User talk:SPYRIDONM1

Great job with the Unarmed combat system and associated pages! I've featured it as a featured article on the main page. It should help a lot of people. Becca 09:44, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

Just lost my last update on the Curse spell and will have to re-write it. It'd be great if you could be a bit more patient. Thanks. KAGE 20:46, 30 November 2011 (EST)

Back when I was editing, I recall there being a red warning on the top of the page if an edit was being made that would overwrite someone else's edit. It didn't come up very often. I'm kind of thrilled that too many editors is an issue! Becca 08:49, 1 December 2011 (EST)

I wasn't aware that there was such a thing as overwriting. Sorry if I caused you a lot of duplicative work. What I generally do when editing something lengthy is CTRL + A, CTRL + C as I go along. Then if something goes haywire I'll have the bulk of the page saved. Mark 10:44, 1 December 2011 (EST)

You are a great contributor and I'm damned glad you're here. Truly hope you'll help out for years to come. But...but... ; ) My impression is very much that we can't copy things directly from other sources. You did a hella job on 713 Balefire, but chunks of it is copied directly from Strathspey's posts and will need to be re-written a tad. I'd be happy to do it, but it's up to you. KAGE 21:49, 30 November 2011 (EST)

As long as those posts are saved somewhere! I'm not saying you interpreted anything incorrectly, but this wiki is a stupid game of telephone sometimes and it's useful to have the saved posts to point to years down the road. Sometimes there's just no clear way to reword things. I love the new pages! I think they look great! Becca 08:49, 1 December 2011 (EST)

It's very nice to see you pop in from time to time, Becca. Hope all is well. I've rewritten the Balefire page to avoid any possible legal action. We don't need Krakii incarcerated. ;) I see that in the Help page there is specific information about copywrited material and how it should be treated. I'm kinda at a disadvantage since I'm not a wordsmith. My emphasis is primarily on all things related to game mechanics, formulas, critical tables and such. But I will try to better disguise my inappropriate appropriations in the future.:) Mark 10:44, 1 December 2011 (EST)

Getting Krakii incarcerated could be kind of fun, actually. Unless he found out who caused it. We'll have to come up with a devious plan. KAGE 15:54, 1 December 2011 (EST)

I see all these treasure boxes on the critters, and no alchemy specific info. Since those drops are very common, shouldn't that be its own category? ~Vanessa

Early last year (go to the discussions tab on the Template:creature treasure page for the history) the creature treasure template was changed. As a result of that change, all previous treasure entries were hidden from view and could only be seen using the edit function. Additionally, for an editor to add any treasure information became non-trivial. I had, at that time, volunteered to help with the manual update. Well, as so often happens, the project was abandoned midstream and we were left with 400+ creature pages that needed the manual update. I am now going to each page and completing the update as best as I can. I am only adding a limited amount of additional information. My priority is to have the treasure sections in a usable format while simultaneously adding the aforementioned hidden data and deleting the old template references. Mark 22:49, 12 March 2014 (EDT)

Yay! thanks for joining me on the clean up VANKRASN39 16:16, 22 May 2014 (EDT)

Were you planning on doing the Paladin spell pages? VANKRASN39 11:38, 20 August 2014 (EDT)

No, I hadn't. It is the circle I am least familiar with and I believe that DAID (Kaldonis) will likely do the updates. At least that is the impression I have based on his official posts. Mark 13:28, 20 August 2014 (EDT)

Okay, I'll ask him. Seems like one of the 3 of us is going to have to do it. I'm not exactly qualified, either. VANKRASN39 13:47, 20 August 2014 (EDT)

Creature family pages: why do they need to match the official bestiary? VANKRASN39 (talk) 14:48, 6 January 2015 (CST)

Just my opinion but I don't feel that we should place creatures in families that are not original intent. Also, each creature should only be represented on one family page. I know it may seem counterintuitive that a rock troll zombie has the rock troll family classification but is it a rock troll, troll or zombie? It is unique and therefore has a family designation that represents that uniqueness. Mark (talk) 15:16, 6 January 2015 (CST)

See I take the opposite approach, that creatures can be a part of two families and we should seek to make this place better than the official site, which I know has some omissions, like rift crawler. Maybe it is a limitation of the official site that creatures cannot be a part of two families, which we can improve upon here. VANKRASN39 (talk) 15:22, 6 January 2015 (CST)

Okay. I don't have a major objection to this as long as the family field on the creature page uses the official designation and that each family has a page. So, a rock troll zombie would be listed in three family pages (rock troll, troll, zombie). Mark (talk) 16:14, 6 January 2015 (CST)

I'm with you on official designation being on the creature page. Wouldn't rock troll zombie just be part of troll and zombie families? Is there a rock/stone family? Please don't tell me rock and stone would be separate. VANKRASN39 (talk) 16:20, 6 January 2015 (CST)

Rock troll is the official family name. If you go to the GS4 bestiary and Sort by: Family > Search it will list all creatures by alphabetized family names. Mark (talk) 20:40, 6 January 2015 (CST)

Honestly I've never searched, nor know anyone who has searched by family. I've never seen a GM refer to creature family, nor know if it was something considered carefully or just thrown together, seeing as there are rattlesnake and snake families, rodent and rat families (why aren't the rats rodents?). So maybe we should get some input on it. But I would like the wiki to be better than the official site, because that's one of the reasons they brought it over. Not knowing about the family search on the official bestiary, if I clicked on warrior family creatures I would want to see all the warriors, and I would wonder why the Agresh, minotaur, and shan weren't there. That's where I'm coming from :) VANKRASN39 (talk) 22:15, 6 January 2015 (CST)

Your logic is unassailable. I think the obvious candidates could be listed on two family pages such as the warriors, or another example would be ghoul master which is obviously a ghoul but has the family designation of master. I'm on board :) Mark (talk) 22:48, 6 January 2015 (CST)