User talk:Commander I. Heartly Noah - Revision history

Housellama: /* Footnotes on annotation pages */

2012-10-04T03:18:59Z

Footnotes on annotation pages

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:18, 4 October 2012
Line 81:		Line 81:

	Or if you know of another way of preventing dead footnotes, I'm all ears!–[[User:Dan Hoey\|Dan Hoey]]<sup>[[User_talk:Dan Hoey\|talk]]</sup> 03:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)		Or if you know of another way of preventing dead footnotes, I'm all ears!–[[User:Dan Hoey\|Dan Hoey]]<sup>[[User_talk:Dan Hoey\|talk]]</sup> 03:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
		+	**There are notes in the page annotations that aren't showing up in panel versions? That would explain it. I've been just reading panel-by-panel but I've fixed a few missing refs by doing them myself. I'll go back and see if there's refs on the page that I missed for those. [[User:Housellama\|Housellama]] 3-Oct-2012

	== Why are you wasting your (and my) time ? ==		== Why are you wasting your (and my) time ? ==

152.131.9.69: question to Command I. Heartly Noah

2011-03-29T23:27:48Z

question to Command I. Heartly Noah

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:27, 29 March 2011
Line 81:		Line 81:

	Or if you know of another way of preventing dead footnotes, I'm all ears!–[[User:Dan Hoey\|Dan Hoey]]<sup>[[User_talk:Dan Hoey\|talk]]</sup> 03:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)		Or if you know of another way of preventing dead footnotes, I'm all ears!–[[User:Dan Hoey\|Dan Hoey]]<sup>[[User_talk:Dan Hoey\|talk]]</sup> 03:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
		+
		+	== Why are you wasting your (and my) time ? ==
		+
		+	Is there a reason to delete REDIRECT pages and pages for minor characters?
		+	As I stated elsewhere, these pages are more efficient in space utilization, and a wiki should be able to have information about everyone on Erfworld we know, not just the major characters.
		+
		+	It seems you are wasting the time used by me to make the wiki better for no reason.
		+
		+	If you have energy and can delete pages (which you obviously can), why not delete the spam pages and ban the users
		+	who spam here?

Dan Hoey: Request to duplicate annotation page footnotes

2009-12-06T03:25:56Z

Request to duplicate annotation page footnotes

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:25, 6 December 2009
Line 74:		Line 74:
	==Regent==		==Regent==
	Hi just a question on the [[Regent]] page. Was the post of Regent Warlord pure speculation, or is there some indication within the comic? The [[User_talk:Miment\|issue]] arose if Parson is now "Regent" (or maybe Regent Warlord) of the city of Gobwin Knob, since he was appointed to manage the city. --[[User:Raphfrk\|Raphfrk]] 21:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)		Hi just a question on the [[Regent]] page. Was the post of Regent Warlord pure speculation, or is there some indication within the comic? The [[User_talk:Miment\|issue]] arose if Parson is now "Regent" (or maybe Regent Warlord) of the city of Gobwin Knob, since he was appointed to manage the city. --[[User:Raphfrk\|Raphfrk]] 21:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
		+
		+	==Footnotes on annotation pages==
		+	Hi, I'm new here, and I noticed you added a footnote on [[TBFGK 59]] for panel 2. When you edit the appropriate text, it puts the <nowiki>{{ref}}</nowiki> on both the page-by-page annotation [[TBFGK 59]] and the panel-by-panel annotation [[TBFGK 59:2]]. But the <nowiki>{{note}}</nowiki> doesn't get duplicated. This means that people browsing panel-by-panel get a footnote marker that doesn't go anywhere.
		+
		+	The way that I know works is to add the same <nowiki>{{note}}</nowiki> to both annotation pages [[TBFGK 59]] and [[TBFGK 59:2]]. I don't know if this can be automated; it's a pain in the absence of automation, which I don't know how to do. But if it's not too much work, it will make the Annotation pages less confusing for readers.
		+
		+	Or if you know of another way of preventing dead footnotes, I'm all ears!–[[User:Dan Hoey\|Dan Hoey]]<sup>[[User_talk:Dan Hoey\|talk]]</sup> 03:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Raphfrk at 21:21, 3 November 2009

2009-11-03T21:21:37Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:21, 3 November 2009
Line 71:		Line 71:

	and the text. --[[User:Raphfrk\|Raphfrk]] 20:00, 31 October 2009 (UTC)		and the text. --[[User:Raphfrk\|Raphfrk]] 20:00, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
		+
		+	==Regent==
		+	Hi just a question on the [[Regent]] page. Was the post of Regent Warlord pure speculation, or is there some indication within the comic? The [[User_talk:Miment\|issue]] arose if Parson is now "Regent" (or maybe Regent Warlord) of the city of Gobwin Knob, since he was appointed to manage the city. --[[User:Raphfrk\|Raphfrk]] 21:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Raphfrk at 20:00, 31 October 2009

2009-10-31T20:00:57Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:00, 31 October 2009
Line 60:		Line 60:
	==Arkenhammer Edit War==		==Arkenhammer Edit War==
	It appears to me that you are too closely involved in this topic at the moment. I have renamed the discussion over Arkenhammer alignment to "Associated Discipline Debate", and added a comment about respecting others' points of view; I shall go in and edit the areas a little to attempt to restore fairness for all sides. Please try not to edit this area unless you are certain you can make your edits in an objective manner that will not tread on other wiki users' toes. If there is any doubt, then step away and let the other editors handle it. Thanks. --> '''[[User:Erk\|ERK!]]'''\|[[User_talk:Erk\|eyeBook me]] 15:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)		It appears to me that you are too closely involved in this topic at the moment. I have renamed the discussion over Arkenhammer alignment to "Associated Discipline Debate", and added a comment about respecting others' points of view; I shall go in and edit the areas a little to attempt to restore fairness for all sides. Please try not to edit this area unless you are certain you can make your edits in an objective manner that will not tread on other wiki users' toes. If there is any doubt, then step away and let the other editors handle it. Thanks. --> '''[[User:Erk\|ERK!]]'''\|[[User_talk:Erk\|eyeBook me]] 15:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
		+
		+
		+	==Text updates==
		+
		+	Hi. When doing the text/description updates, could you exclude the first newline. I think it looks better without it. I.e there should be no space between
		+
		+	<nowiki>
		+	<noinclude>{{subpage}}[[Category:Frame Contents]]</noinclude>
		+	</nowiki>
		+
		+	and the text. --[[User:Raphfrk\|Raphfrk]] 20:00, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Erk at 15:57, 30 July 2009

2009-07-30T15:57:07Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:57, 30 July 2009
Line 56:		Line 56:
	Someday you might learn how to detach your ego from your ideas. But that's not today.		Someday you might learn how to detach your ego from your ideas. But that's not today.
	--[[User:Kreistor\|Kreistor]] 13:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)		--[[User:Kreistor\|Kreistor]] 13:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
		+
		+
		+	==Arkenhammer Edit War==
		+	It appears to me that you are too closely involved in this topic at the moment. I have renamed the discussion over Arkenhammer alignment to "Associated Discipline Debate", and added a comment about respecting others' points of view; I shall go in and edit the areas a little to attempt to restore fairness for all sides. Please try not to edit this area unless you are certain you can make your edits in an objective manner that will not tread on other wiki users' toes. If there is any doubt, then step away and let the other editors handle it. Thanks. --> '''[[User:Erk\|ERK!]]'''\|[[User_talk:Erk\|eyeBook me]] 15:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Kreistor at 13:54, 30 July 2009

2009-07-30T13:54:15Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:54, 30 July 2009
Line 52:		Line 52:
	You are simply incapable of third person objectivity. I'm not about to accept any judgment you make of me. You have demonstrated a complete lack of even understanding of the concept of objectivity since you started, so how could you ever accurately judge anyone else?<br>		You are simply incapable of third person objectivity. I'm not about to accept any judgment you make of me. You have demonstrated a complete lack of even understanding of the concept of objectivity since you started, so how could you ever accurately judge anyone else?<br>
	--[[User:Kreistor\|Kreistor]] 13:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)		--[[User:Kreistor\|Kreistor]] 13:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
		+	Hey, looky there. You "undid" my restoration of the previous argument. I know you agree with it: you wrote your own version, but in your petulent fury, you removed a truthful argument. Oh, I'm sure you've convinced yourself it's false in some way, now, but all that demonstrates is that your emotions are slipping into your thought processes, and corrupting your analysis. And that's why you aren't objective. So long as your emotions dictate your choices, logic and reason take a backseat to your desire.
		+
		+	Someday you might learn how to detach your ego from your ideas. But that's not today.
		+	--[[User:Kreistor\|Kreistor]] 13:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Kreistor at 13:48, 30 July 2009

2009-07-30T13:48:12Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:48, 30 July 2009
Line 45:		Line 45:
	I want you to take a step back and think for a moment. Is there any spell or effect that you can't come up with a theory of how it fits into Carnymancy? Uncroaked? Voodoo priestesses and horror shows. Golems? Dr. Frankenstein-like stage plays. You've given Carnymancy such a broad scope, that quite literally every single spell or effect can fall under its umbrella, including those that we know are other Disciplines. Just step back a moment and try. I realized this last night. It's so broad that it quite literally now includes all magic... all you have to be is creative enough.		I want you to take a step back and think for a moment. Is there any spell or effect that you can't come up with a theory of how it fits into Carnymancy? Uncroaked? Voodoo priestesses and horror shows. Golems? Dr. Frankenstein-like stage plays. You've given Carnymancy such a broad scope, that quite literally every single spell or effect can fall under its umbrella, including those that we know are other Disciplines. Just step back a moment and try. I realized this last night. It's so broad that it quite literally now includes all magic... all you have to be is creative enough.
	--[[User:Kreistor\|Kreistor]] 03:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)		--[[User:Kreistor\|Kreistor]] 03:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
		+
		+	Hypocrite? When? Playing favorites? No, I have always been fair, going so far sometimes as even counting sentences to ensure equal play time. Do I constantly harp on my pet peeve? No, I haven't added a single positive article to Shockmancy since the rewrite. I have only added negatives to counter the positives you have added, and annihilated prejudicial arguments. Last night you decided to arbitrarily remove a paragraph I wrote that others had atually approved and added to: so when you changed it to your version, I put it back to what I liked, which others happened to like, too. I just didn't mention that last little fact.
		+
		+	So, no, I will not accept the accusation of hypocrisy. I have tried to do everything I can to ensure that the playing field remains entirely balanced, regardless f my own beliefs, and that no speculation gets an inherent advantage thanks to prejudicial language or technique.
		+
		+	You are simply incapable of third person objectivity. I'm not about to accept any judgment you make of me. You have demonstrated a complete lack of even understanding of the concept of objectivity since you started, so how could you ever accurately judge anyone else?<br>
		+	--[[User:Kreistor\|Kreistor]] 13:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Kreistor at 03:46, 29 July 2009

2009-07-29T03:46:26Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:46, 29 July 2009
Line 39:		Line 39:
	(BTW, Magicians are Hat Magic, not Carnymancy. I shifted the flight argument to trapeze acts which fit the carnival motife better. [u]That's[/u] objectivity. Are [u]you[/u] capable of improving an opponent's argument?)<br>		(BTW, Magicians are Hat Magic, not Carnymancy. I shifted the flight argument to trapeze acts which fit the carnival motife better. [u]That's[/u] objectivity. Are [u]you[/u] capable of improving an opponent's argument?)<br>
	--[[User:Kreistor\|Kreistor]] 03:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)		--[[User:Kreistor\|Kreistor]] 03:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
		+
		+	1) I put Shockmancy first, because the last two times I was involved with my own theories, I put my own theories last. (Disbanding and some other page.) Sometimes I get first crack, too. It's not unobjective to give yourself first read once in a while.
		+	2) Your objections about objectivity are from the Forum, not the Wiki. As I pointed out on the forum, I am using different rules here.
		+	3) Carnymancy.
		+	I want you to take a step back and think for a moment. Is there any spell or effect that you can't come up with a theory of how it fits into Carnymancy? Uncroaked? Voodoo priestesses and horror shows. Golems? Dr. Frankenstein-like stage plays. You've given Carnymancy such a broad scope, that quite literally every single spell or effect can fall under its umbrella, including those that we know are other Disciplines. Just step back a moment and try. I realized this last night. It's so broad that it quite literally now includes all magic... all you have to be is creative enough.
		+	--[[User:Kreistor\|Kreistor]] 03:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Kreistor: /* PLAY FAIR */

2009-07-28T03:54:04Z

PLAY FAIR

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:54, 28 July 2009
Line 31:		Line 31:

	==PLAY FAIR==		==PLAY FAIR==
		+	Look, don't characterize other people's arguments in the Wiki. That's just flat out rude. When you argue about the argument it's opinion and just not helpful to anyone, and can only lead to what I've done -- completely undone most of what you wrote. Do you really not get that this is a place where we all have to play fair? What you write, I can unwrite. Readers can decide if my arguments are marginal without your claims to that effect. If they are, they'll realize it, so you don't need to say it. If they aren't, then you don't deserve the air time.
		+
		+	Compromise, Noah. This place must be a place of compromise. I gave all three Disciplines equal time and presence. Could you have done that? No, you couldn't because you've been undermining it since I did it, trying to advance the Carnymancy case by tearing down everything else. I started in the middle ground: that should have been obvious from the start. If I was being unobjective, Shockmancy would have better arguments and I would have undermined everything else: I didn't. No one has unwritten anything that I wrote about any of those subjects: I did a good job of representing the ideas of my opponents, didn't I? But here I am unwriting vast tracts of your work as prejudicial and argumentative. Your goal is to try to ensure only your idea wins, but that is not what this Wiki can ever be about. It is about all ideas.
		+
		+	I will not negotiate any other position, because this is the only position we can end in. Stop trying to undermine your opponents. It's only bringing the battle from the forum to the Wiki. Keep the arguing off the Wiki: it is supposed to be a place of information, not bickering.
		+
		+	(BTW, Magicians are Hat Magic, not Carnymancy. I shifted the flight argument to trapeze acts which fit the carnival motife better. [u]That's[/u] objectivity. Are [u]you[/u] capable of improving an opponent's argument?)<br>
		+	--[[User:Kreistor\|Kreistor]] 03:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)