User talk:Green Dragon/Archive 32

This is an archive of past discussions. Its contents should be preserved in their current form. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

← Archive 31 |

Archive 32 |

Archive 33 →

Thank You

As someone who's played a lot of Mount and Blade: Warband, I know how hard it is to keep a bunch of free-willed aristocrats, all with their own needs and desires, unified under one banner. Especially when some are as needy, and with such desire to rock the boat, as I fear myself to sometimes be. I always know I can turn to you with issues I have on this site, because you are forever calm and firm, yet willing to at least discuss any issue whatsoever, you seem to always make an effort to help however you can, and it usually ends up helping a lot. I guess you don't run a community this long without learning a few things.

Barnstar

For all your tremendous and impressive efforts and contributions in community leadership, dispute resolution, discussions, great article content, dirty infrastructure work, telling us BD is way too busy (:P), and much more. Not to mention putting up with myself, this needy moderator, having all decisions and policies under the Sun questioned, and handling it all wonderfully. I award you this Barnstar - You are well in excess of deserving of it. --SgtLion (talk) 02:28, 19 October 2017 (MDT)

Frankly, the very idea that you and I had the same number of barnstars is abhorrent. If your work was even slightly as recognised as it should be, you'd be rocking 50 barnstars by now, minimum. Good to see you being more recognised, recently. Thank you. <3 --SgtLion (talk) 02:28, 19 October 2017 (MDT)

D&D Wiki plays...Diplomacy?

You're invited! — Geodude671 (talk | contribs | email)‎ . . 18:43, 19 October 2017 (MDT)

Thanks for the invite. I don't know that game at all, but I'll look into it. --Green Dragon (talk) 23:07, 19 October 2017 (MDT)

Homebrew Key Wielder (Original writer removed his link)

On the Keyblade homebrew, it says anyone with a higher charisma can take it, but shouldn't they have to be a Wielder themselves? & there should be a roll to recover it as well. Sora got his back from Riku when the key was in his gras & he was supposed to be the heir of it

Can you give me more detailed information about where you are seeing this information please? --Green Dragon (talk) 10:36, 24 October 2017 (MDT)

Password

Hi,
Is there a way to change my password without having an email as I have forgotten mine and I didn’t set an email. This is annoying me as I can’t log in to my account on other devices.
Thanks,
The Fyre Fox - The Only Real Fox There Is. (talk) 04:34, 2 November 2017 (MDT)

If you're logged in, you should be able to add an email in your preferences (one of the buttons in the top-right).--GamerAim (talk) 07:16, 2 November 2017 (MDT)

I know but it requires my current password which I have forgotten. The Fyre Fox - The Only Real Fox There Is. (talk) 05:51, 3 November 2017 (MDT)

Can you send me an email with your email address? It is possible to change your password in the database to a new one (the current one is encrypted and cannot be retrieved of course), but Blue Dragon or I will need to send you the new password afterwards. --Green Dragon (talk) 23:48, 14 November 2017 (MST)

Regarding the Meltskin Edit Reversion

Hi, I've been watching Meltskin (5e Race) for awhile now. I saw the change which you reverted, and I don't understand why. The current Meltskin's Undead trait allows Necrotic damaging Cantrips to heal them. In particular, there's Toll the Dying from UA, which would enable a level 1 Meltskin to restore 1d12 hit points. This is much more powerful than Cure Wounds which is a 1st level spell and is only 1d4 plus a modifier, and at higher levels, Toll the Dying can restore 4d12 damage. Also, because Toll the Dying is a Cantrip, it can repeatedly be used every turn for free healing since the player can choose to fail the saving throw. Thus, I feel that edit to Meltskin was appropriate. --Alearori (talk) 11:06, 8 November 2017 (MST)

Fair enough. I just don't see why it should restrict the lowest level of spells. I actually feel that this feature should require a DC check like the spell too. I'll add that now. --Green Dragon (talk) 14:04, 8 November 2017 (MST)

You forgot to mention what the DC is and what kind of saving throw it is. Unless you meant the save of the spell itself, but not all Necrotic damage spells deal damage on saves, because there's also Chill Touch which is a spell attack. Also, I believe the reason for restricting the lowest level of spells is to disable Cantrips from becoming a healing cantrip, which the DMG said to avoid. Furthermore after that restriction of only 1st level or higher spells to provide healing, I think it'd be best to remove the part about "You cannot heal by normal means" too now, because then the Meltskin must rely on spells or potions to heal. --Alearori (talk) 18:55, 8 November 2017 (MST)

Your recent edits for that feature work very well. Great job about finding that problem! --Green Dragon (talk) 00:07, 15 November 2017 (MST)

About Engineer 5e...

I think there was a misunderstanding. You reverted to SilverWritingPen's revision after I fixed it. Silver is not the author of the page. He heavily edited it into something entirely different to what was originally written in it, and so I undid his edits and suggested that he instead create his own page as an alternative, which he did. The page is in a good state, complete and not vandalised at the moment. I reverted back to the version before Silver's edits.

Since someone choose to undo my edits, I will see where this goes. --Green Dragon (talk) 04:31, 20 November 2017 (MST)

Deamon Eater, problem with the flames

Demon Flames At level 11, you can now cast the spell Scorching Ray as a second level spell at will, without the need for material components. You may also cast the spell Fireball a number of times equal to your Charisma modifier per short or long rest. If used within a minute of using your Devour feature, you gain advantage on the attack rolls for the next minute. You can choose to have these deal Necrotic damage instead of Fire damage. The color of these flames are black and purple.

These flames, i'm not saying they're a bad idea, they just seem out of place. I fail to understand why a demonically corrupt person would be able to suddenly start shooting flames. This is one of those situations were they need to be there at the start of a class, or not there at all. From what i can tell, one archetype focuses on keeping this corruption inside yourself to stop it affecting others around you but speeding up its affects on your body, while the other is more focused on expelling it from your body, affecting others around you to the point of infection. At the moment this class feels very monk/fighter, so i don't see why spells have been included. I am currently playing this class in one of my campaigns and its a lot of fun, this black blood that you get from the corrupt heart really makes the class unique, so maybe develop on that idea. :)

I responded on Talk:Daemon Eater (5e Class). --Green Dragon (talk) 00:24, 15 November 2017 (MST)

OGL Issues

Hi there!

You have a few OGL issues with the way you have used Open Gaming Content from EN Publishing. Could you let me know an email address to contact you directly at so we can get them fixed?

Thanks so much,

- Russ Morrissey EN Publishing

You can email him through the page Special:EmailUser/Green Dragon. I'm not sure whether you need an account on the site or not. — Geodude671 (talk | contribs | email)‎ . . 17:21, 19 November 2017 (MST)

Hello. Please allow us the legally allotted time to address this issue. It is being looked into by me personally (as I mostly handle that part of the site). I hadn't previously considered that the reference box, page name and other bits might be mixed up with the rest of the article, and as such subject to the terms of the OGL, and I apologize for that. The appearance of the OGL header on that page (and the publication pages of other EN Publishing publications) is an oversight that I assure you will be corrected. Thank you for bringing this to out attention, and I personally apologize for the inconvenience.

Edit: I would appreciate if either you or GD could keep me in the loop regarding this, as while I am not the one legally responsible for the website, I put a great deal of work into the OGC section of the website.--GamerAim (talk) 17:32, 19 November 2017 (MST)

Please either email me per above, or you may contact me on ENWorld on my account as Green Dragon. I will keep you informed, GamerAim. --Green Dragon (talk) 04:29, 20 November 2017 (MST)

Sorry, I missed your reply and began working on correcting the issues (he outlined a couple before editing his message), but I will stop until you've worked this out. Thanks.--GamerAim (talk) 07:30, 20 November 2017 (MST)

GamerAim, I have detailed the problem on Talk:5e Open Game Content#EN5ider. If you have any questions just let me know! --Green Dragon (talk) 23:48, 21 November 2017 (MST)

Time Limit on Placing Maintenance Templates

Hello, GD. A recent issue that has come up before is that of maintenance templates, especially deletion templates, being placed on pages just minutes after the OP's last edit. This creates strife that I think is unnecessary and entirely avoidable if we enforced a limit on the time that must pass since either page creation or last edit by the OP before maintenance templates, again deletion templates in particular, can be added to the page.

Placing these templates so soon, especially ones that say "This doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell." (which might violate our behavioral policy), only serves to upset the page's creator, who could've been better served by a talk page comment. I think a limit of 1-3 days would be ideal.--GamerAim (talk) 08:14, 1 December 2017 (MST)

I find that guidelines would be rather appropriate. If someone could write a draft version, then we can begin to discuss them. --Green Dragon (talk) 09:14, 1 December 2017 (MST)

Third paragraph on this page. I did note that the second paragraph already says to take things to the talk page first and wait a few days, so the new paragraph might not be necessary? Funny, the tidbits on a help page you forget or don't notice until you need them. I suppose that's why we write help pages, as a reference and reminder...--GamerAim (talk) 07:39, 2 December 2017 (MST)

That third paragraph needs to be changed, since the preload tries to automatically add these templates during the creation of some pages. I also think that it is kind of counter-productive to base these templates on a timeline. Let's discuss it though.

My first reaction to your question was in regard to this style (see edit comments) diff. Do you think a more controlled system, like a bullet list in the style of the comment, would be even better? --Green Dragon (talk) 10:08, 4 December 2017 (MST)

I'm afraid I don't see what that diff has to do with this discussion, or what bullet lists or comments are supposed to be better than. I do agree with your first point, and I tried to address it, but I suppose it wasn't very clear in that direction.

My problem, again, is with users inappropriately flagging pages for deletion just hours after the page was created and mere minutes after the last edit by the original poster. While it takes weeks (at least) for a page to be deleted, I still find it inappropriate to flag a page for deletion right after it's created. Otherwise, why won't we just include a deletion template in the preloads? I believe, based on experience, that it can come off as offensive, if not outright hostile.

Of course, this is all a moot point because as I said above, there's already a guideline in place to prevent this, I just forgot about it so I never enforced it. I hope, at least, that you understand where I am coming from in bringing this up in the first place :) --GamerAim (talk) 14:51, 4 December 2017 (MST)

I guess that you misunderstood me. I am referencing Blobby383b's edit comment. It states "use the delete tempate instead of abandoned one month after a page with little to no content has not had any major edits, and use abandoned for class's that are half completed or classes that have remained incomplete/unbalanced/other issues for some time". If you would like to make the current page clearer, or add something in-line with this edit comment, feel free to do so. Otherwise, I can ask Blobby383b if he wants to expand on his comment as a policy. --Green Dragon (talk) 23:31, 4 December 2017 (MST)

I use the statement I made above comment as a framework for adding the abandoned/delete templates to pages that are largely incomplete, have had problems for an extended period of time, or remain incomplete and have not had any major changes. The 1 month delay before adding a delete template and the 2 weeks before deletion gives users plenty of time before the page is deleted to do something with the page.

I also believe abandoned should only be used on pages that have a decent amount of content(several features and some description if you use a class as an example) or have remained incomplete for an undetermined amount of time, otherwise empty pages stick around for a year if you just add the abandoned template.--Blobby383b (talk) 01:27, 5 December 2017 (MST)

I feel like two issues have conflated in this conversation. I'm mostly happy with GamerAim's draft version of those rules, though I think the limit is a day or two too much. In my deletion hunts, I tend to bookmark or keep the pages that I have my eyes on - If it's not appropriate to place templates within the day or two I can bothered to keep that tab around, it'll slip into the wikiether.

As for revamping the point of the Abandoned template, I'm in favour of using it as we currently do, basically a delete-lite or template for classes that never really got finished, to any degree. If we want a "This will never get finished so delete it after a month" thing, it should be a template of its own, otherwise the intentions get mixed up. --SgtLion (talk) 11:00, 13 December 2017 (MST)

I agree that something like a couple minutes after something is posted is, of course, too early. I also agree with Sgt Lion that requiring 24 hours or more would cause pages to slip through the cracks even more easily than they already do. I think if there will be any kind of enforced limit, a minimum of 1 hour would be sufficient.

Everything else is fine as-is. The current intended use of delete versus abandoned is acceptable. My thoughts on this issue seem to mirror those of SgtLion. - Guy (talk) 12:07, 13 December 2017 (MST)

I've learned a lot since the discussion started about time frames for these stubs which seem quick. I try to mark a paged abandoned if inactive for a month, and then propose deletion a month after that. The abandoned being that warning things will be deleted. I think I am alone in this thinking though. Like Guy mentioned, Mara gets a lot of requests for deleted content. I think some of the ideas here will increase that volume. Looking forward to guidance though :) BigShotFancyMan (talk) 12:39, 13 December 2017 (MST)

People seem to disagree with my draft, so I hope it's fine that I undid it. After further reflecting, I believe that the rules work just fine as they were before.--GamerAim (talk) 12:57, 13 December 2017 (MST)

I re-added your draft back, but changed it to be a rule of thumb, a 24 hour timeframe, and changed it to include the idea of a fresh edit. How is that? --Green Dragon (talk) 23:20, 13 December 2017 (MST)

I like your edit, GD. The issue really arises that once a page is off Recent Changes, it's mostly hidden from the eyes of active community members. Finding a good middle-ground here is hard.

I don't take explicit issue with people upgrading abandoned templates to delete earlier than a year, as such, but it seems people have different views. Though I don't like it, I'm open to increasing the delete proposal wait time a little, if it means people will be more comfortable adding them to articles. --SgtLion (talk) 03:57, 14 December 2017 (MST)

I'm of the opinion that if it's on recent edits, especially as a new page, it probably doesn't need a deletion template. Sometimes, yes, but not always.

Also, thanks, GD.--GamerAim (talk) 06:00, 14 December 2017 (MST)

Thanks for the original text, I agree with it now.

I am open to increasing the time frame for {{delete}}. What recommendations do we have? I have seen some people who have been offended by the time slot for deletion, but then again we could just allow deletions to become adandoned, if a user starts working on the page. --Green Dragon (talk) 09:51, 14 December 2017 (MST)

I was always of the understanding that we wouldn't delete pages that were being actively worked on during their 14 day period. I even wrote as much into the delete template last month. I just hold off on deleting a page if I see recent edits in the history.

Increasing the deletion template wait time beyond, like, 21 days would really increase the clutter we have around. We could trial an increased time period for a bit and see if it has any material effect on complaints? Alternatively another, slower, delete template. --SgtLion (talk) 12:46, 15 December 2017 (MST)

(I similarly expect that a page with active edits wouldn't be deleted even if the two weeks have passed.)

Something worth considering, I think, is that having a monthly session is pretty commonplace. A more casual player, especially someone who isn't the original contributor, may not check on a page they care about between each monthly session.

Needless to say, the presence of a delete template removes the page from most if not all dpl lists, which I imagine is how most users find usable content. While I agree with the general consensus that removing an unfit page from casual user's eye is urgent, but I think removing it completely is much less urgent.

Considering these two factors, I personally believe a 30-day limit to delete would be best—unless hasty deletion criteria was met, or the page has already had a maintenance template on it for a couple weeks or more.

- Guy (talk) 21:26, 15 December 2017 (MST)

It's good that we will not be deleting pages that are being worked on. Beyond this, I think that the time frame is less urgent. I think that a 30 day time frame would please a number of IPs, but if it leads to a lot of hassle and problems for administrators then I do not think that we should change it. Do we agree that it leads to these type of problems, or not? --Green Dragon (talk) 09:46, 18 December 2017 (MST)

Guy makes good points I didn't totally consider, so we can try upping to a 30 day delay. However, the biggest problem with the higher deletion timeframe is that, as admins/active users, we've got to keep our eye on a lot more stuff at once - largely, IPs and new/problem users removing deletion templates without due cause - and this is a meaningful issue for maintenance (while I am currently looking into some automated process to keep an eye on removed templates, I'm a long way from a good solution). I'd argue unreasonably removed IRRD templates are a more important and prevalent issue than prematurely deleted articles - Though it would be nice to address both of these issues.

As I say, I'm open to us trialling the idea for a (say, a couple months) and seeing how it goes, but I do fear it will make this problem even greater. And if so, we should stick to 14 days. --SgtLion (talk) 15:24, 18 December 2017 (MST)

How can everyone help keeping an eye on pages? Stay more vigilant? Check recent changes? skim the meta page needs deleted? BigShotFancyMan (talk) 06:36, 19 December 2017 (MST)

I am fine with first testing out the improved deletion template clarifications that SgtLion worked on, without changing the time limit. Multiple users may already be more accommodating to template {{delete}}.

I am against de-powering template {{abandoned}}. Abandoned articles need a little incentive I assume.

If everyone is okay with waiting for a bit of time, and seeing if anything has changed, then let's do that. Although, do we have any additional recommendations to try? --Green Dragon (talk) 09:07, 22 December 2017 (MST)

I'd rather not up the number of days but that seems to be the conclusion here despite the original intention. Is this effectively immidiatly or at the beginning of the year? (Please let it be the beginning of the year(;-;)) ConcealedLight (talk) 10:14, 27 December 2017 (MST)

My take-away is that we'll let things be as they are with the fancy deletion clarifications, for a couple more months, and see how it goes. I'm fine with us doing that. --SgtLion (talk) 15:56, 28 December 2017 (MST)

Whack

Whack! You've been slapped around a bit with a large trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something silly.

The {{trout}} template is meant to be placed on talk pages, not on user pages :P. Sorry if that wasn't clear. — Geodude671 (talk | contribs | email)‎ . . 10:01, 15 December 2017 (MST)

Ow, that hurt but at least in the right place. --Green Dragon (talk) 10:12, 15 December 2017 (MST)

Stepping Down

My life is far too busy to allow me time for this hobby. I'll probably return to this community in the future, but for now I barely have time to check my phone. I'm stepping down as an admin due to nearly complete inactivity. I'll still check in with events now and then, as I have over the last 6 months. Hopefully you guys can find someone active enough to revive the Facebook page project. --Kydo (talk) 08:53, 1 January 2018 (MST)

Thanks for your contributions as an admin, and good luck with everything you choose to do! I hope that everything is going to work out well for you and your future. --Green Dragon (talk) 22:49, 1 January 2018 (MST)

Good luck Kydo!! BigShotFancyMan (talk) 10:33, 2 January 2018 (MST)

Very sad to see you go, Kydo. Thank you for all your many contributions. I owe you one. I hope things end well in your life and you have time to stop in chat one day. Take care.--GamerAim (talk) 12:41, 2 January 2018 (MST)

Mousefolk...

The picture in the Mousefolk section is a little miss leading according to the stats of a Mousefolk there 2 foot tall and the picture shows a 2inch about Mousefolk

Do you have a different picture that you feels fits the mousefolk better? --Green Dragon (talk) 23:34, 25 January 2018 (MST)

"Inserting false information"

I sometimes notice you block users for the reason "Inserting false information." Since we're not a factual wiki like Wikipedia, when should this be used? Is it for users who randomly buff things for no reason? — Geodude671 (talk | contribs | email)‎ . . 16:36, 26 January 2018 (MST)

I block users for "inserting false information" when they intentionally add information onto a page that is to powerful, a level-progression that has nothing to do with D&D, or when they try to warp a page into a certain type of content that is not working with it. It's pretty much the same as your example above. --Green Dragon (talk) 12:52, 27 January 2018 (MST)

Hi im the creator of the Elysian class!

I have no idea how to work your template in the class creation. I made this whole class from scratch and really want other players to use it, which is why I tried to upload it. But I keep trying to fix it and your system warnings keep saying it will be deleted in 14 days. I would be OF MUCH MUCH HELP IF you could fill in the template however you're supposed to cause "I'm sorely confused. The source material is here if you want to check out the actual stuff too! [1] HELP PLEASE!!! I beg of you —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.126.54.2 (talk • contribs) . Please sign your posts.

Hi, I'm not GD but another admin. I added the maintenance templates onto that page because it has a lot of problems currently: The formatting makes the page unreadable in some places, there are many, many grammar errors; and from what I can make out the class seems to be a great deal more powerful than any first-party class. Those aren't automated system messages; I placed them on the page manually. Similarly, the page won't be automatically deleted; an actual human has to look at the page and click the "delete" button. The 14 days is a time limit for you to improve the page, and if the issues haven't been fixed or improved the page will be deleted. If you work on improving the page within that 14 day period, the page will not be deleted. Please ask if you have any more questions. — Geodude671 (talk | contribs | email)‎ . . 18:59, 2 February 2018 (MST)

I'll mention, that if you create a user account then you can use your userspace to include any sort of page within the site policies. --Green Dragon (talk) 10:36, 3 February 2018 (MST)

Thank You

Hey, just swinging by to say thank you for defending the Warforged, 2nd Variant that I made. Seriously, thank you. Been trying to convince people to use the talk page to sway me on designs and such, but the outright changes are very frustrating (especially when they are in larger volumes or petty edit wars).--Gr7mm Bobb (talk) 20:08, 11 February 2018 (MST)

Sobruaro Featured Article

Hi, I was told you were the one to talk to about getting this page as a Featured Article. https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Talk:Sobruaro_(5e_Race)

There's currently 3 support votes, 1 oppose, and two comments with conditional support. (10:15, 12 February 2018 (MST))

Thanks for the heads up about the FA nomination activity on the Sobruaro race. --Green Dragon (talk) 23:29, 13 February 2018 (MST)

Made the changes you requested! (08:57, 14 February 2018 (MST))

Acceptable content policy

Is it annual "SgtLion takes issue!" day again already? How the years fly by when you're having fun~ Sorry to bother you once more, GD, at least I must keep coming back to you because you keep solving my problems, I do love your patience so.

There have been more instances than this couple of pages where content and/or images have been removed and censored on the grounds of being 'sexually' or otherwise inappropriate, and I have vehemently disagreed each time that there has been any such issue. My personal feeling is that content is being censored where it simply offends some others sensibilities. I've no interest in calling out specific people over these matters, but I was wondering if it was a good idea to create a central, kind of 'acceptable content' policy, so every time this disagreement comes up, we can point to policy and put to rest whether something is acceptable or not. Then at least I can have one argument over a policy instead of 100 repeated arguments that upset and tire me.

We've already agreed elsewhere that sexually explicit content is against ad policy, and that's fine, but where do curvy, featureless slimepeople come into it? Or images that some might interpret as being sexually charged, but have absolutely no explicit sexual traits? Or text where some people might infer that the author might be daring to imagine actions that would be criminal in real life? Or content that's downright silly, but still could make for fun content if given a chance? Or content that doesn't breach any policy technically, but some people feel it makes them uncomfortable?

This constant redaction of content, on the basis that people personally dislike it, is becoming a frustrating issue for me and will inevitably come to affect some articles I have personal stake and contribution in. I'm not sure if an acceptable content policy (or perhaps some guidelines, at least) is the correct solution, or maybe a totally terrible idea, but I'm not sure how else to address this. Should I just be putting up with the results of each individual discussion, where I lose the will to keep fighting a matter? Should I just be pre-emptively PfD-ing articles that will inevitably eventually be objected to? --SgtLion (talk) 01:57, 14 February 2018 (MST)

I agree that using any policy to its limit is totally necessary. Without this, we will never know where their strong and weak points are. Good work on taking action!

My reaction upon seeing the corollin is that I am looking at some manga teenager who is scimply dressed. Unless you are a manga teen who likes what the corollin is about, I do not see this as having any sexual connotations.

My reaction upon seeing the slime people is that I am looking at an image that is shoehorned onto this race. This is because, it is stated that this race is made up totally from a gelatinous substance. That picture looks like a librarian made up of slime. Since this image has multiple perspectives, I agree that erring on the side of caution is acceptable. In the same sense, one could try to remove the image for not appropriately representing the page. If the image showed a totally gelatinous figure, I would see nothing wrong with it.

To summarize, if an image exhibits multiple perspectives on a page, including sexual innuendos, then its best to remove it.

I don't see this working policy as only pertaining to images, however. I wonder, how do you perceive the chance of multiple perspectives existing on a page, including pure pornographic innuendos, fitting into policy? I understand that finding the existing perspectives on a page may not be too easy, but I consider it paramount to integrating policy. --Green Dragon (talk) 09:07, 14 February 2018 (MST)

If you click through to the source of the Corollin's image, you'd see that it's creator (who also made the Corollin page) explicitly made the design to be fetishistic, particularly of adolescent boys who resemble women, including an eye-bleaching nude reference where the penis is basically as long as its leg. While the fetishistic intentions of the design are not obvious to all, they are obvious to a large enough percentage of people who would also, similarly, be quite repulsed and potentially even triggered (and I don't mean that in jest or exaggeration) --Varkarrus (09:37, 14 February 2018 (MST))

If you're going to make some sort of Sexually Explicit Content policy, then as long as art content is being sourced to its creators, authorial intent is also going to need to be taken into account. If a race is childlike but the art is otherwise acceptable, but the source of the art links to the deviantart page of someone who is openly a pedophile, then the art should not be used. --Varkarrus (09:43, 14 February 2018 (MST))

Actually while I'm at it, I'll add that both me, two other people on the D&D wiki discord server, and literally all 7 other members of my D&D group were all very bothered by the Corollin, especially after finding that deviantart page. -Varkarrus (10:15, 14 February 2018 (MST))

Though not the creator or Corollin, I've disagreed and continue to disagree with every bad thought for the page. The creator had one fault, giant male genitalia on the DeviantArt page for the race. The description of the race explains they can alter the size of "it" in order to reproduce with any race, nothing more and nothing less. I don't think that would justify the image on this wiki, I am providing context I believe is overlooked. The race is quite innocent (read its bio) and the creators page equally.

Also, I whole heartedly agree with SgtLion on this topic. I do not find myself in the boat of contributions possibly being in question at some point but I've been [equally?] frustrated by the censoring. If the community had a guideline for non-pornographic but still suggestive content it could help tremendously with future confusion/disagreement. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 11:09, 14 February 2018 (MST)

Though I appreciate the specific examples in terms of understanding how our general approach and policy should be formed, the reason I brought this up is because I'm totally tired of arguing specific cases, could we avoiding tangent-ing too much? I'm not sure what GD means by "perspectives", so I'm very much having trouble understanding most of the posed questions. I agree that specifically guidelines around 'suggestive' content could be a decent, targeted approach to the issues. --SgtLion (talk) 12:27, 14 February 2018 (MST)

So, I think it'd be difficult to make a policy, particular regarding the Corollin, because different people are interpreting the pages differently. I was one of the people who felt the Corollin image (and page) was inappropriate, and while I admit that my feelings toward it might not be entirely representative of the intent of the image (though I believe they are), I still think that it made enough users uncomfortable for good reason to have it removed. Regardless, I don't see the harm in replacing an image of a half-naked child with one of a fully-clothed child. Half-naked children seems to be something that makes many people uncomfortable, and I don't see any harm in respecting that.

Regarding the slime person, I personally don't think the image was inappropriate. Maybe not the most artistically evocative image, or most representative of the race, or most original, but certainly didn't come off to me as sexual or pedophilic, so I don't think it can be compared with the Corollin or the issues people had with the Corollin. If a purple slime tried to mimic human form, that's what you might get (though the head was sorta weird because it's a slime).--GamerAim (talk) 14:34, 14 February 2018 (MST)

There are multiple aspects of this discussion which are not fitting together. One is a list of images on DeviantArt, by a certain user there. When I went to this page to see what we are talking about, I could not see the "Mature Content" images. One can only see these images with a user account, and then he should be able to set his own preferences for mature material. Thus, this context is actually not right to help influence our policies. So, I am coming with a bias of not seeing any of the pedophilia images in question, and then this image still seems just like a manga teen. Since DeviantArt has their own policies, I still don't see a problem with that image. Maybe it is best to leave the image out of the page, since it does not really adress the race too well (they are gem-based constructs while a manga teen is not that). In the least, it would make sense to add the {{Adult Content}} disclaimer onto the corollin page.

The working policy is based off of perspectives. If a page's media has multiple perspectives, say manga teen, underdressed child, fairy creature, gem-based construct etc, then each of the perspectives should be discussed, and a concencous shall be reached about the perspectives adhering to constructive editing, non-pornographic, etc policies. The media needs to adhere alongside to this page's concensus. --Green Dragon (talk) 23:14, 14 February 2018 (MST)

I'd just like to mention that I never looked at the DeviantArt account, so I never saw the other images either. As you say, DeviantArt has their own policies, so it didn't seem relevant to use the user's other works or meta data as an argument against an image on D&D Wiki; I told Varkarrus and the others, as much as I personally agree with them, we can't delete an image based off whether we like the artist or not — either we delete it by our own policies, or we don't. The image uploaded to D&D Wiki made me uncomfortable by itself, regardless of the context in which it was uploaded; whether that context was innocent or nefarious is irrelevant. That said, I guess we've come to the consensus that the removal of the Corollin image was justified? I'm glad we're all having this discussion regardless. I much prefer talking over issues than ignoring the concerns of users :) --GamerAim (talk) 05:54, 15 February 2018 (MST)

I still wholly disagree that deletion of the Corollin image was justified, but as I've said, arguing the specific case any more is really beyond my will; I already regret bringing it up, personally. The approach of 'perspectives' makes a degree of sense, but does seem to rule out any meaningfully specific guidelines, and just saying our approach to all cases is to individually consider how plausibly it could be viewed as falling under another policy. If that's how it is then it's of little satisfaction to me, but understandable, as I don't know how likely any other approach is to work well. --SgtLion (talk) 07:17, 15 February 2018 (MST)

Per my post above, I demonstrated a neutral opinion. If we really want to, lets vote on Talk:Corollin (5e Race).

My largest concern, however, is that this policy is now cristal clear. Do we agree to add a policy on Meta Pages that is: "external images, like the page itself, must reach a concensus about their usage. This concensus is reached through the various perspectives the image offers, based upon their application and artistic context." --Green Dragon (talk) 09:40, 15 February 2018 (MST)

I am understanding correctly that its simply a majority vote wins in regards to questionable (offensive) content? (that doesn't make the policy/guideline crystal clear) I too wouldn't be happy with something like this as it bears no standard, just how many people can one side get to vote its way. At the rate the wiki is going, there's going to be many landslides. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 10:17, 15 February 2018 (MST)

What about holding a vote and then when an administrator believes a conclusion has been reached closing the vote and acting the majority's belief? --ConcealedLight (talk) 10:23, 15 February 2018 (MST)

I would rather pages be dealt with on a case by case basis without having to vote on it. I don't think putting something like the removal of images that might have questionable content into policy should be done as it appears ripe for abuse among not really being a standard. Also if this policy is implemented, from an outsider's perspective, it seems like the users who vote control which pages get their images removed, and they are largely correct.--Blobby383b (talk) 11:04, 15 February 2018 (MST)

I think the onus should be on the content creators to not make or include offensive or discomforting content, as opposed to the community as a whole to just Deal With content that might make them super uncomfortable. (Varkarrus (talk) 12:20, 15 February 2018 (MST))

Relying on the mechanics of consensus/voting for every individual case is pretty unwieldy in a smaller active community like ours. And frankly, submitting all moderation to the current 'taste' of the active community really makes me feel uncomfortable about contributing content here, which is why I was hoping to codify it somehow, so perhaps we could all agree on generalised ideals. I am fully in agreement with BigShotFancyMan. --SgtLion (talk) 11:16, 15 February 2018 (MST)

Even if we relied only on moderators (who, in the end, are the ones who decide such things)), two thought the corollin image was inappropriate, one is neutral and one was against removing it. I guess, by that metric, the slime person image shouldn't have been removed because only one admin thought it was inappropriate, whereas two thought it was fine.

I like when all users are encouraged to discuss issues, regardless of status within the community, but I think BigShotFancyMan, Blobby383b and SgtLion are right when they say that public voting on every administrator action would be inefficient and lopsided. As GD himself has said before, D&D Wiki isn't a democracy...and I think that's for the best. I like policy, and it annoys me when even an admin ignores policy, but I also don't think we can create a hard-fast policy on...whatever it is we're talking about. I think the current system of informal democracy whereby everyone can chime in on an issue before admins informally vote on it (or GD gives a decree) works. Even when I've been "outvoted" on issues, I always thought it was fair and took every opinion into account to come to a decision.

Of course, for all my talk of admins, users and voting, if GD wants everyone to vote on every action, then we have no choice :P --GamerAim (talk) 12:28, 15 February 2018 (MST)

I take no issue with that system to approach the creation of rules and policy, or exceptional decisions, but when it comes to curation and creation of content, we have whole namespaces dedicated to the matter, because otherwise it's just mob rule (or mob admin rule), and all I'm essentially asking is for us to draw a hard line on where we deem something 'inappropriate' and outside the scope of our site, in any sense. I'm not saying my view must be 100% adhered to, or that I'm entirely right, I just want us to make some kind of agreed upon standard. If our decision is that we're sticking to the ultimacy of mob rule, then I've personally no interest in having me or my creative output being morally judged, nor in participating in a community whose policy is to consistently do that to others.

The whole point of communities is for us to all agree on what we want, and working to standards we compromise on so that we can all make good content and have fun. Not to create an elite group (of admins or users) who can censor anything they dislike.

I've always seen our duty in this field as curating, creating, and hosting content that's fun, playable, not in breach of policy, and in the scope of the site - Not judging and removing content based on the morally offended whims of whomever happens to be present at any given discussion. --SgtLion (talk) 14:52, 15 February 2018 (MST)

Multiple people, including two admins, felt that the corollin image violated our implicit no pedophilia policy, and that was why it was removed. I did not support its removal because I disliked the artist or the art style or even because I dislike the concept of immortal child-looking beings (I have no personal feelings about any of these things). Although the implications of pedophilia were not explicit, the presentation of the image, in conjunction with the background information on the page (and ignoring the DeviantArt profile itself), made enough people perceive the image as pedophilic in nature. Regardless of anyone else's reasons for wanting the image removed, I believe that mine were wholly within established policy, and I promise you that I would not have supported its removal otherwise <3 --GamerAim (talk) 15:12, 15 February 2018 (MST)

Well darnit I keep losing and I want something more fair! lol

I’m gonna ask on the corollin talk page as well, but I am curious what made that art a kid. I see an art style is all. So maybe someone can help understand why that image was a kid, and not just because you feel that way because I feel it wasn’t and I think evidence should trump feelings.

I like there’s guidelines for critiquing, editing, design, and etc. I can go there an reference these things to users. This topic, which a good point has slim chance of “overnight” resolution, is being enforced by vote/feelings. How can I effectively help others when I don’t know what is gonna trigger someone? Are their triggers affected by work day, health, relationship woes? I read that offense only happens if you let yourself be offended. I like it because it means no one is intending to harm us. Being offended isn’t the same as inappropriate. I’ll concede related but the two are different, and sometimes something offensive is inappropriate eg porn. Are we in he business of censoring offensive material (which could be ugly if we got a hyper sensitive user) or removing inappropriate content? Seems that’s GD’s decision, but I think Ive got the same mindset as SgtLion in regards to my works and efforts being subjected to individual feelings. Hasn’t happened and probably won’t but the thought has still affected my contributions in the last months. #Sucks BigShotFancyMan (talk) 15:45, 15 February 2018 (MST)

Sorry for double post, I should have read that thread first. I hardly see where recent articles became victim to content removal based on that 2017 discussion . If opinions or things have changed, so be it, I understand that. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 16:00, 15 February 2018 (MST)

Again, I can't speak for anyone else, but it had nothing to do with being offended. I wasn't offended or upset or harmed. I just didn't think it was appropriate for D&D Wiki.--GamerAim (talk) 16:36, 15 February 2018 (MST)

BSFM makes the other point I neglected to bring up, that deciding whether an image is pornographic, or somehow pedophilic, is still subject to the issue I have, mob rule. Deciding something should be censored because 'enough people perceive' that it is somehow implying something, though there is no explicit breach of policy, is exactly the issue I have.

And even then, even if the subject of pedophilia was clear and explicit (which I think we agree it's not), because we have no policy nor guidelines on bringing up the subject, it is not a clear breach of policy to do so. So how can contributors, or even we, know where to stand on what's acceptable for an article? Again, hence my desire for clear standards.

As far as I understood the 2017 discussion, the agreement was essentially that there's no issue in broaching mature subjects, in a mature way, just that ad policy means we can't have sexually explicit or gratifying content (or content that 'promotes' illegal sexual acts, which is essentially the same as handling the topic maturely). Murder is the obvious instance of a crime, heinous in real life, but prevalent in DnD, and very on topic. --SgtLion (talk) 23:59, 15 February 2018 (MST)

I do not see us having reached concensus, or a point where our policy can intervene. So, I propose that we open up a democratic vote on how we want to handle images. Phase 1 is now open. --Green Dragon (talk) 23:42, 19 February 2018 (MST)

In reality, I think it's pretty clear to everyone what the majority view here is, so I don't personally think a vote is necessary. But at least I get to play along and put in my standard token disagreement, assuming there are no startling changes. --SgtLion (talk) 09:22, 20 February 2018 (MST)

Please, what is the majority view? Also, how is it workable for all pages? I see that my view on artistic perspectives did not get very far, so please answer my questions. --Green Dragon (talk) 09:38, 20 February 2018 (MST)

If I may, majority view seems to be if one person is offended by content then it should be removed/censored. It is not about a content's appropriateness being considered, rather how someone feels when they view it. I don't see this workable for all pages because of this unrest that has been for over a week now. Artistic perspectives vary greatly and without a guideline for every page, it'd be an issue any/every time someone raised a flag. I am not sure if those are the questions you speak of, or if I explained SgtLion's opinion of the majority view correctly, but it is how I see majority view (which I believe exists) and I thought best to answer GD's recent questions. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 10:29, 20 February 2018 (MST)

Sorry - I'm not trying to come across as hostile or uncooperative. I hope I'm not coming across as such, and I'm sorry if so - I personally find it very hard to communicate ideas effectively about this subject.

I agree with BSFM that "censor any content that could possibly offend any given person" appears to me as the clear majority view, but we may of course be wrong. As an opponent to the (alleged) majority view, I've certainly no clue how it's a particularly workable idea.

Again, I agree with BSFM in basically all respects. When it comes to personal judging of a page, considering the artistic perspectives is a pretty smart and good way to go about it, and I like it; However, in terms of making a site-wide policy, I think perspectives are too subjective a matter (e.g. my perspective on an image being "this is an anime potato and that's all it could possibly be", where others may see "my own grandmother could tell this is a clear promotion of illegal sex acts"). If you feel there were any other ideas or words that weren't given due attention, then please do say.

I'll also take the liberty to reiterate that I love y'all. <3--SgtLion (talk) 13:38, 20 February 2018 (MST)

Meep brought up a very good point, that Wikipedia's w:WP:Offensive material covers this very well. The largest difference, from our discussion, is that images in an encyclopedia are not necessarily the same images that users like on their pages. I rather like basing our decisions on a single image from it's perspectives and then the resulting concensus. If we want a single user to make the final decision, that probably will lead to a lot of conflicts. --Green Dragon (talk) 08:48, 21 February 2018 (MST)

I think I'm fine with this, the policy seems to cover exactly what I felt needed covering. Nice observation, Meep. Am I wrong in concluding that this policy means the Corollin (5e Race) image can be reinstated? As its potential offensiveness is essentially unimportant, whereas the image adds information and fluff to the article. --SgtLion (talk) 11:57, 21 February 2018 (MST)

I maintain that the image was sufficiently inappropriate to warrant its removal under current policies, but unless we hear from Geodude671 (the admin who initially presided over the image's removal) on this matter soon, I feel that the image should reinstated on the grounds that it was removed without fair justification.

My reasoning is that, while I believe it was fair to remove the image, I was not the one who actually removed it. So for all my talk about how I wasn't necessarily offended by the image, my reasons for wanting it removed were not considered in its removal. So without Geodude's input, I have no reason to believe that the image was fairly removed under policy, and as such am honor-bound to set aside my personal feelings in the interest of ensuring the execution of our fair and just policies.

That is to say that I think the Wikipedia policy linked by GD above supports the removal of the image, and it is to say that I think the reason why the image made people uncomfortable would rightfully "offend" people by the context in which they were viewing the image. I even think, regardless of our jurisdiction over DeviantArt, that the background information available for the image does factually support the claims being made by me and Varkarrus as to the purpose and intent of the image being perceived by us. It is for these reasons that, in spite of supporting reinstating the image, I would also support re-removing it as well, though as the admin presiding over its removal, I would be glad to go over the details of that on the corollin talk page should the image be reinstated.--GamerAim (talk) 20:00, 21 February 2018 (MST)

My justification for removing the image is basically "it made me and others uncomfortable." The character portrayed in the image was depicted in a sufficiently childlike and sexualized manner that I thought it was more likely than not that a reasonable person would take offense or be made uncomfortable. — Geodude671 (talk | contribs | email)‎ . . 20:49, 21 February 2018 (MST)

I agree with the removal of that image after seeing the entire situation. I understand that it makes people uncomfortable, so it's best to keep it removed. I do not feel that a concensus has been reached for the slime folk one, though. --Green Dragon (talk) 23:09, 21 February 2018 (MST)

I agree with the removal of the Corollin image. In regards to the slime folk image, I don't see it in the same light and reading through a few of Wikipedia's image policy's I don't feel it should be removed. However, in regards to those same policy's I feel the slime peoples image wasn't appropriate and if a better image(higher quality/ fantasy style) comes up to replace the slime folk's current image that I'd support it. --ConcealedLight (talk) 01:53, 22 February 2018 (MST)

Thank you for your agreement, GD :) I think the consensus with the slime folk image was that it didn't violate policy, but it wasn't a good fit for the page it was used on, so it was removed. Just normal article discussion stuff, I think. SgtLion might've incorrectly associated it with the corollin removal because of something said in chat, but I think the two removals were for wholly different reasons. Any discussion of that page and image is probably better served on the slime folk talk page? Edit: Turns out IDK what I'm talking about.--GamerAim (talk) 04:37, 22 February 2018 (MST)

In which case, I'm still confused. The Wikipedia policy I thought we just agreed on boils down to "Don't remove offensive content because its offensive. Don't keep offensive content because its offensive." But now we're saying "Some people feel offended so its removal is justified" - In which case, we're not following policy at all. Talk about the Slime folk one is muddied by the idea that it might not be applicable to the race, so I don't know how much the 'acceptability' of it plays into its inclusion.

I'll state again that I'm not saying I think it HAS to be a certain way, but to agree that a policy applies and immediately act contradictory to the policy leaves me feeling like I'm really not understanding something here. --SgtLion (talk) 05:44, 22 February 2018 (MST)

I am confused as well. What Meep shared is great, I learned a lot. I think it does a good job and believed others to think this too. Then to see support on the removal of an image because "people were uncomfortable" contradicts the Wikipedia policy that I thought everyone found to be a good reference. It didn't sexualize anything, it didn't condone illegal activity, it didn't depict sexual acts.

In the spirit of discussing each image separately, the slime people image represented slime people. I can't see an image doing any better job than the one that was up since the original looked like a people of slime and it too did not sexualize anything, condone illegal activity, or depict sexual acts. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 09:42, 22 February 2018 (MST)

You are talking about this image right? and not this one? Because I believe this isn't appropriate on the wiki whereas this is aligned with the wikipedia policy which I agree with, particularly the example it uses about human body's. --ConcealedLight (talk) 11:18, 22 February 2018 (MST)

Thank you for the links. I don't see an issue with either image. The purple version has more allure due to a complimenting female anatomy but the breasts are just there. They aren't being pressed, squeezed, held or handled in a provocative manner. Are large breasts an issue? (and I am asking everyone this to help clarify the intent of the policy)

Is the other image better because hair drapes over the area where nipples would be? and the breasts are small? or because it has more slime? BigShotFancyMan (talk) 13:53, 22 February 2018 (MST)

I locked my own user page

When I was admin, I locked my page because of spam. That isn't a problem any more. And I'm not an admin any more. Can you please unlock my user page so I can edit it? XD --Kydo (talk) 13:28, 14 February 2018 (MST)

I unlocked it for you :) — Geodude671 (talk | contribs | email)‎ . . 13:56, 14 February 2018 (MST)

A little help

Hey, I was wondering if you could help me out. This is my first time working on a page and I kinda don’t know what I’m doing. I believe I got a comment saying that the otter needs to be filled out too but I don’t know how to do that.

Another user has filled out the footer, so its fine now. If you are curious how to do it, just check the Alteaevantae's history tab. --Green Dragon (talk) 22:52, 19 February 2018 (MST)

Broken Redirects

The broken redirects tab contains a number of OGC redirects that aren't actually broken. SirSprinkles (talk) 16:29, 20 February 2018 (MST)

I just tested one, and it didn't work for me until I replaced #REDIRECT (all upper-case) with #redirect (all lower-case). That seems to be the issue.--GamerAim (talk) 17:24, 20 February 2018 (MST)

UPDATE: According to SgtLion, the wiki is confused by these redirects because they were created prior to the OGC namespace, so the OGC: bit at the beginning of the link doesn't register as a namespace, and as such returns as an invalid link by the wiki...even though it is technically a valid HTTP link as far as the browser and most wiki functions are concerned. From what we can tell, it was simply my re-saving of the page that fixed it, not changing the upper-case to lower-case. SgtLion thinks it could be fixed either server-side, or maybe SgtLionBot could be rigged to fix it.--GamerAim (talk) 05:46, 21 February 2018 (MST)

IP Page Creation

While deleting pages, I've noticed that a lot of these terrible pages are created by IPs who are not logged in. I kicked an idea around in Discord about preventing IPs from creating new pages and received support from 4 other users. Anons will still be able to edit existing pages on the wiki since a good portion of IP edits are constructive; the goal here is to slow the flow of low-quality pages and to hold users accountable for terrible/troll pages they create. I'm wondering what you and the wider wiki community think of this proposal. — Geodude671 (talk | contribs | email)‎ . . 09:49, 4 March 2018 (MST)

From my experience, IPs create some good pages that have a few problems, some terrible pages, and a few pages that are don't have problems when created. The problem with IPs creating pages however, is that IPs don't stick around more than at most a few days at most after the page creation to talk about how to improve a page. In most cases, this leads to the creation of a vast amount of unfinished pages with a host of other problems. While, making IPs create accounts doesn't stop this, it should improve the overall quality of the site while reducing the number of unfinished/terrible/troll pages.--Blobby383b (talk) 10:53, 4 March 2018 (MST)

I disagree with restricting IPs from creating pages. Not only does it severely undermine the entire structure brought across from Wikipedia, it stops the creation of some very interesting pages. I think that the reason we see so many IP created pages get deleted, is because they exhibit the problems above. But, they don't always and as a free and transparent platform, I find it to go against our policies to make IPs have to accept the worst of their usergroup. There are also a number of users who just create terrible pages. --Green Dragon (talk) 22:33, 4 March 2018 (MST)

I know GD has already responded, but I would like to add in that I strongly disagree with blocking IPs from page creation, and I feel that this recent wave of curation vs collaboration ideology is perverting the spirit of D&D Wiki into a gated community where only Honour Guard Approved™ content is permitted.--GamerAim (talk) 06:05, 5 March 2018 (MST)

I guess I didn't think of it that way, making it so IPs can not create pages doesn't stop them from becoming users and creating the good or bad pages they were going to create anyway. It just dissuades some people from every creating content on the site. Initially the idea seemed good, but in practice it would undermine the spirt of the site, while also not really fixing any problems. Thanks for giving your opinions on the matter, I think I would have to agree with both of you. This idea may have some potential benefits, but in the end I would have to agree that it wouldn't be healthy for the site to implement it and change the idea of allowing anyone to create and help create content on D&D Wiki.--Blobby383b (talk) 08:26, 5 March 2018 (MST)

Recent removal of admin privileges

No, not of mine. I noticed you removed Jazzman831 and Tivanir from adminship on the grounds of inactivity. As stated in #Exception and /Pz.Az.04Maus, admins may be removed from their position after one year or more of inactivity. However, Jazzman's last edit was in April of 2017, which was less than one year ago. His last edit before his two April 2017 edits was on December 28, 2015, so you might be justified in removing Jazzman from his position because he did have a period of inactivity that lasted over a year. However, I believe that Tivanir should definitely not have been removed from adminship on the grounds of inactivity, as though he has not been extremely active, his periods of inactivity have lasted a few months at the very most. You're the owner and the final decision on such things ultimately fall to you, but I do believe Tivanir's and potentially Jazzman's removals from adminship were not in line with the rules you've laid out for the site and for yourself. — Geodude671 (talk | contribs | email)‎ . . 00:08, 13 March 2018 (MDT)

Thanks for checking that! Somehow I remembered 6 months, but did not double check it. I'll restore his position now. --Green Dragon (talk) 00:12, 13 March 2018 (MDT)

First time user and Warden 1.0 (custom) (5e class)

Hello, Green Dragon. I was curious as to why there was a lock placed on the Warden 1.0 (custom) page? Also it caused my to confirm my account on the wiki and actually log in for once. Anyway, Thank you for your time and concern for the above mentioned page. Good day.

I added the lock because your edits were not contructive. Replacing all the instances of "her" with "their", grammatically was a disaster. Then, when I reverted the unconstructive edits, the newer edits were even worse. I changed the lock to expire in 1 day now. --Green Dragon (talk) 10:55, 16 March 2018 (MDT)

Problem

I'm having problems with the Recatcha deal. It's not displaying what I need to type in. --209.97.85.48 18:37, 21 March 2018 (MDT)

Have you tried this? --Green Dragon (talk) 23:32, 21 March 2018 (MDT)

Animal Friendship

Hello, GD. I checked the 3e SRD document before reverting that IP's edit, and the typographical error is in the 3e SRD. Unless you're seeing a more recent document I don't have? If so, please share! :D IIRC, our job is to transcribe it verbatim as best as possible. While on the topic, what's the stance on errata for the 3e SRD? The 3.5e SRD seems to use special formatting to identify errata, because it technically isn't 3.5e SRD. Should 3e SRD do the same thing? TY <3 --GamerAim (talk) 05:57, 22 March 2018 (MDT)

Sorry, I did not check the 3e SRD. I thought that you just rolled back the IPs edit since the edit was on an SRD page. The grammar fix makes sense of course, but since it's not in the SRD it should not be there. I would treat 3e SRD errata like how it is done in the 3.5e SRD. --Green Dragon (talk) 11:03, 22 March 2018 (MDT)

Danedemon6663's Comment

hey stop messing with my beauty beast just stop —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Danedemon6663 (talk • contribs) . Please sign your posts.

As Green Dragon mentioned over on that page, you can move it into your userspace for protection. If you need help with that, just ask! Asking nicely is more effective :) --GamerAim (talk) 11:47, 22 March 2018 (MDT)

Kajask

Hey, I'm the creator of the Kajask (5e Race) you looked over recently. I put up some counter arguements and changed some things about the class. If you could check over it when you get the time that would be awesome. Thanks! Veo1123 (talk) 15:42, 5 April 2018 (MDT)

Not GD but if you haven't read through the 5e Race Design Guide you should give it a read. It should answer a number of questions you have, even the more obscure ones such as race age and figuring out where they fit in that timeline. --ConcealedLight (talk) 16:46, 5 April 2018 (MDT)

Drakiin

Hello, I'm the creator of the Drakiin (5e Race), I'm trying to make some sense of the revisions they're asking me to make and I'm a little confused mostly on the problem it has with my race's history. I am also unsure how to change the size of my picture for the physical description of the race. Can you help please? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SunRise18 (talk • contribs) . Please sign your posts.

I too am confused about the {{stub}} template on that page. I will forward your question to the person that placed that template. — Geodude671 (talk | contribs | email)‎ . . 23:12, 10 April 2018 (MDT)

I instructed you how to do so in the stub you removed previously. I've explained the stub in further detail on the talk page and given a few other suggestions. --ConcealedLight (talk) 04:10, 11 April 2018 (MDT)

Spammity Spam, Wonderful Spam

So, you may have noticed a big uptick in spam lately. SgtLion already told BD about it, but a couple people on Discord were thinking that you could maybe prod him a bit also? — Geodude671 (talk | contribs | email)‎ . . 14:04, 18 April 2018 (MDT)

Aye, it is getting pretty crazy amounts recently. I wish there were more we could do to stem the tide, but the power lies with thee bureaucrats. --SgtLion (talk) 18:06, 18 April 2018 (MDT)

This is happening because the custom ReCAPTCHA puzzle is not working anymore. I have already prodded BD and he will be adding it back in the next few days. --Green Dragon (talk) 00:31, 19 April 2018 (MDT)

apology

I apology to you and everybody else on what I posted on the I'm a true European and not a socialist page. He kinda pissed me off. --Redrum 18:20, 18 April 2018 (MDT)