User talk:Engwallj

Welcome!
Well met, Engwallj, and welcome to the Forgotten Realms Wiki! Thank you for your edit to the Seawolf page. We hope you like the place and decide to stay and explore the Forgotten Realms with us.

Here are some pages that you might find helpful, that explain who we are and what we do and how we do it. You should find these a useful reference, or maybe they could give you some ideas for something to do.

It's our goal to be a complete and reliable encyclopaedia of the official Forgotten Realms in all its forms, and a valuable resource for all Realms fans, players, and dungeon masters. As such, we do not accept fan fiction, homebrew lore, and player characters. All information added to this wiki must be attributed to an official source. Information must not be copied from sourcebooks and novels. Please always give a source for your information, and explain what you've done in the "summary" box.

We hope you enjoy editing here. Please sign your messages on Talk and Forum pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, please leave a message on my talk page or ask any of the administrators about things.

Again, welcome! Happy scribing!

— BadCatMan (talk) 04:20, April 20, 2019 (UTC)

Hello and thanks
Hello there! Thanks for your recent cleanup of a couple of articles. There's certainly a lot of articles needing attention, so we appreciate the efforts. I'd advise that you check out the general help page and our policies.

Happy editing and thanks once more! ~ Possessed Priest (talk) 11:26, April 20, 2019 (UTC)

Revisions
Hi. Thanks for your work, but please try not to rewrite unnecessarily. A lot of the text you've rewritten has been perfectly acceptable work from other editors who might not appreciate being rewritten out-of-hand. Meanwhile, you've introduced new errors and misinterpretations. I've had to undo and redo many of your edits at seawolf and harpy, and will have to redo your changes to kobold later. Please try to be more focused and understanding, and make changes only where changes are necessary. — BadCatMan (talk) 04:06, April 21, 2019 (UTC)

Hello BadCatMan

I appreciate your notice and I am sorry. I'm am not some kind of monster stomping out people's writing. All three entries were flagged as far back as 2016 for repetition.

Kobold was the worst with extensive word for word repetitions on the subjects of traps and mining. Then Kobold just plain got weird about nudity and mating. Harpy was also flagged for contradictory information. Obviously some of the material was going to be removed.

I found the talk pages empty to boot.

If you will un-ban me I have a good question about a very lean entry. Assassin contains only a couple paragraphs wihout links to the reference list. I believe the assassin subclass has been continuously available since AD&D. Should I add 1E reference material?Engwallj (talk) 06:09, April 21, 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for responding. When you're a new editor and start making extensive changes, it tends to raise red flags. It would've been better to discuss making extensive changes first before diving right into it.


 * First, only Harpy was flagged for clean-up; Kobold as not and Seawolf was a very recent article I'd just gone over myself. While some of your revisions were useful, the article was mostly already quite fine.


 * Your changes to Kobold are often unnecessary or remove meaning or information. You changed "inward" to "retrospective", but they have different meanings. Changing "they" and "their" to "kobold" is often unnecessary. Changing "They were noted for their skill at..." to "...noted for skill at..." might shorten things, but is also unnecessary and risks creating run-on sentences. You've removed the information about kobold nudity, apparently because you don't like it, but this was valid, sourced information. Hence I have undone your changes as it's easier than trying to fix everything.


 * Yes, the assassin page does need revision to remove rules information and add references and lore, so please feel free to work on that. — BadCatMan (talk) 07:07, April 21, 2019 (UTC)

You are trashing me. So you know from now on I am taking screen shots of everything. I have one now describing kobold society in the section Personality, the section ahead of Combat, which is the section ahead of (you guessed it) Society. All three were in the clean up with with empty talk pages. My fault for not documenting it. Sorry.

But I can get over it. In other news, assassin?

Love to, thanks, no hard feelings really.Engwallj (talk) 07:40, April 21, 2019 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but it was quicker and easier to revert your edits than to go through it line by line checking for issues and undoing them individually, as I did with the last two. But all your work is preserved in the revision history if there's anything you feel necessary to keep or add back.


 * And as I said, the Assassin article does need work and you're welcome to work on it, because the crunch needs to be removed or downgraded. The general text doesn't need to be completely rewritten however. You're also welcome to add 1e and other lore. — BadCatMan (talk) 10:55, April 21, 2019 (UTC)

There is more than crunch. Assassin is a slightly clumsy version of WIkipedia's article on the same topic. Grammarly tipped me off. You can take a look at this if you want: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassin_(Dungeons_%26_Dragons)

In other news, I followed the link on shadow magic and was intrigued. I will use a local library, they probably have most rulebooks, and let you look at what I want to do before I do anything significant. But about the clipped article. Is one community encylopedia as free as the next? Does one community "own" an article? My guess is that the answer is going to be yes. I don't have experience in these things. I hope this is helpful.Engwallj (talk) 02:38, April 22, 2019 (UTC)