't edit on this wiki, but i do come to diablo wiki often to, you know, look up stuff. and plz, yeah, things have been changing around here alot, but seriously, what's wrong with u? why do you keep arguing with hawki all the time? You told Tephra that ur going to quit the wiki, so why not quit? do i think hawki's a better editor than you are, myself? well, I'll put it this way, bluntly: does it matter?

since u claim to know so much about lore, I'll say this -- Justice in real life is not the same as in a blizzard pc game; its time u accept that and move ON. suck it up and stop this. one final tip...even you'll admit, i think that hawki's right about something. real gamers don't kill magic demons; they hunt zergs.;) if u know what i mean. delete this if u want, but this is my first, last and only message. heh, have fun here.

oh, and p.s. u do play WOW, do u? heh...

talk about outdated//...ur dalaran icon's cute, but the game's dying, every1 says so...

◄► Tephra ◄► 17:24, May 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * Well that's certainly helpful... Just because there is a conflict of interest doesn't mean one person should leave and he asked if I thought he should quit editing, he didn't say he was going to. In my response, I advised him not to.

I looked over Hawki's edits. On the Angiris Council, he does hack off a lot, but I wouldn't take that personally because it happens to be the minor details, of which you included quite a lot. And just because he changes it, even a lot, doesn't mean that you should stop editing nor does it mean that you did it wrong. At the least edits like yours draw attention to the article and gets someone to do something with it. Breywood 02:29, May 25, 2012 (UTC)

I repeat -- NO ONE is stopping u from leaving, Ralnon, and even though Tephra's a polite guy, well, like, come on, the two of you are smart people, you both know what's best. so i dont know whats the problem here. i mean, wtf do u want me 2 say, yo? And, yes, hawkster IS going to have an easier time editing without it, he's an admin and maybe a bureacrat or whatever u call it; he is, it's a fact, that u have to admit, like it or not. look, i knew i said was my only message, so srry, but you decided to message me back, so, like, deal with it.

(Oh, and before i forget, WOW - yeah, it was good, i guess, thwe 1st two, outland quests were decent...and even cataclysm wasnt that bad. i mean, can u believe that pandaria crap is going to come out? And ppl hated cataclysm like THAT instead. now, i dont want to rlly involve myself here, cuz some of us DO think that all 3 of the diablo games were the worst things ever invented. starcraft IS awesome -- like, some ppl moan about WOL, but like, wtf? now this diablo...why theres a wiki at all for this stuff, cant be too sure. mean, my rents were kind of like, commies, and they dont like this fiction thing in first place, my country bans so much, but WOW IS popular actually...but starcraft's hot in south korea, oddly enough, and not so much there, like...i mean, rlly? some ppl dont even know about it, how messed up is THAT? maybe taiwanese ppl play, who knows with them, going there in the summer, maybe I'll get the chance to ask.)

kk, kk, back on topic, srry, I get sidetracked when agitated(sometimes). Ral...u asked me a ton of stuff, and like, no offense, but wth do you want me to say? Ur writing style...it's interesting, I'll give u that. and i have to admit, it does seem to be, what's the word...definitely more formal, maybe possibly more eloquent. you might know how to give people what they want, i guess, most of your edits are indeed decent - but you might know less on how to give the wiki what it needs. I'm not saying hawkster's a perfect editor, and superior's probably a little bit of a stretch, but have u seen his starcraft articles? ^_^ Tephra must have. I'm NOT trying u take sides with u OR him...i'm just saying the truth as i see it, s'all. Over a pretty short time, u seem to have done quite a bit, they're right about that. But you change much...and u change too little - you dont understand that sometimes we have to rewrite things completely, even if we must wipe out a hundred edits, you just try to keep as much as you can, you're way too careful and precise on the little things. You think the world cares whether you try to offend others or not; it's every man for himself out there. like, come on, random IPs added a lot of the first edits to that Angiris page u were talking about, they weren't even registered...

You've done a lot here, Ralnon...and no one will forget that. But maybe if u cant solve this like we've strongly asked you to, maybe it's just best that you leave. You've stopped editing, u said, so whats the point of staying? Go to wowpedia or something if u still want to write. Real gamers play real games - and real men fight real battles. If u cant win a battle, I mean, at least go down fighting...if you know what I mean. Of course, that wont mean much in this case, but still. maybe you really just dont belong here, if the wiki's decided they need him more than you. that's all I'm saying. think on that.

P.S. oh, and the thing about Justice in real life and diablo? I'll let u figure that out, ur a smart person, you'll get it...eventually. oh, and just curious, are you by any chance possibly japanese?

Reply
Hi there Ranlon! Um... thanks for the praise, but I'm not so much "improving" as regaining the pace that I lost months ago. (after I moved away from my main wiki, I started being a community developer rather than a full-time editor) I've really enjoyed editing again, and the wiki has (once again) moved up in terms of my priorities now.

Anyway, about my nomination: I was not actually looking for Administrator in that way; I just want to help out in any way I can (Rollback would be fine too), and only "sold myself" because it seems that the wiki's ettiquete demands so.

Leaving is never a good option for an honest, well-meaning contributor. Right now, nobody is at fault. It's simply a difference in opinion and editing style. You have every right to have your content displayed on the page, especially what you've worked so hard to create. Zerg's really just adding oil to the fire, so you should just ignore him for now. I feel that your middle ground strategy was very good, but unfortunately doesn't work for this particular event. What I propose is a rework of a Manual of Style, one that is agreed to by the majority of the community at this point in time (I believe that the MoS can be changed more than once).

In conclusion, I'm happy to assist anyone, be it anon, editor or administrator. With this said, I'd like to recommend that you take a step back, relax a bit, and remember to have fun editing! Wikia's all about respect and fun, regardless of how professional the wiki may seem. Oh, and try to not react to Zerg: he's trying to get reactions from you, if I read his messages correctly. Anyway, I hope this helped, sorry for writing a lot (I always get carried away on talk pages).


 * Indeed...I will admit that Hawki has made points worthy of consideration...and as for the wiki's etiquette, I have little doubt that it does indeed demand such. Thank you, Demise, for your advice, and I promise you, I will do all I can to resolve this. Ralnon (talk) 01:44, May 26, 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the flaming you got. Anyway, I've started something on Tephra's page (probably better suited to a forum) to raise some issues that you might want to weigh in on.--Hawki 03:35, May 26, 2012 (UTC)