From Wikianswers
[edit] Welcome to Wikianswers!
Welcome to Wikianswers, Fandyllic. Thanks for contributing!
There are lots of un-answered questions that you might be able to help with.
We also need help making sure new questions are suitable and are correctly spelled. You can also help by adding categories to questions .
Watch what's happening on Wikianswers on our recent changes page and tell us if you find a great answer.
If you need any help, please see the links on Where can I find Wikianswers help? or ask me on my talk page.
-- Uberfuzzy (Talk) 21:10, 10 April 2009
[edit] my wow talk page
is probably the best place to get me :-) This works ok too. Thanks Fandyllic! 67.188.115.71 02:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Nice work
Hi Fandyllic - nice work thus far (and nice clean-up of my answer to the Wikipedia question.) I saw you requested adminship over on Angela's page, just thought I'd let you know I have added a "support" note to that. Cheers Manning Bartlett 03:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Well Angela has changed her mind about your adminship, so welcome aboard!. I don't know what past actions she is referring to (and I am not interested, frankly) but if you keep up the standard of work you've been doing thus far on here you'll be fine.
As far as Admin policy and "standard practice", I'll admit that I am guilty of being too over-zealous with the delete button, and so now I'm starting to focus more on creating quality redirects. (Feel free to delete things like "ask a qexxxfgfgfgfuestion" and "Who wants to have sex with me" of course.) As for the rest of it, we'll figure it out as we go. Manning Bartlett 00:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. I think Angela was concerned by my somewhat zealous statements about Oversight possibly being abused. I would have been fine with not being an admin, but I do want to help out.
- As long as admins give the {{delete}} tag some time on a page, I'm not so worried about speedy deletes. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 5:36 PM PST 4 Jun 2009
[edit] May I possibly become a part of the community team?
is it possible?? --—Preceding unsigned comment added by !tamagirl! (talk • contribs) 11:34, 12 June 2009
- To be honest, I don't know anything about community teams at Wikianswers, if there are any. To be part of the Wikia community team, I think you have to be a Wikia employee.
- If you're asking about the WoWWiki community teams, to join go to the WoWWiki:Community teams page, look for the list of teams box in the upper right and click one of the "Join" links.
- Don't forget to sign your posts with
~~~~. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 12:39 PM PST 12 Jun 2009
Thank you for trying out the Action Panel. If you find any bugs, please them report them on the forum. Angela
- I don't yet know of any differences between browsers, but it hasn't been widely tested. Angela (talk) 23:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Re: Listed you as a WoWWiki category editor
Ya no prob. -Howbizr 17:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Maybe you didn't get a notification email? Or I didn't get notified when you declined? --◄mendel► 06:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
- Didn't get a notification. Is there a help page for this? -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 10:56 AM PST 2 Jul 2009
- No idea. I always get email notifications. The only email setting I have checked in in my preferences for this wiki is "Enable e-mail from other users". Oh wait, there is Special:UpdateProfile/preferences; you can find it if you edit your profile from your user page. --◄mendel► 18:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
- I can't figure out how you invited me in the first place. The Invite them link for me on Special:ViewRelationships doesn't work. It could be based on a pref setting, but to make a page not-exists seems strange as opposed to giving an error when trying go to the page. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 11:23 AM PST 2 Jul 2009
- Check out File:Addfriend.png - do you see the "Add as Friend" link next to Angela's avatar? That would do it. --◄mendel► 02:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Nikkitab
HEY PEOPLE WATZ UP
[edit] WoWWiki
Rolandius here from WoWWiki. I reported to Ragestorm that someone broke "WW:3RR". So, then PCJ also banned me, which makes no sense since I am the one that told Ragestorm about it in the first place. First of all, I was correcting some false info that a user put saying that the Kvaldir were also a clan. I stated that there is nothing saying that they are a clan. It says right in the article that they are a subrace of vrykul and that there is actually a clan of Kvaldir named the Skadir. PCJ then said "well you reverted 4 times". My first edit was just a normal edit. I was putting "Skadir clan" instead of the false "Kvaldir clan" because I ran into it while looking at the article. I wasn't reverting a user's edit as I do not know when that info was put in. I was just correcting something I happened to see. A few seconds later, the other user reverted my edit for the first time. I tried explaining to the user the correct info but they would not listen. I stopped my edits at 3 reverts because of "WW:3RR" — which says do not revert more than 3 times in 24 hours, while the other user reverted it 4 times. So either way, I should not have been banned. First, because the other user was putting false info. Second, because I "reverted" only 3 times and not more, which means I did not break "WW:3RR" myself. I tried explaining on my talk page that I did revert but only 3 times and not 4, but PCJ said "you can't count to 4." and then blocked me from my own talk page. Rolandius 
(talk - contr) 07:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
- I will make a partial fix. I'm going to reduce your ban time and unblock your talk page editing. Unfortunately, you did get caught in a revert war. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 12:06 AM PST 3 Jul 2009
- I thought "WW:3RR" said don't make more than 3 reverts in 24 hours? I only made 3 since my original edit was just a normal edit and it didn't revert a previous edit. So I stopped and the other user made their 4th revert which is why I told Ragestorm about it. If I had not said anything, I would not have be banned I guess. Rolandius (talk - contr) 07:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
- You should move disagreements to the forums or the talk page of the user you're disagreeing with. Also, wiki-lawyering probably won't work for you, since several admins have bad blood. You need to be extra careful. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 12:25 AM PST 3 Jul 2009
- I thought this was a simple problem since the article itself said it was a subrace, and not some clan. I guess some people just won't believe something no matter how many pieces of evidence show the answer. The forum may be a good idea since a couple of other users have helped with that recently. Some of the newer users have good ideas which for some reason some of the admins have not even considered. Rolandius (talk - contr) 02:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
- Where is this vote taking place? -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 9:41 AM PST 18 Jul 2009
You can add me, I suppose. One Without A Name 21:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
[edit] WoWWiki again
Gourra just blocked me for 3 days for "talking on my talk page". I guess "breathing" will be his next excuse in order to block me. Rolandius (talk - contr) 08:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- You were not "talking", you were trying to discuss things that really belong on the respective articles' talk pages. You've been trying it before and it's not what user talk pages are for. --Gourra (talk) 09:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, show me the rule where it says user talk pages are not allowed to be used for discussing things "that really belong on the respective articles' talk pages" or else you will be blocked. By the way, I could not use an article's talk page because I was banned. Rolandius (talk - contr) 09:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- Help:Talk pages on WoWWiki: "User talk pages are used to leave messages for a particular user." You don't do that when you make a new comment on your own user talk page. --Gourra (talk) 09:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- I still don't see where it says users are not allowed to comment on their own talk pages or even that users will be blocked for commenting on their own talk pages. Rolandius (talk - contr) 09:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- I thought you would understand what was quoted, but I'll explain it for you: the user talk pages are used to leave messages for a particular user. That means that if someone has something to discuss with you, that user will leave a message on your user talk page. That means that it's only used for that. It does not say "User talk pages are used to leave messages for a particular user or for the particular user to write whatever he wants on it". The commenting thing that you are doing is when you make a new section, whether it is by editing your user talk page manually or you pressed the "Comment" button at the top. I didn't mean that it would be you commenting on a message that someone left for you.
- Again, you've done this before, but it seems you haven't learned your lesson, and that's why you've been blocked for another 3 days. --Gourra (talk) 09:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- First off, how would a user even respond to someone on their own talk page if they are not allowed to write on their own talk page? Secondly, that is a help page. It says nothing about users being blocked for writing on their own talk page. Try again. Rolandius (talk - contr) 09:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- Most of the time when you're blocked you use your talk page to add things that you want to talk about, not to respond to people who add to your talk page. Secondly, does it have to be on a Policy page for you to follow it? Help pages are more or less the same as policy pages, and if you don't follow them, then it's your problem. Try again. --Gourra (talk) 09:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- Well my adding things that I want to talk about helped because I saw some people fixing some articles that I had just commented on in my talk page. Also, help pages are not "more or less the same as policy pages". Help pages are something that a user can look at in order to "help" them on a given subject. That is different than WoWWiki policy rules that can get you blocked if you break them. How are help pages just like policy pages when I was told that guideline pages are not even the same as policy pages? Try again and then again. Rolandius (talk - contr) 10:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- May I offer an independent opinion? When you've been blocked, that usually means you are disallowed from partaking in the normal affairs of the wiki. You retain access to your talk page so you can respond to questions and offer your side of the controversy; if you're using that to influence how the wiki is edited, in my view you are stretching the bounds of your block.
- The second observation is that wikis do not, as a rule, run a fully-fledged legal system; a lot of what goes down is unwritten or gets created on the spot, and the administrators are trusted to do so responsibly. If this has happened to you, try to understand what they are doing; "wikilawyering", i.e. arguing what may or may not be written down, gets you nowhere fast. --◄mendel► 10:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for expressing your opinion. Hopefully this will make it clearer. --Gourra (talk) 10:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- Help pages are in no way more or less like policy pages. That is a false assertion with no basis in fact. Help pages may refer to policy, but have a totally different intent. Of course what mendel doesn't know is that Rolandius has also been prevented from editing his talk page several times (hence why this discussion is going on here, when it probably shouldn't be) with no good reason given. Many of the points that were made are based on things like policy which are written down. Also, out-of-context commentary isn't always appreciated. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 5:07 PM PST 9 Jul 2009
- So am I blocked for an extra 3 days? I forgot to mention that you had said on my talk page "If you get blocked again, I expect an entry at WW:V explaining why with a link to the offense." but if you look on WW:V there is no mention, let alone reasoning, for my new 3 extra day block. Rolandius (talk - contr) 03:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- You're unblocked now. You were also blocked from editing your talk page, which was unnecessary. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 12:59 PM PST 10 Jul 2009
- It says I am still blocked.
- Start of block: 23:53, 9 July 2009
- Expiry of block: 23:53, 10 July 2009
- I can just wait though. Rolandius (talk - contr) 03:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- out-of-context commentary isn't always appreciated -- I'd even go as far as to say it is very rarely appreciated, although it can be very useful to those who do. ;-) --◄mendel► 11:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- Okay let me correct my statement: out-of-context commentary isn't always helpful. In this particular case, it is actually unhelpful. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 12:57 PM PST 10 Jul 2009
- See, I suspect it's been unhelpful because my views don't coincide with yours. They don't coincide with your admins', either. Which means that there might be a way for me to be helpful if you so desire. --◄mendel► 01:51, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- You sort of have to know some of the history behind this too mendel. These same people have gotten mad at me for just correcting spelling and grammar if you can believe it. Rolandius (talk - contr) 03:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I can believe that, and the fact that you don't understand why shows that you still have something to learn, notwithstanding your good intentions. --◄mendel► 07:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- Your statements show how little you know of the situation and how you've managed to draw false conclusions from the little information you do have. Your "wise man" attitude doesn't help your cause either. It just makes you seem pretentious. Go visit WoWWiki and do some reading. Then you can come back and enlighten me. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 11:02 AM PST 13 Jul 2009
- I noticed that some of the articles I made in my "sub pages" are being created on the main page by other users. I don't mind of course, but I am just wondering why some of the admins told me it was not worthy of an article but now they are letting other users make them? If they think my articles were so bad, they sure have a short memory. Rolandius (talk - contr) 10:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure why, but PCJ is reverting some of edits that say "Race: Human" back to the incorrect "Race: Necromancer". He also does not put anything in the edit commentary. On Category: Necromancers, he reverted my edit with no reason and all the stuff I did in my edit was true info. Necromancer is a Prestige class in the RPG but he took that category out. I tried to correct the spelling of "Necromancer" in a sentence to "necromancer" but he put it back in capitals. Not all necromancers are undead, but he put the Undead category back in. In WoW, "Necromancer" is an NPC title but he removed that category also. Rolandius (talk - contr) 05:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- I'll take a look, but Pcj does a lot of things that don't always make sense and that he can't always explain well. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 8:23 AM PST 17 Jul 2009
- Evidently, they are now voting to permaban me because they want to keep things like "Necromancer" as a race, take a year to fix pages like I found last night, etc. They also wrote "this vote is declared exempt from voting policy requirements of a winning margin of five". meaning they don't want to follow the rules so that they can get rid of me quickly. They also linked to this site as evidence against me when this is where I am supposed to write to you. We might as well use the things they say in IRC which is 10 times worse than anything I ever said about anyone. Rolandius (talk - contr) 05:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- Since the rules were changed on how this proposal becomes ratified, what is the rule on how this proposal becomes rejected? Is it open for a year? A week? Rolandius (talk - contr) 09:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- They decided to break the rules, so I doubt they will be fair about enforcing other parts of the rules. You should appeal to Kirkburn. He's the only person they will listen to. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 9:44 AM PST 21 Jul 2009
- Well the voting has been open for 6 days now. Since I am not sure what the deadline is then it could be open forever. I think someone mentioned that it should end at 7 days in the rules? I am guessing an admin has to close it as ratified or rejected since it was not created by regular users. Rolandius (talk - contr) 02:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- Like I said, since the rules aren't really being followed, there is no guessing how it is going to work. It's a sham anyway. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 8:00 PM PST 23 Jul 2009
- I was just wondering if my continuing contributions is a waste if I am going to be banned any day now or if it is good since there is a chance I will not be banned. Rolandius (talk - contr) 04:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- Depends on how you look at it. Your contributions aren't a waste of time, but you could be banned any day now. I'm seriously thinking of making a competing wiki to WoWWiki (although it sounds somewhat futile) in order to get away from this cabal of admins. I will start a campaign to get you re-instated if some key admins leave or become inactive. The whole campaign is basically bullshit. If you look at the proposed ban/block policy based on Wikipedia, admins have broken half the rules on that policy. Trying to ban you is similar to a coup. They don't want to follow the rules or change them, so they make them up and use their majority to cram what they want through. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 9:07 AM PST 24 Jul 2009
- Well, I could see how this voting would be correct if I was an actual vandal. A lot of the reasoning behind the voting thing though does not make sense. 1.) They said I make bad articles, yet a lot of my denied articles are showing up on the main pages of WoWWiki. 2.) They said some of my articles were too short so they were put into other articles, yet I see some users making short articles or moving short articles from bigger articles into their own articles now which I had created in the first place. 3.) They said I make red links here and there, yet the top 37 "Broken links / Wanted pages" are Warcraft III articles, which I sure didn't make, and each of those broken pages has around 115 links which is 37 pages multiplied by 115 links. I guess they don't know what a "kangaroo court" looks like. Rolandius (talk - contr) 03:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- "Kangaroo court" — perfect characterization of what is happening. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 7:47 PM PST 25 Jul 2009
- Especially with the rules. Pretty much the wording says that the "proposal" has no way to fail and will just stay open until it is ratified. Rolandius (talk - contr) 10:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- Well, a date has been finally set when the vote "ends". Almost 3 weeks after. Of course, now they have changed the rules for the nth time. Instead of a simple majority of "active admins", they are saying it passes if it is a simple majority of "active admins who also vote". So pretty much you could have 1 admin vote yes and 0 no and it would pass as a simple majority. Not sure what math that comes from. Rolandius (talk - contr) 02:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- I find it ironic that one of the things PCJ has said is that I hardly listen to admins. Meanwhile, he doesn't listen to anything anyone says no matter if they a bureaucrat. Rolandius (talk - contr) 07:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- That was an interesting voting process. I like PCJ's quote "The majority of the administration" like that is true. It was more like a minority of active admins and a smaller minority of total admins. Rolandius (talk - contr) 01:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Wikianswers milestones
Thanks, Fandyllic, for all your help and your 3,211 edits here on Wikianswers. You have been a big part of this wiki's growth and this week we reached 200,000 questions and 50,000 answers.
Thanks, Angela (talk) 15:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Wiki userpage vs. userpage
Are Wiki userpages the same as the regular userpages on here? Rolandius (talk - contr) 00:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
[edit] A Great Page
Hi Fandyllic,
I stumbled across this page just yesterday,
and am glad I did. It's such a great way to share
answers about Christianity and
related ideas. I will be honored to assist in
any way that I can.
Regards,
Jdgray 13:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
[edit] New groups on Wikianswers
Hi Fandyllic. Administrators are now called Supervisors. Supervisors can rollback and delete but can not block users. There's also a new group called Managers that can block, protect, and make users into supervisors. Would you also like to be in this new managers group or would you prefer to be a supervisor only? Please let me know here Angela (talk) 08:39, October 21, 2009 (UTC)
- I decided to be a Supervisor. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 1:16 AM PST 17 Nov 2009
(talk - contr) 07:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
