User talk:Bronzebeard

Welcome to this wiki! Dwarf Fortress rapidly becomes more complicated, and we're always glad to have new writers.
Since you should try to follow wiki standards, and you probably don't know ours yet, we've made a list of basic guidelines. Note that this is a template, not a customized message for you.

• To tell us who you are when you talk, please sign your posts on discussion pages by typing --~~~~ after your posts. This can also be inserted with the button if JavaScript is enabled.
• Don't put a question mark in the title of a page. Question marks mess things up, and your page will be moved to a different name.
• When making comments on a talk page, use one more colon before each line in your comment than was used in the comment you reply to. In general, put exactly one empty line between comments by different users but do not use blank lines inside of a comment.
• Avoid making many small edits to a page. Instead, try to make one large edit. This makes the history of the page a lot easier to read.
• Don't edit the user page of another user. If you want to tell them something, add the comment to their talk page.
• If you put a comment at the bottom of a talk page with section headers, you've probably put it in a section. Putting things in the wrong sections is confusing. You can create a section!
• Generally, read and follow the rules. They're like a little constitution, except not boring! Really, read them.

"You have been processed! Go forth, now, and edit!" --Savok

Creative writing

Satyrs (or "goatmen" -- half man, half goat) are traditionally regarded as evil, cunning humanoids. With menacing (although rather human) faces, goat-like ears, sporting two back-bent horns on their heads and being half-covered in thick, dark fur (particularly on their arms and legs), they make for understandingly unwelcome guests. They revel in being thieves or tricksters, and, by extension, mischief in general (though they've not actually been reported to steal from fortresses).

Hi. This is nice writing, and the page certainly needed something. Unfortunately, about 80% of this is based off mythology and not Dwarf Fortress, and so is, to use the technical term, "wrong", with the important in-game information lacking entirely. Not evil (in fact, clearly marked "good"), not a thief (so why mention it?), and benign. Not mentioned (but visible at a glance in the file, on that same page) are that they are found in good biomes, they are not aggressive and can be extremely dangerous opponents if engaged.

You're clearly a solid writer, you just need to pull from the game rather than pure creativity. The vast majority of the wiki articles are, whenever possible, based on the game files, and if not then on independently verified and repeatable observation. Not myth, not creativity - there's certainly some room for "color", but not if/when it is counter-productive to informing newbs. You'll get the feel for it. Readya later, --Albedo 05:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Duly noted. You've my thanks, as well as my apologies (I realize I took my liberties with it but felt urged to add, as you put, something there). --Bronzebeard 20:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

NP, all good - I made similar mistakes w/ my first editing efforts, so I'm hardly in a position to stress (at least, not without being a complete hypocrite, ahem). In some (role playing) games, a "Winter Wolf" is quite unnatural - a glance at the game files shows it's just a wolf in cold weather climes, unlike, say, fire imps, iron men or grimelings, which have more than one "unnatural" trick up their sleeve. Skim over creature tokens for a bit more info on those tags and what they mean. --Albedo 20:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Gametext?

Since you've formatted your userpage akin to DF's thoughts and preferences, might I direct you to Template:Gametext? I spent some time fooling around with this last night to get my userpage looking just so. --Rowenlemmings 20:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Why, thank you! After fiddling around with the code for a bit, I think I got it (User:Bronzebeard). However, it's proven a little trickier than what I've cracked up; it won't let me begin any further header, below (maybe I'm missing some end statement to it, or something >.>). --Bronzebeard 21:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. That <!--text goes here--> markup is a comment, so you'd left an open begin-comment markup at the end of the template. I deleted the last <!-- and it shows the rest of the page now. --Rowenlemmings 21:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Hah. I've to thank you a second time! I'm, with all due honesty, a noob at wiki editing (starting... just yesterday). By the way, thank you⁽²⁾. --Bronzebeard 21:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Kobolds

The Kobold description fit exactly with the raw files. Why did you change it? --Eagle0600 11:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Err

It seems that you are so interested in defending homosexuality that you have misinterpreted my expression of an opinion on one subject as an invitation for you to tell me yours on a different one. That wasn't my intention at all, but now that we've arrived, let's see where we are.
Here you've left an argument at my doorstep about something it seems you want to convince me of. However, there's is a problem with it. You're relying on my belief in your authority on the subject, which you've made no effort to establish. In fact, your use of jargon in an non-specific way has only damaged the image of your expertise in my mind. Also, "prenatal sexual transition" with quotes has 0 hits on google, so my faith in your ability to use your own jargon correctly is also shaky.
We have a problem, then. At this point I won't be willing to just take you at your word and I don't think I'm interested enough to verify the validity of an article on the subject if you were to find one. I think these are going to be obstacles for you. So now what? VengefulDonut 07:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood my intent. I am not unhappy with you. There is no need for you to apologize. :P VengefulDonut 13:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, my questioning of what you know was not intended as a personal attack. I was pointing out a necessary step in the type of argument you are making. I am a math student, and I have been trained to make the opponent work as hard possible in an argument. I was going after the foundation of your ethos-style argument to try to make you switch to switch to a strictly logical one, which is something I'm much more comfortable with. VengefulDonut 13:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)