Talk:Grey elf

Should we keep this page as it is explicitly not linked to the forgotten realms ? Sylaruil (talk) 12:32, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Apparently, "grey elves" could be rarely encountered by travelers in the North (source: The North: Guide to the Savage Frontier), though there was much discussion about whether this was true or not (and whether grey elves actually means the derogatory term for silver elves). SunderedShor can probably fill you in. ~ Possessed Priest (talk) 15:42, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Howdy there, man behind this article's existence reporting in. First off, I want to state that previous discussions I've had with other editors have concluded that a monster appearing in the encounter table of a Realms sourcebook is enough to warrant an article. An example of this would be the floating eye - the only Realms mention I could find for it was an encounter table in Gateway to Ravens Bluff, the Living City. In the case of the grey elf here, it appears in the encounter table for The North: Guide to the Savage Frontier.

Based on the fact that (1.), the book's encounter table consisted entirely of creatures from the then current Monstrous Manual, and (2.), a number of those inclusions don't seem like there was much thought put into them at all, I came to the conclusion that the "grey elves" listed within it had to be have been the grey elves from Monstrous Manual. And the "grey elf" of the Monstrous Manual is without a doubt meant to be these Oerthian elves. ~ SunderedShor (talk), 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Check Sources and Quit Reverting Unnecessarily
I'm gonna be frank and clear, here.

This tendency of editors to wholly revert other's constructive, accurate edits based on grammar alone is getting out of hand. If y'all have a problem with an edit, help fix it, and don't make snarky sideways remarks in the edit comments.

Don't revert someone's entire constructive edit on the basis of verb-tense alone. If the verb tense isn't past—you can either fix it, leave it to the next editor to fix, or post about it on the article's Talk page or the User's Talk page and ask them to fix it. Removing accurate information in an edit based on the verb tense policies of this wiki does not supersede the Good Faith editing policies of this wiki (or of any wiki). Period. It's Deletionist, unnecessary, and smacks of provoking controversy simply for the sake of perceived authority. The practice is coming off a little too sanctimonious. It carries the connotation that perfect grammar is more important than a helpful user wanting to contribute to the wiki and make it better. No one here is the Gramar Police ... we're contributing editors, just like everybody else.

Next ... if you don't have a source, or don't check a source, don't revert someone's edit based on something you don't know.

Let me be clear here—in the edit on 5 May 2023, BadCatMan, you said, "This is copied from Complete Book of Elves page 17; please do not re-add reverted text" referring to phrasing you reverted, making the second time that content had been needlessly deleted, after it was reverted by Artyom.pavlo for verb tense. You are categorically and empirically wrong. The text *you* deleted was, in fact, the copied text. What you re-added is not copied, at all. If you don't check your sources, don't claim a source. The page in question literally says, "While other elves are by no means stupid, grey elves trust less in physical prowess than they do the mind." ... and that is the exact, precise quote that was added by the other Editor. What's more ... information shouldn't be copied without quoting. Information should be summarized, not plagiarized. If it's a quotation, then add quotation marks.

Further, the "rewritten statement" you added ("They preferred to rely more on their mental talents than on their physical abilities") isn't supported by the 2e Monstrous Manual source citation you placed it from. That source reads, in whole, "They value intelligence very highly, and, unlike other elves, devote much time to study and contemplation." It doesn't say anything about grey elves opinions about physical attributes, at all.

So, again, if you don't check a source, don't revert someone's edit based on your presuptionn, and don't claim citation from a source you don't check!! There is now an opportunity to fix the inaccurate citations and quotations after this discussion, without resorting to Edit Wars on the article page.
 * —IcarusATB (talk) 15:46, 7 May 2023 (UTC)


 * The edit I reverted was a) plagiarized from Complete book of elves, page 17, 10th line from the bottom left. Plagiarism is absolutely not allowed. Secondly, present tense edits are going against the wiki's guidelines, thirdly, present tense is used very often to vandalize the pages. My edits, as well as BadCatMan's are correct and in accordance with the wiki's guidelines and rules. Artyom.pavlov (talk) 16:08, 7 May 2023 (UTC)


 * You're very literally proving my point, Artyom.pavlov.
 * RE: Plagiarism: As I pointed out, plagiarism isn't acceptable.  Quoting half a sentence is not plagiarism.   As I said above, as an editor, if it's a quotation, then as an editor you can simply add quotation marks.  The quote (with necessary and correct citation) does not qualify in the Forgotten Realms Wiki:Plagiarism policy.  If it did, Template:Quote wouldn't be a thing. And the plagiarism policy says nothing about editors removing good content or reverting edits on a whim while not contributing to the article.  Edit, don't delete content.  At the risk of reiteration, "If the verb tense isn't past—you can either fix it, leave it to the next editor to fix, or post about it on the article's Talk page or the User's Talk page and ask them to fix it."
 * But, more importantly, your objection to the edit had precisely nothing to do with quotation or plagiarism.
 * RE: Past tense policy: Your objection, as seen in the Revision as of 19:09, May 4, 2023 was nothing more than "past tense please" before wiping the content out. And again, at the risk of reiteration, "Removing accurate information in an edit based on the verb tense policies of this wiki does not supersede the Good Faith editing policies of this wiki (or of any wiki).  Period."
 * As to your claims of vandalism—without evidence of either intended or actual vandalism, your claim is spurious, at best. This was very clearly not a case of vandalism, as it is constructive, accurate information being added to the wiki.  And the fact that you're making this assertion implies either complete disregard by not reading the edit, or Bad Faith intent by deleting something easily corrected.


 * Your actions, in point of fact, are neither correct nor in accordance with the wiki's guidelines and rules. Quite the contrary in fact: your action is specifically called out in the Blocking policy. Under "Do not be disruptive", it says "Do not remove content."   Moreover, on the Help article for Editing, this kind of thing is called out, specifically.  Under Typos, spelling, punctuation and grammar it literally gives instruction on how to handle it: "If you find any problems with typos, spelling, punctuation or grammar, please feel free to dive straight in and correct them."  THAT is what policy actually says about grammatical errors:  edit them.


 * Deleting another editor's contribution in this way is unnecessary and disruptive.  We are here to edit, not to remove content maliciously or carelessly.—IcarusATB (talk) 17:14, 7 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I've made my point clear and this is the end of this conversation. Edits that violate plagiarism and tense policies will continue being removed.Artyom.pavlov (talk) 17:20, 7 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Please ensure your contributions adhere to the established wiki style. This includes sticking with the accepted in-universe tense as well as avoiding in-line quotations directly from the source material. Content that does not suit our style will be rejected. There is nothing left to discuss here. Ir&#39;revrykal (talk) 17:24, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Both those claims violate the stated policy of this wiki. The claim of plagiarism is both false and spurious.
 * I would like to see policy citation where the claims of removal and rejection contradict the policy for editing grammar mistakes found in Typos, spelling, punctuation and grammar as removal and rejection are not clearly stated in policy. —IcarusATB (talk) 17:30, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Our policy pages are admittedly outdated and do not reflect all that they should. Still, even a cursory examination of existing articles should inform correct tense usage. Copied text is something we strive to avoid in and of itself, aside from clearly labeled block quotes, because we do not want to give even the remotest impression that we are violating Wizards of the Coast's copyright (or anyone else's). Although in-line quotations do not constitute plagiarism per se, they are still heavily discouraged for this reason. I hope that's all clear enough and that your future edits will bear this information in mind. Ir&#39;revrykal (talk) 17:35, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * (outdenting) Expecting other editors to clean up after you because you couldn't take a few seconds to understand that adding your wrong tense, plagiarized addition that probably took all of five seconds to copy-paste or type out, is incredibly rude and tone-deaf. There are a small group of regular editors compared to the 49,000+ articles that need watching, clean up, and expansion. 9 times out of 10, a rando changing part of an article to present-tense is vandalism, which we just revert because, we're busy. Fare-thee-well, --SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:32, 7 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Finally catching up, I really don't understand your issue here, nor the source of your vehemence. I'll just go back over the events. As an unsourced, unexplained, apparently needless change of existing valid text, that was later found to be a copied statement, Artie was absolutely correct in reverting RyokoMocha's edit and moving on to more useful wiki work. A statement in the edit summary is sufficient communication; most Talk page messages go unanswered and making one would have consumed more time than this is worth.
 * Then, you chose to get involved and restore it, only changed it to past tense without investigating further, and made a complaint in the edit summary rather than discussing it on a Talk page as you argue should be done by default.
 * Noticing this, I investigated the disputed text and checked the source, and quickly found it to copied, and thus invalid in the first place, so I reverted it. Figuring it was a point worth clarifying (the information was already on the page, just divided between different sections) I made the effort to rewrite it and place it in an appropriate point. Yes, I misread the reference there, but Artie corrected that and I've now clarified it further.
 * You seem to be arguing that copied text should be considered as a quotation. But a quote is only a quote if it has quotation marks around it and a source to indicate such. Without either, it is passing the text off as the editor's own, and that is plagiarism. The amount of copied text does not matter and a minor change (such as of tense) does not matter, as a reasonable effort has not been made to revise it.
 * In any case, there is no need to have quotations of real-world texts such as sourcebooks, as they are just descriptive passages that can be revised. Sometimes, a specific term or turn of phrase may be retained as the best way of describing something, but half a sentence, a whole sentence, or more is not taking that reasonable effort and does come under 'fair use'. We reserve quotations for in-universe statements to illustrate characters, language, and in-universe texts, which we maintain is fair use, as well as of book blurbs and official summaries, which are public and promotional.
 * Finally, spurious debates like this, over what is a single copied statement, are unhelpful and waste time we could be spending on the wiki or other matters. ~ BadCatMan (talk) 03:20, 8 May 2023 (UTC)