From D&D Wiki
Welcome to D&D Wiki
Hello Eiji, and on behalf of Green Dragon, welcome to D&D Wiki! Thank you for your contributions. We hope you like D&D Wiki and decide to stay. Green Dragon is the owner of the site (though he's unavailable right now), and if you have a question feel free to ask me in his absence, however when contacting anyone on D&D Wiki through talk pages please sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Also, if you want to help D&D Wiki but just don't know how drop me a note and I'll see what I can do. (Alternatively, you can leave a message on Green Dragon's talk page. I and a few others keep tabs on the discussions going on there.) However, when leaving a note please indicate how much time you would like to spend working, how well you know the Wiki Format, and how well you know D&D. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a D&D Wikian! If you need help ask me on my talk page, Green Dragon's talk page, or just right here. Again, welcome! —Sledged (talk) 12:41, 2 July 2007 (MDT)
Nomination for Adminship
Hey! I just nominated you for adminship. I hope you make it :). However, you really should fill out the "Candidates Prelude" information on that page and you should probably also make a user page (since so many things are linking to it right now, like the main page, etc, and it looks unprofessional to not have one :)). Again, hope you make it :). --Green Dragon 16:32, 27 November 2007 (MST)
- Sadly you did not make adminship... Maybe next time :). --Green Dragon 22:54, 4 December 2007 (MST)
- @-@ The things that happen when I vanish for a week. Come and gone before I even knew....
- Well, I suppose it doesn't matter. I still need to get a handle on things (and more time, what with Xmas season working at KB Toy does not let you rest). I do have one question though, how do I make a user page? -- Eiji 00:03, 5 December 2007 (MST)
- Maybe after Christmas would be a better time, seeing that Eiji works at a toy shop (right?) and I do not think it would be the best idea to re-nominate someone within the same month... Although a re-nomination does seem like a good idea. --Green Dragon 14:57, 5 December 2007 (MST)
- Yeah, I agree. --Sam Kay 08:19, 6 December 2007 (MST)
- I agree too, whew. Well, user page is up, have a look-see! -- Eiji 22:41, 6 December 2007 (MST)
- Good luck for January! --Sir Milo Teabag 12:03, 8 December 2007 (MST)
- So, you still want to go for it? It is January now :P... --Green Dragon 12:35, 15 January 2008 (MST)
- Let's do it! -- Eiji 13:21, 15 January 2008 (MST)
- And, it has ended. --Green Dragon 01:32, 23 January 2008 (MST)
→Reverted indentation to one colon
- Welcome to Adminship. You are now, as Dmilewski once put it, part of "The Face" of D&D Wiki. Honestly, as you will notice, not much has been changed now that you are an admin. If anything, I would say more burden is placed on you. But first, for the the new features and there uses. You can now delete pages, protect pages, rollback edits, block users and IP's, edit every page, patrol edits, and do a couple more minor things.
- What it is
- What deleting pages is, is self explanatory.
- What protecting pages is, is also pretty self explanatory.
- Rolling back edits is a method for removing spam. It is more powerful than the conventional method of undoing edits. Instead of showing a diff of the edit in question once clicked, it instantly rollsback all the edits by the user or IP in question on a certain page. For example if I edited my user page and you clicked "rollback" on that edit it would rollback all the edits up to the point where someone else has edited it. Be careful using this, it can be very helpful but also very harmful.
- What blocking users and IP's is, is also self explanatory.
- Editing every page is another self explanatory one.
- Patrolling edits is a method for keeping RC in check, it can be seen once a diff is clicked. All it does is, once "Mark as Patrolled Edits" is clicked, it marks the edits as patrolled so the edit will no longer show up on RC when "Hide Patrolled" is marked.
- When or how it should be used
- Deleting pages is normally done through Category:Candidates for Deletion. Anything with a good reason to be deleted on that page should be deleted. The other time pages should be deleted is when someone makes a certain page and after a few edits they either blank the page or replace it with something like "Please delete this". They don't want to work on it, and unless it is really well made and fleshed out, just delete it.
- Protecting pages has quite a few different times when it should be used. Pages should be protected according to the author's wishes (with Template:Locked Page added to the top of the page in question), in case of conflict (with Template:Temp Locked Page added to the top of the page in question), in case of OGC published materials (with Template:OGL Top added to the top of the page in question and Template:OGL Bottom added to the bottom), or finally if the page is a vital part of D&D Wiki's organization. If it deals with D&D Wiki's organization it either needs to be be protected from IP edits or all non-sysop edits. As a rule of thumb pages up to two tiers deep from the Main Page are normally locked to anyone but sysops and all the others are just protected from IP edits. For Example Dungeons and Dragons is protected from all non-sysop edits whereas a deeper in page like LA 0 Races is only protected from IP edits. No template has to be added to pages if thay are part of D&D Wiki's organization (even though some do exist like Template:Admin Locked Page)
- Blocking a user or IP should only be used after an IP or user vandalizes a certain page. To block someone just click "block" (found either on RC or the diff in question) and fill out the corresponding form. For a typical vandalism attack I normally block the user for two weeks. If I'm in a bad mood from vandalism or a certain discussion, then I sometimes block them for up to a month. No standards have been set for block lengths, so it is currently really up to you when you block the user or IP.
- Editing every page on D&D Wiki mostly means you can now edit the SRD and the MSRD. Feel free to edit them if you find inaccuracies. Also, if you want to, for lack of a better word, major in the SRD (as Dmilewski has done) or the MSRD (as EldrithNumen has done) take a look at SRD Talk:System Reference Document#SRD ToDo List or MSRD Talk:Modern System Reference Document#Tasks to see what needs to be done within the SRD or MSRD. There is never enough help to get it all done, so I am sure your help would be appreciated.
- Patrolling edits should, in a nutshell, be used when you have looked over an edit and fixed everything that needs to be fixed (this includes answering questions, sending MoI's, etc). If you decide to, for a lack of better words, major in RC (as I have :)) then marking edits as patrolled will become commonplace and extremely helpful. Below is how to "major" in recent changes, which would be a great help to D&D Wiki and I. First off load recent changes and press "Hide patrolled edits". Next click any diff and look at the change. Only if you are 100% sure that the edit is okay (taking formatting standards, page-linking (using the "what links here?" function), answering questions, sending MoI's, and line spacing between comments and/or the "Back to" footer into consideration) then mark the edit as patrolled. If the edit is not okay then all you have to do is fix the problem then mark the edit as patrolled. It's simple, but looking over every edit on D&D Wiki really keeps it looking and running well. In my opinion, it is the most vital part of D&D Wiki. Even marking only 20 edits as patrolled every day would be extremely helpful with this never-ending task.
- I know this is really long-winded, so I'll keep the rest short. You have more burden on youself now that you are an admin because users will be looking at you for editing help, knowledge of the standards, etc etc. It's a bit more work, but I really hope you enjoy being an admin and I hope you decide to stay around on D&D Wiki for a while more to come. Welcome to Adminship, again, as Dmilewski once put it, you're now part of "The Face" of D&D Wiki. --Green Dragon 01:32, 23 January 2008 (MST)
- Whew, much to work on. Thank you, I'll hold the title with honor and oven mitts (honorable oven mitts). -- Eiji 16:45, 23 January 2008 (MST)
- :). --Green Dragon 22:47, 23 January 2008 (MST)
- Domo arigato Mr. Sledgedboto. -- Eiji 22:20, 7 December 2007 (MST)
Happy Bunny Picture
- Discussion moved to Talk:Happy Bunny (DnD Creature)#PictureThe discussion was related to the happy bunny, not Eiji --Green Dragon 13:24, 24 December 2007 (MST)
good luck with the state alchemist into D&D format, also very nice conversion of DBZ moves into D&D attacks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Archangel (talk • contribs) 18:36, 10 February 2008 (MST). Please sign your posts.
- Why thank you. Eventually I'll work up that Superhuman/Super Saiyan prestige class at well. I'm thinking epic. -- Eiji 20:06, 10 February 2008 (MST)
eiji im not sure how to contact you but i was looking over you sayian base race and related class and thought it was a little flaud not saying it wasnt good but i have watched the show and read the books for many years and i have taken what you did and some things from other people and I think i have made a pretty good version of both race and class myself. i am almost sure that it is as fair as possible with out having to make anything epic right out the gate. i dont know if you still check this stuff but i would love to get your insite on this, and know if there is a way i can contact you outside of this page like threw yahoo or something --vamjin
Trouble in the lands of reality, I have been and may still be only half here while I handle some terrible RL troubles. I shall return in full, I promise. -- Eiji 14:55, 25 March 2008 (MDT)
- Sounds good :). Thanks for keeping us updated. --Green Dragon 01:30, 26 March 2008 (MDT)
- Alright, I'm back, mostly. Time to ease back into posting flow. -- Eiji 22:38, 10 April 2008 (MDT)
I never thanked you, You kinda helped get into the flow of this site, so i wanted to thank you for all your help.Summerscythe 15:17, 29 May 2008 (MDT)
- Awww, it's no problem. Why, thank you. :D I hear you're trying to get the tavern hopping again (I'm in now actually, it's populated!) so I hope to see you in there soon. -- Eiji 21:31, 29 May 2008 (MDT)
Sorry, I alway played 2nd edition and im a little confused about how to do my char. Im not sure also if my characters concept suit you. Anyway if you could help me a little i would appreciate. With all grace to the mighty Eiji--Lord Dhazriel 23:52, 7 June 2008 (MDT)
- Ah ha ha. I'm not that great, but thank you. Now, I will claim complete ignorance on 2e (I started in 3.5e) but I'll try to help where I can. Unfortunately, where do I start? The only major changes I can recall off hand is THAC0 turning into AC, weapon size changes, and spell changes. There's more I'm sure of course, where do I start?
- Anyway, hit me with your concept. :D -- Eiji 16:35, 8 June 2008 (MDT)
Hey dude can I post some racial feats I made for plushies?--Risek 12:54, 11 June 2008 (MDT)
- Go for it. :) -- Eiji 16:33, 11 June 2008 (MDT)
- Ok--Risek 21:51, 11 June 2008 (MDT)
- Here are the first few:
--Risek 08:18, 12 June 2008 (MDT)
- And again! --Daniel Draco 20:38, 24 November 2008 (MST)
"Must convert self into D&D form, and live forever!" lol watch out for inevitables XD --Jack Bread 23:45, 20 July 2008 (MDT)
I had a question
The Spell you made, Ell's Handy Homunculus, is awesome, but me and my roomie were wondering if a Plushie spellcaster (btw Plushies are my new favorite race) can make one and how, as they possess no blood of their own. Just a question.- Tripp Thorne
- Thank you kindly. You most certainly can use it. Plushie blood is stuffing, so you can use that to supplement for the blood component.
- (That's crazy! I have blood! It's right inside this sack of meat here!)
- Eiji Plushie, what are you doing, I'm not a sack of mEAATAAAGAGHJHFJOHHWFJHKJAWHjk3rjafsf
- ...-- Eiji 15:17, 20 August 2008 (MDT)
- Another quick question: Is it cool if I post some Plushy Feats I've been working on? - Tripp Thorne
- Go for it! -- Eiji 09:27, 22 August 2008 (MDT)
Question: Bladed Fan
My question concerns this: "Larger or smaller fans create larger or smaller effects. It is the maximum amount of damage your fan is capable of down one size category. (A Large fan, dealing 1d6 damage, creates a 5 mph wind every +1, and a Small fan, dealing 1d3, does 2 mph)." Is that simply supposed to be the maximum damage of the weapon -1? I ask because "5" isn't a maximum damage of any weapon at any size category. I also ask because gargantuan and colossal fans get out of hand pretty quickly (2d6 gargantuan would produce 11mph per point of strength bonus, producing tornado winds with only a strength modifier of +16. And a colossal version would be even easier to produce tornado winds with (strength modifier +11; keeping even gargantuan and colossal creatures checked).
Also, what area (size, shape) does the wind take place in? Is it a cone emanating from the user? Is it a line? How long does the wind last?
And, lastly, does the full round action provoke attacks of opportunity? --Nox_Noctis
- Good catch there, looks like I mixed up some of the old text with the new text when I had it based on a different system, and ended up making it even more confusing. It happens, and now its fixed, making it difficult to use, and provoking AoOs to prevent abuses from very strong PCs with huge Str scores and huger fans. I've made the alterations and clarifications needed. -- Eiji 00:15, 26 August 2008 (MDT)
Question: Kopiko Draw Spell-like Ability
How is the Will (save; word left out in the race entry) DC determined? Which ability modifier does it use? --Nox_Noctis
- Default is always 10 + 1/2 HD + Cha, btu I'll go clarify that now. -- Eiji 13:55, 26 August 2008 (MDT)
Question about the Domain Time Warp
Hello, my name is Santiago Mendez, my user name is Sarrow. I was wondering if I could use your cleric domain Time Warp for a Deity that I am making? -Sarrow 15:35, 11 September 2008 (MDT)
- By all means. :D Everything on the Wiki is free to use. I'm flattered you like my work, by all means. -- Eiji 07:38, 14 September 2008 (MDT)
- Yeah, the deity is Aetas, the Father of Time. -Sarrow 14:14, 14 September 2008 (MDT)
Thanks for the info; I wasn't sure there was a nezumi so I decided to make one.--Arael 17:21, 19 September 2008 (MDT)
|This one is for reverting the childish edits to the Chuck Norris page so quickly. The page always seems to attract vandals, and Eiji was quick to get it reverted. --Aarnott 11:24, 22 July 2008 (MDT)|
AHHHH! AHHHHH!!!! What am I doing?? I don't know! You wrote on my page and I wanted to write back! Eiji! I want to draw Lord Eiji for his page on the wiki at some point, if you don't mind. I realize I've committed to drawing a whole pile of things already, but I want to add that one to the list because I saw he had not picture yet and I thought it would be fun to draw. AHHHH!!!! --Lumi 20:28, 25 October 2008 (MDT)Lumi
- AAAAHHHH!!!!!! AAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!! OMG AAAAAHHHHH!!!! Lord Eiji, holy crap yes, AAAHHHHH!!!! I shall PM you pictures of his plush continence, just add wings and ears and tail, and then DELICIOUSNESS! Go on, I dare you to SHOW ME YOUR MOVES! YES!
- LUMI PAWNCH! -- Eiji 21:04, 25 October 2008 (MDT)
- AHHH!!!! You dared me and I did it! Mostly! But you are asleep!!!!!! NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!
- Now I have to wait until tomorrow to find out what you think! --Lumi 02:27, 27 October 2008 (MDT)Lumi
- AAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!!! King Eiji is preparing a SOLAR PLUSHIE PAWWWWWNCH! You have won INTERNETS and LONGCATS! TOP SCORE!!! -- Eiji 09:44, 27 October 2008 (MDT)
- Hmmm, interesting. I'll look at the balance later, but the concept of expanding template powers with feats is novel. -- Eiji 20:22, 30 October 2008 (MDT)
Sky Eye and the Clockwork subtype
I looked at your creature entry for Sky Eye (DnD Creature) and there was no accompanying link for the clockwork subtype. Also, what does Locomotion and Observation do for a Sky Eye? --Gedren56 15:48, 17 November 2008 (MST)
- I forgot to link it, didn't I? I do have the clockwork subtype page around here somewhere. When I return, in a rush.
- The short of it is that Locomotion and Observation are the subjects it is allowed to act "intelligent" on, using it's Cha as Int for the purposes of movement and watching things, so it won't easily be tricked by a wall in the way or by someone hiding, and it'll remember. However, for all other subjects, say, combat, it's generic construct programming. "I hit it again!" -- Eiji 15:52, 17 November 2008 (MST)
Hello, I've recently opened up a Request for Adminship for myself at Requests for Adminship/Hooper, and as an admin yourself, would greatly appreciate your input, suggestions, thoughts, or general comments. Thanks. 19:21, 16 December 2008 (MST)
Hey Eiji, I was wondering if you were planning on making plushies 4e. there would need to be some serious reworking of it but i love the idea of them. I would really like just at least the race, and the Go boom as an encounter power. Master K 16:51, 8 April 2009 (MDT)
- As is, I am not a 4e player. However, if someone with the know how wishes to, I give you permission to translate them into 4e mechanics. Hee hee hee. -- Eiji 19:54, 8 April 2009 (MDT)
- I am not too good at it and i will give it a try, is this an invatation to anyone or just me? Master K 19:58, 8 April 2009 (MDT)
- Anyone. Know any 4e gurus? -- Eiji 21:37, 8 April 2009 (MDT)
I'd like to label you as an admin with the
[[Template:AdminBadge]] on your user page. If you have a reason you don't think you should have the badge or you don't think the badge is a good idea, please discuss it on the badge's discussion. -Valentine the Rogue 16:06, 11 April 2009 (MDT)
- Coo' with me bro. -- Eiji 20:54, 11 April 2009 (MDT)
I Missz Youz
Eiji... I missz youz... --Jay Freedman 22:59, 28 August 2009 (MDT)
- I has a fan. :) Well no loss, I intend to have great comedy with all my derelict pages now. -- Eiji 23:07, 28 August 2009 (MDT)
- Good! I was hoping you wouldn't just up and leave. This place needs a person like you hanging around. Much Luvz and Kizz'z. --Jay Freedman 23:12, 28 August 2009 (MDT)(I am totally just kidding about the Luvz and Kizz'z. Ok...)
- But how will I be able to fulfill my secret fantasies about you without the luvz and kizz'z? :O
- Wait, those aren't the ancient eldritch words for death and destruction? Oops. Anyway, yeah, I'm leaving links everywhere where you can find my actual stuff now. -- Eiji 23:14, 28 August 2009 (MDT)
|“||I intend to have great comedy with all my derelict pages now.||”|
|—Sir Eiji, Talk Page|
- I truly hope the above isn't a reference to any possible premeditated vandalism. 10:27, 29 August 2009 (MDT)
- Look at the changes Eiji's made. Everything is still functional with an added bit of tongue-in-cheek humor. -- Jota 10:31, 29 August 2009 (MDT)
- Heh, I always found the concept of self-vandalizing to be nonsensical. It's like... self-theft. You really CAN'T do it. But no, this is insurance. I do not want a repeat of Sulacu, where they decide simply to steal your name off your work. All this stuff will be mine. All this stuff will be workable. However, as in reflection to the feeling of this site, I will not be terribly serious. If you're looking for classes appropriate for Serious Business d20 Wikia is there for that. This is now Lolcat d20. Expect lolcats and lol wut pears and running bears having a seat over there. -- Eiji 20:19, 29 August 2009 (MDT)
- No, this wiki is not a joke. Treat it with respect. 21:29, 29 August 2009 (MDT)
- Why so serious? :D *Jokergrin* If you have a problem with humor, that's what April Fools is there for. You can put it on everything yourself if you want, I don't feel the need to bother. Or, if you're telling me that joke pages are bad, may I suggest asking Green Dragon to change policy and remove the April Fools category.
- Just don't get banned while asking. ;) -- Eiji 21:41, 29 August 2009 (MDT)
- Hooper, take a chill pill. Its his original Shizz'nits. I kinda like the changes too. This is not a negative thing. Its a Luvz and Kizz'z thang'. --Jay Freedman 21:56, 29 August 2009 (MDT)
- When someone says "Serious Business d20 Wikia is there for that. This is now Lolcat d20." it is completely clear that they are belittling this wiki's place, and establishing a clear intention to make less of it - even if only through their own articles. This is not acceptable on any level, and it is a very negative thing. 22:15, 29 August 2009 (MDT)
- You aren't familiar with Eiji's madness aren't you? --Dhazriel 22:21, 29 August 2009 (MDT)
- Actually, I am. Which is why I said above that I hoped his statements wouldn't lead to vandalism, whether he is conscious of it or not. His "madness" as you put it should not be allowed to deteriorate this wiki, even if he is a nice guy. 22:24, 29 August 2009 (MDT)
←Reverted indentation to one colon
- I made Sheep the Head and Lord Eiji the god of gumdrops from the heavens. That was before the Wikipocalypse. Tell me, have I belittled the Wiki? What of the Farmer and Cheerleader (which brings to question how to I alternative those... maybe I'll make them DEAD SERIOUS BUSINESS or something). Those belittling too?
- I ask you this because it's important. Technically, I have no use for my work being here anymore. I'd like to have it deleted. BUT I CAN'T, due to a very silly ruling. Rather than fight the power, I'll play along and do what I can do. One thing I can do it see what happens when I want to run my sillier games but need solid mechanics behind it. It's called reflavoring.
- Like I said, take time out of your life to April Fools it all if it offends you so. I don't mind, really. Anyway, you'll still have quality posters here like Jason Bagby if you need serious business.
- ... ok, that last part WAS a joke. XD Laugh it off. -- Eiji 22:43, 29 August 2009 (MDT)
- Wow Hooper, I wish you had this sort of zeal back when our copyright was being violated! Surgo 08:48, 30 August 2009 (MDT)
- After closer inspection of the GNU FDL, and reading numerous legal analysis of it's relationship to wikis, I learned that the copyright wasn't being violated in any way, actually. But that is another story for another time - and one that actually surprised me. 08:53, 30 August 2009 (MDT)
- Actually, it was being violated (just because Wikipedia does it doesn't mean it's legal). Stripping off the names of the authors from the title page is explicitly not allowed. Surgo 12:38, 30 August 2009 (MDT)
- As long as a history exists, then that requirement of having the author's information is already met. I don't even agree with that fully, but it is just how it is, whether we like it or not. 12:46, 30 August 2009 (MDT)
- Except...it's not just a requirement of "having the author's information". The requirement is you have the author's information on the title page. Explicitly. On the title page. Not the history page (which is a separate, distinct entity under the GFDL). Surgo 12:49, 30 August 2009 (MDT)
- I'm not a legal expert in this particular field, however, when it came up the other day with TK I looked into it. Lawyer after lawyer has stated that legally speaking, the history page qualify because it is technically still the title page. Go look it up. Its crazy. 12:54, 30 August 2009 (MDT)
- Lawyer after lawyer? I'm quite interested in seeing that. Where are these lawyers who have claimed this? If that's the case (actual J.D.s saying this), I'll stop my complaints. Surgo 12:57, 30 August 2009 (MDT)
- When I started looking it up after TK brought it up, I first read the GNU site, then the GNU pages on wikipedia and their talk pages, and it just kind of spearheads you into a spiral of legal talk after legal talk with links to accompany it. When you have some time look at it, some of it is insane. 13:22, 30 August 2009 (MDT)
- Yeah, and...do any of them actually hold JDs? Surgo 13:32, 30 August 2009 (MDT)
←Reverted indentation to one colon
- In fact, the only discussion I could find (on wikipedia, none the less) agrees with my interpretation of "title page". Surgo 13:40, 30 August 2009 (MDT)
- I did not discuss Wikia, and I am reading the GNU Free Documentation License. When something is licensed under this, it is said to be "published" or "released" under this license. Surgo 15:52, 30 August 2009 (MDT)
- Whoa whoa whoa, guys guys... this is Eiji's talk page. Discussions on how to justify poor rulings is a subject for Baato- I mean, Green Dragon's talk page and other "serious" places like that. Your new subject is nipples: Eiji has them, yet he is a plushie. Discuss. -- Eiji 18:13, 30 August 2009 (MDT)
- Nipples... Ah, yummy yummy. Makes a man smile, it does. Just thinking of... (Wait? What?!) Ok, Maybe that's not an appropriate topic. (Ahem,) To restart. Lets talk about why Eiji is crazy... Any comments. --Jay Freedman 18:25, 30 August 2009 (MDT)
|“||Publishing is the process of production and dissemination of literature or information – the activity of making information available for public view.||”|
- Articles here are published (under the GFDL license). --TK-Squared 18:48, 30 August 2009 (MDT)
Hey Eiji, My name is James and I found D&D Wiki, and your page by yahoo search while looking for a D&D Saiyan Race. Ive been working on my own version for some time, and after reading what you came up with, Id very much like to be able to have a conversation at length with you over messenger and show you what Ive got so far and see what you think about it and maybe get some feedback. I'll check back here to see what you have to say. I look forward to hearing from you soon!
- Yo James! I'm glad I inspired you. You don't really need my permission or anything, especially since I am no longer technically active on this site (we have moved to here-  over some foolish highschool drama. You can read Green Dragon's page to see the story, personally I have a bit of a problem getting kicked in the nuts for something unrelated to me. But that's a story for another time, about those saiyans... by all means feel free to chat it up, especially since all my material here is being altered. Don't worry though, the original Saiyans remains intact on the Wikia, and it will be some time before I reach the saiyans. :) I have a lot of articles and a lot of work here, too much simply for it to go to waste. Don't forget to sign your posts through dude, it's "~ ~ ~ ~" at the end of your post, minus spaces.
- I'll be around! -- Eiji 09:09, 30 August 2009 (MDT)
- I am inspired by the work that Ive seen you've done, but Ive been working on this project for months, and I only just found your wikia the other day. I wasnt so much asking for permission to use what Ive seen here, as much as I'd like to get together to talk in a more instantanious fashion, so that we can bounce ideas off of each other to refine what Ive made so far (by incorperating some of your work and ideas) to make an overall better D&D Saiyan race and Saiyan Warrior class. Mostly I was wondering if you can give me your email address either on here, or using the email feature on this site, or just send me an email to firstname.lastname@example.org so we can arrange a time to talk. I look foward to hearing from you again. The-Marksman 00:40, 1 September 2009 (MDT)
- I totally admit, I rarely check my email. The best ways of finding me is either AIM or using the new chat the Wikia get got, Mibbit. Come around and try and find me. -- Eiji 02:48, 8 September 2009 (MDT)
- Okay, Im going to have to presume you meant your AIM username and your Wikia chat name are both Mibbit so I took an hour trying to get back into my old AIM account and finally got it, Ive added you to my account Golbez04 . I'll be leaving myself signed in whenever my comp is on till we can talk. Also, I dont know which Wikia chat you were refering to, were you implying the name of the Wikia chat is "Get got" or was that a typo? I tried the link up top on here for The Tavern, but it didnt connect. Lemme know if Im correct in all of this next time you visit this page please, Thanks for the reply Eiji, I look foward to speaking on IM. -James The-Marksman 05:34, 8 September 2009 (MDT)
Thanks for making the farmer class, otherwise i wouldn't have a D&D group :) MY one friend is obsessed with cows, and when i told him he could be a farmer WITH COWS (!) he was all for it. Then I got 2 other people after that. w00t. - I am not actually a user on here though, i really should make an account...
- Awesome! :D I love to hear this kind of stuff, I'm glad I could make a difference. I no longer add new material on this Wiki for various reasons involving my e-drama and the whatnot, but if you want feel free to follow me to my new haunt at Dungeons Wikia, the Farmer is there as well as everything new I've made. I hope you enjoy, and have fun!
- 'n stay away from mah daughter varment!! :) -- Eiji 20:06, 11 November 2009 (MST)
- Actually you can't move your things on D&D Wiki their - it's illegal. It's the CC and the GNU FDL v1.3. --Green Dragon 23:17, 11 November 2009 (MST)
- That displays a shocking misunderstanding of how copyright law works, because it is 100% legal to move your own things to wherever you want to move them. By uploading things onto this wiki, you have granted this wiki a license to use and distribute them under the GNU FDL, version 1.3. You have not, however, lost the right to relicense your own copyrighted works under whatever license you wish to any other licensee. 126.96.36.199 16:23, 12 November 2009 (MST)
- Nope. "Please note that all contributions to D&D Wiki are considered to be released under the GNU Free Documentation License 1.3". It's called putting text under a license; my friend. That text is now under the GNU FDL v1.3 — it can't be re-put under the CC (unless radically changed). Keep in mind ""or any later version" applies to it" is not and will never be said by D&D Wiki (me). --Green Dragon 19:46, 12 November 2009 (MST)
- Once again, this is a major misunderstanding of how copyright works. The creator releases the text to the wiki under the GNU Free Documentation License version 1.3 -- this is not under contention. What this does not do, however, is remove the creator's right to license his work to another party under a different license -- this is something the creator is free to do; whether or not any later version is said by the original licensee or not is completely immaterial, as this is entirely outside the scope of the original licensee. And, indeed, many people (and companies) do this: some high profile examples are MySQL and the QT library. 188.8.131.52 19:57, 12 November 2009 (MST)
- To note:
|“||You may extract a single document from such a collection, and distribute it individually under this License, provided you insert a copy of this License into the extracted document, and follow this License in all other respects regarding verbatim copying of that document.||”|
|—GNU Free Documentation License 1.3|
- Unless having a warranty disclaimer on that article; no (pretty sure). Although D&D Wiki (me) could do that — your right (pretty sure). But an author cannot.
|“||This License applies to any manual or other work, in any medium, that contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it can be distributed under the terms of this License. Such a notice grants a world-wide, royalty-free license, unlimited in duration, to use that work under the conditions stated herein. The "Document", below, refers to any such manual or work. Any member of the public is a licensee, and is addressed as "you". You accept the license if you copy, modify or distribute the work in a way requiring permission under copyright law.||”|
|—GNU Free Documentation License 1.3|
|“||You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either commercially or noncommercially, provided that this License, the copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License applies to the Document are reproduced in all copies, and that you add no other conditions whatsoever to those of this License. You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute. However, you may accept compensation in exchange for copies. If you distribute a large enough number of copies you must also follow the conditions in section 3.
You may also lend copies, under the same conditions stated above, and you may publicly display copies.
|—GNU Free Documentation License 1.3|
- No escape. To note again: "Although D&D Wiki (me) could do that — your right (pretty sure) (if true MySQL, QT, etc)." Keeping in mind the above "Keep in mind ""or any later version" applies to it" is not and will never be said by D&D Wiki (me)." You see why it's illegal now? --Green Dragon 20:10, 12 November 2009 (MST)
- You are completely missing the point. All the text you just quoted is completely irrelevant -- it tells you the rights given to you, the licensee. It does say anything, and in no way restricts, the rights of the original creator who retains the right to license their work to a different party under a different license. 184.108.40.206 20:17, 12 November 2009 (MST)
- Any medium... "You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either commercially or noncommercially, provided that this License, the copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License applies to the Document are reproduced in all copies...". --Green Dragon 20:18, 12 November 2009 (MST)
- Are you even reading what I am writing? That text, from the GNU Free Documentation License 1.3, applies to the licensee (that's this wiki) and does not in any way restrict the rights of the original creator to license their work to a different party under a different license. To put it in an example: if anyone comes to this wiki, sees the text, and copies it, they must abide by the GNU FDL 1.3. However, if the original creator decides to move his text somewhere else under a different license, they can do that -- because that is their right under copyright law. 220.127.116.11 20:19, 12 November 2009 (MST)
- Okay, you need to at least read the license a few times before posting again — I'm sorry; I thought you at least read the damn thing. "Any member of the public is a licensee, and is addressed as "you". You accept the license if you copy, modify or distribute the work in a way requiring permission under copyright law. ...".
- Keep in mind "... , and that you add no other conditions whatsoever to those of this License. ...". --Green Dragon 20:26, 12 November 2009 (MST)
- I have read the license in its entirety, multiple times (I have licensed several large works under this license over several years) -- perhaps you should read what I am actually writing before replying again. For convenience, I will restate it here: the creator of the work has licensed to you (dandwiki.com) their work under the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.3. However, this does not mean that the work can only ever be licensed to you -- under the copyright law of the United States (where dandwiki.com is hosted), the creator retains the right to license their work to another party (that's anyone) under another license. This in no way violates the GNU Free Documentation License, and indeed it could not, because if it did the entire license would be invalid. It does not put any other conditions to the license -- the licensee (dandwiki.com) retains the right to redistribution under the GNU Free Documentation License version 1.3, no matter what other entities the original creator licenses their work to. There are high-profile examples of this: MySQL (GNU GPL and a proprietary license), QT (GNU LGPL and a proprietary license), and many more. To put it succinctly and in more legal terms: dandwiki.com is not an exclusive' licensee, and has in no way gained exclusive rights to the work. 18.104.22.168 20:31, 12 November 2009 (MST)
- No. One: please reference the licenses you are referring to (otherwise what you are saying holds no ground). I've been referencing my side - you have yet to.
- Two: "... Any member of the public is a licensee, and is addressed as "you". You accept the license if you copy, modify or distribute the work in a way requiring permission under copyright law. ..." same license same you "... You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either commercially or noncommercially, provided that this License, the copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License applies to the Document are reproduced in all copies. ...". You is not D&D Wiki. D&D Wiki is referenced elseas.
- Three: I doubt you have done anything under this license since what you are saying is close to mental "exclusive rights" to D&D Wiki - don't think so. As I said above: "... You may extract a single document from such a collection, and distribute it individually under this License, provided you insert a copy of this License into the extracted document, and follow this License in all other respects regarding verbatim copying of that document. ...".
- Read what I'm saying. --Green Dragon 20:47, 12 November 2009 (MST)
- I did provide examples (MySQL and QT), you just seem to be unable to read what I am writing. It is a part of the United States copyright law that the creator of a work can license their work however they please, and dual-license it if they please, or give any number of different licenses to any number of parties if they please. Yet another example: say I upload an article here. I have then granted a license to D&D Wiki (and the general public) to use that work under the GNU FDL 1.3. I can then take that article and upload it to, say, dungeons.wikia.com which grants them and the general public the ability to use that work under CC-BY-SA. That is my right as a creator, under the copyright law of the United States of America, because I have not granted D&D Wiki an exclusive license. The terms under the GNU FDL, which you have quoted extensively, must be followed by the users of the work -- it in no way binds the creator of the work (which is why they are irrelevant for this discussion), except that they cannot retract their license. It is in no way illegal to take a work that I have written and uploaded to this wiki, and then go and upload it to dungeons.wikia -- that is my right as the creator of the work under US copyright law. To claim otherwise, which you are doing, is absurd -- it would mean that MySQL can't dual-license their program, that QT could not be dual-licensed, and that nothing ever written on the Wizards of the Coast message board could ever be uploaded to this wiki (because you license anything you upload to said message board). 22.214.171.124 20:54, 12 November 2009 (MST)
←Reverted indentation to one colon
- I did provide examples (MySQL and QT), you just seem to be unable to read what I am writing. It is a part of the United States copyright law that the creator of a work can license their work however they please, and dual-license it if they please, or give any number of different licenses to any number of parties if they please. Yet another example: say I upload an article here. I have then granted a license to D&D Wiki (and the general public) to use that work under the GNU FDL 1.3. I can then take that article and upload it to, say, dungeons.wikia.com which grants them and the general public the ability to use that work under CC-BY-SA. That is my right as a creator, under the copyright law of the United States of America, because I have not granted D&D Wiki an exclusive license. The terms under the GNU FDL, which you have quoted extensively, must be followed by the users of the work -- it in no way binds the creator of the work (which is why they are irrelevant for this discussion), except that they cannot retract their license. It is in no way illegal to take a work that I have written and uploaded to this wiki, and then go and upload it to dungeons.wikia -- that is my right as the creator of the work under US copyright law. 126.96.36.199 20:54, 12 November 2009 (MST)
- If you have trouble understanding that, please read this page and the references on the bottom which explain very clearly how "Works can be made available under a single license, but the copyright holder has the option of making their work available under any number of licenses": http://www.statemaster.com/encyclopedia/Dual-license ; if you can't understand from that, please read this to understand how licensing the work to the general public under two licenses can work: http://producingoss.com/html-chunk/dual-licensing.html . 188.8.131.52 20:59, 12 November 2009 (MST)
- MySQL and QT (as I understood above) are since those in charge (in this case - D&D Wiki - me) used the upgrade/remove license clause. That does not apply to anyone but me.
- Reference your laws (never heard of them).
- READ THIS:
- "... You may extract a single document from such a collection, and distribute it individually under this License, provided you insert a copy of this License into the extracted document, and follow this License in all other respects regarding verbatim copying of that document. ..." - I HAVE YET TO SAY EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS SO SHUT UP ABOUT THOSE.
- "... Any member of the public is a licensee, and is addressed as "you". You accept the license if you copy, modify or distribute the work in a way requiring permission under copyright law. ..." same license same you "... You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either commercially or noncommercially, provided that this License, the copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License applies to the Document are reproduced in all copies. ..."
- ... This License applies to any manual or other work, in any medium, that contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it can be distributed under the terms of this License. Such a notice grants a world-wide, royalty-free license, unlimited in duration, to use that work under the conditions stated herein. The "Document" ..." --Green Dragon 21:06, 12 November 2009 (MST)
- Since you are really not thinking (super simple):
- ...copyright law... ...document... ...any medium... ...saying this License applies to the Document..." Do I need to dumb it down more? --Green Dragon 21:06, 12 November 2009 (MST)
- For those copyrighted things: "DO NOT SUBMIT COPYRIGHTED WORK WITHOUT PERMISSION!" (special things apply too...). --Green Dragon 21:07, 12 November 2009 (MST)
- I'm sorry, but the retard here is you. It cannot possibly be more clear -- when I submit a work, I do not in any way transfer the copyright to you -- the copyright is still mine, and I have licensed it to you and the general public under the GNU FDL. I am still the copyright holder. As the copyright holder, it is my perogative and my right to relicense it to anyone else I please. My work, uploaded, is copyright me -- granted to you and the general public under a non-revocable license. You have not suddenly gained ownership of the copyright from me, and I still have all my rights as a copyright holder -- including the right to license the work to anyone else of my choosing. Why you cannot understand this escapes me -- it is clear as day, from the business model of many open source companies. MySQL and QT used no such clause, you are talking out of your rear -- they exercised their rights as copyright holders. And if the work that is uploaded is not copyrighted, then by definition it has no license and can be uploaded wherever with no restrictions whatsoever. (As a side note, I can't believe you were threatening your users above). 184.108.40.206 21:11, 12 November 2009 (MST)
- The author of any work, who releases the work, holds copyright on that work whether they registered it with a copyright office or not. Every work I have ever created I have copyrighted, by default -- because that is how copyright works in this country. 220.127.116.11 21:18, 12 November 2009 (MST)
- If you don't understand that, I suggest you read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_registration which spells it out in excruciating detail. 18.104.22.168 21:21, 12 November 2009 (MST)
- No... You need to copyright things to have them copyrighted. Otherwise this MediaWiki install is (c) by me and I say, as the copyright holder of this MW install, that nothing may leave it's bounds. --Green Dragon 21:22, 12 November 2009 (MST)
- That is not how it works. I am sorry, but you are completely and totally wrong. The United States is a signatory to the Berne Convention, which acts exactly as I have said. Go read the Berne Convention. 22.214.171.124 21:23, 12 November 2009 (MST)
- Have you ever read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_registration ? --Green Dragon 21:29, 12 November 2009 (MST)
- Obviously, seeing as how I was the one who just linked it to you. If, after reading the Berne Convention, you still cannot understand why it is perfectly legal for an author of a work on this wiki to relicense their work to another wiki, please reply and I will be happy to explain it to you in good detail again tomorrow (I'm going to bed now, so it will have to wait until tomorrow). 126.96.36.199 21:31, 12 November 2009 (MST)
- If your copyright way works then I (c) all my things (formats, etc etc) and using them is not allowed in any way outside of D&D Wiki. My things are the ideas relating to those which I did and those which I did (please go though one by one my edit contributions) - according to your (c) style not only them but the idea is (c) too. --Green Dragon 21:32, 12 November 2009 (MST)
←Reverted indentation to one colon
- But, to be honest, if you did not copyright your things by the US copyright people then you cannot use US copyright laws. You need to copyright it by someone to use their laws (unless you are a country - to the best of my knowledge). --Green Dragon 21:38, 12 November 2009 (MST)
- I would like to note that "And some formalities were kept, specifically "deposit" of a copy of the work with the Library of Congress, and some features of registration. (Brewer 196)"  - so if your work has a deposit in the library of congress then we would need to look at different ways. If it is not deposited in the Library of Congress then the GNU FDL v1.3 is over your articles and as such it holds ground - nothing else can or does. --Green Dragon 21:48, 12 November 2009 (MST)
- Let's talk about that, shall we? The GNU actually says: This License applies to any manual or other work, in any medium, that contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it can be distributed under the terms of this License. Such a notice grants a world-wide, royalty-free license, unlimited in duration, to use that work under the conditions stated herein. Relevant part bolded, and not addressing the issue of if the person who wrote the class is the copyright holder...yet.
- The Copyrights page states, in answer to the anticipated question of why the GNU Free Documentation License is used: D&D Wiki is based on everyone's ideas, which are here to be freely taken and used by anyone. With this in mind, we have chosen to use the GNU Free Documentation License for all of the content on this website. This means that anyone can take any piece of this work and modify it; keeping the original author in mind (at the least with the "history" tab).
- Now, the D&D Wiki Faq (that is, D&D Wiki, that is, by your own admission, you) gives a statement in response the question Can I use things from this site for my campaigns?. That statement is as follows: Yes. Everything on this site is considered to be released under the GNU Free Documentation License 1.3 (specific and labeled parts of the site are released under the Open Gaming License v1.0a, which also allows nearly free use).Please, feel free to use things from this site, that is what it was made for. So, in fact, you are not only making a official statement to every that they can use it in their campaigns, but that they can use it and make basically as many copies as they want. To make an analogy is as if I were asking if I could have a piece of chewing gum out of a large pack and you gave me the entire, unopened pack and revealed that there is a limitless supply of these packs and you lost nothing by giving me one; not only that, you have packs of gum available to everyone in the world. That is the arrangement has it stands, and has not been officially changed.
- Now we come to 'copyright holder' issue.
- It may be possible that hidden somewhere on this website is a legally binding hidden bit of fineprint stating that any contribution to this website is owned and by D&D wiki (that is, you). Possibly it may hinge on 'all contributions are released to ' D&D wiki rather released under. If so, I have yet to find it, as all investigations into that say 'released under'. If 'released to' is the legally binding wording is still the case that, D&D Wiki (you) would be the rightful owner and therefore subject to have control over what's done with what. If 'released under' is the case, then the authors/contributors have the say over it. Here are the possible conclusions of this I see:
- 1) Released Under: The authors and contributors, as of right now, have passively agreed to allow their material into the GNU FDL fold and kindly allowed the D&D wiki (you) to display copies, make alterations and so on, but still maintain the right to exercise their rights as the copyright holders. The point is, they are the copyright holder and D&D Wiki (You) have no say what they do with it elsewhere. Nor do they have a binding say as to who uses it or where it goes.
- 2) Released To: If D&D Wiki (You) is the copyright holder and have the say so over whether anything on this website can by used anywhere else under the GNU, D&D Wiki (you) still has a standing public invitation for people to use everything on the website, and everything on the website is still under the GNU and will be until you make a public declaration/official notice otherwise. So everything not restricted by OGL and OGC, is, in fact, currently up for grabs.
- 3) License Rewrite: if D&D Wiki (you) has an unclear/misleading statement over ownership of every single thing ever done by every contributor on this website, and this unclear statement can cause legal doubt to to the specifics of said ownership, the statement should be be amended and the clarified and the clarified version made easily available to interested parties (every not-you, that is, not-D&D Wiki). Does the D&D Wiki's (your) Copyright information contain such an unclear statement? Why, yes it does. It says everything. And that does mean everything. Also, it does not explicitly say who is considered to be doing the releasing; the assumption is passive acceptance on the part of someone. In the FAQ D&D Wiki (You) spoke for everyone else and we found your statement acceptable. But if what you actually said is not what is the actual case, it should not be causing questions over who is releasing what to the GNU FDL--Therefore it should be clarified. And if it should be clarified, then all interested parties are allowed to review what the license has really meant rather than what it actually said and decide if they want any part in it now that the terms have finally been fully clarified and explained in an easy-access public manner. The fair thing to do would be to honor their decision to withdraw any or all of their contributions/material they do not wished to be under the terms expressed here on the website (D&D wiki). In the meantime, we all thank you for selflessly saving us the trouble of putting the GNU FDL on everything they did by making a blanket statement. It is to regrettable that your eagerness to help led to you to be unclear and now, after all this time, it turns out you have to go back and rework it so everyone who goes on this website knows what they're getting into.
- So, essentially, you either
- A) cannot currently oppose the free use of anything on this website that isn't covered by the SRD or OGC, because your public stance is that everything is under the GNU FDL license.
- B) do not get any voice in what's actually done with something because you are not the copyright holder (or the person who would be entitled to the copyright, should they choose to exercise that right)
- C) do get a voice in what's done with things on here, because D&D (you) are the owner of all it and are graciously allowing, nay, inviting us to freely copy it and use it, and have public statements to the welcome of others you D&D Wiki's (your) property, and will remain so unto you alter the public statements to say otherwise
- D) When you clarify the public statements so that the question of ownership of contributions can be easily answered by anyone who's curious, you are then obligated to allow everyone to view it and decide if they want their material to have such things applying to it, whereupon they can decide whether it can remain here or be withdrawn, out of respect to their now-informed decision.
- E) A combination of any or all of the above.
- Essentially, your claim that someone transferring something they wrote is somehow illegal has been caught out coming and going from two different directions. --Genowhirl 04:21, 13 November 2009 (MST)
- This, my friend, is called reason.--Genowhirl 04:35, 13 November 2009 (MST)
- Green Dragon, you seem to be under some very serious misconceptions as to how copyright works -- your last response to me tried to claim that the ideas you have here are copyrighted. They are not -- because you cannot copyright ideas, which fall outside the scope of copyright law. For more information please read http://www.myazbar.org/AZAttorney/PDF_Articles/AZAT1003Copyright2.pdf which will tell you exactly how that works. 188.8.131.52 05:39, 13 November 2009 (MST)
- The Idea isn't copyrighted, but what you make of your idea and place on here becomes licensed under the website's license. Period. Stop complaining people. If you don't want others to have free access and equal control, don't put it on the wiki. 07:40, 13 November 2009 (MST)
- Yes, Hooper. Free access and equal control. That does seem to be the issue. You know how this was kicked off by GD claiming that putting the Farmer up on the Wikia was somehow illegal? Right, so do we. We--that is, the collective contributors to the website--would very much like to be able to put up what we worked on elsewhere without being harassed for it. The entire point of GNU FDL seems to be putting something out where it can be worked on from all angles and freely used, and we (again, the contributors of this website) would very much like to do just that and have an equal stake in what happens to stuff and the ability to put it up where we want, with the modifications we want, in adherance to the spirit of the GNU FDL. Except GD said, and I quote, "Actually you can't move your things on D&D Wiki their - it's illegal. It's the CC and the GNU FDL v1.3. --Green Dragon 23:17, 11 November 2009 (MST)" Apparently, here on Green Dragon (er, I mean, the D&D Wiki), Peter is more equal than everyone else. --Genowhirl 07:54, 13 November 2009 (MST)
- D&D Wiki DOES NOT own your stuff - you are right; we just display it (however it is under the GNU FDL v1.3 and if changed is illegal). All I am saying is that one cannot change it from the GNU FDL v1.3 to the CC. And, to clarify (the only point worth mentioning with what you brought up above is that specifically "Most content is available under the GNU FDL. Pages under the OGL are marked as such."). If made by the Free Software Foundation, Inc. as well please keep in mind ""or any later version" applies to it" is not and will never be said by D&D Wiki (me) is one reason; a few more are present as well.
- Only if it is copyrighted "And some formalities were kept, specifically "deposit" of a copy of the work with the Library of Congress, and some features of registration. (Brewer 196)" then it would be a different story.
- Now is the time I would like to pose the question: Did anyone copyright any of their things (do they have a "deposit" of a copy with the Library of Congress)? --Green Dragon 10:24, 13 November 2009 (MST)
- This entire question has, in fact, been over the modification of anything published on here? Despite the fact that there is a multi-paragraph section entitled 'Modifications' which basically gives free reign to modify it as long as it is noted as such? Even if you do decide to nitpick and claim you are not giving other people permission to use the title or something, there isn't much you can argue about it being changed. Also, if the CC license is actually more suited to wiki-style copying and modification, why does the D&D Wiki not use it? Are you that much of stickler for menial pedantry that you have turned this anthill into a mountain? The "Modified Version" in the definition even runs thus: A "Modified Version" of the Document means any work containing the Document or a portion of it, either copied verbatim, or with modifications and/or translated into another language. And so you're trying to say that the GNU forbids modifying a GNU-licensed work, despite the GNU FDL specifically providing for modifications? --Genowhirl 12:28, 13 November 2009 (MST)
- No. This question is about why it is illegal to change text under the GNU FDL v1.3 to another license/newer version (without the approval of D&D Wiki to change as a whole); unless then copyrighted with the date (and revision history as the marker - assuming. One could have to contact the Library of Congress of course).
- Of note:
|“||You may copy and distribute a Modified Version of the Document under the conditions of sections 2 and 3 above, provided that you release the Modified Version under precisely this License, with the Modified Version filling the role of the Document, thus licensing distribution and modification of the Modified Version to whoever possesses a copy of it. In addition, you must do these things in the Modified Version:||”|
|—GNU Free Documentation License 1.3|
- Text licensed under the GNU FDL v1.3 is absolutely free to changes - it's called editing. Please do. Also text licensed under the GNU FDL v1.3 is absolutely free to redistribute/publish. Please do as well.
- And I like the GNU FDL v1.3 more then any other license I have seen - as such D&D Wiki uses it. --Green Dragon 13:09, 13 November 2009 (MST)
- What in the name of little green apples is your actual position here, GD? The other wiki also uses the GNU FDL and not the CC, which means there isn't a problem and, in fact, there has been many words and much vitriol expended over absolutely nothing at all? You kept on being patronizing and giving lengthy quotes which you claimed absolutely everything who argued against you (and apparently wanted to stick the Farmer class up on the other wiki) is wrong and in violation of the law, and now you just go, "It's all good, man?" I own myself to be baffled by your swift and apparently sudden changes in stance. --Genowhirl 21:06, 13 November 2009 (MST)
- If there is one group of people I hate it's lairs. . READ THE RULES! And I am partly talking about copyrights (the "It's all good part" - depending; as I said one needs to contact the Library of Congress) and partly about how it's illegal to change non-copyrighted work to a different license (the "not so It's all good part"). Now do you finally understand? It's called reading what I'm saying... Any more nonsensical posting will result in a ban. Your starting to just waste time.
- Remember how this particular argument started: "Actually you can't move your things on D&D Wiki their - it's illegal. It's the CC and the GNU FDL v1.3". From GD. Basically, him claiming you're not allowed to republish anything posted on this website, because he owns it now. Including stuff that was written by WOTC, and first posted on the WOTC boards and thus under THEIR license as well. If you can't have two licenses to a single product, doesn't that mean that every single thing here that was posted on the WOTC boards first must immediately be removed due to being illegal? Or does the inaccurate reading of the law only work for the benefit of certain people? 184.108.40.206 01:16, 14 November 2009 (MST)
←Reverted indentation to one colon
- If you don't agree, just leave - and remain gone. Quite simple. 02:22, 14 November 2009 (MST)
- They are different.
- One: Each user was contacted about their things being moved over. They agreed or it was not done.
|“||The text, images, designs, logos, video, sound, code, data, and other materials and information, as well as the selection and arrangement thereof, available through the Site (collectively, "Site Content") are the proprietary property of Wizards or its licensors or other Users, and are protected by copyright, trademark, and other intellectual property laws.||”|
- I believe "Other Users" and "intellectual property laws" covers it.
- AND FOR THE LAST TIME ANYONE CAN REPUBLISH ANYTHING AS LONG AS IT IS UNDER THE GNU FDL v1.3 I HAVE SAID THAT ABOUT A MILLION TIMES AND SOURCED THE GNU FDL v1.3 IN THOSE PARTS AS WELL SO STOP REPEATING THAT WHICH I NEVER EVEN HINTED AT! --Green Dragon 14:26, 14 November 2009 (MST)
- Question on the previous threat of a ban: If you, Green Dragon, continue your nonsensical posting, will you be banned as well? --220.127.116.11 04:27, 20 November 2009 (MST)
- Circular Arguments!!!!! Ftw!!! 15:08, 20 November 2009 (MST)
- It's not nonsensical what I'm saying... --Green Dragon 16:51, 20 November 2009 (MST)
Here are a few things you should know:
Weight of green: The square root of purple and divided by 2
Weight of purple: Double the weight of green squared
The difference between an orange: A bicycle pump, because vest have no sleeves
If you drive through the Sahara Desert at the speed of sound in a rocket-powered canoe, how many pancakes can dit in an SUV? 9, because ice cream has no bones
The square root of a rhinocerous: OVER 9000!!!1!!one!!!11!
do you have a skype name i run a d&d 3.5 podcast and would like you to be on when we have an all plushie episode in the near future
my skype name is Shi38 just add me
Fast healing and ability bonuses for Biomancer
I'm not completely sure of the mechanics of this:
In addition to the druid powers, you gain the following modifications as well. 1-3 HD: Share Spells, as the familiar ability of the same name. 4-6 HD: +2 ability score bonus increase 7-9 HD: Fast Healing 1 10-12 HD: +2 ability score bonus increase 13-15 HD: Fast Healing 2 16-18 HD: +2 ability score bonus increase 19+ HD: Fast Healing 3
Are those modifiers for the test subject or are they for the character? And is the HD the character's HD or the test subject's? --Axaj 02:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- The updated version elsewhere has it clarified (it's the test subject), unfortunately I cannot link you to the up to date version, censorship and all. Too bad. -- Eiji 23:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- I found it, never mind. --Axaj 05:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Yo! Feedback for my stuff, please!
I've been very busy at the Wikia version of this site, only to find that nobody's there. So I decided to pack up and relocate my ideas here so I could get some feedback on them. Could you please take a look at what I've got? Thanks. --Luigifan18 (talk) 19:09, 13 October 2012 (MDT)
- I'm sure that Eiji was banned from this wiki. He will not be taking requests from the likes of you, unless he wasn`t... --YellowAngel (talk) 10:12, 29 March 2020 (MDT)
What is Astral Driftmetal? Also, what is your version of Ichor, if it's different from the commonly accepted definition of god blood. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 18.104.22.168 (talk • contribs) . Please sign your posts.
- Eiji doesn't really frequent dandwiki anymore, so I wouldn't hold out hope for a reply. If you have an issue with a certain article, feel free to say so on the talk page of it and hopefully be heard by more people!~ --SgtLion (talk) 12:53, 11 December 2013 (MST)