User talk:BadCatMan

To limit the length of this page, content has been relocated to the following archive pages:
 * User talk:BadCatMan/2012
 * User talk:BadCatMan/2013
 * User talk:BadCatMan/2014
 * User talk:BadCatMan/2015
 * User talk:BadCatMan/2016
 * User talk:BadCatMan/2017
 * User talk:BadCatMan/2018
 * User talk:BadCatMan/2019

Grammar check
Hi. I need to ask you a favor. Can you check the new info I added to the Bahamut articles? I did from my cellphone. Add that to my terrible English, and I'm sure there is something to be fixed there. Thanks in advance.--Zero X (talk) 14:45, November 22, 2019 (UTC)


 * Oops, I missed this. I'll try to check next time I get a chance. — BadCatMan (talk) 06:36, January 16, 2020 (UTC)

AlexMcClay
Hi, sorry that I couldn't get back to you earlier, I do not check my profile that much so I didn't realize that you sent a message until today. Thanks you for informing me about the plagiarism rules, I don't know why i did that, that's just how i had it in my quick notes so i guess I got confused. I will keep that in mind for the future, thanks.AlexMcClay (talk) 18:56, January 15, 2020 (UTC)


 * Okay, thank you for responding and understanding this. I've already removed the copied text from Shield of Iriaebor and fixed it up in other ways, so please feel free to expand on it with your own words and the canon lore. — BadCatMan (talk) 06:36, January 16, 2020 (UTC)

Alu-fiends, Cambions and Succubi
Hey again. Here's something I had noticed.

There's this whole 'thing' where alu fiends and cambions have changed definitions throughout the editions to the point where it's very confusing. And a similar thing had happened with succubi. So long-story short, here's my solution. How about we just leave Cambion and Alu-Fiend in their own half-fiend category (like they were before) but remove the devil conncection, seeing as how you could also put demon in there. And then succubi can go into the general fiend category. I just think it'd simplify things since there are already notes in the succbus and alu-fiend page about how what *precise* fiends they descend from have changed across the editions.Vegepygmy (talk) 04:51, January 19, 2020 (UTC)


 * I know, I covered it a bit when I developed the succubus article. It is confusing, but from the point of view of the FRW's edition-neutral policy (the convergence of the Past-tense and Canon policies), each version and its lore is equally valid. For the succubus, once a demon, always a demon, as well as a devil, and a fiend. From another viewpoint, a 1e/2e/3e fan looking in the demons category should find the succubus, while a 4e fan looking at devils and a 5e fan looking at general fiends should also expect to find succubi. Similarly, the 2e cambion is as valid as the 5e cambion. So, I think we should leave them with all their categories and navigation boxes for earlier editions. It's better to have more organization and information than less.

Hm. Alright well in that case if I can't narrow them down to *one* fiend type I'll just put them in all the fiend types. As in I will add devil, demon and fiend connection to each of them. Does that sound reasonable?Vegepygmy (talk) 05:41, January 19, 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's fine. Anything that was once valid can go in, demon, devil, and fiend as appropriate. You can place the latest 5e information first or give it primacy if it helps reduce confusion. My own approach is to discuss changing lore chronologically. — BadCatMan (talk) 05:48, January 19, 2020 (UTC)

Monster Manual 3rd edition
So I might be about to sound stupid, but I can't figure out how to cite the 3rd edition of the monster manual. Not 3.5 just 3rd. It had info on the barghest that the 3.5 version left out. Pls and thank you.Vegepygmy (talk) 15:52, January 26, 2020 (UTC)
 * Just going to jump in here. Can't you just use: Cite book/Monster Manual 3rd edition instead of Cite book/Monster Manual 3.5? ~ Possessed Priest (talk) 20:01, January 26, 2020 (UTC)

Weird. I remember trying that and it didn't work. Maybe I mistyped something and didn't realize. Thanks.Vegepygmy (talk) 20:13, January 26, 2020 (UTC)


 * Yeah, sometimes it's hard to get the right one to auto-suggest when they're all so similarly titled. If you can't get the right one to come up, look through Category:Sourcebook_citation_templates and copy-paste the template name directly. — BadCatMan (talk) 01:15, January 27, 2020 (UTC)

Vaasan
Hi,

I was disapointed to notice that all the information that I uploaded onto the Vaasans page had been removed. I gathered everything from Races of Faerun (an official source for dnd lore). So I am unsure why it was removed, I am happy to link you the book so you can see that all the information I uploaded was from the book. Can you please explain how that is not lore? The current page is very incomplete and gives no indication of the Vaasan people. – User:Kalasznikov98


 * I know all the information is from the book – you copied it, word for word. That is copyright infringement. We do not accept copied text at the FRW; please see our Plagiarism policy. If you'd checked the edit history and summaries for the page, you'd've seen my note mentioning that. If you wish to add the lore about Vaasans, please rewrite it in your own words, in past tense, and arranged to suit a wiki article. — BadCatMan (talk) 16:15, February 10, 2020 (UTC)

Extra Spaces
I've noticed you have removed those extra spaces either between the DEFAULTSORT and Infobox, or between the Infobox and text body on a few of my pages. When I create these new pages those spaces aren't showing up and seem to appear later. Any idea why that is happening? Artemaz (talk) 01:39, February 25, 2020 (UTC)


 * I haven't a clue, I thought everyone saw the extra spaces and they were just made in error. They're very noticeable on the finished article pages. How are you writing your articles? — BadCatMan (talk) 01:43, February 25, 2020 (UTC)


 * I write the articles 100% within the source editor. It's just weird because those extra spaces don't get added every time. Seems random.Artemaz (talk) 02:42, February 25, 2020 (UTC)

Succubi and Iggwilv Mark II
So succubi are one of the few fiends that I don't know much about and if memory serves you wrote most of their article. Recently I read in a dragon article that succubi were the first tanar'ri *type* to appear in the Abyss, since they truly took on the mortal form rather than screwing with it. I can't remember where I read this part, but I also remember reading that the succubi abandoned the Abyss in droves at one point which helped Asmodeus become a god. Shouldn't that be in the succubus article?Vegepygmy


 * Perhaps. When I developed the succubus article, I didn't delve into the deep lore of the demons, but only focused on the succubus write-ups in each edition. They were complicated enough to handle and resolve discrepancies for. I only started it to get the page correctly cited and resolve an edit war about some kind of homebrew or stats from another game entirely. I'm sure there's more about their relations and history and fiendish politics to include, but that was a project too far for me, I don't know which sources to even look in.


 * The article does touch on their 4th-edition migration to the Nine Hells and Asmodeus's ascension, but it could be given more detail. — BadCatMan (talk) 11:50, March 5, 2020 (UTC)

Removal?
Hey BadCatMan, sorry to troublr you but just wondering why my edit was removed as I believe it had relevant information from a Wizard of the Coasts adventure?Bingers (talk) 12:41, March 5, 2020 (UTC)


 * What exactly was your edit? Your "Bingers" account has only this message recorded, so you must've been logged-out or not had an account before. — BadCatMan (talk) 13:48, March 5, 2020 (UTC)

Summon Shadow
Yes it was needed, the spell was missing the duration, with just vague wording the second edit was fixing bad grammer


 * The FRW does not give the crunch of spells and other effects. Please see our No Crunch policy. The phrasing conveyed the necessary information without the rules. The component statement was grammatically correct. — BadCatMan (talk) 09:47, March 19, 2020 (UTC)

Its vague information and very poor grammer, but you dont care because your in charge. I understand needing to paraphrase to stay under Hasbros radar. But the way its written is less that a 5th grader could do; it doesnt even mention that the spell was done away with in the newer editions ..

further information. the citing of footnote 9, is fraudulent. nothing on that page can be found in that TSR publication, I just went trough the entire suppliment.
 * The reference was in error, so I have fixed it. There is no need to mention newer editions at all, since doing so would be irrelevant to our in-universe focus. --Ir&#39;revrykal (talk) 10:58, March 19, 2020 (UTC)


 * The original version was grammatically correct, just not a natural phrasing; thank you for improve description of the component, at least. However, it was still rather better than what you've written, with your incorrect spelling, punctuation, and grammar. Finally, I do care because I get paid to edit for a living. Have a nice self-isolated day. — BadCatMan (talk) 11:21, March 19, 2020 (UTC)