User talk:Niirfa-sa

Template for Elven/Eladrin subraces
Hi! I see that you created a new template for the Eladrin subraces. Great job, it looks quite good. In thinking about this more though, I think we should keep the Elven and Eladrin subraces together in the same template. If you have a chance, let's discuss this in the appropriate Talk page. Thanks! 03:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Copyright status on image
Please add a usage rationale for Image:Faerun_map.jpg. Is this a freely available image online? Did you create it? Does it fall under fair use? Without this we will have no choice but to delete it. Fw190a8 19:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Update to Elven Subraces template
Hi, I'd like to undo your most recent change to the elven subraces template. If you have a chance, please see the Talk page so we can discuss it further. 14:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Spells / Rituals / Prayers / etc...
I've added a number of templates that might help with the update to spells for 4th edition. I've also updated a number of the articles for spells to include both 3rd edition and 4th edition info. As such, since the articles need to be "edition-aware", we should likewise keep the relevant categories from both 3rd and 4th edition. I don't see too much trouble with this... for example since cleric spells are now "prayers" in 4th edition, it's easy to distinguish 4th edition cleric spells from 3rd edition spells. Likewise, wizard spells were always "sorcerer/wizard" in 3rd edition, and in 4th edition they're solely "wizard", so the distinction is easy. Long-term, we may wish to rename the categories to make them more edition-aware. 04:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The Template:Ritual template can be used to describe rituals.
 * The Template:desc/radiant description can be used for those spells with the Radiant keyword.


 * You mentioned "I'm pretty sure divine magic spells are still considered 'prayers' - just as druid spells would be considered 'invocations.' ". I assume you mean in 4e?  Absolutely!  Whereas in 3rd edition they were called spells. Sorry for the confusion.  14:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Changes to goblin article
It looks like you edited an old version of goblin in this edit - things like the emboldened first word and the reomval of the unreferenced template have been undone. Could you check this out please? Fw190a8 21:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Citing the Gleemax forums
Regarding your recent citations of the Gleemax forums, for example the one towards the end of the Moonstars article, I took the liberty of creating a new template, Cite web/Gleemax forums, which will hopefully provide an easier way to cite the forums directly. One of the problems with the citations was that although you linked to a specific page, there could be many posts on that page, and even if the author was provided, the author might have posted many times on the page, so it wasn't immediately clear what was being cited. In addition, it's possible that some forum posts can be deleted, shifting certain posts back a page. Hopefully, because the new template allows citation of a specific post, it will be easier to be accurate. I have changed the one on the Moonstars article to give an idea of how it works, but I'd like to know what you think! Fw190a8 22:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Blood fiend / Tsagoth
Hi there... just for explanation. In Unclean and Undead (novel) it is often mentioned that Tsagoth is an "undead blood fiend" (being the only blood fiend appearing in the book), that's why I wrote undead as property of Blood fiend so maybe it is especially Tsagoth who is undead and not Blood fiends in general... My two cents Elysara 09:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

4E Wiki
Just so you don't think my accusation that you only want a 4E Wiki is baseless, take this example: Nagas. Now I know in 4E, for no reason, nagas suddenly went from just 'snake monsters' to 'immortal demon creatures'. So you have changed all the nagas in to the immortal demon creatures. Of course the nagas of the Realms for 20 years of real time, and 20,000 years of Realms time are now all suddenly 'immortal'. It's clear that all non 4E nagas are just natural creatures. Yet the naga pages says they are all 'immortal'. This is your edition bias. Instead of just adding a note about the changes in 4E, you rewrote the article to make it useless to anyone except a 4E person. You are all into 'merging' pages to delete as much 1E,2E and 3E content as possible to make your pure 4E wiki. After all, no one can look up the aberration type naga, as you deleted it all and made them demons(or whatever they are in 4E). (Bloodtide 03:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC))

Stuff like that is why I don't like 4E. They also nerfed the arcane spellcasters. In my personal campaign, I'm using the 3.5E rules in the 4E FR time period.StarSword 16:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Category fixes: Thanks
Regarding the category problems on Amie Fern, etc.: I knew I was missing something obvious, but that's just dumb. *sound of head hitting wall* Thanks. StarSword 16:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Copyright status of "4e illusionist.jpg" image
Hi Niirfa-sa. The usage of the Image:4e illusionist.jpg does not appear to fall within fair-use guidelines. Please contribute to the discussion if you feel otherwise. Also, are there other images like this from the paid subscription of Dragon magazine? Thanks, 17:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Cool, let's use the art galleries for Dragon magazine from now on then -- that would seem to fall within fair-use as "promotional". Regarding issue #364 itself, since it does appear to be free, it's possible that we're okay as well.  I'll make this clearer in the attribution of the image.   18:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Larloch and King of Shadows
Hi - this edit of the Larloch article is being queried on Talk:Larloch. Do you have a source for the King of Shadows being called Larloch? Fw190a8 (talk &middot; contr) 21:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I see what you mean now, and I can see the origin of the confusion. I have made an edit which aims to clear it up even further, but if you feel this is a step too far, please feel free to revert. Fw190a8 (talk &middot; contr) 13:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, my problem with it was that the wording was a little confusing. The fix makes it obvious what you were disambiguating.  (Is that a word?)  StarSword 21:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)