User talk:Jrooksjr - WoWWiki

From WoWWiki

This is Jrooksjr's talk page, where you can leave messages and comments for Jrooksjr.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. If you're new to the wiki, please take a look at our Talk page guidelines.	Be polite Assume good faith Be welcoming

Sandbox – Color Charts – Sigature – Header – EC

2008 Talk Archives
2009 Talk Archives

Re: Bad images

If I haven't said before, if an image isn't displaying correctly on some pages, all you can do is flag the image (not the page) as {{problem}} and an admin will fix it. Howbizr^(t·c) 12:04 PM, 2 Aug 2009 (EDT)

Ya I heard. I just wanted to re-iterate you don't need to re-upload the image. Normally that won't fix the problem. I'm not sure why it appeared to fix it in this case.

Howbizr^(t·c) 3:12 PM, 2 Aug 2009 (EDT)

RE: Image uploads

Any icon is better than no icon so long as its close... However, if the image is not exactly up to standards, yes please do use the {{cleanup}} template on them. Gourra seems to be handling most of the new icons as of late, poke him if you need him to find some. =) Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! ^(T•C) 22:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Proftip default catagory

This might be a documentation failure on my part. The default is enchanting because I expect to deprecate {{enchant}} (as well as {{embroid}}). If we do this, the majority of articles will be enchanting, so enchanting will usually be the correct answer. All the same, I think people using the template probably should always specify the profession, so it's isn't confusing.

But adding a "error category" probably isn't a bad idea. Do you want to try to do this (to exercise template skills)? If you don't feel comfortable, I can do it. Howbizr^(t·c) 6:24 PM, 2 Aug 2009 (EDT)

I'm sure it's a rule

But I can't cite one off the top of my head, but for wiki-etiquette, please don't edit someone else's comments on talk pages. I can think of some instances where I did (when someone was deliberately falsifying something, or obscenity, etc), but while I know what you were trying to do, you changed the meaning of what I was trying to say. I think for the most part that's why we don't edit other people's comments, even if we know they were wrong or made a mistake. Howbizr^(t·c) 9:24 PM, 3 Aug 2009 (EDT)

"Badges"

The badges (or whatever they are called) that I couldn't get to work were taken off since I couldn't get them to show right. I guess I didn't have the right names on some to make them appear like they should. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gamerd (talk · contr).

Re: Achievement:Charger

Ya even though an admin is doing it, I would continue putting achievements in the main namespace unless you hear otherwise. Howbizr^(t·c) 1:51 PM, 7 Aug 2009 (EDT)

Re: Un-safe coloring ??

Like I mentioned, read the documentation for Template:Text. If you're still unsure, we'll work on clarifying the documentation. Howbizr^(t·c) 3:06 PM, 7 Aug 2009 (EDT)

Re: Against the Odds achievement

I don't trust the 3rd party websites - I know I've seen a bunch of things missing that are definitely in the game. Let's assume it's a bug unless we get a bluepost about the patch notes being wrong. Howbizr^(t·c) 6:37 AM, 8 Aug 2009 (EDT)

RE: Categories on Tier 9 items

None of them are wrong or right, the way I do it is just another way of doing it - instead of adding the set categories to the individual set pieces, it can be done in the set tooltip instead. That way you only need to write the categories on the set article. --gOurra[T҂C] 19:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I was not talking about modifying {{settip}}, just the set article. See here. --gOurra[T҂C] 21:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Brood of Onyxia

The tooltip information is speculation (as in, we don't know the riding requirements, we don't know if it will be epic, we don't know what the effect text is, etc). Once it's in the PTR, uncomment it out. I was just saying, when it's in the PTR, you can replace the bluenote. It's just a hold-over. Howbizr^(t·c) 6:34 PM, 13 Aug 2009 (EDT)

Really I wouldn't bother. Even the page name is wrong. Like I said - this is just a stand-in page until we have the real item ID from a PTR. More than likely, the page will be something to the effect of "Reins of the Brood of Onyxia", etc etc.

Howbizr^(t·c) 6:38 PM, 13 Aug 2009 (EDT)

Not always true, see things like Big Blizzard Bear, Amani War Bear, and Sea Turtle.

^(T•C) 22:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Touché! Since this is a special mount, it might get some special text like with the [Sea Turtle]: This mount can't move very quickly on land, but she's a great swimmer, which is why I'd perfer we hold off on the tooltip for now.

Howbizr^(t·c) 7:07 PM, 13 Aug 2009 (EDT)

Rows in tooltips and you

When making line breaks with <br /> in tooltip templates ({{tooltip}}, {{settip}}), just use <br /> and write them on one line. Writing them like this won't break it:

{{loot|common|Item1}}<br />{{loot|common|Item1}}

However this will break it:

{{loot|common|Item1}}<br />
{{loot|common|Item2}}

Keep that in mind for the future. --gOurra[T҂C] 19:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Like Pcj said, it's not a problem when it's not broken: you will need to have all of the set item articles created in order to make the set tooltip work. --gOurra[T҂C] 17:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Requesting comments

I know you mean well. I think in the future if you want to request comments on an issue, use {{comment}} or the forums, or start a question on a talk page of the appropriate article. Admins seem to be pretty good in general at monitoring the talk namespace for questions. But if you still want to leave them a message, point everyone to a single question, rather than spreading out the conversation over multiple pages. Howbizr^(t·c) 11:48 PM, 16 Aug 2009 (EDT)

I wasn't trying to say you were doing something against policy - more that your effort, which is more time consuming on your part (it's easy to look up "recent changes to talk pages"), is making any discussion needed harder to have, by not bringing interested parties to one place.

Again I think I know what you're trying to say, but there also isn't really a sense of private on a wiki. So it just seemed counterproductive. Not to mention, you're talking about editing a protected template that impacts hundreds of pages if not thousands of pages, it should be a public discussion.

Howbizr^(t·c) 12:19 AM, 17 Aug 2009 (EDT)

Tooltip/Dev

Ya I think I'm going to move it to "/dev" so it's like the other ones. But I'll wait 'til you're done using it for now, to avoid any confusion. If you didn't see, I also added a {{ambox}} to the doc about the sandbox, because I nearly did the same thing you did. Howbizr^(t·c) 5:53 AM, 17 Aug 2009 (EDT)

Russian servers change

I've completely overlooked the correct categorization, fairly new poster here. :) Thanks for your input! -Elireyn (talk) 06:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Stub/PTR

I believe you did something of a disservice in changing stub/PTR to stub/Item, in that it is now much more difficult to identify those items specifically changed by 3.2.0. ... Although many of the PTR stubs did not actually label the patch they were related to. Guess I can try backtracking your trail... --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 19:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks like Stub/PTR does not work as nicely as {{removedfromgame}} does. :( --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 19:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Our edits may have crossed in the mail. In any case, I am writing a {{Stub/Updated}} along the lines of {{removedfromgame}} as a special case. Hopefully, any categories created by it can be retired as editors make updates. In any case, I had seen the functionality of Removedfromgame, and thought PTR had the same. My error. Apologies if I upset you. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 19:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Category and stub created. See my comment on Template Talk:Stub/PTR. Be BOLD where appropriate. And thanks for your patience. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 20:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Should I assume, then, that you approve? --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 23:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

WoW professions category

Category:WoW professions is not new and was made to distinguish WoW professions from professions in the RPG mostly, but also lore professions. --Beware the sneaky smile! Fandyllic (talk · contr) 5:19 PM PST 27 Aug 2009

Gladiator set rename

I thought it'd be better to let the actual set names (e.g. Gladiator set) be the name in the category instead of a name like Season 1 set because it's the name. That was not possible with gladiator set of season 5 which includes multiple sets (savage, hateful, deadly gladiator). I just think we should be as close to the game data as possible. Eruantien (talk) 08:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I know I know, but the tier-sets are actually named "Tier 1", "Tier 2" etc., and the dungeon sets are actually named "dungeon set 1" etc. officially, but the gladiator sets etc are named with prefixes (merciless gladiator, brutal gladiator etc.). Thats why I thought it'd be better to keep to the official naming scheme. Eruantien (talk) 13:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Well I always thought of categories less as a searching place and more as a 'behind the scenes'-database-like place. But oh well, I don't really mind. Eruantien (talk) 00:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm only following half the saga here, but... It is certainly possible to have "Season 1 Gladiator Set" redirect to "Friendly Gladiator Set" (or whatever), or vice versa. With multiple names, perhaps Season 5 Gladiator Set can have subheadings each for Savage, Hateful, etc; with (eg) Savage Gladiator Set redirecting to "Season 5 Gladiator Set#Savage". And redirect pages CAN be categorized, even if they have no content of their own. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 20:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Faction change

This is sort of a general comment, and please don't take it offensively, but I think you and several other editors could stand to be a bit bolder on these kinds of things. Marking the pages as {{merge}} would be sufficient. You don't need to leave people little notes on their talk page, especially when it's this obvious.

Remember the mantra, "It's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission." The community trusts your judgement, and honestly we don't want to be informed of the thought process of each editor. Just make the change, and if someone has a problem with it, they'll make the change, too. Really I think lately, the community has been slowing down good changes with far too much discussion. Howbizr^(t·c) 7:44 PM, 4 Sep 2009 (EDT)

Let me start this again with, please don't take this offensively. I'm not trying to attack you. I'm trying to help you, because I've noticed your behavior seems to have changed. To be honest, I suspect your editing behavior is actually by bad example, from other community members.

So if you're having some problems with "admins" maybe that's a separate issue that needs to be addressed. But that is very unfortunate that you feel crippled in this way. For WW:BOLD, maybe you're having problems because you made broad changes on some kind of touchy subject. I frequently have people undoing my edits. But it doesn't stop me from doing what I feel is right, without asking first. Personally, I'd rather you made the change, and if you were really worried you would offend someone (remember, pages aren't "owned" by anyone), leaving a message after the fact might be more appropriate than telling someone else to make a change for you that you feel is appropriate.

But again, I'd assume, especially for editors with over 500 edits, they're comfortable with the watch button. They'll know you changed "their work" without a note on their talk page. Really, I'm just trying to save you the hassle, like in this case where you probably took longer writing me a note, than it would have taken to flag the pages for merging.

Again this is my own opinion, and I'm probably not the only one, I do not really want a warning when people undo "my changes." I fully expect people to do this without telling me. Even on pages I'm passionate about, it's my responsibility, not the responsibility of other editors, to respond if I have a problem with the subsequent edits.

I would encourage you to keep editing boldly, however, and just assume good faith for all parties, even parties you often disagree with. More than likely, the editor changing your work, who may or may not be an admin, was also assuming good faith. If they mostly undid your work, they just happened to disagree with your opinion. More than likely, they probably felt they were improving the page, not starting a personal vendetta.

When you get full blown undos, especially across several pages, that's when I think discussion is necessary. Or if you strongly anticipate this, maybe it would be necessary. But again, like it says in WW:BOLD, "being bold is generally a defensible position."

And all of this protocol/etiquette stuff is fully outlined in the policies and guidelines pages. Feel free to cite them to people if you feel you aren't being treated courteously, whether its an admin or otherwise. Those pages themselves may also identify why some of the edits were made, especially related to WW:MOS. I know I certainly can't memorize all of that information in my head.

Howbizr^(t·c) 8:18 PM, 4 Sep 2009 (EDT)

I hope that it does not appear as if I am biting you, although from as frustrated as you sound, maybe that happened anyways. Again, to try to make you understand where I'm coming from, I'm trying to help.

I think at this time, this would be best resolved by specific examples. Maybe if we get them out in the open we can resolve this, or at least improve the situation. If you don't feel free to make thoughtful good edits on the wiki, then there's a problem with the wiki, and I'd like to get that fixed.

So can you find an issue that made you feel this way (that you should no long be bold on this wiki)?

Howbizr^(t·c) 8:54 PM, 4 Sep 2009 (EDT)

Unabashed advertising

If you care to make a comment on this editing guideline, comments would be appreciated. Howbizr^(t·c) 2:21 PM, 23 Sep 2009 (EDT)

Active editors

BTW, if you haven't found this page already, Special:RecentChanges, it might give you an idea of just how many active editors there are. Even if the average editor just makes a small number of changes, it really adds up. Although you're right; when you look at the counts, it seems like it's a small pool of folks. Howbizr^(t·c) 7:59 PM, 23 Sep 2009 (EDT)

Having problems with being reverted?

You complained on Howbizr's talk page about getting reverted by admins. Are there several admins who've been doing this to you or just a specific few? --Beware the sneaky smile! Fandyllic (talk · contr) 8:32 PM PST 23 Sep 2009

Professions

Would you mind, if I totally hacked apart Profession#Bonuses_you_only_get_with_a_certain_Profession? While it conveys useful information, I think that, as it stands, it looks absolutely horrid. In part (IMO), it is too detailed. In part, too haphazard/non-uniform. I think it would look much much better as a series of sub-sections, than as a monolithic table. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 18:37, October 1, 2009 (UTC)

Would you take a look at my replacement for the section? I felt that a general description of the items / bonuses / abilities - with a link to the more specific elements - served the Profession page better than listing everything under the sun. More so as I got down to Tailoring and found it incorrectly listed "Swift Flying Carpet". ... be gentle... :) --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 21:25, October 1, 2009 (UTC)

I intend to convert the tailoring patterns to the scheme used by leatherworking patterns, pages and all. I could find no sign of coherent authorship on these pages, so I don't know who would most object (should objections be made). Would you object to such a change? --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 21:35, October 1, 2009 (UTC)

Jrooksjr 7,793 edits since September 5, 2007