Talk:Steve Jackson's Sorcery!

message: Recent edits on this article seem to be edging in the direction of an edit or revert war. I think that it would be helpful for editors to describe what they would like the see on the page so that we can obtain consensus and edit more effectively. Euchrid (talk) 03:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I recently reverted the Libria section back it's previous place and wording, but accidentally pressed enter before finishing my explanation of why. What I wrote before pressing enter was: "Libria fits better following the fragments detailing spells than in the one detailing inter-book-continuity." (that use of inter- appears not to be used in English, what I meant was "continuity between books".) I also wanted to add that the phrasing and placement that the unregistered user(s?) keep reverting to can easily be misunderstood to suggest that the book includes an additional plot where the player's character summons their goodness and not that the summoning of Libria is a game-play function integrated to the main plot. Also these reverts removes the mentions of the option to use Libria to cure the player's stats and remove curses. The earliest reverts also reinstated a typo in the article. --Painocus (talk) 02:02, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  He has done it again! And still without any justification for his actions even though I've repeatedly asked for it! He has at least taken notice to my complaint that he keeps removing the mention of Libria's abilities to (as I wrote) "restore stat values or remove any curses and deceases the player's character may have picked up", but have substituted it the much vaguer "or provide minor aid such as curing a curse". (Additionally, removal of curses/deceases and restoration of stats can hardly be considered "minor aid" and the article should try to avoid such judgments anyways.) It is as if he have some obsessive need for his text, and his placements there of, to be present in the article regardless it's clarity and information. What should I do with him? Since he appears to be constantly changing IPs trying to contact him on his talk page would be impossible. Furthermore, he does not appear to read this talk-page and if he does he ignores it. Trying to have this page temporary semi-protection would be rather excessive to ward of a single person, but trying to have him banned would be useless (due to the changing IPs). Should I try to revert it again and leave a message in the edit-summary telling him to go to the talk page and hope that he actually reads/cares abut it or that he finally gives in? --Painocus (talk) 04:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you feel strongly about it, I'd suggest taking to the Administrators noticeboard. They don't intervene on content disputes, but users refusing to communicate about their changes is against policy. They may decide to temporarily ban the IPs that the user is using. Euchrid (talk) 22:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit war 

message: While not exactly massive, most discussion here is really old. I propose to add archiving (as instructed to prior to actually doing it) with slow-moving parameters. CapnZapp (talk) 12:13, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: CapnZapp (talk) 05:46, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  also, archiving