300
edits
Difference between revisions of "Talk:Lucretian Athenaeum"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
With this said, if the issue is mainly with the use of the phrase "public" library, then I am willing to adjust it to state the Lucretian Athenaeaum is the largest non-city based library. That way it keeps its claim of largest and the idea of neutrality in terms of faction, but also doesnt take away from the player commitment and RP of their own city libraries. --[[Asmodron]], 15:12, 05 June 2024, (GMT) | With this said, if the issue is mainly with the use of the phrase "public" library, then I am willing to adjust it to state the Lucretian Athenaeaum is the largest non-city based library. That way it keeps its claim of largest and the idea of neutrality in terms of faction, but also doesnt take away from the player commitment and RP of their own city libraries. --[[Asmodron]], 15:12, 05 June 2024, (GMT) | ||
You can speak to me directly, this isn't like in ISSUES where you are appealing to administration. We're just talking. I'm fine with the caveat added of non-city library to the page as a resolution to this conflict of lore. My saying I "sourced" it was me explaining own personal reasoning, in agreement with Laorir, for making the edit and putting the summary of said edit as I did. This isn't a court case where every action and word needs to be argued over and intent should be scrutinised. I recommend we BOTH refrain from making things personal or hostile, when this site is ultimately about maintaining as close to objective truth in lore/canon as possible. I have no official power here, and neither do you, so speaking with the gravitas of authority should be avoided by both of us. | |||
Now to the policy discussion: you stated with authority that me disagreeing with you and removing your edits was "in violation of IRE policy", which is just not true and you have no way of possibly knowing. I cited directly the actual policy that allows anyone to "edit, alter, or *REMOVE*" at any time for any reason, which was a right I freely exercised when originally reverting your changes. You are well within your rights to do the same, though this avenue should have been taken first. I admit I should have gone here first as well instead of putting my reasoning in the summary section. You also just said "it's not in the spirit of the policy", which is you assigning personal judgement and opinion to clearly stated rules. You said the same thing to Jonathin's editing of pages when you undid them, essentially doing to his edits what I did to yours. Finally, you did not even once attempt to find common ground before jumping right to policy violation on both the Jonathin edits AND my reverting of yours. All contributors should do our best not to take edits personally or as a dig about what one person does or does not know. The Wiki is an open-source discussion forum. | |||
I will wait for your opinions on the Staff Powers to be put in the correct discussion page to respond, and instead end on this. My reverting your edits was not personal at all: I don't care who is making edits, I care if they contain information I believe to be wrong, and am open to discussion about. "Submitting a case to IRE for a ruling on policy violation" will only lessen our freedoms here by forcing them to step in or limit editing powers. That limitation is not in the best interest of the Wiki, in my opinion. --[[Eoka]], 15:47, 05 June 2024, (GMT) | |||