Guild Wars Wiki talk:Admin noticeboard/Archive 5

Protection of Super Igor's talk page

I don't see protecting a self proclaimed troll from trolling because he's been banned for trolling and circumventing his ban to be a worthwhile use of a page protection. When his block is lifted, he can respond, or he can archive. -- Wyn/talk 13:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. If someone is being disruptive on his talk page, it would be better to deal with that person. And if the owner of the page keeps circunventing his block, just keep banning him longer and longer, it's not like he stays a week in the wiki before being banned again anyway. Erasculio 13:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the original request was because people editing Igor's talk page may bait him, which means Igor comes back and circumvents the block (which in turn invites more baiting, which in turn invites more circumvention) - not just because it would protect him from trolling. But I agree, deal with the individual users rather than protect the whole page. -- Brains12 \ talk 15:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I have placed warnings on Super Igor's, Dark Morphon's, and Venomoth's talk pages to cease and desist for the duration of Igor's block. -- Wyn/talk 17:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Guild deletions

Please remember to fix links when moving and deleting the redirect. Not doing this with guild pages has led to many bad links and a damaged wanted pages page. Backsword 19:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

This is mostly an issue with the Alliance nav template. And no, they are not all going to get fixed. -- Wyn/talk 01:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Uh? I thought {{Alliance nav}} was using #ifexist so no longer creates broken links or requests on the wanted pages lists?. Either case, i thought admins were supposed to check the "what links here" link before deleting pages?.--Fighterdoken 04:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Malicious sockpuppet use

→ moved from Guild Wars Wiki:Admin noticeboard

88.85.132.42 (talk • contribs • logs • block log), 88.85.132.147 (talk • contribs • logs • block log), 208.77.19.51 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

This is proven.... how? None of the three were blocked, and so would have no reason to circumvent a block to discuss and edit. I believe they are three separate users who possess similar opinions. calor (talk) 23:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Calor, Calor... 3 identical users with identical writing styles with identical opinions are reading the exact same pages and are doing identical things and the exact same time. And the two of them just happens to use some of the best known open proxies out there? I'd be insulted if I were played like that. Backsword 23:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

This still needs oversight. Backsword 19:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Disapointing. However, as the user has now been banned for a month it's moot. Backsword 22:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I am IP 88.85.132.42 and I used to be 88.85.132.147. The IP changed either 1st or 2nd day as you can see from contribution logs. With these others (not sure how to make sure if they're proxies or not) which you call "sockpuppets" I have nothing to do with. Hopefully this clears things out. 88.85.132.42 23:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. And sorry, I'm not a linguistic analyst. calor (talk) 00:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Backsword is. He's also omniscient. Just let him sniff out the socks. -Auron 01:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, yes, he's completely infallible. Let's just grant him adminship. Lord Belar 04:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, can he sniff out all the socks that my drier seems to eat? --snograt 19:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Omniscience is one thing, but let's not confuse Backsword with the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Lost socks are strictly the IPU's domain ;). *Defiant Elements* +talk 21:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Wait... if it's invisible, how do you know it's pink? --Jette 00:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I see someone is not a true believer in the faith. Lord Belar 01:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Put simply, I know that the Invisible Pink Unicorn is invisible because I cannot see her and I have faith that she is pink. *Defiant Elements* +talk 03:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The Invisible Pink Unicorn is pink because the Flying Spaghetti Monster created it such. --Xeeron 00:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Very helpful, Auron. Backsword 19:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Uh... interesting as your friends sound, I think I'm gonna stick with Cthulhu, thanks. --Jette 23:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism - Suggestion pages

If removing totally reasonable ideas (why something should and shouldn't happen) isn't vandalising, what is? Also, that was my first edit on that page and actually my first edit in this wiki so I can't see any edit war going on here, unless Backsword has been acting like a fool in the other wiki too, ehh. 208.77.19.51 17:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Your IP address has reverted Backsword twice now. The suggestion pages are collaboratively edited, that one moreso than others since it is a compilation of many suggestions. If you don't wish your suggestions to be edited, then you should create a personal suggestion page in your userspace. Regardless of all this, if you disagree with an edit, you can revert once, if it is replaced, you need to take it to the discussion page and find consensus, not violate GWW:1RR. Calling it vandalism does not give you the right to do so regardless. -- Wyn/talk 17:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I can only see one edit by this IP and I surely have done only that one to that page. As you seem to like post so much fancy stuff to admin noticeboard, could you aswell go and see the history of that page. Check out the edit by Backsword at 09:19, 12 January 2009. What do you think that is? If not vandalism, then what? 208.77.19.51 18:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I was indeed mistaken that you have reverted twice. My apologies. It doesn't change the fact that if you disagree with someone's edits, you take it to the discussion page rather than the noticeboard. -- Wyn/talk 18:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

True of course but as I saw Backsword had had some revert war there before and those edits by him were clearly bad faith & vandalism edits tbh I saw it necessary to take it to noticeboard. Actually it looks like it has been taken before but nothing has been done... 208.77.19.51 19:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Mostly because there isn't a clear understanding of what collaboratively edited means. Discuss your differences on the talk page and come to an agreement of the wording that you can both be happy with. -- Wyn/talk 19:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

"the noticeboard" forgetting articles all the time is a dead giveaway. 208.77.19.51 07:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Someone undid my revert there, claiming that banned users aren't allowed to edit. As you can see, I'm not banned. Could someone please take action about that, that page definately doesn't need any more revert war. 208.77.19.51 14:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, it seems the note about blocked users not being able to edit was placed by you, and you have are now in violation of the GWW:1RR, please stop reverting the changes. and discuss it on the talk page instead. -- Wyn/talk 14:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Well it's not, dunno why that's so. This version: "14:18, 14 January 2009 208.77.19.51" is the corrent one. Removing those cons and pros is purely vandalism and someone seriously needs to take action. 208.77.19.51 14:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

07:05, 13 January 2009 208.77.19.51 (Talk | block) (18,275 bytes) (Undo revision 1299939 by 208.43.165.115 (Talk) Blocked users are not allowed to edit.) (undo) <-- that's you, by the way.

Removal of the content in question isn't vandalism; the only "action" that needs to be taken is discussion. If the reverts continue, the page may be protected until a consensus is reached. Discuss over there instead of complaining here - you're not getting anything done here.-- Brains12 \ talk 15:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Wanted pages cleanup

→ moved from Guild Wars Wiki:Admin noticeboard

I've been trying to clean up the wanted pages and I am coming across some users creating entries on the Special:WantedPages with their templates and the subsequent usage notes. I think this could create a big issue in the long run if the wanted pages is supposed to be useful. I am attempting to get the users to repair the issue themselves but some users are seemingly inactive for the last couple of months and oblivious to the situation. For example this request made in november by another use to repair the issue and my 2nd request. After making my request I checked his activity log and he hasn't made an edit since Nov. 7, 2008. In this situation is it ok to repair the situation for them? What would be the determining factor for changing something in someone's user space without their permission? Month's of inactivity? Weeks? Elric 02:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, as long as it doesn't otherwise alter the template. -- Wyn 02:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The repair would change the usage instructions and the template would no longer work properly if anyone copied it. There would be missing brackets since they aren't a part of the template, they are added in the inclusion. Elric 02:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I have fixed all of Tristan's links, however, this is going to be an issue with anyone that has copied Lensor's character tables to their own space, and then did not fill in all the blanks, and there are LOTS of them. If someone has obviously been inactive for over a month, go ahead and fix the links, leaving a note on their talk page as to what you did. It's considered part of maintenance, and is not a violation of any policy. -- Wyn 04:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you... Will do. Elric 05:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I know that this isn't the place for discussion (according to the big floating notice at the top of the page, which I no longer see), but I also am ignorant if one is thus obliged to move the conversation to the talkpage, so I'll post this here anyway.

This sounds like a botworthy task due to the sheer number of links to be fixed. Vili 05:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Would be cool, however, due to the sheer number of people that have used Lensor's character tables, and copied them and used them for a base etc. it would be nearly impossible, imo, to really tell the bot what to look for and what to correct. There are other items in the wanted pages list that also fall under this same category. I personally feel that only links to something in the mainspace should be dealt with at all, since there are literally thousands of red links to pages in userspace due to people not using templates correctly, or filling them in completely. Of course poke would be the best answer as to whether any of this can be done with a bot, and he's now away from us for a few days. -- Wyn 05:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, we can do what we can until then. Elric 06:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I made a new template {{gl|<Guild name>|<Link title>}} now, that can be used to link to guild pages. It uses the same mechanism as the Alliance navigation and checks if the page exists or the guild was already archived; if neither of these exists, it won't be linked, so it doesn't create a link to a not-existing page. Use this template for linking when you the guild page won't be created by yourself and you just want to link to it. poke | talk 21:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

So does someone have to run through the thousands of dead links and tag them all with that? I don't understand? What does this template do to help? Elric 21:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

You replace the bad link with the template. And yes, someone has to manually do that. -- Wyn 21:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Great template... That would work if every single user checked his own user space for those links but there are literally thousands of those links. No one person could do it. Hell an army of people would have difficulty doing it. Is there any way you can have a bot go find and replace all the current known bad guild links with that template? Elric 22:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll reuse this topic now instead of starting a new one on the Community Portal - hope this will be seen by enough people. I'm really annoyed by the edits that you, Elric, made for "cleaning up" the WantedPages. While it is not a bad idea to make it more useful, I really don't like the way how all links were replaced by self: links or the {{tl}} usages put inside of nowiki-tags. Aside from all that watchlist-spam, it removes the possibilty to click those links and removes the page from the links to information pages. I'll change the {{tl}} template to check for existance but I really don't want any more changes of normal links to self: links.

Also I would like to say that I didn't created the {{gl}} template so that all links to guild pages should replaced by that; the template should be used there where only links to the guild page is wanted; for example when you write anout what other guilds are in your alliance (as you won't control if those guild pages do exist or not) but for example not for your own guild page (as you would create that one yourself)... poke | talk 09:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Poke... I did more than randomly change those links. I checked the reason the page was originally deleted and then fixed the links that lead to that page. The red links created by conversation with other people about something that is ultimately deleted were no longer needed to be made public so I made them relevant to only the page they were on. I busted my ass trying to help and now I am being told don't help. Or let me put it another way, I am virtually being told if I can't help the exact way everyone else wants me too then don't help at all. WTF??? Elric 15:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

It's more along the lines of: if you're going to make a lot of edits to many pages, you may want to do it on a few pages, get some feedback, then continue/change. --JonTheMon 15:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

It seemed pretty logical to me. The page was deleted for a legit reason by a sysop. The links lead back to a page that will never get re-created. Why have the links active then? Why should the links even be links. Whats wrong with turning them into text with nowiki or making them only relevant to the page they are on? Elric 15:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I suppose they might be upset because you're encroaching on their project and not checking in with them before doing things. Like, this has been in the works for a long time, and the new guy shows up and starts enacting his changes, well, that just mesh very well without a lot of communication. --JonTheMon 15:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Links are to link to those pages; if that page doesn't exist, the link is read which is a very easily recognizable sign for a page being non-existant. Just because a page is deleted there is no reason to change all pages that linked to that page before; that would just be totally annoying to everybody watching the page. And by changing to links to self: links, the information if the page exists and which pages link to that page are lost. The {{tl}} template however is to show how a template is used; adding nowiki-tags around all calls that use deleted templates really destroys the idea of that template of showing how that template is/was used.

Apart from that I strongly disagree with removing all links for deleted pages just to make WantedPages cleaner - sure, if there are real wanted pages, it gets more helpful, but again it is not really as if the special page is used very often, so the effort to remove all red links and ping everybody's watchlist multiple times is uneeded (as the suggestion before was when we discussed what we would do about deleted signature icons).

While it might be useful to remove links to non existant user and guild pages, I disagree with every other red link-removals. It's not that red links hurt anyone after all... poke | talk 15:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to check Poke, the way I've been doing guild page links; changing any links where the guild page was moved to (historical) to the historical version (more or less what your template does except since I started before it's creation I just changed the link from "Guild:<guild name>" to "Guild:<guild name> (historical)"); is fine or should I stop? --Kakarot 15:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it is fine to use the template instead as that reuses the old link title. But do as you please - even if I don't even see a real need for a change anyway. poke | talk 15:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Archiving Izzy's page

Maybe if he looked at it more than once a year, sure, we could wait for him. (Also, semi-protecting the admin noticeboard? Are there really not enough admins around to look after the noticeboard to make sure it's not vandalized? >.>) 69.109.112.49 07:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

It was decided that precisely because of that, Izzy's and few other talkpages are subject to administrative intervention when it comes to archiving, (re)moving baed content, etc. Originally it was the sysops doing this work; but it seems like the "job" has devolved, since (afaik) there is currently a non-admin keeping charge of Izzy's page, and now an anon too. So the real question isn't whether people other than the owner of the page ought to be doing the archiving; but rather, who is allowed to take care of that job? Vili 07:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Brains was the main mind behind taking care of Izzy's page, besides occasional sysop action. Not too long ago, he passed on the responsability to me. I cannot be omnipresent or on the wiki 24 hours a day, so other users have been kind enough to step in and assist when I'm not around. Still, last I checked, the sysops them selves do NOT archive for other users. Even in the case of Linsey's MASSIVE page, Poke only temporarily relocated some answered questions, do as to reduce page size, but did not archive them. I brought this issue up so as to avoid a revert war and breaking 1RR. As it stands, if their is no sysop objection within 24 hours, I will be reverting the archive of Izzy's page. I know I would not be happy if someone archived my page for me, regardless of my activity. — Jon Lupen 16:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Brains didnt _pass_ anything to you!! He was just saying that he wont do it any longer. You volunteered to continue doing it and while noone had any strong arguments against it (iirc) still noone told you to do it. There's a Difference. To Izzys Talkpage and the anon Archive... Well I dont have any strong feelings about that. I dont mind if it stays since Izzy in fact is not really active on the Wiki. On the other hand: I dont mind it becoming cluttered as Linseys Talk and leaving it to Izzy... At least at some Point it cant be edited anymore so no more Topics there which isnt that bad if you ask me. --SilentStorm 16:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I did archive Izzy's talk page for him, but only the sections that had been answered and left for a certain amount of time (a couple of weeks, I think) after the page had become fairly long - I think that was appreciated by Izzy as it's probably another aspect of wikis he's not familiar with and didn't mind that help. Archiving unanswered sections, however, probably isn't best for anyone to do.

Protecting the noticeboard was in response to a wave of vandalism, which is the whole point of protection. Protection isn't a matter of "there aren't enough admins, so we'll lock it", it's about prevention of further bad edits when necessary. I don't think an expiry was put on it, so I'll remove the protection now as it's been a while. -- Brains12 \ talk 16:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I need to get in touch with a few people. The best solution for this problem is not going to be reached between the wiki users and sysops alone. As it stands, archiving unanswered questions is never a good policy, archiving someone elses page without their consent is also not a prefered option. — Jon Lupen 17:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

@Brains: Hmm. Well, ok, then. I guess you would know that better than I.

@Jon: Pretty much every question you ask Izzy is going to remain unanswered. When his talk page becomes a huge wall of text, he simply doesn't read it - he's stated this in the past. The problem is he's so popular that his talk page will be a wall of text no matter what we do (and no small part of it is simply the useless "section moved to such-and-such a place", which serves no purpose other than to make the page seem even longer to him). Given that the last time his talk page was significantly cut down in size he greatly appreciated it, one could deduce that archiving his talk page actually makes it more likely that he'll read and answer questions.

But like I said, Izzy never checks his talk page anyway (not even to simply say "hi, I'm here, I do remember that this page exists even if work is too busy to read it"), so archiving the page was more to simply keep load times down and make it somewhat easier for the rest of us to read than anything else. I did try to not archive anything people might still be reading, though I'll admit that as I couldn't be bothered checking every timestamp on the page I might have missed something.

69.109.127.45 22:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much every question you ask Izzy is going to remain unanswered. When his talk page becomes a huge wall of text, he simply doesn't read it The way I see it is that archiving it pretty much guarantees none of it is going to get looked at. I think a note should have been left at the very least telling him what had been done and where he could find the information, because quite honestly, I don't think he's going to realize there is a new archive page. His page was no where near so big that it was breaking browsers, I mean, look at Linsey's... her's was well over 500k before anyone besides her took any action. I personally am against anyone but the actual user archiving with the exception of administrative actions. I think that if the page gets so big it's causing serious problems for people, that is when actions should be taken, and then it should be placed in a "holding tank" or some such rather than a standard archive. -- Wyn 22:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I do not believe the size of the page called for an archive move. Also, activity on Izzy's page has dropped significantly since Brains and later Jon have started patrolling it (yes, I actually have had the page on my watchlist for half a year now, even though I never really contributed there. Silent and observing.), most discussion is moved to other talk pages or the skill feedback section anyway, so I do not believe the page will be in need of a new archive very soon. I think the best option would be to move the archived content back to his talk page, where he can read it, should he visit his page. It might take some time until he shows up again, but as I said, his page is not growing that dramaticly. — Why 23:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that you guys aren't getting the part where he said "I don't read my wiki page because it gets too large in like a day". Izzy has very low standards for "large" talk pages, mostly because of his English problems. It quickly got to the point where the size of his page didn't make a difference to him because he never checked it anyway. If he comes back eventually, sure, point out all the archives of stuff he's not dealt with - but if you're really worried that everything posted on his talk have a chance to be addressed, I think you'll find yourself disappointed once you look through his other archives. He's not commented on about 80% of all the stuff posted on his talk (and that's a generous estimate) - why should one relatively small archive matter in the grand scheme of things?

It comes down to, as I said, an archive just so the rest of us don't have to spend a month scrolling through "topic moved to" notices. That's pretty much all I was trying to avoid. My logic became "if Izzy doesn't read his talk page, it shouldn't be a priority that his talk page be convenient for him". This was, in my opinion, backed by the fact that other people have archived his page in the past without consulting him and no one's complained.

That said, if it's really a huge problem, if the principle is so important to the wiki that Izzy be the only one to archive his page, even if he never reads it, so be it - un-archive the thing. I honestly don't care; I was just trying to help. I wasn't expecting a discussion this large, and a request, nigh on demand, for administrative decisions (As it stands, if their is no sysop objection within 24 hours, I will be reverting the archive of Izzy's page) over a simple page archiving.

69.109.127.45 07:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The fact that you archived his page isn't that huge of a deal, it's what you archived. Issues thst have long ago been addressed in a form or another and topics that have been moved to another page may be archived, but an abritrary archive of almost everything will not do. There where still unaddressed questions in there. Even if the likely-hook is Izzy himself responding is very low, topics should remain untill addressed in some form or another. Since there is currently no harm in that content being in Izzy's page, and their are no administrative objections, I will be unarchiving most of the content in question. — Jon Lupen 16:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

On a side note, if a topic is moved in its entirety to another page, feel free to archive it after a day or, but not right away. Give it some time so returning users know it's been archived. If the discussion has been moved, but the question or issue remains, leave it. As it stands, Izzy's page is under 32kb, and is now growing at a rather slow rate. It will be quite some time before it gets to an undesirable length, at which time this issue will need to be addressed again. — Jon Lupen 17:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I do totally get the part where he said "I don't read my wiki page because it gets too large in like a day". The issue here is that that page didn't get that large in a day. It got that large over 3 months. I still doesn't give anyone but Izzy the right to archive issues that have not been addressed, especially without leaving him a notice of what was done and where he can find it. Due to the monitoring of his page we have done, none of the topics on his page were that long, as we have kept the walls of text to a minimum. I don't want anyone coming to my talk page and archiving things because they feel it's become too long, and I don't believe policy allows for it anyway. -- Wyn 18:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

On a Similar Note

Do we have/need a contingency for Izzy's possible return except tighter/stronger/more strict monitoring? — Jon Lupen 22:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

If I recall properly, Izzy is (thankfully) NOT working on Build Wars. I'm looking forward to future updates now that he's not destroying Build Wars anymore. So the answer to your question is a resounding NO. We don't need Izzy to come back to destroy the game for us further.

Update Translations

I would like to suggest that these "translations" of the Dev Updates be treated as trolling and vandalism and removed. They are not contributing anything but hate to this wiki. -- Wyn 04:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see them as doing any harm. They are definitely not vandalism as the update page itself is not changed in any way. They are not trolling directed at any wiki user in particular, and they are not personal attacks either. Therefore they do not violate Build Wars Wiki policy. All logic gates functioning normally.--The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.71.232.219 (talk).

I wouldn't expect the troll posting them to agree with me. -- Wyn 04:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a troll. They're actually quite funny if you read them but don't take them too seriously. In fact, I can theoretically translate ANYONE's user page if it has enough written on it (Of course the translation goes on the discussion page.)--The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.71.232.219 (talk).

If these "translations" were contained to perhaps a user talk page then I would be somewhat more accepting of them, but seeing them time after time on the developer updates page gets....old, after a while. I would agree with removing them, but perhaps check to see if they can be moved to a corresponding user talk page to be continued there. If not, remove them entirely. -- Wandering Traveler 04:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Autoconfirm-lock the IP's talk page and move all his translations to there, I say. On a serious note, I do agree with Wyn. They're pointless and annoying and thus qualify for deletion because of trolling. — Why 17:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the wiki isn't a place for a disgruntled player's whining. Get rid of the comments they add nothing and only further push staffers away. Ghosst • Talk • 17:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't have a problem with them if they were funny. Vili 22:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

They are pointless and rude, please remove them. --Shadowphoenix 23:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with removal. --SilentStorm 01:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with removing the comments. I agree they can be annoying though. Removing them is basically censorship. If they're not breaking any rules, they shouldn't be removed - the player is just expressing his/her opinion/dissatisfaction, albeit regularly. If it does actually cause disruption, it would be something to consider, but I don't think it is at the moment. Besides, the comments are on the talk page - which causal users looking for information probably aren't going to check - only wiki users. Looking at the page view counters, the talk page has ~ 102k views, whereas the article has almost a million. Biscuits 09:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Aye. Just don't feed the trolls. That's all. Backsword 17:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Talk pages are, and always have been, primarily for discussing the article associated with it (with the exception of user talk pages which are primarily for contacting the user). This was once common sense, and when it somehow stopped being common sense, we came to general consensus that it was so anyway. Of course, none of us are such sticklers that people can't occasionally go beyond that, within reason, but when something that doesn't belong starts taking over, it's time to say that's enough.

The "translations" are humor. I'm not going to get into a debate over the quality of the humor, but that's the apparent intention. We have a place for humor on the wiki. Check out Category:Humor. Note where almost all the pages are (with the exception of various in-game humor and that one April Fools' Day "update") in userspace. If you want to post "translations", do it in your userspace. Yes, that means unregistered users are going to be "oppressed" and "censored". Oh, and even in your userspace and even for the sake of humor, you still can't include personal attacks. Sorry, more "oppression" and "censorship". Deal with it.

So yes, I fully support removing them from the dev update talk page, whether moving to the user's userspace, quick-archiving, or simply deleting as disruption. - Tanetris 20:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not really adverse to the motivation you give. It's why mediawiki has talk pages in the first place, and how they were generally used at first.

But in it self it doesn't provide a reason to single this out. IF one checks, game update and developer log talks have been dominated by comments on the content as far back as I remember. If we are to act on this motivation, then this is far from the only thing to go. Backsword 20:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Whatever! But in any case I'll do what Tanetris already said and remove any further "translation" sections, if needed by adding it to the sysop log everytime. poke | talk 20:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks like I got put in my place by Tanetris. Using the tools properly trumps censorship idealism in my book. :) Biscuits 17:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Linsey's Page (Location?)

If this is the incorrect spot to bring this up, go ahead and move it, just gimme a heads up somehow on where you moved it to. On the main note, I think Linsey's page is a suitable suize now, could it be unlocked now? Or is that up to Linsey? If so, could someone who can edit her page(s) bring this issue up to her in the correct spot? Thanks. — Jon Lupen 03:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

That is up to her, if you read her journal post it explains that her page will be unlocked as soon as she has worked out the rules for posting she wishes to implement. -- Wyn 04:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, sounds good. — Jon Lupen 04:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

62.88.128.149

Claims to be Oni and past contributions would also suggest it is Oni's IP. Misery 14:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it's just a random IP trying to get Oni banned D:. Dark Morphon(contribs) 11:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow misery. WOW.

Why in the name of fuckballs would I say that I was about to do it? That's fucking retarded. Be logical, plox. THEY'RE TRYING TO FRAME ME! D':Oni 19:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, Oni, you should show some better behaviour if you don't want people to think that you are always a bad guy :/ poke | talk 19:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Lol, As long as I have logic guarding my side I think I'll be fine. Thx for caring tho hun<3Oni 21:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

83.249.112.17 is oni though pretty obvious.He even openly admits it and all his posts suggest he is.Lilondra *panda* 18:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

ArenaNet:Staff presence

Cobra mentioned on the talk page there has been quite a lot of vandalism to that page, would it benefit from autoconfirmed-protection? — Why 02:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The page hasn't really seen any activity in over a month, so I don't think that's a necessary step at this point in time. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 10:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Please stop breaking Game link:s

Twice I have fixed broken game links.  Once I changed a link from a link to a #redirect page to link directly to the target of the redirect.  The other change was from a link to a non-existent page (that had an '(explorable area)' suffix) to an existing page with almost the same name.

In both cases Backsword reverted the link to their broken condition.  The first time I raised the issue politely because the harm was minor and someone else checked and agreed that it was enough of a problem that the change I had made was the correct one.  This time, there is NO question that the reverted link is broken, so I did the reversion myself.

I predict that Backsword will either try to raise a stink about the 1RR rule, or break the link again.  Will someone advise him (because he obviousely does not listen to me and has become abusive when talking to me) that he should make sure that he is not breaking things when he does this kind of thing.

-- mtew 11:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Backswords gamelink corrections are valid. Also instead of breaking 1RR it is better to discuss the matter on the talk page.- TheRave (talk) 11:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

As he did it (and you did it also) the result is NOT valid.  I consider knowingly creating broken links a form of vandalism.  If there is in fact a separate explorable area with geography sufficiently different from the outpost to warrant a page of its own, then create that page, as a stub, before creating a link you know will be broken.      mtew 12:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Although I don't know about this case specifically, the game links are a special case. Most of the redirects from Game link were created by a bot by an ArenaNet employee, getting their information from the game directly. This means that, if the game link was created by that bot, it is very likely it's pointing to the right thing and there actually exists an explorable version of the outpost in game. We have just not documented it, for different reasons (maybe we never see it in game, it's a leftover). The game links were not meant to be created after the article was, they were often in place before we had an article, since they were implemented quite early. Game links leading to empty pages is not a bad thing, only when they lead to something obviously wrong, like with a typo. - anja 12:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Someone might want to take a look at Game link:Explorable 447 if that's the case - I'm not experienced in that kind of thing. -- Brains12 \ talk 13:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) That makes sense for their original creation, but recreating the bad link without creating a page with something at least minimally informative is NOT the same thing.      mtew 14:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

It depends on the link in each case, I'd say. But, linking a game link to a redirect is not something I would call productive, and I would change it too. - anja 15:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

In this special case I could understand why the link to Cliffs of Dohjok (A Land of Heroes) would be more appropriate than directly to A Land of Heroes. As I said before to you, mtew, this gives the linked player some information (via the "Redirected from" text) that this link is actually related to the location during the quest and not the quest itself. So I don't see a harm in keeping it as it was.

Also the main reason why we should avoid double redirects is that MediaWiki detects those and only performs one redirect. This however is not true for self: redirects. Self links are like external links and as such not registered by the parser when getting to their target. So if a self: redirect points to a redirect, both are executed. So for game links there is no need to "fix" double redirects, because they are not harmful at all, but might give some information with their name instead. poke | talk 15:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

oni

← moved to Guild Wars Wiki:Admin noticeboard

User:AidanReed

→ moved from Guild Wars Wiki:Admin noticeboard

I could have handled that better, yes. I'll keep that in mind. -_- -- Wandering Traveler 23:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

So you put a bag over my head, gag me so i can't speak. Let alone give me the right to actually defend myself. What happend to freedom of speech? What happend to the right of a fair trial? This community is rotten to the bone.

All you administrators act like Gestapo did. Is that a harsh thing to say?

Let's see, if your first reaction is to block me away for saying this and you try to cover up this situation, then I'm right and you are dictators.

However, if you actualy tried to talk to people then I'm wrong. And you are just and right and more of those pretty words.

So what do you want to be? Huhn?

Feel like starting to listen for a change? AidanReed 11:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

If you look at what Brains said, it was a one day block to allow tempers to cool. WT has admitted he handled it badly. I believe he was trying to "talk to you" and you were reacting harshly, and while he could have handled it better, so could have you. -- Wyn 11:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Then please explain to me what the policy is on other users altering my user page against my will? It's what I was removed for, so why can some other user vandalize my page. Where I get the blame and a preach for doing the same? That other user has no right altering my pages, yet if I unchange his vandalism I get blocked. Do you understand my frustration? AidanReed 13:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

You were blocked for violating the revert policy on the Herta article, not for anything on your userpage. No one but you has edited your userpage. As for the talk page associated with your userspace, that belongs to the community, not you, and there are restrictions about just removing comments from it, see GWW:USER. I have archived the comments and added an archive link as the policy requires. -- Wyn 13:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Wiki Bugs

Could someone please direct me to the page for wiki related bugs? I'm having trouble tracking it down at the moment. :P — Jon Lupen 00:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It's right under the link to the noticeboard under the support nav. GWW:BUG is the shortcut. -- Brains12 \ talk 00:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. — Jon Lupen 00:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Remove 4th Anniversary Celebration Event Announcement?

Now that the 4th Anniversary Celebration events are over, shouldn't we remove the link from the "Special events • Weekend events" section on the main page? I asked the question on the main page discussion but didn't receive any response. Luke1138 06:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure, why not. - Tanetris 06:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Luke1138 07:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)