We're cutting over to the new version of the wiki. If you see this notice, you're on the old version, but should see the new one as soon as DNS updates for you.

User talk:Eagle of Fire

From Dwarf Fortress Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

[edit] I know you!

:) --SupSuper 12:13, 8 November 2007 (EST)

What a coincidence! I do, too! ;) --Eagle of Fire 22:30, 8 November 2007 (EST)
Huzzah! ASCII FOREVA!! --SupSuper 08:02, 10 November 2007 (EST)

[edit] To whomever it may concern...

What the hell is the "rule P" I keep reading about? O_o --Eagle of Fire 22:59, 10 November 2007 (EST)

It's a bunch of stupid rules people have come up with. --Rick 23:48, 10 November 2007 (EST)
Hummm... I think your description is pretty accurate. If they want to create rules, I'd be happy with that... But to hide them behind some kind of game... --Eagle of Fire 00:15, 11 November 2007 (EST)

[edit] Obsidian Short Sword

Is it me or I noticed my dwarf taking up a log of wood to make an obsidian short sword? I wanted to check on the wiki to be sure, but there seem to be no particular page for the obsidian short sword that I could see with a quick search. --Eagle of Fire 02:24, 11 November 2007 (EST)

Your obsidian sword needs a hilt. That's why you need the wood. Boo radley 13:12, 11 November 2007 (EST)
I think obsidian short swords are really supposed to resemble a dwarf-sized macuahuitl, hence the wood. -EarthquakeDamage 01:47, 14 November 2007 (EST)
Would make sense, thanks for the link. :) --Eagle of Fire 03:07, 14 November 2007 (EST)

[edit] Newbie nonsense

Thanks for that slap in the face there, chief. --JPolito 12:26, 18 November 2007 (EST)

If you don't even know why it was put there, I should probably go place it back again. It was probably because you made a bunch of edits one after the other on the same page. Use the preview button and it won't happen again. --Eagle of Fire 17:48, 18 November 2007 (EST)
I'm well aware as to why it was put there, but it appears more as an insult than advice if you ask me. I did use the preview button, but I didn't see my mistakes until after published. Everyone makes simple mistakes. --JPolito 19:02, 18 November 2007 (EST)
The reason why the {{newbie}} tag was created was to be able to send some quick pointers to new users. Your user page was pretty bland and I can't really keep track of the new users since there is so many now. I simply used the tag in a quick edit. I'm pretty sure this kind of stuff is said almost everyday, using a generic tag is so less bothersome and that much quicker.
It should not be taken as an insult but rather as a friendly advice. It's really not that big of a deal. :) --Eagle of Fire 19:08, 18 November 2007 (EST)
I'd like to point out that since then I've made a point to doublecheck the last few times I used this tag in the sole purpose of not using it without a good reason. Also, I took the resolution to only use it in talk pages in the future. This should avoid further incidents on the matter. --Eagle of Fire 02:40, 10 December 2007 (EST)
I think it would be better to do away with the "newbie" tag altogether. The name of the tag is insulting itself and the text of the tag is less than useful when read by someone feeling insulted. I propose a more respectful tag like "tips". --Geofferic 09:01, 10 December 2007 (EST)
The tag is intended to be subst'd in so that user talk pages arent updated in case of template change. When used properly, the name of the template wont show up at all.
{{subst:newbie}}<br>--~~~~
Not as terrible now, eh? VengefulDonut 10:46, 10 December 2007 (EST)
It's equally terrible if it's not used correctly. Seems a silly extra step to boost the ego of the person placing the tag. Makes more sense to rename in with something respectful. --Geofferic 03:27, 12 December 2007 (EST)
Ok. Do it :) VengefulDonut 11:31, 12 December 2007 (EST)
I have no objection to have it renamed to newcommer or tips or whatever you think is better. It would change absolutly nothing to me and it's use anyways, I never saw it as a way to feel superior or anything of that kind of crap... For me it's a tool to use sparingly in the right situation. If you look at my user page, you'll see in my description that He dislike disorder and particularly hate spammers (bots in particular) and will hunt them down if necessary. Use of this tool is simply a byproduct of this train of thought, by way of prevention. --Eagle of Fire 15:40, 12 December 2007 (EST)

[edit] orphaned redirect

Why do you care so much about an orphaned redirect page? All that matters is that it points in the right direction. VengefulDonut 01:50, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Well, even if I were not to point out that it's adding absolutly nothing to the Wiki, that people are more than extremely unlikely to actually search with such a long keyword and that the word "retarded" is immature and unneeded... I've clicked on the "what links here" button and found out that the redirect you're talking about is not even linked from either. What kind of purpose would it have other than sporting such a word in it's name?
None. --Eagle of Fire 02:36, 10 December 2007 (EST)
There are quite a few orphaned redirects that have no purpose any more. For consistency's sake, you should either leave them all alone or hunt them all down ;) VengefulDonut 10:50, 10 December 2007 (EST)
I could not care less about "orphaned" redirects. I think you're completely missing my point... --Eagle of Fire 13:15, 10 December 2007 (EST)
It seems I am missing it; care to enlighten me? It seems inconsistent to me to care about the miner redirect and not care about things like negociator or Quern (item). What is the difference? VengefulDonut 15:16, 11 December 2007 (EST)
The word "retarded". Why would we need to be so crude in the wiki? There is no need, and the page itself was useless. Nobody's going to spell out a 15 word long search. Not to say that dwarves in DF can't really be "retarded"... It's all about how you make them do what you want which make them intelligent or not. When I was younger, we had an acronym to describe that... PIBKAC.
The reason why I'm prompt to act on that particular page is because it's on my watchlist. I'd probably solve the problem if I realise another page is broken but I'm certainly not going to "hunt" those orphaned pages down for the fun of it. There's way more to do on the Wiki right now to stop at each peeble on the road. --Eagle of Fire 17:30, 11 December 2007 (EST)
We still use it ... PEBKAC.  ;) --Geofferic 03:30, 12 December 2007 (EST)
[Conversation cut -> See Language below.]
If I realized that the first page had been deleted, wouldn't have remade it - just wanted to make sure everything was pointing to the proper location when I posted the redirect, and mentally kicked myself when I saw it was marked as (N)ew. :p --Jackard 23:59, 11 December 2007 (EST)
Yeah, it happened to me once or twice too. I think it's in direct relation with moved pages. I clearly remember that I moved both the talkpage and the page itself to remove the word "retarded" myself. --Eagle of Fire 15:20, 12 December 2007 (EST)
You say the language "has no benefit." That point becomes moot because the page doesn't have benefit either, as is the case with negociator and Quern (item). I'm not going to say we were better off having it, but it wasn't worth the effort to look it up and {{del}} the bugger, nor is it worth bothering senso about to delete. VengefulDonut 00:57, 12 December 2007 (EST)
This argument doesn't make sense VengefulDonut. Let me copy and paste you the delete message when we add a del tag: This page is marked for deletion. Reasons could include a nonsense title, superfluous information, irrelevant/lack of material or the article could be outdated/duplicated.
Had the page in question have a nonsense title? Yes, you said it yourself. Does it have irrevelant or a lack of material? Yes. Is the article outdated and/or duplicated? Yes.
Isn't that way enough to warrant the delete tag?
Oh, and BTW I've just checked your two links. Negociator have it's use for a search, I've added the delete tag to Quern (item) because I think it's outdated. Probably an old redirect from another page which got fixed/removed. ;) --Eagle of Fire 15:20, 12 December 2007 (EST)
Almost every redirect merits the del tag going by the standards stated in the tag. Does this mean they warrant deletion? You might as well del Running pump with windmill, too. From the start I was just pointing out that caring about the language use is silly on such a page and that your justification for deleting it applies to a wide spectrum of pages you aren't interested in. I am not saying that the page doesn't merit deletion -- I am saying it doesn't merit deletion more than all the pages I'm sure you've passed over from time to time and decided you might as well leave alone. VengefulDonut 03:38, 13 December 2007 (EST)
I always do an edit if I think it waranted or needed. I very rarely wander on pages you're describing right now. I certainly would have no objection in deleting Running pump with windmill if you want to...
On the subject of redirect, they serve their use if the redirect page is a word which could be commonly or wrongly used for another page or item described in another page. This is mainly to prevent double pages and to make it convenient to the visiting user who's not used to the wiki. But do I really need to explain this? --Eagle of Fire 21:59, 13 December 2007 (EST)
The fact that you would consider explaining it shows the high level of regard you have for me. Amazing how language can be used to transmit venom without the use of vulgar words. In general, all of the redirects with capitalized names that are no longer linked to are useless, as noone will search for them. VengefulDonut 01:05, 14 December 2007 (EST)
I had my doubts, but now it's pretty obvious you're just trying to mess with me. I'm not amused. --Eagle of Fire 01:24, 14 December 2007 (EST)
I was talking about this with you because consistency in editing is important to me. It's your prerogative not to care what I think, but I would prefer that you don't insult me; directly or otherwise. A simple "I'm not interested in talking about this with you" gets the message accross in a much friendlier way. In any case, the message has been recieved. VengefulDonut 01:45, 15 December 2007 (EST)
Your message about how important it is to explain everything was sarcastical, right? That's how I took it anyways and I was thinking that you were refering to me in regard to the poison thing, but your very last message lead me to think it might not be the case. --Eagle of Fire 17:59, 15 December 2007 (EST)
The only time I intended to write something sarcastic in this conversation was when I pointed out the tone you used to write the 21:59 13 December 2007 (EST) comment, because things like that tend to escalate if ignored. Other than that, I was trying to convince you. I'm sorry if something I wrote came accross differently. VengefulDonut 19:20, 15 December 2007 (EST)
I apologize for stepping even close to this discussion, but links with capital letters were mentioned. I have been trying to make multiple links like Short Sword and Short sword into a link where the first letter is capitalized, and the rest are lower case. This reduces the number of red links, and hopefully makes things more standard. Should I be preforming re-directs instead? It seems like a needless complication, but I'm no wiki expert so I'll follow the lead of whoever is. --Gotthard 14:06, 14 December 2007 (EST)
What you've been doing is correct. You can also help by letting the users who made the mistake know our naming conventions. VengefulDonut 01:45, 15 December 2007 (EST)

[edit] Societal standards

I'm being serious. Murder is flat-out worse than pedophilia; there's no denying that. So how is it that jokes about the former can be acceptable, but jokes about the latter cannot? --Peristarkawan 16:50, 12 December 2007 (EST)

1) I don't agree with you. My oppinion is pedophilia is worse because then the child may be left with permanent psychological scars for the rest of his/her life, which will be long because they're children who are not experienced enough to know better. Murder is about as bad, but since the murdered person won't suffer from it anymore I'm ranking pedophilia worse. Both are unacceptable.
2) Jokes from both are unacceptable in a normal social situation. Try to make a joke about the murder of someone in front of his family, and see if they like you. Good luck with that. --Eagle of Fire 17:03, 12 December 2007 (EST)
Pedophilia can be viewed as "worse" because the victim is necessarily an innocent, whereas in a murder that is not the case. Pedophilia is, truly, not funny in the normal sense. Ephebophila, now, that's comedy gold. --Geofferic 17:07, 12 December 2007 (EST)
1) I'm sorry, but if I had the choice of being molested/raped as a child or being murdered, I would choose the former without hesitation. If it's truly worse to suffer from the trauma then to be dead, well, they can always just commit suicide. But I seriously doubt that's the case (fortunately, I wouldn't know first-hand).
2) Yes, jokes about specific crimes can be very offensive. Since we're not talking about specific crimes, I don't see how that's relevant. In any case, your statement that both are unacceptable, while completely contradicted by the media in my opinion, differs from the statement I was responding to, so I retract my question.
Ephebophilia: That's a good point. I was previously unaware of the distinction, and in fact usually when I think of pedophilia, it's actually ephebophilia that I'm thinking of (who wants to think about real pedophilia? That's creepy!). I'll keep that distinction in mind in the future. --Peristarkawan 17:30, 12 December 2007 (EST)
Well I wasn't making a personal judgment call on what is or is not the worse crime. I was speaking from a societal point of view. Pedophilia could easily be seen as a "worse" crime societally - and I'm, again, not making my personal judgment here. I'd just as soon avoid murder and pedophilia, period. Of course, since we're truly talking about murder versus ephebophilia - I would think the latter is far "preferred" societally - and not even criminal all the time. --Geofferic 19:03, 12 December 2007 (EST)
1) Unfortunatly, the whole point of a murder or pedophilia act is that you don't really have a say in the matter. Furthermore, if you really go to the lenght of suiciding after suffering from pedophilia, the end result is then exactly the same than an improved or move vicious murder. Which is why I rank it worse. :P --Eagle of Fire 17:55, 12 December 2007 (EST)
That makes no sense. If you're molested, you have the choice of living with the trauma or committing suicide (not that I advocate the latter). If you're murdered, you have no choice whatsoever. --Peristarkawan 18:05, 12 December 2007 (EST)
Suiciding is something else. I was refering to the pedophilia and the murder acts concerning the "no choice" comment, not suicide. --Eagle of Fire 18:12, 12 December 2007 (EST)
Since we're getting all technical about terminology, I'd like to point out that pedophilia is not a crime. It's a sexual orientation. It's acting on the urge (pederasty) that is the crime.—0x517A5D 18:33, 12 December 2007 (EST)
I realize that. My point is that choices made lead to new choices. The only exception to that is the choice to end a life, which closes off future choices. Life isn't fair, and sometimes our choices get made for us. Sometimes those forced choices can be quite nasty. But a person who is violated but not murdered still has plenty of choices: how they are going to cope, whether they will seek justice, whether they will have spaghetti or tuna salad for dinner, what they will study in school, what they will name their children, how they will spend their retirement, etc. A person who is murdered has none of those choices; the act of ending their life robs them of all their choices, not just one. You talk as if none of those other choices matter in light of the one choice that the molested person didn't get, yet they're the same choices that everybody is faced with. In my view, a person who accepts that effectively has committed suicide, whether they're still physically alive or not. --Peristarkawan 18:48, 12 December 2007 (EST)

[edit] Language

We still use it ... PEBKAC.  ;) --Geofferic 03:30, 12 December 2007 (EST)

What does the E stand for? --Eagle of Fire 15:20, 12 December 2007 (EST)
"Exists". I've never even heard PIBKAC before. lol I suspect they're regional? Wikipedia redirects PIBKAC to PEBKAC, fwiw. --Geofferic 16:22, 12 December 2007 (EST)
Probably regional, as english is not my native language. It would simply refer as "is" in my version. E and I are phonetically exactly the same in french VS english, this is probably the reason of the difference. --Eagle of Fire 16:38, 12 December 2007 (EST)
Oh now that makes perfect sense. How would one say "Eagle of Fire" in French? And are you speaking Algerian, Swiss, Quebecois, Parisian, etc? What dialect do you have? --Geofferic 17:09, 12 December 2007 (EST)
My native language is french, I speak québéquois as the "subculture". Normal québéquois dialect I think, no special accents and the like. At least I don't know we have a name for it. I'm near Montréal, so if there is a name it should be related to that area.
Eagle of Fire end up being a name, my name when I'm on the internet. Which mean that if we follow french conventions, we'd (try to) say it exactly like in english. Literal translation would be "Aigle de Feu", which mean exactly the same thing than in english: an eagle made of fire. Related information: Phoenix (Phénix)[[1]] --Eagle of Fire 17:24, 12 December 2007 (EST)

While we are on the subject of language, I'd like to thank everybody who did a grammar check on my edits. In the past and in the future. It is a great incentive to contribute to this wiki for someone like me which english is not his native language when, even when you know that what you add is or may not be gramatically correct, some people are always there in the end to correct the pitch. Thanks. --Eagle of Fire 22:10, 13 December 2007 (EST)

[edit] Its VS It's

Could someone explain me the difference and why it is better to write its instead of it's in some circumstances? I'd appreciate it. --Eagle of Fire 01:35, 23 December 2007 (EST)

"Its" is the possessive form of "it", while "it's" is a contraction of "it" and "is". It's an elephant. Its eyes are bloodshot. Klada 01:57, 23 December 2007 (EST)
Thanks. --Eagle of Fire 02:24, 23 December 2007 (EST)

[edit] Template:version

The version template is a bit different now as someone wanted to be able to easily mark pages with old versions as out of date. This should make the usage a bit clearer:

VengefulDonut 13:09, 2 January 2008 (EST)

[edit] Image:Raynard whirlpool housing.png

Hey this is a really cool appartment design. I might just have to steal it for my new level of accomodation! Population is going up that quick that my basic square is filling up.

Biggest problem is getting rid of the leftover rock so people can move furniture in and close doors... :( GarrieIrons 04:33, 13 January 2008 (EST)

Try creating a nearby dump and manually designate (k-d) all the rock from the area for dumping.--Maximus 16:13, 13 January 2008 (EST)
Now that I'm using this, anyone got a screenshot of what a noble appartment complex should look like? The rooms don't ajoin each other neatly :( Garrie 09:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] *notices grey-on-black DF personality-screen-like description*

Try these tags. --Savok 13:44, 6 February 2008 (EST)

Thank you. :) --Eagle of Fire 14:02, 6 February 2008 (EST)
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Toolbox
Advertisement