User talk:Deldda Kcarc

my alternate Damage article layout
User:PanSola/Damage. I don't intend to just overwrite your hard work. I'm also not certain if my top-down approach is actually better or worse than your bottom-up way. I started from one version of the damage article, then just kept modifying it, and also added newer concepts (or terminology, such as DShift) from your later revisions into my own version. Anyways, take a look from time to time, and see if any aspects of it you feel like incorporting into the current Damage article. My edits on the current Damage article will mostly concern actual equations or wording and stuff. I'll leave the approach/layout alone (-: -PanSola 08:14, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your message and for keeping me honest. I am not sure myself if one format or the other is better. Indeed, some of this depends on what the reader wants or expects from such an article, and I don't claim to be anywhere near wise enough to guess the mindset of a reader. However, I will make one remark if you don't mind -- I think that you are being too modest in not making the structural changes to the Damage article itself. At the very least it distributes possibly relevant information into disparate areas of the wiki. Certainly I don't object to anything you've suggested or implemented so far, and if you're worried about getting into a fight over anything, please be at ease. I'm a seasoned Wikipedian and know how these collaborative things work. Best to be bold. &mdash; Deldda Kcarc 09:17, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Rest assured to know that if I felt my format is better, I would have implemented it without asking your opinion d-: But because I'm not sure which structure would work better, I just kept my own version and update it.  Some of the additional information I added in my experimental article and not in the official one was just because I was lazy and don't want to type the same thing (but differently to fit the structure) twice d-:  Which is also partly why I dropped you the above note: so any information I added to my experimental article and not in the official, you can do it d-:  See how lazy I am? q-: -PanSola 09:28, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Bots
I'd appreciate it if you explain how to make one. My main objective is a bot that will replace a word with a word or a sentence with a sentence. Is that even possible. That would make corrections much easier. --Karlos 04:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * More than possible, it's actually easy. You have to wait until I get to my work computer before I can dig up the bots I wrote for Wikipedia, but in the meantime you might peruse the Python wikibot sources. My bots were all minor tweaks to that. &mdash; Deldda Kcarc 04:46, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Unlinking missing article
Why did you unlink Dragon? If it's missing, then leaving it red will entice someone to fill in the article. If it's unlinked, no one will. I'll revert that change. Glint IS a dragon (even if she belonged to the Forgotten) and her facets are dragons too. --Karlos 09:29, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * It was filled in by some kind soul and brutally deleted before it could be made to shine. Unlinking is my protest to the near absence of debate about deletion in this Wiki. But feel free to do whatever you please. &mdash; Deldda Kcarc 09:33, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * It was filled by an article on BONE Dragons. And if you feel there is an abuse of deletion, bring it to the attention of others. Thanks. --Karlos 11:33, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Bone dragons are dragons, and incidentally, already done. Check out Talk:Dragon. &mdash; Deldda Kcarc 11:34, 23 November 2005 (UTC)