What to do when correct information is reverted?

[Honktown]

So far, there have been two reverts to additions I have made:

1) Longer ago, I clarified on Types/Color that the alpha channel is increasing opacity, not transparency. That is the standard usage, and Factorio even gives examples in e.g. Types/Blendmode, where the normal blendmode requires the alpha channel to be increasing occlusion, not transparency. The revision was part of a larger edit, and of particularly note: "alpha != opacity". Except that's how Factorio uses it, and even how Adobe, DirectX, OpenGL define the channel from 0-1.

2) Recently, I added that a Types/BoundingBox can have a full definition:

Code: Select all

   {
       left_top = {-0.4, -0.4},
       right_bottom = {0.4, 0.4}
   }

Which was reverted: "The expanded form does not exist in the data stage". Here's a mod where it works, in the data stage:

expanded-collision-box_1.0.0.zip

(808 Bytes) Downloaded 114 times

The reversion was 100% incorrect, and yet if I put the information back, I'd be violating the rules.

What am I supposed to say when the edit is wrong, there's no attempt at contacting me, and there's no response to asking on the Discord nor the talk page? Are there any repercussions for admins who make incorrect edits / violate the rules?

[Bilka]

Hey. Generally, the correct place to note issues that would result in edit-warring if applied directly is the talk page, as stated in the wiki rules. This subforum can also be an appropriate place. Since you noted 2) on the talk page, I have replied there: https://wiki.factorio.com/Talk:Types/BoundingBox.

For 1), the issue was not noted on the talk page or here in this subforum. I do however recall a pm exchange with you where I explained the edit, you did not reply further.


By now I don't recall the context of what I changed or what your complaints were (I seem to just be assuming in the PM), so if there is still an issue, please explain further.

I would like to state that while the wiki rules are quite relaxed, continued aggressive behaviour is not acceptable.

[Honktown]

I do however recall a pm exchange with you where I explained the edit, you did not reply further.

What is the proper reply further to incorrect information? If you do not understand when you are wrong, what is the correct action to take? That is what this thread is about.

I would like to state that while the wiki rules are quite relaxed, continued aggressive behaviour is not acceptable.

You are the one do the wrong things, so could you stop being aggressive about it? When you can't follow the rules (discussing on the talk page, listening to anyone), what is the solution. There is nothing "helpful and understanding" in how you act.

[Honktown]

P.s.: As for finally responding to the talk page, it took three weeks after reverting to provide the reason, to which I can say, yes, you are right. Only took three weeks and complaining on the forum.

[Tertius]

Keep calm. Yes, if someone reverts my edits, my first reaction is: "Gaa! Some */ß!$ reverted my edit! WTF?". Then I realize there is a cause for the revert. Nobody reverts without a cause. If it isn't given in the comment, it's still existing and I should investigate myself what is true - my edit or the revert. In case I get proof that my edit was correct and the revert not, I revert the revert and explain the proof in my revert comment. If I'm not 100% sure, I bring it to the talk page instead and ask the community. With proof I mean really water proof with sources, where other people also described what's correct.

In the past, I was always wrong when someone edited or reverted my edits in a wiki and the guy who corrected my edit was right. In a technical wiki such as this wiki, where only facts are documented and no opinions, it's not difficult to finally find and proof the correct information.

[Bilka]

I do however recall a pm exchange with you where I explained the edit, you did not reply further.

What is the proper reply further to incorrect information? If you do not understand when you are wrong, what is the correct action to take? That is what this thread is about.

My goal is to make the wiki be correct. So from my point of view, the proper reply would be to say where you think the wiki is still wrong (based on the new information/reasoning for reverts) and give the reasons. This allows further discussion of the issue with the end goal of making the page correct.

Because making the page correct is my goal, I want to repeat this from my first reply:

if there is still an issue, please explain further.

Basically, I don't get what exactly you consider wrong on the Types/Color page from your first post in this topic. The examples on the page state that alpha = 1 means full opacity, which matches up with your statement here. So in order to be able to discuss the issue and potentially fix the page, I need to know what exactly you consider wrong. If it's hard to put into words, you could also make a draft edit (edit, but show changes instead of saving) that shows the changes that you would make, screenshot it and post it here.