Thread:Redbeard99/@comment-27294075-20171109224724/@comment-26384327-20171113133531

Mainframebabe wrote: I'm sorry Kat and GEL. I don't constantly read walls either and I hadn't gotten to your final comment on that thread. I have read it now, but you are right, The fact that I don't agree with that idea is nothing more than a difference in opinion which we all have a right to have. I don't agree that this is the 'best' way to number the collections.

But, now I can clearly see that this decision has been made by the 2 of you, so I will not discuss this again anywhere else on the wiki unless someone else asks me. BTW, I believe that these type of discussions are best in an open forum discussion and not on private walls because they can get lost that way and some may not be aware of these type of interactions, but I was wondering why you say that Kat has always maintained tthe numbering since she has only been on the wiki since May of last year. I have been a member only since September of last year.

Remember, the question an/or problem arose only because the 'bible' had not been updated when Sara ran across the problem with the numbering of the Collection Item list. Until this time, I had no idea what the 'bible' to which you and Kat and/or AAA referred actually was. I have tried to help all editors get going on the edits that are needed. Thank you - El P1 response - Mainframe said "I don't agree that this is the 'best' way to number the collections." The numbering system was instituted by Foss, which she no doubt got from the game, we simply followed that path, which is (or was) a logical progression. I do not remember when you (Mainframe) became a member of the Wiki, but if you were around during Foss's tenure, you certainly had the opportunity to voice your opinion on the numbering system.

And to Mainframe's point, which I spoke of just moments ago, such discussions should be out on the public forum. Might I suggest that if you (and that means everyone, including myself) do not think that you cannot respond in a cordial manner, then do not respond. However, as Admins, you are duly obligated to respond (it's your "job").

P2 response - I ask once again, please DO NOT refer to the List of Collections as the "bible", as it is clear that the term is being taken out of context. But to respond to your lack of awareness, no one (other than those on the editing team) was aware of the term as it was a cute euphemism shared by us).