User talk:Silverwing235

From Dwarf Fortress Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

*Wandering janitor puts down mop and bucket*[edit]

Yes, I know, not a very interesting placeholder.....but a beginning nonetheless. EDIT: On the other hand "If it looks wrong, it gets fixed" is my rule, which is why spot-edits will be preferred to blind-reverts around here. Silverwing235 (talk) 23:22, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

DF2014:Centaur plural[edit]

In case you were wondering - your edit didn't offend me at all, but in cases where there are multiple possible plurals, we try to stick with the one in the raws (click "show" next to the Raws box on DF2014:Centaur, for example, or click on the "Raws" link itself). That's what DF uses in-game, and it's consistent with DF:Rule G. Just something to keep in mind. —Lethosor (talk) 01:47, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

On paragraphs[edit]

A paragraph is a group of closely-related sentences with a central theme. In several recent edits you have combined multiple paragraphs that do not share a central theme. In addition to being grammatically incorrect, this also makes it more difficult for players to skim the article for relevant information. For example, this edit attached the sentence about challenges for experienced players to a paragraph that begins "Most new players...". Please cease "fixing" short paragraphs by lumping them in with other, tangentially-related paragraphs.--Loci (talk) 22:37, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Looks like there's already paragraph heading? I'll place this here, then: What's the logic/why merge these paragraphs while also not merging them with the text preceding them? (not the only paragraph merge I've seen, just a recent example) --Fleeting Frames (talk) 07:23, 11 September 2020 (UTC) the extent they make sense as components of a single paragraph. Thanks for the reminder, will implement shortly. As for logic, being a part of the autistic community as I 'reader's aesthetic' got irked, I suppose you could say. Silverwing235 (talk) 13:10, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing[edit]

Warning: Repeatedly modifying acceptable page layouts and punctuation to suit your personal taste is disruptive. Further disruptive edits may result in a ban. --Loci (talk) 19:40, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

While I agree that some of the edits in question weren't necessary, others were constructive - at least the first half of wood, for example. I don't think reverting everything is a good solution, and I would be unwilling to block someone for this. —Lethosor (talk) 20:13, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
With all due respect, this has been an ongoing problem since July. Roughly one third of my edits since then have been dealing with issues caused by this one user. I have spent a fair bit of time explaining why edits were problematic ([1], [2], [3], [4]) and saving "constructive" changes ([5], [6], [7], [8]). However, Silverwing235 has continued to make the same types of problematic edits across more and more articles. While I still review each Silverwing235-edited article individually and only revert those which are problematic, I no longer consider it worthwhile to explain yet again why sprinkling in unnecessary commas and deleting newlines isn't acceptable, nor do I salvage minor "constructive" bits that happen to be included with disruptive edits. This is a fine example: is changing the capitalization of "item hauler" worth burying information about architectural value at the end of a paragraph about sand gathering? No.--Loci (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. It's pretty much the standard I attempt to hold myself to when editing around here as a rule, Lethosor - and also explains why some edits were marked as minor, in an attempt to avoid being blind-reverted like this, w/out apparent consideration of merit. You should both expect forum PM's about this in due course. Silverwing235 (talk) 21:46, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Resurrecting an old topic here: while I admit I haven't been monitoring the situation here very much, I've noticed that I don't always agree with some edits you make. Some are good, and I don't have opinions on some others, but some are (in my opinion) not correct - for example, the one that was reverted here. I don't have a particularly good policy in mind, and I don't think everything you do should be reverted by any means (so don't feel discouraged from fixing things), but I'd like to suggest that you pay closer attention to which edits are being reverted and why. Hopefully that will cut down on some editing disagreements I've seen in the recent changes list. I really don't want to make any decisions on the matter, but I think that making specific types of edits that tend to be reverted isn't productive for anyone involved (noting that this doesn't apply to a majority of your changes that I've seen, in my opinion). —Lethosor (talk) 20:58, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Again: I don't want to have to block you, or anything like that, but this sort of edit is not okay. If you have a disagreement with another editor, take it up with them; don't engage in edit wars, particularly not with edit summaries like that. (Note that I have not been very active as of recently, so I don't feel that I'm familiar enough with the entire situation to do anything yet - maybe that was just one of a handful of problematic edits. This one is definitely okay, for instance. But please try to avoid the sorts of edits that are apparently getting reverted regularly.) —Lethosor (talk) 04:37, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

From AIV, my thoughts on your four edits that were reverted by Loci today:

  • [9]: I think the revert was appropriate - although the original edit wasn't malicious, the section title that you removed was useful for readability, and the section seems to be entirely about wild animals. Perhaps nesting this section under "Breeding" would have been better. The comment about mods also wasn't really necessary - you can mod pretty much anything in DF, and listing all the possibilities everywhere would just clutter things up.
  • [10]: the second "each" is technically necessary, since each marksdwarf and each hunter needs a quiver. Granted, I think it's clear what the sentence means without it, but it shouldn't have been removed. Also, "flimflammery" in the edit summary is not helpful - in general, your edit summaries could stand to be shorter and clearer about what you're actually changing, which might help avoid some annoyances when others look over them.
  • [11] - I think both the previous version and yours were confusing, so I tried to reword it myself. (Basically, you're right that dwarves can't view bodies that fell into magma, but they can view bodies that are in stockpiles, so saying that viewing bodies only applied to bodies left on the ground wasn't right.) A very similar edit that you made had also been reverted, though. I'm suspecting that you just forgot about that, since it was so long ago, but in general, reintroducing changes that have already been reverted could be considered edit warring, which is not something I want to deal with.
  • [12]: the core disagreement seems to be around singular "they" (mentioned in another section on your talk page). In my book, this is a personal preference. Since your changes have led to some disagreements, I'm going to ask you to avoid changing any existing content related to singular "they" (this applies to things that use it and things that don't). This applies to other users too. I think this is the simplest way to avoid behavior that could be considered edit warring.

Lethosor (talk) 02:17, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

And Silverwing235 makes answer:

1: "Perhaps nesting this section under "Breeding" would have been better." Something along those lines was what I was trying to do, and thought I had done, before 'Loci, Vandalfinder Mod' came along with their reverts (Not that I want anyone to take on that role with regards to me in particular, it's rather annoying - please do assume apologies when necessary).

2: "Also, "flimflammery" in the edit summary is not helpful" IOW, refrain from scribbling in the margins, or mental ngathsesh, as the dwarves would have it, yeah, got it. One can only try, anyway.

3 & 4: Not much to say here, other than: thanks for the assist and I wholeheartedly agree with you about the personal preference thing? Silverwing235 (talk) 11:54, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Singular they[edit]

Regarding this edit:

General use of "they" as an ungendered singular pronoun is controversial. If you feel compelled to remove the gendered pronoun, common advice is to reword the sentence to avoid the appearance of pronoun disagreement. In this case:

The better focused a dwarf is, the swifter she finishes all her tasks.

could be rewritten as:

The better focused your dwarves are, the swifter they finish their tasks.
A focused dwarf finishes tasks more swiftly.

It is generally easy to alter the wording, and always better than swapping one acceptable-yet-problematic form for a different acceptable-yet-problematic form that you happen to prefer.--Loci (talk) 00:51, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Just in case people are wondering why....[edit]

...such things as talk pages with topic 'Verification page/verification' and 'ignore this' are popping up, the answer should be obvious if it wasn't already - preparation. That, and that my particular 'style' leads me to not be a fan of unnecessary redlinks - something like Occam's Razor, really. :D --Silverwing235 (talk) 10:57, 5 February 2019 (UTC)


Regarding this edit:

That's not a "sentence fragment"; it's an appositive, a restatement of a noun for clarification.

Regarding this edit:

Adverbs are comma-offset when they apply to the sentence as a whole, not the active verb. Since "usually" is plausibly modifying "are", the added comma is incorrect.

Incidentally, these are good examples why inserting every possible comma is problematic. Commas can change the meaning of a sentence, and that possibility makes it more difficult to parse comma-saturated sentences.--Loci (talk) 22:40, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Egg production editing shenanigans[edit]

I have a deep feeling that guy is right, about the kobolds at least. I shouldn't have removed that much stuff from the original table anyway. Yes, I plan on reverting that, this time also adding giant animals & animal people, max age column, and sorting out the rest in a coherent way, just give me some time. The original edit took me nearly 2 hours. DarklingArcher (talk) 14:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Let's not stress about DF2014:Stress[edit]

Regarding this edit

  • talking with the spouse
  • In my opinion, "the" means here that the person in question is talking with his/her spouse (not just with any spouse), so it may be justified.
  • caught in a freakish weather
  • While I admit this is wrong ("weather" is uncountable), I would keep it the original way as it is consistent with Rule G and doesn't seem that jarring to me.
  • grim satisfaction at somebody's death
  • This appears when you kill people in adventurer mode
  • So it's not about seeing somebody's death, but causing it yourself
  • And the two typos you found were actually mine, feel free to correct these if you find more. I haven't seen Toady make typos yet. --DarklingArcher (talk) 15:00, 31 March 2019 (UTC)


This just so happens to be kind of the direction I was going anyway. Thanks. Silverwing235 (talk) 19:28, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for removing things where peopel confused entities with creatures ive been seeing people on the forum confusing the two lately and like it when teh wiki sticks to what Tarn actually calls things

public/private articles[edit]

So, you've enjoyed a continuity around here that I lost, hoping you could give me your spin on what is "policy" in this regard. Came across the article Cacame Awemedinade, and it strikes me as pure vanity, something that belongs under a Username/<article> rather than in the public space. Yes, there is a long forum thread behind it, but that, alone, doesn't seem apt justification - or is it? Or has this one just been grandfathered in, but similar posts are discouraged? Either way. Albedo (talk) 13:59, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

My impression is that it's notable enough (or was at the time it was written), similar to Boatmurdered. I would personally be fine with keeping it, but would discourage creating many similar pages, particularly for newer and less historically-relevant content. (This discussion might also be more suitable for the article's talk page.) —Lethosor (talk) 01:49, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, since it was started here, we may as well finish it - or attempt to do so, at least. I concur with Lethosor's view on this. I also concur on the notion of moving any further similar matters to appropriate talk pages - this being the first time I've had to deal with something outside my pay grade like this (came on around 43.05 and quickly restricted myself to copy editing and "janitorial" work (spelling, grammar, etc)). Silverwing235 (talk) 14:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Works for me, tho' BoatMurdered is, at least for me, on a whole diff level. I placed the discussion here (rather than there) b/c it was more a question re "general policy" and editorial SOP, rather than one applicable solely to that one article. Albedo (talk) 07:09, 23 June 2020 (UTC)