User talk:Ghostwheel

From D&D Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Ramblings & Random Thoughts[edit]

Druids. I wish the Shapeshift variant (PHB2) were the default choice and the PHB version of Wildshape/Natural Spell didn't exist >_> --Ghostwheel 01:15, 16 July 2009 (MDT)

Another variant that works is the Aspect of Nature one, though an animal companion is still crazy-powerful. --Ghostwheel 06:30, 31 July 2009 (MDT)

Gestalt should never have been created. It's ... just wrong >_> --Ghostwheel 00:32, 21 July 2009 (MDT)

Author's Notes[edit]

If anyone has any better ideas for the "Author's Notes" in the builds, please let me know and I might put those instead. --Ghostwheel 12:50, 21 July 2009 (MDT)

Same goes for pictures --Ghostwheel 11:31, 22 July 2009 (MDT)

Builds Percolating in the ol' Cranium, Suggestions Welcome[edit]

  • Decent Sword and Board twfer who uses Stormguard Warrior to get decent damage. --Ghostwheel 05:53, 26 July 2009 (MDT)
  • Bard / Lyric Thaumaturge / Virtuoso / Sublime Chord --Ghostwheel 05:39, 31 July 2009 (MDT)

Possible Homebrew Class Thoughts[edit]

Another class, this time 4e--mobile striker that adds to damage depending on how many squares it travels in a straight line before hitting the opponent. Think Subaru from Nanoha StrikerS. --Ghostwheel 08:11, 4 August 2009 (MDT)

Fullblade Fix[edit]

Thanks for fixing the damage table on the Fullblade article. I was shooting from the hip on that one. Really appreciate it. You get a gold star for that one. --Jay Freedman 22:29, 31 August 2009 (MDT)

No problem, happy to help :-) --Ghostwheel 22:30, 31 August 2009 (MDT)

Deletion Templates[edit]

Deletion is last option. Make sure that you pursue all proper channels first. If you have an issue with an article, bring it up on that article's talk page first. Please stop templating things because you don't like them.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   19:24, 2 September 2009 (MDT)

Deletion is far from a last option. The deletion template means that someone has at least two weeks to work on their article before it's deleted. The deletion template is the warning sign. --Ghostwheel 19:25, 2 September 2009 (MDT)
You should research that more before stating it, as it is actually wrong. You do not put something up for deletion if other things apply first. Only one of the articles you've tagged actually warranted deletion. Balance perhaps can be argued, and wikify on a couple, but not deletion. Bring it up on the talk page - then tag for balance/optimization issues - then tag for deletion.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   19:27, 2 September 2009 (MDT)
Let me state that you are right to have issues with these articles - but deletion is not the proper avenue.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   19:27, 2 September 2009 (MDT)
I personally don't have the time to babysit every single build that's unoptimized. Do you? If so, I gladly hand over the task of doing the above to you. But time and again, I've seen mods place the deletion template on things that didn't work. It's how it's done on the wiki. The deletion template gives people two weeks to work on things. That's a long time. And you'll notice that when people have discussed it in the talk page and showed that the build was viable, I readily accepted it. But most of the builds have been long since abandoned, and I don't feel like waiting two weeks and then hopefully remembering which ones should be deleted, and in what stage they are. If you'd like to do so, please do. --Ghostwheel 19:31, 2 September 2009 (MDT)
Yeah, if its been abandoned in a incomplete state it should be adopted or deleted. If its new then just slap a balance template on it. Its a waste of everyones time to flip through three-month-old broken junk. I'm not too worried about offending any authors out their. --Jay Freedman 19:36, 2 September 2009 (MDT)
You just stated you "don't have the time" to do a particular thing on the wiki. Okay. So, lets use that as an example. I go through all your optimized builds. Anyones I don't like or think I can do better: I tag them for deletion. I don't say why I could do them better or such, I just tag them. You don't have alot of time. In two weeks: goodbye to hard work. We're working with these users who have uploaded the material, not against them. Give them the time you'd like to have yourself, and the respect you'd demand. Jay is right - even through up an adoption for a bit. Say it still gets deleted in the end - did that extra time hurt anyone? No. Because the article had a proper template or message informing users of the issue.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   19:37, 2 September 2009 (MDT)
I don't have time to go through other people's crap. I've got enough time to take care of my own. There's a different there, so bad example. And even if I was that busy, I could find time in 2 weeks to start a discussion about it, as the Ursa Major (I think it's called) build's user did. So yes, 2 weeks is long enough, and I don't want to babysit a build for 3 months, waiting for someone to reply. It's a waste of my time and energy. If they become active and reply to the talk page, all good and well. If not, it's been abandoned, and either someone else can speak up for it (aka adopt it, after a single week it's up for adoption), or it goes away. --Ghostwheel 19:42, 2 September 2009 (MDT)
No. Most of the stuff you put the deletion template on today does not fall into that category. Let me use another example to put it in perspective. Recently, there was a new user altering alot of TK's material because he thought it was overpowered. People said leave it alone and make your own variant if you think it is overpowered. Same applys here. Leave it alone and make a variant. If an article has a usable build - just one that you find suboptimal - it will not warrant a deletion template. If it truly bothers you - either open up a discussion cataloging why it is suboptimal or make your own variant.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   19:44, 2 September 2009 (MDT)
I understand Ghostwheel's point. I personally look to see if unfinished work has been dormant of edits for about 3 months. Thats my cut-off line. If so, then "DELETE template SUCKA!" What is your time frame of dormant-it-ness Ghostwheel?? --Jay Freedman 19:47, 2 September 2009 (MDT)
I agree with that, but I'm just stating that alot of the things having deletion templates put on them don't warrant them. If the build is unusable, incomplete and abandoned, then yeah - go for it. But just because it is "suboptimal" or you don't like it or you can do better doesn't mean it warrants deletion.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   19:50, 2 September 2009 (MDT)
Again, there's a big difference there. We're looking for "optimized" builds here, not "whatever I came up with and thought it was cool but really it sucks" builds. Builds that suck don't belong in the optimization page. Just like things that are completely unbalanced or that don't make sense don't belong on the wiki. (See the discussion here.) If I made a build that was Wizard 4 / Sorc 3 / Monk 5 / Bard 5 / Druid 3 with only the Toughness feat taken however many times as an optimized build, should it be kept on the wiki? It's just "sub-optimal", after all, should it really be deleted? --Ghostwheel 19:55, 2 September 2009 (MDT)
No, you're using a crazy example and straw manning. If someone builds a build around having a good save, or to be really good at one particular ability, and that leaves it vulnerable in other ways or you find a way to do it better - it still isn't in need of deletion. This is what I'm saying.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   19:58, 2 September 2009 (MDT)
Just scream at the author to fix it. If he says yes, then we all happy. If he says no, then we rate it badly. If he says nothing, then we delete template. --Jay Freedman 20:00, 2 September 2009 (MDT)
No, if he says nothing you can make your own the way you see fit. Instead of rating - then you just put a note at the top of that build stating another build exists and linking to the one you made. If it wasn't worth the time for you to make an alternate, then you're just proving my point even more that the build has merit. We don't need a rating system for builds. I wish the words "rating" and "balance" could be removed from the wiki's vocabulary.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   20:03, 2 September 2009 (MDT)
Except the build wasn't advertised as that. It was advertised as, "get a high ref save to cover will and fort", and to "become virtually invulnerable". That means that it was supposed to be used in actual gameplay, not in an attempt to optimize high reflex saves. If all he wanted was high ref saves, he would have taken 1 level in 20 classes that each have a high ref save--I'm sure there are enough out there. Instead, this was made for general gameplay, and was supposed to be effective in that role. It's not. That's the problem. --Ghostwheel 20:04, 2 September 2009 (MDT)
Then make a variant and do it your way. Its still active. However, to be fair, this obviously deserved a deletion tag - long long ago.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   20:06, 2 September 2009 (MDT)
There is no variant. In general gameplay, the objective is useless. There's a difference between practical optimization and theoretical optimization. Aiming for high ref saves would be for theoretical. This was for the practical side of the game, to be used in actual play, and was meant to excel there. It fails at doing so completely. --Ghostwheel 20:07, 2 September 2009 (MDT)
Oh, so this optimization thing is just a sandbox. Ok ok. Now it makes sense. This ain't game stuff, its bits-n-pieces. To kick start your imagination. Got cha. I was taking these builds way too seriously. --Jay Freedman 20:08, 2 September 2009 (MDT)
Build a variant done the "correct" way and then "merge" the articles - using whatever the community decides is better. Then its a win-win situation. The wiki gets a build made for a reason it didn't already have without it being deleted - and cooperation and collaborative work makes it amazing.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   20:11, 2 September 2009 (MDT)
I don't think you're seeing my point. My point is that the very concept of this build is not one that can be optimized. All it says is, "I'm going to be invincible by having high saves." Except it doesn't even do that. And optimizing just for that doesn't work either. The very foundations of the build are kaput. There was a build that tried to combine Monk and Paladin. There, there was some foundation that I had to work with. This build came to fruition from that. But the very basis for the reflex-centered build is bad. --Ghostwheel 20:14, 2 September 2009 (MDT)
Eh, I'd say that we could argue in circles over that all day. I've seen a fellow-Ogre with a character with an amazing reflex save - and little else other than skills. Did some amazing things. Now it all becomes subjective.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   20:16, 2 September 2009 (MDT)
Thus why I tried to make it objective by asking him to show me some sort of DPR numbers. --Ghostwheel 20:17, 2 September 2009 (MDT)
Now that I understand that line of thought - yeah, I can see where you're going. But on that particular article, I'd give it some time to see if a reply came before further templating it. But I see what you're going for now, and that makes sense. I just wouldn't expect a rushed response.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   20:19, 2 September 2009 (MDT)

←Reverted indentation to one colon

Two weeks from when I put up the delete template. I don't think that's overly rushed *shrug* --Ghostwheel 20:21, 2 September 2009 (MDT)
See, but it doesn't qualify for the template either. It would qualify for a playtesting template.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   20:23, 2 September 2009 (MDT)
It would... if it was a viable concept (get high ref saves to be invincible at epic levels) for actual gameplay. It isn't, so it's not. --Ghostwheel 20:24, 2 September 2009 (MDT)
If its not even conceivable or viable - you shouldn't need any "DPR" info. Yes, playtesting would be the perfect template. I haven't even seen that template used in ages - which is sad. It's golden. You've asked him a play-testing related question - template it as in need of playtesting till you get an answer. If you don't hear back in a couple months (playtesting does take time) then template for deletion because of your above stated issues and see if an admin agrees.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   20:25, 2 September 2009 (MDT)
Something doesn't need playtesting if you can see just by looking that it doesn't work. Unless you think a Wizard 4 / Sorc 3 / Monk 5 / Bard 5 / Druid 3 with only the Toughness feat taken however many times should be playtested before being deemed sucky? And what if I was the author of such a build and said I had playtested it, and it worked well? There are things that very finely toe the line of imbalance that should be playtested. Others, whose very foundations blatantly don't work, don't need any playtesting. --Ghostwheel 20:28, 2 September 2009 (MDT)
The fact that you are having to argue your side to someone who doesn't agree is the very proof that the article in question needs playtesting. If the community resoundingly agreed that it "blatantly doesn't work" this would be different. Playtesting is the proper avenue.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   20:31, 2 September 2009 (MDT)
And there are also people who think that wizards are weak, CW samurais are strong, and that druids are balanced. That doesn't prove anything. --Ghostwheel 20:33, 2 September 2009 (MDT)
Thank you, you understand a bit now. It doesn't prove anything. That includes your thoughts, my thoughts, etc. Playtesting before deletion.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   20:35, 2 September 2009 (MDT)
...No, I don't understand at all. And who's doing the playtesting? (See above example with useless build. What if the author says he "tried it and it works" when it obviously doesn't?) --Ghostwheel 20:42, 2 September 2009 (MDT)
You have to realize one thing first. If you believe that something "obviously doesn't work", that does not mean that is obviously doesn't work. It means you feel that way. Anyone can playtest it. How are we to know you won't say you did and it didn't work? We can toss around what ifs all day, but the fact remains that no one person can definitely state that something is or isn't workable on a collaborative wiki such as this. You and I disagree - so that completely invalidates your "this obviously doesn't work" scenario. Playtesting, playtesting, playtesting. Deletion is a last resort.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   20:45, 2 September 2009 (MDT)
Thus why I asked for some stats for DPR. You'll notice that on almost every build I have, I put them up so people can see that the builds make sense. Just from eyeballing it, I can see that his DPR probably won't hit even 50 DPR, the minimum for an unoptimized build in my book. So no, one doesn't really need to playtest it, since one can see just from looking that it doesn't work. --Ghostwheel 20:49, 2 September 2009 (MDT)
Hey, that is great that you do that. But you can't hold others to your standard, and for the last time, you are placing your opinion into the realm of fact. I looked at it and I believe that it can work. This doesn't mean you're potentially wrong or I'm potentially right - it means it needs playtesting. Thats really the end of the whole thing. Playtesting. Simple. I'm not sure why this isn't sinking in.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   20:54, 2 September 2009 (MDT)

←Reverted indentation to one colon

Because there are some things that are completely obvious to anyone who knows the system moderately well from a design viewpoint. Like, "Getting Gate at will at level 1 without a material/xp cost is an overpowered ability," or "Playing a Commoner in most D&D games would be weak." The uselessness of the build in question is along the same lines. It doesn't need to be playtested. It's just obvious. --Ghostwheel 20:59, 2 September 2009 (MDT)
I'm not going to continue this conversation with someone unwilling to admit that they are placing their opinion and knowledge higher than others and then trying to enact policy based on that. Any deletion template placed wrongly will be promptly and correctly removed. Good day.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   21:05, 2 September 2009 (MDT)
Gotta go with Hooper on this one. We are being hasty about deletions. Lets just slow it down. --Jay Freedman 21:08, 2 September 2009 (MDT)
Hasty? Many of those templates have been up for over a month, and no one's discussed anything on the talk page. Over a month with the delete template up, and no one's said anything. If anything, that's the opposite of haste >_> --Ghostwheel 21:10, 2 September 2009 (MDT)
Oh well, if the delete template has been up for over two weeks and no ones talked. Then DELETE it baby!! Yeehaa. I thought we where talking about the delete templates posted within a week. --Jay Freedman 21:12, 2 September 2009 (MDT)
No, the majority of builds on which Hooper removed the delete template I put up were re-put up after he removed them from the flavorful optimization category. Originally, they've been there for over a month with no change whatsoever to most of them. --Ghostwheel 21:15, 2 September 2009 (MDT)
Most placed wrongly. Of the ones that you attempted to re-tag today, only one (the one I linked to above) truly warranted a deletion template. I will also reinstate that using the flavorful category has a way to just tag anything you personally found suboptimal was wrong. The idea itself is good - if used correctly.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   21:18, 2 September 2009 (MDT)
Except those I tagged as flavorful did try to optimize a single thing not used in usual gameplay. They were for more theoretical things (only good at sundering weapons, only good for having high saves etc) rather than to be used in actual gameplay. If their point was for actual gameplay, those that had the delete template before should have it re-added. If you don't think they should have it, discuss it on the discussion page. But you are not supposed to remove the delete template placed by another user. --Ghostwheel 21:20, 2 September 2009 (MDT)
Wow. I can't even reply to the absurdity of that statement. Saves and Sundering is not part of gameplay? Really? Once again - opinions here. A deletion template can be removed if it is felt it was placed for the wrong or false reasons - at which point it would be standard to open up a discussion on the article's talk page to deal with the disagreement before going further.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   21:23, 2 September 2009 (MDT)
If *all* you can do is sunder (if you couldn't do anything against creatures who don't have equipment), you won't do very well in most practical D&D games. Same if you have great saves. You won't be able to do anything in most games. That said, don't remove the delete templates placed by other users. --Ghostwheel 21:24, 2 September 2009 (MDT)
I'm not going to edit war any further with you. Min/Maxing is some peoples optimization. This is ridiculous. I'll wait for dedicated wiki admins to step in. And for the final time it is completely within standard to remove templates placed by other users within the right reasoning. Good bye. *note: you continued edit warring after reading this and admitted so in the edit summary. You have a chance to revert your own edit to show that the edit warring was stopped mutually at the same point in time by both parties.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   21:29, 2 September 2009 (MDT)
Yeah, I put back up things that were up for... over a month in some cases. With no new responses present. Taking it back to ground zero. Then we can have the admins step in. --Ghostwheel 21:33, 2 September 2009 (MDT)
So you ignore all this most recent discussion and use the month ago example? No, this discussion is very valid - and you edit warred afterwards.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   21:35, 2 September 2009 (MDT)
At this point - let us stop this madness. It isn't helping anything. Agree to disagree, wait for third party input.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   21:40, 2 September 2009 (MDT)
You know Ghostwheel, there's another community that is actually concerned about quality control rather than permitting (and obviously encouraging) the build up of garbage... -- Jota 21:42, 2 September 2009 (MDT)
I know Jota... I wish I could come over. I really do. The only thing holding me back is how rude Surgo's been to me a number of times. IMO, politeness is one of the foundations of civil, intelligent conversation on the Internet. If it was (almost) anyone but him spearheading the move, I'd have already been over there :-( --Ghostwheel 21:43, 2 September 2009 (MDT)
I'd like to state that the reason I'm so adamant about following a proper procedure that will help the original authors and not lose content is because these days, its hard to tell who is actually in good faith posting here and who is subversively trying to hurt this wiki and help the other. I agree with Ghost - no ill mean meant to Surgo, but most of his crew where the rude ones. I really do like you and your work Ghost, I just strongly disagree with your adamant deletion or throwaway take on most of these builds.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   21:46, 2 September 2009 (MDT)
If crap isn't deleted, it builds up. Look at how long the delete template's been on some of these builds. And they continue piling up. --Ghostwheel 21:47, 2 September 2009 (MDT)
I do agree with that, its just that I don't agree that all of it is necessarily crap - or beyond salvage.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   21:49, 2 September 2009 (MDT)
The thing is, if no one is willing to put in the time to improve them, then they are better off being deleted than misleading casual users. -- Jota 21:50, 2 September 2009 (MDT)
My thoughts exactly *nods vehemently* --Ghostwheel 21:51, 2 September 2009 (MDT)
I'm all for templating them in the meantime to state that their is an issue with the optimization. I'm 100 percent for something like that. For the same reasons I still support a SGT template. Sadly, the true root of the problem may indeed be a lack of people willing to test things or provide proper critique - or authors who just disappear. I guess there really isn't a "perfect" way to prevent that. But we don't have to facilitate that problem either.  Hooper   talk    contribs    email   21:52, 2 September 2009 (MDT)
Man, Im sorry we created a separate category now. Flavorful categorizes this conversation. Haha. (Ok, Im done...) --Jay Freedman 21:54, 2 September 2009 (MDT)
It's not going anywhere, especially with all the mods that have left, and how long the template's been up without anyone doing anything about it. I don't think you're under any time constraints. --Ghostwheel 21:57, 2 September 2009 (MDT)

←Reverted indentation to one colon

@Ghostwheel: just hit them all up with needs balance, and if no one does anything about it for two weeks, hit 'em with delete. A month is more than enough time (probably too long) for anyone interested to have a go at one of these "optimizations." -- Jota 22:00, 2 September 2009 (MDT)
Jota way works perfectly. Too help, MOI me. I'll do any I can and give honest answers. That is how it needs to be done.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   22:02, 2 September 2009 (MDT)
They've had the delete template on them for longer than a month, and nothing's changed. Isn't that long enough? --Ghostwheel 23:41, 2 September 2009 (MDT)

Thank you[edit]

Hey Ghostwheel. Thanks for putting up the delete templates that you did. If it where me, lots of the articles would be gone by now. Dead. But, I guess I can wait a month to scratch them off my list. You know, 1.balance template then 2.delete template and 3.any talk pages that come up.

Anyway, thanks for being patient and doing things the hard way. I respect you for deciding to wait this one out. Especially since your judgments seems pretty close to mine on many of these articles. Okay, well. Hope your not to discouraged after all this. (Cause I was. Hehe.) Thanks again. --Jay Freedman 22:30, 3 September 2009 (MDT)

It doesn't really matter. When admins back up people who don't understand when the basic foundation/concepts of a build are so useless that there's no point in optimizing them that's the time that I cash out. --Ghostwheel 22:36, 3 September 2009 (MDT)

Ban Definition[edit]

”Hokay, let me explain this to you very slowly….” Here at the D&Dwiki, the largest industry wiki in existence, we utilize a simple method and definition of blocking and banning. We like to keep it simple. If you’re banned…well, you’re banned. Really elementary at it’s core. So, in closure, evading your ban by editing via a IP non-logged-in address is a violation of a ban/block. Did I explain that slowly and clearly enough? Thanks. If you have any questions, feel free to ask.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   14:33, 18 September 2009 (MDT)

QQ some moar?
Try to avoid playing the elitist prick, the other wiki exist end of the line, Calling us lower caste or any other insult are considered intimidating behaviour toward some for still active user or this wiki and a general insult toward the D&D community as a whole. So now stop these stupidities, sit down and think about your actions and how they are actually maintaining the conflict between teh already divided userbase. The tavern crowd as you like to call it were most of all amdins the wiki had, most of the most actives users and most of them contributed for the wiki for years. So a little bit of respect would be welcomed instead of insulting these user when they have their back turned, that is a low and completely uneeded blow. It been a long time since the wikia crew actually passed to others things and gathered a user base on it own (I won't say more about it, to respect to Green Dragon). There is no wiki war, there never been one. Apologies would be in order for such immature, petty and hypocritic behavior. --Dhazriel 15:46, 18 September 2009 (MDT)
Surgo's off-site actions on numerous forums proves your entire statement wrong LD, which is sad since it was so well thought-out and put forth. I'm not being an elitist prick. Someone came from there to here to comment on something that didn't require comment, saying that I failed to grasp a concept. However, that person failed to grasp the concept of being banned. It was a simple discourse, which is now over. Also, if my minor comment offended the "D&D community as a whole" then how to you retconn (example:) TK's actions for the last few years? Exactly. You can't have it both ways - the people you like can be overly rude all the time but someone you don't care for can be seemingly rude and you get upset. My attitude toward repeatedly-rude and policy-breaking individuals will remain firm, as those individuals have indicated their continued rudeness and continued policy-breaking will not stop any other way. I don't owe anyone any form of an apology. The tavern crowd owes this community an apology for years of rude and offensive behavior that has stunted the community's growth. I'm tough back now, and you guys can deal with it and start to work together with us as a team or just stay away because we don't need you if you can't.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   16:27, 18 September 2009 (MDT)
You claim Surgo has done wrong elsewhere... and you totally ignore the fact that GD made up total lies about him on this very website. GD accused Surgo of vandalising and deleting material with no evidence that any vandalism even took place, let alone that Surgo did it, and when GD was called on it, he threatened to ban people. Come on, Hooper - Surgo hasn't made any nasty, false threats against people. GD has, and refuses to even admit he has. It's no contest, here. Clean your own house. It's worth noting - I DO think Ghostwheel getting around the ban was wrong. I DO think that TK is a bit too rude sometimes. But I also think that neither of them represent the community, or who I am. However, your constant defense of GD, and the fact that he's IN CHARGE of this community makes it so he represents you. And GD is a liar who resorts to threats whenever anyone calls him on his lies. In the future, please don't pretend that an entire community shares the responsibility for one person's actions when the LEADER of your community refuses to take responsibility for his own actions. Dragon Child 16:45, 18 September 2009 (MDT)
You took my entire sentence wrong, and to my last knowledge Surgo does not represent us all (even if he didn't do anything wrong IMO, some may disagreed). Your comments didn't offended the whole D&D Community, they act against it. I may have selected the wrong page for this comment, I should have used your talk instead. There a difference by being rude to an individual and bashing an entire community. Calling us a lower caste is being elitists, even if it was a banned member (someone banned unfairly but I am in no position to comment). Not all wikia members broke the policies here, in fact most didn't (but again I avoid talking about the wikia and focus on the dandwiki's problems). You almost outrightly said that we were a burden to the Dandwiki community! Sorry but that is unacceptable, many of us worked for years on this site to make it better and basically giving up their time for it are getting insulted. So I am going to say, fuck it, I don't think you ever understand what I ma talking about anyway. It not a matter of a ban, but of respect to the users that edited this wiki for years AND made it what it is today (or was considering). Sway us by the reverse of the hand is if we were nothing is something but calling us a "lower caste" or parasitic and otherwise detrimental to dandwiki is horribly distasteful. --Dhazriel 16:51, 18 September 2009 (MDT)
Two things DC: Firstly, I've altered your text. If you can't speak without cursing then don't speak at all. Secondly, I have stated I disagreed with GD on many of those issues. I'm here for the long haul, and will continue to be so. Also, you should be glad GD and I do not share the same views on everything, or else you would of been permabanned after your stunt with a user's page. Now, LD, if you can convince me that users like TK weren't a burden then do it. (Spoiler: impossible). I've got the perfect solution: you boys stay over there, and we'll stay here, and no need to worry about such slights as the breaking of a banning policy or differences in opinion or who said what. Kay? Good. Bye now.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   16:53, 18 September 2009 (MDT)
Tell you what. If this wiki agrees to follow the ACTUAL LEGAL LAW (which says you are not allowed to remove the names of people who wrote the articles and replace it with your own), this wiki's OWN RULES (which says that if a user wants something he wrote to be deleted, it can be deleted), and its members didn't lie about, insult, and harass our members for no reason, I wouldn't be here. Seriously, the only reason I still do ANYTHING here is to defend those who have been banned, and defend their works and attempts by GD to claim that he wrote what other people have. Ghostwheel likely wouldn't have did what he did if it wasn't for you throwing around baseless insults. Dragon Child 17:01, 18 September 2009 (MDT)
Yawn. Moving along. (This current conversation has fallen far from discussing anything related to Ghostwheel, so it should not clog up his talk page. Find a more appropriate venue to vent your anger (hint: your other wiki).   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   17:06, 18 September 2009 (MDT)
Which is the exact same thing Green_Dragon said, when we pointed out that he was outright lying about Surgo on THIS wiki. Funny, that. Dragon Child 17:09, 18 September 2009 (MDT)
Ah, so it must be a conspiracy theory.....  Hooper   talk    contribs    email   17:13, 18 September 2009 (MDT)
No. I'm just pointing it out that that's the typical attitude here, it seems. Dragon Child 17:23, 18 September 2009 (MDT)
I can not and will not speak for other user's attitudes here as of late. I can only speak for mine, which would be to say: glad we lost most, sad we lost a couple, don't care about the feelings of the most. But that isn't policy, just opinion.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   17:26, 18 September 2009 (MDT)

You wanted to ask me something?[edit]

Discussion moved to User talk:Name Violation#Contact. --Green Dragon 17:34, 26 September 2009 (MDT)
Home of user-generated,
homebrew pages!