3,587
edits
Changes
→Ban: new section
==New Stuff==
I hope no one thought I was quitting with the massive purge of my articles. I requested the deletion of 25 articles (about one third were shelved projects). However, I created 63 new articles (just reached 100 articles!), which you will all agree are far superior in quality to the deleted content. I have listed all the new articles below: [[Feline (3.5e Race)]], [[Life Elemental Energon (3.5e Race)]], [[Apex (3.5e Class)]], [[Explorer (3.5e Class)]], [[Helraiser (3.5e Class)]], [[Wildknife (3.5e Class)]], [[Block Evasion (3.5e Feat)]], [[Jiu Jitsu (3.5e Feat)]], [[Fallacy (3.5e Spell)]], [[Shenanigans (3.5e Spell)]], [[Taunt (3.5e Spell)]]; [[User:Franken Kesey#Class Ability Components|Powers]] (11), [[Astral Elemental (3.5e Power)]]; [[Craft Explosives (3.5e Skill)#Explosives|Explosives]] (8); [[Future Technology (3.5e Equipment)]] (23 thus far); [[Atomic Stink Grenade (3.5e Equipment)]], [[Aaron’s Joke Kit (3.5e Equipment)]], [[Alien Galaxy (3.5e Location)]], [[Colony Ship (3.5e Location)|Colony Ship]], [[Animalized (3.5e Template)]], [[Thermalsight (3.5e Creature Ability)]], [[Craft Explosives (3.5e Skill)]], [[Feature Trading (3.5e Variant Rule)]], [[Spells Like Powers (3.5e Variant Rule)]].
I completely redid all the star ships, and gave them cleaner names. Then redid all the bots, xeno races, [[Hyperjump (3.5e Creature Ability)|Hyperjump]], [[Craft Xeno- (3.5e Skill)|Craft Xeno-]]. This was followed up by rewritting all of my classes.
Don't do it that way. It lags the wiki. Instead, put your NavBox at [[NavBox/Franken Kesey]] and put <nowiki>{{NavBoxes}}</nowiki> at the bottom of the pages. This loads the navbox on-demand, rather than on page load. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] ([[User talk:Surgo|talk]]) 19:18, 24 May 2019 (MDT)
:Just tried that on my Dag race, after creating a new navbox, and it messed up the template.--Franken Kesey 19:30, 24 May 2019 (MDT)
::It's Navboxes, not NavBoxes (my mistake). Something else isn't working there, I'll fix it. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] ([[User talk:Surgo|talk]]) 19:32, 24 May 2019 (MDT)
:::Thank you. I have been readding Navboxes back onto all my articles (since almost none have them). But it is tedious and takes time. Is there a way to add them all back with a bot (and also fix the 30 or so I have added so far)?--Franken Kesey 19:36, 24 May 2019 (MDT)
::::There, fixed. It's possible to add them back in via bot, but if you want me to bot that I won't get to it for a while. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] ([[User talk:Surgo|talk]]) 19:39, 24 May 2019 (MDT)
:::::Check out the Dag race again. Looks like the last edit broke it.--Franken Kesey 19:40, 24 May 2019 (MDT)
::::::When you click the navbox (to expand it), it states this: "No user navbox data was found. If this is your navbox, check NavBox/Franken Kesey to see if it is configured correctly. You can also message one of theAdministrators if you have any questions."--Franken Kesey 19:45, 24 May 2019 (MDT)
:::::::I fixed it. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] ([[User talk:Surgo|talk]]) 19:47, 24 May 2019 (MDT)
::::::::Just checked. It works! May take me a few days to add to all articles (and redo the ones I have done so far). But should have it all done within four days.--Franken Kesey 19:51, 24 May 2019 (MDT)
:::::::::Definitely prioritize redoing. I don't say idly that it slows down the wiki -- we've actually had it become *unusable* in the past when we had navboxes done that way. The current system evolved because of that :P [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] ([[User talk:Surgo|talk]]) 19:52, 24 May 2019 (MDT)
{{ri}}
I am open to people helping fix the articles, since it is a clarity edit. It is a lot of articles to add and fix. But I have only 138 total, which is dwarfed by some (who have made 4000+). If it is lagging things any author reading this can edit the navbox code at the bottom of the page. This may speed the process up.--Franken Kesey 19:57, 24 May 2019 (MDT)
:I'll bot edit the ones that need fixing. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] ([[User talk:Surgo|talk]]) 19:58, 24 May 2019 (MDT)
::Thank you.--Franken Kesey 20:00, 24 May 2019 (MDT)
== Rating on Blindsight and Blindsense ==
In relation to your rating [[SRD_talk:Blindsight_and_Blindsense|here]]; SRD material is not subjected to ratings and rating this is clearly a disingenuous and petty attempt to trying to get at others for your own article. We do not need you to start spreading passive aggressive behaviours elsewhere. Please remove this bad faith rating and focus on trying to prove your point with logical statements instead of petty passive aggressiveness. --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] ([[User talk:TK-Squared|talk]]) 11:12, 8 June 2019 (MDT)
:A rating which states: "...not needing spot checks to see (presumably including hidden creatures) makes this more like blindsight, and being immune to most illusions..." is being disingenuous. If spot checks are not in blindsight, then the same rational should not require them in thermalsight. Since WotC is the standard, then Fox's rating is not justified.
:Equivalency arguments are my shtick.--Franken Kesey 11:24, 8 June 2019 (MDT)
:: I am not here to argue with you, nor to hear what you have to say your "shtick" is. Your actions do not indicate that you are attempting to operate in good faith. If you continue to operate in bad faith, then further action will be taken to curtail this attitude. --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] ([[User talk:TK-Squared|talk]]) 11:33, 8 June 2019 (MDT)
:::I follow the good faith of Satanism: quid pro quo. Respect for respect, disrespect for disrespect. I always have rated off mechanics. And generally back up the why of ratings with detailed facts. An example of bad faith would be rating a bloodline as bad, because you do not like bloodlines (not because that particular bloodline was bad).--Franken Kesey 11:39, 8 June 2019 (MDT)
:::: While it is nice that you think that this is a discourse upon why you should stop trying to be passive aggressive, it is not. Your poor attempt at explaining your passive aggressive behaviour does not do anything to help your case, it simply reinforces the fact that you are attempting to be overtly edgy and spiteful in what you're doing. Please be sure to be more careful and reasoned in your attitude in future. Let's leave it at that and be done with it so that we can continue on doing things with good intentions. --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] ([[User talk:TK-Squared|talk]]) 11:42, 8 June 2019 (MDT)
:::::Will give respect for respect. As always.--Franken Kesey 11:44, 8 June 2019 (MDT)
:::::Sidenote, stating a person is passive aggressive can be itself passive aggressive. As can using a moral argument be a form of dirty warfare. But at least it is not communist.--Franken Kesey 11:48, 8 June 2019 (MDT)
==5th Edition==
I absolutely hate 5th edition. It takes away so much of the math, mechanics and flavor of 3.5 edition. It is the simple vanilla version of D&D. However, in my area nobody plays 3.5 edition any more. Which is annoying. And you cannot use a 3.5 article in a 5th edition game. Thus I can either GM another 3.5 game or join one of the literal hundreds of 5th edition games. I do not have time to GM right now -- too busy with school. Thus I am transferring stuff into 5th edition versions. This will be a slow and tedious process. But people quitting 3.5 is the ultimate obstacle. At some point, all editions will eventually lose relevance. We must stay ahead of the trend or be replaced.--Franken Kesey 07:58, 12 June 2019 (MDT)
: We are not a repository for your garbage 5e translations of 3.5 spells. If you want that, create a Google Doc. 5e has very specific balance and mechanics and we *will* be enforcing those. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] ([[User talk:Surgo|talk]]) 08:06, 12 June 2019 (MDT)
::Two of the spells were a near direct copy of 5th edition spells. Are you are stating that 5th edition is garbage.--Franken Kesey 08:18, 12 June 2019 (MDT)
::: You were shown on the talk pages by TK where the problems like. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] ([[User talk:Surgo|talk]]) 11:06, 12 June 2019 (MDT)
::::And I started fixing those problems this morning.--Franken Kesey 11:13, 12 June 2019 (MDT)
::::: Instead of nickle-and-diming articles to fix problems at a miniscule level so that they're semi-workable after dozens of edits on talk pages over a week or more, you should learn the system instead and RTFM so people don't need to help you every single time. --[[User:Ghostwheel|Ghostwheel]] ([[User talk:Ghostwheel|talk]]) 11:38, 12 June 2019 (MDT)
::::::May articles have never be accused of being written in stone. Nor should I be viewed as inactive, I have been one of the most active users on this wiki in the last few months. Thus your statement is false on both points.--Franken Kesey 11:56, 12 June 2019 (MDT)
::::::: Entirely irrelevant to what I said. Even if it's a first draft, it should be workable. Learn the rules. Play a few games, without homebrew necessarily to get a feel for the system. Then come back and create articles. Because as is, many of your 5e articles were non-sensical, used the wrong nomenclature, and were just flat out unusable in any sort of game. This should '''not''' be the case. Go RTFM and then come back. --[[User:Ghostwheel|Ghostwheel]] ([[User talk:Ghostwheel|talk]]) 12:00, 12 June 2019 (MDT)
{{ri}}
Vampiric Weapon was almost exactly the same as Vampiric Touch (much like Vampiric Blade). Energy Ray, was akin to other low level ray spells (and only usable with wildknives). If anything they were more copy and pastes of 5 edition spells, than trend-setting pages. Ghost, when parts of your argument is proven to be flat out false, the rest of it starts to lose its validity.--Franken Kesey 12:28, 12 June 2019 (MDT)
: So... what I'm hearing is, you don't have any sort of grasp on the system whatsoever, not even the barest fundamentals. TK outlined why they were unusable. I mean, look at Energy Ray now. It's... a ray... that does a 30' cone as its range... doesn't have a listed damage base... and the only person who can use it is a class that is nonexistent. Vampiric Blade is even worse. TK outlined two possibilities, but a third one (which I suspect was your intention) is even worse, yet the description doesn't outline how the spell works in the least, as TK pointed out. Seriously, stop strawmanning me and go RTFM because you obviously know nothing about the system, and it's making your articles utter unusable garbage. --[[User:Ghostwheel|Ghostwheel]] ([[User talk:Ghostwheel|talk]]) 12:42, 12 June 2019 (MDT)
== Orphaned Page ==
Due to being orphaned, one of your articles has been moved back into your sandbox [[User:Franken_Kesey/Wildknife_(5e_Class)/Spells|here]]. --[[User:Ghostwheel|Ghostwheel]] ([[User talk:Ghostwheel|talk]]) 04:13, 27 June 2019 (MDT)
== Community Opposed Article ==
Your article [[User:Franken_Kesey/Biological Reconstruction (3.5e Power)|here]] has been community opposed and thus sandboxed. --[[User:Ghostwheel|Ghostwheel]] ([[User talk:Ghostwheel|talk]]) 14:18, 29 June 2019 (MDT)
== Reverting ratings ==
You are no longer allowed to revert ratings, as you've done it in bad faith too often. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] ([[User talk:Surgo|talk]]) 15:23, 1 July 2019 (MDT)
:When a rater states they dislike X and Y in an article. And X and Y are no longer a part of the article then the rating should no longer apply to it.--Franken Kesey 15:26, 1 July 2019 (MDT)
== Ban ==
I gave you a chance because another user pleaded your case, but you just had to go and be an asshat after you were given a chance. You're gone forever, take your things elsewhere. You have a week before I start removing things. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] ([[User talk:Surgo|talk]]) 07:40, 3 July 2019 (MDT)
