Open main menu

User talk:Rygel8472

Contents

Provence pageEdit

I'll be awarding tickets later and the work you've done is very good. To finish of the page and get all the tickets then it still needs to have links to other section of the wiki in the strategy page, replacing the bold ''' with subsections === and rewriting the Mare Nostrum bullet points as a small paragraph. Once all done I'd expect you to get the full allocation of tickets. Dauth (talk) 20:44, 8 April 2016 (CEST)

REPLY: Done. Also I have no idea how to reply to these as a 'talk' type action... :(
Indent using a full colon and sign your edit with four tildes ~~~~. I need to give everything a once over just too finish them off but its a much smaller job now. You've been awarded full prizes for everything up until 23:59 Apr 8th which was my last batch of tickets. Dauth (talk) 11:28, 9 April 2016 (CEST)
Thank you for this example on how to reply properly. Rygel8472 (talk) 13:28, 9 April 2016 (CEST)

Achievement navboxEdit

The {{Achievement navbox}} has the header “Achievement guides”. This means that it should contain only achivements for which there is a guide. (I have reverted your edit without check over the individual cases. – Lillebror (talk) 09:20, 10 April 2016 (CEST)

Okay. I'm going to temporarily revert to the version I submitted, because it makes finding which achievements to not have guides much easier. Then use that to make it as intended. Also, if I might suggest changing the name to 'Template:Achievement_Guide navbox' to help make it more clear for future editors. Rygel8472 (talk) 10:51, 10 April 2016 (CEST)
Also, if I wanted to make a 'Mare Nostrum' achievement page, how would I do that when 'Mare Nostrum' already links to a page about the Expansion? Rygel8472 (talk) 11:14, 10 April 2016 (CEST)
Changing the name will be a serious pain so its easier to leave as it is. If you create a page called Mare Nostrum (achievement) we can then use the hatnote to link between the articles depending on what is searched for. Dauth (talk) 11:21, 10 April 2016 (CEST)
We generally prefer to keep the talk pages as reference for future editors. Dauth (talk) 11:54, 10 April 2016 (CEST)
Okay I fixed the {{Achievement navbox}} to be as intended and up to date. What is the go for deleting threads like this one once they are no longer needed? Am I allowed to remove/delete them, or is that a mod thing? Rygel8472 (talk) 11:34, 10 April 2016 (CEST)

About Wallachia.Edit

You cannot just throw something and undo without asking anyone about this. The current strategy is very outdated, and simply doesn't fit in this thread. No first person was used there. in strategies. So please, next time you undo someone's work think twice. Much does no mean good ;) Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123e55 (Talk) 13:23, 11 April 2016 (CEST)


Although third person narrative is optional but it is *preferred*. Your rewrite was littered with prescriptive strategy; 'You should wait for Ottomans to be engaged in a war that would weaken them. When this moment comes, take some loans, buy some mercenaries and strike them with the help of Poland and Hungary.', 'Now, your target is Moldavia.' are examples. And the expression left a LOT to be desired. Even to the point that I genuinely had trouble reading and understanding it in places, for example "Some years passed, and now you cored your newly-acquired provinces and rebuild your economy.", "After you got a total war", "Try to let them do the hard job". In these cases and others that I genuinely don't believe that the writing is intelligible. Add to this all the smaller grammatical and expression errors like "Fabricate as much claims as you can" instead of ""Fabricate as **many** claims as you can", "You can expand in west if you want a challenge, or in east if you want to have an easy game from now." instead of "You can expand westward if you want a challenge, or eastward if you want to have an easy game from now.", "Now,the Crusade of Varna truce expired." instead of "Now that the Crusade of Varna truce has expired.", and I wholeheartedly believe that the older verions, is more likely to have been helpful because it is actually understandable, even it was more out of date. Rygel8472 (talk) 18:15, 11 April 2016 (CEST)
Actually I saw some of these mistakes after you undo'ed my work and edited them. I tried to not be so prescriptive where I could.
Even if I agree with most of your affirmations,you were still able to edit things that you thought are wrong or grammatically incorrect. I am not a native-english speaker so writing something wrong isn't the end of the world for me.
If you wanted to help, editing was the best choice instead of putting an out of date strategy that is honestly useless in the true sense of the word. I believe it was a fairly decent strategy that can be edited to be a better one. We all do mistakes. 123e55 (talk) 18:36, 11 April 2016 (CEST)
"If you wanted to help, editing was the best choice." - I accept this criticism. And I will have a go at it now. But I don't agree that the old strategy was useless, both it and yours basically say 'use big allies to beat up the Ottomans'. "We all do mistakes" We sure do. Rygel8472 (talk) 19:12, 11 April 2016 (CEST)

Image updatesEdit

A hint for the contest, to make sure you get all the tickets please update the version category too. Dauth (talk) 11:08, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the the hint. Rygel8472 (talk) 11:11, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Pages I Always forget how to get toEdit

Return to the user page of "Rygel8472".