User talk:Knoname

New pages
Please don't create new pages when you have no content to put in them, especially if you're not going to add stub or maintenance templates. -- 22:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Remember to sign your posts with four ~. -- 23:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Despite these little difficulties we all appreciate the work you're doing here. -- 23:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Please add the quantities of the Dream Pieces when you add them. maggosh 00:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Link sections
Please stop adding those. As I've said before, they are meant to go in the infobox.192.249.47.177 16:28, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not imagine it is in likeliness that everyone that views this wiki wishes to wait for information. What I added to Dream Eaters were Link Attacks/Styles. If you wish to erase them to overwrite with your form, that is fine. However, I was not going to wait to add information that I knew. My mindset was, "At least it is there for others to view". I understand you wish to make it more presentable, as could many pages. Yet, I only added to any said pages what I knew. Now, with that said I am finished adding Link Attacks/Styles. If you wish to overwrite at your leisure, you can. I only wished for the information to be available to others at this early stage of the game's english releases.Knoname (talk) 14:22, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * At the time of my writing, the infobox was already coded to allow the Link Actions and Link Styles to be properly entered. Regardless of any excuses you want to make, we have a proper and agreed upon way to present that information, and you've been asked to adhere to it. Please do not deliberately flout the wiki style. 01:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Ability Link, etc.
Please see Dark Splicer for an example of the correct format for listing where commands can be obtained. 18:01, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not understanding your remark or what you mean specifically by "correct format". If what I have provided is not to your liking, you may edit them with the "correct format".
 * Commands found in a chest should use the format:
 * *Riku can find Dark Splicer in a chest at the Delusive Beginning.
 * Commands obtained through ability link should use the format:
 * *The Keeba Tiger has Dark Splicer in its Ability Link.
 * You are the one adding most of these to the pages, and it is your responsibility to use the consensus format. Please revise the pages you have already edited with the correct format. 18:41, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Not that I am not willing to adjust the changes, but questions. Primarily, if this was an issue, why is it being addressed at the current. Surely, most whole-heartedly at its truth, you are not the sole person of whom has been keeping watch over any of the pages that I have edited. In continuation, you and other administrators should all be aware. If the other administrators have not said a thing, it comes to two things at hand. First, they do not heavily enforce the policy of which you have presented toward me, in which case there is a conflict of basis between you, an administrator, and others administrators and moderators. Secondly, they are not or were not at the time fully aware of the policy of your "consensus format" when I had added the information that I knew, in this specific case pertaining to what are called "Deck Command" in Kingdom Hearts 3D: Dream Drop Distance. Now, I sincerely and truly with my right hand, and in absolutely no facetious way, would gladly change what I have added to fit the correct form. However, I am serious when I say I cannot appreciate you saying, foremost, it is my "responsiblity to use consensus format" when I have seen differentiations between "formats" used by other individuals. For you to say it is my "responsibility" is not registering with me as to the consistency I have seen elsewhere on this wiki. I am sure that you would have asked others to make their changes, yet there is not uniformity with format. In addition, I do not believe you are wholly justified when you say it is my responsibility as this is a wiki where others, of whom I would assume also would have made alterations to what I have added to follow suit with the formal format if aware of it, would make modifications.


 * Now, as I've said and will reiterate, I would not at all mind changing what I have added, but I find it to be a problem telling me it is my responsibility. If anything, I would assume it would be the responsibility of those whom have higher standings and "power" to adjust what they feel is not right.


 * Yet, why tell me that what I have added is wrong now. I aware of other moderators and administrators, like yourself, However, in the past week approxiamtely from this day and time, why have not others likewise with your standing not brought this to my attention but yet a week later? I know with a truthful heart other administrators and moderator have viewed the pages I have edited. Yet, why do you insist it is my responsibility and after this time frame?


 * My concern, and the stem of this comment, is the inconsistency of something seemingly small, whether it truly is or not, be not addressed by other of your likeliness. If anything I wish from this is for someone to make a remark in advance and not tell me what you have told me, the way you have told. Knoname (talk) 22:28, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * First, allow me to address the simplest of your concerns: Kryten is not the only one with an issue with your edits, as you might notice from my edit summaries on articles you have created and/or edited. I'm sorry if you think we're being lenient on you by not getting on your case from the get go; if you prefer, we can jump on every mistake you make right away from now on.
 * When you're adding a significant amount of content, especially where there is nothing relevant written yet, you do in fact take on some responsibility for formatting. Any idiot can throw up raw info and say, "it's out of my hands, now," but that is bad editing, and I think you can understand how that might not be appreciated, as it simply creates work for others in cleaning up what was written. As a lovely extra consequence from this situation, there will also often be articles that will be forgotten and left in a bad state. After all, we aren't magic, and we can't catch everything, no matter how long we've been doing this. So, yeah. If you can put it in the right formatting, you should.
 * There are certainly command articles to take a general example from with regards to editing, and even though this new game certainly requires new formatting, it would be easy to simply ask how you should add the info for which there is no precedent.
 * By the way, I'm glad you think it's the job of staff to clean up after everyone else, considering the ratio of staff to non-staff. And how you expect us to have everything all figured out before we even have the information we need.
 * Unrelated question: Where are you from? English does not appear to be your first language. -- 00:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Read my words carefully. You not to hold your feelings on your shoulders because of what I had addressed to another individual. In addition, there is no for you to apologize. I will be fine without them as I can tell of your disingenuosness by stating "english does not appear to be my first language". So, I will disregard that entirely as I do not know who you are, nor you know of me. As a follow-up, I even started changing "my contributions" to the example provided by KrytenKoro only for some of them to be altered back by Maggosh, stating specifically "format it like THIS" with the Deck Command, which was what I had followed across the board with my other contributions.
 * Passive-agressively stating that you should have gotten on my every little mistake from the get go is vindictive and devoid of contribution to your statement concerning the "consensus format". No, you feel you have to put me in my place. You feel that your statements are towering over my limited capabilites. Understand this, my remark was for the purpose of consolidation not insubodination. You see one thing that you would learn about me is that I would much rather have a discussion like this in person because we clearly are not seeing eye-to-eye, for whatever the reasons are. I have no problem changing my mistakes on the contributions I have made, but attitude like the one you are conveying does very little for an individual in the long-run.
 * Now, I have very much more to say, but to be honest I would rather speak verbally with you in person rather than through a computer, but I assume you would wish to more personal interaction, say over the phone.
 * I sincerely hope you do not continuously relay your thoughts, in the way you have with me, with other individuals because it will catch up with you. I have seen it too much in my life.
 * Regardless of how you feel, I'll still keep try to keep a flame of love for people alive, same for you. So, past these altercations, I have relayed my feelings, as have you. I know I can't control what you want to say to me especially given your status, but I cannot limp off sadly like a dog with my paw over my eye because you have an issue, sir. I simply cannot. Now, you may do as you will. Knoname (talk) 01:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm not going to read all the off-topic, ad hominem posturing above, so here's the skinny:


 * 1) The format I linked you to is based on the format we agreed upon for past games; specifically, that used for Commands within a D-Link list, and abilities granted by Enemy Cards.
 * 2) A set standard was not in place earlier because the game JUST CAME OUT.
 * 3) Also, I'm the main editor who enforces standards for the mechanics articles, and I've been busy trying to clean up all the other shit people have been putting up. I'm also usually the one responsible for standardizing how we phrase these things.
 * 4) You have not been corrected in the past because other admins had more important things on their plate.
 * 5) Why this is your responsibility: YOU are the one doing it wrong, and you're doing it enough that I have two efficient options for keeping it from being done wrong: ask you to do it right, or ban you. Yes, I will totally be working on adding them in correctly myself once I finish the game and complete about nine months worth of higher priority work, but...that would require you to be banned for at least nine months.
 * So, it's your choice. Adhere to the manual of style and possibly discuss changes politely, without the passive aggressive, off-topic, ad hominem, pointless, redundant, arrogant, annoying posturing above, or be banned so we can clean up the mess that you may not have started, but have certainly participated in. 01:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)