User talk:Green Dragon/Archive 16

← Archive 15 |

Archive 16 |

Archive 17 →

Hands of a Wiseman?

Is this a homebrewed feat or is it somewhere in another book somewhere? I am currently playing a D&D 3.5 game and I would really like to use this feat for my healer, but my GM won't let me use it unless it is somewhere "authenticate".

Thanks for your time and have a great day! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Copper Gryphon (talk • contribs) . Please sign your posts.

Hands of a Wiseman (3.5e Feat) is homebrew material, meaning it was made by independent author(s), at home most likely. Homebrewing is common. You should speak to your GM about allowing such material after his reviewal and approval of course for each article. --Ganteka 22:12, 5 July 2009 (MDT)

An over all thought

I saw the drama again, I think that Green did what was right. You know why? Its his page. I know we all put our souls in it but it is what it is. I dont want to drudge things up but for example no one but green has even commented on anything i ask help for, no one has rated classes im fixing, NOTHING. only green. So I stand firmly behind him, so please flame me all you want. --Starcry 10:44, 7 December 2009 (MST)

Hit Points in 3.5e

I have a question about hit points in v3.5 and i cannot confirm if i am correct or not. My question is:

When you reach a new bonus with your constitution score (from +1 to +2) do you gain 1 hp per class level, or just another hp at the level your new constitution bonus takes effect.

I have always assumed that you would gain 1 hp per class level when this occurs as, unless im wrong, you lose 1 hp per level when you your constitution bonus drops a point. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.71.231.106 (talk • contribs) 23:20, 5 July 2009 (MDT). Please sign your posts.

SRD:Constitution states: "If a character’s Constitution score changes enough to alter his or her Constitution modifier, the character’s hit points also increase or decrease accordingly." I mean, a raging barbarian gets bonus hit points from his Constitution increase. Why wouldn't you normally gain from such a benefit? I've always played like that (retroactive increases), anyway. Hope this helps, even if the link isn't explicitly clear. --Jota 00:55, 6 July 2009 (MDT)

I'm pretty sure bonus HP due to a CON increase are awarded retroactively. I've noticed they are in d20 products for the PC and console, so I'm certain they're awarded the same way in regular D&D. We always played it like that anyway. --Mythos 16:22, 7 July 2009 (MDT)

It is awarded retroactively, though you may want to play this differently. Sometimes it doesn't make sense for a person to gain a large amount of hit points for (almost) no reason. --Sabre070 05:01, 12 July 2009 (MDT)

4e Power Format Regarding LAI

Thanks, I really appreciate you taking the time to send me a message. Hopefully, it was manual otherwise, oops! :P

I have one question though. I was creating a campaign setting for the 4th edition, and I've noticed the wiki is lacking in material for this edition. Could you tell me what things are availible to me? On a related note, whenever I use the 4th edition power template, a footer appears beneath it, like in here. How do I get rid of it? Also, very quickly, my campaign was put under 0 for lacking pages, but I've been steadily adding them. How will my campaign get out of 0? Thanks! ~Celen Joad 17:33, 9 July 2009 (MDT)`

4e Homebrew. Since when can Campaign Settings get rated as 0? I think you mean your class. I would post something on it's talk page ans ask what you need to do to improve it. --Green Dragon 17:37, 9 July 2009 (MDT)

Here is what I mean. Without code wrapping 'Template:,'

stub|missing nearly all pages

Campaign Setting Rating=0

How do I fix that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Celen Joad (talk • contribs) 07:31, 10 July 2009 (MDT). Please sign your posts.

I agree with you about Template:4e Power and how it automatically adds the breadcrumb to all the powers gets very damn annoying (okay, I've never actually added my own 4e class. I'm just talking about the layout). We currently add homebrew power's into their own linked to pages with each class having it's own page (4e Powers - the ones under "homebrew designation"). The reason the breadcrumb is included in that template is because the idea when they were made was for each to have it's own page. The reasoning was so other classes could use the same powers, like a mix of 3.5e spells 4e powers optimized for functionality; however I feel that their is a better way to do it. What are your thoughts on having something more compared to a pool of 4e powers and each class transcluding them into their page (or creating a link list - comparable to the 3.5e spell lists for each class)? --Green Dragon 15:24, 11 July 2009 (MDT)

I took a look at your campaign setting - LAI and you were right. It was rated as 0. I changed the formatting and layout a bit and changed the rating to 2, however I did not really read it so the rating could be off. And above with the code warping and dpl mixed with categories idea did you man to ask how does one change a campaign settings rating? Since it uses a template it just pulls a parameter from the template page; so one just has to change the number at the end to the new rating. --Green Dragon 16:06, 11 July 2009 (MDT)

Also which edition does LAI use? Your 4e class is in there but much of it is using 3.5e material. --Green Dragon 23:40, 12 July 2009 (MDT)

What do you mean? I designed the class after how it looks like in the 4e handbooks, and it says in the running and history of LAI section that it uses 4e. So how do I manage to get the Power to appear without the footer? Do I link into it like with the menu and find some way to make them fit in the powers section? My idea on that power linkage thing is to have it so that powers could have a powersource tab add to it as well as a link on the power to the classes it belongs to, so that you can search up the power, then see the classes it leads to on the power itself.-- Celen Joad 7:44, 15 July 2009 (GST +10)

Removing those footers on class pages is a bit of an issue. The template was designed to work so that each homebrew class added has it's own power page and each template has it's own page. I am not positive if you agree or not however I think that that organizational structure for powers is a bit extraneous (for example your class has about six powers. Six powers on such a massive page (to me at least) comes off as a bit much). I changed your class a bit to show you more of what I mean. The first edit I did (with the revision history is and then I reverted it back to the old revision ). One of the powers does not have a breadcrumb but if one notices it is changed to say "Attack" to say "Class Feature" (or something like that). I am not positive with either way to organize the powers on your class. Also the template could be changed so one has to add a footer manually. --Green Dragon 12:39, 15 July 2009 (MDT)

I made Template:4e Power/Sandbox. If you would not mind let me know what you think. --Green Dragon 17:30, 16 July 2009 (MDT)

It looks great! Finally we can have powers without the footers! Huzzah. On the subject on the changes to the Archer class: Would you like to join LAI? You are amazing! Your tweaks have made the Archer class a rich and more in depth class than I alone (Seeing as I'm the only one in PnP LAI) could make! I give you full permission to edit anything on LAI as long as it dosen't affect the larger whole of the story! BTW the Tribal Civil war didn't happen, more like a World War among the cities.

Serious about the LAI joining thing, will you? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Celen Joad (talk • contribs) 03:33, 19 July 2009 (MDT). Please sign your posts.

Could you email me about joining LAI so I can think about it more? I don't want to start helping LAI and have strange ideas for LAI which you disagree with. Although I am pretty certain I want to continue developing it, with permission. --Green Dragon 16:58, 21 July 2009 (MDT)

Could you email me and let me know if it is okay for me to edit your CS soon and so we can discuss ideas? I want to start a 4e campaign in a day or so and I would prefer to use LAI. --Green Dragon 20:12, 25 July 2009 (MDT)

Sure, the Email will be arriving soon. I had a special pdf. sheet I made for recruiting people in real life, it would be nice to send it to you via Email. On a less formal setting, I give you full permission to edit anything but the History (Though you can add things). --Celen Joad 10:20, 29 July 2009

I don't mean to be rude or anything, however I changed my opinion. I think I am going to start a 3.5e campaign and just start from a small town outwards. Sorry to have been a bother, thanks for your time. --Green Dragon 14:46, 30 July 2009 (MDT)

Appologies in Advance

For all the annoying MOIs past and future to fix little errors that i find in locked pages. --- GaaaaaH 05:03, 12 July 2009 (MDT)

Not at all. It's good to know where problems are - they help improve D&D Wiki, so no worries. --Green Dragon 11:23, 13 November 2009 (MST)

Show/Hide

Is there a way to hide the contents of an article until the viewer clicks on a link... like a 'for DM's Eyes only' warning on adventure pages. --Calidore Chase 11:29, 26 July 2009 (MDT)

TK-Squared has something to that effect on his user page. I don't know what in the coding makes it work like that, but it might be a place to start. -- Jota 12:32, 26 July 2009 (MDT)

For DM's Only

The information stored in this "For DM Only" table is, as the name stipulates, for the eyes of the Dungeon Master only. In such; Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Integer vel odio tellus. Maecenas eu sagittis nunc. Cras pharetra neque magna. Aliquam ut lectus posuere tellus scelerisque vehicula eu a magna. Duis nulla sapien, tempus id semper eu, sollicitudin nec tortor. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Mauris venenatis mollis commodo. Vestibulum laoreet, erat eu iaculis porttitor, odio enim ultricies dolor, quis pellentesque arcu erat sed purus. Integer accumsan, lacus non consectetur molestie, augue nibh fermentum nisl, nec tristique dolor urna at mauris. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit.

Easily made into a template. --TK-Squared 12:42, 26 July 2009 (MDT)

Of course also take a look at Template:OGL Bottom (slightly different). --Green Dragon 11:31, 13 November 2009 (MST)

Gravity Warrior Edits

I just want to say two things:

1. I put the breaks on the epic table, because otherwise the hit dice overlap with the table. In my personal opinion, that's one of the problems with the current preload.
2. Under the advancement section, I changed it to rogue and monk, singular, as gravity warriors multiclass to become rogues/monks, but the multiclass into the rogue or monk classes.

I put this here because I don't want to start something (an edit war, so to speak), but I don't think either of those edits are correct, nor do I think the other grammar you changed was wrong; your changes were merely a matter of personal preference rather than right/wrong. You also took out a few commas, that with all due respect, were correct in their placement. Again, no disrespect intended, I just think those changes were mostly unneccessary, and in an instance or two, wrong. -- Jota 18:02, 27 July 2009 (MDT)

I don't care about the second point you brought up (it just needs to follow the English grammar rules — other then that I do not care). However, do you use IE or FF? I run Ubuntu and for me the coding on the epic table looks fine. However, since I use Ubuntu, I cannot see how the coding would look like on IE. Also, since your table coding looks (about) the same it's proably fine. If, however, this is a problem for all the class pages when one uses IE do you think you could let me know? I would be more then willing to change the preload if it is a class-wide problem. --Green Dragon 18:10, 27 July 2009 (MDT)

I'm using Safari (my laptop's a Mac), but I'll check on my family's home computer (Windows, has both IE and something else). And yes, it is a class-wide problem, at least with Safari. As far as the second point, I was pointing out that I felt I changed it to follow proper English grammar rules, and then you changed it to something that didn't agree (from what I have learned). That could be wrong, but English is my forte. -- Jota 19:36, 27 July 2009 (MDT)

Wood Elves

Just a heads up, but according to the MM, Wood Elves' ability mods are +2 strength, +2 dexterity, -2 Constitution, -2 Intelligence, -2 Charisma.

The SRD wood elf page doesn't have the -2 to charisma.

             -Eonir777

Template Limitation Dates

I was hoping not to have to bother you directly with this, sir, but it has not been getting any attention by enough important people. I am moving the discussion page I created to here instead. --TheWarforgedArtificer 12:30, 28 July 2009 (MDT)

I was talking with Ganteka earlier today about this. Now, I know that when an article has the delete template, it is deleted after two weeks if no edits have been made. Now, as some may have noticed, I've been busy recently, at the end of June and now, with a large templating project. I've been putting stub, wikify, and delete on articles that need them.

In the case of all templates that are not delete, Ganteka informed me they just sit there, perpetually, -unless- someone takes pity on them. With the templating project I've been working on, the category pages for these template may get bloated with a mountain of articles that never get attention.

Now, since it is unreasonable to ask the people of the wiki to collectively clean up these articles any more than they already are, I propose this: A limitation date on articles with Stub or Wikify, funtioning similar to the cutoff for Delete. If no one attempts to salvage a page with Stub or Wikify in X amount of time, the template is changed to Delete, and then the article is on the final two-week deathwatch for someone to rescue it. This way, articles will, one way or another, not sit and rot in template categories other than Delete. This ensures that the artciles that are truly worth preserving are preserved, and articles that no one can be botherd to fix are alowed to die their quiet deaths.

I propose that the cutoff time for articles with the Stub or Wikify templates be in the realm of two-to-six months.

Discuss. --TheWarforgedArtificer 22:20, 14 July 2009 (MDT)

I've already been doing this, it's a good idea -- takes out the trash. Some stuff is "vaguely savable" I guess but if no one cares enough to actually save it I don't really want it on the wiki. --Surgo 22:52, 14 July 2009 (MDT)

I've just been sticking the delete on things, figuring if someone wants them, fine, if not, they're better off deleted. That's probably not the best way to do things (which is why I've only done it with massively neglected articles), but it seems we all in accordance so one extent or another. --Jota 00:07, 15 July 2009 (MDT)

To clarify: I'm talking about implementing a set, clearly defined, official, and universal(meaning everyone/anyone does this, not just one or two random people) policy to ensure that these articles are cleaned out regularly, the reason for this being the extensive templating I have been doing recently may overfill the categories, and then nothing gets done because no one will bother to look through to find fixable stuff. As said, I am thinking the set date for template-swapping could be somewhere from two to six months. In addition, swapping the templates should -only- be done if an article in question has zero edits for the set time period. What does everyone think about this? (making an official policy for this I mean, and this proposition is mainly being made to all the admins, as they are the ones who will ultimately decided this). --TheWarforgedArtificer 18:11, 15 July 2009 (MDT)

I started Template:Reviewing Template which (given some help) could potentially do what you are looking for. One could either build a bot based of time to change the templates (then this template would already be done - all that would need to be changed would be for Template:Delete to be added as another template option), or one could find or build an extension in MW which makes things be able to be based of time (my prefered option. Then like how Template:Delete currently does things with time could be reverse engineered to instead of displaying the time it was added display a countdown until the template dynamically changes to Template:Delete (and then the two week time limit would come up) — quite beautiful to be honest). The main issue with that right now if you look into this) is that template:Delete's time thing is hard-coded into D&D Wiki's MW and not an extension (although solvable if one finds or builds a time extension for MW as I mentioned above). Also, continuing on with the problems with the second option, one would have to (I would willingly look into this) make a way to have Template:Delete show up as a catch-all template holder on Template:Reviewing Template. The easiest, messiest, and way which just adds another layer of people which need to work and no one which wants to do the mundane tasks like that would be to just manually change all the templates as their time comes up. This way would (in my opinion) just add another problem onto the problem though. So, if you know of an easy way to make any of these options to work let me know please (I don't mean to be frank or condescending with this last sentence here — I just meant to write a wrap up sentence). --Green Dragon 14:16, 28 July 2009 (MDT)

I don't know anything about coding or bots or what you're talking about. If I am not misunderstanding you, I didn't know there even was any actual coding time attached to the Delete template, I just thought is was only the official policy that articles are deleted after two weeks of no edits, even though that doesn't actually happen often. All I'm suggesting is that a similar official policy be applied to changing wikify and stub templates to delete. It doesn't matter how it's done; I just thought is was going to be a manual thing anyway, to be honest. And since this is not actual deletion or anything requiring mod or admin powers; -I- could change templates, if necessary. All I'm thinking of is having an official policy that says so. Nothing more.

So, in that vein, what do you think? What should the time be? Two months of no edits? Six months? Something in between? Something else? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheWarforgedArtificer (talk • contribs) 14:35, 28 July 2009 (MDT). Please sign your posts.

Ah, damn. So you would willingly take the third option. Personally I think if one uses the third option (as I mentioned above) a lot of problems will happen. Manually doing things like that is always a problem (in my opinion). Personally, if a time extension for MW is present, template switching could be made dynamic and Category:Candidates for Deletion could be continued to be manual (so one looks over everything which gets deleted and one can not do malicious adding of Template:Delete onto finished pages, going unnoticed, and getting the page removed by a bot). On the time frame aspect I think that 1-2 months is a good indicator of inactivity on an article. Your thoughts? --Green Dragon 15:41, 28 July 2009 (MDT)

Honestly? I have no idea what you're talking about; about making stuff dynamic or whatever "MW" is. I don't know anything about this. And I don't understand how changing the templates manually will be a problem. I just know I am willing to do the changes manually and systematically if everyone else is too busy, and the policy is implemented.

And i think a time limted of two months/sixty days (fixing things move slow around here, sometimes) is a good time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheWarforgedArtificer (talk • contribs) 15:48, 28 July 2009 (MDT). Please sign your posts.

No reason to get annoyed. MW is MediaWiki - the code base D&D Wiki is based on. One can add extensions to it to improve it (such as the dpl, SMW (Semantic MediaWiki - e.g. DnD Flaws), extensions etc). If an extension does something with time then we could make template switching dynamic (or maybe reverse engineer the hard code behind Template:Delete's time thing to make an extension which could work). If you really do not want to talk about theoretical implications of a dynamic template reviewing system with the base template being Template:Delete then sorry. I think 2 months is fine if you want to do everything manually. Or one could just look at the article and decide again (since it would all be done manually anyway). --Green Dragon 15:56, 28 July 2009 (MDT)

I apologize, my above post was not meant to be in any annoyed tone. Curse ambiguous text.

As for all the stuff that I "really" don't want to talk about...it's actually that I "really" don't know or understand it. I have not learned real coding yet, I have no idea what this coding thing you're trying to tell me is. I really wish I -did- know, but...I don't. So, getting off that note, two months sounds good. Do any other mods or admins need to weigh in on this? --TheWarforgedArtificer 16:15, 28 July 2009 (MDT)

You could organize the a userpage subsection of yours - until the dpl can be improved to make it work dynamic - into something related to [[User:TK-Squared/Shit That Needs Deleting]]. --Green Dragon 21:28, 13 August 2009 (MDT)

Undead Disciple

Hi, I've been working on a 3.5 class called the Undead Disciple and I'm worried its overpowered. Could you take a look at it please?--Knk42 09:28, 2 August 2009 (MDT)

4e Demigods Breadcrumb?

Hate to bother you, but i am wondering if there is a breadcrumb for 4e demigods and if so what is it? Thanks for your time, Kildairem 20:47, 4 August 2009 (MDT)

There, I just made some for the deities section. Template:3.5e Demigod Deities Breadcrumb. --Green Dragon 23:36, 4 August 2009 (MDT)

.

What the Hell

You've had weeks to protest against the rating committee, something decided upon and agreed upon by virtually every active user here. And you wait until it all gets set up to suddenly decide to delete it? What the hell, yo? Surgo 21:59, 9 August 2009 (MDT)

We are using logic here. The method above improves D&D Wiki's accessibility and that is key. Less pages mean less places for people to get confused on. I hope you understand - your way is faulty in logic. Please watch out or a ban could be in ordnance. --Green Dragon 22:07, 9 August 2009 (MDT)

How exactly is 'my way faulty in logic'? Did you even read the pages and pages of text we've posted above about this issue? And why on earth would you respond now of all times by deleting what we've set up, instead of responding weeks ago? I think all of us have a right to be annoyed and angry for that reason alone. Surgo 22:08, 9 August 2009 (MDT)

Yes, of course I did. --Green Dragon 22:10, 9 August 2009 (MDT)

We agreed almost unanimously that this quality censor was going to be for the good of this wiki. So I agree with the aforementioned complaint. Why would you suddenly override everybody involved and delete it? --Sulacu 22:12, 9 August 2009 (MDT)

You have stepped far over your bounds as a benevolent dictator; you've just gone right down into despotism. Unban Surgo; he didn't implement anything. He suggested it; he didn't create a new Author template, he didn't change the Spell template nor did he add the pages. If you want to ban someone; ban ME. I did all of that. I messed with your precious little templates in attempt to help the Wikipedia project for D&D. Don't do something stupid like that; banning me is fine; banning Surgo for that, is not. --TK-Squared 22:15, 9 August 2009 (MDT)

Right, this is my website. You may like to start your own if you are so inclined. --Green Dragon 22:23, 9 August 2009 (MDT)

Make Love, Not War

Time to put a nice little flower on that banhammer of yours, let's bury this hatchet and just...get along? --Ehsteve 23:14, 10 August 2009 (MDT)

I know, I am still thinking of hierarchy more. Since I was banned by another one of them I will wait to unban them until I hear more of the full story - from their side (emails, etc. I got a few just they have not explained why Aarnott ended up banning me for a bit, etc)). I would say once both of those issues are resolved then I most likely unban them depending. --Green Dragon 23:22, 10 August 2009 (MDT)

Well understandibly everyone is a bit sour of the matter. Those involved feel like an apology is due from you as the actions you took were unbalanced as a response to a simple talk-page arguement. The subsequent banning of all administrators, even those offline - those that were not involved - is not in my opinion a fair response in any situation. To prevent the loss of dedicated and active users who make up a considerable amount of the current contributions to the wiki I would advise perhaps admitting an overreaction to the matter would be approapriate to clear up this whole incident. --Ehsteve 23:45, 10 August 2009 (MDT)

Right, I said once I deal with hierarchy (in my head for D&D Wiki) a bit more I will deal with it. --Green Dragon 00:02, 11 August 2009 (MDT)

In reference to the Aarnott banning (not to butt in, I was just present in the Tavern at the time) he was hoping you would take it as a hint to step back and "cool down", as many said in not so many words. He meant no offense by it, just was trying to send a message since talking through posting was ignored when it came to Surgo and Sulacu. -Valentine the Rogue 01:16, 11 August 2009 (MDT)

Just putting my 2 cents in. I haven't been very active on DnD Wiki this year but I've still tried to help on minor things where I can. I didn't even know you were banned.. Also, we have google ad's on here now? --118.208.168.99 (Sabre070) 01:37, 11 August 2009 (MDT)

Right, but none should ever ban me (this is my website). Other then that I am trying out Google ads for a bit (layout and usefulness) to see if I like them or not and if they will stay on D&D Wiki. --Green Dragon 15:25, 11 August 2009 (MDT)

I would think that lifting the ban on them now would not be too out of the question given that their user rights have been revoked (so it's not like they could ban you again). You don't necessarily have to give them back all their privledges, but keeping them banned seems somewhat excessive. - TG Cid 17:48, 11 August 2009 (MDT)

Acting as if you are the only contributor to this wiki at this moment will only lead to stagnation of the wiki along with a lack of administrators to moderate as well. To put it plainly, you've had a chance to redeem yourself to a good portion of the active users you've banned, but instead decided against doing so and have lost the respect and trust of those administrators even if they were not involved in the incident. --Ehsteve 19:01, 11 August 2009 (MDT)

Right, this is my website. You may like to start your own if you are so inclined. Also they are admins once again; no worries on that end. --Green Dragon 21:30, 13 August 2009 (MDT)

What about the worry of you randomly banning people again for no good reason, offering no explanation as to why they were banned and then bringing the site down because of said banning? If I were them, I'd worry about that. --TK-Squared 21:34, 13 August 2009 (MDT)

Alright, hopefully they understood. --Green Dragon 21:35, 13 August 2009 (MDT)

As one of the people banned, I'd say they don't. --TK-Squared 21:36, 13 August 2009 (MDT)

←Reverted indentation to one colon

As another of those people (having been banned while offline and totally uninvolved, adding further bafflement to the situation), I'd agree with TK. You have offered absolutely no explanation of why we were banned and the site was taken down. To assume that we understand your motives simply by reading your silence is preposterous. There only explanation I can think of that justifies banning people who were not at all involved involves a murderous psycho who threatened you with death unless you banned us, and I think we can immediately rule that out. Therefore, you screwed up and we need concrete and uncompromisable assurance that you not only will not, but CAN not do this again. --Daniel Draco 22:28, 13 August 2009 (MDT)

I have banned admins before - this is not the first time (I mean historically for short periods of time). This is literally my website; so I need no explanation. Also, if things to continue to happen as they have before, it could happen again. I was banned from my own website, the servers are probably 100 ft. away from me right now, I need no explanation in my head. --Green Dragon 22:40, 13 August 2009 (MDT)

Well, that's it then. You told us before if we didn't like you and your arbitrary rules, to go make our own website. That's exactly what we did. Goodbye. Surgo 22:53, 13 August 2009 (MDT)

Yup, you blew it. Ciao, tyrant. --Daniel Draco 22:55, 13 August 2009 (MDT)

Now we're on the subject, I would like to request the immediate and permanent deletion of every article in Category:User Sulacu. Kind regards, --Sulacu 23:06, 13 August 2009 (MDT)

That is not ok. Undeserved disrespect is not ok. You disrespected us, and I am disappointed in you. this place was my home for awhile, and now I have to leave. I will not stand to be in a place where the people are unjustly disrespected. I once respected you, but now that respect is gone. And I must go too, goodbye.Summerscythe 23:16, 13 August 2009 (MDT)

"Adopt me"? No. That is my work, and I'll not have other people taking credit for it. It is to be deleted, or at the very least my name to be kept on it and locked from all edits. --Daniel Draco 23:18, 13 August 2009 (MDT)

We can discuss this later. Personally I think it would be helpful for all people related here to take a break, wait maybe 10 hours, think about this what what you guys are saying, and then talk to me about it at that time. Also, deleting articles is never a good option (adoption or locking is a much better one, in my opinion). --Green Dragon 23:22, 13 August 2009 (MDT)

We have thought about this for days, 10 more hours will do nothing. The stunt you pulled and then the complete lack of repentance you showed was absolutely, completely unacceptable. There is no "take a break, wait maybe 10 more hours". That time has long passed. Surgo 23:24, 13 August 2009 (MDT)

With or without the 10 hours, please put the author templates back on my pages and lock them. I can accept that they will remain on this website, but I don't want my work to be changed. Delete them or preserve them, but don't put them up for adoption. --Daniel Draco 23:27, 13 August 2009 (MDT)

In case you haven't been paying attention for the last four days, GD, your opinion is what's destroying your wiki, scattering your once-committed members to the four winds in search for stabler climes. Deleting these articles won't be the same as wiping them away for good, however. They simply won't be on your site anymore. And that's the way how many of us want it. Do not be so obtuse and please delete those articles, now. --Sulacu 23:28, 13 August 2009 (MDT)

When I lock them (if you really so desire) I will look through the revision history for different edits at that time (to make sure they are your version). Also, Surgo, one must understand this is just a website (located on some servers) which I literally own. Anyway, User:Sulacu and User:Daniel Draco I will deal more about these pages, locking, deletion, or who knows what when I myself have a level head as well. --Green Dragon 23:31, 13 August 2009 (MDT)

←Reverted indentation to one colon

There is a difference between being able to do something, and it being the right thing to do. Noone is saying you are unable to do what you wish. People are saying it's the WRONG thing to do. -DragonChild

I think you are missing the point that this is dangerous for me as well. I got banned from D&D Wiki. This is my website. --Green Dragon 23:35, 13 August 2009 (MDT)

Hello. I generally try to stay out of this 'website politics' bullshit because it all really is just bullshit. However, this time it really got me. Because the people that got banned for no reason now have your broken trust. You are no longer a level-headed impartial party, but instead it's a powerstruggle between you and the other admins that you promoted to help you improve your site. All the admins have put a lot of work into helping you with the site and then you turn around and shit on their hard work by banning all of them, even the ones that weren't involved. I'm sure the ones that weren't even there when you did it don't understand why you did it, because they weren't there. You might not feel like you need an answer 'in your head' but unfortunately for the rest us, 'in your head' isn't where we are so we don't know what's going on in there and expecting us to know is just ridiculous. The fact that you shit on your admins is enough, but taking the site down so that no one could access their work is completely asinine. As a user, and not even one of the ones affected by the ban, I still say that your behavior was entirely 110% uncalled for. I am dissapointed in you, as a site owner, you seem to have very little respect for your community, if any at all. If you want it to be your site, then it truly will just be your site with no one else to share it with. Have fun with that, goodbye and I didn't contribute much, but I want all of my articles deleted. I have them elsewhere. Bunnie 23:35, 13 August 2009 (MDT)

You may "literally" own it, but the website lives and dies by your contributors. And now we have left because you took this "literal" ownership too far, ignored our opinions for too long, disrespected us too much, and threw one too many temper tantrums when something happened that you didn't like. That's it. The end. We are gone. We now have our own site that we literally own, not you. So goodbye. Surgo 23:35, 13 August 2009 (MDT)

That is fine. Also, please take note, that one has to add Template:Delete to their articles on their own. I don't have time to work like that. --Green Dragon 23:37, 13 August 2009 (MDT)

I do appreciate that you will lock my pages into my final version (which, indeed, is exactly what I desire). I would add the appropriate templates, but there are none. I would lock them myself, but you blocked me. So I would appreciate it if you would do it for me. --Daniel Draco 23:41, 13 August 2009 (MDT)

I will deal with locking and adminship later; as I explained above. Right now I do not have time to do that. --Green Dragon 23:45, 13 August 2009 (MDT)

As a comment one can always change their mind - like with User:TK-Squared and his supposed leaving (although those pages still have yet to be restored - given time they will). --Green Dragon 00:13, 14 August 2009 (MDT)

Very well, as per your wish, all my pages now have been put up for deletion. --Sulacu 00:14, 14 August 2009 (MDT)

Incorrect. Now the pages you want to delete are being processed the correct way through Category:Candidates for Deletion. That's why I mentioned above about how you can always change your mind. --Green Dragon 00:16, 14 August 2009 (MDT)

I am going to relate this incident and following "explanation" to a real-world incident that has a similar feel to it. Dictator #1 "owns" his "server". Therefore, Dictator #1 believes he's allowed to do whatever he wants in his "sever" and the people will have no say about the matter. He believes that the people are creating some form of rebellion, so he "bans" them. The only difference between your situation and Dictator #1's situation is that you had no rebellion. You simply... I don't know, freaked out, apparently at the fact two pages were made to begin an implementation process of something most of the active and contributing user base had supported.

Furthermore, you are a keen supporter of these "policies" that you have, although finding what exact policies you mean is a slight chore in itself, yet you find yourself exempt because you "own" the site. You have breached the Administrator Conduct and the Misuse of Administrative Tools policies laid down in the Administrator's policy on Wikipedia. If you want to run your site like a wiki, stop trying to run it as though you're the grand tyrannical godking of all creation and maybe, JUST MAYBE, give a little respect to your userbase. This could be a revolutionary idea, but I hear it works well.

As for my so-called "leaving"; it's a bad example. My leaving was a joke, it's only point was for me to touch up some of my articles in an easier fashion. But, this time; it won't be a joke. I advise anyone wanting their articles to be deleted to add this template; {{delete|14th August 2009|This article is nominated for Speedy Deletion under [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Articles Article G7].}}.

Of course, my logic here for wanting explainations OBVIOUSLY is nowhere near as great as the "MY SITE I CAN DO WHAT I WANT" kind of mentality. --TK-Squared 06:28, 14 August 2009 (MDT)

We have not discussed if we want to implement speedy deletion or not, however your articles will get looked at in due time. Also you must remember this was not a power trip; I got banned from my own website. That calls for drastic measures (for the most part). --Green Dragon 12:15, 14 August 2009 (MDT)

Drastic measures? If this site is going to hell in a bucket, maybe it's a good thing I've got my rewrites happening offline. Judging by the stability of this situation, I'd rather not my contributions be caught in the crossfire, and sooner or later I'm pretty sure one of you admins or another would overreact. -- Mythos 12:34, 14 August 2009 (MDT)

←Reverted indentation to one colon

Green Dragon, you are a dumbass, you've just killed your own website, and don't even realize it. I would like for my pages to be locked in the same way that Daniel Draco's will be locked, except for the pseudonaught, which will be completed in due time, at which point, I request it be locked as well. → Rith ^(talk) 12:39, 14 August 2009 (MDT)

When I have some spare time I will look into locking and deleting accordingly. Please noted that this does not mean that the admins are losing any privileges - if you know what I mean. --Green Dragon 12:58, 14 August 2009 (MDT)

What do you mean? (Adding the "if you know what I mean" makes it kinda ambiguous and not-understandable, I think :-3) --Ghostwheel 13:02, 14 August 2009 (MDT)

I might care to point out that you got banned from your website because you started banning everyone else first for no reason at all (Often referred to as a power trip). That is justifiable banning by Aarnott, your bannings were not justified. Bunnie 13:17, 14 August 2009 (MDT)

I meant that after I had the issue sorted out I gave back everyone their privileges as given to them by the D&D Wiki community. Instead of going on the same annoying rants the whole time how about this. You must, one, be able to think (analyze things as well - like Special:Blocklog), and two be able to look at both sides of the issue. While doing both of these things you should notice what is going on. Other then that just stop talking to me - I have no time for stupidity. Also you should take a look at Special:Userrightslog to look at how the times correlate - then maybe all the people who simply cannot think can figure this out. --Green Dragon 13:34, 14 August 2009 (MDT)

Once again - I have no time for stupidity. If you want to respond I need you to ask an intellectual question and not just say things. --Green Dragon 13:40, 14 August 2009 (MDT)

Ahem. From the look of things, you didn't like something someone on "your" website was doing, despite the fact that it would help the website, and you sought to put an end to it. At which point people asked you why you were acting illogically against your own wiki's interest's, to which you replied "We are using logic here", being thoroughly infuriating. After this, without attempting to discuss the issue at hand, or provide any real reasoning to your side (which you are requesting we see things from without any information on), you banned people. Now then, from this, it should be clear that it's not that you banned people, it's the fact that you didn't listen to them. You blatantly ignored the people whose only interest was to help out "your" website. This is what makes you a dumbass. → Rith ^(talk) 13:57, 14 August 2009 (MDT)

Stay your big insults, Green. Our ears are not large enough to fit them. I don't care how stupid you think we are or how much of a genius you think yourself. Just look upon the barren wasteland of your site a few months from now and reap the seeds of your 'ingenuity'. --Sulacu 14:38, 14 August 2009 (MDT)

The longterm success of D&Dwiki hinges on cooperation. Let us all remember that we're in this together.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   16:43, 14 August 2009 (MDT)

Here's a little "intellectual question" that you have so-far avoided, probably because it's far too ILLOGICAL for you to contemplate. But, you have yet to answer WHY was Surgo banned? Why was Sulacu banned? And, lastly, why was I banned? There have been given no reasons for this and you have just gone on and on about... nothing. Every time you've said something, it's literally being saying NOTHING on the matter. Maybe if you answered one of the questions given to you rather than saying "OMG I WUZ BANND 4 N0 RSN"; because you weren't, I was. --TK-Squared 17:10, 14 August 2009 (MDT)

Morning. I've only been on your wiki for a very, very short time, but I liked it very much. And now I see that a lot of contributors, in both data and actions, just leave. That sucks. The withdrawal of their past and/or future ocntributions is a very bad thing for the health and diversity of this wiki. So, I understand you "own" the site, that's nice. And I do have to agree with you on some points, firstly that you do have the final say in whatever happens on this site. You own it. They probably shouldn't have banned you, and I can understand that could make you very upset. The other thing I agree on, one of your earlier points, is that anyone is free to leave and go to another wiki. And now, since mainly admins -by definition relatively powerful members of the community- were involved in this struggle, and were grieved in it, a lot of the most useful contributors are leaving your site, along with a sizable amount of regular users. This is not in the best interest of your wiki.

Now, I'd just wish it'd all clear up and you guys merge again in one wiki, but I don't think that's going to happen. it would be what is best for the wiki and the community behind it, but I guess all people involved are too busy complaining. I think what the admins want is an apology and an explanation worthy of someone more than three years old, because while you do own the wiki, you do not own the community. On the other hand, I think you want to have the last word in whatever happens, making sure nothing happens to your wiki without your knowledge and approval. While this may not be healthy for the site, it is understandablr, and it would only require that any major change would be run past you, and that you are involved in planning and executing any such major change. I think this would not be too much to be asked from the admins. However, you'd still need to explain why something should be implemented or not, because the amount of work put into it by one party should elicit an equal or similar amount of work to negate it. Anyway, what if both parties just state what they'd want, instead of my guesswork? Is there still hope?

“

Is there still hope?

”

The short answer is no. Those of us who are leaving no longer have anything we want from Green Dragon, we no longer have any demands, and there is nothing he can do to regain our trust. We have made our decision, and there is absolutely no possibility that we will come back. I cannot stress this enough: it's too late. Green Dragon has lost a large chunk of his active userbase, and you are absolutely free to join us in our new wiki. Out of courtesy to Green Dragon, I will not link the new wiki on this site; however, feel free to contact me for the link. --Daniel Draco 07:30, 16 August 2009 (MDT)

The Tavern

If you don't mind, please come to the tavern. Things must be discussed. --Daniel Draco 15:21, 12 August 2009 (MDT)

Google Ads

Will the wiki be trying to alleviate operation costs permanently with the new ads? Just curious. I know it had been a bit since the last fundraiser.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   23:00, 15 August 2009 (MDT)

A question I have. I'm not sure how these are appearing to others, but I'm not getting the typical Google Smart Ads that put up something similar. I'm just getting random junk ads (i.e. for Solar Power or Natural Herbs). I would think Smart Ads that put up D&D like stuff would get more clicks and thus more money coming in. I don't know how they run it, it just surprised me that it wasn't a "smart ads" type of program. I'm seeing smart ads on the normal pages - it looks like its mainly the login/logoff pages and pages being editted that just throw up a random thing.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   15:14, 3 September 2009 (MDT)

An attempt to help you maintain your patrons

I feel it neccessary to speak up at least once on all of this bullshit. I am only reading about this whole 'power struggle', but from what I have seen, you have been totally unreasonable. The admins of your site wanted to improve it (as there ARE way too many 'dambass' pages floating around), and you seemed to be taking well to their ideas (putting your own spin on it, but staying with the general idea). Then when they began to impliment said actions (which you agreed on), you shot it down, claiming it was illogical. You yourself agreed to this illogical action. Then when ONE arrogant moron of an admin bans you from your site (which I agree was totally uncalled for), you end all adminship and close the site. Then you proceed to go into full-on tyrant mode. Now, you ask for an intelligent question, here; I understand temporarily revoking all admin rights until you sorted it out, to avoid being banned again. But why shut down the site for ANY period of time, in consequence punishing the little-folk for one morons actions? You really do need to help us to understand what is going on in your head. If you can do this without throwing some sort of an insult at someone, you may have a chance at saving your site. But at the rate these talks are going, you are going to lose not only the majority of your patrons, but also 9/10ths of your homebrew material. I love this site and the immense material that it holds, but if you continue on your current path, I am sorry to say that I will be one of the ones that leaves for the greener pastures of the newly created site. I do hope you chafe course and help us to understand what is going on in your head tho. --Sabreheim 00:50, 16 August 2009 (MDT)

Just wanted to speak up, it's true that it did inconvenience us "little folk" when the site went down. That same day I had wanted to show someone my guide for a game they had the same day to show them the basics of character building, but was unable to due to the site being completely down and short messages taking its place. --Ghostwheel 00:54, 16 August 2009 (MDT)

Er... Aarnott is not a moron. What he did was in line with the Wikipedia policies that this site adheres to and was meant to tell Green Dragon that he was acting way out of line. The act, itself, was perfectly called for; Green Dragon was banning people attempting to talk to him about what he'd done and, by extrapolating from this sequence of events, it's safe to say that saying "wtf r u doin" on his talk page would have gotten Aarnott banned as well, in whatever kind of blind fury that had overtaken Green Dragon.

As noted, Sabreheim's post is completely misinformed, then. The site probably won't lose most of it's good homebrew material because Green Dragon probably won't let it happen; nevermind he's done it before, he doesn't seem to be accepting Speedy Deletion (again, part of the policies he's noted this wiki adheres to, time and time again), this is probably due to his realization that people ARE leaving and he doesn't want to lose traffic or articles. Maybe someone should have thought about that before... --TK-Squared 10:35, 16 August 2009 (MDT)

Thank You!

I just wanted to say thank you for the welcome and mention that I hope my presence here can help the community.  :) I have some homebrew items to add that I'm not sure how to make up---the HTML here is tricky---but I will be going over the editing pages to find out how to add them. One final thing, though: Where would diseases go on the Wiki? I have quite a few medieval illness piled up and would like to add them. Chimandera 03:45, 17 August 2009 (MDT)

I made a new section: 3.5e Diseases. I would love to hear what you think about it or what could be improved with it (if needed). --Green Dragon 21:38, 19 September 2009 (MDT)

The page is good, though I am having a difficult time trying to figure out what a naturally-caused disease (bacterial, viral, etc) would be in the scheme of Su, Ps, Sp or Ex. I'm going to mark it as Ex for the moment, unless you can somehow change that to include Nd or Na for "Naturally occuring diseases" (though I am aware this would involve adding a new page to the homebrew to explain away the natural aspects). As for the explanation of the disease, I'll have to look them up again, heh. It looks great and thanks again! Chimandera 12:50, 20 September 2009 (MDT)

Permissions Issue

I have an issue maintaining the SRD. I've lost the ability to edit. --Dmilewski 05:40, 17 August 2009 (MDT)

Ah, you must have missed the wikipocalypse. There is a very good summary of it here. If you want a link to the new wiki, feel free to contact me for it. --Daniel Draco 13:08, 17 August 2009 (MDT)

I'll give them back soon. Sorry I just had an issue with the backend of D&D Wiki (and a bit of the frontend as well) and as a result permissions were changed (for the moment I am the only bureaucrat and only admin). I'll give them back in a few days, I'm just letting things calm down a bit, etc. If you need them now (I trust you enough) could you let me know please within a few hours? I am going to drive for a few days and will not have internet for a bit; so if you let me know sooner then later I will have time to give them back to you. Also I am going to keep it with me being the only bureaucrat; just so you know. But I will give back all the admin privileges soon (or now - depending). --Green Dragon 14:39, 17 August 2009 (MDT)

So... basically this wiki will go unadmined for a few days? >_> I've reverted vandalism on at least 2 pages (don't remember if I did others) and the offender wasn't blocked. If you're away or aren't keeping watch on the wiki, at the very least assign people who will block vandals, take on administrative duties, and so on? --Ghostwheel 14:45, 17 August 2009 (MDT)

I know. I have been re-thinking about which admins I can trust on D&D Wiki and am not positive if I want to give back admin rights now and/or to whom. Although I see what you mean. I will post another thing before I head off a bit after I think about it a bit more. --Green Dragon 14:55, 17 August 2009 (MDT)

I will have internet once again around the 19thish. I'll (for the moment) keep userrights how they are - although probably on the 19th or 20th I will reinstate them. If people would not mind please keep an eye out for vandals (and thanks already Ghostwheel for doing so). And sorry about that SRD issue - I hope waiting a few days will work as well. --Green Dragon 15:39, 17 August 2009 (MDT)

I can wait until the bullets stop flying. When I get time, I'll wade through the vast arguments going. I only look at SRD changes on a daily basis, so I am amazingly ignorant of the recent iconoclasm. --Dmilewski 05:55, 18 August 2009 (MDT)

Alright. Also I will give permissions back when things have calmed down; no need to worry. --Green Dragon 16:09, 21 August 2009 (MDT)

Professionalism

Hmm, lots of chatter these days about admin drama. Even us little-known users have taken notice. Looks like a few admins are displeased. We little-known users hope this minor conflict will all be resolved soon. I myself would like to thank GreenDragon for cancelling the Rating Group idea. IMO it was a thoughtful decision. I would also like to thank all Admins for the great work they do and have done on behalf of the community. Thank you all Admins for your wonderful ideas and contributions. We small-town users look forward the resolution of this minor conflict of interest. --Jay Freedman 15:32, 17 August 2009 (MDT)

The problem is that he didn't cancel it. He stated that he didn't like idea. He never vetoed it. He never said that he was putting any authority into his disagreement. All disagreement he stated was phrased conversationally. It wasn't until he banned TK-Squared for starting to implement it that we had any indication that he was giving it an official "no". Using such an aggressive action as a ban as the first indication of a veto is, in my opinion, not professional at all.

I would also like to point out that the issue has been resolved. The resolution is that those of us who don't feel that we can trust Green Dragon anymore have moved to a new wiki (which I will gladly link to you via private means of communication). --Daniel Draco 16:02, 17 August 2009 (MDT)

Vandalism

I have reason to believe that TK has resorted to vandalism in his disgust with you. Admins have better ability to control this than I, and I really don't feel like running around in circular thought with an individual anymore. Could you try to step in on this? Thanks.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   18:23, 18 August 2009 (MDT)

Shame he saw fit to demote all his System Operators because of his tantrum, ain't it? I sure could just get Surgo down here right now to do something about it. What a shame, looks like I get to do what I want with my work, eh? Now, stop vandalising my pages. --TK-Squared 18:26, 18 August 2009 (MDT)

You realize that your above statement just proves your own childishness. Maybe Green Dragon was wrong to begin with, but now he is fully justified. D&Dwiki is a collaborative effort. You have repeatedly refused to collaborate with other individuals. This should be the final straw. GD, if available, I would like to open up a Request for Ban on TK.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   18:28, 18 August 2009 (MDT)

You're not quite getting it, are you? The Ratings Committee? That was a "collaborative effort". Quite a few people agreed on it, so I went about helping realize the dream. So, where was the "community" when Green Dragon said "No, you're banned for doing this"? I don't know; maybe you're feigning ignorance or maybe this internet is REALLY getting to you, you throw around thinks like "being childish" and "your argument now sux" and "refusal to collaborate with others".

And it's hilarious. This entire thing; hilarious. Especially since Green Dragon's gone for 2-3 days. Dear, oh dear. Looks like I'll actually have control over my own creations, what a novelty. Chill out, relax. Play some b-ball outside-a school. Would you have your oral orifice so wrapped if you were banned during the tantrum? Dear, oh dear. But, at least you've stopped vandalising my pages. Chin chin, old chap. --18:36, 18 August 2009 (MDT)

The thing is Liam, I do understand, and I personally feel like GD overstepped and was wrong too. You know how you win in a situation like this? Obviously not, because devolving into vandalism kills any argument you had. Now you're no better than what you said he was, and you have no high ground to stand on. Revert to your typical "e-bullying" trying to make yourself feel better, but I'm not impressed. You reacted incorrectly to the situation, and for as much as you talk about being mature, you repeatedly showcase that you are not. I require no response from you, good day.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   18:41, 18 August 2009 (MDT)

Yeah, Liam. I'd like to request a ban from George here for calling me weird names. --TK-Squared 18:54, 18 August 2009 (MDT)

You admitted your identity in the Tavern smart one (remember, I'm the one who combs through the Tavern histories!). Freely given information may be freely repeated. Those who lose their sense of anonymity tend to lose their e-peen bullying nature as well.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   19:01, 18 August 2009 (MDT)

So... are we using wikipedia policies? Or not? Or only when it's convenient? --Ghostwheel 19:02, 18 August 2009 (MDT)

All my actions are within the Wikipedia Policies. Please brush up, Timothy. Furthermore, oh no; my name is been revealed. OH SHIT, IF ONLY PEOPLE DIDN'T FIND OUT I'm LIAM BENJAMIN WHITE. Oh wait. Nice try, Hooper, nice try. But, you're still not funny enough; try to add some irony or wit! --TK-Squared 19:09, 18 August 2009 (MDT)

Sure, your last name is "White." Sure thing. Yawn.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   19:12, 18 August 2009 (MDT)

Sure is. Why? Worried someone lied on the internet? Should have your stalking up to date, buddy. I saw what you tried to do with the yawn there, but it just didn't have any kick to it. I mean, I know being funny doesn't come natural to some people (unlike myself, of course), but at least try. Go on, put some effort into it, George. --TK-Squared 19:18, 18 August 2009 (MDT)

I second Ghostwheel's thoughts above. (Sorry Ghost, just saw that).   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   19:21, 18 August 2009 (MDT)

Woah, sorry about that. Got called away to do some cool stuff, etc. Anyway, as I was saying; you've got to try to be funnier. If you get a few jokes in, a few witty quips and maybe touch on some irony, you'll loosen up, y'know. Also, still doing Hunter? I tried Hunter once, got to 40 and changed from BM to Marksman. Totally a mistake, I think, and stopped playing it. Oh, and, er... Stop agreeing with people, or something. --TK-Squared 19:45, 18 August 2009 (MDT)

Wow, TK-Squared I think you need a break. First off insults are not a good option, stalking is not a good option, and overall I think you need to take a break for a bit. I think (instead of posting things all the time) you should spend 30 minutes thinking about the rating commitie thing (and what it could mean), that websites have backends, and that some people are shit as people. After that maybe you should post; keeping in mind civility. --Green Dragon 00:18, 19 August 2009 (MDT)

←Reverted indentation to one colon

What, exactly (and I mean that), is your objection to the Rating Committee? I was not as for it as others, but it did seem like a step in the right direction, so I'm curious as to why you are so adamantly opposed to it. And please don't call me stupid for calling it a step in the right direction, I just want to know why you hate it so. -- Jota 01:38, 19 August 2009 (MDT)

First off as a system the template reviewing system is much better then the rating system (with the goal in mind of improving content). Other then that reason there is no reason for a committee; one can also find people and email then about things to keep everything in check or to check articles for completeness in any case. Adding a fake hierarchical tier onto D&D Wiki for no reason is pointless and counterproductive in my mind. --Green Dragon 21:43, 19 August 2009 (MDT)

"First off as a system the template reviewing system is much better then the rating system (with the goal in mind of improving content)."

I feel the need to point out here that this claim is completely unsubstantiated. If, to quote you, "we use logic here", then statements must be proven in order to be accepted as truth (according to the very definition of logic). --Daniel Draco 00:01, 20 August 2009 (MDT)

I've had disagreements with several other users as to what's "balanced" or not. If there was such a committee, would it make my comments worth less than those of people who were on the committee? Would they be disregarded out of hand? Who would make sure they weren't? What if the committee couldn't disagree on what's balanced? Why should they have the primary say in what's balanced and what isn't? As human beings, we're all biased. On a public forum such as this where everyone should be equal, it doesn't feel right that there are those who count for more--the obvious exception being admins of course, since admin duties require a level of authority beyond that of general users for locking pages, blocking vandalists, etc. --Ghostwheel 00:06, 20 August 2009 (MDT)

I have a few thoughts on the matter, some of which are in accordance with what you (Green Dragon) just professed, other that are not.

1. I agree that the template system is advantageous in that anyone can apply templates, but if the two systems have different goals (read on) the superiority of the template reviewing process should be expected.
2. With that said, there's no reason why the two systems could not exist side by side. The template reviewing system exists to bring articles up to an acceptable quality (improvement), while a rating committee would exist to acknowledge articles of superior quality (recognition). That's what I think the rating committee idea was at least in part about. There are thousands of 'useable' articles on the wiki, yet we have had only five featured articles (one of which, Cassia, we seemed to agree was not really FA quality). To put it in a more tame light, a rating committee would be a compromise between the five featured articles in existence and a mountain of unsorted mediocrity.
3. You say fake hierarchical tier... given that some of the users in question were just that, users, you have a point, and I understand your concern. But if you were to have a category or rank for these users, such as sysop or moderator, or whatever (something other than generic user--pardon my unfamiliarity with the subject matter) then said hierarchy would not be fake, but rather real. If such status were obtained the same way as a Request for Adminship and could be lost in the same manner, that would mitigate a few of the concerns, I think. Having certain limitations or requirements, such as a mandatory X articles reviewed per month but no more than Y nominations per month would ensure an activity level that the template reviewing system can only dream of. Committee members could be exempt at times due to other responsibilities (i.e. life), but you get the idea. There's nothing that creates interest like progress. Knowing your article is in queue for a look over by someone relatively well-respected within the community--it gives an incentive that the template reviewing process cannot really emulate.
4. As for the reasoning for such a committee, well it's really about recognition, isn't it? We are all on here for various reasons, whether is to share our own ideas or to borrow from those of others, but I don't think anyone posts anything in that hope that it sits ignored for all eternity. That's the other nice thing about a rating committee, that it could recognize more than our numerical class rating system can. Flaws, feats, weapon enhancements, whatever: ingenuity rewarded wherever it may be found, not just in a select area that commands variable levels of interest from different users.

In conclusion, I'm not sure that such a system would work now even if you were to endorse it, because to be frank, there aren't that many users here I would trust with that power (and let's face it, that's what it is, and you are right to be cautious with how such authority is distributed). Anyway, like the disenchanted and departed members of the wiki maintained, this was supposed to be in the best interests of the wiki. There's no reason you couldn't give it a trial run and see how you, and the community at large, like it. I will address Ghostwheel's just added concern in a moment, but right now I want to get this up for consideration. -- Jota 00:10, 20 August 2009 (MDT)

@Ghostwheel: to answer your concern, you have balance points. That way, Tome classes can be well-received within their own vacuum, and so can other classes with more orthodox power levels. My other thought would be that the committee wouldn't look over each submitted article as a whole (that would take far too long), but rather one person would review an article, and it would be taking off the waiting list. If the article's author was unsatisfied, they could re-submit it, and when it's time came it would have to be reviewed by a different committee member than the original reviewer. -- Jota 00:17, 20 August 2009 (MDT)

If it's as you described it, it seems more like a committee whose purpose is finding articles, making sure their quality (not balance) is up to snuff, and potentially making them featured articles--that doesn't sound bad in the least. However, about Tome classes being in their own vacuum, perhaps we should make some sort of template for tome classes that adds the caveat explaining in what sort of environment the Tome classes were made for--that is, one in which all the clerics use DMM to buff themselves to incredible heights, the wizards are gods, and druids roam the landscape (if I'm understanding correctly). That said, there are a few Tome classes that feel balanced for the most part, even in games that don't use cheesy (at least IMO) material. --Ghostwheel 00:43, 20 August 2009 (MDT)

To be frank, balance is a part of quality. But as you say, the goal of a rating committee would be to, in my mind, find quality articles, not balanced ones (although as I say, the two do tend to go hand in hand). For classes, I would say that anything I rate a 17 or above on the current scale would get my vote (were I on such a committee), which includes articles for which I have had some reservations about their power. A 12.50 or so out of 15 (no flavor/formatting) might also suffice. Other material is a little different, but that's all semantics right now. As for your other idea, talk of something similar happened in the past, although it was never implemented. Part of the reason was the disclaimer was incorrect, since Tome material is not the explicit creation of solely Frank and K: -- Jota 01:11, 20 August 2009 (MDT)

Template:Frank and K material

Hmmm... perhaps it might simply be worded differently? Something along the lines of, "This page contains materials based on the original work created by Frank & K. As such, it has been made with the concept in mind that a character of a certain level should be able to take on creatures with a CR equal to their level without much trouble, as well as assuming a certain power level of all characters, and is balanced in a way as to allow for this."

However, even with this I'm unsure if it would work, since many people wouldn't understand exactly what this meant--that clerics go crazy with DMM, wizards go before everyone else with Celerity, and druids become bears that fly around, summoning whirlwinds and shooting fire from their eyes, so without some sort of explanation somewhere just that might be problematic.

Also, even that text is misleading; for me, ToB + XPH material is where I find my "sweet spot" for balance, and many of the classes presented there (no, I don't mean the Soulknife) are able to take down a monster of their CR (though the CR guidelines have their own problems, but let's not get sidetracked too far) without too much trouble, especially under ideal conditions. Yet these classes are underpowered compared to some of the classes (I'm especially looking at you, Prestige Classes) published under Tome material, which leads to some discrepancy in what we said before. Any thoughts on the matter? --Ghostwheel 01:21, 20 August 2009 (MDT)

Perhaps those classes were made with the idea in mind that no prestige class levels would be taken (Tome Barbarian, for example). Most base classes that are not Tome material seem inferior to prestige classes once those PrC's are accessible, given that for many PrC's you can acquire many of the same benefits that the base class would grant you (bonus spell levels for casters, etc.) while also providing unique abilities. Under such an assumption, why would you ever take levels in a base class (say, wizard) again after you have reached the requirements for a desired PrC? As a result, the aforementioned Tome Barbarian is loaded with powerful abilities so that it can be competitive at every level with a prestige-classed wizard even if the player took Tome Barbarian at every level. It's an incentive to go all the way to level 20, which is something that rarely seems to be done with most SRD classes. So, yeah, they probably seem overpowered, at least compared to the SRD Classes that many supporters of Tome material consider so weak that they're almost ineffectual at high levels. Now, this doesn't always seem to be the case with Tome material (in the case of classes that are shortened to 15 levels to allow, one would guess, for PrC advancement).

I'm not sure if I was on base with that at all; my head is still whirring from reading the rest of the conversation thus far. Pardon me if I was mistaken. -- TG Cid 06:28, 20 August 2009 (MDT)

←Reverted indentation to one colon

Close, but not quite what I meant when I mentioned Prestige Classes. You can see my personal philosophy on prestige classes here (bottom-most post there currently); thus, prestige classes that give you casting without really losing anything, or having prereqs that force you to sacrifice something don't sit well with me. Straight wizards and clerics are powerful enough as-is without PrC abilities; adding PrCs make them even stronger, which causes imbalance. Do you get what I'm trying to say? --Ghostwheel 12:20, 20 August 2009 (MDT)

Ah, I see. The tome PrC's essentially are unbalanced because every level adds bonus spellcasting as well as class features (therefore, if they alternated between class features and spellcasting levels, they would be more balanced)? It makes sense, but I'm not 100% sure I agree. I can't really make a rebuttal at this time, but I'll give it some thought. -- TG Cid 14:25, 20 August 2009 (MDT)

If they lost even 1 level of spellcasting at 1st level of the PrC, I'd probably say they were a lot more balanced, since then at least they're losing something to gain all the yummy class features. --Ghostwheel 14:27, 20 August 2009 (MDT)

I agree Jota. Someone (if desirable) should contact MW and see if they could make it so one could make new userprivilege groups (like what you are talking about). I thought about this at the time however I am not positive if MW would ever make that change.

Also, here everyone goes who wanted to be part of some fake committee. Surgo, Lord Dhazriel, Rithaniel, TK-Squared, Jota, Ganteka, Daniel Draco, Dragon Child, and Sam Kay (if you guys can only think this small) I appoint you to FA reviewers!!!!! Feel free to nominate articles for FA status, review them for FA status, etc etc. HAVE FUN AND GOOD LUCK!!! --Green Dragon 20:01, 20 August 2009 (MDT)

(don't worry everyone else - there is no need to be appointed - only a need to know enough about D&D). --Green Dragon 20:05, 20 August 2009 (MDT)

GD, I assume you're being sarcastic? In addition, some of the people you're yelling at had nothing to do with this. They're people I, personally, nomianted, some of which had never even heard about the RC idea. Thus, I hope you don't plan on taking more retaliatory action on the list as a whole. Dragon Child 20:42, 20 August 2009 (MDT)

Insubstantially patronizing us, eh GD? That's a fantastic way to get back on our good sides. Note the sarcastic tone in my voice.

I would also like to point out that nobody wanted to be on a fake committee. That would have been silly.

Also, if you're going to elevate yourself above the rest of us, that makes you not just the owner, but also the de facto leader. As the leader, you need to display professionalism and respect, or else nobody will take you seriously. Your last comment displayed neither, and in fact displayed the exact opposites of those needed qualities. --Daniel Draco 06:28, 21 August 2009 (MDT)

One does not have to do any of those things in any one of those circumstances. Also, unless one can make userright areas in MW it is a fake committee. At this time one cannot. --Green Dragon 16:12, 21 August 2009 (MDT)

I really like the way Green Dragon runs this site. Its like the military. Have a problem? Then the answer is: "To bad. Lifes not fair. Suck it." For guys like me, this makes perfect sense. Keep up the good work Green Dragon. --Jay Freedman 16:18, 21 August 2009 (MDT)

←Reverted indentation to one colon

There are two possibilities there:

1. The internet is a poor medium for sarcasm.
2. You must be oxygen-deprived from receiving a white dragon from Green Dragon. -- Jota 20:25, 21 August 2009 (MDT)

@Jay Freedman: Ah, but this is not the military. And even a military setting, without the active participation and satisfaction of the individual the whole will wither and die. To continue your military analogy, this would be like if the sergeant of a company ordered all of his men to charge blindly at a superior enemy with no sound reasoning. The veteran members, sensing flaws in the sergeant's plan, desert quickly after realizing that nothing will change their superior's mind and take all their weapons and ammunition with them. The rest of the company is left with what they have, but without veteran leadership their performance will suffer.

Poor example aside, let me just say that while GD may have been right in being angry at being banned from his own site, the other admins were in effect pushed towards those measures by repeated occurences of GD punishing those who were only acting in what they had collectively agreed to be the Wiki's best interests (since there has already been a huge quarrel on this issue I will try to speak no more of it). The point is, the site is pretty much irrevocably fractured, with basically the entire trusted user base (some exceptions exist) gone within a period of a few days. Even some who have elected to stay are still left without the admins who helped make this Wiki a better site as well as without a seriously reasonable and unbiased explanation of why the conflict took place (most people who have been reading up on this know that it's pretty much because of the conflict over a possible Ratings Committee proposal, but others who were not involved in said conflict were banned as well).

As the situation stands presently, there is now a rival Wiki comprising the users who are attempting to form their own vision of D&D Wiki without Green Dragon. There is also a huge pile-up of junk pages and dumb IP edits since none of the admins are left to monitor the day-to-day activities of the Wiki (while he may be the owner of this site, Green is to the extent of my knowledge only one person and can only do so much). In that sense, things now seem in a pretty bad state. How can you concievably call that a good way to run any website, let alone one that basically depends on the contributions of its users for appeal? -- TG Cid 20:57, 21 August 2009 (MDT)

Daniel Draco's Counterpoints

I would like to point out to everyone that GD has once again banned me, for a period of one day, on the basis of my last comment, which he categorized as "Intimidating behaviour/harassment". So, first, my rebuttal:

• CHAPTER ONE -- "Whine Kampf"

• "As the leader, you need to display professionalism and respect, or else nobody will take you seriously." --me
• "One does not have to do any of those things in any one of those circumstances." --Green Dragon
• Huh. Really. Alright, hypothetical situation. Metaphor Incorporated¹ is a company² of moderate size, with happy, active, and loyal staff³. Its CEO⁴, Sue d'Nim⁵, has always been capable and at least somewhat reasonable in her⁶ job. One day, a client⁷ does something that she⁶ disagrees with, but which her⁶ staff³ thought was a good idea. In an action that is universally seen as irrational⁸, she⁶ put all her⁶ staff³ on suspension for an indefinite period of time, regardless of whether or not they were involved. When finally they regain the ability to communicate with her⁶, Sue d'Nim⁵ refuses to offer any explanation or apology for her⁶ words and actions, which continue to be generally irrational⁸. Fed up with her⁶ ridiculously inappropriate actions, a leader emerges among the disgruntled staff³: Lee Dur⁹. He goes off to found a new company², Metaphors Unlimited¹⁰, bringing along with him a good portion of the staff³ and clients⁷, leaving Sue d'Nim⁵ behind. The end. Now tell me, if Sue d'Nim⁵ had been respectful and professional, would she⁶ have lost so much?
• Footnotes:

1. The D&D Wiki
2. website
3. admin(s)
4. owner
5. Green Dragon
6. his/he/him
7. user(s)
8. psychotic
9. Surgo
10. Dungeons and Dragons Wiki

• CHAPTER TWO -- "Brain (Dis-)Trust"

• "I would also like to point out that nobody wanted to be on a fake committee. That would have been silly." --me
• "Also, unless one can make userright areas in MW it is a fake committee." --Green Dragon
• "committee: a body of persons delegated to consider, investigate, take action on, or report on some matter" --Merriam-Webster
• "Assuming we are all persons: had the committee actually formed, we would have been delegated (assigned responsibility and authority) to take action on rating articles; therefore, we would have been a committee." --the core principles of logic

• CONCLUSION

• I would like to point out that I am fully aware that this post is, somewhat ironically, disrespectful and unprofessional. The differences are that 1) I am not the owner of the site and 2) I have not taken any substantial action with this post, where a substantial action is something such as banning every admin. --Daniel Draco 22:06, 21 August 2009 (MDT)

Oh, so it's Surgo who runs the new site? Well, forget that, then. I could barely stand his manner when he was admin... I think I'll stay. -- Mythos 14:39, 22 August 2009 (MDT)

Wow, it's been a while since I posted here. I haven't really kept up on everything that has been going on, but I don't think my lack of reading is relevant to replying to your comment, Mythos. Surgo is a very good admin for the new wiki. I had my reservations about him before because he can come off as an abrasive individual, but he has really stepped up and done an excellent job. To me, there doesn't even seem to be a choice anymore, however. One stray comment here will randomly provoke a ban (this will probably be my last comment here anyways, so I'm not too concerned about speaking up).

Surgo doesn't have any interest in leveraging the fact that it is "his website" to get his way. It isn't even hosted by him: he wouldn't even have any grounds to do that if he tried. In fact, there is someone Surgo reports to (so to speak) that if he started acting out of line like a supreme dictator, the community could go this other person to instead of being at his mercy. I don't know about you, but the thought of losing 2 years of my dedication and work at the whim of one person that bans people for trying to discuss things rationally seems like a bad idea.

It's not going to make a huge difference to me one way or another if you decide to come to the new wiki or not. I just hope that anyone who thinks "bleck, Surgo is terrible" considers carefully the choice that they are making. --Aarnott 08:59, 23 August 2009 (MDT)

And, as always, I will gladly give the link to anyone privately. --Daniel Draco 17:57, 23 August 2009 (MDT)

Editing someone else's homebrew class

You may have noticed that I've taken an interest in the jewelmancer class, and it seems to have been abandoned by it's creator, but not marked for deletion (therefore un-open to adoption). I just want to be sure that I won't be causing any problems if I make extensive edits like what I posted on the discussion page. I've read the wiki behaviour guidelines, but I know that there tends to be certain customs in groups that aren't always spelled out, so I figured I would ask before hand to be sure I don't cause any trouble. I'm also new to doing such intensive edits on a wiki page, and perhaps a bit shy about it. Thank you for your time.

Your New Adoption Policy

If I can get the original author to agree, or even if that isn't that case, could pages liked TK-Squared's, and whomever wants their material deleted simply be locked instead of removing the author template and putting them up for adoption? I say this because you have some ignorant asshole running around changing things that other people liked and rated highly into something entirely different. I can understand your desire to keep this material because most of it is pretty good, but I think if you want to do that it would be better to lock it with the original author template rather than put these things up for adoption. Most of them are finished anyway, so it's not like you'd be locking something half-completed. Afterward they can be maintained in the same manner that Dmilewski maintains the SRD: post it on a talk page, and an admin can make the requisite corrections. My big issue with this is credit where credit is not due. -- Jota 06:56, 25 August 2009 (MDT)

I find it interesting that a user pops up immediately after the adoption thing comes up, and is very knowledgeable in the workings of the wiki. I hate to cast doubt on anyone, and would love to be proven wrong, but I feel like the user may be someone else trying to abuse or make little of the adoption change. Just thoughts.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   08:01, 25 August 2009 (MDT)

Wow, play nice guys. Maybe this chap could become a big contributor to the wiki. Ain't stuff here always submitted with the warning "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then don't submit it here." I mean he did adopt the stuff legit. Of course, I have noticed his idea's of balance are different. But that could be a good thing right? --Jay Freedman 10:17, 25 August 2009 (MDT)

Yeah, after re-reading the above I came across wrong. I just want us to be cautious after recent events, to make sure people don't try to sabotage anything. But after re-reading this particular persons contribs, I actually personally agree with some of the changes. Mostly seems legit, just different from the original author's intent. That is going to be a touchy subject. Personally I'll play it safe and just make variants if I want to change something, to try to keep the peace.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   10:42, 25 August 2009 (MDT)

While I am not entirely pleased with these gross and misinformed edits on my once-beautiful and nigh-perfect creations, I suppose attempting to do anything about it would only allow me to revel in the backlash from ardent "supporters", although not the exact word I planned to use, of Green Dragon's nigh-despotic regime, so I'll do simply what I can.

All pages "adopted" by Jeeves that were once my creations or were adopted previously by me do not have my permission to be redistributed/altered (kept on this wiki) under the title that I published them in, include all previous revisions. This is my right as the original creator of the material under the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2 (GFDL) and cannot be argued with (GFDL Section 4, Subsection A). Furthermore, I expect an exact copy of all my previous versions to be kept in the history, otherwise this will contravene the GFDL Section 4, Subsection I.

This should be done quickly and with efficiency. I do not include the adoption of my articles by Jota at this current time, since he has not made any edits to them and they are, essentially, still my work and have not been redistributed and/or altered. Thanking you for your swift compliance with my wishes. --TK-Squared 13:39, 25 August 2009 (MDT)

TK, as long as the history of an active page is shown - it meets all the requirements. You may be misinterpreting that bit of the text of License. There was even a wikipedia arbitration case on the matter way back in the day. Plus, you didn't catch this part: "You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute.". Not saying I agree either way, just putting it here.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   13:47, 25 August 2009 (MDT)

“	A. Use in the Title Page (and on the covers, if any) a title distinct from that of the Document, and from those of previous versions (which should, if there were any, be listed in the History section of the Document). You may use the same title as a previous version if the original publisher of that version gives permission.	”
—GNU Free Distribution License]

--TK-Squared 13:51, 25 August 2009 (MDT)

The wording of that bit doesn't make sense in regards to wikis, it is very ambiguous. Does it mean previous version of the same page, or previously deleted page by the same title? Two different things. Hmmm. Looking into.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   13:55, 25 August 2009 (MDT)

Reading legal text is like running in circles. Or nascar. But after reading and going through support pages on it, it appears like its basically right. But it has never had to been enforced because people either outright delete the pages or they just move the page to a new page name, both of which are legal apparently. Odd. GNU Free is about four legal loopholes away from public domain.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   14:22, 25 August 2009 (MDT)

To touch on another thing, could you please expound on why Sulacu's name should be removed from the deviant page? I'm not sure I understand your reasoning. -- Jota 22:11, 25 August 2009 (MDT)

You cannot license that license. We use the GNU FDL not the GFLD. -- [User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:13, 25 August 2009 (MDT)

this: ::::::::::The "GFDL" is the GNU Free Documentation License. Your latest edits violate section 4, part B, of that license (which all the content on this wiki is licensed under). -- {{User:Wolf_Dancer|Wolf_Dancer]] 9:20, 25 August.

Oh, that. It's called the history tab - I am not sure if you have ever heard about it or not. Like on Wikipedia (pretty sure). Sorry, I thought you were talking about the GGPL; above I mean. --Green Dragon 22:31, 25 August 2009 (MDT)

←Reverted indentation to one colon

When you say 'you cannot license that license'... are you referring to me? I'm still not sure you've answer my question... -- Jota 22:36, 25 August 2009 (MDT)

History tab. Wikipedia does not even use authors; fyi. And they use the same license. I please say do not talk if you do not know what you are talking about. --Green Dragon 22:41, 25 August 2009 (MDT)

You don't need authors to present facts. No one invents a fact, it just is. In contrast, the deviant is Sulacu's creation regardless of where it is presented, and it would not have existed had she not taken the time to create it. As far as that other stuff, I couldn't really give two expletives about Wikipedia policies since sometimes this site seems to follow them, at other times not so much. Furthermore, you could do a better job of not being so demeaning. There were edits between yours and mine; how am I to know who you are addressing with your run-on sentences? -- Jota 22:52, 25 August 2009 (MDT)

DO NOT SUBMIT COPYRIGHTED WORK WITHOUT PERMISSION! means that it is under the GNU FDL. --Green Dragon 22:54, 25 August 2009 (MDT)

To respond to one of Hooper's earlier points, I agree that technical measures can't be taken to prevent work from being viewed or copied on a Wiki. But in this particular case, the person adopting TK's work is editing it, which goes beyond the idea of copying it for redistribution. I don't know anything about Wikipedia's policies (in all honesty, I am of the opinion that a Wiki such as this cannot and should not be governed by the same rules as Wikipedia), but the fact remains that Jeeves is taking credit for TK's work when all he did was emasculate the classes under the false premise that they are overpowered. He didn't use any normal things (like, say, the discussion page, a balance template, or some combination of both); all he did was change the numerical values of the class from acceptable to piss-poor and take all the credit for their good points when all he did was make them suck. Original homebrew work that has been judged to be of good quality (like much of the work left by TK and others has) deserves just as much respect as SRD material (especially because quite a bit of SRD material sucks). -- TG Cid 07:00, 26 August 2009 (MDT)

@Jay Freedman: Additionally, even if he legitimately adopted it, what's the point of changing an adopted work when the general community was pretty much happy with it (a 20/20 rating with no arguments to the contrary sounds like that to me)? If he wanted to make his own terribly underpowered, dirt-eating variant, he could go ahead and do so by making his own version on a seperate page. "Edited mercilessly and redistributed at will" should imply that they can take it and use an edited version for themselves, not change that actual work already present on the page. Adopted or not, his changes are simply a load of crap. In my opinion, if he ever becomes a big-time user, this place will really have gone to hell. -- TG Cid 07:12, 26 August 2009 (MDT)

@TG Cid. Yeah, his edits are pretty cocky. It would seem like a silly thing to do, to assume your judgement is better than this communities. I was hoping his edits would be positive. Guess I'm just a nice guy... Anyway. I hope he decides to fix his edits and just create varients. (Everybody loves Varients right? Hell yeah!) --Jay Freedman 10:46, 26 August 2009 (MDT)(and may the force by with you)

Ya, one can always respond about his edits on that articles talk page. --Green Dragon 13:13, 26 August 2009 (MDT)

Candidates for Deletion

I was going through the "Wanted Categories" page, making categories not redlinked and such. I ran across the old Category:Candidates for deletion from before the time we did Deletion the way we do now. Anyways, it has a few articles that still link to it - and I was going to remove it from the page and place them up for proper deletion, but the pages continuously reload and do very odd stuff, and I cant remove them. Could you take a look at it and see what it does for you? Thanks.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   10:24, 29 August 2009 (MDT)

Linked. I think that should work, if not I'll revert. -- Jota 10:29, 29 August 2009 (MDT)

Okay, I was finally able to work around it. They were all made by the same user, Eyedog, and he was using deletepage instead of just delete, and it was doing some weird stuff. I've restored all the content to the pages and placed the proper deletion tag on it.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   11:38, 29 August 2009 (MDT)

. Actually that category was the old category in Template:Delete (one can change it... I have no idea how stupid you guys are...). It was also used as a medium category too; by the way. --Green Dragon 20:38, 19 September 2009 (MDT)

My Pages

Could you please go ahead and lock them? --Daniel Draco 17:34, 29 August 2009 (MDT)

I gave back userrights (save for your RfA) so anyone can. --Green Dragon 17:59, 29 August 2009 (MDT)

Could you please add Template:Locked Page to them as well please, Lord Dhazriel (or someone)? --Green Dragon 19:03, 29 August 2009 (MDT)

Ok I take care of that. --Dhazriel 19:42, 29 August 2009 (MDT)

Done. --Dhazriel 00:40, 30 August 2009 (MDT)

Thanks a lot for doing that, by the way. --Green Dragon 20:33, 19 September 2009 (MDT)

Request

I would like to the deletion of most of my uncompleted work, I can do so with my administrative power but I want to make sure the pages won't be restored (I will put the pages I don't like to adoption). Thank you for your understanding. --Dhazriel 18:13, 31 August 2009 (MDT)

Lord Dhazriel, if you're leaving or just deleting some old work, please, let me go through the stuff you've published and possibly not finished. There's a lot of good ideas you had started that somebody ought to preserve... I'll do it, even. -- Mythos 21:48, 31 August 2009 (MDT)

You should just add the template and have it go through the standard process (see if anyone wants to adopt it, etc. Just like everyone normally does.). --Green Dragon 22:58, 31 August 2009 (MDT)

I know, however unfinished campaign setting or work compendium may be a little out of line for adoption. Also Mythos, feel free to adopt anything I put in adoption. This is why I am requesting the ability to delete these by bypassing the normal process. --Dhazriel 00:17, 1 September 2009 (MDT)

I mean why? They are still good ideas if one does decide to adopt it. --Green Dragon 01:24, 1 September 2009 (MDT)

Well I can't see how someone can actually adopt my work compendium. --Dhazriel 10:28, 1 September 2009 (MDT)

Move it to a / of their usernamespace? --Green Dragon 13:02, 2 September 2009 (MDT)

Template:PatronageRace

GreenDragon, you left a comment on my Template:PatronageRace page about it needing "to be made into a variant rule section (with sub-pages from the CS)" I don't understand what that means. I am new to wiki'ing, so that all sounds like gibberish to me. I left a comment on the talk page for clarification but haven't gotten a response. Could you explain to me what I need to do? --Wrecan 07:15, 3 September 2009 (MDT)

See also Template talk:PatronageRace#Editing Question. --Green Dragon 20:44, 3 September 2009 (MDT)

I responded. You erred. These are not variant races and Patronage is not a Third Edition Campaign--Wrecan 07:21, 4 September 2009 (MDT)

You left a new comment on my CS page indicatgin I shouldn't have "back to" links at the bottoms of my pages. Where did I include "back to" links on the bottom of any of my pages?! You still insist I have to fix my races, but as I've explained, there's nothing to fix. I don't have any variant races, and now I don't even have race-specific pages!! I don't know what you want, GD. Do you want me not to use Templates at all? Is that the problem? Please explain to me why you still think the way I present races in my CS is an issue because I can't figure it out.--Wrecan 05:35, 8 September 2009 (MDT)

Well, in this singular instance of breadcrumbs/back to, I think you misread that, wrecan. You're -supposed- to have breadcrumbs on your pages; the note says that they do not have them right now. If you don't know what this is referring too, I can give you some examples. --TheWarforgedArtificer 07:55, 8 September 2009 (MDT)

I figured out what you meant by "back to" links and eliminated them. Please get rid of that ugly "Needs Formatting" template on my CS page. And, as previously requested, please get rid of the ugly "Needs Formatting" template on my Template:PatronageRace page. Despite the name of the template, it's not a race template, and the pages that use it are simply describing the make up of different Realms in my CS.--Wrecan 08:00, 8 September 2009 (MDT)

I did misread! Sorry about that. okay. I'll start putting Back to links in. I thought that was optional.--Wrecan 08:04, 8 September 2009 (MDT)

Actually, you never even got the actual back-to footers, which means that you don't know what they actually are. That's no problem, I'll put a few examples on your pages and you can take it from there. This part, at least, I can help with. I'm as lost as you are with the rest of what GD wants, though. --TheWarforgedArtificer 08:08, 8 September 2009 (MDT)

Thanks!--Wrecan 08:11, 8 September 2009 (MDT)

Wait--oh, you just got it on the anthropophage article. Good job, but man, this is getting confusing, and I've got to leave right about now. --TheWarforgedArtificer 08:16, 8 September 2009 (MDT)

I'm a quick study. Thanks for your help. I think I've added Back To links to all my CS articles. Thanks for the help!!--Wrecan 08:34, 8 September 2009 (MDT)

Protection Request

I'd like to request that Reflexman (3.5e Optimized Character Build) be locked with the needs balance playtesting template. After reviewing the talk page, I feel like short term bans may be needed to myself, Jota, and Ghostwheel for edit warring. However, I still request the page reflect the true current state of the article.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   13:54, 3 September 2009 (MDT)

These guys dont need short term bans. They just need to learn from their mistake and move on. (And remember, Jay loves you all equally.) Thanks GD. --Jay Freedman 16:31, 3 September 2009 (MDT)

Bans are not issued by anyone above. --Green Dragon 20:27, 19 September 2009 (MDT)

GD edits Reflexman

I noticed you where browsing through the Talk page of the Reflexman Build. You where listing warnings for cussing and formatting it for users. I think that is awesome. I really never thought you would actually take the time to browse that puppy for content. If I had an award for above-and-beyond the call of duty, I would give it to you. Good job GD! --Jay Freedman 21:39, 3 September 2009 (MDT)

Agreed. Having one active wiki admin with so much to do paying that much attention to one article, even if it has been a hotbed, well, thanks. Plus, on behalf of us all, apologies on all the formatting issues. I saw how many times you had to fix that. Wow. We suck at talk pages apparently.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   21:41, 3 September 2009 (MDT)

I did not finish the formatting if someone wants to do that. --Green Dragon 20:24, 19 September 2009 (MDT)

Protection Request

Hey Green Dragon, I was wondering if I could get a Protection from IP's template placed on my Hybrid Elite Warrior (3.5e Class). Thanks. --Jay Freedman 13:01, 5 September 2009 (MDT)

Please, please, please... --Jay Freedman 15:32, 5 September 2009 (MDT)(I heard begging helps)

There's little reason to ask a second time. Either GD hasn't seen this page yet (in which case posting a second inquiry on the same page is useless) or he just hasn't gotten around to doing it yet (hardly an inconcievable scenario, given that he's the only active admin left). Even this reply seems like a waste of bandwidth. Besides, has anyone even tried to edit them (IP's, I mean)? -- TG Cid 16:41, 5 September 2009 (MDT)

Um well, no, I guess. This is a preemptive strike. I plan on taking a vacation from this wiki and that article is the only one I want preserved from anonymous hit-an-runs. Seeing as GD is the only active admin. I thought it might be a good idea. And, asking twice makes me appear desperate and mildly determined,(all at the same time). Haha. --Jay Freedman 17:02, 5 September 2009 (MDT)

I will lock it in given time (when I see this again) but I gave userrights back... any other admin could be asked as well. --Green Dragon 01:34, 9 September 2009 (MDT)

Gotta ask...who are the "other admins"? Given the recent stir up could we get a page set up that keeps a list of "active" admins, so the rest of us know who to contact if we need help and you are busy? -- Sepsis 05:53, 10 September 2009 (MDT)

Well, I am still semi-active... I can lock pages at least once a week.. (just depends on if I remember to check the wiki.) --Sabre070 01:35, 14 September 2009 (MDT)

Thanks for the response Sabre. I also found the "Meta Page" that has the Admins listed on it (although it is out-of-date and lists many non-Admins on it). I really think it should be moved up a level or two with a direct link to it from the "Main Page" (if it took me a few tries I think most would never find it). But again thanks for your response Sabre. -- Sepsis 09:25, 14 September 2009 (MDT)

They are actually admins, just don't use this wiki anymore. --Sabre070 15:47, 14 September 2009 (MDT)

Many still use this wiki; the list can be found on RfA (the main blue link). --Green Dragon 12:32, 15 September 2009 (MDT)