638
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 28:
Line 28: + + + + + +
no edit summary
::So yeah, the edit, while not perfect, actually corrected errors, unlike what you are claiming, and furthermore, it changed pretty terrible wording such as "The 19 power books can give a player special powers" (by just having them in inventory?) and "In some cases, a second reading gives additional or increased advantages" (like?). At least the 100 XP gain addition, while vague, actually pointed somewhere, and clarified what re-reading power books gave you in terms of benefit. I think we should just focus on what the Books page says '''now''', and not a few days ago. [[User:User314159|User314159]] ([[User talk:User314159|talk]]) 03:44, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
::So yeah, the edit, while not perfect, actually corrected errors, unlike what you are claiming, and furthermore, it changed pretty terrible wording such as "The 19 power books can give a player special powers" (by just having them in inventory?) and "In some cases, a second reading gives additional or increased advantages" (like?). At least the 100 XP gain addition, while vague, actually pointed somewhere, and clarified what re-reading power books gave you in terms of benefit. I think we should just focus on what the Books page says '''now''', and not a few days ago. [[User:User314159|User314159]] ([[User talk:User314159|talk]]) 03:44, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
:::Thanks for the feedback. I think you've mistaken my intent here, which was not to attack your edit, but to bring up points of how it also had weaknesses. I still do disagree with some of your characterizations, but I referred to your edit simply because it brought up wording issues that still need resolving. And I definitely agree we should move forward from the current state of the article. Thanks also for the clarifications in your comment. It was information I did not have (and could not construe from the article as it was). And your reply makes clear what things we can work on to get to a good final conclusion.
::: You're clearly a very competent editor and consistent contributor. I've never meant to imply otherwise. I guess I assumed you'd understand that even when I questioned some of your writing. It's in the nature of writing for wikis that such things are not always readily communicated, so I address it now. It's in the nature of just writing on the Internet that there will be unintended interpretations and the like. We all invest of ourselves in the business of writing and find it easy to be touchy about the work we have placed there. I plead guilty to that also at times. But not everyone sees the same language and interprets it the same way. I figure I have strengths to bring to the task. And I see that you do too.
::: Therefore, I think of this as a great opportunity to craft a unified message. My desire is to convey cordiality, and my respect for you. Understand that I get my outlook from working as a classical musician in the past (no longer physically able). When two good musicians join to perform a work of art, they must agree and unify on interpretation enough so as to present a coherent performance, or else all fails. I've known disagreements that became quite heated but were resolved well, and all with the same object in mind. If they couldn't be resolved, the players resolved to perform a different work. What else is there? So I speak my mind, without reservation, and with a bluntness that I hope conveys the inmost thought. I really don't know a more effective way to work together. I see others fail when they can't be honest, and I don't want to go there. So, my best to you. I hope you can meet me in that spirit, and feel free to respond accordingly. I'll back away otherwise. I'm not committed to editing here if it means contentiousness. I don't think any work is worth that. And I hope you now understand better where I'm coming from. Cheers! [[User:Giles|Giles]] ([[User talk:Giles|talk]]) 18:33, 8 April 2024 (UTC)