Talk:Arbuckle Hill - Revision history

Morbus Iff: Resolved.

2005-06-06T13:39:15Z

Resolved.

Morbus Iff: Minor misspelling fix. Nothing special. Thanks.

2005-05-24T03:33:41Z

Minor misspelling fix. Nothing special. Thanks.

DrAckroyd: Answer

2005-05-24T02:59:42Z

Answer

Morbus Iff: Question concerning rejah, Iganefta, and Arbuckle Hill.

2005-05-23T22:49:20Z

Question concerning rejah, Iganefta, and Arbuckle Hill.

DrAckroyd: rebuttal

2005-05-19T23:50:12Z

rebuttal

Morbus Iff: Oh, incidentally...

2005-05-19T20:31:06Z

Oh, incidentally...

Lisa B. Underhalh: Thanks for info

2005-05-19T20:20:31Z

Thanks for info

Morbus Iff: Comments on scholar comments, when, and canonizing.

2005-05-19T19:28:17Z

Comments on scholar comments, when, and canonizing.

Lisa B. Underhalh: Asking permission for scholarly debate

2005-05-19T18:13:18Z

Asking permission for scholarly debate

New page

Since I'm still not quite clear on the rules of in-game & out-of-game scholarly discussion, I'd like to post the following as notes to the page as an in-game scholarly debate:

A true scholar would have noted that the "Early Days" are mere mythology as the so-called [[Creator]] has no proof of existance and only Ghyllian word of mouth supports this "historical" recollection. Ghyllian scholars should refrain from imparting religious bias into their scholary texts. --[[User:Lisa B. Underhalh|Lisa B. Underhalh]] 14:13, 19 May 2005 (EDT)

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-Question: Odgar IV got elected to the post of [[rejah]], and then "established what he referred to ever after as 'The Court of Odgar IV.'" This court is in the Eastern quarter of [[Iganefta]]. How does he get control over the role changing of Arbuckle Hill? Was it just pompous positioning on his part? --[[User:MorbusIff|Morbus Iff]] 18:49, 23 May 2005 (EDT)
+{{ResolvedTalk}}
-−
-I saw it as he had agents in place that were seeing the effect and manipulating events.  But by acting in someone else's backyard he avoided having any backlash against his "court". --[[User:DrAckroyd|Dr. H. L. Ackroyd]] 22:59, 23 May 2005 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:33, 24 May 2005
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Question: Odgar IV got elected to the post of [[rejah]], and then "established what he referred to ever after as 'The Court of Odgar IV.'" This court is in the Eastern quarter of [[Iganefta]]. How does he get control over the role changing of Arbuckle Hill? Was it just pompous positioning on his part? --[[User:MorbusIff\|Morbus Iff]] 18:49, 23 May 2005 (EDT)		Question: Odgar IV got elected to the post of [[rejah]], and then "established what he referred to ever after as 'The Court of Odgar IV.'" This court is in the Eastern quarter of [[Iganefta]]. How does he get control over the role changing of Arbuckle Hill? Was it just pompous positioning on his part? --[[User:MorbusIff\|Morbus Iff]] 18:49, 23 May 2005 (EDT)

−	I saw it as he had agents in place that were seeing the effect and manipulating events. But by acting in someone else's backyard he avoided having any backlash ~~agasint~~ his "court". --[[User:DrAckroyd\|Dr. H. L. Ackroyd]] 22:59, 23 May 2005 (EDT)	+	I saw it as he had agents in place that were seeing the effect and manipulating events. But by acting in someone else's backyard he avoided having any backlash against his "court". --[[User:DrAckroyd\|Dr. H. L. Ackroyd]] 22:59, 23 May 2005 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:59, 24 May 2005
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Question: Odgar IV got elected to the post of [[rejah]], and then "established what he referred to ever after as 'The Court of Odgar IV.'" This court is in the Eastern quarter of [[Iganefta]]. How does he get control over the role changing of Arbuckle Hill? Was it just pompous positioning on his part? --[[User:MorbusIff\|Morbus Iff]] 18:49, 23 May 2005 (EDT)		Question: Odgar IV got elected to the post of [[rejah]], and then "established what he referred to ever after as 'The Court of Odgar IV.'" This court is in the Eastern quarter of [[Iganefta]]. How does he get control over the role changing of Arbuckle Hill? Was it just pompous positioning on his part? --[[User:MorbusIff\|Morbus Iff]] 18:49, 23 May 2005 (EDT)
		+
		+	I saw it as he had agents in place that were seeing the effect and manipulating events. But by acting in someone else's backyard he avoided having any backlash agasint his "court". --[[User:DrAckroyd\|Dr. H. L. Ackroyd]] 22:59, 23 May 2005 (EDT)

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-Since I'm still not quite clear on the rules of in-game & out-of-game scholarly discussion, I'd like to post the following as notes to the page as an in-game scholarly debate:
+Question: Odgar IV got elected to the post of [[rejah]], and then "established what he referred to ever after as 'The Court of Odgar IV.'" This court is in the Eastern quarter of [[Iganefta]]. How does he get control over the role changing of Arbuckle Hill? Was it just pompous positioning on his part? --[[User:MorbusIff|Morbus Iff]] 18:49, 23 May 2005 (EDT)
-−
-A true scholar would have noted that the "Early Days" are mere mythology as the so-called [[Creator]] has no proof of existance and only Ghyllian word of mouth supports this "historical" recollection.  Ghyllian scholars should refrain from imparting religious bias into their scholary texts. --[[User:Lisa B. Underhalh|Lisa B. Underhalh]] 14:13, 19 May 2005 (EDT)
-−
-:Ultimately, the Talk: pages are for out-of-game discussions ("dude, your dates are all crazy", "yeah, well, you missed by Easter Egg!") and the bottom of the actual entries are used for scholarly debate (so, your comment above would get moved to beneath the real entry). There is no hard and fast rule for WHEN, however, it is permissable to add your scholarly comment to a page: generally speaking, if there are indications that the entry is "done", then that's as good a time as any. That means, at the latest, scholarly comments can always be legitimately placed once the next turn starts. But, if there are indications that the player is finished with his entry ("Copyedit please" as opposed to "First draft, more later."), then that's clear indication that they're ready for comments, both in- and out-. As for canonization: scholarly comments are not canon - that is, unless someone decides to make them canon by including their facts in the body of a future entry. --[[User:MorbusIff|Morbus Iff]] 15:28, 19 May 2005 (EDT)
-−
-::Thanks.  When the author either mentions here that the article is done or the turn passes, I'll post the above and allow the talk page to be reverted to white space per obsolete discusion.  --[[User:Lisa B. Underhalh|Lisa B. Underhalh]] 16:20, 19 May 2005 (EDT)
-−
-:::I didn't actually notice it until AFTER I commented, but I'd take the author's OWN scholarly comment as an indicator that he willing/ready to accept more. --[[User:MorbusIff|Morbus Iff]] 16:31, 19 May 2005 (EDT)
-−
-I will gladly add your comment to the article itself.  Even if it is twaddle. ;)  --[[User:DrAckroyd|Dr. H. L. Ackroyd]] 19:50, 19 May 2005 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:50, 19 May 2005
Line 8:		Line 8:

	:::I didn't actually notice it until AFTER I commented, but I'd take the author's OWN scholarly comment as an indicator that he willing/ready to accept more. --[[User:MorbusIff\|Morbus Iff]] 16:31, 19 May 2005 (EDT)		:::I didn't actually notice it until AFTER I commented, but I'd take the author's OWN scholarly comment as an indicator that he willing/ready to accept more. --[[User:MorbusIff\|Morbus Iff]] 16:31, 19 May 2005 (EDT)
		+
		+	I will gladly add your comment to the article itself. Even if it is twaddle. ;) --[[User:DrAckroyd\|Dr. H. L. Ackroyd]] 19:50, 19 May 2005 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:20, 19 May 2005
Line 4:		Line 4:

	:Ultimately, the Talk: pages are for out-of-game discussions ("dude, your dates are all crazy", "yeah, well, you missed by Easter Egg!") and the bottom of the actual entries are used for scholarly debate (so, your comment above would get moved to beneath the real entry). There is no hard and fast rule for WHEN, however, it is permissable to add your scholarly comment to a page: generally speaking, if there are indications that the entry is "done", then that's as good a time as any. That means, at the latest, scholarly comments can always be legitimately placed once the next turn starts. But, if there are indications that the player is finished with his entry ("Copywrite please" as opposed to "First draft, more later."), then that's clear indication that they're ready for comments, both in- and out-. As for canonization: scholarly comments are not canon - that is, unless someone decides to make them canon by including their facts in the body of a future entry. --[[User:MorbusIff\|Morbus Iff]] 15:28, 19 May 2005 (EDT)		:Ultimately, the Talk: pages are for out-of-game discussions ("dude, your dates are all crazy", "yeah, well, you missed by Easter Egg!") and the bottom of the actual entries are used for scholarly debate (so, your comment above would get moved to beneath the real entry). There is no hard and fast rule for WHEN, however, it is permissable to add your scholarly comment to a page: generally speaking, if there are indications that the entry is "done", then that's as good a time as any. That means, at the latest, scholarly comments can always be legitimately placed once the next turn starts. But, if there are indications that the player is finished with his entry ("Copywrite please" as opposed to "First draft, more later."), then that's clear indication that they're ready for comments, both in- and out-. As for canonization: scholarly comments are not canon - that is, unless someone decides to make them canon by including their facts in the body of a future entry. --[[User:MorbusIff\|Morbus Iff]] 15:28, 19 May 2005 (EDT)
		+
		+	::Thanks. When the author either mentions here that the article is done or the turn passes, I'll post the above and allow the talk page to be reverted to white space per obsolete discusion. --[[User:Lisa B. Underhalh\|Lisa B. Underhalh]] 16:20, 19 May 2005 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:28, 19 May 2005
Line 2:		Line 2:

	A true scholar would have noted that the "Early Days" are mere mythology as the so-called [[Creator]] has no proof of existance and only Ghyllian word of mouth supports this "historical" recollection. Ghyllian scholars should refrain from imparting religious bias into their scholary texts. --[[User:Lisa B. Underhalh\|Lisa B. Underhalh]] 14:13, 19 May 2005 (EDT)		A true scholar would have noted that the "Early Days" are mere mythology as the so-called [[Creator]] has no proof of existance and only Ghyllian word of mouth supports this "historical" recollection. Ghyllian scholars should refrain from imparting religious bias into their scholary texts. --[[User:Lisa B. Underhalh\|Lisa B. Underhalh]] 14:13, 19 May 2005 (EDT)
		+
		+	:Ultimately, the Talk: pages are for out-of-game discussions ("dude, your dates are all crazy", "yeah, well, you missed by Easter Egg!") and the bottom of the actual entries are used for scholarly debate (so, your comment above would get moved to beneath the real entry). There is no hard and fast rule for WHEN, however, it is permissable to add your scholarly comment to a page: generally speaking, if there are indications that the entry is "done", then that's as good a time as any. That means, at the latest, scholarly comments can always be legitimately placed once the next turn starts. But, if there are indications that the player is finished with his entry ("Copywrite please" as opposed to "First draft, more later."), then that's clear indication that they're ready for comments, both in- and out-. As for canonization: scholarly comments are not canon - that is, unless someone decides to make them canon by including their facts in the body of a future entry. --[[User:MorbusIff\|Morbus Iff]] 15:28, 19 May 2005 (EDT)