Chim vs. Chimera
Moved discussion here.
chim is the form in common use to the point it has eclipsed the longer and very rarely used chimera. the definition of chim is more complicated than the simple (and uninformative) definition of chimera in the sl sense would be, and this article was written to define chim and not chimera. please do not relocate this article to chimera again. if it is moved again, i will delete my text as i i do not wish to rewrite it nor will i allow it to appear i wrote it as a definition for chimera which it is not and does not work as. for one thing, chimera is never used as a verb, unlike chim. nobody says "chimera me".
– Edward Vellhi, 03:35 - 14 February 2009, Editing History
It would be better to welcome addition by others since it's the way an article evolves. When you consider the changes being wrong, you can discuss that at the related discussion page and the community will find a solution in an objective discussion. No need for drama.
Wrong additions to articles might happen, but they can be used to improve articles by stating why a common believe is wrong and clarifying how it is right. I'm willing to revert any additions of mine that are considered wrong, without a bad feeling about it. It's not my intention to spread wrong information.
That beeing said, I hope you'll still be motivated to contribute to this Wiki since the additions are meaningful and welcomed.
Greetz, Lynch (talk|contribs) 21:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I hope you'll still be motivated to contribute to this Wiki
– Zai Lynch
Not particularly. I don't appreciate my not wanting to look incompetent being portrayed as a threat or indication of stupidity, nor is my unwillingness open to discussion. It wasn't a threat, it was a statement of fact. I am quite aware of the TOS and that others are legally allowed to recover the text, but at that point the history will document I am not responsible for the result. If you were interested in promoting discussion you would have begun by discussing the issue, instead of presumptuously relocating the definition. From now on I will leave the Second Life Wiki editing to the editing glitterati and save myself time, stress, and humiliation.—The preceding unsigned comment was added on 22:03, 14 February 2009 by Edward Vellhi
- I can not assume that someone who just made the first two edits here is already familiar with all the related conditions. Your comment mislead me to the assumption that you were indeed not familiar with them, which was the reason why I pointed them out. Not knowing something has nothing to do with stupidity.
- Not knowing the conditions is also exactly what would scare away any unexperienced potential contributor which would read the consequences of making an edit to such an article. S/he might expect that information are going to be permanently lost when an hypothetical edit wouldn't please the initial creator. That is why I'm asking to not make such statements.
- Starting a discussion before an edit is slowing down the workflow and is therefor only recommended for edits that are likely to be controversial. A Wiki is asking contributors to be bold. This has nothing to do with beeing presumptuous. The normal order is edit → revert → (polite) discussion, assuming good faith. That is why I didn't start a discussion in first place. I didn't consider the edit beeing controversial (and am still surprised that it seems to be).
- I'm sorry that my comment caused humiliation to you. That wasn't my intention.
- Greetz, Lynch (talk|contribs) 08:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I personally support Zai Lynch action, behaviour and approach on the wiki and I thank her for her contributions. --Opensource Obscure 12:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)