Wikia

WoWWiki

Talk:Fandyllic/Jan 2008 thru Apr 2008 Archive

101,358pages on
this wiki

Back to page | < User talk:Fandyllic

Revision as of 07:27, December 22, 2013 by Celess22 (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ←Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Comments to Fandyllic Edit

Ref gameEdit

By the way we do have a citation method for referencing material from games. {{ref game}}... So you can use that to avoid citing to second hand fan sources.Baggins 05:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. I was being lazy. ;-) --Gengar orange 22x22 Fandyllic (talk · contr) 9:49 PM PST 3 Jan 2008

pages that need updated Edit

For pages that need {{npcbox}}, it is better to use {{boilerplate}} or {{bp}} since those templates are more specific.   Zurr  TC 07:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, probably. --Gengar orange 22x22 Fandyllic (talk · contr) 11:38 PM PST 4 Jan 2008

Inquiry about User Icons Edit

Is there a list somewhere of all the various User icons? I searched, but couldn't find one. :( Vekkul 13:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

See WoWWiki:List_of_user_templates or Category:User templates. I also put a note on your talk page. --Gengar orange 22x22 Fandyllic (talk · contr) 10:22 AM PST 5 Jan 2008

Race_Icons Edit

I'm not sure if this is deprecated by a page or two in the wowwiki namespace, and I know you've been dealing with that particular set of pages. Could you sort that out for me? --Sky (t | c | w) 08:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe Varghedin and I have been using WoWWiki:List of race icons, but there is no need to deprecate WoWWiki:List of race icons. I will interlink them. Maybe at some point we can redirect Race Icons, but it's okay as it is for now. --Gengar orange 22x22 Fandyllic (talk · contr) 9:01 AM PST 8 Jan 2008
Found some unused "small" templates, not sure if they're duplicates.
  1. Template:Skill Poisons Icon Small
  2. Template:Skill Riding Icon Small
  3. Template:Socket Blue Icon Small
  4. Template:Socket Meta Icon Small
  5. Template:Socket Red Icon Small
  6. Template:Socket Yellow Icon Small --Sky (t | c | w) 05:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
They are listed in Raid, School, Socket, Skills, and Stats section of WoWWiki:List of mini icons, so they aren't really unused. --Gengar orange 22x22 Fandyllic (talk · contr) 10:33 PM PST 11 Jan 2008

What Happened? I'm scaredEdit

Please my email adress was used by a vandal I don't know what to do! Does this mean I'll be blocked again later, or he can hack my computer? How could he have gotten my email adress? What should I do and how I can I prevent it from happening in the future?  IconSmall HighElf Male Mr.X8 Talk Contribs 23:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It still won't let me edit other pages also.  IconSmall HighElf Male Mr.X8 Talk Contribs 23:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Log into your account, go to preferences and change the e-mail address and your password. Blocking happens based on source IP of the machine you log into your account with, I believe. So, if you change your e-mail address and password, you should be okay. --Gengar orange 22x22 Fandyllic (talk · contr) 3:28 PM PST 10 Jan 2008

How will I get WoWWiki messages then? I'm not sure how to change my Comcast email adress.  IconSmall HighElf Male Mr.X8 Talk Contribs 23:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Set up a Gmail account or something, then set it to forward to your Comcast e-mail. --PcjWoWWiki admin (TDrop me a line!C62,301 contributions and counting) 23:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Block? Edit

Have I been blocked?. it says "User is blocked" whenever I try to edit my signature page.
What does this mean?  IconSmall Gnome Male Ibbert T/C 23:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

gg fandy. --PcjWoWWiki admin (TDrop me a line!C62,301 contributions and counting) 23:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I've been blocked too...when JChace029 was. I did what you suggested to Mr. X8, but it didn't work for me. User:Coobra/Sig2 23:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me unblock JChace029 and we'll see what happens. --Gengar orange 22x22 Fandyllic (talk · contr) 3:41 PM PST 10 Jan 2008
ok  IconSmall Gnome Male Ibbert T/C 23:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
JChace029 is unblocked. Can you edit now? --Gengar orange 22x22 Fandyllic (talk · contr) 3:43 PM PST 10 Jan 2008
Nope. I get the same message Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "JChace029". The reason given for JChace029's block is: "Adding DNP content: 10 acts"User:Coobra/Sig2 23:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Same here, Coobra.  IconSmall Gnome Male Ibbert T/C 23:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, MediaWiki probably accounts for dynamic IPs, you probably share the same hostmask. Try accessing WoWWiki through a proxy, or anonymization service, such as behidden.com, see if that helps. --PcjWoWWiki admin (TDrop me a line!C62,301 contributions and counting) 23:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Alright, I'll try it..  IconSmall Gnome Male Ibbert T/C 23:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah this is not good. I suspect the IP blocking is happening for a range of IPs, like 123.456.789.xxx. I'm currently looking for the IP block log to get more info. --Gengar orange 22x22 Fandyllic (talk · contr) 3:52 PM PST 10 Jan 2008

Just tried unblocking on the Special:Ipblocklist as well - that also shows the IP blocks. Try now! Kirkburn  talk  contr 23:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

WOOT!! I can edit again. Thankyou. User:Coobra/Sig2 23:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Yay, admins!! :D /cheer. thank you so much.  IconSmall Gnome Male Ibbert T/C 23:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

IP blocked Edit

So you recently blocked JChace029's IP. The only problem is apparantly he lives in the same apartment complex as I do, and now I'm restricted from what I edit. =\ Can't you just block his username?

Edit: Just noticed the discussion right above me, so maybe he doesn't live here? --Tiwuno 23:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

LOL damn that JChace029...hes caused trouble for a number of us. User:Coobra/Sig2 23:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Try editing again. Kirkburn may have fixed it. I thought I did the same thing, but maybe there is some lag before it takes effect. --Gengar orange 22x22 Fandyllic (talk · contr) 3:59 PM PST 10 Jan 2008

Who still has a problem editing? Edit

Still need to hear from:

--Gengar orange 22x22 Fandyllic (talk · contr) 5:55 PM PST 10 Jan 2008

I can edit now, thanks.  IconSmall Gnome Male Ibbert T/C 00:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
After people check in, I'm going to try to re-block Chace029, but without the Ipblock. --Gengar orange 22x22 Fandyllic (talk · contr) 4:08 PM PST 10 Jan 2008
I had that problem a moment ago - I figured enough people had complained about it already, you didn't need me breathing down your neck. *grin* But it works now, so... --Joshmaul 00:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I can edit now. =D --Tiwuno 00:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Fandy, the username block is what you undid. Confusingly the related IP block shows up on a different list, Special:Ipblocklist, which is what I reverted as well. I don't know what IP it blocked, but somehow it must have affected a range of IPs. Next time someone is blocked (with auto IP block ticked), we'll have to check if this happens again, and we can alert the server people. Kirkburn  talk  contr 00:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Angela from Wikia has just informed me this is a known issue with Comcast - if you see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Appealing_a_block#Frequently_Asked_Questions it mentions that Comcast uses shared IPs between users. :/ Perhaps something to add to the "you've been blocked" page too. Kirkburn  talk  contr 00:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I realize the problem now. I'm just surprised this hasn't hit us earlier and more frequently. --Gengar orange 22x22 Fandyllic (talk · contr) 5:06 PM PST 10 Jan 2008

I was banned for a while.--SWM2448 01:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

There's clearly more going on here, both me and Taurmindo are being intermittently being auto-blocked by Rita2wadd's block. We're both on completely different ISPs, which do not use shared IPs, no proxy, and the IP mediawiki is reporting as blocking us from ("10.8.2.141") is not our IP and in my case, an IP i could never possibly have. There's a bug in Mediawiki is all i can imagine. --   10:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
You have to be careful analyzing network problems. Although, the problem could be MediaWiki, IP addresses change on their way to and from WoWWiki due to routers and switches, so you may not be able to see why an apparently unrelated IP address being blocked is affecting you. --Gengar orange 22x22 Fandyllic (talk · contr) 8:52 AM PST 11 Jan 2008
That would only make sense in the use of an anon proxy. Any normal proxy should still report the origin IP correctly and Mediawiki will therefore never see any other IP but the correct one unless it's told to look for the proxy's IP. My ISP is using a transparent proxy, which will only be detected if looking for it, otherwise it goes unoticed. I also know the fixed IP of said proxy, and it's nothing to do with the IP being detected by Mediawiki. Also amusingly, Baggins himself later realized the same ban was effecting him. A trace of the IP turned up empty from multiple sources. --   20:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Don't forget IPv6 handling. Most of what we talk about when we say IP address is actually the old IPv4 which is more human readable, but may not be entirely accurate. IPv4 looks like ddd.ddd.ddd.ddd (123.210.132.120), whereas IPv6 looks like hhhh:hhhh:hhhh:hhhh:hhhh:hhhh:hhhh:hhhh (1234:abcd:ef56:7890:fedc:ba09:8765:4321), hhhh::hhhh:hhhh:hhhh:hhhh (1234::fedc:ba09:8765:4321) or hhhh::hhhh:hhhh:ddd.ddd.ddd.ddd (1234::fedc:ba09:123.210.132.120). So, you might not see all the important network routing info. --Gengar orange 22x22 Fandyllic (talk · contr) 2:50 PM PST 11 Jan 2008
10.8.2.141? ... which would be an internal network IP, wouldn't it? How would Mediawiki be getting told that? --Eirik Ratcatcher 23:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, my idea was that maybe MediaWiki sees 1234::fedc:ba09:123.210.132.120 and 4321::aaaa:bbbb:123.210.132.120 as the same address. --Gengar orange 22x22 Fandyllic (talk · contr) 3:25 PM PST 11 Jan 2008
In other news, yes, I'm still having trouble editing. I keep making comments on pages without properly signing them. And I have been having trouble with conversations taking place on several disparate pages at the same time. Can you help me, Dr? (signed) Hopeless --Eirik Ratcatcher 23:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I'M BACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh My God, you have no freakin idea how much bitchiness built up in me!!! I haven't been able toedit for three days, three days!!!!!!! Now I know something is wrong with Comcast, thank God for G-Mail. Anyway... I'd like to thank Fandyllic for helping me by tell Kirkburn. Thanks man, you're a good Admin :)  IconSmall HighElf Male Mr.X8 Talk Contribs 03:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

WoW icons Edit

Aren't we supposed to be using the exact capitalization as they are in the MPQs? e.g. Image:INV Jewelry Necklace 21.png vs Image:Inv jewelry necklace 21.png? --k_d3 02:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

For normal WoW Icons, yes, but these are small versions pulled form the WoW Armory and they are named with lower case. --Gengar orange 22x22 Fandyllic (talk · contr) 6:59 PM PST 15 Jan 2008

Just curious if you knew... Edit

I noticed your user page was entirely headed under "Intro." Was that intentional? Seems like a pretty long intro to me. ;) --Tiwuno 09:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Everyone's a critic! Does this make you feel better? Tongueout Winky--Gengar orange 22x22 Fandyllic (talk · contr) 12:05 PM PST 16 Jan 2008
Don't know about Tiwuno, but I feel strangely comforted. I must be ill... Tongueout --Eirik Ratcatcher 00:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


Comments on Hoochfly's Page Edit

I understand, and have shifted my tactic of dealing a person who is a bit lost. I understand that they want their build up there, no matter how bad it may be. So, I've left the builds, but edited the comments to address inaccuracies, issues, weakness, wrong within them, etc. The problem is the gent seems hellbent on having the builds as is when they are misguided and in some cases just bad.

Frankly, if the guy is sensitive to his builds being changed or edited, he should - as noted all over any wikia site - not post. I have one thing in mind when I work here: The people that come to get information that are clueless. Feeding them bad info or wrong doesn't help them grow or improve.Hoochfly 22:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand your perspective, but the best strategy is to comment on the build in the talk page and get a few people to agree with you the build needs to me removed. After you get the support of other users to remove the build, you can remove it and add the comment to look at the talk page for the explanation of why. Don't put your criticisms in the article page, unless they are highly specific and evidence based (stat examples, damage result comparisons in various situations). I don't want WoWWiki to get overly bureaucratic like Wikipedia, but there are still ways to do things that people can usually accept. --Gengar orange 22x22 Fandyllic (talk · contr) 2:43 PM PST 22 Jan 2008
I understand how your talk page is not the place to discuss this, but I opened a discussion topic in the article's talk page a while ago already (never seen a single comment there), just today got some discussion started with Hoochfly on our personal talk pages (initiated by me), but I do not feel I am misleading any new rogue, since the factual data to prove my point is available, while I also try to stay far from emotional comments on any other builds that may be there. There are questions from new rogues about other builds for raiding then the standard, and the proved and tried build (for many more months then just during the late 2.3 patch, as Hoochfly believes) I defend is one of the most viable options. (hell, I'd post my Shadowstep Raid spec if I wanted to pull a leg, but I stuck to the most vviable and tried build available). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ashera (talk · contr).
Thanks for the advice. I've done so. Hoochfly 00:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
As for this, the problem is that your "factual data" is from a spreadsheet that has always had inaccuracies with regard to hemo builds. It also shows your contention to be incorrect.
I don't believe that you are intentionally misleading people, but I do believe that you may not have the best grasp of the theorycraft, nor of rogue mechanics. The Combat Hemo variants didn't even come to pass until patch 2.3. I even specced it early on in 2.3 until we discovered that hemo charges were bugged.
Build pages should not be about what every Tom, Dick and Harry uses, but about the standard. If someone wants to deviate, that is their choice. Let them spec around, but if someone wants the standards this is what should be shown. For the rest of the info, feel free to see my responses in your Talk page and on the builds page. Hoochfly 00:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
As far as I can tell you two are just two individuals who disagree. You both need to produce other folks (hopefully not sock puppets) that support your side of the argument. Regardless, the Rogue builds page (and most build variant pages) is not really about standards, but talent specs designed to fulfill a particular purpose. If the talent spec meets the stated purpose and several (like more than 3) people agree the conclusions made are valid, then I would say the build should stay. In general descriptions of build specs are poorly written, so the standards aren't high, but if a preponderance of readers disagrees with the description as accurate, then it probably should be removed. A preponderance is not 1 or 2, so gather some supporters to comment. --Gengar orange 22x22 Fandyllic (talk · contr) 6:31 PM PST 22 Jan 2008
By the way, I'm going to reset the Rogue builds back again. If I see either of you edit it without getting some support for your changes on the Talk:Rogue builds page from other editors, I'm going to have to list you on WoWWiki:Violations as vandals and start banning. Consider yourself warned.--Gengar orange 22x22 Fandyllic (talk · contr) 6:39 PM PST 22 Jan 2008
If you are going to reset them, I'd suggest you reset them to the place they were prior to him posting. He cannot support his builds with anything other than a spreadsheet which I have checked myself for inaccuracy. He has not been able to support anything other than making claims on a spreadsheet. I would think it would require something more as rewarding wrong based on his sole means of support seems silly. If anything, wouldn't you consider his inital edit as vandalism considering any change made to his, he has considered vandalism? -- Hoochfly 02:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned, you're both vandals, but I'm giving you a reprieve. Bothe of you did too much damage before I found it, so just follow the advice at the top of the Rogue builds talk page and we'll see how it goes. --Gengar orange 22x22 Fandyllic (talk · contr) 6:54 PM PST 22 Jan 2008
That is semi-offensive as I have been working on maintain a good build page for months and even have a comment from you on my talk page about that. I've removed hideous, non-standard builds in the past with nothing said. I'm addressing all concerns now. Hoochfly 05:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Take it as you will. --Gengar orange 22x22 Fandyllic (talk · contr) 9:06 PM PST 22 Jan 2008

Fandyllic, might I direct you to the hemorrhage page where exactly the same discussion has been going on? Hoochfly purposely removing information, making an ability appear worse then it is in the first place? I want to make wowwiki a better place, but the current activities don't help anyone. Ashera 13:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Why not respond to the discussion instead of whining like a tattle-tale 2 year old and wasting an admin's time? Seems you could have done so, but chose not too? Fandyllic, I apologize for my comments of frustration above. I understand your position and have taken it to discussion as you've requested. --Hoochfly 16:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Simply because you were the person in the first place ignoring the discussion? And no, this was not whining but reporting, since there is no reason for Fandyllic to save one wikipage and let you mess up another in the mean time. If anything, I'm fine with him extending the warning to the Hemorrhage page as well, since that's a place where you don't have to do any damage either. Get over it. Ashera 16:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
How about responding to the discussion then guy. You didn't post any support either. I've done so. Again, we don't need to waste an admin time when the discussion is open, yet you are still here. --Hoochfly 16:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I think you two have too small a discussion group to make any useful progress here. And you seem to have too little input on the direct talk page as well. Might I recommend you take your points of view to the official forums, where you will have many many more viewers (and thus critics)? Once you have a consensus (or at least a set of points of view that each have backing) from there, bring it back and strengthen the build description here with the pros and cons from there. Another thought would be to specifically request comments on the Village Pump, although I'm confident even that would give you a lower eye-count on your design than the official forums. --Eirik Ratcatcher 01:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Blizzplanet lore Edit

What is with all the Blizzplanet lore links all of the sudden? Are they really a good primary source? I am not saying they are not correct or useful, but is seems some of their stuff is just emailed by who knows who, and you are putting a lot of it. Why now?--SWM2448 02:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not adding any lore links, I'm just formatting them so they are more obviously from Blizzplanet. They are an okay primary source for those people who don't have access to the RPG books. Most of what they have is sanctioned by Blizzard, but they just do a poor job of citing authorship and their original sources. Much of Blizzplanet's lore came directly from Blizzard before it got to White Wolf and the RPG folks, since I believe Blizzplanet pre-dates the RPG books. You'll also notice Blizzplanet has some very good interviews with RPG and Warcraft novel authors. --Gengar orange 22x22 Fandyllic (talk · contr) 6:11 PM PST 27 Jan 2008
Blizzplanet is indeed an awesome site. Kirkburn  talk  contr 14:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Blizzplanet is technically a "secondary" source, or even a third party source, not a primary source.Baggins (talk) 22:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Categories Edit

So whats the news....are we continuing to add World of Warcraft in front of everything like -- Category:World of Warcraft objects -- or are we going back to how it was, just -- Category:Objects -- personally I prefer the latter... User:Coobra/Sig3 22:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to add any new "World of Warcraft..." categories to articles. I'm going to start reverting it back in small bits, but not going to do anything drastic until this issue gets discussed a bit more and hopefully decided on. Zeal, is just doing what several people have done in the past by trying to impose what he wants without any particular agreement and hope it sticks. I don't like it, but it doesn't do major harm.
There are a few folks who think if some idea gets discussed briefly on IRC they can act on it as if it were policy, but it doesn't work that way or it shouldn't. In a week or so, I'm probably just going to tell people what Zeal did was wrong and invite them to revert his changes as they see fit. He never gave a good defense for his proposal, just mostly "I want it this way and nothing explicitly says I can't do it." --Gengar orange 22x22 Fandyllic (talk · contr) 3:46 PM PST 8 Feb 2008
Ok then, good....cause in my opinion since WoWwiki contains mostly WoW info, don't know the exact % -- maybe 85% of the content falls under the WoW tag, anything thats not WoW should be changed, not the majority. User:Coobra/Sig3 23:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
<grimace>To satisfy Kirkburn, we still need a way of easily settling non-wow articles into the wow wiki... :/ I can see his opinion to an extent ... some of the lore of WoW gets expanded on in the books and games, and vice versa. Still, I'm in favor of isolating the minority articles.
A second question is, of what Zeal has proposed on categories, what is salvagable, perhaps with name changes, perhaps not?
I'm afraid that stopping halfway burns more for me than being solidly in either state. Pretty much as I was telling him... But then, I'm a whiner... --Eirik Ratcatcher 22:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

AlsoSee vs Quest Edit

Perhaps you can aid me with a template conflict issue. {{quest}}, when within {{AlsoSee}} fails to work. It used to work, so I started looking... [this] doesn't work correctly, this does. But why? Pcj has marked AlsoSee as deprecated (I really don't know why; an "also see" section is okay for a page, but not when you're putting it right at the context for looking something up), but I'd like to make the two work together. --Eirik Ratcatcher 22:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Try {{AlsoSee|1={{quest|Ride the Lightning}}}}:

 

Icon-shortcutSee also: Ride the Lightning

 

Icon-shortcutSee also: Neutral 15 [67] Ride the Lightning
Not sure why it works, but it does. The {{AlsoSee}} template should probably be redone with a <div> or some other way to indent. --Gengar orange 22x22 Fandyllic (talk · contr) 10:55 PM PST 13 Feb 2008
It's a limitation/failing of the MediaWiki parser. Indeed, calling the actual value of the parameter (1), will get you what you want. An easy work around. --Sky (t | c | w) 06:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, both of you. --Eirik Ratcatcher 19:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Stop capitalizing section headers Edit

Per WW:MOS, only proper nouns and the first word of a header should be capitalized. --Sky (t · c · w) 22:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

As well, the External links section should always be last on a page. --Sky (t · c · w) 22:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
HARD POKE. PLEASE STOP MAKING WORK FOR OTHER PEOPLE. See the response to your post on VP about adding 2.4 stuffs. --Sky (t | c | w) 23:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
WW:MOS is a guideline, but I will stop changing stuff. Poke back! I'm only making work for inflexible, uncompromising people who I have little sympathy for. Take a chill pill. --Gengar orange 22x22 Fandyllic (talk · contr) 4:49 PM PST 18 Feb 2008

Ps and Qs, people, Ps and Qs. Kirkburn  talk  contr 17:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

"...inflexible, uncompromising people who I have little sympathy for." I'm the inflexible one? /shrug. --Sky (t | c | w) 21:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Yup, but not the only one and not all the time. --Gengar orange 22x22 Fandyllic (talk · contr) 1:48 PM PST 19 Feb 2008

This reminds me why I like to advise more than do. ;) Kirkburn  talk  contr 22:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Categories 2Edit

Hoaah, hold off on the category stuff there - isn't the VP discussion still going? I should also point out stuff has already been recatted, so we should come to a consensus first this time at least. Kirkburn  talk  contr 20:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Look Kirkburn, if you want to influence the direction of this categorization stuff, state your case. I'm basically putting stuff back that Zeal did without any kind of consensus. I may be slower, but I'm going to do it unless someone has a good argument otherwise. I haven't seen one yet.
I'm not going to try to go through a consensus process to undo what was done without consensus, That is just plain unfair.
As far as I can tell, the crux of Zeal's case is this: "I like it this away, I think WoWWiki is primarily a Warcraft wiki and not a World of Warcraft wiki, and Kirkburn said it was okay, so I'm doing it." Do you have different version of events? Please inform. --Gengar orange 22x22 Fandyllic (talk · contr) 12:20 PM PST 19 Feb 2008
My case is posted on the VP, I posted it several hours ago. The items have already been recatted, so it would be a good idea for us all to come to some agreement on this as the items aren't going to magically move again (by which I mean, we'd have to find someone to bot it again).
Btw, I should have a link to the test 1.12 site later which allows for easier viewing of our category system. Kirkburn  talk  contr 20:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Please don't recat until the we've got a consensus. Please, it's only going to make it harder for all of us. Kirkburn  talk  contr 22:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess I will stop and undo a few of the changes I made, but I'm disappointed that I have to stop for consensus, but you apparently didn't require this of Zeal. --Gengar orange 22x22 Fandyllic (talk · contr) 2:42 PM PST 19 Feb 2008

I was on holiday with my girlfriend! I didn't even know the extent of the changes for a while. Kirkburn  talk  contr 22:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry this happened while you were away, but I'm still concerned about your approach to the whole issue. I'm disappointed you feel the need to defend Zeal's changes without repudiating them at all. It seems like you're choosing sides, but trying to pretend to be neutral. --Gengar orange 22x22 Fandyllic (talk · contr) 2:50 PM PST 19 Feb 2008

Don't worry, several on IRC would be able to tell you that Zeal didn't get off scott free by any stretch of the imagination - I'm half the reason he's not editing the wiki actively now. I'm not shouting at him now because I've already shouted at him once, and he knows my views.

However, I also defend Zeal because I agree with the recatting principle, even if the final result wasn't perfect - the best way to deal with it now is to look at what the situation is now and work out where we go from here. My view is the wiki isn't broken, it just needs tidying up.

I am intentionally everyone and no-one's friend - I'm not going to stick by someone just because I'm friendly with them, but because I agree with them. Probably a bit annoying for people as they won't know what I may say to stuff - but that is my principle of neutrality. Zeal made the change, but that's not an excuse to start unilaterally making more changes, otherwise we'll get into our first wheel war, and none of us want that! Kirkburn  talk  contr 23:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Fandy, I really admire that you're trying to get this whole issue resolved. I agree that it does need resolution; Zeal probably did not take the best course of action in initiating the category changes. But, yes, that is done now, and frankly, the action you're taking in changing them back is not any better. Although the issue as a whole is not agreed upon, there are some parts of it that are, even if it isn't spelled out. What we need to do is find out what the actual issues are, and what is already agreed on. So, lets not worry about who is to blame as not only do the accusations cause injury, but they do not get anything done as well. If you want to blame Kirkburn, or Zeal, or even me, that's fine, but it's better for all of us that ti's done in private, while real work is being done on fixing the problem.
So, please, continue with your zeal for the issue. I really appreciate how motivated you get when you see a problem. Lets focus that into finding out what the real issues are, and how best to resolve them. --DuTempete talk|contr 23:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I understand trying to keep things on an even keel and negotiate peaceful resolutions, but I still sense that the questions I'm posing aren't getting straight answers. I feel my point is being missed or ignored and I can't figure out why. I will try to clarify on the Village pump, but it is definitely frustrating. I don't want to see the current change stay in place because inertia leaves them there. DuTempete tried to distill the issues, but left out a bunch, in my opinion. --Gengar orange 22x22 Fandyllic (talk · contr) 4:30 PM PST 19 Feb 2008

Gelbil Mekkatorque Edit

While trying to keep the naming policy respected, I wrote wrong. His name is Gelbin Mekkatorque, not Gelbil. Can you fix it, please? sorry for the inconvenience --N'Nanz 19:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. It should never have been moved in the first place. --Gengar orange 22x22 Fandyllic (talk · contr) 11:29 AM PST 21 Feb 2008

Warcraft III itemsEdit

With all the discussions about the "World of Warcraft items" categories, I started to think about Warcraft III items. I'm not sure how to proceed though... Do I just throw them in the "real spot" or keep them in my User pages for now? Can I use the images on www.battle.net, or are those considerd copyright-don't-use? I made a couple of items just to see how it would look. Could you take a look and give some advice? User:Pratt/Warcraft III items/Potion of Mana for instance... Pratt 20:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I would add them in the "real spot" with the suffix (WC3). You can also use {{Stub/Item}} for items, just make sure to put {{Warcraft III}} at the top below the stub tag. So put your Potion of Mana page at Potion of Mana (WC3). --Gengar orange 22x22 Fandyllic (talk · contr) 12:37 PM PST 26 Feb 2008
Should I use the suffix even if there is no other page with the same name? Or just in case of duplication? Pratt 20:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Use the suffix only for duplicates for now. Also, you can put them in the Category:Warcraft III items. --Gengar orange 22x22 Fandyllic (talk · contr) 12:42 PM PST 26 Feb 2008
How about the images? Is it okay to grab those from www.battle.net? Pratt 20:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I would ask at the Village pump. However, you probably can't...
From Battle.net Terms of use:
4. Your Use of Battle.net.
A. You are entitled to use Battle.net for your own personal use, but you shall not be entitled to
...
(iii) create derivative works based on Battle.net;
I'm pretty sure item article using Battle.net images would be considered "derivative works".--Gengar orange 22x22 Fandyllic (talk · contr) 12:55 PM PST 26 Feb 2008
Hmm... I guess I could just use the World of Warcraft icon images...
File:Warcraft III - Ring of Protection.gifInv jewelry ring 02 Pratt 21:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, you can use the correct images.[1] Battle.net ToU are referring to actually using Battle.net (as in, getting online and playing WC3/SC/Diablo); they don't want people making private servers (for one), just as in WoW. --Sky (t | c | w) 06:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I should have re-looked at WW:COPYRIGHT. --Gengar orange 22x22 Fandyllic (talk · contr) 1:49 PM PST 3 Mar 2008

Please Give This New Page A Home Edit

I've created a page hosting a shell script to migrate your WTF from one install to another (i.e. to test realm) or within an install (i.e. changed servers).

MigrateWTFscript

Can you please give it a good home? I don't know where to link it from in the voluminous index... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nemes2 (talk · contr).

I added it to Category:Guides and linked to it from Getting on the public test realm and WTF, but I couldn't think of where else it might be appropriate to link to it from. --Gengar orange 22x22 Fandyllic (talk · contr) 4:58 PM PST 3 Mar 2008

Zomg, I was botted Edit

So I made this User:Vargbot bot account in hopes of maybe mass-editing the stuff I've already been mass-editing manually. Mind tagging it as a bot for me? --User:Varghedin/Sig 11:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone did it already, apparently. User:Vargbot is a Bot and a patroller. --Gengar orange 22x22 Fandyllic (talk · contr) 9:21 AM PST 4 Mar 2008
Yep, thanks.. KB did it in the meantime :) --User:Varghedin/Sig 16:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Problem reports Edit

Thanks for all of them :) Keep them coming! I'm about to go for another Wikia dinner (then, uh, a pub crawl), but will take a look ASAP. The tech team should also be monitoring it. Kirkburn  talk  contr 02:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like you're having too good a time at Wikia! They need to have you go to a quarry and break rocks or something... ;-) --Gengar orange 22x22 Fandyllic (talk · contr) 10:47 AM PST 6 Mar 2008

The Golden Kobold Edit

The Golden Kobold The Golden Kobold
Ose has awarded Fandyllic with the Golden Kobold, for his/her work here at WoWWiki!
Ofcourse it's a good thing! It's shiny! --Smileyse (c / t) 21:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Violations/Intro Edit

Hey Fandyllic, could you make a change to the page WoWWiki:Violations/Intro, since it's protected. And change the see below link (Under "What can I do") to [[WoWWiki:Violations#Adding_vandals_to_the_list|below]]. User:Coobra/Sig3 23:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

My bad, its [[WoWWiki:Violations#How to add a new vandal|below]]. User:Coobra/Sig3 23:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
No problem, I checked and fixed the ones that seemed not to work. --Gengar orange 22x22 Fandyllic (talk · contr) 3:17 PM PST 18 Mar 2008
Thankyou. And thats why you earned a Golden Kobold. =) User:Coobra/Sig3 23:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Reasons Fandyllic should perma-join IRC Edit

I'll start it off...

  1. It takes less time to realise you've pissed someone off in IRC, and thus less time to apologize. Tongueout --DuTempete talk|contr 07:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. We need someone to disagree with now that Zeal's gone. --PcjWoWWiki admin (TDrop me a line!C62,301 contributions and counting) 07:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. Get up-to-date information on all that's going on behind the scenes, including the ability to pester various Wikia staff into actually upgrading this lovable ship that we sail!
  4. (seriously:) Be able to deal with admin related duties, especially real-time blocking of vandals. --Sky (t · c · w) 07:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  5. (even more seriously:) Be able to receive advice on wiki syntax before posting bad edits, such as the notorious {{cost}} changes. --PcjWoWWiki admin (TDrop me a line!C62,301 contributions and counting) 07:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  6. Despite Pcj, some of us would actually enjoy your company. --DuTempete talk|contr 07:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  7. Get to watch us smack Pcj is real-time when he makes smart-assed comments such as the one above. --DuTempete talk|contr 07:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  8. I'm there. --DuTempete talk|contr 07:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  9. Or Kirkburn's there, depending on your preference... --DuTempete talk|contr 07:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  10. Random spontaneous moments, like this one! :) --Sky (t · c · w) 07:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  11. All the public hawt cyberz with DuTempete. No, really. Adys 18:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  12. What they said GRYPHONtc 19:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  13. I'm even dumber there than here.--K ) (talk) 22:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  14. Can earn another Golden Kobold. User:Coobra/Sig3 05:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  15. Zomg? Word is spreading about my awarding? I'll give you a golden murloc if you join. --OseTalkz / Contribz 19:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    Hmmm... a golden murloc? I'll have to see one, but that is more motivating... Winky --Gengar orange 22x22 Fandyllic (talk · contr) 1:33 PM PST 24 Mar 2008
  16. I'm not there. ;) --   23:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Reasons Fandyllic should not perma-join IRC Edit

  1. Fandyllic really hates IRC. --Fandyllic
  2. Sure it works, but it is very primitive and he doesn't want to add yet another IM channel to watch. --Fandyllic
  3. Fandyllic even hates his mobile phone. --Fandyllic
  4. Doesn't want real-time updates on WoWWiki. --Fandyllic
  5. IRC encourages admins not to document their actions with the excuse, "We talked about it on IRC." Quite a few changes have demonstrated this. --Fandyllic
    I will mention I agree with this - it is something to be avoided as much as possible. Kirkburn  talk  contr 19:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  6. Thinks IRC creates a separation between users of WoWWiki. --Gengar orange 22x22 Fandyllic (talk · contr) 9:43 AM PST 24 Mar 2008
  7. Can earn a Silver Kobold. =P User:Coobra/Sig3 19:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The golden Murky! Edit

The Golden Murky

It sings too!

I think you deserve a golden murloc, and you shouldn't feel forced to permanently join IRC because you want a murloc :). So here's one from me, and it's not just any murloc! -watchout 13:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

NOES! It's more shiny than mine! --OseTalkz / Contribz 15:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Thats cute. User:Coobra/Sig3 20:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I wanna see him dance!--K ) (talk) 21:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Taunka Edit

Isn't the information that you {{fact}}'d on the Taunka article basically the same information that's on the official site? --Tiwuno 19:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but it could have used a citation or reference. Zakolj added a reference for the first paragraph. --Gengar orange 22x22 Fandyllic (talk · contr) 11:15 AM PST 28 Mar 2008

RE: Would you be... Edit

Sure, I don't mind at all.--User:Gourra/Sig2 12:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Pages starting with lowercase letters Edit

Hey there, when trying to get my bot back online, I stumbled over an issue that also seems to be new with the new mediawiki :)

If you look here [[:Category:Stubs/Guild]] in the G part, you will see four entries, either starting with '_' (or space character) or lowercase letters. None of them are accessible, MW just shows the no page message.

Sorry :) -watchout 18:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I would post the problem with bad guild names at WoWWiki:Server_requests#Possible_and_probable_bugs. You might want to ping Kirkburn also. --Gengar orange 22x22 Fandyllic (talk · contr) 2:49 PM PST 7 Apr 2008
That particular issue is already at WW:SR :) --Sky (t · c · w) 22:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Broken redirects Edit

You made Shadowbane and Everquest redirect to Wikipedia through the use of #REDIRECT [[wikipedia:Article]]. This does not work. While the links were not broken, the redirecting was. Machinima used to be a similar link to Wikipedia, but it was deleted for being a broken redirect, the dead links were made into Wikipedia/Wikia links directly, and then the page was made on WoWWiki for reasons I know not. I may have mixed up the Machinima page details, but your pages were still broken. Should the Wikipedia redirects be working like a normal redirect?--SWM2448 23:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, they weren't broken, in the sense that the links were bad, but they don't automatically redirect, since they are not within WoWWiki. I only did this because some other MMOs get searched for in context of WoWWiki, but some admins think we should just delete the references altogether. Since Wikipedia is crosslinking alot to WoWWiki now since they seem to want to slowly kill most Warcraft related articles, I figured we could cross-link to Wikipedia instead of killing articles.
I will just change the redirects to more obvious external links to Wikipedia. --Gengar orange 22x22 Fandyllic (talk · contr) 10:43 AM PST 8 Apr 2008

Spoiler Edit

Hey, instead of creating a new page for just one line (like with Shady Rest Inn spoiler), would it be possible to get a spoiler box template that when used will automatically hide the spoiler until you manually hit the show spoiler button? User:Coobra/Sig3 05:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, that's a good idea. Pcj made a new template that could be used for this, but it still requires a separate page and javascript enabled. See below for how it would look.
[link]Click here to display the spoiler.[/link]
This table requires JavaScript to be enabled and site tooltips to be turned on to be displayed.
You can also view the data on another page.
We could just use the template as is or make a new one similar specifically for spoilers. --Gengar orange 22x22 Fandyllic (talk · contr) 9:26 AM PST 11 Apr 2008
Looks good, I'd say use as is, cause with that edit option on the bar it just makes it easier to change the spoiler as needed. Some spoilers are long, so I guess we can get over using a separate page for it. Pcj deserves a pat on the back lol. User:Coobra/Sig3 21:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

deletion Edit

Such "Formulas" articles merely disperse (aka "fork") the content. There shouldn't exist any, and I've been on track to eliminating them. I delete them on sight, if someone starts a new page. There was no content on the one I deleted, except for one external link. That you were expanding it was a non-issue; the information would have served on the main page at armor penetration as well.

Furthermore, I would ask you not to use rollback except in cases where the reason is clearly vandalism, rather than misunderstandings. In fact, reverting my actions is somewhat rude as well, prior to talk page discussion no less. You want to talk about the deletion, I suggest you do so before reverting, not after, else we end up in this thing called a wheel war /edit war. --Sky (t · c · w) 06:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a BS argument, otherwise you would have removed and integrated all the other "Formulas:" articles which you clearly haven't (you can't be that slow) and it still doesn't explain your deletion without a reason. Giving reasons after the fact is disingenuous and not helpful.
I can't believe the gall of calling me rude for reverting (I did not technically revert, I "restored") when you deleted an article out from under me with no explanation.
If you have a concern about my decisions and actions take it to Kirkburn, because I'd really like to hear his take on these kind of things. Please don't bring up the tired "wheel war" implied threat, because it doesn't work with me. --Gengar orange 22x22 Fandyllic (talk · contr) 10:27 PM PST 15 Apr 2008
If I were threatening, you would have known about it.
BS argument it is not. I have quite clearly had it on User:Sky2042/todo list for some time, and have indeed been merging them, gradually (check the history if you doubt me; it should be somewhere near the beginning). If I had more time and was less spread out with other items, it would have been done the moment I added it. Such is not the case.
Giving reasons: True, and I will concede that point. That still does not absolve you of reverting my actions (which calling it a restoration as opposed to a reversion is, in your own words, "BS".) :Yes, I did have the gall. What you did was rude. Does that make what I said/did right? By no means. I should have left a deletion summary of "Put it over there", which was my intent. Obviously, you can't mind read over however many hundreds of miles you are away from me, which is the real issue.
Concern for your actions: if I had any real concerns, he would have heard them a long, long, time ago. In fact, I'm sure he has heard them, but not from me (I do occasionally moan over IRC about things I see you doing, but are, I know, contributions in good faith rather than things to actually be worried about). However, I will close with the fact that if you weren't an admin and had that done to you, you wouldn't have restored the page, unless you had miraculously copied the text prior to deletion (which might have work, due to most browsers' "back" button). --Sky (t · c · w) 06:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Like I said earlier, take it to Kirkburn. I'm not going to apologize for what I did and apparently you won't apologize for what you did, so let's just move on. --Gengar orange 22x22 Fandyllic (talk · contr) 7:21 AM PST 16 Apr 2008

Thanks for the welcome Edit

Hey thanks for the welcome (probably several months old but ive been inactive :P) - Janthan 09:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


"Frostmourne Guild Progression" deleted? Edit

Nevermind, I found the page :) Niightblade 00:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki
http://www.wowwiki.com/User_talk:Fandyllic/Jan_2008_thru_Apr_2008_Archive?oldid=2690566
www.wowwiki.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2014-35
270061
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:WU6X4LLV3DBOOOUBYBXZHFHPDDUG42JG
<urn:uuid:2c7f5189-4e4a-4283-9ce9-227e3896a2f9>
2014-08-21T16:38:21Z
199.27.76.194
sha1:V75ANMN3CDV4HF2CDS7HYZ4ZVQPM33U2
<urn:uuid:a657d1bb-81f9-4069-a271-b417709622a7>
http://www.wowwiki.com/User_talk:Fandyllic/Jan_2008_thru_Apr_2008_Archive?oldid=2690566
response
<urn:uuid:3d1ffe2e-3556-4569-aa5d-62e2f8a8b45b>
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-180-136-8.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)/CC WarcExport 1.0
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2014-35
operator: CommonCrawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web with URLs provided by Blekko for August 2014
publisher: CommonCrawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf