User:Dirigible/Archive 2

Careful: This is an archive page of past discussions. If you wish to leave me a message, please do so on my talk page and not here. Thanks! --Dirigible

Dervish boss' name readability

Looking at Image:Fahranur, The First City bosses map.jpg, I'm having a really hard time reading the Dervish boss' name. Is there any way you could improve on that picture? -- CoRrRan (CoRrRan / talk) 19:30, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Whoops, that was pretty bad indeed. Uploaded a new version, any better? Brightened the boss name and used a clearer version of the background map, hopefully it stands out more now. And thanks for letting me know! :) --Dirigible 20:12, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

That looks pretty good Dirigible! -- CoRrRan (CoRrRan / talk) 03:30, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

AWB

Just out of curiosity, was is Guild Wars Wiki:AWB (which you're including in the edit summary) supposed to link to? O_o? --Rainith 18:57, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

It's supposed to be Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser. =\ I can't change it (without recompiling the program) or turn it off (requires the account running it to be flagged as a bot for that). --Dirigible 19:01, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

Ok. I was just curious. I couldn't even guess at what AWB had to do with categories and was searching all the policy/formatting pages looking for it.  :) --Rainith 21:45, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

Decided to stop being lazy and rebuilt it from source a bit earlier, so you won't see it again. :) Sorry for the confusion! --Dirigible 21:51, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

Allegience

FFF requires you to die at the end for quickest effeciency, and that's the repeatable faction quest. - Ears of the Woods 22:50, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

Not to mention it's not to common that you'll die on the run there anyways. - Ears of the Woods 22:53, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

Don't forget about the door man, the guy who only takes the quest and maps back to Lutgardis. He never dies. :) --Dirigible 22:55, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

Then how do the others get experience needed for survivor? - Ears of the Woods 23:02, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

They don't care about Survivor, to put it simply. As you noted, the runners are all going to die; they're only there for the FFF. Only the doorman has the option of doing both Survivor and FFF at the same time. --Dirigible 23:10, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

Gonna edit to emphasize that then. =) - Ears of the Woods 23:15, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

PAGES WITH ONLY STUB!!! :(

Red links are better than blue! BLASTEDT 16:33, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Nope, see Talk:Main Page#Game integration. And you made my bot stop by posting here! Boo! :P --Dirigible 16:35, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Bot stop. They never said to screw everything up.. BLASTEDT 16:47, 8 May 2007 (EDT)!

As mentioned in the discussion there, we're adding the quest stubs to identify which quests have been done or not (so far 58 not done, 43 done). These quest links will be accessed from the game, the users getting to them from there won't see a red link, that's the problem. --Dirigible 16:53, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

...ok... BLASTEDT 16:54, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

EDIT: Put in template:Undone Quest. I'll do that. BLASTEDT 16:55, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Why not use {{quest-stub}}?... Stub = "this page is missing huge chunks, help us and add it!" --Dirigible 16:58, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

This is more drastic, I meant put in both :P BLASTEDT 16:59, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Alright, I guess, even though I don't really see the need. :) Moved it to {{Quest placeholder}} though, "Undone quest" sounds not quite right. K, turning it back on. --Dirigible 17:13, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Personally I prefer red links to blue, but the problem with the game link system is that it doesn't produce red links, so we have no record of there being a broken link.

I suggested quest-stub, but I think some sort of placeholder makes more sense. LordBiro 17:34, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

I'm very late to reply (real world distractions), but just wanted to add that I agree with LordBiro. For the most part, I usually agree with Wikipedia's WP:BLANK; but in this case, the linking mechanism is such that no red link would ever exist, so I fully agree with the use of stub tags in this limited special case. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 11:02, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Bot

Hey Dirigible, we don't have a procedure at present for granting bot status. What is your intended purpose for the bot? LordBiro 17:35, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Check recent changes. BLASTEDT 17:36, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Woah. o_o LordBiro 17:42, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

(edit conflicts!) Repetitive tedious tasks, like the one it's currently doing; checking if a quest page exists, and if not it adds the stub tags. I've used it before as well for minor tasks from this account, for fixing up the {{NPC infobox}} parameters in boss pages, correcting categories and such. For those uses I can just run it from my account, since they're a relatively low numbers of articles. I figured it'd be better to get an account flagged as bot for the quests task though, they're a lot and the RC spam is messy, as BlastedT pointed out. =\ --Dirigible 17:44, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Ok, well I'll grant bot status. We might come up with some bot status policy in future, so it might need revising then. As for the edits that the bot carries out, even though I know that you know what you're doing it would still be helpful if any mass edits could be discussed beforehand. :) LordBiro 17:49, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Danke! --Dirigible 18:00, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

In the interim, could you keep a log of what it's doing / what it intends to do on its userpage? I imagine that any bot policy will involve something similar. —Tanaric 12:01, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

(RI) That's a sweet program, Diri (assuming you're using AWB). I've gotten one working for myself too - just because I want to get rid of that {{quest placeholder}} category. I've requested bot status goodness. Thanks for the tip on this thing! PepeGoesWikibotting 21:37, 10 May 2007 (EDT) (and, umm... err... User:MisterPepe)

I was actually using a python bot based on the Pywikipedia framework for the quest stubs. AWB is nifty too though, it's packed with features. :) --Dirigible 21:44, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Ah. I'm too lazy to recompile a python wikibot. I looked at that, but AWB is much simpler to set up =P MisterPepe talk 21:46, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Looks interesting. Keep up the work :D--Bane of Worlds (talk • contribs) 22:28, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Hm, thinking about this, and I'm not sure that replacing {{Quest placeholder}} with an empty quest page skeleton such as Speak with Headmaster Lee (Assassin) is a good idea, Pepe. I mean, the structure and infobox is indeed there and that's fine, but there's no actual content entered yet; those pages still belong in Category:Quests with no data, I think. Except for the title that page has zero relevant information for an interested reader.

Another option is to simply insert that quest page skeleton in {{Quest placeholder}} instead of each quest article. That way whoever writes up the quest data can just add a subst in the template call ("{{subst:Quest placeholder}}") and build upon that. --Dirigible 00:01, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

You're right, I misspoke - I simply wanted to add that empty structure to the page, rather than getting rid of the tag. I figured that having the framework in place would make it both simpler and less intimidating to people to edit those pages, especially considering how empty and how large of a job that is. I support leaving the {{Quest placeholder}} tag on there - I just wanted to make it easier for editors =P Whenever possible, I prefer not to use subst: when messing with templates - while it makes it less likely that the page will change, keeping the code in one handy little package (say, for example, that glaring box at the top of the page =P ) to simplify understanding for newer users. That's also the reason why, when I was messing with that structure (BTW, AWB seems to not support copy-paste, making that somewhat of a PITA) I even typed in the comments =P I hate that stupid box at the top of the page, but I know that removing it isn't the way to go about fixing things - I'd rather just make it easier for other people to add what they know =) (BTW - I'd help, but I phail@PvE - GvG <3) MisterPepe talk 01:30, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Since you have a bot, and you're working on quest pages, how about getting it to run and replace all ==Dialogues== with ==Dialogue==? -- ab.er.rant 08:49, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Aye, why not. I'll do those overnight (unless Pepe beats me to it, seems he's having lots of fun with that bot!). --Dirigible 14:08, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

1. Yes, I did beat you to it. It's done, btw.
2. And I am having a lot of fun with that bot XD MisterPepe talk 20:48, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Boss maps

Hey Dirigible! I just wanted to give you kudos for those awesome boss maps. They look absolutely fantastic! As a side note, do you think we should stick all of them into a boss maps category for easy browsing? -- Emily Diehl (talk) 19:55, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Aye, categories for maps would definitely be useful to have. I'm just not sure whether a single category would be appropriate (there's a lot of bosses in this game) or if we should split it in smaller subcats of some kind instead (by species? profession? location?). This same question about categorizing images was also brought up earlier today at Guild Wars Wiki talk:Formatting/Images#Content?. Hopefully that'll be decided soon, then I'll go back and categorize everything. --Dirigible 21:05, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Gomen nasai...

Sorry to spam your talk page like this - apparently I've had a little too much caffeine lately (finals ftl). Anyway, I remembered you helping out with the Help section, and (per the discussion at Help talk:Contents) it seemed like people hated my happy little nuvola icons T_T Anyway, long story short, the bottom of User:MisterPepe/Sandbox has another version I've worked up, and I was wondering if you might have an opinion and/or suggestions. Thanks! MisterPepe talk 21:54, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Looks good to me! But then, I had no issue with the Nuvola icons either. :) --Dirigible 23:47, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

=P Sorry about blanking those copyvios in the process - I misread GWW:COPYRIGHT. I've reset to program to skip all copyvio articles as well. MisterPepe talk 13:53, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

And disambiguation pages... Why not just work only on the quests in Category:Quests with no data, that should avoid any risk of false positives. Also, maybe you want to use {{subst:PAGENAME}}. --13:57, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Good call, no, and good call. I'm going by region, which complicates the Quests w/ no data thing. And rather than full auto mode, I'm manually hitting "save" each time =P Of course, technically, we're not supposed to have disambiguation pages in the first place ;) MisterPepe talk 14:01, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Actually, you're right - reconfiguring to skip all quests that aren't in that category. Still doing it by region, tho =P MisterPepe talk 14:05, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

(edit conflict) Just search the page for {{quest placeholder}}, if it's not there, then skip it. And why are we not supposed to have disambiguation pages? See Guild Wars Wiki:Formatting/Article names. "In cases where the disambiguation type or scope appears to be on the same level, then all the pages in question will need a disambiguation identifier and a disambiguation page needs to be created". --Dirigible 14:08, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

(RI) Already did, and see Special:Disambiguations. The mediawiki software itself doesn't like it, apparently =P If the article names formatting article says that, of course we go along with it, but I think we're actually wrong to be doing that. MisterPepe talk 14:12, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Special:Disambiguations is talking about links; if an internal link is pointing to Blood Drinker but it should be pointing to Blood Drinker (species), then it should be corrected so it sends the reader to the correct article, instead of forcing him to click through a disambiguation page first. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have a disambig page at all though, there's many ways to get to an article besides clicking on links. :) --Dirigible 14:17, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

>.< Yet again, I fail at reading. Wonder-freaking-ful. *sigh* MisterPepe talk 14:19, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

map pictures

I'm really curious how you do all your map pictures. do u do it all manually or was htere a program you used to make the paths and stuff like that? -- Zem*my»TALK 12:01, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Manually, I guess. For drawing the paths I've set up a PS brush to keep their appearance consistent (6px diameter for red and blue paths, 5px for yellow paths, 170% spacing, 90% hardness, smoothing on), everything else is manual though. --Dirigible 13:13, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Can you share/allow me to use your little targetting reticle? :) I've done a few collector maps but I've decided it will be much easier to use the area maps and then draw on them manually than fighting my way to the collectors each time. And kudos for making it so in many cases when I create a collector article the map is already there. :D Eerie Moss 18:54, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Aye, Image:User Dirigible pointer.png. Just one thing I should note though, even though I do draw the maps, it doesn't mean that I don't actually go to the boss/collector/artisan location myself. I draw the maps instead of using screenshots in order to increase their clarity, not exactly to make life easier for myself. I usually always run to the NPCs in question before drawing it, that way I can be sure that I won't draw the route through any walls, or anything of that kind. --Dirigible 05:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Yup, I do the same. I just like using the maps that 1, display the entire area, 2, show the outposts and 3, are clear, and then draw on them. Eerie Moss 08:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Count Vidal‎

Check out his talk page on GuildWiki [1]. He's making those redirects on purpose, although I guess he assumed the rules were different here. File:Biscuit.png_Biscuits 21:02, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Well, now he knows. :) --21:06, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Your user page

I just wanted to note that you have by far the coolest user page I've ever seen. —Tanaric 05:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --Dirigible 11:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I find it rather depressing. I played with this guy he's a lot more cheerful than that. :( --Karlos 20:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not supposed to be depressing! It's a huge dirigible going KABOOM! :) --Dirigible 06:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Nice. I never knew there was such a word as "dirigible" to begin with. And here I thought it was something poetic like "Faustus Slims." Vocabulary ftw. :) --Karlos 06:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Botty bot?

Could you do us a favour and use your bot to put {{armor update}} on all the armor pages (indexes, articles, art type articles, galleries) or is that too complicated? - BeX 08:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Aye, sure. I think I should skip all Nightfall + FoW pages, right? And all non-ascended galleries for Factions armor? --Dirigible 11:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. :) And no, everything except Nightfall armor needs updating afaik. A lot of the Factions crafting information has changed. I'm unsure on the status of FoW armor. - BeX 11:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

It's just that from reading the Game updates page, it sounds as if the non-ascended Factions armor galleries won't need any changes (for instance Gallery of female assassin Luxon armor). It makes no difference to me either way, just figured it'd be pointless tagging those pages if they won't need updating. --Dirigible 11:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the names wouldn't have changed so that's fine to skip, sorry for misreading. - BeX 12:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Am I right to edit the ones the bot has already tagged, or should I wait? - BeX 12:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Yup, done with those. --Dirigible 12:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Could you do me another favor and replace "Crafter" with "Armorer" in the crafting tables on the armor art articles. As many as you can replace would be greatly handy! - BeX 15:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Just place a request on GWW:BOTS. - MSorglos (talk|contrib) 16:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure. --Dirigible 18:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Redirects policy...

Is there a redirects polisy here? Someone made a redirect from Bounties to Bounty and I asked if there was such a policy and got no response. Should I give it the axe a la GWiki or is this okay here or are you as clueless as I am? --Karlos 20:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

There's no policy yet, but this page does exist: Guild_Wars_Wiki:Formatting/Redirects. Perhaps it's best to discuss it there? --  (CoRrRan / talk) 20:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I feel obliged to note that plural redirects are allowed under new GuildWiki policy. —Tanaric 21:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I feel obliged to note that such policy is: bogus. :P --Karlos 01:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm extremely pleased...

...with the plethora of useless guild pages being created. This is eerily familiar to the builds section on GWiki. Mike O'Brien sounds like Xeeron already. :) This is all playing out perfectly... Then more and more rubbish... Then e-mails between admins about policing the Guilds zoo... Then a "No Original Guilds" policy that advocates keeping the pages for ZoS and IQ but deleting the pages of guilds that haven't done much... Then an announcement by a frustrated Tanaric that on May 1st 2008 the Guilds section will be deleted and that all users are encourages to host their guilds on some new wiki. And there will be much rejoicing... Mwa ha ha haaah! >:) --Karlos 06:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I'm also extremely pleased with all these clumsy editors creating these gawky guild pages (and if it'd been something I could control, it'd have happened a lot sooner). They're people who are clicking on their guild's name in the F10 panel in-game, incredulous and surprised that there could possibly even be a page about them on the wiki (the official one, no less). All those pages are the by-product of these new users coming into contact for the first time with a wiki site. True, it's messy, but it was bound to be so anyways; you can't really teach someone to paint without ruining a couple of your favourite shirts in the process. It's also very probably going to get a lot "worse" before it gets better, but methinks it will eventually get better (or so my Magic 8-Ball OF DOOM says, anyways). :) --Dirigible 08:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Touchez! My mini pet Fire Imp, whom I have named Boo, says otherwise. I trust him. He knows stuff. --Karlos 11:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Dirigible, which is why I pushed so hard for guild articles in the first place. Once people become accustomed to treating the wiki as part of the game, the quality of wiki edits will increase. I feel this way because of how well the A Tale in the Desert wiki runs. Of course, ATitD is significantly smaller than Guild Wars, so we'll see if the experience transfers. —Tanaric 23:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, is Boo a miniature giant space fire imp? :) —Tanaric 23:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Guild pages are about as useless as build pages. That is, ten times MORE useful than drop research on skarabs or the latest vanity weapon skin picture. Or we could just all accept that different people use different parts of the wiki ;-) --Xeeron 00:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

However, edits about sword skins, Bladed Aatxe drop rates (which I must interject are extremely important) or even Gaile's minipets do NOT clog the "Recent Changes" list. Guild (and build) edits do. The same can be said for server storage. Anyone noticed that there were server issues on the day the "/wiki" option was added in the game update? --Karlos 07:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Having studied economics, I believe in demand and supply: If guilds and builds do clog the recent changes, then that is a clear sign of demand for guilds and builds being meet. If drop rates edits do not , then ... well you get the picture ;-)

PS: I remember raising the issue of clogged recent changes not to long ago. I was unanimously told it is not important, so it seems the huge majority here does not care about recent changes spam. --Xeeron 12:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It's very easy to filter out Guild: and Build: namespaces from the recent changes list -- that's the reason they're in separate namespaces to begin with. Beyond this, your second argument is completely flawed. Yes, we got a lot of traffic the day they added /wiki. Did that have anything to do with guild articles being allowed? My gut says no -- the relatively few guild edits we had (at most, ~10-20 articles a minute) were far less than the number of new users viewing the wiki, which I'm sure numbered in the hundreds/minute, if not higher. —Tanaric 12:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Tanaric, I am making no "argument" so there's nothing on your part to "debunk." I am just stating observations. I am not lobbying for the removal of the guild namespace (yet), so there's no reason to refute anything. And I never said the server performance degradation had anything to do with the addition of guild articles. I said it was tied into the "/wiki" addition and I was wondering if others noticed it. You're being too defensive, in my opinion, Tanaric. Slow down, there's nothing to win here.

More observations: a) 10-20 edits per minute in the guild space is a LOT of useless edits. b) I don't like to filter the recent changes list. I like to know everything going on. As an admin, I can't turn a blind eye on somethign and let it burn. --Karlos 03:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't my intent to sound defensive, Karlos. I apologize if I misrepresented myself. :)

Back to the topic at hand -- as an admin, you certainly can turn a blind eye to something and let it burn. This isn't the GuildWiki, and adminship here really isn't a big deal. You don't have any responsibilities at all. —Tanaric 05:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Hah. Let's just say my style of adminship is more... hands on than having no responsibilities at all. --Karlos 05:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Of that I'm well aware. :) —Tanaric 05:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Subsection on User_talk:Tanaric#Busy_bee

I thought that my subsection could be good to jump further down in the discussion, just as an extra bookmark for not having to scroll down the full talk... Don't know wether you missunterstood my moving of your comment as my comment was right before yours. Don't want to disturb talk. - MSorglos 10:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Nah, no worries. It's just that my comment was a direct reply to Pepe, and when you moved it below your post it seemed as if I were replying to you, which of course didn't make any sense and was simply confusing. :P --Dirigible 10:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Now I understand why you moved my comment down. All ok. - MSorglos 10:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Map marker for wiki maps

I noticed that you have Image:User Dirigible pointer.png which you use to mark spots on wiki maps. Would you like to be uniform and use the following: (also exists as .jpg and .png version if you can't open .psd) http://gem.users.paivola.fi/GW/locationmarker.psd -- (gem / talk) 09:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather keep using mine, to be honest. It's brighter and the borders are sharper, making it catchier to the eye. Your pointer has been cropped from the ingame one (making the already-small icon even thinner by scrubbing the background from it), and the colour of the marker is very pale. (The in-game pointer itself also has visibility issues. Compare its appearance to the green star-like icon that indicates a quest checkpoint; the latter has a 1px dark border and a brighter colour, while the former doesn't even have any contours whatsoever; it makes a great difference, I think.)

One of my main pet peeves with maps on GuildWiki (besides images cropped to absurdity) is how much time you need to waste just to process the map when you first look at it. You need to scan the entire map to find that pale green-whiteish pointer, and then you need to figure out which red dots show the path to that pointer and which show the path that the player took when he was running to break aggro to avoid getting wiped. Which is what I've been trying to avoid here. And as far as uniformity is concerned, there's a few hundred maps uploaded right now using that version of the pointer and (none as far as I know?) of the cropped in-game one, so there's no need to worry about that, I think. Hope that makes sense. Cheers! --Dirigible 11:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Heh ok. I hate the looks of your icon, but if there really are hundreds of maps with it, I can't really do anything about it. I would like it to look smoother and the color should be changed a bit, but guess it's too late now. -- (gem / talk) 12:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The lime green hurts the eyes and it could have used some shading, but yeah, what can you do. :/ - BeX 12:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Want to improve on it Bex? We can go update the old maps later on. (Yeah, I'm willing to do a lot of maps :) ) -- (gem / talk) 12:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not lime! It's just a cool shade of green! Grrr... :P

If it can be improved, by all means go for it. There's still a lot more maps to do so it's definitely not too late for anything. --Dirigible 12:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is my offering: . LordBiro 12:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Hawt! - BeX 12:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Like it a lot. Let's use this then. -- (gem / talk) 12:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I like the way it looks, but ... (this is probably going to sound as blasphemous as someone suggesting putting red lipstick on the Gioconda) ... is there any chance we can make that icon a bit larger, or darken the borders a bit, or use some other kind of trick to make it more visible? I'm worried it might be a bit too smallish. This example shows what it'd look like on an actual map. --Dirigible 14:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, definitely larger. -- (gem / talk) 14:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe 30px. - BeX 14:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

IS THIS BIG ENOUGH FOR YOU?! >_<

Hehe,  ;) LordBiro 15:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I totally want to see that gigantic one on a map now. - BeX 15:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

hahaha, that's awesome biro -FireFox File:Firefoxav.png 17:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm when did Dirigible's talk page transform into the community hang out place btw? ::leans back:: When are tea and snacks being served? =) --Xeeron 13:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Dirigible's talk page is the hip place to be right now. Awesome icon Biro too.-- Scourge 01:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of policy...

Since you're really the only other person that uses a bot around here (well, I guess Mike sorta counts), mind taking a look at the policy proposal at Guild Wars Wiki:Bots? Thanks. MisterPepe talk 06:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to have to pass on that one, I'm afraid. A policy on bots at this point in time strikes me as useless and unneeded, with no concrete raison d’etre. And I personally dislike the idea of making policy just for the sake of making policy and enforcing regulation even on what doesn't need regulating ... it's one of several similarly irking and exasperating unhealthy trends that have found their way to this wiki during the last few months, and I can't say I'm too happy about them.

G'luck with the policy, though! --Dirigible 11:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Monobook entries

Your post over at Guild_Wars_Wiki_talk:User_page#Watchlists reminded me that mine is pityfully empty. About yours:

• Does this line: "preset summary descriptions for wikEd; must always be before the code that installs wikEd" refer to time or above in terms of lines?
• Is this "inserting addPortletLink. For some reason this isn't in wikibits.js" part of wikEd? If not, what is it?
• Is there anything negative I should know about any of the entries that I should know before copying parts out of your monobook?

Thanks for your answers =) --Xeeron 17:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

1. In terms of time, if I understand you correctly. The preset summary description needs to be set prior to installing (the "installs" part) wikEd.
2. I believe the addPortletLink part is part of Lupin's popup script.
3. I do know that wikEd might slow things down slightly depending on fast wikipedia's server responds.

-- ab.er.rant 02:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

=P I'm no expert, but I know a decent bit.

1. In terms of lines. That's a configuration setting, and the wikiEd script adjusts based on any entries it finds prior to the install code in the monobook.js file.
2. It's not a part of wikiEd or of Lupin's Popups. It's an bit of code used for adding additional links up at the top of the page (Next to the "my talk" "my watchlist" etc) and additional tabs for editing (sure about the second one, not about the first). It's useful, but not required for either script.
3. WikiEd doesn't slow anything down (at least, not enough to notice) - it just modifies your editing window. Lupin's popups will, at least when you're watching Special:Recentchanges, since they're fetching parts of the pages without you going to them. It saves time overall, though, since you don't have to load pages to check for vandalism, can read new comments on talk pages without opening the page, and can 1-click revert. Some people like that watchlist function he's got in there too, but not everyone.

Basically, try it and see =P Those links after the wikiEd installer use the addPortletLink function to add tabs to the pages, more specifically for when he's looking at any "User" or "User_talk" pages. They're all preatty useful things, but try them out and see what you think =) MisterPepe talk 02:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for the explanation :D As for wikEd, I do notice slowdowns sometimes as the broadband in my area is not very fast, so sometimes I do notice the browser waiting for wikipedia's server to respond before loading the edit page. So I guess my little "slow" note applies only to those with slower connections. -- ab.er.rant 02:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot to both of you. I guess I'll give them all a try. --Xeeron 09:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea why people don't like that watchlist script, to be honest. AFAIK, only Fox is still using it. I personally find it the most useful bit from all the stuff in my monobook right now. --Dirigible 15:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I tried it, but it wasn't too my liking. --Lemming64 16:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Yea, same here :P I think I kinda got used to the one-big-block-of-bold-links already :D -- ab.er.rant 03:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I got rid of it because it was too slow to load. Plus it seemed to randomly organize the sections which was irritating as hell. It's easier with everything in one block. - BeX 04:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

You guys've got no taste. :( --Dirigible 06:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you have a look at my User:CoRrRan/monobook.js and tell me why my watchlist doesn't show according to your screenshot? I still only get a listing by date, and no additional sorting headers. --  (CoRrRan / talk) 23:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Did you do a hard refresh on your browser after putting that into your .js? Are you using the monobook skin? (didn't check your code, just guessing :) ) -- (gem / talk) 06:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, CoRrRan, just noticed your message, not sure how I've missed it earlier. As for the script, I'm guessing you're using InternetExplorer? The script should work fine in Opera/Firefox/etc, but not in IE though, and I have really no idea how to fix it there. =\ --10:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

(ri)The funny part is, I am using FF and I did do a CTRL+F5 plenty of times. Ah well, I guess it won't just work for me. --  (CoRrRan / talk) 11:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

How about if I delete it for you and you try to copy paste it again? -- (gem / talk) 14:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead. I've backed it up. --  (CoRrRan / talk) 14:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Uncle Gaile wants you...

I did notice your decreased activity recently, I was hoping you were back to killing Mallyx. :) I would urge you to reconsider though: You are sufficiently present enough to be a good admin (more than me at least) and you have good insight and reasoning skills.

In my opinion, ideals and ideas are strong, but people give them shape and form. I think it's important who are the admins early on in the history of GWWiki as that will shape much of the wiki for years to come. GuildWiki can never escape the footprints of both Tanaric on one side and Gravewit on the other. It takes months and years to change that. Take for example the redirects issue and how long it took Guildwiki to turn around from an anti-redirect mindset to a pro-redirect one.

So, it's important to me (and hopefully you) that the first few rounds of admins are carefully chosen. You will be setting precedents and defining roles as you go. And I think that it's important that the right guys set the right precedents. Try it for one term and see how much impact you have. It's just 6 months, you've been playing the game for 2 years :P. Let me know your thoughts, here or on my talk page. --Karlos 22:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I tried convincing him on the GuildWiki, and I couldn't get him to budge. Best of luck in your efforts Karlos. :) —Tanaric 23:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I wrote an answer to this last evening, Karlos, but decided to sleep on it before posting it. Good thing I did so, because when I reread it this morning I found that it was just a couple of pages of soapbox ranting that really had no other purpose but to allow me to vent. "Short explanations are encouraged", suggests Rezyk in the new draft RfA policy he just posted, and that's a good tip.

Lets just say that while I think Tanaric would be a harmful and terrible choice for the bureaucrat position, I'd be so as well; almost ten years contributing to a couple dozen wikis have made me too faithful to my personal ideal of what a healthy wiki really is. These highly visible positions should ideally be given to someone more moderate, like Aberrant, or even a relatively inexperienced user, like Lemming. People who don't bring with them excess mental baggage are the best bet for leading this wiki right now, I think. It really needs to find its own shape, and not what Tanaric or I or anyone else would like to mould it into. We may have good intentions, but the road to hell is paved with them.

My backspace button is starting to wear out, so I'll leave it at that...

Oh, and I can't even remember what Mallyx looks like! I haven't really played GuildWars in months... pretty much since this wiki opened. :) --Dirigible 18:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I have various disagreements with that, but in the interest of also keeping things short (and not ranting, I wrote a lot but slept on it too =), I'll just approach this from the mechanical side here. Pretending for the moment that I completely agree with your goals/philosophy, here's what you should do:

• Run as a candidate.
• Maybe vote "oppose" for yourself and Tanaric and support Aberrant and Lemming. (up to you)
• Wait until the last day or so of the voting stage.
• Then, if the results seem something like "Dirigible, Aberrant, ..", withdraw from the election so 2nd place wins.

The voting system is designed to be pretty resilient to withdrawing candidates (unlike say, first-past-the-post), so that you don't have to decline early out of fear that you'll hurt a particular candidate's chances. Heck, it's even completely resilient under the sincere voter theory! Staying out from the onset only makes sense if you strongly feel that you would withdraw no matter what. (Do you?) If you worry that withdrawing may make voters feel manipulated, just give them your upfront opinion in your candidate page. (Although, I ask that you don't make it a campaign promise to withdraw, so that we might continue to try and convince you otherwise. =) --Rezyk 20:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

No go, huh? =/ --Rezyk 15:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Before I vote, might I ask why exactly you changed your mind about running? Do you really want this? - BeX 03:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I voted anyway, and I hope that everyones' show of faith in your character and abilities convinces you to accept. - BeX 08:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Honestly? I didn't really have much choice in the matter. I mentioned this story to my little sister over my birthday dinner two nights ago, and she threatened she'd knock my face off if I didn't lighten up some and stop over-dramatizing everything. And the idea of getting punched by a girl sorta scares me, so... here we are! --Dirigible 14:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not the punch you should be scared of, its the rings on the fingers that are going to hurt. :P Goodluck to you and the rest of the candidates. — Gares 14:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to change my vote. Down with Dirigible, support Dirigible's little sister! —Tanaric

Good to see you come around. Please don't withdraw your name, go the whole nine yards and then blame me afterwards. --Karlos 14:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you're running for bcrat, Dirigible. Tell your sister her cheque is in the mail. LordBiro 18:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't I get a cut? I implored him and nominated him. :P --Karlos 01:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if anyone was too afraid to vote no. Look at that huge list of yes-people - intimidating. :P - BeX 04:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe so, but Drago, Gares, FireFox, Lensor, NieA7, and Ravious have not voted either way yet. But even if they voted to oppose, I don't think it would impact the end result. -- Dashface 04:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

With your overwhelming popularity, I hope you won't take Rezyk's suggestion and pull out at the end of the phase. -- ab.er.rant 08:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

By the way, happy birthday. :) —Tanaric 13:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Birthday? Really? Happy birthday from me too then! -- ab.er.rant 14:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Where is the Category:Users that have their birthday today to help absent minded users like me? ;-) Happy birthday! --Xeeron 15:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

What a great idea and not too hard to implement. :DD :P -- (gem / talk) 20:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

you can not be serious? O_o is there anyway we can make a fancy template that adds a user to a category on a certain day? then I'd be impressed. --Jamie 20:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Have you seen {{guild cleanup}}? It adds the page to the deletion candidates once it has been on the page for 7 days. I think this could be modified to again remove it after the specific day. :) -- (gem / talk) 20:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but, it doesn't add the page to the category - I have to run the touchbot to get it to update. I'd be surprised if we can't figure something out with DPL, though. MisterPepe talk 21:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

We could make 365 categories for each day of the year. So everyone could add himself to the category - and on the main page there is a list to the "today-category" xD poke | talk 21:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Eeeeeh.... no? :P -- (gem / talk) 22:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

You guys are a bunch of nerds! :) —Tanaric 22:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually I think nerds are people with born talent, geeks however (like a lot of us) are those who have to try hard to reach that stage which people think is a nerd. --22:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Please don't withdraw. Having an elected official with really strong and transparent support is a fair benefit to the wiki. Regarding your worries about moulding the wiki too much, I argue that the primary threat there is potential excessive influence through arbitration (outside of that, users should be able to keep you in line with existing policy). On that front, your personal view seems to be on the very-minimal-influence side already, whereas the other candidates' are generally much more unknown. I would think you should just retain paranoia about too much influence over the final form of arbcomm proceedings (while alleviating some of mine =). --Rezyk 17:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I won't, no worries. If I'd been planning to withdraw I wouldn't have accepted it at all.

By the way, I think I'm starting to change my mind regarding oppose votes (or at least, oppose votes being used for anything else but the "positive net balance" check). --Dirigible 17:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Yea, from the comments throughout the talk pages of the elections, there's alot of things that needs to be re-examined. -- ab.er.rant 23:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Help

Hey, could you give us a hand? We have a few questions regarding bots, and other various things. Feel free to contact me on MSN, at any time (Note:may be asleep :P) Any help would be greatly appreciated. ~Readem (MSN: [ rm ] ) --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:24.10.247.2 .

IRC/email not an option? I haven't used MSN in a few years, I'd have to download an MSN client and register an account. --Dirigible 17:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Email would be fine :). ~Readem --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:24.10.247.2 .

Sent at the address you mentioned above. --Dirigible 18:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

lol, no worries. That account is for non-sense such as this anyway :p. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:24.10.247.2 .

Guild cape image

Great idea! Keep up the good work! ;) -- (gem / talk) 04:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations

Looks like you won, let me be the first to congratulate you, congratulations :) -- Scourge 01:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, congrats! --Santax (talk · contribs) 14:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm you were beat by one minute by ... err ... yourself. --Xeeron 14:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Congrats, seems joining this wiki proved quite fruitful for you Dirigible --Jamie 14:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Gratz :D Fox (talk|contribs) 08:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Species talk..

Check out my proposal at Talk:Species#Alternate Proposal and let me know your thoughts. I will have them named "Bound Spirits" yet! :P --Karlos 03:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Saw that list earlier when you posted the first revision, and believe it or not, that was the first thing I checked. :P --Dirigible 10:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

About the [[ ]]

Can you give an explanation etc at genform, so that we have a reason why it shouldnt be used, etc. I should also poke Fyren to give reasons about never starting articles with a heading! - BeX 05:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Starting articles with a heading breaks the default summary behavior of MediaWiki -- that is, put a summary above the ToC, the ToC, and then the content broken up by headings. —Tanaric 22:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Cool. - BeX 09:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)