Talk:Detect Disease (3.5e Spell)

More Appropriate Skill

I was thinking that craft (alchemy) isn't really an appropriate skill for identifying a disease, but I couldn't think of a better one. Suggestions? --Daniel Draco 15:16, 10 July 2007 (MDT)

A Heal check seems like the obvious fit. Justin Alexander 00:22, 3 September 2007 (MDT)

Author Template

Please put the author template back. Thank you. --Daniel Draco 03:15, 4 October 2009 (MDT)

And while you're at it, please change the summary back to the way I had it. --Daniel Draco 03:17, 4 October 2009 (MDT)

The summary is better like this; more explainable. Unless you could explain how yours is clearer? And the author template is being removed; your in history (and still locked with the name on the history). --Green Dragon 21:07, 4 October 2009 (MDT)

I find it explains how this spell can function finding diseases and learning about them. The old one did not seem to do that for me. --Green Dragon 21:09, 4 October 2009 (MDT)

The point is not which is a better explanation. The point is that you are fiddling with my creative work. Please either revert it to the way I had it, author template and all, or delete it. --Daniel Draco 13:56, 6 October 2009 (MDT)

Stop. I'm tired of this. OGL. Displayed on other pages as well, etc. --Green Dragon 19:54, 7 October 2009 (MDT)

I was very careful to be polite and respectful in my request for you to revert the edits. I feel that you are the one who has disrespected me here. Also, it was not released under OGL. It was released under the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2. I point you to the following excerpt from that license:

“	For works in formats which do not have any title page as such, "Title Page" means the text near the most prominent appearance of the work's title, preceding the beginning of the body of the text.	”

This means that the "Title Page", as referred to in the license itself and in the context of this wiki page, is the content that comes before the functional and descriptive parts of the page. This brings me to the following except:

“	List on the Title Page, as authors, one or more persons or entities responsible for authorship of the modifications in the Modified Version, together with at least five of the principal authors of the Document (all of its principal authors, if it has fewer than five), unless they release you from this requirement.	”

All in all, this means that you are legally bound to keep my name at the top of the page near the title, along with an indication that you made changes to my original work. --Pun-Pun 15:41, 9 October 2009 (MDT).

“

I. Preserve the section Entitled "History", Preserve its Title, and add to it an item stating at least the title, year, new authors, and publisher of the Modified Version as given on the Title Page. If there is no section Entitled "History" in the Document, create one stating the title, year, authors, and publisher of the Document as given on its Title Page, then add an item describing the Modified Version as stated in the previous sentence.

”

And your title fits where? You see - your interpreting "title" wrong. Actually I think Template:Author is forbidden under this license... "If there is no section Entitled "History" in the Document, create one stating the title, year, authors, and publisher of the Document as given on its Title Page, then add an item describing the Modified Version as stated in the previous sentence." - this makes history needed and authorship related to each what he has done (expressively not related to Template:Author). --Green Dragon 17:34, 9 October 2009 (MDT)

So is there any point in asking such things, apart from your needless posturing and attempts to prove that you're right when you just ban anyone who speaks out against you? Srsly... if you're not going to let the other person respond, there's no point in posting in the first place. Just ban them and say, "I'm the dictator here, it's my way or the highway, you don't agree with me? Get out!" At least that way it might not leave people with the wrong impression. Because, "I'm going to reply to you, and ban you so you can't respond at all!" doesn't sound like a fair argument, or letting the other side make their point. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.159.44.134 (talk • contribs) . Please sign your posts.

Please sign your edits. Also, GD, I agree that Author may actually not be needed. However, I do think that having a "Status Template" may be a good idea, as it can let a user know where a contributor is on finishing an article and help notify users that something may not be finished. I created a version (feel free to make pretty and all that) at Template:Article Status and you can see it in action here. This removes the "author" problem, tells the wiki browser where the article lies currently so they don't try to use incomplete items, provides who the current "contributor" is so even the novice user may find him or her to ask questions or make suggestions regarding any article or to MOI them, and also lastly provides a place for editing status. In short, it allows article creation and edition to stay the same and loses the Author debate from people who don't fully understand the GNU FDL and its applications on wikis. Thoughts?   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   19:29, 9 October 2009 (MDT)

How is that any different from an author template? --209.51.67.122 20:52, 9 October 2009 (MDT)

Apparently complete morons can not look up the hugely different meanings and legal definitions of "author" and "contributor." Go QQ more over there, not impressed.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   22:22, 9 October 2009 (MDT)

"List on the Title Page, as authors, one or more persons or entities responsible for authorship of the modifications in the Modified Version" - as stated above by you - means that the revision history (each entity; each user being an entity, me being an entity inclusive, etc) needs to be displayed "Above" the text. Tabs work as such (horizontal line); as far as I know. --Green Dragon 23:52, 9 October 2009 (MDT)

This person continues to email me so I will explain this here again.

“

For works in formats which do not have any title page as such, "Title Page" means the text near the most prominent appearance of the work's title, preceding the beginning of the body of the text.

”

Meaning the line break with the tabs present (SEE ABOVE - THEREFORE NEEDS TO BE).

“

List on the Title Page, as authors, one or more persons or entities responsible for authorship of the modifications in the Modified Version, together with at least five of the principal authors of the Document (all of its principal authors, if it has fewer than five), unless they release you from this requirement.

”

Being HISTORY

Now:

“

I. Preserve the section Entitled "History", Preserve its Title, and add to it an item stating at least the title, year, new authors, and publisher of the Modified Version as given on the Title Page. If there is no section Entitled "History" in the Document, create one stating the title, year, authors, and publisher of the Document as given on its Title Page, then add an item describing the Modified Version as stated in the previous sentence.

”

THIS IS THE FULL NON-TRUCKATED I.

History needs something akin to:

(cur) (last) 20:10, 4 October 2009 Green Dragon (Talk | contribs | block) (1,116 bytes) (→Author Template - Again...) (undo)

Preserve it's Title: Detect Disease

TITLE CAN ONLY MEAN THAT FOR THE LAST TIME!

Next.

TITLE: Talk:Detect Disease (3.5e Spell)

YEAR: 2009

NEW AUTHORS: Green Dragon

Publisher (from ALL PAGES): D&D Wiki (logo and described around too)

(as far as I can tell - and just from the above things - their is always more). --Green Dragon 18:23, 8 November 2009 (MST)