User talk:Green Dragon

From D&D Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search
   
User talk:Green Dragon
User
Talk
I welcome discussions! Although before contacting me see if your question is not dealt with on Meta Pages.
Contributions
Among other things, I am looking for Featured Articles, and I want your contributions to support this process!
Awards
Archive
Archives

Annoyances and maybe stepping down as admin?[edit]

Yo GD, I've not been really active on dandwiki recently, and I'm kinda undecided as to whether I want to be. Communicating with people to coordinate, improve, or achieve anything is a real big hassle. And I've tried a few times to suggest improving our communication methods, too, but those have also fallen by the wayside.

Though there's plenty of work I could do yet, but a big part of the fun of dandwiki for me is the collaboration part of it. And I'm finding it hard to really do much in that respect, though maybe that's just my own failing. I still love dandwiki and use it constantly, but I'm finding it hard to get myself motivated to do anything for it, because there are fundamental issues for me that aren't getting solved.

I don't know if I'm wording my problems obtusely, but let me know if I am being dumbvague. In light of me not really feeling the "Improve dandwiki!" mood, and I'm not sure we'll ever get around to bettering it for me, I'm thinking there's no real purpose in my staying on as an admin? I'unno, I still love y'all, but I feel confused about what the way forward from here is, gimme yer thoughts. --SgtLion (talk) 17:49, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree that you have been less active in the recent past. Lots of users get very busy, and notice so many pressing things in their lives that they need to pay attention to. That's normal, and from my understanding of the term collaboration: its a positive development. I look at collaboration as a means of working with other people positively.
I dislike reading a user say that he needs to spend his time editing D&D Wiki. In this sense, I feel that your poems and self reflections have improved as an admin. I enjoy reading your work on your user page, even if no one ever tells you. Just this alone, however, is never enough for a person to work with.
I am not certain why you have stopped working with python and bots. maybe your life has made you think too critically about you doing those things? This is why I always tell users that they should only do what they want to do. If you are motivated by python, then you have a drive to work with it. This is what I like to see, but like all other users I cannot tell if are driven to see improvements in collaboration or not. I can't change anything for you here, since I am just someone to collaborate with.
I have to admit that I have not seen any changes in communication methods. I also have not seen any collaboration here. I think I missed the discussions. If you have a link that would be great. This is my current view onto your situation.
With my view in mind, could you explain where exactly your problems are? Where has your motivation stopped? What fundamental issues are your communications pertaining to? --Green Dragon (talk) 15:58, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
That is entirely a really nice reply, thank you <3. I know you're not a magical solution deity, and I do appreciate the effort a whole lot. I'm not expecting you to wave a wand of solve things at the moment, just discussin' my issues.
For the record, I do still enjoy contributing, and enjoy adminnin', whether its pythonstuff, pathfinder, 3.5e fixing, etc.
But, I think my major issue is that I feel like we don't have the means of communication to come to a conclusion on, well, anything that's more than a simple topic, actually, but most of all, we can't seem to come to conclusions on any proposed improvements.
I understand that's mainly to do with the fact that we're a wiki, and that's fine, but, for instance: I've proposed reopening the chat a few times, on my fourth go proposing it, a few of us seemed to agree on giving it a go and I tried to push forward by messaging 'n emailing BD multiple times, but we've still gotten nowhere because he's busy presumably. But I have no way to really discuss these and other issues effectively, because it requires a lot of back and forth conversation.
That's not a huge issue on its own, per se, but it makes me feel like, much as I really love this site, we can't really move forward and improve on whatever things (or agree on not improving them, at least) when we need to. Because discussion on any problems or ideas that require a decent amount of back 'n forth discussion inevitably die before they reach fruition. And it gives me the feeling that we'll just eventually stagnate, and that any of my contributions would therefore be kind of pointless (though I can't deny, the site's done pretty well for the last forever).
Like I say, I may be entirely wrong on this, and it might all be better the way it is. It's just personally, I've found it more and more frustrating over the years to try discuss any ideas see them reach kind of conclusion.
I hope that explains my concerns decently. It's hard to explain my problems with our communication through that very medium of communication, but hopefully you get the idea. I would like to keep adminning and contributing on dandwiki, I just find these problems too frustrating for me to think it's worthwhile, at the moment. --SgtLion (talk) 21:52, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
I find your work with Pathfinder remarkable, and want to applaud you for that. It's taking a hard part of the structure and putting it into a useful context.
I have left the discussion for a chat room open for something that works.
Do not expect to get any help from Blue Dragon on this. How he would (likely) prefer his status to be, would be as one that references his editing status on D&D Wiki. His assistance is spend in other means for the upkeep and wellbeing of D&D Wiki.
I am a user who would prefer a chat room. Of course, I continue to stress that a chat room connected to our user accounts is best. So, our user names are real. Our actions in the chat room, thus, carry more weight.
There is also the technical side to a chat room. If you can give me the documentation for a chat setup then I can get it implemented. Don't expect long chats with Blue Dragon since in the end I will work the result out with him. --Green Dragon (talk) 22:23, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
You could try setting up a Discord server? --Geodude671 (talk) 23:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
We tried that months ago, but since GD just said he wanted one integrated with the wiki, I closed it today (it's technically still there, but I kicked everyone and removed the invite). No one even used it except two people I didn't recognize.--GamerAim (talk) 01:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
A connection with our usernames or for IPs is very important for me. I recall that the Discord server required a user-creation process for the IRC chat. --Green Dragon (talk) 09:14, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm not necessarily saying a chat would solve all issues, but I do think it could be meaningfully helpful.
Well, as we have had The Tavern before, I was rather under the impression that we had all the technical knowledge and code we needed. As the last time we discussed the idea of a chat, you asked me to liase with Blue Dragon to implement it.
It's extremely simple to get an embedded IRC client to any free server, where wiki users can register their usernames and IPs can just join without registering. Just a snippet of HTML code will achieve it. If that's all that is needed, I can provide that in, like, five minutes, just say the word.
If you really want to host an in-house IRC server that does an automatic linking in of users with our wiki usernames (which I think is what The Tavern did?). I'm not sure we can do that anymore without an in-depth custom job, as the IRC extension for MediaWiki is no longer supported. But if it was absolutely necessary, I could investigate this idea further.
Obviously, this is all I can do without server access. I'm happy to provide any technical information or help, but it does take backend work to actually implement any of it. --SgtLion (talk) 11:42, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
No, anyone could change their name at the Tavern, and no IP information was included with it. In addition, a user just wrote in a username they wanted to use. This must be a very massive misunderstanding at this point, if a user like yourself was under this impression.
If you have the technical information for a chat room that works based on user information from MediaWiki then when you give it to me I can start to get it implemented. --Green Dragon (talk) 12:26, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
At least with Discord, everyone has a unique user ID and it wouldn't be that difficult to manually verify people. I already had a system in place that restricted what people who weren't flagged as verified could do. I understand that it's not ideal, and I won't bring it up again if you still don't like the idea, but if people think that it's better than nothing, then I think it's worth trying? And if things get too uncomfortable, it's easy to just trash it and forget it ever happened (certainly easier than some in-site extensions, I'd think), so I'm not sure what we have to lose. Of course, you'd need to find a way to get more than 3 people in there for it to be worthwhile.--GamerAim (talk) 15:25, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm just going to slip in long enough to say that although a Discord sever might not be perfect, I still think it's better than any alternative of which I'm aware (and better than nothing). I would have joined a Discord server had I been active at the time and known about it. - Guy (talk) 21:40, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I couldn't remember the Tavern all that well, so I was only working off my vague memories.
I think as GD said, Discord's requirement to set up an account and, in my opinion, not having it as an embedded widget work against it. We can use a super-simple IRC widget to set up a chat where people can register their wiki usernames, but that also allows IPs to join straight up and allows users to access it from a dandwiki page, so IPs can get there in a couple clicks.
If this automatic linking in to MediaWiki user information is a requirement for a chat, it seems nigh impossible, as far as I can make out. But as GamerAim states, just manually approving people would be a very minor workload and have the same effect. --SgtLion (talk) 07:20, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Would Extension:MediaWikiChat and Extension:WebChat work for everyone? These are the sorts of extensions I was talking about, but was not able to find until now. --Green Dragon (talk) 09:27, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Doesn't that make me feel like a silly-o. For some reason I discounted non-IRC options. I'm okay with us trying out either of those. --SgtLion (talk) 11:13, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I also discounted them, assuming there was nothing out there for wikis. Good find, GD! Looking forward to trying them out in the Near™ future.--GamerAim (talk) 12:13, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi everyone, part of the problem getting The Tavern up and running again is me being oversubscribed / generally too busy. I've unfortunately had to only really work on things when a problem gets big enough—and—it appears that this problem is both big enough and GD proposed an easy solution. I went ahead and installed MediaWikiChat (Special:Chat). If you would all rather try the alternative, or another (easy to setup) solution, please let me know. Also, I believe SgtLion and myself talked a bit back about SgtLion getting backend access. I think that's a good idea and could help the wiki be upgraded sooner / etc. I'll be happy to pick up where we left off going down that path. If you are still up for it SgtLion, please reach out! Thanks, — Blue Dragon (talk) 23:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I've been acutely aware that you're a pretty busy guy, so it's all cool as far as I'm concerned. I'll give the MediaWikiChat a try out, thanks for sorting that! I am still interested in backend access, hopefully I can help some with it, I'll pop ya' a message if y'don't first. --SgtLion (talk) 10:18, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

OGC Namespace[edit]

The old conversation was long and kind of, well, old, so I figured I'd let it get chucked into an archive sooner rather than later. I was wondering about the pending status of the OGC namespace? I know there's not two sourcebooks under it, and won't be for awhile since I have to finish the 3e SRD first, but it's integral to making sure the DPLs format links correctly, or else we get "OGC:" at the beginning of every link, cluttering the screen, making it ugly and harder to read, and making it harder to see if the DPLs have the right settings. So it's far from necessary, but it does prevent things from looking nice (in an area that I admit no one except me and you have probably browsed).

P.S. Did you settle on that space image for the non-SRD headers? If so, we'll need to pool ideas for an ideal text (unless you've decided on one) for it.--GamerAim (talk) 15:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I have asked Blue Dragon about the namespace. Expect it to be added (soon). I wonder if you added mostly complete sourcebooks, like Path of Shadow, into the OGC structure it that would shed more light into it.
Sorry about not getting the image and text together sooner. It slipped my mind. I have responded to the discussion above. --Green Dragon (talk) 21:12, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the update! TBH, my main concern is if I'll have to move them to the OGC namespace, as the more pages I add, the more work it is later. If that's not the case, then my workload remains the same. The thing with adding mostly complete sourceboks is that even if I only did the existing pages, I have to go fact-check everything, hyperlink it if need be, and such. I'll look into it, but right now my planned order is 3e SRD, Quintessential Monk (since I deleted the entire thing for mass copyright infringement), Path of Shadow, Advanced Player's Handbook. Obviously, that may be years in the future before it's finished, IDK. I just don't want to have to move everything to the new namespace :P--GamerAim (talk) 21:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
It pleases me to hear you state your ambitions. I have a plea for you with the 3e SRD. My plea is for you to change the pages to the namespace “3e SRD“ before lots more pages get added. This should help organize the SRD namespaces. Thanks! --Green Dragon (talk) 09:07, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
That should be under 20 pages, so it's good you caught me before I went too far! I too think it's better your way :)--GamerAim (talk) 12:13, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Unnecessary Ban[edit]

So you banned me for removing the templates off my own work. then you say i was banned for starting an editing war. that is false. even after i was banned temp, the edit war continued. Geodude startws the editing war, while im trying to keep my creations in line with what i view the item should have. now im going to edit the arcane ring i made back. but i will however reduce its strength. i do not want it to have legendary rarity, nor attunement. additionally i will place a template for that it may deviate from 5e standards. so that way its own rules do not have to align with srd. and thus should not be edited any further —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Justsomedndplayers (talkcontribs) . Please sign your posts!

When you add {{Design Disclaimer}} that will make your edits make some sense. I gave you a very light ban for starting an edit war, which you did on multiple occasions by reverting constructive edits without any valid reason. And this over and over again without any reason. The templates added to all the pages in question are constructive edits. Removing them in an edit war got you banned. Try other methods, like using the talk page, or replacing templates with {{Design Disclaimer}}. --Green Dragon (talk) 08:52, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
And to reiterate: I understand your frustration, but homebrew pages aren't really the best place to post passive-aggressive comics. I think we have a real template telling people to see the talk page first; if you need it, tell me and I'll find it :)--GamerAim (talk) 12:13, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
You also need to be prepared for other people editing your pages. The Design Disclaimer is for pages that deviate from design standards in a planned way, not for tacking onto something to excuse poor design. For example, Arcane Ring spends a lot of time describing how much it costs, but magic item costs and creation are a campaign-level consideration, as determined by the DM. Someone could quite reasonably edit the page removing such information. Marasmusine (talk) 20:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Using Other Licenses[edit]

Hey GD, sorry to bring this up, but do we still allow users to post content under licenses such as the CC BY-SA 3.0? Justsomedndplayers reproduced some CC BY-SA 3.0 licensed text on Elnade (5e Race), so I'm wondering how to proceed, assuming he doesn't otherwise have permission (I left a message on his talk page to ask him).--GamerAim (talk) 19:49, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes of course! He just needs to use Template:Cc-by-3.0. The actual content needs to be licensed under the Cc already, for someone other than the author to care of course. That page is a new page. There is no relicensing, since that is not allowed. --Green Dragon (talk) 21:40, 28 May 2017 (UTC).
Thank you! I am going to go ahead and delete the old page and make a new one with the same contents and that template on it. I am glad to see that this is so easily resolved :)--GamerAim (talk) 22:29, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
In this instance the licensing is more complicated then it first appears. Please read my reply there, and my reason for restoring the page. --Green Dragon (talk) 09:07, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. I wasn't aware of those facts, so I'm glad I got you involved. I replied there with my reasoning for deleting it and hope you forgive me for my ignorance <3--GamerAim (talk) 12:39, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
It gets so complicated in these instances that it makes my head spin when it needs to be further managed. Thanks for your objective answer! --Green Dragon (talk) 15:25, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Attribution Help Page[edit]

I went ahead and made an attribution help article using my understanding of our attribution policy. How does it look?--GamerAim (talk) 13:12, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

That's quite useful. I agree that it needs more information about locking pages, locking OGL pages, and that admins are always ready to lock a page for a trustworthy user if he feels that he only wants it to be edited by admins. --Green Dragon (talk) 15:30, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Lionring[edit]

Lion ring.jpg Lionring                            
I award you with the Lionring in return for your help getting the banner working. Good job!--GamerAim (talk) 01:04, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! --Green Dragon (talk) 09:07, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Redundancy[edit]

Barnstar.png Barnstar                            
I know someone else already gave you an award recently, but I think it deserves recognition. Your dedication and leadership for this project is inspiring.

Dragon Elf[edit]

Hi GD, I noticed that you protected Dragon Elf (5e Subrace) for the reason "excessive vandalism," but I don't see any vandalism in the page history. I would like to ask why you have done this, because I'm just confused. — Geodude671 (talk | contribs)‎ . . 13:32, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I protected it because, before your edit, multiple IPs had edited the page in ways which were not constructive. I can unlock the page if you prefer. --Green Dragon (talk) 11:00, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
No, that's alright. It's pretty much done anyway. — Geodude671 (talk | contribs)‎ . . 14:29, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

hello i require assistance[edit]

is there anything you can do there is another user by the name of Geodude671 who is actively attempting to edit war with me over a class i made is there any way to get him to stop touching my page which is https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Demon_Brawler_(3.5e_Class) thank you —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AmericanSephiroth (talkcontribs) . Please sign your posts!

Hi, I'm not sure why you think I'm trying to edit war with you? Reddit user Axel4145 linked the post on /r/DnD, and other user ltwerewolf highlighted it as an example of what they perceived to be a poorly balanced class. I initially put a deletion template on the page because the class was so powerful that to bring it down to a power level comparable with the more powerful official martial classes would require rewriting it basically from scratch. You removed the deletion template (which you, as the creator of the page, are not really supposed to do, however...) and toned the class down, but after talking to user GamerAim he said, and I quote verbatim, "There are so many things wrong with that class, man." Since it seemed you were continuing to improve the page, rather than put the deletion notice back, I put a {{needsbalance}} template on it because, though it seemed (at the time) that the page was being actively worked on, it was still unbalanced and needed a template notifying other users of that fact. After you communicated your intentions to me that, yes, the class is intended to be much more powerful than the official martial classes, you added a design disclaimer to the page stating such. The message you put in the design disclaimer was, in my opinion, poorly worded, so I put a different one that got the same message across.
This is a wiki. You need to be prepared for other people editing your pages. At the bottom of every edit box, including the one I am currently typing this message into, there is a message that says "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." I recognize that it does NOT say "Ignore the ideas, values, beliefs, and opinions of your fellow editors at a whim," as the Spirit and Intent page will tell you. I do not believe I have done so. I have not made any changes to the content of the class, as you'll see from the page's edit history. All I've done is add Improving, Reviewing, and Removing templates to the page as (I had deemed it) necessary.
If you truly do not want anyone else to edit "your" page, you can move it into your userspace, where other users are not allowed to edit, except for administrators to remove content that breaks sitewide rules. If you do not know how to do this, I or another user would be willing to help you or do it for you. — Geodude671 (talk | contribs)‎ . . 22:00, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
I apparently just missed this when I edited on Talk:Demon Brawler (3.5e Class). Let's please avoid escalating this.
Though I would've personally used the talk page after the first edit conflict, Geodude671 did nothing wrong here. There are balance issues that should be addressed, and he brought those issues up civilly. As per my message on the article talk page, if this issue persists after you're done rewriting the class, it will need to be addressed. Balance is a requirement on Dandwiki. --SgtLion (talk) 22:12, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
I'll respond on that talk page with details on the class, but I'd just like to state that quote was from the Tavern, which is a more casual place for conversation and that I hope it did not offend you. In the Tavern, I'm often multitasking and give shorter, less explanatory answers and comments than I would on talk pages, and I try to make it clear in the Tavern when I speak seriously on topics. I hope I can help you more on the class talk page :)--GamerAim (talk) 00:25, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Looking for your input[edit]

Hello, Green; Would you mind giving us your input on Template Talk:Copyright Disclaimer and Template Talk:Design Disclaimer?

I know you've already been involved in the former, but what I'm looking for is how you feel about Fair Use being used as our defense against copyright, on the grounds that the use is transformational; Do you think we should or should not do it? Or do you think there's another solution? I think you may have implied how you felt about it in some of your replies, but given that it is a serious matter and we never heard back from Marasmusine on the topic, I'd like to review it and just make sure we all know where we stand. Ultimately, because it has potential legal applications, I'd like to confirm how you feel on the matter.

As for the Design Disclaimer, there's been concern over its use to validate pages that deviate from balance standards, and we're trying to come to some sort of consensus regarding what we expect the Design Disclaimer to inform users about. --Jwguy (talk) 21:20, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't see why there is a debate. Just reading the disclaimer's stated purpose clearly shows that people are misusing it. The misuse and misunderstanding is because of my own poor writing on the Precedent guideline, which was far too open-ended to be practical. I incorrectly assumed people would actually read the template page and use that as their guide. But, hey, if you have the time, please let me know if I'm out to lunch on this. --Kydo (talk) 22:24, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Fair use has a legal definition, which covers derivative works. This is no concern.
{{Design Disclaimer}} should not be used for intellectual property rights, since this is manifested by user actions not by pages. I think the biggest concern is seperating design and user actions through this template. To really approach this concern, I fear, we may need more examples then what has occured. What users request page locks? What users use this template to hinder other users working with them? --Green Dragon (talk) 23:14, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough, I just figured that given the legal nature of the issue, you're entitled to a final say on how far you want to go with Fair Use and Copyright as the webmaster. Do you think that should apply to image use as well?
As for the Design Disclaimer, personally, I'm not sure the issue is as great of a concern as it is being made out to be, but as two members of staff brought concerns over the template (including one suggesting we remove the template entirely), I engaged it with the interest of preserving the template and what I believed its purpose should be. In response to Kydo, as well, you'll notice I suggested handling the individual misuses on the talk pages of the content it was being misused on, rather than any grand effort to remove or significantly modify/reinterpret the template. --Jwguy (talk) 13:16, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

"Excessive Vandalism"[edit]

I would first like to say that I have indeed edited the Juggernaut page without an account, and have since made one and if I make any edits in the future I'll continue to use this account. Another thing is that I have not been on this site long, and I'm most likely unaware of certain written and unwritten rules here.

You re-edited this [1] page and said it was because of "Excessive Vandalism". I don't agree with this because I only added two skills and changed a little over half the starting items, and I believe the class fits the "Juggernaut" title better with my edits.

I'm unsure of if you believed it was Excessive Vandalism because I didn't have an account, or you truly thought I added too much, but I personally think the class works better with my edits and would like you to put my edits back in.

I am basing my reply off Check User, meaning this editor is Danthemar and 2601:1c0:6b00:7f8:ec9a:36da:718c:85b4. For example [2] has no justification, and it is not playable. Other edits on pages like Scout (5e Background), Bladed Long Bow (5e Equipment), [3], etc, follow this same problemmatic edit behavior. --Green Dragon (talk) 15:26, 14 July 2017 (MDT)

Discussion for blocked IP 86.19.217.84[edit]

Hi there,

I just noticed that the my IP has been blocked, here's the log:

The block was made by Green Dragon. The reason given is Inserting false information. Start of block: 10:17, 18 July 2017 Expiry of block: 10:17, 18 October 2017 Intended blockee: 86.19.217.84

I've only been a member for a short while, and am currently unaware of any wrongdoing on my behalf. Could you clarify what "Inserting false information" means?

Hope this is the right place to discuss this.

Thanks,

Holly

Holly, I can see now that this was you. I blocked this IP because areas like the Gibbeth seem unconstructive, and I was worried that the changes were veiled. I will remove this block now. --Green Dragon (talk) 23:30, 18 July 2017 (MDT)

Separating April Fools content[edit]

I've separated April Fools content and derivative works from the 5e races, classes, and list pages. I was going to do the same for the spell lists but I can't figure out for the life of me how to do that with the template it uses. I'm staring at Template:5e Spell List Level with no clue how to ask for a page not in a category. You said to drop any questions on your talk page, so, help? — Geodude671 (talk | contribs)‎ . . 22:59, 27 July 2017 (MDT)

Ugh, yeah. You might need to ask SgtLion for help. I think that's what GD and I had to do when that template was broken last time. I proposed changing to a traditional DPL template, which didn't look or work as nicely, but, well, it was actually usable by mere mortals like us. Sadly, SgtLion was competent and fixed the template, so we never had cause to switch >_>--GamerAim (talk) 05:54, 28 July 2017 (MDT)
Not this evil thing, I need to stop supporting bad habits. I feel like an enabler when I make these hacky workarounds. Semantic #Ask inline queries are the work of the devil.
Anyhow, I tried, but it is explicitly impossible to exclude categories from #ask commands, sorry. 2-0 to DPL --SgtLion (talk) 06:22, 28 July 2017 (MDT)
So should we change that template to a DPL? — Geodude671 (talk | contribs)‎ . . 09:21, 28 July 2017 (MDT)
Yes, SgtLion and I agreed that it's the best course of action at this point, unless GD or others significantly disagree. It isn't as pretty, but Template:OGCAutoSpells should be easily adapted to any of our functional needs. I probably can't implement it today, maybe not tomorrow, but should Sunday or Monday at the latest. The template would need to be adapted, but it's a relatively simple DPL, so if you can figure it out, go ahead and do it :) --GamerAim (talk) 09:28, 28 July 2017 (MDT)
If we change the spells then every page needs to be updated. The summary would be changed from SMW to a parameter. I wonder if we can add a SMW tag on Template:April Fools and then use the SMW ! to exclude any pages with this tag. If we do this, do we know if a value for the tag needs to be added to each spell page, or not? The last choice is to not seperate the April Fools spells. --Green Dragon (talk) 09:51, 28 July 2017 (MDT)
Do you mean that every page for every spell needs to be updated? If so, we may be able to enlist the help of SgtLion's bot. — Geodude671 (talk | contribs)‎ . . 10:35, 28 July 2017 (MDT)
My bot could do that, if need be. GD's idea of adding a maybe transcludable property into the April Fools template is smart thinking though. I'll look into it now. --SgtLion (talk) 14:55, 28 July 2017 (MDT)
I'm probably missing something but wouldn't we just change Template:5e Spell List Level to use #dpl and the notcategory field? Marasmusine (talk) 15:34, 28 July 2017 (MDT)
(Why did I use #ask in the first place?) Marasmusine (talk) 15:37, 28 July 2017 (MDT)
That was you who used #ask? >_> The main problem, AFAIK, is that IDK how to transclude 5e Summary using a dpl, which means summaries wouldn't be visible.--GamerAim (talk) 17:13, 28 July 2017 (MDT)
As discussed, my bot is in the process of pushing the 5e Summary SMW property tag into the 5e Spell template as a |summary parameter. This should get us going with the DPL lists. As it is, I've left the 5e Summary as a first sentence in the article content, as well as a parameter, but this can be amended, if it becomes a problem. --SgtLion (talk) 09:37, 19 August 2017 (MDT)

BlackDragon[edit]

Hello Green Dragon. I recently found a new user called User:BlackDragon, and I'm not sure what course I should take. With that username, they might be confused with User:Blue Dragon or yourself, but I don't want to block them, as they haven't really done anything wrong outside of the potentially confusing user name. SirSprinkles (talk) 03:40, 30 July 2017 (MDT)

But hasn't Dark Dragon been around awhile?--GamerAim (talk) 06:43, 30 July 2017 (MDT)
You could probably ask them to create a new account with a different name, explain why their name might be confusing, and emphasizing that they haven't done anything wrong. — Geodude671 (talk | contribs)‎ . . 09:48, 30 July 2017 (MDT)
The policy states that only if usernames are obscene can the user be blocked. Blue Dragon and I are listed in RfA so users should know who they are looking for. --Green Dragon (talk) 23:30, 30 July 2017 (MDT)

A Problem With One Of Your Staff[edit]

Hello and Good morning,

I have a problem with Marasmusine, who supposedly does editing work for you on this site. You actually gave him Special Recognitions like the Barnstar, so I believe you are familiar with him. He has come onto my class with the intent of correcting areas of the class. However, he has only been rude and disrespectful which has caused me to be rude back to him. I want to stay away from my page as at this point I only see him as harassing me. I do not care what rules he quotes or what "power" he thinks he has. I have a right to use this page and he does not have the right to act like he has complete control over my own class. I thought this site was for everyone's equal use, not for Marasmusine's ability to bully others into changing their class to his liking. -User: SaltiestMeatBall (I am unable to log in as the site seems to think I do not have cookies even though I have re-enabled it hundreds of times)

EDIT: It seems I can log in, but I am automatically logged out if I try to post in this specific discussion.

I'm not GD, but another admin. What page was this accused bullying on? Regarding cookies: I recall talk of some cookies issue on this page. Check one of the last topics and see if that solves your issue.--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 09:34, 4 August 2017 (MDT)
GD, for your reference, here are the diffs for the conversation:
  • Me ([4]) (asked if examples of balance problems needed)
  • SaltiestMeatBall: ([5]) (my questions are "idiotic")
  • Me: [6] (gave some examples, issued warning about civility)
  • SaltiestMeatBall: ([7]) (I'm "rude", "self-righteous" and a "bully").
I'll let you decide if further action needs taking.
I also note that I haven't made any edits to the content of the class. Marasmusine (talk) 09:51, 4 August 2017 (MDT)
Is the class Naruto Ninja Class V2 (5e Class)? Because Mara has made three total contributions to the article and its talk page. Edit 1: Adding a needsbalance template. Nothing about the template was wrong or offensive, but rather as helpful as his templates usually are. Edit 2: Asking why you removed the needsbalance template, and asking if you needed examples on proper class design. Edit 3: Giving you multiple examples of what was wrong and how you could fix those issues, and giving you a light warning for behavioral issues. You then proceeded to argue with him, proclaim to know more about the rules of a site he's moderated for years, said "That is why I don't like you", asserted total control over "your class" despite the disclaimers and nature of a wiki indicating that anyone can edit pages here, and so on.
Even if this isn't the class you mentioned, it certainly incriminates you, not Mara.
Note: I wrote this before an edit conflict with Mara's above post. I am only posting it now for posterity.--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 09:56, 4 August 2017 (MDT)
I like how nothing is about what he has said, but that's fine. I was warned a few times about the treatment users get on this site when they don't agree with the editors and higher-ups. But, this site is the only one with a good enough template set-up to make a class freely. I do not want him on my page anymore. But if that is not possible, I guess I'll just wait for him to eventually delete my class like he's done to others in the past for not abiding by his suggestions. And by suggestions I mean orders. By the way, cookies seems to work. That topic helped. Thanks. SaltiestMeatBall (talk) 10:49, 4 August 2017 (MDT)
EDIT: Also, it technically is my class now. Dathan gave anyone who wanted free reign over the groundwork of the class since he no longer cares to improve it. Which is why I pasted the foundation that was his class and built onto it to finish it. SaltiestMeatBall (talk) 10:52, 4 August 2017 (MDT)
Not to drag this out, but regarding deletions, as long as the page was created in good faith I always wait two weeks between deletion proposal and actual deletion, per policy, so that it can be discussed and/or improved on. All it takes is one editor to say "please give me more time on this." Also, I always restore (or email a copy of) a deleted page on request. Marasmusine (talk) 11:05, 4 August 2017 (MDT)
This is a wiki. You need to be prepared for other people editing the pages you create. At the bottom of every edit box, including the one I am currently typing this message into, there is a message that says "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." If you truly do not want anyone else to edit "your" page, you can move it into your userspace, where other users are not allowed to edit, except for administrators to remove content that breaks sitewide rules. — Geodude671 (talk | contribs)‎ . . 13:25, 4 August 2017 (MDT)
EDIT: Please also see this edit assumably by SMB's IP, where he vandalized this talk page by removing all mentions of GD. 13:36, 4 August 2017 (MDT)
Lmao vandalized? You're high. I am "editing" in this talk page because I don't know how to reply to these replies besides going in the Edit to type out the ":::: etc" and my message there. Nor can I seem to find out how elsewhere on the wiki, so I made due for this conversation. I don't even know what a GD even is. I haven't deleted a thing. SaltiestMeatBall (talk) 14:38, 4 August 2017 (MDT)
Actually look at the link. You removed all instances of the phrases "Green Dragon" and "D&D Wiki." I say "you" because that edit came from the same IP that added this section. Please explain how that was preventing you from editing. — Geodude671 (talk | contribs)‎ . . 14:58, 4 August 2017 (MDT)
It's true that IP is for your username. I will reply in more detail later. --Green Dragon (talk) 15:54, 4 August 2017 (MDT)
Now see this edit where SMB told us to "go fuck [ourselves]." — Geodude671 (talk | contribs)‎ . . 23:54, 5 August 2017 (MDT)
EDIT: I know I technically am not an admin, but I blocked this guy anyway for a month because he seemed really disruptive. If an actual admin feels I shouldn't have done that, then please let me know, but I don't really see a reason not to. 00:07, 6 August 2017 (MDT)
I think that's justified. Shame he couldn't collaborate instead of throwing his toys out of the pram. What's sad is that there weren't even any edit conflicts on the page, it was all his and Zero's edits; just feedback on the talk page. The whole affair highlights the balancing act we have: If we give a lot of creative freedom, the site gets a reputation for containing a lot of low-quality pages. If we exercise quality control, we get a bad reputation for raining on people's parades. Marasmusine (talk) 02:42, 6 August 2017 (MDT)
To clarify, userpages should normally be used for sandboxes, working on pages before publishing, and other such stuff. We don't intended for subpages to be used to store broken content indefinitely.--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 16:31, 4 August 2017 (MDT)
SaltiestMeatBall, your edits have crossed the line in the course of this short discussion. You have blanked and vandalized pages, and harassed other users. If anyone would consider upholding your opinion, then I would hope to see a model user making a complaint. If you want to keep working on the class in question, without using any normal rules, then please continue this in your userspace. --Green Dragon (talk) 00:22, 7 August 2017 (MDT)
Wait, do we actually allow userpages to store pages indefinitely? Because I've been operating under the old rule that it wasn't allowed >_< --GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 06:09, 7 August 2017 (MDT)
I don't see any reason not to allow userpages to store pages indefinitely. Of course if a user is uncertain how to move the page(s) into the Main namespace, then our assistance will be appreciated. These pages certaintly should not be listed on list-pages. --Green Dragon (talk) 09:50, 7 August 2017 (MDT)
I've sometimes marked user subpages as abandoned if the user is long gone. That still gives it another year before it's dealt with. Marasmusine (talk) 10:46, 7 August 2017 (MDT)
It's probably better to mark incomplete and abandonded user sub-pages as such, just so people do not get the wrong idea about such pages. If it is just a reference page for their game, though, I would not do this (e.g. User:Kydo/workspace/items/boats or characters for Wiki Gaming). If the user still cares, they have a whole year then. --Green Dragon (talk) 10:42, 9 August 2017 (MDT)

Recent Block[edit]

I'm confused about your recent block of 163.182.217.117. As far as I can see, this anon's only edit was on Bicycle (Fallout Supplement), where they removed the vandalism. Your revert of that edit in fact re-added the vandalism to the page. Am I missing something here, or is this an oversight? I'll admit anon's edit summary might've appeared as though they committed vandalism, but they didn't.--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 15:21, 11 August 2017 (MDT)

Good catch! You are correct, I had blocked the wrong IP. I resolved this situation now. --Green Dragon (talk) 05:52, 12 August 2017 (MDT)

New Wiki Categories[edit]

Hey Green Dragon! I feel I bugged some other people already and thought I'd try to work with another admin (not because I don't like the other, I just want to get a feel for more than one admin) On my talk page someone I've worked with before on this wiki has asked about creating another wiki category/topic. If you could hop over and help explain the nuances of what's being asked, a few users would appreciate it. OR! if you know a person better for the task, could you ask them please? thanks in advance. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 06:58, 14 August 2017 (MDT)

Good idea! I am looking forward to seeing this information. --Green Dragon (talk) 09:38, 14 August 2017 (MDT)

Username Policy[edit]

Regarding discussion of username policy on this user page, do we strictly follow Wikipedia's policies on usernames not containing references to companies, products or registered trademarks?--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 12:23, 18 August 2017 (MDT)

Thanks for the link. --Green Dragon (talk) 23:20, 20 August 2017 (MDT)

5e OGC[edit]

Thanks to the valiant efforts of Geodude671 and Clockwerk, we have one complete and two partially-complete 5e OGC publications. I went ahead and made a page for all the 5e Open Game Content publications and added it to the main page, but I didn't want to change the sidebar (to be in line with the 3.5e Open Game Content link) without asking first. What do you think?--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 06:21, 20 August 2017 (MDT)

That user is User:Clockwerk66, not Clockwerk, jsyk. — Geodude671 (talk | contribs)‎ . . 11:23, 20 August 2017 (MDT)
That's fine if you change the sidebar too. I really wish that the sidebar would allow us to either add indents or multiple links in a single entry. --Green Dragon (talk) 23:11, 20 August 2017 (MDT)
As I was discussing elsewhere, I have looked into this before. There are a range Mediawiki menu extensions that greatly extend the functionality of the sidebar. I don't know how into lets-get-as-many-extensions-as-we-fancy world we are, but I imagine one such as CustomNavBlocks could do what we want. --SgtLion (talk) 02:26, 21 August 2017 (MDT)
I wonder if this has something to do with why GamerAim's edit did not seem to do anything. SgtLion you still have not gotten access from Blue Dragon to a setup wiki, right? He is very busy right now moving. --Green Dragon (talk) 09:53, 21 August 2017 (MDT)
I'd like to note that his edit updated my sidebar immediately, as per my screenshot (would you mind deleting the file history on that, by the way? I made an oopsie.); It's possible the issue is simply to do with Cloudflare's nodes late in updating their caching - And indeed, their current status does say "Cloudflare is experiencing delays processing single-file cache purges via the API". That could be related; Either way I'd bet the edit will come through in a day or two.
Unfortunately nay, I've not received SSH access still, so I can check little else~ --SgtLion (talk) 12:14, 21 August 2017 (MDT)
I should note that it's showing up for me, so I also suspect it's just a matter of time before everyone sees it.--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 13:57, 21 August 2017 (MDT)
Right, I see his change. I talked to Blue Dragon and he'll see if he can grant you access to a setup wiki in the next few days. --Green Dragon (talk) 23:15, 21 August 2017 (MDT)

Dragon Slayer 5e class[edit]

Hello,

I'm a visitor here; but I have an interest in the Dragon Slayer 5e class and noticed that you made a recent contribution. My question is do you know who originally created this class? I'm trying to put a nice pdf together like in the Player's Handbook, but I want to give proper credit where credit is due. I went back in the page's history and the oldest entry is just a string of characters; which I assume means the user/creator was a guest too or his/her account has been deleted. Do you know of a means of which I could contact this individual? I'd really appreciate it.


TKS

A non-logged on user created the page. There is not any good way to contact them. Just use your best judgement. --Green Dragon (talk) 23:12, 24 August 2017 (MDT)

Protecting "High Traffic"-y DnD content articles[edit]

Hiya GD. What an exciting world of changes we live in. There have been ongoing issues at Berserker (5e Class), and that particular case will be sorted in time, no worries. But it has got me thinking that this kind of thing happens a lot with 'common' class names, like Necromancer, Berserker etc. Endless waves of IPs and new accounts will come and swish them this way and that and good revisions get lost in history. Would it make sense, as a default position, to protect these 'high traffic' articles to autoconfirmed users? This way, the classes that are popular by name alone at least have some chance of staying as a stable, half-decent article for some time. Just a thought~ --SgtLion (talk) 16:15, 2 September 2017 (MDT)

I have noticed this as well. It makes a lot of sense, so yes. --Green Dragon (talk) 12:22, 3 September 2017 (MDT)
For pages that are common but used by the SRD, or there's a consistent pattern of poor-quality pages, we could consider placeholding it with a protected redirect to a disambiguation page?--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 15:09, 3 September 2017 (MDT)
Would another option be to use a less common name/title for such classes? Might stretch the creativity juices, but worth it for the hassle. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 07:54, 4 September 2017 (MDT)
Except we can't really control what people want to name pages, which is part of the issue here. What is being suggested is that we find some way to maintain quality on common name pages, or even find a way to enforce originality in page names (not that I doubt we'd be getting "Berserker, varient" type pages pages).--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 09:39, 4 September 2017 (MDT)
Wouldn't protecting pages from IP edits with names like "Element Master, Ninja, Swordmaster", etc, work around this problem in the same manner? I have started doing this on a small scale, since those are targeted pages. --Green Dragon (talk) 11:27, 4 September 2017 (MDT)
Can we start by semi-protecting the aforementioned Berserker soon-ish? It hasn't even been a day since Concealed Light fixed it (mostly) and already anons are starting to tamper with it. — Geodude671 (talk | contribs | email)‎ . . 17:03, 7 September 2017 (MDT)
Done :) --GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 17:33, 7 September 2017 (MDT)

Could we please leave Necromancer (5e Class) open? I created it with the intention that IP users would make it into what they want it to be. Preventing direct access is kind of against what I had in mind for it. --Kydo (talk) 19:31, 7 September 2017 (MDT)

Yes, Kydo. Where you planning on doing this system-wide, and with what criteria? I have just been doing this on a case-by-case basis, since then I have the evidence too. --Green Dragon (talk) 00:18, 8 September 2017 (MDT)

Quality Ratings on Articles?[edit]

As brought up in this discussion on the subject, what is our current stance on posting rating templates on the article page itself? It is my understanding that such templates belong on the talk page, if at all, but I wanted to confirm that as the last discussions I can recall on the subject were from awhile ago. Based on your response, I might even make a note on your ruling in a help topic :) --GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 09:43, 4 September 2017 (MDT)

The stand user class[edit]

Hi there I was wondering why you blocked it and if you could unblock it my friend loves thes class he loves jojos and I was hopping we could talk

Are you referring to 66.87.120.232 who blanked the page? Why should we allow a user who blanked a page to continue editing? Look at other wikis for inspiration. Any small sort of mistake/confusion on Wikipedia will lead to an instant ban. --Green Dragon (talk) 13:02, 8 September 2017 (MDT)

Regarding the Storm Mage revert[edit]

I noticed when checking on the balances for classes used in our campaign that the Storm Mage class had been changed to the incorrect number of Spells Known it should have. When playing I had noticed that my friend had WAY too many spells known than a magic class should know at that level, and so I went in and changed the Spells Known for Storm Mage to reflect the Spells Known for Sorcerers (since they use the same magic list it seemed most natural).

I made the change a while back under an IP address (because I didn't realize that I wasn't logged in under the unsecure site). Is it possible to get the Spells Known properly balanced once more? Because as it stands it is currently way too much. --Stormsworder (talk) 22:41, 16 September 2017 (MDT)

Sure. I'll go ahead and change it to match the sorcerer. For reference, the class in question is Storm Mage (5e Class), correct? Also, that class has some other issues; I'll reply on the talk page there. — Geodude671 (talk | contribs | email)‎ . . 22:52, 16 September 2017 (MDT)

Correct, that is the class. Sorry, I didn't think to link it here. And the class is definitely pretty powerful... (though in experience, said Storm Mage in my party tends to be a glass cannon who drops VERY easily as a melee Storm Mage). --Stormsworder (talk) 22:59, 16 September 2017 (MDT)

Sorry, I did not notice what you were changing the spells known too, right away. It's good to hear that this has been resolved. --Green Dragon (talk) 00:22, 19 September 2017 (MDT)

overlord[edit]

hey it´s faggetboy.

it´s me that has been working in the overlord class recently, and i think "supreme being" should be in class. If you've removed it because it's too strong, help me bring it down to an okay level. --17 September 2017

You will have to give me more information to continue with your advice. --Green Dragon (talk) 00:23, 19 September 2017 (MDT)

this one --====Supreme Being====

At 20th level, A overlord truly becomes a higher being. you can increase one ability score of your choice by 2. It can go past 20 but not 30 in the state. You also get an extra feat of you choice. You also get to choice a EPIC BOONS from the DMG list. You get +30 hp and resistance to a damage type of your choice. --19 september 2017

Going down the list. This is just a strange variant of an ability score improvement level, but granted as a superior level 20 feature. It should not grant a feat since they are a variant rule. Granting an epic boon and straight health is really bad design.
I would remove the ability score and feat adjustment. Then, I would make a few epic boons to choose from and make this feature selective to them. If you want to round off this class, use selection and grant a minor version of the boons a player does not choose alongside this feature. --Green Dragon (talk) 09:47, 19 September 2017 (MDT)

alright thank you for your advise --19 september 2017

Also, player's never get to pick an epic boon. They are rewards granted by the DM. Marasmusine (talk) 13:41, 20 September 2017 (MDT)

Locking Pages[edit]

You know how we already lock finished pages of merit on request? I think we should also list those pages above the rest on homebrew organization pages as "featured content" so it's easier to find that content. Thoughts?--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 12:41, 20 September 2017 (MDT)

I was actually going to propose this as well, and I already made the template {{Completed}} in preparation. In addition to the header, it also adds pages to Category:Completed Pages. Alternatively, we could just add a category to {{Locked Page}}. — Geodude671 (talk | contribs | email)‎ . . 13:55, 20 September 2017 (MDT)
What is the process for deciding if something is "completed and balanced"? Marasmusine (talk) 15:42, 20 September 2017 (MDT)
If the page isn't actively being worked on, and the power level of the page is comparable to that of the SRD or first-party content, I think it would be fair to decide the page is "complete and balanced." I don't think there's a way to concretely define that, you just have to eyeball it. Ideally, that template should only be applied if an admin would lock that page if requested. — Geodude671 (talk | contribs | email)‎ . . 18:01, 20 September 2017 (MDT)
I assumed we'd review pages and decide if they need any maintenance templates, like normal. Only instead of leaving them be if they don't, we could do something like Geodude says or add a section to the talk page proposing it for locking-down. Ideally, people would start asking for their pages to be reviewed and locked when finished, but we have to start somewhere.
I think, as a rule of thumb, if a page doesn't qualify for any maintenance templates and hasn't been edited in some months, we could lock it.--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 20:16, 20 September 2017 (MDT)
No templates and untouched for a couple months sounds like a fair baseline to start with. I'm sure it would change later, even abandoned as admins get flooded with requests to lock pages. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 08:28, 21 September 2017 (MDT)
For the record, we already take requests for page protection.--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 09:49, 21 September 2017 (MDT)
This isn't a bad idea, but it is full of un-worked out problems. Right now there are less than 250 locked pages, so splitting lists based off this criteria is not sensible. Implementing {{completed}} will be difficult. We should not go around just locking pages, since their main contributors did not actually agree with doing this. Maybe if we found contributors and pages to try this method on, it would work. --Green Dragon (talk) 23:33, 24 September 2017 (MDT)
Yeah, I hope it was obvious that the admins wouldn't just run around like headless chickens locking pages all willy-nilly. I like GamerAim's idea of asking on talk pages if creators want their page locked. — Geodude671 (talk | contribs | email)‎ . . 00:09, 25 September 2017 (MDT)
The only time I would recommend locking pages is on request and for featured articles. Request because some articles experience much higher than normal changes and swaps, and featured articles because if the community has essentially put the stamp of approval on the article it shouldn't be changed often. Tivanir (talk) 11:10, 28 September 2017 (MDT)
What about completed OGC pages? I imagine those kinds of pages might also be worthy of being locked once they're 100% finished, to avoid vandalism. --Clockwerk66 (talk) 11:23, 28 September 2017 (MDT)
OGC pages should be locked, yes. I plan to ask SgtLion to use his bot to lock them soon, and we can do that as regularly as is needed to mass lock them.--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 08:17, 6 October 2017 (MDT)

So, on the topic, we earlier discussed with Dark Dragon a change to Template:Locked Page that would provide some form of user attribution. I propose that we replace Template:Locked Page with a variant of Template:Completed that allows us to optionally link "primary contributor" to the primary contributor's userpage. This would keep us to our agreement with DD, overhaul the appearance like Geodude wants, and instantly assign all previously user-requested locked pages to Category:Completed Pages like I requested. Even if we don't (yet) go ahead with my idea to separate content based on complete status, it would at least technically let those who wish to view it do so.

Nothing I am proposing is a radical change, and the only noticeable changes I've suggested are ones that we've agreed we wanted to make. I simply need to be signed off on this implementation :) --GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 08:35, 6 October 2017 (MDT)

What you wrote sounds reasonable, and let's go ahead and put it into use like we discussed. --Green Dragon (talk) 09:13, 6 October 2017 (MDT)
I realise this subject is resolved anyway. As a formality, let it be known for the official record that I am thoroughly against this idea of giving single users credit for a page, even just for 'completed' ones. Though I do still like 'completed' templates in general. --SgtLion (talk) 14:17, 10 October 2017 (MDT)
Do note that the template's language was changed to credit the "primary contributor", instead of the "author". Does that make you feel a little better about this change? — Geodude671 (talk | contribs | email)‎ . . 14:42, 10 October 2017 (MDT)
It's better than 'author', I admit. But I still think it's antithetical to our long-standing policy on attributions. --SgtLion (talk) 01:57, 11 October 2017 (MDT)

Congrats[edit]

On your award for 100,000 edits. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 22:28, 22 September 2017 (MDT)

Spell Master Continued Edits[edit]

Hello, so after submitting the Spell Master feat.[[8]] i saw it was Repeatedly Vandalized and you revereted it to its original. However Geodude671 believes its not balanced after i edited it to a more simple application.

the feat says:

You have cast spells so much that you have learned to add your personal strength and taste to each spell.

When you cast a spell that deals damage, you add your spell casting modifier to the damage roll if you don't already.

Opponents have disadvantage on saving throws against your spells.

You learn 2 spells that requires an attack roll or saving throw. Choose the Spell from the bard, cleric, druid, sorcerer, warlock, or wizard spell list. That you have an available spell slot for.

Your spell casting ability is the same as your normal spell casting ability for these spells.

-now this limits out healing, and spells like Silence or Darkness. (area effect without a damage) so that it is a decent limit already. and if someone wanted metamagic they could just get that instead. however, this as an option instead gives 2 spells instead of 1, and is limiting which spells you can get. in exchange for, disadvantage on your spells, and now being able to add your spell casting modifier to the roll (if your ability is charisma, then you add your charisma modifier.) if i simply have to add the word ability between casting and modifier in the second sentence then i can. however this is just like cantrip master, except for spells you have a spell slot for.

so i would like to ask you to review the feat, and this. and contact me. thank you GreenDragon! --Justsomedndplayers (talk) 04:56, 2 October 2017 (MDT)

I believe I have resolved the balance issue. — Geodude671 (talk | contribs | email)‎ . . 10:44, 2 October 2017 (MDT)
Unfortunately Hijacking my creation of Spell Master, changing it to Master Caster, and then getting it locked to your standards, i dont considered resolved, its more of "this is mine now." to me. which is disappointing to know someone would do that and aggravating to see something i placed, be jacked, edited and put back just because we couldn't agree. --Justsomedndplayers (talk) 20:57, 2 October 2017 (MDT)
It was on the suggestion of GamerAim that I changed the name, and he was the one who protected it. If you have a problem with that, take it up with him.
Also, I posted that message before the feat was edited to be unbalanced again. — Geodude671 (talk | contribs | email)‎ . . 21:53, 2 October 2017 (MDT)
Did you read the note I left on the page? The one at the very top that explicitly states the page is not in its final form? The one that I left so you wouldn't think I was choosing anyone's edits, but locking the page to prevent an edit war? If you two can't come to an agreement regarding that feat, it will either remain locked or be deleted, or someone will be blocked.--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 06:47, 3 October 2017 (MDT)
I read the feat as balanced how it is currently written. Like noted on the talk page, various other feats are twisted into your example above. This is the core of the problem.
I understand the feat to be a certain "rogue-wizard" magic. This is because of the disadvantage and the spell casting modifier damage bonus. For me, getting a spell is not really part of the feat.
If you want your feat title back, why not get rid of the extra spell, and change it to something like. "Choose one spell you know with a level-based progression. You may cast this spell at your highest level without capping the damage at a certain step. You may change this spell for another one by taking a long rest." --Green Dragon (talk) 00:17, 4 October 2017 (MDT)

Permission from license selector[edit]

Heyo, Green Dragon. This is definitely a GD's talk page question. We have a license option for people intending to give us exclusive permission to uploaded files, but no template in place, so I was planning to get that set up. There is a curveball however, because in Wikipedia's case the license option is only there to mark the media for deletion. Wikipedia actually don't allow explicit permission to be given solely to them, they only use Free domain, Creative Commons and FDL licensed media.

The question is: Do we allow permissions to be given solely to dandwiki, or do we follow in Wikipedia's footsteps, and say that media must (save for exceptional circumstances, of course) be 'freely' licensed, as per Wikipedia's policies? I don't know if this has already been decided - Kinda weird if dandwiki could go on this long without making that call. Personally I'm fine either way on this, but if we do allow exclusive permissions, I'd suggest we do generally try to discourage it - it's no fun being a content rights hog. --SgtLion (talk) 04:03, 9 October 2017 (MDT)

Good job finding out this information. I got the licensing list from Wikipedia, so in this case let's keep doing what I did and not allow these images on D&D Wiki. --Green Dragon (talk) 09:59, 9 October 2017 (MDT)
I've lazily adapted the template from wikipedia. I'm fairly sure that should cover all the bases. But do change as you see fit, o' course. --SgtLion (talk) 13:48, 9 October 2017 (MDT)
Ah, I see you've just altered the list, that makes more sense. I'll leave the template as-is, just in case. --SgtLion (talk) 14:16, 9 October 2017 (MDT)

Serene 5e_Race[edit]

You may disregard the previous statement that was here. The race has been refined much more to its original intent. Thanks.

Thank You[edit]

As someone who's played a lot of Mount and Blade: Warband, I know how hard it is to keep a bunch of free-willed aristocrats, all with their own needs and desires, unified under one banner. Especially when some are as needy, and with such desire to rock the boat, as I fear myself to sometimes be. I always know I can turn to you with issues I have on this site, because you are forever calm and firm, yet willing to at least discuss any issue whatsoever, you seem to always make an effort to help however you can, and it usually ends up helping a lot. I guess you don't run a community this long without learning a few things.

Barnstar.png Barnstar                            
For all your tremendous and impressive efforts and contributions in community leadership, dispute resolution, discussions, great article content, dirty infrastructure work, telling us BD is way too busy (:P), and much more. Not to mention putting up with myself, this needy moderator, having all decisions and policies under the Sun questioned, and handling it all wonderfully. I award you this Barnstar - You are well in excess of deserving of it. --SgtLion (talk) 02:28, 19 October 2017 (MDT)

Frankly, the very idea that you and I had the same number of barnstars is abhorrent. If your work was even slightly as recognised as it should be, you'd be rocking 50 barnstars by now, minimum. Good to see you being more recognised, recently. Thank you. <3 --SgtLion (talk) 02:28, 19 October 2017 (MDT)

D&D Wiki plays...Diplomacy?[edit]

You're invited!Geodude671 (talk | contribs | email)‎ . . 18:43, 19 October 2017 (MDT)

Thanks for the invite. I don't know that game at all, but I'll look into it. --Green Dragon (talk) 23:07, 19 October 2017 (MDT)

Homebrew Key Wielder (Original writer removed his link)[edit]

On the Keyblade homebrew, it says anyone with a higher charisma can take it, but shouldn't they have to be a Wielder themselves? & there should be a roll to recover it as well. Sora got his back from Riku when the key was in his gras & he was supposed to be the heir of it

Personal tools
Home of user-generated,
homebrew, pages!
system reference documents
admin area
Terms and Conditions for Non-Human Visitors