User talk:Cedric

From D&D Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome to D&D Wiki![edit]


Hello Cedric, and welcome to D&D Wiki! I hope you are enjoying D&D Wiki and have been finding the information here useful. Before you start contributing, we recommend you make sure your user preferences match your preferences.


If you have any questions about a specific page please ask it on that page's talk page. If you have a D&D-related question, you can ask it on DnD Discussions. Everything relating to D&D Wiki's administration can be asked here. If you need to contact another user, please use their talk page.


Syntax can be very difficult, and if you need help a good place to start is Help:Editing on Wikipedia (or even their Introduction page). This will explain basic wiki formatting and should provide quite a few useful links that explain more specific areas of wiki formatting. Help:Portal also provides detailed explanation of information important specifically to this community.


A strong and welcoming community exists on D&D Wiki, and I'm sure you will find us friendly. To enable the community to function, a number of policies are in effect. Most importantly, we follow and expect you to follow Wikipedia's guidelines on civility and etiquette when discussing anything. As most work has multiple authors, please do not delete content without following our removal process. When posting a comment on a talk page, please ensure you sign your name with four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the signature icon (Signature icon.png). This will automatically produce your name and the date. I hope you come to enjoy D&D Wiki and the community. Welcome again, you are now a D&D Wikian. --GamerAim (talk) 20:14, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I do hope someday such a community will exist. I aim to make such a community and I hope you will help me. Cedric (talk) 15:18, 13 December 2023 (MST)

Rebuilding D&D Wiki[edit]

Note: I'm going to have to review prior comments to see where this wiki went wrong and revisit some of the text in these notes, so comments from the distant past and the present will be interspersed. It is a type of chronomancy. Bear with it if you want to help understand, for the problem of the wiki are the problems of the world-at-large, too. New comments will be signed, but the wiki format is pretty crude and there won't be any way to avoid confusion without a lot more work.

Hi, I couldn't help but notice that you seem to be rebuilding D&D Wiki, but we'd really appreciate it if you read up on our editing help pages first, and then take a look at the relevant homebrew pages for your edition for some ideas on how to create, format and categorize pages. For instance, you seem to have made a typo putting all your pages in Category:6 Homebrew instead of Category:User, as well as not using edition identifiers in the page name or categories despite your content seemingly referencing mechanics. You also seem to be making a lot of stubs, so maybe you could try finishing one article at a time to ensure they're of the best quality? :) Some of your pages (Races, Magic, Gods) look like maybe they're for a campaign setting, so perhaps I can help you set up a campaign setting and format those pages? Your Dice page could maybe even be cleaned up and reused on a help page :D

Allow me to try again. I'm not rebuilding the wiki, although the future of D&D may be to rebuild it, now that D&D One has been put on the table. "One ring ... to find them all and, in the darkness, unite them.". 16:01, 12 November 2022 (MST)

If you need any help after reading over the help pages, just ask for help and I (or another user) will try to help.--GamerAim (talk) 20:26, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm quite familiar with how wiki works. They work regardless of the content of the pages through radical collaboration, mitigated by history files and user names. This allows people to be bold in creating pages and even editing other user's pages. If the original creator of the page doesn't like the edit, they can get notified (by the "watch page" feature) or revert edits easily through the "undo" function. If this starts an edit war, then editing can be halted on the page and debate can resume on the discussion tab. 16:01, 12 November 2022 (MST)
Sorry for my prior response. I must have been in wikignome mode, whereby spontaneity is used more than being reserved. I reject some of the temerity of some of the following responses written earlier.... Cedric (talk) 16:04, 24 May 2020 (MDT)
Au contraire, mon frere (or soeur). The races page clarifies and perfects the very notion of race in D&D as well as makes it more tuned to actual users. See the typecast page to better understand. Keep in mind that races have been handled very ambiguously in the various versions of D&D. This page aims to turn nickle into gold. Same fo the other pages, though they be very rough-hewn for lack of collaborators.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cedric (talkcontribs) . Please sign your posts!

Edit: I forgot to mention that you can create a user subpage for articles you aren't ready to post into the wild, so you can still write your incomplete pages on the wiki and people know to leave it alone while you work on it :)--GamerAim (talk) 20:34, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Unless it's a completely off-the-wall article that I don't think anyone would find interesting, all articles are ready to be in the wild. But if the wild is full of predators who will kill you whenever you attempt to raise your head (above the "grass" as it were) in an attempt to function, then all that will be left is the large game predators. No wee animals will be left.
The purpose of wiki is an informal environment so that collaboration actually occurs. It is not to put the best foot forward from the beginning, it is to contribute [edit: together] until the best content is made. This policy is better than loses potentially valuable contributions and has served Wikipedia for over a decade.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cedric (talkcontribs) . Please sign your posts!
While you mostly have the right idea, I believe you'll find historical precedent for half-baked pages being deleted if left unfinished.
There is absolutely no reason to do that unless your server is running out of disk space or the content is completely unrelated to the purpose of your wiki. 16:01, 12 November 2022 (MST)
Aside from a few specific exceptions, pages are supposed to consist of something useful to others, and typically have something more than a seed to be built upon. It's also not an excuse to ignore editing guidelines on the off-chance that someone will be inspired by the page enough to properly format it: that falls upon the page creator to do. Sometimes we make mistakes or don't have time to do that, and that's fine, but please respect our way of doing things.
Your way to doing thing seems to be to delete things you don't like -- even if it is "homebrew, user-generated (D&D) pages" like your logo says. Remember the little furry creatures that want to hang out in your big wilderness? If you act like a predator and kill those little furry creature (made with love), then the wilderness changes into a dangerzone for all. 16:01, 12 November 2022 (MST)
We do encourage contribution and iteration, but my point was that page content is vastly different from wikipedia, so what applies there doesn't necessarily apply here. The main point of Wikipedia is an encyclopedia compiling verifiable facts and information from reliable sources, something that anyone with access to a library can contribute to, whereas D&D Wiki is generally the opposite in that users come up with their own ideas and content. Wikipedia is about facts, not making things up.
It's irrelevant. When your site is about "made up stuff", it's even more important to have community to make it all cohesive and useable. I've been a manager, okay. I have a PhD. I'm not a high-schooler with a gripe to get things to turn my way. I know what I'm talking about when it comes to collaboration. I've been working on the problem for 25 years and have made real solutions for the internet. 16:01, 12 November 2022 (MST)
The problem with your races page is that it doesn't fit anything. If that's for races specific to your campaign setting, then integrate it with a campaign setting on the wiki. If it's for races in general, that's something we already have, because even if it's not system-specific, we have a non-systems-specific race category.
Then the page just need to be categorized into Category:race. You still need a race page that deals with race theory in the game. How did the gods create races? For example, where will I go to get that knowledge or to dream it up for the game? 16:01, 12 November 2022 (MST)

If it's a definition of races with regards to D&D, maybe the glossary would be better for it. The races themselves aren't terribly useful and don't even necessitate their own pages with how little you wrote: if someone likes your race idea so much that they build a new race around it, then they can make a new page (with the correct title) themselves and fill it with actual content instead.

Re: "it doesn't fit anything". The reason it doesn't fit anything is because it represents a better ordering and crystallization of what currently exists on the subject of D&D race. One can't search for it. Do you understand the defining difference between a hill dwarf and a duergar (besides one being subterrainian?). How will you play them differently as a DM? They both have strong constitution. How about differentiating between a high-elf and gray-elf in game-play? Or why do some versions have strange alter-races (Yuan-Ti) and some don't? This page was made in answer to the lack of answers in any sourcebook. It both simplifies and synthesizes what came before. That is the main criterion for everything I'm putting into D&Dv6. It has to serve both, nothing gets more complicated and everyone's ideas are integrated rather than omitted. Think about all the different cleric versions: massive complication for the DM who doesn't want to hold it all in his/her head. It needs cleaned up so more people will want to be DM. As it is, DMs are hard to find. You can't have millions of people wanting to play D&D with only 100s of good DMs. For this reason, everything should be wound around key words. Take every keyword in the index of the DMG and make a page for it. Boom, now you have a readily accessible resource for the BEST of each topic that ANY DM would love to contribute to. A piece here and a piece there and pretty soon everything is epic. Cedric (talk) 00:42, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Also, also add every keyword of the PHB and Monster Manual. THEN, you'll be starting to get the idea of how to build a collaborative site rather than a reference site. Cedric (talk) 23:49, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Again, you should look into implementing stuff in a way that makes sense for what this wiki was before you came here, like a campaign setting or sourcebook. It might seem like a lot of work, but this is how we curate the best content for people :)--GamerAim (talk) 22:21, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
I realize that this wiki was here long before I came, but I also know that there are a lot of DMs without a home. Why didn't they come here? Because they're not looking for a reference: they have it already. It's called the DMG. They're looking to collaborate on gameplay and further development of the game (hence "homebrew"). You're current format does not foster the main value of wiki: radical collaboration, bold edits (even without formatting), and curating the best content -- without fences (SRD, v2.5, v3.5, 4, 5, 5e, ..?!?!?!?). I think you will find MANY MORE people willing to help you. DMs especially. As it is, it is merely a resource for arcana. Cedric (talk) 00:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
I'll try to go through all your points again in the morning, but for now I'd like to mention that it's significantly more difficult for people to collaborate with you if you don't properly organize your pages with the rest of the wiki. The rest of the wiki has no support for your radical departure from our standards, so most people won't be able to find your pages. If you want people to collaborate with you, the first step is to make your pages easier to find :)
You're right. I mentioned this point in my revised comment above: it's not my desire for the pages to be found (yet). When something departs from the norm, like some of my pages, it's best that they be far away from the main pages. The next points below are therefore a bit out-of-date. Cedric (talk) 16:23, 24 May 2020 (MDT)
You're right on the point about organizing with the rest of the wiki, hence I'm suggesting that the wiki re-organize so that it all makes sense. See my points about adding every keyword from the major books. As it is now, major words direct to disambiguation pages for sorting out which version they're interested in -- but this is not what DMs look for. I'll argue that they're looking for the best ideas for each particular topic (wizards, clerics, etc) Once you lump all the versions together, eventually an even greater synthesis of the topic WILL emerge. I promise you. Cedric (talk) 23:53, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
As well, if you haven't done so already, I'd like to insist that you read over all the help pages that our users have put so much effort into curating. I should warn you that the admins do have the right to mark and delete your pages if they don't meet our standards. This won't happen for at least a couple of weeks, so I still have plenty of time to help you get them up to standards if you'd like, but I can only do so if you're willing, because I don't know much about 5e and won't know if something is core rules or some homebrew variant.--GamerAim (talk) 02:13, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Can I be absolutely clear what these pages are, so I can move them to the correct location (Races should be a disambiguation page, for example).


Are you:

  • Writing essays
  • Making variant rules for an existing edition of D&D
No. There are enough DMs doing that. EDIT: maybe.
Clarification: these are homebrewed pages for an existing RPG (D&D). That is what "homebrew" means. However, I'm not trying to create a new RPG, but build upon existing community content and whatever WotC has deemed available for everyone to use freely on a medium like this wiki. If you want SRD pages, then you aren't homebrewing anything, merely violating copyright, possibly, because you're using a corporation's work (Wizards of the Coast). They provide some leeway to rewriting existing content, but once you publish, like you are here on the wiki, then you get into tricky legal territory. Because you are potentially offering commercial content for free -- using SRD material and providing it for no charge. You should really get the Wizards of the Coast to administer the wiki, so 1) you are no longer in legal territory of fair use, and 2) it can be curated for the community of WotC, and not personal projects of the admins. Cedric (talk) 16:59, 13 November 2022 (MST)
  • Trying to make a new version of D&D.
Yes. I called it "homebrew" because that seems to be the terminology you use here. I prefer to use the term "beta". It is for creating the next version of the "world's greatest role-playing game". I left a message to this effect on the discuss page for category:6 Homebrew.
UPDATE: I'm hesitant to say new version until the Wizards contact me directly. But I have new material to update several campaigns and the Deities and Demi-gods book.Cedric (talk) 18:10, 8 July 2020 (MDT)

I also don't understand half of what you are writing about. For example, at Wizards: "PER helps them know which spell to cast". PER is not a D&D statistic... and the wikilink goes to Paragon, a disambiguation page that has nothing to do with whatever PER is, or spells, or wizards! Marasmusine (talk) 13:03, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I understand. I haven't transferred all of the v6 beta content over here yet, because I don't feel quite welcome. PER refers Perceptivity and is one of two new stats for PCs and NPCs in v6. This simplifies what would otherwise be complicated skill checks for new players and completely rounds out all base classes. This is why is it not a variant version. It is a radically new version, yet preserving the feels. See the page synthesis. (You'll have to view the history as I chickened out that you guys would want me to add content until this issue ("Redesign of the wiki") is resolved.)Cedric (talk) 23:43, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry if you've been made to feel unwelcome, but it's quite the opposite! I, like Maramusine, am simply trying to find the best way to organize and curate your content in a way that befits it and the wiki and its users. For the reference, homebrew is usually meant as content created for pre-existing RPGs, like D&D 5e or d20 Modern. The wiki is built (largely) around that notion, which is why some of your choices don't quite make sense to me :P--GamerAim (talk) 23:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Okay, so, it's a new version. I'd like all the pages to have the correct page ID and category. In terms of the category structure, there isn't currently a framework for a "new version", everything links to an actual edition of D&D. We have a systemless "Other" category, and we have a Sourcebook category. For now, I propose that the top page 6 homebrew be moved to 6 Homebrew (DnD Other) and have the Category:Other, so it at least appears in a list somewhere. Secondly, all the child pages should be moved to this, i.e. Godroll moved to 6 Homebrew (DnD Other)/Godroll (which will automatically place a breadcrumb at the top) and given the Category:Supplement.
We should also check with User:Green Dragon to see if he actually wants D&D wiki to be a platform for people to publish their own roleplaying systems, I'll send him a message. Marasmusine (talk) 08:27, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, D&D Wiki encourages these types of ventures. See examples like D20.00 decimal Rules (3.5e Variant Rule).
On the other hand D&D Wiki is a collaborative wiki based on D&D. Coming here and saying “Now, I will organize everything better than before, just let me break all conventions without a care in the world for existing pages, and structures!“ is a no-go.
Look at this from our perspective. We have not had time to see your behaviors. You have not given anyone a concrete example as to allow a category like Category:Races to exist. This category will confuse 99.9% of users here.
I recommend that you first use existing pages, formats, and structures. So, once your idea has flourished you may propose to change Category:Race to Category:Races. Until then, use Category:Race so that we will not delete any subsequent pages based off reasons of “false information“. Likewise naming a page “WofC“ is just confusing, and looks like an error. If at some point you want to seperate D&D Wiki from any connections with WotC, then first propose the idea as it is with all the implementing methods, it will be discussed, and we can move forward. Its wrong to start a project with the intention to confuse and break standards.
I recommend that you either start the project in your userspace, or as a variant rule. We want to stop the confusion you are creating, and it will be done. --Green Dragon (talk) 09:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
I respect your considerations and the content you guys have put together, but one thing you need to consider is that many such pages are invisible until the conventional users link into them. Do you understand? They aren't linked to from your pages, so no one really finds them unless directed to do so. These are "walled gardens" as Ward Cunningham called them and even though he tended to shun them, they are an essential part of the evolutionary nature of knowledge itself. In any case, from now on, I will try to put my pages in my own User space, even though it goes against everything wiki is about: collaboration, exploration of nascent ideas, "be bold", etc. Cedric (talk) 15:55, 24 May 2020 (MDT)

Since there was no objection, I'll make the page moves I proposed above. Marasmusine (talk) 21:19, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I don't know if you are still active or not, but there has been no progress on the 6 Homebrew pages, and they still have no structure, context or definition. Therefore I am proceeding with the deletion proposal made 2 weeks ago. Marasmusine (talk) 08:13, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

"I've been a manager, okay. I have a PhD. I'm not a high-schooler with a gripe to get things to turn my way. I know what I'm talking about when it comes to collaboration. I've been working on the problem for 25 years and have made real solutions for the internet" ~Cedric
Can you share any of these solutions? Revival (talk) 21:24, 12 November 2022 (MST)
Yes, one of them is a theoretical ideal for decentralized governance on the internet, called a meritocracy. It allows anyone to vote content up or down and develop a reputation on any topic based on how other vote on their own posts. It is described at: Singularity project. There's also pages on the JusticeLeague project about the art of being a peaceful warrior. That's found on the same site, but under JusticeLeague project: Justice League. See the wiki pages for more. If you want more data after that, just ask. All this material has been lying around for years for the planetary shift and creative economy. Cedric (talk) 16:51, 13 November 2022 (MST)
I've heard of meritocracy programs for the internet, and wanting to apply its popularity contest towards in real life benefits and penalties. I do hope nothing like this comes to fruition (the application of online votes affecting real world "things"). Peaceful warrior is new. Thanks. Revival (talk) 17:44, 13 November 2022 (MST)

Harry Potter[edit]

Is there any way for you to post your version of the 5e Harry Potter setting? --Redrum 14:58, 12 August 2017 (MDT)

Sorry, didn't see your question. I don't actually have a "Potter setting", it's more like I've integrated some of the magical methods into a school of magic School of Merlin for D&D. Unfortunately, they seemed to have deleted the pages. Cedric (talk) 18:20, 29 June 2020 (MDT)
Here's a list of your deleted contributions. School of Merlin hasn't been created. Perusing around I noticed there are number of dead links in your contributions. Linking something won't create a page.... Red Leg Leo (talk) 07:15, 30 June 2020 (MDT)
I know that. But that is the habit. The page was on the other D&D wiki {{scrubbed}}, which I don't know if you guys have actually tried it, but you could use inter-wiki links instead of duplicating each other's work. Cedric (talk) 19:15, 2 July 2020 (MDT)
Also, it's not exactly a friendly environment for experimental content, it seems.... ? Cedric (talk) 12:37, 4 July 2020 (MDT)
I'd disagree, unless your definition of experimental content is unbalanced. Red Leg Leo (talk) 11:20, 6 July 2020 (MDT)
What's imbalanced? Reminder: IT IS EXPERIMENTAL.Cedric (talk) 18:10, 8 July 2020 (MDT)
Imbalanced is experiencing something out of balance. In regards to articles, labeling them experimental is not an excuse reason for poor mechanics, gameplay, or "overpowered" qualities (aka unbalanced). There's plenty of users that wouldn't mind helping out if there's any articles in question. Most active users spend their time curating articles to help the wiki's reputation of providing content that can be used at all tables. Hopefully that helps.
Also, caps should be avoided. It is typical people think this is shouting or yelling. If you want to emphasize a point, try using bold or italics. Red Leg Leo (talk) 13:36, 9 July 2020 (MDT)

Your userpages[edit]

Hi, could you please explain what is going on with the pages you're creating in your userspace, such as User:Cedric/Explorer and User:Cedric/Deities and Demigods? It all seems rather nonsensical. Is this for a campaign setting you're working on, or something? — Geodude Chatmod.png (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 20:15, 23 June 2020 (MDT)

As 24 hours have passed and you have not responded, I will be marking those pages for deletion, as they serve no discernable purpose. — Geodude Chatmod.png (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 23:21, 24 June 2020 (MDT)
I have 24 hours to respond?!? Geez, a real chilling effect there. What I'm doing is proposing a build for the ranger class which is vague in traditional D&D. I APOLOGIZE FOR NOT RESPONDING WITHIN THE 24-HOUR DEADLINE. Cedric (talk) 12:39, 11 November 2022 (MST)
uh what? Red Leg Leo (talk) 07:06, 25 June 2020 (MDT)
Geodude, I feel like you're being out of line. We have a very liberal policy with regards to what is allowed in userspaces, and I don't see how this user's userpages violate them. Natsumi super fan (talk) 10:12, 25 June 2020 (MDT)
Thank you Natsumi super fan. I always feel like I'm alone on these wikis, though I stay confined to my own userspace and stay on topic until someone cares. It's not like I'm installing a link-farm or pushing all other pages to link into mine. It's honestly very disturbing. Cedric (talk) 18:18, 29 June 2020 (MDT)
I've removed the deletion tags from your userpages; just please don't act the way you did to get banned from the other wiki, and we'll be just fine. — Geodude Chatmod.png (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 14:42, 25 June 2020 (MDT)
Thanks. *QUESTION RETRACTED: July 2, 2020* Cedric (talk) 18:18, 29 June 2020 (MDT)

Editing existing comments[edit]

Hi Cedric, this is a reminder to not edit or delete existing comments; please see Help:Talk Pages#Editing or Deleting Existing Comments. Thanks. — Geodude Chatmod.png (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 18:59, 18 March 2022 (MDT)

If a user does not want their free content, related to homebrew D&D, deleted, what should they do? Cedric (talk) 13:49, 11 November 2022 (MST)

D&DOne and Civility[edit]


The page D&DOne was deleted because it contained no usable game content.

Geodude, the proper thing to do is discuss what the page is for on the discuss tab (NOTE: did someone change my comment here? I don't see the edit in the history tab...). After that, if you don't get a response and you THINK it is interfering with other users, is to move it to their User space. Thank you!

D&DOne is an edition of the game which is still in development; it would be inappropriate at this time to start creating infrastructure for this edition when we don't even know what kinds of pages or preloads are needed, aside from some Unearthed Arcana articles which are heavily subject to change. We can create wiki infrastructure for it once we have a more solid indicator of what the game will be like. As Nuke the Earth said, the wiki is not your personal blog, and if you wish to record your thoughts in a journal-like state, please use your userspace (perhaps at User:Cedric/D&DOne). Aside from the aforementioned issues, it was also very difficult to understand. Nothing on that page actually related to D&D One except as a very misinformed discussion about it, and the understandable parts read more like fan-fiction or a completely new game system.

Additionally, I advise that you reevaluate your behavior and the way you treat and interact with other users. Please calm down and take a less combative stance; perhaps cook some leftover turkey and enjoy a nice meal. While you are eating your leftover turkey, perhaps you can read Help:Behavioral Policy so that you can have a better understanding of what the community expects from its members. If you continue to behave in a combative and uncivil manner, infraction or blocking will be considered. — Geodude Chatmod.png (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 23:28, 9 November 2022 (MST)

Cedric, The page D&DOne was deleted because it contained no usable game content.

I'm sorry. It is a stub for creating meaningful content. Is this not allowed?

D&DOne is an edition of the game which is still in development; it would be inappropriate at this time to start creating infrastructure for this edition when we don't even know what kinds of pages or preloads are needed,

Why would it be inappropriate? Do you think WotC don't care what their fans want or think?

As Nuke the Earth said, the wiki is not your personal blog,

I'm not using it as a personal blog. This is a site for homebrew content. While the page didn't yet have the text filled with usable content (like how to unify classes), it was there as a stub to be filled in by EVERYONE in the community. That is the way wiki was *designed*.

Additionally, I advise that you reevaluate your behavior

of making free contributions...

...and the way you treat and interact with other users. Please calm down and take a less combative stance;

after people delete your content...

...perhaps cook some leftover turkey and enjoy a nice meal. While you are eating your leftover turkey,

As a final note, as admins you want to create a cooperative environment, not combative. DON'T EVER DELETE OTHER USER'S CONTENT UNLESS IT IS:
  • vandalism (usually obvious)
  • personal attack (debate first)
  • off-topic (debate first)
  • using foul language that has been previously documented as forbidden (hate speech, curse words).
Please consider your own behavior if you want to create a wiki community. Perhaps read up on wiki history at wikipedia. Cedric (talk) 11:55, 11 November 2022 (MST)
If you want your deleted page restored so that you can move the content into your userspace that isn't a problem.
Thank you. I'd appreciate that. What kind of admins of a wiki just delete pages anyway? They could have opened a discussion, LIKE ANY CIVIL PERSON. Do you understand? People are providing FREE CONTENT. Do the admins/you even want community?
As I already mentioned,
we have a few users every year that try to create their next version of Dungeons and Dragons. About 99% of them fall through miserably.
Great. Why not let their pages waste away? They are never in the way of anything unless they're adding inbound links all over the wiki. Rather than try to dictate what is acceptable by yourself? You never know: someone just might find useable content some day, even if the admin du jour believes it to be worthless, yes?

We don't have pages that are about one or two mechanics that work for some idea for a pen and paper game that are totally obsolete or not released (D&D One). Any official pages will be discussed by the community before being created (or taken from the content that you have prepared at your userpage).

Very bureaucratic. This is not just my opinion. BUT I understand why you might find it necessary in order for these overzealous admins to contribute content to the wiki. I really do. I just wish Wizard's of the Coast were administering the wiki.
For this reason, we ask all users that want to create their own version of Dungeons and Dragons to first use their userspace. When there is enough content, then you are welcome to move it to a other page. If it continues, then it will continue to get evaluated as a game system. --Green Dragon (talk) 14:19, 11 November 2022 (MST)
Fine. Although, keep in mind that it is a major hassle to make content in my user space when I must prefix all article titles with my username. Perhaps there should be two different wikis. One for folks like eiji-kun, geodude671, and such and one for real humans that just want to make the best content on ANY given topic, without needing to worry about what version of D&D it belongs to.
Do keep in mind, that his is not my own version of Dungeons and Dragons. The admins keep making this mistake. Please ask questions when you don't understand, rather than assume bad faith. Cedric (talk) 17:13, 12 November 2022 (MST)
In any case, thank you for restoring my page and I hope you consider my suggestion about two wikis... 20:04, 11 November 2022 (MST)

Warning <-- Hostile Content[edit]

Hi Cedric, I don't think we've worked together much but I hope to someday. For now, though, I am giving a warning for repeated uncivil comments. [yelling] (caps is considered yelling, please use bold when highlighting or placing importance on word(s)), [namecalling], [assuming bad faith], which the wiki expects us to assume good faith, [insulting other users], and spam (trouting multiple user talk pages).
I understand there is some frustration, but you catch more bees with honey as the saying goes. Cheers! Revival (talk) 21:52, 11 November 2022 (MST)

Revival, I swear to god you better not rein the wiki, too. You are 1) ignoring all the points made that address many of the admins concerns, yet they did not respond, except with hostility (deleting content or threats). Trouting is for just this purpose. It is not spamming. It is for beating you over the head with a cluestick -- which you could read on the trout page on this wiki. I suggest you read it now. 17:58, 12 November 2022 (MST)
Also, do keep in mind that once admins move user-content into their user-pages, no one will be willing to help add content because they feel its in someone's personal space. So this is why the existing policy fails -- no content, it seems, can be posted until it is already perfect enough to use. Cedric (talk) 19:43, 12 November 2022 (MST)
When people want SRD material, they can BUY the books. Let the wiki be for homebrew content and discussion (that can be used by WotC to enhance or debate existing SRD). This way the wiki fills it`s niche: it's not a replacement for (SRD) books.
I don't understand what about a warning is hostile, could you please explain to me how warning a user of policy violation is hostile? Trouting in itself is not spam but posting it to multiple users' user pages is. People most certainly can help others on their user page, they can use the talk page or they can be bold and make edits and if the "owner" of said page doesn't like it then it is really easy to be respectful and not edit those user pages anymore. I don't understand the difficulty collaborating this way.
I think it is folly to discuss what content the wiki will or won't host, we don't own the site and any sort of discussion won't come to an agreement since I see absolutely no reason to remove the SRD, aka free open source material for everyone. Revival (talk) 21:08, 12 November 2022 (MST)
Home of user-generated,
homebrew pages!