User talk:OstPavel

Wait, ostPavel? The Buxville ostPavel? What a coincidence o.o Everystat13 (talk) 15:07, 17 April 2013 (CEST) I must agree to you when you say Buxville is dead. As for FTB, I've discovered it only recently, but I'm now on the same server every day, and of course contributing here :P Everystat13 (talk) 16:23, 17 April 2013 (CEST)

Hallo OstPavel, of course. Thanks for this hint. I will add some text in the next time.

Like the changes to T4 so far? :P 19:43, 19 November 2013 (CET)

I really do, heh. OstPavel (talk) 19:49, 19 November 2013 (CET)

Test

Signature test OstPavel (talk • contributions) 14:34, 21 November 2013 (CET)

Ban duration

I noticed we both banned the same anonymous IP address today. I'm just curious if that was because you thought my ban period was too short or you didn't realize that. Celestial Oblivion (talk) 08:38, 5 December 2013 (CET)

It was because I thought your duration was too short. There are no guidelines AFAIK, but I tend to ban for 2 weeks for vandalism and for 3 months for spamming. Plus, that guy was linking to a porn site. -- OstPavel (talk • contributions) 17:51, 5 December 2013 (CET)

Speaking of it, wouldn't it be a good idea to make at least rough guidelines on ban times? I usually give just 1 week for vandalism, but I'd probably give more if the user had vandalized before (which I haven't seen happen yet). For spammers I do 3 months as well, but enable account creation and disable e-mail for obvious reasons. --dgelessus (talk · contribs) 18:58, 5 December 2013 (CET)

Ah, I usually give ban times based on the number, degree and importance of pages damaged, not the specific problem. As I can't read Russian I had no idea it was for a porn site, and as it was only a single talk page I didn't take it very seriously. I also try to be fairly light with bans thanks to due to non-permanent IPs unless I believe they might cause problems again later (I.e. took the time to ruin multiple pages).Celestial Oblivion (talk) 21:13, 5 December 2013 (CET)

Re: It's TC4 now, right? Also, rewritten a bit.

Yes, but while the articles say TC4, many are still the TC3 articles with a banner at the top of the page saying that the content is outdated and needing updated. . ƒelinoel_ 04:37, 30 December 2013 (CET)

Situation not changed. --Antillar (talk) 11:08, 2 January 2016 (CET)

Yeah we just don't have enough magic mod using editors here, everyone is all about the tech mods sadly. ƒelinoel ~ (Talk) 00:25, 3 January 2016 (CET)

GT/Nav

So this looks fun: Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded. I'm guessing the two pages listed are there because of all recipe templates on them, topped off by the GregTech navbox. --timrem (talk) 17:00, 11 March 2014 (CET)

Well, I've seen this before on other pages, blame GT Nav template. RZR0 has applied a fix but looks like it broke again. Basically, what we can do next is to separate GT nav into several smaller templates. I think in case of Steel we could reduce the amount of crafting templates a little bit. -- OstPavel (talk • contributions) 17:23, 11 March 2014 (CET)

Actually it might be a good idea to merge the GT steel article into the main one, where we'll probably have no navbox at all. Maybe we should also make navboxes for ingots, metals, dusts, ores, that kind of thing. --dgelessus (talk · contribs) 17:36, 11 March 2014 (CET)

Like, all ingots available in FTB? Or just stuff like {{GTIngots/Nav}}, {{GTDusts/Nav}} etc? -- OstPavel (talk • contributions) 17:57, 11 March 2014 (CET)

The former, I was talking about all ingots/metals/dusts/whatever, mostly because of multiple mods adding the same thing. Putting five or more mod navboxes on Copper won't work out well, so having a general ingot navbox would be better IMO. --dgelessus (talk · contribs) 18:14, 11 March 2014 (CET)

How about all ingots/ores/dusts which are in the oredictionary? -- OstPavel (talk • contributions) 20:46, 11 March 2014 (CET)

Sure, that includes basically all ingots and ores :P --dgelessus (talk · contribs) 20:52, 11 March 2014 (CET)

Well, not all of them - how about those weird ores from Ars Magica etc? :> -- OstPavel (talk • contributions) 21:35, 11 March 2014 (CET)

Grouping them somehow would obviously be good. Any ideas for categories? Perhaps Overworld/Nether/End as the three major ones, and then perhaps by things like metal/gem/dust/etc. depending on what the ores give you in the end. --dgelessus (talk · contribs) 21:44, 11 March 2014 (CET)

Thanks!

Thank you, for all the work you have done. Imanton1 (talk) 03:45, 23 March 2014 (CET)

Featured Articles

Please remember to sign your posts, also as for Bronze Age (whatever that is), we do not have a whole month anymore, it is being hosted on the main page now as the Featured Article. If only we had a standard default format for Concept Articles, then we would have an easier time making the article look nice... . ƒelinoel_ 20:59, 1 April 2014 (CEST)

I think the Bronze Age article is decent, if something is unclear, people can always use the talk page. And I still see Still Alive by Valve as a featured article :| -- OstPavel (talk • contributions) 22:27, 1 April 2014 (CEST)

Key word there is decent, not awesome. Awesome is better than decent.

The displayed featureds are randomized, it is more likely to see the current featured things and less likely to see older featured things but older featured things are still possible to see. . ƒelinoel_ 15:27, 11 April 2014 (CEST)

This is a wiki, not an online magazine, an article cannot be awesome, it either has facts which are clear and up-to-date or it does not. If you have issues with it - there's an Edit button. -- OstPavel (talk • contributions) 18:30, 11 April 2014 (CEST)

I like infoboxes, they organize the article by relieving some of the negative space, we need default article designs for various article types. . ƒelinoel_ 18:36, 11 April 2014 (CEST)

Meh, it would be pretty hard to make infoboxes on "concepts" such as EU, the Bronze Age, Vis, Hunger, whatever. What information would you include in it? Name, source mod, if possible a representative image. That's all that I can think of, and not really enough for an infobox. --dgelessus (talk · contribs) 21:03, 11 April 2014 (CEST)

This sort of thing should really be discussed here, but yes those are things to add, it just feels weird being an article with so much negative space... . ƒelinoel_ 21:27, 11 April 2014 (CEST)

Re: MediaWiki/Wikimedia

Heyo, quick clarification on MediaWiki and Wikimedia. MediaWiki refers to the generic wiki software that we are using, so mediawiki.org is the place to find technical info about that, especially about the low-level configuration and inner workings. The Wikimedia Foundation are the people who run Wikipedia, Wiktionary, Commons, and all other sites directly related to Wikipedia. They usually have a lot of info for editors, so looking on either the English Wikipedia or meta.wikimedia.org (the WMF coordination site) is generally best for editor-side documentation. --dgelessus (talk · contribs) 21:43, 9 April 2014 (CEST)

Ah, I see, thanks. Should I change the links then? -- OstPavel (talk • contributions) 22:07, 9 April 2014 (CEST)

Total Materials Needed

I actually think its a good idea to mention the entire common resource cost of blocks/items that use a lot of non-standard components in their crafting components, and I think the Digital Miner easily fits into this category. --Celestial Oblivion (talk) 19:03, 5 October 2014 (CEST)

Except that, depending on packs/configs/mods, there could be 12 different ways to craft an item, or its various components, so a single list of base components won't hold true for everybody. --timrem (talk) 19:30, 5 October 2014 (CEST)

Not to mention that having just a crafting grid shown promotes the user to click on the ingredients and visit more wiki pages. -- OstPavel (talk • contributions) 20:22, 5 October 2014 (CEST)

Basic DNA Dictionary

Hello my name is Jack Price-Burns and I decided to do a bit of contributing to the advanced genetics section of the wiki I didn't get far when I found that http://ftbwiki.org/Basic_DNA_Dictionary was deleted by you, why was this page deleted as it is a item currently used in the Advanced Genetics mod? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.145.100.127 (talk · contribs) at 23:19, 1 November 2014‎

Hi there, thanks for contributing to the wiki! I'm not ostPavel, but I might still be able to help you. As the deletion log for that page says, the article was subject to mass deletion, a tool used against major wiki spam. (In this case somebody decided to create hundreds of pages containing only the {{Stub}} template and no other content.) Most page deletions are performed to keep the wiki clean of spam and nonsense, so in most cases there is nothing wrong with recreating a deleted page like this one.

By the way, when posting on talk pages, please sign them by typing --~~~~ after your post. The wiki software will automatically replace it with a signature. --dgelessus (talk · contribs) 23:43, 1 November 2014 (CET)

Thaum Stuff

You can remove FM template. What I am doing atm is Infusion grid for TC4 noone done yet. For some reason aspects not showing up there. Would appreciate any help. --Antillar (talk) 15:24, 29 December 2015 (CET)

The Infusion Grid should exist, are you sure it isn't? ƒelinoel ~ (Talk) 21:57, 29 December 2015 (CET)

I am sure that {{Grid/Infusion_Altar}} does exist, which is the one for 2-year-old outdated version of the mod. What I have just finished is {{Grid/Infusion_Altar_TC4}} for the version of the mod 99% of players use now. Took me 3 days to finish it and I am very proud of my work. --Antillar (talk) 11:09, 30 December 2015 (CET)

Oh yes I see, personally I use TC5 now but yeah, hmmm your TC4 template is a little long, how would you feel if the output item was moved to the right of it in order to make the articles not so empty?
http://ftbwiki.org/Awakened_Ichorium_Pickaxe#Recipe
. ƒelinoel_ 11:30, 30 December 2015 (CET)

I can move the aspects to the left by removing "absolute" from {{Grid/Aspect/TC4_NoBackground}} and this can allow me to shorten the picture by 50 pixels in average. I have done this template exactly how it is in Thaumonomicon, but I think that in this wiki the change you adviced to do is profitable. --Antillar (talk) 11:47, 30 December 2015 (CET)

True I see that that is how it is in the Thaumonomicon, but the change I was suggesting was a little more drastic... lemmie see if I can produce it. . ƒelinoel_ 12:02, 30 December 2015 (CET)

A bit rough but maybe something more like this with the aspects on the lower right? ƒelinoel ~ (Talk) 12:31, 30 December 2015 (CET)

Well I have already done this: http://ftbwiki.org/Awakened_Ichorium_Pickaxe . It seems for me that it looks not bad at least. The problem with your background is in the textures of aspects I had to do myself and to pull them through 3 templates to use. In the color of background all faults of my work are almost not visible, but in the background you have done they will be. And it will look ugly. I have asked the guy who makes textures to create normal ones, he told me that it will take some time, because he is working on his big project. After he provides the textures, I will change the grid again to use your background. --Antillar (talk) 13:02, 30 December 2015 (CET)

Yeah I saw the weird issue with the old aspect textures and was going to fix that once we had the template figured out myself. Not sure what was up with those old textures. . ƒelinoel_ 03:09, 2 January 2016 (CET)

AgriCraft Crafting Grid

AgriCraft seems to be a rather under documented mod on this wiki and is in dire need of it's own crafting grid to display it's crossbreeding recipes. I was working on its various Wiki pages when I was made aware that images wouldn't suffice as a replacement.

I wouldn't know who to contact about this, but I figured I'd let you know there's a need for one.

Thanks,

Scribe

I'm on it right now. Will poke you as soon as the template is ready. -- OstPavel (talk • contributions) 15:16, 5 June 2016 (CEST)

Wiki Formatting Question - Multiple Items On One Page

I didn't know who to consult about this question so I figured I'd ask you in hopes that you may know the answer or know someone who does.

How would I format a page so that multiple items can be linked to it?

For example, Botany has three "Soil" blocks under it's navigation bar (Flowerbed, Loam, Soil). These three blocks are very similar to one another and could be considered "technically" the same block save for a slight adjustment or two. So therefore it would be convenient for the reader to click on one of the three names under the navigation bar and be led to that block's section on a single Wiki page with all three types listed.

How would I go about doing this?

-Thanks

--Scribe-feather (talk) 10:05, 7 June 2016 (CEST)

There are no set guidelines for situations like this. i, personally, prefer "one page for one item" method unless the items are basically the same (for example, coloured cables from Applied Energistics 2 mod). Do these soil blocks have different recipes? If so, it might be more beneficial to make 3 little pages and (if necessary) a general one, named (just suggesting) Soil (Botany), with an overview and possible comparison of those 3 blocks. Have a look at Shears (Thermal Foundation) - a general article for TE shears.-- OstPavel (talk • contributions) 10:26, 7 June 2016 (CEST)

The soil blocks are more or less the same. They're created by adding different elements to the mod's Soil block; Loam being the result of adding Bone Meal to the soil, and Flowerbed being the result of adding Forestry's Fertilizer. The biggest difference between these blocks are fertility and how well a flower grows on it. Other then that, there's very little difference and it would seem rather inefficient to have three separate pages for the three.--Scribe-feather (talk) 12:34, 7 June 2016 (CEST)

The answer to whether one page is sufficient is based on 2 questions: Are these blocks/items the same ID and Metadata? Do they have the same texture?

Personally I don't have much experience with recent Binnie's flowers because for a long time there was a fatal crash during crafting recipe for main item in that section. But I think that these blocks can be done in one page. This requires probably more than basic knowledge of page formatting, but I can help you. I suppose doing one page with a nicely detailed wikitable of content, this should look pretty. --Antillar (talk) 18:01, 7 June 2016 (CEST)

Generally we create different pages, with some exceptions. But it depends largely on the editor of the pages. If the functionality of the blocks differ, there's obviously no question about. The same goes for crafting recipes that differ greatly or if the use of the items in crafting recipes for other items differ greatly. But generally, things such as Stained Glass (Minecraft) or Wood Planks go on the same page. On the other hand, most planks for mods have their own individualmpages if the mod offers multiple types of wood... I would say, think about it and do what you think is best, but it's possible that it will be changed later on. ~~ RZR0 (Talk | Contributions) 18:34, 7 June 2016 (CEST)

The Soil, Loam, and Flowerbed blocks take up a sizable chunk in the Botany's section of items. There are two different block IDs for each type as well as sub IDs, splitting the six or so block IDs into at least 50 different blocks.

In the actual mechanics of the game, the only standing difference between all these various blocks are stats for how well a flower grows on it, sort of like the various biome conditions bees need to thrive from Forestry. Different flowers rely on different variations of these stats to grow. These stats are based on the block's fertility (determined by whether or not bonemeal and/or Forestry fertilizer is added) , moisture (determined by the biome the block is in as well as whether the player places water or sand nearby), and the acidicy of the soil (determined by the biome the block is in as well as whether sulfur or ash is added).

There are visual differences to each block, but I'm looking at this from a reader's perspective. If I wanted to learn about Botany's Soil, Loam, and Flowerbed blocks, I would much prefer it all being on one page, especially with such minor differences between them all. In my eyes, despite the range of block IDs, the blocks are similar enough for one page.

I would appreciate any help towards the task of formatting such a page if the code of the website allows it. --Scribe-feather (talk) 23:41, 7 June 2016 (CEST)

Do it how you think is best, if you encounter any problems, we will help you to solve them. From reader's perspective, I think it is also better to read about all types of the soil in one page, because the reader will know what suits best for each situation only after he/she reads most of the soil pages, if they were on separate pages. And this requires constant clicking on links to get to different pages. You can also create one page for comparisson and a separate page for every soil block, but, as you mentioned, there is not much to write about if comparisson is separated, so these separate pages could be almost empty, which is also not good. But another problem is crafting recipes. If each of them has a different recipe, then the page could overflow with crafting recipes, even with {{substitute}} template. But still one nicely detailed big article is better than 20-30 articles with barely no content imho. --Antillar (talk) 11:55, 8 June 2016 (CEST)

"with reference to video energy converters 3"

First off, I wouldn't have put in that video again if I knew a talk option existed/where to read potential incoming messages. Well and secondly, I read the guidelines about videos before, I now read it again ofc, and it doesn't say anything about 'vanilla content only' at all, but I guess that's a rule which isn't put on the guidelines (yet?), I got that now. Last thing I want to say is just 'why', how can you not allow videos containing information about mods while that's what this wiki is all about?

Sorry for bothering you again + sorry for my bad english. ~DKnightADRI

Glad you've answered. First of all, the rule is indeed not mentioned in the Style Guide, I'm going to fix that. It was, however, discussed before and agreed upon. To quote one of the admins, "Depending on how "different" the textures are it is hard or impossible to tell what the blocks and items are without knowledge of the resource pack." Secondly, while this wiki is all about providing information on modded Minecraft, videos are the last priority. Wiki isn't a video hosting. We rely on text. This is especially true if a person comes to the wiki and uses it for promoting their own videos, without generating any useful content on this website. Lastly, when you get a new message on your talk page, there's a text saying you have a new message, found below the view/edit toolbar, on the left. -- OstPavel (talk • contributions) 21:24, 19 June 2016 (CEST)

Ban em all

Hey! I saw a few times that you and some other admins reverted edits by unnamed-users and didn't ban them. Why? If someone just making sh1t on a wiki, maybe, he must be banned? --WDA (talk) 19:50, 10 August 2016 (CEST)

Good evening. The only strict ban policy applies to CEO spammers (those who post links). Edits like I've reverted recently aren't harmful, no content was removed. The last edit didn't even contain any obscene language, hence no block. If it was a repeated offence, the offender would have been blocked, of course. -- OstPavel (talk • contributions) 20:21, 10 August 2016 (CEST)

Bot Privileges?

Any way I could get bot priviliges. I know what I'm doing when it comes to using the API, but my user doesn't have the permissions to make edits with the API. --DeathCamel57 (talk) 21:04, 12 January 2017 (CET)

FTB Beyond section?

I can't find a section for it on here, so I'm guessing it probably wasn't added yet. Are there any plans to add it? Quick Minecraft Tutorials (Talk|Contributions) 05:40, 9 April 2017 (CEST)

Currently it is not planned, but you can add it yourself if you want to. 14:20, 9 April 2017 (CEST)