Talk:Conflux/Path of Joramun

Phoenix, why don't you want to be specific? We KNOW what part of the information is outdated, so, if you consider my writings to be too much of a spoiler, extend the spoiler tags, but DO NOT delete essential parts of the provided information without discussion! If you see more than just that bit of outdated information (I DID see something), and don't want to "overflow" the article with more notes, please consider what is important for new players, and what isn't. Nowadays, Iaido won't give automatically the desired lockpicks, while you can follow the rest of Joramuns advice without running into much of a problem, despite of this probably not being your preferred approach. For your preferred approaches I suggest that you write new articles about the "Paths of Phoenix". The locations still look like he described them, the monsters are also still there, so why was there a need to delete information? --CHF 01:17, 7 November 2012 (CET)

Because the entry is Jormuns personal entry not yours. Putting the note outside preseves that articles historical integrity. It's one thing to change tech articles, it's another to change a personal entry. The Wiki is not supposed to be an explicit spoiler. There is *NO* need to have the spoiler for the lockpics! The Champions page has been updated and ALL those items are now gone.

Please stop with all the god damn spoilers! You have a problem with that take it up with Zyx. You should also know that I'm in negotiations with Zyx to completely change the format of ALL Places pages to get rid of all that connections and interests crap. I look at this wiki like the manual you would get with a new game not a fucking "hold my hand I'm to stupid to think for my self" cheat guide.

If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here. Get used to it.

Phoenix 01:53, 7 November 2012 (CET)

"Because the entry is Jormuns personal entry not yours."

This is why the note was indented and in italics. Even an idiot would have seen that this wasn't belonging to the original text. I do not want to mislead beginners, do you? So why don't you delete this thing as a whole then, since it is obviously deprecated?

"You have a problem with that take it up with Zyx. You should also know that I'm in negotiations with Zyx to completely change the format of ALL Places pages to get rid of all that connections and interests crap."

Please note that this is a WIKI. A Wiki lives from cooperation, not from people taking it over. So different approaches and opinions about what it should contain and what not. need to be discussed. It also lives from respect for the work of other authors, which means especially that deletions have to be carefully considered, while additions and corrections as well as layout changes are generally much less of a problem.

I fully agree that the old page format can be reworked, but since I had no idea I considered good enough as of now, I've continued with the "traditional" format.

"I look at this wiki like the manual you would get with a new game not a fucking walkthrough."

Well, that is YOUR point of view. Whatever you are currently discussing with Zyx, the Wiki itsself says something completely different than you do above:

"The following may be seen has a Walkthrough for Conflux. It can also be described as a collective effort to decrypt Conflux wealth. Do not read further if you want to discover the incredibly complex world of this dungeon on your own."

This means that it WAS once intended to be full of spoilers and a complete reference, as well as a normal game manual. This is not a printed book, there is no commercial need to keep things out of it. The game manual character that you desire lives in the unfinished (not even begun) "story" articles, why don't you write some if that is your goal? This Wiki can contain sort of a non-linear walkthrough AS WELL AS a "classic style" game manual, there is no contradiction, simply because space is not really limited, and the player can - as long as appropriate spoiler warnings are given, and as long as there are enough "grades of detail" are provided by the Wiki as a whole - easily decide on their own how much they want to read and how much to discover themselves.

Whenever I am tempted to delete information about the game because it might spoil too much, I usually write something new and put the more explicit information elsewhere, leaving it to the users to decide whether they want to read it or not. I, for example, would appreciate a place where I can look up the location of item X that I found in my last game, but don't exactly remember now. There is no reason whatsoever in my opinion to delete such information, while there might be many reasons to bury it a level deeper in order to reduce spoilers. If you seek help in the Wiki you definitely should not "accidentally" have to read half a walkthrough spoiling the game, it should be possible to look up specific bits of information.

"If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here. Get used to it."

I am not complaining about your (or anybody else's) editing as such, just because of a lack of discussion about this. You have your opinion about what this Wiki should be like, and are obviously not willing to discuss its nature with anybody else than Zyx. Again, this is a WIKI, we are not working for a commercial company. In most such companies it is unfortunately common that people discuss their ideas with the boss (Zyx here), and if he agrees (or doesn't disagree), these ideas can be "rightfully impressed" onto the rest of the world. Volunteer projects like this, however, live from collaboration, not from survival of the ideas which have been most impressively presented to the bosses. Collaboration also means that nobody can decide on their own where the project goes… or do you want to complete it on your own? You won't find "slaves" who restrict their collaboration to fixing your orthographical errors and such, leaving all important decisions about the Wiki's nature and allowed contents in your hands, no matter how much knowledge you have acquired about Conflux that other people might lack of.

The "talk" pages like this one exist for any page in the Wiki. This is the place where the discussion about its future should take place, not in private between you and Zyx, and me and Zyx, and so on.

--CHF 03:08, 7 November 2012 (CET)

Yawn, you are so oppressed. Phoenix 05:20, 7 November 2012 (CET)

I am not. --CHF 09:22, 7 November 2012 (CET)

This wiki was inactive for 6 months before I started work on it and *then* you decide to start back up after I comment in the forums? <insert your favorite invecative here> Phoenix 05:20, 7 November 2012 (CET)

Yes, that is a COINCIDENCE, I had no time for a while and merely forgotten Conflux and got back to it recently, and I was surprised that you had that much interest, and I was glad to be not the only person editing this Wiki. --CHF 09:22, 7 November 2012 (CET)

I picked up the batton when you dropped it on March 18, 2012. Phoenix 05:20, 7 November 2012 (CET)

This was due to time constraints, since Conflux is a GAME, nothing more. It is an outstandingly good game, but still a game, so you cannot conclude from a coincidence (my reappearance) that I intend to interfere with your efforts. In fact, I was glad to be no longer the only person to edit something in this Wiki for the past months. --CHF 09:22, 7 November 2012 (CET)

I start new content and before I even finish you start changing things on me and you expect me to respect you? Phoenix 05:20, 7 November 2012 (CET)

YOU recently told ME that I should expect that any of my contributions could be "mercilessly changed":

"If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here. Get used to it."

You should in fact respect anybody contributing to the Wiki, I think. Especially You should not consider a coincidence (myself "reapperaring" a few weeks ago) to be an offence. We have got different opinions, but that does not mean that I do not respect you or deliberately interfere with your efforts here. --CHF 09:22, 7 November 2012 (CET)

So, no, I'm not interested *anymore* in collaborating with *you*. I never asked for or wanted your "help". You needlessly add obvious and redundant information, you have a perverse avertion to punctuation and grammer(drunken? that's an adjective not a verb.),Phoenix 05:20, 7 November 2012 (CET)

It's spelt "grammar", and please note that I am not a native english speaker, I'm a German, so my punctuation might indeed be bad. Please correct it rather than making up rumours about me probably being drunken. --CHF 09:22, 7 November 2012 (CET)

you mis-sort entries, Phoenix 05:20, 7 November 2012 (CET)

Again, that is your opinion. There is no "divine sort order" for entries. --CHF 09:22, 7 November 2012 (CET)

add first person dialog Phoenix 05:20, 7 November 2012 (CET)

Please tell me where the problem is. That's a matter of writing style and not an unquestionable law. --CHF 09:22, 7 November 2012 (CET)

and un-tested conjecture. Phoenix 05:20, 7 November 2012 (CET)

See, this is also a matter of style. Who says that only fully tested stuff may be included in the Wiki? If I am unsure, I always write that down in the Wiki. If I'm not, I might still make errors, but if you notice them, you are always welcome to correct them without further notice. --CHF 09:22, 7 November 2012 (CET)

You call me out on stuff you haven't even tested. Phoenix 05:20, 7 November 2012 (CET)

I ALWAYS have tested those, but in these cases I am not yet sure, and when I post something on a wiki "talk" page, I am not necessarily addressing you despite of a low probability that anyone else reads this. See, I simply don't like endless testing when I think that somebody else might already have the solution. Whenever I find something weird, I post it on the Wiki or Forums even without having that fully tested. What's the problem? --CHF 09:22, 7 November 2012 (CET)

The creatures pages have tons of blanks that need to be filled in, but do you help with that or work on other needed content? No. All I've seen you do besides edit Level notes (which is wrong in multiple places) Phoenix 05:20, 7 November 2012 (CET)

Please tell me what is wrong with my edits of the "Levels Notes", or correct them yourself. You might indeed notice that I frequently change things there as soon as I'm aware that I was mistaken. Whenever you know better you are of course welcome to correct me. --CHF 09:22, 7 November 2012 (CET)

is alter stuff I've recently added without the "discussion" you claim to desire. I give you back a taste of your own medicine and now you're upset? Phoenix 05:20, 7 November 2012 (CET)

I made suggestions multiple times on the "talk" pages. If you feel that I've changed other things carelessly, I apologize. That was never my intention. --CHF 09:22, 7 November 2012 (CET)

The game manual character that you desire lives in the unfinished (not even begun) "story" articles, why don't you write some if that is your goal? --CHF 03:08, 7 November 2012 (CET)

That's *exactly* what I'm talking with Zyx about. This indeed is a Wiki, but ultimately it's Zyx's wiki. By making it a wiki, he gets others to do a lot of the heavy lifting for him while he works on other things. I volunteered to help him, not collaborate with you. Phoenix 05:20, 7 November 2012 (CET)

So did I, or do you really think I'm only here in order to bully you? --CHF 09:22, 7 November 2012 (CET)

It would indeed be different if there were multiple people working on this wiki, but when I started, there was *no one*. So if all of this offends you or convinces *you* to go away, then as Bender of Futurama would say, "My work here is done." [User:Phoenix|Phoenix]] 05:20, 7 November 2012 (CET)

"Bender of Futurama" is surely amusing, but certainly not my role model. Please be aware that you cannot choose how many and which other contributors appear at whatever time. Be also aware that I cannot be easily scared off. --CHF 09:22, 7 November 2012 (CET)

If Zyx agrees with my proposal there will be an opportunity and encouragement for other contributers to edit the wiki in a contest I've suggested. If *he* tells me he doesn't want me to work on the wiki anymore, I'll just go back to commenting and adding bug reports in the forum, but *you* can talk the the hand. Phoenix 05:20, 7 November 2012 (CET)

You probably know that he won't do that (tell you to stop working). See, you cannot choose what sort of people apart from you contribute to this Wiki, neither can I. It simply doesn't matter if we like each other or each other's approach to the effort to be mastered here.

Please note that I DO NOT INTEND to disrespect your contributions to the Wiki IN ANY WAY. --CHF 09:22, 7 November 2012 (CET)