I'm contacting you on the behalf of the staff team, as over time we've started to become a little concerned about the behaviour that you've projected onto this community. Firstly, you've received a ban for said behaviour in the past, and thus far none of us have seen any form of improvement on your part.
In addition to this, all edits reverts to your edits were entirely in good faith as the majority of yours were either irrelevant to the article, or just naturally poor in quality. Despite editors reverting your edits providing an entirely valid reason as to why they were undoing yours, you'd revert it back and resort to lashing out in the edit summary. That said, I only ask that you stop with this childish behaviour as despite several warnings from my colleagues, you have opted to ignore them and continued to defy the staff, regardless of the warnings issued.
Please stop, otherwise further action may be taken.
I'm interest as to why you decided to revert a recent edit on Dutch van der Linde's page after a staff member had provided an explaination on why they had it removed. This appears to heading in the direction of vandalism, given its simply proving to be an inconvience for users to have to once again reverse, but I'd want to hear your reason for having done so under similar circumstances several times now.
I'm not entirely sure why you decided to not heed the warning as to why the previous edit had been reversed. Whether it was an attempt to be funny or just plain stubborness is irrevelevant, you've simply been warned to not do so again. I'm asking you to please not try it again.
Please refrain from adding: “little did he know that Jack wiould kill him 15 years later as a young man to avenge his father's death” to the Jack Marston and Edgar Ross pages. The sentence is not relevant to the particular section and therefore ruins the fluency of the text. In addition, it’s actually quite a minor thing when you think about it in context, because a lot of characters have interactions with their future killers and yet it would not seem fitting to add it (for example, you wouldn’t mention on Micah's page that he met John, who would kill him in eight years time), so why do it for this particular one?
Furthermore, it essentially spoils what will happen at the end. The Horseshoe Overlook chapter section is for what happens in the Horseshoe Overlook chapter, it shouldn’t spoil what happens at the end of the game. This goes back to what I said it being irrelevant, but it also gives information that the reader would arguably rather not know at that time. Again, you wouldn’t put, in the background section of Arthur's page, for example, “Arthur and Mary ended their relationship, and the latter married Barry Linton. However, he died of a lung illness, just like Arthur would later on”. It spoils what happens and isn’t relevant.
I’m sorry if this comes across as overly critical, but I thought I should at least give you an explanation as to why it shouldn’t be on the page. Happy editing!
I decided that I’d contact you in person, given that I am the editor that you appear to have an issue with.
Please believe me when I say that I understand how frustrating it is when you’ve worked on an edit for a long time and then someone reverts it, seemingly without reason. It’s happened to me before, and I know that it’s incredibly irritating.
However, the comments that you made in the edit summary were uncalled for and the wrong way to solve a dispute, hence why another member of staff decided to block you. Instead, I would encourage you to contact me on my message wall to explain what your objections are when your edit has been undone, or otherwise explain why you think that your revision is better. Although you may find this unlikely in light of recent events, I can assure you that I will be happy to explain why your edit was undone and, if applicable, what the issues were with it.
As I am here now, I figure that I might as well do just that. Please don’t take it too personally. The main problem for me was the presence of borderline-true "sweeping statements” — speculative statements with limited evidence to support them. One such statement could be saying that Micah's nose was broken in the fight with Arthur, leaving him "barely able to stand" and resulted in him "stumbling away". There is no real evidence that Micah's nose was broken; some blood is present around his nose, but his nose does not actually appear broken. While no one can deny that Micah was injured in the fight, some of the language which you used, such as saying that Micah was "barely able to stand", for example, is overly extreme and over-exaggerates (therefore giving a false impression) Micah's injuries during the encounter.
I also noticed that you added that Arthur could (and forgive me if this is slightly paraphrased) "die in peace, knowing that he had got John and his family to safety", if he went back for the money. I’m going to be blunt on this: this is incorrect. The whole point of going with John (and also why it gives a slight Honor boost), is that it makes John's return to his family safer and much more certain. By contrast, if Arthur abandons John to go for the money, John is left to get to his family alone, in an area swarming with Pinkertons, and his fate is uncertain. The fact that John does so happen to see his family again even if Arthur does go back for the money is irrelevant: as far as Arthur is concerned, John's fate is uncertain, and so he would not die in peace knowing that John got to safety. To be honest, probably the contrary. Additionally, big pages such as the article for Arthur or John need to be concise and with sufficient detail, but not an outstanding amount. The reason for this is simple: if they had too much detail, the pages would go on forever and ever, which is both unnecessary and an inconvenience to the reader.
On a slightly more minor note, sometimes your edits omit commas when they should be present. Obviously a minor grammar mistake is nothing to worry about and everyone makes them sometimes, but please make sure to use commas correctly whenever possible.
I apologise for the length of this correspondence and I congratulate you if you managed to reach the end of all this! However, hopefully you realise that information which is either incorrect or partially incorrect has to be removed accordingly. As not just an administrator, but as an editor who cares about this wiki having consistency well-written pages, I cannot allow such information to remain on the wiki. Remember, please get in touch if you have any further queries.
OK, some of those messages were uncalled for i'I'm sorry and my emotions got the better of mell admit and i was out of line but yes it is frustrating everyone undoing my edits. I'll admit the bit with micah barely able to stand was a slight exaggeration but i saw a video the other day and saw that Micah nose looked crooked at the bridge of his nose but if you don't want that in i'll relent doing that too, I'm sorry my emotions got the better of me
You have been banned for 3 days for intimidating behavior/harassment. You will be prevented from editing and commenting on discussions during this time period. Continuing this behavior after your ban has ended will result in an even harsher ban and possibly a perma ban.
I've noticed your recent edits as well as your comments following them and I'm going to ask that if you have a problem, to take it up with the an admin. I will I add, that I did reverse one of your latest edits due in part to the fact it one merely added a word that was out of place entirely.