User talk:Surgo

From D&D Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search
Archive
Archives

Protection for Tome Classes[edit]

I wondered if you want to protect the tome-classes against IP edit. Maybe it would be better?--Lord Dhazriel 15:21, 27 January 2009 (MST)

I'd be very appreciative, and I'm sure Surgo would be, too. It'd cut back on the amount of edit undoing we'd have to do. What is it about lately? There's been a bunch of IPs changing random classes and races all over the Wiki... --Genowhirl 10:15, 28 January 2009 (MST)

For Your Consideration[edit]

I've noticed the ammount of people who have been giving the things made by Frank and K bad ratings before they understood the idea behind the class, and so, have made this template to try and help you guys out:


Attention!
This page contains materials originally made by Frank & K.
As such, it has been made with the concept in mind that a character of a certain
level should be able to take on creatures with a CR equal to their level without much
trouble, and is balanced in a way as to allow for this. A standard game is balanced in a way so that
a CR is an average challenge for a full party of the same level.


Hope it helps (also, I officially hand over all rights to this template to you and Genowhirl, since I have no hand in any Frank and K material and don't really know what should or shouldn't go into this template). → Rith (talk) 21:45, 14 March 2009 (MDT)

Lol, that is awesome. Thanks dude. Surgo 22:00, 14 March 2009 (MDT)
Heh, it's no problem man, just glad I could help. :)Rith (talk) 01:59, 15 March 2009 (MDT)

Comment[edit]

Thanks for taking the time to spotlight me in the Tavern. In light of many of the recent discussions going on around the site, I'd much appreciate a more friendly personal approach. If you don't agree with something I state, that is fine, but please refrain from attacking mine, or anyone elses, intelligence. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   01:18, 15 March 2009 (MDT)

What? Where was I attacking your intelligence? I remember saying you were impervious to logic, for the reason of Talk:Incompetent (3.5e Flaw), which is not the same thing as attacking your intelligence. Surgo 01:27, 15 March 2009 (MDT)
Being impervious to logic means one is unaffected or unable to be affected by logic. This brings up the question of "if one is rude in The Tavern should it count as the same as being rude while editing?" If so it would almost be as if everyone who uses the tavern would get an instant permanent ban. Huh. Personally I say no - when Tavern Admins come around they should just use their own judgement. And before that time keep it like it is - The Tavern has no effect on the wiki. --Green Dragon 09:32, 15 March 2009 (MDT)

I don't know what people really wanted for Alchemical Potions so i just made this shinanigan for the peeps. you can make it the way you think it should be. --D.M.DemonicPanda 21:57, 3 April 2009

Comment moved to Talk:Alchemist (DnD Class)..

Apology[edit]

Hey, me again. I just wanted to apologize for calling you a power gamer, in case you didn't see the apology on the Talk:Incompetent (3.5e Flaw) page. I can get quite stubborn sometimes. Sorry!--Fathirian Hound 09:15, 20 March 2009 (MDT)

Don't worry about it, dude. Surgo 22:26, 20 March 2009 (MDT)

Barnstar[edit]

Barnstar.png Barnstar                            
Thanks for nominating the flaws with purely roleplaying benefits for deletion, and nominating the unusable quests for deletion. Thanks for helping out with a little spring cleaning. --Green Dragon 04:03, 22 March 2009 (MDT)

Adminship[edit]

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. But first, for the the new features and their uses. 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.

What it is
  • What deleting pages is, is self explanatory.
  • What protecting pages is, is also pretty self explanatory.
  • Rolling back edits is a method for removing spam. It is more powerful than the conventional method of undoing edits. Instead of showing a diff of the edit in question once clicked, it instantly rollsback all the edits by the user or IP in question on a certain page. For example if I edited my user page and you clicked "rollback" on that edit it would rollback all the edits up to the point where someone else has edited it. Be careful using this, it can be very helpful but also very harmful.
  • What blocking users and IP's is, is also self explanatory.
  • Editing every page is another self explanatory one.
  • Patrolling edits is a method for keeping RC in check, it can be seen once a diff is clicked. All it does is, once "Mark as Patrolled Edits" is clicked, it marks the edits as patrolled so the edit will no longer show up on RC when "Hide Patrolled" is marked.
When or how it should be used
  • Deleting pages is done through Category:Candidates for Deletion.
  • 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 infrastructure. If it deals with D&D Wiki's infrastructure 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 from the Main Page are normally locked to anyone but sysops and all the others are just protected from IP edits. For Example Dungeons and Dragons is protected from all non-sysop edits whereas a deeper in page like LA 0 Races is only protected from IP edits. No template has to be added to pages if thay 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.
  • 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, and please feel free to help out with SRD Talk:System Reference Document#SRD ToDo List or MSRD Talk:Modern System Reference Document#Tasks.
  • Patrolling edits should be used when you have looked over an edit and fixed everything that needs to be fixed. (this includes answering questions, sending MoI's, etc).

You have more burden on yourself now that you are an admin because users will be looking at you for editing help, knowledge of D&D, editing guidelines, the standards, etc etc. It's a bit more work, but I really hope you enjoy being an admin. --Green Dragon 13:12, 5 April 2009 (MDT)

Re: Thank You[edit]

Why you're very welcome, I think I'll enjoy it when the job's done, yes...

AdminBadge[edit]

I'd like to label you as an admin with the [[Template:AdminBadge]] on your user page. If you have a reason you don't think you should have the badge or you don't think the badge is a good idea, please discuss it on the badge's discussion. -Valentine the Rogue 16:08, 11 April 2009 (MDT)

I'm not going to put it on my page, because I don't want people to treat me differently because I'm an admin. Surgo 17:10, 15 April 2009 (MDT)

Adminship[edit]

Due to my recent illness and moving I've been on very sporadically and as such was not able to comment on your RfA. However, if I had been able to I would of thrown down a support. You've done some great things and I especially enjoy the future of your bots.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   10:29, 12 April 2009 (MDT)

Thanks! Surgo 17:10, 15 April 2009 (MDT)

Bot[edit]

User:Dmilewski/Wikibot

From a proper programmer's point of view, the script needs work. From a workhorse point of view, the thing it damned reliable. I usually change the purpose to PRINT to check my work, then run the script as WRITE to save the changes. --Dmilewski 04:23, 23 April 2009 (MDT)

Deletion[edit]

On May 12, you deleted two of my classes (Battle Mage and Ulfsark), with the reason for deletion being "Not enough information to be played. However, both classes were as complete or more complete than any of the SRD classes.Zyxw59 15:12, 6 July 2009 (MDT)

Don't take my word for it, here they are, temporarily restored: Ulfsark (DnD Class) and Battle Mage (DnD Class). Carry on. --Ganteka 15:27, 6 July 2009 (MDT)
Battle Mage: the mechanics of the blast are never outlined. Ulfsark: There's not enough information to actually use homeland defense (I'm not sure when it should actually be applied -- something I can't say for any of the SRD classes, which I know exactly how they work). Both classes still have the problem that they're way too weak, though. Surgo 22:08, 6 July 2009 (MDT)
Thanks for the explanation, I will add a description to them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zyxw59 (talkcontribs) 09:55, 9 July 2009 (MDT). Please sign your posts!
It is still not workable. A ranged touch attack, by itself, doesn't tell you its range, among other things. What you NEED to do is go through the pages, pretend you know NOTHING about the classes and you didn't make them, and see if there are enough rules written there to actually use them. Homeland defense is still retarded, because at any given point in time a member of my clan somewhere in the world might be attacked and how on earth does that work? Seriously, these are nowhere near SRD level. Surgo 14:09, 9 July 2009 (MDT)
We have standards on D&D Wiki. These do not meet them in terms of being usable or not. As such they got deleted. If you can fix them in time the deletion is up they will not be deleted. If not they will be deleted. --Green Dragon 17:51, 9 July 2009 (MDT)

Barnstar the Second[edit]

Barnstar.png Barnstar                            
Thanks for making a bot to update all of the breadcrumbs for spells. That saves a lot of manual adjustment (and potential errors caused by manual edits). --Aarnott 22:30, 3 August 2009 (MDT)

Factual Statements[edit]

Recently in our discussions on the possibility of having templates on SGT material, you routinely stated that you believe things should state facts. I agree. Completely. I believe your current user page misrepresents the amount of users who left, and should be altered to be more factually correct (i.e. "left with some" instead of the incorrect "most").   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   14:59, 3 September 2009 (MDT)

Perhaps if you feel it is infactual, you should tell me actual percentages of users that have left so it can have the utmost accuracy. After all, looking at your current and former "active users" list, I believe that what I said is entirely factual. So I think you are wrong. Surgo 17:24, 3 September 2009 (MDT)
Seriously Hooper? I thought you were a bit more mature than that. --208.90.100.111 18:00, 3 September 2009 (MDT)
I'm being mature, and requesting a not-factually correct statement to be amended by an individual who has proven to value factual statements. You want the statistics? Fair enough. Users who can arguably be said to be officially gone from this wiki to your wiki and who aren't still active on both are (and please let me know if I miss anyone): You, TK, Aarnot, Danial Draco, Eiji, Sam Kay, Sabre, Rith, Summerscythe, and Val. Combined, their edit contributions equal 23,315 edits. Even if we assume one page count equals one page, that isn't even half of our pages on the wiki (and that is giving these edits ALOT more credit). Since the timeframe of the split, yours has about roughly 30 active users. Since the only stat I can provide is the last 500 edits on this wiki, and if we do not count any of the people from your wiki (since their edits were probably related to the split) we have 21 active users - that is less than two days. If I had a method to show stats - we can follow the same obvious trend and up this number amazingly so. We've also had 128 new users since August 10th - roughly the time of the split give a day or two, of which 56 have been active - and even trimming that to "more active than user page activity" still leaves 27. Did you take some active users? Yes. Some valuable users? Yes. Most? No. Half? No. Once again, I appreciated and agreed with your comments during the SGT template discussions for factual accuracy, and I hold you to those standards.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   19:54, 3 September 2009 (MDT)
Key word is active, not some one-and-done IP addresses. I don't necessarily agree with Surgo's assertion, but I really don't see why Surgo's user page is an issue given anyone can look at the recent activity and judge for themselves. -- Jota 19:58, 3 September 2009 (MDT)
I did miss one person I believe. Lord Dhazriel. Even with his edits you still only have 27,889. Out of 391,805. True that there is no possibly way to get verifiable stats for say, the last 6 month percentage, but it still isn't close to half. If you want to say "most of the tavern regulars" then you may have some factual truth behind that.
@Jota, that isn't counting IP addresses at all, actually. It is an issue because he is a strong proponent (and rightfully so) of factual correctness.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   20:00, 3 September 2009 (MDT)
You've missed about 10 people in that list. Once again, just compare the former "active users" list to the current one. And never mind the total ridiculous nature of edit count, which means absolutely nothing. And add to that what Jota just said below me...active users, not one-and-done signups. No, I'm thinking my user page is perfectly factual here. Sorry if you're somehow getting some proxy butthurt for Green Dragon over the split or something. Surgo 20:03, 3 September 2009 (MDT)
It not about edits, I mean if you count one-time IP and bots as active users then yes, only a small part of the active userbase left. But they do not, at least to my knowledge, only a few dozen of users actively contributed to this wiki at all time. These were (or are) active users, most IP or registered users only make 1 or 2 edits before leaving the wiki forever. --Dhazriel 20:04, 3 September 2009 (MDT)
The above counts do not count IPs, except for of course the 391,805 total edits ever to the wiki - no way for me to remove them from the stats page info. My user list has never been even near full, and is not a reflection of the wiki has a whole. I have provided stats to prove my point, and you refuse to acknowledge that. I'll consider the discussion closed then. The reason it was important is because your user page shows up on this wiki, and it is stating factual incorrectness as to the recruitment from here to your wiki, which looks bad on this wiki. Good luck with yours, but you shouldn't misrepresent things associated with this one.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   20:10, 3 September 2009 (MDT)
Perhaps you should learn the meaning of your statistics before you post them. All of those edits could be made by people who have since left years ago. Then a few people remain, and are active with a few hundred edits a piece. Then 3/4ths of them leave. Guess what? The majority of active users still left, even if the people responsible for the majority of edits have not technically left with them. If you're going to throw statistics around, you should at least demonstrate some basic understanding of them. Surgo 20:12, 3 September 2009 (MDT)
Actually, I do understand them, and I provided the only verifiable stats I could - the last 500 counts for just a couple days - which nearly equal your site's number of active users since its inception. I 'm not going to throw out a number that I can't verify - but using that formula and expanding it to the same time since your site started - we could easilly verify the last month's active users being more. You must have overlooked that above.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   20:15, 3 September 2009 (MDT)
I overlooked nothing, but I thought it was so obvious that it didn't even need saying: how many of those edits are the nonsensical noise between you and Ghostwheel? And how many edits on my site are more than noise? See, reasons like this are why trying to compare penis size, err, edit count, is complete nonsense. Surgo 20:20, 3 September 2009 (MDT)
Hooper, just... just stop it, eh? As long as it's not offensive, Surgo can (I think?) have just about anything he wants on his user page. He could state the sky was purple. It's not factually true, but he can say whatever he wants. People who want to see for themselves will do a little research. People who don't care won't. But in the end, right now it just looks like you're being stubborn and obstinate for no real reason. --Ghostwheel 20:19, 3 September 2009 (MDT)
I was just holding Surgo to the high standard of being factually correct that he asked of me not long ago, and I am being denied that requests. That is all. I'm not demanding it be changed, just asking it be corrected. He has chosen not to, and I'll leave it at that.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   20:21, 3 September 2009 (MDT)
If your standard is statistics that don't mean anything, sure. Unfortunately, I'm still being factually correct and you're throwing some half-baked ideas at me that don't say what you're claiming they say. Surgo 20:23, 3 September 2009 (MDT)
No, you are trying to say I'm claiming they say something they don't. All I did was provide you the only stats even close to relevant to the discussion that are available, and the overwhelming landslide that all those stats show demand a rational mind to acknowledge that they show the proper trend. However, there is no point in pursuing the subject.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   20:26, 3 September 2009 (MDT)
Did you just miss that whole part where I debunked these statistics above? Okay, whatever you say man. Surgo 20:28, 3 September 2009 (MDT)
You didn't debunked them, only stated something I've already acknowledged: they aren't perfect. However, can you provide any statistics to even half way back up your claim?   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   20:31, 3 September 2009 (MDT)
Statistics need to mean something in order to lend any weight! I'm not sure how many times I'm going to have to make this point. But I'm sure you're just going to ignore it and somehow claim these 20 or so edits on this page and all the deletions I recently performed are somehow indicative that I count as an active user of this wiki, or something. Surgo 20:32, 3 September 2009 (MDT)
Seriously Hooper, your statistics indicate absolutely nothing, and I'm not sure that there is a way to get statistics that will accurately indicate who is correct. The fact that you have provided any numbers does not place you in the position to ask or demand anything or Surgo when your numbers don't mean anything. -- Jota 20:34, 3 September 2009 (MDT)
I've already agreed that there is no way to accurately show it, but these stats (especially the last 500 here vs. all there) show a trend. By the way Jota, I'd like to take your quote here: The fact that you have provided any numbers does not place you in the position to ask or demand anything or Surgo when your numbers don't mean anything." and apply that to you and Ghost on the build page. Surgo, you can't provide any stats, and I can provide stats that show an overwhelming trend. That is all. Unless you're willing to attempt to or acknowledge that, which you won't, we can end this.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   20:35, 3 September 2009 (MDT)
In the year of 2008, 55,170 1994 Honda Accords were stolen in the United States. There we go -- a statistic that is exactly as relevent as what you have been posting here. Surgo 20:38, 3 September 2009 (MDT)

→Reverted indentation to one colon

No, Hooper, your numbers mean less than nothing, and I gave numbers in the other thread, relevant numbers. You're doing the same thing here you did there: refusing to acknowledge information that proves contrary to your personal opinion because its suits you. -- Jota 20:40, 3 September 2009 (MDT)
@Hooper. Wait a minute. Your telling Surgo to change a few stupid words on his user page? Are you a flippin' freakin' blanky' blank. (I don't like cursing) I want to ban you sooooo bad for picking this fight bro. I love ya man. But I ain't cool with this. I ain't cool with this. --Jay Freedman 20:40, 3 September 2009 (MDT)
No, Jay. It is his user page and if he wants to leave it like it is, that is fine. I just know from past experience he likes people to be factually correct and was hoping that he would be the same way. If not, then that is fine, I brought up the point and thats done.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   20:42, 3 September 2009 (MDT)
And I am factually correct, of course. Surgo 20:46, 3 September 2009 (MDT)
The easiest way to shut me up would be to prove that statement.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   20:49, 3 September 2009 (MDT)
I already gave the evidence for it...multiple times. Compare the number of active users before with the number of active users now. Surgo 20:50, 3 September 2009 (MDT)
My user navigation page is not even close to accurate, so your statement above would be using even more irrelevant stats than mine. Using the only verifiable means - the user creation log since august 10th and all users over there, that gives you about 30 users who have atleast one edit and us the 56 (active - over 100 but the rest haven't done anything), of which 27 have done more than one edit or user page only edits. Now, add in users who have been active since the month or two before that in our creation log - well, you have your stats. And that is only counting the new users, not the oldies who are still here. Look it up. I'm done here.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   20:54, 3 September 2009 (MDT)
This is like the fifth time you've said "I'm done here" and continued to post. Shut up and leave already. And next time you want to come around, bring some stats that matter. Like number of articles per user. Or number of finished articles per user. Surgo 20:57, 3 September 2009 (MDT)
One cannot just steal a MediaWiki install (it's close to impossible). Do you know how many sites have tried that with Wikipedia - all have failed (to my knowledge). That is close to impossible (at least with my install (hopefully)). E.g. old Answers.com ("pulled" from Wikipedia, etc). --Green Dragon 23:13, 6 September 2009 (MDT)
???? --TK-Squared 08:39, 7 September 2009 (MDT)
If one reads the above discussion what I am saying is relevant. I am referring to the measure of how close to impossible it is to port/steal a MW install. --Green Dragon 00:22, 8 September 2009 (MDT)

Other Tomes[edit]

I was wondering if you might upload the Tomes that "Frank & K" made. They are: Book Of Gears, Book of Elements. You can find them on this page. [[1]] Also great work with Genowhirl for uploading:Tome of Necromancy, Tome Of Fiends, Dungeonomicon. --Milo High-Hill 23:55, 4 November 2010 (MDT)

Yeah, Surgo has left, and I sincerely doubt he's coming back. That said, I don't think he, or anyone else, has the intent to upload these other tomes. Feel free to do it yourself. --Badger 02:24, 5 November 2010 (MDT)
Personal tools
d20M
miscellaneous
admin area
Terms and Conditions for Non-Human Visitors