User talk:Wolfie/Archive 2

This talk_page was originally hosted on GuildWiki, before migration over to GWwiki. It has been copied over to preserve historical content, but there is likely to be many "red links" and missing signature images etc. These can be ignored, there is no need to attempt to correct them. To view its past change history, click here.

Fire and Pain Walkthrough

Can I use it in GWW?File:Ereanorsign.jpgreanor 22:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Please understand am not trying to be mean, but I believe the short answer is, no. As with most articles on GuildWiki, that walkthrough is a conglomeration of a number of author's contributions and so to my knowledge, you would need to gain the permission from each author that contributed content to that walkthrough. This, I believe was one of the major "roadblocks" for when ArenaNet were originally looking at putting together their plans for a wiki, they wanted to gain all of GuildWiki's content, but the licensing terms prevented them from doing so (primarily because they wanted to operate their wiki under different licensing terms than here). If someone can shed more light of this, or better yet, can provide a link to where this has surely already been discussed, please enlighten. --Wolfie (talk|contribs) 00:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I checked the History of the article, and you're the only author except for the last line, wich I can omit or rewrite myself. I'm asking you for a reason.File:Ereanorsign.jpgreanor 00:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I can't take credit for that walkthrough, actually just took a number of lines from the Notes section and cleaned them up into a walkthrough (checkout the edit made at 10:24, October 24, 2007 (UTC), this will show a number of lines from the Notes being removed and altered into a walkthrough), so not mine to give, sorry. --Wolfie (talk|contribs) 01:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Alright, thanks anyway.File:Ereanorsign.jpgreanor 03:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Interwikis

File:Cookie.jpg

Thanks!

Thanks. I was thinking they'd need to be done with a bot, but you did it yourself! Angela 03:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Saw the list, was a lot shorter than expected (in terms of mainspace articles), so figured would probably take longer to write a script, check and test it, and apply; than to just rip through and do it manually. Whereas, for all the talk pages with "w:" type links, is likely better if a bot is used; less chance someone be offended about having "their" talk page or comments on a talk page being altered by an automated process. Thanks for the choc-chip cookie, my favourite! :D --Wolfie (talk|contribs) 21:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

User Page (at last)

Well, after six months of sporadic planning (you can't rush these things ya know!), have finally gotten around to posting my user page. Hope you all like it. At this time, I am not giving permission to use, copy or modify any part located in my userspace, but if there is suffient interest, may consider creating a "character dossier" style template for public use (the current version was purpose-built with little of the flexibility a more general-use version should have). --Wolfie (talk|contribs) 00:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Congrats! It's about time, too! --File:Marcopolo47 signature new.jpg (Talk) (Contr.) 00:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

It was almost like your sig was in red font you took so long! --Xasxas256 11:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey, nice to hear from you again Xasxas! Hehe, would never use a red font to "fake" a missing link. No, was just couldn't see that anyone would care what my characters were, had achieved etc, and judging by the number of responses in the week since posting it, my instincts were about right. But learning wiki-code to make my character dossier template was enjoyable, so was fun if only for that reason. --Wolfie (talk|contribs) 00:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

You may be the only person I've ever heard saying that learning wiki code is fun. 0.o --File:Marcopolo47 signature new.jpg (Talk) (Contr.) 01:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

hehe, then you probably don't wanna know over the years I've programmed in everything from assembly language for the trusty ol' 6502 CPU (hands up all those old enough to remember the Apple ][ and brave enough to admit it), to Pascal (and still my sentimental favourite), BASIC, Fortran, right through to C++, PHP, and things like HTML, XML, CSS and other such "webby" code-structures, at last count we worked out I'd used something like ~25 "languages", more like 36 if take into account different dialects etc. So adding wiki-code was easy enough to understand. Computer languages is very much like human languages, once you've mastered your 2nd or 3rd language, others become easier. Of course computer languages have a much shorter "shelf life" that human ones, so memory wise, it's out with the old, and in with the new. :) --Wolfie (talk|contribs) 01:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

repost

i reposted without the advert tho :S ™Cookie™

*sigh*

By the looks things, we've had one heck of a day swatting vandals, why do they persist to waste their time and ours? :( --Wolfie (talk|contribs) 05:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Because they = phail@life --File:Marcopolo47 signature new.jpg (Talk) (Contr.) 20:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Good work with the cat fixes

Its probably not very exciting work, but you're doing it anyway. Anyway, I just noticed, and thought you deserved a job-well-done. :) --Shadowcrest 02:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, about as much fun as watching grass grow! --Wolfie (talk|contribs) 02:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Poor cats, who broke them? :P Lord Belar 02:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

MEOW!?!! rofl, thanks needed a giggle. --Wolfie (talk|contribs) 02:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thankfully, my cat doesn't need fixing. We already had her spayed. :) Lord Belar 02:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Classic example where shorthand "fixing categories" to "cat fix", and totally missing the fact it would be taken to mean something completely different. Though, I am sure to get some filthy looks from my ranger's pet Melandru's Stalker next time I load up that character. :D --Wolfie (talk|contribs) 03:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

/suspect IPs >.< --Shadowcrest 02:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Eh? --Wolfie (talk|contribs) 03:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, taking a break from "cat fixing" (it really is not a fun task), but was able to get 139 "wanted categories" reduced down to just 75. There are more that can be fixed up, but there is always another day for those. :) --Wolfie (talk|contribs) 04:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch. I have it on my Todo list but won't ever get around to it, as you can see it is dreadfully boring :) File:Entropy Sig.jpg (T/C) 09:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Has been quite some time since my last big cleanup of those, now I remember why I didn't rush back for more! :D Still, hopefully made things just that little bit easier to find, and less red-links is always a good thing. --Wolfie (talk|contribs) 06:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Editing Peoples Userspace..

Before doing that, ask their permission. Many people consider it rude for somoen to walk up to their usepage and start making edits to it. Before editing somones userspace, ask them. --File:Warwick sig.JPG Warwick (Talk) (Contr.) 23:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

When making general edits, spelling, grammer changes etc, then yes absolutely. Correcting categories is one of the few exceptions, along with fixing broken links are considered acceptable, so long as that is all the edit is for. I also, do leave a message on the user's talk page explaining the reasoning behind the change, so they not left wondering why. --Wolfie (talk|contribs) 23:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Good Work, yet again...

With the Getting started (Eye of the North) article!--File:Marcopolo47 signature new.jpg (Talk) (Contr.) 01:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Might want to consider changing "New player campaign guides" to "New player guides", for those nit-pickers about campaign <--> expansion. --Wolfie (talk|contribs) 01:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, yet again... --File:Marcopolo47 signature new.jpg (Talk) (Contr.) 01:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I have my moments. :D --Wolfie (talk|contribs) 01:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, only all the time! :P--File:Marcopolo47 signature new.jpg (Talk) (Contr.) 01:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Err...I already deleted that article once before because I deemed it unnecessary. However, due to ANet's recent update, I guess they also want to help out the newbies. So I guess we can keep it. File:Entropy Sig.jpg (T/C) 09:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I can see some people have questioned it's purpose, will post my thoughts on Talk:Getting started (Eye of the North). --Wolfie (talk|contribs) 05:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Have I started an image "spring clean"?

By the looks of the recent changes log, seems my most recent trawling through the generic "Gw###" type files has triggered a bit of an image cleaning frenzy. This is a good thing, though I think Entropy might not be so over-joyed at all the extra deleting work, soz ;) --Wolfie (talk|contribs) 00:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

There are so many unused images Oo --VeneliX 00:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, there have been a number of discussions in the past and a few trialed plans for tackling the "aged" unused images, and the more legally important issue of un-attributed images (ie, images without a license tag), however last I read, there was something like 25,000 un-attributed images! So even with the use of bots to automate some of the tagging etc, is still a massive undertaking. I do try to scan through the generic GW### files every now and then, but as for the rest, have tried to re-invigorate discussions, but always stumbles over the sheer volume of images. It might just have to come to the point where we "bite the bullet" and just knuckle down do a big-hit cleanup, or consider ways of dividing the job into smaller, more manageable parts, and just progress through one step at a time, but either way, won't be quick or easy. --Wolfie (talk|contribs) 00:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you know...

...what tag should be placed on an image needing to be uploaded under a more specific name? --Shadowcrest 01:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

There does appear to be a little confusion over this. There's the {{Image update|Reason}}, but then there's the far less used Copyvio, Incorrect copyright and Unattributed image tags too.

I would tend to use the "image update" tag, though it very rarely attracts any response from the originating uploader, so is debatable whether it's worth adding verses just downloading and re-upload the image with more appropriate image name yourself (you can check out Image:Perplexing Plague quest map.jpg for an example of where I've just re-uploaded someone else's image), hope this helps. Regards Wolfie (talk|contribs) 01:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

All right. Was just wondering because I started to look through images called Gw:003 or w/e (special:prefixindex ftw) and noticed some of them were actually important, like the one on the Monk Dwarven armor page. Thanks, --Shadowcrest 01:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know all too well as you say, many have ended up in mainspace articles. I know there's a few people working on projects to "cleanup" the armor and weapon pages, part of that I understand is to start using a standard image name format, although I've not been following it too closely, been more focused on the quest articles.

Basically, the only options which are likely to return a quick result is either:

1. "do nothing", ie, "let sleeping dogs lie", generic image names do not actually harm anything, is a minor irritation to those of us that like things neater, plus the potential issue of "what happens if someone else uploads image with same generic name", which of course is the main reason for avoiding em)
2. "fix it yourself", in other words, do the download, re-upload with appropriate credit to the original uploader etc; slow, painful, unglamous work, but probably the quickest way to "resolve" the use of a generic named image in a mainspace article.

From my past experiences, tagging a bunch of images with "Image update" achieved very little. :( --Wolfie (talk|contribs) 01:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Back again after a few weeks break

While wasn't able to stay entirely away, did make a few visits to GuildWiki mainly to tidy up some Wintersday quests etc, did decide to spend some quaility time away. But am now back, refreshed and ready for more wiki action... now I just have to wade through My Watchlist of changed articles, oh joys! :) --Wolfie (talk|contribs) 00:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

May I ask

why you kinda messed up my signature on entropy's talk page?--File:Marcopolo47 signature new.jpg (Talk) (Contr.) 05:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Why would I want to? Please give me more detail, caz the only "changes" I've made to E's talk page was to add some throughts to the How many topic. --Wolfie (talk|contribs) 05:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

the part above your paragraph. I'm sure it was accidental though.--File:Marcopolo47 signature new.jpg (Talk) (Contr.) 05:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Weird, haven't a clue where that came from! The comment I added, but how that extraneous text got pasted there, no idea. You certainly should know by now I'd not go about "sabotaging" yours or anyone's signture for that matter, you really could have just edited it out and be done with it. --Wolfie (talk|contribs) 05:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

it amazes me...

that people revert vandalism and don't put a ban tag on. If it was something that could pass for a mistake type vandalism fine, but for obvious things like that just ban them, imo :P --Shadowcrest 05:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Well if you check the Recent Changed logs, you might notice I'm a tad busy with category fixing at the same time! It amazes me how very few people take note of some who's working diligently on a brain-dead but useful task like the Uncategorized Pages list and offer encouragement or assistance, but hesitate for a second with banning or wait to see if a vandal has had their jollys and left, and someone finds it necessary to post a sarcastically-worded comment. :( --Wolfie (talk|contribs) 05:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I did notice. You've been at it for the past few days, actually. You removed my nice comment on it :P And actually that wasn't really directed at you, I just looked a few vandal's contributions from the last few hours and noticed. --Shadowcrest 05:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed I did, sorry about that, have restored your comment and added a reply to it below. Seems my web browser misbehaves when dealing with an edit conflict, have had similar strangeness with those before, and at the time I was not being my usual careful editing self to notice, too tired from several hours worth of "cat fixing" (poor kittens) and the wording / timing of your original comment did appear from this end at that moment like you were having a go at me for being "slack" because hadn't placed a ban notice on our "beloved" little vandal (such joyous cretins that they are :). Anyway, chalk that one up to bad timing, don't worry, us Wolfies growl a lot, but we rarely bite. :D --Wolfie (talk|contribs) 02:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

GJ with the cats, btw. Are you in Australia? --Shadowcrest 05:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you and yep (one reason why I'm usually "too slow" at reverting vandals, too much latency compared to those located closer to the GuildWiki servers with larger bandwidths etc; that, plus tend to double-check my facts, preview the edits etc, so it's usually only in those non-mainstream times when I get involved with vandal-swatting). --Wolfie (talk|contribs) 02:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Guides

Hey Wolfie, I've seen that you do a lot of "cleaning up" pages around the wiki (which is great work btw). I've been trying to contribute as best as I can, but I don't want to add stuff to articles and then make you come behind me to clean it up. So, what style guides do you stick to, or in other words, what Style Guides do you use most frequently? Vidar816 21:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, it would depend on what you're editing. There's the Style and Formatting pages. --Shadowcrest 00:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Vidar for the delay in replying but usually my edits are in quick bursts of a few minutes here and there, and you've been do quite a bit of editing yourself lately so wanted to spend a some time to provide a more comprehensive explanation. As Shadowcrest has already mentioned, the GuildWiki:Style and formatting style documents (often abbreviated to "S&F") are the bible to which we all should refer to. However, they can't cover every possible situation; so when in doubt, highly recommend searching for a number of similar topics to the article you're editing and compare, in other words learn from examples is usually the best way if unsure what the S&F format should be.

Topic	S&F guide
Quests	S&F/Quests
Missions	S&F/Missions
NPCs	S&F/NPCs
Monsters	S&F/Bestiary

To the left is a table of the main guidelines I use and when I use em. There can be a few annoying discrepancies, most notably between NPCs and Monsters. Am currently looking at ways that might be able to get more consistency between the different formats, but still in the early evaluation stages at the moment. Another area to watch out for discrepancies is when assigning categories (which should always be located at the bottom of an article, not a technical requirement, just a convenient and generally adhered to convention), there are a number of differences between campaigns. A good example is what location catagory to use in mission outposts; we use "Category:<town> (Location)" if it is located in the outpost itself, but if its within the mission itself, for Prophecies use just "Category:<town>", whereas for Factions and Nightfall it's "Category:<town> (Mission)".

So the key is; if in doubt, look at a few other articles of the same type, that should provide an answer, or failing that, just enter what detail you can without fussing over formatting, you can be assured someone will come along and clean it up soon enough :D Hope this provides some help, otherwise, ask away and will try to give what advice I can. --Wolfie (talk|contribs) 06:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup is a good thing

...but so is a category line. Unless you have a specific reason to remove them, a <!--categories below this line--> message is good for organization.Entrea SumataeEntrea Sumatae [Talk] 00:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Consider those lines as just wastage since means additional bytes to store, and additional bytes to transmit each time the page is viewed etc. Ok, only talking +35 bytes each viewing, but figure since 99% of articles have their category lines at the bottom of the page, and most wiki editors know to place [[Category:... stuff on the last line, consider them as kinda redundant, not worth actually going through and clearing from pages as a task, but something to clear whenever come across one during a page edit. Neither here nor there, just figure helps save resources just that little fraction. :) --Wolfie (talk|contribs) 00:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Take this edit for example, you removed the <!--Categories below this line--> message. Why did you do that?--File:Marcopolo47 signature new.jpg (Talk) (Contr.) 01:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

*looks up*Entrea SumataeEntrea Sumatae [Talk] 01:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

MP, I've moved your comment (see above) was posted under "+cat" topic below, which is a separate issue, my reasoning for removal of the "comment line" (which all that is) is already outlined. :) --Wolfie (talk|contribs) 01:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

You deleted his comment and moved mine, which i'm deleting cuz it makes no sense now.Entrea SumataeEntrea Sumatae [Talk] 01:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I have all sorts of grief with edit conflicts for some reason :( Up-to-date release of FireFox, but it just goes silly when trying to show when the page has been updated while typing a reply. Hoping a new ver of the browser will correct it soon. --Wolfie (talk|contribs) 02:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

+cat

every category that doesnt have to do specifically with the game isn't in the guild wiki category. its my understanding that that catis for articles that deal with the functioning of the wiki itself not with content. this includes stuff like stubs and copy vios. —♥Jedi♥Rogue♥ 01:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I've only noticed 1 thing added to Category:GuildWiki. The others are added to proper categories as far as I can tell --Gimmethegepgun 01:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Not entirely sure what you're asking of me here JR? I have just added Category:Suspected copyright violations to Category:GuildWiki, ‎considered that to be similar as Category:Disputed article contents and Category:Pages that need updating which are already under the GuildWiki category, is that what you're referring to? --Wolfie (talk|contribs) 01:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

My apologies. I seem to have misread something and came out of it thinking that you were adding everything to that category. Nevermind. Keep up the good work. —♥Jedi♥Rogue♥ 02:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

No worries, explain why was confused by the original posting. :) I accept that some of my recent +cat's (where I'm adding uncategorised cats to an appropriate parent-category) are going to be debatable. Thats ok, it's part of what makes a successful wiki, when constructive debates can be had to find the best solution most can be happy with. Some of these are damn hard to decide where best to put 'em, so feedback always welcome. --Wolfie (talk|contribs) 03:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Bonder

Since you're the resident expert on S&F, could you check out the new Bonder page? --Gimmethegepgun 04:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

<blink blink> I am!? Uh oh! ;) Hmm, is quite an essay... if it wasn't so long, would perhaps suggest could be integrated into the Effective monk guide. Could perhaps do with a {{TOCright}} and a bit of a cleanup (best done by someone more familar with monking than me) and a category, but other than that, what specific question / concerns do you have with it? --Wolfie (talk|contribs) 04:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, Shadow brings up a couple issues he has with it in the talk page --Gimmethegepgun 04:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes, see what you mean. Looking at the recent change history, seems it has been taken from a 4-paragraph "summary" of what is a Bonder (in a similar vein to the Minion master article) to what appears to be a long in-depth discussion getting down to even specific skills (re, dare I say builds). Do wonder if that's getting too specific for the general "tone" of articles like this on GuildWiki, check out Category:Build archetypes for other examples, they're short and general. If this sort of information already exists on PvX, perhaps better to revert to the original "summary of a bonder" but then expand a little with links to that detail on PvX? ie, thinking try to keep away from getting too specific on builds, since already a wiki dedicated for that sort of thing? That would be my quick 2 worth of thoughts. --Wolfie (talk|contribs) 04:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

PS: Will add something to the article's talk page a little later, near time for another visit from the Celestial Rat. Back after that -- 04:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and I gotta get to sleep before my mom kills me :/ --Gimmethegepgun 04:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

...or the lack of sleep, which is the more more deadly can be debatable. :) --Wolfie (talk|contribs) 06:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

title templates

← moved to User talk:Kirbman#Title templates (to keep the discussion in one place).