there's a guy named iamplayer from the fanon version of the wiki (PvZCC to be more accurate) and he's my friend (that's obvious from my userpage)
and he created a fanon game there (note: it's not a real thing, it's just a game concept) called Plants vs. Zombies: The Plants' Rescue
so me and iamplayer discussed this in the discord DMs and we decided to make it a real thing.
i'll be the coder and iamplayer is going to help me
but yeah you probably don't care so sorry for the inconvenience
Hello there, ThisUserLikesOreo, I'm Naleksuh. I believe we spoke on the Wiki before (where you accused me of defamation), and on Discord( when you told me to fuck off). I'm sorry to hear that you are upset what me and what I've done. If you have some conerns with what I do, you can always leave me a message.
I believe that the reason for this is when I raised the concern about someoftherevertsyou'vemade, which you considered "pulling shit from years ago", (i.e. that I find these edits intentionally to make you look bad). If this is the apparent image you have of me, then I humbly apologize as I never intended to cause problems against you. The reason I reach back to 2017 to find these edits is due to the fact that I believe the way you are using the Rollback tool is an ongoing pattern stretching across several years. I have concerns that you may be using the rollback tool in cases when it should not be used, such as when undo may be a more proper choice instead. Such cases include reverting edits that seemingly had nothing wrong with them, reverting edits and then not providing a reason for doing so, and other various cases when rollback may not be the proper use case. I do not mean to harass you or cause you harm by pointing this out, I simply intend to solve the concern of users spending time on edits and then having them reverted with no practical reason.
A second issue to this problem is how you have reacted to this. As I recall, I mentioned this to you once before in this this discussion, but you decided to close the discussion, which seems to imply that you are not open to discussing your actions. If I have misinterpreted that action, please let me know as I don't want to accuse you of something you did not mean. However, under the assumption that you are not interested in discsusing your actions, I would like to ask why you private messaged insults to me on Discord, and then upon me asking you to be nicer, telling the other admins that I was harassing you. If you believe that what I've done qualifies as harassment, that may be a valid issue, but seperate. I do not understand how asking you to leave summaries and be nicer to the members of the wiki is harassment. I have never intended to do that, but only to inquire about why you have reverted certain edits (and chosen not to add a reason), privately insulted me, and told others that I was harassing you. If you have any sort of issue with me, I am open to resolving that. You can talk to me through the Wiki or on Discord if you believe that I have made a false claim about one of your reverts, or that I am harassing you.
I am concerned about your role as a bureaucrat on this wiki. I believe that reverting people's edits without telling them why and using profane words when they try to ask for a reason may cause new users to not want to edit, or to leave the wiki entirely. Obviously, nobody wants this type of behavior, so I believe at this time I would like to have a discussion with you about why you have done the actions detailed earlier, and attempted to avoid reasoning with them previously. I don't mean this to say that you're automatically a bad editor -- but that simply no humans are perfect and we all have room for error. You can contact me through my user talk page or privately. I don't know that having these actions endorsed by a bureaucrat may be a good idea, as uses may not want to edit in a hostile/unproductive enviornment.
I do not mean this message to defame, intimidate, or harass you in any way. I simply want to share my observations and interactions with you. If you believe that what I am saying may be defamation or harassment, please let me know and I will do the best that I can to explain/remove the personal attack parts.
While we appreciate your attempted calm explanation, there are things we need to point out that you may or may not understand. Please read through all this and afterwards, ponder why our veteran B Crat has done this.
1. While some reverts he made weren't exactly the best choices, people make mistakes and it's ok to make them as long as you acknowledge them at some point. What's not ok is to pull past mistakes(Some which aren't even mistakes) and attempt to use them to your defense doesn't simply work especially when it's incorrect in the first place. Rollback is essentially the same as the undo button except you can't leave a reason and it can undo multiple edits at once which was the exact uses for all the links you provided. While it is unfortunate you can't leave a summary of the edit during rollbacking, it's a minor thing overall and absolutely not abuse of the tool in any way shape or form.
2. Closing the thread is to prevent anymore pointless chatter which was why the thread was closed in the first place, all was said, nothing more to be said. While the insulting could've not been done, in many of the staffs eye, without exaggeration clouds or lies, you were very annoying. While we tried to deal with it calmly, the fact you kept pestering got on the nerve of couple of the staff, including good ol TULO here. Again, while the insult might've not been necessary, there was a good reason why he said it.
In summary, TULO is a veteran B Crat who knows what he's doing and there are no major problems with him. If people really don't like not getting a reason for getting rollback'd, they can ask but they should not continue to ask futile and completely pointless statements after doing so. As for profane words, while they aren't good to see, there was at least a justifiable reason why due to your many pesterings. We appreciate you asking why in a calm fashion but there's a reason why you're in this situation and it doesn't involve TULO or us. Think about it. Have a nice day.
1. I'm aware that they are from the past, however you'll notice that several of them span up to only a few weeks ago. Additionally, only one of the rollbacks was for multiple edits. He has also used rollback to revert only a single edit, so I don't understand the use-case there. Also, it *is* possible to leave a reason with multiple edits, either via reverting from the date/time, or appending the summary parameter in the rollback.
2. I acknowledge this, but it does seem off-balance for the person the discussion is about to close it.
There was also a two week gap between the last time I interacted with Oreo and when he PMed me on Discord, which I don't see as "many pesterings", or what makes it so (i.e. if I hit someone and then two weeks later they hit me because I hit them first).
I believe the issue here is that reasons should be open without asking. And, that when people do try to ask, they aren't met with sighs or insults that doesn't solve anything (which simply ties into the issues I've mentioned before).
As it's impossible to improve my editing when I can't even be told what I am doing wrong.
1. The difference does not matter, what's done was done. Using rollback for single edits is fine no matter. As for reasoning, it is not 100% necessary but if you really want to know why, just as said before, you can always just ask him.
2. The discussion was not about the person, it was about a completely separate topic being an unnecessary category.
It may have been only 2 weeks since your last conversation together, but that does not define "many pesterings" as you have done so before said 2 weeks. In addition, pestering others in place such as Vampy/PvZABFan/Grand UMP doesn't help your case at all.
While reasons should be open, they should also be listened AND understood. There is a difference between that and just listening. And it is never impossible to improve, there is always a way for something to go up....or down.
Hello, recently someone on YouTube has told me that there may be a new plant family (Which means a new mint will be released) called Submerge-mint in PvZ 2 7.9.1 version. They also sends me an image about it. I'm not sure if it is a true information. Can you help me check the code if this is accurate? Thank you.
So you talk about my page without me even getting to say anything, and call that the "discussion". And now you're also saying that I "don't know all the facts" because you intentionally do this. And me calling you out on it is somehow defamation too.
This wiki is a public place and we can discuss the wiki's content whenever and wherever we want. You don't own the pages you make. I didn't call it a discussion, you did. Yes, it is defamation, you're trying to accuse me of something I did not do. It's not like I decided alone on this. I've been on this wiki for 4 years now and that's how the wiki worked all of this time.
"This wiki is a public place" Discussing stuff in your private discord server is not very public.
"Yes, it is defamation, you're trying to accuse me of something I did not do. " Everything you do is saved into the page history and you can't deny it unless somebody else got into your account.
Listen man, I was never trying to harass you. I just wanted to talk about the category, but it gets escalated into defamation/harasssment. All I ask for are two simple things:
1) Please restore my category. It was deleted due to the existance of area-of-effect and multi-directional plants, even though those are different categories. For example, Squash is considered area of effect and multi-directional, even though it does not affect any other lanes.
2) Be public about the reasons of reverting edits. I spend about 12 hours completely confused as to why my edits are getting reverted. Because nobody leaves any edit summaries, messages on my talk page, or anything else. Just your private discussion that I can't see at all. And that leaves me essentially unable to edit the wiki.
If anyone do furthur statements about the category, let me know. But I was never defaming/harassing anyone.
"if a category is redundant" It was not redundant. That was established about 12 posts ago.
"why should they have to ask permission to remove it. " It's not about "asking permission". I never said anything about asking permission. All i said is he doesn't say why he does. But then he accuses me of defamation.
"it was pretty redundant, plants that effect multiple lanes are already accounted for within those categories" That's not true. Spikeweed is an area of effect plant even though it won't affect other lanes. Split Pea is a multi-directional plant even though it won't affect other lanes. On the flip-side, Garlic is a plant that affects other lanes even though is it neither an area-of-effect or multi-directional. So although the categories do have some overlap, they still clearly are different.
"you refer to it as "your" page, "your" category as if this isn't a community where nobody owns pages (which just happens to be what you're arguing for) which is kind of going against your point" Okay, I can see how my wording might have been misleading there. But a page that a specific user created is usually called "their page" in shorthand even if they don't own it.
1. the plants that do not effect multiple lanes being in those two categories have nothing to do with whether or not the plants the do effect multiple lanes are accounted for within those two categories
2. Garlic does not effect multiple lanes, only the lane he is in
"1. the plants that do not effect multiple lanes being in those two categories have nothing to do with whether or not the plants the do effect multiple lanes are accounted for within those two categories" What if someone wants to look for only plants that affect other lanes?
"2. Garlic does not effect multiple lanes, only the lane he is in" He moves the zombies into the other lanes. Which means that he is affecting the lanes above and below him, as well as the one he is in.
1. what do you mean by "plants that affect other lanes"? plants that attack in other lanes outside of their own? plants whose areas of effect extend outside of their own lane? both of these questions can be answered by going in the "Multi-directional plants" and "Area-of-effect plants" categories respectively
2. while yes he does move zombies into other lanes, he only effects the zombies within his own lane. he himself does not act upon the other lanes as the name of the category would imply, the zombies moving between the lanes are the ones acting upon multiple lanes, not Garlic himself
"1. what do you mean by "plants that affect other lanes"? plants that attack in other lanes outside of their own? plants whose areas of effect extend outside of their own lane? both of these questions can be answered by going in the "Multi-directional plants" and "Area-of-effect plants" categories respectively" It means a plant that is able to change something / have an affect on any lane besides the one it was planted in. Not just attacking, but any effect at all, including zombies being moved into those lanes.
which is what makes my category different than the other two. and i think it should be restored since they both of different plants in them, each having things the other doesn't.
"It means a plant that is able to change something / have an affect on any lane besides the one it was planted in. Not just attacking, but any effect at all, including zombies being moved into those lanes."
"that is accounted for in "Area-of-effect plants"" Out of the 22 plants in that category (in pvz1), 9 do not affect other lanes. Which makes it ineffective for looking at plants that affect other lanes.
"exactly, Garlic and Spring Bean don't effect the adjacent lanes, they effect the zombies" No idea what the spring bean is, but Garlic affects other lanes by putting zombies into them.
Update: Someone on Discord called Vampy (don't know their Wikia name) is getting my edit on Garlic re-added. So that is dealt with. But I still feel that the category discussion is not over due to the the mention of QST.
Would you be opposed to some minor improvements to Template:MainPageWelcome? That main page welcome box hasn't really been significantly updated in recent years by any of the current administrators, however it has been brought to my attention that there are some aspects of its design which can cause legibility issues and lead to eye strain for some wiki users due to high-contrast colors and the choice of fonts.
I'm also curious if you can tell me anything about the note which mentions zooming in to 110% or more for the best wiki experience. I'm not certain if this note refers specifically to those buttons at the bottom of that template (which do not display on the web at default browser resolution), or if resolution affects other aspects of the wiki. Ideally, a wiki's design really ought to display content at a browser's default resolution, rather than forcing users to zoom in or out, just to be able to view content properly. I could possibly assist with resolving any resolution-related issues the wiki might have, if I know more about them.
I've put together a test page of this template, where I have tweaked some of the elements that are known to cause issues for some readers. The buttons also display properly in that example, and I updated the links so they no longer lead to the community-specific app (community apps are no longer supported across Fandom). Whenever you have the time, would you be able to take a look at that proposal template, and let me know what you think? - Sitb(Message wall / Talk page) 13:53, December 1, 2019 (UTC)
Pages with article management templates (example) and Template:PageHeader (example) have problems with the zoom in. But this is definitely the case with all screen resolutions. For example, I have a 1920x1080 screen and I need to zoom in by 125% to see the changes. The templates are displayed differently in preview mode as well. I'm sure that this happens for other resolutions, other staff members have reported multiple times that the templates look different on their screens. I think that we should just remove the warning. Listing all of the possible resolution and zoom combinations would be pointless.
Overall, the redesign looks good, but like I said, the zoom warning is unnecessary.