- v50 information can now be added to pages in the main namespace. v0.47 information can still be found in the DF2014 namespace. See here for more details on the new versioning policy.
- Use this page to report any issues related to the migration.
Difference between revisions of "User talk:Draco18s"
(Created page with '(Copied from 0x517A5D's talk page for your convenience:)<br/> I wish. I'm up in the mountains. No sand, no coal, 1 tile worth of trees (which, od…') |
|||
| (5 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | ( | + | ==Watchlist== |
| − | + | It's called "watch this page", in a tab, at the top of the page. --[[User:Briess|Briess]] 23:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC) | |
| − | :I | + | :<small>''This is in regard to your message [[Dwarf_Fortress_Wiki_talk:Real_World_Information#Thoughts|here]].'' [[User:Mason11987|Mason]] <sup>([[User talk:Mason11987|T]]-[[Special:Contributions/Mason11987|C]])</sup> 06:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)</small> |
| + | |||
| + | == Unverified information from 40d == | ||
| + | |||
| + | Please don't add information to an article unless you know it's true. We all '''suspect''' that a lot of information that was true about 40d is true about 0.31, but for most of it we don't '''know'''. So for information that '''might''' be true, look at the 40d article. For information that you're '''sure''' is true, put it in the 0.31 article. From the comments you added, it became clear that most (if not all) of the things you copy/pasted are things you '''suspect''' are true. What has this edit accomplished? You've taken dubious information from an area where it's visibly questionable (but still useful!) and copied it into an area reserved for facts. You've made it look more accurate than it really is. Please don't do that. The blank articles already link to the questionable information, so people can find it if they want to see it. The difference is that way they know the information might be inaccurate. [[User:VengefulDonut|VengefulDonut]] 02:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :Verify is plenty useful; you were just using it backwards. Stick it in when you doubt info someone else has posted, but you should never post info that you yourself doubt. Also, just because you make a mistake or two doesn't mean you're not wanted. I'm sorry if I've pissed you off - I was just trying to explain why a blank page was more beneficial to the end user in that case. [[User:VengefulDonut|VengefulDonut]] 04:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ::Based on your response, I can't tell if you don't understand what I'm saying or if you do understand and just don't like it. [[User:VengefulDonut|VengefulDonut]] 21:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC) | ||
Latest revision as of 21:53, 22 May 2010
Watchlist[edit]
It's called "watch this page", in a tab, at the top of the page. --Briess 23:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Unverified information from 40d[edit]
Please don't add information to an article unless you know it's true. We all suspect that a lot of information that was true about 40d is true about 0.31, but for most of it we don't know. So for information that might be true, look at the 40d article. For information that you're sure is true, put it in the 0.31 article. From the comments you added, it became clear that most (if not all) of the things you copy/pasted are things you suspect are true. What has this edit accomplished? You've taken dubious information from an area where it's visibly questionable (but still useful!) and copied it into an area reserved for facts. You've made it look more accurate than it really is. Please don't do that. The blank articles already link to the questionable information, so people can find it if they want to see it. The difference is that way they know the information might be inaccurate. VengefulDonut 02:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Verify is plenty useful; you were just using it backwards. Stick it in when you doubt info someone else has posted, but you should never post info that you yourself doubt. Also, just because you make a mistake or two doesn't mean you're not wanted. I'm sorry if I've pissed you off - I was just trying to explain why a blank page was more beneficial to the end user in that case. VengefulDonut 04:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- Based on your response, I can't tell if you don't understand what I'm saying or if you do understand and just don't like it. VengefulDonut 21:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)