![[Sky2042]](http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/messaging/images/1/19/Avatar.jpg){kind=avatar}
From WoWWiki
 | This is a talk page for User:Sky2042 |
poke
I wrote stuff on the Mentor page like you asked. Rolandius 
(talk - contr) 02:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Please review Rolandius's contributions. I don't see your approval on most of what he's been doing lately. --Pcj (T•C) 01:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- Poke again. See Slot (Blacksmithing) and Subclass. gOurra[T҂C] 13:55, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
- Rhea, a possibly fake excerpt from the RPG, existed, and Rolandius may be remembering that wrong. Whatever happened to the page creation approval thing? Rolandius' judgment seems out of sync with the commonly accepted again. BTW, while WoWWiki is still not Wikipedia, and Rolandius' intent is not vandalism, is this relevant?--SWM2448 21:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- I marked Rhea. Dire Rhea was on that page and another page. I checked Rhea's citation and found nothing on it either. If Rhea does exist then tell me where to find it in the RPG. I checked the citations for everything on that page, I think there were 3 or 4, and they all came up wrong. Rolandius
(talk - contr) 11:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- I marked Rhea. Dire Rhea was on that page and another page. I checked Rhea's citation and found nothing on it either. If Rhea does exist then tell me where to find it in the RPG. I checked the citations for everything on that page, I think there were 3 or 4, and they all came up wrong. Rolandius
Re:Template:Rare et al.
Sounds like a plan. I could write that template pretty easily myself, if you don't think you have the time. -Howbizr (talk) 17:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- Check it out, friend, {{reputation}}. Just needs the styles taken out of the template and added to the CSS (of which I do not have permission). -Howbizr (talk) 15:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Address Rolandius, please
Sky, if you don't correct Rolandius, I will. --Pcj (T•C) 13:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- It would be interesting to hear why my edits aren't seen as good while we have articles like hills and mountains and categories like Category:Crossings and Category:Valleys on WoWWiki. Rolandius (talk - contr) 13:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Mainly because you tried to get Sky's approval on this and he explicitly told you not to, as well as the articles you cite are poor examples. --Pcj (T•C) 13:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
You should of re-asked me after I said "I'll think on it". You don't not get approval. Rolandius, I would suggest you drop it in this specific case. And especially, I insist you don't raise another issue for the next ten days. --Sky (t · c · w) 16:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- I am not the one raising issues in the first place. I just edit and people raise issues about it or tell me to tell you about it on your talk page. My edits look just like other examples I follow on WoWWiki so I am not sure why mine are different. I have no idea if something I do will make someone get mad and raise an issue or tell me good job keep doing that. Rolandius (talk - contr) 03:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Again
I'll count to five, and when I'm done, you've had a talk with your pupil. gOurra[T҂C] 09:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Useful macros for paladins
See User:Rolandius/Mentor. Rolandius (talk - contr) 06:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Rolandius mentoring
Rolandius sent me an e-mail suggesting that you may not have time to keep following his changes. Is this true? --
Fandyllic (talk · contr) 2:37 PM PST 27 Jan 2009
Curious user
Could you check out Hallowseve15's edits? Some of the edits look okay, although messy, but then there are some where the user replaced the race Human with Peasant, wrote that Miners are Peasants, and removed some NPC boxes. Rolandius (talk - contr) 13:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Hope this helps
I have been tracking ALL changes made in the test HERE (where it wouldn't bother viewers). You can watchlist that page to monitor any changes too Gil (talk)
19:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Re:Formulas
Is the formula namespace deprecated now? -Howbizr (talk) 21:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- One of the projects I'd like to do (oh so many) is to organize the "mitigation" information. You're probably right about separating the pages. So that you know of, are there any other pages I should be considering?
- I'm not planning to make a monolithic page, but I want to read all the content and see how I could make it better.
Moving Achievement Sub pages is BREAKING the ajax link to them - Slashes just means sub page of
When you move the subpage ((page/subpage)) to make the supbage not have slashes in it -- you are breaking the ajax link to the Subpage - in Wikia the / just means it is a subpage of the main page - and those are fine - that is how Wikia works - Slashes might be bad for other language but not wikia language -- ( Morph | Contribs | Talk ) 01:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- You can see the information via ajax - but if you click on the Edit option in right corner you do NOT get redirected to the new page - you are put into the edit ode of the Redirect page -- and when did slahes become bad as you call them ?? -- ( Morph | Contribs | Talk ) 01:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- / has always been bad. It's hard to link to a slash with in-line English. --Sky (t · c · w) 01:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- but with the way you (meaning WoWWiki) have set up the ajax - it automaticaly creates / subpages that is how it works - no one links to the sub pages - we link to the main page for the Achievements - the sub pages are the ajax transcluded ( or however that is spelled ) pages for each section -- ( Morph | Contribs | Talk ) 01:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- / has always been bad. It's hard to link to a slash with in-line English. --Sky (t · c · w) 01:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- AJAX implies Javascript, which means I'm generally agin' it. However, in one particular, I can agree with Jrooksjr... "you break it, you mend it". My general complaint both with Zeal, and with the new "World of Warcraft" category adjective. I would offer aid, but without Javascript I'm not sure that I can actually observe the problem. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 22:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- I "broke it, I mended it". :P --Sky (t · c · w) 22:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- /me happy :P ... you do know that you've been voted 'crazy', don't you? --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 00:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- I "broke it, I mended it". :P --Sky (t · c · w) 22:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Eek!
Ok - I will move them to proper location after I finish working on this one Major PAIN (I mean Change) page that Blizzard made tons of work in reding the table - almost done as we speak now - (M o r p h | C | T) 
19:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Dungeons_&_Raids_(Secrets_of_Ulduar_Heroic_Raid)_achievements -> Dungeons & Raids achievements/Heroic Ulduar Raid
- Dungeons_&_Raids_achievements (Secrets_of_Ulduar_Heroic_Raid) -> Dungeons & Raids achievements/Heroic Ulduar Raid
- -Howbizr (talk) 22:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- AJEIOW JNAIOWUH NOAJWEN JKA WI JLAWOUIM AUNEI: MW.
- Move them to where they were request. >:( --Sky (t · c · w) 23:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- That looks stupid as hell, Sky. I can't believe you suggested that. Besides the fact that the subpages thing isn't policy yet (nor is there much difference in implementation as far as subpages versus disambiguation), the two things are vastly different, not even sharing the same name. They should not be disambiguations of each other, they should either be subpages (which isn't the way the policy vote is going) or completely separate pages (e.g., [[Secrets of Ulduar Raid achievements]], [[Lich King Heroic Raid achievements]]). Now all of the pages he moved will now have to be moved again. --Pcj (T•C) 02:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Move them to where they were request. >:( --Sky (t · c · w) 23:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
New "single build" template uses very small width
And I can't find it to fix it. Why does the new reference ( {{single build ) generate tables that force the title to wrap, while the old reference ( {{:Builds/SingleBuild ) didn't? Mebbe it's the missing colon. Check it out? Thanks!
- I threw in <h3> instead of === to remove the "edit" option, but to retain the auto-population of the TOC. Specifically check out the heavy use of the template on Warlock builds. Onorvele (talk) 07:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
WoWWiki:Policy/Stub
Just so you know, you're not supposed to edit policy pages (no matter how well intentioned) without at least explaining what you did on the talk page. Also, you're technically supposed to go through the policy change process before you make the changes. This is why I undid your changes to WoWWiki:Stub, because you didn't say anything about merging some of it into the policy page (which as just mentioned was a no-no).
I will let you revert your changes or at least give you an opportunity for better explanation for your actions. You might want to be a little more careful in the future. Being an admin doesn't mean you can do anything you want. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 1:14 PM PST 8 Apr 2009
item [database] pages
I presume you are talking about "pages that have the tooltip, external links, and perhaps (but not always) links to quests the item is a reward from." Am I overgeneralizing? I think we do gain a benefit from those in their tooltip-transclusion nature. Not that we have a lot of need for a litany of "poor swords", but I guess it rocks some folk's boats. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 23:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Transclusion is the only benefit that the item pages have over their database brothers, but I don't think this balances out with the overall quality of such pages and the effort undertaken to maintain them, especially when compared to the comments found on item pages on the databases. We should be focusing on the quest type pages you make, and item comparison pages, and the item pages truly worth writing about, and the dungeon loot page compilations. Taking information and presenting it in new ways (more human!) is the best thing a wiki does, in my own opinion.
What I'd most like to see is Blizzard take us away from Wikia, but that's just wishful thinking. :) --Sky (t · c · w) 23:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Amen, brother, on pretty much all of that. This last while, I decided to finally go through my Northrend screenshots and *use* them instead of just filing them. So I've been making a lot of token quest item and quest rewards pages (in the process of supplying corrected reputation etc awards, spelling, and so on). It has cut down on writing up quest chain pages, though. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 00:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Nagrand Mastery
It seems that while Talbuk Mastery got corrected from the Laurlybot insertion, Clefthoof Mastery (1) and Windroc Mastery (1) did not get corrected as well. Could you move these pages for me, please? There's a disambig page in the way... --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 19:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, Quest:Windroc Mastery is a duplicate of Quest:Windroc Mastery (3). Quest:Windroc Mastery (1) should still be moved over "Quest:Windroc Mastery", it's just more scary. :) --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 21:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- Looks like Coobra got it. Thanks anyway! :) --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 22:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Vote
BTW, are you interested in voting on either of these issues? It seemed like maybe you were.
- Change categories with "World of Warcraft" to "WoW"? Vote here.
- Avoid repeating prefixes on sub-categories? Vote here.
Howbizr(t·c) 5:41 PM, 30 Jul 2009 (EDT)
Cataclysm'ed out of retirement
I was merely concerned... That certain pages wouldn't be categorized correctly. =) Kids these days, with their thing navigation bars! Back in my day, nav bars were only one line thick! Nice to see you again.--Hobinheim (talk · contr) 19:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- Are my new colors cataclysmic enough? I hope so!--Hobinheim (talk · contr) 19:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Account Expiry
What do you mean your account expired? Do you have to renew or what? BobNamataki (talk) 16:44, November 3, 2009 (UTC)
