User talk:Höhlenschreck

squirrels hidden in cages?

Could that be a bug? It's not that I've never seen it, it's that I've never heard anything remotely like "animals being hidden in cages". (Better to reply on the Gray squirrel‎ page.) --Albedo 23:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Lake article

Tower-caps will grow in an underground pool, providing a safe wood source. 

What exactly do you mean by this? "In" the pool? Perhaps another awkward choice of words. Also, the choice of the word "safe" in the context of an underground pool (and what creatures are usually found there) is arguable.--Albedo 23:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought this was precise enough since it is rather common knowledge and given in detail under tower cap, which i linked. I felt it was inappropriate to only talk of the dangers, not the benefits. But feel free to edit, of course.--Höhlenschreck 23:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no "common knowledge" in a wiki - that's the point, not to assume that readers know that a TC cannot be grown in water. I will, thanks.--Albedo 23:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

"Cave River"?

In your River edit, where did you find the term "cave river"? In the game the announcement is "underground river". --Albedo 06:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

check my edit and the article - i did not put it there. I'm fine with kicking it out --Höhlenschreck 19:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see now - I missed that it had already been used. But it's not the same thing - it's when an UG river passes thru a cave, two features at once. I'll edit it to make that clear - my bad.--Albedo 00:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment on style

See WP:Weasel for a guide on certain types of phrasing that are better avoided. VengefulDonut 02:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Good style advice in general. However, if this is referring to H's recent edit to skeletal giant eagle, I think this is one case where the weaseling is not inappropriate. While SGE's may be brutally scary, they may not be a dealbreaker for everyeone - thus "some players" advise quitting then and there, but not all agree, nor should follow that advice. Many such "DO THIS" comments in articles could use such qualifying.--Albedo 03:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The number of people doing something is never an argument for it's validity. VengefulDonut 15:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

This is not the en WP - they would probably "shut down" this place. (Well, the german WP at least, the english one has been going down the drain so long now..) Only our rules apply (which you should know better than me as a noob). Like OR is okay. And pure opinion - as there was on eagle - should explicitely worded like that, so the player may see that it is NOT facts. A D for dwarf would be okay prob. too, cos it made me at least laugh. --Höhlenschreck 09:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

If an article has BS in it and you want to let people know that it's BS, putting weasel words into it isn't the best approach. Weasel phrasing is always bad in a factual article. If it seems that such phrasing is appropriate, then the article is not a factual one and shouldn't pretend to be one. VengefulDonut 15:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

PS: This is not wikipedia, but some good practices have been borrowed. See Rule S.

Well, i think in this case its absolutely fine - its a opinion of many but not all and good advice. And like I said it also qualifies for D. To be further nitpicking, weasel is not one of the officially borrowed practises under S ;) Of course you also noticed what the wording was before, and if u think its BS why did you not remove it? --Höhlenschreck 03:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Exploits

See talk:exploits. VengefulDonut 17:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

that is valid and verified information - your edit borders on vandalism - 

"Vandalism"?! Oh, please - you sound like a precocious child who just learned a big, new word and doesn't really know what it means or how to use it. Here, do us all a favor, look it up: Wiki definition of vandalism. Stop embarrassing yourself.

re-add your valid edits yourself please)

That's sad, because that is vandalism, but on your part - knowingly removing information you know is correct because you are too lazy or pissy to include it. Please stop, or you will be reported.--Albedo 17:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Through use of personal attacks, you have made it clear that you really dislike this person. Somehow, I doubt this helps at all in what you're trying to accomplish. (Which is supposedly the betterment of the wiki.. right?) VengefulDonut 18:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

"borders on vandalism"; You were hiding a revert under a misleading summary. Afterwards you admitted on the disc that you never did actually check on the topic...once again you were acting overhasty --Höhlenschreck 21:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Not needed here

I was mainly meaning that his stupid "throw your nobles into chasms" part wasn't needed, as you may note I did keep the part on sand, but reworded it a bit to sound less stupid compared to what he had put in. Shardok 22:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

We have basically the same thing in the mandate article, smth similar in noble and several others. I don't mind either way. --Höhlenschreck 21:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)