User talk:Gearzein

Hey -- thanks for all your work here lately! One thing though, you tend to be a little harsh in your edit summaries when reverting edits. I get a little sarcastic myself sometimes, but it's best to reserve that for blatant and intentional vandalism. When someone makes an edit they think is helpful, please remain kind, even if the edit seemed "stupid". Thanks :)  Equazcion ( talk ) 02:12, 16 Nov 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, I didn't figure anybody actually read those... I'll try to keep them less abrasive in the future. --Gearzein (talk) 03:53, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Any Recent Changes dwellers like myself most definitely read them. ;) Chrisf1020 (talk) 01:56, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Could you show me an example of where I use Fuddlercrafter (talk) 06:09, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Blinkroot
I have tried to make 2 helpful edits but you have undone them both. The first reason was "there's no correlation between sunlight and blinkroot" and the second was "no though". I have tested this if you check the discussion page on blinkroot. Blinkroot does appear more below ground than above. I made a space of 273 blocks long with 28 dirt lines and not a single blinkroot grew on the level or above elevation in 24 hours. Eleven blinkroot appeared, all below ground. This is significant information for a AFK soil farm. I can go and do other things and leave my computer running and not have to consider collecting blinkroot seeds nor planting because the blinkroot will appear on its own. It is also stated "Blinkroot is a type of herb which appears as a cluster of gray and yellow fungus." and fungus grows in damp and dark/shady places. So there is a correlation. Please let me know what your reasoning for undoing these edits are as I do not understand the logic behind them. Admin Roku (talk) 23:33, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I attempted to find the relevant source code to confirm or debunk this, but couldn't find it easily enough. I did my own test instead and you can see my result here: File:Blinkroot spawn test.png. I left this running for something like 10-15 in-game days: 10 Blinkroots sprouted above zero depth, 9 sprouted below. Until someone can show that there's a depth correlation via the code or a developer comment, I think we need to assume there is none. PS. I don't think the claim that blinkroot is or looks like fungus is something that was ever officially stated anywhere, just something a fan wrote here. I removed it as dubious. Equazcion  ( talk ) 04:26, 15 Jun 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I wasn't able to get to this or the Blinkroot talk page, I've been really busy lately. The reason that I removed your edit is that your test was unscientific. First and foremost, it was carried out with the intent of collecting data to prove a point based on existing supposition, rather than testing a hypothesis, meaning that the results are naturally skewed towards the tester's inclinations. It's worth noting that fungi have neither roots nor seeds, so making claims supported by that presumption is misguided. In actual execution, the testing areas aren't identical, so of course growth distribution won't be equal either. The construction of the testing field is odd and unequal in spacing, including apparently ungrowable materials in the aboveground section. All factors aren't accounted for either- by your own admission, you didn't test the cavern layer, which constitutes about half to two-thirds of the world's depth, much of which is still valid for Blinkroot growth and would have affected the outcome of any test done in the area above it, as would the presence of farms or settlements at or above ground level in an otherwise undisclosed world.
 * More important is that sunlight isn't an actual game mechanic- there's ambient light in aboveground areas but there's no attempt to distinguish between that and placed light. Making the claim that they're linked could lead players to believe that blinkroot, which also has a random bloom pattern that players often struggle to find logic in, is linked in some way to the time of day or light level it's grown in. The image you posted represents only a small, selective sample with a large number of unknowns, and I don't believe that the results of this research are conclusive enough to make a definitive statement. Presenting them and the assumptions they're based on as fact is misleading and potentially detrimental to readers who use that information, so they were removed. Gearzein (talk) 19:21, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Overlinking
The overlinking thing is subjective enough to warrant some leniency. On Wikipedia, for example, it's not considered overlinking to include the same link within an infobox, a template in the article body, and then another within the article text. Also when duplicate links are separated by a couple of sections and/or screen lengths. When it would probably help readers to not have to scroll back to find the first mention of a term, a bit of duplicate linking isn't a bad thing. It just becomes a problem when it's overdone, ie. several duplicate links close to each other, that don't help and only distract.  Equazcion ( talk ) 11:34, 25 Nov 2014 (UTC)
 * My bad. Assuming we're both referring to the same incident, I may have been overreacting. Even so, that particular editor's past edits were mostly just adding links to as many words in an article as they could. I left a note on their talk page and received what I thought to be a rather backhanded response, so between a perceived intention to troll and their almost machinelike pattern of adding brackets to words in random articles without making sure they linked properly, I started to view their edits as vandalism. In retrospect, I assumed bad faith, which is of course not a great way to approach a situation, but diplomacy had failed so I just hit undo a bunch and called it a night. --Gearzein (talk) 20:00, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I missed his response to you. Those profile page comments they don't come up anywhere. :) Anyway, yeah that response didn't look promising, I agree. Still it's good to continue examining edits on their merits and keeping the ones that might make sense, regardless of who made them. A generally unhelpful person can sometimes end up making an edit that benefits the page, like this one for instance, which I thought was pretty decent. There's also always the possibility that the person actually is a good-faith editor who's just learning and improving, hopefully :)  Equazcion ( talk ) 20:27, 25 Nov 2014 (UTC)

Revert question
Dear Gearzein I am new here I noticed you changed my post and I have a picture to confirm that it is true can I send it to you some how? Thanks. Sincerely: Fuddlercrafter
 * Even if you have verifiable picture proof, the current wiki policy is that bugs are no longer to be posted here, but submitted to the forums, specifically the bug report subforums. There's a notice indicating this at the top of every page once you click "edit". That's why I removed that change- submitting a bug here won't help it get fixed, because the developers don't read this wiki. It's largely an encyclopedic compendium of material they created, so they have no reason to come here and look things up. We don't have the means at this wiki to track and verify bugs in most cases, so we're sending people to the bug support forums from here on out. I should've left a notice in the edit summary. Gearzein (talk) 05:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Strategy guide links
Noticed your edit summaries. In case you were looking for input, I think moving the boss/event strategy guide links down to the tips section is a good idea (without leaving duplicate notices at the top of the articles).  Equazcion ( talk ) 18:33, 20 Dec 2014 (UTC)
 * Cool, I'll get on it. I'm gonna be going through most of the boss articles and cleaning up the guide stuff, so feel free to check my work if I'm deleting too much. Gearzein (talk) 18:48, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Will do. One little thing: Using main implies that the tips section is meant to summarize the strategy guide, ie. "here are some strategies, if you want more of them go to this main page". I think your intent, in cutting down the tips sections, is to actually avoid that, and draw a distinction between boss-beating-strategies, which you'd like to keep at the guide, from other types of pointers, which you're keeping on the boss page. Let me know if I've got that wrong. If you use main, I think there's more chance that the same sort of boss strategies will continue to be posted in both places.  Equazcion ( talk ) 19:17, 20 Dec 2014 (UTC)
 * Right. I wish I had seen this sooner, as I just finished and don't currently have the time to fix it. The intent was a little murkier than that honestly (general tips on main, but keep individual weapon lists, arena layouts etc. to strat page) but that's about right and probably a better approach. I probably should have just put the previous disambig lower on the page instead of replacing it. I'll be able to set it straight later tonight. That's what I get for editing in a hurry, I suppose. Gearzein (talk) 19:34, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually I think your distinction is good -- general tidbits on boss page, elaborate ones in the guide. If you're planning to switch back from the main template I'll probably go around and do that, if you don't get to it first.  Equazcion ( talk ) 19:51, 20 Dec 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll probably leave them as-is, since the new template looks pretty good. It could probably get a bit of extra use on event pages as a link to their respective guides, since many of those are pretty bloated tips-wise too. I'll probably clean those up later on as well. Gearzein (talk) 21:30, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the Turtle Armour revert:
How is it highly subjective? If anything, the information currently featured in the article is blatant misinformation.

Objective points:
 * Turtle Armour is available pre-Plantera, thus dispelling its status as "one of the four hardmode end-game armor sets" if Chlorophyte does not apply for that category)
 * Turtle Armour's stats are mostly not even as good as even Chlorophyte Armour + Mask. This isn't opinion, this is fact. The one single stat that actually is better is Defence, and even then only just barely.
 * Turtle Armour does not in any way, shape or form compare to Beetle, Spectre, or Shroomite, the true endgame armours, which are stronger by leaps and bounds in nearly every area.
 * Turtle Armour emphasizes a tank role, a role that is pointless to take outside of multiplayer since you are the only one drawing aggro anyhow in single player. That extra 5 damage negation isn't going to do anyone enough favours to be worth picking up over the raw killing power of Chlorophyte armour.

It is a non-endgame, Chlorophyte-tier, multiplayer-focused armour. This is not subjective. It is fact. Please leave the article be.

Ardhanarishvara (talk) 22:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Delinking merged pages
Your comment here reminded me about something I'd been putting off for a while. Wanted to tell you I just managed to add a parameter to crafts row to optionally un-link crafting results, so merged pages won't have to list links to themselves anymore. You can add after the result parameter in order to un-link a result (example). I went through most of the merged furniture listings already, but in case you see more pages where this is still an issue, now you can fix them if you like. Thanks for bringing it up :) Equazcion  ( talk ) 15:03, 4 Jan 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow, good job. That had been bothering me for a while, but I was thinking I'd have to scrape together a whole second unlinkedcrafts template or something because crafts was so widely used. This is a much cleaner solution. Gearzein (talk) 20:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

King slime
Hello! I am Minecraftmariofan Your recent edit to King slime was reverted by me becuase It seemed incorrect so it was edited if you think I made a mistake you can send a reply on my talk page! Thanks! Mariominecraftfan (talk) 16:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Help?
Hello I am Glowbomb12 umm..I don't know if you've noticed but Cat9dog9 is sweepin' the articles and doing weird stuff. Look at the change logs with both me and Cat to see.
 * I've seen. I left the user a warning; they're fairly young and a new editor and may just not understand how the wiki works. I've been keeping an eye on them though. For future reference, though, you should send these reports to the noticeboard, as another sysop may be available to deal with them if I'm not. Gearzein (talk) 03:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello I'm Sorry About the edits recently. I understand what I did was wrong and I will try to prevent any more inappropriate editsCat9dog9 (talk) 22:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Side note: left a friend request for u Glowbomb12 (talk) 15:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Best Modifiers
If you haven't noticed I have replied to your little text. here : http://terraria.gamepedia.com/User_talk:86.71.126.49 have a nice day. 86.71.126.49 00:42, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Thread Recipe
The console recipe does not require bottle as I currently trying on my Xbox One to get the the Hero Set which is why I changed it to No Bottle.
 * My mistake. I've changed it back. Gearzein (talk) 18:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Guide:surviving in the hallow
Ok got it thx CenturyWanderer (talk) 21:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)CenturyWandererCenturyWanderer (talk) 21:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Meowmere
Hi this is CenturyWanderer. I'm sorry, that was an accident, I won't do it again

Thanks
Thanks for letting me know!

Question :maybe something to change on underground page
Hi, since a while ago my edits were reverted in the past I turn to you and also because I'm unsure.

On this page : http://terraria.gamepedia.com/Underground you can find this sentence : "In hardmode, the Underground may be converted by the Hallow, Corruption or Crimson, but it will not create Underground Hallow/Corruption/Crimson biomes, and monsters will mostly be a mix of surface Hallow/Corruption/Crimson and regular Underground enemies."

For the record I have successfully converted a whole area to crimson on a corruption world in hard mode and it spawns underground crimson monsters (which means I get Ichor mainly) I dunno if it's important : I did this by using the clentaminator to clear the area of corruption then I put some crimstone blocks all around and it spread. I can't really say for sure if my area spawns regular underground enemies or not yet though. they may come from closeby regular underground ... so ...

So I'm not sure that sentence is true anymore. Do you confirm ? should we delete that sentence or rephrase it maybe ? Thanks. 86.74.29.254 11:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * hum my area of crimson is located between -238 to -848 (and I mostly farm around the middle of it. From my knowledge it's underground layer not cavern layer (cavern layer starting around -850 and downward). I'm not sure about crystals in hallowed areas, but underground crimson spawns DO spawn unlike what that quote implies, and souls are also generated. Either way I try to turn this sentence around in my brain, it always seems just plain wrong to me :p Because even if it's not considered by the game as real "underworld crimson" in its internal workings it does seem to behave like it so ... 86.74.29.254 17:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed you are right my cavern layer starts at around 509 feet.... learned something here. I thought -850 was always the start of the change xD. Dunno where I got that info from. I still think that sentence is confusing although I now understand it's right. I mean unless you know the game as well as you do, you can be confused as I was. I made a small modification I think should be fine. Tell me what you think. 86.74.29.254 03:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

User Page Vandals
Is it not possible to make it so nobody but the user who made their user page can edit it? It makes no sense that random kids can come along and vandalize someones user page.

I have had 2 vandals on my user page so far, one just typing "Pingas" and the other saying that I would like porn...(I actually detest porn, I cannot stand it at all...)

Is it at all possible to make it so randoms can't edit peoples user pages? WelchDrew (talk) 23:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You're right, there's not much reason that any user should be able to change someone else's user page. I'll look into getting something set up. Realistically, though, most anons don't even know how to reach userpage space, and it's easy enough to revert it if someone does. User page vandalism isn't a big enough problem to warrant setting up an abuse filter entry. Userpages on the whole should be pretty low-priority.Gearzein (talk) 23:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Difference between Flying and Hovering
Hi I'm the admin of the French wiki of Terraria and I'm asking something. What is the difference between Flying and Hovering ? Hovering NPCs are NPCs which can pass trough blocks and Flying NPCs are those which can simply fly, nah ? I already asked it to Chris but I want an other view. --  Dinoxel  discussion  00:45, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Just based on their behaviors, hovering enemies are still bound by gravity to some extent. They can often swim through blocks, but you'll notice if you stand on a bridge or something that you can trap Wraithlikes in certain holes if they can't reach the edge and "climb" out, and ones like Pixies that can't fly through blocks like this will fall in just like Zombies and get stuck. Bats and the like with the ability to properly fly could just go directly up and out. Gearzein (talk) 00:54, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Mmh..I see what you mean, thank you ! --  Dinoxel  discussion  14:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Category of history
Hey, I noticed so sometimes the tempate works good and sometimes not. When the item, armor, ... is introduced, the template didn't add it to the good category. Once in Entities introduced, once in Entities patched. Would you know where it comes from? --  Dinoxel  discussion  14:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The way the history template determines whether it should use "modified" or "introduced" is to check the word used; here on the english wiki, it specifically checks for the entry "Introduced.". In this case it's likely keying specifically to "introduit" and is parsing the feminine form with an e as a different entry. To fix it you could do something along these lines.
 * The first line of the current code is




 * What you'll want to change it to is




 * Of course, I haven't bugtested it yet, but it's all there on paper. Let me know if it works. Gearzein (talk) 15:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank a lot ! There is the plural and femine plural too.




 * Does this one works ? (If your second line works, it should too) --  Dinoxel  discussion  16:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that should work just fine. Coincidentally, I know this because I had to edit the english wiki's history template, and in doing so learned that categories populate really slowly. It might take several minutes for the changes to take effect and all articles to be automatically categorized, but everything should work out fine. Gearzein (talk) 16:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You can also perform a null edit to avoid the wait of the job queue categorizing the page, if that makes it easier to test your changes. See: Wikipedia:Help:Categories (second paragraph).  Chrisf1020  (talk)  18:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I just replaced it. Thank you very much guys ! :D

Chests aren't bold
I have a new problem on the French chest page, craftable chests doesn't are bold. --  Dinoxel  discussion  01:08, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * To be honest with you, I can't nail down exactly what's going on with this one. I can tell you that the changes made to Template:Crafts row to allow unlinked entries aren't working properly; even though they have the link=no parameter set they still provide a redundant link. It's probably something simple and stupid that I'm missing, but I honestly have no idea why it's not working, as everything seems to be the same between both wikis.
 * I'll see if I can get someone else to take a look at it. Gearzein (talk) 17:13, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the problem is in the subtemplate Modèle:Crafts first sub row. It seems to be missing the link parameter all together. Replace the first 4 lines of said template with:

 


 * Hope that fixes it!  Chrisf1020  (talk)  18:11, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's working ! You're so a pro ! :D --  Dinoxel  discussion  08:49, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Happy to help :)  Chrisf1020  (talk)  19:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Interwiki problem
Do you know why the French link on this page redirect to the wrong page ? --  Dinoxel  discussion  13:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * fixed -- the first interwiki link on a page takes precedence, so if any templates on the page are accidentally transcluding the wrong one, they will appear instead of the correct one from the end of the page. Equazcion  ( talk ) 14:10, 27 Mar 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. --  Dinoxel  discussion  22:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Rarity problem
When a page have two rarities, the first is between two apostrophes like here. See fr:template:Rare --  Dinoxel  discussion  22:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Should be a simple fix. Your rarity template still has bold text apostrophes around it, presumably a holdover from when the template used regular text. Go ahead and remove those- one at the beginning of the template code and another just after the at the end of the code block. Gearzein (talk) 23:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You must believe I'm stupid. It was so easy. Thanks --  Dinoxel  discussion  23:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Jazwares
Jazwares is apparently the producer of Terraria: The Animated Series, a YouTube series which has actually been promoted by Re-Logic throughout its run, from the start up through the present.

So, even though this was still technically self-promotion, I think there is definitely a reason why Jazwares thought this particular case of self-promotion would be notable enough to have a page here. I expect the case for inclusion on the wiki is a bit shaky regardless, though.

Oscuritaforze (talk) 20:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm aware. That's partly why I reduced their block to one day; I left notices on both the admin board and their talk page but they were unresponsive, so I acted to stop them from continuing to recreate a file that had been deleted enough for the abuse filter to step in automatically. When the block expires, I'm willing to explain the situation in-depth and potentially discuss alternatives, but we all gotta play by the same rules here. I'm trying not to give their status with the dev team or my thoughts on their work any clout or let it color my decision here, which is admittedly difficult.
 * Honestly I'm not in the mood to discuss the use of this wiki as official corporate promotion with them though, and I'd like to think it won't come to that. At the very least, the ethics of having a page written like corporate copy and transparently posted by a company representative are questionable at best. Gearzein (talk) 21:21, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Why the undo?
All I did was link that to the picksaw page on the drax... But it seems you like making this wiki inconvenient, now I remember why I don't like going on here anymore... By the way, I don't care what happens now to me... This wiki has died, they resorted to horrible admins... Because people cant do harmless edits like a convenient link without the admin treating it as a vandal, goodbye, hope you get stripped of your admin title. One who detests this wiki (talk) 21:49, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not Gearzein, but were you were talking about [ this revert] ? If so, then I expect the reason behind it was because this wiki seems to try keeping tooltips as close to how they appear in-game as possible.


 * As for the rest of it...I can see where you are coming from given how rollback was used over the standard undo tool, but still try to assume good faith, alright? It's a bit of a stretch to see a revert like that and then come to the conclusion that Gearzein "like[s] making this wiki inconvenient". Oscuritaforze (talk) 22:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I am, in fact, the Gearzein in question, and there are a lot of ways I could handle this, but I'm going to try to take the high road.
 * Yes, Oscuritaforze is right- I reverted this edit because generally, tooltips are meant to be exactly as they are in game, typos and all. I actually put a fair bit of thought into this before hitting rollback- I read through the page to see if the picksaw had been linked elsewhere, only to remember that it wasn't related to the Drax at all. On the other hand, the Pickaxe Axe, its counterpart, was linked in the very first sentence. Both of their tooltips use portmanteaus of existing tool types to refer to similar sorts of theoretical tool combinations, only one of which exists. The other was only recently changed, before which it also referred to a nonexistent item. It was my decision as an editor that the edit changed the tooltip too much without adding much to the page, and that the odds that someone would need to go to picksaw from the drax were low enough that it didn't warrant a capitalized blue link in the infobox. Of course, I was much quicker in deciding all of this than articulating it; perhaps this is my flaw both as editor and administrator.
 * While it was probably unwise of me to not leave an edit summary, this decision had nothing to do with my status as a sysop of this wiki. I'd have made the same decision in any case, and had you contested it by reverting I'd have likely left it be, as I didn't (and don't) consider it to be a major point of contention. Even my own edits are undone or edited over frequently, because no one user has ownership or superior vision regarding the state of a page; there are enough writers, Mediawiki coders and source miners better than me for me to recognize this. At worst, we'd have had a discussion on the talk page and reached consensus with the assistance of outside mediation, because this is how a wiki is meant to operate- pooling and organizing information through the perspective of many users in pursuit of the admittedly nebulous aim of neutrality and objectivity.
 * Unfortunately, this order has broken down in this case. Drew, you have a history of resorting to personal attacks against editors you disagree with, even when they present rationale for their actions; you and I haven't ever even interacted before now, but this is the approach you've taken against others, and quite frankly it's a little melodramatic for you to draw these wild conclusions about my intentions and motivations over an edit of fewer than five characters. I'm not going to threaten disciplinary action or whatever against you, because at this point that would be meaningless abuse of my abilities- abilities given to me for the express purpose of maintaining the wiki, completely separate from the ability to make edits, enforce the rules and influence policy that every user possesses. I'm always willing to answer for my actions or listen to other points of view if asked, but in this case that's not possible because the only rationale for this complaint is that I'm horrible and am actively acting to the detriment of the wiki for inexplicable reasons. I encourage users to question my decisions and to avoid treating my actions with any sort of fear or reverence, but responding like this will not and cannot change anyone's mind, only their perception of you.
 * I sincerely hope you'll reconsider and return to contributing- you at least have some degree of concern for what goes on around this wiki, and it'd be a shame if an incident this small were to compromise that. Gearzein (talk) 00:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That having been said, I'll have to do a little threatening here. Since this has been an issue in the past, I do need to state for the record that if WelchDrew engages in personal attacks again, he will be blocked (at least temporarily, depending on the severity of the next encounter). I echo Gearzein's hope though that he returns to constructive and peaceful contributing. Equazcion  ( talk ) 00:49, 24 Mar 2015 (UTC)

Reverts
I don't want to get all police-y, having been away for a bit, but a bit of constructive criticism anyway: Edits like these probably don't deserve a straight unexplained revert. It seems to have been made by someone who was legitimately attempting to add constructive info, even if in the end it was erroneous and/or inappropriate. Generally I find the Wikipedia system of logic is helpful, where if it can be assumed that someone was trying to be constructive, we should generally assume that, and not just make a quick revert without explanation. Those actions can be surprisingly hurtful to someone who thought they were contributing good info.
 * Re: this revert

Also some food for thought: Every once in a while I search the word "wiki" on the forum to see what Terraria fans might be saying about Terraria Wiki, and one complaint that pops up sometimes is that people find it unwelcoming since their edits tend to be undone quickly and mysteriously. It can be difficult for us, considering the volume of inappropriate edits we sometimes deal with, but I've been making a special effort recently to be more verbose in explaining my undos/fixes of new or no-name users' edits. And, speaking more generally, admins are expected to be even more tactful (read: nicer) than ordinary editors, since their behavior can be so much more powerful in shaping the tone of a site like this.

This is a note to myself, and everyone else, as much as it is to Gearzein. Happy editing/admining :) Equazcion  ( talk ) 03:58, 26 Mar 2015 (UTC)
 * That's entirely on me. I've unfortunately developed a bit of a hair trigger in using rollback, and in this case I hit it without even thinking and didn't realize I should have used an edit summary until it was already done. I answer for this kind of stuff on talk pages when I can but it's important to make it clear for people who might not contest reverts so directly. Gearzein (talk) 14:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

German wiki status
Do you guys plan any large renovations for the German wiki area? I personally living in Germany would gladly like to add and expand greatly the German area of the wiki, however I wouldn't want to tread on any current plans or fingers. Let me know!
 * Well, at the moment there's no one in charge of the German translation project- all the listed contributors seem to have lapsed into inactivity. If you'd like to start translating, by all means, please do! Every translation project is valuable, and we encourage people to add to those projects just as you would any other part of the wiki.
 * If you decide to go for it, just remember to follow the language subproject guidelines- translated pages for German go on /de subpages, and should all have the project template at the top. While I don't think any of the admins speak German well enough to help with the translation directly, we can still help with technical stuff, so feel free to shoot us a line if you need anything. Gearzein (talk) 21:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, language barrier won't be an issue, I'm fluent in English and German so I'll try my best to fill missing and incorrectly presented information. I'll be sure to ask technical questions when they arise! --SorrowL (talk) 21:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Deadly Spheres page
The Deadly Spheres page cannot be created because of the stupid first name, how we can fix this? LuisYKW2 (talk)
 * Give me a second, I'll modify the filter. Gearzein (talk) 20:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Move page
Hello Gearzein, I wanted to ask if you could move the page Biome/de to Environment/de because that's the page that the English wiki uses. In English, Biome is just a redirect to Environment, so I thought it should be the same way on the German wiki. Terrariapc1 (talk) 16:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure thing, already taken care of. Just for future reference, I do believe ordinary users can still move pages using the dropdown box next to the search bar. It is a pretty drastic move, though, so if you're not comfortable moving stuff around, I have no problem doing it for you. Gearzein (talk) 22:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I couldn't find the move function so I thought only admins could move pages, which would make sense if you were trying to avoid vandalism. 188.105.11.12 04:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Block of User:JDMinette
Hello, you recently blocked User:JDMinette for an edit made to Shroomite Armor. The user contacted me through other channels because he felt like the action was too harsh and was the result of a legitimate error on his part. Additionally, upon investigation, I see that the block is indefinite. Gamepedia's policy on blocking is to never issue indefinite blocks except in the case of intractable spam accounts/IPs. Anyhow, I wanted to see if you would consider rescinding the block on this user. If you'd like to discuss more, shoot me an e-mail (btarsa@curse.com). The user also shared some other info that is relevant, but I'm not comfortable putting it here. CrsBenjamin (talk) 19:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've rescinded this user's block, though I don't believe my actions were in error. Based on a couple of patterns I determined their actions to be malicious. The account had been registered moments before the edit in question, which was their first and only. There was no dispute regarding the information in question and no new findings, leaving no reason for the "fix" detailed in their edit summary. Most telling to me was that the edit they made rearranged the numbers in a way that couldn't have reasonably been obtained through actually doing the math, but happened to be a rearrangement of the currently placed numbers, a counterproductive edit that was reasonably similar enough to avoid any scrutiny. You likely know how common it is among vandals to insert false information under the pretense of legitimate edits, using misleading edit summaries to more easily slip by in the Recent Changes log. It was my belief that this account was created for the sole purpose of disrupting the wiki, and our general policy is that newly registered accounts whose first and only action is harmful in nature are blocked. I'll speak with the others regarding necessary changes to this policy, assuming they haven't read this already. If this edit was legitimate as the user contends, however, I'd be interested in seeing their rationale for the information they added. I'll likely be emailing you later regarding this other information, using the email address associated with my account.
 * These are likely details outside the scope of your interest but I'm presenting them nonetheless. The duration of the block went against policy, but I believe the block itself was justified, and I wouldn't be surprised if they end up complaining to you about being blocked because of their behavior again. Gearzein (talk) 19:45, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and changed any indefinite blocks on users in the last month (excluding bots) to more appropriate timeframes. Most of the users were even first offenders.  Chrisf1020  (talk)  19:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * For the record, I too found the rearrangement of numbers likely malicious and difficult to rationalize as some sort of typo or other mistake, though I will say it was ambiguous enough to warrant a revert and a "wait and see" for further similar edits. Also, regarding the general policy, I tend to pull the "indefinite" trigger on users who make plainly malicious edits immediately following registration, such as this case. It seems severely unlikely that such people have any intention of ever contributing constructively. If I'm instructed otherwise I'll change this practice in the future, even if it seems counterproductive to me. Equazcion  ( talk ) 19:58, 22 Apr 2015 (UTC)
 * The way I look at it is that there are users on the wiki, and only  of them are active. The chances that a vandal will return after their first offense is small. If they do choose to return, and continue to be a nuisance, they will be blocked for longer. In my opinion, it isn't that big of a deal.  Chrisf1020   (talk)  20:09, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't be a big deal if we didn't also have to plow through all the IP vandalism that occurs each day, with the maybe two to four regularly active users actually dealing with these things. It helps to be able to thin the workload by weeding out those users who are likely (near-definitely) going to vandalize in the future if they do return. Equazcion  ( talk ) 20:16, 22 Apr 2015 (UTC)
 * A point worth considering: blocks are global to all of Gamepedia's wikis. It's admittedly hard to imagine, but someone who vandalizes here may be a worthwhile user elsewhere, and to permanently block them locks them out of many other wikis. On some level it's a bigger problem than our own internal enforcement issues.
 * Even so, Equazcion, I'm equally perturbed by repeat offenders- especially IPs who can't be permablocked, but are persistent enough to just wait out their blocks to the extent that even several months isn't a deterrent. I also don't personally believe in blocking as a means of discipline- I do feel that if a user is dedicated enough to register only to obviously vandalize, blocking them for a week as a show of force is ineffective at best and goading at worst. At the same time, we hardly have the means to keep track of people like this. It leaves us at kind of an impasse. For purely clerical purposes, though, it was recommended that we give out six month to one year blocks or something along those lines, just so the dead addresses don't stick around forever. I feel like anyone willing to wait 8766 hours just to continue to shitpost is going to find a way around first. Gearzein (talk) 20:52, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Are blocks actually global to all of Gamepedia? For user Masterwiki123, who is currently blocked on Terraria Wiki, their Minecraft Wiki log and their Minecraft user page don't show any blocks (for comparison, his Terraria Wiki log, and Terraria Wiki user page). Equazcion  ( talk ) 21:10, 22 Apr 2015 (UTC)

That's what I was told in a brief email exchange with CrsBenjamin. The block may not be reflected in the logs, just as their account creation isn't- after all, my own isn't either, despite having an identical profile page. I'll block myself for a brief period (I should be able to unblock myself just fine) and do a test edit in their sandbox to verify. Gearzein (talk) 21:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * So uh, interesting note. Apparently sometimes unblocking people just doesn't happen? Maybe it's an issue with blocking oneself, which logically shouldn't happen anyway.
 * Anyway, yes, it is in fact the case that blocks carry over to other wikis. Logs are probably local to wikis but block status definitely prevents you from editing any Gamepedia wiki. Gearzein (talk) 21:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Interesting, that's good to know. Although keep in mind that if a registration shows up here, it means that account wasn't active at any other wiki (yet) -- otherwise we wouldn't be seeing their registration here. I only mention that because it means that blocking a newly-registered account here incurs no danger of blocking some avid user at another wiki. I'd further make the argument that a block for blatant vandalism should carry over to all the wikis, and I'm glad it does, but if there's a more internal matter, like an edit war, it's somewhat concerning that that would necessarily carry over to all the wikis. Ideally there should be an option for that, not to mention logs/notices that carry over to all wikis when necessary, so we all know what's going on with an account. Anyway, I hear the logic of not keeping the accompanying IP blocks around forever though. I'll make a note in the instructions at the admin noticeboard. Equazcion  ( talk ) 21:55, 22 Apr 2015 (UTC)
 * To clarify a couple things: Blocks are global, but only appear in the logs where they were handed out. The problem we run into is when a user on Wiki A is being caught by an old indefinite block, it requires us to do serious sleuthing to figure out where the block was originally applied because that's the only place it can be removed. As for unblocking, this is a known issue where the unblock button doesn't work. The workaround is to set the block to expire at a manual time 5 minutes in the future (or similar). CrsBenjamin (talk) 21:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Summaries
Please try to be a little more descriptive (and less humorous) in your summaries, especially when more serious actions like range blocks are involved. People are going to need to examine these logs at some point, and the information they see on the reasons certain actions were taken needs to be useful. Thanks. Equazcion ( talk ) 09:27, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Will do. The one in question was someone who's pretty clearly the same person going after the same page from a different location, so I figured the block would naturally follow both the specific IP's block and the previous range blocks, but in hindsight the information doesn't really flow together without some investigation. Hopefully I shouldn't have to do any more range blocks, but if I do I'll be sure to take them more seriously. Gearzein (talk) 10:15, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Frustrations
Regarding this, use unsigned when you have the name appearing first in your pasted author/date info, and unsigned2 when you have the name appearing second. Just a tip :) Equazcion  ( talk ) 08:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Cool, I'll switch back to using the original. I didn't really have my critical thinking glasses on so I just assumed us2 was an upgraded version of unsigned or something, but that makes no sense at all really. Somehow I was deemed fit for administrative duties, heh. Gearzein (talk) 11:02, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Frustrated? I AM!!
I am frustrated there is nothing i can do to help the wiki. User:CoreyPLANTERA 10:20 AM 8 June 2015
 * How do you mean? There are plenty of things you can do to help the wiki. Not every task has to involve the creation of new pages. Gearzein (talk) 15:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Block
y did u ban me can u let me back i sorry i was such a jerk to you and i really apologize173.63.78.191 18:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't say for sure why an individual anonymous user was blocked. If you're posting here now, you're not blocked. There's no record of your current IP having ever been blocked either. If you're blocked on another IP address or had an account that was blocked, it was likely due to vandalism or some other violation of the rules, but it should expire soon unless you were persistent about whatever it was you were doing. If you can tell me your IP address or username, I can look into it. Gearzein (talk) 20:06, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Reason for undoing
I'd appreciate it if you gave me a reason as to why you undid my edit to the 1.3 page. It was perfectly valid. I will reverse the undo, and if you revert it again, I would like an explanation in the summary. Thank you.
 * It was removed because it didn't add anything noteworthy to the page. This isn't the first update to have prerelease copies made available- and even if this weren't a common practice not only with Terraria but across the game industry, the one you linked to isn't even the most relevant, because the official 1.3 trailer was made using one. More importantly, the wiki's video policy dictates that videos only be used when moving images are necessary to illustrate a concept. Even if this were notable, there are plenty of tweets and posts about these prerelease streams to make the linking of a specific video unnecessary.
 * The undo has already been reverted by another user. I apologize for not leaving a summary. Gearzein (talk) 09:46, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Android release date
Could you change the 1.0.0 release date for android in the Mobile version history from Nov 13 to Sep 13. According to this wiki the 1.0.1 update was released before 1.0.0(?). You can confirm that 1.0.0 was released in Sep 13 by looking at this wikipedia page(the table on the right on the release dates section). Chr4ever (talk) 12:30, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Also, why did the mobile version history page become protected in the first place? Chr4ever (talk) 12:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I've fixed the error and unprotected the page. It was protected because a small edit war regarding the proper abbreviation for June broke out, and got forgotten about in the 1.3 release hype. Sorry about that, and thanks for the help. Gearzein (talk) 12:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Hey
You recently deleted one of my pages. Now that I read the reason, I think it's acceptable. Thank you for correcting my stupidness ;v; .And thank you for making me feel like I shouldn't be here cause I'm dumb.OMGIHAVENOUSERNAMEOMG (talk) 07:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * My actions weren't meant to come off in that way. I make my fair share of mistakes around here as well, so don't take my decisions as final or anything. I acted to maintain the wiki's internal consistency, but this may not have been the most optimal choice, only the one I felt to be best given the circumstances. Don't feel stupid for making changes to the wiki that don't pan out, and certainly don't be intimidated into not putting forward changes to the wiki that you believe would be beneficial. Gearzein (talk) 16:49, 5 July 2015 (UTC)