The problem is not with the pages listing them, I assume something happened to the server and it failed to 'refresh' the categories. It should be fixed when the job queue gets to it (so it's a matter of time), however, the only thing that will fix it manually is by making an edit (null works, too) to every page effected (every ring not showing), take a look at the categories, Category:Rings and you'll see that they all suddenly vanished (the DPL lists include by category). -- Sixorish 02:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
If any of them accidentally appear in the normal creatures list I apologize and will fix them immediately. ^_^
Won't happen, don't worry. All infobox templates are designed so pages in the User namespace will not appear on the "normal" lists.
Temahk 19:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Left you a message here.
Temahk 21:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Merry Xmas to you too.
Nah I like with the background, but now I wear pirate full most of the time I think I will make a new screenshot for my monster char and upload it some day.
Thanks anyways =P
Kwigon the sharpshooter 15:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Regarding your "Fortinbrae" article
I just wanted to let you know that in the unlikely event that CIP do think of the roleplay in Tibia, and that Fortinbrae is still living to this day (and becomes a creature at a later date for example), the image of your Fortinbrae boss monster will be overwritten by the proper one (due to naming conflicts) -- Sixorish 00:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
In response to your message, I like the image, though the staff overdoes it a little (but it's the only relation to Ferumbras on it, so I guess removing wouldn't really work), I especially like the role-play thought behind her, 'cause it's not something you see everyday, despite it being a roleplaying game. By the way, "She was slain and her soul then captured by a brave group of knights and sealed away within the Plains of Havoc Temple" - do you know this from something official (e.g an in-game book) or did you make that part up? -- Sixorish 01:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I noticed you "reverted" the Allusions page because you felt some allusions were lost. When reorganizing and editing the page, I made a list of changes on the talk page. Regardless of whether or not you think something qualifies as an allusiont, completely changing the page back through nearly six months of changes from a true article to a list instead of reincorporating something into the new, more detailed, and article-worthy format was a bit rash. Instead, taking a peek at the talk page would've been better. Everything I removed (and some of it was since re-added) was thoroughly explained on the talk page, and most (1/3 of the 'allusions' were simply tautologies--a vampire is not an allusion to a vampire, for instance) of the removed material did not constitute an 'allusion' in any sense of the word.
In fact, I added more true allusions in that page update then I removed borderline cases, so I think there's a bit of a problem, here. Believe me, the revamped page is far more useful for reference (internal links to each allusion, a reference to a source validating each allusion, etc.) and browsing (the vertical page height is 1/3 of the length of the old page, it is easier to navigate without a 12-page table of contents). If you think an removed allusion truly fits the definition of an allusion, has significant in-game support and a valid external reference to support it, please re-add it to the new page. --Kharzad Ironfist 06:10, December 20, 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, + removal or reversion
Hey, I saw you were removing those hateful comments on user talk pages and wanted to come thank you for doing that. There was just one problem with the removals: the vandal apparently replaced sections (of User talk:Erig) with his own content, so the legitimate content was lost when you removed his. What you should rather have done is try to revert or, if not possible due to conflicting edits, edit the last legitimate revision and save it. I notice you applied for rollback recently, and that would help you revert those kinds of edits, but I'm not sure you know how or when to utilize reversion / rollback after you did this.
Anyway, the pages are fine now, all content has been restored and his page creations were deleted. Thanks again! -- Sixorish 05:16, December 29, 2010 (UTC)
History tab is under the tools section in the bottom right of your screen. If not, then it is possible to add this somehow. If you like the new skin then it doesn't matter but you can change your skin preference through Special:Preferences. As we can't change the default skin users have to do it for themselves. If you ever feel as though there are going to be no admins online to deal with vandalism, I suggest trying http://vstf.wikia.com/wiki/VSTF_Wiki. :) Beejay 15:41, December 29, 2010 (UTC)
The Greek mythological creature has no plural because it is used as a proper noun (the only Minotaur), most dictionaries probably won't list minotaur as a real word because it is contrary to the mythology. In popular culture (books, games, movies etc) minotaur has come to mean more generally "a creature, half man, half bull" and this is used as a noun. It's much like wikipedia:Hobbit - Tolkien could have chosen to give the hobbits a strange plural as deviating as they wanted from English plural rules, that's entirely to the author's discretion because they are coining their words, they are not confined to language rules, they just use it as a guide. As CipSoft is responsible for this, check out the bestiary: Minotaur Archers form the artillery of the minotaurs' army. Using their crossbows they shoot bolts at their enemies. Many adventurers have died in the hail of missiles. Usually, they are accompanied by other types of minotaurs.
So, minotaurs is fine if CipSoft wants us to use it like that (and many other works do I'm sure). -- Sixorish 19:15, May 30, 2012 (UTC)
Front sweep image
Hello, I've made 2nd version, because for the first I used gif from Berserker spell, and for the front sweep it didn't have to be 5 squares high (you know what i mean) so there was that white space at the top of the gif.
However, I don't know why, but a lot of images aren't displayed correctly to me, and for example when I uploaded the 2nd version, I could still see 1st one on the article page. So for me this one looks good, while the previous is somehow stretched (but only on this page, in article it's ok).
14:15, June 20, 2012 (UTC)