FANDOM

77.92.213.119

aka A FANDOM User


Trickery domain Edit

The format for editing pages is to leave the BioWare description, and post the changes in the notes. This is why I undid your revision to trickery domain. As for caster level it comes from a domain thus applying to cleric level. 1 per 2 in BioWare lingo is the same statement as half rounded down. WhiZard 04:33, September 11, 2009 (UTC)

Edit summaries Edit

Your recent repeated use of "adding note from CP1.70 discovery" as an edit summary is no more helpful than leaving the edit summary blank. --The Krit (talk) 15:00, December 20, 2012 (UTC)

  • Right, I guess its not much "helpful". But Im curious. Would you write to me the same note if I wouldn't write anything in the summary? I presume you did not, yet just once I noticed CP you immediately protested. What I wrote was a source of the info I added. You will inspect the article anyway so you will see what the new note is about, but there is no place to write where this note comes from and I felt this is important to mention. 77.92.213.119 19:49, December 20, 2012 (UTC)
  • If you were not writing anything in the summary, it would indicate a lack of desire to be helpful. So probably I would not bother mentioning anything. You can presume whatever you want, as I am used to your presumptions being wrong, but you might want to think about how to justify "immediately" when it took me over four days to decide this was worth mentioning.
    As for the source of the information, you are attributing it to the patch project, which means the information comes from you (as the author of the project), and the update log already shows that the information comes from you. So I would disagree about the importance of this particular attribution. (I would also disagree with calling it "discovery" as at least some of those notes are not new discoveries, but rediscoveries of things that were known by some people, but for whatever reason were not added to the wiki earlier.)
    As for "inspect the article anyway", you really think that is accurate? While I personally try to look at each edit made, I doubt that is true of everyone who watches the recent changes. On top of which, edit summaries are also there for those people who are checking a page's history, and those people are even less likely to want to look through each and every change.
    So I guess the bottom line is: are you trying to be a helpful contributor, or are you just putting on a show to see what you can get away with? If you are trying to be helpful, why do you try to play the victim when someone points out how to be more helpful? --The Krit (talk) 20:47, December 20, 2012 (UTC)
  • I just wanted to mention the linkage of this new edit with informations from Spell changes (Community patch). All these latest changes that Ive added with this note are written there and I simply copied them into the articles (the last summary written as note in Dye armor is incorrect - but realized this too late and edit it again just to clarify summary seemed to me bad idea). Thus is was already written in this wiki, it wasn't new info I found out recently so the noting CP seemed appropriate to me. But your right, next time I will try to write a real summary of the changes made in article too - with a in/direct linkage to the source as well. 77.92.213.119 21:44, December 20, 2012 (UTC)

Talk pages Edit

Please do not replace other people's comments on talk pages with your own. --The Krit (talk) 07:44, October 21, 2013 (UTC)



Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.