User talk:HistoricAccount Muzzafar

From Erfwiki
Jump to: navigation, search


Yeah. I'm very new at this, but it's a nice distraction.
I don't mind when you reformat my stuff, as the formatting part is difficult for me. I'm learning though.

How do you add a contents section? I see one in the Thinkamancy page, and wanted to add a similar one to the new Foolamancy page.
Also, is it alright to make a page with a lot of Unknowns? I'd like to fill out the Magic types, but since there are only a few known things, it would be mostly Abilities: Unknown and the like.
O.k. I'll work on the magic types then. Should be easy enough.

Tada! Cookies!

Cookie Image
And here's a cookie...
for becoming the Erfworld wiki guru.

Todo page

Where do you think we should hang a general to-do page?--Ichthus 15:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Comic References

Any thoughts on putting up a page on making referenced comic links point to the mirrored archive on this site rather than giantitp? --Doran 21:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I maded a template, {{Erf}}, which provides an easy way to do this. See what you think? —RevenantTalk 12:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
ZOMG! That's fantastic! Great job! -- Muzzafar 18:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up!

On Style Guidelines, that is. I've already been inspired to come up with some more (hopefully) handy templates. :)RevenantTalk 11:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the cookie!

It was delicious -- Doran 01:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Fan names

Hi, what do you think about an cathegory "Fan named" for characters like Scarlet the hobgobwins? Otherwise we have little possibility to work such such informations into the wiki. --Welf von Ehrwald 10:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Somebody already created the entry Scarlet, I added the new cathegory --Welf von Ehrwald 12:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Annotation project

For now I am copy-and-pasting old material over. When finished I'll look into integration, but so far my own work is up to page 19 and already set up, and I know at least that Rob would like to see a panel-by-panel setup in addition to the page-by-page. Cheers Erk 20:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I created a section for discussing how to integrate the two projects, can you please have a look when you have time. --Doran 21:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


Sorry if I offended: I've no idea how active the wiki is so far, so I just took the liberty of moving it based on what seem to be logical page naming conventions. We're gonna need those soon, but that's another topic (sort of). Erk 20:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Per your suggestions, Talk:Style_Guidelines#Naming_Conventions: Care to contribute? Erk 21:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


Now, They have a use and all, but why do we need non-picture descriptions by themselves? Surely just the panel and the written word under it is enough? I can't really click on 'random page' except that 3 out of five are these panels. Good effort... but what are it's uses that a panel by panel description (combining both picture and words) or even a page by page description cannot do?

Oh! and thanks for the 'Xewleer 07:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)'


Muzzafar, you should use "capture", "Scout", etc, wihtout a tense on it so that [[capture]]d, [[scout]]ing, etc. works. Using 'ing' on the end means [[capturing|captured]], [[Scouting|scout]], etc. are necessary for linking other tenses. --~~~~

Instead of adding redirects on each of the non-tense versions of the pages, you could have just moved the 'ing' pages to the non-tense names. It would make a lot more sense and wouldn't default a majority of the links to being redirects.--Ichthus (eyeBook) 09:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, let's look at it logically. A move creates a new page with all of the information of the old page and creates a redirect from the old page to the new page. We can do this manually. The only thing we can't recreate is the keeping of the version history (which moving does automagically). So, you could go and just do a select all on the 'ing' page and copy/paste it to the non-'ing' page. Then just do the redirect and viola. Besides, doing links like [[scout]]ing displays scouting. In my mind, that's much easier than doing [[Scouting|scout]]. --Ichthus (eyeBook) 09:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
My apologies. I thought you created all of those "ing" pages, M. --Kreistor 12:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


Please stop using "apparantly". It's non-specific and has a negative connotation. It can mean that someone told you something and you don't believe it, but it must be true. It is usually quite unnecessary, as well. --Kreistor 03:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

removed my comment... bleh, didn't see this was a user-talk page was just checking edits on my watchlist page... thought I was looking at style guidelines. --Ichthus (eyeBook) 04:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Mazz, it is only one definition, but when you're talking about something you're trying to prove, using "apparently" diminishes your argument. It indicates you are uncertain and disbelieving. It would be appropriate to use "apparently" on the discussion page, where you're debating or dicsussing, but the Speculation section is for things we think that we have learned. You're already placing conclusion and proof, so "apparently" becomes redundant, and it detracts from your argument. So, for instance...

"Apparently, Parson threw his sword in the lava and it melted" is accurate, but it indicates taht you did not observe the event yourself, or were uncertain what you saw. "Parson threw his sword in the lava and it melted" indicates you know a fact, and it is just as accurate.

"Did you hear about Jack? Apparently he's going mad." That's what you might say if you had heard tha Jack was going mad form something else. If you actually met Jack and came to the conclusion that he was going mad, you'd say, "I saw Jack today. He seems to be going mad." Or, "I saw Jack today. Apparently someone is spreading rumours that he is going mad." Apparently indicates that the conclusion is not yours, but someone else's.
There should be little or no uncertainty in anything moved to Proposed Canon, so "apparently" should not appear there. Anything we believe is factual should be justified, but with conviction. Anything that requires the word "apparently" isn't certain enough to justify its presence. --Kreistor 06:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


Muzz, you made an edit and indicated that Rob had confirmed Scarlet=Unaroyal and Blue=Hobbittm. How do you know this? Did he tell you? Can you link us to a page that shows this? Thanks, Commander I. Heartly Noah 1 July 2009


First off, thanks for editing pages on the wiki, and generally making stuff better. Secondly, I'm trying to understand an edit you made. I had linked the word luck to Luckamancy, which seemed a reasonable action. You unlinked it. Did you have some (in-canon) reason to do this? My initial reaction was that you were acting in a disrespectful way, saying that my opinion that it was a proper and appropriate link was wrong and should be deleted. Needless to say, I was upset, and felt you were being very rude. Thinking about this more, and seeing on your user page that English may not be your native tongue, I am willing to entertain the idea that this might just be a mis-understanding. Could you explain why you feel that the word "luck" should not be tied to Luckamancy, especially in a story where the author is known to use his words very carefully, with multiple levels of meaning? Bcent1234 11:23, 3 April 2012 (EDT)