From D&D Wiki
Welcome to D&D Wiki!
Hello Archetyper and welcome to D&D Wiki. I hope you have been enjoying D&D Wiki and I hope you have been finding the information here useful. Before you start contributing it is recommended you make sure your user preferences match your preferences. I am an admin (and, actually, the owner as well). Everything relating to admins can be found here.
If you have any questions about a specific page please ask it on that pages talk page. All other questions should be asked to another; user, admin, or me, the owner (ask me a question).
Formatting on D&D Wiki (or any wiki for that matter) can be very difficult, and if you need help a good place to start is Help:Editing on Wikipedia (or even their Introduction page). This will explain basic wiki formatting and should provide quite a few useful links that explain more specific areas of wiki formatting. Again, if you have any questions about formatting on D&D Wiki please ask them as, I imagine, anybody will be more than happy to help you get them answered.
A strong and welcoming community exists on D&D Wiki, and I am sure you will find it rather nice. Most discussions take place on content talk pages, however please feel free to ask specific D&D-related questions on DnD Discussions. Anyway, possibly since discussions are never deleted, people try to be nice. This means follow Wikipedia's guidelines on civility and etiquette when discussing anything. Also, on a pretty different note, to ensure people know who posted what, please sign your name after a post with four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the signature icon (). This will automatically produce your name and the date. Anyway, I hope you come to enjoy D&D Wiki and the community and welcome again, you are now a D&D Wikian. --Green Dragon 20:54, 21 August 2010 (MDT)
Don't try and sneak ideological edits into some of the few pages that have anything to do with the "real" world. This is not a site to debate politics or religion, it is a roleplaying site. JazzMan 09:42, 13 May 2011 (MDT)
- See also User talk:Jazzman831#Regarding Administrative Editing. --Archetyper 19:10, 13 May 2011 (MDT)
- With regard to your 1 week banning, this was the reason. Although unfortunate, those who vandalize pages (for example, see also MediaWiki:Ipbreason-dropdown) normally get banned for longer lengths of time, and your edits are disregarding the scriptural base of God, Christian Faith and Adonai (e.g., who wants to include God, Christian Faith or Adonai into their campaign if its not correct?). --Green Dragon 21:46, 16 May 2011 (MDT)
- Correcting the alignment to make it consistent with what the bible says is precisely what I was doing, and you know it. The Book of Revelation and the punishments prescribed in the Torah are quite clear on the matter. Archetyper 02:11, 27 May 2011 (MDT)
- As a graduate of seminary, you are wrong. Extremely wrong. And if you think LG can't pass out punishment, you've never played a paladin. 09:53, 9 June 2011 (MDT)
On Recent Reverts
Just a heads up, your pages were edited not because of a vendetta, but because of a new (or newly enforced) policy. It is policy that "User Categories" (such as yours) are being phased out, along with author templates. As part of this, Jazzman was doing his administrative duties by removing the categories that are no longer used. While I can't begin to assume I know why Jazzman started with you, my guess is it has to do with your username beginning with "A", considering before you was "AnimeOtaku137", and after you came "Arkangelkight", "Ehsteve", and others that continue on in alphabetical order. I'm sorry if you took this as an affront to you or your creations. You can still create lists of your contributions on your Userpage, but we no longer have user categories. You can read the discussion here. --Badger 00:54, 26 May 2011 (MDT)
- That's actually quite unrelated. Special:NewPages may be of more interest to you. --Green Dragon 11:42, 26 May 2011 (MDT)
- GD, after spending about twenty minutes looking over edit histories of Ehsteve, Archetyper, and Jazzman I can't figure out why you think a list of new pages would be important. Care to elaborate? The only edits Jazzman made to anything Archetyper wrote was removing the category "User:Archetyper" from the bottom of every page (and a few minor spelling corrections). Same for Ehsteve. --Badger 12:44, 26 May 2011 (MDT)
- Yes, as you can tell by my contributions, the only thing you did to be singled out first was to have a name that started with the letter "A". As you can see here, you are still the first one on the list. This policy has actually been around for a while, but like most things it gets sporadically enforced at best. JazzMan 22:32, 26 May 2011 (MDT)
- Oh, I just noticed your userpage as well. First of all, I thought we already discussed denegrating other users? As it is, I was not and am not aware of any reasoning to have a vendetta against Ehsteve. His last edit was October of 09; I had only had 11 edits at that point, most of which were grammar/spelling corrections in articles I was using for a game. JazzMan 22:38, 26 May 2011 (MDT)
- I have noticed that you and Green Dragon go out of your way to create false pretenses for malicious acts.
- The fact is that anyone can see in your user contribution history that you deleted the user category from all of my articles just a few hours after the God, Christian Faith conflict, and anyone can see that I am one of only two users whose user categories you deleted from several articles. Unfortunately, your act of blocking me with the lie that I was trolling (which is what you were doing by repeatedly using false pretenses and false portrayal) does not appear in your user contributions, as that would have made your personal motive clear without even having to click on any edit. You have now also expended yet more time by deleting my user categories yet again, while having expended no time deleting anyone else's user categories.
- I know that you are not actually trying to fool me, any more than a bully is trying to fool a person to whom he says "stop hitting yourself". By constantly making false pretenses for your malicious acts despite the fact that you know that I know that they are false, you are trolling me, apparently in an attempt to make me angry, and to get me to make some angry remark that might make me look bad.
- And what do you mean when you say "I thought we already discussed denegrating other users"? Are you implying that what my userpage says is somehow denegrating? If so, then you are in gross violation of wikipedia's civility policy, which clearly classifies lies as a type of incivility.
- As for Ehsteve and your relation to him, you and Green Dragon are close buddies, such that a conflict with one can be seen as a conflict with the other as well. Archetyper 01:54, 27 May 2011 (MDT)
- *sigh* clearly it doesn't actually matter what I say; I either I'm part of some vast conspiracy or I'm lying about being part of some vast conspiracy. (I would like to clarify one thing, though: here is a list of users I've blocked. It's not hidden in any way.) Participate on the wiki if you want, but starting today we will have 0 tolerance for you denigrating other users (including using your userpage as a sounding board to complain about them), making polemical or vandalizing edits (including reversing alignments without any attempt at discussion or explanation), or anything generally nonconstructive. Call us hypocrites if you like (just not on the wiki, because that's that denigrating thing I mentioned), but if you hate it so much, nobody is making you participate. If you want to find another D&D-based wiki which has users who for whatever reason hate Green Dragon (and who will no doubt confirm that I actually have no idea who Ehsteve is), I would be more than happy to point you in the right direction. JazzMan 08:37, 27 May 2011 (MDT) PS: Check out this contribution history.
- Funny how you denigrate me as believing that you are "part of some vast conspiracy", and yet you claim to be opposed to denigration of users.
- Your statement that you have no personal motivation against Ehsteve is plausible, because it might just be a coincidence that collateral damage hit him, so I have no particular desire to argue on that point. I have therefore editted my user page by inserting the word 'probably'.
- Funny how you use the word 'them' to refer to yourself, in the statement "including using your userpage as a sounding board to complain about them". And by 'complain', you clearly mean 'speak of malicious acts which you would prefer to not be spoken of'. Furthermore you libellously call such noble reporting 'denigrating other users'. You are saying that people who bring light to malicious acts are perpetrating malicious acts, like saying that black is white and night is day.
- Funny how you libellously portray my corrections of the alignments of God, Christian Faith and Adonai as 'polemical or vandalizing edits'. By twisting the truth to that extent, you are clearly trolling me, to try to get me to say some angry remark that you can use to call me uncivil. Archetyper 01:21, 28 May 2011 (MDT)
- Funny how no matter what I say, you I'm either lying, hypocritical, insulting, libelous (!), or trolling. Funny how I'm done bothering to argue, as clearly nothing I can say will change your mind. If you want to contribute, contribute. If you want to leave, leave. No one's forcing you to stay, and nobody's banning you, at least so long as you are being constructive. If you do stay you should know that nothing's going to change. If you don't like the way things are run there's really no point in complaining; you might as well just find some other (completely free) website that suits your needs. This wiki does not serve to please every user's policy preferences or governing style.
- In case I wasn't clear, though, changing your userpage is not optional. If you want to say that you don't like me because you think I'm being unfair, then by all means say it; it's a true statement about your feelings. It is, however, simply your opinion that I vandalized "yours" and "Ehsteve's" pages by removing authorship categories from them. Negative, non-factual statements about other users is by all definitions denigration, and is strictly disallowed. Calling it such is not denigration and certainly isn't libelous by any definition. JazzMan 19:56, 28 May 2011 (MDT)
In response to your recent edit comment
First of all, I must admit my delight in the irony of you choosing Green Dragon's method of responding through comments instead of talk pages. You stated (emphasis mine): "Do not make libellous accusations of 'disparaging remarks' in your edit summary, when deleting important information that bring light to your behavior of doing malicious acts under false pretenses."
I do not believe you are using the words I highlighted as they are intended. Let's break this down one word at a time.
Deleting is the easy one. I can't have deleted your words if they are, in fact, still there. If I actually wanted to delete them I could delete the entire page, rendering it hidden from anyone but an admin who views the page history. If I really wanted to make it hard to find, I could delete only the part of the history that contained the edits in question, therefor making it harder for another admin to even know there's a page history to look at in the first place. But I did not do any of these things. Instead, I gave you very clear instructions, as well as ample time to comply or explain why you did not need to comply, but you did neither. As such, I have hidden them from view from the casual observer until the time you choose to do so.
Now, onto libel. This is an involved one, so bear with me. In the United States, libel has three important parts:
- The libelous statement must be false
- The statement must cause harm
- The statement must have been made without adequate research in to the truthfulness of the statement
The alleged libel here is that I said you have disparaging remarks on your userpage. I believe this fails all three libel tests. Let's start with the most important one, the factual nature of my statement. To do so, we must first define disparaging: to speak of slightingly, depreciate, belittle; synonyms include ridicule, discredit, mock demean, denounce. You have overtly accused me of vandalism and of creating false pretenses to justify said vandalism, and have indirectly accused me of conspiring with Green Dragon in my actions. Accusations of vandalism are discrediting of my position as an administrator of the site, and conspiracies against other users and subterfuge to hide my actions depreciate my value as a user. Even in your edit summary, you admit that you are trying to "bring light to [my] behavior of doing malicious acts": speaking slightly of me in this way is belittling. (I'm going to preempt a potential objection at this point and state that the definition of disparaging does not hinge on the fact of whether or not these accusations are true; calling someone ugly, for example, is disparaging even if the person you are talking to is Quasimodo.) Given the evidence I have presented, your statements are disparaging, therefore calling them such is not false. Test #1 has failed.
Test #2 requires some harm must have come to you. What harm has been perpetrated, exactly? A lowering of your reputation? Can you point out any users for whom this one statement brought your reputation lower than anything said by any parties prior? If, in fact, I am vindictively bullying and wikistalking you in order to enforce my Abrahamist propaganda, as you have accused in the past, would not a continuation of your behavior in fact increase your reputation as a fighter of tyranny and injustice? What better to prove your accusations than more of the same? As such, libel test #2 has also failed.
Test #3. As this section has clearly shown, I've done my research. Add to that the multiple explanations  of how my actions were not as you claimed them to be, and it's clear that accusing me of failure to research does not past the "stink test". Nor does it past libel test #3. Failing any one of these tests makes my actions not libelous; failing all three just cements the verdict even further. I would expect you to cease incorrect usage of this word.
You will notice, I have also highlighted malice, above. Accusations of libel are even harder to prove about public figures (while I'm not trying to argue that you are one, I find the exercise interesting nonetheless). To be libel of a public figure, the statement has to be false, harmful, poorly researched, and performed with malice. Now, the common definition of malice is desire to inflict injury, harm, or suffering on another, either because of a hostile impulse or out of deep-seated meanness and the legal definition is evil intent on the part of a person who commits a wrongful act. While I'm confident that I have no desire to cause harm, and am not hostile, deep-seatedly mean, or evil, I'm not as confident that I can convince you of these things; I have tried in the past, but if you think I'm lying, then why would I not also be lying about these things? I could ask other members of the community to speak on my behalf (and I'm sure they would), but there is no need: the critical word here is harm. As I have already demonstrated that I am not causing you harm or committing a wrongful act, my actions can not be malicious by either definition.
The interesting thing here is, while I'm not accusing you of libel, the accusation would have a better chance of sticking than yours would against mine. Calling me a malicious vandal is false (as I have demonstrated above), causes me harm (in my position as an admin and useful member of an internet community), and is poorly researched (as I have explained many times, backed up by other users, how my actions were not, in fact, vandalism). Something to think about. JazzMan 11:45, 10 June 2011 (MDT)