User talk:Dparvin15337

just wondering about loot system

two questions:

1. are you going to change what Guild:Casual Gamerz (Sen'jin US)#Loot Distribution says? currently, it still shows what you did when we had 40 mans... which we don't have now. :)
2. also, how does SK work out for you? i've read up on it before, but never really seen feedback about the system--Sky (t · c · w) 22:30, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

bcarticle -> bc

I'd just wait until a bot can get around to it, instead of paining yourself by going over every article which uses the template. :] --Sky (t · c · w) 18:49, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

See Project:BR --User:Adys/Sig 23:25, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Left alignment looks ugly

Not really sure why you've moved images on boss pages to the left, but now it looks pretty messy; text is squashed between image and ToC... so I'll be moving them back. User:Kiltek/Sig 04:43, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Hmm... actually, now that I've reverted Big Bad Wolf it seems that neither look very good. So I did some jigging around on the page, and found that the TOC has a huge fault; you can't wrap text around it. When you try, you'll end up getting header lines going through it and all sorts of other CSS mess! Try previwing a page edit on a boss page without the TOC, using - see how much better it looks? Perhaps we could put something in the village pump to suggest TOC being taken away from all boss pages, since most of them have identical content anyway... User:Kiltek/Sig 04:55, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

I moved them to the left because about half of the boss ones had it on the right and half on the left and I was trying to get the menu of all the bosses to show in the same spot so you could just go down the list and read the first paragraph or two without having to scroll to the menu which was in different places on different pages. I was trying for a little more consistancy between the pages and this seemed the best way. I actually would love for someone to get better pictures for some of the bosses, but that is a different issue. User:Dparvin/Sig 14:41, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Keep it on this page, I have it on watch so will be alerted anyway - you might like to check out User:Kiltek/Dev - I've been playing around with the NPC Box, as well as the layout of boss pages in general. Thus far I've found it impossible to be able to get the content box, the instance box and the NPC box to play nicely together, as well as get the text to wrap around all the boxes nicely. I think it has something to do with how the wiki is designed, but my only solution so far has been to remove the Table of Contents box and move the NPC box to the right... User:Kiltek/Sig 10:20, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

I like what you are doing with the NPC box. I looked at the design of the old one and noticed there was no way to change what side of the screen the box was placed. I also noticed that there was no way for me to edit it to fix this issue (and I was not sure how to anyway). I was in the process of looking for a place to talk about the issues with it when you started talking to me about it.  :) Personally, I think a set of pages that are linked with a menu system like you have on these bosses pages need to be setup with the menu showing in the same place. I did notice that with the items in the right order, for the most part the text flowed very well around the boxes in the pages. Some of what I saw before was the table of contents or something with the text below it, but if you move it to the left or right, the text flows around it. I believe that left allignment for some of this stuff looks ugly too, but it also depends on what you put on the left. Some of the pictures I did not like (like Big Bad Wolf) and others I did (like Chess event). User:Dparvin/Sig 12:20, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Check out my latest change on the Dev page, see how wrong it looks? I just don't know what's causing it! User:Kiltek/Sig 13:25, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Yah, I see the lines going behind stuff. Not sure if there is anything you can do about it. The problem is those are added by the engine itself and we don't have control of them. I think they also go under the boxes on the right, but the lines end at the edge where the boxes end too. I don't like the look, but I don't like all the extra space you leave when the text does not wrap around the boxes and instead skips the area where the boxes are. I am willing to live with the lines going behind, but if there is something that can be done behind the scenes that would be great. User:Dparvin/Sig 13:43, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Agitated Ancestors quest line

I've been updating some of the existing pages of this this quest line, the last couple of days. I appreciate the work you put in adding to it, and hope you like my modifications. Comments? --Eirik Ratcatcher 13:57, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

I like the look of them. Good work. It looks like you are almost done with them. Someday one of my horde toons will be high enough to allow me to run these quests.  :) User:Dparvin/Sig 14:19, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Some day I'll run a horde toon myself... :) For now, I look with envy on this quest line. Items get made obsolete. Cut Scenes are forever. Or at least a few minutes... :) Added a link to the quest line page. Thinking about whether a separate spoiler page would be useful, or to just put the quest series down there. Opinions? --Eirik Ratcatcher 14:35, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

I am still thinking about the link you put in. Kind of like it, not sure...  :) I think the Ring of Blood quest line needs revamped so it works the same way this one does. Do you know of any other examples of quest chains to compare to? --User:Dparvin/Sig 14:46, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

I agree that having the quest series summary as an included part of a separate page is quite useful. I wouldn't do it for small or uninteresting quest chains, too much trouble. But for "sizable" chains (Legend of Stavros, for instance), sure. The only other quest chain pages I know of is Nagrand Forge Camp quest chain, ... which I wrote myself. And that one is an earlier work, somewhere between the strict layout of the include section of Ancestors and the prose layout of Ring. :/ --Eirik Ratcatcher 15:12, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

I found Fallen Hero of the Horde which needs work too.  :) --User:Dparvin/Sig 14:50, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Yup, that's another quest chain that needs its own writeup. --Eirik Ratcatcher 15:12, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

I actually think the page that is there would work for the summary for the overall quest lines. After looking some more, it looks like this page is showing two different quest lines. One for Warriors and one that everyone gets. The horde and alliance have quests that start the main series and then both factions do the rest. So it might need two pages that split off this one for each of the two different quest chains and then all the quests layed out. I looked at a couple of the quests and all that is there is the quest box on most of them. --User:Dparvin/Sig 16:57, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Would it be a good idea to put the quest chain main pages in a quest chain category? --User:Dparvin/Sig 17:19, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

That'd be a question for IRC or the Village Pump. I don't have quite that level of courage, to do so unilaterally... --Eirik Ratcatcher 18:21, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Hmmm, I guess I see it a little differently. A wiki is a site where everyone has the right to input into the community, and my work as long as it is not vandalizm is valid. If something I do is wrong, we have ways of adressing issues. We can talk about it in places like this or even put the page to a vote, merge it with another page or breakup a page into multiple pages. Part of the beauty of a wiki is the fact that it generates structure out of chaos. People who come here bring with them information they want to share and expectations about how things should be done. I don't have a problem putting in a page and having it voted out, but I would much rather have what I do here be helpful enough that it stays around for a while. I don't have a problem making the page we talked about here, I was just wondering if you thought it would be helpful to people (including us trying to find other quest chains to work over). --User:Dparvin/Sig 19:28, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Quest Chain Category

(Let's not see all the same colon characters, shall we?) Sure. Quest Chains. I think quest chain pages belong in...

1. Category:Zone:xxxx
2. Category:Quests:xxxx (appropriate zone)
3. Category:Quest Chains:<faction> (Horde, Alliance, Neutral)

Don't think categorizing them by level will be terribly helpful, as they span a level range, and aren't so many per level. But sure, there'll eventually be enough quest chain pages to justify a category of their own.

What ya think? --Eirik Ratcatcher 15:16, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

I was only planning on the one category, Quest Chain, but I could possibly see splitting it into faction. I think most quest chains are neutral anyway. Maybe make them Horde Quest Chain, Alliance Quest Chain and Quest Chain. --User:Dparvin/Sig 22:15, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Occurs to me that factional quest chains probably aren't that useful. Might find an audience for "quests that improve faction X", but I'm not that ambitious. So for now, just "Category:Quest Chains", for the chains I'm working on. --Eirik Ratcatcher 19:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:Armor:Hands

Why did you recreate the category? It was deleted within reason ages ago. We wanted to get rid of the Armor: prefix. --User:Adys/Sig 21:49, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Hmmm, why is it that about half of them are, not hands but, chest, legs, shoulders, still armor: something? Are we getting rid of them all? I can work on getting them back the way they were. Is there some process going through and changing the other ones? --User:Dparvin/Sig 22:12, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, we are just in need of some decent names. See Project:cats2fix -User:Adys/Sig 06:14, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Quick edits

Me and Tekkub were wondering... How is it that you're doing lots of edits in a short amount of time? In any case, looks good so far!--Hobinheim (talk · contr) 18:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I have a search for what I am editing up, I click on what I want to edit, click Edit this page, paste in the text I want there, copy from the page what else I need, and then copy the line again. I then save the page and the back up to my search page again and go to the next item. It is amazing how quick you can get with it when you are doing the same thing over and over.  :) --User:Dparvin/Sig 18:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Slashes

Check your sub article slashes should be / --GRYPHON^tc 22:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

thanks, I noticed your change when I tried to edit the page I had just made. Fixing now. --User:Dparvin/Sig 22:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Re-stub

Why did you re-stub  [Leggings of Assassination]? What else do you think needs to be added to it before it's complete? - Clyde_Jr - tal_k - contri_b 19:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I did not mean to put stubs on anything that did not have stubs before. If I did (didn't look) it was by mistake. As far as what I think is missing is that about half of the pages have icons on them and half don't, this one does not and I would say it needs added. --User:Dparvin/Sig 19:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Took the stub off the page. --User:Dparvin/Sig 19:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

RE: Casual Gamerz pages?

Please read the policy on writing guild pages, and especially the points about Wikisquatting and what's not allowed when writing guild pages and its subpages. I was not the one that marked them for deletion, and I cannot blame them for following the guild policy, and so should you. g0urra[T҂C] 14:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess I am missing something. I still do not see what you are talking about. I can see possibly some of those pages like maybe the professions one being what you are talking about. Most of those pages were there for recruiting purposes, for people not in the guild to know what is going on with the guild and to have an idea of what our rules are without having to join our forums and spend time reading the pages there. I can easily setup my own Wiki if I wanted to, I have done so before. I am not trying to do any Wiki-squatting if that is your point. The not allowed list does not say anything about the information that was on those pages so I am not sure where you are coming from as far as that goes. Dparvin (talk) 14:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

It is not my concern whether you are or not capable of having a guild page with the information that you had been writing down on those pages. Having full list of "leveling groups" are not allowed as it's information mainly just of use for the guild; neither is an attunement page showing the attunements of all guild members; guild policies can be showed on your own guild site, and uploading the icons etc, again it's not WoWWiki's problem it's yours; neither is raiding progress status for all of your guild members.

TLDR: I'll quote from the guild policy again, "the intention is not to allow guilds to replace their own guild sites with WoWWiki pages".

Have a good day.g0urra[T҂C] 14:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, A full list of leveling toons? We have over 200 toons in the guild and I think there might have been 30 listed in any of the pages. Allowed says "A list of the progress your guild has made", "Whether you are recruiting or not, and who you are recruiting", "A brief summary of guild guidelines", "A list of the progress your guild has made". I guess I am not arguing about some of the pages you deleted, but some of the pages you deleted fall into these categories. I am not sure what you are talking about for Icons as I didn't upload any. Dparvin (talk) 15:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

1. A progress list means what progress in instances your guild has, for example what your guild as a whole has done. Not what each individual has done throughout their raiding history.

2. Recruitment status should be short, such as "right now we are recruiting feral druids and protection warriors", or a short table showing what need you have of each class/spec. There's no need to have a full article dedicated to class status.

3. Yes, it says brief summary of guidelines. I don't know what dictionary you have, but brief does not mean a full article. Rather keep it short with bullets in a heading.

I don't really care how many you have in your guild, be it over 200 characters, but having information like leveling teams does not belong here on the wiki, as per the guild policy. g0urra[T҂C] 18:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Great work on Inscription related articles

Just want you to know your work is appreciated. I have started a DK with Inscription in the beta, but my herbalism is not leveled enough to get too high. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 3:14 PM PST 30 Sep 2008

Thanks, I am interested in what is coming in the new patch, and there are some areas that are changing that I am not sure how we want to document them in the Wiki. I have talked about a few of them in talk pages, you can see them listed in my recent contributions. I have been playing with inscribing and enchanting on the PTR over the last few days and saw that what was here had no relation to what was actually in the game at the moment. I know that it can all change with the next patch, but it is less likely to change in large way the closer we get to release. dparvin (talk) 23:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Project:CAT

Please review Project:CAT in regards to category naming before linking to any more categories. Thanks. --Pcj (TDrop me a line!•C207,729 contributions and counting) 21:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

World Of Warcraft

Hello I'm Station7 and I have a few questions. It looks like you're the admnistrator of this site. Is World Of Warcraft a free game? How worked that with the things under your user page? Could you have more accounts (WOW), I mean? Do you have to pay for that game? I'm from The Netherlands.--Station7 (talk) 19:18, December 11, 2009 (UTC)

I forgot a question. If you make an account from WOW, will that pciture then being on the site?--Station7 (talk) 19:19, December 11, 2009 (UTC)

Template exhaustion

As I understand it, pages such as Blacksmithing recipes were having problems with template exhaustion due to everything using the {{item}} template. Switching to the {{loot}} template avoided the problem at that time. Since then, when I've had more than just a couple of items on a page, I've used the latter template to avoid getting in such problems. Thus, my use of it on {{Love is in the Air items}}. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 22:21, February 9, 2010 (UTC)

I believe you are right to a certain degree. I believe there is a limit of maybe 100 or so templates on a page, and I do not know how many more {{item}} will add to a page compare to {{loot}}, but I don't think it is so high that it would be a problem for the number used on the {{Love is in the Air items}}. I didn't change it to be insulting to you, I did it because I like it that way better.  :) I do not have a problem with it being the other way, I just tend to like the item template better. dparvin (talk) 00:13, February 10, 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion is desired

Hey, just wanted to solicit your opinion on whether WoWWiki should leave Wikia. Thanks! --Pcj (TDrop me a line!•C207,729 contributions and counting) 22:26, October 5, 2010 (UTC)