User talk:GAMERGIRL151: Difference between revisions
GAMERGIRL151 (talk | contribs) |
(→Inventory (concept): new section) |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
::My interpretation/memory is different than yours it seems. Or it may just be my understanding of law where I am from as a basis for how I act, I'm unsure. Admittedly I was tired and don't store logs, but I nearly did revert your blanking when I saw it. Saying "someone, I can't say who but heres where they are affiliated with" is a perfectly legit reason of saying something in a Talk page, until harder proof is gained to put it on a non-talk page. Its even enough to use in news stories "An unnamed source from 'company'..." is very common. Anyway, I'm seeking alternate confirmation now.--[[User:CALLEK|CALLEK]] ([[User talk:CALLEK|talk]]) 09:37, 26 May 2015 (CDT) |
::My interpretation/memory is different than yours it seems. Or it may just be my understanding of law where I am from as a basis for how I act, I'm unsure. Admittedly I was tired and don't store logs, but I nearly did revert your blanking when I saw it. Saying "someone, I can't say who but heres where they are affiliated with" is a perfectly legit reason of saying something in a Talk page, until harder proof is gained to put it on a non-talk page. Its even enough to use in news stories "An unnamed source from 'company'..." is very common. Anyway, I'm seeking alternate confirmation now.--[[User:CALLEK|CALLEK]] ([[User talk:CALLEK|talk]]) 09:37, 26 May 2015 (CDT) |
||
:::I was asked to remove it. Again, you may add your own testing to the page, the problem was the quote. --[[User:GAMERGIRL151|GAMERGIRL151]] ([[User talk:GAMERGIRL151|talk]]) 16:09, 26 May 2015 (CDT) |
:::I was asked to remove it. Again, you may add your own testing to the page, the problem was the quote. --[[User:GAMERGIRL151|GAMERGIRL151]] ([[User talk:GAMERGIRL151|talk]]) 16:09, 26 May 2015 (CDT) |
||
== Inventory (concept) == |
|||
Rather than carry this out over our talk pages, I added my comments and recommendations to [[Talk:Inventory %28concept%29]]. - [[User:RY4NPW|padhg]] ([[User talk:RY4NPW|talk]]) 20:19, 13 May 2016 (CDT) |
|||
Revision as of 19:19, 13 May 2016
Hiya! I see you're identifying some critters as Undead vs. more generically evil. I am curious the criteria your are using ... because I am trying to do some of that too and I'm find it difficult to do with confidence. I figure that an Undead should: a) occasionally provide a small wash of devotion to clerics and b) not shock an Empath using Absolution. I do not play an empath to test them with. I have been using my cleric and I concluded that Faenrae Reavers, for example, were Cursed rather than Undead. I suppose my method could be flawed if there were any Undead that never provided a devotion boost to clerics. How would I know? I appreciate your thoughts as I wouldn't want to accidentally shock any empaths. Best Regards --Jbeetle (talk) 19:36, 24 April 2015 (CDT)
- Empaths can perceive creatures to see if they are undead or living. Everyone can perceive if they are cursed or not (appraising them). I am using both on creatures. If you don't have access to an Empath, you will only have one set of data. As far as I know, this is currently the only way to make the determination. --GAMERGIRL151 (talk) 22:13, 24 April 2015 (CDT)
Why Change?
Why this reversion? [1] --CALLEK (talk) 02:02, 26 May 2015 (CDT)
- You were explicitly asked not to post what he said, but that you could post your own testing. Removing his name is not sufficient. --GAMERGIRL151 (talk) 02:21, 26 May 2015 (CDT)
- My interpretation/memory is different than yours it seems. Or it may just be my understanding of law where I am from as a basis for how I act, I'm unsure. Admittedly I was tired and don't store logs, but I nearly did revert your blanking when I saw it. Saying "someone, I can't say who but heres where they are affiliated with" is a perfectly legit reason of saying something in a Talk page, until harder proof is gained to put it on a non-talk page. Its even enough to use in news stories "An unnamed source from 'company'..." is very common. Anyway, I'm seeking alternate confirmation now.--CALLEK (talk) 09:37, 26 May 2015 (CDT)
- I was asked to remove it. Again, you may add your own testing to the page, the problem was the quote. --GAMERGIRL151 (talk) 16:09, 26 May 2015 (CDT)
- My interpretation/memory is different than yours it seems. Or it may just be my understanding of law where I am from as a basis for how I act, I'm unsure. Admittedly I was tired and don't store logs, but I nearly did revert your blanking when I saw it. Saying "someone, I can't say who but heres where they are affiliated with" is a perfectly legit reason of saying something in a Talk page, until harder proof is gained to put it on a non-talk page. Its even enough to use in news stories "An unnamed source from 'company'..." is very common. Anyway, I'm seeking alternate confirmation now.--CALLEK (talk) 09:37, 26 May 2015 (CDT)
Inventory (concept)
Rather than carry this out over our talk pages, I added my comments and recommendations to Talk:Inventory (concept). - padhg (talk) 20:19, 13 May 2016 (CDT)