User talk:BlackSmith

Welcome!

May I extend my warmest welcomes and offer you any help you may need? Thanks for your contributions, mate!

If you need help with something...

...I'm always available! You can drop a message on my user talk page (which I watch like a hawk) or grab my other contact info on my user page.

...There's a wealth of wiki documentation on the meta wiki, perhaps some of it may be of use to you.

...There's a really good Introduction over on meta also, it should help you figure out what's going on if your new to wikis in general.

I'd like to hear a reply! Just click Edit above, and write a message under where mine ends - then, at the end of your message (on the same line) type four tildes (Like this: ~~~~) to automatically insert a nickname linked to your user page, and a date/time signature!

Again, welcome to the wiki - and I can't thank you enough on behalf of the community for your help in making us the best DDO site around (-; elliottcable (talk, site) 22:17, July 5, 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for the welcome. I prolly only update the parts that are wrong in D&D and DDO sense plus my guild page. BlackSmith 06:34, July 24, 2007 (EDT)

i need help with Category: using

What should i add to article to make it part of a Category and what do i have to do to get a template(?) to be automaticly generated as link to category? I'm trying to get the "race" field to be automaticly categorize the character made and later list up all members of specific race.→ BlackSmith 10:56, July 28, 2007 (EDT)

Ok, are you trying to displace alll the warforged characters on the warforged page? If that's what you're trying to do, it's a bad idea. It'll take too much place, I could add a link to it at the bottom, people could gop and visit that page, it would be too hard.

EDIT: It's not a template, it'll be very hard!→ Borror0 12:22, July 28, 2007 (EDT)

At the moment, listing all the warforgeds after the warforgeds race & enchancements page would display huge number of three (3) warforgeds. Ghant, Sanction, Ferricgnome. Listing warforged enhancements directly under race page with players (as logn the list stays under 50 names) would clear up the "foldering" spamm that is bit too heavy in this wiki. Lots of little stuff there and there, very little anything solid. BlackSmith 04:12, July 30, 2007 (EDT)

Listing all the warforged *currently* means only listing three warforged. Currently is the keyword in there. Sorry, I don't think small for this wiki. What if people start adding their character to their list? That could get insane, better to keep it on the right page.

Now, about "foldering"... what do you find that is "too much foldering"? It is in the purpose of enterwiki to be foldering! Foldering *helps* finding information. Say someone doesn't have a clue about the wiki. He wants to know the warforged enhancements, so, he types "warforged enhancements" into the search function, guess what's his first option? Warforged enhancements!! Now, if he wants to learn about Warforged, he's going to look for "Warforged". Again, second option is Warforged and first option Warforged enhancements!

Also, "foldering" makes it easier for editors. Say the "waforged enhancements" is an anchor on the Warforged page, the editor has to write [[warforged#warforged enhacements|wargorged enhancements]] instead of [[wargorged enhancements]], or even worse, I have to back and edit his mistake has he didn't knew where it was!

Lastly, sometimes we "folder" to make it easier for the eye. When it's too long, it's harder too read.

PS: Try to use the post template on talk page please: {{SUBST:Post|1=level|2=~~~~|3=content}}.→ Borror0 06:22, July 30, 2007 (EDT)

d20SRD

Hello Black Smith, first of all I'd like to thank you for your contribution. I put that in bold so it is not lost in what I'll say next.

d20SRD is a very good website, really useful when you got a question about D&D and it is a good tool to help to write or edit an article. However, do not go and blank the page to rewrite a page to add all the information of the SRD w/o adding information. There are reasons such information is precent:

• DDO is not D&D. There are a lot of variations, a lot! For example, touch attacks do not exist in DDO. Ghost make normal attacks rolls. This is why the information from the SRD needs some editing. Same for spell/skills or any other feature that are not yet present in the game, remove them. Do not add pointless information. It will only polute the wiki.
• The SRD is a good website, however it is not perfect. Sometimes, it is better to add or reword information in order to make it clearer. When I learned to paly D&D, I add to turn pages to understand everything. I do not wish this to happen on the wiki, keep a summarised version of the information on the page, sometimes it can be enough.
• DDO is not D&D, don't forget it. ;)→ Borror0 15:45, July 31, 2007 (EDT)

Thanks Borror0.

• I rarely use d20SRD, i use the real thing. Pointless is quite heavy said about articles that are said by Dev team to be added.
• Yes i know there is couple variations. I have actually listed almost them all at http://community.codemasters.com/forum/showthread.php?t=176331 and they have to add touch attacks in some point as the ray attacks in higher levels are really powerfull and its core part of the combat rules. I was planing to write note to the touch attack article about its misimplention. Dunno about you but i would rather make my characters with eye on the real rules. e.g. all the UMD junkies out there are screwd when UMD misshaps get implented. Where i know the are implented? Because its the part that balances UMD users over natural casters side of caster and DC's. In game of endless resources its a aspect that is emphazed.
• DDO is badly done Dungeons and Dragons Online, yet thats what i have paid for the D&D part on it. would be nice to newcomers to know what is badly right from the start. BlackSmith 15:59, July 31, 2007 (EDT)

Ahem:

• SRD, same real thing, the point is the same simply do not remove information. :)
• Point me the article about what's goin to be added, I'll reconsider.
• Ok, I know what to read next.. XD
  • UMD misimplemented? I've never used in D&D, what is the difference? (Please start another section on you talk apge to explain it. :) )
  • You might add that information to the PnP differences page! :)
• I don't agree it's misimplemented. I simply see this has different. Somethings are better that way, or easier to implement in a video game. Being too close to PnP rules could be annoying sometimes (ie would you like to have touch range on healing spells? ;) )

PS: Do you have MSN, I feel this could go on for a while... XD Mine is Borror0@hotmail.com. Add me if you can, would make it better. :) PPS: Gald to see you using the post template. :) Borror0 16:22, July 31, 2007 (EDT)

Around after a while.

• d20 has errors time after time that are fixed usually after pointing the, out but i rather use the official one as i can then flame Mark's arse (webpage maintainer there).
• DDO has no mishaps on UMD using. In DnD if you fail to use the item, it has a bad effect. Usually the opposite what you wanted. There is a page long text about what could go wrong. Also you need separate checks to emulate class AND to use the item. Fail in either and you fail to use it. http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/useMagicDevice.htm
• DDO was the big chance to make DnD easy to approach for many as the rules would have been rolled in the background.
• Yes i would like to have touch range on healing spells. You can not heal from safety in DnD or auto hit touch spells nor you should be able in DDO either. Combats are lethal, thats its idea.

My xfire is BlackSmith81 BlackSmith 03:01, December 10, 2007 (EST)

Hiya

Hey, thanks for stopping by and doing some editing. I've been gone for 2 weeks (crazy, crazy, crazy backpacking trip) so I missed any of this 'drama' or whatnot - sad to see you and Borror seem to have gotten off to a bad start.

Wiki editors always have differences of opinion on how things should be structured or organized. Thats what happens when you have lots of people who are doing work without money, on a volunteer basis; when somebody is technically your boss, but isn't actually responsible for handing you any money, it can be difficult to listen to them. Trust me, I know ^^/

In any case, let me know if you have any instant messenger contact information - it's a lot faster than talk pages, and I liked to chat with my top editors d-:

Again, thanks for editing, let me know if you need anything. I don't know any of the specific questions you or borror were arguing over, but if you just ask, I'd be glad to let you know the answer. elliottcable (talk, site) 01:51, August 16, 2007 (EDT)

Category:Server

Discussions related to creation of our Category: policy have been moved to → DDO wiki talk:Category policy

Template:Ingredient

I'm aware that Template:Ingredient is still buggy and that is mostly because I've never gotten it completed. I'm going through a divorce/separation right now and am unable to dedicate much time to fixing it at the moment. Feel free to take a poke at it. Otherwise I will finish it up as soon as reasonably possible. Thank you.

ShoeMaker (Contributions • Message) 16:53, February 19, 2013 (EST)

Okey, I'll fix it. Good luck in love. BlackSmith (Contributions • Message) 11:21, February 27, 2013 (EST)

Alignment

You undid my revision on the article and without a reason. The article was ill formatted, wrongly categorized, did not stay on topic and was not clearing out what it was about. Mind clarifying why you did so? BlackSmith (Contributions • Message) 13:04, March 4, 2013 (EST)

Mass Removal of Information Bladedge (Contributions • Message) 14:20, March 5, 2013 (EST)

Yes I did compare both versions and you removed all of DDO information from the page and replace it with what appers to be PnP backgoundinformation. I even double check before I responded to your post. This matter is now closed for debate. Bladedge (Contributions • Message) 15:52, March 5, 2013 (EST)

If you did compare them then point out what information was removed. The class restrictions were there in more tidy form while removed from zero information added with additional info about background, background that is identical to what DDO uses/originates. Instead of having multiple topics of same subject I summarized the restrictions and penalties while removed to chunk of tables that had nothing to do with the topic (a list of item and weapon effects? Has nothing to do with alignment). What gives the penalties and to what items and in what circumstances was said in my edit lot shorter and clearer.

In case you can point my edit lost some vital information, I do a better edit of the page and/or open the subject to debate and for a third party review.→ BlackSmith (Contributions • Message) 16:49, March 5, 2013 (EST)

English grammar, spelling, punctuation, sentence structure and wikiquette

BlackSmith, I'm not sure if you are aware or not, and I do not mean to be offensive or rude, but your English is horrible and very difficult to read. On article pages it is fair game for anyone to go in and fix them as they see fit; however, on talk pages this practice is discouraged by wikiquette. With that in mind, would you feel offended if myself (or anyone really) tried to clean up your English on talk pages?

ShoeMaker (Contributions • Message) 06:57, March 9, 2013 (EST)

No, I was not aware that it is "horrible" and "very difficult to read". I am aware that my writings are not as fluent as native speakers, but I have regarded myself as a decent English speaker. I also know that sometimes when I re-rewrite what I have been planing to say I loose the idea what I was going to say in the first place, since apparently simply saying "You're wrong about this and this and it would be better to do like this" is considered rude and hostile. For the record, You would not have sounded rude or offensive if you would have simply said "Would You feel offended if myself (or anyone really) tried to clean up your English on talk pages?" BlackSmith (Contributions • Message) 11:19, March 9, 2013 (EST)

LOL That still doesn't answer the question of whether or not you would feel offended if cleaning up your English was done...

 ShoeMaker (Contributions • Message) 13:29, March 9, 2013 (EST)

I wrote in the summary: "Sure, go ahead."

BlackSmith (Contributions • Message) 17:57, March 9, 2013 (EST)

Categorization question

I'm trying to wrap my head around your proposal to avoid having item property categories exist. I've got a couple of questions that I believe might help me understand better your position.

Using the example of doublestrike, if we have "items" that live in the category, as well as other entities ( "spells" / "feats" / "enhancements" ), once that category gets so many elements that it's worthy of division, how would you propose to best create sub categories?

-Joe → Joenuts (Contributions • Message) 02:03, March 15, 2013 (EDT)

I'm disappointed Joe, this belongs with the rest of the discussion on Help_talk:Category#Structure. Please, let's not have the same discussion on everyone's talk pages. Thank you.

ShoeMaker (Contributions • Message) 08:16, March 15, 2013 (EDT)