On behalf of someone I saw on the Moon Guard Forums, I'd kindly ask you (or another admin) to take a look at this post: us.battle.net/forums/en/wow/topic/20747667200. It seems he's been banned by a wikia administrator - who isn't an actual admin on the MG wiki - for removing his own content.
My name is Raedolf, an officer of The Päck on the Emerald Dream. While we aren't on Moonguard, we are a Worgen only RP-PvP guild and my ever growing interest in the Old Ways and my research in Harvest Witches, Celtic lore, and real-world druidism has lead me to the pages on the Aderician Calendar project and the Old ways. There are a great many Harvest Witches on ED, and I have been working on forming and creating a "sect"-like multi-guild RP-group that will include members of the Pack and others for gatherings and other RP events.
I am greatly interested in your recent work with the pantheon, and - as this is something my friends and I are interested in - I would enjoy helping with expanding the page further to include rituals, spells, grimoires, sacred/secret grounds, rites, festivals, commonly used herbs/reagents, a Gilnean animal/tree symbolism birth calendar, runic "alphabet", etc etc, either through suggestions and discussion with you or direct editing, if allowed (I am still relitively new to the MG wiki and how editing, authority, etc work around here, and I am hesitant to blatently edit a page). Either way, I am interested in helping out and contributing in any way possible.
Alright, I was looking to add some of my fanon with the 3 Armed Bandits, and according to the Fanon I wrote, they are notable enough to be put into the calendar. I will comment what I had in mind on the page.
Well, I don't have a problem linking them together but I've also written a fair amount of KT fanon as seen on most of the Kingdom of Kul Tiras page (most of it is fanon, such as the bone necklaces or the founding of the kingdom/island duchies etc) and it's something I've used in my own RP as well as in my writing before. From what I've seen of yours you're going from a different angle, which is fine, but it also causes conflict with what I've got written out and have been using. If we were going to use the same admirals someone would have to make a change.
Everything Zooper and I have made is always subject to change, which makes linking much more flexible. However, you may have noticed that we have not yet filled out anything from before 0 L.A.C. And if I am correct, you have a decent amount of fanon in that region, yes? We'd be more than happy to keep that area and work on the rest. It could very easily work with what we have so far (Making Deaglan Proudmoore the Lord who rallied the Dukes).
As for the different Admirals, that would need more work. What would be okay with you in terms of facilitating each other's Admirals?
My issue with that is that the carrier is not your own creation and therefore open to being edited by other people. It's something that was designed in the garrison shipyard, the description before my edit even pretty much confirmed this. Were it a different ship class with the same name I wouldn't have touched the page, but we're talking about a lore vessel type, not a fanon one. Just because you've created the page for a lore ship doesn't mean you have exclusive rights to it. Same for the rest of the naval pages that are, you know, actual lore pages.
In addition my edit, since we are on the discussion of it, takes nor differentiates anything from the page. It is stealing a design IC and would, and has been at least by my people, be criticized for what it is. It doesn't warrant splitting the article into multiple interpretations as it's quite literally an IC view point on the ship that exists in lore.
I did say above I'm not really that against the edit. It was warranted and wasn't that bad at all. I was merely stating that in the future I would like to know what goes on in the pages I create and manage, regardless of whether it was fanon or a Lore page. I'm sure you would say similar if I went in and did a whole heap of edits to the lore section of the Kingdom of Gilneas, would you not? Because you likely created and manage the page more or less.
And by your people? Would it be so prudent to know what their criticism is?
Admiral Ranets Daggerfang wrote:
And by your people? Would it be so prudent to know what their criticism is?
I said it in my post and on the page. It's been criticized for literally just being a drudgeboat with alliance flags on it. There are people who think the Alliance is better than just copying the orcs.
As to the Kingdom of Gilneas stuff, no I don't care if you add to the page. Just like you don't own the navy, I don't own Gilneas. That might be where we do the majority of our RP respectively but neither of us has right to dictate what can and cannot be added to lore pages. What I'd done wasn't, and as you can see by your own words, a massive "heap of edits" it was literally one line. In your hypothetical scenario it's sounding like you'd erase my work and put in your own. I'd have an issue if you went in and erased my work, yes, but if you merely added onto the page that's not a problem. Once more, I don't own Gilneas. Nor do you own the navy, so when it comes to the situation here it's not the same. I only added in a line to the content of the page to reflect a view on the nature of the ship.
I get that you RP in your circle as being a pretty high up naval officer, but that doesn't mean you have the right to basically dictate what can and cannot be added to pages of lore, even if you were the one who created the page. That'd be like Maxen saying you can't edit the Kingdom of Stormwind page or, as you put it, myself saying you can't edit the Kingdom of Gilneas page to place in your own stuff.
You can request people refrain from editing your own original content. Examples, as you'd stated in your first response, being that of how I'd requested people refrain from adding to things like the Raven-class or the Glory-class which do not exist in lore and only in fanon. The carrier, however, is quite literally something straight from the garrison shipyard.
"While I don't mind the edit itself, I would ask the same as you would ask me for your own ship pages and please consult me before editing the page like you did."
"I'm perfectly fine in the way of my of edits like spelling, grammar, categories etc. That's all fine. Just larger edits I'd like to be made aware of before it happens."
I never said I owned the navy. All I asked was that I be made aware of any major edits to any of the pages I run, the Carrier-class included. It's not a matter of a fanon or lore page, but rather to keep it in the shape as the author intended. As I said, I don't particularily mind the edit you did, as I said above and so, I'm going to let it drop. All I wanted was to make sure that it was made aware that in the future, I'd like to know about major edits to pages I manage prior so that I can make sure its...How can I word this...Kept to point? But hopefully you see what I'm going at for here.
I don't know, you do RP as the grand admiral whatever of the grand alliance navy and go around interrogating people about their use of things like 'fleet commander'. That seems a little like trying to own it.
Firstly, if you bothered to look at my name, you'd see I'm an Admiral, not the GA. Second of, the FC I was well within my boundaries to inquire about. If I was interrogating it as harshly as you seem to be making it out as, then I would've made sure there was only me holding the post. As you can see, however, Berenal and I got that issue straightened out. While I do admit I could've handled it better on my side, I was and have not been at any point intending to own it.
My conduct? I was well within my rights to inquire about the Fleet Commander. The FC I created was as it typically is; a post held by a single person, much like being the Duke of...AristocracyVille is held by a single person.
If you were the Duke of AristocracyVille, and somebody ELSE said they were, you'd do exactly what I did would you not?
Either way, one, the FC issue is done and closed, so there is no reason to pull it up anymore, second, I am leaving this message, as said several posts above.
Thank you and might I say, even if my name doesn't concern you, at least take the time like everyone else to type it correctly like you would to anyone else.
Hi. I would like to apologise for all this. I was simply in the mindset of protecting the content I placed on this wiki and I viewed what was really a minor edit more aggressively than I should have.
While I do apologise for making such an issue, I would like to stress to not just you, but also to anyone else reading this, that I do still uphold the idea that any major changes I would like to be notified of prior. I don't own the Navy. That much has been made a intently clear. If I did, I would hold the GrNd Admiral rank which Everen has so loosely placed on me, but I dont, which means ang content you may like to place, I can't neasecarily deny.
I have no issue with new content to my pages. It adds diversity and additional information to the page, which is always handy. I would like to know about the edit first, though. This is more in the aim to better manage the page that I created.
If you would be bothered enough to see the difference between an Admiral and a Grand Admiral, I would be happy to link some pages for you.
Alright well, I didn't see all of this until just now and my point still stands. I don't need to approach you for permission to edit these articles. Once more, you don't own the navy. And based on prior conversations you've approached me on in game? You were intending to give yourself Grand Admiral until I'd told you Jes Tereth held it. While I don't mind what you RP, I do mind if you're going to lie about your intentions.
As for the pages at large, they're not yours. I don't know what's not getting through to you but let me repeat this.
Lore pages, even if they're boats/have to do with the navy, are not yours and no one needs to address you personally when editing them. You are not an administrative consultant on the topic and cannot give yourself that sort of authority over anything.
Skate around it as much as you want, it's very blatantly obvious you have an image for the navy in your mind that not everyone may conform to. Like it or not you do not have the authority nor permission to prevent or request for people to consult you before they make an edit to an article that was not expressly made within your own fanon. The Grand Alliance Navy is a lore organization. The carrier-class is a lore ship. These are not your express creations or your exclusive pages. If you go ahead and make your own classes of ships or fanon that isn't literally just Blizzard's stuff, then you can request people not edit as you wish (aside from categorical/grammatical).
I'm stating this now for everyone who may have read this/Ranets may have approached in the past, you do not need to go to Ranets for personal approval on naval articles relating to the Grand Alliance Navy, the Navy of any kingdom, ship classes or anything having to do with the sphere of nautical fanon if it is not Ranets' own unique creations. That means edits to pages such as Carrier-class and Grand Alliance Navy are fine. It does not matter if you created the page before someone else, if it relates to a lore ship/organization, you don't suddenly gain control over it because you just happened to make the page first. If the article was not in lore and was actually created by your own imagination and creativity, you have express control over it. Lore organizations/creations you do not. This is coming from someone who is a senior member of the administrative body of the wiki.
Alright, alright. I was attempting to maintain that the reason I was asking for permission was so that I could -Manage- the pages. I never explicitly said I would deny people the right to edit the page. I only asked that I was made aware of what was going on. That was what I was intending. If I worded that otherwise or made it out to look like something else, then sorry. My goal was simply to allow people to be aware that I would like to know what goes on for my pages.
As for the Grand Alliance Navy, there is actually ALOT in there that is fanon. Besides the history, I'd say a good 60% (Perhaps more.) is fanon that I've weaved to try to meld it with what we know as lore. The divisions, Admiralty, Fleet Air Arm, parts of the navies, etc. etc. That is fanon I've created. There is no direct mention of the term "Fleet Air Arm". There is no direct term to "Air Force', so I created a Fleet Air Arm with attachments to the Navy so that we had -something-.
You go onto the GAN page and see what is fanon and what is lore, Berenal, I assure you will see what I mean.
As I said before, I'm simply just going to leave this argument. my point was out of hand, and I should have contacted you about this personnally. Whatever you, Everen's or anyone else's opnions of my leaving is, I don't care.
Thanks, and have a good day because I know mine's a bit tarnished now.
Hey! I would just like to inquire about that. I have no issue with someone else being a FC as well, so long as the Fleet or Navy they hold the post in is independant from the GAN (As Ranets is the FC of the GAN, and you can't have two of the same Navy, if you follow).
So I'm basically just wanting to know wether or not the Headlands Armada is independant from the Grand Alliance Navy. If it is indepenant, all good, mate! i won't be an issue. If not, I'd like to discuss about how we can balance things out?
The Headlands Armada is, as a part of the Gilnean Navy (and as of right now the only part of the navy that is active so it seems) and as a result is not independent of the Alliance. Fleet Commander is used as the rank just below Admiral by way of the Garrison Shipyard so we shifted the title over.
Fair enough. The only issue is that (Typically), the Fleet Commander is a post held by an individual, usually an Admiral, Vice, or Rear. When I created the page and took up the title, I based it off as the FC usually is IRL in order to help with fleshing out the structure as well as to make it easier for people to understand.
But of course, as you said, the FC is now canon in the Alliance. While yes, not exactly an issue, the Blizzard form of an FC does conflict with the concept of a real Fleet Commander so...?
I'm not wanting to turn this into an issue or anthing. I'm happy for your bloke to be an FC. If he wants to be one, he bloody well can be, as I don't control the Navy RP. I only contribute to it.
However, that being said, something must be done about the Fleet Commander concept. As far as I see it, as there is no actually FC NPC in-game, the garrison commander who eventually gets the hat etc, becomes the subsequent FC. That's the only way I see it to correspond with reality and how the game seems to be trying to make it.
Now, I'd rather not have to change my pages IF I can help it. One being the fact that the singular FC concept is winded into quite a few pages, but also just that I'd rather keep my pages as I intended them, otherwise, what's the point of creating the page if it won't stay as you wanted it to be in point of creation?
As I said in my initial message, I'm more then happy to find out how we can effecively balance this concept between the page's content, the game and between our characters.
Thanks, and I apologise for having to trample in all this.
Hey! So you might have seen I've been fixing up some of the medal pages I've made and I was just curious, reading the Liam's Cross page. If the Liam's Cross was added following the SoO, does that make it apart of the Grand Alliance Military Order of Wear, or is it still purely the Gilnean Military, however crumbeled it is?
If it is in the Alliance, where does it fit in the OoW?
It's a purely Gilnean Military medal. I'm of the mind that Gilneas still keeps a significant level of separation from the GA in terms of things like this; given they were never ultra Alliance in any iteration of it. While they're def more into the GA than the AoL, I still think they'd keep that whole Gilnean pride centralism when it comes to their military.