User talk:Asl970

Welcome
Welcome to Bleach Wiki! Thanks for your edit, and thanks for joining our community! There's a lot to do around here, so I hope you'll stay with us and make many more improvements.


 * Recent changes is a great first stop, because you can see what pages other people have been editing, and where you can help.


 * Questions? You can ask on the "discussion" page associated with each article, or post a message on my talk page!


 * Need help? You can find it right here! You can also find a full list of help pages here.


 * Don't know what to do? The Community Portal has an outline of the site, and has links to pages to get you started! Also check out THIS BLOG for helpful information to help you understand the wiki and where you can start if you are interested in contributing here.


 * Here are some more pages you might find useful:


 * Policy - follow this to ensure harmony on the wiki
 * Manual of Style - a guide to how articles here are organized and written
 * Spoiler Policy - follow this to not ruin upcoming stories for those yet to read or watch the new chapter or episode


 * Sign your name in discussions by typing ~ , which automatically adds your signature and the date, so we know who's talking!

Please leave a message on my talk page if I can help with anything! Yyp (talk) 13:28, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Editing Here
Hi again, I just wanted to message you about your JS script for Bleach Wiki.
 * "Do not to edit bleach wikia at risk of revert/block due to ridiculously strict policy"

Any person has a risk of being blocked on any Wiki. All users here who edit obey the rules. And all rules vary from Wiki to Wiki due to each community being different from each other. We, the team of Bleach Wiki, are adults and thus, do not engage in types of, for lack of a better word, immature attitudes that follow other Wiki communities around where repeat trolls get little slaps on the wrist and an hour ban or day ban where they are free to return and do the same thing.

In our experience, people who disrupt Wikis, do so so that they can see a reaction from Admins and other members of the community as they thrive on reactions. There are also people who disrupt the Wiki because they refuse to accept they may be wrong and engage in "Edit Wars" where they repeatedly revert edits with another user or a member of the team meaning productive contributions suffer as attention is one one tiny little edit that can wait and be discussed. Thus we created rules for everyone to follow, and simple warning templates to ensure everyone is on the same page. We do not expect anyone to follow rules that we don't follow ourselves. If I make a mistake, like you did, I am happy for someone to revert the edit as I am human and mistakes happen. If I don't see the mistake I will discuss it with the team member who reverted, here or on Skype or where ever I am conversing with them.

Every edit has a risk of Revert on any Wiki as mistakes do happen but knowingly violating the rules regardless of helpful warnings on the matter well yes that will be treated accordingly and could result in a block per every user. Every Wiki has its rules and every wiki has its risks and it is incredibly fine if they aren't for you and if this Wiki is not for you, that's fie as well but the rules work for us and as a result we don't have many disruptions anymore and that's how we like it. Good luck with your future endeavours. Kind regards.

____

Every Wikia does have it's own rules but none of them that I know are as unwelcoming as this wiki.

Every edit doesn't magically appear, people have to put in effort into searching, looking up pages and typing it out, when something doesn't met the policy, reverting should be the last thing the mods should have done if it can simply be edited to met the policy, especially when it adds value (fixes problems).

A revert without reason is like saying you don't care that the person actually putted in effort in good faith on good will an wanting to help keep the wikia up to date.

It's no better than a slap in the face.

Quote from Community Centerl: "So, when you can reasonably assume that something is a mistake, correct it without just reverting it"

____

There are over a dozen different policy page for user and that's too much for my liking, not to mention most of them doesn't seem to assume good faith and it seem mods are too revert happy as some has stated on http://bleach.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:116495 (and rarely provide reason on the revert itself ie, in the summary)

I originally written a long post yesterday but decided not to post since it would mostly just be me rattling.

An warning on the first revert? That's mighty unwelcoming.

Wouldn't be surprise if it scare away new users.

Ever hear of the one revert rule?

It's where an user are allow to revert an revert once, usually when no reason was given and they believe the revert was done in error.

Might want to consider that when edit aren't vandalism and has value.

____

An edit war is when someone purposely revert an edit (with intent to cause disruption).

Here was what happen (http://bleach.wikia.com/wiki/Byakuya_Kuchiki?action=history):

I edited the page Byakuya_Kuchiki with the reason `update link`.

SunXin reverted it without fixing the link and didn't provide a reason.

I believed that SunXin had accidentally reverted my edit and I reverted that so that the link points to the correct article (with the reason `Reverting back to correct link`).

When SunXin reverted again, it then only became clear that it wasn't an accident (still no reason in the revert itself).

However, Giving an warning on my first revert when the edit itself was legitimate?

That's going too far especially when the issue was left unfix (which should have been fix shortly after the first revert by SunXin and an hour was more than enough time to fix the link) and no reason was given for the first revert. Having the link pointing to the actual item in question is better than a no longer relevant article.

The reason end up being `bad format` (with the so call 'formatting policy' which is not even clearly mention anywhere one might see it while casually browsing, like in the notification) only given after the warning

If the reason was given on the first revert, I could have tried to fix the problem with my edit, although it would have been better if SunXin had just fix the format instead of reverting back.

After all, that's what SunXin should have done in accord to Bleach_Wiki:Article_Improvement_Unit.

TLDR:

A full revert is just an unwelcoming thing to do when an edit could have fix the problem, especially when no reason is given and the reverted version is poorer than the edited version.

A warning on top of that when the user reverted again believing the revert was in error is just crossing the line.

____

In the end, the link was just remove instead of replaced.

And you know what? I don't even feel like linking the ref anymore cause if I don't choose the right format or order, it gonna just get reverted and I might get block.

Here's the relevant link in case anyone actually wants to add it to the ref. http://bleach.wikia.com/wiki/The_Slashing_Opera#BLEACH_on_the_BEACH.21.21 http://bleach.wikia.com/wiki/Summer!_Sea!_Swimsuit_Festival!!

PS: It is more counterproductive to revert and then expect users to format it correct compare to simply editing it so that it is formatted correctly. ____

PS:

That JS is just a simple personal script to remind me of the policy that are on this wiki and refrain from editing any page even if I spotted an mistake like a typo or outdated link. cause the policy stands above good faith.

I have every rights create that script and I hope the admin wouldn't get too offended and block me.

Asl970 (talk) 19:00, July 3, 2017 (UTC)


 * "Every Wikia does have it's own rules but none of them that I know are as unwelcoming as this wiki."
 * That is an opinion that you are entitled to, as I said this Wiki isn't for everyone and I'm not offended by your opinion as it won't change how I feel about this Wiki.


 * "Every edit doesn't magically appear, people have to put in effort"
 * I am already aware of this, I have had many of my edits reverted in the past and have actually spent quite a bit of money, time, dedication and effort to keep this Wiki up to standards and quality. But I still do not take it personal if I make a mistake and someone undoes the edit.


 * "A revert without reason is like saying you don't care that the person actually putted in effort in good faith on good will an wanting to help keep the wikia up to date."
 * No it's not really, it is removing something that is incorrect or is not the standard of this Wiki. If you want to take it personal and change "revert" to "I don't care" then by all means that is your prerogative but it's a Wiki, try not to take it personally.


 * "It's no better than a slap in the face."
 * It's very different to a slap in the face as I have not physically, mentally nor emotionally insulted you. I removed something that was a mistake, if you choose to take that as an insult then that is your own sensitivities at play. It's alright to be wrong and it is not an insult to be told you are, it happens all the time in school or college or university or in work regardless of the effort you put in. You also did not allow me enough time to inform you of your mistake so you could make a correct edit a second time when you asked what you had done wrong, instead you made the same mistake again, thus edit warring.


 * "Quote from Community Centerl:"
 * As I said before, each Wiki has its own method of proceeding and moderating. I have friends on staff and am familiar with how these things work. I haven't violated any terms of use as each Wiki is allowed its own rules. You didn't just correct a dead link you used incorrect format all over that reference and the one you edited. The Reference was already correct, all that needed to be done was remove the link completely, we use links in references on rare occasions.


 * "There are over a dozen different policy page for user and that's too much for my liking"
 * That's grand, it's ok for you not to like our policies, its ok this wiki and its style isn't for everyone, people like different things and that is alright by me.


 * "it seem mods are too revert happy as some has stated"
 * That's fine, every moderator or administrator has their particular style. I am sure I explained before that I am usually doing one hundred and one things for the Wiki at once with many pages and programs open at once, glancing at the Recent changes page during breaks, so I usually go for speed for productivity and I don't mind explaining the reasons if people want to know, just like in that post. I explained myself to you and its ok for you not to agree with me or my actions as people disagree all the time and I accept that.


 * "An warning on the first revert? That's mighty unwelcoming."
 * Again that's an opinion you are welcome to but it stops people engaging in Edit Wars and disruptive behaviour and it works. You were not blocked, its ok to have a warning, it allows you to see where you went wrong and how to improve. I had them in the past when I was new. Now had I yelled at you and told you to go away and never come back, that is deliberately telling you that you are unwelcome which I did not do. I told you not to Edit War with a standard template sent to everyone that is not insulting and actually links you to helpful sections of the wiki for future reference. Now I can't control if you choose to see that as unwelcoming and I accept that but I felt that I should let you know that was not the intention but I accept if the Wiki is not for you.


 * "Ever hear of the one revert rule?


 * It's where an user are allow to revert an revert once, usually when no reason was given and they believe the revert was done in error."
 * Nope can't say that I have heard of that rule, I have been here most of a decade so I know things will change and evolve elsewhere just how our rules evolved here. As I said, you weren't blocked, we don't welcome Edit Wars with reverts here. I wouldn't see the benefit in that rule as if you are allowed to revert one edit before a warning and then not another it would be inconsistent. You already are allowed one revert as all user are given a chance to rectify the disruptive causing behaviour. Nobody here has stopped you editing further here, only yourself and your feelings which is fine again.


 * "An edit war is when someone purposely revert an edit (with intent to cause disruption)."
 * Actually I would disagree as most of the Edit Wars I have seen are started by people who believe they have the best intentions and just simply disagree with one another because they are sure they are correct over the other editor they are warring with. Vandalism and Trolling are caused by those intent in causing disruption and are dealt with as soon as possible regardless if first offence or not.


 * "Here was what happen"
 * I know what happened, the Recent Changes and History page is there for all to see if they choose. I was also the person (SunXia by the way not SunXin) who reverted your edit.


 * "I believed that SunXin had accidentally reverted my edit"
 * I corrected that thought as soon as I saw the query. You didn't give me a chance to reply to your topic before you broke policies regarding reverting edits done by the team. I reverted it because you edited a correct reference with an incorrect link and made the reference and the reference you also added incorrect as well. Thus in my view you made it more wrong and your summary wasn't clear on what you were trying to do so I removed it. You also used the wrong format of links that we use for internal links. If you had the patience to wait you would have know why I reverted it. And you would have known how to correct it as yo found the manual of style yourself, which I should have linked and made a mistake but you knew what I was referring to anyway. You talked about effort earlier and you went to the effort of posting your query on the talk page and yet did not have the patience to allow me to respond. That, was wasted effort and pointless to me.


 * "However, Giving an warning on my first revert when the edit itself was legitimate"
 * In your opinion it was legitimate. In mine, it was not, it made a section with a dead link (when we don't use links in references anyway) more wrong than it already was. And I would not have warned you had you allowed me to respond instead of undoing a revert made by the team when the policies say not to. And as I said a warning is not a bad thing if you choose to learn from it. Which I see you kind of don't want to as you provided links for someone else to add into the references when you know that is not how our Manual of Style works. A shame.


 * "That's going too far especially when the issue was left unfix"
 * Actually, again I disagree as the reference is now fixed. I fixed it when I worked out what you were trying to do. As I explained, you weren't clear until your post on the Talk page about what you were trying to do. This is because you messed with the format we use for references so I just saw the multiple things you did wrong and removed it. When I realised the error you were trying to fix, I rectified it instead of making it worse by messing with the format of our references and links. With all due respect "Update link" may be informative to you but you knew what you were trying to do, I on the other hand, did not as you added two incorrect links in an incorrect format.


 * "The reason end up being `bad format` (with the so call 'formatting policy' which is not even clearly mention anywhere one might see it "
 * Yet, you found it despite me providing the wrong link by mistake. You may not see that reason as legitimate but I do.


 * "If the reason was given on the first revert, I could have tried to fix the problem with my edit"
 * Yes the format that you used was so bad I was not sure what you were trying to do. You knew what you were trying to do so your perspective is skewed by this. When you ask something, the polite thing to do is to wait for a reply before carrying out more actions.


 * "That JS is just a simple personal script to remind me of the policy"
 * You and I both know the script was more than a reminder of the policy it was a clear message about your opinion of the policy. As I said its fine it its not for you.


 * "I have every rights create that script and I hope the admin wouldn't get too offended and block me."
 * Of course you have every right to free speech. I do not agree with you but I agree with your right to state your opinion. But in admitting someone could be offended by your script you acknowledge that your words could be construed as intending aggressive and possibly offensive just not "too offended". But nobody is blocking you, I messaged you because it was clear you took the entire exchange personally as an attack when it was anything but. My message above was not intended to cause offence or to hurt your feelings was merely to say that no upset was intended, constructive criticism is not insulting its intended as "you did this wrong here's how to improve" and thats what our warnings are. But i saw you took it as an attack so I wanted to clear the air as that was not what was intended as i have been warned by Admins before and corrected my behaviour or edit method.


 * But as I said, its alright, it is alright to disagree with one another and i do wish you luck in the future.


 * "Quote from Community Centerl:"

"I haven't violated any terms of use as each Wiki is allowed its own rules." That is a Guideline. Here is another one: You should always explain why you are reverting an article.


 * It's where an user are allow to revert an revert once, usually when no reason was given and they believe the revert was done in error."

Nope can't say that I have heard of that rule, .... I wouldn't see the benefit in that rule as if you are allowed to revert one edit before a warning and then not another it would be inconsistent Fine, it's not a rule, it's more a Guideline.

But slamming a BIG RED WARNING on someone talk page when they weren't even aware of all those policy is just provoking them.


 * "I believed that SunXin had accidentally reverted my edit"

"I corrected that thought as soon as I saw the query. You didn't give me a chance to reply to your topic before you broke policies regarding reverting edits done by the team." The topic which wouldn't exists if the reason was stated somewhere like in the summary.

In which case there would have no need for waiting for the reason since the reason would already be in the summary.

Here it is again: You should always explain why you are reverting an article.

"And you would have known how to correct it as yo found the manual of style yourself" I only looked for it after you linked to some policy page which doesn't even mention formatting style

"your summary wasn't clear on what you were trying" Sure it wasn't clear on what I was trying to do but it clearly says 'update link' which imply something is wrong with the current link

Simply opening the link would have said what was wrong with it.

"two incorrect links in an incorrect format." ONLY the format was incorrect, the links DID point to the correct episode and manga using local wikia links

The old link pointed to a subsection so I did the same with the manga, I then decided to add the anime since I was looking for it and it would be easier for others to find it.


 * "That's going too far especially when the issue was left unfix"

"Actually, again I disagree as the reference is now fixed." you missed `which should have been fix shortly after the first revert` implying it was left unfix after the first revert

____


 * "An warning on the first revert? That's mighty unwelcoming."

"if you choose to see that as unwelcoming and I accept that but I felt that I should let you know that was not the intention but I accept if the Wiki is not for you." It would have been fine if it was left at "You used the incorrect format to reference please see our policies on how to reference. And please don't threaten to cause disruption here by edit warring just because you don't get a reply right away, have patience." Or maybe even a note on the talk page.

But a full big sign with RED text with aggressive terms official Warning?

There is a big difference between just a note informing using of the so call policy and a big warning.

In fact, let's take a look at how big a different it can be just by rewording and not using attention grabbing colors when the box itself is plenty.

Information on Wikia Policy
Let's break down the changes

Title, before: ALERT WARNING!!!, after: informing the user

Subtitle, before: VIOLATION!!!, after: this is regarding policy

body, line mentioning the violation, before: You been EDIT WARRING!!! (despite only having reverted once which some might not even consider warring, some might not even know what that means), after: undoing reverts is against policy

body, notice, before: BOLD RED OFFICIAL WARNING!!!, after: simple notice

It's less aggressive, heavily reducing the amount of triggers which would have invoke emotional responses and passed the message well if not better.

PS, This is regarding the warning, which wouldn't have happen if the reason was given in the first place. It isn't hard to type `ref format` in the summary, which would implied that it been reverted due to the format of the ref.

Asl970 (talk) 23:57, July 3, 2017 (UTC)


 * Again, its only aggressive if you choose to see it as aggressive. There were no insults, you chose to get offended, the reason it is in red is because it is important not because it was insulting you. Hmm did you mean to make a mess here on this topic?? It's now two. And it isn't hard to have patience and wait for a response.