Sorceror Nobody

4,129 Edits since joining this wiki
October 26, 2011
  • If a conversation starts here, I will normally continue it here, as I find it much easier to follow a conversation on one page. Likewise, if I comment on someone else's talk page, I prefer being replied to there, for the same reason. The talk page will be on my watchlist once I've posted on it, so I won't miss a reply.
  • I request that messages on my talk page are written with at least decent grammar. It doesn't have to be perfect, by any means, but if I can't easily understand what's being said, I can't honestly deny that it somewhat impairs my willingness to work it out and, if relevant, respond to it.
  • All messages should be signed in accordance with the wiki's signature policy.
  • If you have any help requests, particularly with coding, feel free to ask. I'm apparently good at wikicode, at least according to several people on FFWiki. Including some that I think are better than me :P
  • I'm an admin, so you can also talk to me about blocks, moving or protecting pages, etc.
> Reader: View talk page   Current
> Reader: View archive 1   2011-12
> Reader: View archive 2   2013


I noticed that you posted something on the ~ATH page.

You said the term may have been "a mishap"

Look at one term you used.


Look at the words. "TILL DEATH"

The term was probably thought up that way.

Asuuming Hussie thinks at all like me.

(He probably doesn't.) 13:54, April 14, 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you're talking abo- oh, on the talk page? Man, I was looking for the exact word "mishap" since you put that in quotes >.> Anyway, what I was saying there is that it's totally coincidental that ATH is Hussie's hypothetical initials, if he happens to have a middle name beginning with T... which, as far as we know, he doesn't. The OP was grasping at straws with that, really. It's definitely true that ~ATH originates from 'til death -- Sorceror Nobody, 14:09, April 14, 2014 (UTC)

"Collapsible" class Edit

Aepokk directed me for my inquiry about the class "collapsible". I was noticing you were able to use it, without putting "mw-" before it. It also behaves differently, and I was wondering how you did it. I looked on the main MediaWiki pages I knew of, and I couldn't find anything. Help? Ylimegirl (talk) 03:54, June 15, 2014 (UTC)

I've never really stopped to think about the class needing defining, though I suppose it logically must require a piece of JavaScript. I think we inherit it automatically from universal MediaWiki. Looking at the MediaWiki manual on collapsing, it looks like "mw-" is the general class, which we could use for divs and stuff as well, but tables can be collapsed without the "mw-". Beyond that, I can't tell you much more, as my JS experience is limited, and I don't know all the workings of MediaWiki -- Sorceror Nobody, 14:05, June 15, 2014 (UTC)

RE: Restricted info policy Edit

I figured there would be something or another wrong with that. Oh well. Now I know. Rabbeseking (talk) 15:05, June 20, 2014 (UTC)

Re: Discussion closedEdit

The joke dates to 1955 and was a Chinese bakery, aka fortune cookie factory. No earlier reference of the joke is known. ___ƒelinoel__Hope Outline_ 17:50, November 17, 2014 (UTC)

And as noted on TVTropes, which I presume is where you got it from, it's widely suspected that it's been around for longer than that. I maintain my view that it could easily have been around almost as long as text-bearing goods have been manufactured in factories, which is a really damn long time.
Regardless, this doesn't change the fact that it is absolutely not exclusive to fortune cookies. I suspect the problem is that you have it fixed in your mind that the message is a fortune, which certainly does only work for fortune cookies. But it's not a fortune. It's a piece of generic text that can, but not necessarily does, come in the specific form of a fortune. In fact, it's really not a fortune even when it is in a fortune cookie, unless pleas for help somehow count as vague nonsense portents of the future.
Either way, closing the discussion on the article talk page doesn't just mean "take it to SN's talk page". I mean, you are allowed to bring it here (since it's not clogging the article talk), but that doesn't mean I have any interest in further debate beyond the end of this very response -- Sorceror Nobody, 18:04, November 17, 2014 (UTC)
I took it here because you closed it right when I was going to note that. I got that info from a quick Google search, not sure if tvtropes was involved. The lucky numbers point remained valid regardless. ___ƒelinoel__Hope Outline_ 18:08, November 17, 2014 (UTC)
Dude I dropped the lucky numbers point. I was stating aloud how my misconception was that it was a single number instead of a string, agreed that as a string of single or double digit numbers it made sense as lucky ones, and conceded the point. And then you brought it up again, and I have no idea why.
Anyway the bottom line is I agree with SN that 1) The origin isn't necessarily fortune cookies, and even if it was it'd be Japan or America, not China, because the things weren't by any means invented in China, that is a rumor. They didn't come to China until like 1989. 2) The origin doesn't necessarily matter anyway, so much as the fact that it does fit other formats. I'm exiting this conversation too, but as a parting note, I'm truly sorry about your situation with Bulbapedia. Aepokk ulpex 07:28, November 18, 2014 (UTC)
I brought up and will not drop the lucky numbers because it solidifies the usage in this instance as referencing fortune cookies. Everyone knows that fortune cookies are not actually a Chinese invention. A lot of things can be used for other stuff, I can give a turtle glasses, it still works because turtles have eyes but no one is going to assume that glasses are supposed to be for turtles. ___ƒelinoel__Hope Outline_ 14:15, November 18, 2014 (UTC)
*sigh* Can this be taken to your talk page rather than mine now, please? -- Sorceror Nobody, 23:19, November 19, 2014 (UTC)
EDIT: Although since both Aepokk and I have declared intent to disengage from this ridiculous folly, you shouldn't need to take it anywhere. But if someone else does jump in for reasons unknown to mankind, keep it on your talk or theirs. Or start a thread in Complete Bullshit -- Sorceror Nobody, 23:40, November 19, 2014 (UTC)
Don't worry, I have no intention of taking it to my talk page. ___ƒelinoel__Hope Outline_ 14:46, November 24, 2014 (UTC)

Protecting Edit

Can you protect the list of dead characters article for 1 month? 23:20, December 14, 2014 (UTC)

So let me get this straight. First you want it to be deleted, and then you want it to be protected? By all means, go ahead and explain to me the reason why you think it needs protecting. Other than to stop people misusing the deletion template on it, of course -- Sorceror Nobody, 23:25, December 14, 2014 (UTC)
maybe that is what Anon wants... regardless I think that's a good idea, for the reason which you excluded for Anon. I would personally like to hear Anon justify hir actions, why Anon have you marked list of dead characters for deletion? you said the page is abusive, I'd like that explained, I'd also like to hear your justification on removing the deletion tag from Easter eggs. Whohoohuwhu (talk) 00:32, December 15, 2014 (UTC)
Personally I would've autobanned them since they were doing the same thing the other day under a different IP and have already been warned. - The Light6 (talk) 01:37, December 15, 2014 (UTC)
Oh hey there Light. Haven't seen much of you on IRC lately. Had I known they had previous, I'd have reached straight for my BanMjollnir. I guess I'll look at this whole thing later, unless you intend to take care of it now -- Sorceror Nobody, 02:37, December 15, 2014 (UTC)
Honestly they'd already done it so many times by the time I left the first Warning2 on their talk page, I immediately told them I'd block them right then if I could. Then Light deleted the talk page for some reason when I requested his intervention? Aepokk ulpex 07:20, December 15, 2014 (UTC)
I didn't delete it though, I deleted an unrelated IP talk page, but this makes it the 3rd time they have done it. Side note, I didn't intervene because by the time I had actually came online they had stopped doing it hours ago. I can't really intervene after the fact. But given each attempt is done with a different IP address blocking them now would be pointless as they won't return using those addresses regardless. So yeah, there is nothing to take care of now, just don't respond to them in future, just revert their edits without comment and block them instantly if someone is online who can do it. - The Light6 (talk) 07:47, December 15, 2014 (UTC)

Hey MateEdit

Long time no see, how've you been? Chezrush {Talk} 05:52, February 10, 2015 (UTC)

Oh, nothing too special, same as always really -- Sorceror Nobody, 17:30, February 10, 2015 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki