FANDOM

(Difference between revisions) | User:ATEMVEGETA
(Out of Date Ruling)
(Out of Date Ruling)
Line 133: Line 133:
 
:Well, slashed rulings are not easy to read that's why we are using the Out of Date section for those rulings so the whole Ruling can be read without problem. If I'm not mistaken this had been discussed in the past and it had beed decided to use it that way, and we were doing it like that since then. Also, if there is only a small change in the ruling we have also {{sic|{{Span|Add the note here!|the underline note}}}} so we can point out the change without having to move the whole ruling into the Out of Date section. Just like we do with the "Elemental HERO", "Leaves the field", and "Banish" term changes. Ofc, those changes about Field Spell Cards were mostly Ruling changes rather than term changes. But I don't think they are many of them, so I guess we can add them to the Out of Date section is the whole Ruling is invalid, or simply add the underline note if a small part of the Ruling is invalid. I'll try it with [[Last Resort]]'s Rulings. If you can find more of such Rulings of Field Spell Cards let me know. Thanks! [[User:ATEMVEGETA|<span style="color:red;">ATEMVEGETA</span>]] ([[User_talk:ATEMVEGETA|Talk]]) 15:09, June 3, 2015 (UTC)
 
:Well, slashed rulings are not easy to read that's why we are using the Out of Date section for those rulings so the whole Ruling can be read without problem. If I'm not mistaken this had been discussed in the past and it had beed decided to use it that way, and we were doing it like that since then. Also, if there is only a small change in the ruling we have also {{sic|{{Span|Add the note here!|the underline note}}}} so we can point out the change without having to move the whole ruling into the Out of Date section. Just like we do with the "Elemental HERO", "Leaves the field", and "Banish" term changes. Ofc, those changes about Field Spell Cards were mostly Ruling changes rather than term changes. But I don't think they are many of them, so I guess we can add them to the Out of Date section is the whole Ruling is invalid, or simply add the underline note if a small part of the Ruling is invalid. I'll try it with [[Last Resort]]'s Rulings. If you can find more of such Rulings of Field Spell Cards let me know. Thanks! [[User:ATEMVEGETA|<span style="color:red;">ATEMVEGETA</span>]] ([[User_talk:ATEMVEGETA|Talk]]) 15:09, June 3, 2015 (UTC)
 
::I changed the ruling page but I'm not sure if that's the best way to have it. Lets leave it like that for now until we come up with something else for those small-part-out of-date rulings. Maybe we can have the slash-line after all but only for such Rulings. For all the other Out of Date Rulings use the Out of Date section instead of the slash line, and if you can find other such rulings please let me know. Thanks! [[User:ATEMVEGETA|<span style="color:red;">ATEMVEGETA</span>]] ([[User_talk:ATEMVEGETA|Talk]]) 15:45, June 3, 2015 (UTC)
 
::I changed the ruling page but I'm not sure if that's the best way to have it. Lets leave it like that for now until we come up with something else for those small-part-out of-date rulings. Maybe we can have the slash-line after all but only for such Rulings. For all the other Out of Date Rulings use the Out of Date section instead of the slash line, and if you can find other such rulings please let me know. Thanks! [[User:ATEMVEGETA|<span style="color:red;">ATEMVEGETA</span>]] ([[User_talk:ATEMVEGETA|Talk]]) 15:45, June 3, 2015 (UTC)
  +
:::To be honest, I didn't like the section method because it will lead us to make subsections for it, it's like a small ruling page inside a big one. we don't need to gather all rulings in single section just to point out that they are Out of Date. I agree, <s>slashed rulings are not easy to read</s>, however we have the <span style="background-color: #FFFF00">highlight method</span>, and this in my opinion the best way that work in both small-part and all-part "Out of Date" rulings. --[[User:Dlamash|Dlamash]] ([[User talk:Dlamash|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Dlamash|contribs]]) 18:17, June 3, 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:17, June 3, 2015

For other messages see: Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3, Archive 4, Archive 5, Archive 6, Archive 7, Archive 8, Archive 9, Archive 10, Archive 11, Archive 12

Dverg of the Nordic Alfar

Regarding "Dverg of the Nordic Alfar", can you find a way to add a note to the TCG ruling, "If "Dverg’s" effect is being negated, you cannot Normal Summon the extra monster," since the newer TCG ruling both agrees and disagrees with it? (This means "Skill Drain" can negate it if it was already active when "Dverg" was Summoned, but "Fiendish Chain" can't after it was Summoned.) --UltimateKuriboh (talkcontribs) 04:23, November 12, 2013 (UTC)

This Ruling was released along with the other out of dated ruling, so probably refers to "Dverg"'s effect being negated even after it's Summon. So, it is better to move it to into the "Out of Date" section. ATEMVEGETA (Talk) 23:30, November 17, 2013 (UTC)

Trap Monster rulings

Is it possible to add this as a "current" TCG ruling, seeing as it was posted by the current Konami? Some people might want confirmation that not only UDE confirms it (in the "Embodiment of Apophis" ruling), but also the current Konami as well. Adding the ruling would be similar to the TCG ruling issued for "Constellar Pollux", "Evilswarm Castor", etc. --UltimateKuriboh (talkcontribs) 05:03, December 4, 2013 (UTC)

Yep, we can add those Rulings. ATEMVEGETA (Talk) 07:39, December 6, 2013 (UTC)

"Face-up" rulings

Relevant to your interests: Forum:Plz update rulings for Cyber Phoenix. --UltimateKuriboh (talkcontribs) 07:54, December 16, 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response, now I saw the message. Somehow I didn't noticed it. From what I see X-Metaman already added the new Ruling. :) ATEMVEGETA (Talk) 22:46, January 19, 2014 (UTC)

Hey. Ep1kk has a very inappropriate signature name. —This unsigned comment was made by Rongneezy (talkcontribs) 23:45, January 19, 2014

What is his signature exactly, I don't see it somewhere. Amd, don't forget to also add your sign with ~~~~ at the end of your posts in forum and talk pages. ATEMVEGETA (Talk) 22:46, January 19, 2014 (UTC)

"Mentions in Other Rulings"

Is it okay for me to create an "OCG Rulings" section in Card Rulings:Goblin of Greed and place the 1 ruling from Card Rulings:The Tricky in a subsection called "Mentions in Other Rulings"? --UltimateKuriboh (talkcontribs) 00:31, January 23, 2014 (UTC)

Yes, of course! Since "Goblin of Greed" is mentioned in that Ruling you can add it to Card Rulings:Goblin of Greed as well. ATEMVEGETA (Talk) 18:49, January 23, 2014 (UTC)

Judge Forum Program Rulings

Ah, I just learned that you're not allowed to share personal details from the forum. You may not even be allowed to share anything from the forum. Please trust me without question when I say you need to censor every article listed on User:ATEMVEGETA/Judge Program Forum Rulings accordingly (removing the personal information). --UltimateKuriboh (talkcontribs) 21:26, January 24, 2014 (UTC)

Yea you are right! I stopped editing those pages and I was about to delete them sooner or later. I will post them again later (the rulings only this time, so we will be legal) in a better way to navigate them. Thanks for the note! ;)
I see they are already deleted now though by TwoTailedFox!
ATEMVEGETA (Talk) 01:38, January 28, 2014 (UTC)

UDE Rulings

In the "Previously Official Rulings" section, are we allowed to create an "Out of Date" sub-section or no? --UltimateKuriboh (talkcontribs) 15:51, February 6, 2014 (UTC)

Yes ofc, like in Card Rulings:Doomcaliber Knight page! ATEMVEGETA (Talk) 19:48, February 6, 2014 (UTC)

Card List Deletion

Hey, I was just wondering why loads of the card lists have been deleted off the booster pack pages - for years I've found them really useful in locating the cards I want, but no I'm not sure where to look. I just found it strange because some of the booster packs had their card lists deleted whereas others still have theirs...

http://yugioh.wikia.com/wiki/Legacy_of_the_Valiant

^above is an example of where the card list for the booster pack has been deleted --LewisHackett (talkcontribs) 21:19, March 2, 2014 (UTC)

Reversal Quiz ruling

Why isn't it out-of-date? The one listed as out-of-date says you can only need to have 1 card in your hand and none on the field to activate it, or just 1 card on your field and none in your hand to activate it, which is incorrect as stated by the e-mail. Can't we just do "..." at the end of the UDE ruling, after the 1st 2 sentences, and place the incorrect sentence as "out-of-date" with "..." at the beginning? --UltimateKuriboh (talkcontribs) 14:04, May 30, 2014 (UTC)

Also, do you have Skype? Not sure if we asked you before, but we have a Skype room for admins, if you're interested. Just follow this. --UltimateKuriboh (talkcontribs) 14:06, May 30, 2014 (UTC)
I was wondering the same thing, especially given the context of the question being asked. Chaosgodkarl (talkcontribs) 15:37, May 30, 2014 (UTC)
Well, it's just that the question and answer of the email ruling isn't much clear. By reading it I can get another meaning that not nessasarilly contradict with the old ruling. By the way, since the old Ruling contradicts with the OCG as well, I will change my edit and put it as outdated again.
UltimateKuriboh, I will try to make it similar with Doomcaliber Knight's outdating ruling with grey colors on the correct part. About Skype, I have Skype but I don't use it much. Btw, I didn't knew we have an admin room there. xD I will check it sometime.
ATEMVEGETA (Talk) 18:25, May 30, 2014 (UTC)

Bujingi Turtle

That's alright, you don't have to be online on Skype all the time. Would you mind adding a TCG/OCG ruling difference template for this card's ruling page? In the OCG, only cards that negate activations of cards/effects can be used during the Damage Step, and not cards that negate effects (due to their new rulebook). --UltimateKuriboh (talkcontribs) 15:25, June 3, 2014 (UTC)

UDE FAQ

A little bit confused by a slight inconsistency in your recent edits. Should the UDE FAQ section go above or below "Mentions in Other Rulings"? --SnorlaxMonster 10:40, June 27, 2014 (UTC)

It is better to go below of the "Mentions in Other Rulings" since "Mentions in Other Rulings" are also rulings from UDE's ruling database so they should't be "seperated" from the individual ones. ATEMVEGETA (Talk) 07:07, June 28, 2014 (UTC)

Edit Problem

Hi there,

I'm having a problem editing because suddenly a very old-looking, hard-to-understand version of the wiki editor has been running when I try to edit.

I'm used to one with white buttons and a drop-down search box for links; I don't know if this one appeared because I'm editing an archived article. I'll send you a screenshot when I can if required and until we sort out the problem my edits will have no links within the text.

Best regards, ThefabledDavid

ThefabledDavid (talkcontribs) 06:17, August 5, 2014 (UTC)

Hey ThefabledDavid! I am not really sure what exactly the problem is. A screenshot would be helpful.
By the way, you may try this: At the top-right corner of the page go to "Preferences" and then where it says "Layout:" make it "MonoBook". Then hit "Save". This changes your Wikia view to the old-style Wikia. I hope it'll help!
ATEMVEGETA (Talk) 06:30, August 5, 2014 (UTC)

Jackfrost rule question

morning man, im here to ask about the Jackfrost rule ins this page ( http://yugioh.wikia.com/wiki/Card_Rulings:Ghostrick_Jackfrost ) dont says if his effect target or not, i think its not target because you can read "monster´s" on the description you can help-me and answer, if possible? ty great job here Karkoski (talkcontribs) 14:29, September 30, 2014 (UTC)

Solemn Warning ruling

I'm not sure what to do about this new addition. --UltimateKuriboh (talkcontribs) 17:13, September 30, 2014 (UTC)

Fixed! ATEMVEGETA (Talk) 17:23, September 30, 2014 (UTC)
Is there any particular reason "Solemn Warning" negates the Pendulum Summon of "exactly" 3 monsters? --UltimateKuriboh (talkcontribs) 21:53, September 30, 2014 (UTC)
The question asked was about a spesific situation where the opponent wanted to pendulum summon 3 monsters. So it was answered as "Can Solemn Warning be used to negate a Pendulum Summon of 3 monsters?", unlike Horn of Heaver which was asked if it can negate the Pendulum Summon of 2 or more monsters. ATEMVEGETA (Talk) 07:45, October 1, 2014 (UTC)

Enemy Controller vs Mirror force on 1 card

Hello, I was recently dueling my friend for fun and I stumbled across a problem. When i was dueling my opponent had no cards on the field except one trap card, "enemy controller". That card is used to take control of my card, the "blue eyes white dragon", and use it as his own in battle as you already know but i had a "mirror force" card that i had face down. So he attacks me with my card under the "enemy controller" and i used "mirror force". In this case would my Blue eyes be destroyed, destroy my life points, or made into a stalemate? Thank you —This unsigned comment was made by Funkywynd20 (talkcontribs) 04:17, December 17, 2014‎

Hello! After your posts make sure you sign your name with: ~~~~
In this situation Blue-Eyes White Dragon is destroyed by Mirror Force. Then the attack stops, and no player takes any battle damage. ATEMVEGETA (Talk) 10:08, December 17, 2014 (UTC)

Snyffus

Why'd you delete the "Snyffus" ruling? --UltimateKuriboh (talkcontribs) 13:10, February 5, 2015 (UTC)

Sry, I got it confused with an old Snyffus Ruling posted by Kevin Tewart on pojo stating exactly the same thing. I thought you meant that that thread got deleted, thus it would be making the ruling invalid and unofficial. But now I noticed that the link of that Ruling was changed from Kevin's post to an email Ruling (since Kevin's post was also deleted and the link was reverted by SnorlaxMonster on 07:58, March 9, 2014‎).
I revert my edits back, so the ruling is there again! Thanks for the note, I wouldn't have notice it! ATEMVEGETA (Talk) 16:59, February 5, 2015 (UTC)

U.A. Stadium

Could you create the rulings page for "U.A. Stadium" please? http://i.imgur.com/iib873Y.jpg --UltimateKuriboh (talkcontribs) 17:10, May 17, 2015 (UTC)

Done! ATEMVEGETA (Talk) 17:44, May 18, 2015 (UTC)

Coming Soon/Release Dates

Hi, I was just curious on what happened to the release date section of this wikia where it had all the dates of what was coming to the OCG and the TCG BlueDuelist (talkcontribs) 17:09, May 31, 2015 (UTC)

You can find the news portal here: Portal:TCGOCG ATEMVEGETA (Talk) 11:15, June 1, 2015 (UTC)

Out of Date Ruling

After making many edit on card rulings pages I found that some rules have part of them "out of date" but not the whole rule. So I come to an idea of making the "out of date" part with strikethrough line instead of moving the whole rule to "Out of Date" section. see Card Rulings:Last Resort for example. --Dlamash (talkcontribs) 10:15, June 3, 2015 (UTC)

Well, slashed rulings are not easy to read that's why we are using the Out of Date section for those rulings so the whole Ruling can be read without problem. If I'm not mistaken this had been discussed in the past and it had beed decided to use it that way, and we were doing it like that since then. Also, if there is only a small change in the ruling we have also the underline note [sic] so we can point out the change without having to move the whole ruling into the Out of Date section. Just like we do with the "Elemental HERO", "Leaves the field", and "Banish" term changes. Ofc, those changes about Field Spell Cards were mostly Ruling changes rather than term changes. But I don't think they are many of them, so I guess we can add them to the Out of Date section is the whole Ruling is invalid, or simply add the underline note if a small part of the Ruling is invalid. I'll try it with Last Resort's Rulings. If you can find more of such Rulings of Field Spell Cards let me know. Thanks! ATEMVEGETA (Talk) 15:09, June 3, 2015 (UTC)
I changed the ruling page but I'm not sure if that's the best way to have it. Lets leave it like that for now until we come up with something else for those small-part-out of-date rulings. Maybe we can have the slash-line after all but only for such Rulings. For all the other Out of Date Rulings use the Out of Date section instead of the slash line, and if you can find other such rulings please let me know. Thanks! ATEMVEGETA (Talk) 15:45, June 3, 2015 (UTC)
To be honest, I didn't like the section method because it will lead us to make subsections for it, it's like a small ruling page inside a big one. we don't need to gather all rulings in single section just to point out that they are Out of Date. I agree, slashed rulings are not easy to read, however we have the highlight method, and this in my opinion the best way that work in both small-part and all-part "Out of Date" rulings. --Dlamash (talkcontribs) 18:17, June 3, 2015 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.