Talk:Alignment

Taint of Evil
Wouldn't LN or CN characters be able to wear armor with this, not just TN? - LrdSlvrhnd 20:44, February 1, 2011 (EST)
 * fixed --yoko5000 21:44, February 1, 2011 (EST)

Bladedge's revert
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)


 * Did you even read the differences before undoing it? All information relevant to the article was there and even more was added. What information was lost that is related to the article?

BlackSmith (Contributions • Message) 14:34, 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 &bull; Message) 15:52, March 5, 2013 (EST)


 * I looked at both revisions and would have rolled it back as well. People come here for details, not pages that are only an overview.  Perhaps that is partially why we disagree about the == Overview == section heading.  You seem to feel that the whole page should be nothing but an overview with anything related linked out for people to chase down multiple links to find as much information as they can, and I feel that ALL of the information pertaining to a subject belongs on one page and many section headings are in order.  Is my thought on your perspective correct?

ShoeMaker (Contributions • ) 15:43, 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)


 * I specially _added_ details. Like person that was comparing the pages behind my back pointed out, the previous version of the article was/is collection of huge tables that make little sense nor give any real information.

Your overview comment is OT and false. I have never said that a page should be a overview only. I have pointed out that using the overview header has no practical no theoretical reason and I haven't perceived any grounding for its use nor rulings for its use. My only comment in the overview discussion about the actual context has been that the following headers should go in depth to the things that the overview introduces. How can you understand that in such a way that a article should only be a overview? All the _relevant_ information to the _article_ should indeed be in the page. That's the basics of wiki. As a personal note (thus I am in turn breaking etiquette when not talking about facts), I feel that many pages you generate and make do most of the time correspond to their title but I rarely use them self as they are just huge, heavy pages full of tables where I rarely find the information I was seeking. BlackSmith (Contributions • Message) 17:25, March 5, 2013 (EST)