User talk:VilkaIsBack
Revert of edits
Hi Vilka,
Quick question about the reverts. I understand these might have been reverted due to them being "speculation", but the sword is a 1-1 replica of the Sword from Unity, if you look closely.
I see why you reverted the changes, but why can't the line "Later, Eivor recovered another Sword of Eden from the Eden Ring Station" be on the general Swords of Eden page? It is basically confirmed that the retrieved sword is a Sword of Eden. Why not change the line to "Later, Eivor recovered another Sword from the Eden Ring Station" instead?
Mikeverwegen (talk) 13:19, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- It is not basically confirmed because there are many discrepancies, such as the fact that the blazing sword is described as being built to "channel and distribute energy" while we know that the swords of eden were designed for war by Hephaestus. Also, timeline-wise they don't match, with the one form the tombs being made in preparation for the great catastrophe and the SoE1 being made for the War of Unification, which comes before. Despite the appearance, the editors decided to consider them as separate until someone from the writing team says otherwise. - Soranin (talk) 14:22, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- Ah okay. Thanks for the clarification! - Mikeverwegen (talk) 22:02, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Hytham edits
Hi there, forgive the edit war! I wasn't sure how to reach out to you on here.
I've removed your addition of Hytham's birth year because while it is a speculation in "Giermund's Saga", it conflicts with the timeline in "The Golden City" as it would make Hytham 12 years old in the book, which doesn't make sense.
- While I understand the reasoning, He is like 12ish during Mirage. so simply changing the birth date to "850s" would've been fine. There's plenty of timeline discrepancies afoot the longer you look. VilkaIsBack (talk) 05:30, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for understanding. I really wish Ubisoft made more sense of their timelines haha.
Exercising greater restraint on original research
Vilka, we've had this conversation several times, and I find the need to remind you again to please exercise restraint when it comes to contributing content based on your cursory research on subjects you're unfamiliar with, often using non-authoritative sites like Wikipedia. For starters, the principle is that honest work entails that you contribute based on material you actually have access to. For another, I have already recently explained the parameters where using information from non-Assassin's Creed sources are allowed: when necessary to introduce the most basic information about the subject, when necessary to fill in gaps that result from exclusive reliance on Assassin's Creed sources, and when writing an article dealing directly with a historical event.
Your creation of the article on Huangdi was not necessary. As far as I know, you did not have access to the closed beta test of Assassin's Creed: Jade. Then, to write it without much access to the scant information Assassin's Creed has said about this character, you apparently referred to external sources, thereby relying on original research. But the articles makes it evident that you were unfamiliar with this subject and wrote based on quick searches about him online. In these 4 reasons: (1) no access to the Assassin's Creed source that mentions this subject (2) necessity of relying on original research to write the article at all (3) no familiar understanding of the subject, you were not qualified to write this article and so it would have been more reasonable for you to just refrain from doing so. (Now, if the subject was important to Assassin's Creed, it is valid to write what you can on it and let others pick up the work after you, but Huangdi is only a footnote in one or two flavour texts.)
I apologize if I sound harsh, but this seems to be a recurring issue with your contributions, and I am weary of the extra labour it puts on me to clean it up each time. Sol Pacificus(Cyfiero) 04:26, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Apology
Hello Vilka, I want to apologize for my strictness with you the other day. Because of my own challenges managing my health and time together, often times I easily get stressed and frustrated when I see mistakes that I feel the need to take time to correct outside of my official wiki work schedule. But mistakes are part of the natural wiki work process, where users are supposed to follow-up with one another in successive edits to improve someone's work, and it is unreasonable of me to expect flawlessness in an initial version of any article. I understand too that I may be putting heavy pressure on the wiki by simultaneously demanding everyone else to defer China-related articles to me but then also struggling to regularly provide those pieces myself. I also recognize that I tend to be a little possessive of China-related content and too anxious over the slightest errors related to it owing to my pride for my culture and academic background, when in reality, mistakes over a minor article like the Yellow Emperor really wouldn't kill the wiki because they were left up for a few days.
I know you are only doing the best you can to contribute to the wiki and that it is my duty as an administrator to support you in that, to help you grow as an editor, and to inspire your confidence in your work. I'm sorry if I made you feel like I was clamping down on your efforts instead and harmed your mental health. We really do like having you in our community, which is why we were all so happy when Fandom restored your account a couple of years ago. Sol Pacificus(Cyfiero) 22:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Also want to add that the fact that you named the article Xuānyuán instead of the obvious "Yellow Emperor" showed thoughtfulness on your part about what our formatting standards are. It showed that you were being mindful about the unique naming policy of our wiki even if the title wasn't exactly correct. (For my part, I wanted to create the article and name it with his real name but lacked the boldness to do so since that's so unconventional for this figure! So your boldness actually took the choice out of my hands!) Sol Pacificus(Cyfiero) 22:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you. I did kinda of struggle with the naming of the Yellow Emperor's page not knowing what one of his many names to have used, so in all honestly I should have just asked what his correct name was. Also, if you blame yourself for my hiatus, please don't. Didn't help but definitely wasn't the cause. I'm still around though, lurking, watching. I might be back to full editing duties in the coming weeks. VilkaIsBack (talk) 02:27, 11 January 2024 (UTC)