User talk:Matinicus

Monkey Boat

Ahoy! Often when there is somekind of explanation to accompany edits to an article, it's better to start up a discussion on the article's talk page. In the case of the monkey boat article, some of the points you tried to add were either too specific or were not phrased in a way which was easy to understand. You refer to "proven" cases - but haven't shown any evidence per sé. Some links on a talk page might help explain it to other editors where there is some doubt. It's also better to start a discussion on a talk page than keep trying to re-add the disputed content back to the article. --Sagacious ^(talk) 13:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

First time talk here. There is a lengthy discussion in game design (the link is included in the Wiki) to back up my statements. It was started with a petition to OceanMasters who directed me to Game Design. My first entry to this Wiki page contained this link to that thread. I understand that there are ways to write and ways to re-write, and I try to do that, yet, it appears to me that merely reverting to a vague, general, and, I believe, false version to kill my contributions is unkind and lazy. So, please inspect the evidence for my statements in the link to the Game design thread that is near the bottom of the Monkey Boat Wiki entry, it both explains and provides context for my prior attempts to improve the present entries that appear to be copies of the developers and their "intent" that does not reflect realities as experienced on the ocean. ~Matinicus Oct.-6, 2008.

One of the issues here is that the YPPedia is meant to use neutral point of view. Your choice of verbs and adjectives - such as "flawed" or "forced upon" - are far from neutral. --Belthazar451 19:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree, as I believe in the dictum set by "Strunk and White" that good writing used strong verbs concisely. And the design of the monkey boat IS flawed as its has side effects that were neither intended nor stated (PvP). I do agree, however, that a Wiki should represent a consensus of sorts, but this consensus should be informed and based on facts and sources posted and discussed elsewhere (game design, source cited). All this said, I think we did converge, perhaps, towards a neutral tone that serves multiple perspectives and reflects multiple experiences. ~Matinicus Oct.-6, 2008.

Much like your edits, your edit summaries contain strong language. This is simply not needed, and it would be nice to think your contributions are to compliment the article rather than override the contributions of others with what you regard as superior content or wording. While you and possibly a few others have encountered the issue of the monkey boat interrupting PvP, it does not occur as often as you keep trying to imply with your edits.

Before editing the article again, I suggest you begin a discussion on the article talk page to open up dispute on the wording. Otherwise this becomes a nasty edit conflict. --Sagacious ^(talk) 21:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Strong writing is good writing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Elements_of_Style . Careful, mate, a look in the mirror may reveal that you do exactly what you accuse me of doing as I received your hostile edits, deletions, and comments. I tried to rewrite based on these in creative ways to accommodate different perspectives and experiences, but you here and elsewhere show that this does not matter. Persistence pays, I lack persistence ... so, please do as you see fit here and elsewhere, I care no more. ~Matinicus, Oct.-8, 2008.

Closer to home, key policy 2. The way in which you phrased the point about PvP could considered to be bias, especially since it was you who started the forum thread and you who is persisting in making sure it gets prominence in the monkey boat article. Strong writing is not good writing if it's purely to enforce your view. If you take a look at the article's revision history, you will see it is not just me who has taken issue with your edits. --Sagacious ^(talk) 17:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Poking through the online text of Strunk and White, it doesn't appear to say a thing about verbs. The thing about English writing is that we write in a different style depending on what it's for. I wouldn't write a letter to a friend in the same style as I would write a newspaper article, and nor do I write YPPedia articles in the same style as I use on talk pages. There's a time and a place for strong verbs, yes - if you're writing a novel or a thesis, for example - but this isn't it.

Mind you, if we are going to rely on Strunk and White for all our grammatical rules, it also says: "Write to-day, to-night, to-morrow (but not together) with hyphen. Write any one, every one, some one, some time (except the sense of formerly) as two words." =D Some uses have changed in the last ninety years. --Belthazar451 20:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I think we've reached the point where you are all essentially in agreement that we should follow a standard, but that there is disagreement on which to follow. I think the banter is a bit misguided and counterproductive. For the YPPedia, we follow our own set of guidelines, which include bits of Wikipedia's guidelines. If you have not reviewed them recently, please see YPPedia:Policies_and_guidelines, Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view, Wikipedia:Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Neutral_language, and YPPedia:Editors'_Code_of_Conduct --Nemesis 22:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)