D&D Wiki - User contributions [en]

Talk:Main Page

2012-01-24T02:32:47Z

Hooper: He isn't ever going to understand (or he will, but will pretend not to). Find a better place to waste time on the net. GD, remember me when its time to sell the carcass. Offer starts at zero.

{{Archives
|label1=Discussions 1–30
|label2=Discussions 31–60
|label3=Discussions 61–90
}}

== Praise for this site ==

This is the most useful Wiki I have ever found on D&amp;D, (and I've seen a LOT of on-line references). I am currently running an adventure and I keep this site open on my lap-top as I play. It saves me a great deal of time and speeds up play considerably. I almost never even open my Monster Manual anymore.

Kudos to the WebMaster. --[[User:Gildavinor|Gildavinor]] 18:13, 25 September 2009 (MDT)

:I agree very strongly with you, Gild! Though I didn't sign in very often previously, I absolutely adore this Wiki. It's the pinnacle of Dungeons and Dragons research and innovation. --[[User:Harry Mason|Harry Mason]] 18:42, 25 September 2009 (MDT)

::Taking sides in any instance is a bad idea... Neutrality is a great observational instrument if one is not affiliated therein. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:51, 25 September 2009 (MDT)

:::Totally agree. --[[User:Lord Mattos|Lord Mattos]] 11:14, 29 November 2009 (MST)

== Two Millionth View! ==

Looks like today was [[Special:Statistics|the day]] folks! 2 million views on the main page!  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 12:46, 14 October 2009 (MDT)

:Yeah, now there are 2,299,388 views (Jan. 13,2010)! Wohoo! --[[User:Io|Io]] 16:52, 13 January 2010

And now, in the november of 2010, we have 3,080,184 views!

== Size ==

how many Megabytes is this whole site? {{Unsigned|216.12.83.73|22:29, 15 November 2009 (MDT)}}

:Why? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:40, 15 November 2009 (MST)

::I was thinking of copying the source code so i cant look at it offline--[[User:Lo-Chi|Lt.Dan]] 07:20, 16 November 2009 (MST)

:::You don't need the size of D&D Wiki as a whole when looking at the source code ("''View Page Source''" for Mozilla Firefox). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:12, 16 November 2009 (MST)

== The Tavern ==

After a huge hiatus I'm finally back to D&D Wiki (and happy to return!) following a long period of being almost broke. I notice that the Tavern, which was gone when I first had to go...still isn't back. That was one of my favorite parts of the Wiki, and I hope I'm just being stupid and missing it somewhere. Is it gone for good? --[[User:Harry Mason|Harry Mason]] 07:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

:It actually was discontinued. There is no "official" reason as to now however take a look at [[Discussion:The Tavern: use, expansion, and availability.]]. The main reason is "''...it is quite childish and immature at times and I feel at times it decreases the seriousness of D&D Wiki with childish behavior and immaturity.''" [[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] "Discussion:The Tavern: use, expansion, and availability." 21:02, 20 November 2009 (MST). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

::Ah...oh well. That's a little sad to me, but I can see the reasoning behind it, it -was- rather vulgar at times. Thank you for replying. :) --[[User:Harry Mason|Harry Mason]] 01:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

:::I'm coming back too and I too liked the tavern... I agree with the reasoning, but I still think we should have an effective way of conversation, since a wiki is not the best tool for talking... Isn't there something that could be implemented in the place of the tavern (and maybe have some rules as to swearing and misbehaviour, making disrespectful users suspended/banned from using it)?--[[User:ElfsMaster|ElfsMaster]] 10:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

::::But this '''is''' a wiki, and by not having the sidetrack of a chat users may tend to rely more on the already established discussion tool. Or they can leave messages on talk pages of other users. It actually encourages the opening of discussions and talks between users on the wiki - which can lead to more wiki additions and improvements, instead of just idle chatter.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 14:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

:::::Appealing to people in real time is more effective than doing so passively, from what I've found. Also, just because serious discussion does not happen constantly doesn't mean it never does. I understand that a decision has been made however, so that's all I'll say on the matter. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 14:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

::::::Why not do something like what facebook has and when a user is logged in, they have a little chat bar? i know there are a lot of difficulties with that, including having "friends lists" and the like, but its an idea. --[[User:Ozzy1234567890|Ozzy1234567890]] 07:21, 26 January 2011 (MST)

== Search Incapacitation ==
The search function has been completely nonfunctional for me for a good few days, maybe half a week or more now. Once in a while I'll nail to a T an article's name, and it'll transport me there. Just hitting Search or mistyping anything causes it to utterly fail for me. Is this just a localized problem (which I don't think it is, I've used 3 different computers to try and access it, all were on different networks) or what's going on? --[[User:Harry Mason|Harry Mason]] 05:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

:Is it actually giving you an error, or just pulling up the extended/advanced search function ''(which is normal when you don't type an article name perfectly)''?.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 13:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

::I'm having the same issues, the message "Query failed: connection to localhost:3312 failed (errno=111, msg=Connection refused)" appears when I try to search for something.
::I'm having a similar problem, mainly in that I can't browse things, I can only see things when I search for them, which, makes looking at the diffrent races, quite difficult [[User:Sevant|Sevant]] 18:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

:::Search is working once again. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:14, 22 August 2010 (MDT)

== Official Content Designation ==

Could a homebrew template be added? I keep coming here after a Google search and I keep finding overpowered homebrew things (like [[Paragon_of_Light/Darkness_%283.5e_Prestige_Class%29]]) and it usually takes me a moment to figure out that it's not official, just something some random person made up. I'd prefer to see some sort of note to that effect at the top of the page. [[User:Banaticus|Banaticus]] 02:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

:Ummm... A template is already added on all official pages. This is a homebrew site, so all articles are automatically assumed to be homebrew unless they are specified otherwise.--[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 03:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

::There already is a homebrew template. Look down at the bottom of that page you linked... see where it says "{{DnD Classes Breadcrumb}} → [[DnD Prestige Classes|Prestige Classes]]"? "Homebrew" is even in the wording of the template. If you are looking for ONLY SRD material then look for pages starting with "SRD:". They will all have OGL templates as well.
::Additionally, much of our homebrew content has ratings by other users, so you should know right away if it's overpowered. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 14:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

== Pictures Down? ==

While it might be my computer, it appears that something happened to the pictures on the site. They don't seem to be displaying. Am I wrong? Was there an announcement that I missed? [[User:Noname|Aristocles]] 05:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

:This question was already brought up on GD's talk page under [[User talk:Green Dragon#Images lost again|this header]]. However no clear answer was given by GD. All I know is that no, it is not your computer, and no there was no announcement. The pictures still exist on the media repository, however they are not linking properly. --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 13:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

::Images have been fixed. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:12, 22 August 2010 (MDT)

:::Are you sure? I dont see any- ANYWHERE!!! [[User:DragonFist|DragonFist]] 20:13, 17 December 2010 (MST)

::::This may have been a cache problem. I assume this is no longer a problem as they have been working for me for quite a while now. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:13, 9 August 2011 (MDT)

== Marking a page as homebrew ==

How do we mark a page as homebrew? Take [Alon (3.5e Deity)] for instance. It turns out he's a homebrew god, although I don't see that anywhere on the page. It's sometimes difficult to tell the difference on this wiki between homebrew things and official things. [[Special:Contributions/97.93.94.242|97.93.94.242]] 12:42, 24 August 2010 (MDT)

:Any properly-created page should have a clear breadcrumb at the bottom of the page which leads back to a homebrew page. In addition any user-created content belongs in [[:Category:User]]. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 13:22, 27 August 2010 (MDT)

::You can also just click "3.5e Open Game Content" on the sidebar to take you to the "official" material. Almost everything on this site is homebrew. Because of that, what we do is mark pages that are official. If you don't see a template that says "Open Game Content", then the page you are viewing is essentially guaranteed to be homebrew content. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 14:24, 27 August 2010 (MDT)

== 3 Million View ==
Just a quick pat on the back, as per Statistics the main page has hit 3 million views. Too bad our news is months behind.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 22:46, 3 January 2011 (MST)

:That's ok, I'm months behind on reading --[[User:Calidore Chase|Calidore Chase]] 04:33, 17 March 2011 (MDT)

== Advice on Creating Animal ==

Ok so i have no clue how to do this but i want to make an Exploding Chicken animal for D20M and all i know is that its a regular chicken that explodes when within 15ft of any nonchaotic for 1d6 damage at a range of 20ft. they have a total health of 3. they also are weak and are just mobile... firecracker i guess would be the best way of puting it. my DM said to just put it on here cause he wants to see what others think. thanks! *EDIT* i ment D20M Apocolypse

:I can't give you mechanical help with creating your creature, but I can give you wiki help. Go [[Add_a_New_D20M_Creature|here]] and replace "CreatureName" with "Exploding Chicken" or whatever you want to name it. Leave a space and (D20 Modern Creature) after the name, and then press "Create New Creature". It will take you to a page with a pre-load designed for creatures in the d20M universe (I don't know if that is the same as d20M Apocalypse, is it?). Like I said, I don't know anything about the d20M system, so I can't help you write your creature and balance it, but if you need help with tables or other wiki formatting, leave a message on my talk page. One last thing, don't forget to sign your posts by typing <nowiki> --~~~~ </nowiki>. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 13:44, 21 January 2011 (MST)

::Thanks! and its pretty much the same as other systems. and i guess i ment that i needed tables for things like different sizes and their modifiers and things like that --[[User:Ozzy1234567890|Ozzy1234567890]] 10:54, 24 January 2011 (MST)

== April 1 ==

Is there going to be another [[:Category:April Fools|April Fools]] thing this year? -[[User:Ozzy1234567890|Ozzy1234567890]] 08:15, 28 March 2011 (MDT)

:Well I'm going to add April Fool stuff. I don't know about other people though. --[[User:Milo v3|Milo High-Hill]] 15:26, 28 March 2011 (MDT)

::If you're looking for ideas, try updating the random hooker table from the [[Dungeon Master's Guide (1e AD&D)|1e DMG]]. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 16:08, 28 March 2011 (MDT)

:::I've added the Chew'd Button and I'm going add Summon Potato this after noon.--[[User:Milo v3|Milo High-Hill]] 21:23, 31 March 2011 (MDT)

== Sheild Bash? ==

Hello ive been playing DnD 3.5 for a while now and I have a question a heavy sheild with spikes does 1d8 damage now when i enchanted it with "Bashing" my friends told me it now does 3d6 on a shield bash is this correct? {{unsigned|Grunt|2011-04-12 16:36}}

: Not quite. A [[SRD:Heavy Shield#Enhancements|spiked heavy shield]] does 1d6, not 1d8. According to the 3.5 FAQ, the bashing quality stacks with a spiked shield which raises the damage to 2d6. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 17:22, 12 April 2011 (MDT)

== Prototype... Class? Template? Race? Can someone help? ==

Hello in my groups recent dnd sessions we decided to try for an OP campaign as in epic class's templates and races based off of movies, books, games, etc... so if anyone has ever played the game ''Prototype'' and know about "Alex Mercer" and his "powers" then you would know what kind of chacacter I want for our OP Campaign. unfortionatly I dont know anything about making class's/Races/templates. So i was wondering if somebody could either make one for me or help me with making it. It would be very much appreciated.
DND 3.5 PLEASE!

::The best person to ask, I believe, is [[User:Badger|Badger]]. --[[User:Ozzy1234567890|Ozzy1234567890]] 09:25, 16 April 2011 (MDT)

== Campaign Setting Help ==
:''Discussion moved to [[User talk:Ohgren#I have a question]].'' --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 00:31, 17 May 2011 (MDT)

== Have an Idea ==
:''Discussion moved to [[Discussion:Half-Demon_Combinations]].'' --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 19:48, 14 June 2011 (MDT)

== Weapon Enhancement Formula appears to be inconsistent ==

:''Discussion moved to [[SRD Talk:Magic Items#Weapon Enhancement Formula appears to be inconsistent]].'' —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 17:26, 18 July 2011 (MDT)

== Site nominated for an Award ==

[[File:Oggie statue trans small.png|thumb]]

Just thought I would let you guys know: D&D Wiki has been nominated for an OGGIE. The OGGIEs are the industry awards thereby. Nowhere near as big as the ENnies or Origin awards, the OGGIEs reflect the games, people, and tools that our members appreciate. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 18:52, 14 August 2011 (MDT)

:Unfortunately this may not be accepted at this time. See also [[Talk:DnD Links#Lifestyles]]. I hope for a difference next year (or next award period). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:40, 15 August 2011 (MDT)

::I don't follow GD. This isn't a site, simply an award. One of the sites mentioned is that link is also up for it, but its not a link or anything. If you prefer to not accept the nomination, we can revert to one of the other nominees that had lesser votes. Not really sure what you mean by the above statement. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 22:08, 15 August 2011 (MDT)

:::I mean that the link is not acceptable at the moment because of licensing problems. As soon as it is this may be mentioned here. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:11, 15 August 2011 (MDT)

::::Wait, are you telling me we are refusing an award because the O.G.R.E. website uses a license that we don't? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 00:20, 16 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::What link? {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 06:10, 16 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::No. Because they have [[:Category:Valgora Setting]] content licensed incorrectly. It is actually licensed under the GNU FDL v1.2. Were that to be changed then it would be no problem. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:15, 16 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::Although that is wholly incorrect in regards to how licensing works when the original author publishes , its not what I'm asking. What link? Being nominated for an award has not resulted in a single link off site. So again, what link?
:::::::Anyways, in the interest of not rearguing an argument you've already lost that has no bearing, if you're uncomfortable let me know and well invalidate the nomination and let the next site in line receive it. (Didn't mean for that to sound rude, dang text based conversations. I just have no interest in revisiting the license discussion, especially when I see no connection) {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 13:55, 16 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::::Well, Hooper, I'm willing to bet that the O.G.R.E.s aren't going to re-license their own material to make GD happy, so we're at an impasse here. I understand that our nomination for this award has no external links related to it at all, but apparently GD doesn't. On a personal note, totally unofficial in every way, thanks for the nomination. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 15:12, 16 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::It wasn't me actually. Since I was the contact point for members I abstained from nominating myself. We had about 300 unique nominators, and expect about 3k unique voters. I was really happy to see this site on the list. Well, maybe next year. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 15:22, 16 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::::::I find myself rather disappointed with this response. I am aligned with Hooper and Badger on all regards. [[User:Jwguy|Jwguy]] 09:19, 18 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::::The problem stems from that D&D Wiki is then considering itself irrelevant or subservient. Both these would rather be avoided if they are actually otherwise so. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:36, 18 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::::::::Anyone have a clue as to what Green Dragon's on about? Really, "considering itself irrelevant or subservient"? To ''what'', exactly? --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.158|173.245.56.158]] 01:59, 19 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::::::I am somewhat confused by this explanation. I am going to quote definitions to help spell out why, no offense intended.
:::::::::::::"The Problem stems from that D&D Wiki is then considering itself 'irreverent' (an adjective used to describe something that is disrespectful, sarcastic, and/or lacking in overall seriousness.) or 'subservient' (an adjective used to describe something that is useful in an inferior capacity or is compliantly submissive)."
:::::::::::::Are you attempting to say that accepting an award that praises the site for it's content (I presume this is what the reward is for, honestly) indicates either of these things? If anything, it appears to mean the opposite of the first definition, as we're being recognized for honors, and the second is unlikely, since, again, we're being recognized for honors, not complying to their whims or submitting to superiority. Another thing is I don't see how this deals with the licensing problem, above, which I find myself agreeing with Hooper, on that note, having read over a large amount of licensing information due to links to past discussions. [[User:Jwguy|Jwguy]] 12:11, 19 August 2011 (MDT)

{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}

:Sorry I meant "irrelevant". I spelled it wrong initially and in Firefox the first spellcheck result turned up with "irreverent".
:"Considering itself irrelevant or subservient" to its own functions was meant.
:Not accepting anything, ''linking'' to a site out of respect which does considers D&D Wiki's functions irrelevant and subversive (through the link) makes D&D Wiki then consider itself also so (or recognize such a consideration). This is what I am talking about. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:07, 19 August 2011 (MDT)

::Except that reason makes not a lick of sense and gives the impression that you do not understand the facts. Did you somehow got the Oggies confused with...what, the Internet Razzies? Is it Opposite Week? As near as I can tell, OGRE is a roleplaying organization which wishes to acknowledge the D&D wiki as a fine D&D resource upon the Internet. '''They nominated the wiki for an award'''. One would think you would at least crack a smile over the fact that at least a few people in an unaffiliated group nominated the wiki for one of their awards and allow the nomination to be acknowledged and claim the prize if you get it. By the way, Hooper, which award was it? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.158|173.245.56.158]] 00:22, 20 August 2011 (MDT)

:::I'd link to it, but......... Its "Website of the Year." Other contestants include a project funding platform site, a community game development & playtest site, an RPG advocacy site, etc. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 09:57, 20 August 2011 (MDT)

::::Green Dragon, your previous comments can barely be considered English. I'm having a hard time understanding you. Are you suggesting that OGRE, through its licensing, is acting as though we exist to serve them? That is perhaps one of the silliest things I've ever heard on this wiki, and I've been part of some incredibly asinine discussions here. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 10:55, 20 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::Were they to license the content under the GNU FDL v1.2 appropriately (comparable to OGC; if it is allowed) it would be different. However implying that D&D Wiki's functions are nonexistent or irrelevant to others' functions is, by definition, an irrelevant or subservient consideration. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:01, 20 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::What content or license? The award is not a license, its simply an award. The winners will be given fair use to display the appropriate award. That's the only license at all related to this. GD, everyone is having a very hard time understanding you. We're not trying to be rude, it just seems like you're making no sense.The award is simply an acknowledgement of appreciation, it has no other effect. To say an acknowledgements somehow equals irrelevance is hard to follow. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 12:10, 20 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::The mixing, picking, and matching going on here I cannot understand. A is to A as A is to A. See also [[Talk:DnD Links#Lifestyles]] for more information about the problem. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:54, 20 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::::Umm, what? I don't know if this is the worse, or best, conversation ever. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 15:06, 20 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::Hooper, this is the exact same problem that we had with the other wiki. Content licensing and re-licensing. Green Dragon has one understanding of the law, and some people (a number that appears to include everyone else in the world) has a different understanding. This time, OGRE has licensed the Valgora setting under CC-BY-SA, and we have it under GNU FDL v1.2. Because these aren't the same license, GD feels (and correct me if I'm wrong) that we are being slighted/ignored/other bad things. Because of that, we here at D&Dwiki will pretend that they don't exist, until they begin to comply with GD's understanding of the law. It seems foolish for us to ask you to re-license your material under GNU FDL v1.2 (considering it is an out-dated license anyway), so I won't even bother asking you to consider it. And, to answer your last comment, having been in my fair share of conversations, I'm going to say this is neither the best or the worst. However, his last comment might go down in history alongside a few other gems of what I call EnGDlish. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 17:35, 20 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::::::<cite>Were they to license the content under the GNU FDL v1.2 appropriately (comparable to OGC; if it is allowed) it would be different. However implying that D&D Wiki's functions are nonexistent or irrelevant to others' functions is, by definition, an irrelevant or subservient consideration. --Green Dragon</cite>
::::::::::Green Dragon, I will presume this is your main and only prominent standing argument against accepting the award. I provide the following rebuttal: First, I wish to know, by link and explanation, preferably, when, where, and how O.G.R.E. has implied this, or that the award has implied this; These are the only subjects that would be considered relevant to your argument, on the subject at hand, as these appear to be the only subjects concerning our site, here. Second, the emboldened text is a bit of stretch, on your part: While you are incorrect regarding the 'by definition' part, since considering ''anything'' irrelevant or non-existent does not match the definition of subservient (I posted it earlier), and irrelevance references itself in irrelevant, I fail to see why this matters? The key point of '''Irrelevant''', by definition, is that there is no connection, no relation, unimportant in circumstance or consideration, etc., and therefore, the idea that the site uses a different, but entirely legal, correct, and appropriate license, is inconsequential to D&D Wiki in every way, since the two sites are not related. All that matters is the legality of each item, viewed separately from each site, on the level that we are, now. There is no conflict or relation. Because of these reasons, I fail to see why you argue this point, or how you believe this award is unacceptable. There is no subservience, at all, and there is no irrelevance in accepting the award (We accept the award based on the fact that it is award to our site, for our content, and is therefore relevant to the site), and the site is irrelevant in every other manner (licensing, members, etc.). [[User:Jwguy|Jwguy]] 10:58, 21 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::::::::It also appears that he specifically checks the license a particular thing is under. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.158|173.245.56.158]] 11:47, 21 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::::::''(a number that appears to include everyone else in the world)'' does not include people who need to care. People with authoritative knowledge on this subject has reaffirmed what I have been saying. This is just one of those "internet postings myths" that people seem to cling to. Humans are varied.
:::::::::::::With my terminology I was just putting an opinion onto the subject. The fact comes from [[DnD Links]] (top text). This answers many of the questions about this subject.
:::::::::::::''(considering it is an out-dated license anyway)'' does not include the fact that new MW installs still list it as a possibility. Whatever outdated means as well. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:21, 21 August 2011 (MDT)

{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}

:Regardless of my unattended argument, I decided to do some research on my own. Google is great, praise it. I came up with a simple solution. Why don't we just upgrade our license to GNU FDL 1.3? It is a more up-to-date version of our current license, and 'lo and behold, it manages to get rid of the whole compability problem with CC-BY-SA. At this point, clinging to 1.2, an obsolete version of the license, only generates more problems and needless strife. This option allows us to not bicker over this obviously controversial issue (Of which I must comment, Green Dragon, that sometimes your replies are hard to understand and do not address presented issues, and can exacerbate that), an issue which has apparently been active for a good long time before this one, according to the many links that we've been presented.
:To summarize, every bit of this can be avoid by simply upgrading to the new GNU Free Documentation License 1.3, which does allow usage under CC-BY-SA. No-one loses face, no-one argues about vague legalese, and we have a happy wiki. [[User:Jwguy|Jwguy]] 00:28, 22 August 2011 (MDT)

::That was mentioned during our last debate. Nothing came of it. Not sure why, as it does solve all our problems. I think it has something to do with we aren't legally allowed to update our license, if I recall correctly. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 18:51, 22 August 2011 (MDT)

:::We could upgrade. Why? What is wrong with the GNU FDL v1.2? It is still offered on new MW installs. Is it because of a fear complex that we should? This is the only reason I can devise from such an idea, and one I would not like to pursue. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:44, 23 August 2011 (MDT)

::::Why upgrade? Here is a page that explains the changes, and why we should consider it: [http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-1.3-faq.html] Basically, it says "We can play nicely with people who use different licenses". I see no reason why we shouldn't extend a metaphorical olive branch and say "You play D&D. I play D&D. Let's be friendly." --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 18:59, 24 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::Still, why? What is wrong with the GNU FDL v1.2? I have no idea why Wikipedia did what it did. The current license does not have any holes or flaws that I can think of, and creating an environment for licensing is ingrained in any case, so why create cross-dependency? Making things simpler is always better then more complex, and a cross-dependency is more complex for everyone. We allow CC-BY-NC-SA content (see also [[Template:Cc-by-nc-sa]]). That is the current method– why a cross-dependency? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:46, 25 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::How many novel-length debates do we need to have before you acknowledge that a large portion of the user base isn't satisfied with the current licensing arrangement? Sure, there may not be anything inherently ''wrong'' with v1.2, but v1.3 is ''specifically designed for wiki projects''. Also, there would be no "cross-dependency". Literally nothing would change, except for where we can link. It wouldn't be more complex. In fact, most people wouldn't notice a change, and those that do would notice an improvement, not a more complicated system! Did you get a chance to ask the GNU FDL people about allowing multiple licences of the same content yet? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 12:42, 26 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::Who actually cares about the current licensing situation, save a few (I can only list a few users) who care about making an annoying situation about a myth every time they can? It gets on my nerves, and it wastes my time. Maybe we can put a policy in about redundant discussions. The question remains: What is wrong with CC-BY-NC-SA content (see also [[Template:Cc-by-nc-sa]])? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:45, 26 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::::Nothing, Green Dragon. Nothing is wrong with CC-BY-NC-SA content. Here's what I don't get, though. You know at least a handful of people who don't like the current situation. Fixing their problem would be as simple as a half dozen edits, and no more than 15 minutes of your time. The question remains: If this is a recurring problem for you, why not address it, rather than make a policy that forces us to ignore it? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 14:08, 26 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::I imagine the flip side would get on many people's nerves. I know having multiple licenses (which is variable itself) and having them dependent on one another would be annoying for me. And when I say "''annoying situation''" I mean that users may be creating it for a number of reasons. I am not a psychiatrist, however I understand that people may be annoying for annoying's sake, have a reason behind it (hidden or not), or feel feelings about the situation. These, however, are not policy reasons. We are not in charge or anything really (D&D is D&D) except for how D&D Wiki's policies play out for it's users. Where a president may act on feelings (for example) there is no reason for us to. It accomplishes nothing. We must act on creating an environment where users understand their contributions (for the most part) and are okay with them. I find that creating multiple license dependency (where two separate licenses work just fine) does harm to our actions as administrators. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:30, 26 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::::::I'm not sure I understand most of what you've written there, but I think I got the gist of it. However, if we ''update'' to v1.3 of the GNU FDL we won't have to worry about multiple licenses. It would also allow us to "play nicely" with people who use CC-BY-SA, though ''we don't have to use it on our site''. Like I said, nothing would change in the eyes of 99% of the userbase. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 19:09, 26 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::::Wikipedia is now dual licensed (or something like that), and we already have a solution for this (see also [[Template:Cc-by-nc-sa]]) so I do not see a reason at all. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 19:38, 26 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::::::::I think you may be taking the issue in the wrong direction, Green Dragon. It's been stated multiple times: The argument lies in the fact that either you, or D&D Wiki's license policies, depending on who wants to direct blame at which party, have caused this confrontation regarding O.G.R.E.S.; I don't believe anyone here in the opposition has a problem with CC-BY-SA. Quite the opposite, it appears that you believe GNU FDL 1.2 conflicts with the idea derivative works that take up the license or different licenses, and while possibly justified (We've heard many arguments on each side of this), this is just making things complicated and frustrating.

::::::::::::GNU FDL 1.2 was obsolete the moment 1.3 was released. This issue, and similar issues regarding license conflict, has divided the user-base of this wiki for far too long, and if that is not reason enough, then add in the factor that this allows us to accept wonderful awards and cooperate with other wikis, instead of reverting to another one of these large, drawn out arguments, and achieving nothing. Don't speak for the unspoken, but listen to those who have come forward to speak for themselves; You'll find that some of your greatest and most active remaining members are here, even if hundreds of numbers stay quiet, whether for or against the issue is unknown. This is not the time to be '''stubborn''', either. If anything, then why not have a vote, and be done with it? [[User:Jwguy|Jwguy]] 08:41, 27 August 2011 (MDT)

*'''The licensing discussion has been moved to [[Talk:GNU Free Documentation License 1.3#Updating]].''' {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 09:04, 27 August 2011 (MDT)

===Comment===

With this much bickering, I'm not sure that we deserve a "best of" anything award. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 17:55, 21 August 2011 (MDT)

:We'd be a shoo-in for "Website with most internal strife", though. Any chance of that being a category next year, Hooper? ''':)''' --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 20:07, 21 August 2011 (MDT)

::I think its all the ways of making things which are dealt with completely differently on other wikis (like Wikipedia) workable in a wiki environment. Who knew links were going to be selective? I had known for a while that something had to be done. Who knew that blocking was to be used in disjuncture? Who knows. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:17, 21 August 2011 (MDT)

:::I'm not really sure what that means, but I don't think that's it. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 22:35, 21 August 2011 (MDT)

::::It probably has to do with the administration or something. Who knows. It is all so mysterious. --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.26|173.245.50.26]] 14:50, 22 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::Umm... [[DnD Links]] and [[Warning Policy]] are so...? Read them please. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:10, 22 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::Are so... what? You can't really blame them for anything, since we can change the policy to be whatever we want. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 09:05, 23 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::Hooper should win the "making up awards that mean nothing" award. Also the "most [[Discussion:Trust_Issues|chihuahua-like]]" award. Actually, Hooper should make up a million awards and give them to himself; he earned them! Green Dragon, I don't get why you would turn down such a prestigious award. --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.55.206|173.245.55.206]] 19:11, 23 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::::They can change the policy as well. Policy is done though a wiki. Who says the current method is best? I don't know what they are like to some. Mysterious I guess (as mentioned above). It's the policy turning town the award. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:02, 23 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::Alright then Green Dragon, where should we go to discuss policy changes? Give me a link to a page, or make a discussion page or something, and let's have a policy discussion. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 21:18, 23 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::::::[[Help:Talk Pages]] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Using_talk_pages Help:Using_talk_pages] should direct you where appropriately. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:25, 23 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::::You're kidding, right? I know how to sign a comment, I want to know where you want to hold a discussion about policy changes. If you give me a link, I'll know you'll know where to join the conversation. We've talked about policy choices in the past, and you've never weighed in, so we accomplish nothing (for example, [[Discussion:Re-opening_the_tavern%3F_What_does_the_community_think%3F|here]]). --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 22:40, 23 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::::::::Ha, bad troll is bad. Welcome back "totally anonymous" "third party" user! I'm so excited about your opinion! Come back to me with it when you're helping run an awards program for a international non-profit with over 3,000 members across 15 states and three countries! Your posts give me such faith that you'll do it!
::::::::::::Yawn, back to life (back to reality). Only our big categories (i.e. game of year, company of year, lifetime etc.) got tons of member nominations. Our smaller categories like website were based on just a handful (for instance, I have no qualms telling you that D&D Wiki made the last official nominee position with just 7 nominations) - so it really isn't upsetting anything on O.G.R.E.s end to move the next site up in the rank. However, as a longtime site user, speaking not from the O.G.R.E.s side but the D&D Wiki side - it is extremely disappointing that proven false interpretations and misunderstandings of licensing laws have stunted the growth rate of the site ''(though by no means killed it - yet)'', and to now even prevent recognition and appreciation and celebration of the site. Meh. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 23:00, 23 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::::::Things which require a technological advancement (not using something we have) are a different matter of course. I mean wiki policy changes.
:::::::::::::Well, you can talk to people with authoritative knowledge about the licensing problems. We are not rejecting the award by no means, we are just not allowing it mentioned here (for the time being at least). How a site does something to D&D Wiki is not D&D Wiki's concern. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:41, 23 August 2011 (MDT)

{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}

:I can't find out how to contact "people with authoritative knowledge about licensing problems". Tell you what, can you just email them and ask them a simple question "is it legal to license the same content under multiple licenses, specifically GNU FDL v1.2 and CC-BY-SA?" Just that, that exact question. If they respond with "Yes" I hope you'll understand what we've all been saying this whole time. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 23:59, 23 August 2011 (MDT)

::Wait, wait, wait! We have a policy against receiving awards? Where is that one? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 09:31, 25 August 2011 (MDT)

:::We don't have a policy that says we can't take awards in general. We do, however, seem to have a policy that requires us to turn down this one. Personally, I'd rather lose out on an award because we suck, rather than because of licensing misunderstandings. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 10:21, 25 August 2011 (MDT)

::::So, GD - let me make sure I understand what you've said. You're okay being on the list, for possible voting - just not with making any back links (which we're not asking for). Is that correct? Just let me know before the 1st, when voting starts. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 16:45, 25 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::Everything is fine except that we may not give such a [[DnD Links|link]]. We could if (well, when) the licensing problems are resolved. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:46, 25 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::Where is ''that'' policy? The only thing on [[DnD Links]] is a link to [[Meta_Pages#Policies]], which, I don't think, says anything about (a) awards, (b) links to other sites, (c) copyright licensing, or (d) compatibility thereof. Unless I'm just missing it somewhere. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 20:50, 25 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::It's the "''As per [[Meta Pages#Policies|policy]] the following external links are the only ones that may be referenced. However the external link reference does not have to be in the same format as the following external links.''" --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:56, 25 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::::So all we have to do to be able to add links to the OGRE site is to add links to the OGRE Site on DnD Links. There isn't a policy that says how we add links to DnD Links, though, so there's nothing stopping us from adding OGRES to DnD Links, then to this page, thus letting us accept the award. (None of this is actually referenced on the policies page it's linked to.) [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 22:29, 25 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::O.G.R.E.s doesn't want or need a link, though. Our site is for members or potential members, and we don't link whore. That isn't what our awards program is for either (its just one of many things we do). So, we don't require a back link at all. So, with that in mind, I guess GD is saying that the site can accept the award but never mention it outside talk pages, because we also host some of our Valgora stuff (which we have full legal right to do so...). Additionally, I don't think it's appropriate for O.G.R.E.s to be linked to from the Links site, because we're not a solely D&D or such club - we are very vocal about our All Tabletop Games/Systems/Companies/Setting/Etc. philosophy. So the average D&D Wiki browser probably isn't our core audience, though a RPGA link or Pathfinder Society link may be appropriate.

:::::::::Anyways, back on topic - I suppose we'll leave that site on the vote. I don't know how, or if, GD wants to showcase a win if the site does get a gold or silver ''(possibly a userbox style code without a link just the info?)'', but that isn't my concern when I'm the me-who-works-for-OGREs. But as the me-who-is-a-site-member, it is. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 23:10, 25 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::::Yes, Jazzman, all we have to do to allow the link is to add O.G.R.E to DnD_Links. However, GD has said we cannot add it to DnD_Links because of some licensing problem (be it real or imaginary). Personally, I'm all for following the first policy we have listed under policies: {{quote
|If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining D&D Wiki, ignore it.
|orig=[[Meta_Pages#Policies]]}}
:::::::::::--[[User:Badger|Badger]] 12:35, 26 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::::::::Oh, it's fine to host [[:Category:Valgora Setting|valgora]] content. It just must be licensed as it is. The [[DnD Links|link]] or no link discussion is for [[Talk:DnD Links]] (MW?). I am not for the policy mentioned above since it undermines D&D Wiki. That's insulting. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:45, 26 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::::::How does doing something to improve or maintain D&D Wiki undermine it? Does it undermine some of the past decisions you've unilaterally set forth? Perhaps, but it doesn't undermine the wiki. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 14:08, 26 August 2011 (MDT)

{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}

:Considering that Valgora originated on CBGwiki, which allows derivative copies under similar license - and that the OGREs hosted version came from there - this is a moot point. So its twice moot. Short story: lets keep with the times and update the license. Community vote first if you'd prefer. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 17:08, 26 August 2011 (MDT)

::The contributions date still point here. Thanks for the information though, I guess the same is with them. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:30, 26 August 2011 (MDT)

:::I've missed a couple points here, so I'm going to backtrack the discussion a bit. Firstly, if I can reiterate the "policy" issues, I see no reason why we can't link to OGRES. Here's the chain or logic:

::::#You can only link to a site elsewhere on the wiki if it is first placed on DnD Links
::::#You can only place a link on DnD links if it follows the general policies of the website
::::#OGRES is not against any general policies of the website
::::#Therefore you may add it to DnD links, per (2)
::::#Therefore you may link to the site elsewhere per (1)
::::QED.

::::Is there a flaw in my logic? If so, with what step, what is the flaw, and where is the policy posted?

::::On the topic of "undermining": if you read the full context of the text Badger quoted, you will see that the whole reason it is there is because we are too lazy to create our own rules, and instead link to Wikipedia. The effect of this is, we use Wikipedia's rules, except in cases where their rules are incompatible with our purpose. For example [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OR WP:OR] does not apply to custom content created on this wiki. It does not undermine D&D Wiki, but it does leave us with a problem: who gets to decide when we are better off ignoring a given rule? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 18:12, 26 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::"''You can only place a link on DnD links if it follows the general policies of the website''"; which it does not. This is a discussion for [[DnD Links|links]].
:::::None of this is determined by Wikipedia however. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:32, 26 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::Which policy? Can you please point to it? I'd argue that while this may also apply to DnD links, I'm ultimately discussing the award, not whether or not we can link. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 18:42, 26 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::Rudeness: belittling; other uncivil behaviors: lying to the appropriate entity (D&D Wiki). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 19:17, 26 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::::You didn't link to it, so I can only assume you are talking about the [[Warning Policy]]. Regardless of whether or not the website is doing those things (and I'll go out and say that they aren't), that policy applies to editors, not links. It's at best a huge stretch and at worst a gross misinterpretation to apply the warning policy to external websites. Unless you were talking about something else? I'll admit I have trouble navigating the policies. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 19:37, 26 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::No, actually I was not. The [[Warning Policy]] has bases, however those bases are not exclusive. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:15, 26 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::::::Considering O.G.R.E.s has never contacted you ''(this message about the award I posted as a long time user here being the most official contact - ever)'', to say rudeness, belittling, or lying has been done is extremely uncivil on your part, GD. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 08:33, 27 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::::''"Rudeness: belittling; other uncivil behaviors: lying to the appropriate entity (D&D Wiki). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 19:17, 26 August 2011 (MDT)"''

:::::::::::Not to be too confrontational, but this really seems to indicate that you may have a personal experience with this site or it's users that could potentially influence your opinion. Honestly, I feel it would explain a lot, especially since you appear to oppose and reject even feasible solutions that don't challenge the definitions of the license we currently use, such as upgrading to the new, improved, and problem-solving v1.3.

:::::::::::Back on topic, could you please be specific? Which policies does the award, or even O.G.R.E.S. violate, and please link or explain this, in detail. I cannot speak from the same position has Hooper regarding what O.G.R.E.S. has done in the past, as I lack the same status as a member, but I find that being vague is not going to help these matters. [[User:Jwguy|Jwguy]] 08:57, 27 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::::::::I'd love to know as well. But it is my understanding that GD simply believes that hosting [[:Category:Valgora Setting]] content on O.G.R.E.s wiki violated the licensing agreement for Valgora on this wiki ''(an argument proven wrong at [[Talk:GNU Free Documentation License 1.3#Updating]].'' With that in mind though, let's keep all licensing conversations there, to make this easier to follow and contribute to for all users. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 09:04, 27 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::::::Even if that were the case, there's no policy keeping us from linking to a site with an incompatible license. Likewise, there's no policy keeping us from linking to a site that is rude or belittles us. GD, you stated that linking to O.G.R.E.s does not follow the general policy of this website. Can you please ''link'' to the policy we would be violating? If it's not Warning Policy, I just don't know what it is. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 09:10, 27 August 2011 (MDT)

{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}

:It cannot be [[Warning Policy]] ("''When one does not edit''" just doesn't apply). I said it once and I'll say it again "''Rudeness: belittling; other uncivil behaviors: lying to the appropriate entity (D&D Wiki).''" If the grammar is the problem, look up what each word means and then work the sentence out. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 11:49, 28 August 2011 (MDT)

::''I've'' said it before, and ''I'll'' say it again: show me a link. I know very well what those words mean, I just don't know where you're coming up with them. If it's policy, it's on this website somewhere. If it's not on this website (or within Wikipedia's policies, though I don't think they have any that apply in this instance because they have significantly looser requirements to posting outside links), then it's not policy. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 13:12, 28 August 2011 (MDT)

:::If you care look into it. I'm not going to do something which is so easily done it hurts me to do it. There is an answer to this. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:52, 28 August 2011 (MDT)

::::I have to admit, that comment makes me feel a little belittled. That being said, I can't find the policy which says we can't link to sites that are rude, belittling, uncivil, or lie to us. And neither could [http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0oG7hhEn1pOvkQA9wZXNyoA;_ylc=X1MDUCMyNzY2Njc5BF9yAzIEYW8DMARjc3JjcHZpZANXM0tYeGtvRzd2N1hhMDNMVGtLZW5nQXdybVdmRFU1YW4wUUFDdEo3BGZyA3lmcC10LTcwMQRmcjIDc2J0bgRuX2dwcwMwBG9yaWdpbgNzcnAEcXVlcnkDc2l0ZTpkYW5kd2lraS5jb20gInJ1ZGVuZXNzOyBiZWxpdHRsaW5nIgRzYW8DMQR2dGVzdGlkA1NNRTAzNg--?p=site%3Adandwiki.com+%22rudeness%3B+belittling%22&fr2=sb-top&fr=yfp-t-701&type_param=&rd=pref Yahoo!] [http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0oG7kz9oFpOLF8AnPxXNyoA;_ylc=X1MDUCMyNzY2Njc5BF9yAzIEYW8DMARjc3JjcHZpZANaNm1MY1VvRzd2N1hhMDNMVGtLZW5nZG1ybVdmRFU1YW9QMEFBNmJOBGZyA3lmcC10LTcwMQRmcjIDc2J0bgRuX2dwcwMwBG9yaWdpbgNzcnAEcXVlcnkDc2l0ZTpkYW5kd2lraS5jb20gImx5aW5nIHRvIHRoZSBhcHByb3ByaWF0ZSBlbnRpdHkiBHNhbwMxBHZ0ZXN0aWQDU01FMDM2?p=site%3Adandwiki.com+%22lying+to+the+appropriate+entity%22&fr2=sb-top&fr=yfp-t-701&type_param=&rd=pref] [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 14:20, 28 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::"''When one does not edit''" is a play on words. Websites do not edit, therefore they are treated like a normal Wikipedia user (which does not have a [[Warning Policy]]). They must fix the problem or get banned. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:44, 30 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::As much as I love wordplay, official policy should not include puns. In the future, please be more clear about what you mean. We were all confused for some time by your wording. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 20:46, 30 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::I'm not really sure this violates any WikiP policies, either. If you treat a website like a "user", then "banning" said "user" would mean not allowing him to edit. OGREs isn't editing D&D Wiki, we are. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 13:34, 31 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::::Though it seems pointless, voting is open. Figure out the link if you wish. The site is currently way behind in it's category, however. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 13:41, 4 September 2011 (MDT)

== Digital D&D Books ==

a digital copy of one of the books with [OEF] or [OCR] at the end means what? they are pdf files and im not sure what it stands for --[[User:Ozzy1234567890|Ozzy1234567890]] 09:19, 10 October 2011 (MDT)

:Those terms are not associated with D&D, but rather with PDFs in general. OEF stands for "Original Electronic Format" which means it is the document they send to the printers, not a scan of the physical book's pages. OCR stands for Optical Character Recognition, which means you can use the search function of a PDF viewer to search for text. If a PDF is not OCR it essentially treats each page as a picture, so you can't copy/paste text, or search for words. On a related note, piracy is bad. I know buying books is stupid expensive (and fills up a lot of space, and less convenient, and less functional), but it is one of the best ways to show support, especially for indie developers and smaller publishing groups. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 11:31, 10 October 2011 (MDT)

::"less convenient, and less functional"? i dont know what your talking about. i prefer hardcopies over pdf, cause i can stick my fingers in the pages and flip through half the book in a few seconds. [[User:Zau|Zau]] 14:35, 10 October 2011 (MDT)

:::I agree that paper is nicer to read then pdfs. I find that reading is much more enjoyable in a non-digital format because no screen must be read the entire time, it normally is more comfortable, it's less effort, etc. Also, there are websites (not sure how they work with piracy) which host D&D books. One may be able to download pdfs from them for a membership price. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 14:40, 10 October 2011 (MDT)

::::Have you ever brought 50 books to a table to play D&D? Nope, but you can instantly pull open a new PDF. As for less functional, I could go either way with that one. Assuming you have a decent PDF viewer, you can make annotations, add bookmarks, highlight, and search entire books for phrases, rather than have to use an index. I know I'm the only one at my table that prefers a hard copy, and these are the reasons they usually cite. Hosting D&D books is almost certainly illegal. If it's not uploaded by something like "DNDWizards" or whatever else, odds are it isn't released by WotC. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 16:01, 10 October 2011 (MDT)

::Thanks Badger! And I agree, paper is better in my opinion. I just need my own physical copies rather than copies at a friends house 2 hours away. --[[User:Ozzy1234567890|Ozzy1234567890]] 08:57, 21 October 2011 (MDT)

== Glitch? ==

Is this a glitch? I tried to make a new mundane weapon, however when the editing page came up it said something like "wikify| could not load" or something like that. Please look into it. --[[User:Reddragonl33t|Reddragonl33t]]

:With so little information, there's no way to tell if it was a glitch. I kind of doubt it was, though. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 13:00, 18 October 2011 (MDT)

::Was the page name already in use? I tried to make a weapon page (per [[Add New 3.5e Equipment]]) and it worked fine. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:28, 18 October 2011 (MDT)

== Just a bit of a problem ==

I just want to say that I love the site and I am currently using a homebrew race for my character but Me and my DM have come to an impass...

I chose the geode for my race but I want to play a dragonfire adept and as such class I need to breath, any idea how we could get around this? [[User:Mega0live|Mega0live]] 16:01, 15 December 2011 (MST)

:This question would fit better in the [[DnD Discussion|discussion section]] of the site.--[[User:Milo v3|Milo High-Hill]] 01:48, 16 December 2011 (MST)

== Frustration ==

I had to go through a catraphrase thing, GAH! How I would like to ring the neck of who did what they did to this site... I mean that they need to be more mature and not spam/upload things to this site that can harm it.... Sorry, just wish I could find who was responsible... [[User:Mega0live|Mega0live]] 05:59, 9 January 2012 (MST)

And if this is unnessesary I am sorry... [[User:Mega0live|Mega0live]] 06:01, 9 January 2012 (MST)

:What are you talking about? What is "''a catraphrase thing''"? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 10:57, 9 January 2012 (MST)

::Probably got snagged by cloudflare. Happened to me for about a week in November/December. --[[User:Ganre|Ganre]] 12:03, 9 January 2012 (MST)

:::I have been asked to turn up the cloudflare security options on [[User talk:Green Dragon#Spam (again/still)]]. Are you saying it is too strict? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:09, 9 January 2012 (MST)

:::: Sorry, the catraphrase thing is the type the 2 above words thing to get into things. [[User:Mega0live|Mega0live]] 18:59, 9 January 2012 (MST)

:::::I don't think it is too strict, but i think it needs to be targeted to edits, not just viewing. --[[User:Ganre|Ganre]] 08:14, 10 January 2012 (MST)

::::::[https://www.cloudflare.com/plans Here] are their options. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 11:35, 10 January 2012 (MST)

:::::::Which plan do we currently use? What are our settings? I don't know how to tell if the settings aren't high enough, if the software isn't working, or if spammers are just finding a way around it. Really, if these spammers are just a bunch of Chinese people with proxied IP addresses, theree's nothing stopping them from spamming. AFAICT, cloudflare only protects us from automatically generated spam (aka bot spam), correct? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 12:25, 20 January 2012 (MST)

== 5th Edition ==

This might be a bit premature(it's never happened to me before, I swear!), but apparently, WotC has announced 5th ed. Should we open a section up on the wiki, or is it too soon? --[[User:Ganre|Ganre]] 12:19, 9 January 2012 (MST)

:Do you know where their official release information is? I can't seem to find it in their news section. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:50, 9 January 2012 (MST)

::I am not sure if this is okay to post, as it is an external link: http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd%2F4ll%2F20120109 --[[User:Ganre|Ganre]] 14:42, 9 January 2012 (MST)

:::You are fine to post the external links on [[DnD Links]] (see the top) anywhere and in any manner.
:::The next edition will be treated like 4e (and 2.5e, etc). Would you be interested in spear-heading this new edition as the game is finalized? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:26, 9 January 2012 (MST)

::::I would be, if it doesn't suck... --[[User:Ganre|Ganre]] 08:11, 10 January 2012 (MST)

:::::Glad to hear it. As soon as there is information about how things are done feel free to start. If/when you need help I am more then willing. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 11:33, 10 January 2012 (MST)

==Cloudflare Issue==

Over the past couple weeks, I've been occasionally getting an error message from Cloudflare indicating that the site is down. Can anyone explain what's going on with that? -[[User:Silverkin|Silverkin]] 07:51, 16 January 2012 (MST)

:One time may have been when I deleted my talk page, since I put my password on it, and I could not restore it without the site having to go down because of setup issues. How often has this cloudflare issue been happening? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:05, 16 January 2012 (MST)

::It's happened to me three times, on different days each time. I can say with confidence that all three were within the last month or two. -[[User:Silverkin|Silverkin]] 16:12, 16 January 2012 (MST)

:::It happened to me several times last year and once yesterday.--[[User:Milo v3|Milo High-Hill]] 17:14, 16 January 2012 (MST)

::::I have this problem from time to time, but it was not until recently that I discovered I am exacerbating the problem. When the site goes down I usually keep a window open and click refresh periodically until the page loads. Last time the site went down I thought it had been down for days, but then I noticed that there is a link to click if you think the site is back up and you are getting the page in error (in other words, it forces the page to load fresh, instead of from your cache). Lo and behold, the site loaded and people had been editing the entire time I thought it was down! [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 12:27, 20 January 2012 (MST)

== Concerning edits to this page ==

Green Dragon, you have made edits to the text of yours and other people's comments in violation of our policies, as I have explained below. Your initial explanation for the removal was "''some removed because USA and English (oxford) would deal with "the warning" not D&D Wiki, removed based off inappropriate behavior, removed circular comments''". Per our [[Help:Talk_Pages#Editing_or_Deleting_Existing_Comments|policies]], you can not remove any text -- including your own -- unless it violates one of 5 very specific rules. "Circular comments" are not in violation, whatever the USA thing means is not in violation, and while inappropriate behavior ''is'' a violation, any offenders should have been warned. None of the five rules allow you to remove any mention of OGREs, none of them allow you to remove entire lines of someone's argument, thus changing the entire meaning of their post (see my logic around line 307 -- this is in every letter and spirit of the law the reason for the Wikipedia policy in the first place), and really, none of these rules allow you to edit your own wording for clarity (the Wikipedia policy to which we default HEAVILY frowns upon this) or fix other people's links. Your newest reason "''All Policy violations - although not necessarily OURS''" is, frankly, somewhat unbelievable. Am I to believe that we are to remove ANY content that is in violation of ANY policy ANYWHERE? Should I delete the entire wiki, as I'm sure there's a website out there somewhere with the policy that all content must be in Italian? In addition, this conversation took place months ago. Why is it even relevant now, unless you thought nobody was paying attention to it any more?

I'm sure you will be removing the content once again, but if you do so I implore you to please follow our policies as written and (a) itemize what changes you are making and for what reason you have made them (meaning one-by--one, not a blanket statement), (b) make any changes without changing the intent of what someone has said, and (c) make any changes related to policy violations based on the policies of this website. We have no governing body, no law enforcement; the only thing we have are what few rules are actually thought out and codified. Without those we are just in anarchy and nobody wants to stay around and build up our website. Thank you for your understanding. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 12:22, 20 January 2012 (MST)

:Discussions have a purpose, per the word "discussion". If someone cannot levelly read discussions there is a problem somewhere.
:So, why are there problems with discussions? The problems come from humans. Humans make mistakes. Some people say that we should learn from our mistakes. If it is true that we should learn from our mistakes, then D&D Wiki cannot put that on someone else without their consent.
:Since this is true it is totally fine to remove parts from discussions that do not belong within this understanding. Why? To think otherwise is wrong for the human discussing the imposed learning and, following the golden rule, doing else how than removing the comment would alleviate that person to a state of un-understanding (that which is their nemesis). For this reason it is civilized.
:Now, why were the comments above removed? Either they did not adhere to [[DnD Links]], would become that editors nemesis (and is justified per above), or are shown to be not true (e.g. need to referenced not by a myth) but are not about our format. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:44, 22 January 2012 (MST)

::I didn't have a problem reading any of the comments and understanding them, with few exceptions to some of your posts, GD, and that I simply expect is a product of non-native languages, though I may not be correct. Also, considering that you removed whole portions of mine and others people's comments, including important conjectures and statements that were made in argument against you, it would appear to me that what you were attempting to do was completely skew the conversation away from its original incarnation and into a form that suited you and yours ends. Truthfully, that is despicable, and not a portion of your above post seems to justify it at all. [[User:Jwguy|Jwguy]] 08:00, 23 January 2012 (MST)

:::I don't need to tell you anything about myself. How about you tell me something about yourself? If you can't do anything other then throw insults at people (which you will be warned for) then do not comment further. If the above comments continue along their trajectory this discussion will be reverted and the user will be warned appropriately (circular discussions). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 09:38, 23 January 2012 (MST)

::::I didn't ask for information about you, so I'm not sure where you got that. I explained my perspective of the situation and explored the issue, for which your reasons have not been very sufficient in justifying. That's a situation you've placed yourself in, and not any product of my work, sir, so you only have yourself to blame. Threatening people with warnings and simply deeming their posts to be insults doesn't change that. This is but another reason for my concern regarding the non-native languages. Constant misinterpretation. [[User:Jwguy|Jwguy]] 13:29, 23 January 2012 (MST)

:::::How about you quit classifying me? These (see Wikipedia) will be the reasoning behind your warnings. If you don't understand that you are classifying me then understand that you are. "That's a situation you've placed yourself in, and not any product of my work, sir, so you only have yourself to blame" is telling me that I did just that. Did I do just what you said? No. I explained the reasoning behind censorship (how am I through this placing myself in a situation?). Anyone could explain this to you, so the words are helping the reciever– no one is placing themselves anywhere for a later time to change things (if this is what you mean by that possibility). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:40, 23 January 2012 (MST)

::::::At the risk of stepping on someone else's toes, I think what Jwguy was trying to say is that sometimes your sentence structure does not make sense to us. There is no ill intent on anybody's part, simply some sort of communication barrier. It seems that you might be a non-native speaker (and to my memory, I don't think you've ever confirmed or denied this, not that the answer itself ultimately ''matters''), but it could just be that we all use different syntax. Then, sometimes, when we ask you to explain what you mean, you feel that we are asking you to repeat yourself. Well, that is actually what we are asking, but we are not doing so just to annoy you, we are doing so because if we do not understand where you are coming from then we can never truly reach an understanding about anything. In addition, sometimes after I read something you write a few times I get a different (I think, truer) interpretation. Some people are not as patient as I, and would then assume you are saying something you are not saying. It's not classifying any more than saying JazzMan uses a lot of independent an parenthetical clauses; while it's true it puts me into a "group" of people (those who use many sub-clauses in their writing structure -- see? I'm doing it again!), it is not intended to be a positive or negative connotation. It just ''is''. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 15:01, 23 January 2012 (MST)

:::::::First things first: I speculate, Green Dragon. I don't classify, label, or designate, or however it might be described. As Jazzman says, your mannerisms and statements are often difficult to understand ("If you don't understand that you are classifying me then understand that you are", for example, doesn't make much sense, as it is a circular statement and illogical), and seem like they could be a result of not being a native speaker of English. I favor the possibly, but only because there has been little explanation and because it is a high probability, given the fact that the internet stretches across the world. My statement regarding "That's a situation you've placed yourself in, and not any product of my work, sir, so you only have yourself to blame" was referring to the sentence before it, in which I said that your explanation and reasons did not appear sufficient in justifying your actions. That's not a classification. It is an opinion. Furthermore, while you say "Anyone" could explain this to me, it would appear that I am not alone in my opinion, considering the condemnation of the actions that have erupted from even more prominent members, of whom have contributed far more to this wiki, than myself. Because of this, I doubt the justification that seems apparent to you for your actions is truly as received as you seem to believe. Once more, I speculate. Truth be told, if you do indeed do all of this for despicable reasons, then that is how I feel. I don't withdraw those feelings regarding such actions, for they are the direct result stemming from the actions themselves. Deeming our sincerest arguments and thoughts regarding your policies and statements discussing those policies as "mistakes", as you so eloquently put it, and taking it upon yourself to "correct" them, specifically, is a breach of policy, in itself, and tyrannical. If you truly thought you were trying to do good, then I will simply say, Please, do not. If you had ulterior motives, then I will leave it, and that I must voice my distaste for it. [[User:Jwguy|Jwguy]] 16:52, 23 January 2012 (MST)

::::::::Let me just make it clear for you to understand GD: Unless a '''direct''' violation of policy or a cuss word, '''do not edit another user's talk page message.''' The trail of facts showcases that you have altered the actual meaning of some of our edits, almost always in ways that remove any disagreement with you.
::::::::Anyways, time to remove this website from my browser tabs. No need to stick around for the full death rattle. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 19:32, 23 January 2012 (MST)

== We didn't start the fire... ==

Meltdown #2? #3? While other dnd wiki sites are flourishing with quality content rather than a bunch of unfinished, useless garbage.

:Your (unsigned, cowardly)comment strikes me as deconstructive. Be helpful, add quality, or be gone(Please note this is my personal opinion and does not reflect the opinion of the Wiki, GD, BD, or any other "D" than perhaps the myserious "d" that has infected the optimized character build section). --[[User:Ganre|Ganre]] 08:50, 21 January 2012 (MST)
::Although we ''do'' have quite a lot of chaff to process: deletion candidates and abandoned pages.[[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] 09:46, 21 January 2012 (MST)

:::Don't forget d20 Modern. That one musical guy keeps saying he's going to revamp the whole thing but never has... [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 11:26, 21 January 2012 (MST)

Talk:Main Page

2012-01-23T03:19:22Z

Hooper: comments are my own and in history, it is actually against license that you edit them. None of them contain cursing or abusive language. Every time you change them, you break the law. But who cares. This site gets 11% of the visitors it used to.

{{Archives
|label1=Discussions 1–30
|label2=Discussions 31–60
|label3=Discussions 61–90
}}

== Praise for this site ==

This is the most useful Wiki I have ever found on D&amp;D, (and I've seen a LOT of on-line references). I am currently running an adventure and I keep this site open on my lap-top as I play. It saves me a great deal of time and speeds up play considerably. I almost never even open my Monster Manual anymore.

Kudos to the WebMaster. --[[User:Gildavinor|Gildavinor]] 18:13, 25 September 2009 (MDT)

:I agree very strongly with you, Gild! Though I didn't sign in very often previously, I absolutely adore this Wiki. It's the pinnacle of Dungeons and Dragons research and innovation. --[[User:Harry Mason|Harry Mason]] 18:42, 25 September 2009 (MDT)

::Taking sides in any instance is a bad idea... Neutrality is a great observational instrument if one is not affiliated therein. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:51, 25 September 2009 (MDT)

:::Totally agree. --[[User:Lord Mattos|Lord Mattos]] 11:14, 29 November 2009 (MST)

== Two Millionth View! ==

'''This edit removed by user, to prevent unapproved changes to the original post.''' {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 20:19, 22 January 2012 (MST)

:Yeah, now there are 2,299,388 views (Jan. 13,2010)! Wohoo! --[[User:Io|Io]] 16:52, 13 January 2010

And now, in the november of 2010, we have 3,080,184 views!

== Size ==

how many Megabytes is this whole site? {{Unsigned|216.12.83.73|22:29, 15 November 2009 (MDT)}}

:Why? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:40, 15 November 2009 (MST)

::I was thinking of copying the source code so i cant look at it offline--[[User:Lo-Chi|Lt.Dan]] 07:20, 16 November 2009 (MST)

:::You don't need the size of D&D Wiki as a whole when looking at the source code ("''View Page Source''" for Mozilla Firefox). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:12, 16 November 2009 (MST)

== The Tavern ==

After a huge hiatus I'm finally back to D&D Wiki (and happy to return!) following a long period of being almost broke. I notice that the Tavern, which was gone when I first had to go...still isn't back. That was one of my favorite parts of the Wiki, and I hope I'm just being stupid and missing it somewhere. Is it gone for good? --[[User:Harry Mason|Harry Mason]] 07:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

:It actually was discontinued. There is no "official" reason as to now however take a look at [[Discussion:The Tavern: use, expansion, and availability.]]. The main reason is "''...it is quite childish and immature at times and I feel at times it decreases the seriousness of D&D Wiki with childish behavior and immaturity.''" [[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] "Discussion:The Tavern: use, expansion, and availability." 21:02, 20 November 2009 (MST). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

::Ah...oh well. That's a little sad to me, but I can see the reasoning behind it, it -was- rather vulgar at times. Thank you for replying. :) --[[User:Harry Mason|Harry Mason]] 01:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

:::I'm coming back too and I too liked the tavern... I agree with the reasoning, but I still think we should have an effective way of conversation, since a wiki is not the best tool for talking... Isn't there something that could be implemented in the place of the tavern (and maybe have some rules as to swearing and misbehaviour, making disrespectful users suspended/banned from using it)?--[[User:ElfsMaster|ElfsMaster]] 10:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

::::'''This edit removed by user, to prevent unapproved changes to the original post.''' {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 20:19, 22 January 2012 (MST)

:::::Appealing to people in real time is more effective than doing so passively, from what I've found. Also, just because serious discussion does not happen constantly doesn't mean it never does. I understand that a decision has been made however, so that's all I'll say on the matter. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 14:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

::::::Why not do something like what facebook has and when a user is logged in, they have a little chat bar? i know there are a lot of difficulties with that, including having "friends lists" and the like, but its an idea. --[[User:Ozzy1234567890|Ozzy1234567890]] 07:21, 26 January 2011 (MST)

== Search Incapacitation ==
The search function has been completely nonfunctional for me for a good few days, maybe half a week or more now. Once in a while I'll nail to a T an article's name, and it'll transport me there. Just hitting Search or mistyping anything causes it to utterly fail for me. Is this just a localized problem (which I don't think it is, I've used 3 different computers to try and access it, all were on different networks) or what's going on? --[[User:Harry Mason|Harry Mason]] 05:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

:'''This edit removed by user, to prevent unapproved changes to the original post.''' {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 20:19, 22 January 2012 (MST)

::I'm having the same issues, the message "Query failed: connection to localhost:3312 failed (errno=111, msg=Connection refused)" appears when I try to search for something.
::I'm having a similar problem, mainly in that I can't browse things, I can only see things when I search for them, which, makes looking at the diffrent races, quite difficult [[User:Sevant|Sevant]] 18:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

:::Search is working once again. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:14, 22 August 2010 (MDT)

== Official Content Designation ==

Could a homebrew template be added? I keep coming here after a Google search and I keep finding overpowered homebrew things (like [[Paragon_of_Light/Darkness_%283.5e_Prestige_Class%29]]) and it usually takes me a moment to figure out that it's not official, just something some random person made up. I'd prefer to see some sort of note to that effect at the top of the page. [[User:Banaticus|Banaticus]] 02:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

:Ummm... A template is already added on all official pages. This is a homebrew site, so all articles are automatically assumed to be homebrew unless they are specified otherwise.--[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 03:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

::There already is a homebrew template. Look down at the bottom of that page you linked... see where it says "{{DnD Classes Breadcrumb}} → [[DnD Prestige Classes|Prestige Classes]]"? "Homebrew" is even in the wording of the template. If you are looking for ONLY SRD material then look for pages starting with "SRD:". They will all have OGL templates as well.
::Additionally, much of our homebrew content has ratings by other users, so you should know right away if it's overpowered. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 14:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

== Pictures Down? ==

While it might be my computer, it appears that something happened to the pictures on the site. They don't seem to be displaying. Am I wrong? Was there an announcement that I missed? [[User:Noname|Aristocles]] 05:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

:This question was already brought up on GD's talk page under [[User talk:Green Dragon#Images lost again|this header]]. However no clear answer was given by GD. All I know is that no, it is not your computer, and no there was no announcement. The pictures still exist on the media repository, however they are not linking properly. --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 13:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

::Images have been fixed. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:12, 22 August 2010 (MDT)

:::Are you sure? I dont see any- ANYWHERE!!! [[User:DragonFist|DragonFist]] 20:13, 17 December 2010 (MST)

::::This may have been a cache problem. I assume this is no longer a problem as they have been working for me for quite a while now. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:13, 9 August 2011 (MDT)

== Marking a page as homebrew ==

How do we mark a page as homebrew? Take [Alon (3.5e Deity)] for instance. It turns out he's a homebrew god, although I don't see that anywhere on the page. It's sometimes difficult to tell the difference on this wiki between homebrew things and official things. [[Special:Contributions/97.93.94.242|97.93.94.242]] 12:42, 24 August 2010 (MDT)

:Any properly-created page should have a clear breadcrumb at the bottom of the page which leads back to a homebrew page. In addition any user-created content belongs in [[:Category:User]]. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 13:22, 27 August 2010 (MDT)

::You can also just click "3.5e Open Game Content" on the sidebar to take you to the "official" material. Almost everything on this site is homebrew. Because of that, what we do is mark pages that are official. If you don't see a template that says "Open Game Content", then the page you are viewing is essentially guaranteed to be homebrew content. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 14:24, 27 August 2010 (MDT)

== 3 Million View ==
'''This edit removed by user, to prevent unapproved changes to the original post.''' {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 20:19, 22 January 2012 (MST)

:That's ok, I'm months behind on reading --[[User:Calidore Chase|Calidore Chase]] 04:33, 17 March 2011 (MDT)

== Advice on Creating Animal ==

Ok so i have no clue how to do this but i want to make an Exploding Chicken animal for D20M and all i know is that its a regular chicken that explodes when within 15ft of any nonchaotic for 1d6 damage at a range of 20ft. they have a total health of 3. they also are weak and are just mobile... firecracker i guess would be the best way of puting it. my DM said to just put it on here cause he wants to see what others think. thanks! *EDIT* i ment D20M Apocolypse

:I can't give you mechanical help with creating your creature, but I can give you wiki help. Go [[Add_a_New_D20M_Creature|here]] and replace "CreatureName" with "Exploding Chicken" or whatever you want to name it. Leave a space and (D20 Modern Creature) after the name, and then press "Create New Creature". It will take you to a page with a pre-load designed for creatures in the d20M universe (I don't know if that is the same as d20M Apocalypse, is it?). Like I said, I don't know anything about the d20M system, so I can't help you write your creature and balance it, but if you need help with tables or other wiki formatting, leave a message on my talk page. One last thing, don't forget to sign your posts by typing <nowiki> --~~~~ </nowiki>. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 13:44, 21 January 2011 (MST)

::Thanks! and its pretty much the same as other systems. and i guess i ment that i needed tables for things like different sizes and their modifiers and things like that --[[User:Ozzy1234567890|Ozzy1234567890]] 10:54, 24 January 2011 (MST)

== April 1 ==

Is there going to be another [[:Category:April Fools|April Fools]] thing this year? -[[User:Ozzy1234567890|Ozzy1234567890]] 08:15, 28 March 2011 (MDT)

:Well I'm going to add April Fool stuff. I don't know about other people though. --[[User:Milo v3|Milo High-Hill]] 15:26, 28 March 2011 (MDT)

::If you're looking for ideas, try updating the random hooker table from the [[Dungeon Master's Guide (1e AD&D)|1e DMG]]. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 16:08, 28 March 2011 (MDT)

:::I've added the Chew'd Button and I'm going add Summon Potato this after noon.--[[User:Milo v3|Milo High-Hill]] 21:23, 31 March 2011 (MDT)

== Sheild Bash? ==

Hello ive been playing DnD 3.5 for a while now and I have a question a heavy sheild with spikes does 1d8 damage now when i enchanted it with "Bashing" my friends told me it now does 3d6 on a shield bash is this correct? {{unsigned|Grunt|2011-04-12 16:36}}

: Not quite. A [[SRD:Heavy Shield#Enhancements|spiked heavy shield]] does 1d6, not 1d8. According to the 3.5 FAQ, the bashing quality stacks with a spiked shield which raises the damage to 2d6. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 17:22, 12 April 2011 (MDT)

== Prototype... Class? Template? Race? Can someone help? ==

Hello in my groups recent dnd sessions we decided to try for an OP campaign as in epic class's templates and races based off of movies, books, games, etc... so if anyone has ever played the game ''Prototype'' and know about "Alex Mercer" and his "powers" then you would know what kind of chacacter I want for our OP Campaign. unfortionatly I dont know anything about making class's/Races/templates. So i was wondering if somebody could either make one for me or help me with making it. It would be very much appreciated.
DND 3.5 PLEASE!

::The best person to ask, I believe, is [[User:Badger|Badger]]. --[[User:Ozzy1234567890|Ozzy1234567890]] 09:25, 16 April 2011 (MDT)

== Campaign Setting Help ==
:''Discussion moved to [[User talk:Ohgren#I have a question]].'' --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 00:31, 17 May 2011 (MDT)

== Have an Idea ==
:''Discussion moved to [[Discussion:Half-Demon_Combinations]].'' --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 19:48, 14 June 2011 (MDT)

== Weapon Enhancement Formula appears to be inconsistent ==

:''Discussion moved to [[SRD Talk:Magic Items#Weapon Enhancement Formula appears to be inconsistent]].'' —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 17:26, 18 July 2011 (MDT)

== Site nominated for an Award ==

[[File:Oggie statue trans small.png|thumb]]

'''This edit removed by user, to prevent unapproved changes to the original post.''' {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 20:19, 22 January 2012 (MST)

:Unfortunately this may not be accepted at this time. See also [[Talk:DnD Links#Lifestyles]]. I hope for a difference next year (or next award period). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:40, 15 August 2011 (MDT)

::'''This edit removed by user, to prevent unapproved changes to the original post.''' {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 20:19, 22 January 2012 (MST)

:::I mean that the link is not acceptable at the moment because of licensing problems. As soon as it is this may be mentioned here. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:11, 15 August 2011 (MDT)

::::Wait, are you telling me we are refusing an award because the O.G.R.E. website uses a license that we don't? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 00:20, 16 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::'''This edit removed by user, to prevent unapproved changes to the original post.''' {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 20:19, 22 January 2012 (MST)

::::::No. Because they have [[:Category:Valgora Setting]] content licensed incorrectly. It is actually licensed under the GNU FDL v1.2. Were that to be changed then it would be no problem. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:15, 16 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::'''This edit removed by user, to prevent unapproved changes to the original post.''' {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 20:19, 22 January 2012 (MST)

::::::::Well, Hooper, I'm willing to bet that the O.G.R.E.s aren't going to re-license their own material to make GD happy, so we're at an impasse here. I understand that our nomination for this award has no external links related to it at all, but apparently GD doesn't. On a personal note, totally unofficial in every way, thanks for the nomination. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 15:12, 16 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::'''This edit removed by user, to prevent unapproved changes to the original post.''' {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 20:19, 22 January 2012 (MST)

::::::::::I find myself rather disappointed with this response. I am aligned with Hooper and Badger on all regards. [[User:Jwguy|Jwguy]] 09:19, 18 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::::The problem stems from that D&D Wiki is then considering itself irrelevant or subservient. Both these would rather be avoided if they are actually otherwise so. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:36, 18 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::::::::Anyone have a clue as to what Green Dragon's on about? Really, "considering itself irrelevant or subservient"? To ''what'', exactly? --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.158|173.245.56.158]] 01:59, 19 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::::::I am somewhat confused by this explanation. I am going to quote definitions to help spell out why, no offense intended.
:::::::::::::"The Problem stems from that D&D Wiki is then considering itself 'irreverent' (an adjective used to describe something that is disrespectful, sarcastic, and/or lacking in overall seriousness.) or 'subservient' (an adjective used to describe something that is useful in an inferior capacity or is compliantly submissive)."
:::::::::::::Are you attempting to say that accepting an award that praises the site for it's content (I presume this is what the reward is for, honestly) indicates either of these things? If anything, it appears to mean the opposite of the first definition, as we're being recognized for honors, and the second is unlikely, since, again, we're being recognized for honors, not complying to their whims or submitting to superiority. Another thing is I don't see how this deals with the licensing problem, above, which I find myself agreeing with Hooper, on that note, having read over a large amount of licensing information due to links to past discussions. [[User:Jwguy|Jwguy]] 12:11, 19 August 2011 (MDT)

{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}

:Sorry I meant "irrelevant". I spelled it wrong initially and in Firefox the first spellcheck result turned up with "irreverent".
:"Considering itself irrelevant or subservient" to its own functions was meant.
:Not accepting anything, ''linking'' to a site out of respect which does considers D&D Wiki's functions irrelevant and subversive (through the link) makes D&D Wiki then consider itself also so (or recognize such a consideration). This is what I am talking about. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:07, 19 August 2011 (MDT)

::Except that reason makes not a lick of sense and gives the impression that you do not understand the facts. Did you somehow got the Oggies confused with...what, the Internet Razzies? Is it Opposite Week? As near as I can tell, OGRE is a roleplaying organization which wishes to acknowledge the D&D wiki as a fine D&D resource upon the Internet. '''They nominated the wiki for an award'''. One would think you would at least crack a smile over the fact that at least a few people in an unaffiliated group nominated the wiki for one of their awards and allow the nomination to be acknowledged and claim the prize if you get it. By the way, Hooper, which award was it? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.158|173.245.56.158]] 00:22, 20 August 2011 (MDT)

:::'''This edit removed by user, to prevent unapproved changes to the original post.''' {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 20:19, 22 January 2012 (MST)

::::Green Dragon, your previous comments can barely be considered English. I'm having a hard time understanding you. Are you suggesting that OGRE, through its licensing, is acting as though we exist to serve them? That is perhaps one of the silliest things I've ever heard on this wiki, and I've been part of some incredibly asinine discussions here. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 10:55, 20 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::Were they to license the content under the GNU FDL v1.2 appropriately (comparable to OGC; if it is allowed) it would be different. However implying that D&D Wiki's functions are nonexistent or irrelevant to others' functions is, by definition, an irrelevant or subservient consideration. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:01, 20 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::'''This edit removed by user, to prevent unapproved changes to the original post.''' {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 20:19, 22 January 2012 (MST)

:::::::The mixing, picking, and matching going on here I cannot understand. A is to A as A is to A. See also [[Talk:DnD Links#Lifestyles]] for more information about the problem. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:54, 20 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::::'''This edit removed by user, to prevent unapproved changes to the original post.''' {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 20:19, 22 January 2012 (MST)

:::::::::Hooper, this is the exact same problem that we had with the other wiki. Content licensing and re-licensing. Green Dragon has one understanding of the law, and some people (a number that appears to include everyone else in the world) has a different understanding. This time, OGRE has licensed the Valgora setting under CC-BY-SA, and we have it under GNU FDL v1.2. Because these aren't the same license, GD feels (and correct me if I'm wrong) that we are being slighted/ignored/other bad things. Because of that, we here at D&Dwiki will pretend that they don't exist, until they begin to comply with GD's understanding of the law. It seems foolish for us to ask you to re-license your material under GNU FDL v1.2 (considering it is an out-dated license anyway), so I won't even bother asking you to consider it. And, to answer your last comment, having been in my fair share of conversations, I'm going to say this is neither the best or the worst. However, his last comment might go down in history alongside a few other gems of what I call EnGDlish. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 17:35, 20 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::::::<cite>Were they to license the content under the GNU FDL v1.2 appropriately (comparable to OGC; if it is allowed) it would be different. However implying that D&D Wiki's functions are nonexistent or irrelevant to others' functions is, by definition, an irrelevant or subservient consideration. --Green Dragon</cite>
::::::::::Green Dragon, I will presume this is your main and only prominent standing argument against accepting the award. I provide the following rebuttal: First, I wish to know, by link and explanation, preferably, when, where, and how O.G.R.E. has implied this, or that the award has implied this; These are the only subjects that would be considered relevant to your argument, on the subject at hand, as these appear to be the only subjects concerning our site, here. Second, the emboldened text is a bit of stretch, on your part: While you are incorrect regarding the 'by definition' part, since considering ''anything'' irrelevant or non-existent does not match the definition of subservient (I posted it earlier), and irrelevance references itself in irrelevant, I fail to see why this matters? The key point of '''Irrelevant''', by definition, is that there is no connection, no relation, unimportant in circumstance or consideration, etc., and therefore, the idea that the site uses a different, but entirely legal, correct, and appropriate license, is inconsequential to D&D Wiki in every way, since the two sites are not related. All that matters is the legality of each item, viewed separately from each site, on the level that we are, now. There is no conflict or relation. Because of these reasons, I fail to see why you argue this point, or how you believe this award is unacceptable. There is no subservience, at all, and there is no irrelevance in accepting the award (We accept the award based on the fact that it is award to our site, for our content, and is therefore relevant to the site), and the site is irrelevant in every other manner (licensing, members, etc.). [[User:Jwguy|Jwguy]] 10:58, 21 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::::::::It also appears that he specifically checks the license a particular thing is under. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.158|173.245.56.158]] 11:47, 21 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::::::''(a number that appears to include everyone else in the world)'' does not include people who need to care. People with authoritative knowledge on this subject has reaffirmed what I have been saying. This is just one of those "internet postings myths" that people seem to cling to. Humans are varied.
:::::::::::::With my terminology I was just putting an opinion onto the subject. The fact comes from [[DnD Links]] (top text). This answers many of the questions about this subject.
:::::::::::::''(considering it is an out-dated license anyway)'' does not include the fact that new MW installs still list it as a possibility. Whatever outdated means as well. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:21, 21 August 2011 (MDT)

{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}

:Regardless of my unattended argument, I decided to do some research on my own. Google is great, praise it. I came up with a simple solution. Why don't we just upgrade our license to GNU FDL 1.3? It is a more up-to-date version of our current license, and 'lo and behold, it manages to get rid of the whole compability problem with CC-BY-SA. At this point, clinging to 1.2, an obsolete version of the license, only generates more problems and needless strife. This option allows us to not bicker over this obviously controversial issue (Of which I must comment, Green Dragon, that sometimes your replies are hard to understand and do not address presented issues, and can exacerbate that), an issue which has apparently been active for a good long time before this one, according to the many links that we've been presented.
:To summarize, every bit of this can be avoid by simply upgrading to the new GNU Free Documentation License 1.3, which does allow usage under CC-BY-SA. No-one loses face, no-one argues about vague legalese, and we have a happy wiki. [[User:Jwguy|Jwguy]] 00:28, 22 August 2011 (MDT)

::That was mentioned during our last debate. Nothing came of it. Not sure why, as it does solve all our problems. I think it has something to do with we aren't legally allowed to update our license, if I recall correctly. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 18:51, 22 August 2011 (MDT)

:::We could upgrade. Why? What is wrong with the GNU FDL v1.2? It is still offered on new MW installs. Is it because of a fear complex that we should? This is the only reason I can devise from such an idea, and one I would not like to pursue. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:44, 23 August 2011 (MDT)

::::Why upgrade? Here is a page that explains the changes, and why we should consider it: [http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-1.3-faq.html] Basically, it says "We can play nicely with people who use different licenses". I see no reason why we shouldn't extend a metaphorical olive branch and say "You play D&D. I play D&D. Let's be friendly." --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 18:59, 24 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::Still, why? What is wrong with the GNU FDL v1.2? I have no idea why Wikipedia did what it did. The current license does not have any holes or flaws that I can think of, and creating an environment for licensing is ingrained in any case, so why create cross-dependency? Making things simpler is always better then more complex, and a cross-dependency is more complex for everyone. We allow CC-BY-NC-SA content (see also [[Template:Cc-by-nc-sa]]). That is the current method– why a cross-dependency? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:46, 25 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::How many novel-length debates do we need to have before you acknowledge that a large portion of the user base isn't satisfied with the current licensing arrangement? Sure, there may not be anything inherently ''wrong'' with v1.2, but v1.3 is ''specifically designed for wiki projects''. Also, there would be no "cross-dependency". Literally nothing would change, except for where we can link. It wouldn't be more complex. In fact, most people wouldn't notice a change, and those that do would notice an improvement, not a more complicated system! Did you get a chance to ask the GNU FDL people about allowing multiple licences of the same content yet? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 12:42, 26 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::Who actually cares about the current licensing situation, save a few (I can only list a few users) who care about making an annoying situation about a myth every time they can? It gets on my nerves, and it wastes my time. Maybe we can put a policy in about redundant discussions. The question remains: What is wrong with CC-BY-NC-SA content (see also [[Template:Cc-by-nc-sa]])? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:45, 26 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::::Nothing, Green Dragon. Nothing is wrong with CC-BY-NC-SA content. Here's what I don't get, though. You know at least a handful of people who don't like the current situation. Fixing their problem would be as simple as a half dozen edits, and no more than 15 minutes of your time. The question remains: If this is a recurring problem for you, why not address it, rather than make a policy that forces us to ignore it? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 14:08, 26 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::I imagine the flip side would get on many people's nerves. I know having multiple licenses (which is variable itself) and having them dependent on one another would be annoying for me. And when I say "''annoying situation''" I mean that users may be creating it for a number of reasons. I am not a psychiatrist, however I understand that people may be annoying for annoying's sake, have a reason behind it (hidden or not), or feel feelings about the situation. These, however, are not policy reasons. We are not in charge or anything really (D&D is D&D) except for how D&D Wiki's policies play out for it's users. Where a president may act on feelings (for example) there is no reason for us to. It accomplishes nothing. We must act on creating an environment where users understand their contributions (for the most part) and are okay with them. I find that creating multiple license dependency (where two separate licenses work just fine) does harm to our actions as administrators. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:30, 26 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::::::I'm not sure I understand most of what you've written there, but I think I got the gist of it. However, if we ''update'' to v1.3 of the GNU FDL we won't have to worry about multiple licenses. It would also allow us to "play nicely" with people who use CC-BY-SA, though ''we don't have to use it on our site''. Like I said, nothing would change in the eyes of 99% of the userbase. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 19:09, 26 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::::Wikipedia is now dual licensed (or something like that), and we already have a solution for this (see also [[Template:Cc-by-nc-sa]]) so I do not see a reason at all. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 19:38, 26 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::::::::I think you may be taking the issue in the wrong direction, Green Dragon. It's been stated multiple times: The argument lies in the fact that either you, or D&D Wiki's license policies, depending on who wants to direct blame at which party, have caused this confrontation regarding O.G.R.E.S.; I don't believe anyone here in the opposition has a problem with CC-BY-SA. Quite the opposite, it appears that you believe GNU FDL 1.2 conflicts with the idea derivative works that take up the license or different licenses, and while possibly justified (We've heard many arguments on each side of this), this is just making things complicated and frustrating.

::::::::::::GNU FDL 1.2 was obsolete the moment 1.3 was released. This issue, and similar issues regarding license conflict, has divided the user-base of this wiki for far too long, and if that is not reason enough, then add in the factor that this allows us to accept wonderful awards and cooperate with other wikis, instead of reverting to another one of these large, drawn out arguments, and achieving nothing. Don't speak for the unspoken, but listen to those who have come forward to speak for themselves; You'll find that some of your greatest and most active remaining members are here, even if hundreds of numbers stay quiet, whether for or against the issue is unknown. This is not the time to be '''stubborn''', either. If anything, then why not have a vote, and be done with it? [[User:Jwguy|Jwguy]] 08:41, 27 August 2011 (MDT)

*''''''This edit removed by user, to prevent unapproved changes to the original post.''' {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 20:19, 22 January 2012 (MST)

===Comment===

With this much bickering, I'm not sure that we deserve a "best of" anything award. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 17:55, 21 August 2011 (MDT)

:'''This edit removed by user, to prevent unapproved changes to the original post.''' {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 20:19, 22 January 2012 (MST)

::I think its all the ways of making things which are dealt with completely differently on other wikis (like Wikipedia) workable in a wiki environment. Who knew links were going to be selective? I had known for a while that something had to be done. Who knew that blocking was to be used in disjuncture? Who knows. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:17, 21 August 2011 (MDT)

:::I'm not really sure what that means, but I don't think that's it. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 22:35, 21 August 2011 (MDT)

::::It probably has to do with the administration or something. Who knows. It is all so mysterious. --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.26|173.245.50.26]] 14:50, 22 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::Umm... [[DnD Links]] and [[Warning Policy]] are so...? Read them please. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:10, 22 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::Are so... what? You can't really blame them for anything, since we can change the policy to be whatever we want. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 09:05, 23 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::Hooper should win the "making up awards that mean nothing" award. Also the "most [[Discussion:Trust_Issues|chihuahua-like]]" award. Actually, Hooper should make up a million awards and give them to himself; he earned them! Green Dragon, I don't get why you would turn down such a prestigious award. --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.55.206|173.245.55.206]] 19:11, 23 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::::They can change the policy as well. Policy is done though a wiki. Who says the current method is best? I don't know what they are like to some. Mysterious I guess (as mentioned above). It's the policy turning town the award. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:02, 23 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::Alright then Green Dragon, where should we go to discuss policy changes? Give me a link to a page, or make a discussion page or something, and let's have a policy discussion. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 21:18, 23 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::::::[[Help:Talk Pages]] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Using_talk_pages Help:Using_talk_pages] should direct you where appropriately. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:25, 23 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::::You're kidding, right? I know how to sign a comment, I want to know where you want to hold a discussion about policy changes. If you give me a link, I'll know you'll know where to join the conversation. We've talked about policy choices in the past, and you've never weighed in, so we accomplish nothing (for example, [[Discussion:Re-opening_the_tavern%3F_What_does_the_community_think%3F|here]]). --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 22:40, 23 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::::::::'''This edit removed by user, to prevent unapproved changes to the original post.''' {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 20:19, 22 January 2012 (MST)

:::::::::::::Things which require a technological advancement (not using something we have) are a different matter of course. I mean wiki policy changes.
:::::::::::::Well, you can talk to people with authoritative knowledge about the licensing problems. We are not rejecting the award by no means, we are just not allowing it mentioned here (for the time being at least). How a site does something to D&D Wiki is not D&D Wiki's concern. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:41, 23 August 2011 (MDT)

{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}

:I can't find out how to contact "people with authoritative knowledge about licensing problems". Tell you what, can you just email them and ask them a simple question "is it legal to license the same content under multiple licenses, specifically GNU FDL v1.2 and CC-BY-SA?" Just that, that exact question. If they respond with "Yes" I hope you'll understand what we've all been saying this whole time. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 23:59, 23 August 2011 (MDT)

::Wait, wait, wait! We have a policy against receiving awards? Where is that one? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 09:31, 25 August 2011 (MDT)

:::We don't have a policy that says we can't take awards in general. We do, however, seem to have a policy that requires us to turn down this one. Personally, I'd rather lose out on an award because we suck, rather than because of licensing misunderstandings. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 10:21, 25 August 2011 (MDT)

::::'''This edit removed by user, to prevent unapproved changes to the original post.''' {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 20:19, 22 January 2012 (MST)

:::::Everything is fine except that we may not give such a [[DnD Links|link]]. We could if (well, when) the licensing problems are resolved. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:46, 25 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::Where is ''that'' policy? The only thing on [[DnD Links]] is a link to [[Meta_Pages#Policies]], which, I don't think, says anything about (a) awards, (b) links to other sites, (c) copyright licensing, or (d) compatibility thereof. Unless I'm just missing it somewhere. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 20:50, 25 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::It's the "''As per [[Meta Pages#Policies|policy]] the following external links are the only ones that may be referenced. However the external link reference does not have to be in the same format as the following external links.''" --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:56, 25 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::::So all we have to do to be able to add links to the OGRE site is to add links to the OGRE Site on DnD Links. There isn't a policy that says how we add links to DnD Links, though, so there's nothing stopping us from adding OGRES to DnD Links, then to this page, thus letting us accept the award. (None of this is actually referenced on the policies page it's linked to.) [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 22:29, 25 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::O.G.R.E.s doesn't want or need a link, though. Our site is for members or potential members, and we don't link whore. That isn't what our awards program is for either (its just one of many things we do). So, we don't require a back link at all. So, with that in mind, I guess GD is saying that the site can accept the award but never mention it outside talk pages, because we also host some of our Valgora stuff (which we have full legal right to do so...). Additionally, I don't think it's appropriate for O.G.R.E.s to be linked to from the Links site, because we're not a solely D&D or such club - we are very vocal about our All Tabletop Games/Systems/Companies/Setting/Etc. philosophy. So the average D&D Wiki browser probably isn't our core audience, though a RPGA link or Pathfinder Society link may be appropriate.

:::::::::'''This edit removed by user, to prevent unapproved changes to the original post.''' {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 20:19, 22 January 2012 (MST)

:::::::::::Yes, Jazzman, all we have to do to allow the link is to add O.G.R.E to DnD_Links. However, GD has said we cannot add it to DnD_Links because of some licensing problem (be it real or imaginary). Personally, I'm all for following the first policy we have listed under policies: {{quote
|If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining D&D Wiki, ignore it.
|orig=[[Meta_Pages#Policies]]}}
:::::::::::--[[User:Badger|Badger]] 12:35, 26 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::::::::Oh, it's fine to host [[:Category:Valgora Setting|valgora]] content. It just must be licensed as it is. The [[DnD Links|link]] or no link discussion is for [[Talk:DnD Links]] (MW?). I am not for the policy mentioned above since it undermines D&D Wiki. That's insulting. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:45, 26 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::::::How does doing something to improve or maintain D&D Wiki undermine it? Does it undermine some of the past decisions you've unilaterally set forth? Perhaps, but it doesn't undermine the wiki. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 14:08, 26 August 2011 (MDT)

{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}

:'''This edit removed by user, to prevent unapproved changes to the original post.''' {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 20:19, 22 January 2012 (MST)

::The contributions date still point here. Thanks for the information though, I guess the same is with them. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:30, 26 August 2011 (MDT)

:::I've missed a couple points here, so I'm going to backtrack the discussion a bit. Firstly, if I can reiterate the "policy" issues, I see no reason why we can't link to OGRES. Here's the chain or logic:

::::#You can only link to a site elsewhere on the wiki if it is first placed on DnD Links
::::#You can only place a link on DnD links if it follows the general policies of the website
::::#OGRES is not against any general policies of the website
::::#Therefore you may add it to DnD links, per (2)
::::#Therefore you may link to the site elsewhere per (1)
::::QED.

::::Is there a flaw in my logic? If so, with what step, what is the flaw, and where is the policy posted?

::::On the topic of "undermining": if you read the full context of the text Badger quoted, you will see that the whole reason it is there is because we are too lazy to create our own rules, and instead link to Wikipedia. The effect of this is, we use Wikipedia's rules, except in cases where their rules are incompatible with our purpose. For example [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OR WP:OR] does not apply to custom content created on this wiki. It does not undermine D&D Wiki, but it does leave us with a problem: who gets to decide when we are better off ignoring a given rule? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 18:12, 26 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::"''You can only place a link on DnD links if it follows the general policies of the website''"; which it does not. This is a discussion for [[DnD Links|links]].
:::::None of this is determined by Wikipedia however. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:32, 26 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::Which policy? Can you please point to it? I'd argue that while this may also apply to DnD links, I'm ultimately discussing the award, not whether or not we can link. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 18:42, 26 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::Rudeness: belittling; other uncivil behaviors: lying to the appropriate entity (D&D Wiki). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 19:17, 26 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::::You didn't link to it, so I can only assume you are talking about the [[Warning Policy]]. Regardless of whether or not the website is doing those things (and I'll go out and say that they aren't), that policy applies to editors, not links. It's at best a huge stretch and at worst a gross misinterpretation to apply the warning policy to external websites. Unless you were talking about something else? I'll admit I have trouble navigating the policies. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 19:37, 26 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::No, actually I was not. The [[Warning Policy]] has bases, however those bases are not exclusive. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:15, 26 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::::::'''This edit removed by user, to prevent unapproved changes to the original post.''' {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 20:19, 22 January 2012 (MST)

:::::::::::''"Rudeness: belittling; other uncivil behaviors: lying to the appropriate entity (D&D Wiki). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 19:17, 26 August 2011 (MDT)"''

:::::::::::Not to be too confrontational, but this really seems to indicate that you may have a personal experience with this site or it's users that could potentially influence your opinion. Honestly, I feel it would explain a lot, especially since you appear to oppose and reject even feasible solutions that don't challenge the definitions of the license we currently use, such as upgrading to the new, improved, and problem-solving v1.3.

:::::::::::Back on topic, could you please be specific? Which policies does the award, or even O.G.R.E.S. violate, and please link or explain this, in detail. I cannot speak from the same position has Hooper regarding what O.G.R.E.S. has done in the past, as I lack the same status as a member, but I find that being vague is not going to help these matters. [[User:Jwguy|Jwguy]] 08:57, 27 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::::::::'''This edit removed by user, to prevent unapproved changes to the original post.''' {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 20:19, 22 January 2012 (MST)

:::::::::::::Even if that were the case, there's no policy keeping us from linking to a site with an incompatible license. Likewise, there's no policy keeping us from linking to a site that is rude or belittles us. GD, you stated that linking to O.G.R.E.s does not follow the general policy of this website. Can you please ''link'' to the policy we would be violating? If it's not Warning Policy, I just don't know what it is. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 09:10, 27 August 2011 (MDT)

{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}

:It cannot be [[Warning Policy]] ("''When one does not edit''" just doesn't apply). I said it once and I'll say it again "''Rudeness: belittling; other uncivil behaviors: lying to the appropriate entity (D&D Wiki).''" If the grammar is the problem, look up what each word means and then work the sentence out. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 11:49, 28 August 2011 (MDT)

::''I've'' said it before, and ''I'll'' say it again: show me a link. I know very well what those words mean, I just don't know where you're coming up with them. If it's policy, it's on this website somewhere. If it's not on this website (or within Wikipedia's policies, though I don't think they have any that apply in this instance because they have significantly looser requirements to posting outside links), then it's not policy. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 13:12, 28 August 2011 (MDT)

:::If you care look into it. I'm not going to do something which is so easily done it hurts me to do it. There is an answer to this. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:52, 28 August 2011 (MDT)

::::I have to admit, that comment makes me feel a little belittled. That being said, I can't find the policy which says we can't link to sites that are rude, belittling, uncivil, or lie to us. And neither could [http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0oG7hhEn1pOvkQA9wZXNyoA;_ylc=X1MDUCMyNzY2Njc5BF9yAzIEYW8DMARjc3JjcHZpZANXM0tYeGtvRzd2N1hhMDNMVGtLZW5nQXdybVdmRFU1YW4wUUFDdEo3BGZyA3lmcC10LTcwMQRmcjIDc2J0bgRuX2dwcwMwBG9yaWdpbgNzcnAEcXVlcnkDc2l0ZTpkYW5kd2lraS5jb20gInJ1ZGVuZXNzOyBiZWxpdHRsaW5nIgRzYW8DMQR2dGVzdGlkA1NNRTAzNg--?p=site%3Adandwiki.com+%22rudeness%3B+belittling%22&fr2=sb-top&fr=yfp-t-701&type_param=&rd=pref Yahoo!] [http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0oG7kz9oFpOLF8AnPxXNyoA;_ylc=X1MDUCMyNzY2Njc5BF9yAzIEYW8DMARjc3JjcHZpZANaNm1MY1VvRzd2N1hhMDNMVGtLZW5nZG1ybVdmRFU1YW9QMEFBNmJOBGZyA3lmcC10LTcwMQRmcjIDc2J0bgRuX2dwcwMwBG9yaWdpbgNzcnAEcXVlcnkDc2l0ZTpkYW5kd2lraS5jb20gImx5aW5nIHRvIHRoZSBhcHByb3ByaWF0ZSBlbnRpdHkiBHNhbwMxBHZ0ZXN0aWQDU01FMDM2?p=site%3Adandwiki.com+%22lying+to+the+appropriate+entity%22&fr2=sb-top&fr=yfp-t-701&type_param=&rd=pref] [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 14:20, 28 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::"''When one does not edit''" is a play on words. Websites do not edit, therefore they are treated like a normal Wikipedia user (which does not have a [[Warning Policy]]). They must fix the problem or get banned. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:44, 30 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::As much as I love wordplay, official policy should not include puns. In the future, please be more clear about what you mean. We were all confused for some time by your wording. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 20:46, 30 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::I'm not really sure this violates any WikiP policies, either. If you treat a website like a "user", then "banning" said "user" would mean not allowing him to edit. OGREs isn't editing D&D Wiki, we are. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 13:34, 31 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::::'''This edit removed by user, to prevent unapproved changes to the original post.''' {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 20:19, 22 January 2012 (MST)

== Digital D&D Books ==

a digital copy of one of the books with [OEF] or [OCR] at the end means what? they are pdf files and im not sure what it stands for --[[User:Ozzy1234567890|Ozzy1234567890]] 09:19, 10 October 2011 (MDT)

:Those terms are not associated with D&D, but rather with PDFs in general. OEF stands for "Original Electronic Format" which means it is the document they send to the printers, not a scan of the physical book's pages. OCR stands for Optical Character Recognition, which means you can use the search function of a PDF viewer to search for text. If a PDF is not OCR it essentially treats each page as a picture, so you can't copy/paste text, or search for words. On a related note, piracy is bad. I know buying books is stupid expensive (and fills up a lot of space, and less convenient, and less functional), but it is one of the best ways to show support, especially for indie developers and smaller publishing groups. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 11:31, 10 October 2011 (MDT)

::"less convenient, and less functional"? i dont know what your talking about. i prefer hardcopies over pdf, cause i can stick my fingers in the pages and flip through half the book in a few seconds. [[User:Zau|Zau]] 14:35, 10 October 2011 (MDT)

:::I agree that paper is nicer to read then pdfs. I find that reading is much more enjoyable in a non-digital format because no screen must be read the entire time, it normally is more comfortable, it's less effort, etc. Also, there are websites (not sure how they work with piracy) which host D&D books. One may be able to download pdfs from them for a membership price. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 14:40, 10 October 2011 (MDT)

::::Have you ever brought 50 books to a table to play D&D? Nope, but you can instantly pull open a new PDF. As for less functional, I could go either way with that one. Assuming you have a decent PDF viewer, you can make annotations, add bookmarks, highlight, and search entire books for phrases, rather than have to use an index. I know I'm the only one at my table that prefers a hard copy, and these are the reasons they usually cite. Hosting D&D books is almost certainly illegal. If it's not uploaded by something like "DNDWizards" or whatever else, odds are it isn't released by WotC. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 16:01, 10 October 2011 (MDT)

::Thanks Badger! And I agree, paper is better in my opinion. I just need my own physical copies rather than copies at a friends house 2 hours away. --[[User:Ozzy1234567890|Ozzy1234567890]] 08:57, 21 October 2011 (MDT)

== Glitch? ==

Is this a glitch? I tried to make a new mundane weapon, however when the editing page came up it said something like "wikify| could not load" or something like that. Please look into it. --[[User:Reddragonl33t|Reddragonl33t]]

:With so little information, there's no way to tell if it was a glitch. I kind of doubt it was, though. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 13:00, 18 October 2011 (MDT)

::Was the page name already in use? I tried to make a weapon page (per [[Add New 3.5e Equipment]]) and it worked fine. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:28, 18 October 2011 (MDT)

== Just a bit of a problem ==

I just want to say that I love the site and I am currently using a homebrew race for my character but Me and my DM have come to an impass...

I chose the geode for my race but I want to play a dragonfire adept and as such class I need to breath, any idea how we could get around this? [[User:Mega0live|Mega0live]] 16:01, 15 December 2011 (MST)

:This question would fit better in the [[DnD Discussion|discussion section]] of the site.--[[User:Milo v3|Milo High-Hill]] 01:48, 16 December 2011 (MST)

== Frustration ==

I had to go through a catraphrase thing, GAH! How I would like to ring the neck of who did what they did to this site... I mean that they need to be more mature and not spam/upload things to this site that can harm it.... Sorry, just wish I could find who was responsible... [[User:Mega0live|Mega0live]] 05:59, 9 January 2012 (MST)

And if this is unnessesary I am sorry... [[User:Mega0live|Mega0live]] 06:01, 9 January 2012 (MST)

:What are you talking about? What is "''a catraphrase thing''"? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 10:57, 9 January 2012 (MST)

::Probably got snagged by cloudflare. Happened to me for about a week in November/December. --[[User:Ganre|Ganre]] 12:03, 9 January 2012 (MST)

:::I have been asked to turn up the cloudflare security options on [[User talk:Green Dragon#Spam (again/still)]]. Are you saying it is too strict? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:09, 9 January 2012 (MST)

:::: Sorry, the catraphrase thing is the type the 2 above words thing to get into things. [[User:Mega0live|Mega0live]] 18:59, 9 January 2012 (MST)

:::::I don't think it is too strict, but i think it needs to be targeted to edits, not just viewing. --[[User:Ganre|Ganre]] 08:14, 10 January 2012 (MST)

::::::[https://www.cloudflare.com/plans Here] are their options. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 11:35, 10 January 2012 (MST)

:::::::Which plan do we currently use? What are our settings? I don't know how to tell if the settings aren't high enough, if the software isn't working, or if spammers are just finding a way around it. Really, if these spammers are just a bunch of Chinese people with proxied IP addresses, theree's nothing stopping them from spamming. AFAICT, cloudflare only protects us from automatically generated spam (aka bot spam), correct? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 12:25, 20 January 2012 (MST)

== 5th Edition ==

This might be a bit premature(it's never happened to me before, I swear!), but apparently, WotC has announced 5th ed. Should we open a section up on the wiki, or is it too soon? --[[User:Ganre|Ganre]] 12:19, 9 January 2012 (MST)

:Do you know where their official release information is? I can't seem to find it in their news section. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:50, 9 January 2012 (MST)

::I am not sure if this is okay to post, as it is an external link: http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd%2F4ll%2F20120109 --[[User:Ganre|Ganre]] 14:42, 9 January 2012 (MST)

:::You are fine to post the external links on [[DnD Links]] (see the top) anywhere and in any manner.
:::The next edition will be treated like 4e (and 2.5e, etc). Would you be interested in spear-heading this new edition as the game is finalized? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:26, 9 January 2012 (MST)

::::I would be, if it doesn't suck... --[[User:Ganre|Ganre]] 08:11, 10 January 2012 (MST)

:::::Glad to hear it. As soon as there is information about how things are done feel free to start. If/when you need help I am more then willing. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 11:33, 10 January 2012 (MST)

==Cloudflare Issue==

Over the past couple weeks, I've been occasionally getting an error message from Cloudflare indicating that the site is down. Can anyone explain what's going on with that? -[[User:Silverkin|Silverkin]] 07:51, 16 January 2012 (MST)

:One time may have been when I deleted my talk page, since I put my password on it, and I could not restore it without the site having to go down because of setup issues. How often has this cloudflare issue been happening? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:05, 16 January 2012 (MST)

::It's happened to me three times, on different days each time. I can say with confidence that all three were within the last month or two. -[[User:Silverkin|Silverkin]] 16:12, 16 January 2012 (MST)

:::It happened to me several times last year and once yesterday.--[[User:Milo v3|Milo High-Hill]] 17:14, 16 January 2012 (MST)

::::I have this problem from time to time, but it was not until recently that I discovered I am exacerbating the problem. When the site goes down I usually keep a window open and click refresh periodically until the page loads. Last time the site went down I thought it had been down for days, but then I noticed that there is a link to click if you think the site is back up and you are getting the page in error (in other words, it forces the page to load fresh, instead of from your cache). Lo and behold, the site loaded and people had been editing the entire time I thought it was down! [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 12:27, 20 January 2012 (MST)

== Concerning edits to this page ==

Green Dragon, you have made edits to the text of yours and other people's comments in violation of our policies, as I have explained below. Your initial explanation for the removal was "''some removed because USA and English (oxford) would deal with "the warning" not D&D Wiki, removed based off inappropriate behavior, removed circular comments''". Per our [[Help:Talk_Pages#Editing_or_Deleting_Existing_Comments|policies]], you can not remove any text -- including your own -- unless it violates one of 5 very specific rules. "Circular comments" are not in violation, whatever the USA thing means is not in violation, and while inappropriate behavior ''is'' a violation, any offenders should have been warned. None of the five rules allow you to remove any mention of OGREs, none of them allow you to remove entire lines of someone's argument, thus changing the entire meaning of their post (see my logic around line 307 -- this is in every letter and spirit of the law the reason for the Wikipedia policy in the first place), and really, none of these rules allow you to edit your own wording for clarity (the Wikipedia policy to which we default HEAVILY frowns upon this) or fix other people's links. Your newest reason "''All Policy violations - although not necessarily OURS''" is, frankly, somewhat unbelievable. Am I to believe that we are to remove ANY content that is in violation of ANY policy ANYWHERE? Should I delete the entire wiki, as I'm sure there's a website out there somewhere with the policy that all content must be in Italian? In addition, this conversation took place months ago. Why is it even relevant now, unless you thought nobody was paying attention to it any more?

I'm sure you will be removing the content once again, but if you do so I implore you to please follow our policies as written and (a) itemize what changes you are making and for what reason you have made them (meaning one-by--one, not a blanket statement), (b) make any changes without changing the intent of what someone has said, and (c) make any changes related to policy violations based on the policies of this website. We have no governing body, no law enforcement; the only thing we have are what few rules are actually thought out and codified. Without those we are just in anarchy and nobody wants to stay around and build up our website. Thank you for your understanding. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 12:22, 20 January 2012 (MST)

== We didn't start the fire... ==

Meltdown #2? #3? While other dnd wiki sites are flourishing with quality content rather than a bunch of unfinished, useless garbage.

:Your (unsigned, cowardly)comment strikes me as deconstructive. Be helpful, add quality, or be gone(Please note this is my personal opinion and does not reflect the opinion of the Wiki, GD, BD, or any other "D" than perhaps the myserious "d" that has infected the optimized character build section). --[[User:Ganre|Ganre]] 08:50, 21 January 2012 (MST)
::Although we ''do'' have quite a lot of chaff to process: deletion candidates and abandoned pages.[[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] 09:46, 21 January 2012 (MST)

:::Don't forget d20 Modern. That one musical guy keeps saying he's going to revamp the whole thing but never has... [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 11:26, 21 January 2012 (MST)

MediaWiki talk:Sitenotice

2012-01-21T03:03:18Z

Hooper:

== SOPA and PIPA ==

I am very much against this announcement. We are a gaming website not a political forum. There is absolutely no reason we need to plaster this over every single page on the wiki. Also, the website linked is not included in [[DnD Links]], so according to how I've seen that policy interpreted in the past, you can't link to it... [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 11:28, 20 January 2012 (MST)

:I understand your reasons for opposing the statement, but we need to recognize that if those laws pass, our licenses won't mean anything anymore. I'm serious about this - this website would not last long under these proposed new laws. I think that it would be in the wiki's best interest, therefore, to actively oppose them. -[[User:Silverkin|Silverkin]] 11:35, 20 January 2012 (MST)

::I don't like SOPA either, but I seriously doubt that this site would shut down (at least, any more than it already shuts down...), and it most definitely would not negate OGL or GNU licenses. But I still stand by my point: we don't even have an area of the site available for "off topic" discussion. In what way is it any way appropriate to scream about a political issue? Must it be at the top of every single page? Does the community get a say in it? Do we stand against any other political issues or just the ones that may-or-may-not stop us from viewing what is, in the universal scale of things, a rather unimportant website? Lastly, if we ''must'' post a bulletin that's irrelevant to our content, and we ''must'' post it on every single page of the site, must it also have poor/unclear grammar? SOPA does not in any way effect my right (which doesn't exist) to edit a website. Nor would it restrict my "freedom" to edit freely, unless said edit contains pirated material, which I'm pretty sure we don't allow anyway. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 11:55, 20 January 2012 (MST)

:::Again, I agree with your reasons to oppose the banner on every page of the wiki. A notice on the main page would be more appropriate in terms of scale. I also agree that the community should have some say in the decision, but as you said, there is no "off-topic" area to discuss it. The problem with these new laws is in that if any copyright infringement occurs at any time, they can have the whole website shut down immediately, regardless of our efforts to keep copyrighted content off of the wiki, and even if we remove the offending content within minutes of it being posted. Furthermore, evidence of the presence of copyrighted content will not be required in order to take down the site. In short, I don't agree with the methods used, but the reasons behind the action are valid. -[[User:Silverkin|Silverkin]] 12:12, 20 January 2012 (MST)

::::Seeing as how the bills are shelved indefinitely (and there's a HUGE difference between what ''can'' be done -- assuming that an advocacy website is 100% factual with their interpretation -- and what ''will'' be done, especially considering the insignificant blip on anyone's radar we are), is there even any reason behind the action? Grrr we all hate something that doesn't exist any more!
::::Not that reasoning is enough, in my opinion. I can list so many more things that are so important that I think this wiki ''should'', actually, post them to every page. But we are a gaming site. This simply is not the place, no matter how great the reasoning behind it. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 12:52, 20 January 2012 (MST)

:::::You are right that is is not included on [[DnD Links]] however were it to be it would (nothing there goes against anything D&D Wiki does or anything like that). If these laws were to pass the liceneses would mean the same things actually. If these laws were to pass one could sue D&D Wiki about an edit that is a copyright voilation and get D&D Wiki removed from the web. Unlike now, D&D Wiki would be gone– not just the content. It would change your right to edit a website. If you were to edit the content would have to be personally monitored to make sure it conforms to the law. Your editing would no longer be the same. The future of D&D Wiki would be compromised, so it was important I would argue. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:52, 20 January 2012 (MST)

::::::One could sue D&D wiki based simply on the fact that you have broken the license agreement by unauthorized altering of talk page comments (yes, the licenses DO discuss such things). Since, out of all of us, I'm probably the only one capable of such (and I really just couldn't care anymore about what happens here), it won't happen though. So [[User:Green Dragon|you're]] safe to continue to break the licensing agreement. Have fun! {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 20:03, 20 January 2012 (MST)

User talk:Hooper

2012-01-21T02:59:39Z

Hooper: Replaced content with "<center>'''This user is no longer active on D&D Wiki. Please contact another user.'''</center>"

<center>'''This user is no longer active on D&D Wiki. Please contact another user.'''</center>

User:Hooper

2012-01-21T02:59:35Z

Hooper: Replaced content with "<center>'''This user is no longer active on D&D Wiki. Please contact another user.'''</center>"

<center>'''This user is no longer active on D&D Wiki. Please contact another user.'''</center>

Talk:Main Page

2012-01-21T02:58:05Z

Hooper: preventing future unauthorized and illegal - as well as immoral - changes to previous posts. Please see previous diff for reasoning. Goodbye!

{{Archives
|label1=Discussions 1–30
|label2=Discussions 31–60
|label3=Discussions 61–90
}}

== Praise for this site ==

This is the most useful Wiki I have ever found on D&amp;D, (and I've seen a LOT of on-line references). I am currently running an adventure and I keep this site open on my lap-top as I play. It saves me a great deal of time and speeds up play considerably. I almost never even open my Monster Manual anymore.

Kudos to the WebMaster. --[[User:Gildavinor|Gildavinor]] 18:13, 25 September 2009 (MDT)

:I agree very strongly with you, Gild! Though I didn't sign in very often previously, I absolutely adore this Wiki. It's the pinnacle of Dungeons and Dragons research and innovation. --[[User:Harry Mason|Harry Mason]] 18:42, 25 September 2009 (MDT)

::Taking sides in any instance is a bad idea... Neutrality is a great observational instrument if one is not affiliated therein. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:51, 25 September 2009 (MDT)

:::Totally agree. --[[User:Lord Mattos|Lord Mattos]] 11:14, 29 November 2009 (MST)

== Two Millionth View! ==
'''This edit removed by user, to prevent unapproved changes to the original post.''' {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 19:58, 20 January 2012 (MST)

:Yeah, now there are 2,299,388 views (Jan. 13,2010)! Wohoo! --[[User:Io|Io]] 16:52, 13 January 2010

And now, in the november of 2010, we have 3,080,184 views!

== Size ==

how many Megabytes is this whole site? {{Unsigned|216.12.83.73|22:29, 15 November 2009 (MDT)}}

:Why? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:40, 15 November 2009 (MST)

::I was thinking of copying the source code so i cant look at it offline--[[User:Lo-Chi|Lt.Dan]] 07:20, 16 November 2009 (MST)

:::You don't need the size of D&D Wiki as a whole when looking at the source code ("''View Page Source''" for Mozilla Firefox). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:12, 16 November 2009 (MST)

== The Tavern ==

After a huge hiatus I'm finally back to D&D Wiki (and happy to return!) following a long period of being almost broke. I notice that the Tavern, which was gone when I first had to go...still isn't back. That was one of my favorite parts of the Wiki, and I hope I'm just being stupid and missing it somewhere. Is it gone for good? --[[User:Harry Mason|Harry Mason]] 07:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

:It actually was discontinued. There is no "official" reason as to now however take a look at [[Discussion:The Tavern: use, expansion, and availability.]]. The main reason is "''...it is quite childish and immature at times and I feel at times it decreases the seriousness of D&D Wiki with childish behavior and immaturity.''" [[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] "Discussion:The Tavern: use, expansion, and availability." 21:02, 20 November 2009 (MST). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

::Ah...oh well. That's a little sad to me, but I can see the reasoning behind it, it -was- rather vulgar at times. Thank you for replying. :) --[[User:Harry Mason|Harry Mason]] 01:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

:::I'm coming back too and I too liked the tavern... I agree with the reasoning, but I still think we should have an effective way of conversation, since a wiki is not the best tool for talking... Isn't there something that could be implemented in the place of the tavern (and maybe have some rules as to swearing and misbehaviour, making disrespectful users suspended/banned from using it)?--[[User:ElfsMaster|ElfsMaster]] 10:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

::::'''This edit removed by user, to prevent unapproved changes to the original post.''' {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 19:58, 20 January 2012 (MST)

:::::Appealing to people in real time is more effective than doing so passively, from what I've found. Also, just because serious discussion does not happen constantly doesn't mean it never does. I understand that a decision has been made however, so that's all I'll say on the matter. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 14:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

::::::Why not do something like what facebook has and when a user is logged in, they have a little chat bar? i know there are a lot of difficulties with that, including having "friends lists" and the like, but its an idea. --[[User:Ozzy1234567890|Ozzy1234567890]] 07:21, 26 January 2011 (MST)

== Search Incapacitation ==
The search function has been completely nonfunctional for me for a good few days, maybe half a week or more now. Once in a while I'll nail to a T an article's name, and it'll transport me there. Just hitting Search or mistyping anything causes it to utterly fail for me. Is this just a localized problem (which I don't think it is, I've used 3 different computers to try and access it, all were on different networks) or what's going on? --[[User:Harry Mason|Harry Mason]] 05:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

:'''This edit removed by user, to prevent unapproved changes to the original post.''' {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 19:58, 20 January 2012 (MST)

::I'm having the same issues, the message "Query failed: connection to localhost:3312 failed (errno=111, msg=Connection refused)" appears when I try to search for something.
::I'm having a similar problem, mainly in that I can't browse things, I can only see things when I search for them, which, makes looking at the diffrent races, quite difficult [[User:Sevant|Sevant]] 18:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

:::Search is working once again. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:14, 22 August 2010 (MDT)

== Official Content Designation ==

Could a homebrew template be added? I keep coming here after a Google search and I keep finding overpowered homebrew things (like [[Paragon_of_Light/Darkness_%283.5e_Prestige_Class%29]]) and it usually takes me a moment to figure out that it's not official, just something some random person made up. I'd prefer to see some sort of note to that effect at the top of the page. [[User:Banaticus|Banaticus]] 02:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

:Ummm... A template is already added on all official pages. This is a homebrew site, so all articles are automatically assumed to be homebrew unless they are specified otherwise.--[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 03:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

::There already is a homebrew template. Look down at the bottom of that page you linked... see where it says "{{DnD Classes Breadcrumb}} → [[DnD Prestige Classes|Prestige Classes]]"? "Homebrew" is even in the wording of the template. If you are looking for ONLY SRD material then look for pages starting with "SRD:". They will all have OGL templates as well.
::Additionally, much of our homebrew content has ratings by other users, so you should know right away if it's overpowered. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 14:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

== Pictures Down? ==

While it might be my computer, it appears that something happened to the pictures on the site. They don't seem to be displaying. Am I wrong? Was there an announcement that I missed? [[User:Noname|Aristocles]] 05:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

:This question was already brought up on GD's talk page under [[User talk:Green Dragon#Images lost again|this header]]. However no clear answer was given by GD. All I know is that no, it is not your computer, and no there was no announcement. The pictures still exist on the media repository, however they are not linking properly. --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 13:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

::Images have been fixed. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:12, 22 August 2010 (MDT)

:::Are you sure? I dont see any- ANYWHERE!!! [[User:DragonFist|DragonFist]] 20:13, 17 December 2010 (MST)

::::This may have been a cache problem. I assume this is no longer a problem as they have been working for me for quite a while now. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:13, 9 August 2011 (MDT)

== Marking a page as homebrew ==

How do we mark a page as homebrew? Take [Alon (3.5e Deity)] for instance. It turns out he's a homebrew god, although I don't see that anywhere on the page. It's sometimes difficult to tell the difference on this wiki between homebrew things and official things. [[Special:Contributions/97.93.94.242|97.93.94.242]] 12:42, 24 August 2010 (MDT)

:Any properly-created page should have a clear breadcrumb at the bottom of the page which leads back to a homebrew page. In addition any user-created content belongs in [[:Category:User]]. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 13:22, 27 August 2010 (MDT)

::You can also just click "3.5e Open Game Content" on the sidebar to take you to the "official" material. Almost everything on this site is homebrew. Because of that, what we do is mark pages that are official. If you don't see a template that says "Open Game Content", then the page you are viewing is essentially guaranteed to be homebrew content. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 14:24, 27 August 2010 (MDT)

== 3 Million View ==
'''This edit removed by user, to prevent unapproved changes to the original post.''' {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 19:58, 20 January 2012 (MST)

:That's ok, I'm months behind on reading --[[User:Calidore Chase|Calidore Chase]] 04:33, 17 March 2011 (MDT)

== Advice on Creating Animal ==

Ok so i have no clue how to do this but i want to make an Exploding Chicken animal for D20M and all i know is that its a regular chicken that explodes when within 15ft of any nonchaotic for 1d6 damage at a range of 20ft. they have a total health of 3. they also are weak and are just mobile... firecracker i guess would be the best way of puting it. my DM said to just put it on here cause he wants to see what others think. thanks! *EDIT* i ment D20M Apocolypse

:I can't give you mechanical help with creating your creature, but I can give you wiki help. Go [[Add_a_New_D20M_Creature|here]] and replace "CreatureName" with "Exploding Chicken" or whatever you want to name it. Leave a space and (D20 Modern Creature) after the name, and then press "Create New Creature". It will take you to a page with a pre-load designed for creatures in the d20M universe (I don't know if that is the same as d20M Apocalypse, is it?). Like I said, I don't know anything about the d20M system, so I can't help you write your creature and balance it, but if you need help with tables or other wiki formatting, leave a message on my talk page. One last thing, don't forget to sign your posts by typing <nowiki> --~~~~ </nowiki>. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 13:44, 21 January 2011 (MST)

::Thanks! and its pretty much the same as other systems. and i guess i ment that i needed tables for things like different sizes and their modifiers and things like that --[[User:Ozzy1234567890|Ozzy1234567890]] 10:54, 24 January 2011 (MST)

== April 1 ==

Is there going to be another [[:Category:April Fools|April Fools]] thing this year? -[[User:Ozzy1234567890|Ozzy1234567890]] 08:15, 28 March 2011 (MDT)

:Well I'm going to add April Fool stuff. I don't know about other people though. --[[User:Milo v3|Milo High-Hill]] 15:26, 28 March 2011 (MDT)

::If you're looking for ideas, try updating the random hooker table from the [[Dungeon Master's Guide (1e AD&D)|1e DMG]]. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 16:08, 28 March 2011 (MDT)

:::I've added the Chew'd Button and I'm going add Summon Potato this after noon.--[[User:Milo v3|Milo High-Hill]] 21:23, 31 March 2011 (MDT)

== Sheild Bash? ==

Hello ive been playing DnD 3.5 for a while now and I have a question a heavy sheild with spikes does 1d8 damage now when i enchanted it with "Bashing" my friends told me it now does 3d6 on a shield bash is this correct? {{unsigned|Grunt|2011-04-12 16:36}}

: Not quite. A [[SRD:Heavy Shield#Enhancements|spiked heavy shield]] does 1d6, not 1d8. According to the 3.5 FAQ, the bashing quality stacks with a spiked shield which raises the damage to 2d6. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 17:22, 12 April 2011 (MDT)

== Prototype... Class? Template? Race? Can someone help? ==

Hello in my groups recent dnd sessions we decided to try for an OP campaign as in epic class's templates and races based off of movies, books, games, etc... so if anyone has ever played the game ''Prototype'' and know about "Alex Mercer" and his "powers" then you would know what kind of chacacter I want for our OP Campaign. unfortionatly I dont know anything about making class's/Races/templates. So i was wondering if somebody could either make one for me or help me with making it. It would be very much appreciated.
DND 3.5 PLEASE!

::The best person to ask, I believe, is [[User:Badger|Badger]]. --[[User:Ozzy1234567890|Ozzy1234567890]] 09:25, 16 April 2011 (MDT)

== Campaign Setting Help ==
:''Discussion moved to [[User talk:Ohgren#I have a question]].'' --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 00:31, 17 May 2011 (MDT)

== Have an Idea ==
:''Discussion moved to [[Discussion:Half-Demon_Combinations]].'' --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 19:48, 14 June 2011 (MDT)

== Weapon Enhancement Formula appears to be inconsistent ==

:''Discussion moved to [[SRD Talk:Magic Items#Weapon Enhancement Formula appears to be inconsistent]].'' —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 17:26, 18 July 2011 (MDT)

== Site nominated for an Award ==
'''This edit removed by user, to prevent unapproved changes to the original post.''' {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 19:58, 20 January 2012 (MST)

:Unfortunately this may not be accepted at this time. See also [[Talk:DnD Links#Lifestyles]]. I hope for a difference next year (or next award period). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:40, 15 August 2011 (MDT)

::'''This edit removed by user, to prevent unapproved changes to the original post.''' {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 19:58, 20 January 2012 (MST)

:::I mean that the link is not acceptable at the moment because of licensing problems. As soon as it is this may be mentioned here. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:11, 15 August 2011 (MDT)

::::Wait, are you telling me we are refusing an award because the O.G.R.E. website uses a license that we don't? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 00:20, 16 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::'''This edit removed by user, to prevent unapproved changes to the original post.''' {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 19:58, 20 January 2012 (MST)

::::::No. Because they have [[:Category:Valgora Setting]] content licensed incorrectly. It is actually licensed under the GNU FDL v1.2. Were that to be changed then it would be no problem. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:15, 16 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::'''This edit removed by user, to prevent unapproved changes to the original post.''' {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 19:58, 20 January 2012 (MST)

::::::::Well, Hooper, I'm willing to bet that the O.G.R.E.s aren't going to re-license their own material to make GD happy, so we're at an impasse here. I understand that our nomination for this award has no external links related to it at all, but apparently GD doesn't. On a personal note, totally unofficial in every way, thanks for the nomination. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 15:12, 16 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::It wasn't me actually. Since I was the contact point for members I abstained from nominating myself. We had about 300 unique nominators, and expect about 3k unique voters. I was really happy to see this site on the list. Well, maybe next year. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 15:22, 16 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::::::I find myself rather disappointed with this response. I am aligned with Hooper and Badger on all regards. [[User:Jwguy|Jwguy]] 09:19, 18 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::::The problem stems from that D&D Wiki is then considering itself irrelevant or subservient. Both these would rather be avoided if they are actually otherwise so. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:36, 18 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::::::::Anyone have a clue as to what Green Dragon's on about? Really, "considering itself irrelevant or subservient"? To ''what'', exactly? --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.158|173.245.56.158]] 01:59, 19 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::::::I am somewhat confused by this explanation. I am going to quote definitions to help spell out why, no offense intended.
:::::::::::::"The Problem stems from that D&D Wiki is then considering itself 'irreverent' (an adjective used to describe something that is disrespectful, sarcastic, and/or lacking in overall seriousness.) or 'subservient' (an adjective used to describe something that is useful in an inferior capacity or is compliantly submissive)."
:::::::::::::Are you attempting to say that accepting an award that praises the site for it's content (I presume this is what the reward is for, honestly) indicates either of these things? If anything, it appears to mean the opposite of the first definition, as we're being recognized for honors, and the second is unlikely, since, again, we're being recognized for honors, not complying to their whims or submitting to superiority. Another thing is I don't see how this deals with the licensing problem, above, which I find myself agreeing with Hooper, on that note, having read over a large amount of licensing information due to links to past discussions. [[User:Jwguy|Jwguy]] 12:11, 19 August 2011 (MDT)

{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}

:Sorry I meant "irrelevant". I spelled it wrong initially and in Firefox the first spellcheck result turned up with "irreverent".
:"Considering itself irrelevant or subservient" to its own functions was meant.
:Not accepting anything, ''linking'' to a site out of respect which does considers D&D Wiki's functions irrelevant and subversive (through the link) makes D&D Wiki then consider itself also so (or recognize such a consideration). This is what I am talking about. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:07, 19 August 2011 (MDT)

::Except that reason makes not a lick of sense and gives the impression that you do not understand the facts. Did you somehow got the Oggies confused with...what, the Internet Razzies? Is it Opposite Week? As near as I can tell, OGRE is a roleplaying organization which wishes to acknowledge the D&D wiki as a fine D&D resource upon the Internet. '''They nominated the wiki for an award'''. One would think you would at least crack a smile over the fact that at least a few people in an unaffiliated group nominated the wiki for one of their awards and allow the nomination to be acknowledged and claim the prize if you get it. By the way, Hooper, which award was it? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.158|173.245.56.158]] 00:22, 20 August 2011 (MDT)

:::'''This edit removed by user, to prevent unapproved changes to the original post.''' {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 19:58, 20 January 2012 (MST)

::::Green Dragon, your previous comments can barely be considered English. I'm having a hard time understanding you. Are you suggesting that OGRE, through its licensing, is acting as though we exist to serve them? That is perhaps one of the silliest things I've ever heard on this wiki, and I've been part of some incredibly asinine discussions here. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 10:55, 20 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::Were they to license the content under the GNU FDL v1.2 appropriately (comparable to OGC; if it is allowed) it would be different. However implying that D&D Wiki's functions are nonexistent or irrelevant to others' functions is, by definition, an irrelevant or subservient consideration. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:01, 20 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::'''This edit removed by user, to prevent unapproved changes to the original post.''' {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 19:58, 20 January 2012 (MST)

:::::::The mixing, picking, and matching going on here I cannot understand. A is to A as A is to A. See also [[Talk:DnD Links#Lifestyles]] for more information about the problem. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:54, 20 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::::'''This edit removed by user, to prevent unapproved changes to the original post.''' {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 19:58, 20 January 2012 (MST)

:::::::::Hooper, this is the exact same problem that we had with the other wiki. Content licensing and re-licensing. Green Dragon has one understanding of the law, and some people (a number that appears to include everyone else in the world) has a different understanding. This time, OGRE has licensed the Valgora setting under CC-BY-SA, and we have it under GNU FDL v1.2. Because these aren't the same license, GD feels (and correct me if I'm wrong) that we are being slighted/ignored/other bad things. Because of that, we here at D&Dwiki will pretend that they don't exist, until they begin to comply with GD's understanding of the law. It seems foolish for us to ask you to re-license your material under GNU FDL v1.2 (considering it is an out-dated license anyway), so I won't even bother asking you to consider it. And, to answer your last comment, having been in my fair share of conversations, I'm going to say this is neither the best or the worst. However, his last comment might go down in history alongside a few other gems of what I call EnGDlish. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 17:35, 20 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::::::<cite>Were they to license the content under the GNU FDL v1.2 appropriately (comparable to OGC; if it is allowed) it would be different. However implying that D&D Wiki's functions are nonexistent or irrelevant to others' functions is, by definition, an irrelevant or subservient consideration. --Green Dragon</cite>
::::::::::Green Dragon, I will presume this is your main and only prominent standing argument against accepting the award. I provide the following rebuttal: First, I wish to know, by link and explanation, preferably, when, where, and how O.G.R.E. has implied this, or that the award has implied this; These are the only subjects that would be considered relevant to your argument, on the subject at hand, as these appear to be the only subjects concerning our site, here. Second, the emboldened text is a bit of stretch, on your part: While you are incorrect regarding the 'by definition' part, since considering ''anything'' irrelevant or non-existent does not match the definition of subservient (I posted it earlier), and irrelevance references itself in irrelevant, I fail to see why this matters? The key point of '''Irrelevant''', by definition, is that there is no connection, no relation, unimportant in circumstance or consideration, etc., and therefore, the idea that the site uses a different, but entirely legal, correct, and appropriate license, is inconsequential to D&D Wiki in every way, since the two sites are not related. All that matters is the legality of each item, viewed separately from each site, on the level that we are, now. There is no conflict or relation. Because of these reasons, I fail to see why you argue this point, or how you believe this award is unacceptable. There is no subservience, at all, and there is no irrelevance in accepting the award (We accept the award based on the fact that it is award to our site, for our content, and is therefore relevant to the site), and the site is irrelevant in every other manner (licensing, members, etc.). [[User:Jwguy|Jwguy]] 10:58, 21 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::::::::It also appears that he specifically checks the license a particular thing is under. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.158|173.245.56.158]] 11:47, 21 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::::::''(a number that appears to include everyone else in the world)'' does not include people who need to care. People with authoritative knowledge on this subject has reaffirmed what I have been saying. This is just one of those "internet postings myths" that people seem to cling to. Humans are varied.
:::::::::::::With my terminology I was just putting an opinion onto the subject. The fact comes from [[DnD Links]] (top text). This answers many of the questions about this subject.
:::::::::::::''(considering it is an out-dated license anyway)'' does not include the fact that new MW installs still list it as a possibility. Whatever outdated means as well. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:21, 21 August 2011 (MDT)

{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}

:Regardless of my unattended argument, I decided to do some research on my own. Google is great, praise it. I came up with a simple solution. Why don't we just upgrade our license to GNU FDL 1.3? It is a more up-to-date version of our current license, and 'lo and behold, it manages to get rid of the whole compability problem with CC-BY-SA. At this point, clinging to 1.2, an obsolete version of the license, only generates more problems and needless strife. This option allows us to not bicker over this obviously controversial issue (Of which I must comment, Green Dragon, that sometimes your replies are hard to understand and do not address presented issues, and can exacerbate that), an issue which has apparently been active for a good long time before this one, according to the many links that we've been presented.
:To summarize, every bit of this can be avoid by simply upgrading to the new GNU Free Documentation License 1.3, which does allow usage under CC-BY-SA. No-one loses face, no-one argues about vague legalese, and we have a happy wiki. [[User:Jwguy|Jwguy]] 00:28, 22 August 2011 (MDT)

::That was mentioned during our last debate. Nothing came of it. Not sure why, as it does solve all our problems. I think it has something to do with we aren't legally allowed to update our license, if I recall correctly. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 18:51, 22 August 2011 (MDT)

:::We could upgrade. Why? What is wrong with the GNU FDL v1.2? It is still offered on new MW installs. Is it because of a fear complex that we should? This is the only reason I can devise from such an idea, and one I would not like to pursue. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:44, 23 August 2011 (MDT)

::::Why upgrade? Here is a page that explains the changes, and why we should consider it: [http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-1.3-faq.html] Basically, it says "We can play nicely with people who use different licenses". I see no reason why we shouldn't extend a metaphorical olive branch and say "You play D&D. I play D&D. Let's be friendly." --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 18:59, 24 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::Still, why? What is wrong with the GNU FDL v1.2? I have no idea why Wikipedia did what it did. The current license does not have any holes or flaws that I can think of, and creating an environment for licensing is ingrained in any case, so why create cross-dependency? Making things simpler is always better then more complex, and a cross-dependency is more complex for everyone. We allow CC-BY-NC-SA content (see also [[Template:Cc-by-nc-sa]]). That is the current method– why a cross-dependency? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:46, 25 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::How many novel-length debates do we need to have before you acknowledge that a large portion of the user base isn't satisfied with the current licensing arrangement? Sure, there may not be anything inherently ''wrong'' with v1.2, but v1.3 is ''specifically designed for wiki projects''. Also, there would be no "cross-dependency". Literally nothing would change, except for where we can link. It wouldn't be more complex. In fact, most people wouldn't notice a change, and those that do would notice an improvement, not a more complicated system! Did you get a chance to ask the GNU FDL people about allowing multiple licences of the same content yet? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 12:42, 26 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::Who actually cares about the current licensing situation, save a few (I can only list a few users) who care about making an annoying situation about a myth every time they can? It gets on my nerves, and it wastes my time. Maybe we can put a policy in about redundant discussions. The question remains: What is wrong with CC-BY-NC-SA content (see also [[Template:Cc-by-nc-sa]])? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:45, 26 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::::Nothing, Green Dragon. Nothing is wrong with CC-BY-NC-SA content. Here's what I don't get, though. You know at least a handful of people who don't like the current situation. Fixing their problem would be as simple as a half dozen edits, and no more than 15 minutes of your time. The question remains: If this is a recurring problem for you, why not address it, rather than make a policy that forces us to ignore it? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 14:08, 26 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::I imagine the flip side would get on many people's nerves. I know having multiple licenses (which is variable itself) and having them dependent on one another would be annoying for me. And when I say "''annoying situation''" I mean that users may be creating it for a number of reasons. I am not a psychiatrist, however I understand that people may be annoying for annoying's sake, have a reason behind it (hidden or not), or feel feelings about the situation. These, however, are not policy reasons. We are not in charge or anything really (D&D is D&D) except for how D&D Wiki's policies play out for it's users. Where a president may act on feelings (for example) there is no reason for us to. It accomplishes nothing. We must act on creating an environment where users understand their contributions (for the most part) and are okay with them. I find that creating multiple license dependency (where two separate licenses work just fine) does harm to our actions as administrators. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:30, 26 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::::::I'm not sure I understand most of what you've written there, but I think I got the gist of it. However, if we ''update'' to v1.3 of the GNU FDL we won't have to worry about multiple licenses. It would also allow us to "play nicely" with people who use CC-BY-SA, though ''we don't have to use it on our site''. Like I said, nothing would change in the eyes of 99% of the userbase. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 19:09, 26 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::::Wikipedia is now dual licensed (or something like that), and we already have a solution for this (see also [[Template:Cc-by-nc-sa]]) so I do not see a reason at all. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 19:38, 26 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::::::::I think you may be taking the issue in the wrong direction, Green Dragon. It's been stated multiple times: The argument lies in the fact that either you, or D&D Wiki's license policies, depending on who wants to direct blame at which party, have caused this confrontation regarding O.G.R.E.S.; I don't believe anyone here in the opposition has a problem with CC-BY-SA. Quite the opposite, it appears that you believe GNU FDL 1.2 conflicts with the idea derivative works that take up the license or different licenses, and while possibly justified (We've heard many arguments on each side of this), this is just making things complicated and frustrating.

::::::::::::GNU FDL 1.2 was obsolete the moment 1.3 was released. This issue, and similar issues regarding license conflict, has divided the user-base of this wiki for far too long, and if that is not reason enough, then add in the factor that this allows us to accept wonderful awards and cooperate with other wikis, instead of reverting to another one of these large, drawn out arguments, and achieving nothing. Don't speak for the unspoken, but listen to those who have come forward to speak for themselves; You'll find that some of your greatest and most active remaining members are here, even if hundreds of numbers stay quiet, whether for or against the issue is unknown. This is not the time to be '''stubborn''', either. If anything, then why not have a vote, and be done with it? [[User:Jwguy|Jwguy]] 08:41, 27 August 2011 (MDT)

*''''''This edit removed by user, to prevent unapproved changes to the original post.''' {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 19:58, 20 January 2012 (MST)

===Comment===

With this much bickering, I'm not sure that we deserve a "best of" anything award. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 17:55, 21 August 2011 (MDT)

:We'd be a shoo-in for "Website with most internal strife", though. Any chance of that being a category next year, Hooper? ''':)''' --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 20:07, 21 August 2011 (MDT)

::I think its all the ways of making things which are dealt with completely differently on other wikis (like Wikipedia) workable in a wiki environment. Who knew links were going to be selective? I had known for a while that something had to be done. Who knew that blocking was to be used in disjuncture? Who knows. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:17, 21 August 2011 (MDT)

:::I'm not really sure what that means, but I don't think that's it. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 22:35, 21 August 2011 (MDT)

::::It probably has to do with the administration or something. Who knows. It is all so mysterious. --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.26|173.245.50.26]] 14:50, 22 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::Umm... [[DnD Links]] and [[Warning Policy]] are so...? Read them please. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:10, 22 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::Are so... what? You can't really blame them for anything, since we can change the policy to be whatever we want. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 09:05, 23 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::Hooper should win the "making up awards that mean nothing" award. Also the "most [[Discussion:Trust_Issues|chihuahua-like]]" award. Actually, Hooper should make up a million awards and give them to himself; he earned them! Green Dragon, I don't get why you would turn down such a prestigious award. --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.55.206|173.245.55.206]] 19:11, 23 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::::They can change the policy as well. Policy is done though a wiki. Who says the current method is best? I don't know what they are like to some. Mysterious I guess (as mentioned above). It's the policy turning town the award. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:02, 23 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::Alright then Green Dragon, where should we go to discuss policy changes? Give me a link to a page, or make a discussion page or something, and let's have a policy discussion. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 21:18, 23 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::::::[[Help:Talk Pages]] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Using_talk_pages Help:Using_talk_pages] should direct you where appropriately. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:25, 23 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::::You're kidding, right? I know how to sign a comment, I want to know where you want to hold a discussion about policy changes. If you give me a link, I'll know you'll know where to join the conversation. We've talked about policy choices in the past, and you've never weighed in, so we accomplish nothing (for example, [[Discussion:Re-opening_the_tavern%3F_What_does_the_community_think%3F|here]]). --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 22:40, 23 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::::::::'''This edit removed by user, to prevent unapproved changes to the original post.''' {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 19:58, 20 January 2012 (MST)

:::::::::::::Things which require a technological advancement (not using something we have) are a different matter of course. I mean wiki policy changes.
:::::::::::::Well, you can talk to people with authoritative knowledge about the licensing problems. We are not rejecting the award by no means, we are just not allowing it mentioned here (for the time being at least). How a site does something to D&D Wiki is not D&D Wiki's concern. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:41, 23 August 2011 (MDT)

{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}

:I can't find out how to contact "people with authoritative knowledge about licensing problems". Tell you what, can you just email them and ask them a simple question "is it legal to license the same content under multiple licenses, specifically GNU FDL v1.2 and CC-BY-SA?" Just that, that exact question. If they respond with "Yes" I hope you'll understand what we've all been saying this whole time. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 23:59, 23 August 2011 (MDT)

::Wait, wait, wait! We have a policy against receiving awards? Where is that one? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 09:31, 25 August 2011 (MDT)

:::We don't have a policy that says we can't take awards in general. We do, however, seem to have a policy that requires us to turn down this one. Personally, I'd rather lose out on an award because we suck, rather than because of licensing misunderstandings. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 10:21, 25 August 2011 (MDT)

::::'''This edit removed by user, to prevent unapproved changes to the original post.''' {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 19:58, 20 January 2012 (MST)

:::::Everything is fine except that we may not give such a [[DnD Links|link]]. We could if (well, when) the licensing problems are resolved. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:46, 25 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::Where is ''that'' policy? The only thing on [[DnD Links]] is a link to [[Meta_Pages#Policies]], which, I don't think, says anything about (a) awards, (b) links to other sites, (c) copyright licensing, or (d) compatibility thereof. Unless I'm just missing it somewhere. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 20:50, 25 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::It's the "''As per [[Meta Pages#Policies|policy]] the following external links are the only ones that may be referenced. However the external link reference does not have to be in the same format as the following external links.''" --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:56, 25 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::::So all we have to do to be able to add links to the OGRE site is to add links to the OGRE Site on DnD Links. There isn't a policy that says how we add links to DnD Links, though, so there's nothing stopping us from adding OGRES to DnD Links, then to this page, thus letting us accept the award. (None of this is actually referenced on the policies page it's linked to.) [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 22:29, 25 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::O.G.R.E.s doesn't want or need a link, though. Our site is for members or potential members, and we don't link whore. That isn't what our awards program is for either (its just one of many things we do). So, we don't require a back link at all. So, with that in mind, I guess GD is saying that the site can accept the award but never mention it outside talk pages, because we also host some of our Valgora stuff (which we have full legal right to do so...). Additionally, I don't think it's appropriate for O.G.R.E.s to be linked to from the Links site, because we're not a solely D&D or such club - we are very vocal about our All Tabletop Games/Systems/Companies/Setting/Etc. philosophy. So the average D&D Wiki browser probably isn't our core audience, though a RPGA link or Pathfinder Society link may be appropriate.

:::::::::'''This edit removed by user, to prevent unapproved changes to the original post.''' {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 19:58, 20 January 2012 (MST)

:::::::::::Yes, Jazzman, all we have to do to allow the link is to add O.G.R.E to DnD_Links. However, GD has said we cannot add it to DnD_Links because of some licensing problem (be it real or imaginary). Personally, I'm all for following the first policy we have listed under policies: {{quote
|If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining D&D Wiki, ignore it.
|orig=[[Meta_Pages#Policies]]}}
:::::::::::--[[User:Badger|Badger]] 12:35, 26 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::::::::Oh, it's fine to host [[:Category:Valgora Setting|valgora]] content. It just must be licensed as it is. The [[DnD Links|link]] or no link discussion is for [[Talk:DnD Links]] (MW?). I am not for the policy mentioned above since it undermines D&D Wiki. That's insulting. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:45, 26 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::::::How does doing something to improve or maintain D&D Wiki undermine it? Does it undermine some of the past decisions you've unilaterally set forth? Perhaps, but it doesn't undermine the wiki. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 14:08, 26 August 2011 (MDT)

{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}

:'''This edit removed by user, to prevent unapproved changes to the original post.''' {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 19:58, 20 January 2012 (MST)

::The contributions date still point here. Thanks for the information though, I guess the same is with them. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:30, 26 August 2011 (MDT)

:::I've missed a couple points here, so I'm going to backtrack the discussion a bit. Firstly, if I can reiterate the "policy" issues, I see no reason why we can't link to OGRES. Here's the chain or logic:

::::#You can only link to a site elsewhere on the wiki if it is first placed on DnD Links
::::#You can only place a link on DnD links if it follows the general policies of the website
::::#OGRES is not against any general policies of the website
::::#Therefore you may add it to DnD links, per (2)
::::#Therefore you may link to the site elsewhere per (1)
::::QED.

::::Is there a flaw in my logic? If so, with what step, what is the flaw, and where is the policy posted?

::::On the topic of "undermining": if you read the full context of the text Badger quoted, you will see that the whole reason it is there is because we are too lazy to create our own rules, and instead link to Wikipedia. The effect of this is, we use Wikipedia's rules, except in cases where their rules are incompatible with our purpose. For example [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OR WP:OR] does not apply to custom content created on this wiki. It does not undermine D&D Wiki, but it does leave us with a problem: who gets to decide when we are better off ignoring a given rule? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 18:12, 26 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::"''You can only place a link on DnD links if it follows the general policies of the website''"; which it does not. This is a discussion for [[DnD Links|links]].
:::::None of this is determined by Wikipedia however. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:32, 26 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::Which policy? Can you please point to it? I'd argue that while this may also apply to DnD links, I'm ultimately discussing the award, not whether or not we can link. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 18:42, 26 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::Rudeness: belittling; other uncivil behaviors: lying to the appropriate entity (D&D Wiki). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 19:17, 26 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::::You didn't link to it, so I can only assume you are talking about the [[Warning Policy]]. Regardless of whether or not the website is doing those things (and I'll go out and say that they aren't), that policy applies to editors, not links. It's at best a huge stretch and at worst a gross misinterpretation to apply the warning policy to external websites. Unless you were talking about something else? I'll admit I have trouble navigating the policies. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 19:37, 26 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::No, actually I was not. The [[Warning Policy]] has bases, however those bases are not exclusive. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:15, 26 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::::::'''This edit removed by user, to prevent unapproved changes to the original post.''' {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 19:58, 20 January 2012 (MST)

:::::::::::''"Rudeness: belittling; other uncivil behaviors: lying to the appropriate entity (D&D Wiki). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 19:17, 26 August 2011 (MDT)"''

:::::::::::Not to be too confrontational, but this really seems to indicate that you may have a personal experience with this site or it's users that could potentially influence your opinion. Honestly, I feel it would explain a lot, especially since you appear to oppose and reject even feasible solutions that don't challenge the definitions of the license we currently use, such as upgrading to the new, improved, and problem-solving v1.3.

:::::::::::Back on topic, could you please be specific? Which policies does the award, or even O.G.R.E.S. violate, and please link or explain this, in detail. I cannot speak from the same position has Hooper regarding what O.G.R.E.S. has done in the past, as I lack the same status as a member, but I find that being vague is not going to help these matters. [[User:Jwguy|Jwguy]] 08:57, 27 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::::::::'''This edit removed by user, to prevent unapproved changes to the original post.''' {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 19:58, 20 January 2012 (MST)
:::::::::::::Even if that were the case, there's no policy keeping us from linking to a site with an incompatible license. Likewise, there's no policy keeping us from linking to a site that is rude or belittles us. GD, you stated that linking to O.G.R.E.s does not follow the general policy of this website. Can you please ''link'' to the policy we would be violating? If it's not Warning Policy, I just don't know what it is. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 09:10, 27 August 2011 (MDT)

{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}

:It cannot be [[Warning Policy]] ("''When one does not edit''" just doesn't apply). I said it once and I'll say it again "''Rudeness: belittling; other uncivil behaviors: lying to the appropriate entity (D&D Wiki).''" If the grammar is the problem, look up what each word means and then work the sentence out. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 11:49, 28 August 2011 (MDT)

::''I've'' said it before, and ''I'll'' say it again: show me a link. I know very well what those words mean, I just don't know where you're coming up with them. If it's policy, it's on this website somewhere. If it's not on this website (or within Wikipedia's policies, though I don't think they have any that apply in this instance because they have significantly looser requirements to posting outside links), then it's not policy. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 13:12, 28 August 2011 (MDT)

:::If you care look into it. I'm not going to do something which is so easily done it hurts me to do it. There is an answer to this. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:52, 28 August 2011 (MDT)

::::I have to admit, that comment makes me feel a little belittled. That being said, I can't find the policy which says we can't link to sites that are rude, belittling, uncivil, or lie to us. And neither could [http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0oG7hhEn1pOvkQA9wZXNyoA;_ylc=X1MDUCMyNzY2Njc5BF9yAzIEYW8DMARjc3JjcHZpZANXM0tYeGtvRzd2N1hhMDNMVGtLZW5nQXdybVdmRFU1YW4wUUFDdEo3BGZyA3lmcC10LTcwMQRmcjIDc2J0bgRuX2dwcwMwBG9yaWdpbgNzcnAEcXVlcnkDc2l0ZTpkYW5kd2lraS5jb20gInJ1ZGVuZXNzOyBiZWxpdHRsaW5nIgRzYW8DMQR2dGVzdGlkA1NNRTAzNg--?p=site%3Adandwiki.com+%22rudeness%3B+belittling%22&fr2=sb-top&fr=yfp-t-701&type_param=&rd=pref Yahoo!] [http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0oG7kz9oFpOLF8AnPxXNyoA;_ylc=X1MDUCMyNzY2Njc5BF9yAzIEYW8DMARjc3JjcHZpZANaNm1MY1VvRzd2N1hhMDNMVGtLZW5nZG1ybVdmRFU1YW9QMEFBNmJOBGZyA3lmcC10LTcwMQRmcjIDc2J0bgRuX2dwcwMwBG9yaWdpbgNzcnAEcXVlcnkDc2l0ZTpkYW5kd2lraS5jb20gImx5aW5nIHRvIHRoZSBhcHByb3ByaWF0ZSBlbnRpdHkiBHNhbwMxBHZ0ZXN0aWQDU01FMDM2?p=site%3Adandwiki.com+%22lying+to+the+appropriate+entity%22&fr2=sb-top&fr=yfp-t-701&type_param=&rd=pref] [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 14:20, 28 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::"''When one does not edit''" is a play on words. Websites do not edit, therefore they are treated like a normal Wikipedia user (which does not have a [[Warning Policy]]). They must fix the problem or get banned. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:44, 30 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::As much as I love wordplay, official policy should not include puns. In the future, please be more clear about what you mean. We were all confused for some time by your wording. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 20:46, 30 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::I'm not really sure this violates any WikiP policies, either. If you treat a website like a "user", then "banning" said "user" would mean not allowing him to edit. OGREs isn't editing D&D Wiki, we are. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 13:34, 31 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::::'''This edit removed by user, to prevent unapproved changes to the original post.''' {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 19:58, 20 January 2012 (MST)

== Digital D&D Books ==

a digital copy of one of the books with [OEF] or [OCR] at the end means what? they are pdf files and im not sure what it stands for --[[User:Ozzy1234567890|Ozzy1234567890]] 09:19, 10 October 2011 (MDT)

:Those terms are not associated with D&D, but rather with PDFs in general. OEF stands for "Original Electronic Format" which means it is the document they send to the printers, not a scan of the physical book's pages. OCR stands for Optical Character Recognition, which means you can use the search function of a PDF viewer to search for text. If a PDF is not OCR it essentially treats each page as a picture, so you can't copy/paste text, or search for words. On a related note, piracy is bad. I know buying books is stupid expensive (and fills up a lot of space, and less convenient, and less functional), but it is one of the best ways to show support, especially for indie developers and smaller publishing groups. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 11:31, 10 October 2011 (MDT)

::"less convenient, and less functional"? i dont know what your talking about. i prefer hardcopies over pdf, cause i can stick my fingers in the pages and flip through half the book in a few seconds. [[User:Zau|Zau]] 14:35, 10 October 2011 (MDT)

:::I agree that paper is nicer to read then pdfs. I find that reading is much more enjoyable in a non-digital format because no screen must be read the entire time, it normally is more comfortable, it's less effort, etc. Also, there are websites (not sure how they work with piracy) which host D&D books. One may be able to download pdfs from them for a membership price. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 14:40, 10 October 2011 (MDT)

::::Have you ever brought 50 books to a table to play D&D? Nope, but you can instantly pull open a new PDF. As for less functional, I could go either way with that one. Assuming you have a decent PDF viewer, you can make annotations, add bookmarks, highlight, and search entire books for phrases, rather than have to use an index. I know I'm the only one at my table that prefers a hard copy, and these are the reasons they usually cite. Hosting D&D books is almost certainly illegal. If it's not uploaded by something like "DNDWizards" or whatever else, odds are it isn't released by WotC. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 16:01, 10 October 2011 (MDT)

::Thanks Badger! And I agree, paper is better in my opinion. I just need my own physical copies rather than copies at a friends house 2 hours away. --[[User:Ozzy1234567890|Ozzy1234567890]] 08:57, 21 October 2011 (MDT)

== Glitch? ==

Is this a glitch? I tried to make a new mundane weapon, however when the editing page came up it said something like "wikify| could not load" or something like that. Please look into it. --[[User:Reddragonl33t|Reddragonl33t]]

:With so little information, there's no way to tell if it was a glitch. I kind of doubt it was, though. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 13:00, 18 October 2011 (MDT)

::Was the page name already in use? I tried to make a weapon page (per [[Add New 3.5e Equipment]]) and it worked fine. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:28, 18 October 2011 (MDT)

== Just a bit of a problem ==

I just want to say that I love the site and I am currently using a homebrew race for my character but Me and my DM have come to an impass...

I chose the geode for my race but I want to play a dragonfire adept and as such class I need to breath, any idea how we could get around this? [[User:Mega0live|Mega0live]] 16:01, 15 December 2011 (MST)

:This question would fit better in the [[DnD Discussion|discussion section]] of the site.--[[User:Milo v3|Milo High-Hill]] 01:48, 16 December 2011 (MST)

== Frustration ==

I had to go through a catraphrase thing, GAH! How I would like to ring the neck of who did what they did to this site... I mean that they need to be more mature and not spam/upload things to this site that can harm it.... Sorry, just wish I could find who was responsible... [[User:Mega0live|Mega0live]] 05:59, 9 January 2012 (MST)

And if this is unnessesary I am sorry... [[User:Mega0live|Mega0live]] 06:01, 9 January 2012 (MST)

:What are you talking about? What is "''a catraphrase thing''"? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 10:57, 9 January 2012 (MST)

::Probably got snagged by cloudflare. Happened to me for about a week in November/December. --[[User:Ganre|Ganre]] 12:03, 9 January 2012 (MST)

:::I have been asked to turn up the cloudflare security options on [[User talk:Green Dragon#Spam (again/still)]]. Are you saying it is too strict? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:09, 9 January 2012 (MST)

:::: Sorry, the catraphrase thing is the type the 2 above words thing to get into things. [[User:Mega0live|Mega0live]] 18:59, 9 January 2012 (MST)

:::::I don't think it is too strict, but i think it needs to be targeted to edits, not just viewing. --[[User:Ganre|Ganre]] 08:14, 10 January 2012 (MST)

::::::[https://www.cloudflare.com/plans Here] are their options. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 11:35, 10 January 2012 (MST)

:::::::Which plan do we currently use? What are our settings? I don't know how to tell if the settings aren't high enough, if the software isn't working, or if spammers are just finding a way around it. Really, if these spammers are just a bunch of Chinese people with proxied IP addresses, theree's nothing stopping them from spamming. AFAICT, cloudflare only protects us from automatically generated spam (aka bot spam), correct? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 12:25, 20 January 2012 (MST)

== 5th Edition ==

This might be a bit premature(it's never happened to me before, I swear!), but apparently, WotC has announced 5th ed. Should we open a section up on the wiki, or is it too soon? --[[User:Ganre|Ganre]] 12:19, 9 January 2012 (MST)

:Do you know where their official release information is? I can't seem to find it in their news section. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:50, 9 January 2012 (MST)

::I am not sure if this is okay to post, as it is an external link: http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd%2F4ll%2F20120109 --[[User:Ganre|Ganre]] 14:42, 9 January 2012 (MST)

:::You are fine to post the external links on [[DnD Links]] (see the top) anywhere and in any manner.
:::The next edition will be treated like 4e (and 2.5e, etc). Would you be interested in spear-heading this new edition as the game is finalized? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:26, 9 January 2012 (MST)

::::I would be, if it doesn't suck... --[[User:Ganre|Ganre]] 08:11, 10 January 2012 (MST)

:::::Glad to hear it. As soon as there is information about how things are done feel free to start. If/when you need help I am more then willing. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 11:33, 10 January 2012 (MST)

==Cloudflare Issue==

Over the past couple weeks, I've been occasionally getting an error message from Cloudflare indicating that the site is down. Can anyone explain what's going on with that? -[[User:Silverkin|Silverkin]] 07:51, 16 January 2012 (MST)

:One time may have been when I deleted my talk page, since I put my password on it, and I could not restore it without the site having to go down because of setup issues. How often has this cloudflare issue been happening? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:05, 16 January 2012 (MST)

::It's happened to me three times, on different days each time. I can say with confidence that all three were within the last month or two. -[[User:Silverkin|Silverkin]] 16:12, 16 January 2012 (MST)

:::It happened to me several times last year and once yesterday.--[[User:Milo v3|Milo High-Hill]] 17:14, 16 January 2012 (MST)

::::I have this problem from time to time, but it was not until recently that I discovered I am exacerbating the problem. When the site goes down I usually keep a window open and click refresh periodically until the page loads. Last time the site went down I thought it had been down for days, but then I noticed that there is a link to click if you think the site is back up and you are getting the page in error (in other words, it forces the page to load fresh, instead of from your cache). Lo and behold, the site loaded and people had been editing the entire time I thought it was down! [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 12:27, 20 January 2012 (MST)

== Concerning edits to this page ==

Green Dragon, you have made edits to the text of yours and other people's comments in violation of our policies, as I have explained below. Your initial explanation for the removal was "''some removed because USA and English (oxford) would deal with "the warning" not D&D Wiki, removed based off inappropriate behavior, removed circular comments''". Per our [[Help:Talk_Pages#Editing_or_Deleting_Existing_Comments|policies]], you can not remove any text -- including your own -- unless it violates one of 5 very specific rules. "Circular comments" are not in violation, whatever the USA thing means is not in violation, and while inappropriate behavior ''is'' a violation, any offenders should have been warned. None of the five rules allow you to remove any mention of OGREs, none of them allow you to remove entire lines of someone's argument, thus changing the entire meaning of their post (see my logic around line 307 -- this is in every letter and spirit of the law the reason for the Wikipedia policy in the first place), and really, none of these rules allow you to edit your own wording for clarity (the Wikipedia policy to which we default HEAVILY frowns upon this) or fix other people's links. Your newest reason "''All Policy violations - although not necessarily OURS''" is, frankly, somewhat unbelievable. Am I to believe that we are to remove ANY content that is in violation of ANY policy ANYWHERE? Should I delete the entire wiki, as I'm sure there's a website out there somewhere with the policy that all content must be in Italian? In addition, this conversation took place months ago. Why is it even relevant now, unless you thought nobody was paying attention to it any more?

I'm sure you will be removing the content once again, but if you do so I implore you to please follow our policies as written and (a) itemize what changes you are making and for what reason you have made them (meaning one-by--one, not a blanket statement), (b) make any changes without changing the intent of what someone has said, and (c) make any changes related to policy violations based on the policies of this website. We have no governing body, no law enforcement; the only thing we have are what few rules are actually thought out and codified. Without those we are just in anarchy and nobody wants to stay around and build up our website. Thank you for your understanding. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 12:22, 20 January 2012 (MST)

:'''This edit removed by user, to prevent unapproved changes to the original post.''' {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 19:58, 20 January 2012 (MST)

User talk:Hooper

2012-01-21T02:53:47Z

Hooper: /* Persistent Troll/Vandal */

<center>Did I recently rate your campaign setting? Please, click [[Template:Campaign Setting Rating/meta|here]] to view my reasoning for it's rating.</center>
{{Archives
|label1= Archive 1 (1-30)
|label2= Archive 2 (31-60)
}}

== Campaign Help ==
I saw on a ratings page for campaign settings that you are willing to help with formatting when it comes to creating new settings. I've been working on a setting for a 3.5e campaign I eventually want to play; however, I thought I could go ahead and add it on here. This will be my first attempt at working with a wiki and I have little clue as to how to format it. I've looked around through a few links on how to edit a wiki and such, but it is a bit foreign to me. Heck, I'm not even sure I'm doing this right. If you could help me out, that would be great. I'm not sure how communication works on this site, but I'm willing to learn. -[[User:Eagle033|Eagle033]] 22:50, 3 January 2012 (MST)

:Really, the easiest way is to '''actually read''' ''(don't just skim!)'' Wikipedia's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Contents/Getting_started comprehensive newcomer's guide] to wiki editing. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 19:14, 8 January 2012 (MST)

::Hmm. That link is much better than the one I had found before. The one I had looked at prior was only on formatting text and such. I'm not so much concerned on how to actually do the coding part, for I seem to have got a basic understanding of that now. I'm more worried with the actual layout of the page. What information should I put on the front page. Do I create a supplement page for each new section. My campaign focuses on one continent, for now, but I do have information for the entire world. How would I go about setting that up? It's those types of questions. The wiki formatting was the least of my concerns. I've learned a few computer languages both in school and self-taught. Wiki coding is just another addition. -[[User:Eagle033|Eagle033]] 19:44, 13 January 2012 (MST)

== Persistent Troll/Vandal ==
[http://dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Logos_%283.5e_Creature%29&action=history Please take a look] at the [http://dandwiki.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/174.23.145.59 trolling, vandalism, and homophobia] that has gone on much time by one user on one particular page. Thank you. --[[User:ScryersEve|Scryer's Eve]] ([[User_talk:ScryersEve|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/ScryersEve|contribs]]) 02:31, 15 January 2012 (MST)

:Thanks for the note, but I'm not an admin. Nor a active user here. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 19:53, 20 January 2012 (MST)

Talk:Main Page

2012-01-21T02:52:36Z

Hooper: /* Concerning edits to this page */

{{Archives
|label1=Discussions 1–30
|label2=Discussions 31–60
|label3=Discussions 61–90
}}

== Praise for this site ==

This is the most useful Wiki I have ever found on D&amp;D, (and I've seen a LOT of on-line references). I am currently running an adventure and I keep this site open on my lap-top as I play. It saves me a great deal of time and speeds up play considerably. I almost never even open my Monster Manual anymore.

Kudos to the WebMaster. --[[User:Gildavinor|Gildavinor]] 18:13, 25 September 2009 (MDT)

:I agree very strongly with you, Gild! Though I didn't sign in very often previously, I absolutely adore this Wiki. It's the pinnacle of Dungeons and Dragons research and innovation. --[[User:Harry Mason|Harry Mason]] 18:42, 25 September 2009 (MDT)

::Taking sides in any instance is a bad idea... Neutrality is a great observational instrument if one is not affiliated therein. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:51, 25 September 2009 (MDT)

:::Totally agree. --[[User:Lord Mattos|Lord Mattos]] 11:14, 29 November 2009 (MST)

== Two Millionth View! ==

Looks like today was [[Special:Statistics|the day]] folks! 2 million views on the main page!  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 12:46, 14 October 2009 (MDT)

:Yeah, now there are 2,299,388 views (Jan. 13,2010)! Wohoo! --[[User:Io|Io]] 16:52, 13 January 2010

And now, in the november of 2010, we have 3,080,184 views!

== Size ==

how many Megabytes is this whole site? {{Unsigned|216.12.83.73|22:29, 15 November 2009 (MDT)}}

:Why? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:40, 15 November 2009 (MST)

::I was thinking of copying the source code so i cant look at it offline--[[User:Lo-Chi|Lt.Dan]] 07:20, 16 November 2009 (MST)

:::You don't need the size of D&D Wiki as a whole when looking at the source code ("''View Page Source''" for Mozilla Firefox). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:12, 16 November 2009 (MST)

== The Tavern ==

After a huge hiatus I'm finally back to D&D Wiki (and happy to return!) following a long period of being almost broke. I notice that the Tavern, which was gone when I first had to go...still isn't back. That was one of my favorite parts of the Wiki, and I hope I'm just being stupid and missing it somewhere. Is it gone for good? --[[User:Harry Mason|Harry Mason]] 07:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

:It actually was discontinued. There is no "official" reason as to now however take a look at [[Discussion:The Tavern: use, expansion, and availability.]]. The main reason is "''...it is quite childish and immature at times and I feel at times it decreases the seriousness of D&D Wiki with childish behavior and immaturity.''" [[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] "Discussion:The Tavern: use, expansion, and availability." 21:02, 20 November 2009 (MST). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

::Ah...oh well. That's a little sad to me, but I can see the reasoning behind it, it -was- rather vulgar at times. Thank you for replying. :) --[[User:Harry Mason|Harry Mason]] 01:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

:::I'm coming back too and I too liked the tavern... I agree with the reasoning, but I still think we should have an effective way of conversation, since a wiki is not the best tool for talking... Isn't there something that could be implemented in the place of the tavern (and maybe have some rules as to swearing and misbehaviour, making disrespectful users suspended/banned from using it)?--[[User:ElfsMaster|ElfsMaster]] 10:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

::::But this '''is''' a wiki, and by not having the sidetrack of a chat users may tend to rely more on the already established discussion tool. Or they can leave messages on talk pages of other users. It actually encourages the opening of discussions and talks between users on the wiki - which can lead to more wiki additions and improvements, instead of just idle chatter.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 14:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

:::::Appealing to people in real time is more effective than doing so passively, from what I've found. Also, just because serious discussion does not happen constantly doesn't mean it never does. I understand that a decision has been made however, so that's all I'll say on the matter. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 14:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

::::::Why not do something like what facebook has and when a user is logged in, they have a little chat bar? i know there are a lot of difficulties with that, including having "friends lists" and the like, but its an idea. --[[User:Ozzy1234567890|Ozzy1234567890]] 07:21, 26 January 2011 (MST)

== Search Incapacitation ==
The search function has been completely nonfunctional for me for a good few days, maybe half a week or more now. Once in a while I'll nail to a T an article's name, and it'll transport me there. Just hitting Search or mistyping anything causes it to utterly fail for me. Is this just a localized problem (which I don't think it is, I've used 3 different computers to try and access it, all were on different networks) or what's going on? --[[User:Harry Mason|Harry Mason]] 05:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

:Is it actually giving you an error, or just pulling up the extended/advanced search function ''(which is normal when you don't type an article name perfectly)''?.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 13:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

::I'm having the same issues, the message "Query failed: connection to localhost:3312 failed (errno=111, msg=Connection refused)" appears when I try to search for something.
::I'm having a similar problem, mainly in that I can't browse things, I can only see things when I search for them, which, makes looking at the diffrent races, quite difficult [[User:Sevant|Sevant]] 18:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

:::Search is working once again. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:14, 22 August 2010 (MDT)

== Official Content Designation ==

Could a homebrew template be added? I keep coming here after a Google search and I keep finding overpowered homebrew things (like [[Paragon_of_Light/Darkness_%283.5e_Prestige_Class%29]]) and it usually takes me a moment to figure out that it's not official, just something some random person made up. I'd prefer to see some sort of note to that effect at the top of the page. [[User:Banaticus|Banaticus]] 02:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

:Ummm... A template is already added on all official pages. This is a homebrew site, so all articles are automatically assumed to be homebrew unless they are specified otherwise.--[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 03:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

::There already is a homebrew template. Look down at the bottom of that page you linked... see where it says "{{DnD Classes Breadcrumb}} → [[DnD Prestige Classes|Prestige Classes]]"? "Homebrew" is even in the wording of the template. If you are looking for ONLY SRD material then look for pages starting with "SRD:". They will all have OGL templates as well.
::Additionally, much of our homebrew content has ratings by other users, so you should know right away if it's overpowered. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 14:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

== Pictures Down? ==

While it might be my computer, it appears that something happened to the pictures on the site. They don't seem to be displaying. Am I wrong? Was there an announcement that I missed? [[User:Noname|Aristocles]] 05:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

:This question was already brought up on GD's talk page under [[User talk:Green Dragon#Images lost again|this header]]. However no clear answer was given by GD. All I know is that no, it is not your computer, and no there was no announcement. The pictures still exist on the media repository, however they are not linking properly. --[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 13:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

::Images have been fixed. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:12, 22 August 2010 (MDT)

:::Are you sure? I dont see any- ANYWHERE!!! [[User:DragonFist|DragonFist]] 20:13, 17 December 2010 (MST)

::::This may have been a cache problem. I assume this is no longer a problem as they have been working for me for quite a while now. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:13, 9 August 2011 (MDT)

== Marking a page as homebrew ==

How do we mark a page as homebrew? Take [Alon (3.5e Deity)] for instance. It turns out he's a homebrew god, although I don't see that anywhere on the page. It's sometimes difficult to tell the difference on this wiki between homebrew things and official things. [[Special:Contributions/97.93.94.242|97.93.94.242]] 12:42, 24 August 2010 (MDT)

:Any properly-created page should have a clear breadcrumb at the bottom of the page which leads back to a homebrew page. In addition any user-created content belongs in [[:Category:User]]. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 13:22, 27 August 2010 (MDT)

::You can also just click "3.5e Open Game Content" on the sidebar to take you to the "official" material. Almost everything on this site is homebrew. Because of that, what we do is mark pages that are official. If you don't see a template that says "Open Game Content", then the page you are viewing is essentially guaranteed to be homebrew content. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 14:24, 27 August 2010 (MDT)

== 3 Million View ==
Just a quick pat on the back, as per Statistics the main page has hit 3 million views. Too bad our news is months behind.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 22:46, 3 January 2011 (MST)

:That's ok, I'm months behind on reading --[[User:Calidore Chase|Calidore Chase]] 04:33, 17 March 2011 (MDT)

== Advice on Creating Animal ==

Ok so i have no clue how to do this but i want to make an Exploding Chicken animal for D20M and all i know is that its a regular chicken that explodes when within 15ft of any nonchaotic for 1d6 damage at a range of 20ft. they have a total health of 3. they also are weak and are just mobile... firecracker i guess would be the best way of puting it. my DM said to just put it on here cause he wants to see what others think. thanks! *EDIT* i ment D20M Apocolypse

:I can't give you mechanical help with creating your creature, but I can give you wiki help. Go [[Add_a_New_D20M_Creature|here]] and replace "CreatureName" with "Exploding Chicken" or whatever you want to name it. Leave a space and (D20 Modern Creature) after the name, and then press "Create New Creature". It will take you to a page with a pre-load designed for creatures in the d20M universe (I don't know if that is the same as d20M Apocalypse, is it?). Like I said, I don't know anything about the d20M system, so I can't help you write your creature and balance it, but if you need help with tables or other wiki formatting, leave a message on my talk page. One last thing, don't forget to sign your posts by typing <nowiki> --~~~~ </nowiki>. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 13:44, 21 January 2011 (MST)

::Thanks! and its pretty much the same as other systems. and i guess i ment that i needed tables for things like different sizes and their modifiers and things like that --[[User:Ozzy1234567890|Ozzy1234567890]] 10:54, 24 January 2011 (MST)

== April 1 ==

Is there going to be another [[:Category:April Fools|April Fools]] thing this year? -[[User:Ozzy1234567890|Ozzy1234567890]] 08:15, 28 March 2011 (MDT)

:Well I'm going to add April Fool stuff. I don't know about other people though. --[[User:Milo v3|Milo High-Hill]] 15:26, 28 March 2011 (MDT)

::If you're looking for ideas, try updating the random hooker table from the [[Dungeon Master's Guide (1e AD&D)|1e DMG]]. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 16:08, 28 March 2011 (MDT)

:::I've added the Chew'd Button and I'm going add Summon Potato this after noon.--[[User:Milo v3|Milo High-Hill]] 21:23, 31 March 2011 (MDT)

== Sheild Bash? ==

Hello ive been playing DnD 3.5 for a while now and I have a question a heavy sheild with spikes does 1d8 damage now when i enchanted it with "Bashing" my friends told me it now does 3d6 on a shield bash is this correct? {{unsigned|Grunt|2011-04-12 16:36}}

: Not quite. A [[SRD:Heavy Shield#Enhancements|spiked heavy shield]] does 1d6, not 1d8. According to the 3.5 FAQ, the bashing quality stacks with a spiked shield which raises the damage to 2d6. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 17:22, 12 April 2011 (MDT)

== Prototype... Class? Template? Race? Can someone help? ==

Hello in my groups recent dnd sessions we decided to try for an OP campaign as in epic class's templates and races based off of movies, books, games, etc... so if anyone has ever played the game ''Prototype'' and know about "Alex Mercer" and his "powers" then you would know what kind of chacacter I want for our OP Campaign. unfortionatly I dont know anything about making class's/Races/templates. So i was wondering if somebody could either make one for me or help me with making it. It would be very much appreciated.
DND 3.5 PLEASE!

::The best person to ask, I believe, is [[User:Badger|Badger]]. --[[User:Ozzy1234567890|Ozzy1234567890]] 09:25, 16 April 2011 (MDT)

== Campaign Setting Help ==
:''Discussion moved to [[User talk:Ohgren#I have a question]].'' --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 00:31, 17 May 2011 (MDT)

== Have an Idea ==
:''Discussion moved to [[Discussion:Half-Demon_Combinations]].'' --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 19:48, 14 June 2011 (MDT)

== Weapon Enhancement Formula appears to be inconsistent ==

:''Discussion moved to [[SRD Talk:Magic Items#Weapon Enhancement Formula appears to be inconsistent]].'' —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 17:26, 18 July 2011 (MDT)

== Site nominated for an Award ==

[[File:Oggie statue trans small.png|thumb]]

Just thought I would let you guys know: D&D Wiki has been nominated for an OGGIE. The OGGIEs are the industry awards thereby. Nowhere near as big as the ENnies or Origin awards, the OGGIEs reflect the games, people, and tools that our members appreciate. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 18:52, 14 August 2011 (MDT)

:Unfortunately this may not be accepted at this time. See also [[Talk:DnD Links#Lifestyles]]. I hope for a difference next year (or next award period). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:40, 15 August 2011 (MDT)

::I don't follow GD. This isn't a site, simply an award. One of the sites mentioned is that link is also up for it, but its not a link or anything. If you prefer to not accept the nomination, we can revert to one of the other nominees that had lesser votes. Not really sure what you mean by the above statement. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 22:08, 15 August 2011 (MDT)

:::I mean that the link is not acceptable at the moment because of licensing problems. As soon as it is this may be mentioned here. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:11, 15 August 2011 (MDT)

::::Wait, are you telling me we are refusing an award because the O.G.R.E. website uses a license that we don't? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 00:20, 16 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::What link? {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 06:10, 16 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::No. Because they have [[:Category:Valgora Setting]] content licensed incorrectly. It is actually licensed under the GNU FDL v1.2. Were that to be changed then it would be no problem. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:15, 16 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::Although that is wholly incorrect in regards to how licensing works when the original author publishes , its not what I'm asking. What link? Being nominated for an award has not resulted in a single link off site. So again, what link?
:::::::Anyways, in the interest of not rearguing an argument you've already lost that has no bearing, if you're uncomfortable let me know and well invalidate the nomination and let the next site in line receive it. (Didn't mean for that to sound rude, dang text based conversations. I just have no interest in revisiting the license discussion, especially when I see no connection) {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 13:55, 16 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::::Well, Hooper, I'm willing to bet that the O.G.R.E.s aren't going to re-license their own material to make GD happy, so we're at an impasse here. I understand that our nomination for this award has no external links related to it at all, but apparently GD doesn't. On a personal note, totally unofficial in every way, thanks for the nomination. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 15:12, 16 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::It wasn't me actually. Since I was the contact point for members I abstained from nominating myself. We had about 300 unique nominators, and expect about 3k unique voters. I was really happy to see this site on the list. Well, maybe next year. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 15:22, 16 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::::::I find myself rather disappointed with this response. I am aligned with Hooper and Badger on all regards. [[User:Jwguy|Jwguy]] 09:19, 18 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::::The problem stems from that D&D Wiki is then considering itself irrelevant or subservient. Both these would rather be avoided if they are actually otherwise so. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:36, 18 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::::::::Anyone have a clue as to what Green Dragon's on about? Really, "considering itself irrelevant or subservient"? To ''what'', exactly? --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.158|173.245.56.158]] 01:59, 19 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::::::I am somewhat confused by this explanation. I am going to quote definitions to help spell out why, no offense intended.
:::::::::::::"The Problem stems from that D&D Wiki is then considering itself 'irreverent' (an adjective used to describe something that is disrespectful, sarcastic, and/or lacking in overall seriousness.) or 'subservient' (an adjective used to describe something that is useful in an inferior capacity or is compliantly submissive)."
:::::::::::::Are you attempting to say that accepting an award that praises the site for it's content (I presume this is what the reward is for, honestly) indicates either of these things? If anything, it appears to mean the opposite of the first definition, as we're being recognized for honors, and the second is unlikely, since, again, we're being recognized for honors, not complying to their whims or submitting to superiority. Another thing is I don't see how this deals with the licensing problem, above, which I find myself agreeing with Hooper, on that note, having read over a large amount of licensing information due to links to past discussions. [[User:Jwguy|Jwguy]] 12:11, 19 August 2011 (MDT)

{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}

:Sorry I meant "irrelevant". I spelled it wrong initially and in Firefox the first spellcheck result turned up with "irreverent".
:"Considering itself irrelevant or subservient" to its own functions was meant.
:Not accepting anything, ''linking'' to a site out of respect which does considers D&D Wiki's functions irrelevant and subversive (through the link) makes D&D Wiki then consider itself also so (or recognize such a consideration). This is what I am talking about. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:07, 19 August 2011 (MDT)

::Except that reason makes not a lick of sense and gives the impression that you do not understand the facts. Did you somehow got the Oggies confused with...what, the Internet Razzies? Is it Opposite Week? As near as I can tell, OGRE is a roleplaying organization which wishes to acknowledge the D&D wiki as a fine D&D resource upon the Internet. '''They nominated the wiki for an award'''. One would think you would at least crack a smile over the fact that at least a few people in an unaffiliated group nominated the wiki for one of their awards and allow the nomination to be acknowledged and claim the prize if you get it. By the way, Hooper, which award was it? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.158|173.245.56.158]] 00:22, 20 August 2011 (MDT)

:::I'd link to it, but......... Its "Website of the Year." Other contestants include a project funding platform site, a community game development & playtest site, an RPG advocacy site, etc. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 09:57, 20 August 2011 (MDT)

::::Green Dragon, your previous comments can barely be considered English. I'm having a hard time understanding you. Are you suggesting that OGRE, through its licensing, is acting as though we exist to serve them? That is perhaps one of the silliest things I've ever heard on this wiki, and I've been part of some incredibly asinine discussions here. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 10:55, 20 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::Were they to license the content under the GNU FDL v1.2 appropriately (comparable to OGC; if it is allowed) it would be different. However implying that D&D Wiki's functions are nonexistent or irrelevant to others' functions is, by definition, an irrelevant or subservient consideration. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:01, 20 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::What content or license? The award is not a license, its simply an award. The winners will be given fair use to display the appropriate award. That's the only license at all related to this. GD, everyone is having a very hard time understanding you. We're not trying to be rude, it just seems like you're making no sense.The award is simply an acknowledgement of appreciation, it has no other effect. To say an acknowledgements somehow equals irrelevance is hard to follow. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 12:10, 20 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::The mixing, picking, and matching going on here I cannot understand. A is to A as A is to A. See also [[Talk:DnD Links#Lifestyles]] for more information about the problem. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:54, 20 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::::Umm, what? I don't know if this is the worse, or best, conversation ever. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 15:06, 20 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::Hooper, this is the exact same problem that we had with the other wiki. Content licensing and re-licensing. Green Dragon has one understanding of the law, and some people (a number that appears to include everyone else in the world) has a different understanding. This time, OGRE has licensed the Valgora setting under CC-BY-SA, and we have it under GNU FDL v1.2. Because these aren't the same license, GD feels (and correct me if I'm wrong) that we are being slighted/ignored/other bad things. Because of that, we here at D&Dwiki will pretend that they don't exist, until they begin to comply with GD's understanding of the law. It seems foolish for us to ask you to re-license your material under GNU FDL v1.2 (considering it is an out-dated license anyway), so I won't even bother asking you to consider it. And, to answer your last comment, having been in my fair share of conversations, I'm going to say this is neither the best or the worst. However, his last comment might go down in history alongside a few other gems of what I call EnGDlish. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 17:35, 20 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::::::<cite>Were they to license the content under the GNU FDL v1.2 appropriately (comparable to OGC; if it is allowed) it would be different. However implying that D&D Wiki's functions are nonexistent or irrelevant to others' functions is, by definition, an irrelevant or subservient consideration. --Green Dragon</cite>
::::::::::Green Dragon, I will presume this is your main and only prominent standing argument against accepting the award. I provide the following rebuttal: First, I wish to know, by link and explanation, preferably, when, where, and how O.G.R.E. has implied this, or that the award has implied this; These are the only subjects that would be considered relevant to your argument, on the subject at hand, as these appear to be the only subjects concerning our site, here. Second, the emboldened text is a bit of stretch, on your part: While you are incorrect regarding the 'by definition' part, since considering ''anything'' irrelevant or non-existent does not match the definition of subservient (I posted it earlier), and irrelevance references itself in irrelevant, I fail to see why this matters? The key point of '''Irrelevant''', by definition, is that there is no connection, no relation, unimportant in circumstance or consideration, etc., and therefore, the idea that the site uses a different, but entirely legal, correct, and appropriate license, is inconsequential to D&D Wiki in every way, since the two sites are not related. All that matters is the legality of each item, viewed separately from each site, on the level that we are, now. There is no conflict or relation. Because of these reasons, I fail to see why you argue this point, or how you believe this award is unacceptable. There is no subservience, at all, and there is no irrelevance in accepting the award (We accept the award based on the fact that it is award to our site, for our content, and is therefore relevant to the site), and the site is irrelevant in every other manner (licensing, members, etc.). [[User:Jwguy|Jwguy]] 10:58, 21 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::::::::It also appears that he specifically checks the license a particular thing is under. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.158|173.245.56.158]] 11:47, 21 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::::::''(a number that appears to include everyone else in the world)'' does not include people who need to care. People with authoritative knowledge on this subject has reaffirmed what I have been saying. This is just one of those "internet postings myths" that people seem to cling to. Humans are varied.
:::::::::::::With my terminology I was just putting an opinion onto the subject. The fact comes from [[DnD Links]] (top text). This answers many of the questions about this subject.
:::::::::::::''(considering it is an out-dated license anyway)'' does not include the fact that new MW installs still list it as a possibility. Whatever outdated means as well. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:21, 21 August 2011 (MDT)

{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}

:Regardless of my unattended argument, I decided to do some research on my own. Google is great, praise it. I came up with a simple solution. Why don't we just upgrade our license to GNU FDL 1.3? It is a more up-to-date version of our current license, and 'lo and behold, it manages to get rid of the whole compability problem with CC-BY-SA. At this point, clinging to 1.2, an obsolete version of the license, only generates more problems and needless strife. This option allows us to not bicker over this obviously controversial issue (Of which I must comment, Green Dragon, that sometimes your replies are hard to understand and do not address presented issues, and can exacerbate that), an issue which has apparently been active for a good long time before this one, according to the many links that we've been presented.
:To summarize, every bit of this can be avoid by simply upgrading to the new GNU Free Documentation License 1.3, which does allow usage under CC-BY-SA. No-one loses face, no-one argues about vague legalese, and we have a happy wiki. [[User:Jwguy|Jwguy]] 00:28, 22 August 2011 (MDT)

::That was mentioned during our last debate. Nothing came of it. Not sure why, as it does solve all our problems. I think it has something to do with we aren't legally allowed to update our license, if I recall correctly. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 18:51, 22 August 2011 (MDT)

:::We could upgrade. Why? What is wrong with the GNU FDL v1.2? It is still offered on new MW installs. Is it because of a fear complex that we should? This is the only reason I can devise from such an idea, and one I would not like to pursue. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:44, 23 August 2011 (MDT)

::::Why upgrade? Here is a page that explains the changes, and why we should consider it: [http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-1.3-faq.html] Basically, it says "We can play nicely with people who use different licenses". I see no reason why we shouldn't extend a metaphorical olive branch and say "You play D&D. I play D&D. Let's be friendly." --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 18:59, 24 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::Still, why? What is wrong with the GNU FDL v1.2? I have no idea why Wikipedia did what it did. The current license does not have any holes or flaws that I can think of, and creating an environment for licensing is ingrained in any case, so why create cross-dependency? Making things simpler is always better then more complex, and a cross-dependency is more complex for everyone. We allow CC-BY-NC-SA content (see also [[Template:Cc-by-nc-sa]]). That is the current method– why a cross-dependency? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:46, 25 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::How many novel-length debates do we need to have before you acknowledge that a large portion of the user base isn't satisfied with the current licensing arrangement? Sure, there may not be anything inherently ''wrong'' with v1.2, but v1.3 is ''specifically designed for wiki projects''. Also, there would be no "cross-dependency". Literally nothing would change, except for where we can link. It wouldn't be more complex. In fact, most people wouldn't notice a change, and those that do would notice an improvement, not a more complicated system! Did you get a chance to ask the GNU FDL people about allowing multiple licences of the same content yet? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 12:42, 26 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::Who actually cares about the current licensing situation, save a few (I can only list a few users) who care about making an annoying situation about a myth every time they can? It gets on my nerves, and it wastes my time. Maybe we can put a policy in about redundant discussions. The question remains: What is wrong with CC-BY-NC-SA content (see also [[Template:Cc-by-nc-sa]])? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:45, 26 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::::Nothing, Green Dragon. Nothing is wrong with CC-BY-NC-SA content. Here's what I don't get, though. You know at least a handful of people who don't like the current situation. Fixing their problem would be as simple as a half dozen edits, and no more than 15 minutes of your time. The question remains: If this is a recurring problem for you, why not address it, rather than make a policy that forces us to ignore it? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 14:08, 26 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::I imagine the flip side would get on many people's nerves. I know having multiple licenses (which is variable itself) and having them dependent on one another would be annoying for me. And when I say "''annoying situation''" I mean that users may be creating it for a number of reasons. I am not a psychiatrist, however I understand that people may be annoying for annoying's sake, have a reason behind it (hidden or not), or feel feelings about the situation. These, however, are not policy reasons. We are not in charge or anything really (D&D is D&D) except for how D&D Wiki's policies play out for it's users. Where a president may act on feelings (for example) there is no reason for us to. It accomplishes nothing. We must act on creating an environment where users understand their contributions (for the most part) and are okay with them. I find that creating multiple license dependency (where two separate licenses work just fine) does harm to our actions as administrators. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:30, 26 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::::::I'm not sure I understand most of what you've written there, but I think I got the gist of it. However, if we ''update'' to v1.3 of the GNU FDL we won't have to worry about multiple licenses. It would also allow us to "play nicely" with people who use CC-BY-SA, though ''we don't have to use it on our site''. Like I said, nothing would change in the eyes of 99% of the userbase. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 19:09, 26 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::::Wikipedia is now dual licensed (or something like that), and we already have a solution for this (see also [[Template:Cc-by-nc-sa]]) so I do not see a reason at all. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 19:38, 26 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::::::::I think you may be taking the issue in the wrong direction, Green Dragon. It's been stated multiple times: The argument lies in the fact that either you, or D&D Wiki's license policies, depending on who wants to direct blame at which party, have caused this confrontation regarding O.G.R.E.S.; I don't believe anyone here in the opposition has a problem with CC-BY-SA. Quite the opposite, it appears that you believe GNU FDL 1.2 conflicts with the idea derivative works that take up the license or different licenses, and while possibly justified (We've heard many arguments on each side of this), this is just making things complicated and frustrating.

::::::::::::GNU FDL 1.2 was obsolete the moment 1.3 was released. This issue, and similar issues regarding license conflict, has divided the user-base of this wiki for far too long, and if that is not reason enough, then add in the factor that this allows us to accept wonderful awards and cooperate with other wikis, instead of reverting to another one of these large, drawn out arguments, and achieving nothing. Don't speak for the unspoken, but listen to those who have come forward to speak for themselves; You'll find that some of your greatest and most active remaining members are here, even if hundreds of numbers stay quiet, whether for or against the issue is unknown. This is not the time to be '''stubborn''', either. If anything, then why not have a vote, and be done with it? [[User:Jwguy|Jwguy]] 08:41, 27 August 2011 (MDT)

*'''The licensing discussion has been moved to [[Talk:GNU Free Documentation License 1.3#Updating]].''' {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 09:04, 27 August 2011 (MDT)

===Comment===

With this much bickering, I'm not sure that we deserve a "best of" anything award. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 17:55, 21 August 2011 (MDT)

:We'd be a shoo-in for "Website with most internal strife", though. Any chance of that being a category next year, Hooper? ''':)''' --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 20:07, 21 August 2011 (MDT)

::I think its all the ways of making things which are dealt with completely differently on other wikis (like Wikipedia) workable in a wiki environment. Who knew links were going to be selective? I had known for a while that something had to be done. Who knew that blocking was to be used in disjuncture? Who knows. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:17, 21 August 2011 (MDT)

:::I'm not really sure what that means, but I don't think that's it. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 22:35, 21 August 2011 (MDT)

::::It probably has to do with the administration or something. Who knows. It is all so mysterious. --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.26|173.245.50.26]] 14:50, 22 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::Umm... [[DnD Links]] and [[Warning Policy]] are so...? Read them please. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:10, 22 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::Are so... what? You can't really blame them for anything, since we can change the policy to be whatever we want. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 09:05, 23 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::Hooper should win the "making up awards that mean nothing" award. Also the "most [[Discussion:Trust_Issues|chihuahua-like]]" award. Actually, Hooper should make up a million awards and give them to himself; he earned them! Green Dragon, I don't get why you would turn down such a prestigious award. --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.55.206|173.245.55.206]] 19:11, 23 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::::They can change the policy as well. Policy is done though a wiki. Who says the current method is best? I don't know what they are like to some. Mysterious I guess (as mentioned above). It's the policy turning town the award. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:02, 23 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::Alright then Green Dragon, where should we go to discuss policy changes? Give me a link to a page, or make a discussion page or something, and let's have a policy discussion. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 21:18, 23 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::::::[[Help:Talk Pages]] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Using_talk_pages Help:Using_talk_pages] should direct you where appropriately. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:25, 23 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::::You're kidding, right? I know how to sign a comment, I want to know where you want to hold a discussion about policy changes. If you give me a link, I'll know you'll know where to join the conversation. We've talked about policy choices in the past, and you've never weighed in, so we accomplish nothing (for example, [[Discussion:Re-opening_the_tavern%3F_What_does_the_community_think%3F|here]]). --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 22:40, 23 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::::::::Ha, bad troll is bad. Welcome back "totally anonymous" "third party" user! I'm so excited about your opinion! Come back to me with it when you're helping run an awards program for a international non-profit with over 3,000 members across 15 states and three countries! Your posts give me such faith that you'll do it!
::::::::::::Yawn, back to life (back to reality). Only our big categories (i.e. game of year, company of year, lifetime etc.) got tons of member nominations. Our smaller categories like website were based on just a handful (for instance, I have no qualms telling you that D&D Wiki made the last official nominee position with just 7 nominations) - so it really isn't upsetting anything on O.G.R.E.s end to move the next site up in the rank. However, as a longtime site user, speaking not from the O.G.R.E.s side but the D&D Wiki side - it is extremely disappointing that proven false interpretations and misunderstandings of licensing laws have stunted the growth rate of the site ''(though by no means killed it - yet)'', and to now even prevent recognition and appreciation and celebration of the site. Meh. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 23:00, 23 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::::::Things which require a technological advancement (not using something we have) are a different matter of course. I mean wiki policy changes.
:::::::::::::Well, you can talk to people with authoritative knowledge about the licensing problems. We are not rejecting the award by no means, we are just not allowing it mentioned here (for the time being at least). How a site does something to D&D Wiki is not D&D Wiki's concern. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:41, 23 August 2011 (MDT)

{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}

:I can't find out how to contact "people with authoritative knowledge about licensing problems". Tell you what, can you just email them and ask them a simple question "is it legal to license the same content under multiple licenses, specifically GNU FDL v1.2 and CC-BY-SA?" Just that, that exact question. If they respond with "Yes" I hope you'll understand what we've all been saying this whole time. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 23:59, 23 August 2011 (MDT)

::Wait, wait, wait! We have a policy against receiving awards? Where is that one? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 09:31, 25 August 2011 (MDT)

:::We don't have a policy that says we can't take awards in general. We do, however, seem to have a policy that requires us to turn down this one. Personally, I'd rather lose out on an award because we suck, rather than because of licensing misunderstandings. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 10:21, 25 August 2011 (MDT)

::::So, GD - let me make sure I understand what you've said. You're okay being on the list, for possible voting - just not with making any back links (which we're not asking for). Is that correct? Just let me know before the 1st, when voting starts. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 16:45, 25 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::Everything is fine except that we may not give such a [[DnD Links|link]]. We could if (well, when) the licensing problems are resolved. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:46, 25 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::Where is ''that'' policy? The only thing on [[DnD Links]] is a link to [[Meta_Pages#Policies]], which, I don't think, says anything about (a) awards, (b) links to other sites, (c) copyright licensing, or (d) compatibility thereof. Unless I'm just missing it somewhere. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 20:50, 25 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::It's the "''As per [[Meta Pages#Policies|policy]] the following external links are the only ones that may be referenced. However the external link reference does not have to be in the same format as the following external links.''" --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:56, 25 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::::So all we have to do to be able to add links to the OGRE site is to add links to the OGRE Site on DnD Links. There isn't a policy that says how we add links to DnD Links, though, so there's nothing stopping us from adding OGRES to DnD Links, then to this page, thus letting us accept the award. (None of this is actually referenced on the policies page it's linked to.) [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 22:29, 25 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::O.G.R.E.s doesn't want or need a link, though. Our site is for members or potential members, and we don't link whore. That isn't what our awards program is for either (its just one of many things we do). So, we don't require a back link at all. So, with that in mind, I guess GD is saying that the site can accept the award but never mention it outside talk pages, because we also host some of our Valgora stuff (which we have full legal right to do so...). Additionally, I don't think it's appropriate for O.G.R.E.s to be linked to from the Links site, because we're not a solely D&D or such club - we are very vocal about our All Tabletop Games/Systems/Companies/Setting/Etc. philosophy. So the average D&D Wiki browser probably isn't our core audience, though a RPGA link or Pathfinder Society link may be appropriate.

:::::::::Anyways, back on topic - I suppose we'll leave that site on the vote. I don't know how, or if, GD wants to showcase a win if the site does get a gold or silver ''(possibly a userbox style code without a link just the info?)'', but that isn't my concern when I'm the me-who-works-for-OGREs. But as the me-who-is-a-site-member, it is. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 23:10, 25 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::::Yes, Jazzman, all we have to do to allow the link is to add O.G.R.E to DnD_Links. However, GD has said we cannot add it to DnD_Links because of some licensing problem (be it real or imaginary). Personally, I'm all for following the first policy we have listed under policies: {{quote
|If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining D&D Wiki, ignore it.
|orig=[[Meta_Pages#Policies]]}}
:::::::::::--[[User:Badger|Badger]] 12:35, 26 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::::::::Oh, it's fine to host [[:Category:Valgora Setting|valgora]] content. It just must be licensed as it is. The [[DnD Links|link]] or no link discussion is for [[Talk:DnD Links]] (MW?). I am not for the policy mentioned above since it undermines D&D Wiki. That's insulting. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:45, 26 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::::::How does doing something to improve or maintain D&D Wiki undermine it? Does it undermine some of the past decisions you've unilaterally set forth? Perhaps, but it doesn't undermine the wiki. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 14:08, 26 August 2011 (MDT)

{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}

:Considering that Valgora originated on CBGwiki, which allows derivative copies under similar license - and that the OGREs hosted version came from there - this is a moot point. So its twice moot. Short story: lets keep with the times and update the license. Community vote first if you'd prefer. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 17:08, 26 August 2011 (MDT)

::The contributions date still point here. Thanks for the information though, I guess the same is with them. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:30, 26 August 2011 (MDT)

:::I've missed a couple points here, so I'm going to backtrack the discussion a bit. Firstly, if I can reiterate the "policy" issues, I see no reason why we can't link to OGRES. Here's the chain or logic:

::::#You can only link to a site elsewhere on the wiki if it is first placed on DnD Links
::::#You can only place a link on DnD links if it follows the general policies of the website
::::#OGRES is not against any general policies of the website
::::#Therefore you may add it to DnD links, per (2)
::::#Therefore you may link to the site elsewhere per (1)
::::QED.

::::Is there a flaw in my logic? If so, with what step, what is the flaw, and where is the policy posted?

::::On the topic of "undermining": if you read the full context of the text Badger quoted, you will see that the whole reason it is there is because we are too lazy to create our own rules, and instead link to Wikipedia. The effect of this is, we use Wikipedia's rules, except in cases where their rules are incompatible with our purpose. For example [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OR WP:OR] does not apply to custom content created on this wiki. It does not undermine D&D Wiki, but it does leave us with a problem: who gets to decide when we are better off ignoring a given rule? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 18:12, 26 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::"''You can only place a link on DnD links if it follows the general policies of the website''"; which it does not. This is a discussion for [[DnD Links|links]].
:::::None of this is determined by Wikipedia however. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:32, 26 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::Which policy? Can you please point to it? I'd argue that while this may also apply to DnD links, I'm ultimately discussing the award, not whether or not we can link. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 18:42, 26 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::Rudeness: belittling; other uncivil behaviors: lying to the appropriate entity (D&D Wiki). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 19:17, 26 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::::You didn't link to it, so I can only assume you are talking about the [[Warning Policy]]. Regardless of whether or not the website is doing those things (and I'll go out and say that they aren't), that policy applies to editors, not links. It's at best a huge stretch and at worst a gross misinterpretation to apply the warning policy to external websites. Unless you were talking about something else? I'll admit I have trouble navigating the policies. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 19:37, 26 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::No, actually I was not. The [[Warning Policy]] has bases, however those bases are not exclusive. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:15, 26 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::::::Considering O.G.R.E.s has never contacted you ''(this message about the award I posted as a long time user here being the most official contact - ever)'', to say rudeness, belittling, or lying has been done is extremely uncivil on your part, GD. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 08:33, 27 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::::''"Rudeness: belittling; other uncivil behaviors: lying to the appropriate entity (D&D Wiki). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 19:17, 26 August 2011 (MDT)"''

:::::::::::Not to be too confrontational, but this really seems to indicate that you may have a personal experience with this site or it's users that could potentially influence your opinion. Honestly, I feel it would explain a lot, especially since you appear to oppose and reject even feasible solutions that don't challenge the definitions of the license we currently use, such as upgrading to the new, improved, and problem-solving v1.3.

:::::::::::Back on topic, could you please be specific? Which policies does the award, or even O.G.R.E.S. violate, and please link or explain this, in detail. I cannot speak from the same position has Hooper regarding what O.G.R.E.S. has done in the past, as I lack the same status as a member, but I find that being vague is not going to help these matters. [[User:Jwguy|Jwguy]] 08:57, 27 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::::::::I'd love to know as well. But it is my understanding that GD simply believes that hosting [[:Category:Valgora Setting]] content on O.G.R.E.s wiki violated the licensing agreement for Valgora on this wiki ''(an argument proven wrong at [[Talk:GNU Free Documentation License 1.3#Updating]].'' With that in mind though, let's keep all licensing conversations there, to make this easier to follow and contribute to for all users. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 09:04, 27 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::::::Even if that were the case, there's no policy keeping us from linking to a site with an incompatible license. Likewise, there's no policy keeping us from linking to a site that is rude or belittles us. GD, you stated that linking to O.G.R.E.s does not follow the general policy of this website. Can you please ''link'' to the policy we would be violating? If it's not Warning Policy, I just don't know what it is. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 09:10, 27 August 2011 (MDT)

{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}

:It cannot be [[Warning Policy]] ("''When one does not edit''" just doesn't apply). I said it once and I'll say it again "''Rudeness: belittling; other uncivil behaviors: lying to the appropriate entity (D&D Wiki).''" If the grammar is the problem, look up what each word means and then work the sentence out. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 11:49, 28 August 2011 (MDT)

::''I've'' said it before, and ''I'll'' say it again: show me a link. I know very well what those words mean, I just don't know where you're coming up with them. If it's policy, it's on this website somewhere. If it's not on this website (or within Wikipedia's policies, though I don't think they have any that apply in this instance because they have significantly looser requirements to posting outside links), then it's not policy. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 13:12, 28 August 2011 (MDT)

:::If you care look into it. I'm not going to do something which is so easily done it hurts me to do it. There is an answer to this. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:52, 28 August 2011 (MDT)

::::I have to admit, that comment makes me feel a little belittled. That being said, I can't find the policy which says we can't link to sites that are rude, belittling, uncivil, or lie to us. And neither could [http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0oG7hhEn1pOvkQA9wZXNyoA;_ylc=X1MDUCMyNzY2Njc5BF9yAzIEYW8DMARjc3JjcHZpZANXM0tYeGtvRzd2N1hhMDNMVGtLZW5nQXdybVdmRFU1YW4wUUFDdEo3BGZyA3lmcC10LTcwMQRmcjIDc2J0bgRuX2dwcwMwBG9yaWdpbgNzcnAEcXVlcnkDc2l0ZTpkYW5kd2lraS5jb20gInJ1ZGVuZXNzOyBiZWxpdHRsaW5nIgRzYW8DMQR2dGVzdGlkA1NNRTAzNg--?p=site%3Adandwiki.com+%22rudeness%3B+belittling%22&fr2=sb-top&fr=yfp-t-701&type_param=&rd=pref Yahoo!] [http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0oG7kz9oFpOLF8AnPxXNyoA;_ylc=X1MDUCMyNzY2Njc5BF9yAzIEYW8DMARjc3JjcHZpZANaNm1MY1VvRzd2N1hhMDNMVGtLZW5nZG1ybVdmRFU1YW9QMEFBNmJOBGZyA3lmcC10LTcwMQRmcjIDc2J0bgRuX2dwcwMwBG9yaWdpbgNzcnAEcXVlcnkDc2l0ZTpkYW5kd2lraS5jb20gImx5aW5nIHRvIHRoZSBhcHByb3ByaWF0ZSBlbnRpdHkiBHNhbwMxBHZ0ZXN0aWQDU01FMDM2?p=site%3Adandwiki.com+%22lying+to+the+appropriate+entity%22&fr2=sb-top&fr=yfp-t-701&type_param=&rd=pref] [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 14:20, 28 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::"''When one does not edit''" is a play on words. Websites do not edit, therefore they are treated like a normal Wikipedia user (which does not have a [[Warning Policy]]). They must fix the problem or get banned. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:44, 30 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::As much as I love wordplay, official policy should not include puns. In the future, please be more clear about what you mean. We were all confused for some time by your wording. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 20:46, 30 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::I'm not really sure this violates any WikiP policies, either. If you treat a website like a "user", then "banning" said "user" would mean not allowing him to edit. OGREs isn't editing D&D Wiki, we are. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 13:34, 31 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::::Though it seems pointless, voting is open. Figure out the link if you wish. The site is currently way behind in it's category, however. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 13:41, 4 September 2011 (MDT)

== Digital D&D Books ==

a digital copy of one of the books with [OEF] or [OCR] at the end means what? they are pdf files and im not sure what it stands for --[[User:Ozzy1234567890|Ozzy1234567890]] 09:19, 10 October 2011 (MDT)

:Those terms are not associated with D&D, but rather with PDFs in general. OEF stands for "Original Electronic Format" which means it is the document they send to the printers, not a scan of the physical book's pages. OCR stands for Optical Character Recognition, which means you can use the search function of a PDF viewer to search for text. If a PDF is not OCR it essentially treats each page as a picture, so you can't copy/paste text, or search for words. On a related note, piracy is bad. I know buying books is stupid expensive (and fills up a lot of space, and less convenient, and less functional), but it is one of the best ways to show support, especially for indie developers and smaller publishing groups. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 11:31, 10 October 2011 (MDT)

::"less convenient, and less functional"? i dont know what your talking about. i prefer hardcopies over pdf, cause i can stick my fingers in the pages and flip through half the book in a few seconds. [[User:Zau|Zau]] 14:35, 10 October 2011 (MDT)

:::I agree that paper is nicer to read then pdfs. I find that reading is much more enjoyable in a non-digital format because no screen must be read the entire time, it normally is more comfortable, it's less effort, etc. Also, there are websites (not sure how they work with piracy) which host D&D books. One may be able to download pdfs from them for a membership price. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 14:40, 10 October 2011 (MDT)

::::Have you ever brought 50 books to a table to play D&D? Nope, but you can instantly pull open a new PDF. As for less functional, I could go either way with that one. Assuming you have a decent PDF viewer, you can make annotations, add bookmarks, highlight, and search entire books for phrases, rather than have to use an index. I know I'm the only one at my table that prefers a hard copy, and these are the reasons they usually cite. Hosting D&D books is almost certainly illegal. If it's not uploaded by something like "DNDWizards" or whatever else, odds are it isn't released by WotC. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 16:01, 10 October 2011 (MDT)

::Thanks Badger! And I agree, paper is better in my opinion. I just need my own physical copies rather than copies at a friends house 2 hours away. --[[User:Ozzy1234567890|Ozzy1234567890]] 08:57, 21 October 2011 (MDT)

== Glitch? ==

Is this a glitch? I tried to make a new mundane weapon, however when the editing page came up it said something like "wikify| could not load" or something like that. Please look into it. --[[User:Reddragonl33t|Reddragonl33t]]

:With so little information, there's no way to tell if it was a glitch. I kind of doubt it was, though. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 13:00, 18 October 2011 (MDT)

::Was the page name already in use? I tried to make a weapon page (per [[Add New 3.5e Equipment]]) and it worked fine. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:28, 18 October 2011 (MDT)

== Just a bit of a problem ==

I just want to say that I love the site and I am currently using a homebrew race for my character but Me and my DM have come to an impass...

I chose the geode for my race but I want to play a dragonfire adept and as such class I need to breath, any idea how we could get around this? [[User:Mega0live|Mega0live]] 16:01, 15 December 2011 (MST)

:This question would fit better in the [[DnD Discussion|discussion section]] of the site.--[[User:Milo v3|Milo High-Hill]] 01:48, 16 December 2011 (MST)

== Frustration ==

I had to go through a catraphrase thing, GAH! How I would like to ring the neck of who did what they did to this site... I mean that they need to be more mature and not spam/upload things to this site that can harm it.... Sorry, just wish I could find who was responsible... [[User:Mega0live|Mega0live]] 05:59, 9 January 2012 (MST)

And if this is unnessesary I am sorry... [[User:Mega0live|Mega0live]] 06:01, 9 January 2012 (MST)

:What are you talking about? What is "''a catraphrase thing''"? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 10:57, 9 January 2012 (MST)

::Probably got snagged by cloudflare. Happened to me for about a week in November/December. --[[User:Ganre|Ganre]] 12:03, 9 January 2012 (MST)

:::I have been asked to turn up the cloudflare security options on [[User talk:Green Dragon#Spam (again/still)]]. Are you saying it is too strict? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:09, 9 January 2012 (MST)

:::: Sorry, the catraphrase thing is the type the 2 above words thing to get into things. [[User:Mega0live|Mega0live]] 18:59, 9 January 2012 (MST)

:::::I don't think it is too strict, but i think it needs to be targeted to edits, not just viewing. --[[User:Ganre|Ganre]] 08:14, 10 January 2012 (MST)

::::::[https://www.cloudflare.com/plans Here] are their options. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 11:35, 10 January 2012 (MST)

:::::::Which plan do we currently use? What are our settings? I don't know how to tell if the settings aren't high enough, if the software isn't working, or if spammers are just finding a way around it. Really, if these spammers are just a bunch of Chinese people with proxied IP addresses, theree's nothing stopping them from spamming. AFAICT, cloudflare only protects us from automatically generated spam (aka bot spam), correct? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 12:25, 20 January 2012 (MST)

== 5th Edition ==

This might be a bit premature(it's never happened to me before, I swear!), but apparently, WotC has announced 5th ed. Should we open a section up on the wiki, or is it too soon? --[[User:Ganre|Ganre]] 12:19, 9 January 2012 (MST)

:Do you know where their official release information is? I can't seem to find it in their news section. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:50, 9 January 2012 (MST)

::I am not sure if this is okay to post, as it is an external link: http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd%2F4ll%2F20120109 --[[User:Ganre|Ganre]] 14:42, 9 January 2012 (MST)

:::You are fine to post the external links on [[DnD Links]] (see the top) anywhere and in any manner.
:::The next edition will be treated like 4e (and 2.5e, etc). Would you be interested in spear-heading this new edition as the game is finalized? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:26, 9 January 2012 (MST)

::::I would be, if it doesn't suck... --[[User:Ganre|Ganre]] 08:11, 10 January 2012 (MST)

:::::Glad to hear it. As soon as there is information about how things are done feel free to start. If/when you need help I am more then willing. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 11:33, 10 January 2012 (MST)

==Cloudflare Issue==

Over the past couple weeks, I've been occasionally getting an error message from Cloudflare indicating that the site is down. Can anyone explain what's going on with that? -[[User:Silverkin|Silverkin]] 07:51, 16 January 2012 (MST)

:One time may have been when I deleted my talk page, since I put my password on it, and I could not restore it without the site having to go down because of setup issues. How often has this cloudflare issue been happening? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:05, 16 January 2012 (MST)

::It's happened to me three times, on different days each time. I can say with confidence that all three were within the last month or two. -[[User:Silverkin|Silverkin]] 16:12, 16 January 2012 (MST)

:::It happened to me several times last year and once yesterday.--[[User:Milo v3|Milo High-Hill]] 17:14, 16 January 2012 (MST)

::::I have this problem from time to time, but it was not until recently that I discovered I am exacerbating the problem. When the site goes down I usually keep a window open and click refresh periodically until the page loads. Last time the site went down I thought it had been down for days, but then I noticed that there is a link to click if you think the site is back up and you are getting the page in error (in other words, it forces the page to load fresh, instead of from your cache). Lo and behold, the site loaded and people had been editing the entire time I thought it was down! [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 12:27, 20 January 2012 (MST)

== Concerning edits to this page ==

Green Dragon, you have made edits to the text of yours and other people's comments in violation of our policies, as I have explained below. Your initial explanation for the removal was "''some removed because USA and English (oxford) would deal with "the warning" not D&D Wiki, removed based off inappropriate behavior, removed circular comments''". Per our [[Help:Talk_Pages#Editing_or_Deleting_Existing_Comments|policies]], you can not remove any text -- including your own -- unless it violates one of 5 very specific rules. "Circular comments" are not in violation, whatever the USA thing means is not in violation, and while inappropriate behavior ''is'' a violation, any offenders should have been warned. None of the five rules allow you to remove any mention of OGREs, none of them allow you to remove entire lines of someone's argument, thus changing the entire meaning of their post (see my logic around line 307 -- this is in every letter and spirit of the law the reason for the Wikipedia policy in the first place), and really, none of these rules allow you to edit your own wording for clarity (the Wikipedia policy to which we default HEAVILY frowns upon this) or fix other people's links. Your newest reason "''All Policy violations - although not necessarily OURS''" is, frankly, somewhat unbelievable. Am I to believe that we are to remove ANY content that is in violation of ANY policy ANYWHERE? Should I delete the entire wiki, as I'm sure there's a website out there somewhere with the policy that all content must be in Italian? In addition, this conversation took place months ago. Why is it even relevant now, unless you thought nobody was paying attention to it any more?

I'm sure you will be removing the content once again, but if you do so I implore you to please follow our policies as written and (a) itemize what changes you are making and for what reason you have made them (meaning one-by--one, not a blanket statement), (b) make any changes without changing the intent of what someone has said, and (c) make any changes related to policy violations based on the policies of this website. We have no governing body, no law enforcement; the only thing we have are what few rules are actually thought out and codified. Without those we are just in anarchy and nobody wants to stay around and build up our website. Thank you for your understanding. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 12:22, 20 January 2012 (MST)

:Yes, GD - you actually broke a few already established laws on this page. But its so petty, who cares. O.G.----err, I'm sorry, "the organization" has grown greatly and I no longer have time for this site. This site is dying and slowly falling off the face of the earth. When you're finally ready to sell, I'll offer the bare minimum. Your actions have destroyed this site. You are to this site what 4e was to D&D. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 19:52, 20 January 2012 (MST)

User talk:Hooper/Archive 2

2012-01-09T02:17:41Z

Hooper: Created page with "{{Talkarchive}} <div style="text-align: center;"> <div style="display: inline;">← [[{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>NAMESPACE}}:{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>BASEPA..."

{{Talkarchive}}

<div style="text-align: center;">
<div style="display: inline;">← [[{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>NAMESPACE}}:{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>BASEPAGENAME}}/Archive 1|Archive 1]] |</div>
<div style="display: inline;">'''Archive 2''' |</div>
<div style="display: inline;"> [[{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>NAMESPACE}}:{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>BASEPAGENAME}}/Archive 3|Archive 3]] →</div>
</div>

== Been Away ==
Been working on about 5,000 different O.G.R.E. related projects as we get incorporated and my schedule is just extremely hectic with the business, family, and trying to coordinate 30+ chapters as we get legal. Thats my excuse for not being around lately. I think its a good one. I haven't forgotten about here though, just to ease any worries.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 21:42, 16 November 2009 (MST)

== Valgora ==

Sometimes I like to just browse through your Campaign Setting for fun. Seriously, I have never expressed my awe at how you put that whole thing together. I have yet to read all of it either. Sheesh man, great job there. Peace! --[[User:Jay Freedman|Jay Freedman]] 15:33, 17 December 2009 (MST)

:Thanks. Parts of it are suck, parts are placeholder. We really just flesh out parts as we or one of our other O.G.R.E.s chapters plays a campaign in a given Valgorian region.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 16:51, 17 December 2009 (MST)

==i replied. lol==
[[User_talk:Zap284]] {{unsigned|Zap284}}

== <s>Goodbye</s> ==

<s>A revert of a valid edit by Badger sent me away. I'm still 100% glad that all the other riftraft is gone, and I acknowledge that my leaving does nothing. I hope that future action here changes my mind.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 04:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)</s>

:I am sorry to hear about that and I do hope you change your mind. Which edit was that in any case? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 04:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

::Have fun, and Take care! [[User:Jwguy|Jwguy]] 08:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

:::This [http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_Adminship/Ganteka2&curid=72275&diff=456138&oldid=456137 diff]. I fully understand that the discussion had been off topic for a while by that point (I even tried to get people back on it). But fully reverting the edit of someone who was criticizing the person with the power to revert seems to of been a bit much. No hard feelings from me.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 13:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

::::"''A revert of a valid edit by Badger sent me away.''" I thought you meant "''A revert of a valid edit''" as a part and then "'' by Badger''" but whatever. Look at times too, it's not that one but whatever. He had no valid points; it's a health thing not meant in a condescending manner. Take care. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 19:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

:::::I'm glad Badger and you had a brief discussion about it afterwards, and feel a little better. I just believe we should really avoid doing that in the future.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 15:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

::::::Ya. It was not the discussion that was irking me it was the place. It was just to off topic and did not pertain to the RfA at hand. It has been discussed on [[User talk:Green Dragon#Ganteka RfA]]. I do hope you continue to stay as such. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 19:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

:::::::I don't hold anything against Green Dragon, and I assume he feels the same. We talked it out, and I don't imagine he'd ever do it again (without leaving some sort of note on the page or something). I'd consider it lesson learned, and not leave. Let's be frank, the wiki needs you. If he does it again you'd be totally in the right to leave (as you are now, if you so choose), but let's call it a learning experience and move on. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 20:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

::::::::Yeah, I read through it. I'm here. I wouldn't say the site "needs me ''(I am the guy behind [[Morton Frightful (3.5e Deity)]] after all - not exactly top content...)''. I'll probably be around for a while. Anything is better than transientwiki.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 22:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

:::::::::Baseball needs the Cubs, doesn't mean they're ever going to take the World Series. Only joking (I love me some Cubs). Say what you will about Wikia's contributors (of which I am one), most of the content is pretty solid. There's no need to get into a fight over something like that, we're big boys. We can play nice. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 22:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

==Dungeon & Dragons Under Attack==
This is just a note for those who don't keep up on [http://www.theescapist.com RPG Advocacy]. It seems like D&D is having a resurgence of the public misconceptions it experienced back in the 80s (for that info, see [http://ogres.wikia.com/wiki/RPG_Myths RPGs: Lies, Myths, & Misconceptions]. Anyways, just a few weeks back the game was actually [http://quiltcityogres.blogspot.com/2010/01/wisconsin-prisons-claim-d-promotes-gang.html banned from a Wisconsin prison] for allegedly promoting ''"gang violence"''. Just the other day, a horrible filler piece was placed in the Boston Herald that [http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/20100216suspect_in_slays_fan_of_dungeons/srvc=news&position=also tried to loosely associate a killer with easy-to-see motives with D&D as a motive instead]. Luckily, groups like the [http://www.car-pga.org/ CAR-PGa] exist to help combat such atrocities.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 00:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

== You seem like you know a thing or two ==

And you also seem to be around right now :) What is the policy for content changes on pages (as opposed to grammar/formatting)? For example, if an IP changes a homebrew class feature to deal 1d6 damage instead of 1d4 damage, do they have to discuss it first, or what? If I see this, should I revert back, or keep it as is? I know there used to be authorship, but it looks like the template has been removed from everything. Thanks, [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 00:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

:Typically speaking, if no good reason is given, not even an edit summary, you can feel safe in reverting. Getting more in depth with edits that may change the direction or intent of the original author is more of a talk-page discussion thing or so it seems, but what you discuss seems to be simple revert worthy.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 00:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

::Alright, thanks. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 01:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

:::No problem. I see a lot of edits of some IP either increasing or decreasing a crunch number with no reason given. I tend to assume that no explanation = revert, but that is just me.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 04:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

== Sup Playa ==

What up Hooper. I saw that whole mess about the 3.5 OGC copy/paste thing. Whooo. Thats messy man. Anyway, just wanted to say that you seemed pretty professional about the whole thing. Nice job! Keep up the good work! --[[User:Jay Freedman|Jay Freedman]] 19:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

:Ha. If professional means annoyance than yes, I did that well. Thanks. That reminds me, I have to go hunt down those other Hoopers on myspace and yell at them... Strange people everywhere.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 20:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

::Oh, by all means, please do. They are a crazy breed, those Hoopers. I'm surprised we don't have an article about them in the creatures section already. Haha. Peace. --[[User:Jay Freedman|Jay Freedman]] 21:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

== My posts ==

Sorry bout that. I'm like really new to all this. Most of what I've been doing is looking at the majority of similar articles, cutting and pasting, and then replacing their content with mine.

So to be clear, I should always put (4e _____) in the title of every page I make? (I only work in 4e) For example, I'm making the powers now. Does that include the powers? Like should I have said "Dragon's Breath Portal (4e Power)"? {{unsigned|Paleogamer}}

:Yes, the identifier has the edition ''(so as you say if you're only uploading fourth edition than that would be represented as '''4e''')'' and then the classification. This could be equipment, feat, class, prestige class, power, etc. etc. Always in parenthesis of course. Additionally, on talk pages like here when you're discussing with another user, sign your posts by adding four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>). This helps to see who is saying what in discussions. Plus, as each person adds to the discussion, we indent ''(think of paragraphs)'' by using a colon ( <nowiki>:</nowiki> ). Since I am the first reply, I used one, and then if you or another user talked after me here, they would two, then three, and so on.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 00:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

::I'm sorry. I still don't 100% understand everything about how this all works. It's nice that someone is helping me out. I got the parenthesis down now. And the colon trick. I don't fully understand what you were trying to say with the tildes though... I'll try to add them at the end of this post. Anyway. I'm trying to make powers now (in case you hadn't noticed) and a few Summoner summons are a bit unconventional so it's hard to find previous posts where I can steal the code snippets from. I need to know what the syntax is for making a secondary attack. [[User:Paleogamer|Paleogamer]] 00:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

:::Also, I've been trying to move My Summoner Power List so that it's properly labeled but my computer won't do it for some reason. No error message or anything, just sits there like it's loading, but nothing's happening. Could you change it for me? Just need it to say it's a Power List instead of a Power. I have like 90 powers to post for Summoner... this is gonna take awhile.[[User:Paleogamer|Paleogamer]] 01:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

::::As you may see [[Special:RecentChanges|here]], I took the liberty to move some of your first uploads to the proper identifier. So it may just be blocking it because the page is already moved and created.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 01:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

:::::Nope. I don't see if you changed it. It reads right now as Summoner Powers (4e Power) and it should read Summoner Powers (4e Power List)[[User:Paleogamer|Paleogamer]] 01:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

::::::Ah, well on that we may need to see if thats how we want to do it. We try to keep the identifier as uniformed as possible, and eventually it may be that an admin decides its best to split each power onto it's own article and then have that just as a linking list. I'd leave it as is for now.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 02:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

:::::::The problem is that it's supposed to be a linking list. It's labeled as a power, but it's a list. It's just annoying because I'm trying to link it to the Summoner Class page. And I could just change the code in Summoner (4e Class) to link to the list. But the problem is that the list is mislabeled and SHOULD be changed. It's quite annoying really. [[User:Paleogamer|Paleogamer]] 17:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

::::::::I went a head and tried to move it to see what it is doing for you when you try to move it. Yeah, its the database error. Give it a few days and we can correctly move it to whatever is best.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 17:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

::::::::: Thanks. I'll keep on working on what I have. By the way. There is a small part of Lore associated with the Summoner class. Where would I post all that? Also, when creating a power, I don't fully understand all of the syntax. I need to know how to add a secondary attack to a power.

::::::::::My knowledge of fourth edition is precisely zilch, so I would just either bring it up on the talk page of your main power article for other users to chime in or start a discussion (see Meta Pages link at left on navigation, scroll down to discussions) [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 18:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

== William ==

Congrats on your second. Best wishes from DnD Wiki! --[[User:Jay Freedman|Jay Freedman]] 22:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

:Thanks. 36 hours of labor followed by a C Section to a near-10 pounder followed by rejected blood transfusions to the [[User:Nimeeamee|misses]] has made for a long week.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 20:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

::Wow! 36 hours! Congratulations! --[[User:Calidore Chase|Calidore Chase]] 03:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

:::Wow, I saw that you already gave both of you the Baby In The House Barnstar. That's good. Congratulations, from everyone. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 03:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

::::Yeah. Copy-paste is easy. Thanks all.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 14:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

==Admin Sam Kay==

Neutral? Really? Come on bro. You and I both know that boy ain't coming back anytime soon. It has gotta be a conflict of interest or something right? Do don't actually believe he could still function here as an admin with good faith and loyalty, do you? I mean, I hate the politics as much as the next guy... But lets do Sam a favor, okay.

Let's vote ''with'' him. Let's vote against it. --[[User:Jay Freedman|Jay Freedman]] 07:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

:I see your point, just don't feel comfortable until he has a say (if he happens to have one).  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 01:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

== A Show of Appreciation ==

You've done nothing for me very recently, that I know of. But as I was thinking over the people I know from dandwiki, I noticed your username. I was just thinking how you're such a nice guy, and you're so selfless, but I feel you're so unappreciated.
So I figured you might like a frivolous comment saying how you're such a nice guy, and I've always agreed with your way of thinking, always appreciated your contributions, and always admired your patience. You're a cool guy, don't forget it. --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] 21:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
:Oh yeah, and I'm part of your user navigation bar thingy, which makes me feel special. --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] 21:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

::Oh wow! Egoboost! I'm quite fond of you as well (in a totally non gay way). We should promote you beyond Sgt.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 21:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

:::Thanks for chiming in on Jazzman's Admin thingy. Even though you selected the Neutral stance, It's good to see you remained involved. Nice work! Oh, and yeah. We should promote Lion to Colonel or something. Haha. --[[User:Jay Freedman|Jay Freedman]] 04:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

== Anti-Vandal Barnstar ==

{{Anti-Vandal Barnstar|For reverting spam on many deleted pages and overall helping keep D&D Wiki clean from vandals' work throughout the last couple of days, I give you this Barnstar. Thanks for your help. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 01:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC))}}

== Been Away ==
New kid, busy season at work, and the incorporation of O.G.R.E.s has led to me not being on lately (the sporadic down time the wiki has had hasn't helped either. Just saying hi, still here.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 01:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

:More site downage. Tried to do some movings, got some errors. Wondering what is happening to the server.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 04:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

== Moving magic ==

How the heck are you able to move pages? Every time I've tried in the last month I get a database error, and I see you moved 4 just this morning! [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 15:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

:It showed me the same database error, but when I went back to Recent Changes, it showed that it had actually moved the page. So its still not perfect, but it did the job.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 16:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

::You're just lucky, I guess. I've tried moving pages at least 20 times in the last month, and not one of them worked. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 16:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

== Thanks ==

Hey, thanks for moving my campaign setting pages to supplement pages, just forgot. :) I was also going to ask the same question jazz just asked but that was answered, so just thanks then. Oh, and I often generally just create the new page and copy and paste the text and delete the old when moving doesn't work. :)

I was also wondering, perhaps you could put a page with your signature on it up, then put the connection to the page at the bottom of your text like I have done with my campaign setting footer so that your not filling up every bodies discussion pages to much. :)--[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 20:59, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

:The Sig uses the standard wiki subpage code, but for some reason refuses to properly work. I think it has something to do with some slight differences between this wiki's features and standard wikia/wikipedia.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 16:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

::I think what Vrail meant was to put your sig as a subpage, then link to it like a template. That way when the next person edits the page it just says <nowiki>{{User:Hooper/sig}}</nowiki> instead of all the code of your sig. Wikipedia frowns on that, though, and I'm not really sure why. I've seen it done that way on other wikis without problem. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 18:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

:::That exactly what I meant jazz, sorry for my poor explanation hooper. :) Anyways, ya, just something to consider.--[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 20:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

::::That actually is how I do it, but it refuses to work properly. [[User:Hooper/autosig]]  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 22:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

:::::Huh, you used to be able to do that, but now it automatically SUBSTs the template for some reason. I guess MediaWiki decided that site owners aren't smart enough to control that on their own. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 23:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

::::::Thats weird, cause for me I still can do it. I use that for all of my pages on my campaign setting, for the side bar to link to other pages. It still works their, so I don't think they have stopped allowing it to work...--[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 01:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

:::::::Hooper, I figured out what was going wrong, look at this {{:User:Hooper/autosig}}, check the edit page, its only the page link. just replace the [[]] with {{}} and add a : at the beginning i.e {{:User:Hooper/autosig]] just imagine the last two are }}. Check the edit page to see what I changed if my description is to hard to understand :P--[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 01:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

::::::::Use braces like this: <nowiki>{{User:Hooper/autosig}}</nowiki>, not brackets <nowiki>[[User:Hooper/autosig]]</nowiki>. It should work just fine. You can even update your [[Special:Preferences|preferences]] to have it spit that out when you press the wiki signature button or leave a "standard" sig (the four tildes). The only thing is I don't recall if it auto-adds the date, or if you have to add that to your subpage. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 01:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

:::::::::I think you have to add the colon like this <nowiki>{{:User:Hooper/autosig}}</nowiki> not just <nowiki>{{User:Hooper/autosig}}</nowiki>. Oh, and cool nowiki trick to add the source without linking it, I never know you could do that, thanks! :D--[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 01:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

::::::::::I see what you guys are saying, but the fundamental problem with that is that is doesn't show the time and date. In talk pages this can become important. The way it is set up is that my preferences, where it has a nickname to use for my signature, I actually have the template that links to my autosig subpage. If we can find a way to make it work without posting code and show the time and date, I'd love to use it.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 02:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

:::::::::::Now ''that'' I can't explain. I have my sig in my preferences (it's not as fancy as yours, but it's non-default), and it does add the date. My problem is if I add my signature to a subpage, then whenever I change my preferences to <nowiki>{{user:Jazzman831/sig}}, it automatically turns it into {{SUBST:User:Jazzman831/sig}}. The difference between these two is that the first is a transclusion, and much shorter, and the latter is a substitution, and includes all the code. If you can figure out how to make your automatic sig do the first one, but it's still not adding the time and date, that's easy to get around by using variables like {{CURRENTDAY}} {{CURRENTMONTH}}.
:::::::::::Actually, a workaround I've seen is to make your signature subpage itself a link to a signature page. That way when it automatically substitutes {{SUBST:User:Hooper/sig}}, the only text on that page is {{User:Hooper/realsig}}, or whatever. I'm sure none of that made sense, but I actually do know what the problem is here, I swear :) </nowiki>[[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 03:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

::::::::::::I remember when I was still editing using an IP, I had no idea how people made their signatures so I just did it manually, adding the date and time by hand. I found that this really didn't create to much trouble. Just something to keep in mind if this can't be figured out. :)--[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 03:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Alright, I figured it out. No need for magic words or junk like that. On your prefrences page, make this text your sig <nowiki> "{{User:Hooper/autosig}}~~~~~" </nowiki> Now whenever you type 4 tildes everything should work just fine. I've tested this and it works for me.  [[User:Badger|'''Badger''']] '''·'''[[User talk:Badger| My Talk ]]'''·'''[[Special:Emailuser/Badger| Email Me]]  04:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

::::::::::::::Do you realize that you put five tildes just now? Also, I think you still have to put the colon at the front. Oh, and, if it works for you how come your still doing it the long way, as I can see by your post on the edit page for your sig? Anyways, just confirming you meant to put five tildes instead of the standard four for sig's. :)--[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 04:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

← (Ok, I'm getting edit conflicted up the wazoo here!!) Actually, that doesn't work, look at the code you left behind :) Also, after you hit "save" in your preferences, look at the code again: it automatically removes the 5 tildes. The reason it is working for you is because it's adding the date to your sig; try it with only three tildes and I bet you your date will be missing.

Here's what I did. I changed my signature preferences to <nowiki>{{SUBST:User:Jazzman831/sig|{{SUBST:CURRENTTIME}}, {{SUBST:CURRENTDAY}} {{SUBST:CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{SUBST:CURRENTYEAR}} (UTC)}}. Then on Jazz/sig I typed {{User:Jazzman831/realsig|{{{1}}}}}. Next, in jazz/realsig I typed my signature code, followed by {{{1}}}. Now the only thing you see when I type three tildes is "{{User:Jazzman831/realsig|04:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)}}"</nowiki>, which in your case would be a lot shorter than your whole signature (in my case it's actually longer). But when you look at how that code displays, you can't tell the difference between that and any other signature.

The weird thing is, if I type four tildes, then I get the date showing twice, as I should. I don't know why the date wouldn't be showing for you, Hooper.

And Vrail: three tildes gives you only the username portion, 4 gives you the username and date, and five gives you only the date. Observe:

(Three) [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]]

(Five) 04:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

(Four) [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 04:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

:wow, cool, didn't know that. :D Anyways, I don't know to much more on this topic than I've already said, so I'm going to leave the rest up to you smart people. :P--[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 04:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

::I'll play around with this coding after this weekend ''(wedding anniversary with [[User:Nimeeamee]])''. Thanks for testing.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 01:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

== Rating campaign settings ==

I was sifting through some campaign settings and found a few that clearly do not deserve there current rating. I though I'd come to you for my question on this because you seem to be the rater of many settings. There is one specifically I'd like to bring up.[[Cora (DnD Campaign Setting)|Cora]]. This campaign setting, while it may be very good and almost done, is just that, almost done. Cora is not yet complete however it is still rated a 5. There are a few red pages and not all blue pages are done. It was my understanding that campaign settings rated five must be complete. I have brought this up on the settings discussion page a while ago and still nobody has said anything, I was wondering how rude it would be if I went in and bumped it down to a 4?--[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 04:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

:Well, it is more complete than many, and you could easily run a long campaign in it without needing any of the redlinked nonexistent pages. You have to think of it in terms of both "scale of 5 of completeness on the wiki + scale of 5 of complete playability." I'd say it is a 5, perhaps a "low" 5 but a 5, though changing it to four wouldn't be too far off to harm the navigation or categorizing. But thats just my opinion.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 01:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

::Alright, I was really on and off about changing it, so I'll probably just leave it. Thanks for the input. :)--[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 04:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

== Campaign Setting Balance ==

Hey, I am currently working on finishing and revising my campaign setting ([[Orion (3.5e Campaign Setting)|Orion]]) to help it become more playable, however I am looking for some advice. Advice overall would be nice, but there is a specific area I'd like some help in, the magic system. It was noted by others reading my setting that because of the way I handle magic the setting may be unbalanced. I was looking for your input on how to balance the magic system without changing how it's used/viewed in the setting. For an expanded understanding of how magic is viewed you can reference [[Magic and Psionics (Orion Supplement)|here]]

I'm asking you this because you seem to be into campaign settings, and quite adept at rating and reviewing them, not to mention you are an advanced user.

Some things that may be causing this imbalance include my class selection available [[Classes (Orion Supplement)|here]], my race selection (however that has been revised a bit) [[Races (Orion Supplement)|here]], and my magic item selection as they are very scarce (I would put a link, however I have not gotten around to adding any magic items so far). These things may be causing an imbalance due to the fact that at higher levels almost all monsters rely heavily on magic and spell like abilities. I don't want to include very much magic in the setting and still have it as a rare sight. Any ideas on how to do this?

Thanks a million!--[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 03:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

:I'm really not the best to ask, as I prefer non-magic and don't personally play many magic users. [[User:Neodymium]] is a pretty good person to answer this kind of question.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 21:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

::Alright, thanks, it is primarily non-magic if you want to check it out so far, but I'll definitely go to [[User:Neodymium|Neodymium]] for this question. ''':)'''--[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 23:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

== Re-opening the tavern, I'd like your opinion ==

So I know you've been busy lately with those kids of yours (congrats, by the way) and you've not been around as much as you used to be. However, I still consider you a big part of this community. I've made efforts to reopen the tavern, and while I know you were opposed to the tavern in the past, I'd still like your opinion. If you have changed your mind and think the tavern would help the community, great; if you still are opposed to the tavern, I would like you to mention why on [[Discussion:Re-opening_the_tavern%3F_What_does_the_community_think%3F|the discussion]], to present both sides of the conversation equally. If you don't have the time I understand. Thanks, [[User:Badger|Badger]] 21:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

:Replied. I'm actually online more, but my extremely limited availability means most of my time online is spent on '''OgreLair.org'''.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 03:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

==Looking For Group==

Srry to bother but I was refered here by badger and he told me you might be able to help me out. You see I am moving soon and it is a distance of a feww thousand miles so I was wondering if you might help me locate a D&D group in the milwuaki area of portland oregon that plays 3.5e and is willing to accept new mebers. If so then leave a not of my talk page and let me know a way to contact them thx.
[[User:Dragoona22|Dragoona22]]

:Give me a couple days and I'll comb through the many different gamer databases I or other OGREs have or are members of and see what I can find.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 06:35, 20 August 2010 (MDT)

==Hey==

I saw that you seem to be one of the more active people on here, so I figured I would see if you could help me with a creature I posted. I have is mostly done, but I need someone to go through and help me get all the tweaks set straight. CR LA and such really. Also, if its not to much to ask, I am currently working on a creature I remember from 2E but I can't seem to find any details. Therefore, I have decided to make my own version of the creature. It is like a ghost only that it is not undead and it feeds on magical energies. Anyway, if you want to help me either one you can find my first creature [http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Dimidium_Troll_%283.5e_Creature%29 here.] My other creature is not yet on the wiki but on my computer. If you would like to help me with that one I can post it to my [http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/User:Lyrad8791/sandbox1 sandbox.] [[User:Lyrad8791|Lyrad8791]] 13:05, 6 January 2011 (MST)

:I'll do my best to remember it this weekend when I've got some downtime sunday or something. If I let it slip my mind just shoot me a message again.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 13:31, 27 March 2011 (MDT)

::Alright then, do you happen to know anyone else on here that might be able to help me with this? I am on most of the time during the day or late into the night. Thanks for any help you give! [[User:Lyrad8791|Lyrad8791]] 19:18, 6 January 2011 (MST)

:::[[User:Badger|Badger]] is usually around.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 13:31, 27 March 2011 (MDT)

::::Yeah, I have him looking it over already. What he said, is that it is fairly close to done. I just need to correct a few formatting issues. Such as linking skills and rewording lines. Also, I might need to go and do a grammar check in Microsoft word or some such program. Anyway, I have fixed most of the linking issues and am now going to work on the grammar issue. Again, thanks for any help you give. [[User:Lyrad8791|Lyrad8791]] 23:31, 7 January 2011 (MST)

== Rate my Campaign Setting? ==

Hey Hooper, I saw that you offer to help rate campaign settings. I've been working a bit recently to help organise the 4e campaign settings, which got me back into making my Campaign setting. It was rated back when the new 4e ratings were put in, but its changed quite a bit since then. I don't want to be biased, so could you please rate it for me? Also, why are the bottom messages in bold? --[[User:Celen Joad|Celen Joad]] 06:45, 26 March 2011 (MDT)

:Completely understand being leery of rating ones own work, I try to avoid it myself even though no one else rarely looks at them. Taken care of. An easy 5.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 13:32, 27 March 2011 (MDT)

:: Thanks. --[[User:Celen Joad|Celen Joad]] 07:10, 28 March 2011 (MDT)

== Thanks ==

Thanks for rating my setting, it's inspired me to get the rest of the campaign basics up there. Sure takes a long time to get even a small amount up doesn't it?

== On DnD Links and Alternate Communities ==

:''Discussion moved to [[Talk:DnD Links#http://www.dnd-wiki.org]].'' --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 01:43, 30 May 2011 (MDT)

== Patronage ==
Can you check out the [[Patronage_(4e_Campaign_Setting)]] and see if we can take off the format block? I think I corrected all of the problems. --[[User:Wrecan|Wrecan]] 16:04, 21 June 2011 (MDT)

:Done! Phenomenal setting.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 16:26, 21 June 2011 (MDT)

==Sig Test==
Trying to make it so code block doesn't appear when I sign. Here goes nothing: {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 19:51, 27 June 2011 (MDT)

:HUZZAH! After all these years! It works! {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 19:52, 27 June 2011 (MDT)

::How did you do it?!?! [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 21:39, 27 June 2011 (MDT)

:::Well, I've always had my preferences, in the box that says ''"New signature:"'', read <nowiki>{{SUBST:User:Hooper/autosig}}</nowiki>. The entire code, as everyone knows, has always showed. So, what I did, was created [[User:Hooper/autosig2]] and I put all the code into that page, turning the normal [[User:Hooper/autosig]] into a translusion page with just this code: <nowiki>{{User:Hooper/autosig2}}</nowiki>. Somehow having a page in the middle kills the code showing. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 22:23, 27 June 2011 (MDT)

::::I've seen it done like that elsewhere, and I could have sworn I tried that here, but I guess I was missing something. Oh well, pretty cool either way! [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 14:33, 28 June 2011 (MDT)

== 2012 ENnies Judge Nominations ==

:''Discussion moved from <s>Discussion:2012 ENnies Judge Nominations</s>.'' --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:47, 15 August 2011 (MDT)

Hello all, as you may know, the 2011 ENnie Award Nominees have recently been announced and will be up for judging starting on the 15th. What you may not know is that during that same polling period, you can vote to elect the judges for the 2012 awards. I am one of the nominees this year, and just ask that you consider me when voting. If you have any questions on how I would judge or such, you can check out the link below or ask me here.

'''ENnie Judge Form:''' [http://www.ennie-awards.com/blog/?page_id=2402 Click Here]

Voting is open from now until midnight on the 24th. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 21:02, 11 July 2011 (MDT)

:Good luck. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:47, 15 August 2011 (MDT)

== SRD 3e ==

You're adding it. I think that's good. I've gone through and protected all of the pages that needed it (I think). If I've missed any, you need more protected, or you need any unprotected so you can fix them, let me know. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 12:37, 27 August 2011 (MDT)

:Yeah, adding it very '''slowly''', but adding it none-the-less. Once it is finally completed, we once discussed hosting d20 Star Wars OGL content. I'll let someone else do all that coding. By the time the 3e content is done, I'll never want to see wikimarkup table code again. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 22:15, 27 August 2011 (MDT)

::Also, do you think that the 3e section is full enough for us to add it to the navigation pane? {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 07:10, 28 August 2011 (MDT)

:::Well, I don't think we'll be adding 3e to the side pane within the next week, but I suspect it's very close to being added. We should probably have more monsters updated before we do it, though. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 12:14, 28 August 2011 (MDT)

== Anti-Vandal Barnstar ==
{{Anti-Vandal Barnstar|For finding vandal's edits, removing vandal's work, and helping keep D&D Wiki clean, I give you this Barnstar. Thanks for your help. Deleting spam edits is a whole lot easier with someone compiling them all for me. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 12:14, 28 August 2011 (MDT)}}

:Thanks. I would of finished, but ;).... {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 13:31, 4 September 2011 (MDT)
 
 
 
 
 

==Spammer Block Oddity==
[[File:Blockingoddity.png|thumb]]
Not really anywhere else to place this, but just a note. Recently, [[User:Badger|Badger]] blocked one of the spam accounts known as '''Madiesaammpaia'''. Not sure what they added as its now deleted, probably some medical pill spam. Anyways, the weird thing is - it locked up my editing capabilities as a result. Some sort of shared IP. Anyway, I assure you I'm not that spammer, but if a admin cares to check out CheckUser and see how close the IPs were, it would be nice. It wasn't a major deal as it was only for a day (and I actually did do a single edit-via-phone during that time). The showcased screenshot has the info ''(click for full rez)''. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 18:39, 10 September 2011 (MDT)

:That's very weird, because Badger blocked that IP indefinitely. Perhaps if you check the box " Automatically block the last IP address used by this user, and any subsequent IP addresses they try to edit from" it doesn't use the same block length as the overall block? From your screenshot it looks like you have the exact same address as the spammer, which seems too good to be true, so I wonder if there's something going on there, but the only one who can use Checkuser is GD. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 08:50, 11 September 2011 (MDT)

::I could perform a CheckUser for your account if you desire. Let me know please. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:28, 11 September 2011 (MDT)

:::I'm not sure if it would help or not. If you think ''(from previous CheckUser use, knowing what raw data it actually gives you)'' it could help figure out what caused it to flag me as well, that may be useful in the future if it ever happened again. But its probably such a rarity that I'm not overly concerned. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 13:33, 11 September 2011 (MDT)

::::From what I can tell, if you check the second box (autoblock IPs associated with this login) it blocks IPs for a day. I think it's so if someone is vandalizing, they can't continue to vandalize as an IP after you block their username. I don't know why a CheckUser would be useful, except to prove that Hooper (probably) isn't a spammer (something we're all pretty sure of, anyway). I think we'll probably just call it a bit of interesting luck and carry on. I've stopped checking the second box when blocking people, unless I suspect they are the sort to vandalize by IP after they've been blocked. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 13:39, 11 September 2011 (MDT)

:::::So I've got the all clear to try to sell you guys Viagra and cheap herbal medical remedies then? Awesome! {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 13:41, 11 September 2011 (MDT)

== Thanks Anyway ==
Hooper, I just wanted to thank you for the nomination for [[Patronage (4e Campaign Setting)]] for FA status. And even though the nomination failed, and the upshot is my campaign setting got downgraded from five stars to three because of it, I wanted you to know that I still appreciate the sentiment behind the attempt. -[[User:Wrecan|Wrecan]] 12:57, 11 November 2011 (MST)

:I've been away for a bit (O.G.R.E.s just doubled our membership by taking over another group - so it's been hectic). I tried reading what was going on there. Man, I don't even know what just happened. I disagree with how it was handled, and still think you've created some fine work. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 18:48, 11 November 2011 (MST)

User talk:Hooper

2012-01-09T02:17:37Z

Hooper:

<center>Did I recently rate your campaign setting? Please, click [[Template:Campaign Setting Rating/meta|here]] to view my reasoning for it's rating.</center>
{{Archives
|label1= Archive 1 (1-30)
|label2= Archive 2 (31-60)
}}

== Campaign Help ==
I saw on a ratings page for campaign settings that you are willing to help with formatting when it comes to creating new settings. I've been working on a setting for a 3.5e campaign I eventually want to play; however, I thought I could go ahead and add it on here. This will be my first attempt at working with a wiki and I have little clue as to how to format it. I've looked around through a few links on how to edit a wiki and such, but it is a bit foreign to me. Heck, I'm not even sure I'm doing this right. If you could help me out, that would be great. I'm not sure how communication works on this site, but I'm willing to learn. -[[User:Eagle033|Eagle033]] 22:50, 3 January 2012 (MST)

:Really, the easiest way is to '''actually read''' ''(don't just skim!)'' Wikipedia's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Contents/Getting_started comprehensive newcomer's guide] to wiki editing. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 19:14, 8 January 2012 (MST)

User talk:Hooper

2012-01-09T02:15:56Z

Hooper:

<center>Did I recently rate your campaign setting? Please, click [[Template:Campaign Setting Rating/meta|here]] to view my reasoning for it's rating.</center>
{{Archives
|label1= Archive 1 (1-30)
|label2= Archive 2 (31-60)
}}
== Been Away ==
Been working on about 5,000 different O.G.R.E. related projects as we get incorporated and my schedule is just extremely hectic with the business, family, and trying to coordinate 30+ chapters as we get legal. Thats my excuse for not being around lately. I think its a good one. I haven't forgotten about here though, just to ease any worries.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 21:42, 16 November 2009 (MST)

== Valgora ==

Sometimes I like to just browse through your Campaign Setting for fun. Seriously, I have never expressed my awe at how you put that whole thing together. I have yet to read all of it either. Sheesh man, great job there. Peace! --[[User:Jay Freedman|Jay Freedman]] 15:33, 17 December 2009 (MST)

:Thanks. Parts of it are suck, parts are placeholder. We really just flesh out parts as we or one of our other O.G.R.E.s chapters plays a campaign in a given Valgorian region.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 16:51, 17 December 2009 (MST)

==i replied. lol==
[[User_talk:Zap284]] {{unsigned|Zap284}}

== <s>Goodbye</s> ==

<s>A revert of a valid edit by Badger sent me away. I'm still 100% glad that all the other riftraft is gone, and I acknowledge that my leaving does nothing. I hope that future action here changes my mind.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 04:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)</s>

:I am sorry to hear about that and I do hope you change your mind. Which edit was that in any case? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 04:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

::Have fun, and Take care! [[User:Jwguy|Jwguy]] 08:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

:::This [http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_Adminship/Ganteka2&curid=72275&diff=456138&oldid=456137 diff]. I fully understand that the discussion had been off topic for a while by that point (I even tried to get people back on it). But fully reverting the edit of someone who was criticizing the person with the power to revert seems to of been a bit much. No hard feelings from me.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 13:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

::::"''A revert of a valid edit by Badger sent me away.''" I thought you meant "''A revert of a valid edit''" as a part and then "'' by Badger''" but whatever. Look at times too, it's not that one but whatever. He had no valid points; it's a health thing not meant in a condescending manner. Take care. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 19:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

:::::I'm glad Badger and you had a brief discussion about it afterwards, and feel a little better. I just believe we should really avoid doing that in the future.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 15:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

::::::Ya. It was not the discussion that was irking me it was the place. It was just to off topic and did not pertain to the RfA at hand. It has been discussed on [[User talk:Green Dragon#Ganteka RfA]]. I do hope you continue to stay as such. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 19:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

:::::::I don't hold anything against Green Dragon, and I assume he feels the same. We talked it out, and I don't imagine he'd ever do it again (without leaving some sort of note on the page or something). I'd consider it lesson learned, and not leave. Let's be frank, the wiki needs you. If he does it again you'd be totally in the right to leave (as you are now, if you so choose), but let's call it a learning experience and move on. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 20:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

::::::::Yeah, I read through it. I'm here. I wouldn't say the site "needs me ''(I am the guy behind [[Morton Frightful (3.5e Deity)]] after all - not exactly top content...)''. I'll probably be around for a while. Anything is better than transientwiki.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 22:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

:::::::::Baseball needs the Cubs, doesn't mean they're ever going to take the World Series. Only joking (I love me some Cubs). Say what you will about Wikia's contributors (of which I am one), most of the content is pretty solid. There's no need to get into a fight over something like that, we're big boys. We can play nice. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 22:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

==Dungeon & Dragons Under Attack==
This is just a note for those who don't keep up on [http://www.theescapist.com RPG Advocacy]. It seems like D&D is having a resurgence of the public misconceptions it experienced back in the 80s (for that info, see [http://ogres.wikia.com/wiki/RPG_Myths RPGs: Lies, Myths, & Misconceptions]. Anyways, just a few weeks back the game was actually [http://quiltcityogres.blogspot.com/2010/01/wisconsin-prisons-claim-d-promotes-gang.html banned from a Wisconsin prison] for allegedly promoting ''"gang violence"''. Just the other day, a horrible filler piece was placed in the Boston Herald that [http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/20100216suspect_in_slays_fan_of_dungeons/srvc=news&position=also tried to loosely associate a killer with easy-to-see motives with D&D as a motive instead]. Luckily, groups like the [http://www.car-pga.org/ CAR-PGa] exist to help combat such atrocities.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 00:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

== You seem like you know a thing or two ==

And you also seem to be around right now :) What is the policy for content changes on pages (as opposed to grammar/formatting)? For example, if an IP changes a homebrew class feature to deal 1d6 damage instead of 1d4 damage, do they have to discuss it first, or what? If I see this, should I revert back, or keep it as is? I know there used to be authorship, but it looks like the template has been removed from everything. Thanks, [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 00:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

:Typically speaking, if no good reason is given, not even an edit summary, you can feel safe in reverting. Getting more in depth with edits that may change the direction or intent of the original author is more of a talk-page discussion thing or so it seems, but what you discuss seems to be simple revert worthy.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 00:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

::Alright, thanks. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 01:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

:::No problem. I see a lot of edits of some IP either increasing or decreasing a crunch number with no reason given. I tend to assume that no explanation = revert, but that is just me.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 04:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

== Sup Playa ==

What up Hooper. I saw that whole mess about the 3.5 OGC copy/paste thing. Whooo. Thats messy man. Anyway, just wanted to say that you seemed pretty professional about the whole thing. Nice job! Keep up the good work! --[[User:Jay Freedman|Jay Freedman]] 19:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

:Ha. If professional means annoyance than yes, I did that well. Thanks. That reminds me, I have to go hunt down those other Hoopers on myspace and yell at them... Strange people everywhere.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 20:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

::Oh, by all means, please do. They are a crazy breed, those Hoopers. I'm surprised we don't have an article about them in the creatures section already. Haha. Peace. --[[User:Jay Freedman|Jay Freedman]] 21:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

== My posts ==

Sorry bout that. I'm like really new to all this. Most of what I've been doing is looking at the majority of similar articles, cutting and pasting, and then replacing their content with mine.

So to be clear, I should always put (4e _____) in the title of every page I make? (I only work in 4e) For example, I'm making the powers now. Does that include the powers? Like should I have said "Dragon's Breath Portal (4e Power)"? {{unsigned|Paleogamer}}

:Yes, the identifier has the edition ''(so as you say if you're only uploading fourth edition than that would be represented as '''4e''')'' and then the classification. This could be equipment, feat, class, prestige class, power, etc. etc. Always in parenthesis of course. Additionally, on talk pages like here when you're discussing with another user, sign your posts by adding four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>). This helps to see who is saying what in discussions. Plus, as each person adds to the discussion, we indent ''(think of paragraphs)'' by using a colon ( <nowiki>:</nowiki> ). Since I am the first reply, I used one, and then if you or another user talked after me here, they would two, then three, and so on.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 00:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

::I'm sorry. I still don't 100% understand everything about how this all works. It's nice that someone is helping me out. I got the parenthesis down now. And the colon trick. I don't fully understand what you were trying to say with the tildes though... I'll try to add them at the end of this post. Anyway. I'm trying to make powers now (in case you hadn't noticed) and a few Summoner summons are a bit unconventional so it's hard to find previous posts where I can steal the code snippets from. I need to know what the syntax is for making a secondary attack. [[User:Paleogamer|Paleogamer]] 00:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

:::Also, I've been trying to move My Summoner Power List so that it's properly labeled but my computer won't do it for some reason. No error message or anything, just sits there like it's loading, but nothing's happening. Could you change it for me? Just need it to say it's a Power List instead of a Power. I have like 90 powers to post for Summoner... this is gonna take awhile.[[User:Paleogamer|Paleogamer]] 01:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

::::As you may see [[Special:RecentChanges|here]], I took the liberty to move some of your first uploads to the proper identifier. So it may just be blocking it because the page is already moved and created.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 01:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

:::::Nope. I don't see if you changed it. It reads right now as Summoner Powers (4e Power) and it should read Summoner Powers (4e Power List)[[User:Paleogamer|Paleogamer]] 01:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

::::::Ah, well on that we may need to see if thats how we want to do it. We try to keep the identifier as uniformed as possible, and eventually it may be that an admin decides its best to split each power onto it's own article and then have that just as a linking list. I'd leave it as is for now.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 02:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

:::::::The problem is that it's supposed to be a linking list. It's labeled as a power, but it's a list. It's just annoying because I'm trying to link it to the Summoner Class page. And I could just change the code in Summoner (4e Class) to link to the list. But the problem is that the list is mislabeled and SHOULD be changed. It's quite annoying really. [[User:Paleogamer|Paleogamer]] 17:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

::::::::I went a head and tried to move it to see what it is doing for you when you try to move it. Yeah, its the database error. Give it a few days and we can correctly move it to whatever is best.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 17:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

::::::::: Thanks. I'll keep on working on what I have. By the way. There is a small part of Lore associated with the Summoner class. Where would I post all that? Also, when creating a power, I don't fully understand all of the syntax. I need to know how to add a secondary attack to a power.

::::::::::My knowledge of fourth edition is precisely zilch, so I would just either bring it up on the talk page of your main power article for other users to chime in or start a discussion (see Meta Pages link at left on navigation, scroll down to discussions) [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 18:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

== William ==

Congrats on your second. Best wishes from DnD Wiki! --[[User:Jay Freedman|Jay Freedman]] 22:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

:Thanks. 36 hours of labor followed by a C Section to a near-10 pounder followed by rejected blood transfusions to the [[User:Nimeeamee|misses]] has made for a long week.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 20:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

::Wow! 36 hours! Congratulations! --[[User:Calidore Chase|Calidore Chase]] 03:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

:::Wow, I saw that you already gave both of you the Baby In The House Barnstar. That's good. Congratulations, from everyone. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 03:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

::::Yeah. Copy-paste is easy. Thanks all.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 14:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

==Admin Sam Kay==

Neutral? Really? Come on bro. You and I both know that boy ain't coming back anytime soon. It has gotta be a conflict of interest or something right? Do don't actually believe he could still function here as an admin with good faith and loyalty, do you? I mean, I hate the politics as much as the next guy... But lets do Sam a favor, okay.

Let's vote ''with'' him. Let's vote against it. --[[User:Jay Freedman|Jay Freedman]] 07:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

:I see your point, just don't feel comfortable until he has a say (if he happens to have one).  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 01:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

== A Show of Appreciation ==

You've done nothing for me very recently, that I know of. But as I was thinking over the people I know from dandwiki, I noticed your username. I was just thinking how you're such a nice guy, and you're so selfless, but I feel you're so unappreciated.
So I figured you might like a frivolous comment saying how you're such a nice guy, and I've always agreed with your way of thinking, always appreciated your contributions, and always admired your patience. You're a cool guy, don't forget it. --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] 21:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
:Oh yeah, and I'm part of your user navigation bar thingy, which makes me feel special. --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] 21:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

::Oh wow! Egoboost! I'm quite fond of you as well (in a totally non gay way). We should promote you beyond Sgt.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 21:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

:::Thanks for chiming in on Jazzman's Admin thingy. Even though you selected the Neutral stance, It's good to see you remained involved. Nice work! Oh, and yeah. We should promote Lion to Colonel or something. Haha. --[[User:Jay Freedman|Jay Freedman]] 04:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

== Anti-Vandal Barnstar ==

{{Anti-Vandal Barnstar|For reverting spam on many deleted pages and overall helping keep D&D Wiki clean from vandals' work throughout the last couple of days, I give you this Barnstar. Thanks for your help. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 01:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC))}}

== Been Away ==
New kid, busy season at work, and the incorporation of O.G.R.E.s has led to me not being on lately (the sporadic down time the wiki has had hasn't helped either. Just saying hi, still here.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 01:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

:More site downage. Tried to do some movings, got some errors. Wondering what is happening to the server.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 04:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

== Moving magic ==

How the heck are you able to move pages? Every time I've tried in the last month I get a database error, and I see you moved 4 just this morning! [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 15:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

:It showed me the same database error, but when I went back to Recent Changes, it showed that it had actually moved the page. So its still not perfect, but it did the job.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 16:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

::You're just lucky, I guess. I've tried moving pages at least 20 times in the last month, and not one of them worked. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 16:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

== Thanks ==

Hey, thanks for moving my campaign setting pages to supplement pages, just forgot. :) I was also going to ask the same question jazz just asked but that was answered, so just thanks then. Oh, and I often generally just create the new page and copy and paste the text and delete the old when moving doesn't work. :)

I was also wondering, perhaps you could put a page with your signature on it up, then put the connection to the page at the bottom of your text like I have done with my campaign setting footer so that your not filling up every bodies discussion pages to much. :)--[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 20:59, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

:The Sig uses the standard wiki subpage code, but for some reason refuses to properly work. I think it has something to do with some slight differences between this wiki's features and standard wikia/wikipedia.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 16:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

::I think what Vrail meant was to put your sig as a subpage, then link to it like a template. That way when the next person edits the page it just says <nowiki>{{User:Hooper/sig}}</nowiki> instead of all the code of your sig. Wikipedia frowns on that, though, and I'm not really sure why. I've seen it done that way on other wikis without problem. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 18:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

:::That exactly what I meant jazz, sorry for my poor explanation hooper. :) Anyways, ya, just something to consider.--[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 20:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

::::That actually is how I do it, but it refuses to work properly. [[User:Hooper/autosig]]  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 22:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

:::::Huh, you used to be able to do that, but now it automatically SUBSTs the template for some reason. I guess MediaWiki decided that site owners aren't smart enough to control that on their own. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 23:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

::::::Thats weird, cause for me I still can do it. I use that for all of my pages on my campaign setting, for the side bar to link to other pages. It still works their, so I don't think they have stopped allowing it to work...--[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 01:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

:::::::Hooper, I figured out what was going wrong, look at this {{:User:Hooper/autosig}}, check the edit page, its only the page link. just replace the [[]] with {{}} and add a : at the beginning i.e {{:User:Hooper/autosig]] just imagine the last two are }}. Check the edit page to see what I changed if my description is to hard to understand :P--[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 01:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

::::::::Use braces like this: <nowiki>{{User:Hooper/autosig}}</nowiki>, not brackets <nowiki>[[User:Hooper/autosig]]</nowiki>. It should work just fine. You can even update your [[Special:Preferences|preferences]] to have it spit that out when you press the wiki signature button or leave a "standard" sig (the four tildes). The only thing is I don't recall if it auto-adds the date, or if you have to add that to your subpage. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 01:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

:::::::::I think you have to add the colon like this <nowiki>{{:User:Hooper/autosig}}</nowiki> not just <nowiki>{{User:Hooper/autosig}}</nowiki>. Oh, and cool nowiki trick to add the source without linking it, I never know you could do that, thanks! :D--[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 01:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

::::::::::I see what you guys are saying, but the fundamental problem with that is that is doesn't show the time and date. In talk pages this can become important. The way it is set up is that my preferences, where it has a nickname to use for my signature, I actually have the template that links to my autosig subpage. If we can find a way to make it work without posting code and show the time and date, I'd love to use it.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 02:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

:::::::::::Now ''that'' I can't explain. I have my sig in my preferences (it's not as fancy as yours, but it's non-default), and it does add the date. My problem is if I add my signature to a subpage, then whenever I change my preferences to <nowiki>{{user:Jazzman831/sig}}, it automatically turns it into {{SUBST:User:Jazzman831/sig}}. The difference between these two is that the first is a transclusion, and much shorter, and the latter is a substitution, and includes all the code. If you can figure out how to make your automatic sig do the first one, but it's still not adding the time and date, that's easy to get around by using variables like {{CURRENTDAY}} {{CURRENTMONTH}}.
:::::::::::Actually, a workaround I've seen is to make your signature subpage itself a link to a signature page. That way when it automatically substitutes {{SUBST:User:Hooper/sig}}, the only text on that page is {{User:Hooper/realsig}}, or whatever. I'm sure none of that made sense, but I actually do know what the problem is here, I swear :) </nowiki>[[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 03:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

::::::::::::I remember when I was still editing using an IP, I had no idea how people made their signatures so I just did it manually, adding the date and time by hand. I found that this really didn't create to much trouble. Just something to keep in mind if this can't be figured out. :)--[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 03:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Alright, I figured it out. No need for magic words or junk like that. On your prefrences page, make this text your sig <nowiki> "{{User:Hooper/autosig}}~~~~~" </nowiki> Now whenever you type 4 tildes everything should work just fine. I've tested this and it works for me.  [[User:Badger|'''Badger''']] '''·'''[[User talk:Badger| My Talk ]]'''·'''[[Special:Emailuser/Badger| Email Me]]  04:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

::::::::::::::Do you realize that you put five tildes just now? Also, I think you still have to put the colon at the front. Oh, and, if it works for you how come your still doing it the long way, as I can see by your post on the edit page for your sig? Anyways, just confirming you meant to put five tildes instead of the standard four for sig's. :)--[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 04:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

← (Ok, I'm getting edit conflicted up the wazoo here!!) Actually, that doesn't work, look at the code you left behind :) Also, after you hit "save" in your preferences, look at the code again: it automatically removes the 5 tildes. The reason it is working for you is because it's adding the date to your sig; try it with only three tildes and I bet you your date will be missing.

Here's what I did. I changed my signature preferences to <nowiki>{{SUBST:User:Jazzman831/sig|{{SUBST:CURRENTTIME}}, {{SUBST:CURRENTDAY}} {{SUBST:CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{SUBST:CURRENTYEAR}} (UTC)}}. Then on Jazz/sig I typed {{User:Jazzman831/realsig|{{{1}}}}}. Next, in jazz/realsig I typed my signature code, followed by {{{1}}}. Now the only thing you see when I type three tildes is "{{User:Jazzman831/realsig|04:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)}}"</nowiki>, which in your case would be a lot shorter than your whole signature (in my case it's actually longer). But when you look at how that code displays, you can't tell the difference between that and any other signature.

The weird thing is, if I type four tildes, then I get the date showing twice, as I should. I don't know why the date wouldn't be showing for you, Hooper.

And Vrail: three tildes gives you only the username portion, 4 gives you the username and date, and five gives you only the date. Observe:

(Three) [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]]

(Five) 04:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

(Four) [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 04:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

:wow, cool, didn't know that. :D Anyways, I don't know to much more on this topic than I've already said, so I'm going to leave the rest up to you smart people. :P--[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 04:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

::I'll play around with this coding after this weekend ''(wedding anniversary with [[User:Nimeeamee]])''. Thanks for testing.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 01:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

== Rating campaign settings ==

I was sifting through some campaign settings and found a few that clearly do not deserve there current rating. I though I'd come to you for my question on this because you seem to be the rater of many settings. There is one specifically I'd like to bring up.[[Cora (DnD Campaign Setting)|Cora]]. This campaign setting, while it may be very good and almost done, is just that, almost done. Cora is not yet complete however it is still rated a 5. There are a few red pages and not all blue pages are done. It was my understanding that campaign settings rated five must be complete. I have brought this up on the settings discussion page a while ago and still nobody has said anything, I was wondering how rude it would be if I went in and bumped it down to a 4?--[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 04:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

:Well, it is more complete than many, and you could easily run a long campaign in it without needing any of the redlinked nonexistent pages. You have to think of it in terms of both "scale of 5 of completeness on the wiki + scale of 5 of complete playability." I'd say it is a 5, perhaps a "low" 5 but a 5, though changing it to four wouldn't be too far off to harm the navigation or categorizing. But thats just my opinion.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 01:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

::Alright, I was really on and off about changing it, so I'll probably just leave it. Thanks for the input. :)--[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 04:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

== Campaign Setting Balance ==

Hey, I am currently working on finishing and revising my campaign setting ([[Orion (3.5e Campaign Setting)|Orion]]) to help it become more playable, however I am looking for some advice. Advice overall would be nice, but there is a specific area I'd like some help in, the magic system. It was noted by others reading my setting that because of the way I handle magic the setting may be unbalanced. I was looking for your input on how to balance the magic system without changing how it's used/viewed in the setting. For an expanded understanding of how magic is viewed you can reference [[Magic and Psionics (Orion Supplement)|here]]

I'm asking you this because you seem to be into campaign settings, and quite adept at rating and reviewing them, not to mention you are an advanced user.

Some things that may be causing this imbalance include my class selection available [[Classes (Orion Supplement)|here]], my race selection (however that has been revised a bit) [[Races (Orion Supplement)|here]], and my magic item selection as they are very scarce (I would put a link, however I have not gotten around to adding any magic items so far). These things may be causing an imbalance due to the fact that at higher levels almost all monsters rely heavily on magic and spell like abilities. I don't want to include very much magic in the setting and still have it as a rare sight. Any ideas on how to do this?

Thanks a million!--[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 03:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

:I'm really not the best to ask, as I prefer non-magic and don't personally play many magic users. [[User:Neodymium]] is a pretty good person to answer this kind of question.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 21:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

::Alright, thanks, it is primarily non-magic if you want to check it out so far, but I'll definitely go to [[User:Neodymium|Neodymium]] for this question. ''':)'''--[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 23:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

== Re-opening the tavern, I'd like your opinion ==

So I know you've been busy lately with those kids of yours (congrats, by the way) and you've not been around as much as you used to be. However, I still consider you a big part of this community. I've made efforts to reopen the tavern, and while I know you were opposed to the tavern in the past, I'd still like your opinion. If you have changed your mind and think the tavern would help the community, great; if you still are opposed to the tavern, I would like you to mention why on [[Discussion:Re-opening_the_tavern%3F_What_does_the_community_think%3F|the discussion]], to present both sides of the conversation equally. If you don't have the time I understand. Thanks, [[User:Badger|Badger]] 21:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

:Replied. I'm actually online more, but my extremely limited availability means most of my time online is spent on '''OgreLair.org'''.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 03:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

==Looking For Group==

Srry to bother but I was refered here by badger and he told me you might be able to help me out. You see I am moving soon and it is a distance of a feww thousand miles so I was wondering if you might help me locate a D&D group in the milwuaki area of portland oregon that plays 3.5e and is willing to accept new mebers. If so then leave a not of my talk page and let me know a way to contact them thx.
[[User:Dragoona22|Dragoona22]]

:Give me a couple days and I'll comb through the many different gamer databases I or other OGREs have or are members of and see what I can find.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 06:35, 20 August 2010 (MDT)

==Hey==

I saw that you seem to be one of the more active people on here, so I figured I would see if you could help me with a creature I posted. I have is mostly done, but I need someone to go through and help me get all the tweaks set straight. CR LA and such really. Also, if its not to much to ask, I am currently working on a creature I remember from 2E but I can't seem to find any details. Therefore, I have decided to make my own version of the creature. It is like a ghost only that it is not undead and it feeds on magical energies. Anyway, if you want to help me either one you can find my first creature [http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Dimidium_Troll_%283.5e_Creature%29 here.] My other creature is not yet on the wiki but on my computer. If you would like to help me with that one I can post it to my [http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/User:Lyrad8791/sandbox1 sandbox.] [[User:Lyrad8791|Lyrad8791]] 13:05, 6 January 2011 (MST)

:I'll do my best to remember it this weekend when I've got some downtime sunday or something. If I let it slip my mind just shoot me a message again.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 13:31, 27 March 2011 (MDT)

::Alright then, do you happen to know anyone else on here that might be able to help me with this? I am on most of the time during the day or late into the night. Thanks for any help you give! [[User:Lyrad8791|Lyrad8791]] 19:18, 6 January 2011 (MST)

:::[[User:Badger|Badger]] is usually around.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 13:31, 27 March 2011 (MDT)

::::Yeah, I have him looking it over already. What he said, is that it is fairly close to done. I just need to correct a few formatting issues. Such as linking skills and rewording lines. Also, I might need to go and do a grammar check in Microsoft word or some such program. Anyway, I have fixed most of the linking issues and am now going to work on the grammar issue. Again, thanks for any help you give. [[User:Lyrad8791|Lyrad8791]] 23:31, 7 January 2011 (MST)

== Rate my Campaign Setting? ==

Hey Hooper, I saw that you offer to help rate campaign settings. I've been working a bit recently to help organise the 4e campaign settings, which got me back into making my Campaign setting. It was rated back when the new 4e ratings were put in, but its changed quite a bit since then. I don't want to be biased, so could you please rate it for me? Also, why are the bottom messages in bold? --[[User:Celen Joad|Celen Joad]] 06:45, 26 March 2011 (MDT)

:Completely understand being leery of rating ones own work, I try to avoid it myself even though no one else rarely looks at them. Taken care of. An easy 5.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 13:32, 27 March 2011 (MDT)

:: Thanks. --[[User:Celen Joad|Celen Joad]] 07:10, 28 March 2011 (MDT)

== Thanks ==

Thanks for rating my setting, it's inspired me to get the rest of the campaign basics up there. Sure takes a long time to get even a small amount up doesn't it?

== On DnD Links and Alternate Communities ==

:''Discussion moved to [[Talk:DnD Links#http://www.dnd-wiki.org]].'' --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 01:43, 30 May 2011 (MDT)

== Patronage ==
Can you check out the [[Patronage_(4e_Campaign_Setting)]] and see if we can take off the format block? I think I corrected all of the problems. --[[User:Wrecan|Wrecan]] 16:04, 21 June 2011 (MDT)

:Done! Phenomenal setting.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 16:26, 21 June 2011 (MDT)

==Sig Test==
Trying to make it so code block doesn't appear when I sign. Here goes nothing: {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 19:51, 27 June 2011 (MDT)

:HUZZAH! After all these years! It works! {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 19:52, 27 June 2011 (MDT)

::How did you do it?!?! [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 21:39, 27 June 2011 (MDT)

:::Well, I've always had my preferences, in the box that says ''"New signature:"'', read <nowiki>{{SUBST:User:Hooper/autosig}}</nowiki>. The entire code, as everyone knows, has always showed. So, what I did, was created [[User:Hooper/autosig2]] and I put all the code into that page, turning the normal [[User:Hooper/autosig]] into a translusion page with just this code: <nowiki>{{User:Hooper/autosig2}}</nowiki>. Somehow having a page in the middle kills the code showing. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 22:23, 27 June 2011 (MDT)

::::I've seen it done like that elsewhere, and I could have sworn I tried that here, but I guess I was missing something. Oh well, pretty cool either way! [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 14:33, 28 June 2011 (MDT)

== 2012 ENnies Judge Nominations ==

:''Discussion moved from <s>Discussion:2012 ENnies Judge Nominations</s>.'' --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:47, 15 August 2011 (MDT)

Hello all, as you may know, the 2011 ENnie Award Nominees have recently been announced and will be up for judging starting on the 15th. What you may not know is that during that same polling period, you can vote to elect the judges for the 2012 awards. I am one of the nominees this year, and just ask that you consider me when voting. If you have any questions on how I would judge or such, you can check out the link below or ask me here.

'''ENnie Judge Form:''' [http://www.ennie-awards.com/blog/?page_id=2402 Click Here]

Voting is open from now until midnight on the 24th. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 21:02, 11 July 2011 (MDT)

:Good luck. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:47, 15 August 2011 (MDT)

== SRD 3e ==

You're adding it. I think that's good. I've gone through and protected all of the pages that needed it (I think). If I've missed any, you need more protected, or you need any unprotected so you can fix them, let me know. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 12:37, 27 August 2011 (MDT)

:Yeah, adding it very '''slowly''', but adding it none-the-less. Once it is finally completed, we once discussed hosting d20 Star Wars OGL content. I'll let someone else do all that coding. By the time the 3e content is done, I'll never want to see wikimarkup table code again. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 22:15, 27 August 2011 (MDT)

::Also, do you think that the 3e section is full enough for us to add it to the navigation pane? {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 07:10, 28 August 2011 (MDT)

:::Well, I don't think we'll be adding 3e to the side pane within the next week, but I suspect it's very close to being added. We should probably have more monsters updated before we do it, though. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 12:14, 28 August 2011 (MDT)

== Anti-Vandal Barnstar ==
{{Anti-Vandal Barnstar|For finding vandal's edits, removing vandal's work, and helping keep D&D Wiki clean, I give you this Barnstar. Thanks for your help. Deleting spam edits is a whole lot easier with someone compiling them all for me. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 12:14, 28 August 2011 (MDT)}}

:Thanks. I would of finished, but ;).... {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 13:31, 4 September 2011 (MDT)
 
 
 
 
 

==Spammer Block Oddity==
[[File:Blockingoddity.png|thumb]]
Not really anywhere else to place this, but just a note. Recently, [[User:Badger|Badger]] blocked one of the spam accounts known as '''Madiesaammpaia'''. Not sure what they added as its now deleted, probably some medical pill spam. Anyways, the weird thing is - it locked up my editing capabilities as a result. Some sort of shared IP. Anyway, I assure you I'm not that spammer, but if a admin cares to check out CheckUser and see how close the IPs were, it would be nice. It wasn't a major deal as it was only for a day (and I actually did do a single edit-via-phone during that time). The showcased screenshot has the info ''(click for full rez)''. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 18:39, 10 September 2011 (MDT)

:That's very weird, because Badger blocked that IP indefinitely. Perhaps if you check the box " Automatically block the last IP address used by this user, and any subsequent IP addresses they try to edit from" it doesn't use the same block length as the overall block? From your screenshot it looks like you have the exact same address as the spammer, which seems too good to be true, so I wonder if there's something going on there, but the only one who can use Checkuser is GD. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 08:50, 11 September 2011 (MDT)

::I could perform a CheckUser for your account if you desire. Let me know please. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:28, 11 September 2011 (MDT)

:::I'm not sure if it would help or not. If you think ''(from previous CheckUser use, knowing what raw data it actually gives you)'' it could help figure out what caused it to flag me as well, that may be useful in the future if it ever happened again. But its probably such a rarity that I'm not overly concerned. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 13:33, 11 September 2011 (MDT)

::::From what I can tell, if you check the second box (autoblock IPs associated with this login) it blocks IPs for a day. I think it's so if someone is vandalizing, they can't continue to vandalize as an IP after you block their username. I don't know why a CheckUser would be useful, except to prove that Hooper (probably) isn't a spammer (something we're all pretty sure of, anyway). I think we'll probably just call it a bit of interesting luck and carry on. I've stopped checking the second box when blocking people, unless I suspect they are the sort to vandalize by IP after they've been blocked. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 13:39, 11 September 2011 (MDT)

:::::So I've got the all clear to try to sell you guys Viagra and cheap herbal medical remedies then? Awesome! {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 13:41, 11 September 2011 (MDT)

== Thanks Anyway ==
Hooper, I just wanted to thank you for the nomination for [[Patronage (4e Campaign Setting)]] for FA status. And even though the nomination failed, and the upshot is my campaign setting got downgraded from five stars to three because of it, I wanted you to know that I still appreciate the sentiment behind the attempt. -[[User:Wrecan|Wrecan]] 12:57, 11 November 2011 (MST)

:I've been away for a bit (O.G.R.E.s just doubled our membership by taking over another group - so it's been hectic). I tried reading what was going on there. Man, I don't even know what just happened. I disagree with how it was handled, and still think you've created some fine work. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 18:48, 11 November 2011 (MST)

== Campaign Help ==
I saw on a ratings page for campaign settings that you are willing to help with formatting when it comes to creating new settings. I've been working on a setting for a 3.5e campaign I eventually want to play; however, I thought I could go ahead and add it on here. This will be my first attempt at working with a wiki and I have little clue as to how to format it. I've looked around through a few links on how to edit a wiki and such, but it is a bit foreign to me. Heck, I'm not even sure I'm doing this right. If you could help me out, that would be great. I'm not sure how communication works on this site, but I'm willing to learn. -[[User:Eagle033|Eagle033]] 22:50, 3 January 2012 (MST)

:Really, the easiest way is to '''actually read''' ''(don't just skim!)'' Wikipedia's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Contents/Getting_started comprehensive newcomer's guide] to wiki editing. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 19:14, 8 January 2012 (MST)

User talk:Hooper

2012-01-09T02:14:54Z

Hooper: /* Campaign Help */

<center>Did I recently rate your campaign setting? Please, click [[Template:Campaign Setting Rating/meta|here]] to view my reasoning for it's rating.</center>
{{Archives
|label1= Archive 1 (1-30)
}}
== Been Away ==
Been working on about 5,000 different O.G.R.E. related projects as we get incorporated and my schedule is just extremely hectic with the business, family, and trying to coordinate 30+ chapters as we get legal. Thats my excuse for not being around lately. I think its a good one. I haven't forgotten about here though, just to ease any worries.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 21:42, 16 November 2009 (MST)

== Valgora ==

Sometimes I like to just browse through your Campaign Setting for fun. Seriously, I have never expressed my awe at how you put that whole thing together. I have yet to read all of it either. Sheesh man, great job there. Peace! --[[User:Jay Freedman|Jay Freedman]] 15:33, 17 December 2009 (MST)

:Thanks. Parts of it are suck, parts are placeholder. We really just flesh out parts as we or one of our other O.G.R.E.s chapters plays a campaign in a given Valgorian region.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 16:51, 17 December 2009 (MST)

==i replied. lol==
[[User_talk:Zap284]] {{unsigned|Zap284}}

== <s>Goodbye</s> ==

<s>A revert of a valid edit by Badger sent me away. I'm still 100% glad that all the other riftraft is gone, and I acknowledge that my leaving does nothing. I hope that future action here changes my mind.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 04:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)</s>

:I am sorry to hear about that and I do hope you change your mind. Which edit was that in any case? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 04:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

::Have fun, and Take care! [[User:Jwguy|Jwguy]] 08:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

:::This [http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_Adminship/Ganteka2&curid=72275&diff=456138&oldid=456137 diff]. I fully understand that the discussion had been off topic for a while by that point (I even tried to get people back on it). But fully reverting the edit of someone who was criticizing the person with the power to revert seems to of been a bit much. No hard feelings from me.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 13:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

::::"''A revert of a valid edit by Badger sent me away.''" I thought you meant "''A revert of a valid edit''" as a part and then "'' by Badger''" but whatever. Look at times too, it's not that one but whatever. He had no valid points; it's a health thing not meant in a condescending manner. Take care. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 19:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

:::::I'm glad Badger and you had a brief discussion about it afterwards, and feel a little better. I just believe we should really avoid doing that in the future.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 15:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

::::::Ya. It was not the discussion that was irking me it was the place. It was just to off topic and did not pertain to the RfA at hand. It has been discussed on [[User talk:Green Dragon#Ganteka RfA]]. I do hope you continue to stay as such. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 19:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

:::::::I don't hold anything against Green Dragon, and I assume he feels the same. We talked it out, and I don't imagine he'd ever do it again (without leaving some sort of note on the page or something). I'd consider it lesson learned, and not leave. Let's be frank, the wiki needs you. If he does it again you'd be totally in the right to leave (as you are now, if you so choose), but let's call it a learning experience and move on. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 20:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

::::::::Yeah, I read through it. I'm here. I wouldn't say the site "needs me ''(I am the guy behind [[Morton Frightful (3.5e Deity)]] after all - not exactly top content...)''. I'll probably be around for a while. Anything is better than transientwiki.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 22:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

:::::::::Baseball needs the Cubs, doesn't mean they're ever going to take the World Series. Only joking (I love me some Cubs). Say what you will about Wikia's contributors (of which I am one), most of the content is pretty solid. There's no need to get into a fight over something like that, we're big boys. We can play nice. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 22:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

==Dungeon & Dragons Under Attack==
This is just a note for those who don't keep up on [http://www.theescapist.com RPG Advocacy]. It seems like D&D is having a resurgence of the public misconceptions it experienced back in the 80s (for that info, see [http://ogres.wikia.com/wiki/RPG_Myths RPGs: Lies, Myths, & Misconceptions]. Anyways, just a few weeks back the game was actually [http://quiltcityogres.blogspot.com/2010/01/wisconsin-prisons-claim-d-promotes-gang.html banned from a Wisconsin prison] for allegedly promoting ''"gang violence"''. Just the other day, a horrible filler piece was placed in the Boston Herald that [http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/20100216suspect_in_slays_fan_of_dungeons/srvc=news&position=also tried to loosely associate a killer with easy-to-see motives with D&D as a motive instead]. Luckily, groups like the [http://www.car-pga.org/ CAR-PGa] exist to help combat such atrocities.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 00:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

== You seem like you know a thing or two ==

And you also seem to be around right now :) What is the policy for content changes on pages (as opposed to grammar/formatting)? For example, if an IP changes a homebrew class feature to deal 1d6 damage instead of 1d4 damage, do they have to discuss it first, or what? If I see this, should I revert back, or keep it as is? I know there used to be authorship, but it looks like the template has been removed from everything. Thanks, [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 00:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

:Typically speaking, if no good reason is given, not even an edit summary, you can feel safe in reverting. Getting more in depth with edits that may change the direction or intent of the original author is more of a talk-page discussion thing or so it seems, but what you discuss seems to be simple revert worthy.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 00:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

::Alright, thanks. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 01:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

:::No problem. I see a lot of edits of some IP either increasing or decreasing a crunch number with no reason given. I tend to assume that no explanation = revert, but that is just me.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 04:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

== Sup Playa ==

What up Hooper. I saw that whole mess about the 3.5 OGC copy/paste thing. Whooo. Thats messy man. Anyway, just wanted to say that you seemed pretty professional about the whole thing. Nice job! Keep up the good work! --[[User:Jay Freedman|Jay Freedman]] 19:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

:Ha. If professional means annoyance than yes, I did that well. Thanks. That reminds me, I have to go hunt down those other Hoopers on myspace and yell at them... Strange people everywhere.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 20:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

::Oh, by all means, please do. They are a crazy breed, those Hoopers. I'm surprised we don't have an article about them in the creatures section already. Haha. Peace. --[[User:Jay Freedman|Jay Freedman]] 21:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

== My posts ==

Sorry bout that. I'm like really new to all this. Most of what I've been doing is looking at the majority of similar articles, cutting and pasting, and then replacing their content with mine.

So to be clear, I should always put (4e _____) in the title of every page I make? (I only work in 4e) For example, I'm making the powers now. Does that include the powers? Like should I have said "Dragon's Breath Portal (4e Power)"? {{unsigned|Paleogamer}}

:Yes, the identifier has the edition ''(so as you say if you're only uploading fourth edition than that would be represented as '''4e''')'' and then the classification. This could be equipment, feat, class, prestige class, power, etc. etc. Always in parenthesis of course. Additionally, on talk pages like here when you're discussing with another user, sign your posts by adding four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>). This helps to see who is saying what in discussions. Plus, as each person adds to the discussion, we indent ''(think of paragraphs)'' by using a colon ( <nowiki>:</nowiki> ). Since I am the first reply, I used one, and then if you or another user talked after me here, they would two, then three, and so on.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 00:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

::I'm sorry. I still don't 100% understand everything about how this all works. It's nice that someone is helping me out. I got the parenthesis down now. And the colon trick. I don't fully understand what you were trying to say with the tildes though... I'll try to add them at the end of this post. Anyway. I'm trying to make powers now (in case you hadn't noticed) and a few Summoner summons are a bit unconventional so it's hard to find previous posts where I can steal the code snippets from. I need to know what the syntax is for making a secondary attack. [[User:Paleogamer|Paleogamer]] 00:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

:::Also, I've been trying to move My Summoner Power List so that it's properly labeled but my computer won't do it for some reason. No error message or anything, just sits there like it's loading, but nothing's happening. Could you change it for me? Just need it to say it's a Power List instead of a Power. I have like 90 powers to post for Summoner... this is gonna take awhile.[[User:Paleogamer|Paleogamer]] 01:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

::::As you may see [[Special:RecentChanges|here]], I took the liberty to move some of your first uploads to the proper identifier. So it may just be blocking it because the page is already moved and created.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 01:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

:::::Nope. I don't see if you changed it. It reads right now as Summoner Powers (4e Power) and it should read Summoner Powers (4e Power List)[[User:Paleogamer|Paleogamer]] 01:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

::::::Ah, well on that we may need to see if thats how we want to do it. We try to keep the identifier as uniformed as possible, and eventually it may be that an admin decides its best to split each power onto it's own article and then have that just as a linking list. I'd leave it as is for now.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 02:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

:::::::The problem is that it's supposed to be a linking list. It's labeled as a power, but it's a list. It's just annoying because I'm trying to link it to the Summoner Class page. And I could just change the code in Summoner (4e Class) to link to the list. But the problem is that the list is mislabeled and SHOULD be changed. It's quite annoying really. [[User:Paleogamer|Paleogamer]] 17:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

::::::::I went a head and tried to move it to see what it is doing for you when you try to move it. Yeah, its the database error. Give it a few days and we can correctly move it to whatever is best.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 17:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

::::::::: Thanks. I'll keep on working on what I have. By the way. There is a small part of Lore associated with the Summoner class. Where would I post all that? Also, when creating a power, I don't fully understand all of the syntax. I need to know how to add a secondary attack to a power.

::::::::::My knowledge of fourth edition is precisely zilch, so I would just either bring it up on the talk page of your main power article for other users to chime in or start a discussion (see Meta Pages link at left on navigation, scroll down to discussions) [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 18:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

== William ==

Congrats on your second. Best wishes from DnD Wiki! --[[User:Jay Freedman|Jay Freedman]] 22:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

:Thanks. 36 hours of labor followed by a C Section to a near-10 pounder followed by rejected blood transfusions to the [[User:Nimeeamee|misses]] has made for a long week.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 20:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

::Wow! 36 hours! Congratulations! --[[User:Calidore Chase|Calidore Chase]] 03:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

:::Wow, I saw that you already gave both of you the Baby In The House Barnstar. That's good. Congratulations, from everyone. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 03:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

::::Yeah. Copy-paste is easy. Thanks all.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 14:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

==Admin Sam Kay==

Neutral? Really? Come on bro. You and I both know that boy ain't coming back anytime soon. It has gotta be a conflict of interest or something right? Do don't actually believe he could still function here as an admin with good faith and loyalty, do you? I mean, I hate the politics as much as the next guy... But lets do Sam a favor, okay.

Let's vote ''with'' him. Let's vote against it. --[[User:Jay Freedman|Jay Freedman]] 07:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

:I see your point, just don't feel comfortable until he has a say (if he happens to have one).  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 01:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

== A Show of Appreciation ==

You've done nothing for me very recently, that I know of. But as I was thinking over the people I know from dandwiki, I noticed your username. I was just thinking how you're such a nice guy, and you're so selfless, but I feel you're so unappreciated.
So I figured you might like a frivolous comment saying how you're such a nice guy, and I've always agreed with your way of thinking, always appreciated your contributions, and always admired your patience. You're a cool guy, don't forget it. --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] 21:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
:Oh yeah, and I'm part of your user navigation bar thingy, which makes me feel special. --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] 21:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

::Oh wow! Egoboost! I'm quite fond of you as well (in a totally non gay way). We should promote you beyond Sgt.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 21:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

:::Thanks for chiming in on Jazzman's Admin thingy. Even though you selected the Neutral stance, It's good to see you remained involved. Nice work! Oh, and yeah. We should promote Lion to Colonel or something. Haha. --[[User:Jay Freedman|Jay Freedman]] 04:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

== Anti-Vandal Barnstar ==

{{Anti-Vandal Barnstar|For reverting spam on many deleted pages and overall helping keep D&D Wiki clean from vandals' work throughout the last couple of days, I give you this Barnstar. Thanks for your help. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 01:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC))}}

== Been Away ==
New kid, busy season at work, and the incorporation of O.G.R.E.s has led to me not being on lately (the sporadic down time the wiki has had hasn't helped either. Just saying hi, still here.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 01:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

:More site downage. Tried to do some movings, got some errors. Wondering what is happening to the server.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 04:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

== Moving magic ==

How the heck are you able to move pages? Every time I've tried in the last month I get a database error, and I see you moved 4 just this morning! [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 15:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

:It showed me the same database error, but when I went back to Recent Changes, it showed that it had actually moved the page. So its still not perfect, but it did the job.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 16:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

::You're just lucky, I guess. I've tried moving pages at least 20 times in the last month, and not one of them worked. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 16:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

== Thanks ==

Hey, thanks for moving my campaign setting pages to supplement pages, just forgot. :) I was also going to ask the same question jazz just asked but that was answered, so just thanks then. Oh, and I often generally just create the new page and copy and paste the text and delete the old when moving doesn't work. :)

I was also wondering, perhaps you could put a page with your signature on it up, then put the connection to the page at the bottom of your text like I have done with my campaign setting footer so that your not filling up every bodies discussion pages to much. :)--[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 20:59, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

:The Sig uses the standard wiki subpage code, but for some reason refuses to properly work. I think it has something to do with some slight differences between this wiki's features and standard wikia/wikipedia.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 16:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

::I think what Vrail meant was to put your sig as a subpage, then link to it like a template. That way when the next person edits the page it just says <nowiki>{{User:Hooper/sig}}</nowiki> instead of all the code of your sig. Wikipedia frowns on that, though, and I'm not really sure why. I've seen it done that way on other wikis without problem. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 18:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

:::That exactly what I meant jazz, sorry for my poor explanation hooper. :) Anyways, ya, just something to consider.--[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 20:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

::::That actually is how I do it, but it refuses to work properly. [[User:Hooper/autosig]]  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 22:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

:::::Huh, you used to be able to do that, but now it automatically SUBSTs the template for some reason. I guess MediaWiki decided that site owners aren't smart enough to control that on their own. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 23:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

::::::Thats weird, cause for me I still can do it. I use that for all of my pages on my campaign setting, for the side bar to link to other pages. It still works their, so I don't think they have stopped allowing it to work...--[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 01:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

:::::::Hooper, I figured out what was going wrong, look at this {{:User:Hooper/autosig}}, check the edit page, its only the page link. just replace the [[]] with {{}} and add a : at the beginning i.e {{:User:Hooper/autosig]] just imagine the last two are }}. Check the edit page to see what I changed if my description is to hard to understand :P--[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 01:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

::::::::Use braces like this: <nowiki>{{User:Hooper/autosig}}</nowiki>, not brackets <nowiki>[[User:Hooper/autosig]]</nowiki>. It should work just fine. You can even update your [[Special:Preferences|preferences]] to have it spit that out when you press the wiki signature button or leave a "standard" sig (the four tildes). The only thing is I don't recall if it auto-adds the date, or if you have to add that to your subpage. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 01:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

:::::::::I think you have to add the colon like this <nowiki>{{:User:Hooper/autosig}}</nowiki> not just <nowiki>{{User:Hooper/autosig}}</nowiki>. Oh, and cool nowiki trick to add the source without linking it, I never know you could do that, thanks! :D--[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 01:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

::::::::::I see what you guys are saying, but the fundamental problem with that is that is doesn't show the time and date. In talk pages this can become important. The way it is set up is that my preferences, where it has a nickname to use for my signature, I actually have the template that links to my autosig subpage. If we can find a way to make it work without posting code and show the time and date, I'd love to use it.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 02:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

:::::::::::Now ''that'' I can't explain. I have my sig in my preferences (it's not as fancy as yours, but it's non-default), and it does add the date. My problem is if I add my signature to a subpage, then whenever I change my preferences to <nowiki>{{user:Jazzman831/sig}}, it automatically turns it into {{SUBST:User:Jazzman831/sig}}. The difference between these two is that the first is a transclusion, and much shorter, and the latter is a substitution, and includes all the code. If you can figure out how to make your automatic sig do the first one, but it's still not adding the time and date, that's easy to get around by using variables like {{CURRENTDAY}} {{CURRENTMONTH}}.
:::::::::::Actually, a workaround I've seen is to make your signature subpage itself a link to a signature page. That way when it automatically substitutes {{SUBST:User:Hooper/sig}}, the only text on that page is {{User:Hooper/realsig}}, or whatever. I'm sure none of that made sense, but I actually do know what the problem is here, I swear :) </nowiki>[[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 03:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

::::::::::::I remember when I was still editing using an IP, I had no idea how people made their signatures so I just did it manually, adding the date and time by hand. I found that this really didn't create to much trouble. Just something to keep in mind if this can't be figured out. :)--[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 03:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Alright, I figured it out. No need for magic words or junk like that. On your prefrences page, make this text your sig <nowiki> "{{User:Hooper/autosig}}~~~~~" </nowiki> Now whenever you type 4 tildes everything should work just fine. I've tested this and it works for me.  [[User:Badger|'''Badger''']] '''·'''[[User talk:Badger| My Talk ]]'''·'''[[Special:Emailuser/Badger| Email Me]]  04:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

::::::::::::::Do you realize that you put five tildes just now? Also, I think you still have to put the colon at the front. Oh, and, if it works for you how come your still doing it the long way, as I can see by your post on the edit page for your sig? Anyways, just confirming you meant to put five tildes instead of the standard four for sig's. :)--[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 04:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

← (Ok, I'm getting edit conflicted up the wazoo here!!) Actually, that doesn't work, look at the code you left behind :) Also, after you hit "save" in your preferences, look at the code again: it automatically removes the 5 tildes. The reason it is working for you is because it's adding the date to your sig; try it with only three tildes and I bet you your date will be missing.

Here's what I did. I changed my signature preferences to <nowiki>{{SUBST:User:Jazzman831/sig|{{SUBST:CURRENTTIME}}, {{SUBST:CURRENTDAY}} {{SUBST:CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{SUBST:CURRENTYEAR}} (UTC)}}. Then on Jazz/sig I typed {{User:Jazzman831/realsig|{{{1}}}}}. Next, in jazz/realsig I typed my signature code, followed by {{{1}}}. Now the only thing you see when I type three tildes is "{{User:Jazzman831/realsig|04:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)}}"</nowiki>, which in your case would be a lot shorter than your whole signature (in my case it's actually longer). But when you look at how that code displays, you can't tell the difference between that and any other signature.

The weird thing is, if I type four tildes, then I get the date showing twice, as I should. I don't know why the date wouldn't be showing for you, Hooper.

And Vrail: three tildes gives you only the username portion, 4 gives you the username and date, and five gives you only the date. Observe:

(Three) [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]]

(Five) 04:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

(Four) [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 04:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

:wow, cool, didn't know that. :D Anyways, I don't know to much more on this topic than I've already said, so I'm going to leave the rest up to you smart people. :P--[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 04:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

::I'll play around with this coding after this weekend ''(wedding anniversary with [[User:Nimeeamee]])''. Thanks for testing.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 01:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

== Rating campaign settings ==

I was sifting through some campaign settings and found a few that clearly do not deserve there current rating. I though I'd come to you for my question on this because you seem to be the rater of many settings. There is one specifically I'd like to bring up.[[Cora (DnD Campaign Setting)|Cora]]. This campaign setting, while it may be very good and almost done, is just that, almost done. Cora is not yet complete however it is still rated a 5. There are a few red pages and not all blue pages are done. It was my understanding that campaign settings rated five must be complete. I have brought this up on the settings discussion page a while ago and still nobody has said anything, I was wondering how rude it would be if I went in and bumped it down to a 4?--[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 04:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

:Well, it is more complete than many, and you could easily run a long campaign in it without needing any of the redlinked nonexistent pages. You have to think of it in terms of both "scale of 5 of completeness on the wiki + scale of 5 of complete playability." I'd say it is a 5, perhaps a "low" 5 but a 5, though changing it to four wouldn't be too far off to harm the navigation or categorizing. But thats just my opinion.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 01:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

::Alright, I was really on and off about changing it, so I'll probably just leave it. Thanks for the input. :)--[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 04:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

== Campaign Setting Balance ==

Hey, I am currently working on finishing and revising my campaign setting ([[Orion (3.5e Campaign Setting)|Orion]]) to help it become more playable, however I am looking for some advice. Advice overall would be nice, but there is a specific area I'd like some help in, the magic system. It was noted by others reading my setting that because of the way I handle magic the setting may be unbalanced. I was looking for your input on how to balance the magic system without changing how it's used/viewed in the setting. For an expanded understanding of how magic is viewed you can reference [[Magic and Psionics (Orion Supplement)|here]]

I'm asking you this because you seem to be into campaign settings, and quite adept at rating and reviewing them, not to mention you are an advanced user.

Some things that may be causing this imbalance include my class selection available [[Classes (Orion Supplement)|here]], my race selection (however that has been revised a bit) [[Races (Orion Supplement)|here]], and my magic item selection as they are very scarce (I would put a link, however I have not gotten around to adding any magic items so far). These things may be causing an imbalance due to the fact that at higher levels almost all monsters rely heavily on magic and spell like abilities. I don't want to include very much magic in the setting and still have it as a rare sight. Any ideas on how to do this?

Thanks a million!--[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 03:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

:I'm really not the best to ask, as I prefer non-magic and don't personally play many magic users. [[User:Neodymium]] is a pretty good person to answer this kind of question.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 21:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

::Alright, thanks, it is primarily non-magic if you want to check it out so far, but I'll definitely go to [[User:Neodymium|Neodymium]] for this question. ''':)'''--[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 23:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

== Re-opening the tavern, I'd like your opinion ==

So I know you've been busy lately with those kids of yours (congrats, by the way) and you've not been around as much as you used to be. However, I still consider you a big part of this community. I've made efforts to reopen the tavern, and while I know you were opposed to the tavern in the past, I'd still like your opinion. If you have changed your mind and think the tavern would help the community, great; if you still are opposed to the tavern, I would like you to mention why on [[Discussion:Re-opening_the_tavern%3F_What_does_the_community_think%3F|the discussion]], to present both sides of the conversation equally. If you don't have the time I understand. Thanks, [[User:Badger|Badger]] 21:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

:Replied. I'm actually online more, but my extremely limited availability means most of my time online is spent on '''OgreLair.org'''.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 03:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

==Looking For Group==

Srry to bother but I was refered here by badger and he told me you might be able to help me out. You see I am moving soon and it is a distance of a feww thousand miles so I was wondering if you might help me locate a D&D group in the milwuaki area of portland oregon that plays 3.5e and is willing to accept new mebers. If so then leave a not of my talk page and let me know a way to contact them thx.
[[User:Dragoona22|Dragoona22]]

:Give me a couple days and I'll comb through the many different gamer databases I or other OGREs have or are members of and see what I can find.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 06:35, 20 August 2010 (MDT)

==Hey==

I saw that you seem to be one of the more active people on here, so I figured I would see if you could help me with a creature I posted. I have is mostly done, but I need someone to go through and help me get all the tweaks set straight. CR LA and such really. Also, if its not to much to ask, I am currently working on a creature I remember from 2E but I can't seem to find any details. Therefore, I have decided to make my own version of the creature. It is like a ghost only that it is not undead and it feeds on magical energies. Anyway, if you want to help me either one you can find my first creature [http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Dimidium_Troll_%283.5e_Creature%29 here.] My other creature is not yet on the wiki but on my computer. If you would like to help me with that one I can post it to my [http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/User:Lyrad8791/sandbox1 sandbox.] [[User:Lyrad8791|Lyrad8791]] 13:05, 6 January 2011 (MST)

:I'll do my best to remember it this weekend when I've got some downtime sunday or something. If I let it slip my mind just shoot me a message again.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 13:31, 27 March 2011 (MDT)

::Alright then, do you happen to know anyone else on here that might be able to help me with this? I am on most of the time during the day or late into the night. Thanks for any help you give! [[User:Lyrad8791|Lyrad8791]] 19:18, 6 January 2011 (MST)

:::[[User:Badger|Badger]] is usually around.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 13:31, 27 March 2011 (MDT)

::::Yeah, I have him looking it over already. What he said, is that it is fairly close to done. I just need to correct a few formatting issues. Such as linking skills and rewording lines. Also, I might need to go and do a grammar check in Microsoft word or some such program. Anyway, I have fixed most of the linking issues and am now going to work on the grammar issue. Again, thanks for any help you give. [[User:Lyrad8791|Lyrad8791]] 23:31, 7 January 2011 (MST)

== Rate my Campaign Setting? ==

Hey Hooper, I saw that you offer to help rate campaign settings. I've been working a bit recently to help organise the 4e campaign settings, which got me back into making my Campaign setting. It was rated back when the new 4e ratings were put in, but its changed quite a bit since then. I don't want to be biased, so could you please rate it for me? Also, why are the bottom messages in bold? --[[User:Celen Joad|Celen Joad]] 06:45, 26 March 2011 (MDT)

:Completely understand being leery of rating ones own work, I try to avoid it myself even though no one else rarely looks at them. Taken care of. An easy 5.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 13:32, 27 March 2011 (MDT)

:: Thanks. --[[User:Celen Joad|Celen Joad]] 07:10, 28 March 2011 (MDT)

== Thanks ==

Thanks for rating my setting, it's inspired me to get the rest of the campaign basics up there. Sure takes a long time to get even a small amount up doesn't it?

== On DnD Links and Alternate Communities ==

:''Discussion moved to [[Talk:DnD Links#http://www.dnd-wiki.org]].'' --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 01:43, 30 May 2011 (MDT)

== Patronage ==
Can you check out the [[Patronage_(4e_Campaign_Setting)]] and see if we can take off the format block? I think I corrected all of the problems. --[[User:Wrecan|Wrecan]] 16:04, 21 June 2011 (MDT)

:Done! Phenomenal setting.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 16:26, 21 June 2011 (MDT)

==Sig Test==
Trying to make it so code block doesn't appear when I sign. Here goes nothing: {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 19:51, 27 June 2011 (MDT)

:HUZZAH! After all these years! It works! {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 19:52, 27 June 2011 (MDT)

::How did you do it?!?! [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 21:39, 27 June 2011 (MDT)

:::Well, I've always had my preferences, in the box that says ''"New signature:"'', read <nowiki>{{SUBST:User:Hooper/autosig}}</nowiki>. The entire code, as everyone knows, has always showed. So, what I did, was created [[User:Hooper/autosig2]] and I put all the code into that page, turning the normal [[User:Hooper/autosig]] into a translusion page with just this code: <nowiki>{{User:Hooper/autosig2}}</nowiki>. Somehow having a page in the middle kills the code showing. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 22:23, 27 June 2011 (MDT)

::::I've seen it done like that elsewhere, and I could have sworn I tried that here, but I guess I was missing something. Oh well, pretty cool either way! [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 14:33, 28 June 2011 (MDT)

== 2012 ENnies Judge Nominations ==

:''Discussion moved from <s>Discussion:2012 ENnies Judge Nominations</s>.'' --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:47, 15 August 2011 (MDT)

Hello all, as you may know, the 2011 ENnie Award Nominees have recently been announced and will be up for judging starting on the 15th. What you may not know is that during that same polling period, you can vote to elect the judges for the 2012 awards. I am one of the nominees this year, and just ask that you consider me when voting. If you have any questions on how I would judge or such, you can check out the link below or ask me here.

'''ENnie Judge Form:''' [http://www.ennie-awards.com/blog/?page_id=2402 Click Here]

Voting is open from now until midnight on the 24th. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 21:02, 11 July 2011 (MDT)

:Good luck. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:47, 15 August 2011 (MDT)

== SRD 3e ==

You're adding it. I think that's good. I've gone through and protected all of the pages that needed it (I think). If I've missed any, you need more protected, or you need any unprotected so you can fix them, let me know. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 12:37, 27 August 2011 (MDT)

:Yeah, adding it very '''slowly''', but adding it none-the-less. Once it is finally completed, we once discussed hosting d20 Star Wars OGL content. I'll let someone else do all that coding. By the time the 3e content is done, I'll never want to see wikimarkup table code again. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 22:15, 27 August 2011 (MDT)

::Also, do you think that the 3e section is full enough for us to add it to the navigation pane? {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 07:10, 28 August 2011 (MDT)

:::Well, I don't think we'll be adding 3e to the side pane within the next week, but I suspect it's very close to being added. We should probably have more monsters updated before we do it, though. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 12:14, 28 August 2011 (MDT)

== Anti-Vandal Barnstar ==
{{Anti-Vandal Barnstar|For finding vandal's edits, removing vandal's work, and helping keep D&D Wiki clean, I give you this Barnstar. Thanks for your help. Deleting spam edits is a whole lot easier with someone compiling them all for me. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 12:14, 28 August 2011 (MDT)}}

:Thanks. I would of finished, but ;).... {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 13:31, 4 September 2011 (MDT)
 
 
 
 
 

==Spammer Block Oddity==
[[File:Blockingoddity.png|thumb]]
Not really anywhere else to place this, but just a note. Recently, [[User:Badger|Badger]] blocked one of the spam accounts known as '''Madiesaammpaia'''. Not sure what they added as its now deleted, probably some medical pill spam. Anyways, the weird thing is - it locked up my editing capabilities as a result. Some sort of shared IP. Anyway, I assure you I'm not that spammer, but if a admin cares to check out CheckUser and see how close the IPs were, it would be nice. It wasn't a major deal as it was only for a day (and I actually did do a single edit-via-phone during that time). The showcased screenshot has the info ''(click for full rez)''. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 18:39, 10 September 2011 (MDT)

:That's very weird, because Badger blocked that IP indefinitely. Perhaps if you check the box " Automatically block the last IP address used by this user, and any subsequent IP addresses they try to edit from" it doesn't use the same block length as the overall block? From your screenshot it looks like you have the exact same address as the spammer, which seems too good to be true, so I wonder if there's something going on there, but the only one who can use Checkuser is GD. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 08:50, 11 September 2011 (MDT)

::I could perform a CheckUser for your account if you desire. Let me know please. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:28, 11 September 2011 (MDT)

:::I'm not sure if it would help or not. If you think ''(from previous CheckUser use, knowing what raw data it actually gives you)'' it could help figure out what caused it to flag me as well, that may be useful in the future if it ever happened again. But its probably such a rarity that I'm not overly concerned. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 13:33, 11 September 2011 (MDT)

::::From what I can tell, if you check the second box (autoblock IPs associated with this login) it blocks IPs for a day. I think it's so if someone is vandalizing, they can't continue to vandalize as an IP after you block their username. I don't know why a CheckUser would be useful, except to prove that Hooper (probably) isn't a spammer (something we're all pretty sure of, anyway). I think we'll probably just call it a bit of interesting luck and carry on. I've stopped checking the second box when blocking people, unless I suspect they are the sort to vandalize by IP after they've been blocked. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 13:39, 11 September 2011 (MDT)

:::::So I've got the all clear to try to sell you guys Viagra and cheap herbal medical remedies then? Awesome! {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 13:41, 11 September 2011 (MDT)

== Thanks Anyway ==
Hooper, I just wanted to thank you for the nomination for [[Patronage (4e Campaign Setting)]] for FA status. And even though the nomination failed, and the upshot is my campaign setting got downgraded from five stars to three because of it, I wanted you to know that I still appreciate the sentiment behind the attempt. -[[User:Wrecan|Wrecan]] 12:57, 11 November 2011 (MST)

:I've been away for a bit (O.G.R.E.s just doubled our membership by taking over another group - so it's been hectic). I tried reading what was going on there. Man, I don't even know what just happened. I disagree with how it was handled, and still think you've created some fine work. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 18:48, 11 November 2011 (MST)

== Campaign Help ==
I saw on a ratings page for campaign settings that you are willing to help with formatting when it comes to creating new settings. I've been working on a setting for a 3.5e campaign I eventually want to play; however, I thought I could go ahead and add it on here. This will be my first attempt at working with a wiki and I have little clue as to how to format it. I've looked around through a few links on how to edit a wiki and such, but it is a bit foreign to me. Heck, I'm not even sure I'm doing this right. If you could help me out, that would be great. I'm not sure how communication works on this site, but I'm willing to learn. -[[User:Eagle033|Eagle033]] 22:50, 3 January 2012 (MST)

:Really, the easiest way is to '''actually read''' ''(don't just skim!)'' Wikipedia's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Contents/Getting_started comprehensive newcomer's guide] to wiki editing. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 19:14, 8 January 2012 (MST)

Talk:Warning Policy

2011-12-13T14:44:33Z

Hooper: /* Policy Changes */

== Missing Warnings? ==

Where are the first warnings for TK-Squared, Jota, and S1Q3T3? --[[User:Harry Mason|Harry Mason]] 17:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

:In this time I did not reference the areas so I forgot some. They have them however where are they?
:I know [[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] had three warnings however he/she was first banned for only one warning (the policy was still young) and then he acquired at least up to three warnings and was not banned to compensate (see his talk - history if needed). I at least remember it was with someone (maybe [[User:S1Q3T3|S1Q3T3]] however I don't rememberer exactly. Do you know?
:I put (2:1) on [[User:Jota|Jota's]] last warning and I do not think I was wrong. Do you know where the other is? Is there another?
:[[User:S1Q3T3|S1Q3T3]] was banned for a (3:1) however were are they all? I also don't remember.
:If you know any of the areas I am talking about supplying a link would be appreciated.
:If you know of an(y) area(s) where warnings have been given and are not referenced here supplying a link would be appreciated.
:If you know of an(y) area(s) where people deserve warnings and were not given them supplying a link would be appreciated. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 19:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

::Although it is a moot point, I can see the advantage of making sure we try to accurately back-log and keep track for all future purposes. I [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=Yo5&defl=en&q=define:hope&ei=-Yt5S8XIO47cnAfKr5GyCQ&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title&ved=0CAcQkAE doubt] the user who did it will ever be back, but [http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User:Jason_Bagby&diff=prev&oldid=395263 this edit] seems to me to be a warning-level offense. Maybe I'm wrong, but here it is for an admin to decide.
::Additionally, I was wondering if we are going to have an enforced warning system that is in effect for Edit Wars? I know that even I have been a part of many, and it is something we should avoid. Just curious.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 18:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

:::As seen in [http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User_talk:White_Wolf&curid=72522&diff=457366&oldid=457360 this diff], [[User:Jota]] tried to sneak bits of another user's ''(myself)'' previous comments, trying to disguise the removal as part of a different edit. Even more poignant, the main section removed was where I quoted Jota from a previous location where he admitted enjoying arguing on this wiki (arguably an act of trolling). Though the edits leading up to it can be deemed a Edit War of which I am equally to blame ''(though correct in my reasoning)'', Jota's edit went against all forms of wiki civility and protocol.
:::This is not the first time Jota has done such. He has even removed or discounted other user's or IP's ratings of his own content when it wasn't to his liking. Being so brunt with other user's talk page postings should be forbidden. At most, altering extremely foul language or helping fix link/formatting should be the only allowable reason to do such a thing ''(barring of course obvious spam/vandalism)''. For this reason, I believe a warning is necessary. I leave it to the admin to decide. I understand if I also receive one for the edit war that took place, though in that case Jota should receive two.
:::Jota did respond on that page that he removed the content to save me from ''"..direct rudeness, name calling, and belittle comments.."'' however the main portion of content removed was a quote from Jota, not myself. So that is invalid. The small other portion was not name calling nor do I perceive it as rude - those in managerial positions see things differently than those who are not, irl. Hence the classic phrase ''"can't see the forest because of all the trees"'' and all of it's variants.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 20:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

::::So arguing is trolling now? Lolwut? My actions were in keeping with your (Hooper) past actions, as noted on the Biomancer's talk page. If what I did was an offense against Wiki civility, so was what Hooper did. I just see him not getting warned for his actions, so I assume their okay under this wiki's policy, even though I find them questionable in nature. Furthermore, yes I remove ratings from content, not just IP ratings and not just my own material. If the rating is "lulz, overpowered" that does nothing for no one and is better off removed. "Obvious" spam is subjective, and should be left to an admin or bureaucrat, of which Hooper is neither. Personally, I would subscribe to FIFA's approach to warnings. Asking for someone else to be warned is a warn-worthy offense. Admins know the rules. Telling an admin someone needs to be warned is only an attempt to unjustly sway their opinion, and as such should merit a warning. Given [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law ex post facto law], Hooper's previous offense could be ignored, but its just a suggestion. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 21:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

:::::Irrelevant. As anyone can see on the policy pages in the help portal, most notable the Behavior Page, and from GD's actions and own statements, we no longer tolerate solicitation or links to competing sites. As noted in the diffs on biomancer, Eiji was soliciting and I removed it '''per policy'''. Stop straw manning.
:::::Green Dragon is attempting to be notified because he is the only majorly active admin currently and has way too much to go through, hence it is easy for him to not see all that goes on, sadly.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 21:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

::::::Obvious is subjective, and therefore not your call to make. You want the power, nominate yourself for adminship. You're just creating more clutter by bringing subjective arguments to the table. Besides, it's not like this wiki is so active one cannot see an entire day's worth of activity on the recent changes page. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 21:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

:::::::Everything I need to do here on the wiki doesn't require adminship, nor do I want it. I thought I needed it long ago to help speed up editing but still don't need it today. Some of us have power in real life and realize that adminship is just responsibility, not power.
:::::::Besides, I'd be too bad of an admin. I'd just permaban all the transientwiki people who think that continuing to cause circular talks and bog down progress on the site is fun. I'd also permaban anyone making content with the word Naruto in it. So, subjective or not, it's obvious I don't need adminship.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 21:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

== Official Policy ==

So I have a few quick questions concerning actual policy.
*If an Admin gets 3 warnings (and thusly banned for a week), should they be RfA'd to (potentially) remove adminship? It seems reasonable to have some sort of policy in place to that effect. Naturally, we'd all like to think admins are calm, level-headed contributors all the time, but everyone gets upset and says (or does) something stupid every so often.
*Are all warnings the same? Can a single action provoke 2 <s>attacks of opportunity</s> warnings?
*Is there a statute of limitations on warnings? We have a message up there asking for any missed warnings. Should we really be going back 4 and 5 months to find warn-able offenses? Some of those offenses took place before the warning policy existed.
*Are we warning for every violation of civility according to that list? Forgetting to sign your post, and not answering questions both are on that list. Neither seem worth a warning.
*My last question is a very specific one. Green Dragon, as we all ''now'' know, cannot be removed from adminship. Can he still be warned? If he is warned 3 times can he be banned?
Thanks, [[User:Badger|Badger]] 20:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

:First off I just recently saw [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Disruption Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Disruption] and civility is actually present. As such, do we need this now maybe extraneous policy? I don't know. If so I would prefer we rollback or censor the problem text/post. Thoughts?
:Should an admin be RfA'ed. Good question. I think so as it means one has not been upholding the values of an admin.
:Warnings have been given based off each post, not an "action". Within the post, although their may be multiple violations, I have been counting it as one post to one warning.
:There should not be a statue of limitations on warnings. The problem text is still present and as such something needs to be done regarding it.
:Maybe you are referring to how the "etiquette" portion may not be relevant. That could be case. Should this be changed to just civility? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

::Hmm. I don't know. Should this page be a subpage of [[Help:Behavioral_Policy]]?  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 21:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

:::I think Wikipedia's policy (as you linked above) is a good one. However, I think that policy almost requires us to keep the warning policy. If, for example, you decide to ban me for "Persistent Gross Incivility", I'd demand a few examples of that. The warning policy, as we have it, keeps a running log of all infractions to present if the banned individual should they ask for evidence. Whether or not we decide to stick with the "3 warns equals 1 week ban" policy is a different question. I think the policy is a solid one (once we more clearly define infractions and consequences). I personally am opposed to "perma-bans" (with the exception of users solely dedicated to causing problems, as defined by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Disruption disruptions only]); I don't know how you feel on the subject, however. To address Hooper's question, I think the final decisions should for sure be a sub-page of Behavioral policy, I don't know that this discussion has made any concrete decisions yet though. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 21:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

== Vagueishness ==

The criteria for warning seem somewhat vague, and, since they link to an offsite page over which we have no control, are subject to unwarned change. If I read this literally, I could be giving out warnings for people who don't sign their posts, which doesn't really seem necessary, or for abusing [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:3rr#The_three-revert_rule WP:3RR], which isn't clearly a policy on this site. It's probably time that we broke from WikiP and just created our own pages on civility and etiquette. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 20:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

:This could make sense. Want to give it a go and we can see where we are from there? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:29, 4 March 2011 (MST)

::I could do it (though I don't have a lot of time right now), but since you do all of the warning, I would think you have a better idea of what's warnable and what's not. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 19:12, 9 March 2011 (MST)

== Hooper ==

He got two warnings at the same time. It's not really a "warning" if he doesn't have a chance to learn from it. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 13:16, 28 August 2011 (MDT)

:Interestingly, one of those messages was followed by three or four other comments before it was warned. To an outside observer, it might appear as though someone was just looking for a reason to block him for a week and warned him for something that didn't really warrant a warning. I know we've decided that warnable offenses don't have a statute of limitations, but that's a tad silly, IMO. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 13:21, 28 August 2011 (MDT)

::I agree that the first one was weak at best; stating that one can't follow another's statements is certainly not a personal attack if it's true, and doesn't really justify a warning. Even if Hooper had said something invoking the hygiene of another's mother, however, he still should have a chance to learn from his mistake before being warned a second time. Otherwise it's not a warning policy, it's a punishment policy. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 13:36, 28 August 2011 (MDT)

:::The learning curve is non-existent. If you don't know how to edit, look into D&D Wiki's policies. If that confuses you don't chime into discussions which are so variable. Also, it's that we are intended to warn backwards in time to be fair. Did it happen? Yes. Done. Is there any other way? Not unless you want to disregard wikis (when you edit you edit) entirely for certain users for who knows what reason. There may be more warning problems. I am so tired of pointless discussions I have stopped reading them. If I see more warning problems sometime when I may read them for whatever reason, yes, I will give more warnings. It's the fair way. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:50, 28 August 2011 (MDT)

::::So answer me this, if someone says three different insults in the same single post, do you count it as one warning or three? If you aren't going to stay on top of the ball, but still want to keep away any statute of limitations, the only "fair" way to do it is to count every one you find at the same time as the same warning. It's all arbitrary, anyway, as I stated above (no work has been done on trying to clarify what is actually warnable), but if we are going to block a good user, it'd be nice to know we have good reason. Also, it's be nice to not be paranoid that I can all-the-sudden be banned for extended periods of time because of something I wrote that I didn't know was offensive, that all got caught all at once. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 14:29, 28 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::Each time one edits. You can say whatever in one editing time, however multiple times are multiple times. I agree about it being nice, however it would also be nice to look over all the [[3.5e Prestige Classes]] (for example). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:12, 28 August 2011 (MDT)

::::::Ok, see, that's not a very good argument, GD. Sure, it'd be nice to look over all the [[3.5e Prestige Classes]], but it'd be really hard and time consuming to do that. It'd be very easy to do what Jazzman described. For example, I'm sure there are several things on this wiki that I've written that could potentially be considered warnable, but I've never been warned. Would it be fair to quickly find 3 things, and then ban me for a week, without giving me time to change my ways? No. A single warning would say "this sort of thing is unacceptable, cut it out", and I probably would. That'd be nice, reasonable, fair, and everyone would enjoy it more. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 15:18, 28 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::::After a unjustified ban, I can attest that the policy should be defined. Additionally, if we're following in Wikipedia's footsteps properly, then we should establish proper ban-reversal procedure. For example, if two admins oppose a third admin's block, the block should be reversed (wikipedia has a similar policy, and if it was already in effect here - then this recent unwarranted block wouldn't of happened). Plus, blocks are meant to prevent or pause problematic editors, not editors who are actively contributing, fighting spam, and working collaboratively.
:::::::There should also be a time limit put into effect where admins can not back-warning. This was made obvious recently, as it can lead to abuse. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 13:27, 4 September 2011 (MDT)
::::::::I do know Green Dragon gave Surgo and TK-Squared multiple warnings in February of 2010, for language/rudeness violations committed in March/May of 2009. And considering Surgo stopped posting in September of 2009...well, I can't see what good Green Dragon thought he was doing. Seeing as how he was warning for someone for offenses almost a year old, and ''five months'' after the user in question ceased activies on the wiki.

== Admin Violations ==

The current warning policy does not state that admins are "above the policy" and actually showcases many former admins who have received warnings. However, it also states that only admins may give out warnings. Though I may be just "asking for it," I am intending to request a second administrator's look at recent comments by Green Dragon to see if they are deemed necessary of a warning or warnings.
On the discussing recently held on the Main Page's discussion page, GD said ''"If the grammar is the problem, look up what each word means and then work the sentence out."'', ''"If you care look into it. I'm not going to do something which is so easily done it hurts me to do it. There is an answer to this."'', and my personal favorite ''"...Websites do not edit, therefore they are treated like a normal Wikipedia user (which does not have a [[Warning Policy]]). They must fix the problem or get banned."'' All three of these comments come across as either directly rude or belittling to the people they're referring to, and the last one actually directly interferes with our existing [[Warning Policy]] and implies that I was banned for allegedly-uncivil actions off-site.
Now, however, the most directly uncivil reply was recently posted to the GNU's talk page. Here, GD amazingly flat out states that he will not follow consensus or collaborative discussion (even though he recently added Consensus to the Meta pages) when he declares that ''"...I could care less who thinks what about what. I will do as it is done. I'll listen to reasonableness. I don't care if it comes from God or a bacteria."''. Could other admins please discuss this, and could Green Dragon please reply and let me know if I have misread his intent or tone, especially with the last quote. I also wish to reiterate that I'm not trying to directly attack, its just that at the time these statements were made I was unable to reply - and after reviewing the numerous moves and reformatting of the licensing discussion, am trying to host a civil discussion on a serious issue on the most appropriate page. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 13:41, 4 September 2011 (MDT)

:Ah, and you've spotted a flaw in the system. As I pointed out [[Talk:Warning_Policy#Official_Policy|just above here]], GD is seemingly "above the law". In fact, historically, blocking GD has been grounds for a block in it's own right. In addressing my questions about the finer points of warning policy, GD seemed to gloss over the objection I raised on that front.
:Personally, as an admin, I refuse to "warn" anyone (IP, registered user, administrator, or owner) until a complete and fair guide has been written and is visible to all contributors. As Jazzman mentioned, if we don't have clearly defined rules the "warning policy" becomes more of a "punishment policy". --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 15:03, 4 September 2011 (MDT)

::Yes, I can attest to having no warning at all when I was hit with multiple at once, and still have no clear clue what I said that was wrong. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 15:12, 4 September 2011 (MDT)

:::I've started working on a new, more clear, warning policy. It can be seen [[User:Badger/sandbox13|here]]. Feel free to join the discussion. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 15:55, 4 September 2011 (MDT)

::::Yes, there are answers to things for the above (looking into it more, reading the block reason, etc). Yes, the world also turns. Is "''the world also turns''" condescending? Nah. Are you going to make accusations as such? When I get the time I will issue warnings appropriately for the above comment (e.g. accusations) if appropriate. Was that condescending too? Nah. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:55, 5 September 2011 (MDT)

:::::Umm, okay? Going past the you-blocked-me thing ''(whatever, we can both agree we want the best for the future of the site. right?)'', I'm more interested in your discussion on Badger's rough draft of a warning policy overhaul. Especially on how it may affect admins and bureaucrats. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 21:59, 5 September 2011 (MDT)

== Warnings Issued on 4e Campaign Settings Caliphate Supplement ==

:''Discussion moved from [http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Caliphate_%28Patronage_Supplement%29&oldid=542259 Talk:Caliphate (Patronage Supplement)#Titles].'' --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:24, 5 December 2011 (MST)

Ok point of order here, I'm not going to bother reading this whole discussion because it's long and half of it is hidden in warning text (and ultimately I know what the outcome will be anyway), but some of those "warning texts" are not appropriate. You can't just warn people for saying something you don't like. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 14:58, 5 December 2011 (MST)

:Right. They are related to specific Wikipedia pages. Where are you coming from exactly? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:24, 5 December 2011 (MST)

::This has nothing to do with Wikipedia. I don't know where you are coming from with that one. To be more specific, the following statements are all statements you removed from Wrecan's posts, and warned him about. All of them are, in my opinion, not warnable offenses:
::# Why are you imposing this policy on my campaign setting? What gives you the right to do this, and to prevent me from restoring what I had originally written?
::# It's not tied to any language in the Wiki policy you cited and
::# What admins should not do is invent an unwritten policy and impose them on others without going through the process of adoption.
::# Your interpretation of the policy is not supported by the language of the policy. If you want this website to consider personal attacks to include any use of epithets considered offensive by "organizations and people... on a large scale" then go through the process of amending this wiki's policies.
::# There is no violation for giving a fictional character a title of "Caliph", just as there would be no violation for giving a fictional character the title of "Pope" or "Chief Rabbi" of "Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire"... even if millions of people would be offended by the act. The only behavior banned (of relevance here) is applying a religious term to describe a contributor. That's the Wikipedia (and this site's) policy. If you want this site to have a different policy, you need to go through the process of amended this site's policy.
::# Did you really think I wouldn't fact-check you, GD?
::# When you edited the Patronage pages, you weren't acting as administrator; you were acting as a contributor. Administrators don't make substantive contributions to wiki pages in their capacity as administrators

::In addition, you edited some of his text for reasons other than warnings, which is explicitly against our editing policy. In addition, as mentioned before (in a discussion I think you moved to this page), it's simply not fair (and makes your behavior look to outsiders who don't know the situation —at best— lazy or —at worst— malevolent, ''especially'' when the content you are warning/removing refers to your improper warning/removing of text!) to respond to something multiple times before you hand out a warning for it. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 13:31, 6 December 2011 (MST)

:::None of that is improper. 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7 relate to lying. 3 and 6 are rude to [[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:04, 6 December 2011 (MST)

::::The correct grammar is "None of those are improper, and I feel silly for having censored them." --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.48.104|173.245.48.104]] 20:32, 6 December 2011 (MST)

::::Not necessarily. I meant that none of the reasons for giving them are improper. You'll see what I mean if you check the reasons. The context is about the warning, ergo the warning is being discussed. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:23, 6 December 2011 (MST)

:::::There's no point in arguing, seeing as how you won't ever change your mind. But it's on record that I disagree and that I think it makes you look very improper. In the future, I would be happy to mediate any dispute between you and another user. There's a Wikipedia policy for that somewhere (and actually I think I've done that once before on WP). Also, I'm reinstating the historical link to the page from which you moved this text, because my comments apply to a historical revision of that page, not the page as it stands now, or whenever in the future some user happens to view it. If that talk page gets archived, the link will no longer work and my comments here will lack context (which is why I commented there, and not here, in the first place). [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 14:21, 7 December 2011 (MST)

::::::If you are pointing something out then please add the link to your comments. If its a diff archiving will not do anything... Um... You can read the policy to understand the warnings. If someone is saying something is done a wrong way then they are lying. It's pretty straightforward. Also, you earned yourself some warnings above! "Won't ever change your mind" is belittling. I'll warn you sometime. The dispute resolution is not needed here. Everything is straightforward. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:35, 7 December 2011 (MST)

:::::::If it's a warning please warn me right now. Otherwise I'm not going to count it. (And you know what else is belittling? Telling someone they earned some warnings and then threatening to warn them later). Saying something is done a wrong way is only lying if Wrecan knows it was, in fact, done correctly: it's only lying if he's ''intending'' to ''mislead'' you. If Wrecan actually believes that you are not following policy even though you are, that is not lying. It's pretty straightforward. Point number 2, by the way, can not, by definition be lying: you can not lie by asking someone a question! "How was your day?" "LIAR!!!"

:::::::As for the link: I don't need to refer back to what I am talking about on the other page, because when I said what I said, ''I said it on the other page''. Can you please explain to me what your problem is with adding a more accurate link? If it's a diff archiving will not do anything... which is why I added the diff! We don't want anything to affect where this link points to. If you keep the link how you have it, and then later that talk page is archived, this link will be broken. My link will be correct no matter what you do to the other page (so long as you don't delete it)

::::::::1 is a little interesting. I guess I could remove it. I would like some input on the thinking behind it before any action though. I considered that these circular discussions are pointless and waste people's time. The problem with them is that they need to get resolved (as far as I can tell). One cannot have administrative-related discussions left open since that will imply that users are ''okay'' to not engage in consensus and that they can just "slam the door on other users" while disregarding them.
::::::::It would be fully true that warnings need to be in the time frame of the post if our comments here served the only purpose of taking actions. They, however, do not. Many times I post things without taking any action afterwards (such as after this post) and others do not take actions from my post.
::::::::Additionally if I had more time I could do all the things I want to do. If I had more time I would improve areas of D&D Wiki. I don't have the time right now. So, my lack of time is not a problem. I find that a lack of time leading to problems is not constructive. Therefore, warnings are based off the ''text''. Therefore, it is not belittling. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:23, 8 December 2011 (MST)

== Policy Changes ==

:''See also [[User:Badger/sandbox13]]''
:''Discussion moved from [[User talk:Badger/sandbox13#Warning Policy]].'' --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:44, 5 December 2011 (MST)

Obviously, I wrote all this so I rather like it. However, is there anything that should be added? Anything that should be clarified? Anything that should be removed? Thoughts? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 15:51, 4 September 2011 (MDT)

:The following bullet points are [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]]'s comments/issues:
:1. Just a suggestion for the warning of block lengths. It should go something like "The ban length starts with one week at three warnings and then increases exponentially for every 3 warnings received (2 weeks after the 6th warning, 4 weeks after the 9th, 8 weeks after the 12th, etc.)". Also, I wonder if previously banned people should get less leeway? Maybe 3 bans = 1 week, 5 = 2 weeks, then every new warning increases the ban length. Then again, maybe not, because then it would be too tempting to find any one thing to be able to ban someone. But then again, then again, if someone's already got 5 bans, they probably aren't that great of a member anyway. I'm undecided on this one.
:2. Civility and harassment are wishy-washy terms, and their wishy-washiness has lead to some questionable bans in the past. I'm not sure it's possible to define them in a way that's usable for our purposes, but perhaps we should have a few examples of what are ''not'' uncivil or harassing behavior. Asking for clarification of someone else's post is (usually) not uncivil. Going off-topic or responding to a topic which has been "settled" should also not be a ban-able offense.
:3. Ettiquette breaches should, in most cases, ''not'' be a ban- or warn-able offense. Going by the letter of the law, you could get a warning for mis-indenting a page or for adding a new comment to the top. This should also probably be defined somewhere. I would love it if we didn't have to link to Wikipedia at all, since we have no control over the content there, and aren't notified if their policies change.
:4. I like the separation of IPs from everyone else, because it basically makes no sense to warn IPs.
:5. I think that there should be some sort of statute of limitations in effect, or otherwise some way to keep from being banned as Hooper recently was. I'd say any time an administrator issues a warning, all violations at the same time count as the same warning. This means if someone, say, posts rude comments on 5 different talk pages (though see below), they would count as 1 warning, since there's only 1 chance for the user to correct their behavior, not 5. Speaking of warnings, if the whole point of a warning system is corrective and not punitive, I think any user given a warning should, you know, actually be warned, say, on their talk page. The administrator giving out the warning should leave a message on that user's talk page stating exactly why they received a warning; this way the user has an immediate chance to clean up their act or clear up any miscommunications.
:6. There should be some sort of exception to the rule for certain types of offenders. As written, we can't perma-block those stupid Russian drug company spammers.
:7. The petition section is a little wordy, and is unclear if only the admin who did the banning is allowed to unblock.
:8. Admin blocks: GD (and I think BD) are automatically exempt from being de-sysopped, so I wonder if they should be exempt from banning (though not warning) as well? I mean, they can take away the blocking power from anyone who can block them, so if they ever ''deserved'' to be blocked, what good would it do?
:I mostly support it, but there are a couple of things I think we could change (See section below). I'll change my vote when these items are discussed more. Of my original 8 points below, I am now satisfied with 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 8. I'm not sure I can support a policy that allows unappealable (7) insta-blocks (5), but as those discussions are not settled I haven't changed my vote yet.
:This is probably a little nit-picky, but with something as tumultuous and fickle and emotional as banning, I think it's better we have an absolute iron-clad policy now, then have to find all the exceptions later and risk appearing to play favorites. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 20:31, 4 September 2011 (MDT)

::I've numbered them, and will reply to them by number here:
::1. I think that sets of 3 warnings to a block is a good system. Suppose Hooper gets another warning in 6 months, and then another 8 months after that. Two warnings in the span of 14 months hardly seems worth a 2 week block. Plus, then every subsequent warning is a longer and longer block. (Sorry to use you as an example, Hooper, but you make such a good one).
::2. I think we need some level of "wiggle room" in our terminology. The last thing I want is some trouble-making user leave bad comments and then say "yeah, but technically it's not listed under warnable offenses." I figure since only admins are giving out warnings, we can say "use some logic and reasonableness".
::3. Honestly, I don't really like etiquette, but it was included like 4 times in the original system, so I left it in. I can't make a rational argument for or against it. It seems to me that again an admin could say "dude just miscounted colons, I'm not going to warn him for an etiquette violation." but it would catch people intentionally not signing comments that are offensive. (If anyone would be dumb enough to try that, still signed in).
::5. I have no idea how to word it, but I want to suggest something like "you can't be warned on comments between warnings", which I know makes no sense. Let me clarify: When you're warned for a comment "c1", and then again for comment "c5". Any comments left between c1 and c5 (c2-4) can be censored to remove offending content, but don't count towards your warning level. I think a system about leaving comments on warned user's talk pages is also a good idea.
::6. The way I see it, the warning policy applies almost exclusively to comments left on talk/user pages. Considering we don't warn link spammers, we just delete their pages and perma-ban them I see no need for this policy to concern them. We should probably make it more clear that this policy applies mainly to comments, and not spam/vandalism.
::7. I'm not sure how to better word the petition section. I think that only the blocking admin should be allowed to revert the block, though.
::8. If they are "above" banning (as it seems they are) they might as well be "above" warnings too. The only punishment for a warning is a block. Unless you mean you'd like to be able to censor offending posts. I guess that makes enough sense.
::Right, so, these are my thoughts on the matter. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 21:16, 4 September 2011 (MDT)

:::Support, if time restraint put on warnings (see comments)
:::I like what you've got here. It is clear and concise. Even I can tell what I'm guilty of ''(my tendency to highlight others rudeness and ignore my own)''. My only thought is that we should consider some time of time limit. Obviously, admins can't see everything right away - especially if one user cusses another out at say midnight on a sunday. Still, there should be some clear line-in-the-sand that says unless you specifically did x (say, actually cussed out a user) you can not be officially warned if the item was not caught within the time limit. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 22:49, 4 September 2011 (MDT)

::::1. Fair enough. I actually had a thought that might solve a few of our problems at once. What if the warnings "timed out" after a certain period (probably no less than three but no more than 12 months). After the set time period you remove the last warning. Truly disruptive users will ramp up their warnings quickly, but someone who, say, occasionally posts something harsher than they intended won't be so severely penalized. You could even combine the two: it takes 3 warnings to get a block, then every warning after 3 also gets a block, but you remove a warning every 3 months. Or something along these lines.
::::2. I agree with wiggle room, I just also worry that "admin discresion" could be used to liberally as well. I don't know, maybe let's keep it how it is currently then update it if there are problems.
::::3. If (at least) two of us don't like the etiquette part, maybe we should think about removing it altogether from the list of warn-able offenses. I'm not even sure if anyone ever got a warning based off of etiquette before. Or again, we could leave it for now and fix it if we run into problems later.
::::5. What about a simpler solution: an admin can only hand out one warning at a time to a person, no matter how many offenses the admin finds at the same time. I think this says what we want to say without getting too technical.
::::6. Fair enough. Maybe we just need a line that says something to the effect of "vandals and spammers will be dealt with immediately, regardless of their current warning status"?
::::7. How about this: "A user may appeal a block by petitioning the blocking admin via email. The decision to reverse a block is entirely at the discretion of the admin. If the admin does not respond after 48 hours, a blocked user may contact another admin. If this second admin can not contact the original blocking admin, they may decide to reverse the block at their discretion.
::::Any user who is blocked for a period of greater than 1 month can ask for a formal appeal. The user must email all active admins their appeal, after which the admin may request additional information, or may decide as written. A user must get a 2/3's vote from all currently active admins to appeal their block. If the vote fails, they may appeal again after 6 months."
::::8. It's probably a moot point, but yeah, censoring was part of it. Really, though, we don't want admins to be at each other's throats, so maybe we shouldn't delve into this too far. I wonder if we should put in a clause that uncivil language directed at an admin can not be warned by that admin. In other words, a warn must always be from a third-party. Pointing out such offenses would obviously be exempt from the "pointing out offenses is an offense" rule, because administrators don't always read conversations if they know another admin is. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 08:06, 5 September 2011 (MDT)

:::::1. I'm not sure how I feel about warnings going away after a period of time. I mean, it sounds reasonable enough, but the notion of having to go and check on warning expiration dates seems like one more thing to do, with no concrete advantage. I'm all for more work, if it's worth it. I'd also argue "if you are blocked for 3 warnings that span more than a year, you have a strong case for a petition to commute the block".
:::::2/3. How about we keep the "admin discretion" point from comment 2, and remove etiquette from 3? I think that solution would probably do the most good, and the least expense.
:::::5. We currently have a rule that says [[Talk:Warning_Policy#Official_Policy|a single post can't create more than one warning]]. Want to somehow explain how that would extend to all existing comments?
:::::6. We can (and probably should) add that line in somewhere.
:::::7. I like your suggestion for improving the petition portion. I think we should include a bit about "pestering an admin", unless you object to that notion.
:::::8. So maybe we say "while Bureaucrats cannot be warned, their comments can be censored just like any other post"? I like the third party idea. The only problem with that is suppose someone insults you three times, but no other admins are online for a week (which I don't think has '''ever''' happened). You should have the authority and the ability to remove these bad comments and warn the user.
:::::Lastly, to Hooper's point: I'm not sure how I feel about "Admins didn't catch the edit within X weeks, they can't be warned". While it sounds reasonable, admins have a ton of stuff to do (here, and in the real world). I know I don't read every single update (though I skim most of them). If someone is being uncivil, they should be warned no matter how long it's been. Notice we are granting amnesty to all comments before this system is set into place, though. I think that's reasonable enough. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 13:18, 5 September 2011 (MDT)

::::::I feel that civility should be kept as well. I feel that something along the lines of "''Warnings result in predetermined feelings. Warnings are not blocks. Blocks are offenses of a different magnitude. Warnings also are not petty matters. Petty matters may be corrected and may result in discretionable feelings. For example correcting indentations may result in discretionable feelings while being referenced as a contributor of low importance is a feeling which is predetermined; not discretionable.''"
::::::I agree that IPs should not be included. A feature like [[Special:CheckUser]] does not exist for them.
::::::Blocks should be done per edit (or edit within minute corrections). This is fair in all regards.
::::::Warnings should go away after 6 months if the user is in good standing. The reasoning could include something along the lines of "''If a registered user remains in good standing for six months after receiving a warning the warning will be removed. If there are any lasting feelings of receiving a predetermined feelings know that six months passed. Call some friends over and play some D&D– try to keep your mind off the predetermined feeling(s) which w/as(ere) received.''"
::::::I am fine with bureaucrats being above the warning policy. Although this leaves a large hole open for problems, I can say with certainty [[User:Blue Dragon|Blue Dragon]] and I will not abuse the system.
::::::I disagree with petitions to unblock. If the reasoning was not solid, then they should not be blocked. If the reasoning is solid then they should be blocked. I do not think that there should be the possibility for circumvention. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:54, 5 September 2011 (MDT)

:::::::Look good? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:36, 9 September 2011 (MDT)

::::::::I've reverted the changes for two reasons. First, all the above comments are based on what was there (and is there again), so changing that much will change how all those comments apply. Secondly, your use of some very key phrases are confusing to me (and presumably other users). For example "If there are any lasting feelings of receiving a predetermined feelings know that six months passed." is not a complete sentence, and I'm not sure what it is supposed to mean. The suggestions you've brought up are, on the whole, good ones, and should be included. However, those monumental changes are not the best way to go about implementing said changes. if you could better explain your meaning, we could work out what changes need to take place. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 21:38, 9 September 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::This is a sandbox which is a subsection of your userpage. If you want to revert the changes whatever. Keep in mind that one can always look at a older version of the page (based off the dates of the comments) for such a scenario.
:::::::::I think that "''If there are any lasting feelings of receiving a predetermined feelings know that six months passed.''" is a complete sentence. "''If there are [bears who fish salmon] know that [they do fish salmon].''" The adjective is lasting feelings and the verb is passed. However, I am no grammatical expert.
:::::::::I mean what my comment above mentions. If you would like a better explanation please go through my comment above and let me know where your confusion arises from. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:46, 9 September 2011 (MDT)

::::::::::I'm aware that this is a subpage, and history/comment dates would make it possible to see what exactly everyone means, but it would be easier to just make a large edit once we've resolved all our concerns, and then strike through/comment out the existing discussion.

::::::::::I'm just going to go through your previous comment one line at a time, pointing out where I would like clarity. ''"I feel that civility should be kept as well"''. Got that, clear and concise. ''"Warnings result in predetermined feelings"''. I have no idea what that means. What are "pre-determined feelings", in this sense?''"Warnings are not blocks. Blocks are offenses of a different magnitude. Warnings also are not petty matters."'' This much I understand, too. Warnings are the sorts of things that are unacceptable, but not worthy of a block. ''" Petty matters may be corrected and may result in discretionable feelings."'' Right, not sure what this means. Do you mean "Admins can correct small things, like indentation, and not warn the contributor"? That is what I think you mean by your next sentence ''"For example correcting indentations may result in discretionable feelings while being referenced as a contributor of low importance is a feeling which is predetermined; not discretionable."'' ''"Blocks should be done per edit (or edit within minute corrections). This is fair in all regards."'' is another confusing sentence, for me. Do you mean to suggest that you should be able to issue three warnings for three successive inappropriate posts, and thereby block someone, without giving them time to adjust their behaviors? I think, and others agree, that this mentality turns a warning policy into a punishment policy. I don't think that is a good rule. The rest of your post I think I understand. I'm fine with removing the petition to unblock if warnings go away 6 months after they were issued. That seems like a solid plan, to me.

::::::::::Back to that one confusing sentence: if that is how you intend for your comment to be interpreted, then it is improperly punctuated; but, that's a minor detail. However, if that is your sentence, then it is a tautology that adds nothing to the policy. "If there are feelings, then there are feelings" doesn't help to describe what these feelings are, or what ramifications these feelings have. Could you better describe what you mean by "predetermined feelings"? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 22:05, 9 September 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::::By "predetermined" I mean that when someone says something they intend a result for someone else. By "''Petty matters may be corrected and may result in discretionable feelings''" I mean that "You may edit" (just worded for the context).
:::::::::::When I mention that edits should be the base for warnings this is because blocking can be of varying length. Why can they be of varying length? They vary in length because of severity. Making warnings work with edits makes use of severity. Also, it is not fair if someone insults someone multiple times and someone else insults someone a single time and they get the same result.
:::::::::::Oh, everything I added are tautologies. They are there to explain the reasoning. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:51, 9 September 2011 (MDT)

::::::::::::The whole point of numbering was to try and keep the different points straight, but I see that's gone down the crapper. I'm going to try to summarize, then hopefully we can stay organized from here on out.

::::::::::::1 (Warning system logistics) It sounds like we are leaning towards an expiring warning system.
:::::::::::::I agree with this, and I don't think it takes too much work. Really, all you have to do is check the age of the last warnings before you ban someone. If the oldest warning is less than 6 months old, then none of them have expired yet. Displaying "expired" warnings doesn't have any negative consequences, so nobody needs to rigorously patrol the page for expired warnings.

::::::::::::2/3 (Etiquette and Civility) I think we are going to keep it as is for now.
:::::::::::::I agree with Badger, the language suggested by Green Dragon does not make a lot of sense to me, and I'm not sure it's necessary. For one thing, "discretionable" is not a real word. I think what you are getting at is that admins have discretion to define "civility" and "etiquette". While I don't really like this (as it leaves it open to abuse -- especially with no method of appeal), I don't see a better way around it right now.

::::::::::::4 (Blocking IPs) It's agreed that there's no need to block IPs.

::::::::::::5 (How to count blocks) There is no consensus here.
:::::::::::::Badger mentioned the "rule" that you can't be warned more than once in one comment. This should be enumerated within the rules for it to be official. Green Dragon, your scenario is fair in one way but unfair in another. Yes, your way three warnings always equals 1 block. But one user got 2 warnings to cease his behavior before he was blocked, and the other got 0. This is unfair. I'll say it again: if the point of the block policy is to ''change'' behavior, then you must go off of the number of actual ''warnings'' (i.e. how many times the user was told "don't do that or else"). If the purpose of the warning policy is to ''punish'' people, then you must go off of the number of ''offenses'' (this would even count for multiple offenses within a single post). If we are trying to build a community, I can only support a behavior-changing policy. I also, for the same reason, think there should be a statute of limitations. While admins may be busy, we really should be checking over all edits, especially in discussions that are likely to devolve into uncivil behavior. I don't think a week is too short a time frame; most weeks you can view a week's worth of edits on the recent changes log. If we ''don't'' have a statute of limitations, there's nothing stopping an unscrupulous admin from "storing" warnings and unleashing them all when he wants to get rid of a user for a while.

::::::::::::6 (Exception for spammers/vandals) I think there is agreement on this point.

::::::::::::7 (Petitioning) Badger and Jazzman are for, and GD is against.
:::::::::::::I really see no reason against allowing an appeal. Admins are humans, and humans make mistakes. You even say yourself, "If the reasoning was not solid, then they should not be blocked." So what if the reasoning wasn't solid, but you blocked anyway? Again, if we are going for a behavior-changing policy, we need the ability to have some leeway here.

::::::::::::8 (Bureaucratic Immunity) It's agreed that Bureaucrats are immune to the warning policy, but not admins. It has been suggested that a third party must intervene if an admin is involved in the uncivil behavior, but not agreed upon the details.
:::::::::::::The whole point of rule of law (or rule of rule, in this case) sort of breaks down if you just take the Bureaucrats at their word... but that being said we don't really have any way around it, so I begrudgingly agree that they should just get blanket immunity. There's nothing we can do about it anyway. As for the case where only one admin is around, I think that it's rare enough that we shouldn't have to worry about it. If there is someone who is genuinely disruptive and no other admin responds in, say, 24 hours, the primary admin should be able to block. This is another reason to allow petitioning: if an admin is in an argument with a user, they could find a serious of excuses to block that user for 6 months. Without an appeal process, that user is screwed.

::::::::::::I think this is everything. If I have misrepresented anyone or any idea please let me know. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 11:29, 10 September 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::::::I agree that the tautologies should be added elsewhere, like on the [[Help:Help Pages (DnD Guideline)|Help]] pages.
:::::::::::::In accordance with number five mentioned above I would like to say that warnings are based off edits. This means that if the edit is older then six months then it (because of the time frame) would not be useable. This, then, removes the abuse of the system you mention above. Severity is also important because one does not ''learn'' through such a process. If you want to learn read [[Meta Pages]]. Editing is not learning necessarily and merging the two together is a mistake.
:::::::::::::I don't disagree with appeals. I just don't feel that the medium is appropriate. If there is a problem they may wait out there time frame (if it is the last edit which is a problem) or if it is an intermediate edit, post on [[Talk:Warning Policy]] and discuss the problem. This is in accordance with wiki. We ''do not'' want D&D Wiki to function outside of wiki. This would undermine the very idea of wiki. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:31, 10 September 2011 (MDT)

{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}

:GD, I'm not sure you know what tautologies are. They are "using different words to say the same thing even if the repetition does not provide clarity". There is absolutely ''no'' reason to intentionally include a tautology in our policies. If I understand you correctly, the statute of limitations on warnings should be 6 months, starting the day the comment was posted, rather than the day it was found. I'm not sure I like that. I'd support a month for the SoL, but have warnings expire 6 months after they are issued, not after the original comment is left. I think the goal of this policy should be learning, not punishment. We can't honestly expect every contributor to read the entirety of the Meta Pages before posting. I don't think I got around to reading them all until after I became admin (and I'm not even sure I've read them all, they are hard to find sometimes). I think "learning by doing" is the best approach to this situation, and that means we should combine editing with teaching. Finally, your last point is dead wrong. I pulled the notion of appeals directly from Wikipedia policy (making small alterations, to better suit it to our wiki). That section of their policy can be found [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Appeals_and_discussions here]. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 12:53, 10 September 2011 (MDT)

::As tautologies explain the same thing (just give some backing to the reasoning for clarification) they should be moved elsewhere, like on the [[Help:Help Pages (DnD Guideline)|Help]] pages, as I mentioned above.
::The goal of the policy should not be learning. If we do not have varying severity people will use D&D Wiki contributors as vents. There is a reason that most systems of criminal conduct throughout the world have varying severity punishments. Saying that removing this is better then having this present is something which is wrong. If you kill someone and someone else crosses the street illegally a slap on the wrist for both instances is not acceptable. Most people (since they must interact with respect for various reasons) already know how to interact so the learning curve is pretty much non-existent anyway.
::What is wrong with the reasoning for clarification of "''If there are any lasting feelings of receiving a predetermined feelings know that six months passed.''"? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:12, 10 September 2011 (MDT)

:::For one thing, it isn't clear - negating its ability to clarify. Its obtuse almost. We need clear and concise language. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 13:21, 10 September 2011 (MDT)

::::Feeling not feelings is a minor grammatical mistake above. If you want to improve the language, of course, go for it.
::::Also, I agree that non-wiki arbitration is good to have. I created http://groups.google.com/group/dd-wiki-non-wiki-arbitration for non-wiki arbitration. Thoughts? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:45, 10 September 2011 (MDT)

:::::Ok, where is this "severity of punishments" thing coming from? We have exactly one punishment -- banning -- and its severity is determined by the quantity, not quality, of your offenses. I simply can not, and will not, ever be in favor of a punitive system of warnings. It's not conducive to a collective-editing environment, it's harsh on new users and therefore insulating to a community that's already way to small to begin with, and it's just plain unnecessary when you consider the types of offenses we are actually dealing with here. Nobody is going to be deterred from ''offending'' by a threatening system, they will be deterred from ''editing''. If you don't agree with this then we will have to agree to disagree because you won't convince me otherwise. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 15:10, 10 September 2011 (MDT)

:::::Edit to add: that whole lasting feelings statement doesn't make any sense to me at all. Are you trying to say "let bygones be bygones"? If so, why do we need that in a warning policy anyway? What's the point of that arbitration thing? Is that to be used with the appeals process you think is unnecessary? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 15:12, 10 September 2011 (MDT)

::::::A few points:
:::::::Tautologies don't really explain things. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Perhaps you instead mean "definition" or "explanation".
:::::::While the goal of most policy should not be learning, most of us feel that the goal of the warning policy should be for learning. We want to use the warning policy as a system to teach right from wrong, not just punish those who are doing wrong. If someone is persistently upsetting the community and not contributing in any way, I'm likely to just block them for a week, despite the warning policy. It is my opinion that the warning policy should be for making sure conversations stay civil, and censoring the occasional bad post from a generally good contributor.
:::::::No one is suggesting that we remove institutionalized punishments that fit the crime. To continue your metaphor, there is a reason that most systems of criminal conduct throughout the world have an appeals system. If someone is given 20 years in prison for jaywalking, they should be able to appeal to have their sentence commuted. The idea of appeals isn't to let the guilty walk free, but rather to help the unjustly punished.
:::::::I've joined that group you've created. I'm not sure if it's the best method, but I suppose it'll do for now. You should check that users are who they say they are (based on the email they use to join). In joining, I just got to choose a random username, and I could have picked "Badger" just as easily as I could have picked "Blue Dragon" or "JazzMan831".
:::::::I really want to figure out what you mean by "''If there are any lasting feelings of receiving a predetermined feelings know that six months passed.''". Do you mean to say ''"If you are still upset about a mean thing someone has said, know that they said it 6 months ago and they may no longer feel that way."''? If that's not what you mean, can you try to rephrase it another way, because I am totally confused.
::::::Given that you've created this off-wiki method for arbitration, I suppose it's safe to assume that an appeals system is something you now like?--[[User:Badger|Badger]] 15:22, 10 September 2011 (MDT)

:::::::I wonder if a off-site group is the right way to go for one major reason: anonymity. Yes, I am not that fond of it myself - and I may be willing to use my real name everywhere, but not everyone is. Should we force a user who doesn't wish to connect his online profile with others or his real name into signing up to a group - especially one like google where it is so easy for personal information to leak through ''(trust me, I'm a debt collector. Google and facebook are awesome for us when it comes to tracking)''? Again, personally, I'm anti-anonymity, but I understand that others seek it out. I mean, I doubt Badger wants us to know that he may be "James T. Badger from Badgerville" ''(just an example)'' or such. Maybe this is making sense, but I feel like I'm just blabering on. Basically: TL<nowiki>;</nowiki>DR = love and feel the need for a appeals process, but is off-site the right channel? Do we have the ability to program a few pages to allow even blocked users to edit, like their own talk page or a central Admin Noticeboard?
:::::::Also, what do we do in cases like [[User_talk:Hooper#Spammer_Block_Oddity|this]]? {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 18:47, 10 September 2011 (MDT)

::::::::If we were to remove severity and consider an aspect of learning as the base does this include everyone? If someone insults me multiple times will that annoy me more? If someone gets the same punishment as another user for a lesser offense will they even learn (I think this has been proven to be a learning barrier by the way)? If someone insults anyone multiple times will that annoy the admin more (more dealing with this learning base of work)? Why should everything relate to the abuser and not the abused? Why should those who "do their homework" (for lack of a better term) not be better off? Is that not part of learning? I just don't understand how removing severity and considering an aspect of learning as the base can be fair. If its not fair then we ''will'' have a problem with users considering the administration as biased and not compatible.
::::::::Yes, "''bygones be bygones''". Don't worry about all that– it will be used in the help pages.
::::::::I attempted to infer that yes, I do agree with an arbitration method. For the arbitration to have an effect (in its current state), yes, one must verify the user (email for a message or something). If we do not want to deal with this level of anonymity then does anyone know of a fitting extension for the above suggestions? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:02, 13 September 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::Ok, so one thing to point out, we're all in favor of keeping the scaling block lengths. If someone repetitively insults users, they will ''not'' have a good case for arbitration. Arbitration, and commuted block lengths, will only occur when something has legitimately gone wrong. Apparently a patch to the MediaWiki software continues to prevent a blocked user from editing a wiki, but allows users to still edit their talk page. I'm not sure if we have that capability, but if we do, that'd be the best way to go about this. Users could post on their talk page, and admins could leave their opinions. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 15:17, 13 September 2011 (MDT)

::::::::::I don't mean commuted block lengths to have anything to do with edits though. The problem with a correlation there is that in some cases multiple things have legitimately gone wrong with only one result. Which extension [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki MediaWiki.org] were you referring to above? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:08, 13 September 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::::I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand where your problem is. Can you give a hypothetical situation where your problem would arise? That would be immensely helpful. [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:$wgBlockAllowsUTEdit This] extension (not actually an extension, but existing code) allows blocked users to edit their talk page. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 22:34, 13 September 2011 (MDT)

::::::::::::For example if I edit a page and do not treat another use with civility I have completed an edit. This edit would (in your method) go into a pool until the user gets warned. The pool could have thousands of edits which are not done with civility. The admin would only see the pool and remove the pool as a single occurrence with a single warning relating to the commuted block length. I don't mean commuted block lengths to have anything to do with edits though. The commuted block length should be based of occurrences so this pool problem does not exist.
::::::::::::That extension is an option. I am not a fan of it. When a user is ''blocked'' they are ''blocked''. They did something wrong, so why should they be given lieniency? I would rather do something which does not relate to wiki D&D Wiki (or a mailing list from the email user preferences). Is there an extension for such a thing? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:35, 14 September 2011 (MDT)

:::::::::::::Well, here's the thing. The "pool" would only exist if admins aren't vigilant in their duties. The idea is that admins should stay on top of these things. Secondly, think about this: Suppose you are a user who is leaving comments. You don't think there is anything wrong with your comments. Suddenly an admin comes online and warns you three times in two minutes. Suddenly you're blocked, and you had no idea you were doing anything wrong. Does that seem fair?
:::::::::::::I'm not sure moving things off-wiki is necessarily the best decision. We've always been adamant that we should keep everything on-site, and I don't get why this would be any different. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 14:08, 14 September 2011 (MDT)

{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}

:Actually, I forgot about that extension. I think it's a good idea -- but only if it's also possible to additionally block a user from using their talk page. Everyone has the right to appeal, but not to spam the recent changes out of spite.

:As for "abuser" vs. "abused", since we have agreed on a system where only an admin can hand out warnings, and pointing out offenses of others can itself be warn-able, then obviously this is biased towards the "abuser" method. And really we have good reason. If, for example, user A is in an argument with user B, he shouldn't be given the option to pick three different times in the past where he felt "abused" by user B in order to get him blocked for a week. Additionally, admins should not have to be put in a position where they have to say "well actually I don't feel that you are actually being abused, even though that's how you feel". [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 17:46, 14 September 2011 (MDT)

::How does the fairness of block lengths make its way into this system?
::The fairness of block lengths is present if the duty relies solely on the ''timing'' of admins. Why should everything be about the timing? Do the [[Meta Pages#Improving, Reviewing, and Removing Articles|improving, reviewing, and removing article]] templates make it so the timing can be used to the fullest? Why should we change the warning system to be worse then such a method?
::The above example does seem fair to me. If I could not control my words I need to learn and a system which explains to me which words were appropriate, treats me the same as other people, and treats the person I was rude to the same as everyone else who was mistreated works best.
::I am against something here being onsite since IP's are only posting spam on their talk pages and being blocked means one is blocked.
::I don't agree with admins being the only one's able to ''deal'' with warnings. See also [[Warning Policy#Warnings Issued]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:50, 14 September 2011 (MDT)

:::I don't think it's fair to punish someone because, as an admin, I'm slacking on my job. If you make three potentially offensive edits in the span of twenty minutes, you should be given a fair chance to change your behavior. Suppose someone swears in a comment. They don't swear at anyone, they just say something like "Fighters should have the best damn BAB possible". They may not know that comments like that are a violation of policy (Hell, I'm not even sure if they are against policy). Do you think it's fair to ban someone because they leave three comments like that? On my [[Talk:Hooker_(3.5e_Class)|Hooker talk page]], I, an active user, ask what our policy on swearing is. You can't expect a new user to know if users (and admins) as active as Jazzman and I are don't know. Expecting every contributor to spend thirty minutes reading policy before posting is idealistic and naive. Any policy that could block someone for comments like that is completely asinine, and I can't support it. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 23:12, 14 September 2011 (MDT)

::::Should we just do as Wikipedia does? We are basically only talking about a "level of harassment" ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility#Incivility Wikipedia:Civility#Incivility]) which is a block (the word ''may'' not ''can''). What I am mentioning above is more kind then what Wikipedia uses and making it kinder again is a mistake. Wikipedia knows how to handle users. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:15, 15 September 2011 (MDT)

:::::GD: which of my 8 points above do you agree with (be explicit, as in, using the actual numbers). Since we are all almost in agreement about those things, can we add them to the real policy page? It'd be nice to have some defined rules around here. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 14:59, 5 December 2011 (MST)

::::::The idea of integrity. It's not a number above but it relates to the time frame of the system. Warnings should be applicable until a warning is given then the expiration of the warning can begin to happen. If this does not happen then we lose integrity. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:20, 5 December 2011 (MST)

:::::::First of all, why did you move this? The running vote, and, most importantly, the thing we are discussing in the first place are not on this page. Secondly, I have no idea what you mean. Do you disagree with every single one of my points above? You do disagree with every single word of Badger's proposed policy? Since the current vote is unanimous on several portions of the proposed policy, can we make any of it official? I will respond to your point after I get the answer to these questions, so as not to get distracted. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 13:37, 6 December 2011 (MST)

::::::::The votes were placed where they should be. The same is for this discussion (what it is discussing should be its main page). Voting is not done. See also [[Meta Pages#Policies]] ''"As [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Supermajority Supermajority] (and many others) failed [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus Wikipedia:Consensus] is only used under the rules of D&D, under editing, and in other special instances."'' --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:52, 6 December 2011 (MST)

:::::::::When is voting done, then? And I'm glad you brought up that line; I hadn't noticed it before in Meta Pages. I also am not sure what it's supposed to mean (there's a critical comma or something missing in there). Also, I ask again, as these important questions have yet to be answered: Do you disagree with every single one of my points above? Do you disagree with every single word of Badger's proposed policy? And since voting is apparently not finished (though no one's added a vote in months now) I'll add another: when is voting finished, and what is the procedure for changing this policy? (Do we even *have* a procedure?) [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 14:27, 7 December 2011 (MST)

::::::::::As per the above ''"It's not a number above but it relates to the time frame of the system.''" I think I have mentioned what I agree and disagree with above multiple times to refine this... The quote here is my problem with it. And, consensus is done– voting is not done (special means things like aesthetics, etc). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:41, 7 December 2011 (MST)

:::::::::::Hey guys, sorry I've been missing these past few weeks, I've been swamped with stuff. What have I missed? It seems like we're talking about implementing my new version of the warning policy. Sweet! Let's see, where are we... Right, well, it appears that we're going to use consensus (my favorite thing) to talk about implementation. Judging by what I've read the only thing standing between us and consensus is the notion of a statute of limitations on warnings. Is that right? Awesome! From what I can tell, there are two sides here. Some of us feel that warning people multiple times before given the chance to change their ways is wrong. Others feel if we don't warn people for every offense, we lose integrity in the system. Let me be the first to state that I am in the former camp. Official pardons, states of limitations, and other "secondary laws" have been in effect in America since our inception. I don't think that it can be fairly argued that the American legal system lacks "integrity" because of this. Would someone like to give an example where the integrity of D&D-Wiki would be put in danger because of the proposed policy changes? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 19:50, 7 December 2011 (MST)

::::::::::::If you replied to it without giving a warning, it should ''not'' be given a warning later. If it's acceptable to you then, you shouldn't get to change your mind. I can understand if you just now entered the discussion--and even then, the warning should be one along with a statement to straighten up. That discussion went for many, many pages before Green Dragon decided Wrecan wasn't kosher. What made him change his mind? That Wrecan's tone had gotten snippy? Then that should be a warning for when Wrecan's tone and behavior became unacceptable and that post only, not for what was said two weeks ago and replied to a dozen times. Furthermore, multiple warnings in one swoop aren't good. They aren't good ''at all''. I can't imagine the acrobatics required to decide it's acceptable exercise of power, to discuss something ''for weeks'' and then block the other side of the discussion for posts weeks old. --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.215|173.245.56.215]] 13:33, 8 December 2011 (MST)

:::::::::::::I can't agree with the IP more. What happened to Wrecan should never have happened -- either he should have been blocked days before, or he should not have been blocked at all. To respond to something ''multiple times'' is to give consent to it. You can not then go back and block. It makes the blocker look bad, and it makes the site look bad, end of story. It also doesn't help when YOU POINT OUT THAT YOU ARE GOING TO WARN SOMEONE LATER and then not do it! It just makes you look like a tyrant (and GD, I'm not calling you a tyrant; I'm pointing out that someone new to this site who saw something like that would likely consider the behavior tyrannical).
:::::::::::::Note, also, that GD has decided it's ok to tell users they have done something warn-worthy ''without actually warning them''. [http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Warning_Policy&diff=prev&oldid=542429].
:::::::::::::Lastly: when will voting be done? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 14:37, 8 December 2011 (MST)

{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}

:The American Legal System is not in the same situation. When a judge makes a decision he makes the decision. There are no court cases that people don't listen to and then ''later'' the judge listens to them.
:Some comments are not necessarily acceptable to anyone anytime. Policy relating to acceptable behavior comes from the Wikipedia pages. No one is changing their mind– they are just later having the time to deal with the situation.
:I warned [[User:Wrecan|Wrecan]] before the time when he received multiple blocks. The time I have to issue warnings (it does take time– reading everything so critically while constantly referencing Wikipedia and then the formatting that is related, etc) is when I will issue them. Mentioning comments as being warning-worthy is because I have not had the time the process (mentioned above) requires yet. Is this what is being mentioned above? Seems like it is the same thing. Is it antagonizing? I think it may be a fine line.
:Voting is not done. See above. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:30, 8 December 2011 (MST)

::Ok, GD, let me just say "No". Your reason for delaying a warning isn't acceptable. At all. If you have the time to reply to comments, you have the time to warn someone. End of Discussion. You gave 8 warnings in a single edit. If anything, it should have been a single warning. What you have done is wholly unacceptable. None other administrator would have done what you did. That should have been a clue that something wasn't quite right.
::Jazzman, as a point of order, what do you mean by "When will voting be done"?
::*Under what circumstances should we vote on something?
::*When will discussion come to a close on this issue?
::I feel like that might change the discussion. Are you using the word "voting" to mean "discussion and debate" instead of actual "voting"?
::Finally, I think you've misunderstood my metaphor about the American legal system. Rather than try to explain it to you, I'm just going to ask that you ignore it.--[[User:Badger|Badger]] 21:58, 9 December 2011 (MST)

:::Let me verify this please– you're telling me how to spend my time? You understand how my time is organized then?
:::Since this is consensus the point I will make follows. Read the policy. If you don't know what you're doing read the policy. If you don't know how to interact with other humans, read the policy (it may help you). We are not going to organize time in any manner– that's not right. We'll assume people who care will care and if you do not care then you will suffer the consequences. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:18, 10 December 2011 (MST)

::::The point of this discussion is none of us like the policy, and we'd like to change it. I would suggest that if maybe you don't know how to interact with other humans, you should let others write policy. It may help the the website, in the long run. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 17:13, 10 December 2011 (MST)

:::::Luckily that's a theoretical comment above and then later not direct. I agree that if you don't know how to interact with humans you should let others write policy.
:::::I am talking about a successful model used throughout the world. Again, if you don't know how to interact (making a new model for example that is an experiment (perform the experiment elsewhere okay)) how about you let others write the policy.
:::::The clarification of my above comment is that I am talking about people who receive warnings. If you get a warning you have a problem interacting with humans (do you just go up to someone and belittle them?). I am saying that if they do not read the policy and or understand it then they should learn through the process anyway. Does this simple comment finally make sense? I can't understand how this is not understandable to others. You go to school. You learn. If you don't do your homework you get a bad grade. It's the same thing. The level of used throughout the world is large, so why oh why are the comments I am getting back just not getting this?
:::::Have you ever ruined a class by making the curriculum based off your understanding? The structure of classes is not like this. You sign up for a class. You learn the material that is presented on the syllabus the first day. It doesn't matter if you get it or not– your grade reflects that. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:27, 10 December 2011 (MST)

::::::We all agree that if you are belittled you should be warned. That isn't the issue being debated here. What we're saying is that 8 warnings at once is an issue. Teachers don't give you a test, and then later count it as eight tests. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 18:10, 10 December 2011 (MST)

:::::::Obviously. They do, however, mark you down for eight questions when you missed eight questions. Giving a Pass/Fail on understanding the test is ''not'' what they do. Any questions this time around? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:35, 10 December 2011 (MST)

::::::::GD, do you agree that the Warning policy should be designed to get users to change their ways by showing them what is not ok, and giving them a chance to change? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 14:36, 11 December 2011 (MST)

:::::::::Partly. Learning fairly by repercussions and through reading. I don't agree with unfair learning. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:24, 11 December 2011 (MST)

::::::::::And tell me, did you give Wrecan time to change his ways between the 2nd and 3rd edits? Or the 3rd and 4th? If the point was to get him to change is ways, shouldn't you have given him a chance to change before banning him for 6 weeks? After reading the conversation, I know I wouldn't have warned him for what he said. Those warnings would have come as a shock to me, and I'm an admin. Don't you think that a single warning would have been more acceptable? --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 19:18, 11 December 2011 (MST)

:::::::::::Did Wrecan read the policy? There is more then one person involved in any discussion. By this I mean that others are also reading it and also care about how a person says things. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 11:34, 12 December 2011 (MST)

::::::::::::You did not answer the question. If you were offended, were you offended the first time you read it? Were you offended the second time you read it? Were you offended the third time you read it? Notwithstanding that I still don't believe his comments were inappropriate, how is it that you were ok with them the first ''seven'' times you read them, and then all the sudden you realized they were offensive?

::::::::::::To use your test metaphor, this is like giving someone 100% on 7 one-question pop quizzes, and then when they get the answer wrong on the 8th, retroactively changing his grade on the other 7. It's one thing if you honestly never saw those posts, say, if the discussion were taking place elsewhere and you were not an active participant. I still don't believe these should be back-warned, but I'll let it slide if it's the deciding factor. But this was not the case here. You were involved in the conversation and by replying — multiple times, mind you — you gave the impression, whether intentionally or unintentionally, that what Wrecan was saying was ok by policy. Let's face it, the policy is, at worst, vague and confusing or, at best, open to wide interpretation. As administrators, I believe it is our duty (again, not really defined anywhere) to help other users understand the rules of the site. As such, they should be able to look up to us to know how to act. If I reply to someone's comments with anything other than "you are hereby warned about X", they can be confident that I am satisfied with their manner of posting. I just don't think the same thing applies when GD replies to someone's post, and I believe that makes for a difficult work environment.

::::::::::::To answer your question from a while ago, Badger, what I was trying to ferret out (heh, rodent pun) was this: if voting is "not yet finished" according to GD, what is the criteria for it being finished? Do we need to wait a certain amount of time? Do we need a certain amount of votes? Do we need to wait until GD votes? Do we need to wait until there is a majority against (we already have a majority for? I don't know the criteria, is all. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 17:12, 12 December 2011 (MST)

:::::::::::::I was offended the entire time that this user was telling me such things. I just didn't have the time (or initiative) to warn Wrecan (just like I didn't have the time (or initiative) to fix the indentation here until now).
:::::::::::::It's actually like being able to read the book on an open-book test and then getting the answer wrong. When it gets graded, you already know the outcome (or you will learn through it).
:::::::::::::I agree with "''As administrators, I believe it is our duty (again, not really defined anywhere) to help other users understand the rules of the site.''" Users learn through repercussions, unless they are unfair (this will be conductive to optimization).
:::::::::::::Voting is not done. Consensus is done. The relevant Wikipedia pages, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus Wikipedia:Consensus] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Supermajority Wikipedia:Supermajority] may interest you. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:40, 12 December 2011 (MST)

::::::::::::::Green Dragon, stop saying "Voting is not done". We all know that. We get it, we're using consensus. Stop linking to their pages. We know the links. We've read the pages.
::::::::::::::If you were offended the entire time, why didn't you say something? After reading your comments, I don't recall you saying in one of your comments something to the effect of "Wrecan, what you are posting is considered a warnable offense. If you don't stop, I will be forced to warn you". Don't say "He should have read the policy and known". Yes, he should have known, but you still could have told him. It would have been the nice thing to do.
::::::::::::::Users don't have to learn through repercussions. Our users are smarter than dogs. They can learn what is right without being punished for doing wrong.
::::::::::::::I have no idea what "unless they are unfair (this will be conductive to optimization)." means. What do you think it means? I think being banned for 6 weeks because all your mistakes get caught at once counts as unfair. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 19:57, 12 December 2011 (MST)

:::::::::::::::This site had such promise once. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 07:44, 13 December 2011 (MST)

Talk:Caliphate (4e Environment)

2011-11-12T06:06:37Z

Hooper:

== Titles ==

Why did GD change the arabian titles I chose for the Caliphate's provinces? --[[User:Wrecan|Wrecan]] 12:44, 8 November 2011 (MST)

:They are religious titles. I thought it would be better to just use what they mean. Thoughts? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:11, 8 November 2011 (MST)
:: I was trying to go for an evocative flavor for the Caliphate. Are you just going to change the name of the country to "Empire" too? Could you at least ask before making substantive changes? --[[User:Wrecan|Wrecan]] 06:49, 9 November 2011 (MST)
:: Also, they are not religious titles. They are Arabic titles. No different than my using Russian terms like "boyar" in Winteren. The only religious title is "Caliph" and "Caliphate" itself. And why is it a problem to use religious titles? The Caliphate has a religious bent, being dedicated to the Philosophy of Ferroclasty.

:::It's (some) are like calling someone "Pope". Does that not imply something compared to "head'? It does. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:56, 9 November 2011 (MST)

::::A caliph is not a pope. He's an emperor. (Actually, the etymology of "caliph" just means "successor", as in successor to Mohammed, but it doesn't have to refer to Mohammed. So it doesn't have a literal religious connotation. At most, it has religious subtext, and I'm still nto sure why that's problematic in a world with religion.) The lesser titles -- emir, malik, and sultan -- have no religious connotation. They are just arabic words for commander, king, and sovereign. --[[User:Wrecan|Wrecan]] 15:10, 9 November 2011 (MST)

:::::Google says (define:Caliph) "The chief Muslim civil and religious ruler, regarded as the successor of Muhammad. The caliph ruled in Baghdad until 1258 and then in Egypt until the Ottoman conquest of 1517; the title was then held by the Ottoman sultans until it was abolished in 1924 by Atatürk". It seems like it directly relates to a religion to me... Just like "Pope" does. I guess it would work if you made a 4e deity working with the Muslim faith and made this land follow that religion. I don't see this currently though, which was my reasoning. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:30, 9 November 2011 (MST)

::::::Except you didn't eliminate "Caliph". (It's still used in the Geography section.) You eliminated the words amir/emir, malik, and sultan, none of which have any religious connotation. And you kept the name of the kingdom as "Caliphate", and that word is used throughout the article. Can you please change the titles back to what they were? And obviously I cannot make a 4e deity in a world without deities. A major point of the Caliphate is that in a world without gods, philosophies become religion, and their leaders can act much as religious leaders do in this world. Can you please just admit the mistake -- it's an innocent mistake easily made -- and restore what you changed? --[[User:Wrecan|Wrecan]] 07:49, 10 November 2011 (MST)

:::::Point of correction. The titles you changed were "emir", "emirate", "satrap", "vizier", and one use of "caliph" (though not a second use of that word or any of the many uses of "caliphate"). Of these five words, only "caliph" has religious overtones. There is no justification for changing any of the other terms on religions grounds. As for "caliph", the Caliphate is modeled on the Ottoman Empire, with its langorous attitudes, philosophical restrictions, and slow decline into decadence. That's why I call it the "Caliphate". It is simply a faithful society centered don the philosophy of Ferroclasty, rather than on Islam. --[[User:Wrecan|Wrecan]] 08:16, 10 November 2011 (MST)

::::::Let's see... (Google Define)
::::::Emir– A Muslim (usually Arab) military commander or local chief
::::::Rmirate– The rank, lands, or reign of an emir
::::::Satrap is fine.
::::::Vizier– A high official in some Muslim countries, esp. in Turkey under Ottoman rule.
::::::Do I now ask if you acknowledge your mistake? I'll refrain from such word usage, thank you. In a game a chess asking people to admit their mistakes (if so) is, for me, undesirable. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:46, 10 November 2011 (MST)

:::::::Do we also decide that all "kings" are Christian because king is an English word applied only to Christians? How about "boyar"? All Russians boyars have been Orthodox Christians. All Arabic terms apply to Muslims because Arabs have been Muslims for more than 1,000 years.
:::::::And again, what's wrong with using religious terms to describe a nation based on philosophies?! Where is the policy of this Wiki that tells people that if they use religious terms, their posts will be edited to excise religious overtones? Why are you imposing this policy on my campaign setting? What gives you the right to do this, and to prevent me from restoring what I had originally written? By the way, am I allowed to ask you to leave the game? because if the "game" is "editing these Patronage wiki pages for substance, rather than for compliance with the Wiki's guidelines for etiquette and profanity, then yes, I'd like you to leave this game. Because it's turning a project I loved into one I now dread reviewing, because I never know what you'll have done to it.
:::::::And what are you planning to do about the name of the country, GD? It's "Caliphate", the most religious of all the words I used. Are you going to rename this page? Are you going to hunt down and remove every reference to the Caliphate throughout the Patronage pages? How can you justify changing "amir", but not "Caliphate"? As far as I can tell, it's because you realize that you'd be crossing a line unbefitting a Wiki editor. What you don't realize is you crossed that line as soon as you started editing these pages for substance and not for mere compliance with your wiki's rules.--[[User:Wrecan|Wrecan]] 06:32, 11 November 2011 (MST)

::::::::Does the King of Denmark require Denmark be a religious land? The United Arab Emirates does not imply that it is ruled by a single emir. Therefore the term is an loose as using God, Christian Faith for an article. Also, per definition, Caliphate falls into this situation as well. You could use religious tones if you used the named religion. You can't, though, pull names out of religious background and place them on things. It is considered (1) blasphemy, (2) propaganda, etc. Arguing for these things is like arguing for no laws. No, my analogy is me stopping to respond to these comments. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 11:47, 11 November 2011 (MST)

:::::::::Yes, the King of Denmark requires Denmark to be a religious land -- Christian, in fact. It's in Section 4 of the Danish Constitution. All the European Kings are titular heads of their national Churches, because a monarchy is derived from the divine right of kings. So, yes, emirs are Muslim just as much as kings are inherently Christian. I am not pulling names out of religious background. I explained to you that I am using the Turkish names for things to evoke a Turkish atmosphere for the kingdom, just like I use Russian terms in Winteren to evoke a Russian flavor for that kingdom. And since I am not Muslim or Christian, I imagine "blasphemy" is the least of my transgressions against those religions. At any rate, calling a non-Muslim fictional character a "caliph" or a "king" or an "emir" or even a "pope" is not blasphemous under either Islam or Christianity. Most importantly, however, it's not this Wiki's policy to enforce religious laws, is it?--[[User:Wrecan|Wrecan]] 12:13, 11 November 2011 (MST)

::::::::::Kings of England un-submitted to the Catholic church to make their own church, and still where kings. The change the of their power source is irrelevant. Muslims go to Mecca for pilgrimages as a unified whole. Therefore something which is "Muslim" has a connotation to a unified whole and breaking from this unified whole is, please correct me where I am wrong, considered (1) blasphemy, (2) propaganda, etc. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 19:09, 11 November 2011 (MST)

:::::::::::Shia Muslims use the term "emir" even though they were not subservient to the Caliph in Baghdad. In fact, there were periods in which there were multiple caliphs in the Muslim world. Just like when Henry VIII created his own Church so he could be King of England without Papal authority. The analogy is precisely the same. Kings are Christian. Emirs are Muslim. It's just a language issue. So that's where you're wrong. Would you like me to recommend some books on the history of medieval Islam, if you want to learn more? In the meantime, can you answer my question about where I can read wiki's policy on using religious terms to describe campaign elements? (That's my third time asking for this info.) --[[User:Wrecan|Wrecan]] 22:14, 11 November 2011 (MST)

::::::::::::I'll have to take a look at that use of the terms then. That could change things. D&D Wiki's polices are stated on [[Meta Pages#Policies]]. I would direct you to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_policies here] then [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#What_is_considered_to_be_a_personal_attack.3F this use related to religion]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:34, 11 November 2011 (MST)

:::::::::::::Wrecan has a good point. I'm a sad holder of one of the most useless degrees ever - a degree of Ministry. I was lucky enough to be educated by a non-backwoods-christian-propaganda-school, so I actually have a knowledge base here! {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 23:06, 11 November 2011 (MST)

User talk:Hooper

2011-11-12T01:48:21Z

Hooper:

<center>Did I recently rate your campaign setting? Please, click [[Template:Campaign Setting Rating/meta|here]] to view my reasoning for it's rating.</center>
{{Archives
|label1= Archive 1 (1-30)
}}
== Been Away ==
Been working on about 5,000 different O.G.R.E. related projects as we get incorporated and my schedule is just extremely hectic with the business, family, and trying to coordinate 30+ chapters as we get legal. Thats my excuse for not being around lately. I think its a good one. I haven't forgotten about here though, just to ease any worries.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 21:42, 16 November 2009 (MST)

== Valgora ==

Sometimes I like to just browse through your Campaign Setting for fun. Seriously, I have never expressed my awe at how you put that whole thing together. I have yet to read all of it either. Sheesh man, great job there. Peace! --[[User:Jay Freedman|Jay Freedman]] 15:33, 17 December 2009 (MST)

:Thanks. Parts of it are suck, parts are placeholder. We really just flesh out parts as we or one of our other O.G.R.E.s chapters plays a campaign in a given Valgorian region.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 16:51, 17 December 2009 (MST)

==i replied. lol==
[[User_talk:Zap284]] {{unsigned|Zap284}}

== <s>Goodbye</s> ==

<s>A revert of a valid edit by Badger sent me away. I'm still 100% glad that all the other riftraft is gone, and I acknowledge that my leaving does nothing. I hope that future action here changes my mind.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 04:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)</s>

:I am sorry to hear about that and I do hope you change your mind. Which edit was that in any case? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 04:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

::Have fun, and Take care! [[User:Jwguy|Jwguy]] 08:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

:::This [http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_Adminship/Ganteka2&curid=72275&diff=456138&oldid=456137 diff]. I fully understand that the discussion had been off topic for a while by that point (I even tried to get people back on it). But fully reverting the edit of someone who was criticizing the person with the power to revert seems to of been a bit much. No hard feelings from me.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 13:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

::::"''A revert of a valid edit by Badger sent me away.''" I thought you meant "''A revert of a valid edit''" as a part and then "'' by Badger''" but whatever. Look at times too, it's not that one but whatever. He had no valid points; it's a health thing not meant in a condescending manner. Take care. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 19:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

:::::I'm glad Badger and you had a brief discussion about it afterwards, and feel a little better. I just believe we should really avoid doing that in the future.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 15:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

::::::Ya. It was not the discussion that was irking me it was the place. It was just to off topic and did not pertain to the RfA at hand. It has been discussed on [[User talk:Green Dragon#Ganteka RfA]]. I do hope you continue to stay as such. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 19:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

:::::::I don't hold anything against Green Dragon, and I assume he feels the same. We talked it out, and I don't imagine he'd ever do it again (without leaving some sort of note on the page or something). I'd consider it lesson learned, and not leave. Let's be frank, the wiki needs you. If he does it again you'd be totally in the right to leave (as you are now, if you so choose), but let's call it a learning experience and move on. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 20:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

::::::::Yeah, I read through it. I'm here. I wouldn't say the site "needs me ''(I am the guy behind [[Morton Frightful (3.5e Deity)]] after all - not exactly top content...)''. I'll probably be around for a while. Anything is better than transientwiki.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 22:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

:::::::::Baseball needs the Cubs, doesn't mean they're ever going to take the World Series. Only joking (I love me some Cubs). Say what you will about Wikia's contributors (of which I am one), most of the content is pretty solid. There's no need to get into a fight over something like that, we're big boys. We can play nice. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 22:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

==Dungeon & Dragons Under Attack==
This is just a note for those who don't keep up on [http://www.theescapist.com RPG Advocacy]. It seems like D&D is having a resurgence of the public misconceptions it experienced back in the 80s (for that info, see [http://ogres.wikia.com/wiki/RPG_Myths RPGs: Lies, Myths, & Misconceptions]. Anyways, just a few weeks back the game was actually [http://quiltcityogres.blogspot.com/2010/01/wisconsin-prisons-claim-d-promotes-gang.html banned from a Wisconsin prison] for allegedly promoting ''"gang violence"''. Just the other day, a horrible filler piece was placed in the Boston Herald that [http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/20100216suspect_in_slays_fan_of_dungeons/srvc=news&position=also tried to loosely associate a killer with easy-to-see motives with D&D as a motive instead]. Luckily, groups like the [http://www.car-pga.org/ CAR-PGa] exist to help combat such atrocities.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 00:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

== You seem like you know a thing or two ==

And you also seem to be around right now :) What is the policy for content changes on pages (as opposed to grammar/formatting)? For example, if an IP changes a homebrew class feature to deal 1d6 damage instead of 1d4 damage, do they have to discuss it first, or what? If I see this, should I revert back, or keep it as is? I know there used to be authorship, but it looks like the template has been removed from everything. Thanks, [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 00:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

:Typically speaking, if no good reason is given, not even an edit summary, you can feel safe in reverting. Getting more in depth with edits that may change the direction or intent of the original author is more of a talk-page discussion thing or so it seems, but what you discuss seems to be simple revert worthy.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 00:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

::Alright, thanks. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 01:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

:::No problem. I see a lot of edits of some IP either increasing or decreasing a crunch number with no reason given. I tend to assume that no explanation = revert, but that is just me.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 04:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

== Sup Playa ==

What up Hooper. I saw that whole mess about the 3.5 OGC copy/paste thing. Whooo. Thats messy man. Anyway, just wanted to say that you seemed pretty professional about the whole thing. Nice job! Keep up the good work! --[[User:Jay Freedman|Jay Freedman]] 19:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

:Ha. If professional means annoyance than yes, I did that well. Thanks. That reminds me, I have to go hunt down those other Hoopers on myspace and yell at them... Strange people everywhere.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 20:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

::Oh, by all means, please do. They are a crazy breed, those Hoopers. I'm surprised we don't have an article about them in the creatures section already. Haha. Peace. --[[User:Jay Freedman|Jay Freedman]] 21:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

== My posts ==

Sorry bout that. I'm like really new to all this. Most of what I've been doing is looking at the majority of similar articles, cutting and pasting, and then replacing their content with mine.

So to be clear, I should always put (4e _____) in the title of every page I make? (I only work in 4e) For example, I'm making the powers now. Does that include the powers? Like should I have said "Dragon's Breath Portal (4e Power)"? {{unsigned|Paleogamer}}

:Yes, the identifier has the edition ''(so as you say if you're only uploading fourth edition than that would be represented as '''4e''')'' and then the classification. This could be equipment, feat, class, prestige class, power, etc. etc. Always in parenthesis of course. Additionally, on talk pages like here when you're discussing with another user, sign your posts by adding four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>). This helps to see who is saying what in discussions. Plus, as each person adds to the discussion, we indent ''(think of paragraphs)'' by using a colon ( <nowiki>:</nowiki> ). Since I am the first reply, I used one, and then if you or another user talked after me here, they would two, then three, and so on.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 00:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

::I'm sorry. I still don't 100% understand everything about how this all works. It's nice that someone is helping me out. I got the parenthesis down now. And the colon trick. I don't fully understand what you were trying to say with the tildes though... I'll try to add them at the end of this post. Anyway. I'm trying to make powers now (in case you hadn't noticed) and a few Summoner summons are a bit unconventional so it's hard to find previous posts where I can steal the code snippets from. I need to know what the syntax is for making a secondary attack. [[User:Paleogamer|Paleogamer]] 00:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

:::Also, I've been trying to move My Summoner Power List so that it's properly labeled but my computer won't do it for some reason. No error message or anything, just sits there like it's loading, but nothing's happening. Could you change it for me? Just need it to say it's a Power List instead of a Power. I have like 90 powers to post for Summoner... this is gonna take awhile.[[User:Paleogamer|Paleogamer]] 01:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

::::As you may see [[Special:RecentChanges|here]], I took the liberty to move some of your first uploads to the proper identifier. So it may just be blocking it because the page is already moved and created.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 01:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

:::::Nope. I don't see if you changed it. It reads right now as Summoner Powers (4e Power) and it should read Summoner Powers (4e Power List)[[User:Paleogamer|Paleogamer]] 01:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

::::::Ah, well on that we may need to see if thats how we want to do it. We try to keep the identifier as uniformed as possible, and eventually it may be that an admin decides its best to split each power onto it's own article and then have that just as a linking list. I'd leave it as is for now.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 02:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

:::::::The problem is that it's supposed to be a linking list. It's labeled as a power, but it's a list. It's just annoying because I'm trying to link it to the Summoner Class page. And I could just change the code in Summoner (4e Class) to link to the list. But the problem is that the list is mislabeled and SHOULD be changed. It's quite annoying really. [[User:Paleogamer|Paleogamer]] 17:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

::::::::I went a head and tried to move it to see what it is doing for you when you try to move it. Yeah, its the database error. Give it a few days and we can correctly move it to whatever is best.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 17:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

::::::::: Thanks. I'll keep on working on what I have. By the way. There is a small part of Lore associated with the Summoner class. Where would I post all that? Also, when creating a power, I don't fully understand all of the syntax. I need to know how to add a secondary attack to a power.

::::::::::My knowledge of fourth edition is precisely zilch, so I would just either bring it up on the talk page of your main power article for other users to chime in or start a discussion (see Meta Pages link at left on navigation, scroll down to discussions) [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 18:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

== William ==

Congrats on your second. Best wishes from DnD Wiki! --[[User:Jay Freedman|Jay Freedman]] 22:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

:Thanks. 36 hours of labor followed by a C Section to a near-10 pounder followed by rejected blood transfusions to the [[User:Nimeeamee|misses]] has made for a long week.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 20:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

::Wow! 36 hours! Congratulations! --[[User:Calidore Chase|Calidore Chase]] 03:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

:::Wow, I saw that you already gave both of you the Baby In The House Barnstar. That's good. Congratulations, from everyone. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 03:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

::::Yeah. Copy-paste is easy. Thanks all.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 14:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

==Admin Sam Kay==

Neutral? Really? Come on bro. You and I both know that boy ain't coming back anytime soon. It has gotta be a conflict of interest or something right? Do don't actually believe he could still function here as an admin with good faith and loyalty, do you? I mean, I hate the politics as much as the next guy... But lets do Sam a favor, okay.

Let's vote ''with'' him. Let's vote against it. --[[User:Jay Freedman|Jay Freedman]] 07:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

:I see your point, just don't feel comfortable until he has a say (if he happens to have one).  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 01:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

== A Show of Appreciation ==

You've done nothing for me very recently, that I know of. But as I was thinking over the people I know from dandwiki, I noticed your username. I was just thinking how you're such a nice guy, and you're so selfless, but I feel you're so unappreciated.
So I figured you might like a frivolous comment saying how you're such a nice guy, and I've always agreed with your way of thinking, always appreciated your contributions, and always admired your patience. You're a cool guy, don't forget it. --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] 21:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
:Oh yeah, and I'm part of your user navigation bar thingy, which makes me feel special. --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] 21:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

::Oh wow! Egoboost! I'm quite fond of you as well (in a totally non gay way). We should promote you beyond Sgt.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 21:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

:::Thanks for chiming in on Jazzman's Admin thingy. Even though you selected the Neutral stance, It's good to see you remained involved. Nice work! Oh, and yeah. We should promote Lion to Colonel or something. Haha. --[[User:Jay Freedman|Jay Freedman]] 04:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

== Anti-Vandal Barnstar ==

{{Anti-Vandal Barnstar|For reverting spam on many deleted pages and overall helping keep D&D Wiki clean from vandals' work throughout the last couple of days, I give you this Barnstar. Thanks for your help. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 01:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC))}}

== Been Away ==
New kid, busy season at work, and the incorporation of O.G.R.E.s has led to me not being on lately (the sporadic down time the wiki has had hasn't helped either. Just saying hi, still here.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 01:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

:More site downage. Tried to do some movings, got some errors. Wondering what is happening to the server.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 04:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

== Moving magic ==

How the heck are you able to move pages? Every time I've tried in the last month I get a database error, and I see you moved 4 just this morning! [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 15:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

:It showed me the same database error, but when I went back to Recent Changes, it showed that it had actually moved the page. So its still not perfect, but it did the job.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 16:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

::You're just lucky, I guess. I've tried moving pages at least 20 times in the last month, and not one of them worked. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 16:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

== Thanks ==

Hey, thanks for moving my campaign setting pages to supplement pages, just forgot. :) I was also going to ask the same question jazz just asked but that was answered, so just thanks then. Oh, and I often generally just create the new page and copy and paste the text and delete the old when moving doesn't work. :)

I was also wondering, perhaps you could put a page with your signature on it up, then put the connection to the page at the bottom of your text like I have done with my campaign setting footer so that your not filling up every bodies discussion pages to much. :)--[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 20:59, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

:The Sig uses the standard wiki subpage code, but for some reason refuses to properly work. I think it has something to do with some slight differences between this wiki's features and standard wikia/wikipedia.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 16:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

::I think what Vrail meant was to put your sig as a subpage, then link to it like a template. That way when the next person edits the page it just says <nowiki>{{User:Hooper/sig}}</nowiki> instead of all the code of your sig. Wikipedia frowns on that, though, and I'm not really sure why. I've seen it done that way on other wikis without problem. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 18:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

:::That exactly what I meant jazz, sorry for my poor explanation hooper. :) Anyways, ya, just something to consider.--[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 20:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

::::That actually is how I do it, but it refuses to work properly. [[User:Hooper/autosig]]  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 22:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

:::::Huh, you used to be able to do that, but now it automatically SUBSTs the template for some reason. I guess MediaWiki decided that site owners aren't smart enough to control that on their own. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 23:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

::::::Thats weird, cause for me I still can do it. I use that for all of my pages on my campaign setting, for the side bar to link to other pages. It still works their, so I don't think they have stopped allowing it to work...--[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 01:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

:::::::Hooper, I figured out what was going wrong, look at this {{:User:Hooper/autosig}}, check the edit page, its only the page link. just replace the [[]] with {{}} and add a : at the beginning i.e {{:User:Hooper/autosig]] just imagine the last two are }}. Check the edit page to see what I changed if my description is to hard to understand :P--[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 01:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

::::::::Use braces like this: <nowiki>{{User:Hooper/autosig}}</nowiki>, not brackets <nowiki>[[User:Hooper/autosig]]</nowiki>. It should work just fine. You can even update your [[Special:Preferences|preferences]] to have it spit that out when you press the wiki signature button or leave a "standard" sig (the four tildes). The only thing is I don't recall if it auto-adds the date, or if you have to add that to your subpage. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 01:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

:::::::::I think you have to add the colon like this <nowiki>{{:User:Hooper/autosig}}</nowiki> not just <nowiki>{{User:Hooper/autosig}}</nowiki>. Oh, and cool nowiki trick to add the source without linking it, I never know you could do that, thanks! :D--[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 01:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

::::::::::I see what you guys are saying, but the fundamental problem with that is that is doesn't show the time and date. In talk pages this can become important. The way it is set up is that my preferences, where it has a nickname to use for my signature, I actually have the template that links to my autosig subpage. If we can find a way to make it work without posting code and show the time and date, I'd love to use it.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 02:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

:::::::::::Now ''that'' I can't explain. I have my sig in my preferences (it's not as fancy as yours, but it's non-default), and it does add the date. My problem is if I add my signature to a subpage, then whenever I change my preferences to <nowiki>{{user:Jazzman831/sig}}, it automatically turns it into {{SUBST:User:Jazzman831/sig}}. The difference between these two is that the first is a transclusion, and much shorter, and the latter is a substitution, and includes all the code. If you can figure out how to make your automatic sig do the first one, but it's still not adding the time and date, that's easy to get around by using variables like {{CURRENTDAY}} {{CURRENTMONTH}}.
:::::::::::Actually, a workaround I've seen is to make your signature subpage itself a link to a signature page. That way when it automatically substitutes {{SUBST:User:Hooper/sig}}, the only text on that page is {{User:Hooper/realsig}}, or whatever. I'm sure none of that made sense, but I actually do know what the problem is here, I swear :) </nowiki>[[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 03:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

::::::::::::I remember when I was still editing using an IP, I had no idea how people made their signatures so I just did it manually, adding the date and time by hand. I found that this really didn't create to much trouble. Just something to keep in mind if this can't be figured out. :)--[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 03:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Alright, I figured it out. No need for magic words or junk like that. On your prefrences page, make this text your sig <nowiki> "{{User:Hooper/autosig}}~~~~~" </nowiki> Now whenever you type 4 tildes everything should work just fine. I've tested this and it works for me.  [[User:Badger|'''Badger''']] '''·'''[[User talk:Badger| My Talk ]]'''·'''[[Special:Emailuser/Badger| Email Me]]  04:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

::::::::::::::Do you realize that you put five tildes just now? Also, I think you still have to put the colon at the front. Oh, and, if it works for you how come your still doing it the long way, as I can see by your post on the edit page for your sig? Anyways, just confirming you meant to put five tildes instead of the standard four for sig's. :)--[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 04:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

← (Ok, I'm getting edit conflicted up the wazoo here!!) Actually, that doesn't work, look at the code you left behind :) Also, after you hit "save" in your preferences, look at the code again: it automatically removes the 5 tildes. The reason it is working for you is because it's adding the date to your sig; try it with only three tildes and I bet you your date will be missing.

Here's what I did. I changed my signature preferences to <nowiki>{{SUBST:User:Jazzman831/sig|{{SUBST:CURRENTTIME}}, {{SUBST:CURRENTDAY}} {{SUBST:CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{SUBST:CURRENTYEAR}} (UTC)}}. Then on Jazz/sig I typed {{User:Jazzman831/realsig|{{{1}}}}}. Next, in jazz/realsig I typed my signature code, followed by {{{1}}}. Now the only thing you see when I type three tildes is "{{User:Jazzman831/realsig|04:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)}}"</nowiki>, which in your case would be a lot shorter than your whole signature (in my case it's actually longer). But when you look at how that code displays, you can't tell the difference between that and any other signature.

The weird thing is, if I type four tildes, then I get the date showing twice, as I should. I don't know why the date wouldn't be showing for you, Hooper.

And Vrail: three tildes gives you only the username portion, 4 gives you the username and date, and five gives you only the date. Observe:

(Three) [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]]

(Five) 04:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

(Four) [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 04:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

:wow, cool, didn't know that. :D Anyways, I don't know to much more on this topic than I've already said, so I'm going to leave the rest up to you smart people. :P--[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 04:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

::I'll play around with this coding after this weekend ''(wedding anniversary with [[User:Nimeeamee]])''. Thanks for testing.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 01:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

== Rating campaign settings ==

I was sifting through some campaign settings and found a few that clearly do not deserve there current rating. I though I'd come to you for my question on this because you seem to be the rater of many settings. There is one specifically I'd like to bring up.[[Cora (DnD Campaign Setting)|Cora]]. This campaign setting, while it may be very good and almost done, is just that, almost done. Cora is not yet complete however it is still rated a 5. There are a few red pages and not all blue pages are done. It was my understanding that campaign settings rated five must be complete. I have brought this up on the settings discussion page a while ago and still nobody has said anything, I was wondering how rude it would be if I went in and bumped it down to a 4?--[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 04:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

:Well, it is more complete than many, and you could easily run a long campaign in it without needing any of the redlinked nonexistent pages. You have to think of it in terms of both "scale of 5 of completeness on the wiki + scale of 5 of complete playability." I'd say it is a 5, perhaps a "low" 5 but a 5, though changing it to four wouldn't be too far off to harm the navigation or categorizing. But thats just my opinion.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 01:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

::Alright, I was really on and off about changing it, so I'll probably just leave it. Thanks for the input. :)--[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 04:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

== Campaign Setting Balance ==

Hey, I am currently working on finishing and revising my campaign setting ([[Orion (3.5e Campaign Setting)|Orion]]) to help it become more playable, however I am looking for some advice. Advice overall would be nice, but there is a specific area I'd like some help in, the magic system. It was noted by others reading my setting that because of the way I handle magic the setting may be unbalanced. I was looking for your input on how to balance the magic system without changing how it's used/viewed in the setting. For an expanded understanding of how magic is viewed you can reference [[Magic and Psionics (Orion Supplement)|here]]

I'm asking you this because you seem to be into campaign settings, and quite adept at rating and reviewing them, not to mention you are an advanced user.

Some things that may be causing this imbalance include my class selection available [[Classes (Orion Supplement)|here]], my race selection (however that has been revised a bit) [[Races (Orion Supplement)|here]], and my magic item selection as they are very scarce (I would put a link, however I have not gotten around to adding any magic items so far). These things may be causing an imbalance due to the fact that at higher levels almost all monsters rely heavily on magic and spell like abilities. I don't want to include very much magic in the setting and still have it as a rare sight. Any ideas on how to do this?

Thanks a million!--[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 03:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

:I'm really not the best to ask, as I prefer non-magic and don't personally play many magic users. [[User:Neodymium]] is a pretty good person to answer this kind of question.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 21:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

::Alright, thanks, it is primarily non-magic if you want to check it out so far, but I'll definitely go to [[User:Neodymium|Neodymium]] for this question. ''':)'''--[[User:Vrail|Vrail]] 23:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

== Re-opening the tavern, I'd like your opinion ==

So I know you've been busy lately with those kids of yours (congrats, by the way) and you've not been around as much as you used to be. However, I still consider you a big part of this community. I've made efforts to reopen the tavern, and while I know you were opposed to the tavern in the past, I'd still like your opinion. If you have changed your mind and think the tavern would help the community, great; if you still are opposed to the tavern, I would like you to mention why on [[Discussion:Re-opening_the_tavern%3F_What_does_the_community_think%3F|the discussion]], to present both sides of the conversation equally. If you don't have the time I understand. Thanks, [[User:Badger|Badger]] 21:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

:Replied. I'm actually online more, but my extremely limited availability means most of my time online is spent on '''OgreLair.org'''.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 03:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

==Looking For Group==

Srry to bother but I was refered here by badger and he told me you might be able to help me out. You see I am moving soon and it is a distance of a feww thousand miles so I was wondering if you might help me locate a D&D group in the milwuaki area of portland oregon that plays 3.5e and is willing to accept new mebers. If so then leave a not of my talk page and let me know a way to contact them thx.
[[User:Dragoona22|Dragoona22]]

:Give me a couple days and I'll comb through the many different gamer databases I or other OGREs have or are members of and see what I can find.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 06:35, 20 August 2010 (MDT)

==Hey==

I saw that you seem to be one of the more active people on here, so I figured I would see if you could help me with a creature I posted. I have is mostly done, but I need someone to go through and help me get all the tweaks set straight. CR LA and such really. Also, if its not to much to ask, I am currently working on a creature I remember from 2E but I can't seem to find any details. Therefore, I have decided to make my own version of the creature. It is like a ghost only that it is not undead and it feeds on magical energies. Anyway, if you want to help me either one you can find my first creature [http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Dimidium_Troll_%283.5e_Creature%29 here.] My other creature is not yet on the wiki but on my computer. If you would like to help me with that one I can post it to my [http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/User:Lyrad8791/sandbox1 sandbox.] [[User:Lyrad8791|Lyrad8791]] 13:05, 6 January 2011 (MST)

:I'll do my best to remember it this weekend when I've got some downtime sunday or something. If I let it slip my mind just shoot me a message again.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 13:31, 27 March 2011 (MDT)

::Alright then, do you happen to know anyone else on here that might be able to help me with this? I am on most of the time during the day or late into the night. Thanks for any help you give! [[User:Lyrad8791|Lyrad8791]] 19:18, 6 January 2011 (MST)

:::[[User:Badger|Badger]] is usually around.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 13:31, 27 March 2011 (MDT)

::::Yeah, I have him looking it over already. What he said, is that it is fairly close to done. I just need to correct a few formatting issues. Such as linking skills and rewording lines. Also, I might need to go and do a grammar check in Microsoft word or some such program. Anyway, I have fixed most of the linking issues and am now going to work on the grammar issue. Again, thanks for any help you give. [[User:Lyrad8791|Lyrad8791]] 23:31, 7 January 2011 (MST)

== Rate my Campaign Setting? ==

Hey Hooper, I saw that you offer to help rate campaign settings. I've been working a bit recently to help organise the 4e campaign settings, which got me back into making my Campaign setting. It was rated back when the new 4e ratings were put in, but its changed quite a bit since then. I don't want to be biased, so could you please rate it for me? Also, why are the bottom messages in bold? --[[User:Celen Joad|Celen Joad]] 06:45, 26 March 2011 (MDT)

:Completely understand being leery of rating ones own work, I try to avoid it myself even though no one else rarely looks at them. Taken care of. An easy 5.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 13:32, 27 March 2011 (MDT)

:: Thanks. --[[User:Celen Joad|Celen Joad]] 07:10, 28 March 2011 (MDT)

== Thanks ==

Thanks for rating my setting, it's inspired me to get the rest of the campaign basics up there. Sure takes a long time to get even a small amount up doesn't it?

== On DnD Links and Alternate Communities ==

:''Discussion moved to [[Talk:DnD Links#http://www.dnd-wiki.org]].'' --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 01:43, 30 May 2011 (MDT)

== Patronage ==
Can you check out the [[Patronage_(4e_Campaign_Setting)]] and see if we can take off the format block? I think I corrected all of the problems. --[[User:Wrecan|Wrecan]] 16:04, 21 June 2011 (MDT)

:Done! Phenomenal setting.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 16:26, 21 June 2011 (MDT)

==Sig Test==
Trying to make it so code block doesn't appear when I sign. Here goes nothing: {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 19:51, 27 June 2011 (MDT)

:HUZZAH! After all these years! It works! {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 19:52, 27 June 2011 (MDT)

::How did you do it?!?! [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 21:39, 27 June 2011 (MDT)

:::Well, I've always had my preferences, in the box that says ''"New signature:"'', read <nowiki>{{SUBST:User:Hooper/autosig}}</nowiki>. The entire code, as everyone knows, has always showed. So, what I did, was created [[User:Hooper/autosig2]] and I put all the code into that page, turning the normal [[User:Hooper/autosig]] into a translusion page with just this code: <nowiki>{{User:Hooper/autosig2}}</nowiki>. Somehow having a page in the middle kills the code showing. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 22:23, 27 June 2011 (MDT)

::::I've seen it done like that elsewhere, and I could have sworn I tried that here, but I guess I was missing something. Oh well, pretty cool either way! [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 14:33, 28 June 2011 (MDT)

== 2012 ENnies Judge Nominations ==

:''Discussion moved from <s>Discussion:2012 ENnies Judge Nominations</s>.'' --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:47, 15 August 2011 (MDT)

Hello all, as you may know, the 2011 ENnie Award Nominees have recently been announced and will be up for judging starting on the 15th. What you may not know is that during that same polling period, you can vote to elect the judges for the 2012 awards. I am one of the nominees this year, and just ask that you consider me when voting. If you have any questions on how I would judge or such, you can check out the link below or ask me here.

'''ENnie Judge Form:''' [http://www.ennie-awards.com/blog/?page_id=2402 Click Here]

Voting is open from now until midnight on the 24th. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 21:02, 11 July 2011 (MDT)

:Good luck. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:47, 15 August 2011 (MDT)

== SRD 3e ==

You're adding it. I think that's good. I've gone through and protected all of the pages that needed it (I think). If I've missed any, you need more protected, or you need any unprotected so you can fix them, let me know. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 12:37, 27 August 2011 (MDT)

:Yeah, adding it very '''slowly''', but adding it none-the-less. Once it is finally completed, we once discussed hosting d20 Star Wars OGL content. I'll let someone else do all that coding. By the time the 3e content is done, I'll never want to see wikimarkup table code again. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 22:15, 27 August 2011 (MDT)

::Also, do you think that the 3e section is full enough for us to add it to the navigation pane? {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 07:10, 28 August 2011 (MDT)

:::Well, I don't think we'll be adding 3e to the side pane within the next week, but I suspect it's very close to being added. We should probably have more monsters updated before we do it, though. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 12:14, 28 August 2011 (MDT)

== Anti-Vandal Barnstar ==
{{Anti-Vandal Barnstar|For finding vandal's edits, removing vandal's work, and helping keep D&D Wiki clean, I give you this Barnstar. Thanks for your help. Deleting spam edits is a whole lot easier with someone compiling them all for me. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 12:14, 28 August 2011 (MDT)}}

:Thanks. I would of finished, but ;).... {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 13:31, 4 September 2011 (MDT)
 
 
 
 
 

==Spammer Block Oddity==
[[File:Blockingoddity.png|thumb]]
Not really anywhere else to place this, but just a note. Recently, [[User:Badger|Badger]] blocked one of the spam accounts known as '''Madiesaammpaia'''. Not sure what they added as its now deleted, probably some medical pill spam. Anyways, the weird thing is - it locked up my editing capabilities as a result. Some sort of shared IP. Anyway, I assure you I'm not that spammer, but if a admin cares to check out CheckUser and see how close the IPs were, it would be nice. It wasn't a major deal as it was only for a day (and I actually did do a single edit-via-phone during that time). The showcased screenshot has the info ''(click for full rez)''. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 18:39, 10 September 2011 (MDT)

:That's very weird, because Badger blocked that IP indefinitely. Perhaps if you check the box " Automatically block the last IP address used by this user, and any subsequent IP addresses they try to edit from" it doesn't use the same block length as the overall block? From your screenshot it looks like you have the exact same address as the spammer, which seems too good to be true, so I wonder if there's something going on there, but the only one who can use Checkuser is GD. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 08:50, 11 September 2011 (MDT)

::I could perform a CheckUser for your account if you desire. Let me know please. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:28, 11 September 2011 (MDT)

:::I'm not sure if it would help or not. If you think ''(from previous CheckUser use, knowing what raw data it actually gives you)'' it could help figure out what caused it to flag me as well, that may be useful in the future if it ever happened again. But its probably such a rarity that I'm not overly concerned. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 13:33, 11 September 2011 (MDT)

::::From what I can tell, if you check the second box (autoblock IPs associated with this login) it blocks IPs for a day. I think it's so if someone is vandalizing, they can't continue to vandalize as an IP after you block their username. I don't know why a CheckUser would be useful, except to prove that Hooper (probably) isn't a spammer (something we're all pretty sure of, anyway). I think we'll probably just call it a bit of interesting luck and carry on. I've stopped checking the second box when blocking people, unless I suspect they are the sort to vandalize by IP after they've been blocked. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 13:39, 11 September 2011 (MDT)

:::::So I've got the all clear to try to sell you guys Viagra and cheap herbal medical remedies then? Awesome! {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 13:41, 11 September 2011 (MDT)

== Thanks Anyway ==
Hooper, I just wanted to thank you for the nomination for [[Patronage (4e Campaign Setting)]] for FA status. And even though the nomination failed, and the upshot is my campaign setting got downgraded from five stars to three because of it, I wanted you to know that I still appreciate the sentiment behind the attempt. -[[User:Wrecan|Wrecan]] 12:57, 11 November 2011 (MST)

:I've been away for a bit (O.G.R.E.s just doubled our membership by taking over another group - so it's been hectic). I tried reading what was going on there. Man, I don't even know what just happened. I disagree with how it was handled, and still think you've created some fine work. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 18:48, 11 November 2011 (MST)

Jean-Luc Picard (3.5e Deity)

2011-10-22T09:27:17Z

Hooper: legal tag

__NOTOC__
{{Deity
|hdligo=o
|sym= United Federation of Planets
|plane= Alpha Quadrant
|align= Lawfull Good
|port= Upholding the law, honor, and following the Prime Directive
|calign= Any good
|dom= Good, Healing, Knowledge, Law, Travel
|favweap= Phaser or longsword
}}
[[Image:picardgod.jpg|thumb|left|240px]]

Jean Luc Picard is deeply moral, highly logical and intelligent, Picard is a master of diplomacy and debate who resolves seemingly intractable issues between multiple parties with a Solomon-like wisdom. Though such resolutions are usually peaceful, Picard is also shown using his remarkable tactical cunning in situations when it is required. Picard has a fondness for detective stories, Shakespearean drama, and archeology. He is frequently shown drinking Earl Grey tea and issuing an order by saying "Make it so."

=== Dogma ===

Picard's followers are expected do what is right, but within the laws ( with some rare exceptions of course).

{{Copyright Disclaimer}}
----

[[Category:DnD]]
[[Category:3.5e]]
[[Category:User]]
[[Category:Deity]]
[[Category:Overdeity]]

Talk:DnD Links

2011-10-12T04:45:35Z

Hooper: /* Scribd */

== 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)

== Lifestyles ==

Would any one be opposed to tabletop lifestyle links? Such as RPG advocacy sites like The Escapist and the CAR-PGa? Or maybe tabletop-specific networks like Game Finder or such?  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 06:33, 19 June 2011 (MDT)

:I definitely like the idea introducing a "lifestyle" section. I happen to know of a few really great blogs that post news and relevant stories (some humorous, others more serious) that I think other people might enjoy. We might even consider including links to various podcasts/vidcasts that are produced (I know of a few). Including links to various Play-by-Post sites might also be a useful addition. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 20:14, 19 June 2011 (MDT)

::Sounds good. Which sites? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:41, 21 June 2011 (MDT)

:::Hmm, sites I would recommend for Advocacy are [http://www.theescapist.com/ The Escapist] and [http://www.car-pga.org/ the CAR-PGa]. For organizations I'd add RPGA, Pathfinder Society, of course I'm fond of O.G.R.E.s ;), perhaps the WoD groups just as a shared-demographic (OWBN and Camarilla) etc. For game finding groups possibly [http://www.rpggamefind.com/ RPG Game Find], and there are some more out there just can't think of them off the top of my head.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 17:38, 21 June 2011 (MDT)

::::Almost fine to add. They all are fine to add save O.G.R.E.S as they have the same licensing problem as the discussion above on some articles. Once that is resolved that are fine to link to. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 14:21, 9 August 2011 (MDT)

:::::The problem resides (to the best of my knowledge at this point) with http://ogres.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Valgora_Setting . --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:50, 20 August 2011 (MDT)

== Social Networking ==

There is a old style Fans of D&D Wiki group on Facebook. It is rarely used and about to delete as Facebook is updating group styles. Perhaps we should consider making a page to promote new users and such. I'd be willing to set it up if no one is opposed.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 15:37, 21 June 2011 (MDT)

:You may do as you please. If we want to provide a link to something official here, I don't know if there is a use for a social networking group (although I also don't have an account on any so maybe I am missing the use). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:41, 21 June 2011 (MDT)

::It can provide a easy way for the community to network, spread any news, ask for article assistance, etc., and can be awesome for advertising/recruitment. Your brother is on facebook is he not? I believe he was in the old group. But a Page is much more manageable. If a few admins click like, I'll give control over this [http://www.facebook.com/pages/DD-Wiki/183285371725118 new D&D Wiki] page to them so that those admins who wish to can keep track of it.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 17:22, 21 June 2011 (MDT)

:::I don't think it's necessary to have facebook relate to D&D Wiki; even through this page. It would put a lot of things which can be done through MediaWiki into an alien medium. The things you mention above can be done through MediaWiki. Networking and article assistance can be done through discussion pages and email. News is done through [[Template:News]]. A lot of people I know use facebook. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:05, 21 June 2011 (MDT)

::::The idea isn't so much for the community to be on facebook, as much as it is to have a jumping off point to lead people here. Facebook is basically the majority of the internet's hub right now, and a lot of people don't check other sites very often. By simply liking a D&D Wiki page there, a user can post that they'd like help/review/attention to an article with a link back here and then the discussion would still happen here. Its mostly just a click-through tool to get people out of their rut and onto the site.  [[User:Hooper|''' Hooper ''']][[User talk:Hooper|  talk  ]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|  contribs  ]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|  email  ]] 18:44, 21 June 2011 (MDT)

:::::I see what you mean. It could spread D&D and get more people to play it. This could ultimately lead to more campaigns and more options for players and DM's. Facebook would be a resource, and would deserve to be listed here. The thing is that having pointless links here would confuse players and waste their time. I understand that currently it is popular to like something on facebook. This is being used from city institutes, corporations, to websites. However, the question that remains is who should run the facebook page. I find that D&D Wiki should not as facebook is not a wiki and very different as such. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:28, 21 June 2011 (MDT)

::::::I added a link. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 14:23, 9 August 2011 (MDT)

== Scribd ==

Uhhh, if we aren't allowed to link to the "other" wiki because it may or may not break the law in a handwavy, lawyerly kind of way, then we definitely shouldn't link to Scribed. In 2 minutes of searching I found an illegal copy of a book. Not to mention that it's not a particularly good D&D-centric resource; searching "D&D" didn't come up with anything particularly useful. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 18:43, 10 October 2011 (MDT)

:Yeah. It seems that GD added them because he linked to a book they had uploaded. I've just removed the link because of obvious copyright violations. We might as well remove this link now. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 21:06, 10 October 2011 (MDT)

::{{quote
|The problem stems from that D&D Wiki is then considering itself irrelevant or subservient. Both these would rather be avoided if they are actually otherwise so.
|src=--[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:36, 18 August 2011 (MDT)
|orig=[[Main Page#Site nominated for an Award]]
}}
::I am seeing a disconnect here. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:58, 11 October 2011 (MDT)

:::Ok, ignoring D&D Wiki for now (since clearly we are at the same place we always are with that one), are we allowing links to sites that host illegal activity? The book you link to [http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&curid=77629&diff=537675&oldid=537649 here] is pirated, plain and simple. Other than pirated material, the site itself is neither D&D centric nor full of D&D-related material. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 20:06, 11 October 2011 (MDT)

::::Since it is not peer-to-peer the illegality is site-based, so we are not directing users incorrectly. It's comparable to some music videos on YouTube. It, however, also does have some D&D homebrew contributions. Do you think this is not justification? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:44, 11 October 2011 (MDT)

:::::Short answer is "it's illegal, whether it's peer-to-peer or not". Your example of Youtube videos is a really bad one, as all of those videos are illegal, too. You'll find that Youtube (just like Scribd) doesn't have the time to monitor every single video for copyright violations, so some sneak past. What they generally do is wait for some company to send them a cease and desist, and they take the content down. Either way, the content is still illegal. While there may be some content on there that is indeed homebrew, the vast majority is just illegal. Some may consider this "throwing the baby out with the bathwater", but that seems to be our policy on this site. If they host ''any'' illegal content, we won't link to them at all (see OGRE and the ''other'' wiki). Continuing to allow links to this site would be in direct opposition to previous policy, and much worse, in my opinion. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 21:05, 11 October 2011 (MDT)

::::::{{quote
|The problem stems from that D&D Wiki is then considering itself irrelevant or subservient. Both these would rather be avoided if they are actually otherwise so.
|src=--[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:36, 18 August 2011 (MDT)
|orig=[[Main Page#Site nominated for an Award]]
}}
::::::I am seeing a disconnect here. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:43, 11 October 2011 (MDT)

{{quote
|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.
|src=--[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:09, 26 May 2011 (MDT)
|orig=[[Talk:DnD_Links#http:.2F.2Fwww.dnd-wiki.org]]
}}

{{quote
|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
|src=--[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 11:30, 25 May 2011 (MDT)
|orig=[[Talk:DnD_Links#http:.2F.2Fwww.dnd-wiki.org]]
}}

{{quote
|Were they to license the content under the GNU FDL v1.2 appropriately (comparable to OGC; if it is allowed) it would be different.
|src=--[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:01, 20 August 2011 (MDT)
|orig=[[Talk:Main_Page#Site_nominated_for_an_Award]]
}}

::::::: ''I'' am seeing a disconnect here. The fact of the matter is they are hosting illegal content. You have, as I cited above in my first quote, come out saying in general that linking to sites that don't follow the laws is a bad idea. We don't link to the other wiki because of a licensing issue that makes their content "illegal". You'll note the second above quote which is in direct reference to the other wiki. The third quote I've included implies that links to OGRE will not be allowed until licensing is sorted out. If that doesn't clear up your disconnect, I can't imagine what will. I can assure you, Wizards of the Coast will not releasing their brand new content, for free and in full, online. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 22:22, 11 October 2011 (MDT)

::::::::Badger has the right of it. We can't have our cake and eat it too. As a personal gamer - yes, I do have downloaded pdfs. I also own every (literally: every) 3.5 book, but that doesn't make having these pdfs any more legal. Its simply illegal. Regardless of personal feelings, we shouldn't have the website itself link or host the pdfs. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 22:45, 11 October 2011 (MDT)

Chuck Norris (3.5e Deity)

2011-10-09T02:19:14Z

Hooper: Undo revision 537503 by 173.245.52.122 (talk) - revert vandalism

{{April_Fools}}
[[Image:Chuck_Norris_Approved.png|frame|right|Chuck Norris Approved]]

{{Deity
|hdligo=o
|sym= A Roundhouse Kick
|plane=Plane of never-ending Ninjas (Chuck's Personal Plane)
|align= See Text
|port= Fighting, Courage, Free-Will, Police Officers, Roundhouse Kicks
|calign= Awesomeness
|dom= Creation, Charm, Destruction, Glory, Strength, War
|favweap= Roundhouse Kick
}}

Chuck Norris is the most powerful god of all time. In fact, he controls time. He is very free-spirited, and does what he wants, when he wants. One week he may be helping little old ladies cross the street, another he may cause earthquakes and floods just for his amusement. Chuck Norris' age is infinity plus one. He has no alignment because no alignment can fit his awesomeness.

===Dogma===

Chuck Norris is the most open-minded of the gods, almost to a point that he is uncaring. It is almost impossible to be alienated by Chuck Norris because he doesn't care what you do. You can burn down a whole village: He's burnt down thousands (trillions, actually). You can save a kitten from a tree: He's saved thousands (again, trillions). Just don't do anything directly to him. If you do, you won't live to regret it.

===Clergy and Temples===

Chuck Norris has no real temples. When he visits the Material Plane (which is rare), he builds his own temple with his bare hands. Typically, a week after it is formed, it is destroyed and Chuck returns to his home plane. No temple is good enough for him, and he kills worshippers who do build temples, and he always knows, always.

===The Power of the Roundhouse Kick===

* Chuck Norris is the only person that is able to roll a natural 21.
* Chuck Norris won at D&D. He has literally and figuratively "beat the game".
* There is no DM, there is just Chuck Norris.
* Chuck Norris does not get hurt when he steps on a d4.
* It was originally called "Dungeons and Chuck Norris".
* Chuck Norris beat [[Pun-Pun (3.5e Optimized Character Build)|pun-pun]] in a fight. It took just one roundhouse kick.
* On his birthday, Chuck Norris randomly selects one lucky [[SRD:Tarrasque|tarrasque]] to be thrown into the sun.
* Chuck Norris may cast spells as Maximized without increasing the spell level.
* Chuck Norris can roll a d3. In fact, he invented them.
* One Chuck Norris roundhouse kick has an instant death property with a DC save of infinity.
* Chuck Norris is the cause for the goblin population increase, he once hosted a party at a goblin cave and all the goblins within 7 million miles became pregnant, including the guys.
* Chuck Norris can not only roll and quantify a d1, but he can make it come up as 2.
* Chuck Norris can make a badass halfling bard.
* In addition to making the d1 Chuck also created the d-infinity for damage from his roundhouse kicks.
* Chuck Norris can actually sneak attack undead.
* Chuck Norris has damage reduction ∞/Bruce Lee.
* Chuck Norris' Roundhouse Kick is vorpal.
* No DM can calculate Chuck Norris' challenge rating.
* Chuck Norris is allowed a saving throw against Harm.
* Chuck Norris does not provoke attacks of opportunity. They provoke him.
* Chuck Norris has all divine salient abilities and powers, even though he doesn't need them.
* Chuck Norris can Take 40.
* Chuck Norris never needs to take 20. It willingly gives itself to him.
* Staring at Chuck Norris for extended periods of time can result in blindness, and possibly foot-sized bruises on the face.
* If you are absurdly lucky (1258 on a d10), you can use a wish spell to remove one of his beard hairs. Needless to say, you won't survive the next ten seconds.
* The Astral Sea is Chuck Norris' bathroom. The demiplanes are actually floating turds.
* Chuck Norris can decide how many hit dice '''YOU''' have.
* Soviet Russia can not perform russian reversals upon Chuck Norris. Chuck Norris performs russian reversals upon THEM!!
* Chuck Norris can actually roundhouse kick you from another plane of existence.
* Chuck Norris' Roundhouse Kick does 100d20. (That's how many people it kills)
* Chuck Norris Invented the "D200".
----
Back to [[Main Page]] → [[Dungeons and Dragons]] → [[DnD Deities|Deities]] → [[User Overdeities|Overdeities]]
[[Category:DnD]]
[[Category:3.5e]]
[[Category:User]]
[[Category:Deity]]

User:Hooper

2011-09-20T04:34:10Z

Hooper: /* To Do/Awards */

<div style="background-color:#00000; font-size:150%; color:#ffffff; margin:10px; padding:2px; text-align:center;">[http://www.ogrelair.org OgreLair.org Member Wiki Administrator]</div>
<div class="plainlinks" style="text-align:center;">[http://ogres.wikia.com/wiki/Vice_Director Vice Director] • [http://ogres.wikia.com/wiki/Board_of_Directors_Portal Board of Directors]</div>
<div class="plainlinks" style="text-align:center;">[http://ogres.wikia.com/wiki/Director_of_Communications Director of Communications] • [http://ogres.wikia.com/wiki/Board_of_Directors Board of Directors]</div>
<div class="plainlinks" style="text-align:center;">[http://ogres.wikia.com/wiki/Committees Chairman] • [http://ogres.wikia.com/wiki/New_Chapter_Recruitment_Committee New Chapter Recruitment Committee]</div>
<div class="plainlinks" style="text-align:center;">[http://ogres.wikia.com/wiki/Chapter_Coordinator Chapter Coordinator] • [http://ogres.wikia.com/wiki/Quilt_City_Ogres Quilt City Ogres]</div>
<div style="margin:20px;">
<center>Did I recently rate your campaign setting? Please, click [[Template:Campaign Setting Rating/meta|here]] to view my reasoning for it's rating.</center><div style="width: 50%; padding: 1px; background-color: #003F87; margin: 1px; background-color: #003F87; border: 1px; #1874CD; float:right;">
{| cellspacing="0" style="width: 100%; "
|-
| style="background-color: "#FFFFFF;" padding: 3px 2px 5px;" |'''About Me'''
| style="background-color: "#FFFFFF;" padding: 3px 5px 3px 0; text-align: right;" |
|- valign="center"
|align="center" colspan="2" |[[File:hooperfamily.jpg|200px|center]]
|- valign="top"
| align="center" colspan="2" bgcolor="#CAE1FF" | '''Name'''
|- valign="top"
| align="center" colspan="2" | '''Hooper'''
|- valign="top"
| align="center" colspan="2" bgcolor="#CAE1FF" | '''A/S/L/'''
|- valign="top"
| align="center" colspan="2" | 26 Year Old Male from Paducah, Kentucky
|- valign="top"
| align="center" colspan="2" bgcolor="#CAE1FF" | '''Occupation'''
|- valign="top"
| align="center" colspan="2" | Insurance Claims Admin by Day/Gaming Organization Officer by Night
|- valign="top"
| align="center" colspan="2" bgcolor="#CAE1FF" | '''Facts'''
|- valign="top"
| align="center" colspan="2" | Father, Eagle Scout, Kentucky Colonel, Duke of Paducah, Former Captain of [http://www.theconnie.org The Connie]
|- valign="top"
|- valign="top"
| align="center" colspan="2" bgcolor="#CAE1FF" | '''Gaming Facts'''
|- valign="top"
| align="center" colspan="2" | Undefeated at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBA_Jam NBA Jam 93] with over 800 games played, World champion at WoW[http://www.wow.com/2008/04/08/15-minutes-of-fame-gurubashing-his-way-to-arena-grand-master/ Seriously, here is the proof], Will argue that may be the best in the world at the horrendously designed Quidditch World Cup. No, I won't argue that - because then I'd have to admit to routinely subjecting myself to Quidditch World Cup.
|- valign="top"
| align="center" colspan="2" bgcolor="#CAE1FF" | '''Interests'''
|- valign="top"
| align="center" colspan="2" | Gaming, Motorcycling, Music, Cinema
|- valign="top"
| align="center" colspan="2" bgcolor="#CAE1FF" | '''Groups Affiliated With'''
|- valign="top"
| align="center" colspan="2" | [[Organization of Gamers & Roleplaying Enthusiasts (3.5e Other)|OGREs]], [http://www.hog.com H.O.G.], [http://www.sfi.org SFI], [http://www.imperialklingons.com/ IKEF], and KYDADS
|- valign="top"
| align="center" colspan="2" bgcolor="#CAE1FF" | '''Other Online Activities'''
|- valign="top"
| align="center" colspan="2"| [http://community.wizards.com/ogrehooper WotC], [http://www.facebook.com/hooperhhooper Facebook], [http://www.quiltcityogres.com Quilt City Ogres], [http://www.ogrelair.org O.G.R.E.s]
|- valign="top"
| align="center" colspan="2" bgcolor="#CAE1FF" | '''Family'''
|- valign="top"
| align="center" colspan="2" | Husband to [[User:Nimeeamee|Aimee]], Father to [http://media.dandwiki.com/wiki/Image:Katherinehooper.jpg Katherine] (b. 07.23.07) and William (b. 03.03.10)
|- valign="top"
| align="center" colspan="2" bgcolor="#CAE1FF" | '''Wiki Goals'''
|- valign="top"
| align="center" colspan="2" | To finally get through all the double redirects...
|- valign="top"
| align="center" colspan="2" bgcolor="#CAE1FF" | '''Contact'''
|- valign="top"
| align="center" colspan="2" | * [mailto:hooper@quiltcityogres.com Email]
|- valign="top"
| align="center" colspan="2" bgcolor="#CAE1FF" | '''External Links'''
|- valign="top"
| align="center" colspan="2" | [http://www.ogrelair.org OgreLair.org], [http://www.quiltcityogres.com Quilt City Ogres], [http://www.youtube.com/quiltcityogres QCO Youtube], [http://www.myspace.com/quiltcityogres QCO Myspace]
|-
| style="background-color: #003F87; padding: 3px 10px"|[http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/Hooper'''  My Contributions ''']
| style="background-color: #003F87; padding: 3px 5px 3px 0; text-align: center;" |[[User talk:Hooper|''' My Talk ''']]
|-
|}
</div>
<div style="width: 41%; border: 1px solid #1874CD; padding: .5em 1em; color: #000033; background-color: #CAE1FF; margin: 6px 6px 0; text-align: left">
==Hooper's User Page==
{|align=center
|__TOC__
|}
</div>
<div style="width: 41%; border: 1px solid #1874CD; padding: .5em 1em; color: #000033; background-color: #CAE1FF; margin: 6px 6px 0; text-align: left">

==About Me==
I'm Hooper, a father, [[User:Nimeeamee|husband]], and small business owner. I am Vice Director for the [http://www.ogrelair.org Organization of Gamers & Roleplaying Enthusiasts]: a tabletop gaming organization. As a gamer, I strongly agree with the [[Role-Playing Game Manifesto (DnD Other)|Role-Playing Game Manifesto]].
</div>
<div style="width: 41%; border: 1px solid #1874CD; padding: .5em 1em; color: #000033; background-color: #CAE1FF; margin: 6px 6px 0; text-align: left">

==About Me on the Wiki==
I really enjoy the creative aspects of Campaign Setting creation. [[Valgora]] is my baby and my main campaign setting. I do a lot of back logging when possible, taking care of broken/double redirects, long pages, and proper article naming.

==Wiki Information==
* User Since 03/23/07[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burnley_Tunnel#2007_fire Check out] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Iranian_seizure_of_Royal_Navy_personnelthings what happened on this day]
* [[User:Hooper/Milestones|Milestones]], [[Special:Contributions/Hooper|Contributions]], [[Requests for Adminship/Hooper|RfA]], [http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?target=Hooper&title=Special%3ANumEdits Edit Count], & [http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Special%3APrefixindex&from=Hooper&namespace=2 Subpages]
* '''Current Project:''' Get Featured Articles rotated timely
* '''Campaign Settings:''' [[Valgora]], [[Sons of Anarchy (D20 Modern Campaign Setting)|SoA]], [[Mecha Time Cops (D20 Modern Campaign Setting)|IMTP]], [[World of Warcraft (DnD Campaign Setting)|WoW]], [[DC Universe (D20 Modern Campaign Setting)|DC]], [[Marvel Universe (D20 Modern Campaign Setting)|Marvel]]
* '''Adopted:''' None at this time
* '''To Do:''' Complete the Valgora D20 Section
* '''Sandbox:''' [[User:Hooper/SandBox]], [[User:Hooper/ValgoraSandBox]]
* '''Random Page:''' [[Special:RandomPage]]
</div>
<div style="width: 41%; border: 1px solid #1874CD; padding: .5em 1em; color: #000033; background-color: #CAE1FF; margin: 6px 6px 0; text-align: left">

==User Page==
As of 06.02.11, this page has been viewed 4,583 times-making it the [[Special:Popularpages|1,159th most viewed]] page on the wiki - just below [[4e Paladin Powers]].
</div>

==To Do/Awards==
{| class="d20" style="text-align: left"
|-
! width="50%" | '''The To Do list:''' !! Awards/User Boxes
|-
|
'''Active Development'''
* Continue & complete the [[SRD3e:System Reference Document|3e SRD]]
* <s>[[Super or Sinister (3.5e Sourcebook)|Super or Sinister]]</s> Done for now
* <s>[[Douie Solitude (DnD NPC)|Solitude Seven]]</s> DONE!
* [[Captain Arthus Flintlock (DnD NPC)|The Handcuffed Gopher Crew]]
* [[Mecha Time Cops (D20 Modern Campaign Setting)]]
* Find Captcha-Man and shoot him

;Things to add
* Missing Valgora Deities
* Missing Valgora Equipment
* Missing Valgora Spells
* Lulzy D20 Modern campaign set in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madea Madea's world]
* Rokeans

;Other Items
* [[User:Hooper/House Rules|My House Rules]]
* [[User:Hooper/Banned Material|Banned Material]]

;Upcoming [[Organization of Gamers & Roleplaying Enthusiasts (3.5e Other)|OGRE]] events
* [http://www.omgcon.com OMGcon 2012]
* Metropolis, IL Superman Festival 2012
* [http://www.castleperilous.com/index.php?module=Pagesetter&func=viewpub&tid=2&pid=5 Little Egypt Wars 3] in Carbondale, IL
* [http://www.castleperilous.com/index.php?module=Pagesetter&func=viewpub&tid=2&pid=5 Egypt Wars 3] in Carbondale, IL

;Interesting Links
*[[User:Badger/sandbox1|Tavern Mock-Up]]
*[[User:Badger/sandbox2|Dungeons & Dragons & Drinking]]
*[[User:Badger/sandbox3|New User Guide]]

;Currently Running
:[http://qcocampaigns.wikia.com/wiki/Quilt_City_Ogres_Campaigns_Wiki 3.5 Star Wars Campaign]
*A Song of Ice and Fire Commoner Campaign

|
{{Template:Ogre}}
{{Template:WotCForums|ogrehooper}}
{{Barnstar|I give myself the "Baby in the House" barnstar. Trust me folks, if you've got a baby, you've earned a barnstar. ''Created by [[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]]''}}
{{Barnstar|I give you this Barnstar for standardizing all the [[Endhaven (DnD Campaign Setting)|Endhaven]] pages so they have "Supplement" in their name as well. Thanks for your unconditional help. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 04:42, 20 February 2009 (MST)}}
{{Barnstar|I give myself the "Baby in the House" barnstar. Trust me folks, if you've got a baby, you've earned a barnstar. ''Created by [[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]]''}}
{{Anti-Vandal Barnstar|For reverting spam on many deleted pages and overall helping keep D&D Wiki clean from vandals' work throughout the last couple of days, I give you this Barnstar. Thanks for your help. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 01:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC))}}
{{Anti-Vandal Barnstar|For finding vandal's edits, removing vandal's work, and helping keep D&D Wiki clean, I give you this Barnstar. Thanks for your help. Deleting spam edits is a whole lot easier with someone compiling them all for me. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 12:14, 28 August 2011 (MDT)}}
|}

==User Navigation==
{{User:Hooper/usernav}}
[[Category:Paducah]]

SRD Talk:Alignment

2011-09-19T12:13:17Z

Hooper: /* Honesty & Trustworthiness - Lawful? Good? */

== Alignment ==

{{quote|Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral rather than good or evil. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior.}}

I think that children should be included in this category as well: any being that hasn't yet or is incapable of achieving [http://www.aeclectic.net/tarot/basics/lovers.shtml "The Lovers"] [http://arohanui.livejournal.com/488148.html level of personal development] isn't able to make moral choices. They have not yet left [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden_of_Eden the Garden of Eden]. [[User:Arohanui|Arohanui]] ([[User talk:Arohanui|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Arohanui|contribs]])

:They probably are, but as this is SRD, it cannot be changed by us. If you wan't this changed, then you should email Wizards of the Coast about it. --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 10:15, 4 January 2008 (MST)

::I realize that it was SRD, I just didn't know what to do about it. You've just told me. I'll sign now that you've shown me how! (Oh, but is there a template or tool for it so that I don't have to hack it all from scratch every time? Thanks for the swift response, --[[User:Arohanui|Arohanui]] 10:17, 4 January 2008 (MST)

:::four tildas (~~<nowiki/>~~), and there's an image just above the text area (second from the right that looks like a signature). You can change your signature by going to [[Special:Preferences]]. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:27, 4 January 2008 (MST)

::::Duh, sorry, figured it out. Thanks for that. --[[User:Arohanui|Arohanui]] 10:44, 4 January 2008 (MST)

==Another way of thinking==
I remember reading in the old ADnD books that Lawful ideals represent community and partnership; that groups are something to build, while chaos represents free lancing or what not; groups are something to avoid be it group tradition, stratagy or whatever.

Just another way to think about it (It seems easier to me this way)--[[User:T G Geko|T G Geko]] 11:43, 9 February 2008 (MST)

== More Than Neutral ==

Just a general thing I noticed. There is no alignment for someone who wants balance or who wants everyone to be neutral. The person who wants balance wouldn't really be "neutral" because they want both good and evil to be equal, or something along that line. And the person who wants only neutral (someone who would kill anyone good or evil but not neutral) wouldn't be chaotic evil, neutral evil, or lawful evil because they aren't out to gain wealth or power, they aren't cold hearted people looking to do what ever they want, and they aren't lawful. --[[User:Online222222|Online222222]] 19:22, 24 May 2011 (MDT)

== "So and so is the best alignment you can be because..." ==

Just wondering if anyone else to repulsed by the overuse of the phrase "this alignment is the best alignment you can be because..." seems to me a better phrase would be "this alignment is the best if your character..." --[[User:Online222222|Online222222]] 19:51, 24 May 2011 (MDT)

== Honesty & Trustworthiness - Lawful? Good? ==

I know the SRD describes honesty and trustworthiness as Lawful, but I've never particularly felt that this is really the case. I often play characters who are honest because of their own conscience, but chaotic because they are free spirits. I understand that a devotion to ideals of truth might seem lawful, but it's always seemed to me that a Chaotic character (especially Chaotic Good) could just as easily believe in the importance of truth as a Lawful (particularly Lawful Evil) character could believe that upholding law and order are more important than personal scruples over honesty and deceit. How do other people feel about this? Would a LG character be able to justify occasionally lying if doing so serves the greater good of his ideals? Could a Chaotic Evil character still hold his own word above everything else, such that when he makes a promise, he keeps it even if it is not to his best interest?

I've always had difficulty dealing with some of the attitudes I roleplay in the strict sense of alignment, perhaps because I like to ply characters who go against type or who ren't exactly suited to any alignment but I pick the one that feels most right to them.--[[Special:Contributions/173.245.55.176|173.245.55.176]] 10:32, 6 July 2011 (MDT)

:I think by definition lawful good characters don't lie to get the job done. An LG character who occasionally lies is simply not 100% LG. Though just because lawful characters are truthful, it does not mean that chaotic characters are deceitful. Lawful characters honor truth for it's own sake, whereas chaotic characters tell lies or truths based on what suits them best. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 12:46, 7 July 2011 (MDT)

::I think the same as the above IP (In fact i came to the talk page to say something like him/her). IRL i’m completely honest on a personal basis, but have an aversion against authorities of any kind. that makes me never ever (no, not even once and in good intention) lie to people who talk to me as people, but makes me lie as much as i want to people who talk to me representing an autority (e.g. if someone asks me if it was weed that my friend just chucked into this bush, i’ll immediately lie “no” if i suspect the asker of being a cop, but say the truth otherwise). further, i’m pretty far up on the “good” scale. i think this makes me >90% chaotic good, while anybody who doesn’t represent an authority can trust me completely.

::Furthermore, law is by definition inconsistent, as the infinite amount of special cases and exceptions which is necessary for a perfectly ethical law system is impossible to create in a finite amount of time (and more special cases mean a more difficult to understand ruleset). Thus you can’t be 100% lawfull without ignoring contradicting parts of law, i.e. lying. this not only decouples lawfulness from honesty, it makes honesty more achievable by not completely lawful moral systems.

::That means that honesty is a mostly separate axis: Lying to enforce the law? Lawful. Lying to circumvent the law? Chaotic. Lying to help people? Good. Lying to cause harm? Evil. Stick to your oaths? Lawful. Stick to your homebrew moral code (which e.g. involves no lying)? Chaotic. Promise your help? Good. Promise to kill people (because you don’t need to lie about your bad intentions with enough power)? Evil. ‒ [[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.140|173.245.53.140]] 09:14, 18 September 2011 (MDT)

:::I disagree with a few of those. The ambiguity in legal systems is what makes playing a lawful character so difficult, but I don't think I can see anyone justifying lying in order to stick to their lawful alignment. Something can be contradictory without requiring you to lie about it. Lying to help people is good, but more specifically it's chaotic good. I don't believe you can be LG and lie to help people. Also, sticking to your homemade moral code is definitely lawful, the only thing that might change is whether you are lawful good/neutral/chaotic. Basically, I'll say what I said before: lawful people ''must'' be honest, even if it hurts their cause (the BBEG allowing the PC's to get away because his code of honor won't allow him to defeat a foe in an unfair fight) but chaotic people are not barred from honesty, so long as it always helps their cause (they might agree to assist the sheriff that they despise in order to rid the town of the gang that has a price on the CGPC's head). [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 12:40, 18 September 2011 (MDT)

::::All good arguments that you can bring up to your DM to instigate a different interpretation of the alignment system via Rule Zero. However, if you go by the books - then you've taken a very liberal definition of the system. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 15:07, 18 September 2011 (MDT)

:::::i have almost no experience with the d&d system, but want to learn. i interpret it like this: lawfulness means “his moral code tells him to always respect authorities”, chaotic means “puts his own moral code above authorities”. i don’t think honesty is part of any of those definitions. where am i wrong (if i’m wrong at all)? ‒ [[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.140|173.245.53.140]] 19:28, 18 September 2011 (MDT)

::::::Hooper: Who do you think has taken the liberal interpretation?

::::::IP: it's not really so much about authorities, because then you could never really have lawful evil. It's more about following a code period. Imagine, say, a character who places his own honor above all else, and must always duel anyone who slights him. I would call him a lawful character, even if dueling were illegal. He may be breaking the law, but only because he's so strictly holding to his own moral code. (He could also be lawful if he *doesn't* duel people... he's breaking his own moral code, but only because he's so strictly holding to the law). As for honesty, it doesn't say it explicitly, but it does say "Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties."

::::::Anyways, welcome to the joys of alignment! It's one of the things I really like about D&D, and also one of the most contentious things about this edition. If you ask 3 people what they think, you will usually average 4 answers! [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 19:42, 18 September 2011 (MDT)

:::::::Ah, should of clarified. Original IP. {{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 06:13, 19 September 2011 (MDT)

SRD Talk:Alignment

2011-09-18T21:07:51Z

Hooper: /* Honesty & Trustworthiness - Lawful? Good? */

User talk:ScryersEve

2011-09-15T16:29:23Z

Hooper: Created page with "== Anti-Vandal Barnstar == {{Anti-Vandal Barnstar|For finding vandal's edits, removing vandal's work, and helping keep D&D Wiki clean, I give you this Barnstar. Thanks for your ..."

== Anti-Vandal Barnstar ==
{{Anti-Vandal Barnstar|For finding vandal's edits, removing vandal's work, and helping keep D&D Wiki clean, I give you this Barnstar. Thanks for your help. Deleting spam edits is a whole lot easier with someone compiling them all for me. --{{User:Hooper/autosig2}} 10:29, 15 September 2011 (MDT)}}

Spirit Healer (DnD NPC Class)

2011-09-11T20:18:25Z

Hooper: Redirected page to Witch Doctor (3.5e NPC Class)

#REDIRECT [[Witch Doctor (3.5e NPC Class)]]

Spirit Healer (DnD Class)

2011-09-11T20:18:19Z

Hooper: Redirected page to Witch Doctor (3.5e NPC Class)

#REDIRECT [[Witch Doctor (3.5e NPC Class)]]

Hedge Witch (DnD Class)

2011-09-11T20:18:04Z

Hooper: Redirected page to Witch (3.5e Class)

#REDIRECT [[Witch (3.5e Class)]]

The Wish Rules (DnD Variant Rule)

2011-09-11T20:17:50Z

Hooper: Redirected page to Wish Rules (3.5e Variant Rule)

#REDIRECT [[Wish Rules (3.5e Variant Rule)]]

Shield Bonus for Weapons (DnD Variant Rule)

2011-09-11T20:17:36Z

Hooper: Redirected page to Weapon Shield Bonus (3.5e Variant Rule)

#REDIRECT [[Weapon Shield Bonus (3.5e Variant Rule)]]

Better Monk (DnD Character Optimization)

2011-09-11T20:17:05Z

Hooper: Redirected page to Wand User Monk (3.5e Optimized Character Build)

#REDIRECT [[Wand User Monk (3.5e Optimized Character Build)]]

The Ultimate Gateway (DnD Environment)

2011-09-11T20:16:37Z

Hooper: Redirected page to Ultimate Gateway (3.5e Environment)

#REDIRECT [[Ultimate Gateway (3.5e Environment)]]

Tzeentch

2011-09-11T20:16:16Z

Hooper: Redirected page to Tzeentch (3.5e Deity)

#REDIRECT [[Tzeentch (3.5e Deity)]]

Eythytita (DnD Deity)

2011-09-11T20:16:05Z

Hooper: Redirected page to Tythia (3.5e Deity)

#REDIRECT [[Tythia (3.5e Deity)]]

Ted the mindflayer (DnD Deity)

2011-09-11T20:15:43Z

Hooper: and Bill the Beholder's excellent adventures?

#REDIRECT [[Ted the Mindflayer (3.5e Deity)]]

Humans (Albion Supplement)

2011-09-11T20:14:31Z

Hooper: Redirected page to Taken (3.5e Race)

#REDIRECT [[Taken (3.5e Race)]]

Infernal (DnD Feat)

2011-09-11T20:14:03Z

Hooper: Redirected page to Supernal (3.5e Feat)

#REDIRECT [[Supernal (3.5e Feat)]]

Psychic Powers: Strain (DnD Variant Rule)

2011-09-11T20:13:33Z

Hooper: Redirected page to Strain (3.5e Variant Rule)

#REDIRECT [[Strain (3.5e Variant Rule)]]

The Stormrider (DnD Prestige Class)

2011-09-11T20:13:14Z

Hooper: Redirected page to Stormrider (3.5e Prestige Class)

#REDIRECT [[Stormrider (3.5e Prestige Class)]]

Balance of Fire and Ice

2011-09-11T20:12:50Z

Hooper: Redirected page to Scale of Elemental Justice (3.5e Equipment)

#REDIRECT [[Scale of Elemental Justice (3.5e Equipment)]]

Summons Alternative (DnD Cleric Domain)

2011-09-11T20:12:28Z

Hooper: less than 300 double redirects left. I think it was around 4k when I started. like 2 years ago.

#REDIRECT [[Summons, Alternative (3.5e Cleric Domain)]]

Summons (DnD Cleric Domain)

2011-09-11T20:12:03Z

Hooper: Redirected page to Summons, Alternative (3.5e Cleric Domain)

#REDIRECT [[Summons, Alternative (3.5e Cleric Domain)]]

Swashbuckler-Artificer (DnD Character Optimization)

2011-09-11T20:11:50Z

Hooper: Redirected page to Swashbuckler-Artificer (3.5e Optimized Character Build)

#REDIRECT [[Swashbuckler-Artificer (3.5e Optimized Character Build)]]

Yaguran Deities (DnD Deities)

2011-09-11T20:10:58Z

Hooper: Redirected page to Yaguran Deities (3.5e Pantheon)

#REDIRECT [[Yaguran Deities (3.5e Pantheon)]]

Ygorl

2011-09-11T20:10:35Z

Hooper: Redirected page to Ygorl (3.5e Deity)

#REDIRECT [[Ygorl (3.5e Deity)]]

Youst

2011-09-11T20:10:30Z

Hooper: Redirected page to Yousts (3.5e Race)

#REDIRECT [[Yousts (3.5e Race)]]

Z Fighter (DnD Character Optimization)

2011-09-11T20:10:04Z

Hooper: Redirected page to Z Fighter (3.5e Optimized Character Build)

#REDIRECT [[Z Fighter (3.5e Optimized Character Build)]]

The Sneakyweapon Smith (DnD Prestige Class)

2011-09-11T20:09:30Z

Hooper: Redirected page to Sneakyweapon Smith (3.5e Prestige Class)

#REDIRECT [[Sneakyweapon Smith (3.5e Prestige Class)]]

Psychic Powers: Skills (DnD Variant Rule)

2011-09-11T20:09:07Z

Hooper: Redirected page to Skills (3.5e Variant Rule)

#REDIRECT [[Skills (3.5e Variant Rule)]]

Psychic Powers: Skill Checks (DnD Variant Rule)

2011-09-11T20:08:56Z

Hooper: Redirected page to Skill Checks (3.5e Variant Rule)

#REDIRECT [[Skill Checks (3.5e Variant Rule)]]

Fireborn, Albion (DnD Race)

2011-09-11T20:08:33Z

Hooper: Redirected page to Sirens (3.5e Race)

#REDIRECT [[Sirens (3.5e Race)]]

The Silver Pariahs (DnD Campaign Setting)

2011-09-11T20:07:54Z

Hooper: Redirected page to Silver Pariahs (3.5e Campaign Setting)

#REDIRECT [[Silver Pariahs (3.5e Campaign Setting)]]

Healthy Stealthy Shortsword

2011-09-11T20:07:34Z

Hooper: Redirected page to Shortsword of Soul Stealing (3.5e Equipment)

#REDIRECT [[Shortsword of Soul Stealing (3.5e Equipment)]]

The Serpent-Man (DnD Race)

2011-09-11T20:07:16Z

Hooper: Redirected page to Serpent-Man (3.5e Race)

#REDIRECT [[Serpent-Man (3.5e Race)]]