User talk:Amakiir

Do you

play D&D? -Auron 11:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I do. Or at least I used to play, currently I consider myself as "temporarily inactive". I prefer D&D 3.5 or 3.0 over 4.0 and usually play an elven wizard. --Amakiir 12:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Figured from the name :D -Auron 12:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I knew it. ;) However, Amakiir is also part of the names of two of my GW characters. --Amakiir 12:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

test --Amakiir 14:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Does the name translate to Moongem? I know it's in the PHB under Elven names, but... -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 16:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

No, it does not translate to Moongem. I'm not exactly sure at the moment (which is, as I have to admit, a bit awkward), but it as far as I remember it translates just to Gem. --Amakiir 16:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Gemflower (PHB 3.0 p. 16). Literally Flowergem (as Amastacia is Starflower and Ilphukiir is Gemblossom), but the elves like to reverse things. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 07:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Guild page redirects

Are not allowed. Please stop. -- Wyn talk 10:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

You should have told me that earlier. ;) However, these guild pages were all listed under Wanted Pages, and instead of editing the pages that link to these guild pages a simple redirect seemed to be the better solution to me. --Amakiir 11:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wanted pages listings are most likely due to userboxes. It's unfortunate, but there is no way to remove the Guild namespace from the wanted pages list. I suggest you simply ignore them. -- Wyn talk 11:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I see. I also see that the reason given for the speedy deletion of the redirects is R1, but R1 says

"R1: Any redirect from the main space to the User: or Guild: namespaces, or any page in a talk namespace."

So this applies only for redirects from the main namespace, but does not forbid redirects in the guild namespace, and redirects are whithin the guild namespace. Thus, they cannot be subject to speedy deletion by applying that rule. Am I right? --Amakiir 11:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I simply used that tag because it was the fastest way to tag them for deletion. There is a reason that the redirects are deleted when the page is moved to historical. It makes way for pages for new guilds with identical names in the cases of disbanded guilds. Please do not continue to create redirects to archived guild pages. You might wish to refer to the Guild page policy. -- Wyn talk 11:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

It would be a remarkable coincidence, if a new guild had exactly the same name as a disbanded guild. That's why I don't think these redirects will do any harm and they should be kept. If by some strange coincidence someone will create a guild with identical name, he (or she (or it)) can still replace the redirect page with his (or her (or its)) new guild page, although I think this is very unlikely to happen.

But let it be supposed that someone creates a guild with the same name as a previously disbanded, historical guild. Let us assume this guild becomes inactive, too, and let us assume it stays inactive until the guild page of the later guild has to be archived. What will happen in that case? In that case, according to the guild page policy, the page has to be moved to [[Guild:Guild Name (historical)]], but that page already exists. However, "Guild pages will never expire." so deletion is no real option for that, and overwriting the contents of [[Guild:Guild Name (historical)]] is no option either. --Amakiir 12:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

That situation is already covered, under the naming rules. -- FreedomBound 12:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

There also is the possibility that none of the disambiguation attempts might work. But never mind. I think I will take a different approach to the problem of guild page redirects. --Amakiir 15:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Since you're worried about multiple guilds with a same name, i'd suggest you fix the links when you move guild pages. - J.P.Talk 16:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Let me worry about it. ;) Since moving a page automatically creates a redirect from the former name to the new name, there is no need to fix any links in the first place. I guess someone will delete the redirect pages sooner or later, but that hasn't happened yet, so I still have time to fix the links from other pages. --Amakiir 17:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Guild page redirects are not allowed, as Wyn said.

And it's common practice here to fix the links and then tagging the redirect for deletion. - J.P.Talk 17:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I did not know that it's common practice here to tag the redirects for deletion. But I've done that now, and all links to that pages should be fixed, too. --Amakiir 17:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but no

Hey, thanks for editing my pages, but I reverted the changes, the profs within that template were left blank intentionally on my character pages, to prevent the colored borders appearing on them. It was appreciated though.

Red links

I understand your desire to remove red links; there's nothing wrong with that. Are you sure though that cleaning up other people's userspace is worthwhile? Cyan Hydrick hasn't edited the user page in 3 years, and if the guild has become historical, that often means people have chosen not to upkeep the relevant info. Keep at it if you will, but I'm not sure if it's necessary. G R E E N E R 09:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I am quite sure it is not worthwhile as in "people still care about user pages that have not been changed in several years". They don't, and I'm aware of that. But that is not the reason why I'm doing it. The reason is to get rid of the red links, in particular the links to (now archived) guild pages, because I want them to disappear from WantedPages to ease maintenance. An easier way to do this would be to change the Guild pages policy of the wiki (i.e. the part about historical content where it says old pages shall be moved to [[Guild:Guild Name (historical)]]) as I suggested earlier, but since the only two users who responded to that matter oppose such a change, it seems I'll have to do it this way. However, any suggestions on that matter are welcome. --Amakiir 20:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello?

You have not so much as commented on the Voice Actor stuff, but have taken it upon yourself to undo it all? Why don't you get involved in the discussion..... -- Wyn talk 23:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Because I'm not here to participate in discussions but to contribute something useful to the wiki. In addition the template is - to be straightforward - pretty ugly and unneccessary. The sooner we get rid of it the better. A simple line of text will suffice for mentioning the voice actor of a character. --Amakiir 23:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, the discussions are how we decide what is useful. I don't see consensus that use of the template (whether in the current form, or a modified one) has been decided to be unuseful. -- Wyn talk 23:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

"Because I'm not here to participate in discussions but to contribute something useful to the wiki." The plus side to participating in discussions is that you are much less likely to start (or participate) in nasty edit wars. Lucian's adding the template might have been the wrong thing to do, but your reverting everything he did without even discussing it was blatant editwarring. --Riddle 23:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

@Wynthyst: Well, I also don't see consensus that the use of the template has been decided to be useful either. Funny, isn't it?

Things could be much easier, if people used common sense more often. And common sense tells me that we don't need a template for such a minor fact. Don't get me wrong, they could put information about voice actors into every character article (that is, if the character has a voice actor), but do we really need templates for every tiny bit of information? (That last one is a rhetorical question, just to clarify.) --Amakiir 23:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

It was discussed on the project page. I do agree that it's implementation was a bit hasty, but simply undoing it without comment is as Riddle points out blatant edit warring. -- Wyn talk 23:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

So you would have preferred it, if I had commented and than undid it? When I started with those edits, I didn't even know there was a project page for that, but still I don't see what this fuss is all about. The template itself is a candidate for deletion, so one can assume that it will be deleted in the near future. Editing out the template of character pages just seems to be the logical consequence, because someone would have to do it after the deletion of the template anyway. --Amakiir 23:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The practice is to leave your remark(s) on the appropriate page and wait until the community reaches consensus about whether to keep the template or not. --Riddle 00:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

And the deletion of that template is under discussion currently. Just being tagged does not mean it's a foregone conclusion that it will be deleted. As for not knowing about the project, a quick look at Recent Changes would have (or at least should have) pointed you to any one of the discussions regarding this project. -- Wyn talk 00:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The deletion of that template is under discussion now, because you just started it recently, which is why I get the impression that you just disagreed with the deletion for the sake of this discussion and to support your point of view here. There was no discussion about deletion when I started to remove the voice actor template from the character articles. Maybe I'll give my opinion there about why the template should be deleted over there, although I think that's more or less a waste of time. We are spending more time on discussions than it would actually take to just revert the changes you don't like.

As for Recent Changes, I apologise humbly, deeply, sincerely for not checking this page every few minutes. Unfortunately, my time for this wiki is limited and I usually prefer actually doing/ contributing something over just watching what others did - that is if nobody tries to draw me into discussions to waste my time. --Amakiir 02:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

You give me far too much credit, as this has all happened in the past few hours (including tagging the template for deletion). And I started my discussion of the deletion prior to my comment here, in fact prior to you commenting that it had been tagged, and also as soon as I saw it had been tagged. Nothing at all should happen on a community driven wiki IMMEDIATELY, discussion and consensus takes time. My concern with you is that you simply started reverting it without even looking for a discussion, or asking a question, you personally just decided it was bad, and removed it. That is not how things work. -- Wyn talk 02:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I didn't look for a discussion, but if I had to watch for a discussion and get your (or someone else's) approval every time before I edit something on the wiki, then I still wouldn't have done more than maybe ten edits outside of discussions. In this case I could as well leave the wiki, because that would be a horribly inefficient way to do things. They don't write "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly [...], then do not submit it here." below the edit box without a reason. If someone contributes to the wiki, (s)he can (and maybe even has to) expect that this contribution will be changed by others sooner or later as they may see fit.

Rest "assured" that I probably won't take additional time to look for discussions in the future, too. If you are not happy with one of my edits and(!) can do it better than me, then just go ahead, revert or edit it and give a short reason in the edit summary. In case I disagree with that revert/ edit of you and if I am in the mood for discussions with you at that time, I might drop you a note on the appropriate talk page. Otherwise I'll just let it be. Things can be that simple. :) --Amakiir 03:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Editing pages in another user's space

I appreciate your efforts to help improve my user page on defeating the Doppelganger. However, please note that the page is in my user space, and per GWW:User pages, "Unless correcting a policy violation or making a maintenance edit, users should avoid making edits in another user's user space against their wishes".

There are many pages within my user space that I consider collaborative and I take the time to prominently note them as "okay for others to edit". When I do not, there is usually a reason (e.g. in some cases, as in this one, I leave red links in order to remind myself to edit a specific section later).

There is no question in my mind that your intentions were noble. Nevertheless, in the future, please drop me a note. I often grant others permission to edit specific pages; in some cases, I prefer to do the editing myself. Thanks.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 17:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Got it. I won't edit any of the pages in your user space unless it's noted that doing so is alright. --Amakiir 17:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you.

(On the silver lining side, this reminds me that (a) I meant to create a template for that note and (b) I meant to tag some other pages.)  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 17:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)