User talk:ConcealedLight

From D&D Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Hey: Welcome to my talk page. If you'd like to start a new discussion click on the plus above or hold alt-shift-+. If you'd like to talk about an archived entry use the same header and link to the archive header. Entries should be ordered from oldest down to newest.

Archive
Archives


Clockwork Man[edit]

Thanks, ConcealedLight, for your thoughts on Clockwork Man; I have edited it as per your recommendations. Just wondering, would removing the player-selected second language balance the race in any way? --Calibri (talk) 16:21, 23 June 2018 (MDT):

Hey. I've just seen your edit. Looking through it I think the following final changes should be put in place:
  • wish can do a lot of things. We don't need to say that the spell can do something about this effect so it should be removed.
  • The ability to take another trait in exchange for an additional vulnerability is kinda crazy tbh. Vulnerability is wild too but willingly taking on one, let along two is crazy. So I'd remove the additional specialization for an additional vulnerability.
  • Built For The Job, should be "You are proficient in one skill (or tool) of your choice". I think tool proficiency is a good addition here.
  • Laser Cannon should probably deal force damage over radiant.
  • The second language option seems fine so I don't think we need to remove it.
ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 17:28, 23 June 2018 (MDT)
I'm good with all of these, though I think the laser cannon should still deal radiant damage; in the DMG, it mentions laser weaponry as part of a futuristic campaign dealing radiant damage. --Calibri (talk) 16:22, 29 June 2018 (MDT)
That's fair. —ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 00:24, 30 June 2018 (MDT)

"Harder than dragon scales"[edit]

I've seen this argument from you several times, and from context I've gathered you seem to be implying this logic applies to any kind of (natural) armor that provides a higher AC than 13 + Dex mod. Please consider the following:

  • Sorcerer's "Draconic Resilience" sets AC to 13 + Dexterity. It reads, "parts of your skin are covered by a thin sheen of dragon-like scales." As written, it does not imply, "all of your skin is as hard as the literal scales of a literal dragon." If it wasn't for balance issues, a race completely made of stone or wood should definitely have a higher AC even by this logic alone.
  • The actual armor, dragon scale mail, also doesn't cover one's entire body, but provides an AC of 15 + Dex mod (max 2). One assumes if this was your actual skin, it might not include the (max 2) portion.
  • The lowest AC of all true dragons in the SRD, the copper dragon wyrmling, is 15 + Dex mod. Needless to say most dragons have higher than this (even other wyrmlings, like the blue dragon wyrmling) has a flat 17 AC without adding a Dexterity bonus.

- Guy (talk) 17:32, 27 June 2018 (MDT)

Your opinion is noted. —ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 03:00, 28 June 2018 (MDT)

Lumate[edit]

In my lumate race, I think potentially being killed by being shoved into a swimming pool negates most overpowering effects. --Calibri (talk) 16:22, 29 June 2018 (MDT)

Idk about you, but I've never been shoved into a swimming pool while playing dnd before, in or out of the game. :P Keep in mind, racial detriments unless they directly offset a particular trait, such a sunlight sensitivity and superior darkness are rarely an adequate justification of comparatively overpowered content. There is some good reading in the 5e Race Design Guide about racial detriments if you haven't already read through it. —ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 00:24, 30 June 2018 (MDT)
Maybe. But water is pretty common [citation needed]. Also, what does "near universal advantages" mean? I don't understand how a lumate's advantages are universal. --Calibri (talk) 16:06, 30 June 2018 (MDT)
As a general rule of thumb, one should avoid granting advantage as a racial trait unless its a very specific circumstance. It is the same for disadvantage. So if I have advantage against everything that deals fire damage then that's a near-unconditional advantage, ie the times it will come up is so frequent it might as well be universal. There are probebbly better ways to do this trait without granting such huge benefits and detriments. —ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 20:30, 30 June 2018 (MDT)
Any suggestions? --Calibri (talk) 20:57, 30 June 2018 (MDT)
I included a design disclaimer so that we can all walk away happily. And I'm not British. --Calibri (talk) 17:45, 14 August 2018 (MDT)
Between all the conversations below I hadn't noticed your reply on the 30th mb. As for the design disclaimer, keep in mind adding that to a page doesn't make a page exempt from needsbalance templates and that you should endeavor to fix the issues brought up within it. —ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 20:41, 14 August 2018 (MDT)

Kender Dlcs convert[edit]

If you feel like spending the t8me editing that be my guest I mostly just did a direct convert and used the wiki for a template on ordering the class. It might come down depending on the orginal maker's (Margaget Weis atleast) wishes so Im not touching it till I know

Tbh I spent a couple hour just making and off balance simple convert if I see the word kender agian I might cry ~bloodreaper54

I have no idea what you are trying to communicate. —ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 02:39, 30 June 2018 (MDT)
sorry it was very late but its nothing now I got the okay on the copyright and started working at balance but am not to sure what to change as far as detailing the features on the race Kender: DLCS Conversion (5e Race)~bloodreaper54
alright couple point about your retag A the design guide says negative stat mods are okay B I removed the immunity though the design guide agian said their okay and swaped to an advantage C that entire page was run through 2 grammar and spelling checkers ~bloodreaper54
The problem with negative stat mods is that they tend to take away from the game, not add to it, and make it very difficult for a character to be in certain classes. In this specific case, the kender, with an ability score penalty of -2 str/cha, is basically impossible to use with a class like the barbarian or sorcerer, compared to other races that don't get boosts in those classes' primary attributes such as the gnome. The gnome is not suited to be a barbarian, but if that is the direction the player wants to take the character, that gnome PC isn't penalized for being an Intelligence-based race in a Strength-based class, they just don't get any advantages in that class. Does that make sense? The kender, on the other hand, is actively penalized, being completely unable to get more than a +1 ability score modifier in the barbarian's primary attribute, Strength, as opposed to every race besides the kobold that does not get a bonus to Strength, which can get +2. Unless there's a really good reason to use a negative stat mod, my advice is to not use them.
The {{wording}} template is still valid. It's not enough to just run the page through a grammar checker because computers are bad at recognizing poor grammar. At least from my experiences, many grammar checkers will fail to identify passages that are grammatically incorrect, and also will flag a passage as being grammatically incorrect when it's completely fine. The best thing is to have an actual human go over the page, preferably a pedant who is knowledgeable about the English language. — Geodude671 Chatmod.png (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 00:26, 2 July 2018 (MDT)
the stat mods are there for source material accuracy as the kender is copyright and I was merely given permission to update and post but dont want to make a full rewrite since that kinda destroys the orginal makers entire work.
As for the grammar I don't know anyone whos willing to hand read an entire wiki post for grammar or even has that degree of free time.
Format wise it was ordered for quick access to key parts such as feats and stats for quick reference and the notes at the bottom are copyright information and declaration of who owns it and gave me permission to work it. User:Bloodreaper54/Signature
The Copyright Template exists for this very purpose, see [[1]]. Four ~'s will sign your signature, geo and I just have special ones because we had to free time to make one so the way we sign is different. The page still has a number of issue with it other than the ones you've highlighted but on the topic of those the 5e race design guide says, to paraphrase, "If you really, really want to have negative ability score they should be for flavourful purposes and be used to offset a benefit that is directly associated with those scores" and at no point does it say condition or damage immunities are "ok". In fact, it has a paragraph explaining why they are not ok and in general ruin games. Finally, if you want to create a faithful conversion of a source material then you need to at follow some basic standards for formatting, balance, wording, etc. Hence the maintenance templates. The introduction to the 5e race design guide has a section linking material to convert content to 5th edition that you should probably read. —ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 01:09, 2 July 2018 (MDT)

Deletion[edit]

The deletion of Edison's Notes makes me sad but doesn't surprise me. --Redrum 13:25, 7 July 2018 (MDT)

Thanks for notifying me about your feelings. —ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 15:10, 7 July 2018 (MDT)
I mostly did the notes to get it out my head so where it doesn't drive me to distraction. --Redrum 18:34, 11 July 2018 (MDT)
You should be writing such notes on your user page or on your user subpages. That's what most people on the wiki do, including myself really. —ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 02:14, 24 July 2018 (MDT)

Hi Concealed Light. It appears you deleted the Hellblazer class because it had issues. Can you repost this class to the incomplete section or email it to me. Thanks! --SadisticIntent 09:35, 28 July 2018 (PT)

Hi SadisticIntent; I have restored the page Hellblazer (5e Class). Please save a copy of it to your computer because it will be deleted again in a few days. — Geodude671 Chatmod.png (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 22:00, 28 July 2018 (MDT)
Hi Geodude, It looks like it was deleted again shortly after you made the effort to repost it, in which, I thank you for. If ConcealedLight won't allow that class on here, is there anyway an Admin could email it to me or post to the incomplete class section and I will make the changes that has issues? Thank you kindly! --SadisticIntent (talk) 17:15, 30 July 2018 (MDT)
Thank you for the repost. I made a copy of the class. I'll take a look at the changes that have been suggested and see if it can be reworked. --SadisticIntent (talk) 18:47, 30 July 2018 (MDT)
Oh, my bad. Seems I deleted it yesterday without realizing it was a restored page. —ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 03:42, 31 July 2018 (MDT)

Kipir[edit]

Hey there. Whilst the edits are appreciated, at least in terms of grammar and fluff. I'm the DM for the players who thought this whole thing up, and am the one who approved a fly speed of 40 feet. So, that one is going to end up going back to where it was. I don't think the extra speed on flight is particularly broken. Again, thanks for the help in the grammar and fluff.

Few things to go over. Race names and such are not capitalized in the PHB and as such are not here, as seen in Help:When_to_Italicize_and_Capitalize. The intent is for pages to be comparatively balanced in respect to the first party material so comparing the kipir to the aarackocra and you can clearly see which is stronger, hence the nerf's. There is also the issue of flying at first level which is outlined in the 5e Race Design Guide but if that's another story altogether. For your case I'd recommend, not buffing the race any more than it currently and for your own game nerfing that players speed to be on par with the aarackocra and the riding horse. —ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 23:15, 10 August 2018 (MDT)
You're free to do what you want in your home game, but on this wiki we have balance standards that content must adhere to. The extra speed on flight makes the race a good deal more powerful than first-party races, and thus warranted a nerf. — Geodude671 Chatmod.png (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 23:54, 10 August 2018 (MDT)
Fair enough, Geodude. Was unaware things had a balance standard on here. This was simply a place for the ones who created this race with my help to post it for easy access. In future this will be considered. Concealed, I see your point. However proper grammar ruling would state as it is the name, it would capitalized. That's a whole other argument, I would imagine. Again, I appreciate the insight, as i'm a relatively new DM. More discussion would be something i'm very open to having, so long as it remains civil! Cheers! - S1lentSymphony
Of course. Geodude and I are administrators are civility is the goal of all discussions. You can open a discussion on the Kipir page, however, the 5e Race Design Guide makes some really excellent points that are difficult to refute. Regardless looking forward to seeing you around. —ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 02:49, 11 August 2018 (MDT)
"Kipir" is not a proper noun, and thus should not be capitalized, in much the same way that "human," "elf," or "dwarf" is not capitalized. — Geodude671 Chatmod.png (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 22:02, 17 August 2018 (MDT)

Dalek (5e Race)[edit]

This page was restored because not making sense with traditional classes isn't inherently an issue. The page has a decent amount content and is perfectly playable. --SgtLion (talk) 08:36, 12 August 2018 (MDT)

Mara and then I deleted the page due to the content being totally unusable as a whole and no attempt being made to fix the plethora of issues have plagued the page over the course of the reasonable duration it has sat stagnant. It is by no means playable without waving the various issues of playing this race with any class. How is a monk suppose to punch without hands? How is a caster supposes to complete somatic components? Does this race still benefit from a swimming speed? Are they a construct or a humanoid? Do they even need to sleep if they are constructs? I understand you may like this page but its poor quality is undeniable. —ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 23:00, 12 August 2018 (MDT)
"Rule of Cool". That's what this article screams to me. Suspend reality for a minute and allow those little robot arms to move in ways that allow spellcasting. That tin-can still headbutt, or those little arms might be the mightiest monk arms you ever saw. The swimming stuff, meh, figure it out. It's why you get paid the big bucks /jk. It certainly isn't the best article but we are home to homebrew. And the race doesn't quite break anything in the game. I understand you may not like this page but poor quality alone isn't a reason. I don't like the bloaty-ness of the site but maintenance templates followed by {{abandoned}} when they aren't fixed allows the deletion after a year unless there's special circumstances. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 08:54, 13 August 2018 (MDT)

Kyuubi no Ookami (5e Equipment)[edit]

The templates were addressed. The otherwise quality of the article is meaningless if the issue isn't brought up in templates. -SgtLion (talk) 08:50, 12 August 2018 (MDT)

I disagree. If one cannot see past a template and take in the totality of a page to assess a situation fully then that's just being lazy(I'm not calling you lazy here). As administrators, we are told to use our best judgment in regards to our actions and while the template Mara had added is vague the page is equally if not vaguer and by no means is up to scratch, requiring a total rework to even be useable without creative interpretation by the Dungeon Master. —ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 23:00, 12 August 2018 (MDT)
When I got the chance to look at this page before it was deleted, I saw that the page lacked any real information on why the maintenance templates were there(I believe it said something along the lines of not using 5e terminology and the deletion template just mentioned time), and the page itself likely should not have been deleted/redeleted as the page's real issues were unaddressed or incredibly vague. With that said, the page likely did deserve to be deleted as it a large number of problems that couldn't be addressed without reworking the item, but regardless of that, someone should have gone over the pages issues.
On a similar topic, although I believe many of the page restorations you did were warranted, the restoration of the Saiyan Warrior (5e Class) had me scratching my head. I presume you restored it because edits were made to the class since the deletion template was added, but although the edits in question were helpful, they were extremely minor(small number tweaks) and failed to address any real issue/have any impact on the playability of the class. Either way, I would like to hear your thoughts on the matter as to why the page was restored.--Blobby383b (talk) 11:14, 12 August 2018 (MDT)
I would as well. —ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 23:00, 12 August 2018 (MDT)
I just wanna take a moment to say there was once a time when an admin chastised me in a summary because I didn't template enough things, because I thought one could see past a template and take in the totality of a page to assess a situation fully and that I wasn't doing my job as curator well enough (aka being lazy). Soooooo yeah, there's that.
and to repeat sort of what Lion said, if issues aren't mentioned in templates, I don't think it fair to delete a page when the template didn't say the issue. Sort of defeats the purpose of having templates in a way-to me anyway.
Saiyan Warrior-maybe a difference of what constructive is? The edits looked to be making the class better. In this context, constructive would be someone trying to help. It wasn't balanced or perfect but attempts were being made and the user (anon I think) might have needed a hand getting there? but because the edits didn't balance the article, the page got deleted which is a tad unfair for someone who might have thought they were helping. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 09:05, 13 August 2018 (MDT)
Noted. —ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 20:49, 14 August 2018 (MDT)
For the Saiyan Warrior, I believe that if the edits in question where more clear cut in that they clearly helped address the page's issues, I would have agree, the page should have had its timer reset. However, changing a +11 bonus in AC to +6 for Super Saiyan God for example is an extremely minor edit and doesn't really do anything to address how broken the page is, it is more akin to slightly watering down a single part of a god tier PC's powers. Regardless of what we think about this issue though, the class in question is still game breaking compared to 1st party classes, and needs to have its issues addressed or put up again for deletion.--Blobby383b (talk) 14:20, 14 August 2018 (MDT)
Is the reason for not adding maintenance templates, waiting and then adding {{abandoned}} when issues aren't fixed, because how bad the page is? Even if I agree with the removal of the page, SgtLion isn't wrong to keep the page alive since D&D Wiki has a bit of a process in place. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 14:29, 14 August 2018 (MDT)
I would say the scope of just how much works needs to be done to make the class usable is one of the ways to see a whether or not a delete template should be added(other things like copyright, identical/redundant content, and been abandoned for a year also apply). If a large majority of the page needs to be reworked or replaced with other content it likely should have the deleted templated added. Template:Delete/why goes into a bit more detail about the topic, and in the case of the Saiyan Warrior (5e Class), it qualifies for 2 of the reasons stated.--Blobby383b (talk) 14:53, 14 August 2018 (MDT)
You make good points. I'm fine with the updating of the timeframe for its deletion and if no progress is done myself or another admin can delete it again before the month's out. —ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 20:49, 14 August 2018 (MDT)
To be honest, I've avoided returning to this discussion because I find this stuff deeply upsetting. I feel I made my reasoning clear, I've nothing more to say on the matters. I made my restorations (and shall continue to do so) based on a failure to follow what is a pretty clear policy. I accept an edge case with legitimate disagreement may arise on rare occasion, but having to address the consistent minimum of 10-20% objectively wrong deletion decisions by some admins just saps all my energy and care. --SgtLion (talk) 17:34, 19 September 2018 (MDT)

Hey, ConcealedLight! Can you please do me a favor...[edit]

And kindly temporarily restore the page Hos'ri-ein (5e Race) for me? Quincy (talk) 13:17, 18 August 2018 (MDT)

I did the thing — Geodude671 Chatmod.png (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 13:22, 18 August 2018 (MDT)
Thank you very much! Quincy (talk) 13:50, 18 August 2018 (MDT)
Thanks for lending a hand while I was out Geo. Quincy, is 24 hours a good timeframe for whatever you're looking to do? —ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 23:57, 18 August 2018 (MDT)
You can delete it now, actually. I just needed to copy the content onto one of my userpages (where, fortunately, the rest of the wiki doesn't have to see it), which I already did. Quincy (talk) 06:01, 19 August 2018 (MDT)

Brightmaid History[edit]

Hi, While I agree that there are typos I on't have the energy to go through and fix these days (I have health issues) I have tried to add the history to the Brightmaid homebrew about 3 times now. Since they don't have a Brightmaid-specific history(History is dependent on each specific Brightmaid and would coincide with the specific creature's parentage and their racial history) it was only a sentence or two long. For some reason it keeps disappearing and the complaint returns. Is the clarification being edited out for some reason? Does someone involved not understand the concept. I'd like to clear things up.

Your edits were reverted due to the removal of the maintenance templates at the top of the page and the issues highlighted in them being unaddressed. It's good practice to avoid editing maintenance templates until you've finished your edits and until the issues are addressed. If in doubt asking the question on the pages talk is a good idea. —ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 17:55, 20 August 2018 (MDT)
Right, but I DID address the History issue, even though it was over someone not understanding the situation. I addressed it, why would it be removed? I'm sorry, I just don't understand that. The templates were removed earlier because I don't always get my messages on here. After I addressed the History I did not remove the other 'maintenance templates'.
One line of text that says nothing of substance and contributes an equal amount to the page is not addressing the races lack of any and all history. Read through some of the histories of the races that normally grow up in different cultures such as the Half-Elf, Half-Orc, Tiefling, or Aasimar for some insights into how the first party does it. —ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 21:39, 21 August 2018 (MDT)
Maybe you aren't understanding the Brightmaids. I really don't know how to explain it better though. Brightmaids themselves don't have any history. They just have the history of whatever parentage they have. For example, the Brightmaid in a game I'm in has half-elf parentage. So her racial history would be that of the half-elves. Another player I know made one that had human parentage. So his racial history was that of the humans. How else do I explain that than the way I did before? Please realize, I'm just trying to understand how to make this work for you.
My examples prove otherwise to my supposed lack of understanding. Keep in mind that pages don't conform to an individual or really even admin's version of what a page should be but rather to a baseline standard of quality that you can read more about in the Help:Portal. You can solve the issues with your page by:
  • Reading the 5e_Race_Design_Guide, specifically the 5e_Race_Design_Guide#History section.
  • Analysing the templates on the page.
  • Read through some of the histories of the races that normally grow up in different cultures such as the Half-Elf, Half-Orc, Tiefling, or Aasimar for some insights into how the first party does it.
All of which I've already said and my fellow admin BigShotFancyMan gave some excellent suggestions on Talk:Brightmaid_(5e_Race). Finally, if you aren't willing to put in a basic level of effort to meet this standard you can simply leave the page as it is for another user to put the effort in or request one of the wiki's helpers to do so. —ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 11:54, 25 August 2018 (MDT)

Deletion Templates[edit]

I see that you are adding {{delete}} to pages which have maintenance templates on them for extended periods of time. This procedure has not reached concensus, and I ask that you revise these edits. See User talk:Admin#Call to Arms(per say). If you change delete to {{abandoned}} for now it should work. --Green Dragon (talk) 09:42, 24 August 2018 (MDT)

Thanks for refreshing me there GD. Looking through the pages I had added templates to today, some of them seem to have valid and definitely more pressing {{needsbalance}} concerns as far as my I'll admit poor understanding of 4th edition goes, however, I trusted and still trust Mara's judgment in regards to his application of several of those needs balance templates. Also, my {{delete}}s point to the issues outlined in the template as well as the exceeding amount of time passed, rather than just citing the time and proposing. If you're fine with it, I can go through and instead change the ones I believe to be less pressing ones over to {{abandoned}} and keep the more valid concerns as CfD? —ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 12:17, 24 August 2018 (MDT)
I find your proposal much more reasonable. Go ahead and make your changes. --Green Dragon (talk) 03:29, 26 August 2018 (MDT)

Formatting Help[edit]

Hi, ConcealedLight! I have a homebrew project that I'm working on, and I could use some help since I'm not too knowledgeable about wiki formatting. What I'm trying to do is I'm trying to make a class table for a 5e class that has 30 levels instead of 20. After some experimentation I've made something that looks kinda like this (see below)

Table:The Fighter
Class
Level
Proficiency
Bonus
Features -
1st +2 Fighting Styles (2), Special Fighting Ability
2nd +2 Placeholder
3rd +2 Placeholder
4th +2 Ability Score Improvement
5th +3 Extra Attack
6th +3 Placeholder
7th +3 Remarkable Athelete
8th +3 Ability Score Improvement
9th +4 Indomitable (one use)
10th +4 Placeholder
11th +4 Extra Attack (2)
12th +4 Ability Score Improvement
13th +5 Indomitable (two uses)
14th +5 Legendary Athelete
15th +5 Superior Critical (18-20)
16th +5 Ability Score Improvement
17th +6 Extra Attack (3), Indomitable (three uses)
18th +6 Placeholder
19th +6 Ability Score Improvement
20th +6 Placeholder
21st +7 Placeholder
22nd +7 Placeholder
23rd +7 Extra Attack (4)
24th +7 Ability Score Improvement
25th +8 Placeholder
26th +8 Placeholder
27th +8 Placeholder
28th +8 Ability Score Improvement
29th +9 Extra Attack (5)
30th +9 Placeholder

which I'm not happy with because I'd like the text under the rightmost column to align properly with the heading of the column, like the text within the column should for a 5e class chart, if that makes sense. Can you please help a guy out? Quincy (talk) 12:00, 25 August 2018 (MDT)

That should do it. I had to reference the Template:5e_Class_Features to figure it out. Speaking of which if you're going to use this for a class page on the wiki you should probably make an expanded version of that template so things look neat on the page and other users can use it. Hope that's what you ment. Cheers. —ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 20:22, 25 August 2018 (MDT)
Yes, that's very helpful! Thank you so much! Quincy (talk) 06:55, 26 August 2018 (MDT)
np. Do let me know if you make a template from it so I can add it to my list of cool things. —ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 07:16, 26 August 2018 (MDT)
I did it! And I made not just one, but two templates! Template:5e Expanded Class Features and Template:5e Expanded Spell Slots. Quincy (talk) 07:49, 26 August 2018 (MDT)

Ummm Confused[edit]

So I admit to "rolling back" on SirSprinkles page as an accident but I am very, VERY confused about CL's. I've not been surfing the wiki much at all today. Regardless, I am sorry for the edit "I" made. Thank you Geodude for undoing it. *sigh* BigShotFancyMan (talk) 19:55, 3 September 2018 (MDT)

It's chill. I know you use a phone to surf the wiki occasionally. I imagine I got butt undo'ed or something like that :P —ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 20:20, 3 September 2018 (MDT)
ha. “Butt undo”. Thanks for understanding. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 20:23, 3 September 2018 (MDT)


Chronomancer[edit]

Hi, I was wondering if it was possible to restore a deleted class the chronomancer, the original link is on my page, reason why is because I want to see if I can fix it, or rebalance it instead of it being completely gone, or copy it for something later in future ideas, I've spent a lot of time and energy on the chronomancer than most of my other classes that I still need to complete as well. --Bigdad881 (talk) 23:26, 3 September 2018 (MDT)

Sure I can restore the class for you. However, here on the wiki we have a standard of quality and looking through the class it seems to be rife with issues, as a sign of good faith I'll restore it for you but if the issues highlighted aren't addressed expect it to be deleted again. To help you figure out what more needs to be done beyond the maintenance templates the 5e Class Design Guide, the 5e Race Design Guide's section on referencing and the Help:When to Italicize and Capitalize are excellent guides to get a strong foundation of quality. —ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 01:00, 4 September 2018 (MDT)

Not the hugest fan of being threatened[edit]

so you know ConcealedLight ,Guy saying a page it stupid, and being called stupid for creation on a custom rule set is beyond me your very corect I should have not lashed out bout didn't feel his comments of saying that I was stupid beyond iration wasn't constructive nor in the spirit of collaboration sorry I lashed out but personally don't like being called stupid I would have just reported if knew how to theres no proper report system that i see so i deleted the comments on my page and responded to his comments with the same as he treated me honestly if he is as good as you say i would expect constructive criticism not being called stupid , btw threaten me with a strike isn't in the spirit of collaboration as well (talk),(talk) 07:38 est

You were reprimanded for your poor behavior, not threatened and using such language is frowned upon on a wiki. You should endeavor to treat all users with a degree of respect and consideration. While you may feel threatened for an informal comment about your behavior, consider what was recommended here. Finally, I and my fellow administrator, BSFM don't see where such an infraction occurred in regards to Guy and bare in mind it is a warnable offense to say such a thing if it is untrue. —ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 07:10, 6 September 2018 (MDT)

Warning[edit]

Per D&D Wiki policy, I am giving you a Warning for "improper usage of a maintenance template". "The traits need to be mechanically worded correctly as they are often vague" clearly discusses maintenance to {{wording}}, not {{needsbalance}}. Same as "Overall poorly written and needs a rewrite from a mechanical perspective to better integrate with the first party content". In another example, "Uses incomplete and incorrect wording throughout. The traits need to be mechanically worded correctly as they are often vague." has the same issue. Or, "Overall needs a work both from a mechanical and lore perspective to better integrate with the first party content" doesn't touch on balance issues with the article, and may even be more along the lines of a {{stub}}. Overall, the wiki is stricken with these errors. Consult Help:Improving, Reviewing, and Removing Templates for help and see other users' maintenance templates for proper usage. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 07:26, 6 September 2018 (MDT)

Interesting. Can you explain your reasoning more as this has never been an issue in the past and I seem to recall an agreement that concluded discussion over direct action unless necessary? I also, don't think you've considered that a vague or poorly mechanically communicated feature is just as easily a balance issue as it is a wording issue nor that the addition of that clause of which I am being held accountable for was added in response to Meter Placement discussion we had some 9 months ago. Considering this I like to still hear your thoughts regardless of if my points affect the validity of your warning. —ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 08:09, 6 September 2018 (MDT)
I've tried to reach out in the past about maintenance wording and "never been an issue in the past" was the response. I do believe direct action necessary since discussion in the past didn't have any fruit. Users, mainly new, are subjected to these templates and lack of help. I'd consider what features need reworded if they were mentioned but the templates themselves are not clear, concise, or complete most of the time and have a "copy-paste" look to them usually. If there is an issue with the clause being used, it can be discussed there?
Separate of the that, I am curious how the wording of a feature is a balance issue. If you don't mind sharing that'd be nice. If not, I understand. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 08:32, 6 September 2018 (MDT)
Can you please list the definition that ConcealedLight violated? --Green Dragon (talk) 11:05, 6 September 2018 (MDT)
"Improper usage of maintenance templates" BigShotFancyMan (talk) 14:49, 6 September 2018 (MDT)
GD, could you give your thoughts here as I don't feel this is warranted and I know a message on my talk page would have been far more appropriate than then an official warning. —ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 05:57, 8 September 2018 (MDT)
BSFM, I cannot recall such a case where you've attempted to do so, there is nothing on my talk page either, and the only thing that comes up on discord is a discussion stemming from an explanation about how the 5e race template communicates with the 5e race dpl's in regards to the summary line. You said last weekend, that we curate differently and you accepted that. So you can understand how this warning seems out of place to me. What I can recall, however, is the several cases where I've helped new users in their lack of understanding and seen users simply get on with improving the page without my assistance. So I don't think my use of templates has been vague, unhelpful to users and I certainly don't think they breach policy. —ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 05:57, 8 September 2018 (MDT)
Just to chime in here, regarding "I know a message on my talk page would have been far more appropriate than then an official warning." You yourself agreed when [Help_talk:Warning_Policy#Ffej_123_Warning_Appeal GD established precedent that warnings are a "learning experience" and do not require discussion with the offender beforehand.] Unlike my warnings to you before, BSFM's appears to follow the warning policy, and I agree with his interpretation that you misused maintenance templates. In fact, I could cite another example of where I think you misused maintenance templates. Of course, our policy is to not stack warnings for each prior offense of the same type, so you don't have to worry about those prior mistakes. Again, consider it a learning experience! :) --GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 07:45, 8 September 2018 (MDT)
A lot to do but check your archive, topic "Template Removal". I mentioned there "needsbalance" is not a grab bag for every personal reason one thinks a page needs fixed. If you chose to not reply because you felt "this has never been an issue in the past" I don't know what to say. I did try to discuss it. Like it and [other times] in the past, my concerns are just "whining". But when Guy mentioned it in "Usage of Improving Templates" you said it was noted. Two people, one you may respect, have mentioned this topic.
This warning came as a surprise to me as well. For some of the same reasons and that I've wanted to work and collaborate with you for months. My perception of help others is not telling them "overall poorly written" & "check out "my" exemplary work". I think more can be found in your archive under "Behavioral Issues", where again, I am said to just be policing you and only GD's comments were not refuted. So if warnings are considered discussion for learning experiences then I don't know what else to do when attempts in the past have been made by more users than just me. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 10:41, 8 September 2018 (MDT)
I still don't find your actions here valid. I believe listing your issues with my conduct as a whole without the need for me to tug them all out in conversation would be more effective in my own improvement. If that is your goal here, then could you please list them in a reply below as bluntly as possible that would be appreciated. Thanks. —ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 07:42, 14 September 2018 (MDT)
On another note, I'm interested in how the application of the maintenance templates you chastise can be improved and have put them below to be edited freely. From what I understand I need to use nicer wording, put things in the correct places and not link featured articles I've worked on. Unsure about the last one. —ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 07:42, 14 September 2018 (MDT)
The actions are valid, just not ideal. I had/have no goal to list all my issues and open pandora's box. You understand correctly that I think nicer wording would welcome users more, putting things in correct places for templates would help alleviate some edit wars, and not linking just your articles would let others know you consider yourself another user on this site like the rest of us and value others' work as well. The "less evil" (?) templates certainly sound better. Apologies for my shortness. I find this conversation to have become awkward. It was never enjoyable and certainly is even less enjoyable as you demonstrate very personable skills. I look forward to them. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 23:16, 14 September 2018 (MDT)
To steal a page, "on another note", I feel like labeling the templates as they have been ("evil" vs "less evil") to be mocking the issues I take with how they've been presented in the past. I make no assumption or accusation that you or the templates are evil. Anyway, I assume you meant no harm and I am just trying to being transparent. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 23:16, 14 September 2018 (MDT)
Tis but a jest with the labels dw. I'll take the rest into account but do you have any suggestions or additions in regards to the templates? —ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 06:21, 15 September 2018 (MDT)
Hey! Sorz for the delay. Despite not being a fan of copy-paste maintenance templates, I understand why you use them and I don't have anything to say for what's below. They seem much friendlier and less condescending, to me. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 06:16, 18 September 2018 (MDT)
Evil

{{stub|Incomplete. This really needs to be fleshed out because as of right now it lacks any substantial {{ref|Fluff}}. While it can be regarded by some as useless information it has a significant impact on how your content is used by players. Consult the [[5e Race Design Guide]] for help.}}


{{needsbalance|Stronger than any first party [[5e SRD:Races|race]] and uses incomplete and incorrect wording throughout. The traits need to be mechanically worded correctly as they are often vague or written like casual conversation. (list issues). Overall poorly executed and needs a rework both from a mechanic and lore perspective to better integrate with the first party content. Consult the [[5e Race Design Guide]] for help and see the [[Featured Articles]] pages for some exemplary content.}}


{{wording|A number of spelling/grammatical/capitalization/italicization errors throughout. Missing [[5e Race Design Guide#Referencing|references]] in several places. Consult the [[Help:When to Italicize and Capitalize]] for help and remember the wiki uses the American English over British.}} {{wikify|The preload is missing or incorrectly used on this page. As seen here [[5e Race Preload]]. The [[Alraune (5e Race)]] page is a prime example of how a page should look formatting wise.}}

Less Evil?

{{stub|Incomplete. This really needs to be fleshed out because as of right now it lacks any substantial {{ref|Fluff}}. While it can be regarded by some as useless information it has a significant impact on how your content is used by players. Consult the [[5e Race Design Guide#Introduction|5e Race Design Guide]] for help.}}


{{needsbalance|This content is stronger than any comparable first-party content. (list issues). Overall requires more work both from a mechanical perspective to better compare and integrate with the first party content. Consult the [[5e Race Design Guide#.3CRace_Name.3E_Traits|5e Race Design Guide]] for help and consider checking out some of the comparable [[Featured Articles]].}}


{{wording|A number of spelling/grammatical/capitalization/italicization/wording errors throughout. Consult the [[Help:When to Italicize and Capitalize]] for help. Missing [[5e Race Design Guide#Referencing|references]] in several places. The wiki uses the American English over British English. The traits need to be mechanically worded correctly as they are often vague or written like casual conversation. For example, "Your size is Medium." not "Medium" or "You are proficient in the {{5s|Athletics}} skill." not "You have proficiency with the {{5a|str}} ({{5s|Athletics}}) skill".}} {{wikify|The preload/ template is missing or incorrectly used on this page. As seen here [[5e Race Preload]]. The [[Alraune (5e Race)]] page is a prime example of how a page should look formatting wise.}}

I interpret the Help:Warning Policy's definition as the title for maintenance templates. It is precisely defined by the bulleted point "The usage of maintenance templates to enforce metric rating systems, without offering a topic of discussion alongside the maintenance template, warrants a warning." This was my intention when writing this bit of text, since I have seen admins using stub for balance reasons, and creating deletion reasons about a rewrite which the user is suggested to pay for, among others. I agree that if CL finds this to be a learning process, that he can choose this warning to be valid, but in my opinion we need to rewrite that bit of policy so that it is crystal clear about what the improper use of a maintenance template is. --Green Dragon (talk) 08:49, 18 September 2018 (MDT)
I interpreted it to be similar to the portion above saying, "First and foremost, as mentioned above, editing without civility and etiquette, as defined by Wikipedia Policy, warrants a warning. This includes, but is not exclusively limited to, the following offenses:" and examples were listed. So when "Improper usage of a maintenance template warrants a warning" is said, and then the example of " The usage of maintenance templates to enforce metric rating systems, without offering a topic of discussion alongside the maintenance template, warrants a warning" followed, I thought that improper usage of templates was just that and it wasn't exclusively limited to that and enforcing templates based on metric without discussion was just another example, but not the only example. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 10:05, 18 September 2018 (MDT)
Based on CL's comments above and on Discord, I think we can reasonably conclude that he doesn't find the warning valid. I agree with your interpretation that "improper usage of maintenance templates" is simply the header for the section about maintenance templates, and the bullet point defines that more precisely, and based on that interpretation, I agree that this warning is likely not valid nor justified. I can't remember seeing CL place a maintenance template on a page that didn't deserve it, and the wording of the warning suggests that the issue Bigshot took was more one of semantics than anything else, which is imo not deserving of a warning and seems like an attempt to shoehorn the logic of a warning into where it doesn't fit. (not saying this was necessarily Bigshot's intent, just that from my point of view it seems that way somewhat) — Geodude671 Chatmod.png (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 10:13, 18 September 2018 (MDT)
I find it strange that admins should have the right to block users at their discretion - a right which CL himself has lawfully executed - but that admins cannot warn users at their discretion? Even recently when a warning issued (by CL, I think) was challenged, it was upheld as warnings are learning experiences. Except a single warning is also a mark for blocking? As I said, confusing, and I am in favor of BSFM's warning standing on the basis of precedent.--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 15:27, 18 September 2018 (MDT)
Edit: To clarify, I also agree with BigShotFancyMan's interpretation of the "abuse of maintenance templates" violation. Regardless of the original intent, I think that we are better off having his interpretation as a policy to curb the use of maintenance templates - especially by admins who can block users at their discretion - to bully, coerce, threaten or demean users and/or articles. Perhaps it should be moved to the behavioral policy or the IRR templates policy pages, but I think it should remain/become a policy.--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 15:39, 18 September 2018 (MDT)
Can you please provide some examples of where you feel CL used maintenance templates to "bully, coerce, threaten or demean" users or articles? — Geodude671 Chatmod.png (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 15:46, 18 September 2018 (MDT)
I never said that he did, nor do I have time to dig for evidence of a crime that he's already been warned for. He's already been warned, so I think digging anything else up would be inappropriate :) Though, again, I never accused him of anything; I was just saying that some users have expressed concern over that before and I think we're better off playing it safe. I hope that helps!--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 16:47, 18 September 2018 (MDT)
I haven't been warned for such things and I believe implying or stating such is in poor taste, GA. Please do try to keep on topic. —ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 05:27, 19 September 2018 (MDT)
Please, CL, tell me what "such things" I falsely accused you of being warned for? Also, I did remain on topic - the topic being the warning you received. "Harassment, belittling, or other condemning actions from one user towards another will result in implementation of the warning system."--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 06:16, 19 September 2018 (MDT)
When you said "nor do I have time to dig for evidence of a crime that he's already been warned for" in regards to "used maintenance templates to bully, coerce, threaten or demean users or articles". Also, that wasn't the warning I received[2] so no you're sadly not on topic. —ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 07:45, 19 September 2018 (MDT)
To clarify, I believe that what BSFM warned you for falls under the same citation as "used maintenance templates to bully, coerce, threaten or demean users or articles." Therefore, you were warned for the same offense (abuse of maintenance templates), and so even if you did use templates to bully, coerce, etc., I could not legally warn you for it. At least, not under precedent or policy. Secondly, I said, and I quote, "I never said that he did" and "I never accused him of anything." You took my quote out of context to condemn me over something I never did. So, while it was on-topic, this discussion is over as per GD, so I'll see you on the flip side :) --GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 16:33, 19 September 2018 (MDT)
If I understood what the actual issue was/is I'd consider it a learning experience GD, however, all I can decern from this ordeal is that the wording/ placement of my maintenance templates wasn't well received by another admin, other then that, my actions are no different then they were at the beginning of the month. Bringing me to questioning the validity of the warning as Geo puts above, especially given the creative interpretation of a vague policy and the largely semantic nature of this case. Hence, I don't consider this a valid warning.—ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 05:27, 19 September 2018 (MDT)
"my actions are no different then they were at the beginning of the month" Would those actions be the same ones that BigShotFancyMan was warning you for committing? I'd just like some clarification on that point :) --GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 06:16, 19 September 2018 (MDT)
I am confused why one would question the validity of a warning but also create/rewrite the copy-paste maintenance templates they use; meaning, if there is no issue why go through the trouble to rewrite?
Fortunately GA, all users have the right to refute a warning on the appropriate talk page. Though, it appears certain users can ignore policy if consensus is that policy is vague and others users are warned when no policy exists, because "learning experience."
If users choose to ignore users who "bully, coerce, threaten or demean users and/or articles" then I wonder about the community (as I have been lately) I am part of. If I MUST find examples to prove this truth of behavior it is possible; but again, I am saddened that such active people deny it exists.
Other matters require my attention. Till later my friends. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 06:45, 19 September 2018 (MDT)
It may be poor to answer a question with a question but why wouldn't I seek to constantly improve? —ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 07:45, 19 September 2018 (MDT)
If you guys are talking about me in these implications or mean to say I am a user that bullies, coerces, threatens or demeans others do say so directly as all this beating around the bush is tiresome and doesn't advance the conversation on the validy of this warning. If not though, take the conversation about "users who bully, coerce, threaten or demean users and/or articles" onto a more appropriate talk page such as Help talk:Warning Policy. —ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 07:45, 19 September 2018 (MDT)
I agree, and I will also state that the appropriate discussion about the warning policy's clarity should take place there. --Green Dragon (talk) 08:44, 19 September 2018 (MDT)

Hey it's been a while[edit]

Hey i was wondering if I can touch on Feyling again, there are a few thing's Id like to add to it. the books Mordenkainens tome of foes and volos guide has really inspired me to add a back ground generator, edit the variant rules, and to update the race card. if it ist too much of a hassle i understand. I've gotten some feed back that the race ist very strong or useful and I am to fix my mistake, or do you think its balanced enough?

Hope to hear from you soon.

- Finn

Did you try to edit it? Despite the template, it seems to only be locked against those who aren't logged in, so you should be able to if you're logged in. Let us know if you still can't edit it! And provide a link so we know we're looking at the right page, if it still isn't working.--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 17:54, 10 September 2018 (MDT)
Thanks It seems to be working I just wasnt sure if I could do it, the link is here if you wanna help edit it or check on it later. Feyling_(5e_Race) - Finn
Update. Ok GamerAim, so I made all the edits i needed but, id like it if you could get a chance please check out my page. Im not to great at editing the codes on the wiki so believe forgive me, but could you please with the edits. Also if the content is out of balance that i added feel free to let me know I can change it if need be. - Finn
I was away for a while. It looks mostly fine few of the more miscellaneous issues like capitalization, table formatting, etc, but I'll fix those in a moment. Cool to hear from you again. —ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 07:47, 14 September 2018 (MDT)
Unrelated but you sign your name on the wiki by typing "~~~~". —ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 08:12, 14 September 2018 (MDT)

Aquamancer class[edit]

Heya, you struck me as one of the most helpful helpers on here, so I thought I might run my class by you. Aquamancer (5e Class) is the one. I'm concerned about balance, especially with the central Spellspring feature. I'm making this class to fill a need in a campaign I might be DMing soon, with the Spellspring being the specific element that fills the need, so I want to be sure I get it right.

Also, in terms of both flavor and balance, I could use an extra pair of eyes on these subclasses. I wanted to try something new, and gave each subclass a different spellcasting ability, so I want the subclasses to feel unique but cohesive, and to be pretty equal to each other.

Thanks in advance for the help! Ctenochaetus (talk) 03:47, 13 September 2018 (MDT)

Thanks for the compliment. I'll give the class a good run down when I have a more time but in the meantime check over the 5e Class Design Guide, the When to Italicize and Capitalize and the 5e Race Design Guide's section on referencing. The Pyromancer (5e Class) is also a pretty good example of what could be improved for your Aquamancer class I believe. See you soon. —ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 08:06, 14 September 2018 (MDT)

Void Elf Protection[edit]

Hey just want to say thank you for the help on the race. You said to leave you a response on your talk page about a way to get the race protected? How would that happen? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Slinger124 (talkcontribs). Please sign your posts.

I have protected the page Void Elf (5e Race). It's a command that admins have access to :). CL didn't protect it himself because he helped you previously and my guess is that because of that he didn't feel it was appropriate. — Geodude671 Chatmod.png (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 23:05, 14 September 2018 (MDT)
On the money Geo and np Slinger. —ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 06:11, 15 September 2018 (MDT)
Thank both very much! I'm glad to see the race finally done :D Time for some fun and more play testing with it. -slinger124 (talk) 10:27, 15 September 2018 (MDT)

Warning for "Quoting another editor out of context"[edit]

In response to your conduct here, you are being officially warned for quoting another editor out of context. In the future, please do not quote other editors out of context :) --GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 16:43, 19 September 2018 (MDT)

While I disagree with the reason for the warning, I was planning on handing out a better-worded warning based (again) on maintenance templates after CL saw the relevant discussion on Discord. BigShotFancyMan pointed out that many {{needsbalance}} templates you've placed are, in fact, demeaning to pages and/or the users that created them, specifically the templates that state "overall poorly executed," since somehow I missed that that was a thing that was said, and this is pretty clearly a violation of behavioral policy. At the time of this edit, a ctrl-f search on Needs Balance returns over 100 results for the phrase "overall poorly executed," so this is quite widespread. I doubt this will be an issue again after the edit to the template templates above, but it warrants a warning nonetheless. Just to clarify, this isn't a second warning on top of what GA just posted. I can't speak for anyone else, but this isn't me being mean or throwing warnings at the wall until one sticks, it's just me acknowledging behavioral issues now that they've been pointed out to me, and making sure you understood this was the reason I wanted to wait before warning you. — Geodude671 Chatmod.png (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 17:25, 19 September 2018 (MDT)
I'm fine with talking about that Geo but I think opening another header at your own leisure is more appropriate while the validity of this second warning is hashed out. —ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 06:50, 20 September 2018 (MDT)
I also disagree with GA's warning. I just don't see how this could be interpreted that way. —ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 06:50, 20 September 2018 (MDT)
Um, not valid. This warning breaks the civility code. Here, it's stated "Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of your fellow editors". Also, the warning about maintenance templates is not valid. This is currently not a policy, and we cannot enfore it like you intend. In the previous discussion GA is talking about a fictitious scenario. CL is asking for clarification about how the scenario pertains to his, at this point in time, warning. The confusion supercedes any clear statements and quotes. Remember, quotes are used to solidify the point of one user in another discussion. Quotes are not used to develop a framework for a "working" discussion. I understand that you may not understand each other, but using powers of constructive editing (admin rights) in a situation where powers should probably not be used, is asking for trouble. Be calm, do not make any hasty edits, and double check and powers you want to implement before using them. --Green Dragon (talk) 09:52, 20 September 2018 (MDT)
Sorry GD, I'm afraid I don't quite understand what you mean wrt maintenance templates. The warning policy doesn't cover this specifically with regards to maintenance templates, but it does state that "belittling another contributor" warrants a warning, and calling a page "overall poorly executed" seems like the textbook definition of belittling. Would you mind elaborating? Like I said, I don't think I'm being mean and I doubt CL will do this again; it's just me trying to make sure policy is enforced consistently. — Geodude671 Chatmod.png (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 10:33, 20 September 2018 (MDT)
I am not saying that "overall pooly executed" is worthy of a maintenance template. I would revert that edit, stating "please be more specific." This reaaon is not directed at the primary contributor. If it was, it would be "The poorly executed work from the primary contributor is executed deprived of conform usefulness." This is what I intended. Its impossible to pull a meaning out of a page without making someone accountable as belittling. --Green Dragon (talk) 11:49, 20 September 2018 (MDT)
I still disagree but respect your judgment in this matter. Based on your previous comment I'm guessing this warning should be removed as well? — Geodude671 Chatmod.png (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 12:15, 20 September 2018 (MDT)
That is certainly some semantics Green Dragon. I hope that if I am ever in a pickle, I have the same vigilance in support as is consistently shown for ConcealedLight here and in the past. I am not out to get him by any means, but in the abundance of others' perspectives that there is wrong doing an inch is never given by you. This is not satire or sarcasm. I mean no disrespect. You are the owner/bureaucrat with your rights. I saw similar with Geodude's RfA/3 and I want to think you simply see the good in others regardless. Again, I hope I never need such support but if I do it will be there. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 14:42, 20 September 2018 (MDT)
My concern is the correct implementation of policy. In no way do I hold CL in higher regards, and actually am still extremely disappointed that he did not take action on our discussion about his usage of deletion templates against concensus. --Green Dragon (talk) 23:39, 20 September 2018 (MDT)
"My concern is the correct implementation of policy". While I know this, I think I lost sight you are doing this. Thanks for not reaming me over my previous comment. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 14:07, 21 September 2018 (MDT)

If you [Geodude671] mean the warning for quoting me out of context, no. This warning had nothing to do with improper use of maintenance templates. If anyone needs more clarification on the matter: [3]

  1. I backed up BSFM and said that I think the warning policy should cover a wider range of offenses. This was as an aside, but still related to my main reply (cropped out).
  2. Geodude thought that I was accusing CL of coercing, demean, etc. and asked for evidence.
  3. I clarified to Geodude that I did not accuse CL of that. I also said that, even if CL did do it, I couldn't warn CL for the same infraction (improper use of maintenance templates) twice. I then stated again that I was not accusing CL of anything.
  4. CL then belittled me, accused me of saying something I didn't, and said that I was off-topic (which I sort of was, because I was clarifying something that Geodude needed clarified)."
  5. CL accused me of doing it after I stated clearly that I was not accusing him of anything.
  6. He did it in direct reply to my clarifications.
  7. Conveniently taking the bit where I supposedly accused him of something and ignoring the bits where I explicitly stated to the contrary.
  8. I asked him what he meant, and then he quoted me.
  9. IMO, this puts him in clear violation. If he had misunderstood me as Geodude did, that's fine. My fault. But he took my own explanation of what I meant out of context to paint me as someone doing something wrong.--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 14:46, 20 September 2018 (MDT)
The problem is that you are writing policy quotes, but then you assume that CL, by writing, "nor do I have time to dig for evidence of a crime that he's already been warned for" is afterwards not referring to policy. This quote is in no way crystal clear what either of you are trying to communicate. --Green Dragon (talk) 23:39, 20 September 2018 (MDT)
GamerAim feels, and I agree, as though he was misquoted when ConcealedLight used the commentary "nor do I have time to dig for evidence of a crime that he's already been warned for" in conjunction with an accusation of "used maintenance templates to bully, coerce, threaten or demean users or articles". When according to GamerAim, he said "nor do I have time to dig for evidence of a crime that he's already been warned for" because ConcealedLight was warned for "improper use of maintenance templates", regardless of how those templates were used. GamerAim didn't accuse ConcealedLight of using templates to bully, coerce, etc. but it was being communicated by ConcealedLight that GamerAim did. ConcealedLight used quotes for GamerAim's words, "nor do I have time to dig for evidence of a crime that he's already been warned for", but then used the wrong reason with quotes that GamerAim said those things. Honestly, I think if ConcealedLight would have apologized for misunderstanding GamerAim it would have never even came up. But I am speaking a lot for GamerAim in this post. If I have misspoken GA, I apologize and do correct me-on any of it. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 14:07, 21 September 2018 (MDT)
GD, could you please explain why you're undoing my legitimate warning against CL? Since there was no discussion or consensus regarding my own warning, I undid your edit for now.--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 05:21, 22 September 2018 (MDT)
Because it's not valid and breaks the civility code. He said so above. —ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 05:25, 22 September 2018 (MDT)
No, he talked about maintenance templates or some such. I did not break the civility code by exercising my authority as an admin to warn you. At least not in any way that GD has explained. Again, I saw what he said above, but I fail to see how it relates to my warning, so I am assuming he was replying to Geodude's comments about you (which you mentioned were off-topic).--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 05:31, 22 September 2018 (MDT)
GD's actions and words seem to suggest otherwise but if you want to believe that. Ok. —ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 05:36, 22 September 2018 (MDT)
See the first few sentences of this edit before GD started talking about maintenance templates:
Um, not valid. This warning breaks the civility code. Here, it's stated "Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of your fellow editors".
This is specifically in regards to your warning. He then went on to state "Also, the warning about maintenance templates is not valid," meaning the portion of his message before that was not related to maintenance templates. My perception of this situation is that CL saw your comment (which you linked) as a personal attack towards him, and had this perspective reinforced by you warning him when he acted in response to that. I feel (and GD agrees with me) that this warning is primarily because of your and CL's personal feud with one another, which is not an appropriate use of admin tools (the warning system isn't technically a tool, but you know what I mean). It is my recommendation that you two (GamerAim and ConcealedLight) interact only as fellow editors, and not as administrators, at least until things settle, to prevent further conflict.
The maintenance template thing from me wasn't an official warning; it was me bringing up perceived bad behavior from one editor to another, and not in my position as an administrator. I would have warned (officially, in my position as an admin) if you hadn't already warned him.
Based on this I'm removing the warning, again. This warning should not be reinstated until consensus has been reached that such action is appropriate. — Geodude671 Chatmod.png (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 11:41, 22 September 2018 (MDT)
There was never a consensus to remove the warning, but GD pays the bills so I guess he do whatever he wants. Makes me wonder why he bothers having admins, but whatever.--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 11:56, 22 September 2018 (MDT)

Wikify Template[edit]

Just letting you know that the wikify template should be used when a page needs hyperlinked, not the wording template :) --GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 06:07, 22 September 2018 (MDT)

Why are you undoing my revisions without explanation? —ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 06:20, 22 September 2018 (MDT)
Because wikify should have been used instead of wording. There was nothing else wrong with them, AFAIK, so you should be good once that's fixed :) Also, a bit off-topic, but please do not add deletion and abandoned templates at the same time; abandoned pages should only be marked for deletion after one year has passed since the abandoned template was added :) --GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 06:27, 22 September 2018 (MDT)
And you could not have just moved the text you didn't like to the wikify template instead of removing otherwise perfectly valid templates and pages which clearly have issues... And I didn't, I only added the deletion template and re-added both templates when they were removed without reason. —ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 06:58, 22 September 2018 (MDT)
Ah, so that's why it looked like that! No problem, then :) --GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 07:11, 22 September 2018 (MDT)

You have proficiency[edit]

I agree that the phrasing feels a little weird in the sentence, "You have proficiency in the Perception skill." That said, contributors are justified in writing it this way. It's the verbatim phrasing for elf's Keen Senses trait, both in the SRD and the PH. It's just something worth considering in your future edits. - Guy 08:06, 22 September 2018 (MDT)

You are correct. Since either way works, I'll avoid bringing it up in maintenance templates but correct it where I can for better phrasing. Thanks. —ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 05:44, 23 September 2018 (MDT)
What an excellent idea, ConcealedLight! Welcome to D&D Wiki :) --GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 06:24, 23 September 2018 (MDT)
CL, thanks for acknowledging this. Despite the fact you and I disagree on seemingly many things, I'm glad you lately seem to be more accepting of criticism.
GA, why must this turn to a passive-aggressive insult? This header was otherwise in mutual good faith. This response seems to be discouraging the acceptance of valid feedback, which is something I'd rather not see discouraged. Accepting negative feedback is difficult enough as it is. - Guy 06:57, 23 September 2018 (MDT)
I'm not sure how I discouraged him, Guy. I, too, am thrilled when we all work together, take constructive feedback and improve D&D Wiki! So fear not, my old chap, we're all on the same page :) --GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 07:42, 23 September 2018 (MDT)
Using the phrase "welcome to the wiki" towards a longtime active user as you would a new user could easily be perceived as belittling. I would encourage you to think about how your messages could be perceived by others before posting them, as this is now the third time something you've posted has been misinterpreted as negative by another user. Just food for thought. — Geodude671 Chatmod.png (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 08:57, 23 September 2018 (MDT)
I assure you, it was a lighthearted jest. CL and I are long-time associates with the kind of relationship where we trust each other enough to know when the other is joking :) But thank you for coming to his defense, unnecessary though it may have been!
Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "this is now the third time something you've posted has been misinterpreted as negative by another user." I assume you're talking about that time recently when you thought I was accusing CL or something, but that was more an issue with how warning policy was being interpreted that led to the confusion. Even then, I'm not sure what the "second" time would be?--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 09:44, 23 September 2018 (MDT)
The second time was when CL thought you were accusing him. — Geodude671 Chatmod.png (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 09:47, 23 September 2018 (MDT)
You'll also recall that CL was warned for quoting me out of context? As such, I fail to see how you could implicate me as being to blame in either, much less both, circumstances.--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 10:10, 23 September 2018 (MDT)
Home of user-generated,
homebrew pages!
system reference documents
admin area
Terms and Conditions for Non-Human Visitors