D&D Wiki - User contributions [en]

User talk:Badger

2011-08-31T14:15:59Z

Aarnott: /* Apologies */ new section

{{Anti-Vandal Barnstar|For your help with finding vandal's edits, removing vandal's work, and helping keep D&D Wiki clean, I give you this Barnstar. Thanks for your help. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 11:06, 4 November 2010 (MDT)}}
{{Archives
|label1= Archived messages 1-20
}}

==Help (Creature Creation)==

Hey, I made my creature as best as I can using the template you showed me. For some reason it was not giving me the code usage for the special qualities and such on the basic page so I went and found a page that was using it. From there things seemed to work out. It now has its own page in the Creatures section... not completely sure as to which section since I just pressed add new creature. Anyway, I figured you would like to know how far I have made it, and that if nothing else you will know where to find it. Also, since you mentioned you might chime in and give suggestions and such when you get to look at it. [[Dimidium_Troll_(3.5e_Creature)|Dimidium Troll]] Also, it seems that I have figured out how to link into pages as well. You are a good teacher, thanks for the instruction! --[[User:Lyrad8791|Lyrad8791]] 22:56, 4 January 2011 (MST)

==Question (Dealing with Spam)==

I have left a similar message on Green Dragons Talk page but I figure I should be thorough with this. It seems there are a few Users that are posting spam and doing a redirect for their User page to the mentioned Spam. One instance is this link [[Best_Electronic_Cigarette_Review |here]]. I don't know the procedure for deleting spam so I am asking you and the owner. I was just wondering if I should just mention it and leave be or if I should delete the contents of the page since I don't know how I would delete the page itself. [[User:Lyrad8791|Lyrad8791]] 23:57, 8 January 2011 (MST)

:Well, the long and the short of it is you shouldn't probably bother to do anything. Only Admins can totally delete a page. Likewise, only admins can ban a user. Whenever I come across spam, I blank the page, and then add a delete template. After that, I save changes with something like "Delete this spam" in the edit summary. Usually Jazzman is pretty good about catching these and deleting them for real. I don't know the official site policy on users handling spam, but no one has asked me to stop, so I still do it. One thing, however, is to make sure that the page never had any content on it. We don't want to delete a page that once had content, just because it now has spam. Like I said, us users can't do much in the way of permanent change (that's the admin's job), so if you want to turn a blind eye, no one will blame you. However, if you delete a bunch, someone might give you a nifty little barnstar like I have at the top of this page. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 00:02, 9 January 2011 (MST)

== Help (Creating an Animal) ==

So... you mentioned something about tables and things like that? i did find what each thing means ( [[Template:d20M_Creature|d20M Creature]] ) but what i need is the stuff it lists in the examples please. -[[User:Ozzy1234567890|Ozzy1234567890]] 11:06, 24 January 2011 (MST)

:Well, [[d20_Modern_Creatures|here]] is a link to every homebrew d20M creature. One of them is bound to have examples of what you need. Jazzman left a comment on one of your messages with some suggestions of how he would do it. You might want to check that out. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 12:17, 24 January 2011 (MST)

::Might [[Creature Types (MSRD)#Animal|this]] be what you are looking for? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 12:22, 24 January 2011 (MST)

:::It's exacly what I needed. Thanks for the help! --[[User:Ozzy1234567890|Ozzy1234567890]] 10:53, 25 January 2011 (MST)

== Help (4e Community) ==

Hey Badger,
Do you know anyone who's really good at making D&D 4e stuff, but is also good at changing 4e stuff (you know, like, changing monsters from the monster manual)? --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 22:11, 1 February 2011 (MST)

:Well, I'll be honest, I don't know how active they are anymore, but [[User:Sepsis|Sepsis]] has done quite a bit of 4e work (and is an admin here, so he might still be active-ish). For some reason I want to say [[User:Sam_Kay|Sam Kay]] also knows 4e a bit, but I don't think he's active on this wiki much anymore (again, I could be wrong on both points). Those are the two names that spring to mind, but I want to be clear that I don't know how much (if any) help then can/will be. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 22:21, 1 February 2011 (MST)

::Thanks for trying to help. But the reason was actually to help me with my Pumped Up [[Pumped Up (4e Sourcebook)|sourcebook]]. But I'm deleting it now. Sorry for bothering you. --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 21:30, 16 March 2011 (MDT)

:::No problem, I'm here to help. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 00:54, 30 May 2011 (MDT)

==Help (Sandboxes)==

Hey badger it is Dj00345. I wanted to ask you if there is a way to create ur own sandbox? I wanted to create one myself and don't know how to?... Can u help me out and explain how to make one??
[[User:Dj00345|Dj00345]].

:It's really easy, just add a /sandbox after your username, for example [[User:Dj00345/sandbox]]. You can put anything on the page, so sandbox, or sandbox1, or ninja_of_the_winterlands, or whatever you want. If you go to that page you'll be prompted to make a new page with that name. It's easy. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 13:31, 1 March 2011 (MST)

==Help (Pictures)==
hey badger. it is me Dj00345. i just added a image to one of my pages. and the picture is too big. how do i make it small enough to fit on the page??? can you help me at all??? the page is called [[Zendra (3.5e Deity)|Zendra]]. please help me..... [[User:Dj00345|Dj00345]] 17:42, 3 March 2011 (MST)

:I went ahead and changed the size. Check out the code and you can learn for next time. You can change the text by editing the code. You can change the size of the picture by increasing or decreasing the pixels. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 17:53, 3 March 2011 (MST)

::Thx. Got it now! ;) [[User:Dj00345|Dj00345]] 10:14, 6 March 2011 (MST)

==Help (Stubs)==

Hey one more question.... If I want to help finish a STUB page, do I just go ahead and edit it, or do I have to wait for someone to give me an answer??? [[User:Dj00345|Dj00345]] 10:14, 6 March 2011 (MST)

:I usually check to see when the stub template was added, how long the page has gone un-edited, and if the original author is still around. If it looks like no one else is going to do it, just jump right in. On pages that are a little more complete, and just missing little things here and there, it might be better to leave a message on the talk pages with your suggested changes, and give the community a week or so to talk about it. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 12:10, 6 March 2011 (MST)

::And if I finish what the stub template says needs to be fixed,, do i remove the template??? [[User:Dj00345|Dj00345]] 17:53, 6 March 2011 (MST)

:::I assume you're asking about Dhampir, which just needs another adventurer? Yeah, that you can just add whenever you think of one, and remove the stub template when you do. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 18:05, 6 March 2011 (MST)

::::Alrighty then. Thx again. And yes I am asking about dhampir [[User:Dj00345|Dj00345]] 18:33, 6 March 2011 (MST)

:::::I ended up removing [[Template:Stub]] from the [[Dhampir (4e Race)|dampir]]. See the history for what the edit was. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:39, 6 March 2011 (MST)

== Question (User Creation Log) ==

hey badger. i was just looking around on the Wiki and ended up in the User Creation log. where it shows every account that has been created. i went down to the date i helped my friend get an account on this wiki and saw it. then i went to December dates to see if my account was there. (i was bored and wanted to see). Apparently, my account i guess doesn't exist... i didnt see my account name anywhere in there... '''Is That A Good Thing or A Bad Thing.???????''' Please answer..... [[User:Dj00345|Dj00345]] 20:15, 11 March 2011 (MST)

:Huh, that's interesting. Well, do you recall creating an account? It does appear that you never made one, but you are certainly logged in and making edits. To make an account you need to log in. If you log in and make edits, you should have an account. I don't know what's going on, I'd ask Green Dragon if you're concerned. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 20:36, 11 March 2011 (MST)

::Well see. I made an account. I guess it didn't recognize it. I didn't get the message that green dragon sends to you saying that you are now a dnd wikian. I never got that message... [[User:Dj00345|Dj00345]] 09:54, 12 March 2011 (MST)

:::That's not an automated message, GD goes through and does those manually, so it's possible he just missed you. If you have an options menu at the top right corner of the screen that says "Dj00345, my talk, my preferences, my watchlist, my contributions, logout" you're probably a member and the site is just a little hinky. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 12:40, 12 March 2011 (MST)

::::Yeah I have all those. So it must be some sort of glitch maybe...? [[User:Dj00345|Dj00345]] 12:43, 12 March 2011 (MST)

:::::Yeah, as far as I can tell you're a full-blooded wikian, and the wiki is just screwing up. If you're concerned you can leave a message on Green Dragon's talk page, either asking him there, or directing him to this conversation. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 12:46, 12 March 2011 (MST)

::::::I'm not really concerned. i was just making sure that the wiki wasn't screwed up or anything. i was just keeping an eye out. thx for the help badger! [[User:Dj00345|Dj00345]] 14:57, 12 March 2011 (MST)

:::::::Oh, the wiki screws up all the time. This isn't anything major, so I wouldn't worry about it. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 15:46, 12 March 2011 (MST)

== Question (Multi-classing) ==
Alright, so I think I'm doing this right. And I suppose this will be the first question I will ask, is it possible to go back to a class that specifically says you can't after multiclassing? Even if the class you multiclass with says you can? (Sorry if you don't understand or if this seems stupid.)--[[User:Raem|Raem]] 17:35, 12 March 2011 (MST)

:First, yeah, you did everything correctly. Now, let me try to understand your question. I think if the 2nd class explicitly says "you can multi-class, even if your first class says you cannot" then you ''can''. However, if the 2nd class ''doesn't'' say that, you're out of luck. That said, it's really up to your DM. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 17:42, 12 March 2011 (MST)

== Help (Campaign Creation) ==

Hey badger! Dj00345. I have a question. I'm thinking of making my own campaign setting and was just wondering where to go in order to create the "Supplement" pages for it??? I took a look at the "Valgora" campaign setting and it's edit stuff. And noticed that the links said '''Valgora supplement'''. Where do I go to make one of those pages except under a different campaign setting of course... [[User:Dj00345|Dj00345]] 13:57, 5 April 2011 (MDT)

:Oh, well, as far as I know there is no official formatting for creating campaign settings. This little box might make it easier to add to a campaign setting, just replace "MyPage" with the name of your page, and "MySetting" with the name of your setting:


<div style="text-align: left; width: 23.5em; margin: 2em;">
<inputbox>
type=create
break=no
buttonlabel=Create New Page for Campaign Setting
default=MyPage (MySetting Supplement)
preload=
</inputbox>
</div>

:If you'd like, I'm sure someone can help you making a footer/header for your campaign setting and using it as a preload. My guess is Hooper would be the guy to ask about that, as I think Valgora is his setting, and you seem to like that one. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 18:30, 5 April 2011 (MDT)

== Help (Class Creation)==

Hello it was recomended to me that you might be able to help me with a concept. You see me and my friends are planning to start a DnD 3.5 OP campaign (so crazy templates etc...) But im new to dnd so I have no idea how to make the class/template/race I wanted. the concept I came up with was a ''Prototype'' character based off of the game prototype for the xbox 360. Im not quite sure weither it would be a class a template or a race. So I was wondering if you could help me make it? (or make it for me)? -- [[User:Grunt|Grunt]] 17:03, 25 April 2011 (MDT)

:Well, let me begin by saying I've never played Prototype, so I probably can't help you with much. However, here's how I'd recommend you try it.

:If you want to use existing classes, here's what I'd suggest: I don't know if you're familiar with [[UA:Gestalt_Characters|gestalt characters]], but that's what I'd recommend. Basically, you combine the best parts of two classes into one super-class. I'd recommend something like a [[Psion]] with an emphasis in psychometabolism, or maybe psychokinesis. From there, I'd make your other class something that would work well with the abilities of your psion, so maybe rogue. I like rogues a lot, so maybe I'm just biased. It sounds like a barbarian might also work well. Since you're going for overpowered, I think a gestalt [[Psion]]/[[Barbarian,_Tome_(3.5e_Class)|Tome Barbarian]] would best approximate what you're looking for.

:However, if you're looking to create your own homemade material, here's what I'd suggest: Start with a beefy Hit Die, like a d10, give yourself medium or good Base attack bonus(like the rogue or fighter), good fortitude and reflex saves (+12 at 20) and bad will saves (+6 at 20). After that, I'd give yourself a limited spell list, pulling your favorite spells from psionics, and use Constitution instead of Intelligence for the key ability. After that, add on a bunch of heavy hitting power class skills, using classes like [[Threat_(3.5e_Class)|Threat]], [[Barbarian,_Tome_(3.5e_Class)|Tome Barbarian]], and maybe even [[Death_Knight_(DnD_Prestige_Class)|Death Knight]] for ideas.

:I hope this helps. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 17:03, 25 April 2011 (MDT)

== Hey Badger ==

Hey, Badger.

:Hi. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 18:42, 15 May 2011 (MDT)

yo what up badger think i could get u to take a look at the mage of earthsea class again?? give me a few more pointers?

==ty [[User:La Mortis|La Mortis]]==

== Help (Campaign Settings) ==

You asked if I wanted help, I do.
I go straigh to the point.

I would want to make an own:
#make a page with the info about classes "and the world" and "how to make a class character".
#Then put a link to it in the Classes.
#make links that change pages adn scrolls down to an article.
#learn to make footers
#page for my classes that are adapted for my campaign setting.

::I've numbered each of the questions you have, and I'll answer them in order. Let me know if you need more detail on any of them
::1. If you want to make a page about classes for your Campaign Setting, just make a standard page for your Campaign setting. If you want, you can use the "Add New Campaign Setting Info" thing that I made [[User_talk:Badger#Help_.28Campaign_Creation.29|here]]. As far as I know there is no codified pre-load for this, so you can just model it off a page that you like, or do it on your own.
::2. Putting a link to it is just like adding any other link. You simply type this code: <nowiki> [[Name_Of_Page | Display Text]]</nowiki>.
::For example, you would probably make the pages named "Classes_(MyCampaign_Supplement)", so your code would say: <nowiki>[[Classes_(MyCampaign_Supplement) | Classes in MyCampaign]]</nowiki>. Naturally, you'll want to replace "MyCampaign" with whatever the name of your campaign is.
::3. Making links that link to a specific section is also pretty easy. You use the same format that you used above for creating a link, and to link to a particular section, you put a #SectionName after the name of the page. For example, if you wanted to make a link to this section, you would write " <nowiki>[[User_Talk:Badger#Help_(Campaign Settings) | Display Text]]</nowiki>.
::4. Making footers is as easy as making a page. First you make a page and put on it whatever you want the footer to say. Name the page something like "Navigation Footer (MyCampaign Supplement)". After that, you just have to include that page at the bottom of every page you want a footer. Only, this time, instead of using brackets like you normally use for a link (These: "[[]]"), use braces (These: "{{}}")
::5. Again, just make a page that's name ends with (MyCampaign Supplement), and put a list of classes and changes. You may find it is easier to make full on tables to show changes, or just text lists of changes. It's up to you.
::One last note, as helpful as I may be with this, [[User:Hooper]] is probably better. He is the one who rates most of the campaign settings, and he is the one who has one of the most complete campaign settings on this wiki. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 16:47, 30 May 2011 (MDT)

== For Identification Purposes? ==

Ok now i'm curious why you moved my page... made it loads of fun to try and find it through my simple input of the address it was sitting at without the variant 3.5 mumbo jumbo.

I'm just curious why you did it, I understand that there WAS a Dragoon class that was made and deleted for whatever reason... That's why i made it a Dragoon Lancer, there was someone who made a Dragoon that i thought was totally whacked out on ADnD and well I felt it needed a do-over, pouring through the books i found a nice combination that is actually based on pre-existing 3.0 and 3.5 edition material, short of some attack/ Wings purposes it is all based on the rules. I think it works marvelously and when i find the actual balance i would really hope people start picking it up. It was one of my favorite classes in FF Tactics, short of the huge error in missing people because they moved while you were in the air (Huge disappointment there) but getting back on track. I would appreciate a simple explanation, and well some feedback would be nice since you seem to have been the ONLY person on here who has done anything of note to my Dragoon Lancer.

James

:Badger didn't mean any offense. All homebrew pages are (supposed to be) appended with an identifying tag such as (3.5e Creature) or (d20M Advanced Class). [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 19:14, 7 June 2011 (MDT)

::Yep, Jazzman summed it up. Sorry for any confusion it may have caused. There should have been a redirect from the old URL to the updated one, I don't know why that wasn't working (but it appears to be working now). I've not actually read the page, but since my vacation has just begun I'll get around to it (sooner or later) and leave some thoughts on the talk page. Once again, sorry for any confusion or trouble this may have caused; I was just following policy.--[[User:Badger|Badger]] 20:24, 7 June 2011 (MDT)

::: Well i was really just curious as to the why... since it really didn't seem to have been a part of any of the other classes that i looked at. I have been going through and trying to reflect any changes i've come across and would really like some insight anyone has. [[User:Gainesja|Gainesja]] 04:34, 12 June 2011 (EST)

::::People are really, really, really, bad about adding those tags, so I'm sure there are many pages floating around that don't have them yet. Though more pages have them than not, so if you haven't seen any yet you must just be really lucky. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 07:40, 12 June 2011 (MDT)

:::::I think on that day alone I moved like 3 or 4 other classes and deities. It's just something I do every so often, when I notice a few pages in the recent changes need it. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 10:27, 12 June 2011 (MDT)

==Admin Nomination==
I hope that you accept the recent nomination for adminship that has been activated for you. Please go to [[Requests for Adminship/Badger]] to reply to the nominee questions. I look forward to seeing the community's thoughts!  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 06:10, 19 June 2011 (MDT)

:Thank you for your nomination, as well as your support. I accept the nomination, and I look forward to continuing to contribute to the community, either as a administrator, or as a user. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 20:09, 19 June 2011 (MDT)

::Welcome to Adminship. You are now part of "The Face" of D&D Wiki. Honestly, as you will notice, not much has been changed now that you are an admin. If anything, I would say more burden is placed on you. I recommend you take a look at [[Special:ListGroupRights]] if you have not already. Some of the the new features' uses pertaining to D&D Wiki follow. You can now delete pages, protect pages, rollback edits, block users and IP's, edit every page, patrol edits, and do a couple more minor things.
::*Deleting pages is normally done through [[:Category:Candidates for Deletion]]. Anything with a good reason to be deleted on that page should be deleted. The other time pages should be deleted is when someone makes a certain page and after a few edits they either blank the page or replace it with something like "Please delete this". If this page consisted of close to just the preload, just delete it.
::*Protecting pages has quite a few different times when it should be used. Pages should be protected according to the author's wishes (with [[Template:Locked Page]] added to the top of the page in question), in case of conflict (with [[Template:Temp Locked Page]] added to the top of the page in question), in case of [[Help:FAQ#What are OGL, OGC, SRD, and GNU FPL?|OGC]] published materials (with [[Template:OGL Top]] added to the top of the page in question and [[Template:OGL Bottom]] added to the bottom), or finally if the page is a vital part of D&D Wiki's organization. If it deals with D&D Wiki's organization it either needs to be be protected from IP edits or all non-sysop edits. As a rule of thumb pages up to two tiers deep (up for discussion/rethinking) from the [[Main Page]] are normally locked to anyone but sysops and all the others are just protected from IP edits. For Example [[3.5e Homebrew]] is protected from all non-sysop edits whereas a deeper in page like [[LA 0 Races]] is only protected from IP edits. No template needs to be added to pages if they are part of D&D Wiki's organization (even though some do exist like [[Template:Admin Locked Page]])
::*Blocking a user or IP should only be used after an IP or user vandalizes a certain page. To block someone just click "block" (found on [[Special:Recentchanges|RC]], the diff in question, the userpage, etc) and fill out the corresponding form. For a typical vandalism attack I normally block the user for two weeks. Certain things demand a longer block and others a shorter. No standards have been set for block lengths, use your best judgment.
::*Editing every page on D&D Wiki mostly means you can now edit the [[SRD:System Reference Document|SRD]] and the [[MSRD:Modern System Reference Document|MSRD]]. Feel free to edit them if inaccuracies are found. If interested further please look at the [[SRD Talk:System Reference Document#SRD ToDo List|SRD ToDO List]] or the [[MSRD Talk:Modern System Reference Document#Tasks|MSRD tasks]]. Of course that is only the base. There is never enough help to get everything done, so I am sure your help would be appreciated.
::*Patrolling edits should, in a nutshell, be used when you have looked over an edit and fixed everything that needs to be fixed (this includes reviewing the content with templates, answering questions, etc).
::I know this is really long-winded, so I'll keep the rest short. You have more burden on yourself now that you are an admin because users will be looking at you for editing help, knowledge of the standards, etc. It's a bit more work, but I really hope you enjoy being an admin and I hope you decide to stay around on D&D Wiki for a while more to come. Welcome to Adminship, again you're now part of "The Face" of D&D Wiki. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:58, 26 June 2011 (MDT)

== Modifiers Added, But for future refrence, ==

what are the modifiers to use? Class, Prestige Class, NPC, Monster, Equipment, Campaign, Quest, Deity, Trait, Flaw, Feat, Spell, Race are the ones i can think of, am i missing any? Also, Is there a way i can set a page to only accept changes that I approve?

:I've corrected the spelling of the modifiers above (and added a few more). Those are all the ones I can think of off the top of my head (and all the major ones), but I am sure there are more obscure ones. As for your second question, no there is not. However, you can use the "watch" tab, at the top of each page, and any changes that are made to that page will show up in the "my watchlist" page linked in the top right corner of the page (when you're logged in). You can click on "diff" to see the changes made in each edit. This is about as close as you can get to what you want. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 19:26, 14 July 2011 (MDT)

== Hi I was interested in joining the D&D WIKI but it seams your create account is broken ==

Hi, I was trying to find the webmaster but didn't see a link to leave a message for one. Maybe you can forward this on to her/him/them.

Anyway, I went to create an account and tried to make an account but it seams to be broken. A box keeps popping up saying type two words to in to prevent span but the silly thing just keeps cycling and won't go away to let you create the account. I tried at least a dozen times to get past it but always comes back. Very frustrating!

And now the fool thing shows up trying to post this message.

:Does it mention it is related to CloudFlare ([[D&D Wiki:General disclaimer]])? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:05, 30 July 2011 (MDT)

::If you can give me the exact error message you're getting, that would help immensely. What name are you trying to register? Is it possible that someone has already registered that name? Green Dragon, who responded above me, is the owner/operator of the website, so he's probably your best bet for a fix. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 00:37, 31 July 2011 (MDT)

== Thank You ==

I wished to thank you for your recent remarks on my page. And to acknowledge your intrinsic and direct approach.

:Any time? But seriously, I have no idea who you are or what page you're talking about (I've been a whirlwind of edits these past few days), but you're welcome. Let me know if there's anything else you need. In the future, don't forget to sign your posts with <nowiki>--~~~~</nowiki> or by pressing the signature button. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 18:51, 24 August 2011 (MDT)

::Your deletion of a page was most appreciated.

:::Oh, well, glad I could help. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 19:19, 24 August 2011 (MDT)

::::Could you extend your gracious policy upon a few of my other incomplete works?

:::::Policy says that we're supposed to wait at least 2 weeks before deleting anything. If I've deleted anything sooner than that, I apologize. Most of our to-be-deleted content is months, if not years old, though (so you should have plenty of time). If your content has a delete template, I'll check on the history, and if it looks like you're making progress on it, I'll give it time. If you give me the links you want me to keep an eye out for, I'll get around to checking on them later. Also, if I delete anything that you'd like back, I think can restore it easily (I've never tried, but I know I should be able to). --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 19:29, 24 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::I understand. I would like 75% of all my work deleted (noting most is incomplete, and I have no wish to complete 75%). I have only a few articles here; and have a desire to complete the 25%. The other work only hurts my prestige.

:::::::Right, well, place the code <nowiki>{{delete|~~~~~|Author has abandoned.}}</nowiki> to the top of every incomplete page you don't want to keep, and I'll delete them as I get around to them. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 19:45, 24 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::::It is finished.

:::::::::Is there a reason that you're signing out and not signing your comments when leaving a message to me, but logging in to edit your pages? You're not trying to hide your identity, are you? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 20:00, 24 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::::::No. I simply wanted to make sure you were interested before damming the pages. --[[User:Frankenkesey|Frankenkesey]] 20:12, 24 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::::Well, it's not policy to delete pages just because the author doesn't want them anymore. Arguably you should be using the "abandoned" template instead, but I've never seen anyone adopt one of those pages and fix it up, so I don't know that it's a very useful template (although it's a good idea). It's my personal belief that we should just delete unfinished and unusable material, rather than letting it stick around as abandoned for years. If your pages don't have enough content for someone else to take and finish up, I'll delete them. However, if they have enough already, I'll swap out delete with abandoned. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 20:12, 24 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::::::::This maxim sounds fair. --[[User:Frankenkesey|Frankenkesey]] 20:15, 24 August 2011 (MDT)

== Master of the twin paths ==

Just created the "Master of the twin paths" for 3.5e custom prestige classes. It was moved to "formatting issues" soon after.

My question is simple, is now officially removed or is it waiting to be checked? If it is removed, how may I improve it to have it added to the homebrew category it fits.

Also how do I format it correctly?

with many thanks,
Ryulin18

You're doing a great job

:Right, well, good news! Master of the twin paths hasn't been removed, it was just moved (for a totally unrelated reason). You can find you creation [[Master_of_the_Twin_Paths_(3.5e_Prestige_Class)|here]].

:First off, your page was moved to include an "identifer", which means I added "_(3.5e_Prestige_Class)" to the end of your class name. We use these to keep all our content straight, and every page is supposed to have one.

:If you check out other Prestige classes, like [[Animal_Lord_(3.5e_Prestige_Class)|this one]], you'll notice the bottom has a sort of footer that works as navigation, as well as some categories. You'll want to add those to your page (not those exact ones, but the ones that apply to your class). I'd search through other [[3.5e_Prestige_Classes|prestige classes]] until you find one that seems like yours, and check out what categories you'll want to include. Let me know if you need anything else. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 19:18, 24 August 2011 (MDT)

== Tavern ==

If it existed, you should get on it right now. But it doesn't so... [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 13:37, 28 August 2011 (MDT)

== Master of the twin paths - Part 2 ==

Okay. I have added breadcrumbs and the categories! Is it okay now?

Any advice to get it finished?

much thanks, Ryulin

:Alright, well, the cats and breadcrumbs look a lot better now. The next thing I'd say is fluff. Everything always needs more fluff. Well, almost everything. Check out a featured article like [[Deviant_(3.5e_Class)|this one]] for notes on making your page better. If you're committed enough, you can turn your page into a featured article. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 13:53, 28 August 2011 (MDT)

== Apologies ==

Hi Badger,

I realized that I took my trolling too far yesterday. Seriously, I'm not a jerk like that usually. I have just been using this website as out outlet, so to speak, which is pretty immature. Anyways, I've decided to quit my trolling here altogether and also to stop harboring resentment for Green Dragon and Hooper.

In the case of Green Dragon, I realized that teasing him may have been fun, it really was a childish way to burn off steam over real life issues.

In the case of Hooper, I realized that he's just like a lot of other D&D players I've met and gotten along with: he's got a strong personality and reflects that with strong opinions. And really, that's a good thing, not a bad thing. Unfortunately, I let situations where I saw him butt horns with other users sway me to dislike him.

I was logged into a chatroom that both of you were in last night (although I was afk), and although most of your conversation was cut off, I realized that I was being pretty stupid and you are decent guys.

So, my apologies to you (and Hooper), for the nonsense I stirred up. Cheers. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 08:15, 31 August 2011 (MDT)

Talk:GNU Free Documentation License 1.3

2011-08-31T03:07:10Z

Aarnott: Whoops. Formatting

__NOTOC__
==Notes==
This is the GNU Free Documentation License. The license requires the posting of this license.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 10:57, 14 February 2007 (MST)

== Updating and Understanding D&D Wiki's License ==

As this debate has spilled across numerous other pages, that are not necessarily meant for it - I've decided to try to keep all talks on one page. First, to assist everyone in understanding the license we currently have, I am providing a direct quote, which is about Wikipedia (a project we model our licensing and policies after), and it is in regards to when a poster contributes original material (which is what most of our stuff is):

'''"...you own the copyright to the material, for instance because you produced it yourself..."''', begins the section - then it breaks away for a moment for other possible contributors (which are not related to our userbase - though it fits our OGL stuff - which is already properly acknowledged) and continues '''"In the first case, you retain copyright to your materials. You can later republish and relicense them in any way you like."'''

Now, most of our user base understands this. But let me put it simply: the legal authorities state that if you created the homebrew content, when you license it here you still retain full rights, and may re-license it any way you wish. However, do be aware that '''"...you can never retract licensing for the versions you placed here."''' This is why, after the former site split - content the authors created was allowed to be moved, but not deleted from here. It was legally appropriate for both forks. Anyways, with that in mind hopefully we can all move past the "other sites are breaking the law/license" fallacy.

Now, I propose that we update our license, as is legally allowed, to GNU's most up to date license release - with an understanding that we will continually update it should GNU create a newer license. The guys behind these licenses are experts in their field, more so than any of us - and if they release a new one, we should take heed. Especially since they keep wikis in mind when creating them. --{{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 08:53, 27 August 2011 (MDT)

:'''Support''' I agree with Hooper's suggestion, not only because this would solve far more problems than it would create, but also because of the later point made: GNU FDL, no matter which version, is understood by it's creators far better than any other individual or entity. If they seek to update/improve/upgrade the license, then we would do well to consider doing so, as well, because let's face it: If the creator's of the license can improve on it, then we can benefit from the newer, improved license, instead of the older, obsolete and apparently flawed license. That's just simple rational procedure.

:The benefit of doing so is simply made more visible by recent issues and discussions, of which, this upgrade will also alleviate. --[[User:Jwguy|Jwguy]]10:16, 27 August 2011 (MDT)

::'''Support''' I support the notion of updating our license. However, more to the point, if we're smart about it, we'll only have to update it once, but always have the best protection. GNU FDL allows you to license your content under v1.2 ''or most recent version''. If we were to have added that line, we'd currently be licensed under 1.3, and we'd up upgraded to 2.0 when that releases. I support licensing us under ''GNU FDL v1.3 or most recent'', because the upgrade from 1.2 to 1.3 was designed specifically for wikis, and we will constantly be getting the most recent (and therefore best) version of their licenses.

::I'll be completely honest, I don't like having this debate. From my participation in the last 20 incarnations of this discussion you might get the impression I enjoy fighting about licenses, but I'd much rather be arguing about the balance of the latest class that was added, or how to write mechanics for water-bending. I'd love to just settle this, and then let D&D wiki be about D&D. That's why I come here anyway. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 12:34, 27 August 2011 (MDT)

:::This is comparable to a stub article trying to define something which is already well defined. This is blunt, however to continue this discussion an understanding of workings must be present. This does not show this. When I say ''workings'' I mean it in the loosest broadest sense encompassing multiple areas and procedures and I do not mean ''working''. Think abstract, think about this and get back to D&D Wiki when this is "correct" in all workings. Such a discussion will ''not'' be defined by something with a lack of knowledge.

:::I will not comment unless this is done correctly. If someone starts a "fight" (for a lack of a better term), I will not respond. This is not because I do not case, however because such a discussion will ''not'' be defined by something with a lack of knowledge.

:::I will comment when something (or somethings, depending) are done correctly. Of course you have no need for my comments in this matter. My reasoning is because I understand things can be difficult to do correctly for ''many'' people. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:31, 27 August 2011 (MDT)

::::GD, with all due respect, your comment above is very vague, and hard to follow. {{Warning/Text}} You are not getting your message across clearly. In the debt collection industry we have a term called the '''"least sophisticated individual."''' What this means is that we must always speak extremely clearly and use low-education wording and phrases to make sure that our point is understood by the person we are speaking to. With the acknowledgement that it may seem like you're having to "talk down," could you please restate what you just said above in a more clear and concise manner so that the rest of the site may be able to follow what you are trying to say. Please try to refrain from vagueness. Keep in mind that whatever it is you are referring to above as ''"already well defined"'' is obviously not as the '''entire rest of the user base''' doesn't understand your stance. --{{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 21:54, 27 August 2011 (MDT)

:::{{warning|comparedselectedrevisions=http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Discussion%3AUpdating_and_Understanding_D%26D_Wiki%27s_License&action=historysubmit&diff=532793&oldid=532786|brokenpolicy=etiquette: argue facts, not personalities, be civil|warningnumber=2|warningbannumber=1|issuedate=Issued on 11:41, 28 August 2011 (MDT)|signature=--[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 11:41, 28 August 2011 (MDT)}}

:::::This I will elaborate on as it is a new aspect of the discussion. I call it "a disregarding of status quo". You (and debt people) can call it whatever you want to. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:07, 27 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::We're just trying to have a civil discourse here, there is no need to be rude. Are you openly stating that, regardless of the feelings of the user base ''(i.e. if we hold a vote and everyone but you votes for updating the license)'' that it will not be updated? The user base deserves to know what we're getting into - whether or not this type of a decision will truly be collaborative or not. I apologize if running the site on the back-end is tasking on you. We just wish to make that easier. --{{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 22:10, 27 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::I have a problem with your statements, Green Dragon. I can, and will always say, that while I can be direct and somewhat cold, even if I do not think I've had to do so, yet, I always attempt to place my respects where they are due, and to garner an understanding for the opposing argument. I have tried to do that with you, this time, as well, even to the point where I can somewhat understand your conflict regarding the license issue. With that said, I am going to continue:

:::::::"'''This is comparable to a stub article trying to define something which is already well defined. This is blunt, however to continue this discussion an understanding of workings must be present. This does not show this.'''"

:::::::This discussion is regarding an upgrade to GNU FDL 1.3; I can assure you that at least I understand the terms of that license, and I have faith that Hooper and Badger do, as well, given their involvement. We're not trying to define the license; You ''''might'''' be referring to the discussion on the main talk page regarding the various interpretations of GNU FDL 1.2. As I understand it, that's done. We're talking about moving on, and getting rid of 1.2 for 1.3, a license that will completely absolve that problem. This is completely communicated in Hooper's individual post.

:::::::I can only see three explanations regarding saying this: Either '''1''') You made a mistake interpreting main purpose of this discussion. '''2''') You have a disagreement regarding the second and third paragraphs of the original statement, in which case, I would ask that instead of just saying the equivalent of 'You don't know what you're talking about' and getting nowhere, that you abide by your own advice; Do this 'correctly', by pointing out, quoting if necessary, what you have a problem with, and clearly explaining why you believe it is incorrect. Granted, this is an extraneous argument regarding the proposal to upgrade to 1.3, but at least explain your ideas and assertions instead of just blatantly writing off our own as 'wrong'. That, I must say, is incredibly rude. '''3''') That you are simply trying to discredit the argument or proposal. I would like to believe that you are not that petty.

:::::::"'''When I say workings I mean it in the loosest broadest sense encompassing multiple areas and procedures and I do not mean working. Think abstract, think about this and get back to D&D Wiki when this is "correct" in all workings. Such a discussion will not be defined by something with a lack of knowledge.'''"

:::::::Please, Please, Please refrain from saying one thing, and meaning '''something else'''. If you have to instruct us to temporarily change the definition of a word to understand what you are trying to say, then I hate to be the guy to say this, but you ''''need'''' to use a more correct word, in the first place. I'm not going to think loose, broad, or encompassing just so your argument will seem 'more right', and I'm not going to refrain from discussion simply because I don't see things as you do. That's the whole point of a discussion. Be strong, be bold, and be simple, and help us chisel out a straightforward understanding among each other, and submit a contribution to the discussion, not an opinion that seemingly only has purpose to try to invalidate everyone else's. Discussion, Arguments, Conflict, for whatever term you will use to describe the clashing of ideals and perceptions, are the keys to knowledge and understanding. Never was there a greater teacher, about your opposition or about yourself, than that of conflict. Speak simply, and learn with us, and we might just have a better wiki for it.

:::::::"'''I will not comment unless this is done correctly. If someone starts a "fight" (for a lack of a better term), I will not respond. This is not because I do not case, however because such a discussion will not be defined by something with a lack of knowledge.'''"

:::::::This isn't a fight. It's a disagreement. If you liken the two by a looser definition, specifically, that of conflict of any kind, then I will allot you that definition. That said, if you are going to invalidate all opposing arguments simply because they oppose your viewpoint, I advise you to think carefully about what kind of precedent you will be setting, and what the point of discussions are, even, if all of this is null and void next to your seemingly supreme view of things. That is what I am interpreting the statement above as. The argument holds no other suggestion, condemnation, or support for the current issue and proposal, and instead appears as a simplistic, indirect dismissal of this discussions' participants' thoughts on the matter.

:::::::I mean nothing in malice, but as I said above, I '''will''' be direct, and I '''will''' use this as a discussion should be used: I will clash against your arguments, to attempt to decimate it, while fortifying my own, in the pursuit of a singular truth. I will do so with regards to rules of etiquette, and I will always allow good faith to reign over my argument, but I will challenge the possibility, and you, if you allow the possibility to become fact. This is an example. I now argue with you, as the opposition. I invite you to argue to provide rebuttal, though that goes without saying, nor does it require the invitation. It is, however, my formal declaration of good faith preceding the arguments that are likely to follow.

:::::::"'''I will comment when something (or somethings, depending) are done correctly. Of course you have no need for my comments in this matter. My reasoning is because I understand things can be difficult to do correctly for many people.'''"

:::::::I do, and I believe that the discussion also does, '''need''' a comment from you. The comment is more of a reply, however. If this discussion, and all it's participants, or at least the distinct majority of the participants, does agree that the '''upgrading from GNU FDL v1.2 to GNU FDL v1.3''' is the best course of action for this wiki, will you comply?

:::::::I do not begrudge you your opinion. If you think it's silly, unnecessary, or without reason, I do not blame you. The point is, however, I am asking you that if the active user-base thinks differently, will you '''willingly put aside your opposition in favor of letting this democratic process prevail'''? I don't ask that you back down, and I don't ask that you discard your opinion, and believe that we're all right, and that you're completely wrong... but I ask if you'll respect the collective decision and assist in it's implementation? If not, then there is no reason for this discussion under such tyranny. --[[User:Jwguy|Jwguy]] 07:56, 28 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::::"''loosest broadest sense encompassing multiple areas''" may also mean show an understanding of ''workings''. What is a working? For example, and here is some instruction, is this "discussion" format correct? Why should anything regarding the [[GNU Free Documentation License 1.2]] (hint) happen here?

::::::::I don't want to give instruction. I don't care. You should understand wiki enough to do it correctly, so it can be discussed correctly. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 10:54, 28 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::{{warning/Text}} The discussion should happen here as it is very wide-effecting. If there was a subcommittee creating a new license update proposal, it would be appropriate to have it on the GNU talk page. However, since we model our site off wikipedia, why not have a discussion like they do - on a single central location? Now, if you could just please answer the question: are you willing to let the democratic process prevail, or have you already decided against updating and are not open to collaboration? --{{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 11:17, 28 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::::{{warning|comparedselectedrevisions=http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Discussion%3AUpdating_and_Understanding_D%26D_Wiki%27s_License&action=historysubmit&diff=532793&oldid=532786|brokenpolicy=etiquette: do not make misrepresentations|warningnumber=3|warningbannumber=1|issuedate=Issued on 11:41, 28 August 2011 (MDT)|signature=--[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 11:41, 28 August 2011 (MDT)}}

::::::::::"''Have a D&D question you need answered? Not completely sure about something in D&D? Confused about certain rules?''" applies so well... Wikis work in certain ways. If you care about wiki it would be done right. Logical. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 11:41, 28 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::::Alright, GD. We've moved the discussion here. Now that we're in the right place, would you mind answering Hooper's question? Are you willing to let the democratic process prevail, or have you already decided against updating the license and are not open to collaboration? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 13:01, 28 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::::::::Another answered topic is that this discussion is unreadable in its current state. See also [[Help:Talk Pages]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:46, 28 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::::::You've had no trouble reading and contributing up to this point. Are you going to make me reformat everyone's comments to get an answer out of you? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 16:48, 28 August 2011 (MDT)

{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}

:It shows an understanding and caring of wiki and how D&D Wiki works. There still is more to do, of course. It must be farily intuitive. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:14, 28 August 2011 (MDT)

::What? What shows an understanding of how D&D wiki works? What more is there to do? What has to be intuitive? Ok, what I would like you to do is make a list of all the hoops we're going to have to jump through before we can have an honest discussion, and a vote. I'm going to tell you right now that there is no active user on this wiki, except maybe you, that understands and cares more about wikis and D&D wiki than I do. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 17:20, 28 August 2011 (MDT)

:::It may show the understanding of how the wiki works, as you say, but the fact that you continue to dodge the question and are forcing the community to jump through hoops is degrading, not only to this wiki, but also to your own reputation. Under a level of triviality and, dare I say it, stubbornness, this wiki cannot help but be doomed. I've asked you to assume the mantle of a leader, and to do as a leader would do; Accept the views of your community, or at least what remains of it, and answer one, simple question: '''Will you allow this democratic process to prevail''', regardless of the outcome? Honestly, I feel that your behavior is beginning to resemble a level of uncooperative nature that we will simply be forced to wait until it is out of your hands, though I won't say what that means.
:::Is this no longer a wiki? Where the collective of editors believe in majority consensus on issues of controversy? Is this your last gasp in authoritarian style, struggling to reign in and impose obstacles on people simply because they disagree with you? You claim so much importance in all these trivialities and simple ''necessities'' in order for you to even acknowledge this argument, and yet you don't care enough to implement them yourself, or even take our arguments in good faith, the key ideals of wikis everywhere? Instead, you appear purposefully avoid the question, avoid the argument, and seem to imply, by actions and statements, that a vote we carry out would have no meaning to you. I am sorry to say, but if that is how you will operate, then I cannot say that I can respect you as an administrator. This issue will resolve itself, in time, and for the better, likely with or without you. I am sorry that you do not seem to be interested in participating in a manner befitting that of this website. [[User:Jwguy|Jwguy]] 17:58, 28 August 2011 (MDT)

::::I would answer, however this has already been answered. This question I will answer on [[Meta Pages]] as it was very loosely defined before. As I was saying something which shows an understanding of D&D Wiki is a must. Should anyone get people to do what they want just because they are human? A level of irrelevancy exists, and it must in wikis.
::::It's answers like these annoy people. Can anyone read [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus Consensus]? Does anyone care? Has anyone looked into this? Why do I have to explain this. If leaders did this (for example) Obama would have zero time away from answering irrelevant letters. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 19:06, 28 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::Alright. I know all about consensus. I was raised Quaker; Consensus is our thing. First thing we've got to do is have everyone simply and clearly state what their feelings are with the current situation. Don't speak for anyone else, and don't make references to other's opinions. After we all discuss our opinions, we go around and cite facts (in this case, in the forms of links) that cover everyone's problems with the current situation, and potential solutions. I'll start:
:::::I feel that the current license (v1.2) is inadequate for our needs, and a new license (v1.3) would be better suited for our needs. There are special sections of v1.3 that are designed for multi-user websites, like our wiki. I feel that an upgrade would better suit the wiki in the long term, and would cut down on a number of arguments we have been having.
:::::Who would like to go next? Remember, we're just stating our opinions right now, so no talking about other people or their opinions, just your own feelings. Don't even say things like "I disagree/agree with ____" as that isn't the point of consensus. If someone has already voiced the same opinion as you, you may remain quiet. Consensus is assumed when there's no evidence of disagreement. You are free to re-join the discussion at any point, of course, if you feel you have something more to add. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 21:58, 28 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::I feel that the current license is adequate. 1.3 was designed (as far as I can tell) for Wikipedia's desire to multi-licesne everything. I feel that making things simpler rather then confusing is better for users. I also understand that licensing situations are as easy as applying a template to fix (for compliance with the current licesne; if that is what is being discussed). Like [[Template:OGL Top]], [[Template:OGL Bottom]], [[Template:Copyright Disclaimer]], and [[Template:Cc-by-nc-sa]]. Saying there is a problem adding templates for compliance issues is like saying there is a problem with editing.
::::::I would also appreciate if the entire discussion was moved (that which relates here from where it was started) as well as pags which are leftover are removed. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 19:00, 29 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::Alright. If anyone else has anything they'd like to add, feel free to do so. If no one has anything else to add, at this time tomorrow we should begin to provide links to better explain our problems, as well as our solutions. If anyone is, for any reason, unable to add to this conversation, [[Special:EmailUser/Badger|I'm sure they can think of a way to get their voice heard]]. Like I said, we'll start addressing complaints this time tomorrow (naturally, we can push this back if we feel we need more time on this first step, as it is perhaps the most important). --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 19:09, 29 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::::With permission, I am adding the below text on behalf of Hooper: 
::::::::"I personally believe that GNU 1.3 is best for D&D Wiki's future. This is because it was specifically designed to close previous gaps between CC-BY-SA and 1.2. I believe that expecting users to intuitively know to post a template on their FIRST edit to a page they want licensed outside GNU is not realistic, as we can't even get most novice users to understand our basic naming identifiers and tags. This means that our current template situation is actually more complicated.

::::::::Additionally, GNU 1.3 exemptions were made specifically for collaborative projects - like wikis. Additionally, some of the text in the GNU 1.3 is more clearly written (instead of in "legalese") and will help solidify the correct understanding of author's rights to all our members." --{{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 19:28, 29 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::Truly, I believe that progressing towards GNU FDL 1.3 would be in the best interest for the wiki. This is because the 1.3 license is the improved and revised form of GNU FDL 1.2, the site's current license, which is currently obsolete. It is my personal opinion that our duties regarding the upkeep and maintenance of this site extend to our license. Even if it were only symbolic, the upgrade is necessary because lack of vigilance and proper administration, especially on such important, legal issues, must be avoided.

:::::::::The license provides even more reason than simple vigilance, as well. v1.2 has a notable history of conflict, involving this site and many others; It was because of this reason that it was further revised and appended into what is now GNU FDL v1.3. The current revision was designed for wikis and similar projects, and therefore it addresses many of the issues that were present under v1.2, such as compatibility with other licenses, and a welcomed transition to more '''plain''' speak, which, while subjective in terms of significance, is something I believe will lead to far less conflicting interpretations in the future. Perhaps most of all, the exemptions present that deal with projects like this very wiki, present the greatest benefit to our community and its cohesion. [[User:Jwguy|Jwguy]] 21:21, 29 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::::::The changes can be seen [http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Sandbox&diff=prev&oldid=533144 here]. I change my stance.
::::::::::Why not?
::::::::::Simplicity, yes, will be harmed a bit. We must implement a policy on [[Meta Pages]] that content it licensed as it is. If someone desires to change the licensing they must do it at the creation of the page or request it (or something). A little more confusion, but it should be fine. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 19:34, 30 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::::Simplicity could be maintained if we were willing to have all content be dual-licensed under GNU-FDL v1.3 as well as CC-BY-SA (which, if I'm not mistaken, is how Wikipedia does it). That way pretty much everything would be covered. We could put a note at the bottom of the edit window (where current copyright information is) that says "if you choose to license this under additional, fewer, or different licenses, please see an administrator before uploading your content. Most people would probably be fine with this and allow dual-licensing. It would be the best way to help people license their content under another license. If you would prefer, we could dedicate an particluar admin to handle licensing arrangements on top of their other duties(and I would be more than willing to handle this). We could work out what licenses were ok, and how to go about licensing things, and then it'd be as easy as having a user leave a message to an admin that says "I would like to license my content under licenses 1, 2, 4 and 5", and one of us could swoop in and add the correct templates to the page. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 20:02, 30 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::::::::<s>{{Warning/Text}}
::::::::::::#It would be close to admitting that licensing is up to the author, not the website owner, which is COMPLETELY incorrect. By posting this, for example, I have given away all rights for what I have produced and cannot claim any intellectual ownership for my ideas.
::::::::::::{{Warning/Text}}
::::::::::::In summary, I hope you all rethink your stance on this licence change. Please. Think of the lulz to be had. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 20:17, 30 August 2011 (MDT)</s>

:::::::::::{{warning|comparedselectedrevisions=http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGNU_Free_Documentation_License_1.2&action=historysubmit&diff=533156&oldid=533153|brokenpolicy=direct rudeness: personal attacks, rudeness, belittling|warningnumber=1|warningbannumber=1|issuedate=Issued on [[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]]|signature=--[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:39, 30 August 2011 (MDT)}}

:::::::::::::Please read the diff.
:::::::::::::"''You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Document except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute it is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License.''"
:::::::::::::The other point of interest to this... whatever... is
:::::::::::::"''An MMC is "eligible for relicensing" if it is licensed under this License, and if all works that were first published under this License somewhere other than this MMC, and subsequently incorporated in whole or in part into the MMC, (1) had no cover texts or invariant sections, and (2) were thus incorporated prior to November 1, 2008.''"
:::::::::::::No, things are licensed. This has been discussed multiple times and every major website says the same thing. An internet myth is not correct because of your desires. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:39, 30 August 2011 (MDT)

{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}

:<s>I agree. Things licensed they are. We have multiple times gone over this discussion of major websites. The internet myth is what I'm saying.
:"''An MMC is "eligible for relicensing" if it is licensed under this License, and if all works that were first published under this License somewhere other than this MMC, and subsequently incorporated in whole or in part into the MMC, (1) had no cover texts or invariant sections, and (2) were thus incorporated prior to November 1, 2008.''"
:means that we can't relicense anything after November 1, 2008. The same page is great to be on. My desires are the same as yours. Maybe my point wasn't enough clear. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 20:44, 30 August 2011 (MDT)</s>

::It also means that a website must be "''under this License''". Make sense? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:54, 30 August 2011 (MDT)

:::Honestly, Green Dragon, I was just posting to cause a ruckus. Everything I've said was some form of teasing or sarcasm. I don't agree with your understanding of the licensing, nor does it seem that your community does. Now, putting aside my immaturity, I think the reasonable thing to do would be to listen to your community on a big issue like this one. You treat them with respect, and they will continue treating you with respect. You don't, and you'll probably end up annoying a whole other batch of users whom will have fun coming back to your site just to stir up trouble from time to time like I have. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 21:07, 30 August 2011 (MDT)

Talk:GNU Free Documentation License 1.3

2011-08-31T03:04:53Z

Aarnott: Seriously, it was a joke, dude

__NOTOC__
==Notes==
This is the GNU Free Documentation License. The license requires the posting of this license.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 10:57, 14 February 2007 (MST)

== Updating and Understanding D&D Wiki's License ==

As this debate has spilled across numerous other pages, that are not necessarily meant for it - I've decided to try to keep all talks on one page. First, to assist everyone in understanding the license we currently have, I am providing a direct quote, which is about Wikipedia (a project we model our licensing and policies after), and it is in regards to when a poster contributes original material (which is what most of our stuff is):

'''"...you own the copyright to the material, for instance because you produced it yourself..."''', begins the section - then it breaks away for a moment for other possible contributors (which are not related to our userbase - though it fits our OGL stuff - which is already properly acknowledged) and continues '''"In the first case, you retain copyright to your materials. You can later republish and relicense them in any way you like."'''

Now, most of our user base understands this. But let me put it simply: the legal authorities state that if you created the homebrew content, when you license it here you still retain full rights, and may re-license it any way you wish. However, do be aware that '''"...you can never retract licensing for the versions you placed here."''' This is why, after the former site split - content the authors created was allowed to be moved, but not deleted from here. It was legally appropriate for both forks. Anyways, with that in mind hopefully we can all move past the "other sites are breaking the law/license" fallacy.

Now, I propose that we update our license, as is legally allowed, to GNU's most up to date license release - with an understanding that we will continually update it should GNU create a newer license. The guys behind these licenses are experts in their field, more so than any of us - and if they release a new one, we should take heed. Especially since they keep wikis in mind when creating them. --{{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 08:53, 27 August 2011 (MDT)

:'''Support''' I agree with Hooper's suggestion, not only because this would solve far more problems than it would create, but also because of the later point made: GNU FDL, no matter which version, is understood by it's creators far better than any other individual or entity. If they seek to update/improve/upgrade the license, then we would do well to consider doing so, as well, because let's face it: If the creator's of the license can improve on it, then we can benefit from the newer, improved license, instead of the older, obsolete and apparently flawed license. That's just simple rational procedure.

:The benefit of doing so is simply made more visible by recent issues and discussions, of which, this upgrade will also alleviate. --[[User:Jwguy|Jwguy]]10:16, 27 August 2011 (MDT)

::'''Support''' I support the notion of updating our license. However, more to the point, if we're smart about it, we'll only have to update it once, but always have the best protection. GNU FDL allows you to license your content under v1.2 ''or most recent version''. If we were to have added that line, we'd currently be licensed under 1.3, and we'd up upgraded to 2.0 when that releases. I support licensing us under ''GNU FDL v1.3 or most recent'', because the upgrade from 1.2 to 1.3 was designed specifically for wikis, and we will constantly be getting the most recent (and therefore best) version of their licenses.

::I'll be completely honest, I don't like having this debate. From my participation in the last 20 incarnations of this discussion you might get the impression I enjoy fighting about licenses, but I'd much rather be arguing about the balance of the latest class that was added, or how to write mechanics for water-bending. I'd love to just settle this, and then let D&D wiki be about D&D. That's why I come here anyway. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 12:34, 27 August 2011 (MDT)

:::This is comparable to a stub article trying to define something which is already well defined. This is blunt, however to continue this discussion an understanding of workings must be present. This does not show this. When I say ''workings'' I mean it in the loosest broadest sense encompassing multiple areas and procedures and I do not mean ''working''. Think abstract, think about this and get back to D&D Wiki when this is "correct" in all workings. Such a discussion will ''not'' be defined by something with a lack of knowledge.

:::I will not comment unless this is done correctly. If someone starts a "fight" (for a lack of a better term), I will not respond. This is not because I do not case, however because such a discussion will ''not'' be defined by something with a lack of knowledge.

:::I will comment when something (or somethings, depending) are done correctly. Of course you have no need for my comments in this matter. My reasoning is because I understand things can be difficult to do correctly for ''many'' people. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:31, 27 August 2011 (MDT)

::::GD, with all due respect, your comment above is very vague, and hard to follow. {{Warning/Text}} You are not getting your message across clearly. In the debt collection industry we have a term called the '''"least sophisticated individual."''' What this means is that we must always speak extremely clearly and use low-education wording and phrases to make sure that our point is understood by the person we are speaking to. With the acknowledgement that it may seem like you're having to "talk down," could you please restate what you just said above in a more clear and concise manner so that the rest of the site may be able to follow what you are trying to say. Please try to refrain from vagueness. Keep in mind that whatever it is you are referring to above as ''"already well defined"'' is obviously not as the '''entire rest of the user base''' doesn't understand your stance. --{{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 21:54, 27 August 2011 (MDT)

:::{{warning|comparedselectedrevisions=http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Discussion%3AUpdating_and_Understanding_D%26D_Wiki%27s_License&action=historysubmit&diff=532793&oldid=532786|brokenpolicy=etiquette: argue facts, not personalities, be civil|warningnumber=2|warningbannumber=1|issuedate=Issued on 11:41, 28 August 2011 (MDT)|signature=--[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 11:41, 28 August 2011 (MDT)}}

:::::This I will elaborate on as it is a new aspect of the discussion. I call it "a disregarding of status quo". You (and debt people) can call it whatever you want to. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:07, 27 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::We're just trying to have a civil discourse here, there is no need to be rude. Are you openly stating that, regardless of the feelings of the user base ''(i.e. if we hold a vote and everyone but you votes for updating the license)'' that it will not be updated? The user base deserves to know what we're getting into - whether or not this type of a decision will truly be collaborative or not. I apologize if running the site on the back-end is tasking on you. We just wish to make that easier. --{{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 22:10, 27 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::I have a problem with your statements, Green Dragon. I can, and will always say, that while I can be direct and somewhat cold, even if I do not think I've had to do so, yet, I always attempt to place my respects where they are due, and to garner an understanding for the opposing argument. I have tried to do that with you, this time, as well, even to the point where I can somewhat understand your conflict regarding the license issue. With that said, I am going to continue:

:::::::"'''This is comparable to a stub article trying to define something which is already well defined. This is blunt, however to continue this discussion an understanding of workings must be present. This does not show this.'''"

:::::::This discussion is regarding an upgrade to GNU FDL 1.3; I can assure you that at least I understand the terms of that license, and I have faith that Hooper and Badger do, as well, given their involvement. We're not trying to define the license; You ''''might'''' be referring to the discussion on the main talk page regarding the various interpretations of GNU FDL 1.2. As I understand it, that's done. We're talking about moving on, and getting rid of 1.2 for 1.3, a license that will completely absolve that problem. This is completely communicated in Hooper's individual post.

:::::::I can only see three explanations regarding saying this: Either '''1''') You made a mistake interpreting main purpose of this discussion. '''2''') You have a disagreement regarding the second and third paragraphs of the original statement, in which case, I would ask that instead of just saying the equivalent of 'You don't know what you're talking about' and getting nowhere, that you abide by your own advice; Do this 'correctly', by pointing out, quoting if necessary, what you have a problem with, and clearly explaining why you believe it is incorrect. Granted, this is an extraneous argument regarding the proposal to upgrade to 1.3, but at least explain your ideas and assertions instead of just blatantly writing off our own as 'wrong'. That, I must say, is incredibly rude. '''3''') That you are simply trying to discredit the argument or proposal. I would like to believe that you are not that petty.

:::::::"'''When I say workings I mean it in the loosest broadest sense encompassing multiple areas and procedures and I do not mean working. Think abstract, think about this and get back to D&D Wiki when this is "correct" in all workings. Such a discussion will not be defined by something with a lack of knowledge.'''"

:::::::Please, Please, Please refrain from saying one thing, and meaning '''something else'''. If you have to instruct us to temporarily change the definition of a word to understand what you are trying to say, then I hate to be the guy to say this, but you ''''need'''' to use a more correct word, in the first place. I'm not going to think loose, broad, or encompassing just so your argument will seem 'more right', and I'm not going to refrain from discussion simply because I don't see things as you do. That's the whole point of a discussion. Be strong, be bold, and be simple, and help us chisel out a straightforward understanding among each other, and submit a contribution to the discussion, not an opinion that seemingly only has purpose to try to invalidate everyone else's. Discussion, Arguments, Conflict, for whatever term you will use to describe the clashing of ideals and perceptions, are the keys to knowledge and understanding. Never was there a greater teacher, about your opposition or about yourself, than that of conflict. Speak simply, and learn with us, and we might just have a better wiki for it.

:::::::"'''I will not comment unless this is done correctly. If someone starts a "fight" (for a lack of a better term), I will not respond. This is not because I do not case, however because such a discussion will not be defined by something with a lack of knowledge.'''"

:::::::This isn't a fight. It's a disagreement. If you liken the two by a looser definition, specifically, that of conflict of any kind, then I will allot you that definition. That said, if you are going to invalidate all opposing arguments simply because they oppose your viewpoint, I advise you to think carefully about what kind of precedent you will be setting, and what the point of discussions are, even, if all of this is null and void next to your seemingly supreme view of things. That is what I am interpreting the statement above as. The argument holds no other suggestion, condemnation, or support for the current issue and proposal, and instead appears as a simplistic, indirect dismissal of this discussions' participants' thoughts on the matter.

:::::::I mean nothing in malice, but as I said above, I '''will''' be direct, and I '''will''' use this as a discussion should be used: I will clash against your arguments, to attempt to decimate it, while fortifying my own, in the pursuit of a singular truth. I will do so with regards to rules of etiquette, and I will always allow good faith to reign over my argument, but I will challenge the possibility, and you, if you allow the possibility to become fact. This is an example. I now argue with you, as the opposition. I invite you to argue to provide rebuttal, though that goes without saying, nor does it require the invitation. It is, however, my formal declaration of good faith preceding the arguments that are likely to follow.

:::::::"'''I will comment when something (or somethings, depending) are done correctly. Of course you have no need for my comments in this matter. My reasoning is because I understand things can be difficult to do correctly for many people.'''"

:::::::I do, and I believe that the discussion also does, '''need''' a comment from you. The comment is more of a reply, however. If this discussion, and all it's participants, or at least the distinct majority of the participants, does agree that the '''upgrading from GNU FDL v1.2 to GNU FDL v1.3''' is the best course of action for this wiki, will you comply?

:::::::I do not begrudge you your opinion. If you think it's silly, unnecessary, or without reason, I do not blame you. The point is, however, I am asking you that if the active user-base thinks differently, will you '''willingly put aside your opposition in favor of letting this democratic process prevail'''? I don't ask that you back down, and I don't ask that you discard your opinion, and believe that we're all right, and that you're completely wrong... but I ask if you'll respect the collective decision and assist in it's implementation? If not, then there is no reason for this discussion under such tyranny. --[[User:Jwguy|Jwguy]] 07:56, 28 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::::"''loosest broadest sense encompassing multiple areas''" may also mean show an understanding of ''workings''. What is a working? For example, and here is some instruction, is this "discussion" format correct? Why should anything regarding the [[GNU Free Documentation License 1.2]] (hint) happen here?

::::::::I don't want to give instruction. I don't care. You should understand wiki enough to do it correctly, so it can be discussed correctly. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 10:54, 28 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::{{warning/Text}} The discussion should happen here as it is very wide-effecting. If there was a subcommittee creating a new license update proposal, it would be appropriate to have it on the GNU talk page. However, since we model our site off wikipedia, why not have a discussion like they do - on a single central location? Now, if you could just please answer the question: are you willing to let the democratic process prevail, or have you already decided against updating and are not open to collaboration? --{{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 11:17, 28 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::::{{warning|comparedselectedrevisions=http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Discussion%3AUpdating_and_Understanding_D%26D_Wiki%27s_License&action=historysubmit&diff=532793&oldid=532786|brokenpolicy=etiquette: do not make misrepresentations|warningnumber=3|warningbannumber=1|issuedate=Issued on 11:41, 28 August 2011 (MDT)|signature=--[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 11:41, 28 August 2011 (MDT)}}

::::::::::"''Have a D&D question you need answered? Not completely sure about something in D&D? Confused about certain rules?''" applies so well... Wikis work in certain ways. If you care about wiki it would be done right. Logical. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 11:41, 28 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::::Alright, GD. We've moved the discussion here. Now that we're in the right place, would you mind answering Hooper's question? Are you willing to let the democratic process prevail, or have you already decided against updating the license and are not open to collaboration? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 13:01, 28 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::::::::Another answered topic is that this discussion is unreadable in its current state. See also [[Help:Talk Pages]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:46, 28 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::::::You've had no trouble reading and contributing up to this point. Are you going to make me reformat everyone's comments to get an answer out of you? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 16:48, 28 August 2011 (MDT)

{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}

:It shows an understanding and caring of wiki and how D&D Wiki works. There still is more to do, of course. It must be farily intuitive. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:14, 28 August 2011 (MDT)

::What? What shows an understanding of how D&D wiki works? What more is there to do? What has to be intuitive? Ok, what I would like you to do is make a list of all the hoops we're going to have to jump through before we can have an honest discussion, and a vote. I'm going to tell you right now that there is no active user on this wiki, except maybe you, that understands and cares more about wikis and D&D wiki than I do. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 17:20, 28 August 2011 (MDT)

:::It may show the understanding of how the wiki works, as you say, but the fact that you continue to dodge the question and are forcing the community to jump through hoops is degrading, not only to this wiki, but also to your own reputation. Under a level of triviality and, dare I say it, stubbornness, this wiki cannot help but be doomed. I've asked you to assume the mantle of a leader, and to do as a leader would do; Accept the views of your community, or at least what remains of it, and answer one, simple question: '''Will you allow this democratic process to prevail''', regardless of the outcome? Honestly, I feel that your behavior is beginning to resemble a level of uncooperative nature that we will simply be forced to wait until it is out of your hands, though I won't say what that means.
:::Is this no longer a wiki? Where the collective of editors believe in majority consensus on issues of controversy? Is this your last gasp in authoritarian style, struggling to reign in and impose obstacles on people simply because they disagree with you? You claim so much importance in all these trivialities and simple ''necessities'' in order for you to even acknowledge this argument, and yet you don't care enough to implement them yourself, or even take our arguments in good faith, the key ideals of wikis everywhere? Instead, you appear purposefully avoid the question, avoid the argument, and seem to imply, by actions and statements, that a vote we carry out would have no meaning to you. I am sorry to say, but if that is how you will operate, then I cannot say that I can respect you as an administrator. This issue will resolve itself, in time, and for the better, likely with or without you. I am sorry that you do not seem to be interested in participating in a manner befitting that of this website. [[User:Jwguy|Jwguy]] 17:58, 28 August 2011 (MDT)

::::I would answer, however this has already been answered. This question I will answer on [[Meta Pages]] as it was very loosely defined before. As I was saying something which shows an understanding of D&D Wiki is a must. Should anyone get people to do what they want just because they are human? A level of irrelevancy exists, and it must in wikis.
::::It's answers like these annoy people. Can anyone read [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus Consensus]? Does anyone care? Has anyone looked into this? Why do I have to explain this. If leaders did this (for example) Obama would have zero time away from answering irrelevant letters. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 19:06, 28 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::Alright. I know all about consensus. I was raised Quaker; Consensus is our thing. First thing we've got to do is have everyone simply and clearly state what their feelings are with the current situation. Don't speak for anyone else, and don't make references to other's opinions. After we all discuss our opinions, we go around and cite facts (in this case, in the forms of links) that cover everyone's problems with the current situation, and potential solutions. I'll start:
:::::I feel that the current license (v1.2) is inadequate for our needs, and a new license (v1.3) would be better suited for our needs. There are special sections of v1.3 that are designed for multi-user websites, like our wiki. I feel that an upgrade would better suit the wiki in the long term, and would cut down on a number of arguments we have been having.
:::::Who would like to go next? Remember, we're just stating our opinions right now, so no talking about other people or their opinions, just your own feelings. Don't even say things like "I disagree/agree with ____" as that isn't the point of consensus. If someone has already voiced the same opinion as you, you may remain quiet. Consensus is assumed when there's no evidence of disagreement. You are free to re-join the discussion at any point, of course, if you feel you have something more to add. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 21:58, 28 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::I feel that the current license is adequate. 1.3 was designed (as far as I can tell) for Wikipedia's desire to multi-licesne everything. I feel that making things simpler rather then confusing is better for users. I also understand that licensing situations are as easy as applying a template to fix (for compliance with the current licesne; if that is what is being discussed). Like [[Template:OGL Top]], [[Template:OGL Bottom]], [[Template:Copyright Disclaimer]], and [[Template:Cc-by-nc-sa]]. Saying there is a problem adding templates for compliance issues is like saying there is a problem with editing.
::::::I would also appreciate if the entire discussion was moved (that which relates here from where it was started) as well as pags which are leftover are removed. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 19:00, 29 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::Alright. If anyone else has anything they'd like to add, feel free to do so. If no one has anything else to add, at this time tomorrow we should begin to provide links to better explain our problems, as well as our solutions. If anyone is, for any reason, unable to add to this conversation, [[Special:EmailUser/Badger|I'm sure they can think of a way to get their voice heard]]. Like I said, we'll start addressing complaints this time tomorrow (naturally, we can push this back if we feel we need more time on this first step, as it is perhaps the most important). --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 19:09, 29 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::::With permission, I am adding the below text on behalf of Hooper: 
::::::::"I personally believe that GNU 1.3 is best for D&D Wiki's future. This is because it was specifically designed to close previous gaps between CC-BY-SA and 1.2. I believe that expecting users to intuitively know to post a template on their FIRST edit to a page they want licensed outside GNU is not realistic, as we can't even get most novice users to understand our basic naming identifiers and tags. This means that our current template situation is actually more complicated.

::::::::Additionally, GNU 1.3 exemptions were made specifically for collaborative projects - like wikis. Additionally, some of the text in the GNU 1.3 is more clearly written (instead of in "legalese") and will help solidify the correct understanding of author's rights to all our members." --{{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 19:28, 29 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::Truly, I believe that progressing towards GNU FDL 1.3 would be in the best interest for the wiki. This is because the 1.3 license is the improved and revised form of GNU FDL 1.2, the site's current license, which is currently obsolete. It is my personal opinion that our duties regarding the upkeep and maintenance of this site extend to our license. Even if it were only symbolic, the upgrade is necessary because lack of vigilance and proper administration, especially on such important, legal issues, must be avoided.

:::::::::The license provides even more reason than simple vigilance, as well. v1.2 has a notable history of conflict, involving this site and many others; It was because of this reason that it was further revised and appended into what is now GNU FDL v1.3. The current revision was designed for wikis and similar projects, and therefore it addresses many of the issues that were present under v1.2, such as compatibility with other licenses, and a welcomed transition to more '''plain''' speak, which, while subjective in terms of significance, is something I believe will lead to far less conflicting interpretations in the future. Perhaps most of all, the exemptions present that deal with projects like this very wiki, present the greatest benefit to our community and its cohesion. [[User:Jwguy|Jwguy]] 21:21, 29 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::::::The changes can be seen [http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Sandbox&diff=prev&oldid=533144 here]. I change my stance.
::::::::::Why not?
::::::::::Simplicity, yes, will be harmed a bit. We must implement a policy on [[Meta Pages]] that content it licensed as it is. If someone desires to change the licensing they must do it at the creation of the page or request it (or something). A little more confusion, but it should be fine. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 19:34, 30 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::::Simplicity could be maintained if we were willing to have all content be dual-licensed under GNU-FDL v1.3 as well as CC-BY-SA (which, if I'm not mistaken, is how Wikipedia does it). That way pretty much everything would be covered. We could put a note at the bottom of the edit window (where current copyright information is) that says "if you choose to license this under additional, fewer, or different licenses, please see an administrator before uploading your content. Most people would probably be fine with this and allow dual-licensing. It would be the best way to help people license their content under another license. If you would prefer, we could dedicate an particluar admin to handle licensing arrangements on top of their other duties(and I would be more than willing to handle this). We could work out what licenses were ok, and how to go about licensing things, and then it'd be as easy as having a user leave a message to an admin that says "I would like to license my content under licenses 1, 2, 4 and 5", and one of us could swoop in and add the correct templates to the page. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 20:02, 30 August 2011 (MDT)

<s>::::::::::::{{Warning/Text}}
::::::::::::#It would be close to admitting that licensing is up to the author, not the website owner, which is COMPLETELY incorrect. By posting this, for example, I have given away all rights for what I have produced and cannot claim any intellectual ownership for my ideas.
::::::::::::{{Warning/Text}}
::::::::::::In summary, I hope you all rethink your stance on this licence change. Please. Think of the lulz to be had. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 20:17, 30 August 2011 (MDT)</s>

:::::::::::{{warning|comparedselectedrevisions=http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGNU_Free_Documentation_License_1.2&action=historysubmit&diff=533156&oldid=533153|brokenpolicy=direct rudeness: personal attacks, rudeness, belittling|warningnumber=1|warningbannumber=1|issuedate=Issued on [[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]]|signature=--[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:39, 30 August 2011 (MDT)}}

:::::::::::::Please read the diff.
:::::::::::::"''You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Document except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute it is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License.''"
:::::::::::::The other point of interest to this... whatever... is
:::::::::::::"''An MMC is "eligible for relicensing" if it is licensed under this License, and if all works that were first published under this License somewhere other than this MMC, and subsequently incorporated in whole or in part into the MMC, (1) had no cover texts or invariant sections, and (2) were thus incorporated prior to November 1, 2008.''"
:::::::::::::No, things are licensed. This has been discussed multiple times and every major website says the same thing. An internet myth is not correct because of your desires. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:39, 30 August 2011 (MDT)

{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}

<s>:I agree. Things licensed they are. We have multiple times gone over this discussion of major websites. The internet myth is what I'm saying.
:"''An MMC is "eligible for relicensing" if it is licensed under this License, and if all works that were first published under this License somewhere other than this MMC, and subsequently incorporated in whole or in part into the MMC, (1) had no cover texts or invariant sections, and (2) were thus incorporated prior to November 1, 2008.''"
:means that we can't relicense anything after November 1, 2008. The same page is great to be on. My desires are the same as yours. Maybe my point wasn't enough clear. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 20:44, 30 August 2011 (MDT)</s>

::It also means that a website must be "''under this License''". Make sense? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:54, 30 August 2011 (MDT)

:::Honestly, Green Dragon, I was just posting to cause a ruckus. Everything I've said was some form of teasing or sarcasm. I don't agree with your understanding of the licensing, nor does it seem that your community does. Now, putting aside my immaturity, I think the reasonable thing to do would be to listen to your community on a big issue like this one. You treat them with respect, and they will continue treating you with respect. You don't, and you'll probably end up annoying a whole other batch of users whom will have fun coming back to your site just to stir up trouble from time to time like I have.

Talk:GNU Free Documentation License 1.3

2011-08-31T02:44:33Z

Aarnott:

__NOTOC__
==Notes==
This is the GNU Free Documentation License. The license requires the posting of this license.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 10:57, 14 February 2007 (MST)

== Updating and Understanding D&D Wiki's License ==

As this debate has spilled across numerous other pages, that are not necessarily meant for it - I've decided to try to keep all talks on one page. First, to assist everyone in understanding the license we currently have, I am providing a direct quote, which is about Wikipedia (a project we model our licensing and policies after), and it is in regards to when a poster contributes original material (which is what most of our stuff is):

'''"...you own the copyright to the material, for instance because you produced it yourself..."''', begins the section - then it breaks away for a moment for other possible contributors (which are not related to our userbase - though it fits our OGL stuff - which is already properly acknowledged) and continues '''"In the first case, you retain copyright to your materials. You can later republish and relicense them in any way you like."'''

Now, most of our user base understands this. But let me put it simply: the legal authorities state that if you created the homebrew content, when you license it here you still retain full rights, and may re-license it any way you wish. However, do be aware that '''"...you can never retract licensing for the versions you placed here."''' This is why, after the former site split - content the authors created was allowed to be moved, but not deleted from here. It was legally appropriate for both forks. Anyways, with that in mind hopefully we can all move past the "other sites are breaking the law/license" fallacy.

Now, I propose that we update our license, as is legally allowed, to GNU's most up to date license release - with an understanding that we will continually update it should GNU create a newer license. The guys behind these licenses are experts in their field, more so than any of us - and if they release a new one, we should take heed. Especially since they keep wikis in mind when creating them. --{{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 08:53, 27 August 2011 (MDT)

:'''Support''' I agree with Hooper's suggestion, not only because this would solve far more problems than it would create, but also because of the later point made: GNU FDL, no matter which version, is understood by it's creators far better than any other individual or entity. If they seek to update/improve/upgrade the license, then we would do well to consider doing so, as well, because let's face it: If the creator's of the license can improve on it, then we can benefit from the newer, improved license, instead of the older, obsolete and apparently flawed license. That's just simple rational procedure.

:The benefit of doing so is simply made more visible by recent issues and discussions, of which, this upgrade will also alleviate. --[[User:Jwguy|Jwguy]]10:16, 27 August 2011 (MDT)

::'''Support''' I support the notion of updating our license. However, more to the point, if we're smart about it, we'll only have to update it once, but always have the best protection. GNU FDL allows you to license your content under v1.2 ''or most recent version''. If we were to have added that line, we'd currently be licensed under 1.3, and we'd up upgraded to 2.0 when that releases. I support licensing us under ''GNU FDL v1.3 or most recent'', because the upgrade from 1.2 to 1.3 was designed specifically for wikis, and we will constantly be getting the most recent (and therefore best) version of their licenses.

::I'll be completely honest, I don't like having this debate. From my participation in the last 20 incarnations of this discussion you might get the impression I enjoy fighting about licenses, but I'd much rather be arguing about the balance of the latest class that was added, or how to write mechanics for water-bending. I'd love to just settle this, and then let D&D wiki be about D&D. That's why I come here anyway. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 12:34, 27 August 2011 (MDT)

:::This is comparable to a stub article trying to define something which is already well defined. This is blunt, however to continue this discussion an understanding of workings must be present. This does not show this. When I say ''workings'' I mean it in the loosest broadest sense encompassing multiple areas and procedures and I do not mean ''working''. Think abstract, think about this and get back to D&D Wiki when this is "correct" in all workings. Such a discussion will ''not'' be defined by something with a lack of knowledge.

:::I will not comment unless this is done correctly. If someone starts a "fight" (for a lack of a better term), I will not respond. This is not because I do not case, however because such a discussion will ''not'' be defined by something with a lack of knowledge.

:::I will comment when something (or somethings, depending) are done correctly. Of course you have no need for my comments in this matter. My reasoning is because I understand things can be difficult to do correctly for ''many'' people. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:31, 27 August 2011 (MDT)

::::GD, with all due respect, your comment above is very vague, and hard to follow. {{Warning/Text}} You are not getting your message across clearly. In the debt collection industry we have a term called the '''"least sophisticated individual."''' What this means is that we must always speak extremely clearly and use low-education wording and phrases to make sure that our point is understood by the person we are speaking to. With the acknowledgement that it may seem like you're having to "talk down," could you please restate what you just said above in a more clear and concise manner so that the rest of the site may be able to follow what you are trying to say. Please try to refrain from vagueness. Keep in mind that whatever it is you are referring to above as ''"already well defined"'' is obviously not as the '''entire rest of the user base''' doesn't understand your stance. --{{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 21:54, 27 August 2011 (MDT)

:::{{warning|comparedselectedrevisions=http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Discussion%3AUpdating_and_Understanding_D%26D_Wiki%27s_License&action=historysubmit&diff=532793&oldid=532786|brokenpolicy=etiquette: argue facts, not personalities, be civil|warningnumber=2|warningbannumber=1|issuedate=Issued on 11:41, 28 August 2011 (MDT)|signature=--[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 11:41, 28 August 2011 (MDT)}}

:::::This I will elaborate on as it is a new aspect of the discussion. I call it "a disregarding of status quo". You (and debt people) can call it whatever you want to. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:07, 27 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::We're just trying to have a civil discourse here, there is no need to be rude. Are you openly stating that, regardless of the feelings of the user base ''(i.e. if we hold a vote and everyone but you votes for updating the license)'' that it will not be updated? The user base deserves to know what we're getting into - whether or not this type of a decision will truly be collaborative or not. I apologize if running the site on the back-end is tasking on you. We just wish to make that easier. --{{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 22:10, 27 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::I have a problem with your statements, Green Dragon. I can, and will always say, that while I can be direct and somewhat cold, even if I do not think I've had to do so, yet, I always attempt to place my respects where they are due, and to garner an understanding for the opposing argument. I have tried to do that with you, this time, as well, even to the point where I can somewhat understand your conflict regarding the license issue. With that said, I am going to continue:

:::::::"'''This is comparable to a stub article trying to define something which is already well defined. This is blunt, however to continue this discussion an understanding of workings must be present. This does not show this.'''"

:::::::This discussion is regarding an upgrade to GNU FDL 1.3; I can assure you that at least I understand the terms of that license, and I have faith that Hooper and Badger do, as well, given their involvement. We're not trying to define the license; You ''''might'''' be referring to the discussion on the main talk page regarding the various interpretations of GNU FDL 1.2. As I understand it, that's done. We're talking about moving on, and getting rid of 1.2 for 1.3, a license that will completely absolve that problem. This is completely communicated in Hooper's individual post.

:::::::I can only see three explanations regarding saying this: Either '''1''') You made a mistake interpreting main purpose of this discussion. '''2''') You have a disagreement regarding the second and third paragraphs of the original statement, in which case, I would ask that instead of just saying the equivalent of 'You don't know what you're talking about' and getting nowhere, that you abide by your own advice; Do this 'correctly', by pointing out, quoting if necessary, what you have a problem with, and clearly explaining why you believe it is incorrect. Granted, this is an extraneous argument regarding the proposal to upgrade to 1.3, but at least explain your ideas and assertions instead of just blatantly writing off our own as 'wrong'. That, I must say, is incredibly rude. '''3''') That you are simply trying to discredit the argument or proposal. I would like to believe that you are not that petty.

:::::::"'''When I say workings I mean it in the loosest broadest sense encompassing multiple areas and procedures and I do not mean working. Think abstract, think about this and get back to D&D Wiki when this is "correct" in all workings. Such a discussion will not be defined by something with a lack of knowledge.'''"

:::::::Please, Please, Please refrain from saying one thing, and meaning '''something else'''. If you have to instruct us to temporarily change the definition of a word to understand what you are trying to say, then I hate to be the guy to say this, but you ''''need'''' to use a more correct word, in the first place. I'm not going to think loose, broad, or encompassing just so your argument will seem 'more right', and I'm not going to refrain from discussion simply because I don't see things as you do. That's the whole point of a discussion. Be strong, be bold, and be simple, and help us chisel out a straightforward understanding among each other, and submit a contribution to the discussion, not an opinion that seemingly only has purpose to try to invalidate everyone else's. Discussion, Arguments, Conflict, for whatever term you will use to describe the clashing of ideals and perceptions, are the keys to knowledge and understanding. Never was there a greater teacher, about your opposition or about yourself, than that of conflict. Speak simply, and learn with us, and we might just have a better wiki for it.

:::::::"'''I will not comment unless this is done correctly. If someone starts a "fight" (for a lack of a better term), I will not respond. This is not because I do not case, however because such a discussion will not be defined by something with a lack of knowledge.'''"

:::::::This isn't a fight. It's a disagreement. If you liken the two by a looser definition, specifically, that of conflict of any kind, then I will allot you that definition. That said, if you are going to invalidate all opposing arguments simply because they oppose your viewpoint, I advise you to think carefully about what kind of precedent you will be setting, and what the point of discussions are, even, if all of this is null and void next to your seemingly supreme view of things. That is what I am interpreting the statement above as. The argument holds no other suggestion, condemnation, or support for the current issue and proposal, and instead appears as a simplistic, indirect dismissal of this discussions' participants' thoughts on the matter.

:::::::I mean nothing in malice, but as I said above, I '''will''' be direct, and I '''will''' use this as a discussion should be used: I will clash against your arguments, to attempt to decimate it, while fortifying my own, in the pursuit of a singular truth. I will do so with regards to rules of etiquette, and I will always allow good faith to reign over my argument, but I will challenge the possibility, and you, if you allow the possibility to become fact. This is an example. I now argue with you, as the opposition. I invite you to argue to provide rebuttal, though that goes without saying, nor does it require the invitation. It is, however, my formal declaration of good faith preceding the arguments that are likely to follow.

:::::::"'''I will comment when something (or somethings, depending) are done correctly. Of course you have no need for my comments in this matter. My reasoning is because I understand things can be difficult to do correctly for many people.'''"

:::::::I do, and I believe that the discussion also does, '''need''' a comment from you. The comment is more of a reply, however. If this discussion, and all it's participants, or at least the distinct majority of the participants, does agree that the '''upgrading from GNU FDL v1.2 to GNU FDL v1.3''' is the best course of action for this wiki, will you comply?

:::::::I do not begrudge you your opinion. If you think it's silly, unnecessary, or without reason, I do not blame you. The point is, however, I am asking you that if the active user-base thinks differently, will you '''willingly put aside your opposition in favor of letting this democratic process prevail'''? I don't ask that you back down, and I don't ask that you discard your opinion, and believe that we're all right, and that you're completely wrong... but I ask if you'll respect the collective decision and assist in it's implementation? If not, then there is no reason for this discussion under such tyranny. --[[User:Jwguy|Jwguy]] 07:56, 28 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::::"''loosest broadest sense encompassing multiple areas''" may also mean show an understanding of ''workings''. What is a working? For example, and here is some instruction, is this "discussion" format correct? Why should anything regarding the [[GNU Free Documentation License 1.2]] (hint) happen here?

::::::::I don't want to give instruction. I don't care. You should understand wiki enough to do it correctly, so it can be discussed correctly. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 10:54, 28 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::{{warning/Text}} The discussion should happen here as it is very wide-effecting. If there was a subcommittee creating a new license update proposal, it would be appropriate to have it on the GNU talk page. However, since we model our site off wikipedia, why not have a discussion like they do - on a single central location? Now, if you could just please answer the question: are you willing to let the democratic process prevail, or have you already decided against updating and are not open to collaboration? --{{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 11:17, 28 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::::{{warning|comparedselectedrevisions=http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Discussion%3AUpdating_and_Understanding_D%26D_Wiki%27s_License&action=historysubmit&diff=532793&oldid=532786|brokenpolicy=etiquette: do not make misrepresentations|warningnumber=3|warningbannumber=1|issuedate=Issued on 11:41, 28 August 2011 (MDT)|signature=--[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 11:41, 28 August 2011 (MDT)}}

::::::::::"''Have a D&D question you need answered? Not completely sure about something in D&D? Confused about certain rules?''" applies so well... Wikis work in certain ways. If you care about wiki it would be done right. Logical. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 11:41, 28 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::::Alright, GD. We've moved the discussion here. Now that we're in the right place, would you mind answering Hooper's question? Are you willing to let the democratic process prevail, or have you already decided against updating the license and are not open to collaboration? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 13:01, 28 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::::::::Another answered topic is that this discussion is unreadable in its current state. See also [[Help:Talk Pages]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:46, 28 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::::::You've had no trouble reading and contributing up to this point. Are you going to make me reformat everyone's comments to get an answer out of you? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 16:48, 28 August 2011 (MDT)

{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}

:It shows an understanding and caring of wiki and how D&D Wiki works. There still is more to do, of course. It must be farily intuitive. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:14, 28 August 2011 (MDT)

::What? What shows an understanding of how D&D wiki works? What more is there to do? What has to be intuitive? Ok, what I would like you to do is make a list of all the hoops we're going to have to jump through before we can have an honest discussion, and a vote. I'm going to tell you right now that there is no active user on this wiki, except maybe you, that understands and cares more about wikis and D&D wiki than I do. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 17:20, 28 August 2011 (MDT)

:::It may show the understanding of how the wiki works, as you say, but the fact that you continue to dodge the question and are forcing the community to jump through hoops is degrading, not only to this wiki, but also to your own reputation. Under a level of triviality and, dare I say it, stubbornness, this wiki cannot help but be doomed. I've asked you to assume the mantle of a leader, and to do as a leader would do; Accept the views of your community, or at least what remains of it, and answer one, simple question: '''Will you allow this democratic process to prevail''', regardless of the outcome? Honestly, I feel that your behavior is beginning to resemble a level of uncooperative nature that we will simply be forced to wait until it is out of your hands, though I won't say what that means.
:::Is this no longer a wiki? Where the collective of editors believe in majority consensus on issues of controversy? Is this your last gasp in authoritarian style, struggling to reign in and impose obstacles on people simply because they disagree with you? You claim so much importance in all these trivialities and simple ''necessities'' in order for you to even acknowledge this argument, and yet you don't care enough to implement them yourself, or even take our arguments in good faith, the key ideals of wikis everywhere? Instead, you appear purposefully avoid the question, avoid the argument, and seem to imply, by actions and statements, that a vote we carry out would have no meaning to you. I am sorry to say, but if that is how you will operate, then I cannot say that I can respect you as an administrator. This issue will resolve itself, in time, and for the better, likely with or without you. I am sorry that you do not seem to be interested in participating in a manner befitting that of this website. [[User:Jwguy|Jwguy]] 17:58, 28 August 2011 (MDT)

::::I would answer, however this has already been answered. This question I will answer on [[Meta Pages]] as it was very loosely defined before. As I was saying something which shows an understanding of D&D Wiki is a must. Should anyone get people to do what they want just because they are human? A level of irrelevancy exists, and it must in wikis.
::::It's answers like these annoy people. Can anyone read [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus Consensus]? Does anyone care? Has anyone looked into this? Why do I have to explain this. If leaders did this (for example) Obama would have zero time away from answering irrelevant letters. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 19:06, 28 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::Alright. I know all about consensus. I was raised Quaker; Consensus is our thing. First thing we've got to do is have everyone simply and clearly state what their feelings are with the current situation. Don't speak for anyone else, and don't make references to other's opinions. After we all discuss our opinions, we go around and cite facts (in this case, in the forms of links) that cover everyone's problems with the current situation, and potential solutions. I'll start:
:::::I feel that the current license (v1.2) is inadequate for our needs, and a new license (v1.3) would be better suited for our needs. There are special sections of v1.3 that are designed for multi-user websites, like our wiki. I feel that an upgrade would better suit the wiki in the long term, and would cut down on a number of arguments we have been having.
:::::Who would like to go next? Remember, we're just stating our opinions right now, so no talking about other people or their opinions, just your own feelings. Don't even say things like "I disagree/agree with ____" as that isn't the point of consensus. If someone has already voiced the same opinion as you, you may remain quiet. Consensus is assumed when there's no evidence of disagreement. You are free to re-join the discussion at any point, of course, if you feel you have something more to add. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 21:58, 28 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::I feel that the current license is adequate. 1.3 was designed (as far as I can tell) for Wikipedia's desire to multi-licesne everything. I feel that making things simpler rather then confusing is better for users. I also understand that licensing situations are as easy as applying a template to fix (for compliance with the current licesne; if that is what is being discussed). Like [[Template:OGL Top]], [[Template:OGL Bottom]], [[Template:Copyright Disclaimer]], and [[Template:Cc-by-nc-sa]]. Saying there is a problem adding templates for compliance issues is like saying there is a problem with editing.
::::::I would also appreciate if the entire discussion was moved (that which relates here from where it was started) as well as pags which are leftover are removed. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 19:00, 29 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::Alright. If anyone else has anything they'd like to add, feel free to do so. If no one has anything else to add, at this time tomorrow we should begin to provide links to better explain our problems, as well as our solutions. If anyone is, for any reason, unable to add to this conversation, [[Special:EmailUser/Badger|I'm sure they can think of a way to get their voice heard]]. Like I said, we'll start addressing complaints this time tomorrow (naturally, we can push this back if we feel we need more time on this first step, as it is perhaps the most important). --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 19:09, 29 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::::With permission, I am adding the below text on behalf of Hooper: 
::::::::"I personally believe that GNU 1.3 is best for D&D Wiki's future. This is because it was specifically designed to close previous gaps between CC-BY-SA and 1.2. I believe that expecting users to intuitively know to post a template on their FIRST edit to a page they want licensed outside GNU is not realistic, as we can't even get most novice users to understand our basic naming identifiers and tags. This means that our current template situation is actually more complicated.

::::::::Additionally, GNU 1.3 exemptions were made specifically for collaborative projects - like wikis. Additionally, some of the text in the GNU 1.3 is more clearly written (instead of in "legalese") and will help solidify the correct understanding of author's rights to all our members." --{{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 19:28, 29 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::Truly, I believe that progressing towards GNU FDL 1.3 would be in the best interest for the wiki. This is because the 1.3 license is the improved and revised form of GNU FDL 1.2, the site's current license, which is currently obsolete. It is my personal opinion that our duties regarding the upkeep and maintenance of this site extend to our license. Even if it were only symbolic, the upgrade is necessary because lack of vigilance and proper administration, especially on such important, legal issues, must be avoided.

:::::::::The license provides even more reason than simple vigilance, as well. v1.2 has a notable history of conflict, involving this site and many others; It was because of this reason that it was further revised and appended into what is now GNU FDL v1.3. The current revision was designed for wikis and similar projects, and therefore it addresses many of the issues that were present under v1.2, such as compatibility with other licenses, and a welcomed transition to more '''plain''' speak, which, while subjective in terms of significance, is something I believe will lead to far less conflicting interpretations in the future. Perhaps most of all, the exemptions present that deal with projects like this very wiki, present the greatest benefit to our community and its cohesion. [[User:Jwguy|Jwguy]] 21:21, 29 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::::::The changes can be seen [http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Sandbox&diff=prev&oldid=533144 here]. I change my stance.
::::::::::Why not?
::::::::::Simplicity, yes, will be harmed a bit. We must implement a policy on [[Meta Pages]] that content it licensed as it is. If someone desires to change the licensing they must do it at the creation of the page or request it (or something). A little more confusion, but it should be fine. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 19:34, 30 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::::Simplicity could be maintained if we were willing to have all content be dual-licensed under GNU-FDL v1.3 as well as CC-BY-SA (which, if I'm not mistaken, is how Wikipedia does it). That way pretty much everything would be covered. We could put a note at the bottom of the edit window (where current copyright information is) that says "if you choose to license this under additional, fewer, or different licenses, please see an administrator before uploading your content. Most people would probably be fine with this and allow dual-licensing. It would be the best way to help people license their content under another license. If you would prefer, we could dedicate an particluar admin to handle licensing arrangements on top of their other duties(and I would be more than willing to handle this). We could work out what licenses were ok, and how to go about licensing things, and then it'd be as easy as having a user leave a message to an admin that says "I would like to license my content under licenses 1, 2, 4 and 5", and one of us could swoop in and add the correct templates to the page. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 20:02, 30 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::::::::{{Warning/Text}}
::::::::::::#It would be close to admitting that licensing is up to the author, not the website owner, which is COMPLETELY incorrect. By posting this, for example, I have given away all rights for what I have produced and cannot claim any intellectual ownership for my ideas.
::::::::::::{{Warning/Text}}
::::::::::::In summary, I hope you all rethink your stance on this licence change. Please. Think of the lulz to be had. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 20:17, 30 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::::{{warning|comparedselectedrevisions=http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGNU_Free_Documentation_License_1.2&action=historysubmit&diff=533156&oldid=533153|brokenpolicy=direct rudeness: personal attacks, rudeness, belittling|warningnumber=1|warningbannumber=1|issuedate=Issued on [[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]]|signature=--[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:39, 30 August 2011 (MDT)}}

:::::::::::::Please read the diff.
:::::::::::::"''You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Document except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute it is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License.''"
:::::::::::::The other point of interest to this... whatever... is
:::::::::::::"''An MMC is "eligible for relicensing" if it is licensed under this License, and if all works that were first published under this License somewhere other than this MMC, and subsequently incorporated in whole or in part into the MMC, (1) had no cover texts or invariant sections, and (2) were thus incorporated prior to November 1, 2008.''"
:::::::::::::No, things are licensed. This has been discussed multiple times and every major website says the same thing. An internet myth is not correct because of your desires. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:39, 30 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::::::::::I agree. Things licensed they are. We have multiple times gone over this discussion of major websites. The internet myth is what I'm saying.
::::::::::::::"''An MMC is "eligible for relicensing" if it is licensed under this License, and if all works that were first published under this License somewhere other than this MMC, and subsequently incorporated in whole or in part into the MMC, (1) had no cover texts or invariant sections, and (2) were thus incorporated prior to November 1, 2008.''"
::::::::::::::means that we can't relicense anything after November 1, 2008. The same page is great to be on. My desires are the same as yours. Maybe my point wasn't enough clear. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 20:44, 30 August 2011 (MDT)

Talk:GNU Free Documentation License 1.3

2011-08-31T02:17:09Z

Aarnott:

__NOTOC__
==Notes==
This is the GNU Free Documentation License. The license requires the posting of this license.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 10:57, 14 February 2007 (MST)

== Updating and Understanding D&D Wiki's License ==

As this debate has spilled across numerous other pages, that are not necessarily meant for it - I've decided to try to keep all talks on one page. First, to assist everyone in understanding the license we currently have, I am providing a direct quote, which is about Wikipedia (a project we model our licensing and policies after), and it is in regards to when a poster contributes original material (which is what most of our stuff is):

'''"...you own the copyright to the material, for instance because you produced it yourself..."''', begins the section - then it breaks away for a moment for other possible contributors (which are not related to our userbase - though it fits our OGL stuff - which is already properly acknowledged) and continues '''"In the first case, you retain copyright to your materials. You can later republish and relicense them in any way you like."'''

Now, most of our user base understands this. But let me put it simply: the legal authorities state that if you created the homebrew content, when you license it here you still retain full rights, and may re-license it any way you wish. However, do be aware that '''"...you can never retract licensing for the versions you placed here."''' This is why, after the former site split - content the authors created was allowed to be moved, but not deleted from here. It was legally appropriate for both forks. Anyways, with that in mind hopefully we can all move past the "other sites are breaking the law/license" fallacy.

Now, I propose that we update our license, as is legally allowed, to GNU's most up to date license release - with an understanding that we will continually update it should GNU create a newer license. The guys behind these licenses are experts in their field, more so than any of us - and if they release a new one, we should take heed. Especially since they keep wikis in mind when creating them. --{{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 08:53, 27 August 2011 (MDT)

:'''Support''' I agree with Hooper's suggestion, not only because this would solve far more problems than it would create, but also because of the later point made: GNU FDL, no matter which version, is understood by it's creators far better than any other individual or entity. If they seek to update/improve/upgrade the license, then we would do well to consider doing so, as well, because let's face it: If the creator's of the license can improve on it, then we can benefit from the newer, improved license, instead of the older, obsolete and apparently flawed license. That's just simple rational procedure.

:The benefit of doing so is simply made more visible by recent issues and discussions, of which, this upgrade will also alleviate. --[[User:Jwguy|Jwguy]]10:16, 27 August 2011 (MDT)

::'''Support''' I support the notion of updating our license. However, more to the point, if we're smart about it, we'll only have to update it once, but always have the best protection. GNU FDL allows you to license your content under v1.2 ''or most recent version''. If we were to have added that line, we'd currently be licensed under 1.3, and we'd up upgraded to 2.0 when that releases. I support licensing us under ''GNU FDL v1.3 or most recent'', because the upgrade from 1.2 to 1.3 was designed specifically for wikis, and we will constantly be getting the most recent (and therefore best) version of their licenses.

::I'll be completely honest, I don't like having this debate. From my participation in the last 20 incarnations of this discussion you might get the impression I enjoy fighting about licenses, but I'd much rather be arguing about the balance of the latest class that was added, or how to write mechanics for water-bending. I'd love to just settle this, and then let D&D wiki be about D&D. That's why I come here anyway. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 12:34, 27 August 2011 (MDT)

:::This is comparable to a stub article trying to define something which is already well defined. This is blunt, however to continue this discussion an understanding of workings must be present. This does not show this. When I say ''workings'' I mean it in the loosest broadest sense encompassing multiple areas and procedures and I do not mean ''working''. Think abstract, think about this and get back to D&D Wiki when this is "correct" in all workings. Such a discussion will ''not'' be defined by something with a lack of knowledge.

:::I will not comment unless this is done correctly. If someone starts a "fight" (for a lack of a better term), I will not respond. This is not because I do not case, however because such a discussion will ''not'' be defined by something with a lack of knowledge.

:::I will comment when something (or somethings, depending) are done correctly. Of course you have no need for my comments in this matter. My reasoning is because I understand things can be difficult to do correctly for ''many'' people. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:31, 27 August 2011 (MDT)

::::GD, with all due respect, your comment above is very vague, and hard to follow. {{Warning/Text}} You are not getting your message across clearly. In the debt collection industry we have a term called the '''"least sophisticated individual."''' What this means is that we must always speak extremely clearly and use low-education wording and phrases to make sure that our point is understood by the person we are speaking to. With the acknowledgement that it may seem like you're having to "talk down," could you please restate what you just said above in a more clear and concise manner so that the rest of the site may be able to follow what you are trying to say. Please try to refrain from vagueness. Keep in mind that whatever it is you are referring to above as ''"already well defined"'' is obviously not as the '''entire rest of the user base''' doesn't understand your stance. --{{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 21:54, 27 August 2011 (MDT)

:::{{warning|comparedselectedrevisions=http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Discussion%3AUpdating_and_Understanding_D%26D_Wiki%27s_License&action=historysubmit&diff=532793&oldid=532786|brokenpolicy=etiquette: argue facts, not personalities, be civil|warningnumber=2|warningbannumber=1|issuedate=Issued on 11:41, 28 August 2011 (MDT)|signature=--[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 11:41, 28 August 2011 (MDT)}}

:::::This I will elaborate on as it is a new aspect of the discussion. I call it "a disregarding of status quo". You (and debt people) can call it whatever you want to. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:07, 27 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::We're just trying to have a civil discourse here, there is no need to be rude. Are you openly stating that, regardless of the feelings of the user base ''(i.e. if we hold a vote and everyone but you votes for updating the license)'' that it will not be updated? The user base deserves to know what we're getting into - whether or not this type of a decision will truly be collaborative or not. I apologize if running the site on the back-end is tasking on you. We just wish to make that easier. --{{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 22:10, 27 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::I have a problem with your statements, Green Dragon. I can, and will always say, that while I can be direct and somewhat cold, even if I do not think I've had to do so, yet, I always attempt to place my respects where they are due, and to garner an understanding for the opposing argument. I have tried to do that with you, this time, as well, even to the point where I can somewhat understand your conflict regarding the license issue. With that said, I am going to continue:

:::::::"'''This is comparable to a stub article trying to define something which is already well defined. This is blunt, however to continue this discussion an understanding of workings must be present. This does not show this.'''"

:::::::This discussion is regarding an upgrade to GNU FDL 1.3; I can assure you that at least I understand the terms of that license, and I have faith that Hooper and Badger do, as well, given their involvement. We're not trying to define the license; You ''''might'''' be referring to the discussion on the main talk page regarding the various interpretations of GNU FDL 1.2. As I understand it, that's done. We're talking about moving on, and getting rid of 1.2 for 1.3, a license that will completely absolve that problem. This is completely communicated in Hooper's individual post.

:::::::I can only see three explanations regarding saying this: Either '''1''') You made a mistake interpreting main purpose of this discussion. '''2''') You have a disagreement regarding the second and third paragraphs of the original statement, in which case, I would ask that instead of just saying the equivalent of 'You don't know what you're talking about' and getting nowhere, that you abide by your own advice; Do this 'correctly', by pointing out, quoting if necessary, what you have a problem with, and clearly explaining why you believe it is incorrect. Granted, this is an extraneous argument regarding the proposal to upgrade to 1.3, but at least explain your ideas and assertions instead of just blatantly writing off our own as 'wrong'. That, I must say, is incredibly rude. '''3''') That you are simply trying to discredit the argument or proposal. I would like to believe that you are not that petty.

:::::::"'''When I say workings I mean it in the loosest broadest sense encompassing multiple areas and procedures and I do not mean working. Think abstract, think about this and get back to D&D Wiki when this is "correct" in all workings. Such a discussion will not be defined by something with a lack of knowledge.'''"

:::::::Please, Please, Please refrain from saying one thing, and meaning '''something else'''. If you have to instruct us to temporarily change the definition of a word to understand what you are trying to say, then I hate to be the guy to say this, but you ''''need'''' to use a more correct word, in the first place. I'm not going to think loose, broad, or encompassing just so your argument will seem 'more right', and I'm not going to refrain from discussion simply because I don't see things as you do. That's the whole point of a discussion. Be strong, be bold, and be simple, and help us chisel out a straightforward understanding among each other, and submit a contribution to the discussion, not an opinion that seemingly only has purpose to try to invalidate everyone else's. Discussion, Arguments, Conflict, for whatever term you will use to describe the clashing of ideals and perceptions, are the keys to knowledge and understanding. Never was there a greater teacher, about your opposition or about yourself, than that of conflict. Speak simply, and learn with us, and we might just have a better wiki for it.

:::::::"'''I will not comment unless this is done correctly. If someone starts a "fight" (for a lack of a better term), I will not respond. This is not because I do not case, however because such a discussion will not be defined by something with a lack of knowledge.'''"

:::::::This isn't a fight. It's a disagreement. If you liken the two by a looser definition, specifically, that of conflict of any kind, then I will allot you that definition. That said, if you are going to invalidate all opposing arguments simply because they oppose your viewpoint, I advise you to think carefully about what kind of precedent you will be setting, and what the point of discussions are, even, if all of this is null and void next to your seemingly supreme view of things. That is what I am interpreting the statement above as. The argument holds no other suggestion, condemnation, or support for the current issue and proposal, and instead appears as a simplistic, indirect dismissal of this discussions' participants' thoughts on the matter.

:::::::I mean nothing in malice, but as I said above, I '''will''' be direct, and I '''will''' use this as a discussion should be used: I will clash against your arguments, to attempt to decimate it, while fortifying my own, in the pursuit of a singular truth. I will do so with regards to rules of etiquette, and I will always allow good faith to reign over my argument, but I will challenge the possibility, and you, if you allow the possibility to become fact. This is an example. I now argue with you, as the opposition. I invite you to argue to provide rebuttal, though that goes without saying, nor does it require the invitation. It is, however, my formal declaration of good faith preceding the arguments that are likely to follow.

:::::::"'''I will comment when something (or somethings, depending) are done correctly. Of course you have no need for my comments in this matter. My reasoning is because I understand things can be difficult to do correctly for many people.'''"

:::::::I do, and I believe that the discussion also does, '''need''' a comment from you. The comment is more of a reply, however. If this discussion, and all it's participants, or at least the distinct majority of the participants, does agree that the '''upgrading from GNU FDL v1.2 to GNU FDL v1.3''' is the best course of action for this wiki, will you comply?

:::::::I do not begrudge you your opinion. If you think it's silly, unnecessary, or without reason, I do not blame you. The point is, however, I am asking you that if the active user-base thinks differently, will you '''willingly put aside your opposition in favor of letting this democratic process prevail'''? I don't ask that you back down, and I don't ask that you discard your opinion, and believe that we're all right, and that you're completely wrong... but I ask if you'll respect the collective decision and assist in it's implementation? If not, then there is no reason for this discussion under such tyranny. --[[User:Jwguy|Jwguy]] 07:56, 28 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::::"''loosest broadest sense encompassing multiple areas''" may also mean show an understanding of ''workings''. What is a working? For example, and here is some instruction, is this "discussion" format correct? Why should anything regarding the [[GNU Free Documentation License 1.2]] (hint) happen here?

::::::::I don't want to give instruction. I don't care. You should understand wiki enough to do it correctly, so it can be discussed correctly. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 10:54, 28 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::{{warning/Text}} The discussion should happen here as it is very wide-effecting. If there was a subcommittee creating a new license update proposal, it would be appropriate to have it on the GNU talk page. However, since we model our site off wikipedia, why not have a discussion like they do - on a single central location? Now, if you could just please answer the question: are you willing to let the democratic process prevail, or have you already decided against updating and are not open to collaboration? --{{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 11:17, 28 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::::{{warning|comparedselectedrevisions=http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Discussion%3AUpdating_and_Understanding_D%26D_Wiki%27s_License&action=historysubmit&diff=532793&oldid=532786|brokenpolicy=etiquette: do not make misrepresentations|warningnumber=3|warningbannumber=1|issuedate=Issued on 11:41, 28 August 2011 (MDT)|signature=--[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 11:41, 28 August 2011 (MDT)}}

::::::::::"''Have a D&D question you need answered? Not completely sure about something in D&D? Confused about certain rules?''" applies so well... Wikis work in certain ways. If you care about wiki it would be done right. Logical. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 11:41, 28 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::::Alright, GD. We've moved the discussion here. Now that we're in the right place, would you mind answering Hooper's question? Are you willing to let the democratic process prevail, or have you already decided against updating the license and are not open to collaboration? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 13:01, 28 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::::::::Another answered topic is that this discussion is unreadable in its current state. See also [[Help:Talk Pages]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:46, 28 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::::::You've had no trouble reading and contributing up to this point. Are you going to make me reformat everyone's comments to get an answer out of you? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 16:48, 28 August 2011 (MDT)

{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}

:It shows an understanding and caring of wiki and how D&D Wiki works. There still is more to do, of course. It must be farily intuitive. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:14, 28 August 2011 (MDT)

::What? What shows an understanding of how D&D wiki works? What more is there to do? What has to be intuitive? Ok, what I would like you to do is make a list of all the hoops we're going to have to jump through before we can have an honest discussion, and a vote. I'm going to tell you right now that there is no active user on this wiki, except maybe you, that understands and cares more about wikis and D&D wiki than I do. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 17:20, 28 August 2011 (MDT)

:::It may show the understanding of how the wiki works, as you say, but the fact that you continue to dodge the question and are forcing the community to jump through hoops is degrading, not only to this wiki, but also to your own reputation. Under a level of triviality and, dare I say it, stubbornness, this wiki cannot help but be doomed. I've asked you to assume the mantle of a leader, and to do as a leader would do; Accept the views of your community, or at least what remains of it, and answer one, simple question: '''Will you allow this democratic process to prevail''', regardless of the outcome? Honestly, I feel that your behavior is beginning to resemble a level of uncooperative nature that we will simply be forced to wait until it is out of your hands, though I won't say what that means.
:::Is this no longer a wiki? Where the collective of editors believe in majority consensus on issues of controversy? Is this your last gasp in authoritarian style, struggling to reign in and impose obstacles on people simply because they disagree with you? You claim so much importance in all these trivialities and simple ''necessities'' in order for you to even acknowledge this argument, and yet you don't care enough to implement them yourself, or even take our arguments in good faith, the key ideals of wikis everywhere? Instead, you appear purposefully avoid the question, avoid the argument, and seem to imply, by actions and statements, that a vote we carry out would have no meaning to you. I am sorry to say, but if that is how you will operate, then I cannot say that I can respect you as an administrator. This issue will resolve itself, in time, and for the better, likely with or without you. I am sorry that you do not seem to be interested in participating in a manner befitting that of this website. [[User:Jwguy|Jwguy]] 17:58, 28 August 2011 (MDT)

::::I would answer, however this has already been answered. This question I will answer on [[Meta Pages]] as it was very loosely defined before. As I was saying something which shows an understanding of D&D Wiki is a must. Should anyone get people to do what they want just because they are human? A level of irrelevancy exists, and it must in wikis.
::::It's answers like these annoy people. Can anyone read [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus Consensus]? Does anyone care? Has anyone looked into this? Why do I have to explain this. If leaders did this (for example) Obama would have zero time away from answering irrelevant letters. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 19:06, 28 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::Alright. I know all about consensus. I was raised Quaker; Consensus is our thing. First thing we've got to do is have everyone simply and clearly state what their feelings are with the current situation. Don't speak for anyone else, and don't make references to other's opinions. After we all discuss our opinions, we go around and cite facts (in this case, in the forms of links) that cover everyone's problems with the current situation, and potential solutions. I'll start:
:::::I feel that the current license (v1.2) is inadequate for our needs, and a new license (v1.3) would be better suited for our needs. There are special sections of v1.3 that are designed for multi-user websites, like our wiki. I feel that an upgrade would better suit the wiki in the long term, and would cut down on a number of arguments we have been having.
:::::Who would like to go next? Remember, we're just stating our opinions right now, so no talking about other people or their opinions, just your own feelings. Don't even say things like "I disagree/agree with ____" as that isn't the point of consensus. If someone has already voiced the same opinion as you, you may remain quiet. Consensus is assumed when there's no evidence of disagreement. You are free to re-join the discussion at any point, of course, if you feel you have something more to add. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 21:58, 28 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::I feel that the current license is adequate. 1.3 was designed (as far as I can tell) for Wikipedia's desire to multi-licesne everything. I feel that making things simpler rather then confusing is better for users. I also understand that licensing situations are as easy as applying a template to fix (for compliance with the current licesne; if that is what is being discussed). Like [[Template:OGL Top]], [[Template:OGL Bottom]], [[Template:Copyright Disclaimer]], and [[Template:Cc-by-nc-sa]]. Saying there is a problem adding templates for compliance issues is like saying there is a problem with editing.
::::::I would also appreciate if the entire discussion was moved (that which relates here from where it was started) as well as pags which are leftover are removed. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 19:00, 29 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::Alright. If anyone else has anything they'd like to add, feel free to do so. If no one has anything else to add, at this time tomorrow we should begin to provide links to better explain our problems, as well as our solutions. If anyone is, for any reason, unable to add to this conversation, [[Special:EmailUser/Badger|I'm sure they can think of a way to get their voice heard]]. Like I said, we'll start addressing complaints this time tomorrow (naturally, we can push this back if we feel we need more time on this first step, as it is perhaps the most important). --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 19:09, 29 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::::With permission, I am adding the below text on behalf of Hooper: 
::::::::"I personally believe that GNU 1.3 is best for D&D Wiki's future. This is because it was specifically designed to close previous gaps between CC-BY-SA and 1.2. I believe that expecting users to intuitively know to post a template on their FIRST edit to a page they want licensed outside GNU is not realistic, as we can't even get most novice users to understand our basic naming identifiers and tags. This means that our current template situation is actually more complicated.

::::::::Additionally, GNU 1.3 exemptions were made specifically for collaborative projects - like wikis. Additionally, some of the text in the GNU 1.3 is more clearly written (instead of in "legalese") and will help solidify the correct understanding of author's rights to all our members." --{{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 19:28, 29 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::Truly, I believe that progressing towards GNU FDL 1.3 would be in the best interest for the wiki. This is because the 1.3 license is the improved and revised form of GNU FDL 1.2, the site's current license, which is currently obsolete. It is my personal opinion that our duties regarding the upkeep and maintenance of this site extend to our license. Even if it were only symbolic, the upgrade is necessary because lack of vigilance and proper administration, especially on such important, legal issues, must be avoided.

:::::::::The license provides even more reason than simple vigilance, as well. v1.2 has a notable history of conflict, involving this site and many others; It was because of this reason that it was further revised and appended into what is now GNU FDL v1.3. The current revision was designed for wikis and similar projects, and therefore it addresses many of the issues that were present under v1.2, such as compatibility with other licenses, and a welcomed transition to more '''plain''' speak, which, while subjective in terms of significance, is something I believe will lead to far less conflicting interpretations in the future. Perhaps most of all, the exemptions present that deal with projects like this very wiki, present the greatest benefit to our community and its cohesion. [[User:Jwguy|Jwguy]] 21:21, 29 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::::::The changes can be seen [http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Sandbox&diff=prev&oldid=533144 here]. I change my stance.
::::::::::Why not?
::::::::::Simplicity, yes, will be harmed a bit. We must implement a policy on [[Meta Pages]] that content it licensed as it is. If someone desires to change the licensing they must do it at the creation of the page or request it (or something). A little more confusion, but it should be fine. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 19:34, 30 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::::Simplicity could be maintained if we were willing to have all content be dual-licensed under GNU-FDL v1.3 as well as CC-BY-SA (which, if I'm not mistaken, is how Wikipedia does it). That way pretty much everything would be covered. We could put a note at the bottom of the edit window (where current copyright information is) that says "if you choose to license this under additional, fewer, or different licenses, please see an administrator before uploading your content. Most people would probably be fine with this and allow dual-licensing. It would be the best way to help people license their content under another license. If you would prefer, we could dedicate an particluar admin to handle licensing arrangements on top of their other duties(and I would be more than willing to handle this). We could work out what licenses were ok, and how to go about licensing things, and then it'd be as easy as having a user leave a message to an admin that says "I would like to license my content under licenses 1, 2, 4 and 5", and one of us could swoop in and add the correct templates to the page. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 20:02, 30 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::::::::As an extremely valued member of this community, I would like to chime in. I oppose switching licensing at all, especially dual licensing, for the following reasons:
::::::::::::#The EnGDlish comments (as it was described before by Badger) make for an entertaining read on a dull day. I'm not sure if it is ESL or something else, but it gives me a good laugh.
::::::::::::#If there is less tension on this wiki, it will get less visits by people like me who come here periodically for the lulz.
::::::::::::#Hooper got banned!
::::::::::::#It would be close to admitting that licensing is up to the author, not the website owner, which is COMPLETELY incorrect. By posting this, for example, I have given away all rights for what I have produced and cannot claim any intellectual ownership for my ideas.
::::::::::::#Every few months, I can come by and troll, which is something I don't do anywhere else. And being an idiotic jerk is a wonderful catharsis for me, as I'm sure my lawful evil lizard friends would agree. Don't take my trolling away from me! I might have to start trolling in chatrooms. And that is just low.
::::::::::::In summary, I hope you all rethink your stance on this licence change. Please. Think of the lulz to be had. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 20:17, 30 August 2011 (MDT)

Talk:DnD Links

2011-06-02T23:14:29Z

Aarnott: /* http://www.dnd-wiki.org */

== Kingdoms of Kalamar ==
I recently started working Kalamar as a setting in my tabletop games, and would love to post some information here... But that would take too long right now. HOWEVER, could we put the link to the Living Kingdoms of Kalamar website?
Link: http://www.kenzerco.com/index.php?cPath=25_28
Thanks! -- [[User:xidoraven|xido]] 10:33, 19 September 2007 (MDT)

== Very usefull links ==

Here are a few links that I find VERY usefull. Sinse I am unclear about copyright rules I felt it was better to post them here in discussion. Feel free to add or delete them as you see fit.

I find these links to be very usefull in my own campain writing.

http://nine.frenchboys.net/
The best name genorator I have found. Simple and effective.

http://www.pathguy.com/cg35.htm
A very good charecter genoration tool. I use this for all the importaint NPCs that I make. Also, it helps to put a players charecter through this so you can double check your math.

http://www.20000-names.com/
Lots of good names. The website is annoyingly full of advertisments.

http://www.aarg.net/~minam/npc2.cgi
A good NPC genorator. It is faster and more random then the genorator above, and also will create multiple charecters at once. It will add a few random background details that are usefull for when your players start asking annoying questions.

http://forums.rpghost.com/
This Forum looks usefull, but I havnt had time to explore it much. I cant recomend it yet but I hope I will be able to soon.

--[[User:Mander|Mander]] 15:57, 1 December 2007 (MST)

:Free free to add them, they all look good. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:14, 4 December 2007 (MST)

::Sweet. Dont add them for me, I need to learn this stuff. --[[User:Mander|Mander]] 14:24, 5 December 2007 (MST)

:::Okay, will do. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 14:34, 5 December 2007 (MST)

::::Um... cant seem to find an edit button. Apparently I failed my seach check.--[[User:Mander|Mander]] 14:37, 5 December 2007 (MST)

:::::Ah... I forgot to check if this page is protected, which it is. I will un-protect it until you have added them (about half an hour). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 14:42, 5 December 2007 (MST)

::::::Sorry about the bad timing. I logged out right after my last post, and didnt check back untell now. I can't make the change today because right now it is (trumpit fanfare!) game time! Im sure you wouldn't hold THAT against me.--[[User:Mander|Mander]] 16:57, 5 December 2007 (MST)

:::::::Not at all ''':)'''. I'll just leave it unlocked until you edit it. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:48, 5 December 2007 (MST)

::::::::Done --[[User:Mander|Mander]] 14:51, 6 December 2007 (MST)

:::::::::Thanks for doing that, and that page has been locked again. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]]

== Point Buy Calculator ==

I found a quick-to-load, quick-to-run point buy calcuator at http://www.hackslash.net/?p=73. It's probably fairly basic, but was a godsend to me as a noobie. There are some other D&D typish tools at the site as well. --[[User:Arohanui|Arohanui]] 13:26, 17 January 2008 (MST)

:I have added it. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:00, 18 January 2008 (MST)

== Character Sheet ==

Personally one of my favorite character sheets. Well organized and color coded for easy use. [http://www.mediafire.com/?m1jerz3gypp Created by SombreNote] {{Unsigned|76.111.162.234|18:47, 8 April 2008 (MST)}

:To add this we would need a static link which does not just redirect the visitor to another link. If you can supply such a link this will be considered. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 02:00, 9 April 2008 (MDT)

::I changed the link to the download page.

== Useful resources ==

I'd like to post some websites that have useful, and *free* resources.

The first is Planewalker--Spells, Creatures, and Equipment

http://www.planewalker.com/snail/travel.php (the spells)

http://www.planewalker.com/snail/equipment.php (the equipment, the top section is for undefined items and the lower sections have equipment, magical items, and artifacts)

http://www.planewalker.com/codex/monsters.php (creatures)

== Naming Error ==

Basic DnD is reproduced as [http://www.goblinoidgames.com/labyrinthlord.htm Labyrinth Lord], OSRIC is ADnD 1st edition, which are different games.

== New Campaign World ==

http://www.zyanyacampaign.com/ - Has a lot of free content, as well as forums and chatrooms for gaming.

== New Section? ==
Should we add a section of links to Gaming Organizations/Groups, such as RPGA, O.G.R.E.s, Ultimate Gamers, etc?  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 22:14, 16 August 2009 (MDT)

== Useful Links ==
if we're adding links to this page, my hands down favorite refrence is [http://www.penpaperpixel.org/ Pen Paper Pixel] they have [http://www.penpaperpixel.org/tools/d20spellfilter/ spell filters], [http://www.penpaperpixel.org/tools/d20monsterfilter/ monster filters], [http://www.penpaperpixel.org/tools/d20encountercalculator.htm encounter calculators] (for XP and loot), and of course a lovely dice bag. Not to mention a very helpful, auto-updating [http://www.penpaperpixel.org/downloadspage/ppnpplayercharactersheets.htm PDF character sheet], which everyone in my party uses. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 07:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

== Eddition ==

All DnD pages are being moved to their corresponding editions. This paqe needs to be moved to either 3.5e or 4e. --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 03:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

== http://www.dnd-wiki.org ==

I do not think that [[DnD Links#Dungeons and Dragons Wiki|this link]] deserves a spot on this list. The organizational structure as well as much of the content is under a different license and in all reality one needs to start a court case and get it removed from this violation of law. As such I do not think that it is a a good idea to direct users there. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 11:30, 25 May 2011 (MDT)

:According to the bottom page of their wiki, you are free to copy, transmit, adapt, or distribute anything on their site, as long as you attribute it properly. As long as you don't take their content, and then modify and sell it, you're within legal bounds. I see no reason why we should remove a link because you don't like their organizational structure. I am positively disgusted by the Grand OGL wiki, but I don't complain about that site. I've been there, realized I don't like the way they do things, and haven't been back. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 13:46, 25 May 2011 (MDT)

::This is getting a little ridiculous. It's obvious that GD doesn't like the other wiki, and is finding excuses to keep from linking there. If someone would just come out and explain what the big problem is then maybe this would all make sense. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 15:41, 25 May 2011 (MDT)

:::Much of the content is from here. That's where the problem is. It's not whatever [[User:Badger|Badger]] is talking about. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:53, 25 May 2011 (MDT)

::::This wiki used to claim that users could remove *their own* content at any time. When users started to, this wiki outright changed the content rules, and Green Dragon changed the rules, literally claimed ownership over things other people wrote, and now wants to sue people for posting their own classes elsewhere. [[Special:Contributions/24.131.19.27|24.131.19.27]] 16:52, 25 May 2011 (MDT)

:::::Really? This has nothing to do with D&D Wiki policies. It's unlawful. D&D Wiki is not a government/international treaty. The answer to your question lies elswhere– see pages like Wikipedia's Terms of Use. How do they have reuse things? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:53, 25 May 2011 (MDT)

::::::I removed this link as directing users these does not make sense for it is uncertain what they expect of users as they disregard law. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:16, 26 May 2011 (MDT)

:::::::I hope you realize that you can be sued for libel for making such anger-motivated false accusations of illegality. And if you tell such lies to police, then you can be charged with making a false police report. Out in the real world, beyond the isolated alternate world that is this wiki, people are sometimes actually held accountable for malicious lies. [[User:Archetyper|Archetyper]] 01:03, 27 May 2011 (MDT)

:::::::First, what you have written above here is not understandable English to me. Second, what I ''think'' I understand, you don't want to direct users there because they break the law. You still haven't said what law they broke. Quit saying "they aren't a government/international treaty", actually tell me what they did. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 20:33, 26 May 2011 (MDT)

::::::::I thought I did. Did you end up checking how Wikipedia's Terms of Use work? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:41, 26 May 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::I just read the ToU, and here's what I have: "For any text you hold the copyright to, by submitting it, you agree to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License". According to the bottom of their page, it says "Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported" which exactly what is required by the rules. Every seems fair and legal to me. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 20:55, 26 May 2011 (MDT)

::::::::::Right. So how are things under the GNU FDL v1.2 suddenly somehow not? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:02, 26 May 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::::Actually, this begs a new question. I thought our policy was to use Wikipedia's policy? Why are we using GNU FDL, and not CC-BY-SA like they are? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 21:39, 26 May 2011 (MDT)

::::::::::::Why use rules and policies when they wouldn't? Its a site of brutish users ''(mostly, not all)'' and it had devolved far from D&D wiki's purpose. Plus, it seems to be down more than this site. So why send people there? Remove it.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 21:50, 26 May 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::::::Hooper, no offense, but what are you going on about? Why use rules and policies when they wouldn't? What policies do we use that they don't? I mean, sure, there are a few things that we do differently, but that doesn't mean they have nothing to add to the Homebrew community. Wikipedia is full of brutish users and downtime, or D&D-wiki.org? Most everyone I've interacted with on either site has seemed quite nice (some are gruff, and some are silly, but the same could be said of this site). I've never seen their servers down, especially compared to the downtime in our past here. They devolved from our purpose here? Are they hosting content for tea parties now, instead of D&D Homebrew? Why would I link people there? I've, on multiple occasions, seen places where users have asked "anyone know how I can get in touch with <User on other Wiki>?". It would be helpful if I could say "Here, try their talk page on <this site>". --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 22:03, 26 May 2011 (MDT)

{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}

:''Policies'', not licensing. They are different. I agree– people should play D&D, but if a site is not adhering to laws then I don't think that directing people there is a good idea. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:09, 26 May 2011 (MDT)

:::If by "illegal" you mean things like child porn or bootlegs, then sure, we shouldn't post there. But something that we need a team of lawyers to decide whether or not it's breaking the law (and even then, they probably wouldn't all agree)? Probably not that big of a deal. If it's clear we don't endorse it (and it is), then what's the fuss? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 08:10, 27 May 2011 (MDT)

::According to the official GNU FDL 1.3 FAQ, 'The primary change is the addition of section 11. This new provision allows certain materials released under this license to also be used under the terms of CC-BY-SA 3.0. For more information about exactly what materials can be licensed this way, see the related questions below. As part of this change, we also introduced a new definition in section 1.

*In order to license an FDL-covered work under CC-BY-SA 3.0, a few conditions must be met:

1. The work must be available under the terms of FDL 1.3, which provides you with this permission. If the work was released under the terms of “the GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2 or (at your option) any later version,” then it meets this criteria.

2. The work must not have any “Cover Texts” or “Invariant Sections.” These are optional features in all versions of the FDL.

3. If the work was originally published somewhere other than a public wiki, it must have been added to a wiki (or some other kind of web site where the general public could review and edit the materials) before November 1, 2008.

4. All FDL-covered material added to Wikipedia before November 1, 2008 satisfies these conditions.

Source: "GFDL v.1.3 FAQ", GNU Project. Free Software Foundation, n.d. Web, 27 May. 2011.

::As near as I can tell, the other DnD Wiki is legally allowed to have its content under the Creative Commons. - Anon.

:::Anon, you are actually incorrect, unfortunately. This wiki uses GNU FDL 1.2 and no licenses can just suddenly retroactively patch a previous license.
:::The rest is mostly written to Green Dragon:
:::Green Dragon, you may benefit from reading the following from wikipedia: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors%27_rights] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Literary_and_Artistic_Works]. Here are a few facts about the legality of this whole ordeal:
:::*Creative works (ie. homebrew in this case) is the property of the author, regardless of what licenses the author decides to release it under.
:::*GNU FDL applies to what people ''other than the author'' can do with the creative work. Actually, this is the case for any license. The author always owns their own creative work.
:::*An author can re-release their own work under multiple licenses.
:::Having established that, it is pretty clear the other wiki is not violating any laws. There is a case where the GNU FDL might take effect and that is the case of where there are multiple creative contributors (note that copyediting does not count!) and one or more the the contributors do not agree to re-release the content under the new license. I can say with a fair bit of certainty that anything that the other wiki has "taken" was created by singular authors (or at least consenting authors). If you can find ''any'' case where this is not true, I am certain that the other wiki would remove the content. From my experience, they are actually far ''more'' proactive than this website with respecting proper licensing laws (for example this website does not follow proper image licensing laws or at least isn't clear about what licensing for an image is).
:::Now, just to make some things perfectly clear, Green Dragon:
:::*You do not own the work of other authors.
:::*You cannot sue for copyright infringement in place of other authors.
:::Okay. Legality aside, let's talk about the root reason behind this. It might be a bit of speculation on my part, but someone mentioned that it seemed that you were almost ready to bury the hatchet and stop this nonsense of "don't talk about the other wiki" (that's why I'm even at this site right now). I'm certainly ready to let the past be the past, but you need to understand that it offends people when you muck around with their creative works. I honestly think that this whole business would never have got out of had if that offense wasn't made. We finally relented that, yes, you can totally not delete our creative work because we did choose to license it under FDL and that you ''might'' have grounds to remove the author box (but at this point nobody really cares anymore). And now this silly business of suing us for relicensing our own creative works?
:::Well, it is a bit offensive, frankly. People don't like being told that they don't own their ideas (note: they do). So here is my point: just drop this whole nonsense about legality. You are just reigniting flames by offending the authors from the other wiki and for no real point. You have no actual legal grounds (unless we have messed up in some corner case with multiple authors, in which case it will be corrected -- just let me know). And, you know, it would be nice of you to actually keep the link here. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 13:33, 27 May 2011 (MDT)

::::Wrong. Wikipedia is not plagiarized and see also its Terms of Use. You are making something up to suit your needs, which only a country/international treaty can really do. Also, ask the FSF– they have given me the same answer multiple times. Continuing to misinform users will result in repercussions. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:24, 27 May 2011 (MDT)

:::::Don't {{Warning/Text}} threats of lawsuit against this other wiki go against the general idea of open source and creative commons? --[[Special:Contributions/80.2.187.238|80.2.187.238]] 16:07, 27 May 2011 (MDT)

::::{{warning|comparedselectedrevisions=http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ADnD_Links&action=historysubmit&diff=520031&oldid=520024|brokenpolicy=direct rudeness: personal attacks|warningnumber=1|warningbannumber=1|issuedate=Issued on 16:20, 27 May 2011 (MDT)|signature=--[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:20, 27 May 2011 (MDT)}}

::::::No. It's about adhering to the law, normally a precursor to understanding one's contribution is in good hands (democracy equates to laws with reason). And what does this have to do with open source or creative commons? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:20, 27 May 2011 (MDT)

:::::::"Wrong. Wikipedia is not plagiarized and see also its Terms of Use". --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]]
:::::::I never said that. Please don't strawman.

:::::::"You are making something up to suit your needs, which only a country/international treaty can really do."
:::::::Really? You actually believe that I'm just making up things to do with authorship laws? This page from wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Multi-licensing] explains quite succinctly that every single edit a user makes on a wiki is totally theirs to license. Yes. This means I can take crap I wrote an relicense it freely. That applies to anyone here. If you want some specific excerpts:
::::::*"A number of users have chosen to release their contributions under some other license, or even to release their contributions into the public domain. Dual- or multi-licensing is not required or suggested by Wikipedia, but some users—for a variety of ideological or other reasons—prefer to release their contributions under a wider range of terms."
::::::**Yes -- we get to choose what happens to our stuff even after the first licensing.
::::::*"In general, users make their multi-licensing desires known on their user page by way of a banner or some description of their wishes"

:::::::"Also, ask the FSF– they have given me the same answer multiple times."
:::::::What answer have they given and to what?

:::::::"Continuing to misinform users will result in repercussions."
:::::::I assume a warning/banning? I'm the one who is coming with some actual facts and evidence to back my claims up. Or were you talking about yourself there? --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 17:19, 27 May 2011 (MDT)

:::::::Oh yeah. This too [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Free_Documentation_License]:
:::::::*"These exemptions allow a GFDL-based collaborative project with multiple authors to transition to the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license '''(which would normally require the permission of every author)''', if the work satisfies several conditions" (emphasis is mine). --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 17:25, 27 May 2011 (MDT)

::::::::"However, individual contributions are not by themselves derivative works because they do not contain any of the original work, as the copyright still remains with the author. It is within one's rights to license those contributions under any terms one prefers, so long as one does it in addition to also being covered under the CC-BY-SA license." – have you read the GNU FDL v1.2? A single period in a sentence does not mean that is how it is, end of story. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:29, 27 May 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::Green Dragon, did they steal any work you authored? My guess is no. If no one has come to them with a legit claim of "you stole my class 'Forest Avenger'", then I suspect original authors consented to this re-licensing of their works under CC-BY-SA. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 17:39, 27 May 2011 (MDT)

::::::::::Yes, they did. Much of my work, for example, was stolen. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:48, 27 May 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::::Considering individual contributions don't count toward "your work", as your above comment clearly indicates, I am genuinely surprised by that. I recall having to move over any of my contributions I wanted on their wiki. Can you give a specific example of a class, feat, or other page that you wrote that is on their wiki? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 17:55, 27 May 2011 (MDT)

::::::::::::[[3.5e Homebrew]] and many spells I worked on, for example. And how does my comment not indicate that also, yes, user contributions are important? And why does this matter? Why is this continuing to be discussed? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 19:32, 27 May 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::::::Why are we still discussing this? Because, as the page clearly states, we can continue to discuss this. Clearly some people disagree with your ruling. I am under the impression that any content on their site is there under a second license, and therefore not illegal. You've yet to provide any evidence to the contrary. You claim they stole "3.5e Homebrew". What, all of it? That is clearly untrue. Perhaps you mean the page itself? Well, their code is pretty different from ours here, I checked. A bunch of spells you worked on? Again, I notice a distinct lack of names. Furthermore, if they are spells you ''worked on'', rather than ''created'', the original author may have released them under the new license, as I have suggested is likely. This is an important distinction to make, because we are on an MMC. As your citation of the GNU FDL v1.2 clearly states "individual contributions are not by themselves derivative works because they do not contain any of the original work, as the copyright still remains with the author". This means that if I make a spelling correction on a page, I am not considered an author. If you ''worked on'' a page by formatting it a certain way, or making a minor change, you don't get to count yourself as the original author. The original author, whomever they may be, may have released their content under a new license. You'd have no way of knowing, as they aren't required to tell you about it. You've not provided any evidence of them committing a crime, but continue to accuse them of ones. That, my friend, is why we are still discussing this.

:::::::::::::On another note, if you are going to hand out warnings on this page, may I suggest you give one to Hooper for his direct rudeness to others when he called them "brutish". --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 20:44, 27 May 2011 (MDT)

{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}

:Archtyper's comment is right on, as is Badger's; your allegations are not only offensive but also groundless and unprovoked. You're the one treading on risky legal ground by throwing accusations of stealing information when the original authors were well within their rights as the original creators to take their own works elsewhere under a different license. You should give yourself a warning for a change and stop making completely false and unspecified accusations in an issue where you are displaying a clearly distasteful bias towards the other party. You are only causing more problems for yourself by falsely accusing others of wrongdoings that you cannot present evidence to support. - [[User:ThunderGod Cid|TG Cid]] 21:14, 27 May 2011 (MDT)

::To continue this discussion you need to provide something new to the discussion. As Wikipedia and the FSF does, so does law. Please note "copyright"; "so long as one does it in addition" and please read the GNU FDL v1.2. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:36, 27 May 2011 (MDT)

:::I think I've found the root of the problem here. Green Dragon, when you read the GNU FDL v1.2, you read this part:
{{quote|You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either commercially or noncommercially, provided that this License, the copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License applies to the Document are reproduced in all copies, '''and that you add no other conditions whatsoever to those of this License.'''|orig=GNU FDL v1.2, bold added for emphasis}}

:::Here's the problem: That bolded section refers to additional conditions added to the GNU FDL content. It means if it is ''only'' released under GNU FDL v1.2, then you can't add on conditions like "you must pay me a royalty for every copy sold". That line, however, '''does not''' restrict relicensing. Any content on D&D-Wiki.Org has been relicensed, and is not bound by the rules of the GNU FDL v1.2 as they are on this wiki. I'd like to end this comment as I end so many others: Nothing illegal is going on. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 22:18, 29 May 2011 (MDT)

::::Did you read section 9? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:21, 29 May 2011 (MDT)

:::::I have read Section 9. The clause you are referring to states that you may have no other conditions. Relicensing does not qualify as a condition. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 00:00, 30 May 2011 (MDT)

::::::What are the conditions of the new license? The FSF would not have overlooked something like this when I asked them. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 00:06, 30 May 2011 (MDT)

:::::::Considering it's not under GNU FDL v1.2 it shouldn't even matter, but here are the conditions:
:::::::*You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work.
:::::::*If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one.
:::::::It's in the same spirit as the GNU FDL v1.2, but is specially designed for wikis and other MMCs. It is the standard CC-BY-SA. Really, it's the license we should be using, but that's a different discussion. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 00:20, 30 May 2011 (MDT)

::::::''Discussion moved from [[User Talk:Hooper#On DnD Links and Alternate Communities]].'' --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 01:50, 30 May 2011 (MDT)

::::::::I ''almost'' completely agree with you. I am totally content focusing on a single wiki. I spend nearly all my time here. I only check them when we're down here. I don't see why we should pretend they don't exist, though. Sometimes we'll get a user who has a question that could be better addressed by them. In the spirit of communal nerd building, we might as well allow links. If someone wants to support a campaign over there to allow links to here, I'm guessing they'd be ok with that. They might not send a lot our way, but I doubt they'd fight links that were well placed and reasonable. -- [[User:Badger|Badger]] 22:31, 29 May 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::Yeah. I personally feel like saying "lets not go out of our way to co-link, but if its a common sense linkage by a user, let it be" then we should be okay. But then we get into "what defines common sense link" and all that psycho analyzation.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 23:13, 29 May 2011 (MDT)

::::::::::That is a sentiment I ''completely'' agree with. I don't expect us to include a little template at the bottom of every page with a "See this link on D&D-Wiki"; I just want to be able to answer a question on a talk page with "If you're trying to get in tough with Eiji, try his talk page <here>", with an external link, and not get banned/blocked/warned for solicitation. I don't imagine we're ever going to merge back into a single wiki, and I'm fine with that. I'm just looking at it from a community standpoint, and I want to be helpful to as many people as I can, and alienate as few as possible. It looks as if Green Dragon is realizing that is a reasonable request. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 00:33, 30 May 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::::Right, but still the conditions of the two different licenses are different. I agree allowing links to them is an idea. I would be totally for it save this licensing problem. It really boils down to that if D&D Wiki allows a disregarding of the GNU FDL v1.2 then we creating confusion for users who are submitting with the GNU FDL v1.2 in mind as well as those who desire to use D&D Wiki's content. For example would the [[Coin Golem (3.5e Creature)]] have had the same results or would a serious problem have occurred? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 01:50, 30 May 2011 (MDT)

::::::::::::Point of order: what exactly is the FSF you keep referring to? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 08:42, 30 May 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::::::FSF is the Free Software Foundation. They are the people that created the GNU licenses (including the FDL one that this wiki uses). --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 09:24, 30 May 2011 (MDT)

{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}

:As for the Coin Golem, I have no idea what you're talking about. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 14:45, 30 May 2011 (MDT)

::The [[Coin Golem (3.5e Creature)]] was published in [[Remarkable Races Pathway to Adventure: The Numistian]] with no licensing problems. Licensing problems could lead to confusions in such instances. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:17, 30 May 2011 (MDT)

:::Green Dragon, you mentioned that you've had some correspondence with the FSF on this matter. Would you mind emailing me that message, so I can see what they said? I think it might be possible that you are misinterpreting what they wrote in their email. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 15:03, 1 June 2011 (MDT)

::::So they said exactly what we've been saying this whole time: "Until you provide a list of pages that have been stolen, there is no evidence of wrongdoing, and therefore no crime has been committed"? Despite that, do you now concede that it is totally possible to have multiple licenses? The people at FSF said very clearly that multiple licenses are legal. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 18:38, 1 June 2011 (MDT)

:::::No, just that until I provide a list of pages it is unknown which pages are licensed how. Now, when did FSF say that? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:30, 1 June 2011 (MDT)

::::::Seriously, you still haven't figured this out? It's a pretty simple matter. Have you read the wikipedia page [[w:License]] yet? It explains pretty clearly how the whole system of licensing works. That is: the owner of the intellectual property (or creative work, or homebrew in this case) can license something so that others (the licencees) can avoid copyright infringement. It doesn't work in the reverse direction. That is, licenses don't restrict what the licenser can do with their intellectual property. What you are thinking of is not called a license; it's called a contract. Contracts can specifically restrict a person's implicit copyright (ie. they can work in the reverse direction of a license). The work would still have to be licensed in order for the new copyright holder to have exclusive rights to the intellectual property. I don't see how the FSF could have told you otherwise because it would simply be incorrect. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 17:14, 2 June 2011 (MDT)

Talk:Pandlechron (3.5e Campaign Setting)

2011-06-02T22:49:45Z

Aarnott: /* Delete? */ new section

== Rating ==

I give it a 3. Definitely great start, looks like lots more to come.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 19:06, 16 December 2008 (MST)

== Delete? ==

I don't intend on expanding this project any more. I think it might be a good idea to delete all of the pages in this setting except, perhaps, the NPCs, which I think I did a pretty good job on. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 16:49, 2 June 2011 (MDT)

User talk:Green Dragon

2011-05-30T23:56:31Z

Aarnott: /* Edit Revert? */

{{:User:Green Dragon/Top Template}}
{{Messages of Interest|messages=
{{MoI-Row
|page=Category_talk:Candidates_for_Deletion
|section=Idea_for_half-completed_pages
|notifier=Jazzman831
|date_time=21:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=LA_7_Races&oldid=397215
|section=
|notifier=Green Dragon
|date_time=22:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=User_talk:Green_Dragon
|section=Taking Author Information off Pages
|notifier=Jwguy
|date_time=01:40, 6 November 2009 (MST)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Talk:Detect_Disease_(3.5e_Spell)
|section=Author Template
|notifier=Daniel Draco
|date_time=13:55, 6 October 2009 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Talk:Detect_Disease_(3.5e_Spell)
|section=Author Template
|notifier=Daniel Draco
|date_time=03:15, 4 October 2009 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Talk:SRD3e:System_Reference_Document
|section=Basic Character Classes
|notifier=Hooper
|date_time=16:45, 1 October 2009 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=User_talk:Hooper/Banned_Material
|section=Hugh?
|notifier=Lord Dhazriel
|date_time=17:57, 18 September 2009 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=User_talk:Jason_Bagby
|section=Deletion Template on User Page
|notifier=Hooper
|date_time=17:05, 5 September 2009 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=User_talk:Admin
|section=Transcribed Wizards of the Coast Online Archives
|notifier=TheWarforgedArtificer
|date_time=16:15, 5 September 2009 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=User_talk:Admin
|section=Transcribed Wizards of the Coast Online Archives
|notifier=TheWarforgedArtificer
|date_time=16:01, 5 September 2009 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Deviant_(3.5e_Class)
|section=Author Template
|notifier=Sulacu
|date_time=13:58, 28 August 2009 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Talk:Knightwarrior_(3.5e_Class)
|section=
|notifier=Lord Dhazriel
|date_time=21:57, 27 August 2009 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=User_talk:Calidore_Chase
|section=No longer an Admin?
|notifier=Calidore Chase
|date_time=12:51, 15 August 2009 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Template_talk:Spell
|section=
|notifier=TheWarforgedArtificer
|date_time=00:12, 8 August 2009 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Template_talk:Spell
|section=
|notifier=TheWarforgedArtificer
|date_time=23:58, 7 August 2009 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Talk:Half-Troll_(4e_Race)
|section=Formatting
|notifier=Sepsis
|date_time=14:57, 3 August 2009 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Template_talk:4e_Power
|section=Strangeness
|notifier=Taritus
|date_time=13:40, 22 July 2009 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Template_talk:4e_Power
|section=Strangeness
|notifier=Taritus
|date_time=13:39, 22 July 2009 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Talk:Ironbound_(3.5e_Prestige_Class)
|section=locked
|notifier=GaaaaaH
|date_time=04:59, 12 July 2009 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Talk:Dungeons_and_Dragons
|section=DPL?
|notifier=Daniel Draco
|date_time=22:13, 24 June 2009 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Template_talk:4e_Artifact_Part_1
|section=
|notifier=Sabreheim
|date_time=21:34, 11 June 2009 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Talk:Rod_of_Orcus_(4e_Artifact)
|section=Template Issues
|notifier=Sepsis
|date_time=16:08, 11 June 2009 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=User_talk:Green_Dragon
|section=Harassment
|notifier=Sepsis
|date_time=07:45, 31 May 2009 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Talk:Giant_(4e_Race)
|section=Response
|notifier=Sepsis
|date_time=07:37, 31 May 2009 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Category_talk:Martial_Adept
|section=
|notifier=Daniel Draco
|date_time=19:57, 28 May 2009 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Nature_Bound_(DnD_Class)
|section=
|notifier=Sabreheim
|date_time=15:26, 28 May 2009 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Talk:Daunting_Assailant_(DnD_Class)
|section=
|notifier=Daniel Draco
|date_time=15:46, 8 April 2009 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Talk:Regiment_(3.5e_Template)
|section=Can't Access the Page Anymore
|notifier=Aarnott
|date_time=15:27, 6 April 2009 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Template_talk:Weapon_Desc
|section=
|notifier=Sabre070
|date_time=21:52, 7 November 2008 (MST)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Talk:Main_Page
|section=Moving to new MediaWiki version
|notifier=Blue Dragon
|date_time=13:36, 28 October 2008 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Talk:Bodily_Relics
|section=Talk:Bodily Relics?
|notifier=Rithaniel
|date_time=10:28, 16 October 2008 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Talk:DnD_Abyssal_Heritor_Feats
|section=DPL
|notifier=Aarnott
|date_time=11:08, 28 July 2008 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Talk:Soul-Mate_(DnD_Feat)
|section=
|notifier=Xdeletedx
|date_time=23:03, 19 July 2008 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Talk:Snake-Sword_(DnD_Equipment)
|section=
|notifier=Eiji
|date_time=02:07, 30 June 2008 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Talk:Main_Page
|section=WYSIWYG extension
|notifier=Aarnott
|date_time=10:35, 20 June 2008 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Snow_Silver_(3.5e_Equipment)
|section=
|notifier=Ice Paul the III
|date_time=13:21, 6 June 2008 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Talk:Myrmidon_(DnD_Class)
|section=
|notifier=Kisame93
|date_time=08:16, 26 May 2008 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=UA_talk:Variant_Rules
|section=Two Complete Chapters
|notifier=OptimizationFanatic
|date_time=15:15, 11 May 2008 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Talk:Expanded_Religions_(DnD_Variant_Rule)
|section=Featured Article Nomination
|notifier=Hawk
|date_time=07:23, 28 March 2008 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Talk:Regiment_(DnD_Template)
|section=Call out for help!
|notifier=Aarnott
|date_time=16:58, 17 March 2008 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Template_talk:Main_Page_FA
|section=
|notifier=Sam Kay
|date_time=13:21, 16 March 2008 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Talk:Publishers_of_d20_and_D&D_Products
|section=
|notifier=Ramses IV
|date_time=11:15, 16 March 2008 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Talk:Mesoamerican_Gods_and_Goddessess_(DnD_Pantheon)
|section=
|notifier=Ramses IV
|date_time=09:59, 16 March 2008 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Talk:Marksman_(DnD_Class)
|section=
|notifier=Eiji
|date_time=02:30, 15 March 2008 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Form_talk:DnD_Equipment/Preload
|section=Problems
|notifier=Hawk
|date_time=22:03, 29 February 2008 (MST)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Talk:DnD_Equipment
|section=Cost and Weight
|notifier=Hawk
|date_time=20:06, 29 February 2008 (MST)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Form_talk:DnD_Equipment
|section=Date
|notifier=Hawk
|date_time=19:42, 29 February 2008 (MST)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Talk:Catgirl/Nekomusume/Nekomimi_(DnD_Race)
|section=Dogs
|notifier=Xdeletedx
|date_time=16:28, 26 February 2008 (MST)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Talk:Brawling_(DnD_Variant_Rule)
|section=Sooo tired...
|notifier=Eiji
|date_time=00:04, 26 February 2008 (MST)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Talk:Marksman_(DnD_Class)
|section=
|notifier=Eiji
|date_time=13:11, 24 February 2008 (MST)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Talk:User_Base_Classes
|section=
|notifier=Sledged
|date_time=14:27, 19 February 2008 (MST)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Talk:Vest_of_the_Bold_(DnD_Equipment)
|section=
|notifier=Cronocke
|date_time=05:17, 18 February 2008 (MST)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Pedistal_of_Truth_(DnD_Equipment)
|section=Format Format
|notifier=Green Dragon
|date_time=09:40, 16 February 2008 (MST)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Talk:Performer_(DnD_Prestige_Class)
|section=
|notifier=Cerin616
|date_time=18:22, 11 February 2008 (MST)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Talk:Main_Page
|section=
|notifier=Sam Kay
|date_time=07:20, 5 February 2008 (MST)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Talk:Paladin_Mount_from_first_level_(DnD_Variant_Rule)
|section=
|notifier=Sam Kay
|date_time=09:35, 4 February 2008 (MST)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Myrmidon_(DnD_Class)
|section=all of it
|notifier=Tetsurga
|date_time=17:54, 31 January 2008 (MST)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Talk:DnD_Maps
|section=Maybe this should be in environments after all?
|notifier=EldritchNumen
|date_time=12:32, 3 January 2008 (MST)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Talk:Chromatic_Dwarf_(DnD_Creature)
|section=Race
|notifier=Green Dragon
|date_time=23:45, 1 June 2007 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Combat_School_(3.5e_Variant_Rule)
|section=
|notifier=Green Dragon
|date_time=23:57, 21 May 2007 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=MediaWiki:Sharedupload
|section=
|notifier=Green Dragon
|date_time=23:01, 14 May 2007 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=dndmedia:D&D_Wiki_Media_talk:Copyrights
|section=Image documentation
|notifier=Cuthalion
|date_time=14:11, 11 May 2007 (MDT)
}}
}}

{{Archives
|label1= Archive 1 (Discussions 1 – 30)
|label2= Archive 2 (Discussions 31 – 60)
|label3= Archive 3 (Discussions 61 – 90)
|label4= Archive 4 (Discussions 91 – 120)
|label5= Archive 5 (Discussions 121 – 150)
|label6= Archive 6 (Discussions 151 – 180)
|label7= Archive 7 (Discussions 181 – 210)
|label8= Archive 8 (Discussions 211 – 240)
|label9= Archive 9 (Discussions 241 – 270)
|label10= Archive 10 (Discussions 271 – 300)
|label11= Archive 11 (Discussions 301 – 330)
|label12= Archive 12 (Discussions 331 – 360)
|label13= Archive 13 (Discussions 361 – 390)
|label14= Archive 14 (Discussions 391 – 420)
|label15= Archive 15 (Discussions 421 – 450)
|label16= Archive 16 (Discussions 451 – 480)
|label17= Archive 17 (Discussions 481 – 510)
|label18= Archive 18 (Discussions 511 – 540)
}}

== Media's Upload File ==

Everytime I try to log in to upload a pic, I get this.

<code><tt>A database query syntax error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in the software. The last attempted database query was:</tt></code>

<code><tt>(SQL query hidden)</tt></code>

<code><tt>from within function "User::idFromName". MySQL returned error "1142: SELECT command denied to user 'db89449'@'205.186.184.15' for table 'wdd_user' (internal-db.s89449.gridserver.com)".</tt></code>

--[[User:Jay Freedman|Jay Freedman]] 18:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

:Uploading is working now. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 03:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

== Formatting Help ==

I would like to know how to reformat my submitted setting. i am pretty new to this whole thing...

P.S.~ sorry about completely over-riding your touch-ups, i meant to only make minor corrections, but you see i was in th emiddle of adding a lot of information on the playable races at the time, and i was getting very frustrated at the fact that every time i had an editing conlict, i had to pretty much write everything again. leastways the equivalent amount of work on it, what with taking out the dashes and spaces, and putting in the HTML... {{Unsigned|ChieftainTwilight|15:06, 28 February 2010 (MST)}}

:First if you press the back button it will retrieve the information you had been typing. Just Copy+Paste into the new version (with some minor editing if needed) and continue posting. Edit conflicts are not really a problem as such except for minor formatting or minor changes which deal with the other user's changes. What do I think of [[Mysteries of Andor (3.5e Campaign Setting)|Mysteries of Andor]]? I find that nothing is really fluffed out. I recommend that you make the deities and then link to them from that page. Although you say many names, what I mean is, what are they? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 04:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

== Mediawiki is unavailable? ==

I'm sure you've already been alerted, but just in case, the Mediawiki pictures are not showing up, and Mediawiki comes up saying there is an "Exception caught in Exception Handler". It's not working at all. [[User:Jwguy|Jwguy]] 05:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

== Captcha ==

Would it be possible to have only IP and non-autoconfirmed users have to fill out the captcha when inserting external links? There are a butt-ton of d20 Modern stubs, but since the "edit this page" is treated as an external link, I have to fill out a captcha for every stub template. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 02:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

== More post-crash problems ==

I'm sure you're aware, but I'm just letting you know of some other problems I'm finding since the server crash. First of all, the site is sllllloooooooowww. Sometimes it will be zippy, sometimes you will wait 10 seconds and get a "something went wrong" message, but other times, like right now, it will take literally minutes (sometimes up to 5) to open up a page. Which is just an eternity when you are trying to add a class.

Secondly, no pictures from mediawiki are being loaded correctly. They all just give the name of the image with a link, instead of actually showing the image.

Keep up the good work! [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 02:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

:I know. I have been told that the current MW install has many problems with it and lead to slowing down the site sometimes. Media will be dealt with. Another thing too, to make this even better (time wise), is that I just heard that MW has serious security flaws and needs to be upgraded. Maybe upgrading will fix many of the problems which are slowing it down sometimes too. And then if it keeps being slow sometimes then I will think of something else. Hopefully wednesday things will get better (this weekend did not happpen). Sometime though, I can promise. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 03:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

::Ah, that sucks. At least you've got a culprit and a likely fix, though. The worst thing about misbehaving technology is when you don't know what's going wrong. Maybe having a slow wiki will give me time to catch up on some of the things I'm ignoring while I'm spending too much time here ''':)''' [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 05:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

:::That's not what I said, but sure. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 05:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

== problems ==

the site takes forever to load. and i cant search.

== Spam ==

I think I might know why the spam problem has exploded lately: the Captcha doesn't seem to be working. When you add external links there's no captcha prompt at all. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 20:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

:That's because, as was said above, ReCaptcha's were showing up for stub, etc templates for users and external links for users. With MW one cannot just say "IP's have them" anymore, it is now for edit types or somesuch for all but users but those in the admin group. In any case they have been removed as such. Maybe if it continues to be a problem. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

::Gotcha. It's too bad they don't have more useful options. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 05:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

== Number of Admins ==

I can't help but notice the large drop in admins, as of late, for whatever reasons be it. And though I hardly have any standing, nor say in the matter, I suggest some sort of action should be taken to renew the community on this wiki, before its community dies down too much to have any hope of revival. And still, I have little idea as to how to do so, I've seen many great communities fall and shrivel. So I'm convinced that unless someone gets out there and attracts some people into the community, not just general traffic into the site, the community will break down, maintenence and upkeep will fall, and I fear this great wiki could fall into a bad state.

Well, just my thoughts, I thought you should know. I could be terribly wrong and there's a constant amount of community and I'm totally paranoid and pessimistic. But this is how I see it, seeing the constant destruction of admins with no new ones does worry me. --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] 21:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

:What are admins? Do they help? Although I have done no research into the subject I almost feel that ones editing decreases once attaining adminship. Do we need more admins? Yes. Of the top of my head I can maybe think of two or more people who need to be RfA'ed. Know someone? Ask them and then, depending on the result, RfA them please. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

::Makes sense. I don't know anyone, but your point is very much valid. --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] 06:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

== Unofficial Errata ==

I had a discussion on the WotC boards about all the absence of errata for a lot of the previous editions books. For most of these unofficial errata were collected by players.

My thoughts were that a wiki would be a good place to maintain such unofficial errata, given the transient nature of the WotC boards (most of the older errata threads have been purged). D&D Wiki seems the most natural place to start such an endeavor.

Is this something you would be willing to accommodate, as I'm not sure it fits entirely with your current content?

I don't think I've ever contributed here, but I'm a regular at several other wiki's and would try to gather as many unofficial errata as possible if you'd give a green light to such an undertaking.

I will try to check back at this page for an answer every now and then, other options like e-mail, I can post if you want to.

Cheers. Adriaan Renting. {{Unsigned|192.87.1.200|13:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)}}

:Yes, it would work. Is errata for OGC OGC? I would imagine so. In any case, a good place to start, (especially if it is unofficial errata) is to just make the page and link to it from the publication. Start by taking a look at [[Publication List]] and finding the book (or adding it if it is not added) and then placing a link on the page. For example [[Exemplars of Evil/Unofficial Errata]]. Does that make sense? Do you think that would work? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

== Help Talk Pages ==

:''Discussion moved to [[Help talk:Talk Pages#Subject/Headline]].'' --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:37, 11 January 2011 (MST)

== MediaWiki Problems ==

Hey, I didn't see any 'Contact us' options, and I noticed that you were the owner, so I decided to stop by and ask a quick question ''':)'''. Recently this site has been experiencing more and more problems (i.e. not being able to load properly or going down for short periods of time). I just thought I would point this out and wonder if anything could be done?

Oh, and I just want to add, I love this site! Be proud! Thanks! --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 05:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

:First we need to clean up this site. For example, at this moment, [[3.5e Sorcerer/Wizard Spells]] spells is not able to load. Why is this? The code is not properly done (SMW and so), I think. In any case it returns a database error and eats up a lot of the server. Once all the code problems have been ironed out then we can see if this is still a problem.
:This should happen slowly. Soon D&D Wiki's MW will be upgraded (the current version has a few security problems) and that should make a difference. Then other areas need to be worked on. I hope this helps answer your question, and I look forward to seeing some of your content. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 19:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

::Well D&D Wiki has been upgraded to MW 1.15.2. Pages like [[3.5e Sorcerer/Wizard Spells]] work now. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

:::Things are improving. Only a few problems, for example forms and images, are problems now. They should be fixed soon though. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 03:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

== MoI (of sorts) ==

Hi GD, I've got a couple of things to tell you about:

#First of all, I've finished adding PL categories to all the d20 Modern homebrew equipment, so Phase 1 is complete!
#[http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User:Jazzman831/workspace&oldid=461878 Here] is my current progress on Phase 2. Let me know what you think before I continue creating the rest of the pages.
#Three items ([[Flashbang (D20 Modern Equipment)|Flashbang]], [[Phosphorus Grenade (D20 Modern Equipment)|Phosphorus Grenade]] and [[Smoke Bomb (D20 Modern Equipment)|Smoke Bomb]]) are created for D&D 4e, not d20 Modern, so I don't know what to do with them. See my opinion on the matter [[Talk:Flashbang (D20 Modern Equipment)|here]].
#MoI: [[Talk:Grenades (D20 Modern Equipment)]]
#MoI: [[Talk:Halo (D20 Modern Campaign Setting)#Rating_2]]
#What do you think of [[User:Jazzman831/preloads#Ranged Weapon Preload|this]] preload/template as a way to standardize ranged weapons? It's the format used in Weapons Locker, and the most useful format I've seen.
#MoI: [[Category talk:Rifle]] (Note also that [[:Category:Longarm]] actually exists; possibly my next project should be standardizing the categorization of the Modern side of things? Where should such discussion take place?)

Sorry about the long list, but I think that should get us caught up to date. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 17:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

:I copy-pasted your prototype page for [[D20 Modern Equipment]] onto that page. I changed a few things. Do you think the changes make sense? I modernized the subpages. Once all the subpages are created (so called Phase 2) then [[D20 Modern Equipment]] can be cleaned up. I will deal with the rest of your comment above soon... --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

::The changes make sense, though in a perfect world the last two categories (not categorized by age or type) should always be empty, correct? Perhaps this is a good way to make sure that everything gets labeled. For the "all" category (I thought about something similar myself), do you want to create a separate page with every PL X item, or just link to the PL X category, which is effectively the same thing? While we're on the subject of the "all" category, I notice some of the totals (PL 2 and 5) don't add up right. I'll try to figure out what's happened; probably something isn't categorized correctly.

::The only things I really don't like are adding "equipment" to all the pages, because it gets wordy, and removing the PL number from each line of the table. The former isn't really a huge deal, since users probably won't ever type that anyway, but the second is bigger. All of the books (as well as the MSRD) refer to PL primarily by number, not by name, so I think it's better to have the number actually there instead of counting up or down.

::I hope to get to adding the subpages sometime soon. It'll be a function of how much my carpal tunnel is flaring up and how bored I get... [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 00:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

:::Alright, subpages are finished, though as I said before, I'm not sure what to do with some of the pages.
:::Have any comments on the rest of my points yet?
:::Also, I think a database has crashed. Every time I try to move a page or use the search I get the following error: <code>145: Table './ddwikidb/wdd_searchindex' is marked as crashed and should be repaired (localhost)</code> [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 19:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

::::That database problem is no longer a problem.
::::[[D20 Modern Equipment]] looks good. I only wonder about maybe making the all page split by way of the improving, reviewing, or removing templates. I guess we should discuss that there though.
::::I still have not made up my mind about what should happen to the edition-specific items which were moved to another edition. The others things I responded to, and see below.
::::With regard to the preloads please feel free to add them, something is better is nothing. They can always be improved throughout time of course. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 03:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

:::::Cool. I've actually been creating preloads as I see they've been missing. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 01:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

::::::With [[D&D 4.0 Future (4e Sourcebook)|4e Future]] and [[User:Vrail|Vrail's]] comment that
{{quote|4e is a rule set, not a time period.
|orig=--[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 16:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)}}
::::::I have decided that no time period should be mandated. I think I moved all those back, if there are any others please let me know. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

== 3.5e Class White Guard ==

:''Discussion moved to [[Talk:White Guard (3.5e Class)#Protection]].'' --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:43, 10 January 2011 (MST)

== Uploading an Adult Picture ==

I was hoping to place a certain picture on one of the pages that I'm going to design for my camapign setting. However, this picture has nudity in it. It's not pornographic, a female witch is simply naked. I was wondering if I would be allowed to post this? Or should I send it to you first for clearing? --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 05:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

:It should be okay. Just make sure to add [[Template:Adult Theme]] to the top of the page. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

== 3.5e Rule Negative Level Adjustment ==

:''Discussion moved to [[Talk:Negative Level Adjustment (3.5e Variant Rule)#April Fools & Balance]].'' --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:56, 11 January 2011 (MST)

== Couple questions ==

Just a couple things I'd like to ask you about. You mentioned that my class wasn't original and that it's been created before, yet if you search on this web site it's the only one that comes up. Umm? Just wondering about that, cuz I wouldn't know it's unoriginal if nothing else like it is on here. Another question, you mentioned that the Sith aren't all dark users. I took the definition of what a Sith was directly off of the star wars database, so take them up on it if you're really confused about what a Sith is. {{unsigned|Tmblake09}}

:Urm, Green Dragon didn't say any of those things. [[User:Vrail|Vrail]] said it was unoriginal (and unless you are George Lucas, ''any'' Sith class is by definition unoriginal), and he was also the one who suggested there were good and evil Sith. Generally if you have a problem with a specific article, it's best to take it up on that talk page and not a user talk page -- otherwise, people who look at your class later won't see this discussion.

:You are correct, by the way, that there aren't any other Sith classes on the wiki (btw GD, [http://media.dandwiki.com/wiki/Sith this] is another Sith class, but it's posted on MW? I didn't even know that was possible), but there are many, many other Star-Wars related entries. [[Jedi Knight (3.5e Class)]], [[Jedi Healer (DnD Class)]], [[Jedi Guardian (D20 Modern Base Class)]], [[Jedi Dualist (Not Duelist) (DnD Prestige Class)]], [[Jedi Consular (D20 Modern Base Class)]] and [[Jedi Sentinel (D20 Modern Base Class)]] all come up with a quick search. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 16:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

== Template Delete ==

:''Discussion moved to [[Template talk:Delete/why#Goal]].'' --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:04, 11 January 2011 (MST)

== Censorship ==

You've edited a comment I've left on a page. on PokeDM's [[User_talk:PokeDM|Talk]] page. You cropped it down, citing solicitation. I'm forced to say "Not Cool". I went out of my way to not solicit any other websites. I didn't drop a name. I didn't provide a link. Furthermore, I read through the behavioral policy just now and didn't see anything banning solicitation. I was trying to be helpful to a new user, letting him know that other people have tried similar endeavors, and there is help for him if he needs it. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 06:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

:I have never said we do not edit comments. Comments are edited when needed. What you are doing is spam ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_spam Article Spam]), links to D&D resources can be found on [[DnD Links]]; no where else. Partial censorship is something D&D Wiki has — to keep spam and non-relevant things at bay. All the recent spam from IP's (see the barnstars some have received) is not allowed — I think you would understand. It could become a serious problem.
:For example (not notice if you saw it) there was some spam advertising a certain boots company. If I recall correctly they supplied no links. Do you see the problem? It's very simple to understand. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 03:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

::I think he was just confused and dismayed at why you modified his post and never explained why. Poor communication on both sides resulted in a misunderstanding, but I don't think either side was intentionally being aggressive or anything like that. Anyways, no need to start a feud over a misunderstanding. ''':)'''. --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 04:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

:::Right, but you should also mention that no reason needs to be given in text format (maybe in the edit summary). I see what you mean when you mention this, and for the most part the IP (when violating this) knows though his or her ban. Since this user is not getting banned as a result of his or her solicitation (implicit or explicit), you should notice that just the censorship was hinting at this. Since he or she did not, and actually took this kind gesture the wrong way, now he or she knows is all we can say. As a general rule one should always read the edit summaries, and I hope we can say that if something gets censored with such a reason in the edit summary that is the reason. Seems very simple to understand, but I guess not. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 04:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

::::To be fair Vrail, I was much more aggressive (intentionally) at the end of my comment up there. You just aren't seeing it because it was censored... Anyway, yeah, I was angry because my comment was edited. I don't see how a useful, on-topic, offer of help from an external resource (which was not linked or named) from a registered, contributing user on a fellow user's Talk page should be compared to spam about cheap boots on SRD talk pages. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 04:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

:::::Why was it solicitation? Because it did not say something like "I would like to tell you that other resources exist dealing with Pokémon in D&D. A simple Google search should give you some results." --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

::::::I suppose I assumed anyone attempting to make Pokemon monsters for DnD has probably already done a simple Google search. I was trying to provide more specific help with material. Can I leave something akin to "Hey, I noticed you're working on Pokemon for DnD. Leave me a message on my [[User_Talk:Badger|Talk Page]] if you want some help with creation, I know other resources exist that you may find helpful."? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 20:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

:::::::Email would be the correct option. If someone wanted a possibility for such things then there is the possibility they would not mind recieving an email about such things. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

:::::::: The best part of this oppression is that you keep using the verb 'to solicit'. Let us take the most humourous meaning of the word and put it into context; Badger was attempting to bribe PokeDM for sex with name-dropping of! How... dastardly. It's not solicitation, it's advertising. Unless, of course, you think that people finding other sites that have D&D information on is an 'evil action', which wouldn't be too much of a step, to be honest. I mean, Badger doesn't want anything from his actions, except to help, and isn't really persuading the person in anyway nor was he persistent in his name-dropping. Also amusing is how Green Dragon is trying to say that what Badger did is on the same level as spambots. Because what he said had no relevance to the matter at hand for a person called PokeDM! Who'd think he'd want to find pokemon for D&D that other people had made to draw inspiration from. Also, I'll probably be banned for this. After all, I'm some kind of crazy anarchist. SOLICITATION, YES PLZ. --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] 11:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

:::::::::No TK, it wasn't the irresistible urge to ''play out fantasies'' with PokeDM that got me caught "soliciting", it's the fact that I mentioned a website exists where PokeDM could find some help. It's not even advertising, in my opinion. It's be like a guy walking around saying "Hey, I see you spilled some mustard on your shirt. Know what could get that out? Soap..." Not the most helpful comment ever, but if you didn't know Soap existed you could certainly get the impression I know a thing or two, and ask me for help on how to find this "Soap".
::::::::: Also, when I said ''play out fantasies'' I meant play a role-playing game with fantasy elements, not have kinky Tome Charizard sex. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 16:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

::::::::::"''Let's take the most humourous meaning of the word and put it into context''" — ya, but I don't mean that usage. That is not how English works. You take the correct usage, the one that works.
::::::::::Etymology: Middle English, to disturb, promote, from Anglo-French solliciter, from Latin sollicitare to disturb.
::::::::::;transitive verb
::::::::::# to make petition to : entreat b : to approach with a request or plea <solicited Congress for funding>
::::::::::# to urge (as one's cause) strongly
::::::::::# to entice or lure especially into evil b : to proposition (someone) especially as or in the character of a prostitute
::::::::::# to try to obtain by usually urgent requests or pleas <solicited donations>
::::::::::;intransitive verb
::::::::::# to make solicitation : importune
::::::::::# of a prostitute : to offer to have sexual relations with someone for money
::::::::::(Merriam Webster)
::::::::::And, yes, it is spam. If he is truly interested in helping PokeDM achieve personal goals then using email to help him find resources is the correct method; please read the discussion before responding. Posting a lasting comment here with soliciting present is not acceptable.
::::::::::And yes, but you should only say "Soap" and if you want to give your preference of a Soap brand then you should only tell him or her, announcing it to everyone is soliciting. And soliciting is not allowed. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

:::::::::::{{quote|you should only say "Soap" and if you want to give your preference of a Soap brand then you should only tell him or her, announcing it to everyone is soliciting. And soliciting is not allowed"}}
:::::::::::That is precisely what I did. I told him I knew of soap (a wiki) and if he wanted I could tell him the brand (the wiki's actual name). If you want to go back and read my original comment you'll notice I left it intentionally vague. Unless you think the word "wiki" narrows down the exact website I intended to link. Also, I don't think any of those definitions you posted up there truly apply to what I did. It was one comment on a talk page; hardly urgent, evil, forced, or pleading. It was actually ignored for 2 weeks before you went and edited it. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 22:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

::::::::::::You should of, however, just said it exists. Then the user can find it him/her self. This is correct. If it is such a singularity then an email with specifics would be in order.
::::::::::::By saying things like "wiki" and so you are soliciting, implicitly, and that is not allowed on D&D Wiki. Saying things exist, however, is okay. Why? Then "other things" are not given an even playing field and you are attempting to influence the readers views. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 19:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

:::::::::::::How was he supposed to know he could e-mail me to ask for specifics if I didn't mention that he could? Furthermore, given all the recent spamming on this website (which you, yourself, acknowledged a few posts up), I don't want to leave my email address on this site; and I certainly wouldn't ask someone else to do something I was afraid to do. Finally, let's get the straight, right here, right now: the word "wiki", at least in the context of "I know a wiki exists", is solicitation. Quite frankly, if they did know what I mean, then they probably already know everything I do. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 20:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}

:Since you mentioned my name I thought I'd pipe up. Ironically, I only know what you are talking about because I've seen it censored from people's pages. Had I not seen "removing solicitation" in the RC longs, I probably wouldn't have gone to those user's pages and seen the link in the first place.
:But I digress. You can email a user without posting your email address to spammers. If you have set up your email address in your [[Special:Preferences|preferences]], and have checked the "enable e-mail from other users" box, you can send or be sent an email through the wiki using the Email this User link on a user's page or talk page. This doesn't leave you open to spammers, because they don't actually have a way to access your email address unless you give it to them. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 20:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

::Exactly. And use <code><tt>Special:EmailUser/<!-username-></tt></code>. As I said above, "''If someone wanted a possibility for [email] then there is the possibility they would not mind recieving an email about such things.''" --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

:::I have been on this wiki for some time now, and I had no idea that function existed. Thanks for the heads up. And Green Dragon, I still have no idea what "''If someone wanted a possibility for [email] then there is the possibility they would not mind recieving an email about such things.''" means... --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 20:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

:::::I spent a lot of time on a wiki that was a little obsessed with back-channel talk, so I learned pretty quickly about the email user function. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 21:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

::::Meaning that I hope people make sure their preferences are their preferences. I hope that those who add an email also make sure to select or deselect "Enable e-mail from other users". --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

:::::Not all users read those boxes carefully, and the box is unchecked by default. It's the kind of thing that most people don't know is there until someone tells them about it. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 21:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

::::::Is that included in Green Dragon's Welcome Message? If not, I move we add it. I know I glanced at the preferences page the day I first signed up, and not again until just now. I know that's on me for not being more careful, and through, but I imagine many people don't know that exists. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 22:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

:::::::I changed it a bit ([http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User%3AGreen_Dragon%2FWelcome_Message&diff=465597&oldid=428051 diff]). Your thoughts? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

::::::::I'm curious as to what prompted the change from "love" to "enjoy", but I do think it is much better. Might it also be beneficial to have a straight-up welcome page for new users? The message is personal and nice, and for that short and sweet is best. But a more in-depth welcome page might also be helpful, perhaps with a list of admins, or very active users, and their areas of expertise. For instance, asking you for campaign writing advice would be useful, but given my time here I think Hooper is who I would direct questions to. Again, you may be able to help with d20 Modern, but there is no doubt in my mind that Jazzman would perhaps be more helpful. Nothing against you or your abilities, but everyone has a strong suit, we should embrace that. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 03:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

:::::::::One enjoys websites not loves them? Dunno. Sounds better? Dunno.
:::::::::And no. That's not going to happen. Everyone interprets things for themselves and having a D&D Wiki-mandated page telling users how certain things are which is interpreted on a personal scale is not good policy.
:::::::::And if people do not know the generals of wiki's then they need to learn — but D&D Wiki is not Wikipedia in the sense of a trillion help pages to learn MediaWiki and so. One can go there. We assume if one cares they can first look for it theselves. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 03:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

== Hello ==

Good evening Admin.
i have a question.

What would you say for a LA+0 Race to have +3 STR, +6 DEX, +3 CON, -6 WIS, -4 INT, -2 CHA() Size= Large. Would you say that would be fair? im considering on making a race thats not too over powered but just right. I would love to make a Na'Vi race. From the movie Avatar. i love that movie and i think it would just be awesome to bring it into D&D Wiki. {{unsigned|Powershart}}

:I'm not Green Dragon, but I saw this and thought I'd respond anyway. LA +0 seems low for a large creature, especially one that gets a total of +12 to physical stats. Plus you have exactly offset the physical bonuses with mental penalties, and if we use the orc as a precedent, physical stats are more valuable than mental. (By the way, odd numbered stat increases are generally frowned upon, because they don't add a static bonus/penalty.) I'm not sure that Na'Vi would have low Int or Cha, and they ''definitely'' don't have low Wis. They are very spiritual, insightful creatures; if anything, they should get a Wis bonus. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 14:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

::First racial changes should always be even. Second, large size normally means LA 1-2. With the bonus' to dex it could get very overpowered, for example with ranged fighting. I would recommend upping the LA and tonning down the ability score changes and then it could be LA 1. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

think you for welcomeing me even now it's alittle late for my response but it is one.

== How do I Delete? ==

I realize that the Special Operative Gunslinger is way off balance, and I want to delete it... How would I go about doing this? {{Unsigned|Rogue The Demonchild|06:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)}}

:See also [[:Category:Candidates for Deletion]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

== Search and DPL Problems ==

When trying to browse the D&D 3.5 pages, many things do not load in the list, cutting off about a third of the way down to about half the way down. The search function is also broken. These problems have been occurring for a few months, and I am a little upset that I can't access all of the data available on this website. Sorry if you've heard these complaints many times before, but I figured I should report it, since it hasn't been dealt with for a while. {{Unsigned|216.134.174.192|20:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)}}

:Both of these problems have been dealt with, and thanks for mentioning the problems. Please see below and [[Talk:All 3.5e Races#DPL Problem]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 02:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

== Trouble with the wiki ==

Hey, I'm just stopping by to say, and I know this has been said before, but their seem to be some problems with loading pages on the wiki. It seems as though every second time I try to load a new page it says 'error wiki down' or something of the sort. Not to mention it taking a very long time to load pages some times. In addition to this, it is impossible to search and to move pages as it keeps on saying error. I was under the impression that the slowness of the wiki and the constant downs were supposed to be fixed a while ago from your response to my earlier post about this on the discussion page, however it seems to still be causing trouble.

I don't mean this in a threatening or rude way, so please don't take it the wrong way, but if this keeps up the wiki may start loosing some of its community, which would be a terrible thing as I love the wiki and the people here. So I'm hoping that this can be figured out some how and the wiki can start working at optimal capacity again. Perhaps it is having problems with loading because of spikes that the servers can't handle at certain times of the day? Anyways, hope its worked out, thanks. :)--[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 21:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

:Search was repaired.
:Moving pages now works.
:With regard to the speed I am going to switch hosting soon again (to something a little different) and from there we can see once again.
:Sound okay? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 19:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

::AWESOME! [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 21:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

:::Thats great, thanks for jumping on this so quickly, I look forward to a faster wiki! ''':)''' --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 21:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

::::Hosting has been switched and the problems are being ironed out. We'll have to see how it is now and then see. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 04:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

== Template DnD Prestige Class Infobox ==

:''Discussion moved to [[Template talk:DnD Prestige Class Infobox#Authors and Adopters Parameters]].'' --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:25, 11 January 2011 (MST)

== Moving Pages ==

I noticed that recently you were moving a number of DnD pages to 4e or 3.5e or their corresponding eddition. Is this being done to all pages? If so, I could help. ''':)''' --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 05:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

:Ya, it is. If you would like to [[DnD Rules]] could use some page-moving help. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 05:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

::So are all the pages on those lists just being moved to 3.5e rather than DnD? Or am I missing something? It just seems like a simple task to have not been completed yet. ''':)''' --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 05:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

:::It's been a few days now, just wanted to say I'm still waiting for an answer. I really want to help out, but I don't want to start moving pages and find out I'm doing something wrong. ''':)''' --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 03:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

::::That is what needs to be done there. A lot of simple tasks have yet to be completed, a great example is [[Special:ListRedirects]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 03:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

:::::Awesome, just wanted to clarify. I'll start moving some pages, although many may have to wait a bit, it's pretty late at night were I live right now. ''':)''' --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 04:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

::::::'''I DID IT!'''. That took a lot more work than I thought it would, but it's finished now, and I can rest happy, knowing the wiki was helped. ''':D''' --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 06:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

:::::::I just finished converting all of the 3.5e campaign setting tags from DnD to 3.5e. I was wondering if there were any more big pages to convert? --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 19:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

::::::::I can't think of anything that involves moving pages, but if you are looking for something with lots of work, check out [[Special:DoubleRedirects]]. If that interests you, basically what you need to do is change the first redirect to point to the third redirect, skipping the second redirect entirely. But then you have to go to the second redirect, hit the "what links here", and change all those links to point to the third page. Finally, add a deletion tag to the second redirect, and I'll come along behind you and delete the unneeded redirects.
::::::::Of course, it's a lot of work, but it's pretty mindless work. Luckily since we mostly use DPLs instead of direct linking, when you moved all those pages 90% of the links to those pages will have moved with them, and you won't have to change much. Unfortunatly, as of this moment there are 984 double redirects!! If this interests you but I didn't explain it well just leave a message on my talk page and I'll be more clear. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 20:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

:::::::::Awesome, so I've moved all the big pages of DnD to their correct editions. What a great feeling it is to have finished, that was a lot of work. ''':)''' Anyways, I'll get to work on the double redirects. ''':)''' --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 18:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

::::::::::Of course, if you want to do something less mindless, you could update the classes pages and look over their content. Let me know if you are interested. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 03:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

:::::::::::Lol, that does sound pretty interesting, but I have a lot going right now, perhaps when I finish up my campaign setting, or fix a few more double redirects I'll do it, but right now I just don't think I have the time.
:::::::::::But if the job is still open in a couple of weeks or a month or two I'd love to do it. ''':)'''--[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 03:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

::::::::::::Well it's open until the task has been completed. I started on [[DnD Base Classes]], and will finish the task sometime in its current state. Just let me know when you have time and still want to, unless you understand what I am talking about then of course at your leisure. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 03:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

== what would be involved in hosting an OD&D derivative? ==

There are several old school D&D clones, most of which are ostensibly derived form D&D3.0, like labyrinth lord, OSRIC, Swords & Wizardry.

Would it be a possibility, assuming one of them consented to be hosted here, to have a section added to be populated with that content?

Their PDFs can be sometimes a little frustrating to navigate.

-- Greg.gilbraithATgmail.com

:Of course. If you need to know how to start your own section please let me know. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 02:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

== Quests and Encounters ==

When you try to create a new Quest on the [[3.5e Quests]] page, all it says is AAA. Their is also no page to make encounters. Is their any way for this to be fixed with relative ease? I was just looking into adding an adventure/quest and couldn't create it that way.--[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 04:16, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

:Please see [[Talk:DnD Flaws#Flaw Form]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

::What's the advantage of using a form vs. a preload? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 21:36, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

:::Preloads are better. This was discussed somewhere (I think on a form's removed page (please see [[Talk:DnD Flaws#Flaw Form]])). The reason was that preloads make it so wiki syntax is learned sometime whereas forms do not do that. And both are about the same difficulty to understand. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 02:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

== Deletion ==

I don't know how to delete things on this wiki; I'm assuming it's a mod's job, but I've honestly got no idea. I'm trying to delete [[Epic Access (3.5e Feat)]] and [[Greater Epic Access (3.5e Feat)]], as I've turned both of them into [[Epic Access (3.5e Variant Rule)]]. If deleting things is a mod's job only, would you delete them for me? If I can actually do it, I'd be more than happy to learn how so I don't bother you or Hooper over this again. Thanks! --[[User:For Valor|For Valor]] 23:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

:Please see [[:Category:Candidates for Deletion]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 02:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

== Spam ==

Today alone I have already removed four spam posts, and thats just one person on one day. It seems recently the pace of spam has increased. Am I imagining things or did some spam blocking protocol get messed up or something? Anyways, just wondering if there is anything that can be done to help keep spam down. ''':)'''--[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 20:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

:Oops, just noticed this was already talked about, feel free to delete this comment if you wish. ''':)'''--[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 20:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

::Honestly, I don't think blocking the spammers really does anything. I've never seen one IP address spam more than one page, so they've got some kind of program that randomizes the IP after every spam post. However, the reason you probably saw more today is because traffic was much lower, so the same amount of spam makes up a higher percentage. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 01:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

::Actually, I take back that last part. The spammers are out in force today for some reason. Good work, as always, Vrail.

::The only pattern I ''have'' noticed is that they seem to hit the same pages over and over (can't quite figure out why they choose those pages though). When I see a page has been hit more than once I protect it for a couple months from anonymous edits. Don't really know if that helps or not, I'm hoping that the bot hits a protected page, tries to edit, and isn't smart enough to figure out that it's locked so nothing happens. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 03:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

== 3.5e Page Names ==

I have noticed that a number of the larger pages in 3.5e are still called DnD (i.e [[DnD Character Options]], [[DnD Classes]], [[DnD Campaign Settings]], etc.). Since all of the pages in these categories have been moved to 3.5e rather than DnD, shouldn't these larger pages be moved too? Anyways, I was just wondering, just say the word and I can do it. ''':)''' --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 06:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

:Of course, and please feel free. Also, since they are related to one another, the templates with "DnD" present (e.g. [[Template:DnD Prestige Classes Breadcrumb]]) should also be moved. They are also considered subparts of the 'larger pages' as well. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

::When you were changing the links on the 3.5e homebrew page so they skipped the redirect you missed [[DnD Maps|maps]]. Just pointing it out since I can't do it myself. ''':)''' --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 23:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

:::Oops, nevermind, just checked and the maps pages are the same for 3.5e and 4e. Sorry, I guess I should check before I talk next time. --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 23:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

::::It would make sense to add an addition, but I do not think an edition really defines a map. Maybe if they have creatures detailed (e.g. [[dndmedia:File:Blacksmith's Cellar.jpg|File:Blacksmith's Cellar.jpg]]. Dunno, your thoughts? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 02:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

== Images Lost ==

So it appears we have yet again lost all the uploaded images on the wiki. Everywhere that there should be an image is the link, but no image (on my computer at least). What's the deal? I know this happened once before, I want to say when mediawiki was updated. Is that what happened this time? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 18:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

:I don't know what happened, however I would just like to say that this has happened for my computer to, so it's not just you! ''':)''' --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 20:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

::I looked into it a bit more, and figured out that the pictures are still there in the media wiki. However the links are going to the normal D&D wiki categories rather than linking to the files in the media repository. --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 21:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

:::Images are working once again. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

== Races Not Showing Up ==

Um, hey Green Dragon. I made 3 races, one used to show up (they're all for D&D 4e) called Hyrulian, and now none of them show up. there was Dark Hylian, Hyrulian (I changed the name once you click on it), and Zora. The Zora is not the same as the 3.5e. I never created that one. Anyway, if you could tell me, that would be nice. Thanks, and thanks for creating D&D Wiki! --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 00:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

:I fixed those. When you add things make sure the categories are correct. Categories make pages show up on other pages and the removal of categories or the incorrect changing of categories will stop that from happening. If you want a category for your user, although not recommended since links on ones userpage is the same thing, please add that in addition. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 02:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

::Hey ''Green Dragon'', 2 of my races have shown up: ''Dark Hylian'' and ''Hylian''. So you don't have to worry about those two. But, Could you put my '''Zora''' (4e race) one up? Thanks,
::Hmm, Maybe I should watch the introduction someday. All right! Thanks! --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 03:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

:::It is. The template at the top of the [[Zora (4e Race)]] page makes it show up in the lower section. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 03:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

::::I found out where the Zora race went. I finished the adventurers. Do you have to manually move the Zora so that it won't be edited? Thanks, --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 03:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

:::::If you dealt with the issue on the stub template then feel free to remove the template. When you do it will be moved up to the upper section. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 04:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

== D&D wiki, whats the status? ==

Hello fellow D&D gamer,

I was surfing D&Dwiki, and looking for some maps, and when I finally found them, I sadly realized that the jpeg files were no longer their. Then when I went back to the home page, I also saw that the picture of the Rock worm was gone (which has been their for ages). So what's going on? How's D&D wiki doing?

A fan of D&D WIKI!

Cheers,

Amrit van der Lely (Netherlands)

== question ==

What does d% mean or is that just the drop ratio and if you do give me an answer do you mind telling me how to use the drop system?? {{unsigned|Billojava|2010-06-02 07:54}}

:[[SRD:Basics#d%|What d% means]]. No idea what you mean by the "drop system". —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 14:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

::I actually found a really cool d%. It was a big clear and hollow d10, with a smaller solid red d10 inside. When you roll it both roll simultaneously creating a %. It's really awesome.--[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 16:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

:::I've got a few of those die-inside-a-die for each type, and they're really neat. We also wear '''d%er''' patches, much like bikers wear '''1%er''' patches. Its hilarious.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 16:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

== Fell Knight 4e Powers ==

Hey,

If anyone could put down how to create Class 4e powers, that would be great, cause I need to provide a power list for my Fell Knight.

[[User:Axl|Axl]]

:[[Add New 4e Power]]. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 19:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

== Locking Pages ==

Hey Green Dragon, Do I really have to let people edit my races that I created? 'Cause, I really don't want anyone editing them. Thanks, --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 22:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)Axl

:Yes. Its a collaborative site. If you are not 100 percent okay with others working with you, then don't upload the content.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 23:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

::You can request to get your content locked, but then you cannot edit it either. Let me know what you decide please. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

:::How do you lock your content? I'm thinking that's what I'm going to do. Can I unlock it without troubling you? --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 00:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

::::Actually, I'll just let people edit things, and if I don't like it, I'll click the revert button. --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 01:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

:::::If you want your content locked post something on the talk page saying it. Or supply some links to an admin. A few editing deviations exist, of course. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

== Power Ideas ==

Hey, if anyone has any ideas for my classes powers, just put them down [[Fell Knight Powers (4e Power List)|here]].

Thanks,
--[[User:Axl|Axl]] 19:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

== Tavern re-opening ==

So it's been a while since the tavern was closed down. I know there was some trouble with it in the past, and doubt as to it's use/need.However, I see dozens of messages on talk pages that are posted minutes apart, and I for one have been hit by plenty of edit conflicts. I know before hosting the channel was an issue, but as I understand that was resolved. Is that still the case? I wonder if there was any other interest in re-opening the tavern. A vote/discussion on the topic would be worth looking into, I think. As for hosting, if the server support isn't there, I'm sure we can find some free IRC hosting. Just something I've been thinking about, it might help to drive some life back into the site, and increase the community user-base. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 23:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

:GD believed that the tavern was actually a bad thing for the wiki to have, and therefore it was never re added even after the server was fixed. However, reading over the discussion about it (I would post it but I can't remember what it was called), it seemed like more people wanted to keep it then discard it, and it was never really voted on.

:I know this was dealt with already, but now that it's brought up I'd like to put in my own 2 cents that, I loved the tavern. It was a great resource and could be used for not only common discussion but it can help with people wanting reviews on their pages, or help/advice. It also seemed to help create a more welcoming community and allowed at some point for a D&D game to be played, which was a good idea and seemed fun. For all of these good things about it, it seemed only one negative point could be brought up, the amount of spam on it. However with the ratio of good to bad being 5 to 1, I do think this discussion could be reopened. --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 02:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

::I think you are referring to [[Discussion:The_Tavern:_use,_expansion,_and_availability.|this]] discussion. It seemed toward the end of that conversation that Green Dragon was opening up to the idea again, maybe I'm misinterpreting, however. I think we should seriously look into opening it up. From that discussion it appeared that many of the problems were surrounding users no longer involved with this project. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 20:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

:::Hrm, was the tavern just like a chat room? I've had a lot of bad experiences with off-wiki communication on other wikis... all it does is make people paranoid and exclude people. Even now, with the Tavern dead for 6 months, there are talk pages on this wiki which say "go to the tavern, we are discussing it right now". Well, that only really works if you happen to be there at that moment of time. But if I want to read that discussion to figure out how they reached some decision, I can't. Wikis are designed to have everything visible always, not some stuff visible once.

:::I can see the value of, say, hammering out class ideas in real time, or chatting about your most recent D&D game, but I don't think any off-site communication should be relied upon for more than that. If someone makes a change to a page based on a tavern discussion, someone else a year down the line needs to be able to understand why that change was made. And no policy discussions should ever be held on the tavern, period.

:::So to clarify, I'm not strictly against it ''per se'', but we need to be very careful of how it's used. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 23:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

::::I figured the tavern was almost exclusively for "hammering out class ideas in real time, or chatting about your most recent D&D game", and other things, like quick rule questions that don't need to be a discussion forum, like "does DR from multiple places stack?". It was never my intention to have it be anything more than "Hey, can someone check out MyClass?". --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 23:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

:::::In the past it's been used for more than that... naturally I can't remember where I saw it, but there was at least one policy discussion that was discussed on the tavern, and then people who weren't on were very confused. But like I said, as long as we are clear about it's use, it can be a great feature. And really, I don't see why we'd need to host it ourselves... given the bandwidth problems, I'd go so far as to say we don't ''want'' to host it here. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 23:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

::::::That's why I've looked into the free hosting provided by freenode.net. As for policy discussions, I think as long as we remember the tavern is part of a bigger whole, that shouldn't be a problem. I've started a mockup in my [[User:Badger/sandbox1|sandbox]] of what the tavern portal should look like, if you want to suggest changes to text, or see what I'm trying to do, or something.--[[User:Badger|Badger]] 00:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

:::::::I think it would be nice to host it ourselves, just for consistency and easier management and placement. We also have the bandwidth to host it ourselves, unless I misunderstood a previous post on the tavern discussion page. So really it shouldn't be a problem as to us hosting it ourselves.

:::::::It would be nice to have GD's opinion on this, seeing as it is his decision in the end anyways. Soooo, care to stop by and chat dragon ol' buddy? ''';)''' --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 01:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

::::::::I think we ''thought'' we had enough bandwidth, but seeing as we are having bouts of server off-time daily, I think we probably don't have the bandwidth we thought we did... But yeah, obviously we're in a holding pattern until GD weighs in. Then I think we move this conversation to a discussion forum and open it up the the entire wiki, and see if the community actually wants it. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 02:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

:::::::::Bump. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 00:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

::::::::::Bump. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 23:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

:::::::::::So then, you've had right around 5 months to read this thread. Any thoughts? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 15:56, 28 October 2010 (MDT)

::::::::::::There are some D&D chats on the web. Cheers! --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 16:52, 28 October 2010 (MDT)

:::::::::::::Right now the technical expertise are not available. When they are I will respond in the discussion. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:54, 28 October 2010 (MDT)

::::::::::::::What expertise do we need available? Are you considering returning to an IRC channel run through the wiki, like before? I'm more than willing to learn what we'd need to make that happen. If you want to consider using a free outside server, the expertise is already here (I think). I don't want to volunteer anyone, but I think Jazzman already has the knowledge to maintain a IRC channel. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 00:28, 29 October 2010 (MDT)

:::::::::::::::I'm also not sure what kind of technical expertise we need. We can easily (bonus: freely) have an IRC channel set up on a free host, so there's no expert even required. All you'd need is an admin or two to /ban troublemakers... though I hardly doubt that will be a problem anyway. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 12:15, 31 October 2010 (MDT)

== D20 Future Section? ==

Does anyone think that there should be a D20 Future section, or do we just put the future stuff in the D20m Homebrew? Thanks, --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 20:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

:d20 Future's already there, it's just not separated out into it's own section; it's integrated in with all the rest of the d20M stuff. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 20:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

== Legal Disclaimer ==

Can anyone tell me if I need to put a legal Disclaimer on all my 4e races? My races are: Dark Spike Hylian, Dark Hylian, Forest Hylian, Hylian, Gregar, and Zora. Thanks, --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 23:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

:They're based off Zelda races/classes, right? You bet you do. It's easy, just add the template to the bottom of the page, above the breadcrumbs. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 23:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

::I do? How come? Is it just because I used the name "Hylian"? Do I have to put in the disclaimer on my Megaman stuff too? Well, I'll get around to that. Thanks though. --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 04:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

:::Um, do you mind giving me the template for that? I'm actually kinda new here on D&D Wiki. Thanks, --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 04:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

::::Sure thing, just add <nowiki>{{Copyright Disclaimer}}</nowiki> to the bottom of the page, just above the breadcrumbs. This should be applied to any material that is inspired by any copyrighted material, so Megaman, Zelda, or anything else you add.--[[User:Badger|Badger]] 04:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

:::::Thanks, --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 20:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

::::::Hey! It worked! Thanks! --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 21:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

== Spam and ReCaptcha ==

I was talking to Badger and he thinks that dealing with Captcha would be less annoying than dealing with spammers. Many people watch your talk page so we'll see who else agrees.

The problem we had before was that it was all or nothing. Were we using ReCaptcha or some other service? It looks like ReCaptcha [http://recaptcha.net/plugins/mediawiki/ has been updated] so that only IPs are affected. If that's the case, it should solve both of our problems at once. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 22:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

:I know you are busy fixing other things, but the spam is terrible right now. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 03:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

::The spam is getting worse. We really need to look into getting captcha implemented for IPs again. With the recent update of Mediawiki we shouldn't have any trouble doing that, right? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 01:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

:::ReCaptcha is now implemented for all IP edits and user edits with an external link. Please let me know of any problems. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:59, 16 August 2010 (MDT)

::::ReCaptcha was not working for edits, just account-related pages. It should now be working for edits too, and please let me know of any problems. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 00:13, 30 December 2010 (MST)

== Templates ==

Can anyone provide the (improvement, Reveiwing, and some other) template? Cause I need it for stuff. Thanks, --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 21:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

:Check out [[Help:Improving, Reviewing, and Removing Templates|this link]] for any of the reviewing templates you need. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 21:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

::Whoops. I just found out how to do it. Sorry for putting you through the trouble. But thanks. --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 21:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

:::Oh Hey! There's more in that link! Thanks! --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 21:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

== Content Question ==

I've recently created a Dungeons and Dragons drinking game (cleverly named DnDnD, Dungeons and Dragons and Drinking). A '''real life''' drinking game meant to be played alongside DnD; ''not'' a mechanic for including drinking games in DnD. Before I moved it into variant rules, I thought I would run it past you and see if you think it's appropriate for the wiki. It's currently in [[User:Badger/sandbox2|my sandbox]]. I already added the adult content template, as well as made it clear that we here at Dandwiki support drinking responsibly, and do not condone under-aged drinking. What do you think? Is this in line with the kind of content we want on the wiki? Should I move it into variant rules, or leave it in my sandbox? Thanks, [[User:Badger|Badger]] 01:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

:Seems fine to me. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

== Ganteka ==

Is [[User:Ganteka|Ganteka]] still on D&D Wiki, or is he finished with it and left his account running? --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 03:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

:I do believe Ganteka is gone for good. He's moved elsewhere, if I'm not mistaken. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 04:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

::Was he the one that created the [[Wolfkin (4e Race)| Wolfkin Race]]? --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 19:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

:::It appears to have been originally made by an unregistered contributor (an IP), but was worked on by [[User:Kernac|Kernac]]. I don't believe Ganteka made any edits to it at all, other than undoing what appears to have been some vandalism. You could always ask any questions on the relevant talk page, rather than Green Dragon's personal talk page. It'd be more likely to be answered by someone with more information. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 20:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

:::::Do [[Add Instructions]] and [[Special:Contributions/Ganteka]] answer your questions? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

::::::When was the [[Wolfkin (4e Race)]] created? Because I only looked at the first page of Ganteka's contributions.

::::::--[[User:Axl|Axl]] 21:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

:::::::Use the "History" tab. The first edit was Oct 21, 2008, and Ganteka's only contribution was Feb 26, 2009, when he undid vandalism. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 21:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

== Incomplete Quest ==

:''Discussion moved to [[Talk:A New World (3.5e Quest)#Stub]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

== Lock down? ==

While I was doing D&D Wiki yesterday, I tried submitting something, and it just kicked me out, and I couldn't get back in. Is the reason for this is because now there are pictures for like Green Dragon's talk page, and contributions and so on? If anyone could tell me what happened, that would be nice.

--[[User:Axl|Axl]] 18:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

:Hmmm, I do not know what happened if you were simply barred from the site, that seems a little bit odd. However if you were just getting the message 'the wiki is down' or something of the like, that has been happening a number of times recently. However the time you are mentioning it is most likely that the wiki went down for temporary maintenance to restore the pictures. --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 05:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

::Yeah, That's probably it. Thanks.

--[[User:Axl|Axl]] 20:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

== I'd like to hear from you about reopening the tavern ==

As I asked you earlier on you talk page, I was wondering about re-opening the tavern. It's been over a week without hearing from you, so I made a discussion to ask the community their thoughts. I'm polling the community to see if we would like to have one again. Here is where you come in. If you have some time (it shouldn't take more than a few minutes), stop by [[Discussion:Re-opening_the_tavern%3F_What_does_the_community_think%3F|the discussion]] and post your thoughts. I look forward to hearing from you on this one. Thanks, [[User:Badger|Badger]] 21:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

:Bump. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 00:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

::So it's been over a month and a half since this discussion was started (on your talk page, I might add), but you've not yet chimed in. Since you're online now, I thought I might be able to get your attention by reminding you I'd like your opinion. We started a discussion thread (linked [[Discussion:Re-opening_the_tavern%3F_What_does_the_community_think%3F|here]]) and the community seems to embrace the idea; the current vote is about 5 to 1, in favor (I say about, because I don't know that one of the votes "for" is still around). In case you don't want to read all the discussion let me give you the cliff's notes: Free hosting that is run offsite, so as to not tax bandwidth. People want it. We're working on rules too. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 22:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

:::Bump. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 23:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

== integrated pictures? ==

Green Dragon?

Do you know how to integrate pictures into a Race instead of forming a link to it? If you could show me that, that would be nice.

--[[User:Axl|Axl]] 22:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

:I'm not sure I know what your talking about. However if you just mean having a picture show rather than a link being formed simply link to the file with these brackets {{}} instead of the normal square ones [[]]. You may have been having trouble because the links to pictures have not been working recently. --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 05:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

::Yeah. That's true. Some links weren't working, so I took them out. These were links for two of my races. But, I still don't understand how I get the files to integrate on the page that I'm working on once I save the page. I just don't know how it would work.

--[[User:Axl|Axl]] 20:11, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

== Barnstars ==

Hey, I'm just wondering what the barnstars are all about. I searched through the site a little bit, and didn't find any talk pages on them. I also did a google search and it came up with it being a decorative item put on barns. I'm just wondering a few things: Why are they given as awards, who can give one, and can I give one to myself (I'm not saying I will, just wondering ''':)''')? Anyways, thanks! --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 05:11, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

:Does [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Barnstars Wikipedia:Barnstars] answer your questions? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

::Lol, it does thanks a lot! I really should have thought of checking wikipedia. ''':P''' That's a lot of different barnstars... think I can get em all? ''':P''' --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 19:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

== hi ==

hi there...it wud seem the tavern is gone...i miss talking to the guys here...

:There is actually an ongoing discussion on bringing the tavern back [[Discussion:Re-opening_the_tavern%3F_What_does_the_community_think%3F|here]]. If you would like to see it again you may contribute your thoughts and ideas there. However please try to back up your thoughts with logic, that way your contributions can have more merit to them. ''':)''' --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 15:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

==Knowledge Devotion from "Complete Champion"==

I currently have a question about a 3.5 edition feat and its rules..

Knowledge Devotion from "Complete Champion"

Here is what the feat says in short form:
"You then receive an insight bonus on attack rolls and damage rolls against that creature type for the remainder of the combat. The amount of the bonus depends on your Knowledge check result, as given on the following table..."

Do these bonuses apply to all weaponlike spells such as Acid Arrow and Ray of Enfeeblement? I'm assuming they do because they require an attack roll and damage roll (if they hit).

I'm not sure how to check pages on the site anymore, but if you would be kind enough to email me a response at obokuri-eeumi@hotmail.com it would be greatly appreciated. thanks :)

:Yes they do apply; if you are still checking this page. If not I'll let the e-mail come from GD seeing as you asked him. --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 21:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

== Summon soulblade ==

I have created the class "Soulknife," and wish to begin creating the powers for my class. However, the power I wish to create is called "Summon Soulblade," a title which, when I entered it into the creation bar, sent me to the "Blades of the Ancestors" power's page. I have tried changing the inputted name to "Call Soulblade," and even "Soul Summoning" (two other possible names for the power). I do not know what to do about this, and are concerned as to why this glitch would occur. Thank you for your time, and I appreciate your patience.

Sincerely,
Nathanmccarthy789

== D&D 4e Future ==

Hey Green Dragon, do you think that in the 4e Homebrew section, we could either create a seperate 4e Future homebrew section, or that we could just add in future stuff to the 4e homebrew? Just let me know what you think. The rules will be the same as in 4e, but it will be in the future, instead of the past. --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 00:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

:What is 4e Future? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 01:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

::It's just something that I wanted created. It's like Dungeons and Dragons 4.0, but instead of being in the past, it will be situated in the future. It will be basically the same (same rules, different equipment, technologically advanced classes) as D&D 4e. So, yeah. Just let me know what you think of it. --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 02:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

:::Your thing? You make the call. If you think it is radically different from 4e then please make a new section (maybe starting from [[4e Rules]], e.g. how [[D20.00 decimal Rules (3.5e Variant Rule)]] was intended) or just a page. If you just make a page it will, of course, have to be discussed and could have any result. If you choose to just merge the content into 4e just make sure it works with 4e, and then I don't think it should matter at all. Of course a rule category could help keep it together (or a sourcebook, of course). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 02:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

::::Yeah, it'll use the 4e rules, it just uses different equipment and different classes. Shall I put up a vote?

--[[User:Axl|Axl]] 03:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

:::::4e is a rule set, not a time period. 4e Future, unless the core rules are radically different, is just normal 4e. Many 4e adventures are set in the future. In my personal opinion adding a future section is pointless and illogical. Not to start a debate or anything... ''':P''' --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 16:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

::::::Then can I just start inserting futuristic powers, races, classes, and feats?

::::::--[[User:Axl|Axl]] 19:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

:::::::Yep, that would work fine! Oh, and sorry if I sounded a little rude with my pointless and illogical thing, I was looking for another way to word it except I had to run. ''':)''' --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 19:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

:::::::It's fine. Do you think that inside each section, that we should have a link? You know, like: D&D 4.0Future races inside the races folder?

:::::::--[[User:Axl|Axl]] 17:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

::::::::Hmmm, thats a good idea. That could be really useful for people playing through 4e campaigns set in the future, so that they don't have to sift through hundreds of past based articles. That sounds like it could even be applied to 3.5e and d20M (however opposite, since most d20M articles are based in the future.). --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 18:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

:::::::::So, does Green Dragon put in the subcategory, or do I have to do that?

::::::::::--[[User:Axl|Axl]] 20:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

:::::::::::You can. Again, if you make a rule or sourcebook about it then it's even more organized of course. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 19:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

::::::::::::Hmm, I'll try to do the best I can.
--[[User:Axl|Axl]] 19:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

== Losing Articles ==

No, don't worry, I haven't lost any. However I am wondering, is there any possibility of the wiki losing its articles/pages? I'm asking to know if I should be backing up the stuff I post here on my computer or something just in case. Thanks. --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 03:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

:It ''has'' happened before, please see also [[Talk:3.5e Flaws#Flaw Form]], but they are going to be recovered. It's not really a problem, no. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

::The new hosting setup has redundant hardrives so that is one level of protection of making sure nothing can get lost. A backup solution is in the works. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:14, 16 August 2010 (MDT)

== Base Class Infobox ==

I've noticed on some pages you've removed the Base Class Infobox Template along with the Base Class template. Was this accidental? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 20:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

:Yes, they are not used with the 4e classes anymore (just [[Template:x0]]). Although I don't know what you mean by "Base Class template". --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

::I meant category. So there's no rating of 4e classes then? And I've been gone a lot the last couple of weeks, where was this announced/talked about? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 20:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

:::I actually started removing that template a while ago. Actually, I think you are right. You should start this discussion on [[Talk:4e Classes]]. The only reason this has happened is since I find that the template system works better than rating. It has not been discussed. I removed the template since the primary editor/subsequent editors who display their username are not longer displayed in that way. We now assume that one understands MW (as you know). Although why not use both (the template system and a rating system) huh? It's a different topic. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

==Hiding text==

Hey! I'm having some trouble finding the correct way to format something. I'd like to find a way to create hidden text on my page, but the formatting articles on wikipedia haven't helped. Is there a way to format hidden text similar to the way you can show or hide a contents box?

:To create hidden text you can place the text in between these <nowiki></nowiki> i.e.  (yes there is text there, check the source code). Alternatively you can use <nowiki><includeonly></nowiki> and close with <nowiki></includeonly></nowiki>.

:If you want to create an option to show or hide a block of text on the page then you may use this code:

:<nowiki>{| class="collapsible"</nowiki> 
:<nowiki>|Text</nowiki> 
:<nowiki>|}</nowiki>

:What that would appear as:

:{| class="collapsible"
|Text
|}

:Hope that helps, I'm pretty good with wiki code if you need help in the future. ''':)''' --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 00:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

::Thanks! Collapsible text was indeed what I was looking for, and I figured there was a solution that I just couldn't find. Also, I'm very new to the wiki scene and navigation is still pretty alien to me, so thanks for the heads up on my Talk page! --[[user:ThatGuyEli|ThatGuyEli]] 16:13, 23 June 2010

== Blocking IP ==

For the first time since I became an admin, I've blocked a couple IP's. Hope I did it within acceptable parameters. I am pretty sure they were both outside link spammers. --[[User:Calidore Chase|Calidore Chase]] 17:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

:They look fine, except I would have blocked them longer. But whatever. If it happens again we can do it for a more extended period of time. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 19:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

== Moving pages ==

I am currently moving all of the DnD pages to their corresponding editions according to [http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Special%3AAllPages&from=DnD&to=DnD+zz&namespace=0 this] list (all pages starting with DnD). However some pages that start with DnD are edition neutral. Should I move these to 3.5e/4e, or just leave them as DnD? --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 00:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

:What pages are edition independent? I could be wrong, but I would guess that most pages are (or should be) slightly different, depending on the edition. If there are truly edition independent pages I would say leave them as "DnD". Just my 2 cents. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 01:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

::I have actually run into a number of pages that apply to both editions. A few examples would be [[DnD Discussion]], [[DnD Maps]], and [[DnD Guidelines]]. The breadcrumb and categories links to both editions. The page that brought this up was [[DnD Guideline Preload]]. I was getting ready to move it to 3.5e, and I checked the [[DnD Guidelines]] page just to make sure it was for 3.5e and so that I could change the link on that page to 3.5e not DnD. Oh look! It links to both 3.5e and 4e. Anyways, just showing you what I mean. ''':)'''--[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 03:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

:::I don't know much about DnD 4e, so everything I am about to say may be wrong. With that in mind, here are my thoughts. Discussions are generally about rules, which vary widely between 3.5e and 4e, so we should probably make edition specific ones, so we can provide more exact help. If someone say "how does barbarian rage work?" we have to find out what edition they mean (I assume barbarians still rage in 4e), and then provide help. If it was posted in 4e Discussions we'd not have that problem. Maps I suppose can go wherever, but if they are maps for an adventure/campaign, we could certainly stick them under the edition for which the campaign/quest was written. As for guidelines, it should probably me moved to something like "Wiki Guidelines", as it has nothing to do with actual DnD. Again, these are just my thoughts. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 19:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

::::Ya, you're right. Feel free to make a 4e one, add an edition identifier in some way, and move the 4e ones over. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

== Can't Log In ==

I was trying to save a response to [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman]]'s comment on the talk for the [[Mundus (3.5e Class)|mundus]], however when I hit save it said there was a loss of session data and I should try again. I tried twice more and it gave me the same message. It also told me if this error persisted I could log out then back in again, so I logged out. However when I tried to log back in again it gave me this message:

''"Login error 
''There seems to be a problem with your login session; this action has been canceled as a precaution against session hijacking. Please hit "back" and reload the page you came from, then try again."

I hit the back button, reloaded the page, and tried again twice. Still nothing. I am unable to log back in to my account. --[[Special:Contributions/206.45.30.209|206.45.30.209]] 18:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)([[User:Vrail|Vrail]])

:Ok, I just tried to log in a third time and it worked. That was weird, do you know what happened there? --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 19:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

::Actually D&D Wiki maxed out the server's hard disk space, so maybe that had something to do with it. If not I don't know. But I cleared up some space. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 19:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

:::Out of curiosity, what kind of space are we talking here? Would it be worth it have a fundraiser to buy an additional hard drive (or hard drives, depending on how/if you back stuff up)? Storage comes cheap nowadays. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 19:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

::::Hosting was switched once again (see also [[User talk:Green Dragon#Trouble with the wiki]]) and space should not be a problem. Since the server failure, actually, D&D Wiki was moved to a hosting setup with mt (mediatemple) so doing a fundraiser for such things is not possible. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

== Anti Vandalism Barnstar ==

I feel that Vrail deserves an Anti Vandalism Barnstar because of he is always removing spam and unwanted or offensive post from the site. I figured that i would nominate him to you. Thank you for reading and i hope that you consider him.--[[User:Grim914|Grim914]] 17:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

:Oh, I agree. Please feel free to give [[User:Vrail|Vrial]] one. Barnstars are given by anyone to anyone. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

== Deletion? ==

Green Dragon? Why hasn't my [[Displacer Disciple Powers (4e Power List)| Displacer Disciple]] power lists been deleted? I have two of them, both up for deletion, I think. The other one is [[Displacer Disciple powers (4e Power List)]]. I created them. Could you also delete the [[Fell Knight Necross (4e Power List)]]? Thanks. --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 19:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

:No one has gone through [[:Category:Candidates for Deletion]]? I can say I have not recently. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 19:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

::I was going to but I have been really busy the last month-ish. And the couple days I had some free time the wiki has been slow/inaccessible. But it's not like the world's going to end if your pages don't get deleted; they'll be gotten to eventually. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 19:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

:::Ah, okay. Sorry for bothering you. ''':)''' --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 21:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

::::It will get dealt with though, no worries. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

== DPL Problem ==

Hey Green Dragon, When you go into the D&D 4e races, there's just coding there. Is this because D&D Wiki was moved? --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 02:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

:Ya, it is. The dpl's (dpl, dpl2c, dpl2cu, etc) are not working. They will soon though, don't worry. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

::Ok! Thanks for letting me know. --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 19:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

:::Ya, no problem. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

== The Site Crashed ==

How long are it going to be like this?

:[[Help:Talk Pages| Just a heads up here, don't forget to sign your posts.]] Thanks,

--[[User:Axl|Axl]] 18:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

== File Problems ==

Lately I've had a lot of trouble uploading pictures for my campaign setting. In particular, I've run into an error when creating the thumbnail for the images I upload, which would be excellent to have displayed on my pages.

"''Error creating thumbnail: libgomp: Thread creation failed: Resource temporarily unavailable''" is an example of the problem I'm having. I've tried uploading the image again, but to no avail. Should I try to change the file type of the image on my computer and upload a third time, or is there a solution I don't know about?

While I've got your attention, is it appropriate of me to be directing all of my questions to you? I get the impression that you are bombarded with questions regularly, and while I would direct them to someone with a little less on their plate, I don't really know how to go about finding that person. [[User:ThatGuyEli|ThatGuyEli]] 17:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

:Hello again. I was just curious about D&D Wiki Media. It seems that thumbnails are no longer showing up when new images are uploaded. Instead, the following error message appears. ''Error creating thumbnail: libgomp: Thread creation failed: Resource temporarily unavailable''. Is this an internal problem? --[[User:Akherontis|Akherontis]] 07:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

::I had a similar problem, but only when trying to decrease the size of an image, keeping the size the same or larger the image showed up. Might this work in the mean time until this is working again if it is an internal problem? --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 08:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

:::In a few weeks when D&D Wiki gets moved problems, like this, should get worked on as well. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

::::Hey Green Dragon, I just went onto D&D Wiki Media Repository, and I found out that most of the new pictures aren't working. Do you know what's wrong? --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 00:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

:::::Hey Green Dragon? I tried to upload a picture, but it said that "the directory (public) could not be written by the webserver" or something like that. What's goin on? --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 20:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

::::::Is this ever gonna get fixed? I would like to upload more pictures for some armor I'm gonna create (I've already created 1 armor). --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 21:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

:::::::Images and uploading are now working. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:28, 16 August 2010 (MDT)

== Wiki troubles ==

I see you are fixing redirects/fixing links. What's our progress on dpls, images, tables and whatnot? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 00:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

:Oh, also, what does it take to build a bot? I don't know much about programming, but it seems like it shouldn't take much to program a bot to fix the DnD links. Do you know some resource about bot-building? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 00:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

::My wiki skills are minimal, but my research skills are astounding. Will [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/API.php#APIs_for_bots this link] help? It looks like we might be able to build an anti-spam bot, and a redirector bot with relative ease. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 00:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

:::With regard to the problems of the moving of D&D Wiki, they will be fixed soon. To the best of my knowledge right now the DPL's, DPL2CU's, DPL2C's, Odd-Even, SMW with regard to displaying links, and a few table things (vardefine — [[Template:Spell]]?). And the reinstalling of imagemagik again (as said above). Do you know of anything else? And API (http://www.dandwiki.com/w/api.php) is a great tool. A few other options exist too of course. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 00:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

::::When you say "soon", are we thinking soon means "24 hours", "within a week", or "about a month"? Just looking for an estimate on when we can see the wiki up at full capacity again. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 00:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

:::::(Edit conflict) The Semantic stuff isn't working either, I think. Do you have a timetable? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 00:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

::::::When you say "''Semantic stuff isn't working either''" do you just mean the links, or am I missing anything? And I do not have a timetable. Soon, is what I'll say I guess. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 01:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

:::::::Well, it seems to be working now, so I may have spoken too soon. Very recently I saw links that looked like <nowiki>[[3e Prerequisite::Such and so]]</nowiki>, but I just browsed some pages and they seem to be formatted correctly now. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 02:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

::::::::I know what you're talking about, I saw them earlier too. I looked for them again, before posting the above, and couldn't find them either. Dunno. Maybe they got fixed as well as the modern dpl's (I think they were not working earlier either). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 02:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

:::::::::I would also like to add that mathematical formulas aren't working either.

:::::::::<math>F = (\frac{3.439*10^-8 ft^3}{slug*seconds^2})(\frac{4.10*10^23 slugs*.031 slugs}{20,931,758.5 ft^2}) = 1 \frac{foot*slug}{second^2} = 1 lb </math>

:::::::::As shown there for an example. --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 21:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

== DPLs again? ==

Hi, one question. The homebrew power lists aren't showing up at the [[4e Powers]]. Is this caused by the DPLs? Thanks. --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 00:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

:Yes, it was. I modernized the dpl's so it is no longer a problem. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 00:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

::Thanks for fixing it! --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 01:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

:::Ya, no problem. If you bring more pages to my attention which use the old DPL's and not the dpl's I would be more than happy to change them. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

::::Yeah, actually, I have one on my talk page (and another one hidden in my [[D&D 4.0 Future (4e Sourcebook)|sourcebook]]), and just more stuff in my sourcebook. I'll see if there's anymore. --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 04:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

::::There's actually some (maybe only 2, I don't know) in the 4e Homebrew. --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 04:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

== Add new equipment? ==

Can any of you fix this? When I try [[Add New DnD Equipment|Add new Equipment]], It brings me into this 3.5e equipment stuff. Is that the way it's supposed to be? --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 21:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

:The link you provided is for adding [[Add_New_3.5e_Equipment|3.5e Equipment]]. It's designed to add 3.5e Equipment. None of us do much with 4e, and there hasn't been much need to make an official 4e equipment preload yet, I guess. I'm sure someone can set up a pre-load for 4e if you ask. I'd try, but I think an admin has to handle that. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 21:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

::Please feel free. Just no one has made one yet, but one should be present. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

:::So the page is locked, so I can't edit it to add the "add new" forms that I made, but you can find easy ways to add 4e Armor, Weapons, Magic Items, and Vehicles on [[User:Badger/sandbox6|this page]]. The ones on the far right don't do anything, so don't use those yet. I put them there so when I find more 4e Preloads they will be easy to add. I've not tested any of them, so they may need some tweaking. let me know on my talk page, or here (I'm keeping an eye on both). --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 21:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

::::Thanks for helping me out with this. So, I'll test it out and let you know what happens. --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 15:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

== Tables aren't working ==

Um, Green Dragon? Some tables aren't working. Do they have a different DPL than the others? All right, thanks. --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 21:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

:Kind of. They use [[Template:d20]] which uses vardefine, which is not working. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

== Copying from your Userpage ==

Would you mind if I used the [[User:Green Dragon/Top Template|top template]] on your userpage (with a few minor adjustments) for my own userpage? Thanks. --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 04:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

:Of course, please feel free. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

== Strange bug ==

I was just going through and moving some DnD pages to 3.5e (which, btw, after my latest stint I'm almost halfway done, a lot of pages!) when I found a bug. When I tried to access the page [[DnD Archetype Feats]] (Unsure if it was already moved) I couldn't load it, then my internet eventually took me to a page that said there was a DNS error. After that I couldn't load any pages on the wiki. I had to close my internet then reopen it to get the wiki working again. Is this happening for anybody else? What's going on? --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 02:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

:Something like that happened to me too. I ended restarting Internet Explorer (which wasn't too bad) in order for it to work. --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 04:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

::Does this still happen? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:57, 16 August 2010 (MDT)

== Moving DnD pages to 3.5e ==

Just wanted to let you know that my previous comment was slightly wrong about being halfway done. I was a lot closer than halfway, and just finished moving every single page starting with DnD (according to [http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Special%3AAllPages&from=DnD&to=DnD+zz&namespace=0 this] list) to its corresponding edition. I'll have to check the to-do list, but if this was on it I can check it off. :D

There are a couple of pages that I did not move. These are protected pages (not many, just a couple preloads), eddition neutral pages (again, only a couple of these exist), and the one page mentioned above that I couldn't get to. Also, I may have forgotten to switch the instructions for one or two preloads on the page they link to. I think I got most of them, but if you find any, please change them. :) --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 03:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

== Categories ==

Hey Green Dragon,

I noticed in the [[:Category:Candidates for Deletion|Candidates for Deletion]] category, that the 4e Future category is going to be deleted and all that stuff moved. Is that really necessary? --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 04:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

:Yup. 4e Future is a sourcebook, not a published SRD, so it needs to be formatted like the other sourcebooks. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 22:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

::Okay. --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 00:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

== Sourcebooks ==

Hey Green Dragon, I found that the sourcebooks are still not showing up. --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 00:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

:[[3.5e_Sourcebooks]]. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 00:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

::4e sourcebooks are using the old DPLs that need to be updated to work. Someone more diligent than I can update them. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 00:53, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

:::I went through this morning and fixed the DPLs. Everything shows up properly now. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 19:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

::::Thanks.

::::--[[User:Axl|Axl]] 22:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

== A race I posted ==

I have a question, several months ago I created an article for a homebrew race called the "Heartbound" and it is still not on the list for homebrew races. Is there something I have to do for it to be added to the list? {{unsigned|Firerush}}

:Fixed. You needed to add [[:Category:Race]]. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 15:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

== VariablesExtension ==

I took the liberty of making [[Template:Spell]] not use VariablesExtension (#vardefine) because the spells were messed up. Of course then I realized that other things are broken too. And I don't have permission to edit those (and I am not sure how well they can be made to work without the extension). —[[User:Edwin|edwin]] 16:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

:I noticed your edits on [[Template:Spell]]. It seems to work the same, so thanks a lot for helping fix that. I would gladly unlock pages if you know how to make them work, however I agree in that some may need #vardefine. For example [[Template:d20]] is not working (which I would gladly unlock if you know how to fix it), or [[Template:Weapon Stats2]] which is not locked. In any case, however, many pages by themselves use #vardefine in the tables, so switching it would be a lot of work. It will be fixed sometime. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

::I would think it's a better plan to fix what's broken, instead of finding ways around it. If vardefine is going to be eventually fixed, then there's no need to waste time changing the templates around. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 23:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

:::Vardefine is working once again. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:56, 16 August 2010 (MDT)

== Category DnD ==

Should this page be merged with to Category 3.5e, and then all pages linking to it be changed to say 3.5e rather than DnD? I'm just wondering because all of the DnD pages (that I can find according to the lists I was given) have been moved to say 3.5e, and as far as I can tell the DnD category applies to 3.5e material only. --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 16:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

:No. It actually is going to be expanded once all pages with [[:Category:DnD]] have [[:Category:3.5e]] (which are for 3.5e) with all [[:Category:4e]] pages, as 4e is an edition of D&D. Although, yes, all the 3.5e dpl's need to be changed to use category=3.5e. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

== Powers ==

Um, Green Dragon? My Fell Knight's [[Fell Knight Powers (4e Power List)|Powers]] don't show up. Is that a problem with the DPLs, or are they gone forever? --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 02:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

:There's a pretty easy way to find out. Just look for one of the powers, or adjust the dpls to search for something you know exists. As it is, though, the dpls are broken. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 02:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

::Your DPL tables are the old ones that don't work. Switch them to the new versions and it should show up. [[User:Badger/sandbox4|This link]] shows you the kind of DPL you need for everything to show up correctly. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 03:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

:::The old DPL's are working once again as well. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:55, 16 August 2010 (MDT)

== Items ==

Hey Green Dragon? Is there supposed to be no magical Items in the Arm Slot, Armor, and Weapon items?
--[[User:Axl|Axl]] 03:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

== Server Error ==

Often times when I try to load a page on the wiki, it will just load a blank page and say it is done. I then have to reload the page 1-2 times before it shows up. Also, usually when I attempt to save a change it just loads a blank page and doesn't save the change. I then have to hit 'back' on my browser bar and try again 5-6 times before it saves. Is anybody else having a similar problem? Can it be fixed? This is happening on firefox btw, it also happens to me on internet explorer, but it is less often and requires only 1 page reload. --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 18:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

:The issue is the current hosting setup. I just bought a server and it will be running D&D Wiki by the middle of next month. At that time all the problems should be dealt with. See also [[Talk:4e Creatures#Not Working]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 03:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

::D&D Wiki is now hosted on my server. Thoughts on the loading times and so now? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:54, 16 August 2010 (MDT)

== Sourcebook Categories ==

Hey Green Dragon?
My [[D&D 4.0 Future (4e Sourcebook)|sourcebook]] weapons (and probably races and every other stuff that I created) is loose in the [[4e Homebrew]]. I figure it's because that they're categorized as 4e. What do I do? --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 04:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

:Axl, your creations aren't so much "loose in the 4e Homebrew". In fact, that's exactly where they should be. Maybe you didn't catch what Jazzman wrote [[Talk:Add_New_4e_Future_Implement|here]], or what I wrote [[User_talk:Axl#Problems_with_your_Sourcebook|here]]. Everything that you wrote for your sourcebook needs to be categorized under 4e, and should show up as 4e equipment/armor/weapons/whatever. Everything you've written is considered "4e" not "4e Future". "4e Future" does not exist. Anything labeled "4e Future" needs to be changed to "4e" and anything you added the "formatting issue" template to needs to have that template removed. For example, if you have a piece of armor labeled "4e Future Armor" it needs to be moved to "4e Armor", and anything that says "4e Future Equipment" needs to be moved to "4e Equipment". I hope this is clear. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 06:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

::That's kind of the reason why I made the sourcebook instead of just creating classes, races, etc that are based in the future put into the 4e classes. There's a conversation with [[User:Vrail|Vrail]] somewhere on this talk page. --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 16:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

::The section's called D&D 4e Future. --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 16:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

:::What you should have is a category called "4e Future", and tag all of your content with that. What will happen is if you're looking though a list of all the 4e homebrew, you will see 4e and 4e future, but if you click on the 4e future category you will only see 4e future things. You need to write up all of your content exactly as if it was plain old 4e, including leaving it in the regular namespace like (4e_Armor), and then when you're done you need to add <nowiki>[[Category:4e_Future]]</nowiki> to the bottom of the page. Then on all of your DPLs where you want to list your 4e Future creations you need to add the line <nowiki> |category:4e_Future </nowiki> and all of your creations will pop right up, without anything else from 4e.
:::What your sourcebook should do is tell users how to use any and all content tagged with Category:4e_Future. If you aren't making any new rules, you don't even need a sourcebook. The idea behind the sourcebook is to write out how to play a slightly altered system. A sourcebook is nothing more than a collection of variant rules, but if the rules are identical, then you don't need to write it. I hope this is making sense. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 18:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

::::I was told to use the category: 4e. --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 00:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

::::I thought it was there. I'll check on my talk page. --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 00:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

:::::You can use more than one category. You should include both "Category:4e" and "Category:4e_Future". Technically, 4e_future should be a sub-category, but we don't seem to use much in the way of sub-categories on this site, so I wouldn't worry about that. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 00:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

::::::So, how do you make a sub-category? --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 16:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

== is there a way to delete a page? ==

I created a page and by talk to me before revisions i meant dont just go right in and revise, hence why im simply going to make the class it was on my own laptop and take it off of this site? is there a way to do that?

:Your English is a bit wacked above, but I'm assuming what you're trying to say is that you created an article, and another user contributed to it. If the article is good quality with contributions from you and the other(s) than it will not be deleted. There is a very clear warning every time someone edits letting them know about this collaborative nature of a wiki. If it is in horrible condition, left incomplete, and unplayable, than anyone can tag it with the delete template, where an admin will eventually get around to it.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 14:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

::That may have been me editing your article. I generally post on the discussion page and discuss things before making a change. However, I noticed a class with grammar issues similar to those in your above comment. I spent a while fixing the grammar, sorry if this disturbed you. --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 22:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

== Admin Badge ==

I was looking around a bit on the wiki and noticed references to an admin badge. I had never seen it so I looked around for it, and realized it had been deleted. Then I looked around for something discussing ''why'' it was deleted, apparently that discussion was on the template's talk page and was deleted to. This was a little bit frustrating. So I was wondering, why was it removed? Also, could the reasoning for its deletion be re added somewhere for reference? It seems a little bit strange that the page discussing its deletion was deleted as well. Thanks! --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 03:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

:Talk pages of deleted pages are always deleted as well. Why was it deleted? [[Special:ListAdmins]] was used on [[Meta Pages]] to let people know of a list of admins, and as such the use of that template was nonexistent. As an aesthetic taste thing anyone could make one I guess, just not in a template form (an admin can restore and move of course). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 04:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

::Good to know, thanks for the quick and well informed response. ''':)''' Do you think it would be worth it to post the reasoning for removing the admin badge somewhere (such as on the [[Special:ListAdmins]] page or the like), or do to little people even care/know about it? --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 04:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

:::That's a special page and cannot be modified. If you give me a link to the page I can re-delete it explaining the deletion more. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 04:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

::::Alright, I was unsure if as the sites owner you could edit special pages or not. Anyways, here's the link <s>Template:AdminBadge</s>. --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 04:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

:::::Backend I am sure, but is that really necessary? How does that sound? Does that get the point across and make it less confusing? I am assuming that if one cares they will check the deleted page. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 04:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

== More broken wiki ==

I'm not sure what's different about these pages, but none of the Random Ability Order templates are working right. See, eg, <s>Template:Random Ability Order - Table 7</s>. They are all like that. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 21:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

:Most likely that was a problem associated with the wiki syntax and not anything MW related. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:52, 16 August 2010 (MDT)

== Xenophon's RfA ==

I noticed in the rfa's that Xenophon's rfa was approved, and he was never renominated. This would be normal except for the fact that he is not on the admin list. Just wondering what's up with that? --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 05:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

:I re-did that section of [[Requests for Adminship]]. Does that explain the Xenophon scenario? Is that is unjust (a different process should be done — that is now not a policy, it just happened)? Is there anything I missed? Is it easier to understand? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 03:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

== author template ==

I am having the darnedest time figuring out the syntax to use for the author template and this page doesn't help explain anything: http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Template:Author

Following what I've found on others' contributions and the syntax displayed on the template, the closest thing I have come up with is this:

<nowiki>{{author</nowiki>
|<nowiki>[[User:Mercurious|Mercurious]]([[User talk:Mercurious|talk]])</nowiki>
|date_created= 07/28/10
|status= Incomplete
}}

but instead of displaying my linked name and linked talk, it just displays the suggested syntax with the {{{}}} around author_name.

I've tried looking everywhere I could to not bother anyone, but I'm just plain stuck and some help would be great.
thanks,
josh

:The author name doesn't work the way you are doing it; see my correction below (in bold). It actually already adds the formatting, so you don't have to do it yourself.

<nowiki>{{author</nowiki>
|'''author_name=Mercurious'''
|date_created= 07/28/10
|status= Incomplete
}}

:[[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 16:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Jazzman!

== 4e Power List Preload ==

Green Dragon? Do you mind if I update the 4e Power List Preload to the new DPLs? --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 20:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

:Not at all, please do. That has to be done huh. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

::I'll get right on it then. --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 23:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

:::Well, I finished quite a while ago. But I haven't tested it out yet. But there's one problem. These new DPLs are going wacky. I don't know what's going on. --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 17:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

::::Looking at [[Enchanter Powers (4e Power List)]], for example, it seems fine. Unless you mean you want to add a parameter like <tt><code>|rowcolformat</code></tt>. Could you supply a link to what you are talking about? An example I can think of is [[Featured Articles]], where the dpl displays <html><a href="/wiki/PAGE" title="Talk:PAGE">Talk:PAGE</a></html>. Is it something like this? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

:::::Let's see, I don't think I added anything to the Enchanter's powers, so it's fine there, but if you look at the [[Fell Knight Powers (4e Power List)|Fell Knight's]] powers, it's going wacky. --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 23:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

:::::Yeah! Something like that. It just shows the webpage text, it doesn't show the link. --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 02:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

== Kobold's ==

While browsing this wiki I noticed on the 'Talk:Stone of Monster Summoning (3.5e Equipment)' page you implied that Kobolds are unintellegent idiots.

Have you not read the 'Races Of The Dragon' supplement? One of my favourite characters of mine was a wise, and INTELLEGENT kobold sorceror. Also I you look Kobolds don't have any penalties for any of the Mental abilities. It is just a prejudice, created when the 'Civilised races' sided with the Kobolds enemy the gnomes.

I do also take into account that they do the bidding of dragons. In the Neverwinter Nights expansion pack 'Shadows Of Undertide' Deekin my favourite team-mate of all time chooses to go stop following his master.

Still other then that you have been spot on keep up the good work.
--[[User:Milo v3|Milo High-Hill]] 07:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

:I believe what you are referring to is this: ''(Kobolds coming up with something like that, wow!)''. However earlier he also implied that kobolds are exceptionally smart by the plan that they thought of in this theoretical situation. Basically I think he was saying this just to show they are not quite as smart as earlier implied. A spectacular plan like that and the knowledge of those stones, how to get them, work them, and implement them would often have required a creature with an intelligence bonus. So in this case GD is just showing that they don't have an intelligence bonus, rather than saying they are unintelligent. Hope that clears things up. ''':)''' --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 15:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes this does clear it up thanks. I guess I was just so angry, I didn't think. --[[User:Milo v3|Milo High-Hill]] 01:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

== Speedy Deletion Template ==

So it seems the spammers are getting smarter. They are now creating accounts, and making new pages rather than just spamming old ones. People like Vrail and I revert the edits, but that is leaving blank pages on the wiki. We should get a "Speedy Deletion" template to put on these pages. It would be the same as a delete template, but the idea is it only goes on pages that need to be deleted right away. It could be used for re-directs, and other pages made by accident too. Because admins wouldn't have to judge the merit on the page, it would also be easier to maintain the list, once a week you could just stop by and delete everything. I can mock up a speedy deletion template if you'd like. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 18:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

:Seems like a good idea to me. --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 20:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

::I went ahead and made a template, let me know what you think. [[User:Badger/sandbox11|Here]] it is. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 18:24, 19 August 2010 (MDT)

== Plz Help ==

I created a class and now when I tried to make a link to the page for it it took me to another persons class and if you search for it in the search bar the same persons page comes up not mine is their a way for me to move the page or change its name because I can't seem to figure it out also can you help me with the lvl table on the page I'm not the best formatter.
--[[User:Dragoona22|Dragoona22]] 23:37, 19 August 2010

:From what I can tell you are talking about [[Red_Mage,_Variant_(3.5e_Class)|your red mage class]]. It should be known that your class is named" Red Mage, Variant (3.5e Class)", because as you mentioned, a class named Red Mage already exists. So be sure to use that name when making links. If you want to change the name, you can use the "move" tab at the top of the page to move the entire page to a new name; just make sure that name isn't already in use. If you're still having troubles with tables, I can try to help you out. You can always just open up another class' page, and look at how they did it. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 00:49, 19 August 2010 (MDT)

== Also... ==

Also does anyone know a group in the milwuaki area of portland oregon that plays 3.5e and is willing to accept new members. If so leave a note on my talk page or send me and email at dragoona22@hotmail.com put D&D on the suject plz thank you.
--[[User:Dragoona22|Dragoona22]] 23:53, 19 August 2010

== My RfA ==

Recently I nominated myself for adminship on the wiki. I don't want to sound like I'm advertising my nomination, however it has been three days without any support or oppose comments. I am just trying to get at least a few people to take notice and comment. My nomination may be found [[Requests for Adminship/Vrail|here]]. Thanks. --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 11:16, 18 August 2010 (MDT)

:I was just recomended by [[User:Badger|Badger]] to contact you or another admin about getting my RfA on a news feed. I still have no support or oppose comments, and while the neutral comments are good, it would be nice to have another few users comment one way or the other. ''':)''' --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 15:16, 19 August 2010 (MDT)

== Variant Guardian, Templates ==

:''Discussion moved to [[Talk:Guardian, Variant (3.5e Class)#Abandoned]].'' --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:30, 4 October 2010 (MDT)

== (class) shroud ==

Hi I was wanting to know is you could tell me who made the shroud class or more about its skills or if its been abandon if you know thanks --Columbus a.k.a R.I.R 21:51, 25 August 2010 (MDT)

== ... ==

I won't tell you which name... but one of your names contains my actual name lol.

== 4e Sizes ==

Hey Green Dragon (or anyone else that knows the answer),

:I would like to know what are the penalty and benefits to being size Large and up to Colossal. Thanks,

--[[User:Axl|Axl]] 14:49, 16 September 2010 (MDT)

'''Note:''' I do not have the rule books. That is why I'm asking here.

--[[User:Axl|Axl]] 16:09, 27 September 2010 (MDT)

::Never mind. I think I figured it out from the 2 Player's handbooks.

--[[User:Axl|Axl]] 16:07, 23 December 2010 (MST)

== Little hiccup on a page. ==

Hello Green Dragon. I was just leveling my druid yesterday when I noticed a discrepancy on a page of the site, on (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Druid#Animal_Companion) it says that crocodiles are available to first level druids, whereas further down in the "Alternative Animal Companions" section it states that they are available at as an alternate candidate for the druid's animal companion at level four. I thought I'd let yah know since I checked in the 3.5 PHB and it said that it's not allowed to be used as a level one druid pet (for aquatic environments), unfortunately.

Taa.

.Willow.

== Some guidance please? ==

I've been trying to get the formatting right on my creation Eykanos Drakulzen since i created it. i've rewritten it about 10 times including direct copy/pasting and redoing to hold my info. the skills will not format correctly. please help.

== very old dnd forum posts—lost ==

I had made some races on the old DND boards, and decided to do a google search to see if I could find them again (I lost the computer they were originally written on)

Anyway, searching for one of my races (shatterskin) brought me here. Unfortunately you guys hadn't logged it, and it's no longer backed up on the wizard's boards either. So I was curious—do you have some sort of archive from the old wizards boards? I'd love to see some of my old posts if you have them. Oh, and I'd be totally cool with anything I made being posted here (I might modify them to make them suck less though)

you can email me at dustin.depenning@gmail.com if you need too

== Thank You =) ==

Thanks for the reply. I understand fully your situation and thanks for permission to base some 'Trickster' class features from the 'Tenken'(No plagiarism of course), And ill be sure to let you know when its finished so you can check it out.

== Uploading Media ==

How do I add a picture from the file "my pictures"? {{Unsigned|Raweno|21:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)}}

:You upload the file to media, [[dndmedia:Special:Upload|Special:Upload]] and then use the standard wiki link syntax on a page you want to display it. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 19:20, 9 October 2010 (MDT)

Okay, thanks. --[[User:Raweno|Raweno]]

just hypotheticly, could you upload videos?

== 3.5 Deity The Great Mon Gorge ==

Hi, I noticed a few changes to one of my contributions, I had left that note on the main page to draw attention to the kind act of the user who drew that (he did it without prompting and its really good, was very thankful) and I can understand moving that to the talk page, but the removal of 'The" from the deities name is in error, 'The" is part of his name and other things reference the use of the "The" (for example the main pantheon page his coffin is referred to T.G.M.G.) If you could change it back I would be thankful, im kinda new to wiki editing (ive been poking at it for some time but still slow) otherwise id just change it back myself. Thank you for keeping an eye on my pages I appreciate that too. --[[User:MCage|MCage]] 20:28, 9 October 2010 (PST)

:[[User:Kaden|Kaden]] is the uploader of the image. The history for the image and kadens name give a direct, non-discussion, relation to contributions. Anyhow, how does the pagename look now? You move pages by clicking the "move" tab up top. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:10, 9 October 2010 (MDT)

::Oh yeah thats perfect, thanks for the change and the advice on edits :) --[[User:MCage|MCage]] 23:46, 9 October 2010 (PST)

== My User Page ==

So what is the policy on stuff I am allowed to have on my own user page? Linking to a diff where you censored something I wrote doesn't seem very offensive to me. I was literally just offering a helping hand as to that D&D chatrooms already exist.

So, what is the policy for user pages, exactly? What kind of content is ok and what sort of stuff do you want to censor? --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 15:13, 29 October 2010 (MDT)

:See also [[User talk:Green Dragon#Censorship]]. What you are doing is solicitation ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism Wikipedia:Vandalism], external linking).
:{{quote|Partial censorship is something D&D Wiki has — to keep spam and non-relevant things at bay. All the recent spam from IP's (see the barnstars some have received) is not allowed — I think you would understand. It could become a serious problem.
|orig=--[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 03:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
|src=[[User talk:Green Dragon#Censorship]].
}}
:Why was it solicitation? Because it is directing users else how then through [[DnD Links]] and was not decided by the administration to be a beneficial recourse (e.g. Wikipedia's policies). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:26, 29 October 2010 (MDT)

::Please note you supplied an external link, and then desired users to find it once again. And links are something, "what is a link?" - it has a purpose.
::Revision histories have been "cleaned" - see also [[Talk:Meta Pages]], [[Talk:Main Page]]. If enough problems exist, it is considered.
::And The Tavern software, no matter the software, was specific to D&D Wiki. Re-opening the tavern implies a ''D&D Wiki'' tavern. This is understandable. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:09, 29 October 2010 (MDT)

:::Are we seriously fighting about this again? Why does it matter? Tons of users have links to other wikis they collaborate on, or links to sites they find helpful. Those go uncensored. If I picked 3 random editors from the recent edits, and checked their user pages I can guarantee they have links to external D&D sites. Are you seriously going to say that no external links are allowed? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 20:37, 29 October 2010 (MDT)

::::It's solicitation, ya (although not redundant). They really should discuss on [[DnD Links]] and get the good ones put there. And if it is a beneficial recourse to D&D Wiki that would have to be discussed to. Why did I notice this in particular? Because it's a very blatant user redirection and done in redundancy. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:20, 29 October 2010 (MDT)

:::::So you're telling me if a user blatantly advertises another site that isn't listed on [[DnD Links]] it should be removed for solicitation? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 13:17, 30 October 2010 (MDT)

::::::Ya ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism Wikipedia:Vandalism], external linking - more too). But who checks all the time? And I just remove them when I come across them (mostly), however when a user redundantly does it after it has been changed based off policies ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism Wikipedia:Vandalism], external linking) it becomes a serious potential problem, and may result in bans like [[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]]. Do you see where I am coming from? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:58, 30 October 2010 (MDT)

:::::::Is there not a difference between "solicitation" (a policy which is, at best, arbitrarily enforced, and, at worst, enforced with serious bias), and complaining about censorship of said solicitation? Aarnott was banned for solicitation, and, while I understand he's been warned about this in the past (though not [[Warning_Policy|officially]]), he was not banned until ''after'' he complained about censorship. This does not seem right to me. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 12:27, 31 October 2010 (MDT)

::::::::The official reason Aarnott was banned was because of "Spamming links to external sites (not getting it and continuing soliciting)". Meaning that Aarnott spammed links to external links and then after being told about his actions redundantly continued. Why is this the reason? Since it is true and follows policies and things which the administration can operate through.
::::::::I assume you are asking for the more normal reason, e.g. a colloquial reason. Being censored does not mean one is going to be banned, it just means one should not continue with the problem activity. Aarnott solicited, was warned (through censorship), solicited again on Aarnott's user talk — the diff, which leads onward, was warned (through undo), and then solicited again twice here. What is too much? To me I see it as we have no time for such behavior — policies exist for a reason (ask Wikipedia?) and one disregarding them because he/she wants to is not a reason. It's like a virus. As such the administration should operate under such principles. Just my way of looking at it. Does this answer any questions? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:59, 31 October 2010 (MDT)

:::::::::Are you suggesting that mentioning the website mibbit counts as soliciting? Aarnott had nothing to gain by suggesting it, and we were looking for suggestions and alternate hosting choices. I've mentioned Freenode several times in several tavern discussions, and there has never been a problem there. Mibbit and Freenode are essentially the same service. Also, if you don't technically warn him, I don't think it's fair to punish him as if you had. If you had issued a warning, per the warning policy you established, it's possible that he would have stopped. Furthermore, you've listed 4 incidents where he was "soliciting". Assuming you warned him separately for every single instance he should only be banned for 1 week, not 6 months. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 16:21, 31 October 2010 (MDT)

::::::::::Giving a specific link to one, not to a service, definitely is.
::::::::::{{quote|[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility Wikipedia:Civility] is superseded by the [[Warning Policy]] as applicable.
|src=[[Meta Pages]]
}}
::::::::::So no, they are different policy things. The edit itself and the diff are the notifications. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:53, 31 October 2010 (MDT)

:::::::::::If the edit and the diff are the notifications, why does the warning policy exist? How can [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility Wikipedia:Civility] be superseded by the [[Warning Policy]] if the only thing the warning policy says is "See Civility"? Also, you didn't address the second half of my comment. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 17:00, 31 October 2010 (MDT)

::::::::::::Because civility is just ''one'' policy on Wikipedia.
::::::::::::{{quote|As a general rule [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_policies Wikipedia's policies] are in effect. Please use common sense with this overarching policy.
|src=[[Meta Pages]]
}}
::::::::::::[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism Wikipedia:Vandalism], external linking has nothing to do with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility Wikipedia:Civility]. If you have input into this this is not the place for it, please ask it on [[Talk:Meta Pages]].
::::::::::::The policies answer the bottom part of your comment. If not more information would be appreciated so I could answer them. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:07, 31 October 2010 (MDT)

:::::::::::::Wikipedia says, very clearly:
{{quote|Even if misguided or ill-considered, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism.}}
:::::::::::::If we replace "encyclopedia" with "Dandwiki Community", surely you agree that is exactly what he did. That's why I will ask this again: "You've listed 4 incidents where he was "soliciting". Assuming you warned him separately for every single instance he should only be banned for 1 week, not 6 months". Why is he banned for 6 months? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 17:19, 31 October 2010 (MDT)

{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}

:The gray line. Ya, but he should have listed providers like you did above (note, no censorship there). Banning lengths are only for the warning policy, this is the policy thing again. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:25, 31 October 2010 (MDT)

::So then you feel that a 6 month ban is an appropriate punishment for making multiple links to external sites? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 17:29, 31 October 2010 (MDT)

:::You don't feel it is appropriate? One should understand that when the administration does something (e.g. censorship) it has a reason, and the opposition of that reason (not in discussion, in more vandalism) is the wrong action. Some recent IP's have been banned for a year for doing vandalism multiple times. It's following the same trajectory... Thoughts? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:09, 31 October 2010 (MDT)

::::Aarnott isn't some faceless IP just here to make trouble. You banned him before he could even have a proper discussion. Comparing him to recent IPs spamming pages about boots or whatever else is insulting to him. He was, at one point, an administrator on this site. Personally, I think letting him stick around long enough to have this discussion would have been best, and then banned him for some period of time, not more than a month. Honestly, if you had let him say his piece in this discussion I doubt he'd even need to be banned. Banning isn't meant to be a punishment, it's meant to stop future problems before they can happen. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 18:16, 31 October 2010 (MDT)

:::::(Edit Conflict) I'd consider a named user linking to sites that he genuinely finds helpful and thinks will be helpful to the community significantly different than an anonymous person intentionally vandalizing by deleting content or adding vulgar or unproductive material. While he has been warned before, I think there's a pretty significant jump between an implied, indirect verbal warning and a 6-month block. There should probably be some escalation in between there. There's another block on his account, but it seems to be unrelated to this issue. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 18:22, 31 October 2010 (MDT)

::::::Aarnott's comments to the matter (removed through censorship) I do not think can be considered in the way you want them to be.
::::::[[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] just banned an IP (violated same policy) for infinity. Given the circumstances (user ''has'' been in good standing before) I guess I can change it to 3 months. People need to learn the policies, and banning is meant as a way of getting that done. So, although banning is not a punishment, it has a use for ''after incidents'' as well. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:54, 2 November 2010 (MDT)

:::::::No I didn't. I blocked someone who is part of a long-term scheme of placing blatant advertisements for a certain brand of footwear which is unrelated to D&D (and let's face it -- probably unused by most D&D players anyway). The user had no contributions that weren't entirely spam. I may have used the same reason in the drop down box, but that doesn't mean I blocked him for the same reason. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 20:29, 3 November 2010 (MDT)

::::::::Sorry, the violation of the same policy. I modified it above. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:32, 3 November 2010 (MDT)

:::::::::Despotism strikes again! --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] 06:58, 5 November 2010 (MDT)

::::::::::Wikipedia's policies are beneficial, although to the stage of despotism I do not think they are there. They are more a needed tool for D&D Wiki to function, not so much a despotism rule. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:01, 5 November 2010 (MDT)

:::::::::::It's interesting how they are only a much-needed tool here. --[[User:Foxwarrior|Foxwarrior]] 18:02, 6 November 2010 (MDT)

::::::::::::I have to agree. I don't think any of these links removed because of solicitation of D&D-resource sites caused this wiki to function at a lower level. Removal of spam, sure, but I don't see the need to delete links to other D&D resources. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 18:52, 6 November 2010 (MDT)

:::::::::::::There's [[DnD Links]] for that, ya. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:52, 6 November 2010 (MDT)

{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}

:So we can add any useful wikis and other useful sites to that? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 20:57, 6 November 2010 (MDT)

::Well the reasons would be sorted through, but ya. But the discussion should be moved there with continued questions. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:00, 6 November 2010 (MDT)

== Userpage Top Template and My Content ==

This isn't a major question but I was just wondering how you get the user/talk/contributions/awards bar on the top of your page. Also I was wondering if you could look at some of my posts and tell me if you like them. Thank you and congratulations on the amazing website. [[User:Nomnomking|Nomnomking]] 22:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

:See also [[User:Green Dragon/Top Template]]. You can make one in your own user space.
:I looked over the creations listed on your userpage (not usercontributions though) and gave input where I noticed things which are wrong. As those get corrected please ask me to look over them again for more things (balance, etc) and I would be more then willing to look over them.
:Also all the external links on your userpage you should be moved to [[DnD Links]]. Your userpage should then link to them by way of the page (an example would be [[DnD Links|External Links]]<nowiki>[</nowiki>[[DnD Links#Wizards of the Coast|1]]<nowiki>][</nowiki>[[DnD Links#WotC Tools|2]]<nowiki>]</nowiki>, etc) so you give mention to important ones and keep them on the page they are required to be on.
:Hope this helps. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:52, 3 November 2010 (MDT)

Thanks
--[[User:Nomnomking|Nomnomking]] 15:47, 4 November 2010

== Userspace Sandbox ==

hey, just wondering how to put unfinished work in my sandbox so it doesn't clog up the wiki? Thanks. --[[User:Fathirian Hound|Fathirian Hound]] 09:26, 4 November 2010 (MDT)

:Just move it (move tab) to your userpage/<!-name->. Then if you remove the categories it will not show up anywhere. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 10:36, 4 November 2010 (MDT)

::Will do, thanks. --[[User:Fathirian Hound|Fathirian Hound]] 07:06, 11 November 2010 (MST)

==ShadowBorn/Shadowborn debate==

I have gotten complaints about entitling a page [[ShadowBorn]] instead of Shadowborn. Is it really a big deal because i have made many pahes like this. sorry about bothering you again. Also i fixed some of the errors you told me to but not all of them. I will let you know when i do.--[[User:Nomnomking|Nomnomking]] 7:05, 5 November 2010

== Don't have a clue what I'm doing ==

I have a few "minor" obstacles that are preventing me from having the slightest idea as to what I'm doing. First, I started my account less than an hour ago. I started frequenting this sight when I decided to do a massive overhaul of all things vampire. I assure you, your sight has nothing vampire related that can compare with what I want to submit. I have written over 100 pages of overhaul in Microsoft word (I'm serious) that has done everything from making a wide variety of bloodlines to roll-playish guidelines. Halfway through this I converted to core 3.5 rules so, in addition to needed tweaks here and there, my overhaul is a mesh between core 2 rules (yes, I still use THAC0...a word many of you haven't used in 100 years) and core 3.5. I'm still in the process of fully converting it but I have gone COMPLETELY off topic here...

My point is, I have no idea how to use this sight or where I should a submit my overhaul. I assume there is an instruction manual for this sight lying around here somewhere but I can't find it. If it does exist then feel free to point me to it and then point and laugh at my inability to be observant. It's closer to a template then a creature but allows for both PCs and NPCs to be used. To be honest, vampires are far better off and N/PCs then creatures. This template still doesn't account for CR (which I can't seem to figure out) and its format doesn't fit anything I've seen on this sight.

Where should I submit this and how do I do it?

P.S

Sorry for ranting. I do that sometimes.

PP.S

I am vaguely aware that there is some kind of rule about balanced spells/templates/etc...(though I have never found it nor any other page that tells me site policies). This overhaul includes 5 "categories" of vampire. While the player normally has access to only 2 of these categories (as the others are a inherent templates), the highest category is an inherent template that converts a humanoid into an ultra uber creature that would warrant a high-level campaign just to destroy it. Where can I find this site's policies on un/balanced creatures? This category of vampire was made specifically to be over powered but they cannot be mass produced. It is rare for more than 40 to exist in any given multiverse at a time. Would this have any bearing on whether or not they are balanced?

FiddleSticks96 November 14 9:32pm eastern time

:[[3.5e Bloodlines]] has information to assist with posting bloodlines. See also [[Add a New 3.5e Bloodline]]. Each of the areas has such a method for adding content, save 2e things which you mentioned. You could just add "(2e <tt><!-content-type-></tt>)" though. You could make a vampire variant subtype (through [[User Creature Glossary]]) and make them relate. Does this answer your questions? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:07, 13 November 2010 (MST)

::Thanks for the quick response. I took a quick look at the bloodlines section but it will likely become very chaotic if I put this ::there. This is a COMPLETE overhaul containing 19 bloodlines (20 if you count the purebloods). Just the part that contains
::alterations specific to each bloodline is 38 pages long. This is a cohesive overhaul that only makes sense when it stays together. How does the subtype section work? Is it like an alternate template used on a creature like a celestial? I need to post ::stuff like the "General" changes to all vampires, which includes 21 pages. Is it possible for me to make more than one entry and ::tie them together with links or something? I know that cleric domains has something like that. - FiddleSticks96

:::[[3.5e Bloodlines]] will be fine with more bloodlines added. That is why it is there. Each bloodlines being a page with its own name of course. "''[O]nly makes sense when it stays together''", meaning it does not use 3.5e rules? If you could elaborate or supply some material so I could check it would make more sense. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 00:00, 14 November 2010 (MST)

::::Elaborate? It's funny you said that because I was just thinking that I should post a sample of what I mean. This will take up some space if you don't mind.

:::::Space is of no concern. Ya, post something then I can check to make sure it works in an area, and if not we will have to figure something else out. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 00:05, 14 November 2010 (MST)

::::::For the most part it follows Core 3.5 rules so it's not like it's foreign or anything. When I say Bloodline I mean something like this. Keep in mind that these are only bonuses/drawbacks specific to this bloodline. This does not include the various other benefits/drawbacks they gain for just being vampires. Notice how the vampire's regenerative ability is referenced but not included? I overhauled that as well:

:::::::You sure that is a bloodlines, not a [[3.5e Creature Templates|3.5e Creature Template]] or somesuch? I only looked briefly at it, however it does not resemble something like [[UA:Dragon, Brass]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 00:19, 14 November 2010 (MST)

::::::::That's why I'm saying it probably doesn't fit with bloodlines as it is depicted in that section. For the purposes of this overhaul, a bloodline acts like a strain of vampirism. While someone who is turned into a Yekef vampire as described below, someone who is turned into an Aundae vampire has vastly different alterations and their appearance isn't so distorted. While Yekef are physically powerful, Haarvenu are attractive and and seductive. Quarra vampires are best suited as fighters, while an Anthotis vampire makes for a powerful psionist. Each bloodline has it's own strengths and weaknesses in addition to the general strengths and weaknesses all vampires posses. It is a complete overhaul of vampirism. It isn't too far off as a list of variant rules and templates. I still need to complete the conversion from core 2 rules to core 3.5, but I still need to find the most suitable place to put it. I would also need to put the list of general changes, ways to implement the overhaul, the overview of terms used (such as my explanations as to what the five categories of vampires actually are. This overhaul treats vampires as an actual race capable of sexually reproducing, though it is far more difficult to actually bear children). Maybe I could make a link that explains that it is a set of variant rules as far as vampirism goes. This link could contain a list of links that would take you to the actual bloodlines, rules, or whatever. Sort of like the list of cleric domains. When you click the air domain for example, you are taken to a list of links rather then a list of all the explanations in one sitting. - FiddleSticks96 Nov 14, 1:06pm Eastern Time

:::::::::Something else I just thought of. Just so there's no confusion, these bloodlines in no way have to follow the "variant rules" that I came up with. They don't have to be used in conjunction with each other. A DM could just as easily pick one bloodline and say that is the only strain of vampirism. This game is made for imagination. As a DM I encourage players and DMs alike to use their imagination. If the DM thinks there needs to be an alteration then they should change it to their preferences. This is just my preferences that can be used, altered, and reused as the community sees fit. I thinks my variations are balanced and fair but others might not. Everyone has their own preference. This is just to expand upon the role playing potential of vampirism.

::::::::::Do each of the variants have the same advancement as a [[SRD:Vampire|vampire]]? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 14:43, 14 November 2010 (MST)

:::::::::::I have yet to grasp monster advancement (Hit Dice rather then Level). The advancement is treated as the same way PCs gain level. A vampire is fully capable of picking up a class and 8 of the bloodlines have an inherent class. The strengths/weaknesses the base creature gets for being part of a bloodline are given all at once, though the effectiveness of many of the powers are dependent on character or class level (usually class level). Basically, they are treated as NPCs.

:::::::::::Here is an example of a bloodline with no inherent class. The base creature gains this benefits/drawbacks in addition to the general vampire benefits/drawbacks. They do not advance any "vampire class". They simply gain these benefits and continue their existence as "normal":

::::::::::::As bloodlines (e.g. [[UA:Dragon, Brass]]) are done by levels, what are the changes (by-level) of these? That is what I am asking. Or is is an initial level adjustment (like [[SRD:Vampire|vampire]]) or challenge rating adjustment? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:18, 14 November 2010 (MST)

:::::::::::::I'm still trying to figure out CR but there is an initial level adjustment for all categories. As the PC will only ever be able to become a Category C or E Vampire (outside of birth). The only level adjustment available to them will be the +3 bonus to all class levels. These are actual gains in levels, with all the benefits that come with leveling up.

{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}

:So [[SRD:Level Adjustment (Creature Statistic)|level adjustment]] does not affect ones class levels with these? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:42, 14 November 2010 (MST)

::I'm probably wrong but isn't Level Adjustment a way to determine "effective" level and not "actual" level? If level adjustment causes actual level up then it is the same as a +3 level adjustment. Actually, it can be correctly seen that way because all class levels are raised by 3 upon being turned into a vampire. I posted what I mean when I say that the overhaul treats vampires as an actual race below. Also, it's time for me to go to work so I will be unresponsive for awhile.

:::An aspect to determine effective character level (ECL), ya. If what you are saying is correct, with a "''then it is the same as a +3 level adjustment''" I think it may be templates that you are looking for, for example a [[SRD:Vampire|vampire]] is a template with +8 LA. Does this seem right? If so I can format one so you can see if that is what is intended. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:54, 14 November 2010 (MST)

::::If they're going to send me home after 2hrs they should just call to tell me not to show up :(. Yeah, templates is what I was going for. Would I be able to set it up where there is a link with the templates list that just says something like "Complete Vampire Overhaul"? The link could then open up with a quick explanation and the following links: "Overview", "Important Notes", "General Changes", "Bloodlines", "Implementations", and "Anti-Vampire Magic". This overhaul includes 2 new classes and an ability that will probably advance in a manner similar to classes. I'm still developing all 3 but I'll finish them sooner or later.

:::::I made [[Vampire, Montalion]]: [[Vampire, Lesser Montalion (3.5e Template)]], [[Vampire, Montalion (3.5e Template)]], [[Vampire, Greater Montalion (3.5e Template)]] (for credit see history). Is this what you had in mind? Does this make sense? If you want a [[3.5e Sourcebooks|sourcebook]] that could be a route to keep things in check with one another more. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:17, 14 November 2010 (MST)

::::::Actually no, it doesn't make much sense since those are only the changes that are IN ADDITION to the rest of them. I was thinking more along the lines of a link called "Complete Vampire Overhaul" that would be placed where ever the templates are. I would then be free to offer an explanation as to what it is and add various links that would contain the mass amounts of information about the overhaul. The way the Montalion is set up now it does not account for many of the other changes. If you think I need source books then don't worry. I recently acquired several 3.5 source books including the DM Guide, Monster Manual, and Player Handbook. I'll also be reformatting it after I upload it so it is easy to read and follows the format of this site.
::::::Am I allowed to try and add it in the way I think it would fit best without authorization? If I'm allowed to then could I try setting it up the way I'm thinking about and you can see if you think it will work? If not then can I have permission? I was thinking about adding it in the http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/3.5e_Creature_Templates for lack of a better known location.

:::::::Of course. Feel free. I'll take a look at it as it becomes more apparent. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 11:32, 16 November 2010 (MST)

::::::::Finally got some free-time. I've started making all the pages but I've got a question. When I added the creature template it didn't show up on the templates page. I can still just punch in the url and it will be there but as far as I can tell, right now it's just a ghost page. I don't see a way to add it on my own either. I assume that you or an admin are the ones who will do this? If there are ghost pages on this site I can use them to avoid confusing people by adding the info for the changes directly into a section of the site. I can just put links on the template page that lead to the appropriate changes. These links would be the only ones that lead to these otherwise "ghost pages". Sound like a good idea?

:::::::::Oh, I just found where it put the link. It wasn't in the 3.5e Creature Templates but in the Category:LA? section. It should be in the "LA" section and not the "LA?" section but it makes no difference to me. Does it matter if I add all of the information on a single page? I don't know how to add the kind of links that make you scroll down to a different section of the page. Like the little boxes that say "contents" with a list of links.

::::::::::...Nevermind, I figured that out to. I'm going to shut up for awhile and stop bothering people with questions that I'll probably figure out the answer to on my own.

:::::::::::Done (mostly). Can you move this to the "LA" section. It's in the "LA?" right now. The only potential problem I can see right now is this message I got "Warning: This page is 243 kilobytes long; some browsers may have problems editing pages approaching or longer than 32kb. Please consider breaking the page into smaller sections." http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Complete_Vampire_Overhaul_%283.5e_Template%29

== Don't have a clue what I'm doing ==

My retarded computer posted this twice

== HTML ==

Hi, Im Greenstyle. I have a question. I was making a piece of equipment and on the template was "back to" footer. What is it and what consequence does it have on the page?

:It makes it displayed on equipment pages, found on [[3.5e Equipment]]. Does this answer your question? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 11:35, 16 November 2010 (MST)

== HTML ==

Hi, Im Greenstyle. I have a question. I was making a piece of equipment and on the template was "back to" footer. What is it and what consequence does it have on the page?
Hey... mine did too!

== Rights ==

I was wondering: If I use some of the content from this website in a novel, do I have to individualy ask every contributer that orginally created the content? Also if so, thier is a problem. I hope to use the race "Sarli" in my Novel yet my computer is blocked from accessing the "Wizards of the Coast Forums" (Which is the only way I know how to contact "R.M.G.C.L.F.").--[[User:Milo v3|Milo High-Hill]] 18:59, 19 November 2010 (MST)

:As it is under the [[GNU Free Documentation License 1.2]] section 2 verbatim copying is applicable. There is no need to contact the contributors. Does this answer your question? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:35, 21 November 2010 (MST)

::Yes this does answer my question. Thank you. Though I still will mention the contributors of DnD Wiki as a courtesy for all the help.--[[User:Milo v3|Milo High-Hill]] 22:59, 22 November 2010 (MST)

== WoW 4E ==

Is it possible (by which I mean legal), to make a 4E WoW setting? Do I need Blizzard permission or a disclaimer or something? [[User:Camulus|Camulus]] 12:20, 21 November 2010 (MST)

:Just make sure to add [[Template:Copyright Disclaimer]] onto the bottom of the pages. That should cover it. Does this answer your question? ---[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:33, 21 November 2010 (MST)

::Blizzard is the sort of company that ''will'' issue a cease-and-desist if they ever find out about it. But they probably won't find out about it. --[[User:Foxwarrior|Foxwarrior]] 03:02, 22 November 2010 (MST)

:::{{quote
|Copyrights and trademarks for any books, films, and other promotional materials are held by their respective owners and their use is allowed under the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use fair use] clause of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright Copyright Law].
|orig=[[Template:Copyright Disclaimer]]
}}
:::--[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 14:33, 22 November 2010 (MST)

== Blood Knight ==

I finally got around to touching up my Blood Knight page (I know, I know, long overdue) if you wanna take another look. [[User:Dude Bob|Dude Bob]] 17:45, 21 November 2010 (MST)

:I touched it up as well. If you would not mind taking another look that would be very appreciated. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:20, 5 January 2011 (MST)

== Spell seeds ==

I have perused my books but I can't find anything about spell seeds or epic spells in general. The info on most of the spell seeds and epic spells looks so professional so I'm 99% positive that spell seeds are an official part of the game. If they are not I don't care but if they are will some please tell me what book they are discussed in? - FiddleSticks96

:I'm pretty sure its in the "Epic Level Handbook". I am planning on obtaining it soon myself.--[[User:Milo v3|Milo High-Hill]] 15:25, 30 November 2010 (MST)

::O.O I have such glorious observational skills. I will look through the epic level hand book now sitting in front of me. I don't know why I didn't think to check this book. Thanks by the way. (--[[User:FiddleSticks96|FiddleSticks96]] 17:54, 30 November 2010 (MST))

:::[[SRD:Spells#Epic Spell Lists]] may help. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:35, 30 November 2010 (MST)

== Alignment: Moral Ambiguity ==

I am thinking about creating a D&D world based off of one of the stories I have written out in my head. One of the most prominent characters of this world, though mostly unknown to most of society, is a demigod whose fate and goal in life is to serve as the protector of the prime material plane he exists on. He is a Pureblood Vampire named Belenthrond with a vicious streak when it comes to eliminating evil. (based on the Complete Vampire Overhaul of course). He draws power from both light and darkness, positive and negative, good and evil...you get my point. While I will probably never make a character sheet for him, as he is immensely powerful, I would like to at least give him a definite alignment. Unfortunately, while he is decidedly benevolent, he is morally ambiguous and, quick frankly, has a definite evil side as well as a good. He supports laws but doesn't think that good should be restrained by them. With that respect, he is Neutral Good; but since he has such an evil side to himself he can't be simply "Good" aligned. He doesn't believe in universal balance between good and evil either. He would much rather utter crush the truly wicked all together so he can't be True Neutral. He isn't disorganized and totally unpredictable either. Chaotic Neutral doesn't fit him at all. Eventually, I decided to make his alignment "Unknowable", because I didn't like how "Neutral Good with Chaotic (and sometimes Evil) tendencies" sounded. Unfortunately, if I were to give him a definite alignment, those might be the only two that will work.

Here is a quick overview of moral tendencies this character would exhibit:

''Good Qualities:'' He would sacrifice his own life without hesitation to protect the innocent (though later he learned he was immortal, he didn't always know this, and so this in no way weakens this argument that he is morally good in some regards)

He sacrificed much in order to continue to protect his world and those who could not protect themselves

He spent over 1,000 years as the lonely protect of his world until he finally could not stand his loneliness and fell in-love

He has, on a number of occasions, fought against impossible odds that he would likely not survive

He can't stand to see innocents suffering and will go out of his way to make their lives better. He is especially intolerant of allowing children to suffer (particularly orphans)

He is the type of person to choose another's happiness over his own (at one point, his eldest daughter (at the time she was a teenager) was about to be kidnapped. He was in actual combat with the one pulling the strings behind the kidnapping (one of his political rivals and one of the individuals he wasn't able to just outright slay and get away with). This individual cast a spell that was going to destroy a nearby town and everyone in it. Belenthrond had the choice of letting his rival get away with this daughter or letting the town get annihilated (tough choice right?). Well, being the guy that he is, Belenthrond stomped on his own emotions and protected the town. His reasoning was that his daughter was kidnapped to be a hostage. She would be kept alive, for now. Those in the town would not have been so fortunate. Even though he knew she would be kept alive for the time being, he was still subjecting his own daughter to the mercy of the worst kind of scum. She could very well have been killed if he didn't commence a quick rescue. One of his evil qualities explains how something like that is utterly intolerable to him)

Though he enjoys a good battle against a worthy opponent, he prefers nonviolent solutions to problems

Even though he will kill without hesitation, he will never intentionally cause harm to a mortal's soul (though he will tamper with demon souls or other such creatures he perceives as wicked)

''Evil Qualities:'' He respects innocent life but couldn't care less about the lives of the truly wicked. If an opportunity to redeem a wicked being presents itself, he will follow it if it is not too inconvenient, otherwise, he will likely kill them without hesitation if it doesn't cause great suffering to the innocent (He once had the chance to kill the man who killed his lover. This man, though wicked, was the only thing holding together an entire empire. If this man were to die, that empire would have fell into civil war again, causing the many innocent civilians to suffer. In the end, the demigod chose to spare the man's life because it would have caused many innocents to suffer - "As much as I wish to kill you, you are needed to keep this world in balance. I will spare your life...but never appear before me again"

He cares so little about wicked beings that he has, and still does, use them as test subjects in his magical experiments. Developing spells is a process after all, one that requires the ruffles to be smoothed out. As far as he is concerned, having to crack open and rip apart the minds of a few dozen bandits is a perfectly acceptable way to further his own power, which can then be used to better protect his world

He will not hesitate to kill, regardless of whose side the being is on. He will do what he can to simply incapacitate, say, a paladin who doesn't seem to get that he is on the paladin's side, but if someone is acting as an obstacle in his path to protect his world, even if they are simply misguided, he will rip them apart to get through them if need be. This hesitation extends to lack of remorse. - "Yes, it was unfortunate, but I will suffer no hindrance. Next time one of your pet paladins stands in my way, perhaps they will remember the price such ignorance."

He will lie, steal, cheat, assassinate, or otherwise commit all manner of treachery against wicked/corrupt individuals who he perceives as a threat to his world. He perceives the murder of an innocent being wicked but is perfectly okay with murdering the wicked. In particular, he doesn't see anything wrong with stealing when someone truly needs what they stole. He doesn't accept stealing from the poor or otherwise destitute, but if a museum recently acquired a strange or dangerous artifact, he would be perfectly okay with stealing it so he could study it or keep it out of the wrong hands

He has a political agenda, while being a politician in and of itself isn't evil (no really, I know it sounds hard weird but it's true), there are certain wicked individuals that he cannot just outright eliminate without jeopardizing his political agenda. With that said, these individuals pose a threat to many innocent lives and letting them run a muck; however much effort he puts forth in limiting their movements, is still allowing evil to spread so he doesn't lose political power (of course, he is working vigorously at gaining support against these individuals so he can finally kill them without losing political power)

While he draws power from light (metaphoric light...as in good), he also draws power from darkness (metaphorical darkness...as in evil). Perhaps his most favorite phrase is "Those who hide their wickedness in the darkness think themselves safe from the light. What they don't realize is that it is what hides within the darkness that they should fear the most".

He gets violent when people start messing with his family. I mean REAL violent. The kind of violence that kills his enemies very very slowly. - "Hahahahahaha...your right of course. I'm not going to kill you. I'm going to make you wish that I would."

''Unfortunate, but not evil, qualities:'' He's, well, he's kind of insane. Most ancient undead are.

Anyway, this pretty much describes my problem. What kind of alignment would someone like this fall under? Do you think Belenthrond is Good? Evil? Neutral? He is certainly an extremist, but that is in part due to his nature (blame his overdeity mother for also having an extremist nature). I simply can't think of any other alignment that fits him except "Unknowable". Help me out here? --[[User:FiddleSticks96|FiddleSticks96]] 23:57, 13 December 2010 (MST)

:What do you think about [[SRD:Alignment#Chaotic Good, “Rebel”|chaotic good]]? He seems to act as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him. He follows his own moral compass, which, although good, may not agree with that of society as can be seen with his approaches to situations. And his "experiments" could potentially be considered as making his own way. Your thoughts? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 19:44, 29 December 2010 (MST)

::That actually makes sense. I hadn't thought about it that way before, there are many gray areas in the alignments after all. Hmm...since he is a politician he might be closer to "Chaotic good with Lawful(maybe Neutral?) tendencies". What do you think? [[User:FiddleSticks96|FiddleSticks96]] 22:13, 30 December 2010 (MST)

== I have a question ==

There's a page I want to have fixed and spruced up, but I don't know how to fix it. I really want the Moon Scythe class to be a respected class, but it doesn't match the preload.

I really want to help out, but I'm not good at this wiki-formatting. I was wondering if you could make a mention of this to someone that could do this kind of thing. If you did, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks, [[User:Missingno|Missingno]] 08:08, 24 December 2010 (MST)

== Locking pages? ==

I know it's probably asked all too often, but how do I lock pages I make so only I (or mods/admins) can edit them?

:The groups you can restrict editing from can be found on [[Special:ListGroupRights]]. Which pages for which groups? Only [[D&D Wiki:Administrators]] can lock pages, however I am more then willing to assist you. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:27, 29 December 2010 (MST)

::Brilliant. The pages are as follows; [[Gardevoir (3.5e Race)|Gardevoir]], [[Gallade (3.5e Race)|Gallade]], [[Zora Mask (3.5e Equipment)|Zora Mask]], [[Hawk Dragon (3.5e Creature)|Hawk Dragon]], [[Improved Water Elemental Bloodline (3.5e_Bloodline)|Improved Water Elemental Bloodline]], [[Arceus (3.5e Deity)|Arceus (Deity)]], [[Immunity to Magic (3.5e Trait)|Magic Immunity (Trait)]], [[Ocarina of Time (3.5e Equipment)|Ocarina of Time]]. --[[User:Phoenix of Chaos|Phoenix of Chaos]] 06:59, 30 December 2010 (MST)

:::I locked them from IP edits. If you want them locked from all non-administrator edits (however you will not be able to edit them anymore unless you request a page gets unlocked so you can edit it) let me know please and I will do that. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 10:54, 30 December 2010 (MST)

==Archiving==
Your talk page could probably use it. A lot of us read it quite a bit, so I wouldn't mind helping you if you don't mind me doing a bit of archiving.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 17:21, 29 December 2010 (MST)

== Posting ideas. ==

I am having trouble finding a place to post ideas for others to see and discuss... For instance, I have an idea on how to make a low magic world really low magic, but I'm not finding any place to put the idea up nor am I sure how I would go about posting it for others to actually look and discuss it with me and each other.

Thanks, Daryl.

:On this wiki, you have pretty much only one option (as of now). That would be to make a "Discussion" page and post your question. Fair warning, I don't know that anyone regularly checks these pages, so you may not get the answers and community discussion you're after. Since I know you're looking for discussions, I'll chime in, but I don't know how many others will notice it. You can learn how to make a discussion question [[User:Badger/sandbox3/EF2|here]]. However, I've been trying to get a community IRC channel to have chats like the ones you're looking for. If this sounds like something you'd be interested in, you could voice your opinions [[Discussion:Re-opening_the_tavern%3F_What_does_the_community_think%3F|here]]. One last thing, that addresses your particular example, you may just consider making a "[[3.5e_Rules|variant rule]]" page with how you plan to make it work (that is a 3.5e link, for a 4e variant go [[4e_Rules|here]].) Hope this helps! --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 14:31, 3 January 2011 (MST)

::Hey it's me again! I was wondering since I saw you post on another template if you would look over mine. Its nothing major but it does need to be balanced a little more. If you want to take a look at it, or if you would like to help me complete a creature I am trying to make, you can find my creature [http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Dimidium_Troll_%283.5e_Creature%29 here.] If you would like to see what I have on the other creature just leave me a message either here or in my talk page, and I will post its current details in my sandbox. [[User:Lyrad8791|Lyrad8791]] 19:28, 6 January 2011 (MST)

==Spam==

There seems to be a few Users on here that are only posting spam. At least as far as I can tell. Stuff like [[http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Best_Electronic_Cigarette_Review Best Electronic Cigarette]] and Cell Phone listings. I'm not sure on what the protocol is on here so I am leaving this alone. If you like I can go through to these pages and delete the contents themselves, since I am unsure how to delete the page except by deleting all links to it. Also, it seems the Users who made these pages have also done a redirect on there user page to the pages themselves. Hope this helps clean up the wiki! [[User:Lyrad8791|Lyrad8791]] 23:24, 8 January 2011 (MST)

== Could someone have a look at my homebrew? ==

I have made a bit of homebrew lately, and I was wondering if it was balanced. Also I'm having a bit of trouble with "Armor Of Flesh" spell. I don't care who, but I think it would be best if they were an admin. Here they are:

- [[Naïlo's Cyclone (3.5e Spell)|Naïlo's Cyclone]]

- [[Naïlo's Match (3.5e Spell)|Naïlo's Match]]

- [[Armor Of Flesh (3.5e Spell)|Armor Of Flesh]]

- [[Return Of The Dead Soul (3.5e Spell)|Return Of The Dead Soul]]

- [[Animate Dead, Greater (3.5e Spell)|Greater Animate Dead]]

- [[Naïlo's Repressed Memory (3.5e Spell)|Naïlo's Repressed Memory]]

- [[Naïlo's Repulsion (3.5e Spell)|Naïlo's Repulsion]]

- [[Paladin, Variant (3.5e Class)|Paladin, Variant]]

== Your recent edits ==

Hey, Badger here. Is there any way you can add "minor edit" on the rest of your page updates? I like to keep an eye on recent edits, and your stream of edits is filling the recent edits and I can't see anything else. If you added "minor edits" I could click "hide minor edits" and check on the other changes. Thanks. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 20:32, 12 January 2011 (MST)

:[[User:Blue Dragon|Blue Dragon]] switched them to minor as they do not effect the page contents. Sorry about that earlier. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:46, 12 January 2011 (MST)

::Thanks. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 22:21, 12 January 2011 (MST)

== Rating Please ==

I have created a few classes, and I would very much appreciate if you could rate them for me. The classes are Mime (3.5e Class) and Soldier (3.5e Class), and Dragoon (by RDC) (3.5 PrC).
 
Thank you for your time, [[User:Rogue The Demonchild|Rogue The Demonchild]] 21:27, 12 January 2011 (MST)

== 4 Edition Summaries ==

Long time no see. I was wondering if I am allowed to put small summaries of the 4 edition races in my Campaign's races page. It would be name, size, stat bonus and racial features.

I am asking because the races I want to put in are rather small, and it seems strange to just have a couple of things on one page. The official 4 edition races would be for comparison. [[Celen Joad]] 11:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

:Of course. The official races, however, you can't add. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:21, 28 January 2011 (MST)

== 4e Campaign Settings ==

:''Discussion moved to [[Talk:4e Campaign Settings#Organizational Structure]].'' --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 11:21, 14 January 2011 (MST)

== 4e Giants, Devils, and Demons ==

Does anyone think that giants could become a race? --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 17:23, 26 January 2011 (MST)

:Does [[SRD:Giants, Hill (Race)|this]] & [[SRD:Giants, Stone (Race)|this]] help? --[[User:Milo v3|Milo High-Hill]] 18:57, 26 January 2011 (MST)

::Er, I mean for D&D 4e. Not 3.5e. Sorry. Do you think that even Devils and Demons could become races in 4e? --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 16:47, 28 January 2011 (MST)

:::I don't see why not. Some things may give you direction, ideas, and so forth. The [[Horned Devil (4e Race)|horned devil]] you created, the [[Cambion (4e Race)|cambion]], [[Infernal Blooded (4e Race)|infernal blooded]] relate to name a few. With regard to giants, [[Half-Giant (4e Race)|half-giant]], [[Hill Giant (4e Race)|hill giant]] may give you direction, ideas, and so forth to name a few. Does this help at all? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:18, 28 January 2011 (MST)

::::Do you think that the horned devil is too powerful? --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 21:02, 28 January 2011 (MST)

:::::I took a look at it, and modified [[Template:Needsbalance]]'s reason. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:39, 28 January 2011 (MST)

::::::Okay, I looked at it. Maybe, instead, I could make a paragon path that allows wings (I looked in the Player's Handbook 2 and it allows the dragonborn to have an overland flight speed of 12)? --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 21:49, 28 January 2011 (MST)

:::::::Is that a power though? If you make it something like a power, I imagine that would balance it. A paragon path with the same goal could give you flying results too. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:02, 28 January 2011 (MST)

::::::::Well, at level 12, it allows you to make a brief flight. But at level 16, you gain the overland flight. But this is only if you choose that paragon path. --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 21:46, 29 January 2011 (MST)

:::::::::If you supply me a link I could take a look at it. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:12, 6 April 2011 (MDT)

== Magician ==

I like the idea for the Magician class-is there a way to contact the author? {{Unsigned|Wonderer|17:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)}}

:You'll have to give me more information. Which [[Magician|magician]] related content? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:52, 6 April 2011 (MDT)

== Warning Policy Input ==

Hey Green Dragon. I was looking at [[Talk:Hill Giant (4e Race)|Talk:Hill Giant]]. Thank you for trying to keep profanity down, even name calling. --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 21:44, 29 January 2011 (MST)

:No problem. Do you think the revision history link is superfluous (and counter-productive)? Should the text be condensed? Thoughts? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:44, 6 April 2011 (MDT)

::The history link... What do you mean by if it's superfluous? I don't think the text should be condensed. Well, lets see... Do you think that giants are really that bad? Can Giants wield Medium weapons? Also, Giants aren't readly accepted into society (they kinda have a bad reputation). Also, weapons cost more (if you get them from a non-giant source, and that's if they even '''want''' to make one for a giant that they know nothing about). --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 14:40, 9 April 2011 (MDT)

== Giants ==

Hey Green Dragon. I talked with my brother, and he said that bursts weren't that bad. Do you think that giants should be practically normal, but the user chooses whether to pick a power or a feature (you can only have one or the other; not both)? --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 15:07, 1 February 2011 (MST)

:I've never seen that used before, and it could make for confusion. I'd recommend just toning down the burst and the class feature, but bursts are interesting, I agree. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:15, 6 April 2011 (MDT)

== 4e Sourcebook Pumped Up ==

:''Discussion moved to [[Talk:Pumped Up (4e Sourcebook)#Balance]].'' --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:20, 6 April 2011 (MDT)

== Meaning of Meaningful Gestures? ==

Was reading [[Catgirl,_Domestic_(3.5e_Race)|Catgirls]], and was a tad jarred by the "Meaningful gesture" section under [[Catgirl,_Domestic_(3.5e_Race)#Names|Names]]. Without any explanations given for these gestures, is this meant to be presented as a "Interpret as you will" type listing, or was this something that was going to be expanded upon further? Using known data about real-life felines and fictional Japanese catgirls as a starting point, I have compiled a very extensive list of different Body Language messages which we use for a local Catgirl character, which you are more than welcome to use if you wish. I'll be watching this page for a response. {{Unsigned|96.229.186.168|07:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)}}

:That is fine to add that to [[:Category:Catgirl|those pages]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:02, 9 February 2011 (MST)

::Looks good! I added them to other related catgirl pages and moved it into the Relations section. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:06, 6 April 2011 (MDT)

== Just another new guy asking around... ==

SO I've been told about the treasure trove of optional ideas that have been continuing the sprit of 3.5 by my newest D&D group and after a (strangely lucid) dream I came up with the following:

Spell Slayer

This +3 crystalline Mage Bane Longsword when wielded by a spell caster on impact allows the caster to make a DC 30 Spellcraft check.
On a successful check the sword ether casts vampiric touch (as caster level 6, max 3 times per combat) OR, if the target is a spellcaster it
steals one (1) random spell. Spells stolen this way are stored until the end of combat and are dispelled afterwards. A caster with the Arcane
Strike feat may sacrifice spells stolen in this manner for the bonuses provided by the feat. (For cost see Holy Avenger)

Crystalline Weapon property

This material is primarily used to make weapons for and against spellcasters. It provides an additional (stacks with magical bonuses) equipment
bonus +1 to hit and damage versus targets with magical abilities or properties (supernatural abilities or uncast spells are examples of this).
In addition it provides a +1 to caster level for all spellcasters wielding or possessing such a weapon, hafted weapons do not confer the caster level bonus. All weapons crafted from Crystalline are considered master work. (For cost see Adamantine)

Now I don't want to post anything retardedly over powered up on the site (like some of the things I have seen/heard) and would like some advice before I throw it up on the site since I haven't seen a forum section (yet).

:The best way to get things looked at is to just take the plunge and create the page. If it is retardedly over-powered, people will tell you. Most people here will offer constructive criticism and will genuinely want to help you improve/complete/flesh out your 'fill in the blank'. Spelling and grammar checks are also staples of the site. PS. always remember to sign your comments by typing in two - followed by four ~. --[[User:Calidore Chase|Calidore Chase]] 03:29, 21 February 2011 (MST)

== Hello ==

Hey. Umm I'm just joined your site; I'm wondering if there is anything i should know (like guidelines for what and what not to post). I'm kind of wondering how to make classes. P.S.: I'm guessing those little #s in red and green are reputation points. --[[User:Knave67|Knave 67]] 00:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

:Classes for which edition? Any of the "create" boxes will use the correct preload if you use them, giving direction for the class. The preloads (some are listed [[Help:Standards and Formatting (DnD Guideline)#Preloads|here]]) should tell you what the class is. As everything is different in nature, telling you how something should be created is not possible. Of course guidelines exist, and [[DnD Guidelines]] may help you. Most things are balanced off similar things and, as mentioned above, if something is retardedly overpowered people will tell you. Does this help? Also what do you mean by the post scriptum you mentioned above? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:18, 21 February 2011 (MST)

::He's probably talking about the recent changes log. If that's the case, the red and green numbers represent how many characters were subtracted or added during a page edit. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 19:15, 21 February 2011 (MST)

Oh okay I thought it was like a karma system or something along those lines. Also thank you Mr.Chartreuse Wyvern I wanted to make a class but it looks more complicated than a pictureless jigsaw puzzle so right now i'm just browsing the cite looking for boffo nuggets.

== new type of creature ==

Hello I'm working on a hybrid type. half giant red dragon. created by a crazy wizard, for would domination basically. however the creatures have morals and are therefore useless to him, so he abandons them. the creatures themselves would be fairly tall I'm think 7 - 8 an a half feet, strength and con bonuses with hits to car a level adjustment. any advice or an opinion on it would be greatly appreciated. {{Unsigned|Wytewulf|22:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)}}

:As a [[3.5e Creature Templates|template]] (like the [[SRD:Half-Dragon]]), [[User Creature Glossary|new type]], or [[3.5e Races|race]]? Or what were you intending? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:12, 1 March 2011 (MST)

== Can you create your own monster and how? ==

How do you make your own monster? Beacause I've always wanted to make my own "dragon-dillo" (armadillo & dragon combine). --[[User:Ja-Snake|Ja-Snake]] 19:56, 6 March 2011 (MST)

:See also [[Add a New DnD Creature]]. Things like [[CR Estimation Table (DnD Guideline)]] may help. Does this answer your question? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:18, 6 March 2011 (MST)

== Classes ==

Green Dragon, I am new to the d and d wiki community and i cant figure out how to create my own class. I know how to edit and change other classes if they ask for revising, but i want to be able to create my own. I would appreciate it a lot if you could either tell me how or if you could send me a link or something showing how.

Thank you for your time and consideration
Playerdb

:Does [[Add New 3.5e Class]] cover your question? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:42, 13 March 2011 (MDT)

== Deleting images ==

Can you delete a couple images for me? [http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/File:Pyromancer.jpg this image] is copyrighted and [http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/File:Imageremoved.jpg this image] was created instead to tell us that the first image was copyrighted. I don't seem to be able to delete them. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 06:53, 18 March 2011 (MDT)

:I can (and will later), however if you want to you can too. You can't do it on the page you supplied, you have to do it on media. So go to the file description page, [[dndmedia:File:Pyromancer.jpg]], (make sure your logged in) and delete it. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 10:33, 18 March 2011 (MDT)

::Actually the only listed admins for media are you and Blue Dragon. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 12:08, 18 March 2011 (MDT)

:::Oh ya, huh. I'll try to get that dealt with sometime. And I deleted them by the way. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:23, 18 March 2011 (MDT)

== update ==

Hey Green Dragon, you know the "create new equipment" in the D&D 4e equipment section? I think we should change it so that way it follows the 4e format. --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 21:05, 18 March 2011 (MDT)

:I agree. Do you have a specific idea for implementation? If so I would be more then willing to help you with it. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:24, 18 March 2011 (MDT)

::[[User: Badger|Badger]] actually has a preload set up (it's how I've been posting 4e stuff on my sourcebook). The link is [[User:Badger/sandbox6|here]] --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 11:57, 26 March 2011 (MDT)

== Featured Article Nomination? ==

What do I have to do in order to get an article nominated? --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 12:33, 26 March 2011 (MDT)

:Um, never mind. --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 12:34, 26 March 2011 (MDT)

:See also [[Featured Articles#Featured Article Nominees]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:39, 26 March 2011 (MDT)

== Not updating ==

Hey Green Dragon,
:I tried to update the {{File:Marino.jpg}} picture, but it's not updating. It instead stays in it's previous form. --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 15:40, 28 March 2011 (MDT)

:okay. It seems that if I make the picture too big, it doesn't revert. --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 15:59, 28 March 2011 (MDT)

:Still. Could this be fixed? --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 16:09, 28 March 2011 (MDT)

== Deities secion ==

I was browsing through the 3.5e Deities section and I encountered multiple entries that were meant only as jokes. Thas is not suitable. This is the first time I use this Wiki, and all those prank articles didn't leave a very good impression. I wish to request an immediate clean-up in the Deities section and remove all fake deities. I understand it may be fun to add Ceiling Cat as a Deity but this kind of humor is not appropriate here.

:Did they have the April Fool Category? If so I think their ment to be their.--[[User:Milo v3|Milo High-Hill]] 06:10, 11 April 2011 (MDT)

== Reploids ==

Hey Green Dragon,
:Do you think that maybe I could add a feat to the [[Reploid (4e Race)|Reploid]] race that gives them automatic plate (I call it total armor) proficiency (even if they don't have proficiency with preceeding armors)? You might also want a look at the link I have up there to see if a fit would even be possible without taking anything out. --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 22:44, 13 April 2011 (MDT)

::Or do you think that there should just be metalized versions of the armors already set up in regular 4e? Thin metal for cloth armor, thicker armor for leather, etc. --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 23:08, 13 April 2011 (MDT)

== [[SRD:Bless Water]] ==

I think holy water in the spell text should be wikilinked. - [[User:BalthCat|BalthCat]] 04:29, 17 April 2011 (MDT)

== Adding Content ==

Hi I wanted to know if I could add on the magic items sections some of the info from more of the core books? and if I could how? {{Unsigned|Jaybird|20:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)}}

:It depends on the license. Do you know the license? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:03, 18 April 2011 (MDT)

== help looking ==

i need help looking for the d20 modern specs for a "big rig 10 to 14 wheeler" if you could send me specs or a site that gives this i would be very greatful.

:Is [[MSRD:Vehicles#Peterbilt 379]] what you are looking for (see the table above for statistics)? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 00:32, 25 April 2011 (MDT)

== Was just wondering... ==

Just curious as to whether or not I could get my hands on a downloadable export of the mysql db for this site. I was hoping to use it for my own private notes. I play at a few people's places that don't have wifi (one of the doesnt even have internet) It would be helpful to have an SRD and such that I could put my own notes into. Either way, I completely dig the site. Keep up the good work man! -- [[User:Theoneandtruebane|Theoneandtruebane]] 17:10, 29 April 2011 (MDT)

:Well, as per the GNU FDL, you can use [[Special:Export]] which should help you. You can, of course, convert the XML to different formats such as pdf. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:55, 29 April 2011 (MDT)

::Many thanx good sir! -- [[User:Theoneandtruebane|Theoneandtruebane]] 10:35, 30 April 2011 (MDT)

== Question??? ==

Hey Green Dragon.. This is Dj00345... i have a question for the 2.5e Homebrew that you are letting me create for the wiki.... How can i create a Template for some of the pages????? i notice when i create a new creature that there is already typing on the white screen when you create a creature... i know that is a template... but how do i create my own template myself???? i need to make some of the templates for the other links, like: Deities, Equipment, Spells, Races, Class, and the others, so that when people create a page, then the right information will already be on the screen and all they have to do is create the page.... do you understand what i am saying???? please reply back on my user talk page... thx!!! [[User:Dj00345|Dj00345]] 13:53, 2 May 2011 (MDT)

:Just create the page. When creating it the formatting guidelines to use can be found [[Add Instructions|here]]. After it is created you use a inputbox and put it on preload=. Does this answer your question? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:59, 5 May 2011 (MDT)

::yes. [[User:Dj00345|Dj00345]] 20:08, 5 May 2011 (MDT)

== 3.5e Campaign Setting Teoryran ==

How can improve my Teoryran Setting. How can I create classes for Teoryran with the same name but different from existing classes of the same name? I am making a new system. Where all base classes are racial and status based on:

* Each race have four subraces for peasants, nobles, priests and a variable fourth.
* Each subrace have a class
* Each social caste have classes based on them.

Noble orcs can be samurai and noble humans can be knights. Human and orc serfs can be scoundrels, thiefs or conscriped soldiers. There will be different classes for priests and monks than for nobility. "Big changes" include:

* only racial classes gives hp
* carrier classes doesn't give HP
* gold is removed

--[[User:Klas|Klas Wullt]], 01:42 13 May 2011 (MST)

:For the pages with the same name you include ", Teoryran". For example "Orc, Teoryran (3.5e Race)". For the subraces you include their subrace after the comma (much like the SRD elves). For example "Orc, Teoryran Peasant (3.5e Race)". The classes can then, of course, be their favored class. If it is the fighter, for example, it would be "Fighter, Teoryran (3.5e Class)" and/or "Fighter, Teoryran Peasant (3.5e Class)". For the game mechanic changes you may have to make a [[3.5e Rules|rule]] or include it some way. When you have them made I can take a look at them and see if it makes sense. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:08, 22 May 2011 (MDT)

== 3.5e Campaign Setting Teoryran ==

Hello. I need some help for my setting. Teoryran World. How do I sort the pages correctly? {{Unsigned|Klas|01:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)}}

:What do you mean by sorting the pages? By category? By name? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:09, 22 May 2011 (MDT)

Thanks for the Offer.
Here, I just made on class.
Please take a took at it.
Knight, Teoryran(3.5e Class).

== 3.5e Equipment List - new category (Page editing locked) ==

Hi Green,

I'm a new user to Wiki & would appreciate some helpful advice :-)

Going to start a new D&D campaign this year with a Pirate theme. When people think of Pirates, thier main thoughts are Pirate Ships, Cannons, Flintlock Pistols & Cutlasses.

Flintlock's can easily be replaced with Hand Crossbow's, Cannons needed some more thought.

I do not want to introduce gunpowder into the campaign so as an alternative i've decided to go with Gnomish Engineering and introduce some clockwork & steampowered machinery (Steampunk) resulting in Steam Cannon's aboard ships

Decided the 3.5e equipment list therefore needs a new category of Gnome Engineering, a place for all things clockwork, steampowered or basic engineering (i.e. Piston Water Pumps)

I don't think this technolgy would change game balance as there are many ancient technologies that have been rediscovered such as the Baghdad Battery & Eygptian Piston Ballista

Created the Gnome Engineering category but can not link this category to the 3.5e Equipment list, as this page is locked for editing (for very good reasons, looks complicated)

Are you able to help?

Thanks

--[[User:Mufasa|Mufasa]] 10:19, 23 May 2011 (MDT)

== Blades Of Keran ==
I was wondering if someone could rate my campaign setting, [[Blades Of Keran (3.5e Campaign Setting)|Blades Of Keran]]. Also I agree with the above request about Gnomish Engineering as my campaign uses Gnomish Devices as well. --[[User:Milo v3|Milo High-Hill]] 17:08, 24 May 2011 (MDT)

== Economist talk page ==

So, I was browsing through the recent talk page (as I often do), and I was confused by your recent actions on the talk page of the Economist. Care to elaborate? It seemed like someone asked a question on the discussion, and Jota responded with an answer to the question. You deleted the reply, and gave no reason as to why. Someone (a random IP) then went and undid you revert, presumably because you removed helpful and useful content without a reason. You blocked him for 3 months for edit warring, despite him only having a single contribution to the wiki. What happened to warnings? What happened to the increasing block length? Effectively, you banned someone from the wiki for 3 months because they undid one of your edits, which you made without any reason at all. What's going on? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 21:05, 24 May 2011 (MDT)

:This whole "other wiki" kerfuffle is getting out of hand. There's no reason this has to be a zero-sum game. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 21:30, 24 May 2011 (MDT)

::The [[Warning Policy]] is only for when one does not edit with civility and etiquette. This is unrelated. Edit warring is a block reason on WIkipedia's policies and therefore effective on D&D Wiki. I don't mean it to be a zero-sum game, but when someone answers with (shortened) "this answer is irrelevant, look elsewhere" it's a obscuration of spamming to external sites. Another common block reason. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:47, 24 May 2011 (MDT)

:::The zero-sum part is black-holing any mention, however remote of another site*. It's either us or them. If they win, we lose (zero-sum). But there's no reason it has to be that way. Neither wiki is exactly crawling with people, and if we worked together instead of against each other (and looking rather silly while doing it, I might add), we would both be better off. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 22:12, 24 May 2011 (MDT) *Note, however, that it's only one site that gets people insta-blocked for a quarter. Other sites get mentioned without such severe penalties. In one case, I can think of a site that's mentioned multiple times that nobody seems to have any problem with...

::::Interesting, but D&D Wiki is not going to have a committee of people who are a self-appointed oligarchy who serve the same function as the [[Meta Pages#Improving, Reviewing, and Removing Articles|improving, reviewing, and removing articles templates]] present. Additionally things on D&D Wiki cannot be stagnant, and things should improve when they can (e.g. user categories being replaced by [[Special:NewPages]], [[Template:Author]] being superseded by history, etc). For example. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:26, 24 May 2011 (MDT)

:::::GD, no one is telling you to change policy about reviewing content, or anything else of that ilk. Jazzman merely said, and I agree, that we should be allowed to say things exist. We have countless links to other forums and sites that host homebrew content, it seems foolish to block people for mentioning one in particular, no matter the history. We can all act like adults and just let it be. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 22:40, 24 May 2011 (MDT)

::::::Links are supposed to do though [[DnD Links]]. All other links are incorrect. However, as I see it, on userpages is okay as long as when one notices it they move it to DnD Links, because to me that seems more like the user is unaware or unknowing. However spamming of external links, yes, does get one banned. Does this kind of answer your question? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:59, 24 May 2011 (MDT)

:::::::So, by your own admission, Jota and everyone else can post links to their other wikis on their user page, but not in the main namespace? Seems fair to me. I'll go ahead and add links to [[DnD Links]]. I'll assume users can still write something like "If you have any other questions, leave a message on my talk page", where they can post links to other sites (as you said yourself, user pages are fine for external links). Alright, sounds good. I'm glad we've finally come to some sort of agreement on this. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 01:05, 25 May 2011 (MDT)

::::::::No, that's taking it out of context. "on userpages is okay as long as when one notices it they move it to DnD Links" should be read as a full statement. Otherwise it's still a violation of policy. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 11:24, 25 May 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::You're telling me that there shouldn't be any external links on User Pages then? I was under the impression that if they were also listed on DnD Links, that would be fine. Sometimes you'd want to give a more specific link, like say one to a particular article. The way you've phrased it, it seems like there should be no external links anywhere but on that DnD Links page. That doesn't make any sense at all. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 13:50, 25 May 2011 (MDT)

::::::::::Well, maybe something like the w: could be made (as a template) for each link. Really, however, one should just direct one to [[DnD Links]] (that's why they are <tt><nowiki>{{#anc:}}</nowiki></tt>'ed). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:41, 25 May 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::::I understand what you're saying. I'm saying why make someone go to DnD Links, and then search the other site, when you could just as easily link to the exact page in the first place? DnD Links is certainly a good page, and designed for ease of reference, but I think it works best as a general tool, and for specific purposes one might as well link directly from one page to another, without using DnD Links. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 13:50, 25 May 2011 (MDT)

<-- Again, why? Can someone give me a reason why we are never allowed to link to other sites? I'm just not seeing the reasoning here other than to annex The Site Which Shall Not Be Named, and even that I can't see any good reasoning for. [[User:Hooper|Hooper]] is allowed to link to [[O.G.R.E.]] (which has it's own wiki page, btw; we aren't even allowed to ''mention'' the Other Wiki) with no repercussions, but an anon who undid an outright deletion of a post that vaguely mentions That Other Wiki was banned, without warning, for 3 months. Did they murder your favorite pet or something? Will the site really blow up if I decide to link to some innocent site that doesn't happen to me mentioned on DnD Links (which, judging by the traffic on that page, nobody looks at anyway)?

Sadly, I've seen this exact same scenario on wikis before: site 1 does something that subset of the site doesn't like. Said subset creates their own wiki. Wiki 1 bans mentions of Wiki 2. Wiki 2 uses this as reasoning to orchestrate more and bigger attacks against Wiki 1. As the bickering continues both sites end up looking silly and losing who would otherwise be valuable members. The more we block them the more they will do things like [[Special:Contributions/Bird|Bird]] did, which are ultimately more harmful to the site than anything the users would do if we just played nice with them. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 15:40, 25 May 2011 (MDT)

:So, should we do something like w: then? Currently, [[User:Hooper|Hooper]] should not be linking to any site not by way of [[DnD Links]]. I'm just following policy, be it fledgling or not. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:00, 25 May 2011 (MDT)

::I don't know what w: means. What I want to do is allow people to link to other sites without having to go through DND links first. If that's what w: is then yes, we should do that.

::If Hooper's not allowed to link to these sites, then do you want to clean out his userpage and delete [[O.G.R.E.]]? Because I can't see the reason for it. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 17:03, 25 May 2011 (MDT)

:Ironically, the best description I know of for the events that transpired is on the other wiki. A bunch of people decided to make a "rating committee". GD didn't like it. There was a bunch of silly squabbling, and the other wiki left, taking a ton of content and users with them. GD and everyone else were upset about who took what content, and the legality of that. Honestly, in my mind, this is the sort of thing that, after a week, could have blown over. Clearly we just need to share a beer, play some D&D, and realize how silly this fight is. Also, start allowing each other to link to each other's wikis. I can't speak with any certainty, but I am pretty sure they allow links to this wiki. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 15:58, 25 May 2011 (MDT)

::Go for it. I don't really want to do any cleaning out of userpages right now– I'm working on [[4e Deities]] as it is. I agree this is silly, however if links really are needed then someone (again, I don't care to do this) should make something like how [[Template:Background Information (Halo Supplement)]] treats links for each link. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:11, 25 May 2011 (MDT)

:::I'm not going to delete [[O.G.R.E.]] because it doesn't bother me and I don't understand why it's not allowed. I don't want to go angering Hooper, who's contributions are numerous and high-quality, if I don't have to. If you have time to block people for mentioning one site, I'm not sure why you are too busy to block people for mentioning another site. So how about instead we just allow everyone to link to sites?

:::And if all we have to do in order to link to D&D wiki (err, the *other* one, anyway) is to create a template, then that's a piece of cake. Heck, I can make one that works even ''better'' than the one you linked to. Now everyone's happy! [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 17:45, 25 May 2011 (MDT) (BTW Green Dragon, I think you are having problems with your browser. For some reason when you edit it deletes parts of the page on accident).

::::I'm not entirely sure why we need a template, especially one that would go at the bottom of the page like you linked. Maybe one at the top of the talk page? But, what would the template say, "This page contains external links. DanDWiki does not have any affiliation with any externally linked sites. Links do no necessarily reflect the views of DanDWiki and its owners"? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 20:06, 25 May 2011 (MDT)

:::::That's a good idea. And it could incorporate the switch extension. I just meant "like how [[Template:Background Information (Halo Supplement)]] treats links". --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:29, 25 May 2011 (MDT)

::::::How about this:

{| align=center border=1 cellpadding=2 cellspacing=2 style="text-align: center; background:#F4F0EC; color:black"
! style= "background:#71A6D2" | <big><big>Attention!</big></big>
|-
| '''This page contains external links.''' D&D Wiki does not have any affiliation with any externally linked sites. Links do no necessarily reflect the views of D&D Wiki
|}

::::::It makes no sense to have a template for individual sites, or even as a way to include the link in the template. If it pleases the wiki, we can just make a <nowiki>{{template:external_link}}</nowiki> and go from there. Throw this up on a page, and we can have external links anywhere we want. Problem solved. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 20:56, 25 May 2011 (MDT)

:::::::I don't like how obtrusive that is. I would prefer something much less obtrusive, comparable to an expansion of the MW external link symbol. For example: <nowiki>[www.address.{{{1}}}] ([[DnD Links#site|link information]]</nowiki> [[File:Externallink.png|12px]] this external link does not have any affiliation with D&D Wiki) And, I would prefer having a hard list of sites because as the internet is full of sites with varying degrees of quality it is good to have some quality control over how it effects D&D Wiki. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 11:35, 26 May 2011 (MDT)

::::::::Ok, well, considering that external links already have an associated image (or at least a symbol), why don't you just include a line of text below the edit window (by which I mean below the line "You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource. Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!") that says something to the effect of "Links to external sites must be deemed appropriate; inappropriate links subject to removal. See [[DnD Links]] for list of appropriate links." and we'll just say any page or subpage of a link on the DnD Links page can be freely linked to. I think the problem with including a template in this process is that we already have a ton of templates that we don't use because they are confusing or hard to find. Considering there is already a button for external links, we might as well use that. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 12:18, 26 May 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::What are your thoughts on just making a [[Meta Pages#Policies|policy]] which covers it and then adding text on [[DnD Links]] explaining it's function. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:27, 26 May 2011 (MDT)

::::::::::That sounds like the best possible plan. We allow external links, add a line in the policy about external links, and a brief summary about what should and should not be linked on the DnD links page. I'm glad we've finally come to some sort of agreement, and don't require the use of templates or other things that may be confusing to new users. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 19:35, 26 May 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::::I just wanted to comment on something said much earlier. It was ''"Note, however, that it's only one site that gets people insta-blocked for a quarter. Other sites get mentioned without such severe penalties. In one case, I can think of a site that's mentioned multiple times that nobody seems to have any problem with..."''. Not true. I literally was blocked on [http://dungeons.wikia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=&year=&month=-1 September 20th, 2009] after making four edits to that wiki - one redirecting a talk page to me, and three asking for a diff in a respectful manner. The block summary even stated some harsh thing. Don't pretend that one wiki is a white knight in this issue. I still don't understand why people won't just stay at their chosen wiki home, and ignore the other. ''(also, I only added the actual link because I'm understanding its now okay on talk pages? If thats not so delete it. I'm honestly having a hard time following.)''
:::::::::::Now, as far as O.G.R.E.s is concerned. It is my understanding, and perhaps I am wrong in this understanding, that long ago it was decided not to link to "competing sites". OGREs may be another wiki ''(for now, but when our webmaster isn't paid, things take time)'' but it isn't a competing site. We're not looking for the same kind of content. Now maybe I'm wrong, and if so, delete it. But in my opinion, the D&D Other section is perfect for articles discussing the different gaming organizations and may be very pertinent to the common D&D Wiki browser's interest.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 21:35, 29 May 2011 (MDT)

::::::::::::Even if they did block you, that's not really a good reason to insta-block ''them''. Simply linking to that site isn't, in and of itself, a legitimate reason in my mind to block someone for ''3 months'', especially considering the specific case we were talking about. (Let's face it, were it anyone but GD, we might have thought the original reversion was vandalism; it is only because we saw his name beside it that we know it wasn't).

::::::::::::As for O.G.R.E, I don't actually think it should be deleted, just as I don't think links to the other wiki should be deleted. But as far as I can tell, there's no differentiation between what links we are allowed to link to. Under the current rules as written, if we insta-ban people for mentioning one, it's completely hypocritical to pretend links to the other don't even exist. I'm not actually arguing that we enforce the rules against all sites, I think we need to change the rule entirely. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 22:05, 29 May 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::::::What's an instablock? The block was for edit warring, see also [http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3A63.23.72.173]. It's unrelated. I have no idea about O.G.R.E.. Is it on [[DnD Links]]? Has it been looked over? If it's anything like your video channel (which I have seen) then i'd be fine. Of course this discussion is for elsewhere. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:11, 29 May 2011 (MDT)

::::::::::::::[http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/216.66.140.248 This] is an insta-block. A user's very first ever edit was a reversion of unexplained deletion of Jota's response. The guy can't be accused of edit warring when there were (liberally) only 2 reverts, only one of which was this guy a participant. If we go by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:3RR#The_three-revert_rule WP:3RR], it's not a revert war until one editor does ''three'' reverts in a 24-hour period. That editor hadn't even had three ''edits''. (The IP you linked to, by the way, only had 2 reverts, and was never even given a warning before he was blocked for 3 months.) Not only that, but had an IP or a new user deleted Jota's comment without explanation, the reversion of said deletion would probably be given exception from the 3RR, because to all appearances, deleting someone else's talk page comments is usually itself vandalism. Adding them back almost never is. At worst, the two IPs should have been given an explanation of how what they were doing was not allowed, a warning to discontinue their actions, and ''maybe'' blocked for a day to cool down. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 08:34, 30 May 2011 (MDT) [http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Green_Dragon&diff=next&oldid=520281]

== Hi ==
I need help with footers and links.

:Could you be a little more specific? I've been working on a new user guide for some time now. It's not nearly complete, but it may be able to help you with some of your questions. You can find that [[User:Badger/sandbox3|here]].If you show me what you are trying to do, I can probably help. Drop a message on [[User_talk:Badger|my talk page]], and I'll see if I can help you work through your problems. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 14:54, 25 May 2011 (MDT)

== hello ==

I have almost finnished 3/8 planned racial caste races.
Please have a look at the Human noble and human peasant
and Ork noble races.
Links are found at Teoryran info about Races.

The race pages are to big,
any suggestions of how to cut them up and
sort them in different sections?

== hi ==

Mmm, well I needed the pages sorted after supplement.
I needed to put lots of class and race descriptions of personality, the world
and their lands somewhere else.

== hi ==

Mmm, well I needed the pages sorted after supplement.
I needed to put lots of class and race descriptions of personality, the world
and their lands somewhere else.

:What do you mean? [[Races of Teoryran (Teoryran World Supplement)]] is understandable. It is missing its footer though. Is that what you mean? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 19:52, 26 May 2011 (MDT)

Yes; sorry for being unclear.
I Lack footers and I am unsure where to put my classes
if they are not exactly base classes either?
Variant rules?
Should I greate a new page for racial classes?
Or are they paragon classes?
I am worried that some of the pages about info for the setting
lack addresses and take up extra memory.

== hi ==

Hello how to you I find this this page.

== Edit Revert? ==

Why did you revert my edit on [[Talk:DnD Links]]? I didn't break any of your rules and, furthermore, I contributed to the discussion. You shouldn't just censor things because you don't agree with them... --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 13:44, 30 May 2011 (MDT)

:Because it's not adding anything new to the discussion. It's not pertinent, see also the reason. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:49, 30 May 2011 (MDT)

::"Because it's not adding anything new to the discussion."
::False. I gave an illustration of how GNU (and similarly GPL) actually works in practice and showed that the emphasis on the licenses was initially for code libraries/projects. That emphasis is a very important distinction because it provides more basis for the argument I'm making. This also provides some historical context for my argument.
::I brought up how MySQL's licensing can be seen as a parallel example (actually I could have brought up Wikipedia too -- how do you think they transitioned from GPL 1.2 to GPL 1.3? Relicensing.).

::"It's not pertinent, see also the reason."
::Your reason is a complete strawman argument. ie. You are attacking an argument I didn't even make. Let's examine the exact "reason" you gave:
::"wrong - there is no section 11 clause to the GNU FDL v1.2 (that's the whole -i think- MSQL legal dilema)"
::Now go back to what I wrote. Did I write ''anything'' about section 11? No. In fact, earlier I already explained that section 11 does not apply in this case because this wiki is under GNU FDL 1.2 (the exact thing I said was "Anon, you are actually incorrect, unfortunately. This wiki uses GNU FDL 1.2 and no licenses can just suddenly retroactively patch a previous license.", see the context).
::Also, you "think" that is the whole "MSQL legal dilema", but I never even said that this has anything to do at all with MySQL's legal dilemma. I was strictly comparing the fact that MySQL was able to transition to a dual license to authorship as a concept.
::And, just to be a bit cheeky: you censored a well-written post meant to explain in detail my stance in a discussion. The whole point of that post was because you clearly were not responding intelligibly to what I had written earlier, so it seemed necessary to go into more detail. That's a pretty standard thing in a discussion. Elaborating on a point when the other party doesn't seem to understand.
::What I'd like to hear is how you think authorship and licensing actually works. All you've done is say that others are wrong, but you have yet to provide any evidence to back up your claims. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 14:10, 30 May 2011 (MDT)

:::It may not even be MySQL I am referring to. There is a conglomerate of companies which has a problem with previous GNU FDL licensing and now it is uncertain who owns their things. Since they used section 11 and did some version changing and things, they now have this problem. Last I saw one had to give over some billion worth in rights to the other or something along those lines.
:::It just doesn't matter how people use the GNU FDL v1.2. Who cares? We go by the license and law, and that is the discussion (mostly). What the GNU FDL has been used for is not.
:::I have said repeatedly that like Wikipedia's terms of use, law is. Of course things like licenses are interchangeable. What's not to read? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 14:28, 30 May 2011 (MDT)

::::"There is a conglomerate of companies..."
::::How does this point have anything to do with your website? Your website is not a company and you and it have no ownership over the material others put on it. You have ownership of the database and the webserver (or at least the rental agreement if you rent).
::::"We go by the license and law, and that is the discussion (mostly)"
::::What law? The one I showed was clearly false? Again, I ask very simply: explain how you actually think authorship and licensing works (with regard to this wiki). It seems you are either unwilling or unable to back up your claims, which isn't surprising considering that they hold no weight whatsoever.
::::"I have said repeatedly that like Wikipedia's terms of use, law is."
::::Since the following sentences probably hinge on that one, I'm just going to have to ask you to rephrase it. From the way I read it: "I have said repeatedly that, similar to Wikipedia's terms of use, law is an entity that exists". Which is true... But it doesn't really say anything worthwhile. I could say something similar and it would have just as much meaning to me: I have said repeatedly that like Wikipedia's terms of use, bacon is. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 14:57, 30 May 2011 (MDT)
::::PS. If you really do follow wikipedia's rules, then you broke them by reverting my edit. See [[w:Wikipedia:TPO]].

:::::I know. It's just an interesting story. That, though, is the only way whatever you are talking about is possible. D&D Wiki licenses content, like Wikipedia (see their Terms of Use). What's not to understand? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:04, 30 May 2011 (MDT)

::::::"D&D Wiki licenses content"
::::::From whom? Licenses need to be granted by some entity by definition... Yes. You just argued my point for me. You still haven't explained how you think it actually works though (yes, this is my third time asking on this page alone). --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 15:12, 30 May 2011 (MDT)

:::::::No, your not thinking about this. How does Wikipedia do it? They are only reserved. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:14, 30 May 2011 (MDT)

::::::::I will entertain your questions even though you won't answer mine. I'm not sure which terms of use you want to to explain (the old one that uses GNU FDL 1.2 or the new one that uses GNU FDL 1.3. I'll explain the one that matters

::::::::'''GNU FDL 1.2 (last revision found at [[w:Wikipedia:Terms_of_use&oldid=30325726]]):'''
::::::::After all the boring text telling us that every page is protected under US copyright laws, you are bound to the terms even if you don't read them, that pages are licensed under GNU FDL 1.2, and that page histories meet the terms of the GNU FDL, there is a wonderful gem of bolded text (which I'm going to bold the important part in my quote below).
::::::::"you are hereby being given notice under Title 17 USC that it is your responsibility to comply with the copyright laws in regards to this archival material and your copying it may be considered infringement ('''specifically if any of the materials being stored in those prior versions are copyrighted materials that were submitted to Wikipedia without the author/authors or copyright holder's/holders' permission(s)''')."
::::::::Huh? The author has to give permission to have it put on Wikipedia? It's almost as if the author has rights to their own work! You know, like the right to license their work as they see fit. Note also that the terms of use do not have any such mention of forgoing the author's right to relicense their own work. It just talks about the fact that you can't take materials that have a copyright and add the GNU FDL license without having the author's consent.

::::::::Now for the GNU FDL 1.3, there is little point in explaining because we have already determined that this wiki does not use that license anyways, but if it did, a CC-by-SA license can be added to ''other author's'' work. Yeah, if this site was GNU FDL 1.3 that would just mean that moving content and relicensing would not require the author's consent.

::::::::Attempt #4: Care to explain how you think it works (and maybe throw in some specific quotes to support your argument this time)? --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 15:37, 30 May 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::'''Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!''' — what's not to understand? The adherence to the license? "you are bound to the terms even if you don't read them, that pages are licensed under GNU FDL 1.2" --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:41, 30 May 2011 (MDT)

::::::::::You aren't getting it. Whose permission is required for copyrighted work? All you are pointing out is exactly what I just said: you can't submit the copyrighted work of others'. You can totally submit your own copyrighted work because you obviously have your own permission. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 15:47, 30 May 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::::Your not getting it. "you are bound to the terms even if you don't read them", meaning that you are bound to the terms. With regard to copyrighting through the USA Copyright Office, a different scenario, was it done? And I think Wikipedia's Terms of Use cover that to some extend now. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:19, 30 May 2011 (MDT)

::::::::::::Can I link to an external site (the US Copyright Office site)? On their FAQ, you will clearly see the following text:
::::::::::::"Do I have to register with your office to be protected? No. In general, registration is voluntary. Copyright exists from the moment the work is created. You will have to register, however, if you wish to bring a lawsuit for infringement of a U.S. work."
::::::::::::So, I don't see what the copyright office has to do with anything.
::::::::::::I totally agree that Terms of Use function in a way that makes them binding even if they are not read. But the fact of the matter is, anything I write is copyrighted (by me), and I can license that work as I see fit. You agree that the GNU FDL is a license, not a contract, right (this is a VERY important distinction)? --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 16:46, 30 May 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::::::I mean previously copyrighted work. And, no, submitting it here licenses it. For example: "Therefore, for any text you hold the copyright to, by submitting it, you agree to license it under the". --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:50, 30 May 2011 (MDT)

{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}

:Previously copyrighted work is not a big deal either because none of the content that was moved was copyrighted by someone who didn't hold the copyright.
:Just to be perfectly clear: you agree the GNU FDL is a license, not a contract, yes or no? --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 17:02, 30 May 2011 (MDT)

::I think the problem is GD thinks licensing content here grants DandWiki ''exclusive'' license to the content. It doesn't. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 17:06, 30 May 2011 (MDT)

:::Indeed. Exclusive licenses require a contract, which this website does not have. That's what I was getting to ''';)'''. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 17:12, 30 May 2011 (MDT)

::::It doesn't. See also the [[Coin Golem (3.5e Creature)]]. All I am saying is there is a licensing problem (as it ''is'' the GNU FDL v1.2) which undermines D&D Wiki in various ways if it is not that license. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:45, 30 May 2011 (MDT)

:::::Right. But the point of the GNU FDL is not for authors, it is for collaborators. The author is licensing a ''copy'' of their work (whatever it may be) under the GNU FDL. It is not an exclusive license. That ''copy'' must follow all the rules and regulations of the GNU FDL. If the same user decides they want to license their work under a different license, they don't have to pay any attention to the GNU FDL because they are licensing a completely separate ''copy'' -- even if the content is exactly the same. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 17:56, 30 May 2011 (MDT)

User talk:Green Dragon

2011-05-30T23:12:50Z

Aarnott: /* Edit Revert? */

{{:User:Green Dragon/Top Template}}
{{Messages of Interest|messages=
{{MoI-Row
|page=Category_talk:Candidates_for_Deletion
|section=Idea_for_half-completed_pages
|notifier=Jazzman831
|date_time=21:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=LA_7_Races&oldid=397215
|section=
|notifier=Green Dragon
|date_time=22:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=User_talk:Green_Dragon
|section=Taking Author Information off Pages
|notifier=Jwguy
|date_time=01:40, 6 November 2009 (MST)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Talk:Detect_Disease_(3.5e_Spell)
|section=Author Template
|notifier=Daniel Draco
|date_time=13:55, 6 October 2009 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Talk:Detect_Disease_(3.5e_Spell)
|section=Author Template
|notifier=Daniel Draco
|date_time=03:15, 4 October 2009 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Talk:SRD3e:System_Reference_Document
|section=Basic Character Classes
|notifier=Hooper
|date_time=16:45, 1 October 2009 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=User_talk:Hooper/Banned_Material
|section=Hugh?
|notifier=Lord Dhazriel
|date_time=17:57, 18 September 2009 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=User_talk:Jason_Bagby
|section=Deletion Template on User Page
|notifier=Hooper
|date_time=17:05, 5 September 2009 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=User_talk:Admin
|section=Transcribed Wizards of the Coast Online Archives
|notifier=TheWarforgedArtificer
|date_time=16:15, 5 September 2009 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=User_talk:Admin
|section=Transcribed Wizards of the Coast Online Archives
|notifier=TheWarforgedArtificer
|date_time=16:01, 5 September 2009 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Deviant_(3.5e_Class)
|section=Author Template
|notifier=Sulacu
|date_time=13:58, 28 August 2009 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Talk:Knightwarrior_(3.5e_Class)
|section=
|notifier=Lord Dhazriel
|date_time=21:57, 27 August 2009 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=User_talk:Calidore_Chase
|section=No longer an Admin?
|notifier=Calidore Chase
|date_time=12:51, 15 August 2009 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Template_talk:Spell
|section=
|notifier=TheWarforgedArtificer
|date_time=00:12, 8 August 2009 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Template_talk:Spell
|section=
|notifier=TheWarforgedArtificer
|date_time=23:58, 7 August 2009 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Talk:Half-Troll_(4e_Race)
|section=Formatting
|notifier=Sepsis
|date_time=14:57, 3 August 2009 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Template_talk:4e_Power
|section=Strangeness
|notifier=Taritus
|date_time=13:40, 22 July 2009 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Template_talk:4e_Power
|section=Strangeness
|notifier=Taritus
|date_time=13:39, 22 July 2009 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Talk:Ironbound_(3.5e_Prestige_Class)
|section=locked
|notifier=GaaaaaH
|date_time=04:59, 12 July 2009 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Talk:Dungeons_and_Dragons
|section=DPL?
|notifier=Daniel Draco
|date_time=22:13, 24 June 2009 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Template_talk:4e_Artifact_Part_1
|section=
|notifier=Sabreheim
|date_time=21:34, 11 June 2009 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Talk:Rod_of_Orcus_(4e_Artifact)
|section=Template Issues
|notifier=Sepsis
|date_time=16:08, 11 June 2009 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=User_talk:Green_Dragon
|section=Harassment
|notifier=Sepsis
|date_time=07:45, 31 May 2009 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Talk:Giant_(4e_Race)
|section=Response
|notifier=Sepsis
|date_time=07:37, 31 May 2009 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Category_talk:Martial_Adept
|section=
|notifier=Daniel Draco
|date_time=19:57, 28 May 2009 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Nature_Bound_(DnD_Class)
|section=
|notifier=Sabreheim
|date_time=15:26, 28 May 2009 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Talk:Daunting_Assailant_(DnD_Class)
|section=
|notifier=Daniel Draco
|date_time=15:46, 8 April 2009 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Talk:Regiment_(3.5e_Template)
|section=Can't Access the Page Anymore
|notifier=Aarnott
|date_time=15:27, 6 April 2009 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Template_talk:Weapon_Desc
|section=
|notifier=Sabre070
|date_time=21:52, 7 November 2008 (MST)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Talk:Main_Page
|section=Moving to new MediaWiki version
|notifier=Blue Dragon
|date_time=13:36, 28 October 2008 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Talk:Bodily_Relics
|section=Talk:Bodily Relics?
|notifier=Rithaniel
|date_time=10:28, 16 October 2008 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Talk:DnD_Abyssal_Heritor_Feats
|section=DPL
|notifier=Aarnott
|date_time=11:08, 28 July 2008 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Talk:Soul-Mate_(DnD_Feat)
|section=
|notifier=Xdeletedx
|date_time=23:03, 19 July 2008 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Talk:Snake-Sword_(DnD_Equipment)
|section=
|notifier=Eiji
|date_time=02:07, 30 June 2008 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Talk:Main_Page
|section=WYSIWYG extension
|notifier=Aarnott
|date_time=10:35, 20 June 2008 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Snow_Silver_(3.5e_Equipment)
|section=
|notifier=Ice Paul the III
|date_time=13:21, 6 June 2008 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Talk:Myrmidon_(DnD_Class)
|section=
|notifier=Kisame93
|date_time=08:16, 26 May 2008 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=UA_talk:Variant_Rules
|section=Two Complete Chapters
|notifier=OptimizationFanatic
|date_time=15:15, 11 May 2008 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Talk:Expanded_Religions_(DnD_Variant_Rule)
|section=Featured Article Nomination
|notifier=Hawk
|date_time=07:23, 28 March 2008 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Talk:Regiment_(DnD_Template)
|section=Call out for help!
|notifier=Aarnott
|date_time=16:58, 17 March 2008 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Template_talk:Main_Page_FA
|section=
|notifier=Sam Kay
|date_time=13:21, 16 March 2008 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Talk:Publishers_of_d20_and_D&D_Products
|section=
|notifier=Ramses IV
|date_time=11:15, 16 March 2008 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Talk:Mesoamerican_Gods_and_Goddessess_(DnD_Pantheon)
|section=
|notifier=Ramses IV
|date_time=09:59, 16 March 2008 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Talk:Marksman_(DnD_Class)
|section=
|notifier=Eiji
|date_time=02:30, 15 March 2008 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Form_talk:DnD_Equipment/Preload
|section=Problems
|notifier=Hawk
|date_time=22:03, 29 February 2008 (MST)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Talk:DnD_Equipment
|section=Cost and Weight
|notifier=Hawk
|date_time=20:06, 29 February 2008 (MST)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Form_talk:DnD_Equipment
|section=Date
|notifier=Hawk
|date_time=19:42, 29 February 2008 (MST)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Talk:Catgirl/Nekomusume/Nekomimi_(DnD_Race)
|section=Dogs
|notifier=Xdeletedx
|date_time=16:28, 26 February 2008 (MST)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Talk:Brawling_(DnD_Variant_Rule)
|section=Sooo tired...
|notifier=Eiji
|date_time=00:04, 26 February 2008 (MST)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Talk:Marksman_(DnD_Class)
|section=
|notifier=Eiji
|date_time=13:11, 24 February 2008 (MST)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Talk:User_Base_Classes
|section=
|notifier=Sledged
|date_time=14:27, 19 February 2008 (MST)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Talk:Vest_of_the_Bold_(DnD_Equipment)
|section=
|notifier=Cronocke
|date_time=05:17, 18 February 2008 (MST)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Pedistal_of_Truth_(DnD_Equipment)
|section=Format Format
|notifier=Green Dragon
|date_time=09:40, 16 February 2008 (MST)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Talk:Performer_(DnD_Prestige_Class)
|section=
|notifier=Cerin616
|date_time=18:22, 11 February 2008 (MST)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Talk:Main_Page
|section=
|notifier=Sam Kay
|date_time=07:20, 5 February 2008 (MST)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Talk:Paladin_Mount_from_first_level_(DnD_Variant_Rule)
|section=
|notifier=Sam Kay
|date_time=09:35, 4 February 2008 (MST)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Myrmidon_(DnD_Class)
|section=all of it
|notifier=Tetsurga
|date_time=17:54, 31 January 2008 (MST)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Talk:DnD_Maps
|section=Maybe this should be in environments after all?
|notifier=EldritchNumen
|date_time=12:32, 3 January 2008 (MST)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Talk:Chromatic_Dwarf_(DnD_Creature)
|section=Race
|notifier=Green Dragon
|date_time=23:45, 1 June 2007 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Combat_School_(3.5e_Variant_Rule)
|section=
|notifier=Green Dragon
|date_time=23:57, 21 May 2007 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=MediaWiki:Sharedupload
|section=
|notifier=Green Dragon
|date_time=23:01, 14 May 2007 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=dndmedia:D&D_Wiki_Media_talk:Copyrights
|section=Image documentation
|notifier=Cuthalion
|date_time=14:11, 11 May 2007 (MDT)
}}
}}

{{Archives
|label1= Archive 1 (Discussions 1 – 30)
|label2= Archive 2 (Discussions 31 – 60)
|label3= Archive 3 (Discussions 61 – 90)
|label4= Archive 4 (Discussions 91 – 120)
|label5= Archive 5 (Discussions 121 – 150)
|label6= Archive 6 (Discussions 151 – 180)
|label7= Archive 7 (Discussions 181 – 210)
|label8= Archive 8 (Discussions 211 – 240)
|label9= Archive 9 (Discussions 241 – 270)
|label10= Archive 10 (Discussions 271 – 300)
|label11= Archive 11 (Discussions 301 – 330)
|label12= Archive 12 (Discussions 331 – 360)
|label13= Archive 13 (Discussions 361 – 390)
|label14= Archive 14 (Discussions 391 – 420)
|label15= Archive 15 (Discussions 421 – 450)
|label16= Archive 16 (Discussions 451 – 480)
|label17= Archive 17 (Discussions 481 – 510)
|label18= Archive 18 (Discussions 511 – 540)
}}

== Media's Upload File ==

Everytime I try to log in to upload a pic, I get this.

<code><tt>A database query syntax error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in the software. The last attempted database query was:</tt></code>

<code><tt>(SQL query hidden)</tt></code>

<code><tt>from within function "User::idFromName". MySQL returned error "1142: SELECT command denied to user 'db89449'@'205.186.184.15' for table 'wdd_user' (internal-db.s89449.gridserver.com)".</tt></code>

--[[User:Jay Freedman|Jay Freedman]] 18:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

:Uploading is working now. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 03:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

== Formatting Help ==

I would like to know how to reformat my submitted setting. i am pretty new to this whole thing...

P.S.~ sorry about completely over-riding your touch-ups, i meant to only make minor corrections, but you see i was in th emiddle of adding a lot of information on the playable races at the time, and i was getting very frustrated at the fact that every time i had an editing conlict, i had to pretty much write everything again. leastways the equivalent amount of work on it, what with taking out the dashes and spaces, and putting in the HTML... {{Unsigned|ChieftainTwilight|15:06, 28 February 2010 (MST)}}

:First if you press the back button it will retrieve the information you had been typing. Just Copy+Paste into the new version (with some minor editing if needed) and continue posting. Edit conflicts are not really a problem as such except for minor formatting or minor changes which deal with the other user's changes. What do I think of [[Mysteries of Andor (3.5e Campaign Setting)|Mysteries of Andor]]? I find that nothing is really fluffed out. I recommend that you make the deities and then link to them from that page. Although you say many names, what I mean is, what are they? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 04:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

== Mediawiki is unavailable? ==

I'm sure you've already been alerted, but just in case, the Mediawiki pictures are not showing up, and Mediawiki comes up saying there is an "Exception caught in Exception Handler". It's not working at all. [[User:Jwguy|Jwguy]] 05:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

== Captcha ==

Would it be possible to have only IP and non-autoconfirmed users have to fill out the captcha when inserting external links? There are a butt-ton of d20 Modern stubs, but since the "edit this page" is treated as an external link, I have to fill out a captcha for every stub template. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 02:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

== More post-crash problems ==

I'm sure you're aware, but I'm just letting you know of some other problems I'm finding since the server crash. First of all, the site is sllllloooooooowww. Sometimes it will be zippy, sometimes you will wait 10 seconds and get a "something went wrong" message, but other times, like right now, it will take literally minutes (sometimes up to 5) to open up a page. Which is just an eternity when you are trying to add a class.

Secondly, no pictures from mediawiki are being loaded correctly. They all just give the name of the image with a link, instead of actually showing the image.

Keep up the good work! [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 02:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

:I know. I have been told that the current MW install has many problems with it and lead to slowing down the site sometimes. Media will be dealt with. Another thing too, to make this even better (time wise), is that I just heard that MW has serious security flaws and needs to be upgraded. Maybe upgrading will fix many of the problems which are slowing it down sometimes too. And then if it keeps being slow sometimes then I will think of something else. Hopefully wednesday things will get better (this weekend did not happpen). Sometime though, I can promise. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 03:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

::Ah, that sucks. At least you've got a culprit and a likely fix, though. The worst thing about misbehaving technology is when you don't know what's going wrong. Maybe having a slow wiki will give me time to catch up on some of the things I'm ignoring while I'm spending too much time here ''':)''' [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 05:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

:::That's not what I said, but sure. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 05:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

== problems ==

the site takes forever to load. and i cant search.

== Spam ==

I think I might know why the spam problem has exploded lately: the Captcha doesn't seem to be working. When you add external links there's no captcha prompt at all. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 20:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

:That's because, as was said above, ReCaptcha's were showing up for stub, etc templates for users and external links for users. With MW one cannot just say "IP's have them" anymore, it is now for edit types or somesuch for all but users but those in the admin group. In any case they have been removed as such. Maybe if it continues to be a problem. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

::Gotcha. It's too bad they don't have more useful options. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 05:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

== Number of Admins ==

I can't help but notice the large drop in admins, as of late, for whatever reasons be it. And though I hardly have any standing, nor say in the matter, I suggest some sort of action should be taken to renew the community on this wiki, before its community dies down too much to have any hope of revival. And still, I have little idea as to how to do so, I've seen many great communities fall and shrivel. So I'm convinced that unless someone gets out there and attracts some people into the community, not just general traffic into the site, the community will break down, maintenence and upkeep will fall, and I fear this great wiki could fall into a bad state.

Well, just my thoughts, I thought you should know. I could be terribly wrong and there's a constant amount of community and I'm totally paranoid and pessimistic. But this is how I see it, seeing the constant destruction of admins with no new ones does worry me. --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] 21:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

:What are admins? Do they help? Although I have done no research into the subject I almost feel that ones editing decreases once attaining adminship. Do we need more admins? Yes. Of the top of my head I can maybe think of two or more people who need to be RfA'ed. Know someone? Ask them and then, depending on the result, RfA them please. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

::Makes sense. I don't know anyone, but your point is very much valid. --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] 06:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

== Unofficial Errata ==

I had a discussion on the WotC boards about all the absence of errata for a lot of the previous editions books. For most of these unofficial errata were collected by players.

My thoughts were that a wiki would be a good place to maintain such unofficial errata, given the transient nature of the WotC boards (most of the older errata threads have been purged). D&D Wiki seems the most natural place to start such an endeavor.

Is this something you would be willing to accommodate, as I'm not sure it fits entirely with your current content?

I don't think I've ever contributed here, but I'm a regular at several other wiki's and would try to gather as many unofficial errata as possible if you'd give a green light to such an undertaking.

I will try to check back at this page for an answer every now and then, other options like e-mail, I can post if you want to.

Cheers. Adriaan Renting. {{Unsigned|192.87.1.200|13:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)}}

:Yes, it would work. Is errata for OGC OGC? I would imagine so. In any case, a good place to start, (especially if it is unofficial errata) is to just make the page and link to it from the publication. Start by taking a look at [[Publication List]] and finding the book (or adding it if it is not added) and then placing a link on the page. For example [[Exemplars of Evil/Unofficial Errata]]. Does that make sense? Do you think that would work? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

== Help Talk Pages ==

:''Discussion moved to [[Help talk:Talk Pages#Subject/Headline]].'' --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:37, 11 January 2011 (MST)

== MediaWiki Problems ==

Hey, I didn't see any 'Contact us' options, and I noticed that you were the owner, so I decided to stop by and ask a quick question ''':)'''. Recently this site has been experiencing more and more problems (i.e. not being able to load properly or going down for short periods of time). I just thought I would point this out and wonder if anything could be done?

Oh, and I just want to add, I love this site! Be proud! Thanks! --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 05:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

:First we need to clean up this site. For example, at this moment, [[3.5e Sorcerer/Wizard Spells]] spells is not able to load. Why is this? The code is not properly done (SMW and so), I think. In any case it returns a database error and eats up a lot of the server. Once all the code problems have been ironed out then we can see if this is still a problem.
:This should happen slowly. Soon D&D Wiki's MW will be upgraded (the current version has a few security problems) and that should make a difference. Then other areas need to be worked on. I hope this helps answer your question, and I look forward to seeing some of your content. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 19:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

::Well D&D Wiki has been upgraded to MW 1.15.2. Pages like [[3.5e Sorcerer/Wizard Spells]] work now. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

:::Things are improving. Only a few problems, for example forms and images, are problems now. They should be fixed soon though. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 03:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

== MoI (of sorts) ==

Hi GD, I've got a couple of things to tell you about:

#First of all, I've finished adding PL categories to all the d20 Modern homebrew equipment, so Phase 1 is complete!
#[http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User:Jazzman831/workspace&oldid=461878 Here] is my current progress on Phase 2. Let me know what you think before I continue creating the rest of the pages.
#Three items ([[Flashbang (D20 Modern Equipment)|Flashbang]], [[Phosphorus Grenade (D20 Modern Equipment)|Phosphorus Grenade]] and [[Smoke Bomb (D20 Modern Equipment)|Smoke Bomb]]) are created for D&D 4e, not d20 Modern, so I don't know what to do with them. See my opinion on the matter [[Talk:Flashbang (D20 Modern Equipment)|here]].
#MoI: [[Talk:Grenades (D20 Modern Equipment)]]
#MoI: [[Talk:Halo (D20 Modern Campaign Setting)#Rating_2]]
#What do you think of [[User:Jazzman831/preloads#Ranged Weapon Preload|this]] preload/template as a way to standardize ranged weapons? It's the format used in Weapons Locker, and the most useful format I've seen.
#MoI: [[Category talk:Rifle]] (Note also that [[:Category:Longarm]] actually exists; possibly my next project should be standardizing the categorization of the Modern side of things? Where should such discussion take place?)

Sorry about the long list, but I think that should get us caught up to date. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 17:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

:I copy-pasted your prototype page for [[D20 Modern Equipment]] onto that page. I changed a few things. Do you think the changes make sense? I modernized the subpages. Once all the subpages are created (so called Phase 2) then [[D20 Modern Equipment]] can be cleaned up. I will deal with the rest of your comment above soon... --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

::The changes make sense, though in a perfect world the last two categories (not categorized by age or type) should always be empty, correct? Perhaps this is a good way to make sure that everything gets labeled. For the "all" category (I thought about something similar myself), do you want to create a separate page with every PL X item, or just link to the PL X category, which is effectively the same thing? While we're on the subject of the "all" category, I notice some of the totals (PL 2 and 5) don't add up right. I'll try to figure out what's happened; probably something isn't categorized correctly.

::The only things I really don't like are adding "equipment" to all the pages, because it gets wordy, and removing the PL number from each line of the table. The former isn't really a huge deal, since users probably won't ever type that anyway, but the second is bigger. All of the books (as well as the MSRD) refer to PL primarily by number, not by name, so I think it's better to have the number actually there instead of counting up or down.

::I hope to get to adding the subpages sometime soon. It'll be a function of how much my carpal tunnel is flaring up and how bored I get... [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 00:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

:::Alright, subpages are finished, though as I said before, I'm not sure what to do with some of the pages.
:::Have any comments on the rest of my points yet?
:::Also, I think a database has crashed. Every time I try to move a page or use the search I get the following error: <code>145: Table './ddwikidb/wdd_searchindex' is marked as crashed and should be repaired (localhost)</code> [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 19:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

::::That database problem is no longer a problem.
::::[[D20 Modern Equipment]] looks good. I only wonder about maybe making the all page split by way of the improving, reviewing, or removing templates. I guess we should discuss that there though.
::::I still have not made up my mind about what should happen to the edition-specific items which were moved to another edition. The others things I responded to, and see below.
::::With regard to the preloads please feel free to add them, something is better is nothing. They can always be improved throughout time of course. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 03:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

:::::Cool. I've actually been creating preloads as I see they've been missing. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 01:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

::::::With [[D&D 4.0 Future (4e Sourcebook)|4e Future]] and [[User:Vrail|Vrail's]] comment that
{{quote|4e is a rule set, not a time period.
|orig=--[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 16:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)}}
::::::I have decided that no time period should be mandated. I think I moved all those back, if there are any others please let me know. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

== 3.5e Class White Guard ==

:''Discussion moved to [[Talk:White Guard (3.5e Class)#Protection]].'' --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:43, 10 January 2011 (MST)

== Uploading an Adult Picture ==

I was hoping to place a certain picture on one of the pages that I'm going to design for my camapign setting. However, this picture has nudity in it. It's not pornographic, a female witch is simply naked. I was wondering if I would be allowed to post this? Or should I send it to you first for clearing? --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 05:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

:It should be okay. Just make sure to add [[Template:Adult Theme]] to the top of the page. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

== 3.5e Rule Negative Level Adjustment ==

:''Discussion moved to [[Talk:Negative Level Adjustment (3.5e Variant Rule)#April Fools & Balance]].'' --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:56, 11 January 2011 (MST)

== Couple questions ==

Just a couple things I'd like to ask you about. You mentioned that my class wasn't original and that it's been created before, yet if you search on this web site it's the only one that comes up. Umm? Just wondering about that, cuz I wouldn't know it's unoriginal if nothing else like it is on here. Another question, you mentioned that the Sith aren't all dark users. I took the definition of what a Sith was directly off of the star wars database, so take them up on it if you're really confused about what a Sith is. {{unsigned|Tmblake09}}

:Urm, Green Dragon didn't say any of those things. [[User:Vrail|Vrail]] said it was unoriginal (and unless you are George Lucas, ''any'' Sith class is by definition unoriginal), and he was also the one who suggested there were good and evil Sith. Generally if you have a problem with a specific article, it's best to take it up on that talk page and not a user talk page -- otherwise, people who look at your class later won't see this discussion.

:You are correct, by the way, that there aren't any other Sith classes on the wiki (btw GD, [http://media.dandwiki.com/wiki/Sith this] is another Sith class, but it's posted on MW? I didn't even know that was possible), but there are many, many other Star-Wars related entries. [[Jedi Knight (3.5e Class)]], [[Jedi Healer (DnD Class)]], [[Jedi Guardian (D20 Modern Base Class)]], [[Jedi Dualist (Not Duelist) (DnD Prestige Class)]], [[Jedi Consular (D20 Modern Base Class)]] and [[Jedi Sentinel (D20 Modern Base Class)]] all come up with a quick search. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 16:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

== Template Delete ==

:''Discussion moved to [[Template talk:Delete/why#Goal]].'' --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:04, 11 January 2011 (MST)

== Censorship ==

You've edited a comment I've left on a page. on PokeDM's [[User_talk:PokeDM|Talk]] page. You cropped it down, citing solicitation. I'm forced to say "Not Cool". I went out of my way to not solicit any other websites. I didn't drop a name. I didn't provide a link. Furthermore, I read through the behavioral policy just now and didn't see anything banning solicitation. I was trying to be helpful to a new user, letting him know that other people have tried similar endeavors, and there is help for him if he needs it. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 06:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

:I have never said we do not edit comments. Comments are edited when needed. What you are doing is spam ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_spam Article Spam]), links to D&D resources can be found on [[DnD Links]]; no where else. Partial censorship is something D&D Wiki has — to keep spam and non-relevant things at bay. All the recent spam from IP's (see the barnstars some have received) is not allowed — I think you would understand. It could become a serious problem.
:For example (not notice if you saw it) there was some spam advertising a certain boots company. If I recall correctly they supplied no links. Do you see the problem? It's very simple to understand. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 03:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

::I think he was just confused and dismayed at why you modified his post and never explained why. Poor communication on both sides resulted in a misunderstanding, but I don't think either side was intentionally being aggressive or anything like that. Anyways, no need to start a feud over a misunderstanding. ''':)'''. --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 04:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

:::Right, but you should also mention that no reason needs to be given in text format (maybe in the edit summary). I see what you mean when you mention this, and for the most part the IP (when violating this) knows though his or her ban. Since this user is not getting banned as a result of his or her solicitation (implicit or explicit), you should notice that just the censorship was hinting at this. Since he or she did not, and actually took this kind gesture the wrong way, now he or she knows is all we can say. As a general rule one should always read the edit summaries, and I hope we can say that if something gets censored with such a reason in the edit summary that is the reason. Seems very simple to understand, but I guess not. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 04:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

::::To be fair Vrail, I was much more aggressive (intentionally) at the end of my comment up there. You just aren't seeing it because it was censored... Anyway, yeah, I was angry because my comment was edited. I don't see how a useful, on-topic, offer of help from an external resource (which was not linked or named) from a registered, contributing user on a fellow user's Talk page should be compared to spam about cheap boots on SRD talk pages. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 04:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

:::::Why was it solicitation? Because it did not say something like "I would like to tell you that other resources exist dealing with Pokémon in D&D. A simple Google search should give you some results." --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

::::::I suppose I assumed anyone attempting to make Pokemon monsters for DnD has probably already done a simple Google search. I was trying to provide more specific help with material. Can I leave something akin to "Hey, I noticed you're working on Pokemon for DnD. Leave me a message on my [[User_Talk:Badger|Talk Page]] if you want some help with creation, I know other resources exist that you may find helpful."? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 20:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

:::::::Email would be the correct option. If someone wanted a possibility for such things then there is the possibility they would not mind recieving an email about such things. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

:::::::: The best part of this oppression is that you keep using the verb 'to solicit'. Let us take the most humourous meaning of the word and put it into context; Badger was attempting to bribe PokeDM for sex with name-dropping of! How... dastardly. It's not solicitation, it's advertising. Unless, of course, you think that people finding other sites that have D&D information on is an 'evil action', which wouldn't be too much of a step, to be honest. I mean, Badger doesn't want anything from his actions, except to help, and isn't really persuading the person in anyway nor was he persistent in his name-dropping. Also amusing is how Green Dragon is trying to say that what Badger did is on the same level as spambots. Because what he said had no relevance to the matter at hand for a person called PokeDM! Who'd think he'd want to find pokemon for D&D that other people had made to draw inspiration from. Also, I'll probably be banned for this. After all, I'm some kind of crazy anarchist. SOLICITATION, YES PLZ. --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] 11:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

:::::::::No TK, it wasn't the irresistible urge to ''play out fantasies'' with PokeDM that got me caught "soliciting", it's the fact that I mentioned a website exists where PokeDM could find some help. It's not even advertising, in my opinion. It's be like a guy walking around saying "Hey, I see you spilled some mustard on your shirt. Know what could get that out? Soap..." Not the most helpful comment ever, but if you didn't know Soap existed you could certainly get the impression I know a thing or two, and ask me for help on how to find this "Soap".
::::::::: Also, when I said ''play out fantasies'' I meant play a role-playing game with fantasy elements, not have kinky Tome Charizard sex. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 16:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

::::::::::"''Let's take the most humourous meaning of the word and put it into context''" — ya, but I don't mean that usage. That is not how English works. You take the correct usage, the one that works.
::::::::::Etymology: Middle English, to disturb, promote, from Anglo-French solliciter, from Latin sollicitare to disturb.
::::::::::;transitive verb
::::::::::# to make petition to : entreat b : to approach with a request or plea <solicited Congress for funding>
::::::::::# to urge (as one's cause) strongly
::::::::::# to entice or lure especially into evil b : to proposition (someone) especially as or in the character of a prostitute
::::::::::# to try to obtain by usually urgent requests or pleas <solicited donations>
::::::::::;intransitive verb
::::::::::# to make solicitation : importune
::::::::::# of a prostitute : to offer to have sexual relations with someone for money
::::::::::(Merriam Webster)
::::::::::And, yes, it is spam. If he is truly interested in helping PokeDM achieve personal goals then using email to help him find resources is the correct method; please read the discussion before responding. Posting a lasting comment here with soliciting present is not acceptable.
::::::::::And yes, but you should only say "Soap" and if you want to give your preference of a Soap brand then you should only tell him or her, announcing it to everyone is soliciting. And soliciting is not allowed. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

:::::::::::{{quote|you should only say "Soap" and if you want to give your preference of a Soap brand then you should only tell him or her, announcing it to everyone is soliciting. And soliciting is not allowed"}}
:::::::::::That is precisely what I did. I told him I knew of soap (a wiki) and if he wanted I could tell him the brand (the wiki's actual name). If you want to go back and read my original comment you'll notice I left it intentionally vague. Unless you think the word "wiki" narrows down the exact website I intended to link. Also, I don't think any of those definitions you posted up there truly apply to what I did. It was one comment on a talk page; hardly urgent, evil, forced, or pleading. It was actually ignored for 2 weeks before you went and edited it. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 22:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

::::::::::::You should of, however, just said it exists. Then the user can find it him/her self. This is correct. If it is such a singularity then an email with specifics would be in order.
::::::::::::By saying things like "wiki" and so you are soliciting, implicitly, and that is not allowed on D&D Wiki. Saying things exist, however, is okay. Why? Then "other things" are not given an even playing field and you are attempting to influence the readers views. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 19:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

:::::::::::::How was he supposed to know he could e-mail me to ask for specifics if I didn't mention that he could? Furthermore, given all the recent spamming on this website (which you, yourself, acknowledged a few posts up), I don't want to leave my email address on this site; and I certainly wouldn't ask someone else to do something I was afraid to do. Finally, let's get the straight, right here, right now: the word "wiki", at least in the context of "I know a wiki exists", is solicitation. Quite frankly, if they did know what I mean, then they probably already know everything I do. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 20:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}

:Since you mentioned my name I thought I'd pipe up. Ironically, I only know what you are talking about because I've seen it censored from people's pages. Had I not seen "removing solicitation" in the RC longs, I probably wouldn't have gone to those user's pages and seen the link in the first place.
:But I digress. You can email a user without posting your email address to spammers. If you have set up your email address in your [[Special:Preferences|preferences]], and have checked the "enable e-mail from other users" box, you can send or be sent an email through the wiki using the Email this User link on a user's page or talk page. This doesn't leave you open to spammers, because they don't actually have a way to access your email address unless you give it to them. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 20:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

::Exactly. And use <code><tt>Special:EmailUser/<!-username-></tt></code>. As I said above, "''If someone wanted a possibility for [email] then there is the possibility they would not mind recieving an email about such things.''" --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

:::I have been on this wiki for some time now, and I had no idea that function existed. Thanks for the heads up. And Green Dragon, I still have no idea what "''If someone wanted a possibility for [email] then there is the possibility they would not mind recieving an email about such things.''" means... --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 20:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

:::::I spent a lot of time on a wiki that was a little obsessed with back-channel talk, so I learned pretty quickly about the email user function. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 21:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

::::Meaning that I hope people make sure their preferences are their preferences. I hope that those who add an email also make sure to select or deselect "Enable e-mail from other users". --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

:::::Not all users read those boxes carefully, and the box is unchecked by default. It's the kind of thing that most people don't know is there until someone tells them about it. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 21:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

::::::Is that included in Green Dragon's Welcome Message? If not, I move we add it. I know I glanced at the preferences page the day I first signed up, and not again until just now. I know that's on me for not being more careful, and through, but I imagine many people don't know that exists. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 22:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

:::::::I changed it a bit ([http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User%3AGreen_Dragon%2FWelcome_Message&diff=465597&oldid=428051 diff]). Your thoughts? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

::::::::I'm curious as to what prompted the change from "love" to "enjoy", but I do think it is much better. Might it also be beneficial to have a straight-up welcome page for new users? The message is personal and nice, and for that short and sweet is best. But a more in-depth welcome page might also be helpful, perhaps with a list of admins, or very active users, and their areas of expertise. For instance, asking you for campaign writing advice would be useful, but given my time here I think Hooper is who I would direct questions to. Again, you may be able to help with d20 Modern, but there is no doubt in my mind that Jazzman would perhaps be more helpful. Nothing against you or your abilities, but everyone has a strong suit, we should embrace that. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 03:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

:::::::::One enjoys websites not loves them? Dunno. Sounds better? Dunno.
:::::::::And no. That's not going to happen. Everyone interprets things for themselves and having a D&D Wiki-mandated page telling users how certain things are which is interpreted on a personal scale is not good policy.
:::::::::And if people do not know the generals of wiki's then they need to learn — but D&D Wiki is not Wikipedia in the sense of a trillion help pages to learn MediaWiki and so. One can go there. We assume if one cares they can first look for it theselves. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 03:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

== Hello ==

Good evening Admin.
i have a question.

What would you say for a LA+0 Race to have +3 STR, +6 DEX, +3 CON, -6 WIS, -4 INT, -2 CHA() Size= Large. Would you say that would be fair? im considering on making a race thats not too over powered but just right. I would love to make a Na'Vi race. From the movie Avatar. i love that movie and i think it would just be awesome to bring it into D&D Wiki. {{unsigned|Powershart}}

:I'm not Green Dragon, but I saw this and thought I'd respond anyway. LA +0 seems low for a large creature, especially one that gets a total of +12 to physical stats. Plus you have exactly offset the physical bonuses with mental penalties, and if we use the orc as a precedent, physical stats are more valuable than mental. (By the way, odd numbered stat increases are generally frowned upon, because they don't add a static bonus/penalty.) I'm not sure that Na'Vi would have low Int or Cha, and they ''definitely'' don't have low Wis. They are very spiritual, insightful creatures; if anything, they should get a Wis bonus. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 14:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

::First racial changes should always be even. Second, large size normally means LA 1-2. With the bonus' to dex it could get very overpowered, for example with ranged fighting. I would recommend upping the LA and tonning down the ability score changes and then it could be LA 1. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

think you for welcomeing me even now it's alittle late for my response but it is one.

== How do I Delete? ==

I realize that the Special Operative Gunslinger is way off balance, and I want to delete it... How would I go about doing this? {{Unsigned|Rogue The Demonchild|06:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)}}

:See also [[:Category:Candidates for Deletion]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

== Search and DPL Problems ==

When trying to browse the D&D 3.5 pages, many things do not load in the list, cutting off about a third of the way down to about half the way down. The search function is also broken. These problems have been occurring for a few months, and I am a little upset that I can't access all of the data available on this website. Sorry if you've heard these complaints many times before, but I figured I should report it, since it hasn't been dealt with for a while. {{Unsigned|216.134.174.192|20:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)}}

:Both of these problems have been dealt with, and thanks for mentioning the problems. Please see below and [[Talk:All 3.5e Races#DPL Problem]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 02:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

== Trouble with the wiki ==

Hey, I'm just stopping by to say, and I know this has been said before, but their seem to be some problems with loading pages on the wiki. It seems as though every second time I try to load a new page it says 'error wiki down' or something of the sort. Not to mention it taking a very long time to load pages some times. In addition to this, it is impossible to search and to move pages as it keeps on saying error. I was under the impression that the slowness of the wiki and the constant downs were supposed to be fixed a while ago from your response to my earlier post about this on the discussion page, however it seems to still be causing trouble.

I don't mean this in a threatening or rude way, so please don't take it the wrong way, but if this keeps up the wiki may start loosing some of its community, which would be a terrible thing as I love the wiki and the people here. So I'm hoping that this can be figured out some how and the wiki can start working at optimal capacity again. Perhaps it is having problems with loading because of spikes that the servers can't handle at certain times of the day? Anyways, hope its worked out, thanks. :)--[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 21:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

:Search was repaired.
:Moving pages now works.
:With regard to the speed I am going to switch hosting soon again (to something a little different) and from there we can see once again.
:Sound okay? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 19:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

::AWESOME! [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 21:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

:::Thats great, thanks for jumping on this so quickly, I look forward to a faster wiki! ''':)''' --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 21:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

::::Hosting has been switched and the problems are being ironed out. We'll have to see how it is now and then see. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 04:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

== Template DnD Prestige Class Infobox ==

:''Discussion moved to [[Template talk:DnD Prestige Class Infobox#Authors and Adopters Parameters]].'' --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:25, 11 January 2011 (MST)

== Moving Pages ==

I noticed that recently you were moving a number of DnD pages to 4e or 3.5e or their corresponding eddition. Is this being done to all pages? If so, I could help. ''':)''' --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 05:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

:Ya, it is. If you would like to [[DnD Rules]] could use some page-moving help. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 05:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

::So are all the pages on those lists just being moved to 3.5e rather than DnD? Or am I missing something? It just seems like a simple task to have not been completed yet. ''':)''' --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 05:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

:::It's been a few days now, just wanted to say I'm still waiting for an answer. I really want to help out, but I don't want to start moving pages and find out I'm doing something wrong. ''':)''' --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 03:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

::::That is what needs to be done there. A lot of simple tasks have yet to be completed, a great example is [[Special:ListRedirects]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 03:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

:::::Awesome, just wanted to clarify. I'll start moving some pages, although many may have to wait a bit, it's pretty late at night were I live right now. ''':)''' --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 04:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

::::::'''I DID IT!'''. That took a lot more work than I thought it would, but it's finished now, and I can rest happy, knowing the wiki was helped. ''':D''' --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 06:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

:::::::I just finished converting all of the 3.5e campaign setting tags from DnD to 3.5e. I was wondering if there were any more big pages to convert? --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 19:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

::::::::I can't think of anything that involves moving pages, but if you are looking for something with lots of work, check out [[Special:DoubleRedirects]]. If that interests you, basically what you need to do is change the first redirect to point to the third redirect, skipping the second redirect entirely. But then you have to go to the second redirect, hit the "what links here", and change all those links to point to the third page. Finally, add a deletion tag to the second redirect, and I'll come along behind you and delete the unneeded redirects.
::::::::Of course, it's a lot of work, but it's pretty mindless work. Luckily since we mostly use DPLs instead of direct linking, when you moved all those pages 90% of the links to those pages will have moved with them, and you won't have to change much. Unfortunatly, as of this moment there are 984 double redirects!! If this interests you but I didn't explain it well just leave a message on my talk page and I'll be more clear. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 20:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

:::::::::Awesome, so I've moved all the big pages of DnD to their correct editions. What a great feeling it is to have finished, that was a lot of work. ''':)''' Anyways, I'll get to work on the double redirects. ''':)''' --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 18:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

::::::::::Of course, if you want to do something less mindless, you could update the classes pages and look over their content. Let me know if you are interested. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 03:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

:::::::::::Lol, that does sound pretty interesting, but I have a lot going right now, perhaps when I finish up my campaign setting, or fix a few more double redirects I'll do it, but right now I just don't think I have the time.
:::::::::::But if the job is still open in a couple of weeks or a month or two I'd love to do it. ''':)'''--[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 03:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

::::::::::::Well it's open until the task has been completed. I started on [[DnD Base Classes]], and will finish the task sometime in its current state. Just let me know when you have time and still want to, unless you understand what I am talking about then of course at your leisure. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 03:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

== what would be involved in hosting an OD&D derivative? ==

There are several old school D&D clones, most of which are ostensibly derived form D&D3.0, like labyrinth lord, OSRIC, Swords & Wizardry.

Would it be a possibility, assuming one of them consented to be hosted here, to have a section added to be populated with that content?

Their PDFs can be sometimes a little frustrating to navigate.

-- Greg.gilbraithATgmail.com

:Of course. If you need to know how to start your own section please let me know. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 02:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

== Quests and Encounters ==

When you try to create a new Quest on the [[3.5e Quests]] page, all it says is AAA. Their is also no page to make encounters. Is their any way for this to be fixed with relative ease? I was just looking into adding an adventure/quest and couldn't create it that way.--[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 04:16, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

:Please see [[Talk:DnD Flaws#Flaw Form]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

::What's the advantage of using a form vs. a preload? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 21:36, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

:::Preloads are better. This was discussed somewhere (I think on a form's removed page (please see [[Talk:DnD Flaws#Flaw Form]])). The reason was that preloads make it so wiki syntax is learned sometime whereas forms do not do that. And both are about the same difficulty to understand. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 02:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

== Deletion ==

I don't know how to delete things on this wiki; I'm assuming it's a mod's job, but I've honestly got no idea. I'm trying to delete [[Epic Access (3.5e Feat)]] and [[Greater Epic Access (3.5e Feat)]], as I've turned both of them into [[Epic Access (3.5e Variant Rule)]]. If deleting things is a mod's job only, would you delete them for me? If I can actually do it, I'd be more than happy to learn how so I don't bother you or Hooper over this again. Thanks! --[[User:For Valor|For Valor]] 23:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

:Please see [[:Category:Candidates for Deletion]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 02:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

== Spam ==

Today alone I have already removed four spam posts, and thats just one person on one day. It seems recently the pace of spam has increased. Am I imagining things or did some spam blocking protocol get messed up or something? Anyways, just wondering if there is anything that can be done to help keep spam down. ''':)'''--[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 20:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

:Oops, just noticed this was already talked about, feel free to delete this comment if you wish. ''':)'''--[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 20:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

::Honestly, I don't think blocking the spammers really does anything. I've never seen one IP address spam more than one page, so they've got some kind of program that randomizes the IP after every spam post. However, the reason you probably saw more today is because traffic was much lower, so the same amount of spam makes up a higher percentage. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 01:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

::Actually, I take back that last part. The spammers are out in force today for some reason. Good work, as always, Vrail.

::The only pattern I ''have'' noticed is that they seem to hit the same pages over and over (can't quite figure out why they choose those pages though). When I see a page has been hit more than once I protect it for a couple months from anonymous edits. Don't really know if that helps or not, I'm hoping that the bot hits a protected page, tries to edit, and isn't smart enough to figure out that it's locked so nothing happens. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 03:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

== 3.5e Page Names ==

I have noticed that a number of the larger pages in 3.5e are still called DnD (i.e [[DnD Character Options]], [[DnD Classes]], [[DnD Campaign Settings]], etc.). Since all of the pages in these categories have been moved to 3.5e rather than DnD, shouldn't these larger pages be moved too? Anyways, I was just wondering, just say the word and I can do it. ''':)''' --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 06:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

:Of course, and please feel free. Also, since they are related to one another, the templates with "DnD" present (e.g. [[Template:DnD Prestige Classes Breadcrumb]]) should also be moved. They are also considered subparts of the 'larger pages' as well. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

::When you were changing the links on the 3.5e homebrew page so they skipped the redirect you missed [[DnD Maps|maps]]. Just pointing it out since I can't do it myself. ''':)''' --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 23:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

:::Oops, nevermind, just checked and the maps pages are the same for 3.5e and 4e. Sorry, I guess I should check before I talk next time. --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 23:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

::::It would make sense to add an addition, but I do not think an edition really defines a map. Maybe if they have creatures detailed (e.g. [[dndmedia:File:Blacksmith's Cellar.jpg|File:Blacksmith's Cellar.jpg]]. Dunno, your thoughts? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 02:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

== Images Lost ==

So it appears we have yet again lost all the uploaded images on the wiki. Everywhere that there should be an image is the link, but no image (on my computer at least). What's the deal? I know this happened once before, I want to say when mediawiki was updated. Is that what happened this time? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 18:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

:I don't know what happened, however I would just like to say that this has happened for my computer to, so it's not just you! ''':)''' --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 20:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

::I looked into it a bit more, and figured out that the pictures are still there in the media wiki. However the links are going to the normal D&D wiki categories rather than linking to the files in the media repository. --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 21:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

:::Images are working once again. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

== Races Not Showing Up ==

Um, hey Green Dragon. I made 3 races, one used to show up (they're all for D&D 4e) called Hyrulian, and now none of them show up. there was Dark Hylian, Hyrulian (I changed the name once you click on it), and Zora. The Zora is not the same as the 3.5e. I never created that one. Anyway, if you could tell me, that would be nice. Thanks, and thanks for creating D&D Wiki! --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 00:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

:I fixed those. When you add things make sure the categories are correct. Categories make pages show up on other pages and the removal of categories or the incorrect changing of categories will stop that from happening. If you want a category for your user, although not recommended since links on ones userpage is the same thing, please add that in addition. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 02:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

::Hey ''Green Dragon'', 2 of my races have shown up: ''Dark Hylian'' and ''Hylian''. So you don't have to worry about those two. But, Could you put my '''Zora''' (4e race) one up? Thanks,
::Hmm, Maybe I should watch the introduction someday. All right! Thanks! --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 03:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

:::It is. The template at the top of the [[Zora (4e Race)]] page makes it show up in the lower section. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 03:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

::::I found out where the Zora race went. I finished the adventurers. Do you have to manually move the Zora so that it won't be edited? Thanks, --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 03:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

:::::If you dealt with the issue on the stub template then feel free to remove the template. When you do it will be moved up to the upper section. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 04:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

== D&D wiki, whats the status? ==

Hello fellow D&D gamer,

I was surfing D&Dwiki, and looking for some maps, and when I finally found them, I sadly realized that the jpeg files were no longer their. Then when I went back to the home page, I also saw that the picture of the Rock worm was gone (which has been their for ages). So what's going on? How's D&D wiki doing?

A fan of D&D WIKI!

Cheers,

Amrit van der Lely (Netherlands)

== question ==

What does d% mean or is that just the drop ratio and if you do give me an answer do you mind telling me how to use the drop system?? {{unsigned|Billojava|2010-06-02 07:54}}

:[[SRD:Basics#d%|What d% means]]. No idea what you mean by the "drop system". —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 14:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

::I actually found a really cool d%. It was a big clear and hollow d10, with a smaller solid red d10 inside. When you roll it both roll simultaneously creating a %. It's really awesome.--[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 16:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

:::I've got a few of those die-inside-a-die for each type, and they're really neat. We also wear '''d%er''' patches, much like bikers wear '''1%er''' patches. Its hilarious.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 16:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

== Fell Knight 4e Powers ==

Hey,

If anyone could put down how to create Class 4e powers, that would be great, cause I need to provide a power list for my Fell Knight.

[[User:Axl|Axl]]

:[[Add New 4e Power]]. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 19:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

== Locking Pages ==

Hey Green Dragon, Do I really have to let people edit my races that I created? 'Cause, I really don't want anyone editing them. Thanks, --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 22:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)Axl

:Yes. Its a collaborative site. If you are not 100 percent okay with others working with you, then don't upload the content.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 23:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

::You can request to get your content locked, but then you cannot edit it either. Let me know what you decide please. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

:::How do you lock your content? I'm thinking that's what I'm going to do. Can I unlock it without troubling you? --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 00:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

::::Actually, I'll just let people edit things, and if I don't like it, I'll click the revert button. --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 01:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

:::::If you want your content locked post something on the talk page saying it. Or supply some links to an admin. A few editing deviations exist, of course. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

== Power Ideas ==

Hey, if anyone has any ideas for my classes powers, just put them down [[Fell Knight Powers (4e Power List)|here]].

Thanks,
--[[User:Axl|Axl]] 19:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

== Tavern re-opening ==

So it's been a while since the tavern was closed down. I know there was some trouble with it in the past, and doubt as to it's use/need.However, I see dozens of messages on talk pages that are posted minutes apart, and I for one have been hit by plenty of edit conflicts. I know before hosting the channel was an issue, but as I understand that was resolved. Is that still the case? I wonder if there was any other interest in re-opening the tavern. A vote/discussion on the topic would be worth looking into, I think. As for hosting, if the server support isn't there, I'm sure we can find some free IRC hosting. Just something I've been thinking about, it might help to drive some life back into the site, and increase the community user-base. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 23:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

:GD believed that the tavern was actually a bad thing for the wiki to have, and therefore it was never re added even after the server was fixed. However, reading over the discussion about it (I would post it but I can't remember what it was called), it seemed like more people wanted to keep it then discard it, and it was never really voted on.

:I know this was dealt with already, but now that it's brought up I'd like to put in my own 2 cents that, I loved the tavern. It was a great resource and could be used for not only common discussion but it can help with people wanting reviews on their pages, or help/advice. It also seemed to help create a more welcoming community and allowed at some point for a D&D game to be played, which was a good idea and seemed fun. For all of these good things about it, it seemed only one negative point could be brought up, the amount of spam on it. However with the ratio of good to bad being 5 to 1, I do think this discussion could be reopened. --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 02:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

::I think you are referring to [[Discussion:The_Tavern:_use,_expansion,_and_availability.|this]] discussion. It seemed toward the end of that conversation that Green Dragon was opening up to the idea again, maybe I'm misinterpreting, however. I think we should seriously look into opening it up. From that discussion it appeared that many of the problems were surrounding users no longer involved with this project. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 20:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

:::Hrm, was the tavern just like a chat room? I've had a lot of bad experiences with off-wiki communication on other wikis... all it does is make people paranoid and exclude people. Even now, with the Tavern dead for 6 months, there are talk pages on this wiki which say "go to the tavern, we are discussing it right now". Well, that only really works if you happen to be there at that moment of time. But if I want to read that discussion to figure out how they reached some decision, I can't. Wikis are designed to have everything visible always, not some stuff visible once.

:::I can see the value of, say, hammering out class ideas in real time, or chatting about your most recent D&D game, but I don't think any off-site communication should be relied upon for more than that. If someone makes a change to a page based on a tavern discussion, someone else a year down the line needs to be able to understand why that change was made. And no policy discussions should ever be held on the tavern, period.

:::So to clarify, I'm not strictly against it ''per se'', but we need to be very careful of how it's used. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 23:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

::::I figured the tavern was almost exclusively for "hammering out class ideas in real time, or chatting about your most recent D&D game", and other things, like quick rule questions that don't need to be a discussion forum, like "does DR from multiple places stack?". It was never my intention to have it be anything more than "Hey, can someone check out MyClass?". --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 23:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

:::::In the past it's been used for more than that... naturally I can't remember where I saw it, but there was at least one policy discussion that was discussed on the tavern, and then people who weren't on were very confused. But like I said, as long as we are clear about it's use, it can be a great feature. And really, I don't see why we'd need to host it ourselves... given the bandwidth problems, I'd go so far as to say we don't ''want'' to host it here. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 23:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

::::::That's why I've looked into the free hosting provided by freenode.net. As for policy discussions, I think as long as we remember the tavern is part of a bigger whole, that shouldn't be a problem. I've started a mockup in my [[User:Badger/sandbox1|sandbox]] of what the tavern portal should look like, if you want to suggest changes to text, or see what I'm trying to do, or something.--[[User:Badger|Badger]] 00:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

:::::::I think it would be nice to host it ourselves, just for consistency and easier management and placement. We also have the bandwidth to host it ourselves, unless I misunderstood a previous post on the tavern discussion page. So really it shouldn't be a problem as to us hosting it ourselves.

:::::::It would be nice to have GD's opinion on this, seeing as it is his decision in the end anyways. Soooo, care to stop by and chat dragon ol' buddy? ''';)''' --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 01:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

::::::::I think we ''thought'' we had enough bandwidth, but seeing as we are having bouts of server off-time daily, I think we probably don't have the bandwidth we thought we did... But yeah, obviously we're in a holding pattern until GD weighs in. Then I think we move this conversation to a discussion forum and open it up the the entire wiki, and see if the community actually wants it. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 02:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

:::::::::Bump. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 00:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

::::::::::Bump. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 23:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

:::::::::::So then, you've had right around 5 months to read this thread. Any thoughts? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 15:56, 28 October 2010 (MDT)

::::::::::::There are some D&D chats on the web. Cheers! --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 16:52, 28 October 2010 (MDT)

:::::::::::::Right now the technical expertise are not available. When they are I will respond in the discussion. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:54, 28 October 2010 (MDT)

::::::::::::::What expertise do we need available? Are you considering returning to an IRC channel run through the wiki, like before? I'm more than willing to learn what we'd need to make that happen. If you want to consider using a free outside server, the expertise is already here (I think). I don't want to volunteer anyone, but I think Jazzman already has the knowledge to maintain a IRC channel. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 00:28, 29 October 2010 (MDT)

:::::::::::::::I'm also not sure what kind of technical expertise we need. We can easily (bonus: freely) have an IRC channel set up on a free host, so there's no expert even required. All you'd need is an admin or two to /ban troublemakers... though I hardly doubt that will be a problem anyway. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 12:15, 31 October 2010 (MDT)

== D20 Future Section? ==

Does anyone think that there should be a D20 Future section, or do we just put the future stuff in the D20m Homebrew? Thanks, --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 20:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

:d20 Future's already there, it's just not separated out into it's own section; it's integrated in with all the rest of the d20M stuff. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 20:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

== Legal Disclaimer ==

Can anyone tell me if I need to put a legal Disclaimer on all my 4e races? My races are: Dark Spike Hylian, Dark Hylian, Forest Hylian, Hylian, Gregar, and Zora. Thanks, --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 23:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

:They're based off Zelda races/classes, right? You bet you do. It's easy, just add the template to the bottom of the page, above the breadcrumbs. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 23:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

::I do? How come? Is it just because I used the name "Hylian"? Do I have to put in the disclaimer on my Megaman stuff too? Well, I'll get around to that. Thanks though. --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 04:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

:::Um, do you mind giving me the template for that? I'm actually kinda new here on D&D Wiki. Thanks, --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 04:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

::::Sure thing, just add <nowiki>{{Copyright Disclaimer}}</nowiki> to the bottom of the page, just above the breadcrumbs. This should be applied to any material that is inspired by any copyrighted material, so Megaman, Zelda, or anything else you add.--[[User:Badger|Badger]] 04:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

:::::Thanks, --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 20:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

::::::Hey! It worked! Thanks! --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 21:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

== Spam and ReCaptcha ==

I was talking to Badger and he thinks that dealing with Captcha would be less annoying than dealing with spammers. Many people watch your talk page so we'll see who else agrees.

The problem we had before was that it was all or nothing. Were we using ReCaptcha or some other service? It looks like ReCaptcha [http://recaptcha.net/plugins/mediawiki/ has been updated] so that only IPs are affected. If that's the case, it should solve both of our problems at once. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 22:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

:I know you are busy fixing other things, but the spam is terrible right now. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 03:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

::The spam is getting worse. We really need to look into getting captcha implemented for IPs again. With the recent update of Mediawiki we shouldn't have any trouble doing that, right? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 01:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

:::ReCaptcha is now implemented for all IP edits and user edits with an external link. Please let me know of any problems. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:59, 16 August 2010 (MDT)

::::ReCaptcha was not working for edits, just account-related pages. It should now be working for edits too, and please let me know of any problems. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 00:13, 30 December 2010 (MST)

== Templates ==

Can anyone provide the (improvement, Reveiwing, and some other) template? Cause I need it for stuff. Thanks, --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 21:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

:Check out [[Help:Improving, Reviewing, and Removing Templates|this link]] for any of the reviewing templates you need. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 21:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

::Whoops. I just found out how to do it. Sorry for putting you through the trouble. But thanks. --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 21:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

:::Oh Hey! There's more in that link! Thanks! --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 21:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

== Content Question ==

I've recently created a Dungeons and Dragons drinking game (cleverly named DnDnD, Dungeons and Dragons and Drinking). A '''real life''' drinking game meant to be played alongside DnD; ''not'' a mechanic for including drinking games in DnD. Before I moved it into variant rules, I thought I would run it past you and see if you think it's appropriate for the wiki. It's currently in [[User:Badger/sandbox2|my sandbox]]. I already added the adult content template, as well as made it clear that we here at Dandwiki support drinking responsibly, and do not condone under-aged drinking. What do you think? Is this in line with the kind of content we want on the wiki? Should I move it into variant rules, or leave it in my sandbox? Thanks, [[User:Badger|Badger]] 01:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

:Seems fine to me. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

== Ganteka ==

Is [[User:Ganteka|Ganteka]] still on D&D Wiki, or is he finished with it and left his account running? --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 03:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

:I do believe Ganteka is gone for good. He's moved elsewhere, if I'm not mistaken. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 04:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

::Was he the one that created the [[Wolfkin (4e Race)| Wolfkin Race]]? --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 19:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

:::It appears to have been originally made by an unregistered contributor (an IP), but was worked on by [[User:Kernac|Kernac]]. I don't believe Ganteka made any edits to it at all, other than undoing what appears to have been some vandalism. You could always ask any questions on the relevant talk page, rather than Green Dragon's personal talk page. It'd be more likely to be answered by someone with more information. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 20:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

:::::Do [[Add Instructions]] and [[Special:Contributions/Ganteka]] answer your questions? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

::::::When was the [[Wolfkin (4e Race)]] created? Because I only looked at the first page of Ganteka's contributions.

::::::--[[User:Axl|Axl]] 21:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

:::::::Use the "History" tab. The first edit was Oct 21, 2008, and Ganteka's only contribution was Feb 26, 2009, when he undid vandalism. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 21:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

== Incomplete Quest ==

:''Discussion moved to [[Talk:A New World (3.5e Quest)#Stub]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

== Lock down? ==

While I was doing D&D Wiki yesterday, I tried submitting something, and it just kicked me out, and I couldn't get back in. Is the reason for this is because now there are pictures for like Green Dragon's talk page, and contributions and so on? If anyone could tell me what happened, that would be nice.

--[[User:Axl|Axl]] 18:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

:Hmmm, I do not know what happened if you were simply barred from the site, that seems a little bit odd. However if you were just getting the message 'the wiki is down' or something of the like, that has been happening a number of times recently. However the time you are mentioning it is most likely that the wiki went down for temporary maintenance to restore the pictures. --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 05:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

::Yeah, That's probably it. Thanks.

--[[User:Axl|Axl]] 20:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

== I'd like to hear from you about reopening the tavern ==

As I asked you earlier on you talk page, I was wondering about re-opening the tavern. It's been over a week without hearing from you, so I made a discussion to ask the community their thoughts. I'm polling the community to see if we would like to have one again. Here is where you come in. If you have some time (it shouldn't take more than a few minutes), stop by [[Discussion:Re-opening_the_tavern%3F_What_does_the_community_think%3F|the discussion]] and post your thoughts. I look forward to hearing from you on this one. Thanks, [[User:Badger|Badger]] 21:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

:Bump. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 00:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

::So it's been over a month and a half since this discussion was started (on your talk page, I might add), but you've not yet chimed in. Since you're online now, I thought I might be able to get your attention by reminding you I'd like your opinion. We started a discussion thread (linked [[Discussion:Re-opening_the_tavern%3F_What_does_the_community_think%3F|here]]) and the community seems to embrace the idea; the current vote is about 5 to 1, in favor (I say about, because I don't know that one of the votes "for" is still around). In case you don't want to read all the discussion let me give you the cliff's notes: Free hosting that is run offsite, so as to not tax bandwidth. People want it. We're working on rules too. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 22:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

:::Bump. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 23:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

== integrated pictures? ==

Green Dragon?

Do you know how to integrate pictures into a Race instead of forming a link to it? If you could show me that, that would be nice.

--[[User:Axl|Axl]] 22:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

:I'm not sure I know what your talking about. However if you just mean having a picture show rather than a link being formed simply link to the file with these brackets {{}} instead of the normal square ones [[]]. You may have been having trouble because the links to pictures have not been working recently. --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 05:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

::Yeah. That's true. Some links weren't working, so I took them out. These were links for two of my races. But, I still don't understand how I get the files to integrate on the page that I'm working on once I save the page. I just don't know how it would work.

--[[User:Axl|Axl]] 20:11, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

== Barnstars ==

Hey, I'm just wondering what the barnstars are all about. I searched through the site a little bit, and didn't find any talk pages on them. I also did a google search and it came up with it being a decorative item put on barns. I'm just wondering a few things: Why are they given as awards, who can give one, and can I give one to myself (I'm not saying I will, just wondering ''':)''')? Anyways, thanks! --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 05:11, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

:Does [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Barnstars Wikipedia:Barnstars] answer your questions? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

::Lol, it does thanks a lot! I really should have thought of checking wikipedia. ''':P''' That's a lot of different barnstars... think I can get em all? ''':P''' --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 19:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

== hi ==

hi there...it wud seem the tavern is gone...i miss talking to the guys here...

:There is actually an ongoing discussion on bringing the tavern back [[Discussion:Re-opening_the_tavern%3F_What_does_the_community_think%3F|here]]. If you would like to see it again you may contribute your thoughts and ideas there. However please try to back up your thoughts with logic, that way your contributions can have more merit to them. ''':)''' --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 15:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

==Knowledge Devotion from "Complete Champion"==

I currently have a question about a 3.5 edition feat and its rules..

Knowledge Devotion from "Complete Champion"

Here is what the feat says in short form:
"You then receive an insight bonus on attack rolls and damage rolls against that creature type for the remainder of the combat. The amount of the bonus depends on your Knowledge check result, as given on the following table..."

Do these bonuses apply to all weaponlike spells such as Acid Arrow and Ray of Enfeeblement? I'm assuming they do because they require an attack roll and damage roll (if they hit).

I'm not sure how to check pages on the site anymore, but if you would be kind enough to email me a response at obokuri-eeumi@hotmail.com it would be greatly appreciated. thanks :)

:Yes they do apply; if you are still checking this page. If not I'll let the e-mail come from GD seeing as you asked him. --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 21:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

== Summon soulblade ==

I have created the class "Soulknife," and wish to begin creating the powers for my class. However, the power I wish to create is called "Summon Soulblade," a title which, when I entered it into the creation bar, sent me to the "Blades of the Ancestors" power's page. I have tried changing the inputted name to "Call Soulblade," and even "Soul Summoning" (two other possible names for the power). I do not know what to do about this, and are concerned as to why this glitch would occur. Thank you for your time, and I appreciate your patience.

Sincerely,
Nathanmccarthy789

== D&D 4e Future ==

Hey Green Dragon, do you think that in the 4e Homebrew section, we could either create a seperate 4e Future homebrew section, or that we could just add in future stuff to the 4e homebrew? Just let me know what you think. The rules will be the same as in 4e, but it will be in the future, instead of the past. --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 00:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

:What is 4e Future? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 01:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

::It's just something that I wanted created. It's like Dungeons and Dragons 4.0, but instead of being in the past, it will be situated in the future. It will be basically the same (same rules, different equipment, technologically advanced classes) as D&D 4e. So, yeah. Just let me know what you think of it. --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 02:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

:::Your thing? You make the call. If you think it is radically different from 4e then please make a new section (maybe starting from [[4e Rules]], e.g. how [[D20.00 decimal Rules (3.5e Variant Rule)]] was intended) or just a page. If you just make a page it will, of course, have to be discussed and could have any result. If you choose to just merge the content into 4e just make sure it works with 4e, and then I don't think it should matter at all. Of course a rule category could help keep it together (or a sourcebook, of course). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 02:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

::::Yeah, it'll use the 4e rules, it just uses different equipment and different classes. Shall I put up a vote?

--[[User:Axl|Axl]] 03:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

:::::4e is a rule set, not a time period. 4e Future, unless the core rules are radically different, is just normal 4e. Many 4e adventures are set in the future. In my personal opinion adding a future section is pointless and illogical. Not to start a debate or anything... ''':P''' --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 16:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

::::::Then can I just start inserting futuristic powers, races, classes, and feats?

::::::--[[User:Axl|Axl]] 19:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

:::::::Yep, that would work fine! Oh, and sorry if I sounded a little rude with my pointless and illogical thing, I was looking for another way to word it except I had to run. ''':)''' --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 19:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

:::::::It's fine. Do you think that inside each section, that we should have a link? You know, like: D&D 4.0Future races inside the races folder?

:::::::--[[User:Axl|Axl]] 17:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

::::::::Hmmm, thats a good idea. That could be really useful for people playing through 4e campaigns set in the future, so that they don't have to sift through hundreds of past based articles. That sounds like it could even be applied to 3.5e and d20M (however opposite, since most d20M articles are based in the future.). --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 18:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

:::::::::So, does Green Dragon put in the subcategory, or do I have to do that?

::::::::::--[[User:Axl|Axl]] 20:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

:::::::::::You can. Again, if you make a rule or sourcebook about it then it's even more organized of course. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 19:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

::::::::::::Hmm, I'll try to do the best I can.
--[[User:Axl|Axl]] 19:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

== Losing Articles ==

No, don't worry, I haven't lost any. However I am wondering, is there any possibility of the wiki losing its articles/pages? I'm asking to know if I should be backing up the stuff I post here on my computer or something just in case. Thanks. --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 03:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

:It ''has'' happened before, please see also [[Talk:3.5e Flaws#Flaw Form]], but they are going to be recovered. It's not really a problem, no. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

::The new hosting setup has redundant hardrives so that is one level of protection of making sure nothing can get lost. A backup solution is in the works. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:14, 16 August 2010 (MDT)

== Base Class Infobox ==

I've noticed on some pages you've removed the Base Class Infobox Template along with the Base Class template. Was this accidental? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 20:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

:Yes, they are not used with the 4e classes anymore (just [[Template:x0]]). Although I don't know what you mean by "Base Class template". --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

::I meant category. So there's no rating of 4e classes then? And I've been gone a lot the last couple of weeks, where was this announced/talked about? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 20:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

:::I actually started removing that template a while ago. Actually, I think you are right. You should start this discussion on [[Talk:4e Classes]]. The only reason this has happened is since I find that the template system works better than rating. It has not been discussed. I removed the template since the primary editor/subsequent editors who display their username are not longer displayed in that way. We now assume that one understands MW (as you know). Although why not use both (the template system and a rating system) huh? It's a different topic. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

==Hiding text==

Hey! I'm having some trouble finding the correct way to format something. I'd like to find a way to create hidden text on my page, but the formatting articles on wikipedia haven't helped. Is there a way to format hidden text similar to the way you can show or hide a contents box?

:To create hidden text you can place the text in between these <nowiki></nowiki> i.e.  (yes there is text there, check the source code). Alternatively you can use <nowiki><includeonly></nowiki> and close with <nowiki></includeonly></nowiki>.

:If you want to create an option to show or hide a block of text on the page then you may use this code:

:<nowiki>{| class="collapsible"</nowiki> 
:<nowiki>|Text</nowiki> 
:<nowiki>|}</nowiki>

:What that would appear as:

:{| class="collapsible"
|Text
|}

:Hope that helps, I'm pretty good with wiki code if you need help in the future. ''':)''' --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 00:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

::Thanks! Collapsible text was indeed what I was looking for, and I figured there was a solution that I just couldn't find. Also, I'm very new to the wiki scene and navigation is still pretty alien to me, so thanks for the heads up on my Talk page! --[[user:ThatGuyEli|ThatGuyEli]] 16:13, 23 June 2010

== Blocking IP ==

For the first time since I became an admin, I've blocked a couple IP's. Hope I did it within acceptable parameters. I am pretty sure they were both outside link spammers. --[[User:Calidore Chase|Calidore Chase]] 17:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

:They look fine, except I would have blocked them longer. But whatever. If it happens again we can do it for a more extended period of time. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 19:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

== Moving pages ==

I am currently moving all of the DnD pages to their corresponding editions according to [http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Special%3AAllPages&from=DnD&to=DnD+zz&namespace=0 this] list (all pages starting with DnD). However some pages that start with DnD are edition neutral. Should I move these to 3.5e/4e, or just leave them as DnD? --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 00:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

:What pages are edition independent? I could be wrong, but I would guess that most pages are (or should be) slightly different, depending on the edition. If there are truly edition independent pages I would say leave them as "DnD". Just my 2 cents. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 01:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

::I have actually run into a number of pages that apply to both editions. A few examples would be [[DnD Discussion]], [[DnD Maps]], and [[DnD Guidelines]]. The breadcrumb and categories links to both editions. The page that brought this up was [[DnD Guideline Preload]]. I was getting ready to move it to 3.5e, and I checked the [[DnD Guidelines]] page just to make sure it was for 3.5e and so that I could change the link on that page to 3.5e not DnD. Oh look! It links to both 3.5e and 4e. Anyways, just showing you what I mean. ''':)'''--[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 03:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

:::I don't know much about DnD 4e, so everything I am about to say may be wrong. With that in mind, here are my thoughts. Discussions are generally about rules, which vary widely between 3.5e and 4e, so we should probably make edition specific ones, so we can provide more exact help. If someone say "how does barbarian rage work?" we have to find out what edition they mean (I assume barbarians still rage in 4e), and then provide help. If it was posted in 4e Discussions we'd not have that problem. Maps I suppose can go wherever, but if they are maps for an adventure/campaign, we could certainly stick them under the edition for which the campaign/quest was written. As for guidelines, it should probably me moved to something like "Wiki Guidelines", as it has nothing to do with actual DnD. Again, these are just my thoughts. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 19:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

::::Ya, you're right. Feel free to make a 4e one, add an edition identifier in some way, and move the 4e ones over. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

== Can't Log In ==

I was trying to save a response to [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman]]'s comment on the talk for the [[Mundus (3.5e Class)|mundus]], however when I hit save it said there was a loss of session data and I should try again. I tried twice more and it gave me the same message. It also told me if this error persisted I could log out then back in again, so I logged out. However when I tried to log back in again it gave me this message:

''"Login error 
''There seems to be a problem with your login session; this action has been canceled as a precaution against session hijacking. Please hit "back" and reload the page you came from, then try again."

I hit the back button, reloaded the page, and tried again twice. Still nothing. I am unable to log back in to my account. --[[Special:Contributions/206.45.30.209|206.45.30.209]] 18:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)([[User:Vrail|Vrail]])

:Ok, I just tried to log in a third time and it worked. That was weird, do you know what happened there? --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 19:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

::Actually D&D Wiki maxed out the server's hard disk space, so maybe that had something to do with it. If not I don't know. But I cleared up some space. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 19:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

:::Out of curiosity, what kind of space are we talking here? Would it be worth it have a fundraiser to buy an additional hard drive (or hard drives, depending on how/if you back stuff up)? Storage comes cheap nowadays. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 19:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

::::Hosting was switched once again (see also [[User talk:Green Dragon#Trouble with the wiki]]) and space should not be a problem. Since the server failure, actually, D&D Wiki was moved to a hosting setup with mt (mediatemple) so doing a fundraiser for such things is not possible. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

== Anti Vandalism Barnstar ==

I feel that Vrail deserves an Anti Vandalism Barnstar because of he is always removing spam and unwanted or offensive post from the site. I figured that i would nominate him to you. Thank you for reading and i hope that you consider him.--[[User:Grim914|Grim914]] 17:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

:Oh, I agree. Please feel free to give [[User:Vrail|Vrial]] one. Barnstars are given by anyone to anyone. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

== Deletion? ==

Green Dragon? Why hasn't my [[Displacer Disciple Powers (4e Power List)| Displacer Disciple]] power lists been deleted? I have two of them, both up for deletion, I think. The other one is [[Displacer Disciple powers (4e Power List)]]. I created them. Could you also delete the [[Fell Knight Necross (4e Power List)]]? Thanks. --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 19:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

:No one has gone through [[:Category:Candidates for Deletion]]? I can say I have not recently. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 19:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

::I was going to but I have been really busy the last month-ish. And the couple days I had some free time the wiki has been slow/inaccessible. But it's not like the world's going to end if your pages don't get deleted; they'll be gotten to eventually. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 19:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

:::Ah, okay. Sorry for bothering you. ''':)''' --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 21:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

::::It will get dealt with though, no worries. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

== DPL Problem ==

Hey Green Dragon, When you go into the D&D 4e races, there's just coding there. Is this because D&D Wiki was moved? --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 02:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

:Ya, it is. The dpl's (dpl, dpl2c, dpl2cu, etc) are not working. They will soon though, don't worry. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

::Ok! Thanks for letting me know. --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 19:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

:::Ya, no problem. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

== The Site Crashed ==

How long are it going to be like this?

:[[Help:Talk Pages| Just a heads up here, don't forget to sign your posts.]] Thanks,

--[[User:Axl|Axl]] 18:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

== File Problems ==

Lately I've had a lot of trouble uploading pictures for my campaign setting. In particular, I've run into an error when creating the thumbnail for the images I upload, which would be excellent to have displayed on my pages.

"''Error creating thumbnail: libgomp: Thread creation failed: Resource temporarily unavailable''" is an example of the problem I'm having. I've tried uploading the image again, but to no avail. Should I try to change the file type of the image on my computer and upload a third time, or is there a solution I don't know about?

While I've got your attention, is it appropriate of me to be directing all of my questions to you? I get the impression that you are bombarded with questions regularly, and while I would direct them to someone with a little less on their plate, I don't really know how to go about finding that person. [[User:ThatGuyEli|ThatGuyEli]] 17:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

:Hello again. I was just curious about D&D Wiki Media. It seems that thumbnails are no longer showing up when new images are uploaded. Instead, the following error message appears. ''Error creating thumbnail: libgomp: Thread creation failed: Resource temporarily unavailable''. Is this an internal problem? --[[User:Akherontis|Akherontis]] 07:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

::I had a similar problem, but only when trying to decrease the size of an image, keeping the size the same or larger the image showed up. Might this work in the mean time until this is working again if it is an internal problem? --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 08:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

:::In a few weeks when D&D Wiki gets moved problems, like this, should get worked on as well. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

::::Hey Green Dragon, I just went onto D&D Wiki Media Repository, and I found out that most of the new pictures aren't working. Do you know what's wrong? --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 00:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

:::::Hey Green Dragon? I tried to upload a picture, but it said that "the directory (public) could not be written by the webserver" or something like that. What's goin on? --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 20:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

::::::Is this ever gonna get fixed? I would like to upload more pictures for some armor I'm gonna create (I've already created 1 armor). --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 21:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

:::::::Images and uploading are now working. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:28, 16 August 2010 (MDT)

== Wiki troubles ==

I see you are fixing redirects/fixing links. What's our progress on dpls, images, tables and whatnot? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 00:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

:Oh, also, what does it take to build a bot? I don't know much about programming, but it seems like it shouldn't take much to program a bot to fix the DnD links. Do you know some resource about bot-building? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 00:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

::My wiki skills are minimal, but my research skills are astounding. Will [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/API.php#APIs_for_bots this link] help? It looks like we might be able to build an anti-spam bot, and a redirector bot with relative ease. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 00:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

:::With regard to the problems of the moving of D&D Wiki, they will be fixed soon. To the best of my knowledge right now the DPL's, DPL2CU's, DPL2C's, Odd-Even, SMW with regard to displaying links, and a few table things (vardefine — [[Template:Spell]]?). And the reinstalling of imagemagik again (as said above). Do you know of anything else? And API (http://www.dandwiki.com/w/api.php) is a great tool. A few other options exist too of course. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 00:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

::::When you say "soon", are we thinking soon means "24 hours", "within a week", or "about a month"? Just looking for an estimate on when we can see the wiki up at full capacity again. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 00:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

:::::(Edit conflict) The Semantic stuff isn't working either, I think. Do you have a timetable? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 00:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

::::::When you say "''Semantic stuff isn't working either''" do you just mean the links, or am I missing anything? And I do not have a timetable. Soon, is what I'll say I guess. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 01:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

:::::::Well, it seems to be working now, so I may have spoken too soon. Very recently I saw links that looked like <nowiki>[[3e Prerequisite::Such and so]]</nowiki>, but I just browsed some pages and they seem to be formatted correctly now. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 02:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

::::::::I know what you're talking about, I saw them earlier too. I looked for them again, before posting the above, and couldn't find them either. Dunno. Maybe they got fixed as well as the modern dpl's (I think they were not working earlier either). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 02:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

:::::::::I would also like to add that mathematical formulas aren't working either.

:::::::::<math>F = (\frac{3.439*10^-8 ft^3}{slug*seconds^2})(\frac{4.10*10^23 slugs*.031 slugs}{20,931,758.5 ft^2}) = 1 \frac{foot*slug}{second^2} = 1 lb </math>

:::::::::As shown there for an example. --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 21:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

== DPLs again? ==

Hi, one question. The homebrew power lists aren't showing up at the [[4e Powers]]. Is this caused by the DPLs? Thanks. --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 00:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

:Yes, it was. I modernized the dpl's so it is no longer a problem. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 00:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

::Thanks for fixing it! --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 01:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

:::Ya, no problem. If you bring more pages to my attention which use the old DPL's and not the dpl's I would be more than happy to change them. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

::::Yeah, actually, I have one on my talk page (and another one hidden in my [[D&D 4.0 Future (4e Sourcebook)|sourcebook]]), and just more stuff in my sourcebook. I'll see if there's anymore. --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 04:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

::::There's actually some (maybe only 2, I don't know) in the 4e Homebrew. --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 04:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

== Add new equipment? ==

Can any of you fix this? When I try [[Add New DnD Equipment|Add new Equipment]], It brings me into this 3.5e equipment stuff. Is that the way it's supposed to be? --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 21:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

:The link you provided is for adding [[Add_New_3.5e_Equipment|3.5e Equipment]]. It's designed to add 3.5e Equipment. None of us do much with 4e, and there hasn't been much need to make an official 4e equipment preload yet, I guess. I'm sure someone can set up a pre-load for 4e if you ask. I'd try, but I think an admin has to handle that. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 21:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

::Please feel free. Just no one has made one yet, but one should be present. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

:::So the page is locked, so I can't edit it to add the "add new" forms that I made, but you can find easy ways to add 4e Armor, Weapons, Magic Items, and Vehicles on [[User:Badger/sandbox6|this page]]. The ones on the far right don't do anything, so don't use those yet. I put them there so when I find more 4e Preloads they will be easy to add. I've not tested any of them, so they may need some tweaking. let me know on my talk page, or here (I'm keeping an eye on both). --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 21:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

::::Thanks for helping me out with this. So, I'll test it out and let you know what happens. --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 15:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

== Tables aren't working ==

Um, Green Dragon? Some tables aren't working. Do they have a different DPL than the others? All right, thanks. --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 21:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

:Kind of. They use [[Template:d20]] which uses vardefine, which is not working. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

== Copying from your Userpage ==

Would you mind if I used the [[User:Green Dragon/Top Template|top template]] on your userpage (with a few minor adjustments) for my own userpage? Thanks. --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 04:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

:Of course, please feel free. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

== Strange bug ==

I was just going through and moving some DnD pages to 3.5e (which, btw, after my latest stint I'm almost halfway done, a lot of pages!) when I found a bug. When I tried to access the page [[DnD Archetype Feats]] (Unsure if it was already moved) I couldn't load it, then my internet eventually took me to a page that said there was a DNS error. After that I couldn't load any pages on the wiki. I had to close my internet then reopen it to get the wiki working again. Is this happening for anybody else? What's going on? --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 02:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

:Something like that happened to me too. I ended restarting Internet Explorer (which wasn't too bad) in order for it to work. --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 04:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

::Does this still happen? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:57, 16 August 2010 (MDT)

== Moving DnD pages to 3.5e ==

Just wanted to let you know that my previous comment was slightly wrong about being halfway done. I was a lot closer than halfway, and just finished moving every single page starting with DnD (according to [http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Special%3AAllPages&from=DnD&to=DnD+zz&namespace=0 this] list) to its corresponding edition. I'll have to check the to-do list, but if this was on it I can check it off. :D

There are a couple of pages that I did not move. These are protected pages (not many, just a couple preloads), eddition neutral pages (again, only a couple of these exist), and the one page mentioned above that I couldn't get to. Also, I may have forgotten to switch the instructions for one or two preloads on the page they link to. I think I got most of them, but if you find any, please change them. :) --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 03:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

== Categories ==

Hey Green Dragon,

I noticed in the [[:Category:Candidates for Deletion|Candidates for Deletion]] category, that the 4e Future category is going to be deleted and all that stuff moved. Is that really necessary? --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 04:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

:Yup. 4e Future is a sourcebook, not a published SRD, so it needs to be formatted like the other sourcebooks. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 22:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

::Okay. --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 00:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

== Sourcebooks ==

Hey Green Dragon, I found that the sourcebooks are still not showing up. --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 00:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

:[[3.5e_Sourcebooks]]. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 00:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

::4e sourcebooks are using the old DPLs that need to be updated to work. Someone more diligent than I can update them. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 00:53, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

:::I went through this morning and fixed the DPLs. Everything shows up properly now. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 19:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

::::Thanks.

::::--[[User:Axl|Axl]] 22:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

== A race I posted ==

I have a question, several months ago I created an article for a homebrew race called the "Heartbound" and it is still not on the list for homebrew races. Is there something I have to do for it to be added to the list? {{unsigned|Firerush}}

:Fixed. You needed to add [[:Category:Race]]. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 15:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

== VariablesExtension ==

I took the liberty of making [[Template:Spell]] not use VariablesExtension (#vardefine) because the spells were messed up. Of course then I realized that other things are broken too. And I don't have permission to edit those (and I am not sure how well they can be made to work without the extension). —[[User:Edwin|edwin]] 16:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

:I noticed your edits on [[Template:Spell]]. It seems to work the same, so thanks a lot for helping fix that. I would gladly unlock pages if you know how to make them work, however I agree in that some may need #vardefine. For example [[Template:d20]] is not working (which I would gladly unlock if you know how to fix it), or [[Template:Weapon Stats2]] which is not locked. In any case, however, many pages by themselves use #vardefine in the tables, so switching it would be a lot of work. It will be fixed sometime. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

::I would think it's a better plan to fix what's broken, instead of finding ways around it. If vardefine is going to be eventually fixed, then there's no need to waste time changing the templates around. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 23:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

:::Vardefine is working once again. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:56, 16 August 2010 (MDT)

== Category DnD ==

Should this page be merged with to Category 3.5e, and then all pages linking to it be changed to say 3.5e rather than DnD? I'm just wondering because all of the DnD pages (that I can find according to the lists I was given) have been moved to say 3.5e, and as far as I can tell the DnD category applies to 3.5e material only. --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 16:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

:No. It actually is going to be expanded once all pages with [[:Category:DnD]] have [[:Category:3.5e]] (which are for 3.5e) with all [[:Category:4e]] pages, as 4e is an edition of D&D. Although, yes, all the 3.5e dpl's need to be changed to use category=3.5e. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

== Powers ==

Um, Green Dragon? My Fell Knight's [[Fell Knight Powers (4e Power List)|Powers]] don't show up. Is that a problem with the DPLs, or are they gone forever? --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 02:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

:There's a pretty easy way to find out. Just look for one of the powers, or adjust the dpls to search for something you know exists. As it is, though, the dpls are broken. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 02:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

::Your DPL tables are the old ones that don't work. Switch them to the new versions and it should show up. [[User:Badger/sandbox4|This link]] shows you the kind of DPL you need for everything to show up correctly. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 03:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

:::The old DPL's are working once again as well. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:55, 16 August 2010 (MDT)

== Items ==

Hey Green Dragon? Is there supposed to be no magical Items in the Arm Slot, Armor, and Weapon items?
--[[User:Axl|Axl]] 03:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

== Server Error ==

Often times when I try to load a page on the wiki, it will just load a blank page and say it is done. I then have to reload the page 1-2 times before it shows up. Also, usually when I attempt to save a change it just loads a blank page and doesn't save the change. I then have to hit 'back' on my browser bar and try again 5-6 times before it saves. Is anybody else having a similar problem? Can it be fixed? This is happening on firefox btw, it also happens to me on internet explorer, but it is less often and requires only 1 page reload. --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 18:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

:The issue is the current hosting setup. I just bought a server and it will be running D&D Wiki by the middle of next month. At that time all the problems should be dealt with. See also [[Talk:4e Creatures#Not Working]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 03:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

::D&D Wiki is now hosted on my server. Thoughts on the loading times and so now? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:54, 16 August 2010 (MDT)

== Sourcebook Categories ==

Hey Green Dragon?
My [[D&D 4.0 Future (4e Sourcebook)|sourcebook]] weapons (and probably races and every other stuff that I created) is loose in the [[4e Homebrew]]. I figure it's because that they're categorized as 4e. What do I do? --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 04:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

:Axl, your creations aren't so much "loose in the 4e Homebrew". In fact, that's exactly where they should be. Maybe you didn't catch what Jazzman wrote [[Talk:Add_New_4e_Future_Implement|here]], or what I wrote [[User_talk:Axl#Problems_with_your_Sourcebook|here]]. Everything that you wrote for your sourcebook needs to be categorized under 4e, and should show up as 4e equipment/armor/weapons/whatever. Everything you've written is considered "4e" not "4e Future". "4e Future" does not exist. Anything labeled "4e Future" needs to be changed to "4e" and anything you added the "formatting issue" template to needs to have that template removed. For example, if you have a piece of armor labeled "4e Future Armor" it needs to be moved to "4e Armor", and anything that says "4e Future Equipment" needs to be moved to "4e Equipment". I hope this is clear. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 06:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

::That's kind of the reason why I made the sourcebook instead of just creating classes, races, etc that are based in the future put into the 4e classes. There's a conversation with [[User:Vrail|Vrail]] somewhere on this talk page. --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 16:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

::The section's called D&D 4e Future. --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 16:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

:::What you should have is a category called "4e Future", and tag all of your content with that. What will happen is if you're looking though a list of all the 4e homebrew, you will see 4e and 4e future, but if you click on the 4e future category you will only see 4e future things. You need to write up all of your content exactly as if it was plain old 4e, including leaving it in the regular namespace like (4e_Armor), and then when you're done you need to add <nowiki>[[Category:4e_Future]]</nowiki> to the bottom of the page. Then on all of your DPLs where you want to list your 4e Future creations you need to add the line <nowiki> |category:4e_Future </nowiki> and all of your creations will pop right up, without anything else from 4e.
:::What your sourcebook should do is tell users how to use any and all content tagged with Category:4e_Future. If you aren't making any new rules, you don't even need a sourcebook. The idea behind the sourcebook is to write out how to play a slightly altered system. A sourcebook is nothing more than a collection of variant rules, but if the rules are identical, then you don't need to write it. I hope this is making sense. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 18:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

::::I was told to use the category: 4e. --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 00:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

::::I thought it was there. I'll check on my talk page. --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 00:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

:::::You can use more than one category. You should include both "Category:4e" and "Category:4e_Future". Technically, 4e_future should be a sub-category, but we don't seem to use much in the way of sub-categories on this site, so I wouldn't worry about that. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 00:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

::::::So, how do you make a sub-category? --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 16:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

== is there a way to delete a page? ==

I created a page and by talk to me before revisions i meant dont just go right in and revise, hence why im simply going to make the class it was on my own laptop and take it off of this site? is there a way to do that?

:Your English is a bit wacked above, but I'm assuming what you're trying to say is that you created an article, and another user contributed to it. If the article is good quality with contributions from you and the other(s) than it will not be deleted. There is a very clear warning every time someone edits letting them know about this collaborative nature of a wiki. If it is in horrible condition, left incomplete, and unplayable, than anyone can tag it with the delete template, where an admin will eventually get around to it.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 14:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

::That may have been me editing your article. I generally post on the discussion page and discuss things before making a change. However, I noticed a class with grammar issues similar to those in your above comment. I spent a while fixing the grammar, sorry if this disturbed you. --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 22:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

== Admin Badge ==

I was looking around a bit on the wiki and noticed references to an admin badge. I had never seen it so I looked around for it, and realized it had been deleted. Then I looked around for something discussing ''why'' it was deleted, apparently that discussion was on the template's talk page and was deleted to. This was a little bit frustrating. So I was wondering, why was it removed? Also, could the reasoning for its deletion be re added somewhere for reference? It seems a little bit strange that the page discussing its deletion was deleted as well. Thanks! --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 03:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

:Talk pages of deleted pages are always deleted as well. Why was it deleted? [[Special:ListAdmins]] was used on [[Meta Pages]] to let people know of a list of admins, and as such the use of that template was nonexistent. As an aesthetic taste thing anyone could make one I guess, just not in a template form (an admin can restore and move of course). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 04:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

::Good to know, thanks for the quick and well informed response. ''':)''' Do you think it would be worth it to post the reasoning for removing the admin badge somewhere (such as on the [[Special:ListAdmins]] page or the like), or do to little people even care/know about it? --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 04:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

:::That's a special page and cannot be modified. If you give me a link to the page I can re-delete it explaining the deletion more. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 04:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

::::Alright, I was unsure if as the sites owner you could edit special pages or not. Anyways, here's the link <s>Template:AdminBadge</s>. --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 04:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

:::::Backend I am sure, but is that really necessary? How does that sound? Does that get the point across and make it less confusing? I am assuming that if one cares they will check the deleted page. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 04:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

== More broken wiki ==

I'm not sure what's different about these pages, but none of the Random Ability Order templates are working right. See, eg, <s>Template:Random Ability Order - Table 7</s>. They are all like that. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 21:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

:Most likely that was a problem associated with the wiki syntax and not anything MW related. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:52, 16 August 2010 (MDT)

== Xenophon's RfA ==

I noticed in the rfa's that Xenophon's rfa was approved, and he was never renominated. This would be normal except for the fact that he is not on the admin list. Just wondering what's up with that? --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 05:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

:I re-did that section of [[Requests for Adminship]]. Does that explain the Xenophon scenario? Is that is unjust (a different process should be done — that is now not a policy, it just happened)? Is there anything I missed? Is it easier to understand? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 03:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

== author template ==

I am having the darnedest time figuring out the syntax to use for the author template and this page doesn't help explain anything: http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Template:Author

Following what I've found on others' contributions and the syntax displayed on the template, the closest thing I have come up with is this:

<nowiki>{{author</nowiki>
|<nowiki>[[User:Mercurious|Mercurious]]([[User talk:Mercurious|talk]])</nowiki>
|date_created= 07/28/10
|status= Incomplete
}}

but instead of displaying my linked name and linked talk, it just displays the suggested syntax with the {{{}}} around author_name.

I've tried looking everywhere I could to not bother anyone, but I'm just plain stuck and some help would be great.
thanks,
josh

:The author name doesn't work the way you are doing it; see my correction below (in bold). It actually already adds the formatting, so you don't have to do it yourself.

<nowiki>{{author</nowiki>
|'''author_name=Mercurious'''
|date_created= 07/28/10
|status= Incomplete
}}

:[[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 16:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Jazzman!

== 4e Power List Preload ==

Green Dragon? Do you mind if I update the 4e Power List Preload to the new DPLs? --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 20:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

:Not at all, please do. That has to be done huh. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

::I'll get right on it then. --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 23:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

:::Well, I finished quite a while ago. But I haven't tested it out yet. But there's one problem. These new DPLs are going wacky. I don't know what's going on. --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 17:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

::::Looking at [[Enchanter Powers (4e Power List)]], for example, it seems fine. Unless you mean you want to add a parameter like <tt><code>|rowcolformat</code></tt>. Could you supply a link to what you are talking about? An example I can think of is [[Featured Articles]], where the dpl displays <html><a href="/wiki/PAGE" title="Talk:PAGE">Talk:PAGE</a></html>. Is it something like this? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

:::::Let's see, I don't think I added anything to the Enchanter's powers, so it's fine there, but if you look at the [[Fell Knight Powers (4e Power List)|Fell Knight's]] powers, it's going wacky. --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 23:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

:::::Yeah! Something like that. It just shows the webpage text, it doesn't show the link. --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 02:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

== Kobold's ==

While browsing this wiki I noticed on the 'Talk:Stone of Monster Summoning (3.5e Equipment)' page you implied that Kobolds are unintellegent idiots.

Have you not read the 'Races Of The Dragon' supplement? One of my favourite characters of mine was a wise, and INTELLEGENT kobold sorceror. Also I you look Kobolds don't have any penalties for any of the Mental abilities. It is just a prejudice, created when the 'Civilised races' sided with the Kobolds enemy the gnomes.

I do also take into account that they do the bidding of dragons. In the Neverwinter Nights expansion pack 'Shadows Of Undertide' Deekin my favourite team-mate of all time chooses to go stop following his master.

Still other then that you have been spot on keep up the good work.
--[[User:Milo v3|Milo High-Hill]] 07:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

:I believe what you are referring to is this: ''(Kobolds coming up with something like that, wow!)''. However earlier he also implied that kobolds are exceptionally smart by the plan that they thought of in this theoretical situation. Basically I think he was saying this just to show they are not quite as smart as earlier implied. A spectacular plan like that and the knowledge of those stones, how to get them, work them, and implement them would often have required a creature with an intelligence bonus. So in this case GD is just showing that they don't have an intelligence bonus, rather than saying they are unintelligent. Hope that clears things up. ''':)''' --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 15:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes this does clear it up thanks. I guess I was just so angry, I didn't think. --[[User:Milo v3|Milo High-Hill]] 01:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

== Speedy Deletion Template ==

So it seems the spammers are getting smarter. They are now creating accounts, and making new pages rather than just spamming old ones. People like Vrail and I revert the edits, but that is leaving blank pages on the wiki. We should get a "Speedy Deletion" template to put on these pages. It would be the same as a delete template, but the idea is it only goes on pages that need to be deleted right away. It could be used for re-directs, and other pages made by accident too. Because admins wouldn't have to judge the merit on the page, it would also be easier to maintain the list, once a week you could just stop by and delete everything. I can mock up a speedy deletion template if you'd like. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 18:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

:Seems like a good idea to me. --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 20:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

::I went ahead and made a template, let me know what you think. [[User:Badger/sandbox11|Here]] it is. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 18:24, 19 August 2010 (MDT)

== Plz Help ==

I created a class and now when I tried to make a link to the page for it it took me to another persons class and if you search for it in the search bar the same persons page comes up not mine is their a way for me to move the page or change its name because I can't seem to figure it out also can you help me with the lvl table on the page I'm not the best formatter.
--[[User:Dragoona22|Dragoona22]] 23:37, 19 August 2010

:From what I can tell you are talking about [[Red_Mage,_Variant_(3.5e_Class)|your red mage class]]. It should be known that your class is named" Red Mage, Variant (3.5e Class)", because as you mentioned, a class named Red Mage already exists. So be sure to use that name when making links. If you want to change the name, you can use the "move" tab at the top of the page to move the entire page to a new name; just make sure that name isn't already in use. If you're still having troubles with tables, I can try to help you out. You can always just open up another class' page, and look at how they did it. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 00:49, 19 August 2010 (MDT)

== Also... ==

Also does anyone know a group in the milwuaki area of portland oregon that plays 3.5e and is willing to accept new members. If so leave a note on my talk page or send me and email at dragoona22@hotmail.com put D&D on the suject plz thank you.
--[[User:Dragoona22|Dragoona22]] 23:53, 19 August 2010

== My RfA ==

Recently I nominated myself for adminship on the wiki. I don't want to sound like I'm advertising my nomination, however it has been three days without any support or oppose comments. I am just trying to get at least a few people to take notice and comment. My nomination may be found [[Requests for Adminship/Vrail|here]]. Thanks. --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 11:16, 18 August 2010 (MDT)

:I was just recomended by [[User:Badger|Badger]] to contact you or another admin about getting my RfA on a news feed. I still have no support or oppose comments, and while the neutral comments are good, it would be nice to have another few users comment one way or the other. ''':)''' --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 15:16, 19 August 2010 (MDT)

== Variant Guardian, Templates ==

:''Discussion moved to [[Talk:Guardian, Variant (3.5e Class)#Abandoned]].'' --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:30, 4 October 2010 (MDT)

== (class) shroud ==

Hi I was wanting to know is you could tell me who made the shroud class or more about its skills or if its been abandon if you know thanks --Columbus a.k.a R.I.R 21:51, 25 August 2010 (MDT)

== ... ==

I won't tell you which name... but one of your names contains my actual name lol.

== 4e Sizes ==

Hey Green Dragon (or anyone else that knows the answer),

:I would like to know what are the penalty and benefits to being size Large and up to Colossal. Thanks,

--[[User:Axl|Axl]] 14:49, 16 September 2010 (MDT)

'''Note:''' I do not have the rule books. That is why I'm asking here.

--[[User:Axl|Axl]] 16:09, 27 September 2010 (MDT)

::Never mind. I think I figured it out from the 2 Player's handbooks.

--[[User:Axl|Axl]] 16:07, 23 December 2010 (MST)

== Little hiccup on a page. ==

Hello Green Dragon. I was just leveling my druid yesterday when I noticed a discrepancy on a page of the site, on (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Druid#Animal_Companion) it says that crocodiles are available to first level druids, whereas further down in the "Alternative Animal Companions" section it states that they are available at as an alternate candidate for the druid's animal companion at level four. I thought I'd let yah know since I checked in the 3.5 PHB and it said that it's not allowed to be used as a level one druid pet (for aquatic environments), unfortunately.

Taa.

.Willow.

== Some guidance please? ==

I've been trying to get the formatting right on my creation Eykanos Drakulzen since i created it. i've rewritten it about 10 times including direct copy/pasting and redoing to hold my info. the skills will not format correctly. please help.

== very old dnd forum posts—lost ==

I had made some races on the old DND boards, and decided to do a google search to see if I could find them again (I lost the computer they were originally written on)

Anyway, searching for one of my races (shatterskin) brought me here. Unfortunately you guys hadn't logged it, and it's no longer backed up on the wizard's boards either. So I was curious—do you have some sort of archive from the old wizards boards? I'd love to see some of my old posts if you have them. Oh, and I'd be totally cool with anything I made being posted here (I might modify them to make them suck less though)

you can email me at dustin.depenning@gmail.com if you need too

== Thank You =) ==

Thanks for the reply. I understand fully your situation and thanks for permission to base some 'Trickster' class features from the 'Tenken'(No plagiarism of course), And ill be sure to let you know when its finished so you can check it out.

== Uploading Media ==

How do I add a picture from the file "my pictures"? {{Unsigned|Raweno|21:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)}}

:You upload the file to media, [[dndmedia:Special:Upload|Special:Upload]] and then use the standard wiki link syntax on a page you want to display it. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 19:20, 9 October 2010 (MDT)

Okay, thanks. --[[User:Raweno|Raweno]]

just hypotheticly, could you upload videos?

== 3.5 Deity The Great Mon Gorge ==

Hi, I noticed a few changes to one of my contributions, I had left that note on the main page to draw attention to the kind act of the user who drew that (he did it without prompting and its really good, was very thankful) and I can understand moving that to the talk page, but the removal of 'The" from the deities name is in error, 'The" is part of his name and other things reference the use of the "The" (for example the main pantheon page his coffin is referred to T.G.M.G.) If you could change it back I would be thankful, im kinda new to wiki editing (ive been poking at it for some time but still slow) otherwise id just change it back myself. Thank you for keeping an eye on my pages I appreciate that too. --[[User:MCage|MCage]] 20:28, 9 October 2010 (PST)

:[[User:Kaden|Kaden]] is the uploader of the image. The history for the image and kadens name give a direct, non-discussion, relation to contributions. Anyhow, how does the pagename look now? You move pages by clicking the "move" tab up top. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:10, 9 October 2010 (MDT)

::Oh yeah thats perfect, thanks for the change and the advice on edits :) --[[User:MCage|MCage]] 23:46, 9 October 2010 (PST)

== My User Page ==

So what is the policy on stuff I am allowed to have on my own user page? Linking to a diff where you censored something I wrote doesn't seem very offensive to me. I was literally just offering a helping hand as to that D&D chatrooms already exist.

So, what is the policy for user pages, exactly? What kind of content is ok and what sort of stuff do you want to censor? --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 15:13, 29 October 2010 (MDT)

:See also [[User talk:Green Dragon#Censorship]]. What you are doing is solicitation ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism Wikipedia:Vandalism], external linking).
:{{quote|Partial censorship is something D&D Wiki has — to keep spam and non-relevant things at bay. All the recent spam from IP's (see the barnstars some have received) is not allowed — I think you would understand. It could become a serious problem.
|orig=--[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 03:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
|src=[[User talk:Green Dragon#Censorship]].
}}
:Why was it solicitation? Because it is directing users else how then through [[DnD Links]] and was not decided by the administration to be a beneficial recourse (e.g. Wikipedia's policies). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:26, 29 October 2010 (MDT)

::Please note you supplied an external link, and then desired users to find it once again. And links are something, "what is a link?" - it has a purpose.
::Revision histories have been "cleaned" - see also [[Talk:Meta Pages]], [[Talk:Main Page]]. If enough problems exist, it is considered.
::And The Tavern software, no matter the software, was specific to D&D Wiki. Re-opening the tavern implies a ''D&D Wiki'' tavern. This is understandable. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:09, 29 October 2010 (MDT)

:::Are we seriously fighting about this again? Why does it matter? Tons of users have links to other wikis they collaborate on, or links to sites they find helpful. Those go uncensored. If I picked 3 random editors from the recent edits, and checked their user pages I can guarantee they have links to external D&D sites. Are you seriously going to say that no external links are allowed? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 20:37, 29 October 2010 (MDT)

::::It's solicitation, ya (although not redundant). They really should discuss on [[DnD Links]] and get the good ones put there. And if it is a beneficial recourse to D&D Wiki that would have to be discussed to. Why did I notice this in particular? Because it's a very blatant user redirection and done in redundancy. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:20, 29 October 2010 (MDT)

:::::So you're telling me if a user blatantly advertises another site that isn't listed on [[DnD Links]] it should be removed for solicitation? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 13:17, 30 October 2010 (MDT)

::::::Ya ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism Wikipedia:Vandalism], external linking - more too). But who checks all the time? And I just remove them when I come across them (mostly), however when a user redundantly does it after it has been changed based off policies ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism Wikipedia:Vandalism], external linking) it becomes a serious potential problem, and may result in bans like [[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]]. Do you see where I am coming from? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:58, 30 October 2010 (MDT)

:::::::Is there not a difference between "solicitation" (a policy which is, at best, arbitrarily enforced, and, at worst, enforced with serious bias), and complaining about censorship of said solicitation? Aarnott was banned for solicitation, and, while I understand he's been warned about this in the past (though not [[Warning_Policy|officially]]), he was not banned until ''after'' he complained about censorship. This does not seem right to me. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 12:27, 31 October 2010 (MDT)

::::::::The official reason Aarnott was banned was because of "Spamming links to external sites (not getting it and continuing soliciting)". Meaning that Aarnott spammed links to external links and then after being told about his actions redundantly continued. Why is this the reason? Since it is true and follows policies and things which the administration can operate through.
::::::::I assume you are asking for the more normal reason, e.g. a colloquial reason. Being censored does not mean one is going to be banned, it just means one should not continue with the problem activity. Aarnott solicited, was warned (through censorship), solicited again on Aarnott's user talk — the diff, which leads onward, was warned (through undo), and then solicited again twice here. What is too much? To me I see it as we have no time for such behavior — policies exist for a reason (ask Wikipedia?) and one disregarding them because he/she wants to is not a reason. It's like a virus. As such the administration should operate under such principles. Just my way of looking at it. Does this answer any questions? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:59, 31 October 2010 (MDT)

:::::::::Are you suggesting that mentioning the website mibbit counts as soliciting? Aarnott had nothing to gain by suggesting it, and we were looking for suggestions and alternate hosting choices. I've mentioned Freenode several times in several tavern discussions, and there has never been a problem there. Mibbit and Freenode are essentially the same service. Also, if you don't technically warn him, I don't think it's fair to punish him as if you had. If you had issued a warning, per the warning policy you established, it's possible that he would have stopped. Furthermore, you've listed 4 incidents where he was "soliciting". Assuming you warned him separately for every single instance he should only be banned for 1 week, not 6 months. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 16:21, 31 October 2010 (MDT)

::::::::::Giving a specific link to one, not to a service, definitely is.
::::::::::{{quote|[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility Wikipedia:Civility] is superseded by the [[Warning Policy]] as applicable.
|src=[[Meta Pages]]
}}
::::::::::So no, they are different policy things. The edit itself and the diff are the notifications. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:53, 31 October 2010 (MDT)

:::::::::::If the edit and the diff are the notifications, why does the warning policy exist? How can [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility Wikipedia:Civility] be superseded by the [[Warning Policy]] if the only thing the warning policy says is "See Civility"? Also, you didn't address the second half of my comment. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 17:00, 31 October 2010 (MDT)

::::::::::::Because civility is just ''one'' policy on Wikipedia.
::::::::::::{{quote|As a general rule [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_policies Wikipedia's policies] are in effect. Please use common sense with this overarching policy.
|src=[[Meta Pages]]
}}
::::::::::::[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism Wikipedia:Vandalism], external linking has nothing to do with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility Wikipedia:Civility]. If you have input into this this is not the place for it, please ask it on [[Talk:Meta Pages]].
::::::::::::The policies answer the bottom part of your comment. If not more information would be appreciated so I could answer them. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:07, 31 October 2010 (MDT)

:::::::::::::Wikipedia says, very clearly:
{{quote|Even if misguided or ill-considered, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism.}}
:::::::::::::If we replace "encyclopedia" with "Dandwiki Community", surely you agree that is exactly what he did. That's why I will ask this again: "You've listed 4 incidents where he was "soliciting". Assuming you warned him separately for every single instance he should only be banned for 1 week, not 6 months". Why is he banned for 6 months? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 17:19, 31 October 2010 (MDT)

{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}

:The gray line. Ya, but he should have listed providers like you did above (note, no censorship there). Banning lengths are only for the warning policy, this is the policy thing again. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:25, 31 October 2010 (MDT)

::So then you feel that a 6 month ban is an appropriate punishment for making multiple links to external sites? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 17:29, 31 October 2010 (MDT)

:::You don't feel it is appropriate? One should understand that when the administration does something (e.g. censorship) it has a reason, and the opposition of that reason (not in discussion, in more vandalism) is the wrong action. Some recent IP's have been banned for a year for doing vandalism multiple times. It's following the same trajectory... Thoughts? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:09, 31 October 2010 (MDT)

::::Aarnott isn't some faceless IP just here to make trouble. You banned him before he could even have a proper discussion. Comparing him to recent IPs spamming pages about boots or whatever else is insulting to him. He was, at one point, an administrator on this site. Personally, I think letting him stick around long enough to have this discussion would have been best, and then banned him for some period of time, not more than a month. Honestly, if you had let him say his piece in this discussion I doubt he'd even need to be banned. Banning isn't meant to be a punishment, it's meant to stop future problems before they can happen. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 18:16, 31 October 2010 (MDT)

:::::(Edit Conflict) I'd consider a named user linking to sites that he genuinely finds helpful and thinks will be helpful to the community significantly different than an anonymous person intentionally vandalizing by deleting content or adding vulgar or unproductive material. While he has been warned before, I think there's a pretty significant jump between an implied, indirect verbal warning and a 6-month block. There should probably be some escalation in between there. There's another block on his account, but it seems to be unrelated to this issue. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 18:22, 31 October 2010 (MDT)

::::::Aarnott's comments to the matter (removed through censorship) I do not think can be considered in the way you want them to be.
::::::[[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] just banned an IP (violated same policy) for infinity. Given the circumstances (user ''has'' been in good standing before) I guess I can change it to 3 months. People need to learn the policies, and banning is meant as a way of getting that done. So, although banning is not a punishment, it has a use for ''after incidents'' as well. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:54, 2 November 2010 (MDT)

:::::::No I didn't. I blocked someone who is part of a long-term scheme of placing blatant advertisements for a certain brand of footwear which is unrelated to D&D (and let's face it -- probably unused by most D&D players anyway). The user had no contributions that weren't entirely spam. I may have used the same reason in the drop down box, but that doesn't mean I blocked him for the same reason. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 20:29, 3 November 2010 (MDT)

::::::::Sorry, the violation of the same policy. I modified it above. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:32, 3 November 2010 (MDT)

:::::::::Despotism strikes again! --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] 06:58, 5 November 2010 (MDT)

::::::::::Wikipedia's policies are beneficial, although to the stage of despotism I do not think they are there. They are more a needed tool for D&D Wiki to function, not so much a despotism rule. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:01, 5 November 2010 (MDT)

:::::::::::It's interesting how they are only a much-needed tool here. --[[User:Foxwarrior|Foxwarrior]] 18:02, 6 November 2010 (MDT)

::::::::::::I have to agree. I don't think any of these links removed because of solicitation of D&D-resource sites caused this wiki to function at a lower level. Removal of spam, sure, but I don't see the need to delete links to other D&D resources. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 18:52, 6 November 2010 (MDT)

:::::::::::::There's [[DnD Links]] for that, ya. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:52, 6 November 2010 (MDT)

{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}

:So we can add any useful wikis and other useful sites to that? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 20:57, 6 November 2010 (MDT)

::Well the reasons would be sorted through, but ya. But the discussion should be moved there with continued questions. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:00, 6 November 2010 (MDT)

== Userpage Top Template and My Content ==

This isn't a major question but I was just wondering how you get the user/talk/contributions/awards bar on the top of your page. Also I was wondering if you could look at some of my posts and tell me if you like them. Thank you and congratulations on the amazing website. [[User:Nomnomking|Nomnomking]] 22:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

:See also [[User:Green Dragon/Top Template]]. You can make one in your own user space.
:I looked over the creations listed on your userpage (not usercontributions though) and gave input where I noticed things which are wrong. As those get corrected please ask me to look over them again for more things (balance, etc) and I would be more then willing to look over them.
:Also all the external links on your userpage you should be moved to [[DnD Links]]. Your userpage should then link to them by way of the page (an example would be [[DnD Links|External Links]]<nowiki>[</nowiki>[[DnD Links#Wizards of the Coast|1]]<nowiki>][</nowiki>[[DnD Links#WotC Tools|2]]<nowiki>]</nowiki>, etc) so you give mention to important ones and keep them on the page they are required to be on.
:Hope this helps. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:52, 3 November 2010 (MDT)

Thanks
--[[User:Nomnomking|Nomnomking]] 15:47, 4 November 2010

== Userspace Sandbox ==

hey, just wondering how to put unfinished work in my sandbox so it doesn't clog up the wiki? Thanks. --[[User:Fathirian Hound|Fathirian Hound]] 09:26, 4 November 2010 (MDT)

:Just move it (move tab) to your userpage/<!-name->. Then if you remove the categories it will not show up anywhere. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 10:36, 4 November 2010 (MDT)

::Will do, thanks. --[[User:Fathirian Hound|Fathirian Hound]] 07:06, 11 November 2010 (MST)

==ShadowBorn/Shadowborn debate==

I have gotten complaints about entitling a page [[ShadowBorn]] instead of Shadowborn. Is it really a big deal because i have made many pahes like this. sorry about bothering you again. Also i fixed some of the errors you told me to but not all of them. I will let you know when i do.--[[User:Nomnomking|Nomnomking]] 7:05, 5 November 2010

== Don't have a clue what I'm doing ==

I have a few "minor" obstacles that are preventing me from having the slightest idea as to what I'm doing. First, I started my account less than an hour ago. I started frequenting this sight when I decided to do a massive overhaul of all things vampire. I assure you, your sight has nothing vampire related that can compare with what I want to submit. I have written over 100 pages of overhaul in Microsoft word (I'm serious) that has done everything from making a wide variety of bloodlines to roll-playish guidelines. Halfway through this I converted to core 3.5 rules so, in addition to needed tweaks here and there, my overhaul is a mesh between core 2 rules (yes, I still use THAC0...a word many of you haven't used in 100 years) and core 3.5. I'm still in the process of fully converting it but I have gone COMPLETELY off topic here...

My point is, I have no idea how to use this sight or where I should a submit my overhaul. I assume there is an instruction manual for this sight lying around here somewhere but I can't find it. If it does exist then feel free to point me to it and then point and laugh at my inability to be observant. It's closer to a template then a creature but allows for both PCs and NPCs to be used. To be honest, vampires are far better off and N/PCs then creatures. This template still doesn't account for CR (which I can't seem to figure out) and its format doesn't fit anything I've seen on this sight.

Where should I submit this and how do I do it?

P.S

Sorry for ranting. I do that sometimes.

PP.S

I am vaguely aware that there is some kind of rule about balanced spells/templates/etc...(though I have never found it nor any other page that tells me site policies). This overhaul includes 5 "categories" of vampire. While the player normally has access to only 2 of these categories (as the others are a inherent templates), the highest category is an inherent template that converts a humanoid into an ultra uber creature that would warrant a high-level campaign just to destroy it. Where can I find this site's policies on un/balanced creatures? This category of vampire was made specifically to be over powered but they cannot be mass produced. It is rare for more than 40 to exist in any given multiverse at a time. Would this have any bearing on whether or not they are balanced?

FiddleSticks96 November 14 9:32pm eastern time

:[[3.5e Bloodlines]] has information to assist with posting bloodlines. See also [[Add a New 3.5e Bloodline]]. Each of the areas has such a method for adding content, save 2e things which you mentioned. You could just add "(2e <tt><!-content-type-></tt>)" though. You could make a vampire variant subtype (through [[User Creature Glossary]]) and make them relate. Does this answer your questions? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:07, 13 November 2010 (MST)

::Thanks for the quick response. I took a quick look at the bloodlines section but it will likely become very chaotic if I put this ::there. This is a COMPLETE overhaul containing 19 bloodlines (20 if you count the purebloods). Just the part that contains
::alterations specific to each bloodline is 38 pages long. This is a cohesive overhaul that only makes sense when it stays together. How does the subtype section work? Is it like an alternate template used on a creature like a celestial? I need to post ::stuff like the "General" changes to all vampires, which includes 21 pages. Is it possible for me to make more than one entry and ::tie them together with links or something? I know that cleric domains has something like that. - FiddleSticks96

:::[[3.5e Bloodlines]] will be fine with more bloodlines added. That is why it is there. Each bloodlines being a page with its own name of course. "''[O]nly makes sense when it stays together''", meaning it does not use 3.5e rules? If you could elaborate or supply some material so I could check it would make more sense. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 00:00, 14 November 2010 (MST)

::::Elaborate? It's funny you said that because I was just thinking that I should post a sample of what I mean. This will take up some space if you don't mind.

:::::Space is of no concern. Ya, post something then I can check to make sure it works in an area, and if not we will have to figure something else out. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 00:05, 14 November 2010 (MST)

::::::For the most part it follows Core 3.5 rules so it's not like it's foreign or anything. When I say Bloodline I mean something like this. Keep in mind that these are only bonuses/drawbacks specific to this bloodline. This does not include the various other benefits/drawbacks they gain for just being vampires. Notice how the vampire's regenerative ability is referenced but not included? I overhauled that as well:

:::::::You sure that is a bloodlines, not a [[3.5e Creature Templates|3.5e Creature Template]] or somesuch? I only looked briefly at it, however it does not resemble something like [[UA:Dragon, Brass]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 00:19, 14 November 2010 (MST)

::::::::That's why I'm saying it probably doesn't fit with bloodlines as it is depicted in that section. For the purposes of this overhaul, a bloodline acts like a strain of vampirism. While someone who is turned into a Yekef vampire as described below, someone who is turned into an Aundae vampire has vastly different alterations and their appearance isn't so distorted. While Yekef are physically powerful, Haarvenu are attractive and and seductive. Quarra vampires are best suited as fighters, while an Anthotis vampire makes for a powerful psionist. Each bloodline has it's own strengths and weaknesses in addition to the general strengths and weaknesses all vampires posses. It is a complete overhaul of vampirism. It isn't too far off as a list of variant rules and templates. I still need to complete the conversion from core 2 rules to core 3.5, but I still need to find the most suitable place to put it. I would also need to put the list of general changes, ways to implement the overhaul, the overview of terms used (such as my explanations as to what the five categories of vampires actually are. This overhaul treats vampires as an actual race capable of sexually reproducing, though it is far more difficult to actually bear children). Maybe I could make a link that explains that it is a set of variant rules as far as vampirism goes. This link could contain a list of links that would take you to the actual bloodlines, rules, or whatever. Sort of like the list of cleric domains. When you click the air domain for example, you are taken to a list of links rather then a list of all the explanations in one sitting. - FiddleSticks96 Nov 14, 1:06pm Eastern Time

:::::::::Something else I just thought of. Just so there's no confusion, these bloodlines in no way have to follow the "variant rules" that I came up with. They don't have to be used in conjunction with each other. A DM could just as easily pick one bloodline and say that is the only strain of vampirism. This game is made for imagination. As a DM I encourage players and DMs alike to use their imagination. If the DM thinks there needs to be an alteration then they should change it to their preferences. This is just my preferences that can be used, altered, and reused as the community sees fit. I thinks my variations are balanced and fair but others might not. Everyone has their own preference. This is just to expand upon the role playing potential of vampirism.

::::::::::Do each of the variants have the same advancement as a [[SRD:Vampire|vampire]]? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 14:43, 14 November 2010 (MST)

:::::::::::I have yet to grasp monster advancement (Hit Dice rather then Level). The advancement is treated as the same way PCs gain level. A vampire is fully capable of picking up a class and 8 of the bloodlines have an inherent class. The strengths/weaknesses the base creature gets for being part of a bloodline are given all at once, though the effectiveness of many of the powers are dependent on character or class level (usually class level). Basically, they are treated as NPCs.

:::::::::::Here is an example of a bloodline with no inherent class. The base creature gains this benefits/drawbacks in addition to the general vampire benefits/drawbacks. They do not advance any "vampire class". They simply gain these benefits and continue their existence as "normal":

::::::::::::As bloodlines (e.g. [[UA:Dragon, Brass]]) are done by levels, what are the changes (by-level) of these? That is what I am asking. Or is is an initial level adjustment (like [[SRD:Vampire|vampire]]) or challenge rating adjustment? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:18, 14 November 2010 (MST)

:::::::::::::I'm still trying to figure out CR but there is an initial level adjustment for all categories. As the PC will only ever be able to become a Category C or E Vampire (outside of birth). The only level adjustment available to them will be the +3 bonus to all class levels. These are actual gains in levels, with all the benefits that come with leveling up.

{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}

:So [[SRD:Level Adjustment (Creature Statistic)|level adjustment]] does not affect ones class levels with these? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:42, 14 November 2010 (MST)

::I'm probably wrong but isn't Level Adjustment a way to determine "effective" level and not "actual" level? If level adjustment causes actual level up then it is the same as a +3 level adjustment. Actually, it can be correctly seen that way because all class levels are raised by 3 upon being turned into a vampire. I posted what I mean when I say that the overhaul treats vampires as an actual race below. Also, it's time for me to go to work so I will be unresponsive for awhile.

:::An aspect to determine effective character level (ECL), ya. If what you are saying is correct, with a "''then it is the same as a +3 level adjustment''" I think it may be templates that you are looking for, for example a [[SRD:Vampire|vampire]] is a template with +8 LA. Does this seem right? If so I can format one so you can see if that is what is intended. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:54, 14 November 2010 (MST)

::::If they're going to send me home after 2hrs they should just call to tell me not to show up :(. Yeah, templates is what I was going for. Would I be able to set it up where there is a link with the templates list that just says something like "Complete Vampire Overhaul"? The link could then open up with a quick explanation and the following links: "Overview", "Important Notes", "General Changes", "Bloodlines", "Implementations", and "Anti-Vampire Magic". This overhaul includes 2 new classes and an ability that will probably advance in a manner similar to classes. I'm still developing all 3 but I'll finish them sooner or later.

:::::I made [[Vampire, Montalion]]: [[Vampire, Lesser Montalion (3.5e Template)]], [[Vampire, Montalion (3.5e Template)]], [[Vampire, Greater Montalion (3.5e Template)]] (for credit see history). Is this what you had in mind? Does this make sense? If you want a [[3.5e Sourcebooks|sourcebook]] that could be a route to keep things in check with one another more. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:17, 14 November 2010 (MST)

::::::Actually no, it doesn't make much sense since those are only the changes that are IN ADDITION to the rest of them. I was thinking more along the lines of a link called "Complete Vampire Overhaul" that would be placed where ever the templates are. I would then be free to offer an explanation as to what it is and add various links that would contain the mass amounts of information about the overhaul. The way the Montalion is set up now it does not account for many of the other changes. If you think I need source books then don't worry. I recently acquired several 3.5 source books including the DM Guide, Monster Manual, and Player Handbook. I'll also be reformatting it after I upload it so it is easy to read and follows the format of this site.
::::::Am I allowed to try and add it in the way I think it would fit best without authorization? If I'm allowed to then could I try setting it up the way I'm thinking about and you can see if you think it will work? If not then can I have permission? I was thinking about adding it in the http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/3.5e_Creature_Templates for lack of a better known location.

:::::::Of course. Feel free. I'll take a look at it as it becomes more apparent. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 11:32, 16 November 2010 (MST)

::::::::Finally got some free-time. I've started making all the pages but I've got a question. When I added the creature template it didn't show up on the templates page. I can still just punch in the url and it will be there but as far as I can tell, right now it's just a ghost page. I don't see a way to add it on my own either. I assume that you or an admin are the ones who will do this? If there are ghost pages on this site I can use them to avoid confusing people by adding the info for the changes directly into a section of the site. I can just put links on the template page that lead to the appropriate changes. These links would be the only ones that lead to these otherwise "ghost pages". Sound like a good idea?

:::::::::Oh, I just found where it put the link. It wasn't in the 3.5e Creature Templates but in the Category:LA? section. It should be in the "LA" section and not the "LA?" section but it makes no difference to me. Does it matter if I add all of the information on a single page? I don't know how to add the kind of links that make you scroll down to a different section of the page. Like the little boxes that say "contents" with a list of links.

::::::::::...Nevermind, I figured that out to. I'm going to shut up for awhile and stop bothering people with questions that I'll probably figure out the answer to on my own.

:::::::::::Done (mostly). Can you move this to the "LA" section. It's in the "LA?" right now. The only potential problem I can see right now is this message I got "Warning: This page is 243 kilobytes long; some browsers may have problems editing pages approaching or longer than 32kb. Please consider breaking the page into smaller sections." http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Complete_Vampire_Overhaul_%283.5e_Template%29

== Don't have a clue what I'm doing ==

My retarded computer posted this twice

== HTML ==

Hi, Im Greenstyle. I have a question. I was making a piece of equipment and on the template was "back to" footer. What is it and what consequence does it have on the page?

:It makes it displayed on equipment pages, found on [[3.5e Equipment]]. Does this answer your question? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 11:35, 16 November 2010 (MST)

== HTML ==

Hi, Im Greenstyle. I have a question. I was making a piece of equipment and on the template was "back to" footer. What is it and what consequence does it have on the page?
Hey... mine did too!

== Rights ==

I was wondering: If I use some of the content from this website in a novel, do I have to individualy ask every contributer that orginally created the content? Also if so, thier is a problem. I hope to use the race "Sarli" in my Novel yet my computer is blocked from accessing the "Wizards of the Coast Forums" (Which is the only way I know how to contact "R.M.G.C.L.F.").--[[User:Milo v3|Milo High-Hill]] 18:59, 19 November 2010 (MST)

:As it is under the [[GNU Free Documentation License 1.2]] section 2 verbatim copying is applicable. There is no need to contact the contributors. Does this answer your question? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:35, 21 November 2010 (MST)

::Yes this does answer my question. Thank you. Though I still will mention the contributors of DnD Wiki as a courtesy for all the help.--[[User:Milo v3|Milo High-Hill]] 22:59, 22 November 2010 (MST)

== WoW 4E ==

Is it possible (by which I mean legal), to make a 4E WoW setting? Do I need Blizzard permission or a disclaimer or something? [[User:Camulus|Camulus]] 12:20, 21 November 2010 (MST)

:Just make sure to add [[Template:Copyright Disclaimer]] onto the bottom of the pages. That should cover it. Does this answer your question? ---[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:33, 21 November 2010 (MST)

::Blizzard is the sort of company that ''will'' issue a cease-and-desist if they ever find out about it. But they probably won't find out about it. --[[User:Foxwarrior|Foxwarrior]] 03:02, 22 November 2010 (MST)

:::{{quote
|Copyrights and trademarks for any books, films, and other promotional materials are held by their respective owners and their use is allowed under the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use fair use] clause of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright Copyright Law].
|orig=[[Template:Copyright Disclaimer]]
}}
:::--[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 14:33, 22 November 2010 (MST)

== Blood Knight ==

I finally got around to touching up my Blood Knight page (I know, I know, long overdue) if you wanna take another look. [[User:Dude Bob|Dude Bob]] 17:45, 21 November 2010 (MST)

:I touched it up as well. If you would not mind taking another look that would be very appreciated. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:20, 5 January 2011 (MST)

== Spell seeds ==

I have perused my books but I can't find anything about spell seeds or epic spells in general. The info on most of the spell seeds and epic spells looks so professional so I'm 99% positive that spell seeds are an official part of the game. If they are not I don't care but if they are will some please tell me what book they are discussed in? - FiddleSticks96

:I'm pretty sure its in the "Epic Level Handbook". I am planning on obtaining it soon myself.--[[User:Milo v3|Milo High-Hill]] 15:25, 30 November 2010 (MST)

::O.O I have such glorious observational skills. I will look through the epic level hand book now sitting in front of me. I don't know why I didn't think to check this book. Thanks by the way. (--[[User:FiddleSticks96|FiddleSticks96]] 17:54, 30 November 2010 (MST))

:::[[SRD:Spells#Epic Spell Lists]] may help. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:35, 30 November 2010 (MST)

== Alignment: Moral Ambiguity ==

I am thinking about creating a D&D world based off of one of the stories I have written out in my head. One of the most prominent characters of this world, though mostly unknown to most of society, is a demigod whose fate and goal in life is to serve as the protector of the prime material plane he exists on. He is a Pureblood Vampire named Belenthrond with a vicious streak when it comes to eliminating evil. (based on the Complete Vampire Overhaul of course). He draws power from both light and darkness, positive and negative, good and evil...you get my point. While I will probably never make a character sheet for him, as he is immensely powerful, I would like to at least give him a definite alignment. Unfortunately, while he is decidedly benevolent, he is morally ambiguous and, quick frankly, has a definite evil side as well as a good. He supports laws but doesn't think that good should be restrained by them. With that respect, he is Neutral Good; but since he has such an evil side to himself he can't be simply "Good" aligned. He doesn't believe in universal balance between good and evil either. He would much rather utter crush the truly wicked all together so he can't be True Neutral. He isn't disorganized and totally unpredictable either. Chaotic Neutral doesn't fit him at all. Eventually, I decided to make his alignment "Unknowable", because I didn't like how "Neutral Good with Chaotic (and sometimes Evil) tendencies" sounded. Unfortunately, if I were to give him a definite alignment, those might be the only two that will work.

Here is a quick overview of moral tendencies this character would exhibit:

''Good Qualities:'' He would sacrifice his own life without hesitation to protect the innocent (though later he learned he was immortal, he didn't always know this, and so this in no way weakens this argument that he is morally good in some regards)

He sacrificed much in order to continue to protect his world and those who could not protect themselves

He spent over 1,000 years as the lonely protect of his world until he finally could not stand his loneliness and fell in-love

He has, on a number of occasions, fought against impossible odds that he would likely not survive

He can't stand to see innocents suffering and will go out of his way to make their lives better. He is especially intolerant of allowing children to suffer (particularly orphans)

He is the type of person to choose another's happiness over his own (at one point, his eldest daughter (at the time she was a teenager) was about to be kidnapped. He was in actual combat with the one pulling the strings behind the kidnapping (one of his political rivals and one of the individuals he wasn't able to just outright slay and get away with). This individual cast a spell that was going to destroy a nearby town and everyone in it. Belenthrond had the choice of letting his rival get away with this daughter or letting the town get annihilated (tough choice right?). Well, being the guy that he is, Belenthrond stomped on his own emotions and protected the town. His reasoning was that his daughter was kidnapped to be a hostage. She would be kept alive, for now. Those in the town would not have been so fortunate. Even though he knew she would be kept alive for the time being, he was still subjecting his own daughter to the mercy of the worst kind of scum. She could very well have been killed if he didn't commence a quick rescue. One of his evil qualities explains how something like that is utterly intolerable to him)

Though he enjoys a good battle against a worthy opponent, he prefers nonviolent solutions to problems

Even though he will kill without hesitation, he will never intentionally cause harm to a mortal's soul (though he will tamper with demon souls or other such creatures he perceives as wicked)

''Evil Qualities:'' He respects innocent life but couldn't care less about the lives of the truly wicked. If an opportunity to redeem a wicked being presents itself, he will follow it if it is not too inconvenient, otherwise, he will likely kill them without hesitation if it doesn't cause great suffering to the innocent (He once had the chance to kill the man who killed his lover. This man, though wicked, was the only thing holding together an entire empire. If this man were to die, that empire would have fell into civil war again, causing the many innocent civilians to suffer. In the end, the demigod chose to spare the man's life because it would have caused many innocents to suffer - "As much as I wish to kill you, you are needed to keep this world in balance. I will spare your life...but never appear before me again"

He cares so little about wicked beings that he has, and still does, use them as test subjects in his magical experiments. Developing spells is a process after all, one that requires the ruffles to be smoothed out. As far as he is concerned, having to crack open and rip apart the minds of a few dozen bandits is a perfectly acceptable way to further his own power, which can then be used to better protect his world

He will not hesitate to kill, regardless of whose side the being is on. He will do what he can to simply incapacitate, say, a paladin who doesn't seem to get that he is on the paladin's side, but if someone is acting as an obstacle in his path to protect his world, even if they are simply misguided, he will rip them apart to get through them if need be. This hesitation extends to lack of remorse. - "Yes, it was unfortunate, but I will suffer no hindrance. Next time one of your pet paladins stands in my way, perhaps they will remember the price such ignorance."

He will lie, steal, cheat, assassinate, or otherwise commit all manner of treachery against wicked/corrupt individuals who he perceives as a threat to his world. He perceives the murder of an innocent being wicked but is perfectly okay with murdering the wicked. In particular, he doesn't see anything wrong with stealing when someone truly needs what they stole. He doesn't accept stealing from the poor or otherwise destitute, but if a museum recently acquired a strange or dangerous artifact, he would be perfectly okay with stealing it so he could study it or keep it out of the wrong hands

He has a political agenda, while being a politician in and of itself isn't evil (no really, I know it sounds hard weird but it's true), there are certain wicked individuals that he cannot just outright eliminate without jeopardizing his political agenda. With that said, these individuals pose a threat to many innocent lives and letting them run a muck; however much effort he puts forth in limiting their movements, is still allowing evil to spread so he doesn't lose political power (of course, he is working vigorously at gaining support against these individuals so he can finally kill them without losing political power)

While he draws power from light (metaphoric light...as in good), he also draws power from darkness (metaphorical darkness...as in evil). Perhaps his most favorite phrase is "Those who hide their wickedness in the darkness think themselves safe from the light. What they don't realize is that it is what hides within the darkness that they should fear the most".

He gets violent when people start messing with his family. I mean REAL violent. The kind of violence that kills his enemies very very slowly. - "Hahahahahaha...your right of course. I'm not going to kill you. I'm going to make you wish that I would."

''Unfortunate, but not evil, qualities:'' He's, well, he's kind of insane. Most ancient undead are.

Anyway, this pretty much describes my problem. What kind of alignment would someone like this fall under? Do you think Belenthrond is Good? Evil? Neutral? He is certainly an extremist, but that is in part due to his nature (blame his overdeity mother for also having an extremist nature). I simply can't think of any other alignment that fits him except "Unknowable". Help me out here? --[[User:FiddleSticks96|FiddleSticks96]] 23:57, 13 December 2010 (MST)

:What do you think about [[SRD:Alignment#Chaotic Good, “Rebel”|chaotic good]]? He seems to act as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him. He follows his own moral compass, which, although good, may not agree with that of society as can be seen with his approaches to situations. And his "experiments" could potentially be considered as making his own way. Your thoughts? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 19:44, 29 December 2010 (MST)

::That actually makes sense. I hadn't thought about it that way before, there are many gray areas in the alignments after all. Hmm...since he is a politician he might be closer to "Chaotic good with Lawful(maybe Neutral?) tendencies". What do you think? [[User:FiddleSticks96|FiddleSticks96]] 22:13, 30 December 2010 (MST)

== I have a question ==

There's a page I want to have fixed and spruced up, but I don't know how to fix it. I really want the Moon Scythe class to be a respected class, but it doesn't match the preload.

I really want to help out, but I'm not good at this wiki-formatting. I was wondering if you could make a mention of this to someone that could do this kind of thing. If you did, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks, [[User:Missingno|Missingno]] 08:08, 24 December 2010 (MST)

== Locking pages? ==

I know it's probably asked all too often, but how do I lock pages I make so only I (or mods/admins) can edit them?

:The groups you can restrict editing from can be found on [[Special:ListGroupRights]]. Which pages for which groups? Only [[D&D Wiki:Administrators]] can lock pages, however I am more then willing to assist you. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:27, 29 December 2010 (MST)

::Brilliant. The pages are as follows; [[Gardevoir (3.5e Race)|Gardevoir]], [[Gallade (3.5e Race)|Gallade]], [[Zora Mask (3.5e Equipment)|Zora Mask]], [[Hawk Dragon (3.5e Creature)|Hawk Dragon]], [[Improved Water Elemental Bloodline (3.5e_Bloodline)|Improved Water Elemental Bloodline]], [[Arceus (3.5e Deity)|Arceus (Deity)]], [[Immunity to Magic (3.5e Trait)|Magic Immunity (Trait)]], [[Ocarina of Time (3.5e Equipment)|Ocarina of Time]]. --[[User:Phoenix of Chaos|Phoenix of Chaos]] 06:59, 30 December 2010 (MST)

:::I locked them from IP edits. If you want them locked from all non-administrator edits (however you will not be able to edit them anymore unless you request a page gets unlocked so you can edit it) let me know please and I will do that. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 10:54, 30 December 2010 (MST)

==Archiving==
Your talk page could probably use it. A lot of us read it quite a bit, so I wouldn't mind helping you if you don't mind me doing a bit of archiving.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 17:21, 29 December 2010 (MST)

== Posting ideas. ==

I am having trouble finding a place to post ideas for others to see and discuss... For instance, I have an idea on how to make a low magic world really low magic, but I'm not finding any place to put the idea up nor am I sure how I would go about posting it for others to actually look and discuss it with me and each other.

Thanks, Daryl.

:On this wiki, you have pretty much only one option (as of now). That would be to make a "Discussion" page and post your question. Fair warning, I don't know that anyone regularly checks these pages, so you may not get the answers and community discussion you're after. Since I know you're looking for discussions, I'll chime in, but I don't know how many others will notice it. You can learn how to make a discussion question [[User:Badger/sandbox3/EF2|here]]. However, I've been trying to get a community IRC channel to have chats like the ones you're looking for. If this sounds like something you'd be interested in, you could voice your opinions [[Discussion:Re-opening_the_tavern%3F_What_does_the_community_think%3F|here]]. One last thing, that addresses your particular example, you may just consider making a "[[3.5e_Rules|variant rule]]" page with how you plan to make it work (that is a 3.5e link, for a 4e variant go [[4e_Rules|here]].) Hope this helps! --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 14:31, 3 January 2011 (MST)

::Hey it's me again! I was wondering since I saw you post on another template if you would look over mine. Its nothing major but it does need to be balanced a little more. If you want to take a look at it, or if you would like to help me complete a creature I am trying to make, you can find my creature [http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Dimidium_Troll_%283.5e_Creature%29 here.] If you would like to see what I have on the other creature just leave me a message either here or in my talk page, and I will post its current details in my sandbox. [[User:Lyrad8791|Lyrad8791]] 19:28, 6 January 2011 (MST)

==Spam==

There seems to be a few Users on here that are only posting spam. At least as far as I can tell. Stuff like [[http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Best_Electronic_Cigarette_Review Best Electronic Cigarette]] and Cell Phone listings. I'm not sure on what the protocol is on here so I am leaving this alone. If you like I can go through to these pages and delete the contents themselves, since I am unsure how to delete the page except by deleting all links to it. Also, it seems the Users who made these pages have also done a redirect on there user page to the pages themselves. Hope this helps clean up the wiki! [[User:Lyrad8791|Lyrad8791]] 23:24, 8 January 2011 (MST)

== Could someone have a look at my homebrew? ==

I have made a bit of homebrew lately, and I was wondering if it was balanced. Also I'm having a bit of trouble with "Armor Of Flesh" spell. I don't care who, but I think it would be best if they were an admin. Here they are:

- [[Naïlo's Cyclone (3.5e Spell)|Naïlo's Cyclone]]

- [[Naïlo's Match (3.5e Spell)|Naïlo's Match]]

- [[Armor Of Flesh (3.5e Spell)|Armor Of Flesh]]

- [[Return Of The Dead Soul (3.5e Spell)|Return Of The Dead Soul]]

- [[Animate Dead, Greater (3.5e Spell)|Greater Animate Dead]]

- [[Naïlo's Repressed Memory (3.5e Spell)|Naïlo's Repressed Memory]]

- [[Naïlo's Repulsion (3.5e Spell)|Naïlo's Repulsion]]

- [[Paladin, Variant (3.5e Class)|Paladin, Variant]]

== Your recent edits ==

Hey, Badger here. Is there any way you can add "minor edit" on the rest of your page updates? I like to keep an eye on recent edits, and your stream of edits is filling the recent edits and I can't see anything else. If you added "minor edits" I could click "hide minor edits" and check on the other changes. Thanks. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 20:32, 12 January 2011 (MST)

:[[User:Blue Dragon|Blue Dragon]] switched them to minor as they do not effect the page contents. Sorry about that earlier. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:46, 12 January 2011 (MST)

::Thanks. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 22:21, 12 January 2011 (MST)

== Rating Please ==

I have created a few classes, and I would very much appreciate if you could rate them for me. The classes are Mime (3.5e Class) and Soldier (3.5e Class), and Dragoon (by RDC) (3.5 PrC).
 
Thank you for your time, [[User:Rogue The Demonchild|Rogue The Demonchild]] 21:27, 12 January 2011 (MST)

== 4 Edition Summaries ==

Long time no see. I was wondering if I am allowed to put small summaries of the 4 edition races in my Campaign's races page. It would be name, size, stat bonus and racial features.

I am asking because the races I want to put in are rather small, and it seems strange to just have a couple of things on one page. The official 4 edition races would be for comparison. [[Celen Joad]] 11:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

:Of course. The official races, however, you can't add. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:21, 28 January 2011 (MST)

== 4e Campaign Settings ==

:''Discussion moved to [[Talk:4e Campaign Settings#Organizational Structure]].'' --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 11:21, 14 January 2011 (MST)

== 4e Giants, Devils, and Demons ==

Does anyone think that giants could become a race? --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 17:23, 26 January 2011 (MST)

:Does [[SRD:Giants, Hill (Race)|this]] & [[SRD:Giants, Stone (Race)|this]] help? --[[User:Milo v3|Milo High-Hill]] 18:57, 26 January 2011 (MST)

::Er, I mean for D&D 4e. Not 3.5e. Sorry. Do you think that even Devils and Demons could become races in 4e? --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 16:47, 28 January 2011 (MST)

:::I don't see why not. Some things may give you direction, ideas, and so forth. The [[Horned Devil (4e Race)|horned devil]] you created, the [[Cambion (4e Race)|cambion]], [[Infernal Blooded (4e Race)|infernal blooded]] relate to name a few. With regard to giants, [[Half-Giant (4e Race)|half-giant]], [[Hill Giant (4e Race)|hill giant]] may give you direction, ideas, and so forth to name a few. Does this help at all? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:18, 28 January 2011 (MST)

::::Do you think that the horned devil is too powerful? --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 21:02, 28 January 2011 (MST)

:::::I took a look at it, and modified [[Template:Needsbalance]]'s reason. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:39, 28 January 2011 (MST)

::::::Okay, I looked at it. Maybe, instead, I could make a paragon path that allows wings (I looked in the Player's Handbook 2 and it allows the dragonborn to have an overland flight speed of 12)? --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 21:49, 28 January 2011 (MST)

:::::::Is that a power though? If you make it something like a power, I imagine that would balance it. A paragon path with the same goal could give you flying results too. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:02, 28 January 2011 (MST)

::::::::Well, at level 12, it allows you to make a brief flight. But at level 16, you gain the overland flight. But this is only if you choose that paragon path. --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 21:46, 29 January 2011 (MST)

:::::::::If you supply me a link I could take a look at it. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:12, 6 April 2011 (MDT)

== Magician ==

I like the idea for the Magician class-is there a way to contact the author? {{Unsigned|Wonderer|17:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)}}

:You'll have to give me more information. Which [[Magician|magician]] related content? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:52, 6 April 2011 (MDT)

== Warning Policy Input ==

Hey Green Dragon. I was looking at [[Talk:Hill Giant (4e Race)|Talk:Hill Giant]]. Thank you for trying to keep profanity down, even name calling. --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 21:44, 29 January 2011 (MST)

:No problem. Do you think the revision history link is superfluous (and counter-productive)? Should the text be condensed? Thoughts? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:44, 6 April 2011 (MDT)

::The history link... What do you mean by if it's superfluous? I don't think the text should be condensed. Well, lets see... Do you think that giants are really that bad? Can Giants wield Medium weapons? Also, Giants aren't readly accepted into society (they kinda have a bad reputation). Also, weapons cost more (if you get them from a non-giant source, and that's if they even '''want''' to make one for a giant that they know nothing about). --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 14:40, 9 April 2011 (MDT)

== Giants ==

Hey Green Dragon. I talked with my brother, and he said that bursts weren't that bad. Do you think that giants should be practically normal, but the user chooses whether to pick a power or a feature (you can only have one or the other; not both)? --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 15:07, 1 February 2011 (MST)

:I've never seen that used before, and it could make for confusion. I'd recommend just toning down the burst and the class feature, but bursts are interesting, I agree. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:15, 6 April 2011 (MDT)

== 4e Sourcebook Pumped Up ==

:''Discussion moved to [[Talk:Pumped Up (4e Sourcebook)#Balance]].'' --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:20, 6 April 2011 (MDT)

== Meaning of Meaningful Gestures? ==

Was reading [[Catgirl,_Domestic_(3.5e_Race)|Catgirls]], and was a tad jarred by the "Meaningful gesture" section under [[Catgirl,_Domestic_(3.5e_Race)#Names|Names]]. Without any explanations given for these gestures, is this meant to be presented as a "Interpret as you will" type listing, or was this something that was going to be expanded upon further? Using known data about real-life felines and fictional Japanese catgirls as a starting point, I have compiled a very extensive list of different Body Language messages which we use for a local Catgirl character, which you are more than welcome to use if you wish. I'll be watching this page for a response. {{Unsigned|96.229.186.168|07:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)}}

:That is fine to add that to [[:Category:Catgirl|those pages]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:02, 9 February 2011 (MST)

::Looks good! I added them to other related catgirl pages and moved it into the Relations section. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:06, 6 April 2011 (MDT)

== Just another new guy asking around... ==

SO I've been told about the treasure trove of optional ideas that have been continuing the sprit of 3.5 by my newest D&D group and after a (strangely lucid) dream I came up with the following:

Spell Slayer

This +3 crystalline Mage Bane Longsword when wielded by a spell caster on impact allows the caster to make a DC 30 Spellcraft check.
On a successful check the sword ether casts vampiric touch (as caster level 6, max 3 times per combat) OR, if the target is a spellcaster it
steals one (1) random spell. Spells stolen this way are stored until the end of combat and are dispelled afterwards. A caster with the Arcane
Strike feat may sacrifice spells stolen in this manner for the bonuses provided by the feat. (For cost see Holy Avenger)

Crystalline Weapon property

This material is primarily used to make weapons for and against spellcasters. It provides an additional (stacks with magical bonuses) equipment
bonus +1 to hit and damage versus targets with magical abilities or properties (supernatural abilities or uncast spells are examples of this).
In addition it provides a +1 to caster level for all spellcasters wielding or possessing such a weapon, hafted weapons do not confer the caster level bonus. All weapons crafted from Crystalline are considered master work. (For cost see Adamantine)

Now I don't want to post anything retardedly over powered up on the site (like some of the things I have seen/heard) and would like some advice before I throw it up on the site since I haven't seen a forum section (yet).

:The best way to get things looked at is to just take the plunge and create the page. If it is retardedly over-powered, people will tell you. Most people here will offer constructive criticism and will genuinely want to help you improve/complete/flesh out your 'fill in the blank'. Spelling and grammar checks are also staples of the site. PS. always remember to sign your comments by typing in two - followed by four ~. --[[User:Calidore Chase|Calidore Chase]] 03:29, 21 February 2011 (MST)

== Hello ==

Hey. Umm I'm just joined your site; I'm wondering if there is anything i should know (like guidelines for what and what not to post). I'm kind of wondering how to make classes. P.S.: I'm guessing those little #s in red and green are reputation points. --[[User:Knave67|Knave 67]] 00:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

:Classes for which edition? Any of the "create" boxes will use the correct preload if you use them, giving direction for the class. The preloads (some are listed [[Help:Standards and Formatting (DnD Guideline)#Preloads|here]]) should tell you what the class is. As everything is different in nature, telling you how something should be created is not possible. Of course guidelines exist, and [[DnD Guidelines]] may help you. Most things are balanced off similar things and, as mentioned above, if something is retardedly overpowered people will tell you. Does this help? Also what do you mean by the post scriptum you mentioned above? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:18, 21 February 2011 (MST)

::He's probably talking about the recent changes log. If that's the case, the red and green numbers represent how many characters were subtracted or added during a page edit. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 19:15, 21 February 2011 (MST)

Oh okay I thought it was like a karma system or something along those lines. Also thank you Mr.Chartreuse Wyvern I wanted to make a class but it looks more complicated than a pictureless jigsaw puzzle so right now i'm just browsing the cite looking for boffo nuggets.

== new type of creature ==

Hello I'm working on a hybrid type. half giant red dragon. created by a crazy wizard, for would domination basically. however the creatures have morals and are therefore useless to him, so he abandons them. the creatures themselves would be fairly tall I'm think 7 - 8 an a half feet, strength and con bonuses with hits to car a level adjustment. any advice or an opinion on it would be greatly appreciated. {{Unsigned|Wytewulf|22:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)}}

:As a [[3.5e Creature Templates|template]] (like the [[SRD:Half-Dragon]]), [[User Creature Glossary|new type]], or [[3.5e Races|race]]? Or what were you intending? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:12, 1 March 2011 (MST)

== Can you create your own monster and how? ==

How do you make your own monster? Beacause I've always wanted to make my own "dragon-dillo" (armadillo & dragon combine). --[[User:Ja-Snake|Ja-Snake]] 19:56, 6 March 2011 (MST)

:See also [[Add a New DnD Creature]]. Things like [[CR Estimation Table (DnD Guideline)]] may help. Does this answer your question? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:18, 6 March 2011 (MST)

== Classes ==

Green Dragon, I am new to the d and d wiki community and i cant figure out how to create my own class. I know how to edit and change other classes if they ask for revising, but i want to be able to create my own. I would appreciate it a lot if you could either tell me how or if you could send me a link or something showing how.

Thank you for your time and consideration
Playerdb

:Does [[Add New 3.5e Class]] cover your question? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:42, 13 March 2011 (MDT)

== Deleting images ==

Can you delete a couple images for me? [http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/File:Pyromancer.jpg this image] is copyrighted and [http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/File:Imageremoved.jpg this image] was created instead to tell us that the first image was copyrighted. I don't seem to be able to delete them. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 06:53, 18 March 2011 (MDT)

:I can (and will later), however if you want to you can too. You can't do it on the page you supplied, you have to do it on media. So go to the file description page, [[dndmedia:File:Pyromancer.jpg]], (make sure your logged in) and delete it. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 10:33, 18 March 2011 (MDT)

::Actually the only listed admins for media are you and Blue Dragon. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 12:08, 18 March 2011 (MDT)

:::Oh ya, huh. I'll try to get that dealt with sometime. And I deleted them by the way. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:23, 18 March 2011 (MDT)

== update ==

Hey Green Dragon, you know the "create new equipment" in the D&D 4e equipment section? I think we should change it so that way it follows the 4e format. --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 21:05, 18 March 2011 (MDT)

:I agree. Do you have a specific idea for implementation? If so I would be more then willing to help you with it. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:24, 18 March 2011 (MDT)

::[[User: Badger|Badger]] actually has a preload set up (it's how I've been posting 4e stuff on my sourcebook). The link is [[User:Badger/sandbox6|here]] --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 11:57, 26 March 2011 (MDT)

== Featured Article Nomination? ==

What do I have to do in order to get an article nominated? --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 12:33, 26 March 2011 (MDT)

:Um, never mind. --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 12:34, 26 March 2011 (MDT)

:See also [[Featured Articles#Featured Article Nominees]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:39, 26 March 2011 (MDT)

== Not updating ==

Hey Green Dragon,
:I tried to update the {{File:Marino.jpg}} picture, but it's not updating. It instead stays in it's previous form. --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 15:40, 28 March 2011 (MDT)

:okay. It seems that if I make the picture too big, it doesn't revert. --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 15:59, 28 March 2011 (MDT)

:Still. Could this be fixed? --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 16:09, 28 March 2011 (MDT)

== Deities secion ==

I was browsing through the 3.5e Deities section and I encountered multiple entries that were meant only as jokes. Thas is not suitable. This is the first time I use this Wiki, and all those prank articles didn't leave a very good impression. I wish to request an immediate clean-up in the Deities section and remove all fake deities. I understand it may be fun to add Ceiling Cat as a Deity but this kind of humor is not appropriate here.

:Did they have the April Fool Category? If so I think their ment to be their.--[[User:Milo v3|Milo High-Hill]] 06:10, 11 April 2011 (MDT)

== Reploids ==

Hey Green Dragon,
:Do you think that maybe I could add a feat to the [[Reploid (4e Race)|Reploid]] race that gives them automatic plate (I call it total armor) proficiency (even if they don't have proficiency with preceeding armors)? You might also want a look at the link I have up there to see if a fit would even be possible without taking anything out. --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 22:44, 13 April 2011 (MDT)

::Or do you think that there should just be metalized versions of the armors already set up in regular 4e? Thin metal for cloth armor, thicker armor for leather, etc. --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 23:08, 13 April 2011 (MDT)

== [[SRD:Bless Water]] ==

I think holy water in the spell text should be wikilinked. - [[User:BalthCat|BalthCat]] 04:29, 17 April 2011 (MDT)

== Adding Content ==

Hi I wanted to know if I could add on the magic items sections some of the info from more of the core books? and if I could how? {{Unsigned|Jaybird|20:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)}}

:It depends on the license. Do you know the license? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:03, 18 April 2011 (MDT)

== help looking ==

i need help looking for the d20 modern specs for a "big rig 10 to 14 wheeler" if you could send me specs or a site that gives this i would be very greatful.

:Is [[MSRD:Vehicles#Peterbilt 379]] what you are looking for (see the table above for statistics)? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 00:32, 25 April 2011 (MDT)

== Was just wondering... ==

Just curious as to whether or not I could get my hands on a downloadable export of the mysql db for this site. I was hoping to use it for my own private notes. I play at a few people's places that don't have wifi (one of the doesnt even have internet) It would be helpful to have an SRD and such that I could put my own notes into. Either way, I completely dig the site. Keep up the good work man! -- [[User:Theoneandtruebane|Theoneandtruebane]] 17:10, 29 April 2011 (MDT)

:Well, as per the GNU FDL, you can use [[Special:Export]] which should help you. You can, of course, convert the XML to different formats such as pdf. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:55, 29 April 2011 (MDT)

::Many thanx good sir! -- [[User:Theoneandtruebane|Theoneandtruebane]] 10:35, 30 April 2011 (MDT)

== Question??? ==

Hey Green Dragon.. This is Dj00345... i have a question for the 2.5e Homebrew that you are letting me create for the wiki.... How can i create a Template for some of the pages????? i notice when i create a new creature that there is already typing on the white screen when you create a creature... i know that is a template... but how do i create my own template myself???? i need to make some of the templates for the other links, like: Deities, Equipment, Spells, Races, Class, and the others, so that when people create a page, then the right information will already be on the screen and all they have to do is create the page.... do you understand what i am saying???? please reply back on my user talk page... thx!!! [[User:Dj00345|Dj00345]] 13:53, 2 May 2011 (MDT)

:Just create the page. When creating it the formatting guidelines to use can be found [[Add Instructions|here]]. After it is created you use a inputbox and put it on preload=. Does this answer your question? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:59, 5 May 2011 (MDT)

::yes. [[User:Dj00345|Dj00345]] 20:08, 5 May 2011 (MDT)

== 3.5e Campaign Setting Teoryran ==

How can improve my Teoryran Setting. How can I create classes for Teoryran with the same name but different from existing classes of the same name? I am making a new system. Where all base classes are racial and status based on:

* Each race have four subraces for peasants, nobles, priests and a variable fourth.
* Each subrace have a class
* Each social caste have classes based on them.

Noble orcs can be samurai and noble humans can be knights. Human and orc serfs can be scoundrels, thiefs or conscriped soldiers. There will be different classes for priests and monks than for nobility. "Big changes" include:

* only racial classes gives hp
* carrier classes doesn't give HP
* gold is removed

--[[User:Klas|Klas Wullt]], 01:42 13 May 2011 (MST)

:For the pages with the same name you include ", Teoryran". For example "Orc, Teoryran (3.5e Race)". For the subraces you include their subrace after the comma (much like the SRD elves). For example "Orc, Teoryran Peasant (3.5e Race)". The classes can then, of course, be their favored class. If it is the fighter, for example, it would be "Fighter, Teoryran (3.5e Class)" and/or "Fighter, Teoryran Peasant (3.5e Class)". For the game mechanic changes you may have to make a [[3.5e Rules|rule]] or include it some way. When you have them made I can take a look at them and see if it makes sense. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:08, 22 May 2011 (MDT)

== 3.5e Campaign Setting Teoryran ==

Hello. I need some help for my setting. Teoryran World. How do I sort the pages correctly? {{Unsigned|Klas|01:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)}}

:What do you mean by sorting the pages? By category? By name? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:09, 22 May 2011 (MDT)

Thanks for the Offer.
Here, I just made on class.
Please take a took at it.
Knight, Teoryran(3.5e Class).

== 3.5e Equipment List - new category (Page editing locked) ==

Hi Green,

I'm a new user to Wiki & would appreciate some helpful advice :-)

Going to start a new D&D campaign this year with a Pirate theme. When people think of Pirates, thier main thoughts are Pirate Ships, Cannons, Flintlock Pistols & Cutlasses.

Flintlock's can easily be replaced with Hand Crossbow's, Cannons needed some more thought.

I do not want to introduce gunpowder into the campaign so as an alternative i've decided to go with Gnomish Engineering and introduce some clockwork & steampowered machinery (Steampunk) resulting in Steam Cannon's aboard ships

Decided the 3.5e equipment list therefore needs a new category of Gnome Engineering, a place for all things clockwork, steampowered or basic engineering (i.e. Piston Water Pumps)

I don't think this technolgy would change game balance as there are many ancient technologies that have been rediscovered such as the Baghdad Battery & Eygptian Piston Ballista

Created the Gnome Engineering category but can not link this category to the 3.5e Equipment list, as this page is locked for editing (for very good reasons, looks complicated)

Are you able to help?

Thanks

--[[User:Mufasa|Mufasa]] 10:19, 23 May 2011 (MDT)

== Blades Of Keran ==
I was wondering if someone could rate my campaign setting, [[Blades Of Keran (3.5e Campaign Setting)|Blades Of Keran]]. Also I agree with the above request about Gnomish Engineering as my campaign uses Gnomish Devices as well. --[[User:Milo v3|Milo High-Hill]] 17:08, 24 May 2011 (MDT)

== Economist talk page ==

So, I was browsing through the recent talk page (as I often do), and I was confused by your recent actions on the talk page of the Economist. Care to elaborate? It seemed like someone asked a question on the discussion, and Jota responded with an answer to the question. You deleted the reply, and gave no reason as to why. Someone (a random IP) then went and undid you revert, presumably because you removed helpful and useful content without a reason. You blocked him for 3 months for edit warring, despite him only having a single contribution to the wiki. What happened to warnings? What happened to the increasing block length? Effectively, you banned someone from the wiki for 3 months because they undid one of your edits, which you made without any reason at all. What's going on? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 21:05, 24 May 2011 (MDT)

:This whole "other wiki" kerfuffle is getting out of hand. There's no reason this has to be a zero-sum game. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 21:30, 24 May 2011 (MDT)

::The [[Warning Policy]] is only for when one does not edit with civility and etiquette. This is unrelated. Edit warring is a block reason on WIkipedia's policies and therefore effective on D&D Wiki. I don't mean it to be a zero-sum game, but when someone answers with (shortened) "this answer is irrelevant, look elsewhere" it's a obscuration of spamming to external sites. Another common block reason. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:47, 24 May 2011 (MDT)

:::The zero-sum part is black-holing any mention, however remote of another site*. It's either us or them. If they win, we lose (zero-sum). But there's no reason it has to be that way. Neither wiki is exactly crawling with people, and if we worked together instead of against each other (and looking rather silly while doing it, I might add), we would both be better off. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 22:12, 24 May 2011 (MDT) *Note, however, that it's only one site that gets people insta-blocked for a quarter. Other sites get mentioned without such severe penalties. In one case, I can think of a site that's mentioned multiple times that nobody seems to have any problem with...

::::Interesting, but D&D Wiki is not going to have a committee of people who are a self-appointed oligarchy who serve the same function as the [[Meta Pages#Improving, Reviewing, and Removing Articles|improving, reviewing, and removing articles templates]] present. Additionally things on D&D Wiki cannot be stagnant, and things should improve when they can (e.g. user categories being replaced by [[Special:NewPages]], [[Template:Author]] being superseded by history, etc). For example. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:26, 24 May 2011 (MDT)

:::::GD, no one is telling you to change policy about reviewing content, or anything else of that ilk. Jazzman merely said, and I agree, that we should be allowed to say things exist. We have countless links to other forums and sites that host homebrew content, it seems foolish to block people for mentioning one in particular, no matter the history. We can all act like adults and just let it be. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 22:40, 24 May 2011 (MDT)

::::::Links are supposed to do though [[DnD Links]]. All other links are incorrect. However, as I see it, on userpages is okay as long as when one notices it they move it to DnD Links, because to me that seems more like the user is unaware or unknowing. However spamming of external links, yes, does get one banned. Does this kind of answer your question? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:59, 24 May 2011 (MDT)

:::::::So, by your own admission, Jota and everyone else can post links to their other wikis on their user page, but not in the main namespace? Seems fair to me. I'll go ahead and add links to [[DnD Links]]. I'll assume users can still write something like "If you have any other questions, leave a message on my talk page", where they can post links to other sites (as you said yourself, user pages are fine for external links). Alright, sounds good. I'm glad we've finally come to some sort of agreement on this. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 01:05, 25 May 2011 (MDT)

::::::::No, that's taking it out of context. "on userpages is okay as long as when one notices it they move it to DnD Links" should be read as a full statement. Otherwise it's still a violation of policy. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 11:24, 25 May 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::You're telling me that there shouldn't be any external links on User Pages then? I was under the impression that if they were also listed on DnD Links, that would be fine. Sometimes you'd want to give a more specific link, like say one to a particular article. The way you've phrased it, it seems like there should be no external links anywhere but on that DnD Links page. That doesn't make any sense at all. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 13:50, 25 May 2011 (MDT)

::::::::::Well, maybe something like the w: could be made (as a template) for each link. Really, however, one should just direct one to [[DnD Links]] (that's why they are <tt><nowiki>{{#anc:}}</nowiki></tt>'ed). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:41, 25 May 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::::I understand what you're saying. I'm saying why make someone go to DnD Links, and then search the other site, when you could just as easily link to the exact page in the first place? DnD Links is certainly a good page, and designed for ease of reference, but I think it works best as a general tool, and for specific purposes one might as well link directly from one page to another, without using DnD Links. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 13:50, 25 May 2011 (MDT)

<-- Again, why? Can someone give me a reason why we are never allowed to link to other sites? I'm just not seeing the reasoning here other than to annex The Site Which Shall Not Be Named, and even that I can't see any good reasoning for. [[User:Hooper|Hooper]] is allowed to link to [[O.G.R.E.]] (which has it's own wiki page, btw; we aren't even allowed to ''mention'' the Other Wiki) with no repercussions, but an anon who undid an outright deletion of a post that vaguely mentions That Other Wiki was banned, without warning, for 3 months. Did they murder your favorite pet or something? Will the site really blow up if I decide to link to some innocent site that doesn't happen to me mentioned on DnD Links (which, judging by the traffic on that page, nobody looks at anyway)?

Sadly, I've seen this exact same scenario on wikis before: site 1 does something that subset of the site doesn't like. Said subset creates their own wiki. Wiki 1 bans mentions of Wiki 2. Wiki 2 uses this as reasoning to orchestrate more and bigger attacks against Wiki 1. As the bickering continues both sites end up looking silly and losing who would otherwise be valuable members. The more we block them the more they will do things like [[Special:Contributions/Bird|Bird]] did, which are ultimately more harmful to the site than anything the users would do if we just played nice with them. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 15:40, 25 May 2011 (MDT)

:So, should we do something like w: then? Currently, [[User:Hooper|Hooper]] should not be linking to any site not by way of [[DnD Links]]. I'm just following policy, be it fledgling or not. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:00, 25 May 2011 (MDT)

::I don't know what w: means. What I want to do is allow people to link to other sites without having to go through DND links first. If that's what w: is then yes, we should do that.

::If Hooper's not allowed to link to these sites, then do you want to clean out his userpage and delete [[O.G.R.E.]]? Because I can't see the reason for it. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 17:03, 25 May 2011 (MDT)

:Ironically, the best description I know of for the events that transpired is on the other wiki. A bunch of people decided to make a "rating committee". GD didn't like it. There was a bunch of silly squabbling, and the other wiki left, taking a ton of content and users with them. GD and everyone else were upset about who took what content, and the legality of that. Honestly, in my mind, this is the sort of thing that, after a week, could have blown over. Clearly we just need to share a beer, play some D&D, and realize how silly this fight is. Also, start allowing each other to link to each other's wikis. I can't speak with any certainty, but I am pretty sure they allow links to this wiki. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 15:58, 25 May 2011 (MDT)

::Go for it. I don't really want to do any cleaning out of userpages right now– I'm working on [[4e Deities]] as it is. I agree this is silly, however if links really are needed then someone (again, I don't care to do this) should make something like how [[Template:Background Information (Halo Supplement)]] treats links for each link. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:11, 25 May 2011 (MDT)

:::I'm not going to delete [[O.G.R.E.]] because it doesn't bother me and I don't understand why it's not allowed. I don't want to go angering Hooper, who's contributions are numerous and high-quality, if I don't have to. If you have time to block people for mentioning one site, I'm not sure why you are too busy to block people for mentioning another site. So how about instead we just allow everyone to link to sites?

:::And if all we have to do in order to link to D&D wiki (err, the *other* one, anyway) is to create a template, then that's a piece of cake. Heck, I can make one that works even ''better'' than the one you linked to. Now everyone's happy! [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 17:45, 25 May 2011 (MDT) (BTW Green Dragon, I think you are having problems with your browser. For some reason when you edit it deletes parts of the page on accident).

::::I'm not entirely sure why we need a template, especially one that would go at the bottom of the page like you linked. Maybe one at the top of the talk page? But, what would the template say, "This page contains external links. DanDWiki does not have any affiliation with any externally linked sites. Links do no necessarily reflect the views of DanDWiki and its owners"? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 20:06, 25 May 2011 (MDT)

:::::That's a good idea. And it could incorporate the switch extension. I just meant "like how [[Template:Background Information (Halo Supplement)]] treats links". --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:29, 25 May 2011 (MDT)

::::::How about this:

{| align=center border=1 cellpadding=2 cellspacing=2 style="text-align: center; background:#F4F0EC; color:black"
! style= "background:#71A6D2" | <big><big>Attention!</big></big>
|-
| '''This page contains external links.''' D&D Wiki does not have any affiliation with any externally linked sites. Links do no necessarily reflect the views of D&D Wiki
|}

::::::It makes no sense to have a template for individual sites, or even as a way to include the link in the template. If it pleases the wiki, we can just make a <nowiki>{{template:external_link}}</nowiki> and go from there. Throw this up on a page, and we can have external links anywhere we want. Problem solved. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 20:56, 25 May 2011 (MDT)

:::::::I don't like how obtrusive that is. I would prefer something much less obtrusive, comparable to an expansion of the MW external link symbol. For example: <nowiki>[www.address.{{{1}}}] ([[DnD Links#site|link information]]</nowiki> [[File:Externallink.png|12px]] this external link does not have any affiliation with D&D Wiki) And, I would prefer having a hard list of sites because as the internet is full of sites with varying degrees of quality it is good to have some quality control over how it effects D&D Wiki. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 11:35, 26 May 2011 (MDT)

::::::::Ok, well, considering that external links already have an associated image (or at least a symbol), why don't you just include a line of text below the edit window (by which I mean below the line "You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource. Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!") that says something to the effect of "Links to external sites must be deemed appropriate; inappropriate links subject to removal. See [[DnD Links]] for list of appropriate links." and we'll just say any page or subpage of a link on the DnD Links page can be freely linked to. I think the problem with including a template in this process is that we already have a ton of templates that we don't use because they are confusing or hard to find. Considering there is already a button for external links, we might as well use that. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 12:18, 26 May 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::What are your thoughts on just making a [[Meta Pages#Policies|policy]] which covers it and then adding text on [[DnD Links]] explaining it's function. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:27, 26 May 2011 (MDT)

::::::::::That sounds like the best possible plan. We allow external links, add a line in the policy about external links, and a brief summary about what should and should not be linked on the DnD links page. I'm glad we've finally come to some sort of agreement, and don't require the use of templates or other things that may be confusing to new users. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 19:35, 26 May 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::::I just wanted to comment on something said much earlier. It was ''"Note, however, that it's only one site that gets people insta-blocked for a quarter. Other sites get mentioned without such severe penalties. In one case, I can think of a site that's mentioned multiple times that nobody seems to have any problem with..."''. Not true. I literally was blocked on [http://dungeons.wikia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=&year=&month=-1 September 20th, 2009] after making four edits to that wiki - one redirecting a talk page to me, and three asking for a diff in a respectful manner. The block summary even stated some harsh thing. Don't pretend that one wiki is a white knight in this issue. I still don't understand why people won't just stay at their chosen wiki home, and ignore the other. ''(also, I only added the actual link because I'm understanding its now okay on talk pages? If thats not so delete it. I'm honestly having a hard time following.)''
:::::::::::Now, as far as O.G.R.E.s is concerned. It is my understanding, and perhaps I am wrong in this understanding, that long ago it was decided not to link to "competing sites". OGREs may be another wiki ''(for now, but when our webmaster isn't paid, things take time)'' but it isn't a competing site. We're not looking for the same kind of content. Now maybe I'm wrong, and if so, delete it. But in my opinion, the D&D Other section is perfect for articles discussing the different gaming organizations and may be very pertinent to the common D&D Wiki browser's interest.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 21:35, 29 May 2011 (MDT)

::::::::::::Even if they did block you, that's not really a good reason to insta-block ''them''. Simply linking to that site isn't, in and of itself, a legitimate reason in my mind to block someone for ''3 months'', especially considering the specific case we were talking about. (Let's face it, were it anyone but GD, we might have thought the original reversion was vandalism; it is only because we saw his name beside it that we know it wasn't).

::::::::::::As for O.G.R.E, I don't actually think it should be deleted, just as I don't think links to the other wiki should be deleted. But as far as I can tell, there's no differentiation between what links we are allowed to link to. Under the current rules as written, if we insta-ban people for mentioning one, it's completely hypocritical to pretend links to the other don't even exist. I'm not actually arguing that we enforce the rules against all sites, I think we need to change the rule entirely. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 22:05, 29 May 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::::::What's an instablock? The block was for edit warring, see also [http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3A63.23.72.173]. It's unrelated. I have no idea about O.G.R.E.. Is it on [[DnD Links]]? Has it been looked over? If it's anything like your video channel (which I have seen) then i'd be fine. Of course this discussion is for elsewhere. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:11, 29 May 2011 (MDT)

::::::::::::::[http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/216.66.140.248 This] is an insta-block. A user's very first ever edit was a reversion of unexplained deletion of Jota's response. The guy can't be accused of edit warring when there were (liberally) only 2 reverts, only one of which was this guy a participant. If we go by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:3RR#The_three-revert_rule WP:3RR], it's not a revert war until one editor does ''three'' reverts in a 24-hour period. That editor hadn't even had three ''edits''. (The IP you linked to, by the way, only had 2 reverts, and was never even given a warning before he was blocked for 3 months.) Not only that, but had an IP or a new user deleted Jota's comment without explanation, the reversion of said deletion would probably be given exception from the 3RR, because to all appearances, deleting someone else's talk page comments is usually itself vandalism. Adding them back almost never is. At worst, the two IPs should have been given an explanation of how what they were doing was not allowed, a warning to discontinue their actions, and ''maybe'' blocked for a day to cool down. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 08:34, 30 May 2011 (MDT) [http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Green_Dragon&diff=next&oldid=520281]

== Hi ==
I need help with footers and links.

:Could you be a little more specific? I've been working on a new user guide for some time now. It's not nearly complete, but it may be able to help you with some of your questions. You can find that [[User:Badger/sandbox3|here]].If you show me what you are trying to do, I can probably help. Drop a message on [[User_talk:Badger|my talk page]], and I'll see if I can help you work through your problems. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 14:54, 25 May 2011 (MDT)

== hello ==

I have almost finnished 3/8 planned racial caste races.
Please have a look at the Human noble and human peasant
and Ork noble races.
Links are found at Teoryran info about Races.

The race pages are to big,
any suggestions of how to cut them up and
sort them in different sections?

== hi ==

Mmm, well I needed the pages sorted after supplement.
I needed to put lots of class and race descriptions of personality, the world
and their lands somewhere else.

== hi ==

Mmm, well I needed the pages sorted after supplement.
I needed to put lots of class and race descriptions of personality, the world
and their lands somewhere else.

:What do you mean? [[Races of Teoryran (Teoryran World Supplement)]] is understandable. It is missing its footer though. Is that what you mean? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 19:52, 26 May 2011 (MDT)

Yes; sorry for being unclear.
I Lack footers and I am unsure where to put my classes
if they are not exactly base classes either?
Variant rules?
Should I greate a new page for racial classes?
Or are they paragon classes?
I am worried that some of the pages about info for the setting
lack addresses and take up extra memory.

== hi ==

Hello how to you I find this this page.

== Edit Revert? ==

Why did you revert my edit on [[Talk:DnD Links]]? I didn't break any of your rules and, furthermore, I contributed to the discussion. You shouldn't just censor things because you don't agree with them... --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 13:44, 30 May 2011 (MDT)

:Because it's not adding anything new to the discussion. It's not pertinent, see also the reason. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:49, 30 May 2011 (MDT)

::"Because it's not adding anything new to the discussion."
::False. I gave an illustration of how GNU (and similarly GPL) actually works in practice and showed that the emphasis on the licenses was initially for code libraries/projects. That emphasis is a very important distinction because it provides more basis for the argument I'm making. This also provides some historical context for my argument.
::I brought up how MySQL's licensing can be seen as a parallel example (actually I could have brought up Wikipedia too -- how do you think they transitioned from GPL 1.2 to GPL 1.3? Relicensing.).

::"It's not pertinent, see also the reason."
::Your reason is a complete strawman argument. ie. You are attacking an argument I didn't even make. Let's examine the exact "reason" you gave:
::"wrong - there is no section 11 clause to the GNU FDL v1.2 (that's the whole -i think- MSQL legal dilema)"
::Now go back to what I wrote. Did I write ''anything'' about section 11? No. In fact, earlier I already explained that section 11 does not apply in this case because this wiki is under GNU FDL 1.2 (the exact thing I said was "Anon, you are actually incorrect, unfortunately. This wiki uses GNU FDL 1.2 and no licenses can just suddenly retroactively patch a previous license.", see the context).
::Also, you "think" that is the whole "MSQL legal dilema", but I never even said that this has anything to do at all with MySQL's legal dilemma. I was strictly comparing the fact that MySQL was able to transition to a dual license to authorship as a concept.
::And, just to be a bit cheeky: you censored a well-written post meant to explain in detail my stance in a discussion. The whole point of that post was because you clearly were not responding intelligibly to what I had written earlier, so it seemed necessary to go into more detail. That's a pretty standard thing in a discussion. Elaborating on a point when the other party doesn't seem to understand.
::What I'd like to hear is how you think authorship and licensing actually works. All you've done is say that others are wrong, but you have yet to provide any evidence to back up your claims. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 14:10, 30 May 2011 (MDT)

:::It may not even be MySQL I am referring to. There is a conglomerate of companies which has a problem with previous GNU FDL licensing and now it is uncertain who owns their things. Since they used section 11 and did some version changing and things, they now have this problem. Last I saw one had to give over some billion worth in rights to the other or something along those lines.
:::It just doesn't matter how people use the GNU FDL v1.2. Who cares? We go by the license and law, and that is the discussion (mostly). What the GNU FDL has been used for is not.
:::I have said repeatedly that like Wikipedia's terms of use, law is. Of course things like licenses are interchangeable. What's not to read? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 14:28, 30 May 2011 (MDT)

::::"There is a conglomerate of companies..."
::::How does this point have anything to do with your website? Your website is not a company and you and it have no ownership over the material others put on it. You have ownership of the database and the webserver (or at least the rental agreement if you rent).
::::"We go by the license and law, and that is the discussion (mostly)"
::::What law? The one I showed was clearly false? Again, I ask very simply: explain how you actually think authorship and licensing works (with regard to this wiki). It seems you are either unwilling or unable to back up your claims, which isn't surprising considering that they hold no weight whatsoever.
::::"I have said repeatedly that like Wikipedia's terms of use, law is."
::::Since the following sentences probably hinge on that one, I'm just going to have to ask you to rephrase it. From the way I read it: "I have said repeatedly that, similar to Wikipedia's terms of use, law is an entity that exists". Which is true... But it doesn't really say anything worthwhile. I could say something similar and it would have just as much meaning to me: I have said repeatedly that like Wikipedia's terms of use, bacon is. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 14:57, 30 May 2011 (MDT)
::::PS. If you really do follow wikipedia's rules, then you broke them by reverting my edit. See [[w:Wikipedia:TPO]].

:::::I know. It's just an interesting story. That, though, is the only way whatever you are talking about is possible. D&D Wiki licenses content, like Wikipedia (see their Terms of Use). What's not to understand? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:04, 30 May 2011 (MDT)

::::::"D&D Wiki licenses content"
::::::From whom? Licenses need to be granted by some entity by definition... Yes. You just argued my point for me. You still haven't explained how you think it actually works though (yes, this is my third time asking on this page alone). --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 15:12, 30 May 2011 (MDT)

:::::::No, your not thinking about this. How does Wikipedia do it? They are only reserved. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:14, 30 May 2011 (MDT)

::::::::I will entertain your questions even though you won't answer mine. I'm not sure which terms of use you want to to explain (the old one that uses GNU FDL 1.2 or the new one that uses GNU FDL 1.3. I'll explain the one that matters

::::::::'''GNU FDL 1.2 (last revision found at [[w:Wikipedia:Terms_of_use&oldid=30325726]]):'''
::::::::After all the boring text telling us that every page is protected under US copyright laws, you are bound to the terms even if you don't read them, that pages are licensed under GNU FDL 1.2, and that page histories meet the terms of the GNU FDL, there is a wonderful gem of bolded text (which I'm going to bold the important part in my quote below).
::::::::"you are hereby being given notice under Title 17 USC that it is your responsibility to comply with the copyright laws in regards to this archival material and your copying it may be considered infringement ('''specifically if any of the materials being stored in those prior versions are copyrighted materials that were submitted to Wikipedia without the author/authors or copyright holder's/holders' permission(s)''')."
::::::::Huh? The author has to give permission to have it put on Wikipedia? It's almost as if the author has rights to their own work! You know, like the right to license their work as they see fit. Note also that the terms of use do not have any such mention of forgoing the author's right to relicense their own work. It just talks about the fact that you can't take materials that have a copyright and add the GNU FDL license without having the author's consent.

::::::::Now for the GNU FDL 1.3, there is little point in explaining because we have already determined that this wiki does not use that license anyways, but if it did, a CC-by-SA license can be added to ''other author's'' work. Yeah, if this site was GNU FDL 1.3 that would just mean that moving content and relicensing would not require the author's consent.

::::::::Attempt #4: Care to explain how you think it works (and maybe throw in some specific quotes to support your argument this time)? --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 15:37, 30 May 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::'''Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!''' — what's not to understand? The adherence to the license? "you are bound to the terms even if you don't read them, that pages are licensed under GNU FDL 1.2" --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:41, 30 May 2011 (MDT)

::::::::::You aren't getting it. Whose permission is required for copyrighted work? All you are pointing out is exactly what I just said: you can't submit the copyrighted work of others'. You can totally submit your own copyrighted work because you obviously have your own permission. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 15:47, 30 May 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::::Your not getting it. "you are bound to the terms even if you don't read them", meaning that you are bound to the terms. With regard to copyrighting through the USA Copyright Office, a different scenario, was it done? And I think Wikipedia's Terms of Use cover that to some extend now. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:19, 30 May 2011 (MDT)

::::::::::::Can I link to an external site (the US Copyright Office site)? On their FAQ, you will clearly see the following text:
::::::::::::"Do I have to register with your office to be protected? No. In general, registration is voluntary. Copyright exists from the moment the work is created. You will have to register, however, if you wish to bring a lawsuit for infringement of a U.S. work."
::::::::::::So, I don't see what the copyright office has to do with anything.
::::::::::::I totally agree that Terms of Use function in a way that makes them binding even if they are not read. But the fact of the matter is, anything I write is copyrighted (by me), and I can license that work as I see fit. You agree that the GNU FDL is a license, not a contract, right (this is a VERY important distinction)? --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 16:46, 30 May 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::::::I mean previously copyrighted work. And, no, submitting it here licenses it. For example: "Therefore, for any text you hold the copyright to, by submitting it, you agree to license it under the". --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:50, 30 May 2011 (MDT)

::::::::::::::Previously copyrighted work is not a big deal either in the case of "the other wiki" because none of the content that was moved was copyrighted by someone who didn't hold the copyright.
::::::::::::::Just to be perfectly clear: you agree the GNU FDL is a license, not a contract, yes or no? --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 17:02, 30 May 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::::::::I think the problem is GD thinks licensing content here grants DandWiki ''exclusive'' license to the content. It doesn't. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 17:06, 30 May 2011 (MDT)

::::::::::::::::Indeed. Exclusive licenses require a contract, which this website does not have. That's what I was getting to ''';)'''. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 17:12, 30 May 2011 (MDT)

User talk:Green Dragon

2011-05-30T23:02:38Z

Aarnott: /* Edit Revert? */

{{:User:Green Dragon/Top Template}}
{{Messages of Interest|messages=
{{MoI-Row
|page=Category_talk:Candidates_for_Deletion
|section=Idea_for_half-completed_pages
|notifier=Jazzman831
|date_time=21:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=LA_7_Races&oldid=397215
|section=
|notifier=Green Dragon
|date_time=22:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=User_talk:Green_Dragon
|section=Taking Author Information off Pages
|notifier=Jwguy
|date_time=01:40, 6 November 2009 (MST)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Talk:Detect_Disease_(3.5e_Spell)
|section=Author Template
|notifier=Daniel Draco
|date_time=13:55, 6 October 2009 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Talk:Detect_Disease_(3.5e_Spell)
|section=Author Template
|notifier=Daniel Draco
|date_time=03:15, 4 October 2009 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Talk:SRD3e:System_Reference_Document
|section=Basic Character Classes
|notifier=Hooper
|date_time=16:45, 1 October 2009 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=User_talk:Hooper/Banned_Material
|section=Hugh?
|notifier=Lord Dhazriel
|date_time=17:57, 18 September 2009 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=User_talk:Jason_Bagby
|section=Deletion Template on User Page
|notifier=Hooper
|date_time=17:05, 5 September 2009 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=User_talk:Admin
|section=Transcribed Wizards of the Coast Online Archives
|notifier=TheWarforgedArtificer
|date_time=16:15, 5 September 2009 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=User_talk:Admin
|section=Transcribed Wizards of the Coast Online Archives
|notifier=TheWarforgedArtificer
|date_time=16:01, 5 September 2009 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Deviant_(3.5e_Class)
|section=Author Template
|notifier=Sulacu
|date_time=13:58, 28 August 2009 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Talk:Knightwarrior_(3.5e_Class)
|section=
|notifier=Lord Dhazriel
|date_time=21:57, 27 August 2009 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=User_talk:Calidore_Chase
|section=No longer an Admin?
|notifier=Calidore Chase
|date_time=12:51, 15 August 2009 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Template_talk:Spell
|section=
|notifier=TheWarforgedArtificer
|date_time=00:12, 8 August 2009 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Template_talk:Spell
|section=
|notifier=TheWarforgedArtificer
|date_time=23:58, 7 August 2009 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Talk:Half-Troll_(4e_Race)
|section=Formatting
|notifier=Sepsis
|date_time=14:57, 3 August 2009 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Template_talk:4e_Power
|section=Strangeness
|notifier=Taritus
|date_time=13:40, 22 July 2009 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Template_talk:4e_Power
|section=Strangeness
|notifier=Taritus
|date_time=13:39, 22 July 2009 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Talk:Ironbound_(3.5e_Prestige_Class)
|section=locked
|notifier=GaaaaaH
|date_time=04:59, 12 July 2009 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Talk:Dungeons_and_Dragons
|section=DPL?
|notifier=Daniel Draco
|date_time=22:13, 24 June 2009 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Template_talk:4e_Artifact_Part_1
|section=
|notifier=Sabreheim
|date_time=21:34, 11 June 2009 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Talk:Rod_of_Orcus_(4e_Artifact)
|section=Template Issues
|notifier=Sepsis
|date_time=16:08, 11 June 2009 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=User_talk:Green_Dragon
|section=Harassment
|notifier=Sepsis
|date_time=07:45, 31 May 2009 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Talk:Giant_(4e_Race)
|section=Response
|notifier=Sepsis
|date_time=07:37, 31 May 2009 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Category_talk:Martial_Adept
|section=
|notifier=Daniel Draco
|date_time=19:57, 28 May 2009 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Nature_Bound_(DnD_Class)
|section=
|notifier=Sabreheim
|date_time=15:26, 28 May 2009 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Talk:Daunting_Assailant_(DnD_Class)
|section=
|notifier=Daniel Draco
|date_time=15:46, 8 April 2009 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Talk:Regiment_(3.5e_Template)
|section=Can't Access the Page Anymore
|notifier=Aarnott
|date_time=15:27, 6 April 2009 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Template_talk:Weapon_Desc
|section=
|notifier=Sabre070
|date_time=21:52, 7 November 2008 (MST)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Talk:Main_Page
|section=Moving to new MediaWiki version
|notifier=Blue Dragon
|date_time=13:36, 28 October 2008 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Talk:Bodily_Relics
|section=Talk:Bodily Relics?
|notifier=Rithaniel
|date_time=10:28, 16 October 2008 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Talk:DnD_Abyssal_Heritor_Feats
|section=DPL
|notifier=Aarnott
|date_time=11:08, 28 July 2008 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Talk:Soul-Mate_(DnD_Feat)
|section=
|notifier=Xdeletedx
|date_time=23:03, 19 July 2008 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Talk:Snake-Sword_(DnD_Equipment)
|section=
|notifier=Eiji
|date_time=02:07, 30 June 2008 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Talk:Main_Page
|section=WYSIWYG extension
|notifier=Aarnott
|date_time=10:35, 20 June 2008 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Snow_Silver_(3.5e_Equipment)
|section=
|notifier=Ice Paul the III
|date_time=13:21, 6 June 2008 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Talk:Myrmidon_(DnD_Class)
|section=
|notifier=Kisame93
|date_time=08:16, 26 May 2008 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=UA_talk:Variant_Rules
|section=Two Complete Chapters
|notifier=OptimizationFanatic
|date_time=15:15, 11 May 2008 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Talk:Expanded_Religions_(DnD_Variant_Rule)
|section=Featured Article Nomination
|notifier=Hawk
|date_time=07:23, 28 March 2008 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Talk:Regiment_(DnD_Template)
|section=Call out for help!
|notifier=Aarnott
|date_time=16:58, 17 March 2008 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Template_talk:Main_Page_FA
|section=
|notifier=Sam Kay
|date_time=13:21, 16 March 2008 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Talk:Publishers_of_d20_and_D&D_Products
|section=
|notifier=Ramses IV
|date_time=11:15, 16 March 2008 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Talk:Mesoamerican_Gods_and_Goddessess_(DnD_Pantheon)
|section=
|notifier=Ramses IV
|date_time=09:59, 16 March 2008 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Talk:Marksman_(DnD_Class)
|section=
|notifier=Eiji
|date_time=02:30, 15 March 2008 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Form_talk:DnD_Equipment/Preload
|section=Problems
|notifier=Hawk
|date_time=22:03, 29 February 2008 (MST)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Talk:DnD_Equipment
|section=Cost and Weight
|notifier=Hawk
|date_time=20:06, 29 February 2008 (MST)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Form_talk:DnD_Equipment
|section=Date
|notifier=Hawk
|date_time=19:42, 29 February 2008 (MST)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Talk:Catgirl/Nekomusume/Nekomimi_(DnD_Race)
|section=Dogs
|notifier=Xdeletedx
|date_time=16:28, 26 February 2008 (MST)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Talk:Brawling_(DnD_Variant_Rule)
|section=Sooo tired...
|notifier=Eiji
|date_time=00:04, 26 February 2008 (MST)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Talk:Marksman_(DnD_Class)
|section=
|notifier=Eiji
|date_time=13:11, 24 February 2008 (MST)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Talk:User_Base_Classes
|section=
|notifier=Sledged
|date_time=14:27, 19 February 2008 (MST)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Talk:Vest_of_the_Bold_(DnD_Equipment)
|section=
|notifier=Cronocke
|date_time=05:17, 18 February 2008 (MST)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Pedistal_of_Truth_(DnD_Equipment)
|section=Format Format
|notifier=Green Dragon
|date_time=09:40, 16 February 2008 (MST)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Talk:Performer_(DnD_Prestige_Class)
|section=
|notifier=Cerin616
|date_time=18:22, 11 February 2008 (MST)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Talk:Main_Page
|section=
|notifier=Sam Kay
|date_time=07:20, 5 February 2008 (MST)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Talk:Paladin_Mount_from_first_level_(DnD_Variant_Rule)
|section=
|notifier=Sam Kay
|date_time=09:35, 4 February 2008 (MST)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Myrmidon_(DnD_Class)
|section=all of it
|notifier=Tetsurga
|date_time=17:54, 31 January 2008 (MST)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Talk:DnD_Maps
|section=Maybe this should be in environments after all?
|notifier=EldritchNumen
|date_time=12:32, 3 January 2008 (MST)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Talk:Chromatic_Dwarf_(DnD_Creature)
|section=Race
|notifier=Green Dragon
|date_time=23:45, 1 June 2007 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=Combat_School_(3.5e_Variant_Rule)
|section=
|notifier=Green Dragon
|date_time=23:57, 21 May 2007 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=MediaWiki:Sharedupload
|section=
|notifier=Green Dragon
|date_time=23:01, 14 May 2007 (MDT)
}}
{{MoI-Row
|page=dndmedia:D&D_Wiki_Media_talk:Copyrights
|section=Image documentation
|notifier=Cuthalion
|date_time=14:11, 11 May 2007 (MDT)
}}
}}

{{Archives
|label1= Archive 1 (Discussions 1 – 30)
|label2= Archive 2 (Discussions 31 – 60)
|label3= Archive 3 (Discussions 61 – 90)
|label4= Archive 4 (Discussions 91 – 120)
|label5= Archive 5 (Discussions 121 – 150)
|label6= Archive 6 (Discussions 151 – 180)
|label7= Archive 7 (Discussions 181 – 210)
|label8= Archive 8 (Discussions 211 – 240)
|label9= Archive 9 (Discussions 241 – 270)
|label10= Archive 10 (Discussions 271 – 300)
|label11= Archive 11 (Discussions 301 – 330)
|label12= Archive 12 (Discussions 331 – 360)
|label13= Archive 13 (Discussions 361 – 390)
|label14= Archive 14 (Discussions 391 – 420)
|label15= Archive 15 (Discussions 421 – 450)
|label16= Archive 16 (Discussions 451 – 480)
|label17= Archive 17 (Discussions 481 – 510)
|label18= Archive 18 (Discussions 511 – 540)
}}

== Media's Upload File ==

Everytime I try to log in to upload a pic, I get this.

<code><tt>A database query syntax error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in the software. The last attempted database query was:</tt></code>

<code><tt>(SQL query hidden)</tt></code>

<code><tt>from within function "User::idFromName". MySQL returned error "1142: SELECT command denied to user 'db89449'@'205.186.184.15' for table 'wdd_user' (internal-db.s89449.gridserver.com)".</tt></code>

--[[User:Jay Freedman|Jay Freedman]] 18:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

:Uploading is working now. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 03:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

== Formatting Help ==

I would like to know how to reformat my submitted setting. i am pretty new to this whole thing...

P.S.~ sorry about completely over-riding your touch-ups, i meant to only make minor corrections, but you see i was in th emiddle of adding a lot of information on the playable races at the time, and i was getting very frustrated at the fact that every time i had an editing conlict, i had to pretty much write everything again. leastways the equivalent amount of work on it, what with taking out the dashes and spaces, and putting in the HTML... {{Unsigned|ChieftainTwilight|15:06, 28 February 2010 (MST)}}

:First if you press the back button it will retrieve the information you had been typing. Just Copy+Paste into the new version (with some minor editing if needed) and continue posting. Edit conflicts are not really a problem as such except for minor formatting or minor changes which deal with the other user's changes. What do I think of [[Mysteries of Andor (3.5e Campaign Setting)|Mysteries of Andor]]? I find that nothing is really fluffed out. I recommend that you make the deities and then link to them from that page. Although you say many names, what I mean is, what are they? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 04:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

== Mediawiki is unavailable? ==

I'm sure you've already been alerted, but just in case, the Mediawiki pictures are not showing up, and Mediawiki comes up saying there is an "Exception caught in Exception Handler". It's not working at all. [[User:Jwguy|Jwguy]] 05:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

== Captcha ==

Would it be possible to have only IP and non-autoconfirmed users have to fill out the captcha when inserting external links? There are a butt-ton of d20 Modern stubs, but since the "edit this page" is treated as an external link, I have to fill out a captcha for every stub template. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 02:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

== More post-crash problems ==

I'm sure you're aware, but I'm just letting you know of some other problems I'm finding since the server crash. First of all, the site is sllllloooooooowww. Sometimes it will be zippy, sometimes you will wait 10 seconds and get a "something went wrong" message, but other times, like right now, it will take literally minutes (sometimes up to 5) to open up a page. Which is just an eternity when you are trying to add a class.

Secondly, no pictures from mediawiki are being loaded correctly. They all just give the name of the image with a link, instead of actually showing the image.

Keep up the good work! [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 02:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

:I know. I have been told that the current MW install has many problems with it and lead to slowing down the site sometimes. Media will be dealt with. Another thing too, to make this even better (time wise), is that I just heard that MW has serious security flaws and needs to be upgraded. Maybe upgrading will fix many of the problems which are slowing it down sometimes too. And then if it keeps being slow sometimes then I will think of something else. Hopefully wednesday things will get better (this weekend did not happpen). Sometime though, I can promise. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 03:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

::Ah, that sucks. At least you've got a culprit and a likely fix, though. The worst thing about misbehaving technology is when you don't know what's going wrong. Maybe having a slow wiki will give me time to catch up on some of the things I'm ignoring while I'm spending too much time here ''':)''' [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 05:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

:::That's not what I said, but sure. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 05:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

== problems ==

the site takes forever to load. and i cant search.

== Spam ==

I think I might know why the spam problem has exploded lately: the Captcha doesn't seem to be working. When you add external links there's no captcha prompt at all. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 20:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

:That's because, as was said above, ReCaptcha's were showing up for stub, etc templates for users and external links for users. With MW one cannot just say "IP's have them" anymore, it is now for edit types or somesuch for all but users but those in the admin group. In any case they have been removed as such. Maybe if it continues to be a problem. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

::Gotcha. It's too bad they don't have more useful options. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 05:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

== Number of Admins ==

I can't help but notice the large drop in admins, as of late, for whatever reasons be it. And though I hardly have any standing, nor say in the matter, I suggest some sort of action should be taken to renew the community on this wiki, before its community dies down too much to have any hope of revival. And still, I have little idea as to how to do so, I've seen many great communities fall and shrivel. So I'm convinced that unless someone gets out there and attracts some people into the community, not just general traffic into the site, the community will break down, maintenence and upkeep will fall, and I fear this great wiki could fall into a bad state.

Well, just my thoughts, I thought you should know. I could be terribly wrong and there's a constant amount of community and I'm totally paranoid and pessimistic. But this is how I see it, seeing the constant destruction of admins with no new ones does worry me. --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] 21:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

:What are admins? Do they help? Although I have done no research into the subject I almost feel that ones editing decreases once attaining adminship. Do we need more admins? Yes. Of the top of my head I can maybe think of two or more people who need to be RfA'ed. Know someone? Ask them and then, depending on the result, RfA them please. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

::Makes sense. I don't know anyone, but your point is very much valid. --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] 06:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

== Unofficial Errata ==

I had a discussion on the WotC boards about all the absence of errata for a lot of the previous editions books. For most of these unofficial errata were collected by players.

My thoughts were that a wiki would be a good place to maintain such unofficial errata, given the transient nature of the WotC boards (most of the older errata threads have been purged). D&D Wiki seems the most natural place to start such an endeavor.

Is this something you would be willing to accommodate, as I'm not sure it fits entirely with your current content?

I don't think I've ever contributed here, but I'm a regular at several other wiki's and would try to gather as many unofficial errata as possible if you'd give a green light to such an undertaking.

I will try to check back at this page for an answer every now and then, other options like e-mail, I can post if you want to.

Cheers. Adriaan Renting. {{Unsigned|192.87.1.200|13:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)}}

:Yes, it would work. Is errata for OGC OGC? I would imagine so. In any case, a good place to start, (especially if it is unofficial errata) is to just make the page and link to it from the publication. Start by taking a look at [[Publication List]] and finding the book (or adding it if it is not added) and then placing a link on the page. For example [[Exemplars of Evil/Unofficial Errata]]. Does that make sense? Do you think that would work? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

== Help Talk Pages ==

:''Discussion moved to [[Help talk:Talk Pages#Subject/Headline]].'' --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:37, 11 January 2011 (MST)

== MediaWiki Problems ==

Hey, I didn't see any 'Contact us' options, and I noticed that you were the owner, so I decided to stop by and ask a quick question ''':)'''. Recently this site has been experiencing more and more problems (i.e. not being able to load properly or going down for short periods of time). I just thought I would point this out and wonder if anything could be done?

Oh, and I just want to add, I love this site! Be proud! Thanks! --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 05:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

:First we need to clean up this site. For example, at this moment, [[3.5e Sorcerer/Wizard Spells]] spells is not able to load. Why is this? The code is not properly done (SMW and so), I think. In any case it returns a database error and eats up a lot of the server. Once all the code problems have been ironed out then we can see if this is still a problem.
:This should happen slowly. Soon D&D Wiki's MW will be upgraded (the current version has a few security problems) and that should make a difference. Then other areas need to be worked on. I hope this helps answer your question, and I look forward to seeing some of your content. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 19:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

::Well D&D Wiki has been upgraded to MW 1.15.2. Pages like [[3.5e Sorcerer/Wizard Spells]] work now. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

:::Things are improving. Only a few problems, for example forms and images, are problems now. They should be fixed soon though. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 03:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

== MoI (of sorts) ==

Hi GD, I've got a couple of things to tell you about:

#First of all, I've finished adding PL categories to all the d20 Modern homebrew equipment, so Phase 1 is complete!
#[http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User:Jazzman831/workspace&oldid=461878 Here] is my current progress on Phase 2. Let me know what you think before I continue creating the rest of the pages.
#Three items ([[Flashbang (D20 Modern Equipment)|Flashbang]], [[Phosphorus Grenade (D20 Modern Equipment)|Phosphorus Grenade]] and [[Smoke Bomb (D20 Modern Equipment)|Smoke Bomb]]) are created for D&D 4e, not d20 Modern, so I don't know what to do with them. See my opinion on the matter [[Talk:Flashbang (D20 Modern Equipment)|here]].
#MoI: [[Talk:Grenades (D20 Modern Equipment)]]
#MoI: [[Talk:Halo (D20 Modern Campaign Setting)#Rating_2]]
#What do you think of [[User:Jazzman831/preloads#Ranged Weapon Preload|this]] preload/template as a way to standardize ranged weapons? It's the format used in Weapons Locker, and the most useful format I've seen.
#MoI: [[Category talk:Rifle]] (Note also that [[:Category:Longarm]] actually exists; possibly my next project should be standardizing the categorization of the Modern side of things? Where should such discussion take place?)

Sorry about the long list, but I think that should get us caught up to date. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 17:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

:I copy-pasted your prototype page for [[D20 Modern Equipment]] onto that page. I changed a few things. Do you think the changes make sense? I modernized the subpages. Once all the subpages are created (so called Phase 2) then [[D20 Modern Equipment]] can be cleaned up. I will deal with the rest of your comment above soon... --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

::The changes make sense, though in a perfect world the last two categories (not categorized by age or type) should always be empty, correct? Perhaps this is a good way to make sure that everything gets labeled. For the "all" category (I thought about something similar myself), do you want to create a separate page with every PL X item, or just link to the PL X category, which is effectively the same thing? While we're on the subject of the "all" category, I notice some of the totals (PL 2 and 5) don't add up right. I'll try to figure out what's happened; probably something isn't categorized correctly.

::The only things I really don't like are adding "equipment" to all the pages, because it gets wordy, and removing the PL number from each line of the table. The former isn't really a huge deal, since users probably won't ever type that anyway, but the second is bigger. All of the books (as well as the MSRD) refer to PL primarily by number, not by name, so I think it's better to have the number actually there instead of counting up or down.

::I hope to get to adding the subpages sometime soon. It'll be a function of how much my carpal tunnel is flaring up and how bored I get... [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 00:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

:::Alright, subpages are finished, though as I said before, I'm not sure what to do with some of the pages.
:::Have any comments on the rest of my points yet?
:::Also, I think a database has crashed. Every time I try to move a page or use the search I get the following error: <code>145: Table './ddwikidb/wdd_searchindex' is marked as crashed and should be repaired (localhost)</code> [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 19:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

::::That database problem is no longer a problem.
::::[[D20 Modern Equipment]] looks good. I only wonder about maybe making the all page split by way of the improving, reviewing, or removing templates. I guess we should discuss that there though.
::::I still have not made up my mind about what should happen to the edition-specific items which were moved to another edition. The others things I responded to, and see below.
::::With regard to the preloads please feel free to add them, something is better is nothing. They can always be improved throughout time of course. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 03:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

:::::Cool. I've actually been creating preloads as I see they've been missing. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 01:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

::::::With [[D&D 4.0 Future (4e Sourcebook)|4e Future]] and [[User:Vrail|Vrail's]] comment that
{{quote|4e is a rule set, not a time period.
|orig=--[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 16:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)}}
::::::I have decided that no time period should be mandated. I think I moved all those back, if there are any others please let me know. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

== 3.5e Class White Guard ==

:''Discussion moved to [[Talk:White Guard (3.5e Class)#Protection]].'' --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:43, 10 January 2011 (MST)

== Uploading an Adult Picture ==

I was hoping to place a certain picture on one of the pages that I'm going to design for my camapign setting. However, this picture has nudity in it. It's not pornographic, a female witch is simply naked. I was wondering if I would be allowed to post this? Or should I send it to you first for clearing? --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 05:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

:It should be okay. Just make sure to add [[Template:Adult Theme]] to the top of the page. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

== 3.5e Rule Negative Level Adjustment ==

:''Discussion moved to [[Talk:Negative Level Adjustment (3.5e Variant Rule)#April Fools & Balance]].'' --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:56, 11 January 2011 (MST)

== Couple questions ==

Just a couple things I'd like to ask you about. You mentioned that my class wasn't original and that it's been created before, yet if you search on this web site it's the only one that comes up. Umm? Just wondering about that, cuz I wouldn't know it's unoriginal if nothing else like it is on here. Another question, you mentioned that the Sith aren't all dark users. I took the definition of what a Sith was directly off of the star wars database, so take them up on it if you're really confused about what a Sith is. {{unsigned|Tmblake09}}

:Urm, Green Dragon didn't say any of those things. [[User:Vrail|Vrail]] said it was unoriginal (and unless you are George Lucas, ''any'' Sith class is by definition unoriginal), and he was also the one who suggested there were good and evil Sith. Generally if you have a problem with a specific article, it's best to take it up on that talk page and not a user talk page -- otherwise, people who look at your class later won't see this discussion.

:You are correct, by the way, that there aren't any other Sith classes on the wiki (btw GD, [http://media.dandwiki.com/wiki/Sith this] is another Sith class, but it's posted on MW? I didn't even know that was possible), but there are many, many other Star-Wars related entries. [[Jedi Knight (3.5e Class)]], [[Jedi Healer (DnD Class)]], [[Jedi Guardian (D20 Modern Base Class)]], [[Jedi Dualist (Not Duelist) (DnD Prestige Class)]], [[Jedi Consular (D20 Modern Base Class)]] and [[Jedi Sentinel (D20 Modern Base Class)]] all come up with a quick search. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 16:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

== Template Delete ==

:''Discussion moved to [[Template talk:Delete/why#Goal]].'' --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:04, 11 January 2011 (MST)

== Censorship ==

You've edited a comment I've left on a page. on PokeDM's [[User_talk:PokeDM|Talk]] page. You cropped it down, citing solicitation. I'm forced to say "Not Cool". I went out of my way to not solicit any other websites. I didn't drop a name. I didn't provide a link. Furthermore, I read through the behavioral policy just now and didn't see anything banning solicitation. I was trying to be helpful to a new user, letting him know that other people have tried similar endeavors, and there is help for him if he needs it. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 06:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

:I have never said we do not edit comments. Comments are edited when needed. What you are doing is spam ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_spam Article Spam]), links to D&D resources can be found on [[DnD Links]]; no where else. Partial censorship is something D&D Wiki has — to keep spam and non-relevant things at bay. All the recent spam from IP's (see the barnstars some have received) is not allowed — I think you would understand. It could become a serious problem.
:For example (not notice if you saw it) there was some spam advertising a certain boots company. If I recall correctly they supplied no links. Do you see the problem? It's very simple to understand. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 03:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

::I think he was just confused and dismayed at why you modified his post and never explained why. Poor communication on both sides resulted in a misunderstanding, but I don't think either side was intentionally being aggressive or anything like that. Anyways, no need to start a feud over a misunderstanding. ''':)'''. --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 04:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

:::Right, but you should also mention that no reason needs to be given in text format (maybe in the edit summary). I see what you mean when you mention this, and for the most part the IP (when violating this) knows though his or her ban. Since this user is not getting banned as a result of his or her solicitation (implicit or explicit), you should notice that just the censorship was hinting at this. Since he or she did not, and actually took this kind gesture the wrong way, now he or she knows is all we can say. As a general rule one should always read the edit summaries, and I hope we can say that if something gets censored with such a reason in the edit summary that is the reason. Seems very simple to understand, but I guess not. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 04:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

::::To be fair Vrail, I was much more aggressive (intentionally) at the end of my comment up there. You just aren't seeing it because it was censored... Anyway, yeah, I was angry because my comment was edited. I don't see how a useful, on-topic, offer of help from an external resource (which was not linked or named) from a registered, contributing user on a fellow user's Talk page should be compared to spam about cheap boots on SRD talk pages. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 04:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

:::::Why was it solicitation? Because it did not say something like "I would like to tell you that other resources exist dealing with Pokémon in D&D. A simple Google search should give you some results." --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

::::::I suppose I assumed anyone attempting to make Pokemon monsters for DnD has probably already done a simple Google search. I was trying to provide more specific help with material. Can I leave something akin to "Hey, I noticed you're working on Pokemon for DnD. Leave me a message on my [[User_Talk:Badger|Talk Page]] if you want some help with creation, I know other resources exist that you may find helpful."? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 20:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

:::::::Email would be the correct option. If someone wanted a possibility for such things then there is the possibility they would not mind recieving an email about such things. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

:::::::: The best part of this oppression is that you keep using the verb 'to solicit'. Let us take the most humourous meaning of the word and put it into context; Badger was attempting to bribe PokeDM for sex with name-dropping of! How... dastardly. It's not solicitation, it's advertising. Unless, of course, you think that people finding other sites that have D&D information on is an 'evil action', which wouldn't be too much of a step, to be honest. I mean, Badger doesn't want anything from his actions, except to help, and isn't really persuading the person in anyway nor was he persistent in his name-dropping. Also amusing is how Green Dragon is trying to say that what Badger did is on the same level as spambots. Because what he said had no relevance to the matter at hand for a person called PokeDM! Who'd think he'd want to find pokemon for D&D that other people had made to draw inspiration from. Also, I'll probably be banned for this. After all, I'm some kind of crazy anarchist. SOLICITATION, YES PLZ. --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] 11:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

:::::::::No TK, it wasn't the irresistible urge to ''play out fantasies'' with PokeDM that got me caught "soliciting", it's the fact that I mentioned a website exists where PokeDM could find some help. It's not even advertising, in my opinion. It's be like a guy walking around saying "Hey, I see you spilled some mustard on your shirt. Know what could get that out? Soap..." Not the most helpful comment ever, but if you didn't know Soap existed you could certainly get the impression I know a thing or two, and ask me for help on how to find this "Soap".
::::::::: Also, when I said ''play out fantasies'' I meant play a role-playing game with fantasy elements, not have kinky Tome Charizard sex. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 16:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

::::::::::"''Let's take the most humourous meaning of the word and put it into context''" — ya, but I don't mean that usage. That is not how English works. You take the correct usage, the one that works.
::::::::::Etymology: Middle English, to disturb, promote, from Anglo-French solliciter, from Latin sollicitare to disturb.
::::::::::;transitive verb
::::::::::# to make petition to : entreat b : to approach with a request or plea <solicited Congress for funding>
::::::::::# to urge (as one's cause) strongly
::::::::::# to entice or lure especially into evil b : to proposition (someone) especially as or in the character of a prostitute
::::::::::# to try to obtain by usually urgent requests or pleas <solicited donations>
::::::::::;intransitive verb
::::::::::# to make solicitation : importune
::::::::::# of a prostitute : to offer to have sexual relations with someone for money
::::::::::(Merriam Webster)
::::::::::And, yes, it is spam. If he is truly interested in helping PokeDM achieve personal goals then using email to help him find resources is the correct method; please read the discussion before responding. Posting a lasting comment here with soliciting present is not acceptable.
::::::::::And yes, but you should only say "Soap" and if you want to give your preference of a Soap brand then you should only tell him or her, announcing it to everyone is soliciting. And soliciting is not allowed. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

:::::::::::{{quote|you should only say "Soap" and if you want to give your preference of a Soap brand then you should only tell him or her, announcing it to everyone is soliciting. And soliciting is not allowed"}}
:::::::::::That is precisely what I did. I told him I knew of soap (a wiki) and if he wanted I could tell him the brand (the wiki's actual name). If you want to go back and read my original comment you'll notice I left it intentionally vague. Unless you think the word "wiki" narrows down the exact website I intended to link. Also, I don't think any of those definitions you posted up there truly apply to what I did. It was one comment on a talk page; hardly urgent, evil, forced, or pleading. It was actually ignored for 2 weeks before you went and edited it. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 22:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

::::::::::::You should of, however, just said it exists. Then the user can find it him/her self. This is correct. If it is such a singularity then an email with specifics would be in order.
::::::::::::By saying things like "wiki" and so you are soliciting, implicitly, and that is not allowed on D&D Wiki. Saying things exist, however, is okay. Why? Then "other things" are not given an even playing field and you are attempting to influence the readers views. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 19:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

:::::::::::::How was he supposed to know he could e-mail me to ask for specifics if I didn't mention that he could? Furthermore, given all the recent spamming on this website (which you, yourself, acknowledged a few posts up), I don't want to leave my email address on this site; and I certainly wouldn't ask someone else to do something I was afraid to do. Finally, let's get the straight, right here, right now: the word "wiki", at least in the context of "I know a wiki exists", is solicitation. Quite frankly, if they did know what I mean, then they probably already know everything I do. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 20:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}

:Since you mentioned my name I thought I'd pipe up. Ironically, I only know what you are talking about because I've seen it censored from people's pages. Had I not seen "removing solicitation" in the RC longs, I probably wouldn't have gone to those user's pages and seen the link in the first place.
:But I digress. You can email a user without posting your email address to spammers. If you have set up your email address in your [[Special:Preferences|preferences]], and have checked the "enable e-mail from other users" box, you can send or be sent an email through the wiki using the Email this User link on a user's page or talk page. This doesn't leave you open to spammers, because they don't actually have a way to access your email address unless you give it to them. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 20:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

::Exactly. And use <code><tt>Special:EmailUser/<!-username-></tt></code>. As I said above, "''If someone wanted a possibility for [email] then there is the possibility they would not mind recieving an email about such things.''" --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

:::I have been on this wiki for some time now, and I had no idea that function existed. Thanks for the heads up. And Green Dragon, I still have no idea what "''If someone wanted a possibility for [email] then there is the possibility they would not mind recieving an email about such things.''" means... --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 20:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

:::::I spent a lot of time on a wiki that was a little obsessed with back-channel talk, so I learned pretty quickly about the email user function. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 21:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

::::Meaning that I hope people make sure their preferences are their preferences. I hope that those who add an email also make sure to select or deselect "Enable e-mail from other users". --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

:::::Not all users read those boxes carefully, and the box is unchecked by default. It's the kind of thing that most people don't know is there until someone tells them about it. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 21:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

::::::Is that included in Green Dragon's Welcome Message? If not, I move we add it. I know I glanced at the preferences page the day I first signed up, and not again until just now. I know that's on me for not being more careful, and through, but I imagine many people don't know that exists. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 22:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

:::::::I changed it a bit ([http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User%3AGreen_Dragon%2FWelcome_Message&diff=465597&oldid=428051 diff]). Your thoughts? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

::::::::I'm curious as to what prompted the change from "love" to "enjoy", but I do think it is much better. Might it also be beneficial to have a straight-up welcome page for new users? The message is personal and nice, and for that short and sweet is best. But a more in-depth welcome page might also be helpful, perhaps with a list of admins, or very active users, and their areas of expertise. For instance, asking you for campaign writing advice would be useful, but given my time here I think Hooper is who I would direct questions to. Again, you may be able to help with d20 Modern, but there is no doubt in my mind that Jazzman would perhaps be more helpful. Nothing against you or your abilities, but everyone has a strong suit, we should embrace that. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 03:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

:::::::::One enjoys websites not loves them? Dunno. Sounds better? Dunno.
:::::::::And no. That's not going to happen. Everyone interprets things for themselves and having a D&D Wiki-mandated page telling users how certain things are which is interpreted on a personal scale is not good policy.
:::::::::And if people do not know the generals of wiki's then they need to learn — but D&D Wiki is not Wikipedia in the sense of a trillion help pages to learn MediaWiki and so. One can go there. We assume if one cares they can first look for it theselves. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 03:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

== Hello ==

Good evening Admin.
i have a question.

What would you say for a LA+0 Race to have +3 STR, +6 DEX, +3 CON, -6 WIS, -4 INT, -2 CHA() Size= Large. Would you say that would be fair? im considering on making a race thats not too over powered but just right. I would love to make a Na'Vi race. From the movie Avatar. i love that movie and i think it would just be awesome to bring it into D&D Wiki. {{unsigned|Powershart}}

:I'm not Green Dragon, but I saw this and thought I'd respond anyway. LA +0 seems low for a large creature, especially one that gets a total of +12 to physical stats. Plus you have exactly offset the physical bonuses with mental penalties, and if we use the orc as a precedent, physical stats are more valuable than mental. (By the way, odd numbered stat increases are generally frowned upon, because they don't add a static bonus/penalty.) I'm not sure that Na'Vi would have low Int or Cha, and they ''definitely'' don't have low Wis. They are very spiritual, insightful creatures; if anything, they should get a Wis bonus. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 14:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

::First racial changes should always be even. Second, large size normally means LA 1-2. With the bonus' to dex it could get very overpowered, for example with ranged fighting. I would recommend upping the LA and tonning down the ability score changes and then it could be LA 1. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

think you for welcomeing me even now it's alittle late for my response but it is one.

== How do I Delete? ==

I realize that the Special Operative Gunslinger is way off balance, and I want to delete it... How would I go about doing this? {{Unsigned|Rogue The Demonchild|06:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)}}

:See also [[:Category:Candidates for Deletion]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

== Search and DPL Problems ==

When trying to browse the D&D 3.5 pages, many things do not load in the list, cutting off about a third of the way down to about half the way down. The search function is also broken. These problems have been occurring for a few months, and I am a little upset that I can't access all of the data available on this website. Sorry if you've heard these complaints many times before, but I figured I should report it, since it hasn't been dealt with for a while. {{Unsigned|216.134.174.192|20:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)}}

:Both of these problems have been dealt with, and thanks for mentioning the problems. Please see below and [[Talk:All 3.5e Races#DPL Problem]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 02:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

== Trouble with the wiki ==

Hey, I'm just stopping by to say, and I know this has been said before, but their seem to be some problems with loading pages on the wiki. It seems as though every second time I try to load a new page it says 'error wiki down' or something of the sort. Not to mention it taking a very long time to load pages some times. In addition to this, it is impossible to search and to move pages as it keeps on saying error. I was under the impression that the slowness of the wiki and the constant downs were supposed to be fixed a while ago from your response to my earlier post about this on the discussion page, however it seems to still be causing trouble.

I don't mean this in a threatening or rude way, so please don't take it the wrong way, but if this keeps up the wiki may start loosing some of its community, which would be a terrible thing as I love the wiki and the people here. So I'm hoping that this can be figured out some how and the wiki can start working at optimal capacity again. Perhaps it is having problems with loading because of spikes that the servers can't handle at certain times of the day? Anyways, hope its worked out, thanks. :)--[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 21:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

:Search was repaired.
:Moving pages now works.
:With regard to the speed I am going to switch hosting soon again (to something a little different) and from there we can see once again.
:Sound okay? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 19:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

::AWESOME! [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 21:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

:::Thats great, thanks for jumping on this so quickly, I look forward to a faster wiki! ''':)''' --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 21:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

::::Hosting has been switched and the problems are being ironed out. We'll have to see how it is now and then see. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 04:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

== Template DnD Prestige Class Infobox ==

:''Discussion moved to [[Template talk:DnD Prestige Class Infobox#Authors and Adopters Parameters]].'' --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:25, 11 January 2011 (MST)

== Moving Pages ==

I noticed that recently you were moving a number of DnD pages to 4e or 3.5e or their corresponding eddition. Is this being done to all pages? If so, I could help. ''':)''' --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 05:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

:Ya, it is. If you would like to [[DnD Rules]] could use some page-moving help. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 05:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

::So are all the pages on those lists just being moved to 3.5e rather than DnD? Or am I missing something? It just seems like a simple task to have not been completed yet. ''':)''' --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 05:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

:::It's been a few days now, just wanted to say I'm still waiting for an answer. I really want to help out, but I don't want to start moving pages and find out I'm doing something wrong. ''':)''' --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 03:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

::::That is what needs to be done there. A lot of simple tasks have yet to be completed, a great example is [[Special:ListRedirects]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 03:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

:::::Awesome, just wanted to clarify. I'll start moving some pages, although many may have to wait a bit, it's pretty late at night were I live right now. ''':)''' --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 04:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

::::::'''I DID IT!'''. That took a lot more work than I thought it would, but it's finished now, and I can rest happy, knowing the wiki was helped. ''':D''' --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 06:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

:::::::I just finished converting all of the 3.5e campaign setting tags from DnD to 3.5e. I was wondering if there were any more big pages to convert? --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 19:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

::::::::I can't think of anything that involves moving pages, but if you are looking for something with lots of work, check out [[Special:DoubleRedirects]]. If that interests you, basically what you need to do is change the first redirect to point to the third redirect, skipping the second redirect entirely. But then you have to go to the second redirect, hit the "what links here", and change all those links to point to the third page. Finally, add a deletion tag to the second redirect, and I'll come along behind you and delete the unneeded redirects.
::::::::Of course, it's a lot of work, but it's pretty mindless work. Luckily since we mostly use DPLs instead of direct linking, when you moved all those pages 90% of the links to those pages will have moved with them, and you won't have to change much. Unfortunatly, as of this moment there are 984 double redirects!! If this interests you but I didn't explain it well just leave a message on my talk page and I'll be more clear. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 20:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

:::::::::Awesome, so I've moved all the big pages of DnD to their correct editions. What a great feeling it is to have finished, that was a lot of work. ''':)''' Anyways, I'll get to work on the double redirects. ''':)''' --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 18:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

::::::::::Of course, if you want to do something less mindless, you could update the classes pages and look over their content. Let me know if you are interested. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 03:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

:::::::::::Lol, that does sound pretty interesting, but I have a lot going right now, perhaps when I finish up my campaign setting, or fix a few more double redirects I'll do it, but right now I just don't think I have the time.
:::::::::::But if the job is still open in a couple of weeks or a month or two I'd love to do it. ''':)'''--[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 03:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

::::::::::::Well it's open until the task has been completed. I started on [[DnD Base Classes]], and will finish the task sometime in its current state. Just let me know when you have time and still want to, unless you understand what I am talking about then of course at your leisure. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 03:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

== what would be involved in hosting an OD&D derivative? ==

There are several old school D&D clones, most of which are ostensibly derived form D&D3.0, like labyrinth lord, OSRIC, Swords & Wizardry.

Would it be a possibility, assuming one of them consented to be hosted here, to have a section added to be populated with that content?

Their PDFs can be sometimes a little frustrating to navigate.

-- Greg.gilbraithATgmail.com

:Of course. If you need to know how to start your own section please let me know. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 02:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

== Quests and Encounters ==

When you try to create a new Quest on the [[3.5e Quests]] page, all it says is AAA. Their is also no page to make encounters. Is their any way for this to be fixed with relative ease? I was just looking into adding an adventure/quest and couldn't create it that way.--[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 04:16, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

:Please see [[Talk:DnD Flaws#Flaw Form]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

::What's the advantage of using a form vs. a preload? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 21:36, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

:::Preloads are better. This was discussed somewhere (I think on a form's removed page (please see [[Talk:DnD Flaws#Flaw Form]])). The reason was that preloads make it so wiki syntax is learned sometime whereas forms do not do that. And both are about the same difficulty to understand. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 02:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

== Deletion ==

I don't know how to delete things on this wiki; I'm assuming it's a mod's job, but I've honestly got no idea. I'm trying to delete [[Epic Access (3.5e Feat)]] and [[Greater Epic Access (3.5e Feat)]], as I've turned both of them into [[Epic Access (3.5e Variant Rule)]]. If deleting things is a mod's job only, would you delete them for me? If I can actually do it, I'd be more than happy to learn how so I don't bother you or Hooper over this again. Thanks! --[[User:For Valor|For Valor]] 23:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

:Please see [[:Category:Candidates for Deletion]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 02:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

== Spam ==

Today alone I have already removed four spam posts, and thats just one person on one day. It seems recently the pace of spam has increased. Am I imagining things or did some spam blocking protocol get messed up or something? Anyways, just wondering if there is anything that can be done to help keep spam down. ''':)'''--[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 20:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

:Oops, just noticed this was already talked about, feel free to delete this comment if you wish. ''':)'''--[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 20:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

::Honestly, I don't think blocking the spammers really does anything. I've never seen one IP address spam more than one page, so they've got some kind of program that randomizes the IP after every spam post. However, the reason you probably saw more today is because traffic was much lower, so the same amount of spam makes up a higher percentage. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 01:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

::Actually, I take back that last part. The spammers are out in force today for some reason. Good work, as always, Vrail.

::The only pattern I ''have'' noticed is that they seem to hit the same pages over and over (can't quite figure out why they choose those pages though). When I see a page has been hit more than once I protect it for a couple months from anonymous edits. Don't really know if that helps or not, I'm hoping that the bot hits a protected page, tries to edit, and isn't smart enough to figure out that it's locked so nothing happens. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 03:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

== 3.5e Page Names ==

I have noticed that a number of the larger pages in 3.5e are still called DnD (i.e [[DnD Character Options]], [[DnD Classes]], [[DnD Campaign Settings]], etc.). Since all of the pages in these categories have been moved to 3.5e rather than DnD, shouldn't these larger pages be moved too? Anyways, I was just wondering, just say the word and I can do it. ''':)''' --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 06:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

:Of course, and please feel free. Also, since they are related to one another, the templates with "DnD" present (e.g. [[Template:DnD Prestige Classes Breadcrumb]]) should also be moved. They are also considered subparts of the 'larger pages' as well. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

::When you were changing the links on the 3.5e homebrew page so they skipped the redirect you missed [[DnD Maps|maps]]. Just pointing it out since I can't do it myself. ''':)''' --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 23:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

:::Oops, nevermind, just checked and the maps pages are the same for 3.5e and 4e. Sorry, I guess I should check before I talk next time. --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 23:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

::::It would make sense to add an addition, but I do not think an edition really defines a map. Maybe if they have creatures detailed (e.g. [[dndmedia:File:Blacksmith's Cellar.jpg|File:Blacksmith's Cellar.jpg]]. Dunno, your thoughts? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 02:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

== Images Lost ==

So it appears we have yet again lost all the uploaded images on the wiki. Everywhere that there should be an image is the link, but no image (on my computer at least). What's the deal? I know this happened once before, I want to say when mediawiki was updated. Is that what happened this time? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 18:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

:I don't know what happened, however I would just like to say that this has happened for my computer to, so it's not just you! ''':)''' --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 20:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

::I looked into it a bit more, and figured out that the pictures are still there in the media wiki. However the links are going to the normal D&D wiki categories rather than linking to the files in the media repository. --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 21:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

:::Images are working once again. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

== Races Not Showing Up ==

Um, hey Green Dragon. I made 3 races, one used to show up (they're all for D&D 4e) called Hyrulian, and now none of them show up. there was Dark Hylian, Hyrulian (I changed the name once you click on it), and Zora. The Zora is not the same as the 3.5e. I never created that one. Anyway, if you could tell me, that would be nice. Thanks, and thanks for creating D&D Wiki! --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 00:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

:I fixed those. When you add things make sure the categories are correct. Categories make pages show up on other pages and the removal of categories or the incorrect changing of categories will stop that from happening. If you want a category for your user, although not recommended since links on ones userpage is the same thing, please add that in addition. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 02:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

::Hey ''Green Dragon'', 2 of my races have shown up: ''Dark Hylian'' and ''Hylian''. So you don't have to worry about those two. But, Could you put my '''Zora''' (4e race) one up? Thanks,
::Hmm, Maybe I should watch the introduction someday. All right! Thanks! --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 03:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

:::It is. The template at the top of the [[Zora (4e Race)]] page makes it show up in the lower section. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 03:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

::::I found out where the Zora race went. I finished the adventurers. Do you have to manually move the Zora so that it won't be edited? Thanks, --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 03:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

:::::If you dealt with the issue on the stub template then feel free to remove the template. When you do it will be moved up to the upper section. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 04:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

== D&D wiki, whats the status? ==

Hello fellow D&D gamer,

I was surfing D&Dwiki, and looking for some maps, and when I finally found them, I sadly realized that the jpeg files were no longer their. Then when I went back to the home page, I also saw that the picture of the Rock worm was gone (which has been their for ages). So what's going on? How's D&D wiki doing?

A fan of D&D WIKI!

Cheers,

Amrit van der Lely (Netherlands)

== question ==

What does d% mean or is that just the drop ratio and if you do give me an answer do you mind telling me how to use the drop system?? {{unsigned|Billojava|2010-06-02 07:54}}

:[[SRD:Basics#d%|What d% means]]. No idea what you mean by the "drop system". —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 14:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

::I actually found a really cool d%. It was a big clear and hollow d10, with a smaller solid red d10 inside. When you roll it both roll simultaneously creating a %. It's really awesome.--[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 16:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

:::I've got a few of those die-inside-a-die for each type, and they're really neat. We also wear '''d%er''' patches, much like bikers wear '''1%er''' patches. Its hilarious.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 16:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

== Fell Knight 4e Powers ==

Hey,

If anyone could put down how to create Class 4e powers, that would be great, cause I need to provide a power list for my Fell Knight.

[[User:Axl|Axl]]

:[[Add New 4e Power]]. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 19:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

== Locking Pages ==

Hey Green Dragon, Do I really have to let people edit my races that I created? 'Cause, I really don't want anyone editing them. Thanks, --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 22:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)Axl

:Yes. Its a collaborative site. If you are not 100 percent okay with others working with you, then don't upload the content.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 23:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

::You can request to get your content locked, but then you cannot edit it either. Let me know what you decide please. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

:::How do you lock your content? I'm thinking that's what I'm going to do. Can I unlock it without troubling you? --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 00:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

::::Actually, I'll just let people edit things, and if I don't like it, I'll click the revert button. --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 01:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

:::::If you want your content locked post something on the talk page saying it. Or supply some links to an admin. A few editing deviations exist, of course. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

== Power Ideas ==

Hey, if anyone has any ideas for my classes powers, just put them down [[Fell Knight Powers (4e Power List)|here]].

Thanks,
--[[User:Axl|Axl]] 19:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

== Tavern re-opening ==

So it's been a while since the tavern was closed down. I know there was some trouble with it in the past, and doubt as to it's use/need.However, I see dozens of messages on talk pages that are posted minutes apart, and I for one have been hit by plenty of edit conflicts. I know before hosting the channel was an issue, but as I understand that was resolved. Is that still the case? I wonder if there was any other interest in re-opening the tavern. A vote/discussion on the topic would be worth looking into, I think. As for hosting, if the server support isn't there, I'm sure we can find some free IRC hosting. Just something I've been thinking about, it might help to drive some life back into the site, and increase the community user-base. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 23:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

:GD believed that the tavern was actually a bad thing for the wiki to have, and therefore it was never re added even after the server was fixed. However, reading over the discussion about it (I would post it but I can't remember what it was called), it seemed like more people wanted to keep it then discard it, and it was never really voted on.

:I know this was dealt with already, but now that it's brought up I'd like to put in my own 2 cents that, I loved the tavern. It was a great resource and could be used for not only common discussion but it can help with people wanting reviews on their pages, or help/advice. It also seemed to help create a more welcoming community and allowed at some point for a D&D game to be played, which was a good idea and seemed fun. For all of these good things about it, it seemed only one negative point could be brought up, the amount of spam on it. However with the ratio of good to bad being 5 to 1, I do think this discussion could be reopened. --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 02:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

::I think you are referring to [[Discussion:The_Tavern:_use,_expansion,_and_availability.|this]] discussion. It seemed toward the end of that conversation that Green Dragon was opening up to the idea again, maybe I'm misinterpreting, however. I think we should seriously look into opening it up. From that discussion it appeared that many of the problems were surrounding users no longer involved with this project. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 20:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

:::Hrm, was the tavern just like a chat room? I've had a lot of bad experiences with off-wiki communication on other wikis... all it does is make people paranoid and exclude people. Even now, with the Tavern dead for 6 months, there are talk pages on this wiki which say "go to the tavern, we are discussing it right now". Well, that only really works if you happen to be there at that moment of time. But if I want to read that discussion to figure out how they reached some decision, I can't. Wikis are designed to have everything visible always, not some stuff visible once.

:::I can see the value of, say, hammering out class ideas in real time, or chatting about your most recent D&D game, but I don't think any off-site communication should be relied upon for more than that. If someone makes a change to a page based on a tavern discussion, someone else a year down the line needs to be able to understand why that change was made. And no policy discussions should ever be held on the tavern, period.

:::So to clarify, I'm not strictly against it ''per se'', but we need to be very careful of how it's used. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 23:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

::::I figured the tavern was almost exclusively for "hammering out class ideas in real time, or chatting about your most recent D&D game", and other things, like quick rule questions that don't need to be a discussion forum, like "does DR from multiple places stack?". It was never my intention to have it be anything more than "Hey, can someone check out MyClass?". --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 23:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

:::::In the past it's been used for more than that... naturally I can't remember where I saw it, but there was at least one policy discussion that was discussed on the tavern, and then people who weren't on were very confused. But like I said, as long as we are clear about it's use, it can be a great feature. And really, I don't see why we'd need to host it ourselves... given the bandwidth problems, I'd go so far as to say we don't ''want'' to host it here. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 23:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

::::::That's why I've looked into the free hosting provided by freenode.net. As for policy discussions, I think as long as we remember the tavern is part of a bigger whole, that shouldn't be a problem. I've started a mockup in my [[User:Badger/sandbox1|sandbox]] of what the tavern portal should look like, if you want to suggest changes to text, or see what I'm trying to do, or something.--[[User:Badger|Badger]] 00:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

:::::::I think it would be nice to host it ourselves, just for consistency and easier management and placement. We also have the bandwidth to host it ourselves, unless I misunderstood a previous post on the tavern discussion page. So really it shouldn't be a problem as to us hosting it ourselves.

:::::::It would be nice to have GD's opinion on this, seeing as it is his decision in the end anyways. Soooo, care to stop by and chat dragon ol' buddy? ''';)''' --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 01:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

::::::::I think we ''thought'' we had enough bandwidth, but seeing as we are having bouts of server off-time daily, I think we probably don't have the bandwidth we thought we did... But yeah, obviously we're in a holding pattern until GD weighs in. Then I think we move this conversation to a discussion forum and open it up the the entire wiki, and see if the community actually wants it. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 02:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

:::::::::Bump. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 00:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

::::::::::Bump. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 23:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

:::::::::::So then, you've had right around 5 months to read this thread. Any thoughts? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 15:56, 28 October 2010 (MDT)

::::::::::::There are some D&D chats on the web. Cheers! --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 16:52, 28 October 2010 (MDT)

:::::::::::::Right now the technical expertise are not available. When they are I will respond in the discussion. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:54, 28 October 2010 (MDT)

::::::::::::::What expertise do we need available? Are you considering returning to an IRC channel run through the wiki, like before? I'm more than willing to learn what we'd need to make that happen. If you want to consider using a free outside server, the expertise is already here (I think). I don't want to volunteer anyone, but I think Jazzman already has the knowledge to maintain a IRC channel. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 00:28, 29 October 2010 (MDT)

:::::::::::::::I'm also not sure what kind of technical expertise we need. We can easily (bonus: freely) have an IRC channel set up on a free host, so there's no expert even required. All you'd need is an admin or two to /ban troublemakers... though I hardly doubt that will be a problem anyway. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 12:15, 31 October 2010 (MDT)

== D20 Future Section? ==

Does anyone think that there should be a D20 Future section, or do we just put the future stuff in the D20m Homebrew? Thanks, --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 20:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

:d20 Future's already there, it's just not separated out into it's own section; it's integrated in with all the rest of the d20M stuff. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 20:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

== Legal Disclaimer ==

Can anyone tell me if I need to put a legal Disclaimer on all my 4e races? My races are: Dark Spike Hylian, Dark Hylian, Forest Hylian, Hylian, Gregar, and Zora. Thanks, --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 23:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

:They're based off Zelda races/classes, right? You bet you do. It's easy, just add the template to the bottom of the page, above the breadcrumbs. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 23:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

::I do? How come? Is it just because I used the name "Hylian"? Do I have to put in the disclaimer on my Megaman stuff too? Well, I'll get around to that. Thanks though. --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 04:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

:::Um, do you mind giving me the template for that? I'm actually kinda new here on D&D Wiki. Thanks, --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 04:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

::::Sure thing, just add <nowiki>{{Copyright Disclaimer}}</nowiki> to the bottom of the page, just above the breadcrumbs. This should be applied to any material that is inspired by any copyrighted material, so Megaman, Zelda, or anything else you add.--[[User:Badger|Badger]] 04:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

:::::Thanks, --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 20:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

::::::Hey! It worked! Thanks! --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 21:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

== Spam and ReCaptcha ==

I was talking to Badger and he thinks that dealing with Captcha would be less annoying than dealing with spammers. Many people watch your talk page so we'll see who else agrees.

The problem we had before was that it was all or nothing. Were we using ReCaptcha or some other service? It looks like ReCaptcha [http://recaptcha.net/plugins/mediawiki/ has been updated] so that only IPs are affected. If that's the case, it should solve both of our problems at once. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 22:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

:I know you are busy fixing other things, but the spam is terrible right now. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 03:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

::The spam is getting worse. We really need to look into getting captcha implemented for IPs again. With the recent update of Mediawiki we shouldn't have any trouble doing that, right? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 01:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

:::ReCaptcha is now implemented for all IP edits and user edits with an external link. Please let me know of any problems. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:59, 16 August 2010 (MDT)

::::ReCaptcha was not working for edits, just account-related pages. It should now be working for edits too, and please let me know of any problems. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 00:13, 30 December 2010 (MST)

== Templates ==

Can anyone provide the (improvement, Reveiwing, and some other) template? Cause I need it for stuff. Thanks, --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 21:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

:Check out [[Help:Improving, Reviewing, and Removing Templates|this link]] for any of the reviewing templates you need. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 21:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

::Whoops. I just found out how to do it. Sorry for putting you through the trouble. But thanks. --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 21:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

:::Oh Hey! There's more in that link! Thanks! --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 21:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

== Content Question ==

I've recently created a Dungeons and Dragons drinking game (cleverly named DnDnD, Dungeons and Dragons and Drinking). A '''real life''' drinking game meant to be played alongside DnD; ''not'' a mechanic for including drinking games in DnD. Before I moved it into variant rules, I thought I would run it past you and see if you think it's appropriate for the wiki. It's currently in [[User:Badger/sandbox2|my sandbox]]. I already added the adult content template, as well as made it clear that we here at Dandwiki support drinking responsibly, and do not condone under-aged drinking. What do you think? Is this in line with the kind of content we want on the wiki? Should I move it into variant rules, or leave it in my sandbox? Thanks, [[User:Badger|Badger]] 01:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

:Seems fine to me. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

== Ganteka ==

Is [[User:Ganteka|Ganteka]] still on D&D Wiki, or is he finished with it and left his account running? --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 03:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

:I do believe Ganteka is gone for good. He's moved elsewhere, if I'm not mistaken. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 04:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

::Was he the one that created the [[Wolfkin (4e Race)| Wolfkin Race]]? --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 19:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

:::It appears to have been originally made by an unregistered contributor (an IP), but was worked on by [[User:Kernac|Kernac]]. I don't believe Ganteka made any edits to it at all, other than undoing what appears to have been some vandalism. You could always ask any questions on the relevant talk page, rather than Green Dragon's personal talk page. It'd be more likely to be answered by someone with more information. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 20:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

:::::Do [[Add Instructions]] and [[Special:Contributions/Ganteka]] answer your questions? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

::::::When was the [[Wolfkin (4e Race)]] created? Because I only looked at the first page of Ganteka's contributions.

::::::--[[User:Axl|Axl]] 21:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

:::::::Use the "History" tab. The first edit was Oct 21, 2008, and Ganteka's only contribution was Feb 26, 2009, when he undid vandalism. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 21:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

== Incomplete Quest ==

:''Discussion moved to [[Talk:A New World (3.5e Quest)#Stub]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

== Lock down? ==

While I was doing D&D Wiki yesterday, I tried submitting something, and it just kicked me out, and I couldn't get back in. Is the reason for this is because now there are pictures for like Green Dragon's talk page, and contributions and so on? If anyone could tell me what happened, that would be nice.

--[[User:Axl|Axl]] 18:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

:Hmmm, I do not know what happened if you were simply barred from the site, that seems a little bit odd. However if you were just getting the message 'the wiki is down' or something of the like, that has been happening a number of times recently. However the time you are mentioning it is most likely that the wiki went down for temporary maintenance to restore the pictures. --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 05:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

::Yeah, That's probably it. Thanks.

--[[User:Axl|Axl]] 20:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

== I'd like to hear from you about reopening the tavern ==

As I asked you earlier on you talk page, I was wondering about re-opening the tavern. It's been over a week without hearing from you, so I made a discussion to ask the community their thoughts. I'm polling the community to see if we would like to have one again. Here is where you come in. If you have some time (it shouldn't take more than a few minutes), stop by [[Discussion:Re-opening_the_tavern%3F_What_does_the_community_think%3F|the discussion]] and post your thoughts. I look forward to hearing from you on this one. Thanks, [[User:Badger|Badger]] 21:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

:Bump. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 00:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

::So it's been over a month and a half since this discussion was started (on your talk page, I might add), but you've not yet chimed in. Since you're online now, I thought I might be able to get your attention by reminding you I'd like your opinion. We started a discussion thread (linked [[Discussion:Re-opening_the_tavern%3F_What_does_the_community_think%3F|here]]) and the community seems to embrace the idea; the current vote is about 5 to 1, in favor (I say about, because I don't know that one of the votes "for" is still around). In case you don't want to read all the discussion let me give you the cliff's notes: Free hosting that is run offsite, so as to not tax bandwidth. People want it. We're working on rules too. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 22:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

:::Bump. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 23:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

== integrated pictures? ==

Green Dragon?

Do you know how to integrate pictures into a Race instead of forming a link to it? If you could show me that, that would be nice.

--[[User:Axl|Axl]] 22:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

:I'm not sure I know what your talking about. However if you just mean having a picture show rather than a link being formed simply link to the file with these brackets {{}} instead of the normal square ones [[]]. You may have been having trouble because the links to pictures have not been working recently. --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 05:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

::Yeah. That's true. Some links weren't working, so I took them out. These were links for two of my races. But, I still don't understand how I get the files to integrate on the page that I'm working on once I save the page. I just don't know how it would work.

--[[User:Axl|Axl]] 20:11, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

== Barnstars ==

Hey, I'm just wondering what the barnstars are all about. I searched through the site a little bit, and didn't find any talk pages on them. I also did a google search and it came up with it being a decorative item put on barns. I'm just wondering a few things: Why are they given as awards, who can give one, and can I give one to myself (I'm not saying I will, just wondering ''':)''')? Anyways, thanks! --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 05:11, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

:Does [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Barnstars Wikipedia:Barnstars] answer your questions? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

::Lol, it does thanks a lot! I really should have thought of checking wikipedia. ''':P''' That's a lot of different barnstars... think I can get em all? ''':P''' --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 19:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

== hi ==

hi there...it wud seem the tavern is gone...i miss talking to the guys here...

:There is actually an ongoing discussion on bringing the tavern back [[Discussion:Re-opening_the_tavern%3F_What_does_the_community_think%3F|here]]. If you would like to see it again you may contribute your thoughts and ideas there. However please try to back up your thoughts with logic, that way your contributions can have more merit to them. ''':)''' --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 15:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

==Knowledge Devotion from "Complete Champion"==

I currently have a question about a 3.5 edition feat and its rules..

Knowledge Devotion from "Complete Champion"

Here is what the feat says in short form:
"You then receive an insight bonus on attack rolls and damage rolls against that creature type for the remainder of the combat. The amount of the bonus depends on your Knowledge check result, as given on the following table..."

Do these bonuses apply to all weaponlike spells such as Acid Arrow and Ray of Enfeeblement? I'm assuming they do because they require an attack roll and damage roll (if they hit).

I'm not sure how to check pages on the site anymore, but if you would be kind enough to email me a response at obokuri-eeumi@hotmail.com it would be greatly appreciated. thanks :)

:Yes they do apply; if you are still checking this page. If not I'll let the e-mail come from GD seeing as you asked him. --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 21:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

== Summon soulblade ==

I have created the class "Soulknife," and wish to begin creating the powers for my class. However, the power I wish to create is called "Summon Soulblade," a title which, when I entered it into the creation bar, sent me to the "Blades of the Ancestors" power's page. I have tried changing the inputted name to "Call Soulblade," and even "Soul Summoning" (two other possible names for the power). I do not know what to do about this, and are concerned as to why this glitch would occur. Thank you for your time, and I appreciate your patience.

Sincerely,
Nathanmccarthy789

== D&D 4e Future ==

Hey Green Dragon, do you think that in the 4e Homebrew section, we could either create a seperate 4e Future homebrew section, or that we could just add in future stuff to the 4e homebrew? Just let me know what you think. The rules will be the same as in 4e, but it will be in the future, instead of the past. --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 00:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

:What is 4e Future? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 01:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

::It's just something that I wanted created. It's like Dungeons and Dragons 4.0, but instead of being in the past, it will be situated in the future. It will be basically the same (same rules, different equipment, technologically advanced classes) as D&D 4e. So, yeah. Just let me know what you think of it. --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 02:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

:::Your thing? You make the call. If you think it is radically different from 4e then please make a new section (maybe starting from [[4e Rules]], e.g. how [[D20.00 decimal Rules (3.5e Variant Rule)]] was intended) or just a page. If you just make a page it will, of course, have to be discussed and could have any result. If you choose to just merge the content into 4e just make sure it works with 4e, and then I don't think it should matter at all. Of course a rule category could help keep it together (or a sourcebook, of course). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 02:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

::::Yeah, it'll use the 4e rules, it just uses different equipment and different classes. Shall I put up a vote?

--[[User:Axl|Axl]] 03:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

:::::4e is a rule set, not a time period. 4e Future, unless the core rules are radically different, is just normal 4e. Many 4e adventures are set in the future. In my personal opinion adding a future section is pointless and illogical. Not to start a debate or anything... ''':P''' --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 16:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

::::::Then can I just start inserting futuristic powers, races, classes, and feats?

::::::--[[User:Axl|Axl]] 19:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

:::::::Yep, that would work fine! Oh, and sorry if I sounded a little rude with my pointless and illogical thing, I was looking for another way to word it except I had to run. ''':)''' --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 19:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

:::::::It's fine. Do you think that inside each section, that we should have a link? You know, like: D&D 4.0Future races inside the races folder?

:::::::--[[User:Axl|Axl]] 17:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

::::::::Hmmm, thats a good idea. That could be really useful for people playing through 4e campaigns set in the future, so that they don't have to sift through hundreds of past based articles. That sounds like it could even be applied to 3.5e and d20M (however opposite, since most d20M articles are based in the future.). --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 18:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

:::::::::So, does Green Dragon put in the subcategory, or do I have to do that?

::::::::::--[[User:Axl|Axl]] 20:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

:::::::::::You can. Again, if you make a rule or sourcebook about it then it's even more organized of course. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 19:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

::::::::::::Hmm, I'll try to do the best I can.
--[[User:Axl|Axl]] 19:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

== Losing Articles ==

No, don't worry, I haven't lost any. However I am wondering, is there any possibility of the wiki losing its articles/pages? I'm asking to know if I should be backing up the stuff I post here on my computer or something just in case. Thanks. --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 03:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

:It ''has'' happened before, please see also [[Talk:3.5e Flaws#Flaw Form]], but they are going to be recovered. It's not really a problem, no. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

::The new hosting setup has redundant hardrives so that is one level of protection of making sure nothing can get lost. A backup solution is in the works. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:14, 16 August 2010 (MDT)

== Base Class Infobox ==

I've noticed on some pages you've removed the Base Class Infobox Template along with the Base Class template. Was this accidental? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 20:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

:Yes, they are not used with the 4e classes anymore (just [[Template:x0]]). Although I don't know what you mean by "Base Class template". --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

::I meant category. So there's no rating of 4e classes then? And I've been gone a lot the last couple of weeks, where was this announced/talked about? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 20:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

:::I actually started removing that template a while ago. Actually, I think you are right. You should start this discussion on [[Talk:4e Classes]]. The only reason this has happened is since I find that the template system works better than rating. It has not been discussed. I removed the template since the primary editor/subsequent editors who display their username are not longer displayed in that way. We now assume that one understands MW (as you know). Although why not use both (the template system and a rating system) huh? It's a different topic. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

==Hiding text==

Hey! I'm having some trouble finding the correct way to format something. I'd like to find a way to create hidden text on my page, but the formatting articles on wikipedia haven't helped. Is there a way to format hidden text similar to the way you can show or hide a contents box?

:To create hidden text you can place the text in between these <nowiki></nowiki> i.e.  (yes there is text there, check the source code). Alternatively you can use <nowiki><includeonly></nowiki> and close with <nowiki></includeonly></nowiki>.

:If you want to create an option to show or hide a block of text on the page then you may use this code:

:<nowiki>{| class="collapsible"</nowiki> 
:<nowiki>|Text</nowiki> 
:<nowiki>|}</nowiki>

:What that would appear as:

:{| class="collapsible"
|Text
|}

:Hope that helps, I'm pretty good with wiki code if you need help in the future. ''':)''' --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 00:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

::Thanks! Collapsible text was indeed what I was looking for, and I figured there was a solution that I just couldn't find. Also, I'm very new to the wiki scene and navigation is still pretty alien to me, so thanks for the heads up on my Talk page! --[[user:ThatGuyEli|ThatGuyEli]] 16:13, 23 June 2010

== Blocking IP ==

For the first time since I became an admin, I've blocked a couple IP's. Hope I did it within acceptable parameters. I am pretty sure they were both outside link spammers. --[[User:Calidore Chase|Calidore Chase]] 17:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

:They look fine, except I would have blocked them longer. But whatever. If it happens again we can do it for a more extended period of time. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 19:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

== Moving pages ==

I am currently moving all of the DnD pages to their corresponding editions according to [http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Special%3AAllPages&from=DnD&to=DnD+zz&namespace=0 this] list (all pages starting with DnD). However some pages that start with DnD are edition neutral. Should I move these to 3.5e/4e, or just leave them as DnD? --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 00:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

:What pages are edition independent? I could be wrong, but I would guess that most pages are (or should be) slightly different, depending on the edition. If there are truly edition independent pages I would say leave them as "DnD". Just my 2 cents. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 01:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

::I have actually run into a number of pages that apply to both editions. A few examples would be [[DnD Discussion]], [[DnD Maps]], and [[DnD Guidelines]]. The breadcrumb and categories links to both editions. The page that brought this up was [[DnD Guideline Preload]]. I was getting ready to move it to 3.5e, and I checked the [[DnD Guidelines]] page just to make sure it was for 3.5e and so that I could change the link on that page to 3.5e not DnD. Oh look! It links to both 3.5e and 4e. Anyways, just showing you what I mean. ''':)'''--[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 03:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

:::I don't know much about DnD 4e, so everything I am about to say may be wrong. With that in mind, here are my thoughts. Discussions are generally about rules, which vary widely between 3.5e and 4e, so we should probably make edition specific ones, so we can provide more exact help. If someone say "how does barbarian rage work?" we have to find out what edition they mean (I assume barbarians still rage in 4e), and then provide help. If it was posted in 4e Discussions we'd not have that problem. Maps I suppose can go wherever, but if they are maps for an adventure/campaign, we could certainly stick them under the edition for which the campaign/quest was written. As for guidelines, it should probably me moved to something like "Wiki Guidelines", as it has nothing to do with actual DnD. Again, these are just my thoughts. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 19:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

::::Ya, you're right. Feel free to make a 4e one, add an edition identifier in some way, and move the 4e ones over. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

== Can't Log In ==

I was trying to save a response to [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman]]'s comment on the talk for the [[Mundus (3.5e Class)|mundus]], however when I hit save it said there was a loss of session data and I should try again. I tried twice more and it gave me the same message. It also told me if this error persisted I could log out then back in again, so I logged out. However when I tried to log back in again it gave me this message:

''"Login error 
''There seems to be a problem with your login session; this action has been canceled as a precaution against session hijacking. Please hit "back" and reload the page you came from, then try again."

I hit the back button, reloaded the page, and tried again twice. Still nothing. I am unable to log back in to my account. --[[Special:Contributions/206.45.30.209|206.45.30.209]] 18:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)([[User:Vrail|Vrail]])

:Ok, I just tried to log in a third time and it worked. That was weird, do you know what happened there? --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 19:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

::Actually D&D Wiki maxed out the server's hard disk space, so maybe that had something to do with it. If not I don't know. But I cleared up some space. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 19:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

:::Out of curiosity, what kind of space are we talking here? Would it be worth it have a fundraiser to buy an additional hard drive (or hard drives, depending on how/if you back stuff up)? Storage comes cheap nowadays. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 19:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

::::Hosting was switched once again (see also [[User talk:Green Dragon#Trouble with the wiki]]) and space should not be a problem. Since the server failure, actually, D&D Wiki was moved to a hosting setup with mt (mediatemple) so doing a fundraiser for such things is not possible. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

== Anti Vandalism Barnstar ==

I feel that Vrail deserves an Anti Vandalism Barnstar because of he is always removing spam and unwanted or offensive post from the site. I figured that i would nominate him to you. Thank you for reading and i hope that you consider him.--[[User:Grim914|Grim914]] 17:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

:Oh, I agree. Please feel free to give [[User:Vrail|Vrial]] one. Barnstars are given by anyone to anyone. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

== Deletion? ==

Green Dragon? Why hasn't my [[Displacer Disciple Powers (4e Power List)| Displacer Disciple]] power lists been deleted? I have two of them, both up for deletion, I think. The other one is [[Displacer Disciple powers (4e Power List)]]. I created them. Could you also delete the [[Fell Knight Necross (4e Power List)]]? Thanks. --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 19:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

:No one has gone through [[:Category:Candidates for Deletion]]? I can say I have not recently. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 19:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

::I was going to but I have been really busy the last month-ish. And the couple days I had some free time the wiki has been slow/inaccessible. But it's not like the world's going to end if your pages don't get deleted; they'll be gotten to eventually. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 19:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

:::Ah, okay. Sorry for bothering you. ''':)''' --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 21:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

::::It will get dealt with though, no worries. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

== DPL Problem ==

Hey Green Dragon, When you go into the D&D 4e races, there's just coding there. Is this because D&D Wiki was moved? --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 02:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

:Ya, it is. The dpl's (dpl, dpl2c, dpl2cu, etc) are not working. They will soon though, don't worry. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

::Ok! Thanks for letting me know. --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 19:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

:::Ya, no problem. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

== The Site Crashed ==

How long are it going to be like this?

:[[Help:Talk Pages| Just a heads up here, don't forget to sign your posts.]] Thanks,

--[[User:Axl|Axl]] 18:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

== File Problems ==

Lately I've had a lot of trouble uploading pictures for my campaign setting. In particular, I've run into an error when creating the thumbnail for the images I upload, which would be excellent to have displayed on my pages.

"''Error creating thumbnail: libgomp: Thread creation failed: Resource temporarily unavailable''" is an example of the problem I'm having. I've tried uploading the image again, but to no avail. Should I try to change the file type of the image on my computer and upload a third time, or is there a solution I don't know about?

While I've got your attention, is it appropriate of me to be directing all of my questions to you? I get the impression that you are bombarded with questions regularly, and while I would direct them to someone with a little less on their plate, I don't really know how to go about finding that person. [[User:ThatGuyEli|ThatGuyEli]] 17:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

:Hello again. I was just curious about D&D Wiki Media. It seems that thumbnails are no longer showing up when new images are uploaded. Instead, the following error message appears. ''Error creating thumbnail: libgomp: Thread creation failed: Resource temporarily unavailable''. Is this an internal problem? --[[User:Akherontis|Akherontis]] 07:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

::I had a similar problem, but only when trying to decrease the size of an image, keeping the size the same or larger the image showed up. Might this work in the mean time until this is working again if it is an internal problem? --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 08:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

:::In a few weeks when D&D Wiki gets moved problems, like this, should get worked on as well. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

::::Hey Green Dragon, I just went onto D&D Wiki Media Repository, and I found out that most of the new pictures aren't working. Do you know what's wrong? --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 00:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

:::::Hey Green Dragon? I tried to upload a picture, but it said that "the directory (public) could not be written by the webserver" or something like that. What's goin on? --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 20:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

::::::Is this ever gonna get fixed? I would like to upload more pictures for some armor I'm gonna create (I've already created 1 armor). --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 21:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

:::::::Images and uploading are now working. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:28, 16 August 2010 (MDT)

== Wiki troubles ==

I see you are fixing redirects/fixing links. What's our progress on dpls, images, tables and whatnot? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 00:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

:Oh, also, what does it take to build a bot? I don't know much about programming, but it seems like it shouldn't take much to program a bot to fix the DnD links. Do you know some resource about bot-building? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 00:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

::My wiki skills are minimal, but my research skills are astounding. Will [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/API.php#APIs_for_bots this link] help? It looks like we might be able to build an anti-spam bot, and a redirector bot with relative ease. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 00:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

:::With regard to the problems of the moving of D&D Wiki, they will be fixed soon. To the best of my knowledge right now the DPL's, DPL2CU's, DPL2C's, Odd-Even, SMW with regard to displaying links, and a few table things (vardefine — [[Template:Spell]]?). And the reinstalling of imagemagik again (as said above). Do you know of anything else? And API (http://www.dandwiki.com/w/api.php) is a great tool. A few other options exist too of course. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 00:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

::::When you say "soon", are we thinking soon means "24 hours", "within a week", or "about a month"? Just looking for an estimate on when we can see the wiki up at full capacity again. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 00:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

:::::(Edit conflict) The Semantic stuff isn't working either, I think. Do you have a timetable? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 00:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

::::::When you say "''Semantic stuff isn't working either''" do you just mean the links, or am I missing anything? And I do not have a timetable. Soon, is what I'll say I guess. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 01:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

:::::::Well, it seems to be working now, so I may have spoken too soon. Very recently I saw links that looked like <nowiki>[[3e Prerequisite::Such and so]]</nowiki>, but I just browsed some pages and they seem to be formatted correctly now. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 02:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

::::::::I know what you're talking about, I saw them earlier too. I looked for them again, before posting the above, and couldn't find them either. Dunno. Maybe they got fixed as well as the modern dpl's (I think they were not working earlier either). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 02:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

:::::::::I would also like to add that mathematical formulas aren't working either.

:::::::::<math>F = (\frac{3.439*10^-8 ft^3}{slug*seconds^2})(\frac{4.10*10^23 slugs*.031 slugs}{20,931,758.5 ft^2}) = 1 \frac{foot*slug}{second^2} = 1 lb </math>

:::::::::As shown there for an example. --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 21:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

== DPLs again? ==

Hi, one question. The homebrew power lists aren't showing up at the [[4e Powers]]. Is this caused by the DPLs? Thanks. --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 00:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

:Yes, it was. I modernized the dpl's so it is no longer a problem. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 00:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

::Thanks for fixing it! --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 01:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

:::Ya, no problem. If you bring more pages to my attention which use the old DPL's and not the dpl's I would be more than happy to change them. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

::::Yeah, actually, I have one on my talk page (and another one hidden in my [[D&D 4.0 Future (4e Sourcebook)|sourcebook]]), and just more stuff in my sourcebook. I'll see if there's anymore. --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 04:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

::::There's actually some (maybe only 2, I don't know) in the 4e Homebrew. --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 04:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

== Add new equipment? ==

Can any of you fix this? When I try [[Add New DnD Equipment|Add new Equipment]], It brings me into this 3.5e equipment stuff. Is that the way it's supposed to be? --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 21:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

:The link you provided is for adding [[Add_New_3.5e_Equipment|3.5e Equipment]]. It's designed to add 3.5e Equipment. None of us do much with 4e, and there hasn't been much need to make an official 4e equipment preload yet, I guess. I'm sure someone can set up a pre-load for 4e if you ask. I'd try, but I think an admin has to handle that. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 21:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

::Please feel free. Just no one has made one yet, but one should be present. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

:::So the page is locked, so I can't edit it to add the "add new" forms that I made, but you can find easy ways to add 4e Armor, Weapons, Magic Items, and Vehicles on [[User:Badger/sandbox6|this page]]. The ones on the far right don't do anything, so don't use those yet. I put them there so when I find more 4e Preloads they will be easy to add. I've not tested any of them, so they may need some tweaking. let me know on my talk page, or here (I'm keeping an eye on both). --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 21:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

::::Thanks for helping me out with this. So, I'll test it out and let you know what happens. --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 15:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

== Tables aren't working ==

Um, Green Dragon? Some tables aren't working. Do they have a different DPL than the others? All right, thanks. --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 21:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

:Kind of. They use [[Template:d20]] which uses vardefine, which is not working. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

== Copying from your Userpage ==

Would you mind if I used the [[User:Green Dragon/Top Template|top template]] on your userpage (with a few minor adjustments) for my own userpage? Thanks. --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 04:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

:Of course, please feel free. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

== Strange bug ==

I was just going through and moving some DnD pages to 3.5e (which, btw, after my latest stint I'm almost halfway done, a lot of pages!) when I found a bug. When I tried to access the page [[DnD Archetype Feats]] (Unsure if it was already moved) I couldn't load it, then my internet eventually took me to a page that said there was a DNS error. After that I couldn't load any pages on the wiki. I had to close my internet then reopen it to get the wiki working again. Is this happening for anybody else? What's going on? --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 02:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

:Something like that happened to me too. I ended restarting Internet Explorer (which wasn't too bad) in order for it to work. --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 04:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

::Does this still happen? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:57, 16 August 2010 (MDT)

== Moving DnD pages to 3.5e ==

Just wanted to let you know that my previous comment was slightly wrong about being halfway done. I was a lot closer than halfway, and just finished moving every single page starting with DnD (according to [http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Special%3AAllPages&from=DnD&to=DnD+zz&namespace=0 this] list) to its corresponding edition. I'll have to check the to-do list, but if this was on it I can check it off. :D

There are a couple of pages that I did not move. These are protected pages (not many, just a couple preloads), eddition neutral pages (again, only a couple of these exist), and the one page mentioned above that I couldn't get to. Also, I may have forgotten to switch the instructions for one or two preloads on the page they link to. I think I got most of them, but if you find any, please change them. :) --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 03:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

== Categories ==

Hey Green Dragon,

I noticed in the [[:Category:Candidates for Deletion|Candidates for Deletion]] category, that the 4e Future category is going to be deleted and all that stuff moved. Is that really necessary? --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 04:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

:Yup. 4e Future is a sourcebook, not a published SRD, so it needs to be formatted like the other sourcebooks. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 22:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

::Okay. --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 00:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

== Sourcebooks ==

Hey Green Dragon, I found that the sourcebooks are still not showing up. --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 00:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

:[[3.5e_Sourcebooks]]. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 00:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

::4e sourcebooks are using the old DPLs that need to be updated to work. Someone more diligent than I can update them. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 00:53, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

:::I went through this morning and fixed the DPLs. Everything shows up properly now. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 19:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

::::Thanks.

::::--[[User:Axl|Axl]] 22:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

== A race I posted ==

I have a question, several months ago I created an article for a homebrew race called the "Heartbound" and it is still not on the list for homebrew races. Is there something I have to do for it to be added to the list? {{unsigned|Firerush}}

:Fixed. You needed to add [[:Category:Race]]. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 15:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

== VariablesExtension ==

I took the liberty of making [[Template:Spell]] not use VariablesExtension (#vardefine) because the spells were messed up. Of course then I realized that other things are broken too. And I don't have permission to edit those (and I am not sure how well they can be made to work without the extension). —[[User:Edwin|edwin]] 16:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

:I noticed your edits on [[Template:Spell]]. It seems to work the same, so thanks a lot for helping fix that. I would gladly unlock pages if you know how to make them work, however I agree in that some may need #vardefine. For example [[Template:d20]] is not working (which I would gladly unlock if you know how to fix it), or [[Template:Weapon Stats2]] which is not locked. In any case, however, many pages by themselves use #vardefine in the tables, so switching it would be a lot of work. It will be fixed sometime. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

::I would think it's a better plan to fix what's broken, instead of finding ways around it. If vardefine is going to be eventually fixed, then there's no need to waste time changing the templates around. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 23:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

:::Vardefine is working once again. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:56, 16 August 2010 (MDT)

== Category DnD ==

Should this page be merged with to Category 3.5e, and then all pages linking to it be changed to say 3.5e rather than DnD? I'm just wondering because all of the DnD pages (that I can find according to the lists I was given) have been moved to say 3.5e, and as far as I can tell the DnD category applies to 3.5e material only. --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 16:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

:No. It actually is going to be expanded once all pages with [[:Category:DnD]] have [[:Category:3.5e]] (which are for 3.5e) with all [[:Category:4e]] pages, as 4e is an edition of D&D. Although, yes, all the 3.5e dpl's need to be changed to use category=3.5e. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

== Powers ==

Um, Green Dragon? My Fell Knight's [[Fell Knight Powers (4e Power List)|Powers]] don't show up. Is that a problem with the DPLs, or are they gone forever? --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 02:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

:There's a pretty easy way to find out. Just look for one of the powers, or adjust the dpls to search for something you know exists. As it is, though, the dpls are broken. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 02:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

::Your DPL tables are the old ones that don't work. Switch them to the new versions and it should show up. [[User:Badger/sandbox4|This link]] shows you the kind of DPL you need for everything to show up correctly. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 03:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

:::The old DPL's are working once again as well. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:55, 16 August 2010 (MDT)

== Items ==

Hey Green Dragon? Is there supposed to be no magical Items in the Arm Slot, Armor, and Weapon items?
--[[User:Axl|Axl]] 03:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

== Server Error ==

Often times when I try to load a page on the wiki, it will just load a blank page and say it is done. I then have to reload the page 1-2 times before it shows up. Also, usually when I attempt to save a change it just loads a blank page and doesn't save the change. I then have to hit 'back' on my browser bar and try again 5-6 times before it saves. Is anybody else having a similar problem? Can it be fixed? This is happening on firefox btw, it also happens to me on internet explorer, but it is less often and requires only 1 page reload. --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 18:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

:The issue is the current hosting setup. I just bought a server and it will be running D&D Wiki by the middle of next month. At that time all the problems should be dealt with. See also [[Talk:4e Creatures#Not Working]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 03:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

::D&D Wiki is now hosted on my server. Thoughts on the loading times and so now? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:54, 16 August 2010 (MDT)

== Sourcebook Categories ==

Hey Green Dragon?
My [[D&D 4.0 Future (4e Sourcebook)|sourcebook]] weapons (and probably races and every other stuff that I created) is loose in the [[4e Homebrew]]. I figure it's because that they're categorized as 4e. What do I do? --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 04:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

:Axl, your creations aren't so much "loose in the 4e Homebrew". In fact, that's exactly where they should be. Maybe you didn't catch what Jazzman wrote [[Talk:Add_New_4e_Future_Implement|here]], or what I wrote [[User_talk:Axl#Problems_with_your_Sourcebook|here]]. Everything that you wrote for your sourcebook needs to be categorized under 4e, and should show up as 4e equipment/armor/weapons/whatever. Everything you've written is considered "4e" not "4e Future". "4e Future" does not exist. Anything labeled "4e Future" needs to be changed to "4e" and anything you added the "formatting issue" template to needs to have that template removed. For example, if you have a piece of armor labeled "4e Future Armor" it needs to be moved to "4e Armor", and anything that says "4e Future Equipment" needs to be moved to "4e Equipment". I hope this is clear. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 06:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

::That's kind of the reason why I made the sourcebook instead of just creating classes, races, etc that are based in the future put into the 4e classes. There's a conversation with [[User:Vrail|Vrail]] somewhere on this talk page. --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 16:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

::The section's called D&D 4e Future. --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 16:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

:::What you should have is a category called "4e Future", and tag all of your content with that. What will happen is if you're looking though a list of all the 4e homebrew, you will see 4e and 4e future, but if you click on the 4e future category you will only see 4e future things. You need to write up all of your content exactly as if it was plain old 4e, including leaving it in the regular namespace like (4e_Armor), and then when you're done you need to add <nowiki>[[Category:4e_Future]]</nowiki> to the bottom of the page. Then on all of your DPLs where you want to list your 4e Future creations you need to add the line <nowiki> |category:4e_Future </nowiki> and all of your creations will pop right up, without anything else from 4e.
:::What your sourcebook should do is tell users how to use any and all content tagged with Category:4e_Future. If you aren't making any new rules, you don't even need a sourcebook. The idea behind the sourcebook is to write out how to play a slightly altered system. A sourcebook is nothing more than a collection of variant rules, but if the rules are identical, then you don't need to write it. I hope this is making sense. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 18:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

::::I was told to use the category: 4e. --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 00:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

::::I thought it was there. I'll check on my talk page. --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 00:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

:::::You can use more than one category. You should include both "Category:4e" and "Category:4e_Future". Technically, 4e_future should be a sub-category, but we don't seem to use much in the way of sub-categories on this site, so I wouldn't worry about that. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 00:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

::::::So, how do you make a sub-category? --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 16:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

== is there a way to delete a page? ==

I created a page and by talk to me before revisions i meant dont just go right in and revise, hence why im simply going to make the class it was on my own laptop and take it off of this site? is there a way to do that?

:Your English is a bit wacked above, but I'm assuming what you're trying to say is that you created an article, and another user contributed to it. If the article is good quality with contributions from you and the other(s) than it will not be deleted. There is a very clear warning every time someone edits letting them know about this collaborative nature of a wiki. If it is in horrible condition, left incomplete, and unplayable, than anyone can tag it with the delete template, where an admin will eventually get around to it.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 14:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

::That may have been me editing your article. I generally post on the discussion page and discuss things before making a change. However, I noticed a class with grammar issues similar to those in your above comment. I spent a while fixing the grammar, sorry if this disturbed you. --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 22:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

== Admin Badge ==

I was looking around a bit on the wiki and noticed references to an admin badge. I had never seen it so I looked around for it, and realized it had been deleted. Then I looked around for something discussing ''why'' it was deleted, apparently that discussion was on the template's talk page and was deleted to. This was a little bit frustrating. So I was wondering, why was it removed? Also, could the reasoning for its deletion be re added somewhere for reference? It seems a little bit strange that the page discussing its deletion was deleted as well. Thanks! --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 03:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

:Talk pages of deleted pages are always deleted as well. Why was it deleted? [[Special:ListAdmins]] was used on [[Meta Pages]] to let people know of a list of admins, and as such the use of that template was nonexistent. As an aesthetic taste thing anyone could make one I guess, just not in a template form (an admin can restore and move of course). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 04:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

::Good to know, thanks for the quick and well informed response. ''':)''' Do you think it would be worth it to post the reasoning for removing the admin badge somewhere (such as on the [[Special:ListAdmins]] page or the like), or do to little people even care/know about it? --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 04:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

:::That's a special page and cannot be modified. If you give me a link to the page I can re-delete it explaining the deletion more. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 04:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

::::Alright, I was unsure if as the sites owner you could edit special pages or not. Anyways, here's the link <s>Template:AdminBadge</s>. --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 04:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

:::::Backend I am sure, but is that really necessary? How does that sound? Does that get the point across and make it less confusing? I am assuming that if one cares they will check the deleted page. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 04:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

== More broken wiki ==

I'm not sure what's different about these pages, but none of the Random Ability Order templates are working right. See, eg, <s>Template:Random Ability Order - Table 7</s>. They are all like that. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 21:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

:Most likely that was a problem associated with the wiki syntax and not anything MW related. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:52, 16 August 2010 (MDT)

== Xenophon's RfA ==

I noticed in the rfa's that Xenophon's rfa was approved, and he was never renominated. This would be normal except for the fact that he is not on the admin list. Just wondering what's up with that? --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 05:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

:I re-did that section of [[Requests for Adminship]]. Does that explain the Xenophon scenario? Is that is unjust (a different process should be done — that is now not a policy, it just happened)? Is there anything I missed? Is it easier to understand? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 03:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

== author template ==

I am having the darnedest time figuring out the syntax to use for the author template and this page doesn't help explain anything: http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Template:Author

Following what I've found on others' contributions and the syntax displayed on the template, the closest thing I have come up with is this:

<nowiki>{{author</nowiki>
|<nowiki>[[User:Mercurious|Mercurious]]([[User talk:Mercurious|talk]])</nowiki>
|date_created= 07/28/10
|status= Incomplete
}}

but instead of displaying my linked name and linked talk, it just displays the suggested syntax with the {{{}}} around author_name.

I've tried looking everywhere I could to not bother anyone, but I'm just plain stuck and some help would be great.
thanks,
josh

:The author name doesn't work the way you are doing it; see my correction below (in bold). It actually already adds the formatting, so you don't have to do it yourself.

<nowiki>{{author</nowiki>
|'''author_name=Mercurious'''
|date_created= 07/28/10
|status= Incomplete
}}

:[[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 16:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Jazzman!

== 4e Power List Preload ==

Green Dragon? Do you mind if I update the 4e Power List Preload to the new DPLs? --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 20:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

:Not at all, please do. That has to be done huh. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

::I'll get right on it then. --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 23:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

:::Well, I finished quite a while ago. But I haven't tested it out yet. But there's one problem. These new DPLs are going wacky. I don't know what's going on. --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 17:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

::::Looking at [[Enchanter Powers (4e Power List)]], for example, it seems fine. Unless you mean you want to add a parameter like <tt><code>|rowcolformat</code></tt>. Could you supply a link to what you are talking about? An example I can think of is [[Featured Articles]], where the dpl displays <html><a href="/wiki/PAGE" title="Talk:PAGE">Talk:PAGE</a></html>. Is it something like this? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

:::::Let's see, I don't think I added anything to the Enchanter's powers, so it's fine there, but if you look at the [[Fell Knight Powers (4e Power List)|Fell Knight's]] powers, it's going wacky. --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 23:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

:::::Yeah! Something like that. It just shows the webpage text, it doesn't show the link. --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 02:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

== Kobold's ==

While browsing this wiki I noticed on the 'Talk:Stone of Monster Summoning (3.5e Equipment)' page you implied that Kobolds are unintellegent idiots.

Have you not read the 'Races Of The Dragon' supplement? One of my favourite characters of mine was a wise, and INTELLEGENT kobold sorceror. Also I you look Kobolds don't have any penalties for any of the Mental abilities. It is just a prejudice, created when the 'Civilised races' sided with the Kobolds enemy the gnomes.

I do also take into account that they do the bidding of dragons. In the Neverwinter Nights expansion pack 'Shadows Of Undertide' Deekin my favourite team-mate of all time chooses to go stop following his master.

Still other then that you have been spot on keep up the good work.
--[[User:Milo v3|Milo High-Hill]] 07:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

:I believe what you are referring to is this: ''(Kobolds coming up with something like that, wow!)''. However earlier he also implied that kobolds are exceptionally smart by the plan that they thought of in this theoretical situation. Basically I think he was saying this just to show they are not quite as smart as earlier implied. A spectacular plan like that and the knowledge of those stones, how to get them, work them, and implement them would often have required a creature with an intelligence bonus. So in this case GD is just showing that they don't have an intelligence bonus, rather than saying they are unintelligent. Hope that clears things up. ''':)''' --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 15:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes this does clear it up thanks. I guess I was just so angry, I didn't think. --[[User:Milo v3|Milo High-Hill]] 01:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

== Speedy Deletion Template ==

So it seems the spammers are getting smarter. They are now creating accounts, and making new pages rather than just spamming old ones. People like Vrail and I revert the edits, but that is leaving blank pages on the wiki. We should get a "Speedy Deletion" template to put on these pages. It would be the same as a delete template, but the idea is it only goes on pages that need to be deleted right away. It could be used for re-directs, and other pages made by accident too. Because admins wouldn't have to judge the merit on the page, it would also be easier to maintain the list, once a week you could just stop by and delete everything. I can mock up a speedy deletion template if you'd like. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 18:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

:Seems like a good idea to me. --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 20:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

::I went ahead and made a template, let me know what you think. [[User:Badger/sandbox11|Here]] it is. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 18:24, 19 August 2010 (MDT)

== Plz Help ==

I created a class and now when I tried to make a link to the page for it it took me to another persons class and if you search for it in the search bar the same persons page comes up not mine is their a way for me to move the page or change its name because I can't seem to figure it out also can you help me with the lvl table on the page I'm not the best formatter.
--[[User:Dragoona22|Dragoona22]] 23:37, 19 August 2010

:From what I can tell you are talking about [[Red_Mage,_Variant_(3.5e_Class)|your red mage class]]. It should be known that your class is named" Red Mage, Variant (3.5e Class)", because as you mentioned, a class named Red Mage already exists. So be sure to use that name when making links. If you want to change the name, you can use the "move" tab at the top of the page to move the entire page to a new name; just make sure that name isn't already in use. If you're still having troubles with tables, I can try to help you out. You can always just open up another class' page, and look at how they did it. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 00:49, 19 August 2010 (MDT)

== Also... ==

Also does anyone know a group in the milwuaki area of portland oregon that plays 3.5e and is willing to accept new members. If so leave a note on my talk page or send me and email at dragoona22@hotmail.com put D&D on the suject plz thank you.
--[[User:Dragoona22|Dragoona22]] 23:53, 19 August 2010

== My RfA ==

Recently I nominated myself for adminship on the wiki. I don't want to sound like I'm advertising my nomination, however it has been three days without any support or oppose comments. I am just trying to get at least a few people to take notice and comment. My nomination may be found [[Requests for Adminship/Vrail|here]]. Thanks. --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 11:16, 18 August 2010 (MDT)

:I was just recomended by [[User:Badger|Badger]] to contact you or another admin about getting my RfA on a news feed. I still have no support or oppose comments, and while the neutral comments are good, it would be nice to have another few users comment one way or the other. ''':)''' --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 15:16, 19 August 2010 (MDT)

== Variant Guardian, Templates ==

:''Discussion moved to [[Talk:Guardian, Variant (3.5e Class)#Abandoned]].'' --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:30, 4 October 2010 (MDT)

== (class) shroud ==

Hi I was wanting to know is you could tell me who made the shroud class or more about its skills or if its been abandon if you know thanks --Columbus a.k.a R.I.R 21:51, 25 August 2010 (MDT)

== ... ==

I won't tell you which name... but one of your names contains my actual name lol.

== 4e Sizes ==

Hey Green Dragon (or anyone else that knows the answer),

:I would like to know what are the penalty and benefits to being size Large and up to Colossal. Thanks,

--[[User:Axl|Axl]] 14:49, 16 September 2010 (MDT)

'''Note:''' I do not have the rule books. That is why I'm asking here.

--[[User:Axl|Axl]] 16:09, 27 September 2010 (MDT)

::Never mind. I think I figured it out from the 2 Player's handbooks.

--[[User:Axl|Axl]] 16:07, 23 December 2010 (MST)

== Little hiccup on a page. ==

Hello Green Dragon. I was just leveling my druid yesterday when I noticed a discrepancy on a page of the site, on (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Druid#Animal_Companion) it says that crocodiles are available to first level druids, whereas further down in the "Alternative Animal Companions" section it states that they are available at as an alternate candidate for the druid's animal companion at level four. I thought I'd let yah know since I checked in the 3.5 PHB and it said that it's not allowed to be used as a level one druid pet (for aquatic environments), unfortunately.

Taa.

.Willow.

== Some guidance please? ==

I've been trying to get the formatting right on my creation Eykanos Drakulzen since i created it. i've rewritten it about 10 times including direct copy/pasting and redoing to hold my info. the skills will not format correctly. please help.

== very old dnd forum posts—lost ==

I had made some races on the old DND boards, and decided to do a google search to see if I could find them again (I lost the computer they were originally written on)

Anyway, searching for one of my races (shatterskin) brought me here. Unfortunately you guys hadn't logged it, and it's no longer backed up on the wizard's boards either. So I was curious—do you have some sort of archive from the old wizards boards? I'd love to see some of my old posts if you have them. Oh, and I'd be totally cool with anything I made being posted here (I might modify them to make them suck less though)

you can email me at dustin.depenning@gmail.com if you need too

== Thank You =) ==

Thanks for the reply. I understand fully your situation and thanks for permission to base some 'Trickster' class features from the 'Tenken'(No plagiarism of course), And ill be sure to let you know when its finished so you can check it out.

== Uploading Media ==

How do I add a picture from the file "my pictures"? {{Unsigned|Raweno|21:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)}}

:You upload the file to media, [[dndmedia:Special:Upload|Special:Upload]] and then use the standard wiki link syntax on a page you want to display it. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 19:20, 9 October 2010 (MDT)

Okay, thanks. --[[User:Raweno|Raweno]]

just hypotheticly, could you upload videos?

== 3.5 Deity The Great Mon Gorge ==

Hi, I noticed a few changes to one of my contributions, I had left that note on the main page to draw attention to the kind act of the user who drew that (he did it without prompting and its really good, was very thankful) and I can understand moving that to the talk page, but the removal of 'The" from the deities name is in error, 'The" is part of his name and other things reference the use of the "The" (for example the main pantheon page his coffin is referred to T.G.M.G.) If you could change it back I would be thankful, im kinda new to wiki editing (ive been poking at it for some time but still slow) otherwise id just change it back myself. Thank you for keeping an eye on my pages I appreciate that too. --[[User:MCage|MCage]] 20:28, 9 October 2010 (PST)

:[[User:Kaden|Kaden]] is the uploader of the image. The history for the image and kadens name give a direct, non-discussion, relation to contributions. Anyhow, how does the pagename look now? You move pages by clicking the "move" tab up top. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:10, 9 October 2010 (MDT)

::Oh yeah thats perfect, thanks for the change and the advice on edits :) --[[User:MCage|MCage]] 23:46, 9 October 2010 (PST)

== My User Page ==

So what is the policy on stuff I am allowed to have on my own user page? Linking to a diff where you censored something I wrote doesn't seem very offensive to me. I was literally just offering a helping hand as to that D&D chatrooms already exist.

So, what is the policy for user pages, exactly? What kind of content is ok and what sort of stuff do you want to censor? --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 15:13, 29 October 2010 (MDT)

:See also [[User talk:Green Dragon#Censorship]]. What you are doing is solicitation ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism Wikipedia:Vandalism], external linking).
:{{quote|Partial censorship is something D&D Wiki has — to keep spam and non-relevant things at bay. All the recent spam from IP's (see the barnstars some have received) is not allowed — I think you would understand. It could become a serious problem.
|orig=--[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 03:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
|src=[[User talk:Green Dragon#Censorship]].
}}
:Why was it solicitation? Because it is directing users else how then through [[DnD Links]] and was not decided by the administration to be a beneficial recourse (e.g. Wikipedia's policies). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:26, 29 October 2010 (MDT)

::Please note you supplied an external link, and then desired users to find it once again. And links are something, "what is a link?" - it has a purpose.
::Revision histories have been "cleaned" - see also [[Talk:Meta Pages]], [[Talk:Main Page]]. If enough problems exist, it is considered.
::And The Tavern software, no matter the software, was specific to D&D Wiki. Re-opening the tavern implies a ''D&D Wiki'' tavern. This is understandable. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:09, 29 October 2010 (MDT)

:::Are we seriously fighting about this again? Why does it matter? Tons of users have links to other wikis they collaborate on, or links to sites they find helpful. Those go uncensored. If I picked 3 random editors from the recent edits, and checked their user pages I can guarantee they have links to external D&D sites. Are you seriously going to say that no external links are allowed? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 20:37, 29 October 2010 (MDT)

::::It's solicitation, ya (although not redundant). They really should discuss on [[DnD Links]] and get the good ones put there. And if it is a beneficial recourse to D&D Wiki that would have to be discussed to. Why did I notice this in particular? Because it's a very blatant user redirection and done in redundancy. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:20, 29 October 2010 (MDT)

:::::So you're telling me if a user blatantly advertises another site that isn't listed on [[DnD Links]] it should be removed for solicitation? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 13:17, 30 October 2010 (MDT)

::::::Ya ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism Wikipedia:Vandalism], external linking - more too). But who checks all the time? And I just remove them when I come across them (mostly), however when a user redundantly does it after it has been changed based off policies ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism Wikipedia:Vandalism], external linking) it becomes a serious potential problem, and may result in bans like [[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]]. Do you see where I am coming from? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:58, 30 October 2010 (MDT)

:::::::Is there not a difference between "solicitation" (a policy which is, at best, arbitrarily enforced, and, at worst, enforced with serious bias), and complaining about censorship of said solicitation? Aarnott was banned for solicitation, and, while I understand he's been warned about this in the past (though not [[Warning_Policy|officially]]), he was not banned until ''after'' he complained about censorship. This does not seem right to me. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 12:27, 31 October 2010 (MDT)

::::::::The official reason Aarnott was banned was because of "Spamming links to external sites (not getting it and continuing soliciting)". Meaning that Aarnott spammed links to external links and then after being told about his actions redundantly continued. Why is this the reason? Since it is true and follows policies and things which the administration can operate through.
::::::::I assume you are asking for the more normal reason, e.g. a colloquial reason. Being censored does not mean one is going to be banned, it just means one should not continue with the problem activity. Aarnott solicited, was warned (through censorship), solicited again on Aarnott's user talk — the diff, which leads onward, was warned (through undo), and then solicited again twice here. What is too much? To me I see it as we have no time for such behavior — policies exist for a reason (ask Wikipedia?) and one disregarding them because he/she wants to is not a reason. It's like a virus. As such the administration should operate under such principles. Just my way of looking at it. Does this answer any questions? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:59, 31 October 2010 (MDT)

:::::::::Are you suggesting that mentioning the website mibbit counts as soliciting? Aarnott had nothing to gain by suggesting it, and we were looking for suggestions and alternate hosting choices. I've mentioned Freenode several times in several tavern discussions, and there has never been a problem there. Mibbit and Freenode are essentially the same service. Also, if you don't technically warn him, I don't think it's fair to punish him as if you had. If you had issued a warning, per the warning policy you established, it's possible that he would have stopped. Furthermore, you've listed 4 incidents where he was "soliciting". Assuming you warned him separately for every single instance he should only be banned for 1 week, not 6 months. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 16:21, 31 October 2010 (MDT)

::::::::::Giving a specific link to one, not to a service, definitely is.
::::::::::{{quote|[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility Wikipedia:Civility] is superseded by the [[Warning Policy]] as applicable.
|src=[[Meta Pages]]
}}
::::::::::So no, they are different policy things. The edit itself and the diff are the notifications. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:53, 31 October 2010 (MDT)

:::::::::::If the edit and the diff are the notifications, why does the warning policy exist? How can [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility Wikipedia:Civility] be superseded by the [[Warning Policy]] if the only thing the warning policy says is "See Civility"? Also, you didn't address the second half of my comment. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 17:00, 31 October 2010 (MDT)

::::::::::::Because civility is just ''one'' policy on Wikipedia.
::::::::::::{{quote|As a general rule [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_policies Wikipedia's policies] are in effect. Please use common sense with this overarching policy.
|src=[[Meta Pages]]
}}
::::::::::::[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism Wikipedia:Vandalism], external linking has nothing to do with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility Wikipedia:Civility]. If you have input into this this is not the place for it, please ask it on [[Talk:Meta Pages]].
::::::::::::The policies answer the bottom part of your comment. If not more information would be appreciated so I could answer them. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:07, 31 October 2010 (MDT)

:::::::::::::Wikipedia says, very clearly:
{{quote|Even if misguided or ill-considered, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism.}}
:::::::::::::If we replace "encyclopedia" with "Dandwiki Community", surely you agree that is exactly what he did. That's why I will ask this again: "You've listed 4 incidents where he was "soliciting". Assuming you warned him separately for every single instance he should only be banned for 1 week, not 6 months". Why is he banned for 6 months? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 17:19, 31 October 2010 (MDT)

{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}

:The gray line. Ya, but he should have listed providers like you did above (note, no censorship there). Banning lengths are only for the warning policy, this is the policy thing again. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:25, 31 October 2010 (MDT)

::So then you feel that a 6 month ban is an appropriate punishment for making multiple links to external sites? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 17:29, 31 October 2010 (MDT)

:::You don't feel it is appropriate? One should understand that when the administration does something (e.g. censorship) it has a reason, and the opposition of that reason (not in discussion, in more vandalism) is the wrong action. Some recent IP's have been banned for a year for doing vandalism multiple times. It's following the same trajectory... Thoughts? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:09, 31 October 2010 (MDT)

::::Aarnott isn't some faceless IP just here to make trouble. You banned him before he could even have a proper discussion. Comparing him to recent IPs spamming pages about boots or whatever else is insulting to him. He was, at one point, an administrator on this site. Personally, I think letting him stick around long enough to have this discussion would have been best, and then banned him for some period of time, not more than a month. Honestly, if you had let him say his piece in this discussion I doubt he'd even need to be banned. Banning isn't meant to be a punishment, it's meant to stop future problems before they can happen. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 18:16, 31 October 2010 (MDT)

:::::(Edit Conflict) I'd consider a named user linking to sites that he genuinely finds helpful and thinks will be helpful to the community significantly different than an anonymous person intentionally vandalizing by deleting content or adding vulgar or unproductive material. While he has been warned before, I think there's a pretty significant jump between an implied, indirect verbal warning and a 6-month block. There should probably be some escalation in between there. There's another block on his account, but it seems to be unrelated to this issue. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 18:22, 31 October 2010 (MDT)

::::::Aarnott's comments to the matter (removed through censorship) I do not think can be considered in the way you want them to be.
::::::[[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] just banned an IP (violated same policy) for infinity. Given the circumstances (user ''has'' been in good standing before) I guess I can change it to 3 months. People need to learn the policies, and banning is meant as a way of getting that done. So, although banning is not a punishment, it has a use for ''after incidents'' as well. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:54, 2 November 2010 (MDT)

:::::::No I didn't. I blocked someone who is part of a long-term scheme of placing blatant advertisements for a certain brand of footwear which is unrelated to D&D (and let's face it -- probably unused by most D&D players anyway). The user had no contributions that weren't entirely spam. I may have used the same reason in the drop down box, but that doesn't mean I blocked him for the same reason. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 20:29, 3 November 2010 (MDT)

::::::::Sorry, the violation of the same policy. I modified it above. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:32, 3 November 2010 (MDT)

:::::::::Despotism strikes again! --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] 06:58, 5 November 2010 (MDT)

::::::::::Wikipedia's policies are beneficial, although to the stage of despotism I do not think they are there. They are more a needed tool for D&D Wiki to function, not so much a despotism rule. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:01, 5 November 2010 (MDT)

:::::::::::It's interesting how they are only a much-needed tool here. --[[User:Foxwarrior|Foxwarrior]] 18:02, 6 November 2010 (MDT)

::::::::::::I have to agree. I don't think any of these links removed because of solicitation of D&D-resource sites caused this wiki to function at a lower level. Removal of spam, sure, but I don't see the need to delete links to other D&D resources. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 18:52, 6 November 2010 (MDT)

:::::::::::::There's [[DnD Links]] for that, ya. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:52, 6 November 2010 (MDT)

{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}

:So we can add any useful wikis and other useful sites to that? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 20:57, 6 November 2010 (MDT)

::Well the reasons would be sorted through, but ya. But the discussion should be moved there with continued questions. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:00, 6 November 2010 (MDT)

== Userpage Top Template and My Content ==

This isn't a major question but I was just wondering how you get the user/talk/contributions/awards bar on the top of your page. Also I was wondering if you could look at some of my posts and tell me if you like them. Thank you and congratulations on the amazing website. [[User:Nomnomking|Nomnomking]] 22:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

:See also [[User:Green Dragon/Top Template]]. You can make one in your own user space.
:I looked over the creations listed on your userpage (not usercontributions though) and gave input where I noticed things which are wrong. As those get corrected please ask me to look over them again for more things (balance, etc) and I would be more then willing to look over them.
:Also all the external links on your userpage you should be moved to [[DnD Links]]. Your userpage should then link to them by way of the page (an example would be [[DnD Links|External Links]]<nowiki>[</nowiki>[[DnD Links#Wizards of the Coast|1]]<nowiki>][</nowiki>[[DnD Links#WotC Tools|2]]<nowiki>]</nowiki>, etc) so you give mention to important ones and keep them on the page they are required to be on.
:Hope this helps. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:52, 3 November 2010 (MDT)

Thanks
--[[User:Nomnomking|Nomnomking]] 15:47, 4 November 2010

== Userspace Sandbox ==

hey, just wondering how to put unfinished work in my sandbox so it doesn't clog up the wiki? Thanks. --[[User:Fathirian Hound|Fathirian Hound]] 09:26, 4 November 2010 (MDT)

:Just move it (move tab) to your userpage/<!-name->. Then if you remove the categories it will not show up anywhere. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 10:36, 4 November 2010 (MDT)

::Will do, thanks. --[[User:Fathirian Hound|Fathirian Hound]] 07:06, 11 November 2010 (MST)

==ShadowBorn/Shadowborn debate==

I have gotten complaints about entitling a page [[ShadowBorn]] instead of Shadowborn. Is it really a big deal because i have made many pahes like this. sorry about bothering you again. Also i fixed some of the errors you told me to but not all of them. I will let you know when i do.--[[User:Nomnomking|Nomnomking]] 7:05, 5 November 2010

== Don't have a clue what I'm doing ==

I have a few "minor" obstacles that are preventing me from having the slightest idea as to what I'm doing. First, I started my account less than an hour ago. I started frequenting this sight when I decided to do a massive overhaul of all things vampire. I assure you, your sight has nothing vampire related that can compare with what I want to submit. I have written over 100 pages of overhaul in Microsoft word (I'm serious) that has done everything from making a wide variety of bloodlines to roll-playish guidelines. Halfway through this I converted to core 3.5 rules so, in addition to needed tweaks here and there, my overhaul is a mesh between core 2 rules (yes, I still use THAC0...a word many of you haven't used in 100 years) and core 3.5. I'm still in the process of fully converting it but I have gone COMPLETELY off topic here...

My point is, I have no idea how to use this sight or where I should a submit my overhaul. I assume there is an instruction manual for this sight lying around here somewhere but I can't find it. If it does exist then feel free to point me to it and then point and laugh at my inability to be observant. It's closer to a template then a creature but allows for both PCs and NPCs to be used. To be honest, vampires are far better off and N/PCs then creatures. This template still doesn't account for CR (which I can't seem to figure out) and its format doesn't fit anything I've seen on this sight.

Where should I submit this and how do I do it?

P.S

Sorry for ranting. I do that sometimes.

PP.S

I am vaguely aware that there is some kind of rule about balanced spells/templates/etc...(though I have never found it nor any other page that tells me site policies). This overhaul includes 5 "categories" of vampire. While the player normally has access to only 2 of these categories (as the others are a inherent templates), the highest category is an inherent template that converts a humanoid into an ultra uber creature that would warrant a high-level campaign just to destroy it. Where can I find this site's policies on un/balanced creatures? This category of vampire was made specifically to be over powered but they cannot be mass produced. It is rare for more than 40 to exist in any given multiverse at a time. Would this have any bearing on whether or not they are balanced?

FiddleSticks96 November 14 9:32pm eastern time

:[[3.5e Bloodlines]] has information to assist with posting bloodlines. See also [[Add a New 3.5e Bloodline]]. Each of the areas has such a method for adding content, save 2e things which you mentioned. You could just add "(2e <tt><!-content-type-></tt>)" though. You could make a vampire variant subtype (through [[User Creature Glossary]]) and make them relate. Does this answer your questions? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:07, 13 November 2010 (MST)

::Thanks for the quick response. I took a quick look at the bloodlines section but it will likely become very chaotic if I put this ::there. This is a COMPLETE overhaul containing 19 bloodlines (20 if you count the purebloods). Just the part that contains
::alterations specific to each bloodline is 38 pages long. This is a cohesive overhaul that only makes sense when it stays together. How does the subtype section work? Is it like an alternate template used on a creature like a celestial? I need to post ::stuff like the "General" changes to all vampires, which includes 21 pages. Is it possible for me to make more than one entry and ::tie them together with links or something? I know that cleric domains has something like that. - FiddleSticks96

:::[[3.5e Bloodlines]] will be fine with more bloodlines added. That is why it is there. Each bloodlines being a page with its own name of course. "''[O]nly makes sense when it stays together''", meaning it does not use 3.5e rules? If you could elaborate or supply some material so I could check it would make more sense. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 00:00, 14 November 2010 (MST)

::::Elaborate? It's funny you said that because I was just thinking that I should post a sample of what I mean. This will take up some space if you don't mind.

:::::Space is of no concern. Ya, post something then I can check to make sure it works in an area, and if not we will have to figure something else out. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 00:05, 14 November 2010 (MST)

::::::For the most part it follows Core 3.5 rules so it's not like it's foreign or anything. When I say Bloodline I mean something like this. Keep in mind that these are only bonuses/drawbacks specific to this bloodline. This does not include the various other benefits/drawbacks they gain for just being vampires. Notice how the vampire's regenerative ability is referenced but not included? I overhauled that as well:

:::::::You sure that is a bloodlines, not a [[3.5e Creature Templates|3.5e Creature Template]] or somesuch? I only looked briefly at it, however it does not resemble something like [[UA:Dragon, Brass]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 00:19, 14 November 2010 (MST)

::::::::That's why I'm saying it probably doesn't fit with bloodlines as it is depicted in that section. For the purposes of this overhaul, a bloodline acts like a strain of vampirism. While someone who is turned into a Yekef vampire as described below, someone who is turned into an Aundae vampire has vastly different alterations and their appearance isn't so distorted. While Yekef are physically powerful, Haarvenu are attractive and and seductive. Quarra vampires are best suited as fighters, while an Anthotis vampire makes for a powerful psionist. Each bloodline has it's own strengths and weaknesses in addition to the general strengths and weaknesses all vampires posses. It is a complete overhaul of vampirism. It isn't too far off as a list of variant rules and templates. I still need to complete the conversion from core 2 rules to core 3.5, but I still need to find the most suitable place to put it. I would also need to put the list of general changes, ways to implement the overhaul, the overview of terms used (such as my explanations as to what the five categories of vampires actually are. This overhaul treats vampires as an actual race capable of sexually reproducing, though it is far more difficult to actually bear children). Maybe I could make a link that explains that it is a set of variant rules as far as vampirism goes. This link could contain a list of links that would take you to the actual bloodlines, rules, or whatever. Sort of like the list of cleric domains. When you click the air domain for example, you are taken to a list of links rather then a list of all the explanations in one sitting. - FiddleSticks96 Nov 14, 1:06pm Eastern Time

:::::::::Something else I just thought of. Just so there's no confusion, these bloodlines in no way have to follow the "variant rules" that I came up with. They don't have to be used in conjunction with each other. A DM could just as easily pick one bloodline and say that is the only strain of vampirism. This game is made for imagination. As a DM I encourage players and DMs alike to use their imagination. If the DM thinks there needs to be an alteration then they should change it to their preferences. This is just my preferences that can be used, altered, and reused as the community sees fit. I thinks my variations are balanced and fair but others might not. Everyone has their own preference. This is just to expand upon the role playing potential of vampirism.

::::::::::Do each of the variants have the same advancement as a [[SRD:Vampire|vampire]]? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 14:43, 14 November 2010 (MST)

:::::::::::I have yet to grasp monster advancement (Hit Dice rather then Level). The advancement is treated as the same way PCs gain level. A vampire is fully capable of picking up a class and 8 of the bloodlines have an inherent class. The strengths/weaknesses the base creature gets for being part of a bloodline are given all at once, though the effectiveness of many of the powers are dependent on character or class level (usually class level). Basically, they are treated as NPCs.

:::::::::::Here is an example of a bloodline with no inherent class. The base creature gains this benefits/drawbacks in addition to the general vampire benefits/drawbacks. They do not advance any "vampire class". They simply gain these benefits and continue their existence as "normal":

::::::::::::As bloodlines (e.g. [[UA:Dragon, Brass]]) are done by levels, what are the changes (by-level) of these? That is what I am asking. Or is is an initial level adjustment (like [[SRD:Vampire|vampire]]) or challenge rating adjustment? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:18, 14 November 2010 (MST)

:::::::::::::I'm still trying to figure out CR but there is an initial level adjustment for all categories. As the PC will only ever be able to become a Category C or E Vampire (outside of birth). The only level adjustment available to them will be the +3 bonus to all class levels. These are actual gains in levels, with all the benefits that come with leveling up.

{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}

:So [[SRD:Level Adjustment (Creature Statistic)|level adjustment]] does not affect ones class levels with these? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:42, 14 November 2010 (MST)

::I'm probably wrong but isn't Level Adjustment a way to determine "effective" level and not "actual" level? If level adjustment causes actual level up then it is the same as a +3 level adjustment. Actually, it can be correctly seen that way because all class levels are raised by 3 upon being turned into a vampire. I posted what I mean when I say that the overhaul treats vampires as an actual race below. Also, it's time for me to go to work so I will be unresponsive for awhile.

:::An aspect to determine effective character level (ECL), ya. If what you are saying is correct, with a "''then it is the same as a +3 level adjustment''" I think it may be templates that you are looking for, for example a [[SRD:Vampire|vampire]] is a template with +8 LA. Does this seem right? If so I can format one so you can see if that is what is intended. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:54, 14 November 2010 (MST)

::::If they're going to send me home after 2hrs they should just call to tell me not to show up :(. Yeah, templates is what I was going for. Would I be able to set it up where there is a link with the templates list that just says something like "Complete Vampire Overhaul"? The link could then open up with a quick explanation and the following links: "Overview", "Important Notes", "General Changes", "Bloodlines", "Implementations", and "Anti-Vampire Magic". This overhaul includes 2 new classes and an ability that will probably advance in a manner similar to classes. I'm still developing all 3 but I'll finish them sooner or later.

:::::I made [[Vampire, Montalion]]: [[Vampire, Lesser Montalion (3.5e Template)]], [[Vampire, Montalion (3.5e Template)]], [[Vampire, Greater Montalion (3.5e Template)]] (for credit see history). Is this what you had in mind? Does this make sense? If you want a [[3.5e Sourcebooks|sourcebook]] that could be a route to keep things in check with one another more. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:17, 14 November 2010 (MST)

::::::Actually no, it doesn't make much sense since those are only the changes that are IN ADDITION to the rest of them. I was thinking more along the lines of a link called "Complete Vampire Overhaul" that would be placed where ever the templates are. I would then be free to offer an explanation as to what it is and add various links that would contain the mass amounts of information about the overhaul. The way the Montalion is set up now it does not account for many of the other changes. If you think I need source books then don't worry. I recently acquired several 3.5 source books including the DM Guide, Monster Manual, and Player Handbook. I'll also be reformatting it after I upload it so it is easy to read and follows the format of this site.
::::::Am I allowed to try and add it in the way I think it would fit best without authorization? If I'm allowed to then could I try setting it up the way I'm thinking about and you can see if you think it will work? If not then can I have permission? I was thinking about adding it in the http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/3.5e_Creature_Templates for lack of a better known location.

:::::::Of course. Feel free. I'll take a look at it as it becomes more apparent. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 11:32, 16 November 2010 (MST)

::::::::Finally got some free-time. I've started making all the pages but I've got a question. When I added the creature template it didn't show up on the templates page. I can still just punch in the url and it will be there but as far as I can tell, right now it's just a ghost page. I don't see a way to add it on my own either. I assume that you or an admin are the ones who will do this? If there are ghost pages on this site I can use them to avoid confusing people by adding the info for the changes directly into a section of the site. I can just put links on the template page that lead to the appropriate changes. These links would be the only ones that lead to these otherwise "ghost pages". Sound like a good idea?

:::::::::Oh, I just found where it put the link. It wasn't in the 3.5e Creature Templates but in the Category:LA? section. It should be in the "LA" section and not the "LA?" section but it makes no difference to me. Does it matter if I add all of the information on a single page? I don't know how to add the kind of links that make you scroll down to a different section of the page. Like the little boxes that say "contents" with a list of links.

::::::::::...Nevermind, I figured that out to. I'm going to shut up for awhile and stop bothering people with questions that I'll probably figure out the answer to on my own.

:::::::::::Done (mostly). Can you move this to the "LA" section. It's in the "LA?" right now. The only potential problem I can see right now is this message I got "Warning: This page is 243 kilobytes long; some browsers may have problems editing pages approaching or longer than 32kb. Please consider breaking the page into smaller sections." http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Complete_Vampire_Overhaul_%283.5e_Template%29

== Don't have a clue what I'm doing ==

My retarded computer posted this twice

== HTML ==

Hi, Im Greenstyle. I have a question. I was making a piece of equipment and on the template was "back to" footer. What is it and what consequence does it have on the page?

:It makes it displayed on equipment pages, found on [[3.5e Equipment]]. Does this answer your question? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 11:35, 16 November 2010 (MST)

== HTML ==

Hi, Im Greenstyle. I have a question. I was making a piece of equipment and on the template was "back to" footer. What is it and what consequence does it have on the page?
Hey... mine did too!

== Rights ==

I was wondering: If I use some of the content from this website in a novel, do I have to individualy ask every contributer that orginally created the content? Also if so, thier is a problem. I hope to use the race "Sarli" in my Novel yet my computer is blocked from accessing the "Wizards of the Coast Forums" (Which is the only way I know how to contact "R.M.G.C.L.F.").--[[User:Milo v3|Milo High-Hill]] 18:59, 19 November 2010 (MST)

:As it is under the [[GNU Free Documentation License 1.2]] section 2 verbatim copying is applicable. There is no need to contact the contributors. Does this answer your question? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:35, 21 November 2010 (MST)

::Yes this does answer my question. Thank you. Though I still will mention the contributors of DnD Wiki as a courtesy for all the help.--[[User:Milo v3|Milo High-Hill]] 22:59, 22 November 2010 (MST)

== WoW 4E ==

Is it possible (by which I mean legal), to make a 4E WoW setting? Do I need Blizzard permission or a disclaimer or something? [[User:Camulus|Camulus]] 12:20, 21 November 2010 (MST)

:Just make sure to add [[Template:Copyright Disclaimer]] onto the bottom of the pages. That should cover it. Does this answer your question? ---[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:33, 21 November 2010 (MST)

::Blizzard is the sort of company that ''will'' issue a cease-and-desist if they ever find out about it. But they probably won't find out about it. --[[User:Foxwarrior|Foxwarrior]] 03:02, 22 November 2010 (MST)

:::{{quote
|Copyrights and trademarks for any books, films, and other promotional materials are held by their respective owners and their use is allowed under the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use fair use] clause of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright Copyright Law].
|orig=[[Template:Copyright Disclaimer]]
}}
:::--[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 14:33, 22 November 2010 (MST)

== Blood Knight ==

I finally got around to touching up my Blood Knight page (I know, I know, long overdue) if you wanna take another look. [[User:Dude Bob|Dude Bob]] 17:45, 21 November 2010 (MST)

:I touched it up as well. If you would not mind taking another look that would be very appreciated. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:20, 5 January 2011 (MST)

== Spell seeds ==

I have perused my books but I can't find anything about spell seeds or epic spells in general. The info on most of the spell seeds and epic spells looks so professional so I'm 99% positive that spell seeds are an official part of the game. If they are not I don't care but if they are will some please tell me what book they are discussed in? - FiddleSticks96

:I'm pretty sure its in the "Epic Level Handbook". I am planning on obtaining it soon myself.--[[User:Milo v3|Milo High-Hill]] 15:25, 30 November 2010 (MST)

::O.O I have such glorious observational skills. I will look through the epic level hand book now sitting in front of me. I don't know why I didn't think to check this book. Thanks by the way. (--[[User:FiddleSticks96|FiddleSticks96]] 17:54, 30 November 2010 (MST))

:::[[SRD:Spells#Epic Spell Lists]] may help. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:35, 30 November 2010 (MST)

== Alignment: Moral Ambiguity ==

I am thinking about creating a D&D world based off of one of the stories I have written out in my head. One of the most prominent characters of this world, though mostly unknown to most of society, is a demigod whose fate and goal in life is to serve as the protector of the prime material plane he exists on. He is a Pureblood Vampire named Belenthrond with a vicious streak when it comes to eliminating evil. (based on the Complete Vampire Overhaul of course). He draws power from both light and darkness, positive and negative, good and evil...you get my point. While I will probably never make a character sheet for him, as he is immensely powerful, I would like to at least give him a definite alignment. Unfortunately, while he is decidedly benevolent, he is morally ambiguous and, quick frankly, has a definite evil side as well as a good. He supports laws but doesn't think that good should be restrained by them. With that respect, he is Neutral Good; but since he has such an evil side to himself he can't be simply "Good" aligned. He doesn't believe in universal balance between good and evil either. He would much rather utter crush the truly wicked all together so he can't be True Neutral. He isn't disorganized and totally unpredictable either. Chaotic Neutral doesn't fit him at all. Eventually, I decided to make his alignment "Unknowable", because I didn't like how "Neutral Good with Chaotic (and sometimes Evil) tendencies" sounded. Unfortunately, if I were to give him a definite alignment, those might be the only two that will work.

Here is a quick overview of moral tendencies this character would exhibit:

''Good Qualities:'' He would sacrifice his own life without hesitation to protect the innocent (though later he learned he was immortal, he didn't always know this, and so this in no way weakens this argument that he is morally good in some regards)

He sacrificed much in order to continue to protect his world and those who could not protect themselves

He spent over 1,000 years as the lonely protect of his world until he finally could not stand his loneliness and fell in-love

He has, on a number of occasions, fought against impossible odds that he would likely not survive

He can't stand to see innocents suffering and will go out of his way to make their lives better. He is especially intolerant of allowing children to suffer (particularly orphans)

He is the type of person to choose another's happiness over his own (at one point, his eldest daughter (at the time she was a teenager) was about to be kidnapped. He was in actual combat with the one pulling the strings behind the kidnapping (one of his political rivals and one of the individuals he wasn't able to just outright slay and get away with). This individual cast a spell that was going to destroy a nearby town and everyone in it. Belenthrond had the choice of letting his rival get away with this daughter or letting the town get annihilated (tough choice right?). Well, being the guy that he is, Belenthrond stomped on his own emotions and protected the town. His reasoning was that his daughter was kidnapped to be a hostage. She would be kept alive, for now. Those in the town would not have been so fortunate. Even though he knew she would be kept alive for the time being, he was still subjecting his own daughter to the mercy of the worst kind of scum. She could very well have been killed if he didn't commence a quick rescue. One of his evil qualities explains how something like that is utterly intolerable to him)

Though he enjoys a good battle against a worthy opponent, he prefers nonviolent solutions to problems

Even though he will kill without hesitation, he will never intentionally cause harm to a mortal's soul (though he will tamper with demon souls or other such creatures he perceives as wicked)

''Evil Qualities:'' He respects innocent life but couldn't care less about the lives of the truly wicked. If an opportunity to redeem a wicked being presents itself, he will follow it if it is not too inconvenient, otherwise, he will likely kill them without hesitation if it doesn't cause great suffering to the innocent (He once had the chance to kill the man who killed his lover. This man, though wicked, was the only thing holding together an entire empire. If this man were to die, that empire would have fell into civil war again, causing the many innocent civilians to suffer. In the end, the demigod chose to spare the man's life because it would have caused many innocents to suffer - "As much as I wish to kill you, you are needed to keep this world in balance. I will spare your life...but never appear before me again"

He cares so little about wicked beings that he has, and still does, use them as test subjects in his magical experiments. Developing spells is a process after all, one that requires the ruffles to be smoothed out. As far as he is concerned, having to crack open and rip apart the minds of a few dozen bandits is a perfectly acceptable way to further his own power, which can then be used to better protect his world

He will not hesitate to kill, regardless of whose side the being is on. He will do what he can to simply incapacitate, say, a paladin who doesn't seem to get that he is on the paladin's side, but if someone is acting as an obstacle in his path to protect his world, even if they are simply misguided, he will rip them apart to get through them if need be. This hesitation extends to lack of remorse. - "Yes, it was unfortunate, but I will suffer no hindrance. Next time one of your pet paladins stands in my way, perhaps they will remember the price such ignorance."

He will lie, steal, cheat, assassinate, or otherwise commit all manner of treachery against wicked/corrupt individuals who he perceives as a threat to his world. He perceives the murder of an innocent being wicked but is perfectly okay with murdering the wicked. In particular, he doesn't see anything wrong with stealing when someone truly needs what they stole. He doesn't accept stealing from the poor or otherwise destitute, but if a museum recently acquired a strange or dangerous artifact, he would be perfectly okay with stealing it so he could study it or keep it out of the wrong hands

He has a political agenda, while being a politician in and of itself isn't evil (no really, I know it sounds hard weird but it's true), there are certain wicked individuals that he cannot just outright eliminate without jeopardizing his political agenda. With that said, these individuals pose a threat to many innocent lives and letting them run a muck; however much effort he puts forth in limiting their movements, is still allowing evil to spread so he doesn't lose political power (of course, he is working vigorously at gaining support against these individuals so he can finally kill them without losing political power)

While he draws power from light (metaphoric light...as in good), he also draws power from darkness (metaphorical darkness...as in evil). Perhaps his most favorite phrase is "Those who hide their wickedness in the darkness think themselves safe from the light. What they don't realize is that it is what hides within the darkness that they should fear the most".

He gets violent when people start messing with his family. I mean REAL violent. The kind of violence that kills his enemies very very slowly. - "Hahahahahaha...your right of course. I'm not going to kill you. I'm going to make you wish that I would."

''Unfortunate, but not evil, qualities:'' He's, well, he's kind of insane. Most ancient undead are.

Anyway, this pretty much describes my problem. What kind of alignment would someone like this fall under? Do you think Belenthrond is Good? Evil? Neutral? He is certainly an extremist, but that is in part due to his nature (blame his overdeity mother for also having an extremist nature). I simply can't think of any other alignment that fits him except "Unknowable". Help me out here? --[[User:FiddleSticks96|FiddleSticks96]] 23:57, 13 December 2010 (MST)

:What do you think about [[SRD:Alignment#Chaotic Good, “Rebel”|chaotic good]]? He seems to act as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him. He follows his own moral compass, which, although good, may not agree with that of society as can be seen with his approaches to situations. And his "experiments" could potentially be considered as making his own way. Your thoughts? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 19:44, 29 December 2010 (MST)

::That actually makes sense. I hadn't thought about it that way before, there are many gray areas in the alignments after all. Hmm...since he is a politician he might be closer to "Chaotic good with Lawful(maybe Neutral?) tendencies". What do you think? [[User:FiddleSticks96|FiddleSticks96]] 22:13, 30 December 2010 (MST)

== I have a question ==

There's a page I want to have fixed and spruced up, but I don't know how to fix it. I really want the Moon Scythe class to be a respected class, but it doesn't match the preload.

I really want to help out, but I'm not good at this wiki-formatting. I was wondering if you could make a mention of this to someone that could do this kind of thing. If you did, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks, [[User:Missingno|Missingno]] 08:08, 24 December 2010 (MST)

== Locking pages? ==

I know it's probably asked all too often, but how do I lock pages I make so only I (or mods/admins) can edit them?

:The groups you can restrict editing from can be found on [[Special:ListGroupRights]]. Which pages for which groups? Only [[D&D Wiki:Administrators]] can lock pages, however I am more then willing to assist you. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:27, 29 December 2010 (MST)

::Brilliant. The pages are as follows; [[Gardevoir (3.5e Race)|Gardevoir]], [[Gallade (3.5e Race)|Gallade]], [[Zora Mask (3.5e Equipment)|Zora Mask]], [[Hawk Dragon (3.5e Creature)|Hawk Dragon]], [[Improved Water Elemental Bloodline (3.5e_Bloodline)|Improved Water Elemental Bloodline]], [[Arceus (3.5e Deity)|Arceus (Deity)]], [[Immunity to Magic (3.5e Trait)|Magic Immunity (Trait)]], [[Ocarina of Time (3.5e Equipment)|Ocarina of Time]]. --[[User:Phoenix of Chaos|Phoenix of Chaos]] 06:59, 30 December 2010 (MST)

:::I locked them from IP edits. If you want them locked from all non-administrator edits (however you will not be able to edit them anymore unless you request a page gets unlocked so you can edit it) let me know please and I will do that. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 10:54, 30 December 2010 (MST)

==Archiving==
Your talk page could probably use it. A lot of us read it quite a bit, so I wouldn't mind helping you if you don't mind me doing a bit of archiving.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 17:21, 29 December 2010 (MST)

== Posting ideas. ==

I am having trouble finding a place to post ideas for others to see and discuss... For instance, I have an idea on how to make a low magic world really low magic, but I'm not finding any place to put the idea up nor am I sure how I would go about posting it for others to actually look and discuss it with me and each other.

Thanks, Daryl.

:On this wiki, you have pretty much only one option (as of now). That would be to make a "Discussion" page and post your question. Fair warning, I don't know that anyone regularly checks these pages, so you may not get the answers and community discussion you're after. Since I know you're looking for discussions, I'll chime in, but I don't know how many others will notice it. You can learn how to make a discussion question [[User:Badger/sandbox3/EF2|here]]. However, I've been trying to get a community IRC channel to have chats like the ones you're looking for. If this sounds like something you'd be interested in, you could voice your opinions [[Discussion:Re-opening_the_tavern%3F_What_does_the_community_think%3F|here]]. One last thing, that addresses your particular example, you may just consider making a "[[3.5e_Rules|variant rule]]" page with how you plan to make it work (that is a 3.5e link, for a 4e variant go [[4e_Rules|here]].) Hope this helps! --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 14:31, 3 January 2011 (MST)

::Hey it's me again! I was wondering since I saw you post on another template if you would look over mine. Its nothing major but it does need to be balanced a little more. If you want to take a look at it, or if you would like to help me complete a creature I am trying to make, you can find my creature [http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Dimidium_Troll_%283.5e_Creature%29 here.] If you would like to see what I have on the other creature just leave me a message either here or in my talk page, and I will post its current details in my sandbox. [[User:Lyrad8791|Lyrad8791]] 19:28, 6 January 2011 (MST)

==Spam==

There seems to be a few Users on here that are only posting spam. At least as far as I can tell. Stuff like [[http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Best_Electronic_Cigarette_Review Best Electronic Cigarette]] and Cell Phone listings. I'm not sure on what the protocol is on here so I am leaving this alone. If you like I can go through to these pages and delete the contents themselves, since I am unsure how to delete the page except by deleting all links to it. Also, it seems the Users who made these pages have also done a redirect on there user page to the pages themselves. Hope this helps clean up the wiki! [[User:Lyrad8791|Lyrad8791]] 23:24, 8 January 2011 (MST)

== Could someone have a look at my homebrew? ==

I have made a bit of homebrew lately, and I was wondering if it was balanced. Also I'm having a bit of trouble with "Armor Of Flesh" spell. I don't care who, but I think it would be best if they were an admin. Here they are:

- [[Naïlo's Cyclone (3.5e Spell)|Naïlo's Cyclone]]

- [[Naïlo's Match (3.5e Spell)|Naïlo's Match]]

- [[Armor Of Flesh (3.5e Spell)|Armor Of Flesh]]

- [[Return Of The Dead Soul (3.5e Spell)|Return Of The Dead Soul]]

- [[Animate Dead, Greater (3.5e Spell)|Greater Animate Dead]]

- [[Naïlo's Repressed Memory (3.5e Spell)|Naïlo's Repressed Memory]]

- [[Naïlo's Repulsion (3.5e Spell)|Naïlo's Repulsion]]

- [[Paladin, Variant (3.5e Class)|Paladin, Variant]]

== Your recent edits ==

Hey, Badger here. Is there any way you can add "minor edit" on the rest of your page updates? I like to keep an eye on recent edits, and your stream of edits is filling the recent edits and I can't see anything else. If you added "minor edits" I could click "hide minor edits" and check on the other changes. Thanks. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 20:32, 12 January 2011 (MST)

:[[User:Blue Dragon|Blue Dragon]] switched them to minor as they do not effect the page contents. Sorry about that earlier. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:46, 12 January 2011 (MST)

::Thanks. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 22:21, 12 January 2011 (MST)

== Rating Please ==

I have created a few classes, and I would very much appreciate if you could rate them for me. The classes are Mime (3.5e Class) and Soldier (3.5e Class), and Dragoon (by RDC) (3.5 PrC).
 
Thank you for your time, [[User:Rogue The Demonchild|Rogue The Demonchild]] 21:27, 12 January 2011 (MST)

== 4 Edition Summaries ==

Long time no see. I was wondering if I am allowed to put small summaries of the 4 edition races in my Campaign's races page. It would be name, size, stat bonus and racial features.

I am asking because the races I want to put in are rather small, and it seems strange to just have a couple of things on one page. The official 4 edition races would be for comparison. [[Celen Joad]] 11:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

:Of course. The official races, however, you can't add. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:21, 28 January 2011 (MST)

== 4e Campaign Settings ==

:''Discussion moved to [[Talk:4e Campaign Settings#Organizational Structure]].'' --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 11:21, 14 January 2011 (MST)

== 4e Giants, Devils, and Demons ==

Does anyone think that giants could become a race? --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 17:23, 26 January 2011 (MST)

:Does [[SRD:Giants, Hill (Race)|this]] & [[SRD:Giants, Stone (Race)|this]] help? --[[User:Milo v3|Milo High-Hill]] 18:57, 26 January 2011 (MST)

::Er, I mean for D&D 4e. Not 3.5e. Sorry. Do you think that even Devils and Demons could become races in 4e? --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 16:47, 28 January 2011 (MST)

:::I don't see why not. Some things may give you direction, ideas, and so forth. The [[Horned Devil (4e Race)|horned devil]] you created, the [[Cambion (4e Race)|cambion]], [[Infernal Blooded (4e Race)|infernal blooded]] relate to name a few. With regard to giants, [[Half-Giant (4e Race)|half-giant]], [[Hill Giant (4e Race)|hill giant]] may give you direction, ideas, and so forth to name a few. Does this help at all? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:18, 28 January 2011 (MST)

::::Do you think that the horned devil is too powerful? --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 21:02, 28 January 2011 (MST)

:::::I took a look at it, and modified [[Template:Needsbalance]]'s reason. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:39, 28 January 2011 (MST)

::::::Okay, I looked at it. Maybe, instead, I could make a paragon path that allows wings (I looked in the Player's Handbook 2 and it allows the dragonborn to have an overland flight speed of 12)? --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 21:49, 28 January 2011 (MST)

:::::::Is that a power though? If you make it something like a power, I imagine that would balance it. A paragon path with the same goal could give you flying results too. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:02, 28 January 2011 (MST)

::::::::Well, at level 12, it allows you to make a brief flight. But at level 16, you gain the overland flight. But this is only if you choose that paragon path. --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 21:46, 29 January 2011 (MST)

:::::::::If you supply me a link I could take a look at it. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:12, 6 April 2011 (MDT)

== Magician ==

I like the idea for the Magician class-is there a way to contact the author? {{Unsigned|Wonderer|17:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)}}

:You'll have to give me more information. Which [[Magician|magician]] related content? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:52, 6 April 2011 (MDT)

== Warning Policy Input ==

Hey Green Dragon. I was looking at [[Talk:Hill Giant (4e Race)|Talk:Hill Giant]]. Thank you for trying to keep profanity down, even name calling. --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 21:44, 29 January 2011 (MST)

:No problem. Do you think the revision history link is superfluous (and counter-productive)? Should the text be condensed? Thoughts? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:44, 6 April 2011 (MDT)

::The history link... What do you mean by if it's superfluous? I don't think the text should be condensed. Well, lets see... Do you think that giants are really that bad? Can Giants wield Medium weapons? Also, Giants aren't readly accepted into society (they kinda have a bad reputation). Also, weapons cost more (if you get them from a non-giant source, and that's if they even '''want''' to make one for a giant that they know nothing about). --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 14:40, 9 April 2011 (MDT)

== Giants ==

Hey Green Dragon. I talked with my brother, and he said that bursts weren't that bad. Do you think that giants should be practically normal, but the user chooses whether to pick a power or a feature (you can only have one or the other; not both)? --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 15:07, 1 February 2011 (MST)

:I've never seen that used before, and it could make for confusion. I'd recommend just toning down the burst and the class feature, but bursts are interesting, I agree. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:15, 6 April 2011 (MDT)

== 4e Sourcebook Pumped Up ==

:''Discussion moved to [[Talk:Pumped Up (4e Sourcebook)#Balance]].'' --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:20, 6 April 2011 (MDT)

== Meaning of Meaningful Gestures? ==

Was reading [[Catgirl,_Domestic_(3.5e_Race)|Catgirls]], and was a tad jarred by the "Meaningful gesture" section under [[Catgirl,_Domestic_(3.5e_Race)#Names|Names]]. Without any explanations given for these gestures, is this meant to be presented as a "Interpret as you will" type listing, or was this something that was going to be expanded upon further? Using known data about real-life felines and fictional Japanese catgirls as a starting point, I have compiled a very extensive list of different Body Language messages which we use for a local Catgirl character, which you are more than welcome to use if you wish. I'll be watching this page for a response. {{Unsigned|96.229.186.168|07:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)}}

:That is fine to add that to [[:Category:Catgirl|those pages]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:02, 9 February 2011 (MST)

::Looks good! I added them to other related catgirl pages and moved it into the Relations section. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:06, 6 April 2011 (MDT)

== Just another new guy asking around... ==

SO I've been told about the treasure trove of optional ideas that have been continuing the sprit of 3.5 by my newest D&D group and after a (strangely lucid) dream I came up with the following:

Spell Slayer

This +3 crystalline Mage Bane Longsword when wielded by a spell caster on impact allows the caster to make a DC 30 Spellcraft check.
On a successful check the sword ether casts vampiric touch (as caster level 6, max 3 times per combat) OR, if the target is a spellcaster it
steals one (1) random spell. Spells stolen this way are stored until the end of combat and are dispelled afterwards. A caster with the Arcane
Strike feat may sacrifice spells stolen in this manner for the bonuses provided by the feat. (For cost see Holy Avenger)

Crystalline Weapon property

This material is primarily used to make weapons for and against spellcasters. It provides an additional (stacks with magical bonuses) equipment
bonus +1 to hit and damage versus targets with magical abilities or properties (supernatural abilities or uncast spells are examples of this).
In addition it provides a +1 to caster level for all spellcasters wielding or possessing such a weapon, hafted weapons do not confer the caster level bonus. All weapons crafted from Crystalline are considered master work. (For cost see Adamantine)

Now I don't want to post anything retardedly over powered up on the site (like some of the things I have seen/heard) and would like some advice before I throw it up on the site since I haven't seen a forum section (yet).

:The best way to get things looked at is to just take the plunge and create the page. If it is retardedly over-powered, people will tell you. Most people here will offer constructive criticism and will genuinely want to help you improve/complete/flesh out your 'fill in the blank'. Spelling and grammar checks are also staples of the site. PS. always remember to sign your comments by typing in two - followed by four ~. --[[User:Calidore Chase|Calidore Chase]] 03:29, 21 February 2011 (MST)

== Hello ==

Hey. Umm I'm just joined your site; I'm wondering if there is anything i should know (like guidelines for what and what not to post). I'm kind of wondering how to make classes. P.S.: I'm guessing those little #s in red and green are reputation points. --[[User:Knave67|Knave 67]] 00:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

:Classes for which edition? Any of the "create" boxes will use the correct preload if you use them, giving direction for the class. The preloads (some are listed [[Help:Standards and Formatting (DnD Guideline)#Preloads|here]]) should tell you what the class is. As everything is different in nature, telling you how something should be created is not possible. Of course guidelines exist, and [[DnD Guidelines]] may help you. Most things are balanced off similar things and, as mentioned above, if something is retardedly overpowered people will tell you. Does this help? Also what do you mean by the post scriptum you mentioned above? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:18, 21 February 2011 (MST)

::He's probably talking about the recent changes log. If that's the case, the red and green numbers represent how many characters were subtracted or added during a page edit. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 19:15, 21 February 2011 (MST)

Oh okay I thought it was like a karma system or something along those lines. Also thank you Mr.Chartreuse Wyvern I wanted to make a class but it looks more complicated than a pictureless jigsaw puzzle so right now i'm just browsing the cite looking for boffo nuggets.

== new type of creature ==

Hello I'm working on a hybrid type. half giant red dragon. created by a crazy wizard, for would domination basically. however the creatures have morals and are therefore useless to him, so he abandons them. the creatures themselves would be fairly tall I'm think 7 - 8 an a half feet, strength and con bonuses with hits to car a level adjustment. any advice or an opinion on it would be greatly appreciated. {{Unsigned|Wytewulf|22:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)}}

:As a [[3.5e Creature Templates|template]] (like the [[SRD:Half-Dragon]]), [[User Creature Glossary|new type]], or [[3.5e Races|race]]? Or what were you intending? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:12, 1 March 2011 (MST)

== Can you create your own monster and how? ==

How do you make your own monster? Beacause I've always wanted to make my own "dragon-dillo" (armadillo & dragon combine). --[[User:Ja-Snake|Ja-Snake]] 19:56, 6 March 2011 (MST)

:See also [[Add a New DnD Creature]]. Things like [[CR Estimation Table (DnD Guideline)]] may help. Does this answer your question? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:18, 6 March 2011 (MST)

== Classes ==

Green Dragon, I am new to the d and d wiki community and i cant figure out how to create my own class. I know how to edit and change other classes if they ask for revising, but i want to be able to create my own. I would appreciate it a lot if you could either tell me how or if you could send me a link or something showing how.

Thank you for your time and consideration
Playerdb

:Does [[Add New 3.5e Class]] cover your question? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:42, 13 March 2011 (MDT)

== Deleting images ==

Can you delete a couple images for me? [http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/File:Pyromancer.jpg this image] is copyrighted and [http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/File:Imageremoved.jpg this image] was created instead to tell us that the first image was copyrighted. I don't seem to be able to delete them. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 06:53, 18 March 2011 (MDT)

:I can (and will later), however if you want to you can too. You can't do it on the page you supplied, you have to do it on media. So go to the file description page, [[dndmedia:File:Pyromancer.jpg]], (make sure your logged in) and delete it. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 10:33, 18 March 2011 (MDT)

::Actually the only listed admins for media are you and Blue Dragon. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 12:08, 18 March 2011 (MDT)

:::Oh ya, huh. I'll try to get that dealt with sometime. And I deleted them by the way. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:23, 18 March 2011 (MDT)

== update ==

Hey Green Dragon, you know the "create new equipment" in the D&D 4e equipment section? I think we should change it so that way it follows the 4e format. --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 21:05, 18 March 2011 (MDT)

:I agree. Do you have a specific idea for implementation? If so I would be more then willing to help you with it. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:24, 18 March 2011 (MDT)

::[[User: Badger|Badger]] actually has a preload set up (it's how I've been posting 4e stuff on my sourcebook). The link is [[User:Badger/sandbox6|here]] --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 11:57, 26 March 2011 (MDT)

== Featured Article Nomination? ==

What do I have to do in order to get an article nominated? --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 12:33, 26 March 2011 (MDT)

:Um, never mind. --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 12:34, 26 March 2011 (MDT)

:See also [[Featured Articles#Featured Article Nominees]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:39, 26 March 2011 (MDT)

== Not updating ==

Hey Green Dragon,
:I tried to update the {{File:Marino.jpg}} picture, but it's not updating. It instead stays in it's previous form. --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 15:40, 28 March 2011 (MDT)

:okay. It seems that if I make the picture too big, it doesn't revert. --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 15:59, 28 March 2011 (MDT)

:Still. Could this be fixed? --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 16:09, 28 March 2011 (MDT)

== Deities secion ==

I was browsing through the 3.5e Deities section and I encountered multiple entries that were meant only as jokes. Thas is not suitable. This is the first time I use this Wiki, and all those prank articles didn't leave a very good impression. I wish to request an immediate clean-up in the Deities section and remove all fake deities. I understand it may be fun to add Ceiling Cat as a Deity but this kind of humor is not appropriate here.

:Did they have the April Fool Category? If so I think their ment to be their.--[[User:Milo v3|Milo High-Hill]] 06:10, 11 April 2011 (MDT)

== Reploids ==

Hey Green Dragon,
:Do you think that maybe I could add a feat to the [[Reploid (4e Race)|Reploid]] race that gives them automatic plate (I call it total armor) proficiency (even if they don't have proficiency with preceeding armors)? You might also want a look at the link I have up there to see if a fit would even be possible without taking anything out. --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 22:44, 13 April 2011 (MDT)

::Or do you think that there should just be metalized versions of the armors already set up in regular 4e? Thin metal for cloth armor, thicker armor for leather, etc. --[[User:Axl|Axl]] 23:08, 13 April 2011 (MDT)

== [[SRD:Bless Water]] ==

I think holy water in the spell text should be wikilinked. - [[User:BalthCat|BalthCat]] 04:29, 17 April 2011 (MDT)

== Adding Content ==

Hi I wanted to know if I could add on the magic items sections some of the info from more of the core books? and if I could how? {{Unsigned|Jaybird|20:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)}}

:It depends on the license. Do you know the license? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:03, 18 April 2011 (MDT)

== help looking ==

i need help looking for the d20 modern specs for a "big rig 10 to 14 wheeler" if you could send me specs or a site that gives this i would be very greatful.

:Is [[MSRD:Vehicles#Peterbilt 379]] what you are looking for (see the table above for statistics)? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 00:32, 25 April 2011 (MDT)

== Was just wondering... ==

Just curious as to whether or not I could get my hands on a downloadable export of the mysql db for this site. I was hoping to use it for my own private notes. I play at a few people's places that don't have wifi (one of the doesnt even have internet) It would be helpful to have an SRD and such that I could put my own notes into. Either way, I completely dig the site. Keep up the good work man! -- [[User:Theoneandtruebane|Theoneandtruebane]] 17:10, 29 April 2011 (MDT)

:Well, as per the GNU FDL, you can use [[Special:Export]] which should help you. You can, of course, convert the XML to different formats such as pdf. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:55, 29 April 2011 (MDT)

::Many thanx good sir! -- [[User:Theoneandtruebane|Theoneandtruebane]] 10:35, 30 April 2011 (MDT)

== Question??? ==

Hey Green Dragon.. This is Dj00345... i have a question for the 2.5e Homebrew that you are letting me create for the wiki.... How can i create a Template for some of the pages????? i notice when i create a new creature that there is already typing on the white screen when you create a creature... i know that is a template... but how do i create my own template myself???? i need to make some of the templates for the other links, like: Deities, Equipment, Spells, Races, Class, and the others, so that when people create a page, then the right information will already be on the screen and all they have to do is create the page.... do you understand what i am saying???? please reply back on my user talk page... thx!!! [[User:Dj00345|Dj00345]] 13:53, 2 May 2011 (MDT)

:Just create the page. When creating it the formatting guidelines to use can be found [[Add Instructions|here]]. After it is created you use a inputbox and put it on preload=. Does this answer your question? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:59, 5 May 2011 (MDT)

::yes. [[User:Dj00345|Dj00345]] 20:08, 5 May 2011 (MDT)

== 3.5e Campaign Setting Teoryran ==

How can improve my Teoryran Setting. How can I create classes for Teoryran with the same name but different from existing classes of the same name? I am making a new system. Where all base classes are racial and status based on:

* Each race have four subraces for peasants, nobles, priests and a variable fourth.
* Each subrace have a class
* Each social caste have classes based on them.

Noble orcs can be samurai and noble humans can be knights. Human and orc serfs can be scoundrels, thiefs or conscriped soldiers. There will be different classes for priests and monks than for nobility. "Big changes" include:

* only racial classes gives hp
* carrier classes doesn't give HP
* gold is removed

--[[User:Klas|Klas Wullt]], 01:42 13 May 2011 (MST)

:For the pages with the same name you include ", Teoryran". For example "Orc, Teoryran (3.5e Race)". For the subraces you include their subrace after the comma (much like the SRD elves). For example "Orc, Teoryran Peasant (3.5e Race)". The classes can then, of course, be their favored class. If it is the fighter, for example, it would be "Fighter, Teoryran (3.5e Class)" and/or "Fighter, Teoryran Peasant (3.5e Class)". For the game mechanic changes you may have to make a [[3.5e Rules|rule]] or include it some way. When you have them made I can take a look at them and see if it makes sense. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:08, 22 May 2011 (MDT)

== 3.5e Campaign Setting Teoryran ==

Hello. I need some help for my setting. Teoryran World. How do I sort the pages correctly? {{Unsigned|Klas|01:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)}}

:What do you mean by sorting the pages? By category? By name? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:09, 22 May 2011 (MDT)

Thanks for the Offer.
Here, I just made on class.
Please take a took at it.
Knight, Teoryran(3.5e Class).

== 3.5e Equipment List - new category (Page editing locked) ==

Hi Green,

I'm a new user to Wiki & would appreciate some helpful advice :-)

Going to start a new D&D campaign this year with a Pirate theme. When people think of Pirates, thier main thoughts are Pirate Ships, Cannons, Flintlock Pistols & Cutlasses.

Flintlock's can easily be replaced with Hand Crossbow's, Cannons needed some more thought.

I do not want to introduce gunpowder into the campaign so as an alternative i've decided to go with Gnomish Engineering and introduce some clockwork & steampowered machinery (Steampunk) resulting in Steam Cannon's aboard ships

Decided the 3.5e equipment list therefore needs a new category of Gnome Engineering, a place for all things clockwork, steampowered or basic engineering (i.e. Piston Water Pumps)

I don't think this technolgy would change game balance as there are many ancient technologies that have been rediscovered such as the Baghdad Battery & Eygptian Piston Ballista

Created the Gnome Engineering category but can not link this category to the 3.5e Equipment list, as this page is locked for editing (for very good reasons, looks complicated)

Are you able to help?

Thanks

--[[User:Mufasa|Mufasa]] 10:19, 23 May 2011 (MDT)

== Blades Of Keran ==
I was wondering if someone could rate my campaign setting, [[Blades Of Keran (3.5e Campaign Setting)|Blades Of Keran]]. Also I agree with the above request about Gnomish Engineering as my campaign uses Gnomish Devices as well. --[[User:Milo v3|Milo High-Hill]] 17:08, 24 May 2011 (MDT)

== Economist talk page ==

So, I was browsing through the recent talk page (as I often do), and I was confused by your recent actions on the talk page of the Economist. Care to elaborate? It seemed like someone asked a question on the discussion, and Jota responded with an answer to the question. You deleted the reply, and gave no reason as to why. Someone (a random IP) then went and undid you revert, presumably because you removed helpful and useful content without a reason. You blocked him for 3 months for edit warring, despite him only having a single contribution to the wiki. What happened to warnings? What happened to the increasing block length? Effectively, you banned someone from the wiki for 3 months because they undid one of your edits, which you made without any reason at all. What's going on? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 21:05, 24 May 2011 (MDT)

:This whole "other wiki" kerfuffle is getting out of hand. There's no reason this has to be a zero-sum game. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 21:30, 24 May 2011 (MDT)

::The [[Warning Policy]] is only for when one does not edit with civility and etiquette. This is unrelated. Edit warring is a block reason on WIkipedia's policies and therefore effective on D&D Wiki. I don't mean it to be a zero-sum game, but when someone answers with (shortened) "this answer is irrelevant, look elsewhere" it's a obscuration of spamming to external sites. Another common block reason. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:47, 24 May 2011 (MDT)

:::The zero-sum part is black-holing any mention, however remote of another site*. It's either us or them. If they win, we lose (zero-sum). But there's no reason it has to be that way. Neither wiki is exactly crawling with people, and if we worked together instead of against each other (and looking rather silly while doing it, I might add), we would both be better off. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 22:12, 24 May 2011 (MDT) *Note, however, that it's only one site that gets people insta-blocked for a quarter. Other sites get mentioned without such severe penalties. In one case, I can think of a site that's mentioned multiple times that nobody seems to have any problem with...

::::Interesting, but D&D Wiki is not going to have a committee of people who are a self-appointed oligarchy who serve the same function as the [[Meta Pages#Improving, Reviewing, and Removing Articles|improving, reviewing, and removing articles templates]] present. Additionally things on D&D Wiki cannot be stagnant, and things should improve when they can (e.g. user categories being replaced by [[Special:NewPages]], [[Template:Author]] being superseded by history, etc). For example. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:26, 24 May 2011 (MDT)

:::::GD, no one is telling you to change policy about reviewing content, or anything else of that ilk. Jazzman merely said, and I agree, that we should be allowed to say things exist. We have countless links to other forums and sites that host homebrew content, it seems foolish to block people for mentioning one in particular, no matter the history. We can all act like adults and just let it be. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 22:40, 24 May 2011 (MDT)

::::::Links are supposed to do though [[DnD Links]]. All other links are incorrect. However, as I see it, on userpages is okay as long as when one notices it they move it to DnD Links, because to me that seems more like the user is unaware or unknowing. However spamming of external links, yes, does get one banned. Does this kind of answer your question? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:59, 24 May 2011 (MDT)

:::::::So, by your own admission, Jota and everyone else can post links to their other wikis on their user page, but not in the main namespace? Seems fair to me. I'll go ahead and add links to [[DnD Links]]. I'll assume users can still write something like "If you have any other questions, leave a message on my talk page", where they can post links to other sites (as you said yourself, user pages are fine for external links). Alright, sounds good. I'm glad we've finally come to some sort of agreement on this. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 01:05, 25 May 2011 (MDT)

::::::::No, that's taking it out of context. "on userpages is okay as long as when one notices it they move it to DnD Links" should be read as a full statement. Otherwise it's still a violation of policy. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 11:24, 25 May 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::You're telling me that there shouldn't be any external links on User Pages then? I was under the impression that if they were also listed on DnD Links, that would be fine. Sometimes you'd want to give a more specific link, like say one to a particular article. The way you've phrased it, it seems like there should be no external links anywhere but on that DnD Links page. That doesn't make any sense at all. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 13:50, 25 May 2011 (MDT)

::::::::::Well, maybe something like the w: could be made (as a template) for each link. Really, however, one should just direct one to [[DnD Links]] (that's why they are <tt><nowiki>{{#anc:}}</nowiki></tt>'ed). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:41, 25 May 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::::I understand what you're saying. I'm saying why make someone go to DnD Links, and then search the other site, when you could just as easily link to the exact page in the first place? DnD Links is certainly a good page, and designed for ease of reference, but I think it works best as a general tool, and for specific purposes one might as well link directly from one page to another, without using DnD Links. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 13:50, 25 May 2011 (MDT)

<-- Again, why? Can someone give me a reason why we are never allowed to link to other sites? I'm just not seeing the reasoning here other than to annex The Site Which Shall Not Be Named, and even that I can't see any good reasoning for. [[User:Hooper|Hooper]] is allowed to link to [[O.G.R.E.]] (which has it's own wiki page, btw; we aren't even allowed to ''mention'' the Other Wiki) with no repercussions, but an anon who undid an outright deletion of a post that vaguely mentions That Other Wiki was banned, without warning, for 3 months. Did they murder your favorite pet or something? Will the site really blow up if I decide to link to some innocent site that doesn't happen to me mentioned on DnD Links (which, judging by the traffic on that page, nobody looks at anyway)?

Sadly, I've seen this exact same scenario on wikis before: site 1 does something that subset of the site doesn't like. Said subset creates their own wiki. Wiki 1 bans mentions of Wiki 2. Wiki 2 uses this as reasoning to orchestrate more and bigger attacks against Wiki 1. As the bickering continues both sites end up looking silly and losing who would otherwise be valuable members. The more we block them the more they will do things like [[Special:Contributions/Bird|Bird]] did, which are ultimately more harmful to the site than anything the users would do if we just played nice with them. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 15:40, 25 May 2011 (MDT)

:So, should we do something like w: then? Currently, [[User:Hooper|Hooper]] should not be linking to any site not by way of [[DnD Links]]. I'm just following policy, be it fledgling or not. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:00, 25 May 2011 (MDT)

::I don't know what w: means. What I want to do is allow people to link to other sites without having to go through DND links first. If that's what w: is then yes, we should do that.

::If Hooper's not allowed to link to these sites, then do you want to clean out his userpage and delete [[O.G.R.E.]]? Because I can't see the reason for it. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 17:03, 25 May 2011 (MDT)

:Ironically, the best description I know of for the events that transpired is on the other wiki. A bunch of people decided to make a "rating committee". GD didn't like it. There was a bunch of silly squabbling, and the other wiki left, taking a ton of content and users with them. GD and everyone else were upset about who took what content, and the legality of that. Honestly, in my mind, this is the sort of thing that, after a week, could have blown over. Clearly we just need to share a beer, play some D&D, and realize how silly this fight is. Also, start allowing each other to link to each other's wikis. I can't speak with any certainty, but I am pretty sure they allow links to this wiki. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 15:58, 25 May 2011 (MDT)

::Go for it. I don't really want to do any cleaning out of userpages right now– I'm working on [[4e Deities]] as it is. I agree this is silly, however if links really are needed then someone (again, I don't care to do this) should make something like how [[Template:Background Information (Halo Supplement)]] treats links for each link. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:11, 25 May 2011 (MDT)

:::I'm not going to delete [[O.G.R.E.]] because it doesn't bother me and I don't understand why it's not allowed. I don't want to go angering Hooper, who's contributions are numerous and high-quality, if I don't have to. If you have time to block people for mentioning one site, I'm not sure why you are too busy to block people for mentioning another site. So how about instead we just allow everyone to link to sites?

:::And if all we have to do in order to link to D&D wiki (err, the *other* one, anyway) is to create a template, then that's a piece of cake. Heck, I can make one that works even ''better'' than the one you linked to. Now everyone's happy! [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 17:45, 25 May 2011 (MDT) (BTW Green Dragon, I think you are having problems with your browser. For some reason when you edit it deletes parts of the page on accident).

::::I'm not entirely sure why we need a template, especially one that would go at the bottom of the page like you linked. Maybe one at the top of the talk page? But, what would the template say, "This page contains external links. DanDWiki does not have any affiliation with any externally linked sites. Links do no necessarily reflect the views of DanDWiki and its owners"? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 20:06, 25 May 2011 (MDT)

:::::That's a good idea. And it could incorporate the switch extension. I just meant "like how [[Template:Background Information (Halo Supplement)]] treats links". --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:29, 25 May 2011 (MDT)

::::::How about this:

{| align=center border=1 cellpadding=2 cellspacing=2 style="text-align: center; background:#F4F0EC; color:black"
! style= "background:#71A6D2" | <big><big>Attention!</big></big>
|-
| '''This page contains external links.''' D&D Wiki does not have any affiliation with any externally linked sites. Links do no necessarily reflect the views of D&D Wiki
|}

::::::It makes no sense to have a template for individual sites, or even as a way to include the link in the template. If it pleases the wiki, we can just make a <nowiki>{{template:external_link}}</nowiki> and go from there. Throw this up on a page, and we can have external links anywhere we want. Problem solved. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 20:56, 25 May 2011 (MDT)

:::::::I don't like how obtrusive that is. I would prefer something much less obtrusive, comparable to an expansion of the MW external link symbol. For example: <nowiki>[www.address.{{{1}}}] ([[DnD Links#site|link information]]</nowiki> [[File:Externallink.png|12px]] this external link does not have any affiliation with D&D Wiki) And, I would prefer having a hard list of sites because as the internet is full of sites with varying degrees of quality it is good to have some quality control over how it effects D&D Wiki. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 11:35, 26 May 2011 (MDT)

::::::::Ok, well, considering that external links already have an associated image (or at least a symbol), why don't you just include a line of text below the edit window (by which I mean below the line "You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource. Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!") that says something to the effect of "Links to external sites must be deemed appropriate; inappropriate links subject to removal. See [[DnD Links]] for list of appropriate links." and we'll just say any page or subpage of a link on the DnD Links page can be freely linked to. I think the problem with including a template in this process is that we already have a ton of templates that we don't use because they are confusing or hard to find. Considering there is already a button for external links, we might as well use that. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 12:18, 26 May 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::What are your thoughts on just making a [[Meta Pages#Policies|policy]] which covers it and then adding text on [[DnD Links]] explaining it's function. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:27, 26 May 2011 (MDT)

::::::::::That sounds like the best possible plan. We allow external links, add a line in the policy about external links, and a brief summary about what should and should not be linked on the DnD links page. I'm glad we've finally come to some sort of agreement, and don't require the use of templates or other things that may be confusing to new users. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 19:35, 26 May 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::::I just wanted to comment on something said much earlier. It was ''"Note, however, that it's only one site that gets people insta-blocked for a quarter. Other sites get mentioned without such severe penalties. In one case, I can think of a site that's mentioned multiple times that nobody seems to have any problem with..."''. Not true. I literally was blocked on [http://dungeons.wikia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=&year=&month=-1 September 20th, 2009] after making four edits to that wiki - one redirecting a talk page to me, and three asking for a diff in a respectful manner. The block summary even stated some harsh thing. Don't pretend that one wiki is a white knight in this issue. I still don't understand why people won't just stay at their chosen wiki home, and ignore the other. ''(also, I only added the actual link because I'm understanding its now okay on talk pages? If thats not so delete it. I'm honestly having a hard time following.)''
:::::::::::Now, as far as O.G.R.E.s is concerned. It is my understanding, and perhaps I am wrong in this understanding, that long ago it was decided not to link to "competing sites". OGREs may be another wiki ''(for now, but when our webmaster isn't paid, things take time)'' but it isn't a competing site. We're not looking for the same kind of content. Now maybe I'm wrong, and if so, delete it. But in my opinion, the D&D Other section is perfect for articles discussing the different gaming organizations and may be very pertinent to the common D&D Wiki browser's interest.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 21:35, 29 May 2011 (MDT)

::::::::::::Even if they did block you, that's not really a good reason to insta-block ''them''. Simply linking to that site isn't, in and of itself, a legitimate reason in my mind to block someone for ''3 months'', especially considering the specific case we were talking about. (Let's face it, were it anyone but GD, we might have thought the original reversion was vandalism; it is only because we saw his name beside it that we know it wasn't).

::::::::::::As for O.G.R.E, I don't actually think it should be deleted, just as I don't think links to the other wiki should be deleted. But as far as I can tell, there's no differentiation between what links we are allowed to link to. Under the current rules as written, if we insta-ban people for mentioning one, it's completely hypocritical to pretend links to the other don't even exist. I'm not actually arguing that we enforce the rules against all sites, I think we need to change the rule entirely. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 22:05, 29 May 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::::::What's an instablock? The block was for edit warring, see also [http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3A63.23.72.173]. It's unrelated. I have no idea about O.G.R.E.. Is it on [[DnD Links]]? Has it been looked over? If it's anything like your video channel (which I have seen) then i'd be fine. Of course this discussion is for elsewhere. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:11, 29 May 2011 (MDT)

::::::::::::::[http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/216.66.140.248 This] is an insta-block. A user's very first ever edit was a reversion of unexplained deletion of Jota's response. The guy can't be accused of edit warring when there were (liberally) only 2 reverts, only one of which was this guy a participant. If we go by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:3RR#The_three-revert_rule WP:3RR], it's not a revert war until one editor does ''three'' reverts in a 24-hour period. That editor hadn't even had three ''edits''. (The IP you linked to, by the way, only had 2 reverts, and was never even given a warning before he was blocked for 3 months.) Not only that, but had an IP or a new user deleted Jota's comment without explanation, the reversion of said deletion would probably be given exception from the 3RR, because to all appearances, deleting someone else's talk page comments is usually itself vandalism. Adding them back almost never is. At worst, the two IPs should have been given an explanation of how what they were doing was not allowed, a warning to discontinue their actions, and ''maybe'' blocked for a day to cool down. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 08:34, 30 May 2011 (MDT) [http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Green_Dragon&diff=next&oldid=520281]

== Hi ==
I need help with footers and links.

:Could you be a little more specific? I've been working on a new user guide for some time now. It's not nearly complete, but it may be able to help you with some of your questions. You can find that [[User:Badger/sandbox3|here]].If you show me what you are trying to do, I can probably help. Drop a message on [[User_talk:Badger|my talk page]], and I'll see if I can help you work through your problems. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 14:54, 25 May 2011 (MDT)

== hello ==

I have almost finnished 3/8 planned racial caste races.
Please have a look at the Human noble and human peasant
and Ork noble races.
Links are found at Teoryran info about Races.

The race pages are to big,
any suggestions of how to cut them up and
sort them in different sections?

== hi ==

Mmm, well I needed the pages sorted after supplement.
I needed to put lots of class and race descriptions of personality, the world
and their lands somewhere else.

== hi ==

Mmm, well I needed the pages sorted after supplement.
I needed to put lots of class and race descriptions of personality, the world
and their lands somewhere else.

:What do you mean? [[Races of Teoryran (Teoryran World Supplement)]] is understandable. It is missing its footer though. Is that what you mean? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 19:52, 26 May 2011 (MDT)

Yes; sorry for being unclear.
I Lack footers and I am unsure where to put my classes
if they are not exactly base classes either?
Variant rules?
Should I greate a new page for racial classes?
Or are they paragon classes?
I am worried that some of the pages about info for the setting
lack addresses and take up extra memory.

== hi ==

Hello how to you I find this this page.

== Edit Revert? ==

Why did you revert my edit on [[Talk:DnD Links]]? I didn't break any of your rules and, furthermore, I contributed to the discussion. You shouldn't just censor things because you don't agree with them... --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 13:44, 30 May 2011 (MDT)

:Because it's not adding anything new to the discussion. It's not pertinent, see also the reason. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:49, 30 May 2011 (MDT)

::"Because it's not adding anything new to the discussion."
::False. I gave an illustration of how GNU (and similarly GPL) actually works in practice and showed that the emphasis on the licenses was initially for code libraries/projects. That emphasis is a very important distinction because it provides more basis for the argument I'm making. This also provides some historical context for my argument.
::I brought up how MySQL's licensing can be seen as a parallel example (actually I could have brought up Wikipedia too -- how do you think they transitioned from GPL 1.2 to GPL 1.3? Relicensing.).

::"It's not pertinent, see also the reason."
::Your reason is a complete strawman argument. ie. You are attacking an argument I didn't even make. Let's examine the exact "reason" you gave:
::"wrong - there is no section 11 clause to the GNU FDL v1.2 (that's the whole -i think- MSQL legal dilema)"
::Now go back to what I wrote. Did I write ''anything'' about section 11? No. In fact, earlier I already explained that section 11 does not apply in this case because this wiki is under GNU FDL 1.2 (the exact thing I said was "Anon, you are actually incorrect, unfortunately. This wiki uses GNU FDL 1.2 and no licenses can just suddenly retroactively patch a previous license.", see the context).
::Also, you "think" that is the whole "MSQL legal dilema", but I never even said that this has anything to do at all with MySQL's legal dilemma. I was strictly comparing the fact that MySQL was able to transition to a dual license to authorship as a concept.
::And, just to be a bit cheeky: you censored a well-written post meant to explain in detail my stance in a discussion. The whole point of that post was because you clearly were not responding intelligibly to what I had written earlier, so it seemed necessary to go into more detail. That's a pretty standard thing in a discussion. Elaborating on a point when the other party doesn't seem to understand.
::What I'd like to hear is how you think authorship and licensing actually works. All you've done is say that others are wrong, but you have yet to provide any evidence to back up your claims. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 14:10, 30 May 2011 (MDT)

:::It may not even be MySQL I am referring to. There is a conglomerate of companies which has a problem with previous GNU FDL licensing and now it is uncertain who owns their things. Since they used section 11 and did some version changing and things, they now have this problem. Last I saw one had to give over some billion worth in rights to the other or something along those lines.
:::It just doesn't matter how people use the GNU FDL v1.2. Who cares? We go by the license and law, and that is the discussion (mostly). What the GNU FDL has been used for is not.
:::I have said repeatedly that like Wikipedia's terms of use, law is. Of course things like licenses are interchangeable. What's not to read? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 14:28, 30 May 2011 (MDT)

::::"There is a conglomerate of companies..."
::::How does this point have anything to do with your website? Your website is not a company and you and it have no ownership over the material others put on it. You have ownership of the database and the webserver (or at least the rental agreement if you rent).
::::"We go by the license and law, and that is the discussion (mostly)"
::::What law? The one I showed was clearly false? Again, I ask very simply: explain how you actually think authorship and licensing works (with regard to this wiki). It seems you are either unwilling or unable to back up your claims, which isn't surprising considering that they hold no weight whatsoever.
::::"I have said repeatedly that like Wikipedia's terms of use, law is."
::::Since the following sentences probably hinge on that one, I'm just going to have to ask you to rephrase it. From the way I read it: "I have said repeatedly that, similar to Wikipedia's terms of use, law is an entity that exists". Which is true... But it doesn't really say anything worthwhile. I could say something similar and it would have just as much meaning to me: I have said repeatedly that like Wikipedia's terms of use, bacon is. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 14:57, 30 May 2011 (MDT)
::::PS. If you really do follow wikipedia's rules, then you broke them by reverting my edit. See [[w:Wikipedia:TPO]].

:::::I know. It's just an interesting story. That, though, is the only way whatever you are talking about is possible. D&D Wiki licenses content, like Wikipedia (see their Terms of Use). What's not to understand? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:04, 30 May 2011 (MDT)

::::::"D&D Wiki licenses content"
::::::From whom? Licenses need to be granted by some entity by definition... Yes. You just argued my point for me. You still haven't explained how you think it actually works though (yes, this is my third time asking on this page alone). --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 15:12, 30 May 2011 (MDT)

:::::::No, your not thinking about this. How does Wikipedia do it? They are only reserved. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:14, 30 May 2011 (MDT)

::::::::I will entertain your questions even though you won't answer mine. I'm not sure which terms of use you want to to explain (the old one that uses GNU FDL 1.2 or the new one that uses GNU FDL 1.3. I'll explain the one that matters

::::::::'''GNU FDL 1.2 (last revision found at [[w:Wikipedia:Terms_of_use&oldid=30325726]]):'''
::::::::After all the boring text telling us that every page is protected under US copyright laws, you are bound to the terms even if you don't read them, that pages are licensed under GNU FDL 1.2, and that page histories meet the terms of the GNU FDL, there is a wonderful gem of bolded text (which I'm going to bold the important part in my quote below).
::::::::"you are hereby being given notice under Title 17 USC that it is your responsibility to comply with the copyright laws in regards to this archival material and your copying it may be considered infringement ('''specifically if any of the materials being stored in those prior versions are copyrighted materials that were submitted to Wikipedia without the author/authors or copyright holder's/holders' permission(s)''')."
::::::::Huh? The author has to give permission to have it put on Wikipedia? It's almost as if the author has rights to their own work! You know, like the right to license their work as they see fit. Note also that the terms of use do not have any such mention of forgoing the author's right to relicense their own work. It just talks about the fact that you can't take materials that have a copyright and add the GNU FDL license without having the author's consent.

::::::::Now for the GNU FDL 1.3, there is little point in explaining because we have already determined that this wiki does not use that license anyways, but if it did, a CC-by-SA license can be added to ''other author's'' work. Yeah, if this site was GNU FDL 1.3 that would just mean that moving content and relicensing would not require the author's consent.

::::::::Attempt #4: Care to explain how you think it works (and maybe throw in some specific quotes to support your argument this time)? --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 15:37, 30 May 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::'''Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!''' — what's not to understand? The adherence to the license? "you are bound to the terms even if you don't read them, that pages are licensed under GNU FDL 1.2" --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:41, 30 May 2011 (MDT)

::::::::::You aren't getting it. Whose permission is required for copyrighted work? All you are pointing out is exactly what I just said: you can't submit the copyrighted work of others'. You can totally submit your own copyrighted work because you obviously have your own permission. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 15:47, 30 May 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::::Your not getting it. "you are bound to the terms even if you don't read them", meaning that you are bound to the terms. With regard to copyrighting through the USA Copyright Office, a different scenario, was it done? And I think Wikipedia's Terms of Use cover that to some extend now. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:19, 30 May 2011 (MDT)

::::::::::::Can I link to an external site (the US Copyright Office site)? On their FAQ, you will clearly see the following text:
::::::::::::"Do I have to register with your office to be protected? No. In general, registration is voluntary. Copyright exists from the moment the work is created. You will have to register, however, if you wish to bring a lawsuit for infringement of a U.S. work."
::::::::::::So, I don't see what the copyright office has to do with anything.
::::::::::::I totally agree that Terms of Use function in a way that makes them binding even if they are not read. But the fact of the matter is, anything I write is copyrighted (by me), and I can license that work as I see fit. You agree that the GNU FDL is a license, not a contract, right (this is a VERY important distinction)? --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 16:46, 30 May 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::::::I mean previously copyrighted work. And, no, submitting it here licenses it. For example: "Therefore, for any text you hold the copyright to, by submitting it, you agree to license it under the". --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:50, 30 May 2011 (MDT)

::::::::::::::Previously copyrighted work is not a big deal either in the case of "the other wiki" because none of the content that was moved was copyrighted by someone who didn't hold the copyright.
::::::::::::::Just to be perfectly clear: you agree the GNU FDL is a license, not a contract, yes or no? --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 17:02, 30 May 2011 (MDT)