Just wondering where the devs have confirmed Mole locations. Don't disagree with you at all and am wondering about Town of Gnawnia as well. It was added recently (along with the Lab) by another editor and I was surprised (and noted that in a subsequent edit summary). Would love to have an official word on this! BTW, good catch on the Nibbler page revert; I not only missed that one entirely but even fell for it.-- B.Rossow talkcontr 11:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- Dave, one of the developers, had mentioned it on the discussion page. You can refer to the discussion history which was cleared for routine housekeeping? Anyways here's the extract from the history:
- "Mole mice do not currently inhabit the Laboratory. --[[User:Dave Vanderburg|Dave Vanderburg]] 20:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)"
- On top of that, after you pointed out the edit summary, I just realized that the user Icdbko32 has only contributed 2 edits, and both were on the Mole Mouse page, adding the Laboratory and the Town of Gnawnia. Since the Laboratory is certainly not one of the locations that the Mole Mouse can be found, I'm going to remove the reference to the Town of Gnawnia too unless someone else can confirm, since his sources don't seem very accurate at all.
- And about the Nibbler, I saw your comment on the vandal account and went to check his edits. Anyways they did look legitimate so don't worry about having fallen for it. Its not quite possible to fact check every line added to the wiki :) -- Grexx 14:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- Good deal. Thanks again for catching this and correcting it. My initial inclination was to remove those locations after they were added, but after being repeatedly accused of being heavy-handed I was giving the editor the benefit of the doubt, since it's been ages since I hunted in those locations and don't spend more than a few minutes a month on the discussion boards. -- B.Rossow talkcontr 15:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Feedback on edits?
You've spent some time cleaning up the Mole Mouse page. Would you mind looking at the repeated changes by Madrocker and see if you consider them to be vandalism as I do? I'm tired of the edit war he's creating and have asked for dev intervention, but in the meantime another set of eyes would be appreciated. If I'm out of line, I need to know. Thanks! -- B.Rossow talkcontr 17:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- Think its less vandalism and more like trying to defend bad edits (grammar and logic wise). Some users don't quite understand wiki etiquette and over zealously defend their edits, thinking that it's "MY CONTRIBUTION" and no one else can touch it. The original intention of contributing is good but the methods are not quite there. I think your response in this case is fine. The moment you reverted his edit, which came without a good explanation or description and basically made no sense, he should have moved the discussion into the talk page and explained his rationale for the edit rather than constantly changing it back without giving proper reasoning. -- Grexx 19:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
LOL! I was so distracted by the end of the redirect I didn't notice the beginning was wrong. D'oh! Guess it takes two editors to fix one redirect. :-D -- B.Rossow talkcontr 20:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
lol yeah I'm amazed it took us so many edits to get it right :P -- Grexx 06:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
If you haven't already done so, mind taking a look at the Traps page and see if you think I've got a good compromise there? Noticed after the fact that you were working on something in your Sandbox so hope this doesn't make that work a waste of time. (Or if your stuff turns out better than mine, my feelings won't be hurt!) -- B.Rossow talkcontr 15:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)