User talk:Jazzman831/Archive 2

From D&D Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

D20 Modern[edit]

Saw your question. When it comes to D20 Modern, I've always found User:Crysis2 to be pretty knowledgeable about it. he has been a user for years, and seems to come and go at random. He may have the email enabled so try hitting him up on his talk page.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   21:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, though it looks like he has the same limitations that I have in editing locked pages. I was hoping I could find an admin as a go-to when I find things in the MSRD that need fixed. JazzMan 17:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Hard Worker[edit]

Saw all the edits you have been doing to the Modern section. Nice work. I've seen anybody tackle such a difficult project. If I had cookies I would give them to you. You rock! --Jay Freedman 02:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Ha ha, thanks! That side of the wiki looks all sad and alone, so I figured I could be it's friend. Though I can't say I'm surprised; even WoTC hardly supports d20M anymore. JazzMan 02:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Hey, I love d20 Modern just fine, but not enough people seem to be interested in playing it. Damn shame too, it's a buttload easier to come up with a character name, among other things. I'll even see about maybe adding some things in if I get the time. -- Danzig 04:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Ha ha ha true! I got into roleplaying through D&D, and I still love it, but for some reason ever since I discovered Modern I'm more interested in it. Part of it is because when I play online, there's a glut of D&D games around, and a lot of them are poorly written and DMed by 13 year olds, so it's harder to get excited about it. Since Modern is a smaller community, the games seem to just better overall. But while I might eventually play another live D&D game, I doubt I'll ever play a live d20M game without specifically seeking one out. (I've never actually played live; all the games I've played in or GMed have been on online boards).
Hrm, I just remembered that I created a class for a game I'm running; maybe I'll add that. I *do* actually have something original to contribute! JazzMan 05:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Valued Opinion[edit]

Jazzman your edits just keep coming. Good job. If your not careful someone is gonna give you a medal. haha. Question for ya: Would you mind rating one of my classes for me? Biotic Vanguard (3.5e Class). My article won't get many page-views or feedback without at least one rating.

I've seen many of your contributions and believe you could give a decent estimate about it. If you have any questions just let me know. I'd be happy to talk with you about it. I owe you one. Thanks. --Jay Freedman 22:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure thing. Hopefully I'll be able to get to it tomorrow (brain's too tired to do any real thinking tonight). JazzMan 04:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate the effort. You rock! --Jay Freedman 07:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Spam on Main Talk[edit]

That has got to be a bot or something. I'm afraid if this keeps up, IP's will have a tough time editing in the future. (Which is just fine with me of course...) --Jay Freedman 01:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

It's definitely a bot. I actually prefer it when IPs can edit, because it's something that sticks out on the recent changes. When that IP gets a user name it's harder to find the, uh, less than quality edits :)
Unfortunately, I think I'm partially to blame for the bot infestation. I pointed out to GD that the captcha was catching me whenever I put stub tags, but the options are pretty much all or nothing. If it stays bad (and I've been on enough wikis to know that it will), he said he will change it back. But having to fill out the captcha is probably slightly less annoying than reverting spam all day long. JazzMan 16:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, as long as your happy reverting spam? Whatever. Personally, I hate the stupid robots. But, thats just me. Haha. I mean, what is so hard about getting a username and actually building up some street-cred? To much anonymous stuff with doing it any other way. Dirty robots, grrr... --Jay Freedman 08:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh I can't stand reverting IP spam. It's sooo much easier (not to mention cheaper) for a spammer to make a robot to do his dirty work. He'd never create an account first, because then he'd actually have to learn about all the wiki's he's vandalizing. And adding links like only works if you put it on millions of websites.... JazzMan 15:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
The ReCaptcha may be implemented again, it just depends on the possibilities which MW can now do relating to edits grouped by usergroup and edit types. For example, to the best of my knowledge, it does not allow usergroup: IP to just have ReCaptchas. It clumps Users and IP's together for some reason. Used to not though. --Green Dragon 00:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Anti-Vandal Barnstar.png 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. --Green Dragon 00:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the barnstar!
Which version of ReCaptcha are we using? I don't know a lot about MW extensions, but this makes it look like you can force captchas on IP's (and it does it by default), which is all we need. The latest version they have is 1.7, which looks to be several years old now. I dunno, reverting vandalism isn't too bad; it's getting my edit count up :) I doubt that it will drop off, since it's coming from bots, but it probably won't increase, either, so I'm not too bothered about it right now. JazzMan 04:14, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
If it can get worse, it will. And it will get worse. This is the internet. Nothing is sacred here. Congrats on your Barnstar! You deserve it. Lets get recaptcha working again for those pesky IP's. --Jay Freedman 06:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Good work keeping D&D Wiki clean of those pesky spam pages! They're such a pain. Keep it up! Silverkin 14:15, 30 March 2011 (MDT)
Thanks! I do try my best :) JazzMan 15:47, 30 March 2011 (MDT)

To Avoid Getting Into a Twink Debate on Critical Potential[edit]

Actually, what was proposed was to stack some levels in dervish to get some further utility out of using a weapon with an 18-20 crit range (In this case scimitars), and for an all-evil campaign, that'd be an interesting character (Although, no pun intended, you're playing devil's advocate). Note that I actually added something to the discussion by bringing up the hindrances caused by the prestige class instead of solely posting just to give him flak. There's a lot of really cool stuff in Vile Darkness, but it has a very limited scope of use in most DnD campaigns because of the evil pre-reqs. Name Violation and I were actually having a pretty interesting discussion until you and decided to rally behind a banner for a fight no one was actually participating in, and for that I'm sorry. I'll have to remember some of you here aren't as thick-skinned as me mates back in my own DnD group. --Regulus 22:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

If you can't be bothered to respond without veiled insults, I see no reason to bother continuing the discussion. JazzMan 22:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
My point is that blew his top and responded to a discussion about maxing a character's potential and made it into a diatribe against people he felt were persecuting him. I really am sorry, but understand that I get snide about such things as a sort of harmless teasing. Was "damn twink" really that offensive to you? --Regulus 22:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I didn't read all the IP's comments, actually, but yeah he was way out of line, though he actually had a good point. (Secret: I automatically assume that anyone who posts as an IP is a 13 year old who's off his meds and is too lazy to figure out how the site works. It tends to work out correctly most of the time.)
The phrase "damn twink" itself didn't bother me, what bothered me was your objection to optimizing in what is ultimately an optimization thread, and then repeating your objection, despite two separate people telling you it was unnecessary and unwarranted. Honestly, though, I probably wouldn't have responded a second time had you not criticized the IP for using "big words". It bugs me to death that using proper English, especially on the internet, is seen as a valid excuse to bring someone down. It'd be one thing if anyone on that page were using arcane language that was only extant in order to impress, but everything the IP said should be understandable to anyone with a high school reading comprehension level. JazzMan 23:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I criticized IP for assuming 1) I was a troll, and 2) That, as a troll, I wouldn't have the capacity to use nor understand polysyllabic words. I enjoy conversing with people who have a cultured vocabulary, but it's just pretentious when they call attention to it since, like I said, having an expansive vocabulary hasn't been impressive since the publication of the first thesaurus. I could look through the online thesaurus right now and easily double the length of this post by simply swapping out simpler words with their more prestigious synonyms. I agree he did have a somewhat valid point, since I am a little prejudiced towards potential twinks (We have one in our group, but he's gotten much better about it), but I do enjoy figuring out how to maximize a character's potential, so long as it's clever and in the spirit of playing the game vs. playing the system.

I'm glad we were able to work this out because your discussion page would imply that you're a really reasonable guy, and I realize I often come off as abrasive to people who don't know me that well.--Regulus 18:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


I guess I never directly asked you if you would like to be an admin. Would you like to be nominated for adminship? --Green Dragon 23:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for nominating me! JazzMan 01:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Welcome to Adminship. You are now part of "The Face" of D&D Wiki. Honestly, as you will notice, not much has been changed now that you are an admin. If anything, I would say more burden is placed on you. I recommend you take a look at Special:ListGroupRights if you have not already. Some of the the new features' uses pertaining to D&D Wiki follow. You can now delete pages, protect pages, rollback edits, block users and IP's, edit every page, patrol edits, and do a couple more minor things.
  • Deleting pages is normally done through Category:Candidates for Deletion. Anything with a good reason to be deleted on that page should be deleted. The other time pages should be deleted is when someone makes a certain page and after a few edits they either blank the page or replace it with something like "Please delete this". If this page consisted of close to just the preload, just delete it.
  • Protecting pages has quite a few different times when it should be used. Pages should be protected according to the author's wishes (with Template:Locked Page added to the top of the page in question), in case of conflict (with Template:Temp Locked Page added to the top of the page in question), in case of OGC published materials (with Template:OGL Top added to the top of the page in question and Template:OGL Bottom added to the bottom), or finally if the page is a vital part of D&D Wiki's organization. If it deals with D&D Wiki's organization it either needs to be be protected from IP edits or all non-sysop edits. As a rule of thumb pages up to two tiers deep (up for discussion/rethinking) from the Main Page are normally locked to anyone but sysops and all the others are just protected from IP edits. For Example 3.5e Homebrew is protected from all non-sysop edits whereas a deeper in page like LA 0 Races is only protected from IP edits. No template needs to be added to pages if they are part of D&D Wiki's organization (even though some do exist like Template:Admin Locked Page)
  • Blocking a user or IP should only be used after an IP or user vandalizes a certain page. To block someone just click "block" (found either on RC or the diff in question) and fill out the corresponding form. For a typical vandalism attack I normally block the user for two weeks. Certain things demand a longer block and others a shorter. No standards have been set for block lengths, use your best judgment.
  • Editing every page on D&D Wiki mostly means you can now edit the SRD and the MSRD. Feel free to edit them if you find inaccuracies. If interested further please look at the SRD ToDO List or the MSRD tasks. Of course that is only the base. There is never enough help to get everything done, so I am sure your help would be appreciated.
  • Patrolling edits should, in a nutshell, be used when you have looked over an edit and fixed everything that needs to be fixed (this includes reviewing the content with templates, answering questions, sending MoI's, etc).
I know this is really long-winded, so I'll keep the rest short. You have more burden on yourself now that you are an admin because users will be looking at you for editing help, knowledge of the standards, etc. It's a bit more work, but I really hope you enjoy being an admin and I hope you decide to stay around on D&D Wiki for a while more to come. Welcome to Adminship, again you're now part of "The Face" of D&D Wiki. --Green Dragon 21:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Awesome! I'll do you proud. JazzMan 00:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
D&D Wiki proud, but ya welcome once again. --Green Dragon 02:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Oh yeah, I meant the royal "you". Or something. JazzMan 03:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
As a side note please remember to check WhatLinksHere when deleting something. E.g. [1], and when deleting something campaign setting related make sure to deal with and delete the related categories. E.g. Category:Age of War Setting and [:Category:Age of War Setting Player's Guide Setting]] (to strike out when deleted). --Green Dragon 03:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm working my way through them. I didn't think I'd need to worry about user pages, but I can change those. Two of the pages might still be usable outside of the campaign setting, so I'm figuring out now what to do with them. Other than that I think I removed all of the WhatLinksHere's, though I did get a little discombobulated towards the end there with 50 million tabs open. JazzMan 03:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Those categories are on my to-do list as well. That campaign setting is HUMONGOUS (though almost entirely empty). JazzMan 04:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

congrads on your accomplishment. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ethral (talkcontribs) . Please sign your posts!

Thanks! JazzMan 16:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Campaign setting rating[edit]


I just noticed that recently you rated my campaign setting a 2. I can't argue with that rating, its accurate for how far along my setting is. However, it would be nice if you could hold off on rating untill more of my setting is complete, that way it isn't poorly rated because I am working very hard on finnishing it, and if you look through the pages I'm sure you can be apreciative of whats to come. :) Thanks!--Vrail 21:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

It's no biggie, I just wanted to clear out the "unrated campaign settings" category, so I rated everything. As you fill out the setting feel free to bump up it's rating. JazzMan 21:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. I can understand why you rated. Also, you've been doing a fair bit of work recently cleaning up the wiki, deleting pages, rating setting etc. Anything I could do to help? I've always wanted to clean up a bit around the wiki. :D--Vrail 21:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, right now I'm going through the candidates for deletion, which can only be done by admins. The rest of the stuff I'm kind of doing randomly as I see it. If you ever find yourself in need of something to do, what I've been doing is going to Meta Pages, finding a category that needs work and getting to it. Category:Wording Issues, Category:Needs Balance, Category:Formatting Issues and Category:Stub are piling on entries much quicker than they are losing them.
Or if you want a REALLY fun project, you can go through Special:DoubleRedirects, make sure the WhatLinksHere pages are clear, then add delete tags to all of them. I'm kind of dreading getting to that myself :) JazzMan 22:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Some reasoning's for clearing out the unrated can be seen here.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   22:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Oh wow, that's really helpful. I haven't seen that before, maybe it should be linked on the CS Rating template. JazzMan 23:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Awesome, thanks for the list. I'm working a lot on finnishing my campaign setting (Orion, you can check out and comment on some of the finnished pages if ya want ;)) but in my free time, that sounds great. :)--Vrail 00:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

firearms and non lethal damage[edit]

since i noticed you like modern (judging from all the edits) i thought you may be the person to ask. How do you justify a -4 to hit with a firearm to do non lethal damage? if you hit them with a bullet, you hit them with a bullet. it doesn't make alot of sense to me. Describing it as "you graze them" doesnt really cut it IMHO. whats your take on it? --Name Violation 03:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, in d20 Modern you can't deal nonlethal damage with a ranged weapon unless you are using it as an improvised melee weapon (i.e. hitting someone in the face with your gun). See here. It's a good thing, too, because I'm not sure I could justify non-lethal munitions damage, especially with the way nonlethal damage is handled in Modern. JazzMan 03:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
thank you. i never knew modern made the distinction for no nonlethal for ranged (short of rubber bullets). now i know, and knowing is half the battle. --Name Violation 04:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
No problem :) It's one of those things that's in the back of my head somewhere, I had to look it up to be sure. JazzMan 04:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletion Jay[edit]

Anything marked "delete", Needs to be deleted. They are a stain upon my honor. However, you are actually not allowed to delete a page only upon authors request. That is true. In that case, just get rid of the author box and slap a "needs balance" tag on it. But seriously, thou's articles are s***. Thanks Jazz. --Jay Freedman 03:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Meh, they don't seem that bad to me, but if that's what you want. I'll go through them and see what needs to be done. Honestly, after looking through so many articles (other than yours), I think we need to implement some sort of "it's not great so it's gone" policy. JazzMan 04:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Double redirects[edit]

Ok, I changed the first redirect so it links directly to the third, however the second redirect has no 'what links here' option. The second redirect page is 800 CE--Vrail 20:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

What you are looking for is the "toolbox" on the left-hand side of the page. It's the first link in that box. In this case, the what links here page (here) has a TON of links on it. If it has that many, don't worry about changing all of them.
Oh, and I remembered one more thing. Before you change the first redirect, check out the what links there. If no pages link to that page either, then add the delete tag with the "unneeded redirect" as the reason. JazzMan 20:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
However if not all of them are changed, some links will go red when they shouldn't. Is there something I can do in this case? Because it doesn't feel right just letting a whole bunch of links go...--Vrail 20:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, don't put a delete tag if any pages link to that page. If any links are left, then don't worry about deleting it. Usually when I go through the deletion category my process is this: 1) decide if the page should get deleted, 2) check "what links here", changing all links that point to that page, then 3) delete the page. If you go through and do steps 1 and 2, then I can do 3 a lot faster.
Basically, the first priority is getting rid of the double redirects, because those pages are broken. If you click on page 1, it won't redirect twice and land you on page 3, it will land on page 2 and get "stuck". Second priority is getting rid of redirects that don't have anything pointing to them. For instance, on that page where you accidentally typed 3.5we instead of 3.5e, when I moved it back it created a redirect, but it's unnecessary, since nobody will ever need to click on a link that says 3.5we. Third priority is avoiding redirects entirely; it's cleaner that way, but not really necessary. JazzMan 20:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Alright, I think I understand this completely now... and it's starting to feel kinda hopeless. :P Anyways, I'll do a few a day and see if I can finish by 2011. :)--Vrail 20:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Ha ha ha, yeah. When I get into one of my moods I'll help you out. The good thing is, once it's done, it'll be really easy to stay on top of. I think the fact that there's so much to be done is what's gotten it to where it is in the first place. JazzMan 20:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


Hey, I didn't want to bother GD with this cause I've been bugging him a lot lately and you seem to know what your doing here on the wiki. Whenever I go to Category:Orion page it auto takes me to an edit preview page with the category text on it except nothing in the edit box. Is it doing this for you, and do you know what in the world is going on here? Oh, and its saying that the page doesn't exist, hence the red link.--Vrail 20:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Nvm, I figured it out, sorry for bothering you! Oh, and you can delete this message if you want to. :)--Vrail 20:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Heh, glad to be of help :p
Yeah, categories are strange beasts. They "work" (display content) even if they don't exist yet. But I guess you just figured that out. They also can't be moved, which buggers things up as well. JazzMan 00:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Klas Wullt[edit]

I would like to talk about my classes!


Sorry about the delay, but I have requested to be added to your buddylist. JazzMan 20:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


Hey, since the sandbox auto cleaning no longer works, if I'm ever on and the sandbox hasn't been cleaned in the last three hours and their is something on it, should I go through it and emtpy it? Seing as thats how often it was supposed to be cleaned by the bot.--Vrail 21:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I've been doing, yeah. I don't know if it's really important to have an empty sandbox, but it gives me something to do. JazzMan 21:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Understanding D20 Modern[edit]

You seem to be very into d20m stuff, so I thought I would pop buy and ask you my question. Normal D&D uses a specific rule set, however D&D adventures may include anything from bone clubs to machine guns. Does this work the same way for d20m to? So could something designed using the d20m rule set, however still set in medieval times be proper for d20m? I didn't think it would generally, however seeing as normal 3.5e works both ways, why not modern? --Vrail 04:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, yes. But unlike D&D, where you have to invent rules for modern times or else find a third party sourcebook, WotC has published both d20 Past and d20 Future (and d20 Apocalypse, if you think the future will end disastrously), so most of the gruntwork has been done for you. IIRC, though, d20 Past has some information about early history, but is only fully fleshed out from ~1500's and beyond. There's no reason you couldn't use the system to go earlier than that, but you'd definitely be grabbing a lot of stuff from D&D at that point. JazzMan 14:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Ok cool, thanks for the nice response. I'm not to familiar with d20 anyways, but it's nice to know if I ever get into it. :) --Vrail 17:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
No problem. I love the system and there aren't nearly enough players. I'll take any chance to convert I can get! JazzMan 19:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

modern question[edit]

Do you happen to know the name of the alien computer people playable race from the d20 future book? they got implants and stuff... i dont have my books around me and its buggun the hell outta me.--Name Violation 22:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you thinking of Aleerin? JazzMan 22:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
yes, thanks. I'm going to use them in a DnD campaign as warforged from the future--Name Violation 22:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Oooh that sounds like a fun idea. JazzMan 22:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


It's pretty clear that spam bothers you as much as it bothers me and a few others here. You, however, are an admin. I notice whenever Green Dragon reverts spam he bans the IP poster. Can you ban people as an admin, or do you need other rights? Do you think banning random IPs is even worth it? Do you have the ability to ban an IP range? Would that be more effective, without causing too much collateral damage? --Badger 21:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I can ban IPs, but I choose not to for the most part. If I see the same IP has made two spam edits I'll block them, but 95% of IP spammers change IPs after every edit, and I don't want to eventually have blocked every IP. I think I can block IP ranges, though you have to be really careful, because it's easy to block too many. I'll look into that and see if it's worth it.
What I've been doing in the mean time is any time I see a page has been spammed more than once I block IP editing on that page for a couple months. Don't know if it does anything but it's wortha shot.
What we really need to do is put the Captcha back on. The problem with that is that GD says it's all or nothing; if IP's have to fill out Captcha, then so do the rest of the users. If he can find a way to get it so that *only* anons have to use it, then that will solve all of our problems. (The captcha is something that only bureaucrats have access to, which I think at this time is only Green and Blue Dragon). JazzMan 21:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Can we make it so that you only need to add a captcha for edits containing external links? I seem to recall seeing that somewhere, either here or wikipedia or some other wiki... --Badger 22:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
That's how we set it up before. The problem is it considers things like this an external link (diffs as well, which are used much more often), even though it's only linking back to D&D wiki. I guess the question is which do you find more annoying? GD said he'd be glad to turn captchas back on if spam gets worse. JazzMan 22:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Ehh, I guess I rarely use those. I mean, sure I do, but less than once a week, probably. --Badger 22:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Cool, I'll leave a note on GD's page. (And btw, I'm definitely seeing a benefit to the tavern now...)

Tavern re-opening MoI[edit]

Since you commented on Green Dragon's talk page about re-opening the tavern, I thought I would let you know that it's been over a week and I have made this discussion to ask the community what they think. I would appreciate it if you could stop by and leave your two cents. Thanks, Badger 20:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I think we edited at the same time :) JazzMan 20:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I mentioned that you are (probably) capable of running an IRC channel, in the tavern discussion we were having on Green Dragon's talk page. I figure I should send you a quick message in case I have overstepped my bounds, and you are unwilling or unable to perform the actions I supposed you could. --Badger 00:31, 29 October 2010 (MDT)

Fixing redirects[edit]

As I was moving the DnD pages to 3.5e (using the list you gave me on my talk page) I was also fixing all of the redirects. I got to DnD Base Classes. Over 500 pages link to it. Now, most of those are probably from the breadcrumb, so I can change that, then should I bother to go through all of the remaining links and change them? I will if you say so, I'm fine with doing it. :) --Vrail 05:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd fix the breadcrumb first and see what happens from there. If there's 500 pages, then that's a perfect example of how redirects should be used. I suspect, however, that the breadcrumb is the vast majority. JazzMan 00:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I fixed the breadcrumb right after I posted here. There were still over 250, however less than 500. About how redirects should be used; I always thought that redirects were just to prevent red links until they were fixed, meaning all redirects should be removed eventually... I think that is even somewhere on the to-do list... --Vrail 01:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
If you're talking 250, it should be waaaaaay down on the list. A single redirect really doesn't cause any problems; the only redirects that have to be fixed are doubles; they don't link properly and page navigation is messed up. But then if you are feeling frisky I certainly won't stop you from fixing the links. JazzMan 01:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Lol, I think I may just be feeling frisky... tomorrow, or maybe the day after... or the day after that... :P --Vrail 03:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


I have reverted spam on the page Reybrah (4e Race) more than 6 times today, your the admin who is on the most, so please protect the page before its spammed more! --Vrail 01:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Holy cow, in the time it took me to protect the page another one spammed it! JazzMan 10:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocking an IP[edit]

The page you just protected, earlier I was reverting the spam then gave up as nobody was protecting it. However when I was doing that I notice that it was the same IP spamming the page. Now that you protected the page, the same IP is spamming ANOTHER page. Please block the IP. --Vrail 19:47, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Oops, wasn't paying enough attention. GD got it though. JazzMan 03:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Lol, thanks anyways. :) --Vrail 01:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

DnD Page Moving[edit]

Since you gave me the links I thought I would keep you updated and tell you I had finished moving all of the Pages that start with DnD. I'll be moving on to the other list now. If there was any to-do list this was on (didn't see it on the main one), it can be crossed off. :) --Vrail 01:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Woo Hoo! I don't know if there really are any current to do lists, so I'll just mentally cross that off. JazzMan 02:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

IP you blocked[edit]

The IP you just blocked... for a year. That seems a little much for one rude edit; I'm not attacking your move, I'm just wondering, why so long? --Vrail 00:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It was two edits, one of which was attempting to be somewhat sly. I didn't block him from creating an account so if, within that year, he decides to behave there's nothing stopping him from editing. I'm not sure we are really missing much having him gone. I admit I have sort of a weak spot with IP users in general, vandals, and middle-school behavior, so when a 12 year old anonymous user vandalizes I might overreact a little... JazzMan 05:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
lol, alright, thanks for clearing that up. :) --Vrail 13:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Lots of broken links[edit]

Why are there so many broken links and such across the wiki? Like the conjuration page for example. How did this happen? 04:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Recently the wiki has crashed and changed servers and all kinds of stuff, and now a lot of things aren't working correctly. It's supposed to all be being looked at though. JazzMan 14:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

My RfA[edit]

Recently I nominated myself for adminship on the wiki. I don't want to sound like I'm advertising my nomination, however it has been three days without any support or oppose comments. I am just trying to get at least a few people to take notice and comment. My nomination may be found here. Thanks. --Vrail 11:16, 18 August 2010 (MDT)

Personal tools
admin area
Terms and Conditions for Non-Human Visitors