User talk:ProfessorOfK3ology

Welcome to Inkipedia, Katherine!

We're glad you decided to create an account and join us at the free, editable encyclopedia all about the Splatoon series! You are now able to edit pages, join discussions, and expand our coverage of the game.

Here are some things to keep in mind while editing:

• Create your user page, your own personal space to introduce yourself!
• The Ink Pump is the place to discuss wiki-wide things, including ideas, proposals, and questions.
• Come join us on Discord to chat or play Splatoon!
• Sign any comments you make on discussion or talk pages using four tildes (~~~~).
• Visit the Recent Changes to see all the latest edits.
• If you need help using and editing the wiki, MediaWiki Help is a good place to start.
• If you ever have any questions, don't hesitate to ask any other editors or staff members - they don't bite!

Sincerely, Xanthipos Again, welcome, and we're glad you're joining us!
23:37, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

ok coolProfessorOfK3ology' 23:38, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

About this revision you've made

I want you to watch this video (timestamps: 2:02-2:50 but you can watch the full video if you want) so you can understand the point that sentence was trying to make. Thank you! PurrpleKittyCat (talk) 05:47, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I see

At the end of the day, though, I'd say the point doesn't really belong there as colour theory gets into a bunch of technicalities and pedantics that people can't agree on (as demonstrated between us)

I just didn't want to erase something entirely that was actually constructive. I've certainly erased pointless trivia before, but this wasn't one of those cases.

cheers

ProfessorOfK3ology 10:40, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Even if we disagree, I don't see why remove a trivia point that can be considered a fact as we can just clarify that blue + yellow = gray is digital mixing, which was already clarified in the trivia point (RYB = traditional color theory; RGB = digital color theory) PurrpleKittyCat (talk) 04:02, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah clarifying it better is the way to go if we don't want to remove it completely. Just actually say "using digital color mixing..." and "using traditional color mixing..." or something like that because just having RGB and RYB in parenthesis is what led to my misunderstanding in the first place

edit: put my signature in the middle of a word 💀 ProfessorOfK3ology 10:34, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Edit summary content

Hey ProfessorOfK3ology, it's come to my attention you made an edit "in protest" of another and noted within the edit's summary you think it will "start an edit war". Please note this editing behavior is considered disruptive. If you take issue with other editors over removed content, the best place to address it is in discussion on the related articles' talk pages and/or directly with the user you find to have removed factual content.

From what I can see, it looks like a recent edit of yours was reverted by a staff member because they found it to be overly speculative; the most productive thing to do here would be to start a civil discussion over the matter directly instead of counter-editing other articles that share a relation to the topic at hand in protest. Yoshifan52 (talk) 23:41, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I'll admit I was a bit mad earlier (I had just woken up lol) but I don't see why this information gets removed for speculation when a new edit was made versus the exact same information is allowed for months on another page. If the extra thirty seconds were taken to remove the same info on the Splatlands page for the same reason, I wouldn't have taken issue with it at all.

Maybe I'm seeing this through rose-tinted shades but it feels like preferential treatment is given to edits that have already existed versus new edits that were added in the recent past. It's something I see on wikis a lot; it seems to be a subconscious thing, so I can't place a lot of blame, but it's something that bothers me a lot.

If I were thinking a bit straighter, I would've re-worded the paragraph in the Splatlands page to remove the parts that were seen as speculative instead of deleting it entirely. The "no speculation" thing is a rule I agree with, especially on an encyclopaedic source such as Inkipedia; I just wish that more effort was taken to ensure that said rule was consistent across wiki pages.

Thanks for your time.

ProfessorOfK3ology 00:36, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

"but I don't see why this information gets removed for speculation when a new edit was made versus the exact same information is allowed for months on another page. If the extra thirty seconds were taken to remove the same info on the Splatlands page for the same reason, I wouldn't have taken issue with it at all."

I am not the one that removed that information nor a mediator on this case, I am simply the messenger informing you how to civilly handle article content related disputes on this wiki on your own. I'm informing you of this because your protest edit constitutes vandalism. Please take this topic to the appropriate talk pages. If you would like help with starting the dispute discussion feel free to let me know.

If you have general concerns regarding consistency and want to request others' input or additional effort in that department, the Ink Pump is the best place to discuss that sort of thing.

Additionally, I urge you to not edit the wiki when upset or immediately after waking if it leads to this type of unprofessional behavior. Yoshifan52 (talk) 01:02, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

"I'm informing you of this because your protest edit constitutes vandalism. Please take this topic to the appropriate talk pages. If you would like help with starting the dispute discussion feel free to let me know. If you have general concerns regarding consistency and want to request others' input or additional effort in that department, the Ink Pump is the best place to discuss that sort of thing."

Ultimately starting a big discussion or argument over something this insignificant isn't worth it, but thanks for the offer. I can assure you that something like this won't happen again from me, though.

ProfessorOfK3ology 01:32, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I want to note using talk pages civilly is not "[potentially] starting an argument over something insignificant", it's following proper wiki protocol and etiquette. I can't force you message the other editors involved but please note using the appropriate channels to manage disputes such as this one is encouraged. Yoshifan52 (talk) 01:52, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

After having had time to think about it, I've changed my mind and would like to directly address the edits with the other editor involved in order to come to a conclusion. Would the more appropriate place to start a discussion be on the editor's talk page or the talk page for the pages the edits were on?

If it isn't already obvious, talking to people on this wiki is clearly something I've never had to do before so any assistance would be appreciated.

ProfessorOfK3ology 04:46, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Either work; if you want more users' input then Shiver's talk page might be a slightly better avenue for that (it's a bit more visible compared to user talk pages). Here is the involved staff member's talk page and here is Shiver's article's talk page.

Please keep in mind wikis are inherently a community effort and communication is a vital component of maintaining them :) Yoshifan52 (talk) 06:26, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Alright, thanks.

BTW how do you link directly to specific edits on a page? I'd like to link the edit when I make the talk page discussion so people know what I'm talking about lol

ProfessorOfK3ology 07:28, 7 September 2023 (UTC)