User talk:Madkaugh35504

Welcome to Wowpedia!

Hello, {{subst:BASEPAGENAME}}, and welcome to Wowpedia, the Warcraft wiki! Thank you for your contributions, and we heartily encourage you to continue contributing!

Some links you may find useful:

• The things to do category has lots of things to keep you busy!
• Check out the Community portal for some useful editors' links.
• Finally, please check out the site guidelines and policies!

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wowpedian! Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~) as this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, or need help, just ask on the relevant talk page, or visit the site forums. Again, welcome! --~~~~

Profession

Quite the expansion. Would you mind removing the first person tone I noted in the new section for me, as well as correcting the links from [[Burning Crusade]] to (possibly) ''[[World of Warcraft: The Burning Crusade|The Burning Crusade]]''? That would be kind of you to do so. =) --Sky (t · c · w) 03:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Profession Requests

"Would you mind removing the first person tone I noted in the new section for me"

Not at all, but could you be more specific what you would like changed? Me second guessing your expectations is probably going to be frustrating for both of us. I will make an attempt, but I suggest that if you still have a problem with it, you edit it.

"as well as correcting the links from [[Burning Crusade]] to (possibly) ''[[World of Warcraft: The Burning Crusade|The Burning Crusade]]''?"

Again, no problem, but I did not generate that link, I copied it off another page, (and it is a valid link that links to a page in WoWWiki) so applying a global fix might make more sense. (but I will make the change)

Your request suggests the need for a style guide tab at the top of the edit frame that would address this sort of standard.

"That would be kind of you to do so. =)"

No problem; I am a bit curious why you didn't just do the edits yourself.

Madkaugh (talk) 18:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Fishing Lady Thanks you!

Hey mad!

You made some excellent changes on the fishing section. I'd been looking at that for a bit trying to figure out how to make it look more organized after making some changes myself! As a fisher - THANKS! Trilless (talk) 17:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Cost/DMF tickets

Perhaps a more direct question would help: What pages do you want to rewrite, that you would want to use DMF tickets (or some particular other item) as an element of the {{cost}} template? And in what way would you be redesigning said page(s)? In the answers to those questions lies the strength of the need to change the template.

A side benefit to having several such templates is that you can change the template without breaking the entire world. As it is, yeah, we have a unified template used for everything... and changing it is costly. The down side of a single standard is a single point of failure. :( I do not argue that your request would not have utility, just that the cost of making the change to one of the most widely used templates on the wiki is not small.

As for "combining templates into one", I feel no such pressure. I would be as pleased, for instance, if PvP marks were in one template (say, "mark"), 'actual money' in another ("cost"), PvE badges in yet another. I almost never use the template except for money, myself. But then, that's also largely a result of the pages where it would have been used, have been written already, and my interests laying elsewhere. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 18:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

loot

Quite simply, I have contested that "policy" (which it is not). My reasons have been left elsewhere, but in short, T:Item is, however convenient, not needed as a template when T:Loot works just as well. --Sky (t · c · w) 21:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you edit to provide a little more context, Sky? ... or perhaps reorganize those sentences a bit? --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 19:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC) Edit: - for me, nevermind, looked over on YOUR user page for the answer... And as commentary on this, I dislike {{Reagentbox}} much more than I dislike {{Item}}, so to satisfy those who desire pictures along with the reagents, I replace the former with use of the later (with icon parameter). Without the icon, {{Item}} performs essentially the same as {{Loot}}, and so here too I replace the former with the latter when an image is not called for. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 19:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, {{item}} does not work exactly the same as {{loot}} at the moment. Take for example the instance where multiple items have tooltips on one page (and all of them inside <onlyinclude>, you can't link to one of them using item, but there are plans on the table to fix this. --PcjWowpedia wiki manager (TDrop me a line!•C207,729 contributions and counting) 19:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Fishing Pools

Still waiting on that rationale reason... You keep saying look to the discussion... so it'd be wise to make the discussion before doing all the changes. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! ^{{TDon't hiss at me.•CIf you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.)} 22:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

You are rather prone to hyperbole. 'Keep saying' is inappropriate for durations best measured in minutes. Look again.

The discussion link appears after you save the original article. Given the timeliness of the posting of the discussion, which should suit any normal person, forcing the existence of a discussion for a non-existent article did not seem warranted. I'll leave my assessment of the merits of your assessment of 'wisdom' to your imagination. Madkaugh (talk) 22:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

You made the page Fishing pool at 16:19, at 17:01 you made changes to Schools of Fish. I'm still waiting on your rationale reason... You could have used the talk page for Schools of Fish for your reason, but you didn't, instead you say see fishing pools discussion (as I'm now looking at recent changes) you finally created over an hour after doing what you did. And insulting me doesn't help your cause. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! ^{{TDon't hiss at me.•CIf you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.)} 22:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

In other words, you can see that I am actively editing the page you are griping about; all within the hour. You sound like a little kid griping to mom about when dinner is going to be ready.

What makes you think I give a rat's @$$ about 'helping my cause' with you? I edit here because I care about the topics. I know I am contributing, and do not need or care for Coobra's personal approval. If you have something to say that pertains to the topic and format, I will hear you out. If you want to play top dog in a social club, I have better things to do, don't waste my time. Madkaugh (talk) 22:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Well aren't you an Ass, yes you are, yes you are. /me scratches behind your ears. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! ^{{TDon't hiss at me.•CIf you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.)} 22:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Just discovered mirrors? Madkaugh (talk) 22:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I bet you troll the suggestion forums. You seem the type to insult someone over nothing. All I said was you should have stated your reasons in a talk page that you were pointing everyone to look at for your 'rationale' reason. You don't need to finish all your edits before adding a reason... I wasn't critiquing your edit style, nor did I begin off insuvlting you, like you tend to do. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! ^{{TDon't hiss at me.•CIf you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.)} 22:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: 'I bet you troll the suggestion forums.' - How much? I'd take that bet. First, disambiguation; I assume you mean the Blizzard suggestion forums? I read them (past tense), contributed a couple of times, found them largely a waste, now ignore them. As you say, too many trolls. And not the good kind.

Re: 'You seem the type to insult someone over nothing.' - Really? You are not in touch with yourself then, or maybe you are projecting. Because being pedantic and questioning someone's wisdom and exaggerating ('You keep saying' rather than 'said') seems to fit the mold you are using. In other words, Pot/Kettle/Black?

Re:'All I said was you should have stated your reasons in a talk page that you were pointing everyone to look at for your 'rationale' reason' - Uhm, no, you said quite a bit more. But in case you missed it, the gist is that 'School of Fish' describes a graphic element that can be either a kind of 'Fishing Pool', a targetable critter that has nothing to do with fishing, and a non-targetable critter that is for ambiance only. 'Fishing Pool' is a functional object that can be things other than a 'School of Fish', floating debris, for instance. Set wise, they are two distinct sets with some members in common. Hence, two articles.

Re:'You don't need to finish all your edits before adding a reason...' - I am fairly new to this, please explain. Madkaugh (talk) 23:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I dunno what to do about School of Fish, I was only following WW:MOS. Ose ^talk/₃₇₂₁ 09:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

A few unsolicited comments, if I may... It seems evident that "Fishing pool" is intended for the purpose "School of fish" had before. To that end, hind sight would indicate that sandboxing the new "School of Fish" page until it was mostly complete, then renaming the existing page to "Fishing pool" and copying in the new content over the redirect would have made for a smoother transition. This is, though, hindsight, and therefore useless now. As useless, perhaps, as suggesting the {{construction}} template...

More usefully: the current "School of fish" content seems unfinished. I'm willing to let you play with it for a few days more before I begin to carp. I suggest, though, that the fishing template should now point to "Fishing pool" instead, as "School of fish" is a "Meaty Disambiguation" page. (Not that it matters, but I approve of this variety of disambiguation.)

As well: I typically find Coobra a reasonable person, but I think you each rose to the bait of the other here. You might find it more helpful to shrug off, uncommented, such things. They don't particularly advance your causes, or at least those that improve the wiki, and as you've seen, are prone to escalation.

I hope these have been of some service. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 17:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; I have not sandboxed new construction, and until now have not been faced with the need; I'll consider using it. I'm not at all familiar with the {{construction}} template, and will investigate that as well. Do most of you sandbox your edits first, then post them? I've only seen it used/used it for tests and demos. An hour turn-around on a page edit does not seem unreasonable to me. Am I missing something?

"School of Fish"/"School of fish" - it's been "School of Fish" for some time. I thought about a rename yesterday, but, there's an object in the game named "School of Fish". The article is not about that object, but it discusses that object. I could see a redirect from "School of Fish" to a renamed page "School of fish", but the redirect is subject to being overwritten if someone takes a notion to write a page about the object (which is a kind of collective critter). A similar situation exists with "Fishing Pole" and "Fishing pole", but that one seems well managed.

'fishing template should now point to "Fishing pool"' - I agree; I hesitated to make the change, wanting the dust to clear from the existence of the new page. I'll change it now, if it isn't already done by someone else.

'(Not that it matters, but I approve of this variety of disambiguation.)' - Thanks for the vote of confidence. I'm shooting for clarity.

'I typically find Coobra a reasonable person' - I haven't seen it yet; have seen evidence to the contrary. From my admittedly limited interactions with him he seems to fit the archetypical troll he alludes to. Check the timestamps, he is quick to retort, but has not responded to an appeal for information. Seems like 'being genuinely helpful' is not on the ole' agenda, eh? This is not the first time I've had this experience with him, but I only have a small sample of interactions. So I'll hold out hope that perhaps this is an anomaly.

'... but I think you each rose to the bait of the other here.' - No doubt. It takes two to continue a fight.

'finished' - I take another look at it, just for the halibut. If you have a specific thing you would like me to address, give me a clue. Other than that, 'y know, feel free to have at it. Madkaugh (talk) 21:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)