Personal tools

User talk:HonoredMule

From Arcanum Illyria

Jump to: navigation, search




  • Disambiguation text (the clarification in parentheses) is only to be used when the title is actually ambiguous. If something has a completely unique name (like Skinner's Guild), then there should be nothing else in the title. The chart is a sub-page of the page for the building, so the charts you created with disambiguation titles don't even get included in the building's page. They'll need to be moved to match the name of the parent page. --HonoredMule 14:25, 27 March 2014 (ADT)
  • On a side-note, on the building charts pages...I made charts for all buildings that didn't have a chart, but in my eagerness to get it done, i made the first one without the (city structure) on it Leather Armourer/Chart, but I noticed that the Skinner's Guild/Chart doesn't have the extra () on it either, so I just went with the (city structure) on the rest of them, not sure which one is preferred?--G0DsDestroyer 23:39, 3 March 2014 (AST)
  • Yeah if you want to. Worst comes to worse there's always an undo button! Would I just need to edit the resource table or is there more to it than that? Want to make sure I'm not only doing part of what needs to be done.--G0DsDestroyer 13:37, 3 March 2014 (AST)
  • Yes I believe that's correct. Extending the resource table to handle them will be quite a nightmare. If you want to give it a try, I can increase your privileges so you can edit locked templates. --HonoredMule 16:49, 2 March 2014 (AST)
  • Looking at the infobox for trade units, they don't display any of the cost portions for trade units? Is that because the new items(herbs, minerals, hides, etc) aren't in the wiki?--G0DsDestroyer 15:55, 25 February 2014 (AST)
  • Looks like pretty decent work. Templates tend to need a lot of tweaking and screwing around, but luckily trade units don't need very complex logic (like others that have to strip disambiguation from labels and level numbers from links, etc.). It'll be good to have some people around familiar with that field of horrors. --HonoredMule 11:03, 25 February 2014 (AST)
  • Well I decided to try my hand at making a Template:Infobox Trade Unit‎‎ template, I'm sure it needs lots of fixing, as I've little to no experience with them.--G0DsDestroyer 15:39, 13 February 2014 (AST)
  • Ha, didn't think anyone was still alive here! Had some free time so I came here to see if I could do some work, and hopefully not screw anything up, been awhile since I've done this. As you can see I changed the trade stuff all around, hoping to finish up the trade units page stuff sometime within the month, only problem is there's no trade unit infobox template, so either I use the Special one or is there one out there I don't know about that would work better( I made a demo of a trade unit infobox on my discussion page if that's at all helpful)?--G0DsDestroyer 23:18, 11 February 2014 (AST)
  • The military unit page Warden doesn't appear to show the build time?--G0DsDestroyer 20:31, 1 April 2013 (ADT)
  • Just another quick note, Heroism, Break Spear Wall, Cover, Avoid Charge, and Sword Mastery are incomplete because I'm unclear as to how much of a bonus is applied per level, and I've been told that it differs based on the unit, so If you have more knowledge on that and can complete then that would be great.--G0DsDestroyer 12:24, 6 December 2012 (AST)
  • I see I made a few errors! There was a reason i was putting off the Commander Upgrades, just a comment, looks like there's an Agile Defence and an Agile Defence (commander skill) page, so I'm thinking there should only be one. Also the commander skills are categorized under commander skills and then Defensive skills, Seasoning skills, Offensive skills, and Discipline Skills and the skills were put in the categories according to the original technology that needed to be researched. At the moment, Defensive skills is the only category. I'm just wondering if you'd want to make four different categories for that or eliminate it.--G0DsDestroyer 10:54, 6 December 2012 (AST)
    • Check the source for those pages. Agile Defence is actually just a mirror of the disambiguated page. This is an alternative I often use instead of a standalone disambiguation page when there are only two things and they're very closely related anyway and one page is typically more useful/commonly desired than the other--it saves clicking through a non-content page. (Note: this does mean the source page needs to have its category inclusion wrapped in <noinclude> tags.) And yes, four different (sub)categories based on the same set of research subtrees is, I believe, a good way to go. --HonoredMule 15:34, 6 December 2012 (AST)
  • The Agile Defense page needs to be changed/moved to Agile Defense and the Phalanx Formation page needs to be changed/moved to Agile Defense. Apparently they changed the commander skill Phalanx Formation to Agile Defense when I wasn't paying attention.--G0DsDestroyer 12:41, 3 December 2012 (AST)
  • The Geology page should be renamed Geology (sovereignty research), since there's a Trade research with the same name. Foraging also has the same problem should be Foraging (sovereignty research).--G0DsDestroyer 16:04, 30 October 2012 (ADT)
  • I'm assuming, since you put them in, that with any new researches, you'll want the previous and next fields put in? Slowly plugging away getting info for any buildings I can. Someone was saying that some of the info for the biome buildings disappeared, someone move or delete that or was it just wrong? Also with the building charts page, where some of the charts have a ? after the numbers, is that because it might be incorrect or someone forgot to take it out, an example would be the Runemaster's Grounding chart.--G0DsDestroyer 00:44, 21 June 2012 (ADT)
    • The next and previous links (for research items, anyway) build a chain of progression that only makes sense when the researches follow just such a chain and provide a progression of incremental improvements to something. The problem comes when people try to use them everywhere not understanding the scope of their purpose, which is why they're not used at all right now--but they are intended to be used eventually which is why it's easiest to just include them now at least when the research actually fits the pattern being described.--HonoredMule 01:01, 21 June 2012 (ADT)
    • The question marks indicate values that need to be verified for some reason or another. The Runemaster's Grounding chart in particular is one that hasn't yet been converted to the new table format, so no one is even capable of verifying its values. I've been working on doing the chart conversions though, and I'm nearly through them all now.--HonoredMule 01:01, 21 June 2012 (ADT)
  • Good evening. First timer here. I made the chart in Marksman's Somnolence which did not belong there, but under the belonging building Archer's Field. HonoredMule deleted my work midway without me knowing about where to find his comments on why. I do know. Luckily I had my script backup, so I have now created the page for Archer's Field. I hope this is appreciated and approved in terms of quality and correct placement. Miradamian
    • Please note I would have relocated your work instead of deleting it, except that most of the numbers in the chart were wrong anyway. As it is, the chart itself is still in the wrong place (should be a subpage that can be included multiple places) and there are various formatting discrepancies, but I'm happy to correct such details myself. Note that most of the correct numbers are already available at Building Charts#Archers' Field. --HonoredMule 20:02, 19 March 2012 (ADT)
  • Hopefully back to get some work done here. Haven't had time to get on here for quite some time. Quick question: Do you have anything in the spells templates for the range of the spells? The base range of them, going into the race and seasonal bonus might get messy.--G0DsDestroyer 23:58, 30 December 2011 (AST)
    • I don't believe so, but I can add something. --HonoredMule 02:43, 31 December 2011 (AST)
    • Spells sidebar template now accepts range input. --HonoredMule 15:36, 2 January 2012 (AST)
  • There is a Runes page and a Runes (school) page, they are both the same thing, and i just checked and it's the same for Geomancy & Geomancy (school) and Blights & Blights (school). Should one be deleted or is there a reason for having two of them? And then there's the Category pages for all three schools which look to be the same.--G0DsDestroyer 21:10, 20 October 2011 (ADT)
    • Take a look at the source of those pages. The actual content is not duplicated, but transcluded. Take Runes for example: there is Runes (school) and Runes (research) both of which are separate pages with non-ambiguous content. Because the ambiguous label (Runes) applies to two items that are related to each other, the way to handle the disambiguation page Runes is to transclude the content of the more popular/useful page, and the way to handle the content pages is to have them interlink each other as "related." You may also notice that Runes is in the hidden category Category:Disambiguation pages. As with any other disambiguation page, this should not be linked directly, and any such links will appear in Special:Disambiguations. The future potential exists for a third concept to appear labeled as Runes, at which point the disambiguation page would be updated to be a list of links to other articles like the normal case (and nothing else would need to be changed). I did mess around with the format a bit to ensure that only the original non-ambiguous article titles get included in the various categories as well (i.e. the noinclude tags around the category listings on the transcluded Category:Runes and in turn the Runes (school) page). --HonoredMule 21:46, 20 October 2011 (ADT)

  • A question on the Magic spell pages, do you want a usefulness part to every spell page? and which category do you want the spells to be linked to? I'm guessing the answer will depending on what gets done with the three pages that i spoke of above.--G0DsDestroyer 21:36, 20 October 2011 (ADT)
    • The actual article content need not be as rigidly defined. Ultimately there will likely be a common set of sections, but not every article will have every section. I'm not really sold on the title "Usefulness" either, but couldn't think of anything better at the time. My first concern is to say what can be said that will help readers understand anything of importance. After that, whatever content exists should be appropriately sectioned for the sake of organization rather than growing walls of text. In some cases there just won't be anything valuable to add, and in those cases it's best not to attempt meeting some textual quota. For example, what little there is to say about the Runes applies to the school, while there's really nothing at all to say about the research except that it unlocks the school. --HonoredMule 21:46, 20 October 2011 (ADT)

  • Alright, most of the magic research is done, I'll be getting to the other ones soon enough. For the new magic researches, I put them in the magic research tree, not sure if it's the best way to put them in, but I tried. Also i just looked at the Sovereignty research pages and it looks like they need some cleaning up. And with the Military Research/Skills, are you keeping the skills and research separate or are you combining them? As with Break Spear Wall, which is on the Military research page, it is a skill. And there's Agile Defense, which is a research, but doesn't show as linked on the Military page because I have the in game spelling of defence, not sure if you want the page changed or the research for that one. And with the military researches there will also have to be a building research subtype or something like that.--G0DsDestroyer 19:48, 19 October 2011 (ADT)
    • Agile Defense and Break Spear Wall are pages I recently created and are already examples of such pages as they should be. I'll add a redirect page at Agile Defence...I would move the actual article to the British spelling, but "defence" is just too irrational a spelling for me to swallow when all the conjugations still switch to 's' (i.e. defensive). If there were any place I'd combine research with the features they enable, it would be with magic research (where the two things share the same name). I chose not to for the sake of clarity and consistency (i.e. the sidebars and context-specific information). With the military skills, the two concepts even get completely separate names and combining them would be that much more confusing. Besides that, I expect there'll be a lot more to say about the skills than their research, whereas research pages follow a pretty standard template. What will be nice about the other research categories is no longer needing all these disambiguated titles. The related template can still be used to cross-reference them though. I think the way you added the new research to the category page is about as good as any. --HonoredMule 22:46, 19 October 2011 (ADT)
  • Break Spear Wall should actually be Phalanx Formation, as there is a research called Break Spear Wall that goes with that commander skill, although the information on that page is correct for Phalanx Formation. At least as far as I can tell that is, that was one reason for making the tables of research and upgrades on my page. Also, since the skills and researches have the same name, would you want the researches to have (research) after them only or have the upgrades also have (commander upgrade) or something similar, with those page names as well? Think that's all at the moment--G0DsDestroyer 00:19, 15 January 2012 (AST)
    • Whenever two items have the same name, they both must have disambiguation, so one would end in (research) and the other in (commander skill), with the two interlinking each other. Then, since there's only two things with the same name, the non-disambiguated page should transclude whichever page is more relevant/useful to most players. I'll refer you to Ward of Destruction as reference/reminder on how all 3 distinct pages should be handled. --HonoredMule 02:21, 16 January 2012 (AST)
  • Actually all of the commander skills and researches has the same name except two, which are Agile Defense and Phalanx Formation. So almost all of the commander skills/researches will need to specified as different things. And as I pointed out in my last comment above, I'm quite sure that Break Spear Wall should be Phalanx Formation, that was my main concern.--G0DsDestroyer 21:44, 16 January 2012 (AST)
    • I wouldn't know, not having access to any cities with unresearched commander skills. I'm happy to take your word for it and move Break Spear Wall, fixing the links (I'm guessing you don't have permission to move articles). --HonoredMule 22:21, 16 January 2012 (AST)
  • Yeah, I think I was able to move articles, but that was quite some time ago. Sadly, with the fact that Phalanx Formation and Agile Defense are differently named, having the enable_skill on the research page makes it so Phalanx Formation isn't linked to the page, as it doesn't have (skill) after it. Putting ability instead of skill would work, but if you have a simpler solution, that'd be better. Not going to be on here as much as I'd like, but I'm going to try to write some pages every week or so.--G0DsDestroyer 21:53, 28 January 2012 (AST)
    • That's actually a very easy fix. I just created a redirect page at Phalanx Formation (skill) pointing to the page without " (skill)" tailing it. That can be done whenever an article doesn't require disambiguation but would better fit some pattern if it optionally had it.--HonoredMule 23:47, 28 January 2012 (AST)

  • Hey HM, not sure what's going on with the Magic Research Prerequisites that I'm working on, but the research Prerequisite is linked to the wrong page. It goes to Disambiguation page I believe, which it shouldn't, at least I don't think it should. Glad to be back and helping with the wiki, gives me something else to do.--G0DsDestroyer 11:55, 14 October 2011 (ADT)
    • It's the missing " (research)|Spell Name" on the end of the specified need_research variable. That variable just gets turned directly into a link, and only some research requires disambiguation so the (research) portion is not automatically inferred. Example fix at Plague of Locusts (research). Glad to have you back too...the thought of filling in all the missing information/pages alone is a bit daunting. I've reviewed and fixed the new pages, though I may have missed one or two. Blights and Geomancy should have been disambiguation pages as well, but I only realized that after patrolling the edits. --HonoredMule 16:31, 14 October 2011 (ADT)
      • Yeah the magic research/spells and schools are going to have a bunch of disambiguation pages and a bit of a mess. Also, something I noticed with the spells, there are two Ward of Destruction pages, They show up in the Rune Category, not sure if they're both suppose to be there or not. As for being back, I'm just glad there's someone else who can edit what I'm doing, already went back once because I forgot to change one word.--G0DsDestroyer 17:43, 14 October 2011 (ADT)
        • That is a side effect of the alternate means by which I'm handling some disambiguation pages, which I had completely forgotten about. Aside from having the disambiguation page appear in categories as well, it's actually a better way of handling disambiguation between 2 closely related concepts (because the disambiguation page mirrors the content people are more likely to be seeking, and conveniently links between the two). I'll update the other spell pages to use this format as well.--HonoredMule 15:00, 15 October 2011 (ADT)
        • Come to think of it, there's no reason both pages need to be listed in the category. The disambiguation page can be removed by putting the category links in "noinclude" tags on the primary article that gets copied. The Ward of Destruction trio will serve as example. --HonoredMule 15:09, 15 October 2011 (ADT)

  • I got the numbers for the NPC party sizes directly from GM TC, who kindly told them to GC. It may be true that the party sizes do not have a definite minimum, but all of the maximum values are correct (TC gave us the numbers in this format few <3 handful <8 and so on) The maximum values should not be reverted, although obviously you have seen overlap in the minimum ones, which should remain as they were before I made the assumption that the overlap was nonexistent. Silent&Steadfast 18:23, 1 september 2011 (UTC)
    • In that case I will re-instate those numbers. I won't be surprised if observations pushes the maximums back out again though...I'd expect true maximums to be more consistently rounded or at least follow a pattern or sequence.--HonoredMule 02:25, 2 September 2011 (ADT)

  • Could you make a to do list for us? or is that the list on your user page? Bartimeus 13:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
    • The Main Page contains general directions for new contributors, and I would in particular recommend you start at the top. No one has even touched the research category, and filling it out is quite straightforward. Just work out a basic concept of the sections needed--Overview (original summary of it's value/function), Cost and Prerequisites, etc.--and start making new pages (using the name of the research item for the title). For categorization, I'd just start with the in-game breakdown into tabs (Military, City or Civic, Magic, etc. Other (sub)groupings may become apparent such as Blights, Runes, etc. and you can create them at your discretion.
    • Many spells share the same name as their research item, but we can worry about either making disambiguation pages or combining the content when we get to that section.--HonoredMule 13:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

  • You deleted the category basic scout units. I added it since it was a request category on Scouting. Should the reference in scouting be changed?
    • The deletion reason I gave was: This category is the intersection of two existing categories and too small to be useful. The non-intersected categories are already sufficiently small to browse efficiently.
    • There are only 8 units in Category:Scout Units already, and good UI guidelines require balancing navigational/menu/option depth (number of steps/sub-menus/choices) against breadth (number of options per step/sub-menu/choice). Chopping unit-type categories into basic and advanced types would add a lot of intermediate choices that would seriously dilute the mid-level category pages with too many options. I see the use-case for having that level of specificity, but it's too narrow for too great a cost to overall navigational convenience, and there's nothing to say about those categories exclusively that can ever make an appropriate accompanying article (each category should eventually be well-described and discussed and not just a chaotic listing).

  • I don't have a issue with the deletion, just asking that you complete the deletion by removing/changing the reference that asked for the category in the first place. Whoever created the scouting (research) page created the reference to it. If the category is to small, then any references to it should be removed as well.
    • I hadn't caught that yet, but will do.
    • I see what you mean now. However those links do not have to be backed by real categories. They can be just linked articles that satisfy the need for a shorthand reference in such locations as sidebars. I will create the first example so we'll have a reference implementation.

  • Sorry for the questions, know you have other things going on, I'll make this brief. As you may know, some time ago I began writing a player page to my former illy account AtH, however some time has passed and I started using the page to write a history upon my player accounts. I have used the word Illyriad and Illy a few times in my recollections, should I remove the game name from my page? - AtH
    • Using the game's name when actually referring to the game itself is perfectly fine. Even if the name is trademarked, using that name when actually referring to the trademarked thing isn't something anyone would even want to prevent. ~~----

With the sovereignty research, Halbard Making is Halbard making in game, so we don't worry about the capitalization?--G0DsDestroyer 01:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

That is basically correct. Here's what I told Hydraa regarding the matter, and will probably work into the help section to remove all doubt from anyone's mind:

The wiki editing guidelines should take precedence over any conventions used in-game. That includes consistently capitalizing proper nouns/adjectives like race names, consistently using European spelling (i.e. keeping the u in armour, etc.), using two hyphens for a dash instead of "space, hyphen, space" and freedom to correct any grammar and spelling mistakes. We have enough constraints of our own without dealing with conflicts between what good practice+consistency dictates and what source material actually does. I don't care if contributors dump un-edited content that has these kinds of problems and don't fix them themselves--but I don't think it's appropriate to treat as a standard. Nothing is sacred. :P

In addition, a couple notes/caveats:

  • The name of a research item is always specific enough to be considered entirely "proper nouns."
  • The bit about two hyphens is actually wrong. The proper and most appropriate convention has already been added to the help section, and is the use of &mdash; (—).
  • No one gives two hoots how things are done on discussion pages--whatever is the least work will do.

Staying "true to the source" would cause boundless problems, since the proper format or presentation of something would depend on whether the (possibly casual) editor currently even has access to that source (which often isn't the case) let alone constantly verifies that any quirks are "blessed" ones.

--HonoredMule 11:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I noticed the PAGENAME template is acting differently on Category pages. Instead of creating static text it is creating a link pack to the page with the category template applied to it. --Hydraa

Yes, the example in the help page demonstrates why (when the namespace isn't "Main" it must be explicitly referenced for a correct self-link using {{FULLPAGENAME}}. But since we don't want the namespace in out link text, and the link disappears when actually viewed in the category page (not sure why that, I think it's a bug), it's much simpler to just use the three-single-quotes syntax to explicitly make it bold--'''{{PAGENAME}}'''. Later, I will upgrade the lcLink template to also remove namespaces from link text and see how that with {{FULLPAGENAME}} works on category pages--maybe even making {{FULLPAGENAME}} the default input for the template. --HonoredMule 20:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I managed to scrounge up some region information, how big they are in Sq miles. You made a note on my talk page of a aprticular format, would it be fine if i put all the information on one region, lets say Kul Tar, then you put it in the format you want, so i then know how to do the others? -AtH

That would be ok, but I won't have time to get to it anytime soon. I have a handful of other higher priority big jobs that will keep me tied up for quite some time, starting with porting my customizations to a newer version of the wiki software. --HonoredMule 16:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Thats fine, i wouldnt have expected you to drop everything. I'm just glad to help in any way i can -AtH

FYI from what I have noticed. XP earned is the same as the upkeep of the unit. Ok that is what it appears that you are doing. Also keep in mind the mercenary units. Since they do not truly have upkeep at this time and are xp sources like the natural creatures are. And it looks like if we take the level off then it will work for the mercs as they are currently implemented

I had that thought as well, which is why I'm adding reward_gold and reward_xp attributes in case override is needed, but falling back on upkeep to populate both those values. The level attribute remains reserved for playable units, and when necessary, some new attribute will trigger the display of both "playable unit" and "beast" attributes together. I won't bother with that work until it's necessary though, because it will involve expanding the template size considerably, since it's currently packed with either/or data cells. --HonoredMule 17:35, 14 April 2011 (ADT)

I don't have availability to the game info at the moment and may not have enough saved battle reports. But I am not sure if defaulting the gold reward to the upkeep value is correct, my limited looking at it make it appear that at least for beasts that the amount of gold is dropped per creature rather than it's upkeep value. So defaulting reward_gold to upkeep may not be entirely accurate, but I can research it some more later. Also some of the factions use the same units as players. I have had only one PvP battle and I think it as scrolled off of my mail. Do units player units drop the same gold and xp as the NPC units?

Player units don't drop anything, which complicates the display of units that could appear in either situation. However, for now we can just supply the data that we know--choosing what data to display and how is a logic problem so it can probably be solved little or no per-use intervention. I do need to update the documentation with the new attributes and logic branches though.

I thought I heard from StormCrow some time ago that gold reward and experience gained were the same. NPCs could be an exception, or maybe this has changed, or maybe my memory is wrong altogether. At any rate, it's not a terribly important piece of information, so I think it's safe to leave as a default until a majority-consistent anti-pattern (contradiction that can be measured to ascertain the correct values) is observed. I'll keep a note of this. --HonoredMule 04:33, 15 April 2011 (ADT)

Square Mileage

The following task has been assigned to HonoredMule's(Talk,Todo) maintenance list.

A quick message, on my now suspended account in game is the list of regions with total mileage in square miles. So if you would like to have that list its on the bottom of the AtH profile in game. I'll still be around on this wiki but I've cut down time time I'm spending on things like this -AtH

Thanks, I'll look into that. --HonoredMule 14:56, 15 April 2011 (ADT)

Illy wiki:

Sq miles

OCEAN 416610 Kal Tirikan 250925 Fremorn 206124 Norweld 200460 Wolgast 193988 Meilla 155905 Lan Larosh 153724 Tor Carrock 152835 Qarosslan 147536 The Wastes 146226 Tallimar 137587 Middle Kingdom 128973 Arran 118387 Keshalia 112579 Mal Motsha 107225 Azura 105555 Kumala 104822 The Western Realms 102392 Ursor 98669 Keppen 92799 Laoshin 83766 Ragallon 82563 Zanpur 80038 Perrigor 75747 Lucerna 73321 Tao

Taomist 70006 Larn 69366 Windlost 68452 Turalia 68179 Tamarin 65198 Djebeli 54369 Elijal 33431 Kul Tar 33050 Farra Isle 6478 Rill Archipelago 2969 Kem 1988 Trome 1141 Stormstone Island 618


Hi HM, I saw some spam in the RC, which should be deleted and users should imho be blocked. If you think usefull, you could make me an administrator on this wiki. I am very experienced with wiki's of the Wikimedia software. Regards, Esther 16:25, 30 August 2011 (ADT)

  • Thanks for the notice. I actually go through the RC log once or twice a day and have little trouble catching the occasional spammers that come through. If I do find I need help, however, I will keep you in mind. --HonoredMule 23:27, 30 August 2011 (ADT)

"Timing is everything Probably should be deleted and blocked if you haven't already.--G0DsDestroyer 11:44, 18 October 2011 (ADT) Es? here's another spam to be deleted and blocked. There seems to be a lot of spam on here now, something happen to make that happen?--G0DsDestroyer 21:41, 19 October 2011 (ADT)

  • It's a side-effect of gaining popularity and Google Ranking. I'm going to have to set up a CAPTCHA or something soon. --HonoredMule 22:24, 19 October 2011 (ADT)

Windows Registry Specifics 41, User:DGunther, Non owner car insurance, User:BxCass1, Payday loans no fax, Online payday loan lenders --Delete & Block--G0DsDestroyer 10:57, 20 October 2011 (ADT)

New user seeking help

Hello there, I'm a new player of Illyria that would like to lend a hand on the wiki:) Now, I don't have much wiki experience, but I hope I can be of use somehow, and learn all that I can; yet, I see that most of the help/intro pages for new editors haven't been touched in months (even the "current events"). Are you still willing to update the wiki, or you're just doing maintenance? If it's the former, please let me know, I'd be very glad to help. --Jurij 04:42, 17 December 2011 (AST)

  • Check the "Help" and "Current Events" links in the navigation sidebar to get you started. The help page, on top of directing you to standard wiki-editing help pages, also lays out all the specific conventions and standards used by this particular wiki. The current events page points you to all the places where there's work to be done, linking to dynamic lists of incomplete or stub pages, pages with public todo suggestions, and areas of the wiki where there are whole sets of pages to be filled out with a few example pages already done to follow.--HonoredMule 12:44, 17 December 2011 (AST)

Spam image uploads

Hi, something in the Wiki settings isn't as it should be: New users should not be able to upload spam media seven seconds after they have created an account. The spam is no serious problem; just for fun I've overwritten it with a dummy image, but normally blanking the article(s) using these images should be good enough. The problem is the time gap if folks use it to "host" seriously illegal images (for whatever is illegal where you rented the web space for this wiki). –Dunnoob 00:15, 12 March 2012 (ADT)

  • Before an urgent project came up, I was working on a system that required new accounts to prove they played Illyriad under the same username. Now that is done, I'll be resuming work on this system. While I don't believe I've any legal or operational ramifications to fear as things currently stand, obviously I want the wiki to be kept as clean and safe as humanly possible. I appreciate your vigilance during my absence. --HonoredMule 05:56, 12 March 2012 (ADT)