User talk:The Krit

Thank you
Hi Mr. Krit, and thank you for the welcome message! Nose maj ? XD

Pirate Isles
Hi The Krit,

I am completely new to contributing to a wiki. I thought I followed the instructions correctly when I added the article at this link: http://nwn.wikia.com/wiki/Pirate_Isles_of_Forgotten_Realms however, even though I added that article the Gameworlds category, I do not see this world listed on the page at this link: http://nwn.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Gameworlds.

Any advice you can offer would be most welcome!

I am not sure how you would respond to this, so I will check your profile periodically, or you can e-mail me at yago@caramail.com.

Thanks for your help!! -- 24.79.5.196 15:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It's there, right after Path of Ascension (in the third column). Maybe your browser is using a cached version from before you creating the article? Have you tried reloading the category page? --The Krit 18:16, January 1, 2011 (UTC)


 * That must have been it, because it does show up now, hooray! Thanks! --24.79.5.196 2:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

PW ordinary player able to choose who he sees talking?
hi i dont know if there is abetter place to ask a question but do you know if there is any way for a player on a server to block certain other players so that nothing they say will be visible? no major problem so cannot ask for server DM to silence them but just dont like to hear some people, would not phsically stay in a room if they were present but dont know how to filter them out from ingame, is there a possible way? thanks! **edit for name Nose maj ** 13:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I think there is no way to block chat from a specific player or PC. However, I never tried, so there might be something I'm missing. What you can do is not stay in the same area as them, and if needed filter shouts out of the chat window (right-click the top of the chat window -- where you can grab it to make it shorter or taller -- and you should get a radial menu, the leftmost option of which toggles the presence of shouts in that window). --The Krit 15:56, January 25, 2011 (UTC)
 * PS When leaving a comment/question in a talk page, it is polite to identify oneself. If you do not supply a name -- possibly by logging in if you have an account -- you get identified by your IP address. If you want to get rid of the IP address signature, please provide a name of some sort in its place. (Your IP address will still be visible in the page history, though, unless you are logged in.) --The Krit 15:56, January 25, 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for replay to question Nose maj :)


 * See? Now you have a name. Isn't it nice to have an identity to call your own? :) --The Krit 17:35, January 25, 2011 (UTC)

Any chance of having the old style layout as an option?
Haven't been to the wiki in awhile, and I have to say, this new look is a big design no-no. Large blocks of white text on dark backgrounds are exceedingly difficult to read. I'm sure a lot of people went to a lot of trouble to give the wiki a new look, but frankly, I find it almost unusable. Any chance of keeping an alternate CSS link at the top of the page so we can switch back to the old (and legible) style? I know how to block it, and force it to use my own, but not everyone can do that. Just a suggestion.

Thanks! --207.237.84.134 2:54, 2 February 2011


 * Wikia has decided that each wiki can have only two options for skins. Oasis is the default, and logged-in users can use Special:Preferences to choose MonoBook instead. (MonoBook is still a dark-on-light scheme.) The old default style (Monaco, which offered both light-on-dark and dark-on-light options) is no longer available, and Wikia has said repeatedly that there is no chance of it being offered as an option. --The Krit 03:51, February 2, 2011 (UTC)


 * Originally, I thought the choice was between the more limited functionality but nice look of a years old stylesheet (Monaco) and the expanded functionality but dark, eyestraining look of the new layout (Oasis). But it doesn't seem like Oasis really requires the eyestrain format (light text and mid-to-dark links on a dark background) because other wikia wikis don't have it (e.g. http://nintendo.wikia.com/wiki/Nintendo_Wiki). Is there some reason we can't have a wiki with more of the reference book look of black text on a light page?
 * (I know that Oasis insists on the inflexible-width format that breaks many of our tables and adds a lot of space-wasting headers, but those are separate issues. For now, I'd love to just be able to use the wiki without my eyes hurting.) - MrZork 17:39, February 17, 2011 (UTC)


 * There is no "choice" about Monaco. Monaco is gone. So is my preferred skin, called simply "simple skin" (even older than Monaco). The current choice is between MonoBook (a years-old stylesheet -- older than Monaco -- with less functionality than Monaco or Oasis, similar to the old default for Wikipedia -- preview) and Oasis (the new default skin for Wikia -- preview). Since the functionality of Monaco is not yet that much less than the functionality of Oasis, maybe you meant the choice between Monobook and Oasis? Hmmm... maybe an example of Monaco might be good so everyone can see what the different terms mean. Let's see... Wikipedia still has a screenshot that I was able to find easily enough: Monaco screenshot, compared with current look. (In case that image link gets broken in the future, the media page for it is here.)
 * As for the choice between "nice" and "eyestraining", I find you have that backwards. For me, dark-on-light is eyestraining while light-on-dark is less so. I just complain less and put up with it more because the it seems the world has decided that computer screens should mimic the restrictions of print media, where black ink and white paper is much easier/cheaper than white ink and black paper. (I think this one can legitimately get blamed on Microsoft, but I won't get into that here.) However, for logged-in users there is another option. Someone else has requested an override of NWNWiki's colors to make Oasis here be dark-on-light. I can copy that override to your account as well, if you'd like. (Just give me some time to get to it. I think I can do a better job than I did that last time, so I'll make an improved version instead of just copying it.) --The Krit 19:48, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * As for the choice between "nice" and "eyestraining", I find you have that backwards. For me, dark-on-light is eyestraining while light-on-dark is less so. I just complain less and put up with it more because the it seems the world has decided that computer screens should mimic the restrictions of print media, where black ink and white paper is much easier/cheaper than white ink and black paper. (I think this one can legitimately get blamed on Microsoft, but I won't get into that here.) However, for logged-in users there is another option. Someone else has requested an override of NWNWiki's colors to make Oasis here be dark-on-light. I can copy that override to your account as well, if you'd like. (Just give me some time to get to it. I think I can do a better job than I did that last time, so I'll make an improved version instead of just copying it.) --The Krit 19:48, February 17, 2011 (UTC)

If you can copy an override to my account that would be awesome! In fact, even a pointer to a Monaco-like theme and an install guide would be great and I could tweak it myself. I actually googled around until I stumbled on the |Wikia Theme Designer and created a theme that I liked. But, I didn't see an option for getting the CSS output. I looked at the page source and copied the info from the sassParams line to what I thought was my theme CSS, but I apparently missed / mangled a step somewhere. Thanks -MrZork 23:42, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * You are right that I meant Monobook instead of Monaco. I would be happy to have Monaco back as an option.
 * And, of course, what works best for some may not be best for others. I prefer the Wikipedia look over the dark look, but I understand that will be an individual preference. I also think that it looks better with many of our pages that appear to have been put together with a lighter background in mind, but I suppose that's an aesthetic judgment as well.


 * I've dropped a copy of a dark-on-light scheme into your account. The problem you seem to have had is that the name for the CSS used by Oasis is, not  . As for the pages designed for the lighter background, I've been trying to make them adaptable to different current color schemes when I see them, but they are scattered around (and I have not felt up to tackling the class pages yet). I would rather see the formatting be flexible, so everyone can see them with their preferred color scheme. (The ability of each user to choose a color scheme is one of the few features of Monaco I liked.) --The Krit 05:07, February 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * Very cool! Now things look good and I can twiddle with the layout to my heart's content. Thank you very much! -MrZork 14:56, February 18, 2011 (UTC)

BioWare giveaway
We have launched a BioWare giveaway across all of Wikia's BioWare wikis and added info about it to this wiki's community corner. You can find more details here. Ausir(talk) 23:29, February 9, 2011 (UTC)


 * Just a little addendum for others who might be reading this: the above link now includes the list of winners. --The Krit 20:10, March 15, 2011 (UTC)

Rephrasing other people's posts
please undo any rephrase changes you made to the heart of winter page, i dont have time to read it all but at a glance i see griefing rule is now incorrect due to rephrasing, this is CR tyoe area not literal area and many newcomers misunderstanding this even wehn it phrased preperly and they read. please dont rephrase what i write unless you are 100% its correct thanks. i dont bother with 'edit wars' or anything but i wont contribute anymore if this is how it will be Nose maj


 * Sorry, but holding off on edits that you are not 100% sure about goes against the wiki philosophy of everyone contributing what they can. (If that was our standard for people making efforts, this wiki probably would never have grown past a dozen articles or so.) So that is not going to happen. On the other hand, there is a wide area between being 100% correct and being involved in an edit war. (It is good that you would resort to a talk page before edit warring, though.) Collaborative writing tends to involve a sequence of edits as each person tries to improve what the others (or themselves) have written so that in the end, the result is something better than any individual could have done. This sort of back-and-forth is not an edit war unless the edits are merely undoing what the other has done. (And in this respect, a comment on a talk page along the lines of "revert your edit or else" is really little more productive than an edit war; it's just relocated to another -- and admittedly more appropriate -- venue.)

As for the parts specific to Heart of Winter, I'm going to take that over to Talk:Heart of Winter, as discussions about a specific article really should be on that article's talk page, in part so that everyone interested in the page can contribute. --The Krit 17:05, February 14, 2011 (UTC)


 * I am reacting at this specific words "goes against the wiki philosophy of everyone contributing what they can.". In this wiki, if anyone contribute with anything, you will immediately modify it again The Krit with rules you created, this wiki seems to me to be only yours rather then a contributors'. Personally considering ending my "career" there long time ago. I could contribute much much more, but why when you deciding about everything there? --ShaDoOoW 17:10, February 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, keep rephrasing, as I know you may be better at editing - some stupid comments must be erased, while those who have a piece of useful info can always be an addition, it just needs to be written in other words. Also, I thank you for a warm welcome. MysteryStranger 20:47, July 8, 2011 (UTC)

Hello
Hey there, and thanks for the welcome. I visit the wiki enough, I decided I should just get an account and actually start to give a little back. Even if it feels like the wiki is nearly done.

Woops, forgot to sign. DrPiranha 04:31, February 15, 2011 (UTC)

About Using Templates
Hello, TK! Could you either link me to the applicable "How-to" instructions or explain how to merge a template into an existing article, please? Never tried this before. Muchas gracias, amigo.--Iconclast 21:44, February 21, 2011 (UTC)


 * Just surround the name of the template in curly braces, as in   to get the disambiguation notice at the top of some pages. Well, that's how to use them with wikitext and the standard editor. I have no idea what you're supposed to do in the WYSIWYG rich text editor -- I never use it. If you're using the WYSIWYG editor and don't want to change, you might want to experiment over at NWNWiki:Sandbox to see if you can get the otheruses template to work. (There is some more information at Help:Templates, but nothing mentioning the WYSIWYG editor specifically.) --The Krit 22:13, February 21, 2011 (UTC)

Horse script
Just noticed by default 1.69 update the script nw_ch_ac7 cannot compile cause of "ERROR: DUPLICATE FUNCTION IMPLEMENTATION (SetBehaviorState)". Dunno if you want to fix that in your alternate horse script. ILKAY 01:33, June 11, 2011 (UTC)


 * The BioWare version of  compiles just fine under 1.69 in an empty module with an empty override (and with no modifications to the .key/.bif files). --The Krit 06:13, June 11, 2011 (UTC)

Thank you and question
A really brilliant work, I read since so long, so finally I can take a few minutes to thank you Krit for all this good job well done. Just congrats, I could find basically whatever I was looking for.

Technical question : is it possible to shield from an neutral dragon aura ? (pro-evil vs evil, pro-good vs goods, but neutral ones ? there is Clarity I guess, or else ?) --Kilnasaggart 21:00, June 12, 2011 (UTC)


 * Clarity, mind blank, and lesser mind blank provide protection from mind-affecting effects regardless of the alignment of the source. Items that provide immunity to fear (e.g. a lesser or greater belt of guiding light) are also rather effective, if you can find them. --The Krit 21:23, June 12, 2011 (UTC)

Dye kits
Hi there! Not sure if you are still updating on here but my question has to do with the dye kits. On the charts that you supplied for the colors and their codes, are those the last 3 digits of the tags?

I am trying to add pure black and pure white dyes to our mod and I am lost at trying to do so. I have all the updates as well as Cep 2.3 and there are still very limited dye colors.

Any help you can give me on this would be great! -- 74.194.0.184 02:51, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * First off, it would probably be better to ask this on the talk page for the dye kit article, since that is where the charts are located. (This would have the side effect of being directed at a wider audience, so might be answered by someone else before I get to look at it.) But the answer is quick, so I'll give it here. Yes, the numbers on the charts are the numbers for the tags. An item whose tag ends in 063 and has the dye kit item property should be dying things pure black. (It should also work if the tag ends in a non-digit followed by 63, but that's really for backwards compatibility.)
 * To help your trouble-shooting: Updating the game should have no effect on pure black or pure white. (The colors affected by patches are the ones after pure black -- added by patch 1.67 -- and the last color, for which the default script was fixed in 1.69.) CEP did not affect dyes or color choices the last time I looked. If you are more interested in getting more dyes than getting your custom dye kit to work, you might want to look at All Dye Kits (pre-1.67) or Omnidye on the Vault. (I am a bit biased towards the latter.) If you are more interested in getting your custom dye kit to work, I might be able to help, but I would need more to go on than "lost at trying to do so". --The Krit 09:38, June 18, 2011 (UTC)

Weapons category/article
i was thinking to add a article about the holy avenger (long-sword) to prevent confusion with the holy avenger (item property). is that a good idea or just unnecessary? thx --Pimpernell 15:45, July 23, 2011 (UTC)


 * A single item seems to me to be a rather narrow topic for an article. Maybe an article detailing all the standard longswords or all the standard weapons (or whatever ends up being a good division of the standard items -- keep in mind that the plain +X weapons would just need to be listed as there is nothing special to be said about them, not even an interesting description). --The Krit 20:01, July 23, 2011 (UTC)


 * I was thinking about this some more, and remembered what someone did for whips. Listing the specific longsword items in the longsword article may be the best way to go about this. (Although spiffier formatting than what was done for whips might not be a bad idea.) --The Krit 19:15, July 24, 2011 (UTC)


 * alright, i can make a start with that some day, but right now i'm trying to improve the original campaign article a bit. and since i'm not really skilled yet, it can take some time... and while on the topic of items, what would you think of having an article about the chapter 1 and 3 "forge" weapon/armors? i don't mind doing that, but i would definitely need your help for the overall layout :)

on monster hit: stun
hi, do you know of a way to finding out more about the specifics on this property? i browsed the web for hours and the only bit of useful info was at nwnlexicon, but doesn't really help me. right now i'm gonna test out a custom monster with on monster hit: stun, but i doubt it will be so easy to find out the specifics. thx --Pimpernell 14:56, July 26, 2011 (UTC)


 * What sort of specifics? --The Krit 15:01, July 26, 2011 (UTC)


 * well, there doesn't seem to be much info on the DC of the different "on monster hit" properties, like stun. there is no stun spell other than power word stun. or does it work like on-hit stun but without a DC? --Pimpernell 15:14, July 26, 2011 (UTC)