User talk:Wynthyst/Archive/Oct 09

This page is an archive. The contents have been moved from another page for reference purposes only, and should be preserved in their current form. Discussion or voting on this page is not current. Any additions you make will probably not be read. The current version of this page can be found at User talk:Wynthyst.

question about posting something

Hi Wynn we now have a forum page for our guild and alliance. Can we post the link to it on our guild page? we would like to so it makes it easy to access for everyone. thanks--Jenn 17:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it goes in the infobox under Forum. -- Wyn talk 17:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok thanks! :) --Jenn 17:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Prnt Scrn Image from GW

Hey there, how you made a high resolution image of your own character after you login and before you start the game??? --GReddy 12:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

See Help:Images It gives pretty complete instructions on taking screenshots in game. -- Wyn talk 12:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I see it all thank you ^^ --GReddy 12:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey

Hey Wyn, I wonder if I could get your opinion on this. Thanks. - Reanimated X 19:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

This is what I'm refering to. And btw that was just plain rude. - Reanimated X 15:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

No, you are the one that is just plain rude. I tell you I'm busy and you sit down to wait? How fucking obnoxious do you think that is? You have now ruined my entire day, as for what you just linked, I don't give a rats ass where he puts his stuff in his userspace. Go find another admin that might. -- Wyn talk 15:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Do I hve to get permission before using a bot btw? -- Halogod35 00:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Only the Bureacrats can grant a bot flag. Otherwise, all edits by the bot will show up as normal user edits. So you should put it on the Admin noticeboard I believe. -- Wyn talk 01:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks ma'am. -- Halogod35 01:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

See Guild Wars Wiki:Bots. poke | talk 05:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion request

Um, could you - next time - read where the deletion tag sits? You deleted quite the wrong page =/ Ɲoɕʈɋɽɕɧ 02:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Guild:Orzhov Syndikat restored, as I'm guessing that's what you're talking about. In the future, you might want to put <noinclude>{{delete}}</noinclude> rather than just the delete tag (tagging with GWWT does this automatically, as I understand it). Or remove the transclusion before tagging. - Tanetris 02:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh ^^ ... I pondered that but deemed Wyn to be intelligent that she read it (I mean... a deletion tag on the bottom?!) Ɲoɕʈɋɽɕɧ 02:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Or better yet, remove the transcluded link and THEN add your deletion tag. -- Wyn talk 08:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

But it has this stylish ifexist tag to replace the alliance bar with a warning (something which should be included in the guild format sheet) :( Ɲoɕʈɋɽɕɧ 12:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Why? a warning saying the guild isn't in an alliance is just silly :P -- Wyn talk 12:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay q.q Ɲoɕʈɋɽɕɧ 13:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Newbie Question: Participating in Talk Pages

Hi, Wyn. I'm still learning the whole wiki etiquette and I have a question. When editing to add my input on a heated talk page, like Regina and Linsey, how do I know that while I am typing my response, by the time I enter my submission that the 3 or 4 people who already updated during my typing dont get their response overwritten? Should I be concerned of something like this happening? Does the wiki system avoid this problem? (I'm not sure if I explained my question in the best sense, but hopefully you can decipher my horrible phrasing...)

Also, I notice some of these pages have a /Temp page. What is that for? Are new topics supposed to go there before going to the main talk page? Or can a new topic be started on the main talk page? --Rex 16:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

If someone else changes the page while you are typing, you will receive an "edit conflict" notice. The Temp pages linked on staff pages, are their old Userspace talk pages which have been locked now that their talk pages have been moved into the feedback namespace. -- Wyn talk 16:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no way to protect yourself from an 'edit conflict'. They'll happen. One of the prime reasons why wikis are not suited for being used as forums. You can reduce risks by using section edit, and by making a copy paste of your text, which you can then quickly answer with if you do get ECed. Backsword 16:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Awesome. Thank you very much for both of your help! =) --Rex 16:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you help with my wiki page?

Hey again, Wyn... Thanks again, for giving me a start in learning so much about the wiki. I have done as much as I can, but I cannot figure this out for the life of me. My Sandbox First problem is pretty clear, I want those three to equal. Then, on the left edge, it is barely noticeable, but the frames are different distances from the edge. So I guess I will live with it. Fright01 × 01:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I messed around with it a little, but I'm not sure I understand exactly what you want...you want all 3 columns to be even? That can be a tad difficult, unless you specify exact dimensions, which will look great at whatever resolution you view it at, but not so much at any other, which is why mine has some wonky black spaces between boxes. I like your use of different shapes and colors btw. -- Wyn talk 03:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that the 3 are centered horizontally... well vertically on the horizontal row... does that explain anything? i tried moving around some valign tops and align"center" and w/e... i understand why align=center wont do anything, but uhm, the valign top should position it to the top of its column, riggghhhhhttt??? oh and thanks... thanks for introducing me to mozilla's codecs xD didn't know they had a round border... i can't wait til its implemented into css globally ^_^ Fright01 × 03:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I got the right :) thanks for fixing the middle! :D Fright01 × 04:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Wyn

Heres a reward(New userbox) for helping me with my user-boxes(P.S,i need u to do it again...im a failer :P)

Ohai	While you highlighted this,Neil2250 stole your car.

(Sure i make them its just im terrible at sorting them out :P)You need to highlight it :D(P.S anyone can put it on thier userpage But u have to keep the name in >:3)--Neil2250Im not leaving without a cookie 15:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Why not just make a page for it and add it into the user box template category?--Ceru talk contribs 02:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.

Thanks for restoring the image. But could you make it so it only has the redirect? It doesn't even shows the image i want :S
Edit:Now it decides to show the right image, but still, could you make it as it was after the move, only having the redirect? - J.P.Talk 15:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

restoring restores everything. -- Wyn talk 15:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

That'll do. Thanks again ^^ - J.P.Talk 16:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey!

Hey Wyn. I love your templates and think they make my space look pro. So, I made this for you!

This user thinks Wyn equals a win!.

You got the category a bit wrong :P - J.P.Talk 11:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Gah, I knew being able to make user boxes was too good to be true... How can it be fixed? --Bestat Talk to me! 11:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Fixed the box.

This user thinks Wyn equals a win!.

--Bestat Talk to me! 12:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

:Took the noincludes out so Wyn's talk page isn't in the user box category and added some clears to clean up the format. I also like the box.--Ceru talk contribs 02:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Skill lists

Hey Wyn, I really don't know where else to ask, so... Are most or all skill lists supposed to be non-monster/non-"special" skills only? After the "no attribute" skill list, I've come across some others (like the Melee attack skill list) that have monster skills listed, was wondering if there was a guideline or a policy that indicates when monster or special (snowball fighting, BMP, etc.) should be included or excluded. -- FreedomBound 19:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, my understanding is that the general skill lists, should be player based, with monster only skills being listed on the monster skill list. I could be wrong. -- Wyn talk 19:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure we don't on player skills pages, but I don't know about lists C4K3 Talk 19:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

A suggestion about which categories and namespaces to exclude has been made here. Super Igor Servant 19:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Dear Wyn

It has come to my attention that your talk page is below the level of accepted uneventfulness. Please rectalify this issue ASAP. Remember, you are one of the Egg-Men, it is time you live up to the title. If you do not rectalify this issue soon enough, I have no choice but to stop visiting this oh so utterly boring page.

On a less official note, Venus and Mars are in their designated positions tonight, and the stars seem fortunate. The time of the chosen one may be soon. Best of luck and godspeed.

Love,

---Chaos- (talk) -- 19:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Writing Templates

Hey Wyn, do you have any links or references that could show me how to create wiki templates? Magic Talk 03:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Userspace templates or main space? — Seru Talk 03:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I just copy similar templates and modify them. ~Shard 03:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Little of both Seru. @Shard, how would I look up a listing of current templates. Magic Talk 03:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Category:Templates ~Shard 03:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. :3 Magic Talk 03:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Skill Templates

I was looking up the Spectral Vaettir page for a friend as I'd forgotten where they spawned and I notice that someone posted a build to farm them for Glacial Stones. So I'm just curious, is it against any rule to show a skill template in a talk page to tell people "this is currently a working build to farm this foe/item"? If the build became outdated, should the build be removed or just altered with a note saying it's obsolete. Magic Talk 03:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Nvm.. It just hit me.. Stick it in my userspace and provide a link in talk page. Problem solved. :3 Magic Talk 03:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Ooze Pit Wiki Page

Last message for today. :) I've never made "big changes" to a page so I'd rather ask if this is okay before I do it and get a mod breathing down my neck. xD Here's the original page and here's what I modified it to. What do you think? Magic Talk 04:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, the TOC is always under the quotation. I believe the way the page is now conforms with the article formatting guideline. You'd be better off asking on the talk page rather than here though. -- Wyn talk 12:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

for deleting and catching the inclusions I overlooked. — Why 13:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

What concensus?

"If you disagree with the deletion of this page, please explain why on the discussion page. " Backsword 15:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Your deletion tag made no sense. You said, Only one page needed, there IS only one page. -- Wyn talk 15:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

"If you disagree with the deletion of this page, please explain why on the discussion page. "

So there are no other pages on the wiki, including the one I linked? Backsword 15:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

You didn't link a page Backsword, you said.. one page is enough. The only other page is for last year's event, not this years. There is no reason to delete this year's event page. -- Wyn talk 15:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

"If you disagree with the deletion of this page, please explain why on the discussion page. "

Don't tell untruths, wyn. Everyone can chech the page history and see that I did link. Also: I gave a reason: "Only one page needed". Backsword 15:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Fine, I missed the link, but my argument still stands, the page you linked was for last year's event, and is clearly indicating dates in O8, I have moved it for more clarity. We create a new event page each year for official events, I don't see this being any different. -- Wyn talk 15:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Official events a much different. They need extra pages for all the new things. This one can just update the shedule. However, this is an argument that should go one the articles talk page: "If you disagree with the deletion of this page, please explain why on the discussion page. "

Before the sdelete tag is removed. Backsword 15:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I don't see that as being necessary in this case, as the 08 page documents and event that occurred in 08, and contains information specific to that event. The 09 event has not happened, and I disagree that it is any different than how we document official events. IMO, this is a closed topic. but thanks for your input :P -- Wyn talk 15:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Wyn don't need to follow the rules or explain herself. She just doesn't have the time to deal with you people. 67.159.44.138 16:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it would have been a merge tag at most, not even a delete. --JonTheMon 16:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

I appreciate your considered approach to the Nick speaks controversy. As mentioned earlier, although I stopped reading the column a while ago, I'm glad that it still has a public place in this community.   — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 23:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

lol, I'm not the total bitch a lot of people think I am, but you're welcome. -- Wyn talk 01:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

"I'm not the total bitch a lot of people think I am."

I call BS. is for Raine, etc. 01:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

"I call BS." HA! -- Wyn talk 01:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

"HA!"

Conclusive evidence. is for Raine, etc. 01:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

"Conclusive evidence." Where? -- Wyn talk 01:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

""HA!" "

I quoted the quoted quote for you. is for Raine, etc. 01:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

lol I was just having fun with the new colors :D -- Wyn talk 01:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I prefer {{quote3|this template}}, but apparently, you can't quote3 a quote3 (though, as evidenced above, you can quote one; go figure). is for Raine, etc. 01:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's kiss and makeup Wyn. Xo de Kooning 01:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

"Don't nettle Wyn too much; she doesn't particularly like you." HAHAHAH!

De Kooning, I have nothing against you. I don't even have anything against your fanfiction. The Nick speaks stuff came up because that page was getting spammed with it every week, and as an already high traffic page, the fanfiction needed to be removed. This was a compromise that most everyone could live with. I'm sorry it upset you. If you wish to link your fanfiction, just discuss it on the appropriate talk pages. -- Wyn talk 01:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, you didn't even deny it! is for Raine, etc. 01:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Noes!

Why [[Template:User Rickrolled|ya do it]] =[ Not my fault noobs click on it ;)— Seru Talk 05:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

That is a malicious website, and I have faced a Reconfirmation of my sysophood because of my adamant belief that link has NO BUSINESS on this wiki. Putting it in a userbox is simply promoting malicious/trollish behavior, and I would have really expected better from you. -- Wyn talk 05:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

There goes me trying to anoy my freinds...I FORGOT THE NAME OF IT X_X(But to be fair,Yes it was meliciouse website,Says Kapersky2009.--Neil2250Evil mantis thing commands you to feed him cookies. 13:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Have you noticed?

Signature images of yours and mine violate GWW:SIGN#Images :D - J.P.Talk 19:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Why didn't anyone do anything when I mentioned that a long time ago here >_> – Emmett 19:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

That's a very silly clause and the policy should feel bad for putting it there. NuVII 19:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with either one. — Seru Talk 20:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Seru, they both redirect to their contribs rather than their user pages. Technically a violation.--Pyron Sy 23:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Eh, That should be what they do. Have the name to the Userpage, Image to contribs, and then a link to the talk page. — Seru Talk 01:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree that it's a violation. IU see it as an oversight in the policy, since the 3 links are what are allowed. -- Wyn talk 01:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

discuss – Emmett 01:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I removed it so you'd all stop your whining at me. kthnx -- Wyn talk 01:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Same here :D - J.P.Talk 01:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Name Merge

Hey there,

I saw a post you made about some new user merge integration or something, and was just wondering what that whole thing was about. Also, I read some places where people used the term "ULC" in conjunction with in-game-name-capitalisation, and was just wondering what it means/stands for.

Thanks.-- Chris Malone 06:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

We have a new extension available for people who have multiple accounts on the wiki can merge them into a single account. So all contributions are consolidated. If you wish it, you request it on the noticeboard talk page, I believe. I don't know a lot about it. Pling is a better one to ask. I have never heard of ULC, so I can't answer that. -- Wyn talk 06:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

That sounds good. Alright, I'll ask Brains about my further questions regarding it then.-- Chris Malone 07:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

ULC is an old initialism for "use lower case". I think it was carried over from GuildWiki. -- pling 15:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Why is ULC in all-caps? ôO Ɲoɕʈɋɽɕɧ 16:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Ahh ok, cheers Brains. -- Lacky 07:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Broken redirect

How shall we deal with [1] which you caused to be broken? :P Ɲoɕʈɋɽɕɧ 13:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Ignore it. The quest was removed before it existed (sounds weird, huh?). The id is correct though but nobody will ever reach that page from the game. poke | talk 18:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

But the poor wiki and its wanted pages D: Ɲoɕʈɋɽɕɧ 18:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

There are 10 million wanted guild pages because guild pages were deleted rather than archived, are we going to recreate them all? no The wanted pages list is not a very useful tool any longer. -- Wyn talk 18:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was possible to remove a namespace from WantedPages? – Emmett 00:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Should these

pages all be deleted? — Seru Talk 20:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Feedback portal - Replies

How do I add my comments to already started by other threads?... I dont see the reply button... {Yoshida Keiji 12:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)}

My guild page

it lacks the last word "Credo"...so when my members use the ingame option to see our page, it is missed and instead, in my case I go to creation section when it is already there but different name. {Yoshida Keiji 13:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)}

Use the Move tab to move it to the correct name. -- Wyn talk 18:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Hit a problem while working on a project

Sorry, the project you linked me to is simply randomly hitting an image that is improperly tagged, so I quit. My current project (fix sig images) has kinda hit a wall, there are two images (well redirects) File:Diablo the chicken.gif and File:Dero's Sig.png that have links from a protected page, if you would mind fixing the links to their proper location (File:User Dero Dero's Sig.png and File:User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.gif) it would be much appreciated :D C4K3 Talk 17:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Please leave signature images alone, the amount of spam to correct those links have been deemed not worth it. As for the project I linked you to, I am not sure what you mean by randomly hitting imges.... You can easily get to the ones that still require tag fixing by following the link in the project or here] Everything listed there needs to be retagged. -- Wyn talk 20:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Ohh, I hit U asssuming that's where they would be, and didn't find any, sorry I'll get on it C4K3 Talk 10:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Since i think you're the best at this.

Shymere Yuna is using Xaphan67's templates here and here and possibly somewhere else as well. The problem is that Shymere has to upload images under Xaphan's name to be able to show them on on those pages. I tried to check what should be different to make the template to work as it should. But i fear i might mess things up even more. That's why i'm asking your help. I've moved the images under Shymere already. - J.P.Talk 17:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Since I do not have a clue how Xaphan's templates work, I'm not touching them with a ten foot pole. -- Wyn talk 18:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I asked Xaphan himself and he promised to take a look at it. So no worries :) - J.P.Talk 18:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Guild Family Tree

I would like to ask you (once again), if you could this time help me have a Guild Family Tree (Template) for PLUR...thanks. {Yoshida Keiji 17:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)}

:\

Since I have had almost everything I have uploaded either reverted or pretty much deleted (undoing my picture of the Afflicted Hakaru) what is the point of me even bothering to contribute to this wiki? :\ ~JasonBacon talk 05:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

You exaggerate, the only thing that was reverted was your rit image, and that has been put back. All I have done is made them the size they are suppose to be, please do not stretch the infobox, or enlarge the image beyond 150px. As per Guild_Wars_Wiki:Formatting/NPCs#NPC_infobox_template -- Wyn talk 05:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Was not exaggerating. :) So, 150px is max for policy? Or am I mistaken? ~JasonBacon talk 05:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay. The recommended is 150px. Thank you. ~JasonBacon talk 05:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Considering all of the NPC infobox images are 150px (a size that was determined by consensus of the community) having the few you have posted pictures for different makes for unnecessary inconsistencies. -- Wyn talk 05:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Luv U, Sis. JonnieBoy05 06:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

if you found that summary offensive, didn't mean to make it sound like you were screwing up C4K3 Talk 22:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

No, but you kept ecing me while I was fixing it. -- Wyn talk 22:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm assuming that is edit conflicting? Sorry abbreviations aren't my specialty ^^ C4K3 Talk 23:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Cy2600

He was the creator and mostly the only contributor to those guild pages. I think he just wanted them deleted. ~Shard 03:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry Shard, but admins don't need to AGF. It's admin discretion you know. Pika Fan 04:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

At risk of making a new mistake in judgement... the last guild page the user in question edited seems to point to the user ragequitting from the old alliance, and blanking the pages due to that (and not to the guilds being disbanded). Since the users don't really "own" the guild articles (even if they created them), it would qualify as vandalism if that were the case.--Fighterdoken 04:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

LOL. Karate Jesus 04:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see why you guys are following my actions so closely. I do believe I have followed sysop discretion here, when reviewing Cy2600's contributions (prior to blocking him) and found his blanking of guild pages for his old alliance to be willful vandalism, rather than a simple error. As Fighterdoken pointed out, his most current guild page indicates a not so friendly parting of the ways between him and his old alliance. And, as Fighterdoken also pointed out, guild pages belong to the community, and are NOT simply deleted if the guild is disbanded (which in this case I don't believe is the case anyway). Anyone who is creating/maintaining a guild page should be familiar with the guild page policy, and know this. -- Wyn talk 05:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, now that I'm finally unbanned... lol... I wish there was a way to contact you or anyone. Look, I'm not so upset over what you did. You were just following the policy set by GWWiki. I will admit, I didn't read the policy which is my fault. But what I don't appreciate, are your personal accusations about me. The entity known as the MARA Alliance is like KISS or LAZY having 2 sides, Lux and Kurz. That's what we were. We were the Lux side. You make it out to be a single user, myself, rage quitting as if I'm going out swinging a baseball bat. That wasn't the case at all. WE got tired of things over the years and simply left. Since I can't rename my guild pages I created, I just wanted to delete them and make all new ones with our new guilds. I didn't see the big deal (not knowing the policy). Tripod wouldn't ban me if I decided to delete my old site! Haha. The policy being in a wiki enviroment is understandable I guess, but it really needs to be looked at. Guilds come and go. I don't see the need to keep old ones. As far as the old pages go, if you want to restore them, be my guest. They will sit there for 3 months and be marked for deletion. :}

The thing is, they won't be deleted, they will be archived. You are free to archive them yourself, rather than have them sit there for those 3 months or not, and they will be marked as inactive and archived by the community. Please read the policy. As for contacting anyone, if you enable email in your preferences, you can email any admin, or any other user who has also enabled email. -- Wyn talk 03:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

For deleting those pages Wyn -- Tha Reckoning 19:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

interesting thing just happened

Just wondering, for about a minute there. every time i tried to go to any page on the wiki, it sent me to the GW suppourt page, and said something about no news. Any idea what that was? Da Sonic Sunday 22:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a bug that often happens when someone protects a page on the wiki. No one is sure why and it has proved very stubborn to fix. =x Vili 点 22:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Alright, just thought it was wierd. Like anyone goes to the suppourt page on PURPOSE. Da Sonic Sunday 22:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The network news is the page that the wiki automatically redirects to when it goes down. -- Wyn talk 22:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Seems like the protect keeps overloading the wiki, or halts it to prevent changes. Anyways its annoying, and they have been trying to fix it for a long time now. --Dominator Matrix 22:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Linsey's page

Leave it like that. :o –Jette 22:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

What exactly is going on with Linsey's page? Is it just too big and crashing browsers or what? Karate Jesus 01:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, so it has been locked until she has time to answer/deal with it, which won't be until after Halloween. -- Wyn talk 02:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

There's quite a few pieces of low hanging fruit though... that could either be archived or dumped in a spam bin --ilr 20:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

All a spam bin does is compound the problem. -- Wyn talk 20:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Guild Page

Hi Wyn,

Was wondering if you may know what happened to my guild page House oF Lefem... All that is showing is a little asci character in upper left corner, the page info shows last modified on 10/14/09 @ 10:16:29 pm and the last time i revised it was on the 9th of October. Appreciate any info you can find as to this matter

Thank you Mysti MystiLefemEle 07:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Guild:House Of Lefem? -Auron 07:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but it is now back to normal, thank you Wyn and Auron. MystiLefemEle 07:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Attack of the IP's

Random IP trying to make a page that shouldnt exist. Titan_dungeon Mind telling him about accounts and user pages or something real fast? i dunno the specifics, and i cant tag for deletion. Thanks. Sonic the CHESS NAZI Tuesday 22:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing at all stopping you EVER, from doing what you are asking me to do. You know enough of the specifics to know that they need to register an account if they wish to have a userspace, and that if they want to have a page for their characters, they need to have a userspace. I don't see the Titan Dungeon page to be a character page, but rather something he wants? Or some name that his guild/alliance have given one of the EotN Dungeons maybe? It's gone anyway. -- Wyn talk 02:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Actions and their consequences

Dear Wynthyst, please indicate which part of this statement you do not seem to understand: 'being an ass = people won't like me.' Amidst all the complaints about certain users telling you you have a 'stick up your arse,' have you not considered why this may be the case? Do you scrutinise the consequences of your actions, the way you deal with things, at all? For example, I fully understand that by posting this here, I am not going to earn any free delicious cookies from your supporters. As a general rule, people don't become disliked for no reason whatsoever. Perhaps you should consider this? Jennalee 10:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The fact that you are bent out of shape because I questioned (off wiki) the wholesale posting by you of images from GuildWiki when the only indication on GWW by the users who originally posted them there was that they didn't want those images uploaded here says more about your reactions to things than mine. Given that none of the images you replaced (that were uploaded by actively contributing members of the GWW community) were as horrible as you make them out to be, I don't see why it was necessary. However, you will notice that I did not post anything on GWW about my doubts regarding your actions, nor did I take any steps to stop, or change them. So who really has the stick up her ass? -- Wyn talk 10:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Right, because I'm unhappy with your actions (amongst the however many other users of late who also seem to be unhappy) it has to be because I'm a more terrible person than you, as you're implying. Maybe, just maybe, you should look to how you handle things instead of being so quick to lay the blame on others. Jennalee 11:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Please link to anywhere on this wiki where I have said anyone, including you, is a horrible person. The fact is, this entire conversation is because I questioned your actions in IRC, and was given an answer, so I dropped the subject. Obviously you haven't. I am who I am, and I "talk" the way I talk, and I don't have any plans on changing that because some 15 yr old troll doesn't like it. My actions are, imo, always with the best interest of this community in mind. The fact that those people who don't give a rats ass about this community don't like it is just too bad for them. -- Wyn talk 11:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is, Wyn, that you never were a part of the community at all. If you can't comprehend why that is no one is going to be able to explain it to you. -FireFox 11:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Dear oh dear, way to show your true colours. "15 yr old troll" making up things are we? "imo, always with the best interest of this community in mind. The fact that those people who don't give a rats ass about this community don't like it is just too bad for them" because everyone who disagrees with you most clearly don't have the interests of the community at heart. Jennalee 11:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Copyright issues are a bitch, and it seems Wyn was just making sure there was no liability issues. So, while it may seem that Wyn is being overly zealous about the details, there's a good reason. And, it does seem that any insults thrown around were instigated by you, Jenna. Just sayin' --JonTheMon 12:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is your immediate reaction to something which offended you sense of right or wrong was to immediately begin a witchunt as opposed to assuming good faith - you willingly abuse the fact that what happens on IRC does not in the end, lead to bannable offenses on this wiki. While you busy yourself with stirring up lynch mobs against users who disagree with you, you find it suitable to complain enough to get users banned when you feel that you are similarly being persecuted. I find it highly distasteful coming from a sysop who espouses virtue and working for the good of the community to be calling a user who is part of that community a 'nobody' because they do not have a large number of contributions, and happened to cause a stir in a way you didn't agree with. Just because they don't have many contributions, it doesn't mean their opinions should be treated as invalid and simply brushed aside, nor does it mean that those who are late to the discussion should be excluded because you feel that they don't sufficiently care. The user had a valid point; his views should be afforded some respect even if they don't agree with your own.

Let me get this straight though - I am not questioning that you do in fact hold the interests of the 'community' at heart, and that you act in good faith. I am, however, questioning the way you define 'community' and your attitudes to it and the way you interact with the parts of it who vocally disagree with you - they don't automatically become not of the community of the wiki. As much as you'd like it to be the case, your personal views are not synonymous with the 'community' and really, should not be used as a baton to bludgeon users who disagree with you into doing what you want. Liking or disliking the way you use your authority also is not indicative of a user's interest in their community. For example, it is my view that the bottom line says it doesn't matter whose contributions they are when it comes to images which improve on the ones already here, and I'm not going to suggest users whose images have been replaced are going to have an issue with that. Evidently, you don't agree with the way I went about it, but that doesn't mean I do not hold the interests of this wiki, and its community, at heart. "I am who I am, and I "talk" the way I talk, and I don't have any plans on changing that" - I'm not asking you to change who you are, but to be mindful of the responsibilties you hold as a sysop, and that the policies of AGF and NPA exist for a reason. Jennalee 12:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Wyn might be "making edits you do not like"..just communicating with her might make you see why some things are done & how she tries to help you. To me, even with disagreements, she stands tall and I respect her work here (and elsewhere). --Silverleaf Don't assume, Ask! 13:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Again Jennalee, please link to any instance here where I have called someone a nobody. As for what happens on IRC, it's common for us to discuss, question, bitch, about things happening on the wiki, it is after all the GWW IRC channel. I know there are many people who disagree with me, and I will argue my point as long as I feel my point has merit, but I don't believe I have ever used my sysop tools, or position to bludgeon someone into submission. I have repeatedly argued for the rights of IP users, as well as worked with and defended new users to learn their way around. I do believe that someone who blatantly ignores the rules of any community really has no care for that community, so yeah, I do believe that those users here who do nothing but troll, and insult people or do things solely at the expense of others don't care, and don't really deserve the privilege of being part of it. If that makes me a bitch, ok, I can live with that. I also never once said, or for that matter, implied that you don't care about this community. BTW, for those of you who don't use IRC, I simply asked where it was determined that copying images wholesale from GuildWiki was ok, and indicated that I felt that the original posters of those images should at least make a note on GWW that it was, since in at least one case, the last thing posted here was that they did not want their images uploaded here. -- Wyn talk 17:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

"Again Jennalee, please link to any instance here where I have called someone a nobody." you didn't call label them as such here, and you know that. If you're wanting examples of breaking NPA (as would be considered such and warranting a ban coming from anyone else), please look to your lovely posts full of personal vitriol above, something you fight to get others banned over except as JonTheMon seems to think it's more justified for whatever reason when it involves you.

"I don't believe I have ever used my ...position to bludgeon someone into submission". Review your comments to RoK then, or to Salome over the Nicholas fanfic incident.

"I have repeatedly argued for the rights of IP users, as well as worked with and defended new users to learn their way around." I didn't say you never did, but the being helpful part only seems to apply to users who hold a view you agree with. Did you extend any such courtesy, benefit of the doubt or sense of diplomacy to say, De Kooning? RoK?

"I do believe that someone who blatantly ignores the rules of any community really has no care for that community, so yeah, I do believe that those users here who do nothing but troll, and insult people or do things solely at the expense of others don't care, and don't really deserve the privilege of being part of it. If that makes me a bitch, ok, I can live with that." You're suggesting users who make you bitch at (to use your words) seem to fit under this self-defined category of 'bad people,' the 'people who Wyn doesn't like.'

"I do believe that someone who blatantly ignores the rules of any community really has no care for that community" you take this attitude, yet you don't seem to realise and/or acknowledge how others might take offense at all your public breakings of NPA mostly off this wiki yet in full view of members of this community. For that matter, you can break the rules, written or unwritten (especially if you feel they're stupid, unjustified and/or don't serve the purpose they were intended to) and still hold the interests of the community at heart.

"I simply asked..." - it's not simply asked if you start the discussion as though the outcome was pre-determined, with no attempt to discuss dimplomatically with the user in question. Would you like the logs posted for scrutiny?

Sooo, back to the original question: which part of this statement you do not seem to understand: 'being an ass = people won't like me.'? You reap what you sow - if you're callous to users, some who clearly don't fit your definition of 'bad people,' then don't act as though negativity towards you and your actions is unwarranted. Jennalee 01:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure, post the logs, I have no reason to hide what was said. If you inferred an "attitude" in the way I worded my question, I'm sorry, but I was simply looking for information. And once again, I would like to ask you to post links of where on this wiki I have said all of these horrible things about people. I personally think you are misunderstanding what is being said, because of whatever bias you suddenly seem to have against me. As for comments made off this wiki, I am pretty much free to say whatever I want, about anyone I want off this wiki, with no consequences (supposedly). If any sysop/admin wishes to take action against me for something I said in IRC, or MSN, or even in game, I would be willing to argue it up to ArbCom, because we don't action anything that doesn't happen on the wiki just as off GWW qualifications should not be considered in RfA's or Elections. I find this really amazing considering it was just a few months ago that I had to convince you to come hang out in IRC, since you didn't feel that anyone there "liked" you. -- Wyn talk 02:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

"I find this really amazing considering it was just a few months ago that I had to convince you to come hang out in IRC, since you didn't feel that anyone there "liked" you." - because comments like this are so great for getting yourself 'liked' as you seem to care about. Really, how is this relevant? I keep arguments from being personal and to stay on point, because by and large, personal attacks do not help your case are should not be used to argue with.

"I personally think you are misunderstanding what is being said" whether you feel I misunderstand or not is irrelevant. The point is you seem to take great offense at certain users who exhibit certain behaviours you don't like, yet you can be understood to be doing the same thing, but it has to be specifically pointed out to you before you seem to show any understanding of it. Really, is it that difficult to understand that if you don't like being on the rough end of criticism, then don't invite it by doing the exact same? You know, that people don't like hypocrisy? Sure, outside of GWW on the written wiki you can say as many terrible as you like, that's not in question. Acting like it doesn't relect in you in no way whatsoever though is different, especially as you're consistently trying to argue on the basis that you're morally correct than the person you are arguing against, when this does not affect the validity of their points. Jennalee 02:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I see this is going to get us nowhere, so I'm done. Jennalee, you can think whatever you want about me, as can anyone else here on GWW. And since this is the internet I will expect that a lot of my not fans will continue to say hurtful things, I accept that, but I don't have to like it, so yes, I might occasionally bitch about it off this wiki. I'm human. I will continue to be who I am, and do what I do. I hope you can find a way to get the chip off your shoulder. -- Wyn talk 02:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You accept that you get negativity, but do you also accept that it is in part as a response to your actions? Jennalee 02:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

At what point in your life did you ordain yourself to be superior to all those around you Wyn? Lose a bit of the arrogant ignorance and perhaps you'll be able to understand why the internets are so darned mean -FireFox 03:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, personal attacks are bad, so you're not helping yourself by personally attacking the person you're trying to convince that personal attacks are bad. The discussion, in my opinion, is stepping into the realms of harassment and ... I dunno, 'entrapment' - you're trying to get Wyn to say something bad in order to point out that she's saying something bad, and bringing off-wiki happenings on-wiki in order to make it on-wiki. If that's not your intention, it's certainly happening nonetheless.

In short, take Wyn's route and be done with this discussion too, since it seems it isn't going to be sorted out by reasoned or non-hostile discussion. -- pling 13:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

In case you didn't notice, the discussion didn't digress into matters off the wiki until Wyn felt the need to bring them in and make it into a personal dispute at the same time. I don't need to bring in external evidence when she so willingly obliges on the matter, on her own talk page.

"Editors should be civil when stating disagreements. Comments should not be personalized and should be directed at content and actions rather than people." I have made an effort to keep this discussion civil, and to the point, the content being discussion of Wyn's conduct. Please tell me where I have say, decided to derail this discussion into a popularity contest, or name-calling or any other form of violation of NPA which would make it harrassment. Jennalee 13:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Lol, what a hypocrite. This whole topic started as an intended harassment. You've really changed my mind about you Jenna, seriously. - Reanimated X 14:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Whoever did it first is irrelevant, the fact that it continued is a problem - just see FireFox's comment above mine, for example. I do acknowledge that both parties aren't faultless, but since Wyn has already decided not to continue the discussion, I didn't feel the need to address her directly.

The discussion itself is based on contesting Wyn's personal style of acting and contributing, so the line between appropriate and inappropriate (i.e. attacks rather than discussion) is incredibly hazy; snide comments such as "Dear oh dear, way to show your true colours. [...] making up things are we?" don't help. Even your first comment basically implies that you think Wyn has a stick up her behind, is disliked, and is an ass, probably crossing the line from the off.

Even disregarding all this - what's appropriate and what's not - Wyn's thoughts on this discussion and topic are clear, so there's not much point in continuing an already finished discussion. -- pling 14:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

"Lol, what a hypocrite." read up: "For example, I fully understand that by posting this here, I am not going to earn any free delicious cookies from your supporters." To clarify, since it doesn't seem like this translated well: I knew that from the moment I posted this, I would most probably offend many. This is consistent with the my statement, one which I fully accept: "being an ass = people won't like me." This is an application of cause and effect, like my last question to Wyn here, which you seem to find so offensive. In relation to personal attacks, read down. Also, FYI:

[[2]]: "It is a common fallacy... to—in an ad hominem attack—accuse someone of being a hypocrite in an attempt to invalidate their argument. In other words, just because someone is a hypocrite, that does not make them wrong." I.e. even if the person making the argument is a hypocrite, this does not invalidate their argument. More specifically here, even if you feel I'm being a hypocrite, it doesn't necessarily mean what I am claiming is wrong.

"The discussion itself is based on contesting Wyn's personal style of acting and contributing..." which is not an attack on her person, nor her character but as you said - her actions. From NPA again: "Comments should not be personalized and should be directed at content and actions rather than people.."

"...snide comments such as "Dear oh dear, way to show your true colours. [...] making up things are we?" don't help." comments in relation to what, may I ask?

• "15 yr old troll" an example of: [[3]] "Ad hominem abusive... usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponent, but can also involve pointing out factual but ostensible character flaws or actions which are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and even true negative facts about the opponent's personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions."
• "I find this really amazing considering it was just a few months ago that I had to convince you to come hang out in IRC, since you didn't feel that anyone there "liked" you." - yet another example. These are examples of 'personal attacks,' directed at me or otherwise, and could be considered a breach of NPA. These are exactly the sorts of statements you don't want on this wiki, or #GWW which is a public channel where users from here hang out on - statements which you don't want from myself or anyone else including Wynthyst, and which may elicit remarks she is offended by yet does not seem to realise or accept her part in making.

Since you have brought this up: "Amidst all the complaints about certain users telling you you have a 'stick up your arse,' have you not considered why this may be the case?" - I am quoting Wynthyst on the 'stick up the behind' part, and it was Wynthyst who was either paraphrasing or quoting directly from some other user. I am asking whether she has considered the reasons behind such statements, and I did not originally write that statement, and it does not imply I think it. My statement of 'being an ass = people won't like me,' as I have explained, is my illustration of a reasonable application of cause and effect and does not imply I think Wyn is an ass; it illustrates the point that by posting that, I could be seen as being an ass - the effect of which I fully accept, which is an example of the point I'm trying to get across. Evidently, this point is clearly seen with regards to me. However, whether Wynthyst accepts how her actions can cause a similar effect (the justifiability or not is not under question) has not been indicated.

• "The fact that you are bent out of shape because I questioned (off wiki) the wholesale posting by you of images from GuildWiki when the only indication on GWW by the users who originally posted them there was that they didn't want those images uploaded here says more about your reactions to things than mine. However, you will notice that I did not post anything on GWW about my doubts regarding your actions, nor did I take any steps to stop, or change them."

An example of: [[4]] "Ad hominem circumstantial points out that someone is in circumstances such that he is disposed to take a particular position. Ad hominem circumstantial constitutes an attack on the bias of a source. This is fallacious because a disposition to make a certain argument does not make the argument false... Where the source taking a position seeks to convince us by a claim of authority, or personal observation, observation of their circumstances may reduce the evidentiary weight of the claims, sometimes to zero."

Wynthyst is suggesting my motives for posting this here stem from personal anger that she questioned my posting of those images. It is not; I myself had already recognised far before I posted the images here that it would be a questionable move and thus, asked far before they were posted whether it was justifiable or not - the answer being it was. Rather, it is, as I have mentioned before, the way in which the questioning was carried out which I found offensive, which tallies with what other users can also see - "may seem... overly zealous". Wynthyst's supporters can see how she may offend; I don't suppose those whom she may not consider supporters will be blind. Thus, I don't see why my question of whether she understands that her actions may offend is not justified.

"This whole topic started as an intended harassment" this topic was started because I was incredulous that Wynthyst did not seem able to see how her actions may be offensive to some users, and thus incite the inflammatory remarks she is clearly not fond of. Thus, the intention is to bring that to her attention and hopefully, to get her to understand that this may be the case. I could have written my first post in a much nicer way, but this would not change the confronting, and thus which may be considered disturbing, nature of the question, and wouldn't have such an impact. I could avoid a lot of the consequences of bringing this discussion up from her by holding it elsewhere, but talkpages are here for discussion and holding it elsewhere would not make it any 'nicer.'

"Wyn's thoughts on this discussion and topic are clear, so there's not much point in continuing an already finished discussion." the discussion is not finished, and will not be finished if it closes now, as the question of whether Wynthyst accepts she may contribute in part to the negative comments she receives has not been answered. Her last statement does not in any way answer this. Jennalee 07:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Will you just let this go? You've made your point, you showed how obsessed with Wyn's actions you are. What more do you want? - Reanimated X 07:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Just going to take a leaf from lemming: -_________________________________- Jennalee 11:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The overly stretched smiley would like to tell you: 'Thank you for your lack of concern and/or ignorance of the point(s) made.' My apologies if the posts are of a tl;dr nature. As for your question, a simple 'yes I understand' or 'no, I don't understand' would suffice. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Jennalee (talk).

Ok, even I think this has gotten out of hand. Jenna, you should probably chill out. And Wyn, I appreciate how much you care about this wiki, but you need to stop taking everything to heart. I saw that IRC convo a while back, and I really hate to see you that upset about wiki business. Just brush this type of stuff off.
I know I'm not the one who should be trying to reconcile this, but still...come on. Jenna, don't intentionally exacerbate Wyn. That's harassment. Wyn, you're an admin and have been for a long time, please...I beg you...learn how to let this stuff go. Karate Jesus 17:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

KJ, I'm not upset, I'm not "holding on" to anything. There are things here that do bother me, but Jenna's uploading of images is not one of them. The fact that she is accusing me of things that I have not done, or said, or even implied however, does bother me, and she has yet to link to any instance where I have. Plus, this is MY talk page. I have the right to respond to baseless accusations against me here. And you are correct, you are NOT the person to be reconciling anything here. And btw, we have the IRC, and use MSN so that not everything has to be said on the wiki. -- Wyn talk 17:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I was merely suggesting that this issue could probably resolve itself if you didn't appear to take things so personally. Sorry if I offended you. In sincerity, that wasn't my purpose. Karate Jesus 18:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

wow, all these walls of text you would think Cat Dance is posting here. --adrin 02:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Poor Cat Dance, they've become infamous on the wiki already xP--Unendingfear File:User Unendingfear Crane eats peanut.jpg 02:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

he is the only one who can doble a wall in 1 post --Nick123 07:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Why?

de Kooning 17:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Check what links there. -- FreedomBound 17:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Why did I remove the delete tag? Did you read my edit summary? I thought it was pretty clear. -- Wyn talk 17:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

People could just remake it in their own userspace, though?-- anguard 17:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not going to delete a template that is going to screw up userpages of users who may or may not still be active here. Leaving it is much easier. -- Wyn talk 17:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's the trouble with using other people's templates. de Kooning 18:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is, but many new wiki users prefer it to trying to learn wikicode themselves. -- Wyn talk 18:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

"U1: User request. Personal user pages, sub-pages, user feedback pages and images may be deleted upon request of the user, except in cases where the user page bears an important message or the image is used on other pages."

It doesn't specifically mention templates, but I would say transcluded templates fall into the same category as images used on other pages. There is also no requirement to delete a page simply because a user requests it. Misery 18:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

But still, doesn't seem right to deny a user's request to remove his/her content. de Kooning 18:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to recreate the template for each of the users that is using it, and clear it of all the What links here entries, and then replace the deletion tag. Again, I will not delete a template that is going to mess up other users pages, and I don't believe any other admin will either. -- Wyn talk 18:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It has been released under the GDFL 1.2 now, it's no longer her content. Honestly, I don't think Shadowphoenix will even care as long as no one bothers her about it. Misery 18:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Why not recreate the template else where and link their's to it? -- riyen ♥ 18:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think GDFL 1.2 forgoes authorship. How do I see who's using the template? de Kooning 18:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Click "what links here" on that page. -- FreedomBound 18:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

She still retains full rights to it, but it has been released under the GDFL, which means we can store it under that license. Misery 18:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

MediaWiki Help

Hey Wyn, I'm not sure of your policy on this...but I'm trying to adapt a few templates for another wiki, and I wanted to know if you could give me a few pointers on where I'm going wrong with it. This has to do with the Template:Skill progression template. If you are interested in helping me, my email is me|@|matthewdryden.ca. I'd appreciate any kind of assistance you could provide (minimal is needed, really). Matthew Dryden 01:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It's usually not a very good idea to write your emails down, mate. NuVII 10:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I know. That email isn't really my primary anymore. Matthew Dryden 17:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

But Wyn!

How do you feel when you wear those shoes? Inquiring minds. -- FreedomBound 10:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

How was that

inappropriate information? There was an update, it was mostly bug fixes. Look at the bottom of http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Talk:Game_updates/20091022 Previously Unsigned 10:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

When you can detail the bug fixes, then it's appropriate information. Don't create a page just so there is a page. -- Wyn talk 10:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, that's lame IMO. Guess I'll add the stuff but it might be formatted correctly at first. Previously Unsigned 10:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Can I ask you aquestion?

Hi Wyn. I was creating a suggestion in the feedback space, and somehow the wiki logged me out. It was created with my user, but for some reason there is no link to my page (There is for my talk page, though). Can you somehow fix it? Since it was created by an IP instead of my user, it also is not showing in my contributions.

This is the suggestion: Feedback:User/Large/Factions:_The_Outcome -- Large 19:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Go to Feedback:Getting started. Read the rules, and the licensing then enter your username (Case sensitive) in the box and click on I agree. This will create your feedback user page. It doesn't seem to exist. From then on, you will create your suggestions using the Create a suggestion box on that page, so you will probably want to link it from your userpage. Most people are adding a feedback tab to their nav bars. -- Wyn talk 03:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with this topic, sorry for hijacking it, but where did you get those gold trim images from? the .dat? - Mini Me talk 10:11, 25 October 2009

I photoshopped the dat images that are shown in their raw red dat default on Creating a cape. -- Wyn talk 10:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh nice, thanks. - Mini Me talk 11:05, 25 October 2009 11:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :P How did you know what I was trying to do? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rogue Australian (talk • contribs) at 09:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC).

Recent changes -- Wyn talk 09:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Auction Software

Out of curiosity, are you using a CMS of some kind to manage Guru's auction house, or are you using actual software? If you're using a CMS of some kind, would you mind revealing what it's name is? My stats professor and I were discussing eBay and the like earlier and I've got an idea I want to test, but I need some pre-existing code since I don't feel like coding up an entire auction function myself. I'm more than happy to explain my idea further if you'd like. ··· Danny Pew Pew 17:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

It's PhP ProBid software. -- Wyn talk 17:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a ton, Wyn. ··· Danny Pew Pew 18:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

UWSC

Linsey wanting to change the zones leaves me cold; Underworld for example is a challenging time-consuming task as it is for non-Shadowform teams in NM, let alone HM. To have changes that eliminate, as you put it, UWSC teams one has to think of how that will affect the other to which is already at the short end of the stick by default. As it stands I have limited faith, one might say, in the Live Team, thankfully my believing in them isn't a requirement. Time will tell if changing these areas (a far more time consuming - also quite risky - task than hitting the skills) promotes team-play as Linsey has mentioned in the past. ~~000.00.00.00~~ 18:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

That's why the changes are being done slowly over a couple of weeks. And seriously, I've had little problem in UW with a balanced team in a LONG time. -- Wyn talk 18:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

excessive text in signatures

I do not consider it excessive, and while it might be one of the longer ones, I am sure I am not the only one who has one this long. It is not even the whole saying, and is as short as I could make it, and still get enough of the information across. The other option is to keep typing it when I sign my messages, and then only have the wiki sign my handle. In respect of your wish, I will not use the usual signing here.

Remember, remember the 5^th of November - Guy Fawkes

A user with a signature only a few characters longer got blocked for a month yesterday after repeated refusal to change it. They're disruptive, as per GWW:SIGN. –Jette 05:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

It would have been nice of Wyn to post specific references as to why or where he (or she) got the information he (or she) was using as a guide in his (or her)post. To be fair, many people consider the obnoxious use of colour and icons to be disruptive as well. And here I was thinking that we were all individuals, not trying to all be the same boring copy of everyone else.

Guy Fawkes

The point of your signature is to let people navigate to your userpage easily, not to be a banner for unlimited creativity. -Auron 06:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, here we go again with the attempt at explaining myself, and this time, being accused of doing something that is not in violation of any stated wiki pages policy.

My signature (as it is at this particular point in time) is well within the listed acceptable guidelines for the following reasons. Where applicable, I have also included generalised examples of why it seems that I am being singled out in this matter.

I point out the links that I am using for my references listed below, so you can read the areas I am using if you feel the need to do so.

1. http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Help:Signatures
2. http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Guild_Wars_Wiki:Sign_your_comments

1. It identifies me and my contributions (when I remember to make use of it, sorry for when I haven't). I do not say that this is a disputed point, just covering my bases in case it is brought up later.
2. It contains 'less' characters than the example listed on http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Help:Signatures#Customizing_your_signature .
3. It contains 'much less' characters (on the edit pages, where the wiki page guidelines state that is an issue) than a lot of the currently acceptable signatures in use.
4. It contains no mark-up tags, unless you consider the single " at the beginning to be a mark-up; in which case, it contains only one.
5. It uses only one colour, unlike some of the ones I have seen that appear to try to use a different colour for each letter in the signature tag.
6. It is less than one line in length, both in viewing format and in the editable sections.
7. It could be said to "resemble" my user name in some respect, as it does contain my wiki user name.
8. It (to my knowledge and best efforts) is not illegal or offensive. It does not violate any known (to me) copyright, and if so, and the holder of said copyright has an issue with me making use of this line or character name, then I will be more than happy to change either, at their request (with proof of said copyright). It references an actual historical person and a part of a poem referencing that specific individual. This person was not guilty of any hate crimes, and in fact was only guilty of attempting to stand up for what he perceived as a violation of his rights. His chosen method of change could have been better, agreed. However, this tag does not bring that up specifically. If people are that easily offended by history, then I cannot help that. That would be getting to the point of ridiculousness in this case.
9. I am not trying to impersonate another user. I am not trying to pass myself off as an admin, or person of authority at Guild Wars, ANet, or this wiki site. I am not trying to pass myself off as the individual named, and if people honestly believe that, then I think they need to re-read the section of science about normal life spans.
10. It is a lot less disruptive visually to view than those tags that use multiple colours in the bounds of their posted name.
11. It is a lot less disruptive on the edit pages as well, for the same reason. No extraneous and excessive markup tags.
12. It contains no non-Latin characters.
13. It contains no other link than the one automatically generated by the system in the normal course of events.
14. It doesn't link (unless the system itself is making it do so) to any other page than the user page of the individual using that signature.
15. It doesn't have any text size changes in it. The size is the default one the system makes use of.
16. It doesn't contain any animations or blaring text colours (which I brought up already).
17. "Use short signatures, both in display and markup." Again, this is not an abnormally long signature. It states one short line from a poem of many lines. It is not a "banner" as Auron worded it; it is one line of text. And once again, in markup, it is not ridiculously long as many of the acceptable signatures are.

Wyn, I understand that you have your opinion of this, and I am not trying to belittle that. I feel that everyone is entitled to their opinion. However, You do not specify in your comment anything other than that you consider it disruptive, without stating specifically (other than claiming excessive text) what or how it is disruptive. You generally state that it is a violation of policy, without making clear what specific part of the policy it supposedly violates.

You are coming across in this (in my perspective) that you are automatically right on this because you are a wiki sysop, and I am wrong because I am just a regular user. I think that I have clearly stated my case for why there is nothing wrong with my signature as is. I do not agree with a policy that says that (with the exception of a business owner in regards to the company that they own) that a person in authority is just automatically right just because of that authority. If that is what is happening here, then there is an issue here that needs to be addressed, and it isn't the issue of if people's signatures are too long or not. If that were in fact the case, then you should also be speaking to the people who have the excessive use of the markup tags, where the tags make up for good guess probably 90% of their signature, instead of playing favourites. If that is the case, then in signature tags, absolutely NO markup tags or anything other than the user's name should be allowed there.

Remember remember the 5^th of November... - Guy Fawkes

(Since you seem to have an issue with how my signature tag is presented, I didn't use four tildes to sign my post. But this way has more markup tags in it.)

1. "Your signature should neither inconvenience nor annoy other editors." It annoys Wyn. As per GWW:AGF, I am going to assume it is the length that genuinely annoys her.
2. "Use short signatures, both in display and markup."..."The presence of long signatures disrupts the reading of comments when an editor is formulating a response. A 200-character signature, for instance, is already longer than many comments." These are self-explanatory. --RIDDLE 19:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Your own signature is 239 characters, and your white-to-blue gradiant probably annoys colorblind people. I'm just sayin' elix Omni 20:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I just find extra, unnecessary text in signatures annoying. I ask everyone that does it to please change them. I don't believe that extra text is relevant to who you are, or in me contacting you, and it adds nothing to your comments. -- Wyn talk 20:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) You still need to sign, Guy... it's pointless just having the text (which is what Wyn objects to; I don't think she objects to the blue colour) and not linking to your userpage/talk page, which is kinda the purpose of a signature.

To add my opinion to the mix, I don't particularly like extraneous/excess text in signatures, either. -- pling 20:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

(reset indent)

Wyn, first and foremost, my sincere apoligies to referring to you as "he" or "him" in my previous posts. It was an honest mistake, and wasn't meant as an intentional slight against you.

And in matter of fact, it (my signature tag) does make reference to who I am, or more accurately, who the name is actually referring to, the original Guy Fawkes. It does add to my comments, in my opinion, because it is something that I would otherwise have to type all the time, because it is something I want people to remember, in any comment I make. If someone takes the time to investigate further because of that signature tag, then it is doing what I put it there to do, spark interest in something deeper than my comment alone, but without having to post the entire history of who Guy Fawkes was, what he did, or what he was standing up for.

I firmly believe in people standing up for their rights, and in my way, referring to this particular event, it refers to just that. Would you rather I have the full quote attributed to Guy Fawkes that I make reference to on my user page in my signature tag?

You may not personally agree with people posting individual signatures in there, and that is perfectly fine, but that is part of the point of people customising their signatures. Otherwise, why would there be sections on two different pages on how to do that very thing? It allows for an expression of a person's individuality, and I agree, some people do get ridiculous. Otherwise, they wouldn't have had to have the specific part about animations and such. But it is also possible to go to the extreme the other way. You have to admit, that in the editable areas, my signature line is one of the least obtrusive and disruptive signatures around. I do not claim it to be the best by any stretch of the imagination, but it is reasonable. It is not a banner as Auron seems to want to claim, just an expression of something I feel deeply about, and a much tighter way of saying it.

The following may or may not have any validity here, but it has validity to me, so I am going to post it. I, and many other very honourable individuals, gave a major portion of their lives (some gave more than others, in the ultimate sacrifice, of their life itself) to defend and uphold various rights in the U. S. A. by joining that Country's Armed Forces. One of those rights was the Freedom to be an Individual (described differently, I know) and the Freedom to have and state their opinion (specifically referred to as the Freedom of Speech). Others also have the same Freedom, and have also the Freedom to disagree with other's opinions and beliefs. However, nowhere in there does it give someone the Freedom to not be possibly offended by what others believe or say. My point is, your opinion is as valid as anyone else's, but it is just that, an opinion. If you are trying to claim the Freedom to have that opinion, and the Freedom to state yours, then you need to allow others the same Freedom to have and state their own opinion.

My signature line in itself is not the issue, but the discussion over it is. I wish to apoligise in advance to whoever's quote it is I am about to slaughter by repeating it, but "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Your opinion, and I do not disagree with your right to have it, is valid from your point of view. But, just because you happen to be a sysop of the wiki, does not automatically make your opinion right and someone else's opinion wrong.

My point is that, if you want to try to enforce a "rule" that I am supposedly violating (which I don't feel I am, and haven't had anyone show me what that rule supposedly is) by having my signature the way it is, then be fair about it: MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE FOLLOWS THAT RULE. And the only way to be 100% fair is to not allow anything other than just the user's name; no wiki or HTML markup tags, no icons, etc. The only possible exception to that would be a tag/flag/icon that shows that the person posting is a wiki admin, or GW employee, or whatever is applicable, for those that are. If you want to keep things in perspective, however, then accept the fact that you might not like everything that everyone else does. But don't be unreasonable about things just because they have a different view of things than you.

On many occasions, I have even tried to put my signature on a separate line, so that it is easier for my comments to be read by others.

"Remember, remember the 5th of November... - Guy Fawkes 21:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure I referred to Wyn as a guy at least once in my early days here. That's really the least of her worries (unless she is really offended by something so simple, I'll shut up)-- anguard 21:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

GWW:SIGN. Oh and nice wall. - Mini Me talk 21:47, 29 October 2009

Quit being childish. "If I can't have my toy nobody can have toys" is what I get from your "no exceptions" proposal. The signature policy is laid out clearly, and one thing you don't realize about this community is that consensus is the rule. If the consensus is that your signature is too long, then out it goes. --JonTheMon 21:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

You take from it what you want Jon, as is your right. The policy has not been violated by my tag, and there is not a consensus that it is too long. There have been people who have (besides me) argued my side of this discussion as well. If I included the whole poem, or the line used in the movie V for Vendetta that is attributed to Guy Fawkes, then that would be a valid claim for changing it.

If the consensus was that everyone was supposed to think the same exact way as everyone else, and you didn't agree with the consensus, would you continue to think the same way as everyone else just because of that? I don't think so. That is one of the amazing things about being a human being, the ability to think for yourself. You should try it sometime, it is amazing.

"Remember, remember the 5th of November... "- Guy Fawkes 23:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

He is thinking for himself, and if the majority of people say that their opinion is one way, then that's the ruling on this wiki.--Unendingfear 23:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with both Wyn and Pling here. Extra text such as yours really isn't needed. It's a signature, not a closing statement and this is not a forum. The extra text does not help anyone in anyway and really just hinders what a signature should be doing. I will conceded that your basic signature code is actually alot shorter than many other peoples, however the display of your signature is cumbersome and distracting from the text as a whole. Thus I would suggest you change it as that seems to be what general consensus dictates in this instance. -- Salome 00:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

To add on, I'm okay with "long" signatures code wise. Yeah, mines long code wise, but is only "Wandering Traveler" on the final page product. Yours is way too long in the final page product, which gets really really disruptive to read. -- Wandering Traveler 00:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

An additional point that I am trying to make here (actually, I think I might have said this already elsewhere), is that in no way, other than in a matter of opinion, does my tag interfere, and when someones tag is in actual violation of stated guidelines, and yet, when I bring that up, all of a sudden, the same argument that is being made from the side opposite me, when I make it, is all of a sudden no longer valid. That point being, the tags are too long. If you want to enforce the issue with tags, then enforce them fairly and equally. I might not be the only one with what some, I repeat some, consider a long tag, but why is it when someone stands up for what they perceive as being treated unfairly about it, and suggest a different side of the issue, then they are basically attempted to be hammered into submission? And yes this is unfair treatment. My tag is less disruptive visually than others who have multiple colours in theirs, and yet their tag is not an issue. I have even gone to the extra effort to minimalise (without changing it) the effect it has on the text flow in the discussion areas I post in.

This is a good example of why this site isn't as good as it could be. You have someone expressing an opinion, and just because other people don't agree with that opinion, then that person is bad and should be hammered into shape or compliance with everyone. It isn't like I am trying to get everyone to send hatemail or send spam e-mails to their Grandmothers.

Something that is a little unusual happens here, and it seems that people freak out over it. I keep hammering it because I was brought up to have a point of view that is my own, and if it happens to coincide with others', cool, and if not, then that is cool too. That doesn't make their view right or wrong, or my view right or wrong, just different. Just because many people have an opinion, still doesn't make it automatically the right one, or someone who has a different point of view wrong. There is a difference of opinion, on that we agree. But when people express something different, and explain it validly, and they use the listed points as supporting their view, and all you have to support your side is opinions, and you expect them to just roll over because it is opinion? That is not how things are supposed to work.

It might not be a perfect system, but there is a point where it gets to be ridiculous, and in my opinion, your points on your side of this discussion are approaching that point fast.

(hand typed link, hope it works) - GF

That should keep the people who complain about a ridiculous and unsupported point happy.

Thank you for addressing my comment on your idea that we remove all features from signatures. And I do think for myself; if I'm in a discussion where the opinion is against me, I try to fully understand their view point or try to be more articulate in my arguments. And one thing you probably don't realize is that while it is not explicitly spelled out in policy, the status quo is that signatures with extra phrases in it aren't to be used. And so you're partly coming up against resistance because you're trying to change the status quo. --JonTheMon 01:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Tbh, I would like the status quo to change :)--Unendingfear 01:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Jon, I am not trying to make it so that everyone has to do things the way I am, and if anyone is trying to take that away from my discussion of this issue, then stop right there. My point is that not everyone is the same, and that, within the reasons I stated in previous discussions above (and on other pages), people should be allowed to have their own individuality, and others should be willing to let them have that. Obviously, I would have issues with people attempting to use the name Hitler in their character name in game or user page here, even though me telling them they shouldn't do that technically goes against my self-proclaimed attitude about Freedom of Speech, and I feel comfortable in making that statement and not being wrong in that attitude about that. However, and reading some previous posts, it seems that previously, Wyn has been accused of being overly zealous in things. I am not trying to say she is or isn't, because I do not know the events being referred to.

But, judging by events lately, it seems that others have had similar attitudes about something, that to me, doesn't really deserve such a big deal. I fully accept the blame for the start of the "big issue" in the way I took Wyn's comment about my signature tag at first. Personally, I think that my argument, it may be long, and that is your opinion, should have been the end of it. This whole argument for lack of a better term, since I think it had progressed past a discussion, although it might be back to being called a discussion now is over something that is an opinion of something that happened. That is like saying three people see a tree fall in the woods. One person says it fell straight away from them, another says it fell to the left in relation to them, and the third person is saying it fell to the right. None of them is wrong, because from their point of view, they are all right.

It is the same thing here. The issue over the length of my tag line is based solely on someone's (or in this case, multiple someones) view of it, and is, as I have said repeatedly, just an opinion. Does that mean that because 20 people think a certain car is a good one, and one person happens to think differently, that his or her opinion of their good car isn't a valid one? That is what their argument is here, by extension. To continue this line of reasoning further with the car analogy, that is also saying that because many people happen to drive, say a Ford Pinto, and see nothing wrong with it, that the one person who is saying that the car has been proven to explode on impact doesn't have a valid point, just because the rest of the group didn't read that particular information. It may be a ridiculous example, and I am sorry for that, but it shows how ridiculous their argument against the length of my tag line is.

There are much more important issues besides someone's signature tag. And as I have stated repeatedly, there are many people in clear (OK, so it is only clear when the editing window is opened) and serious violation of the stated guidelines in regards to the tag lines. But, just because they cannot be seen as readily as mine, they must not be a problem. My example here is like the report that one person has seen, and no one else has, so it doesn't matter, and that report must be false, because so many people like to drive the Ford Pinto.

And Auron, actually, I think according to the wiki guidelines pages, your signature's purpose is to identify you and your posts. The link that the system puts in place is there to guide people to your user page or talk page. It just happens to be used in conjunction with your wiki signature.

"Remember, remember the 5th of November... "- Guy Fawkes 02:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

No one is saying that you aren't unique, but your display signature is long and distracting and not needed. If you want to express your individuality do so on your user page. This is not a case of right and wrong, it's a simple case of that the wiki is grounded on consesnus, the majority of people feel that your display sig is disruptive, the majority of people don't think colours sigs are disruptive. The majority of people also don't find longer coded sigs and shorter display sigs visually jarring or distracting. You keep claiming that you are being oppressed in some way, you simply aren't, now change your sig or do as Fighterdoken told you too and raise this with the arbitration committee, that way we can get final judgement and we can all go on about our lives. Continued discussing of it at the mo is just going in circles. -- Salome 03:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't find it disruptive, maybe the wiki needs to go over its signature policy once more...--Unendingfear 04:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) : Once again, just because it is claimed to be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus%7Cconsensus]], which it isn't, doesn't mean that this is right or wrong. The argument that my tag line is too long is based solely on opinions. And I am exercising my right to have the opinion that it isn't too long. And, different people keep saying they agree with my view on this, and find nothing wrong with it, which continues to prove my point that it isn't a consensus. It is an opinion expressed by many people. [[5]] I do happen to find the use of multiple colours (on some, not all) in a signature tag to be obnoxious and pointless, besides which, the code being used to implement this does' violate stated guidelines, even if no one finds it offensive. That is like saying just because someone robbed a bank that isn't yours, then it is ok, because it doesn't affect you. My point is that this has been blown way out of proportion, and let me ask you, honestly, would you have even said something about my signature tag if there wasn't such a big stink about it? Not very likely. Some people still would have said something, yes, and I am not going to say that their opinion is invalid, just because it happens to differ from mine. But I am also not going to sit there and expect them to follow what I think is right based just on the point that I think it is right, which is what I am being asked, sorry, told to do. There is no justification given other than opinions on the discussion against my view, and I have given repeated justification (including my opinion) on why excessive tags shouldn't be in place either. Repeated claims of "because it is consensus" one, is false, it is the opinion of some of the people, yes; and two, there is no other backing or support given for this point of view that I am wrong. I, on the other hand, have given my reasoning and supporting points repeatedly, and clearly, and have listed and specific guidelines backing my viewpoint as well.

w:Wikilawyering --RIDDLE 04:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

(riddle, it is ironic, that I can have that be done to me, and it is perfectly fine, and yet I try to prove my side (better than the opposing side) and all of a sudden, it isn't OK, just like the arguments. TBH your post of this is not helping your side. - GF)

Once again, just because it is claimed to be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus consensus (see previous link), which it isn't, doesn't mean that this is right or wrong. The argument that my tag line is too long is based solely on opinions. And I am exercising my right to have the opinion that it isn't too long. And, different people keep saying they agree with my view on this, and find nothing wrong with it, which continues to prove my point that it isn't a consensus. It is an opinion expressed by many people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus#In_democracy I do happen to find the use of multiple colours (on some, not all) in a signature tag to be obnoxious and pointless, besides which, the code being used to implement this does' violate stated guidelines, even if no one finds it offensive. That is like saying just because someone robbed a bank that isn't yours, then it is ok, because it doesn't affect you. My point is that this has been blown way out of proportion, and let me ask you, honestly, would you have even said something about my signature tag if there wasn't such a big stink about it? Not very likely. Some people still would have said something, yes, and I am not going to say that their opinion is invalid, just because it happens to differ from mine. But I am also not going to sit there and expect them to follow what I think is right based just on the point that I think it is right, which is what I am being asked, sorry, told to do. There is no justification given other than opinions on the discussion against my view, and I have given repeated justification (including my opinion) on why excessive tags shouldn't be in place either. Repeated claims of "because it is consensus" one, is false, it is the opinion of some of the people, yes; and two, there is no other backing or support given for this point of view that I am wrong. I, on the other hand, have given my reasoning and supporting points repeatedly, and clearly, and have listed and specific guidelines backing my viewpoint as well.

The only thing keeping this going around in circles is the people who claim that I am wrong repeated refusal to show me specificaly how I am violating anything other than opinion of some of the people. I have proven my point very reasonably, and I am waiting to see a valid response to my argument. Repeated claim of a non-existent consensus is not a valid response. It is continued repeating of a false claim. Many different people who disagree with my view are simply stating their opinion of the subject. And their point of view is valid from their point of view. Not one has said, other than stating their opinion of it, exactly how my tag violates any policy. For the sake of argument, I will concede one point, some (some, not all) people find it disruptive. OK, one point, and not invalid, since it is, after all, their opinion. My point it is, it is just that, only an opinion. It happens to be ONE item listed on the guidelines page, and is apparently being taken as law in this, yet when I post my MANY points from the same pages, my side is not valid.

My points (as in many) have been stated over and over again. I will highlight here. It does not violate any known copyright, it does not contain non-Latin characters, it does not contain excessive markup tags, it does not try to impersonate any GW or ANet or GWW person of authority, and it is not offensive (the argument here is more the length anyway) and I go on in the other pages. Just here alone is five specific examples of how it is not in violation of the stated policy. All that has been said is that some people find it disruptive.

If anything, what is more disruptive is all of these people making such a big stink about something that in all reality, should have never been brought up as an issue to begin with, since it was claimed originally that I violated policy with it, and I proved beyond any question, that simply wasn't the case. I have been asked, sorry, "told" to fix something that isn't broke. It has been implied that I should apoligise for this, when I have done nothing other than have, and express, a differing opinion about this than someone else. The only thing that trying to keep hammering this false "consensus" claim is keeping the argument going, instead of posting actual and provable, backable claims of specific policy that I am in violation of. It is now the principle of the thing, and you (collectively) have no one to thank but yourselves about this. I have been told time and time again over this that somehow, in some way, opinion of some people is supposed to trump stated guidelines that I am not in violation of. This argument holds about as much water as a group of people claiming someone was speeding when going by a cop, when the cop had the radar or whatever on him, and could clearly see that no violation of the speed limit was being committed, and yet, those same people expect the cop to give that person a ticket, based solely on the group of people thought he was speeding. I keep giving ridiculous examples, because the justification I am getting here is just that, ridiculous.

GF 04:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

"The only thing keeping this going around in circles is the people who claim that I am wrong repeated refusal to show me specificaly how I am violating anything other than opinion of some of the people." I have shown you. It's in GWW:SIGN. ""Use short signatures, both in --->display<---- and markup." Claiming "a few people agree with me, so it isn't consensus" is against the spirit of the wiki. Community consensus currently indicates, as per GWW:SIGN, that we use short sig display and not use long in display sigs. You're more than welcome to try to change it, on GWWT:SIGN, but in the meantime you are in violation of the spirit of the wiki and the GWW consensus. --RIDDLE 04:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Once again Riddle, all you are showing is how it violates someone's opinion. That is what that is.

And I have said, and proven by my links, a repeated false claim of a consensus that doesn't exist doesn't make it an actual consensus. It apparently has nothing to do with the spirit of the wiki when I use the point in stating that the sig tag is to identify the individual and the contribtution, which mine does. And yet, others use the same argument against me, and all of a sudden, it is a valid point. Time and time again, I use the points of my discussion and they are claimed to not be valid, yet when someone else uses the same exact points from their perspective against my side of things, they are a great argument. And I do the same thing, use their arguments, and shown how others are in violation of the same spirit and also the specific guidelines, and then all of a sudden, my argument is not valid. You can attempt to argue the violation of the spirit of the wiki all you want, but that keeps proving my point as well. The wiki is made up of a group of people, and in a group, not everyone is going to, nor should they be expected to necessarily agree with everything everyone else does. As I said before, and will continue to say, the only point being proven by your repeated false claim of a consensus is that when something is a little different from what some others think (not all, but I am sure that there are also many who agree with my side, and haven't put in their vote when they see how you treat someone who has a different opinion), then that group hammers and hammers it. People claim this is a community, and you show time and time again, that community spirit, you show how you treat people who don't fit your picture perfect ideal. We have not even seen a good cross section of the complete group of people who use the wiki, and I have a feeling alot of them don't even sign in to make use of it. Does that mean that they are not people, and have no valid opinion on this?

I get accused of wiki lawyering (I still can't really believe you took the time to look that up) yet, the same thing is being done to me, without the benefit of having any valid proof of claimed violations of policy. All that is being proven is that you know how to post links to showing that someone's opinion is more somehow more valid than actual stated guidelines. Since I am being accused of wikilawyering, and yet I am not supposed to have a problem with it being done to me, I counted, and so I don't get accused of a personal attack I won't say who, but someone's tag has well in excess of 200 characters and spaces. In my complete tag that it shows in these wiki pages, if I counted properly, 88 characters and spaces. So, in the spirit of making things easier on talk page editors, whose is better? Whose is in compliance with the stated standards?

Once again, the most disruptive part of this is the time I have to take away from playing the game, and being able to make useful contributions to the information contained in the wiki; to respond to unproven claims of violation of a policy. The only thing that gets repeated is how I am in violation of a policy, when that policy is only someone's opinion. I get told it is not in the spirit of the wiki (my paraphrasing), when it would appear that that spirit is to hammer the living daylights out of something that doesn't just slot right in to what some people think it should. I get told when I explain how my actions do not violate any policy listed, that the points I am making and/or my actions violate the spirit of the wiki. Apparently, it is in violation of the spirit of the wiki to have an opinion of something, and not be afraid to voice it. Apparently, it is in violation of the spirit of the wiki to validly prove your point after a claim against you is made that what you are doing amounts to having the guts to express your individuality. Apparently, it is in violation of the spirit of the wiki to expect the same respect, to expect to have that unsubstantiated claim of policy violation proven. Apparently it is against the spirit of the wiki to think that people could be reasonable about things. Which I have been, long past my usual level, to be honest. You claim to want to uphold the spirit of the wiki. OK, I am willing to learn, please explain that to me so I know exactly how it is that I am supposedly violating that spirit. And don't pull this "signatures are not disruptive" argument, because it doesn't hold water. If anything, I can claim the same thing about these people with ridiculously long markup tags. Oh wait, I can claim without proof that having to respond to these claims is disruptive, and they will just magically go away. And all because it isn't in the spirit of the wiki to have a different opinion.

"Remember, remember the 5th of November... "- Guy Fawkes 05:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't be fucked reading your gigantic walls of text once I read the numbered list above and realized your logic was flawed. It's not about "my signature is X characters long, so that's within the rules"; it's about "my signature isn't annoying people, so it's acceptable". Your signature is, frankly, huge. I don't want to read the poem when looking at who signed a comment; this isn't a forum where you can disable that kind of thing if it annoys you. I want to know who signed the comment. Gigantically coded signatures with tons of colors have an advantage over yours: They take up around fifteen characters visual width. Quite honestly, that poem will be the first thing anyone who understands it will think of upon seeing your signature anyway, so there's no real point in having it there in the first place.

Oh, and about that "it is in violation of the spirit of the wiki" stuff? No one cares. You're not a martyr, so don't try to act like one. You're just a guy who's unwittingly making a dick move with regards to his signature. If your signature really wasn't annoying, why does this section exist?

-- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 05:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

1. Consensus: Going along with "the consensus isn't against it, since there are a few who like it," keep in mind that consensus is clearly not for the display length of your signature, either. The proper, wiki-etiquette way is to change your sig to fit what is current consensus--i.e. fixing your sig so people don't go batshit crazy telling you to shorten the display length of your signature, or any aspects of your sig in that regard--until consensus is in your favor.
2. The "halp halp I'm being oppressed" card: Quit playing it. If you truly believe that my sig is in violation of policy due to markup length, then please by all means leave me a note on my talk page, rather than make hinted jabs.
3. Wiki-lawyering is any action that tries bending the meaning of a policy to best suit your needs, even if it negates the underlying spirit of the policy. Yes, I am saying you are wiki-lawyering, as you have said your sig doesn't violate (the letter of) the policy, yet it violates the spirit.
4. In regards to the ensuing shitstorm being more of a disruption than your sig: Did you ever consider that your stoicism and more properly your sig, are the reasons why this has become such a huge thing? Had you just considered shortening the display length of your signature until such a time consensus was in your favor, this whole thing would have never happened? --RIDDLE 05:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

To make this short; your sig doesn't need that quote. Obviously, that's my opinion - it's also the opinion of pretty much everyone in this section and the wiki at the time GWW:SIGN was last revised. That's what we call consensus - y'know, when people compromise smaller things to agree on a bigger picture? That's what you aren't attempting to do. We've all made compromises (well, many of us, since I don't give enough of a shit to have a complicated sig) to fit inside the letter of the law. You haven't even bothered. If you are trying to get the law changed, the least you could do is abide by it until that change occurs. In fact, do so. Your signature is distracting past the point where you can wikilawyer and say it's okay. I have no problem applying a block if your signature is not changed, so please get on that.

This isn't a science. This isn't an art. It is a wiki. 20 people saying a signature is right or wrong is what matters, because that's what wikis are founded on. You aren't inherently more or less correct than they are, but you are just one person, and when it comes to signature lengths on a small wiki about a dead video game, it will always be a matter of opinion. It's time you dealt with that and changed your signature. If you are unable to comply, you have two options - get blocked or find a wiki that gives enough of a fuck to read your 5000 character rants about absolutely nothing. Have a nice day ^_^ -Auron 06:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd also like to bring up the "kill yourself" option, here; I feel it ought to get mentioned at least once in this case before we close the book on the issue. Just saying, the choice is there. –Jette 06:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

You guys (and girls) want to the point? K. This is to all recent responses.

I have been accused of wikilawyering. So what, it is being done to me. That makes it OK that it is done to me because I am doing it?

My signature tag is an issue to some people. I accept that. How many would have actually said something if it wasn't already made a huge deal?

It is a wiki. Correct, and the way to encourage people to be willing to contribute is to NOT pound on them about something stupid and insignificant as this.

I am accused of playing the martyr card. Actually, I am just sick and tired of all the double standard bullshit. I get the rules thrown in my face, and I respond with the same.

I have been told that I am violating the spirit of the wiki. OK, again, an opinion, which I don't happen to share.

I am told my logic is flawed. I really don't care if you think that because I am using the same exact logic others are against me, and it works fine when they use it.

I tried being reasonable about this, and discuss it. Now I really don't care what anyone of you think about it.

"Remember, remember the 5th of November... "- Guy Fawkes 06:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The simple fact is Guy, the consensus in this discussion seems to be that your signature with the excessive text is disruptive when reading talk pages where it appears (it takes up half a line of text), and that in and of itself is a violation of GWW:SIGN

• "Your signature should neither inconvenience nor annoy other editors."
• "Use short signatures, both in display and markup."

Based on the consensus I see in this discussion, you need to change your signature. That's the way things are done here. And yes, of course, all of the responses are opinions, that's what we argue with here. I never intended to pound on you, I made a request. You are the one that has taken it to unreasonable lengths. I don't find signatures to be an insignificant things as they appear hundreds of times over the course of an editor's history. While you may not share these particular opinions, it's those opinions that form the consensus that guides this wiki community and your statement that you really don't care what anyone of us think about it tells me that you really don't wish to be part of this community as you don't wish to play by it's rules, and that is a shame. However, now as a sysop, after having walls of text placed on my talk page regarding this subject, and seeing a clear consensus among those participating in this discussion, I am telling you to remove the excess text from your signature as it constitutes a violation of our signature policy. Continued refusal to do so will result in the loss of your editing privileges. -- Wyn talk 07:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

zzzzzzzz personal attacks are old. How many times does every have to make really obvious hints, or really not obvious hints because it's BLATANTLY STATED before you realise it applies to the text you just wrote. Jennalee 19:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

"...tells me that you really don't wish to be part of this community as you don't wish to play by it's rules" or that he thinks he has played by them, and/or they're retarded (which, in a loose sense may be considered the consensus of a portion of this wiki's community who think the number of policies is retarded), or some other reason, and none of those that I can think of says he doesn't wish to be a part of this community. If I was in his position and I didn't really care, I would just bugger off instead of spending a significant amount of time formulating arguments to convince that community otherwise. Lrn2see shades of grey. Everything's not so clear cut black and white.

As for the whole sig thing OP, you may be right that you're not violating the statements which make up the policy but you are violating the spirit of the policy as I see it which is to keep sigs short, sweet and to the point for the purposes of a sig (identifying who you are, + links to your profile) when the end result is viewed - which is quite a sensible and reasonable expectation. As far as I can see, yours certainly isn't exactly short and it's not an unreasonable request to ask you to shorten it; I don't see anything preventing you from elaborating on your strong views in your personal userspace if you feel the need. FYI, using the letter of the policies on a wiki to argue against the spirit of the policies is wikilawyering and that is a no-no. Hence, if you don't catch my drift, I would like to request that you make your sig shorter and elaborate further on your userpage or a subpage if you feel the need. Jennalee 19:33, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Can we put an end to this guys? It's becoming very annoying to have my watchlist pinged every so often and not be able to contribute to the shitfest without committing a banable NPA offense. Just give the guy a deadline, and if he still refuses to comply, ban him. He has already shown that he is incapable of comprehending logic and participate in a meaningful debate. NuVII 19:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and for the record, a part of me urges you to ignore the above comment. Drama of this caliber is hilarious. NuVII 19:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Kakarot blocked him and this is getting archived tomorrow, so as far as I'm concerned it's done. -- Wyn talk 20:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

a hypocrite?

please explain to me how calling someone a hypocrite def:"a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings" is a personal attack?- Zesbeer 05:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Instead of calling them a hypocrite, try telling them their comments are contradictory to their actions. ~Shard 05:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Calling someone a "Hypocrite scrub" is not really the same as calling them a hypocrite. However, both have negative connotations, and as I said "you are pushing the boundaries of NPA" I did not say you violated it. I'm just warning you to stop before it goes any further. Had I felt you actually violated NPA, you would already be blocked. l2read please. -- Wyn talk 06:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

i meant to put a comma in between hypocrite and scrub. also just wanted clarification because Ariyen is saying that calling someone a hypocrite is against the npa- Zesbeer 06:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

And she has been told it isn't. But again, both of you need to just cease and desist. If you can't play nice together find someplace else to play. -- Wyn talk 06:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

thanks for the clarification and i do know how to read i was just clarifying also if you could not talk down to me it would help with me liking you.- Zesbeer 06:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

cool story bro. -Auron 06:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

You're one to talk Auron...I mean look at your user page, it's a treasure chest of QQingWarherox 08:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

right back at you auron.- Zesbeer 06:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

i'm not the one posting on wyn's page asking for an explanation of personal attacks. ups! -Auron 06:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

i would rather ask then get banned for no reason. OH WAIT- Zesbeer 06:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The internet isn't serious business. is for Raine, etc. 06:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) If you really want to lawyer over the specifics; calling someone "a hypocrite" could actually fall under NPA, since it is a general statement about a person, as opposed to specific actions. Instead, it'd be better to say that "person A's actions B and C are hypocritical," which directs the statement towards the actions rather than the person. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 08:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

^basicaslly what Aiiane said. Further to that ALL parties involved simply have to stop now. No one is going to "win" this argument and it's just creating needless drama on the wiki. -- Salome 15:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Why is everybody so hyped up over some dumb comments. Let it go god--X 20:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

In the loose sense of the term, a personal attack is any statement that turns a discussion away from the topic and towards the discussing people. Thus, calling someone a hypocrite is a personal attack. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 04:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Help

Wyn are you good with computers? -- Tha Reckoning 06:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I like to think so, since it's how I make my living. -- Wyn talk 07:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

How can I get rid of an XtreamLok Alert? -- Tha Reckoning

From what I can see it is from some older versions of Norton, and all the data I've found on it is OLD as in ancient as I believe it caused so many problems, Symantec discontinued it's use. I would recommend just googling it, as there are several forums that have recommendations on what to do to get rid of it. Insert non-formatted text here --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Wynthyst (talk).

Hehe been trying, Jette recommends a system restore and download of Win7 -- Tha Reckoning 18:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, there was one forum that pointed to a few specific .dll files that need hard deleting. You might want to try that first, but from everything I've heard, and seen, Win7 is good. -- Wyn talk 18:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I've run a million searches for all those files, and nothing comes up. Also, any instructions on how to get Win7 would help out a lot. -- Tha Reckoning 18:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

try this :D -- Wyn talk 18:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Okies thanks Wyn. -- Tha Reckoning 18:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Present

you helped me with my signature So im gona give you a userbox trophy :D

For Wyn

This User Helped Neil in his time of noobness.

Fue people are aloud them :D(Around 6.i think,(check my talkpage.)--Neil2250Evil Mantis Eats Ragers. 08:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Its charr hat.

not charr mask. personn5 07:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Charr Hat

The official name is Charr Hat, not Charr Mask.--Pyron Sy 07:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Halloween timetable

Uh... you now left it black font + black background...(added) I think you need to use 6bit color code for it to work, something like "#DDDDDD".--Fighterdoken 08:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Your browser is messed up then, because #DDD is the grey on all the other tables headers. I was going for consistency on the page, and it looks just fine for me. -- Wyn talk 08:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

If the shortened codes don't work in other browsers that GWW is in a world of hurt since they are used as standards throught (all the profession colors are shortened, etc). -- Wyn talk 08:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The other tables use "|-style="background:#DDD;"", the timetable in particular is using "|bgcolor=#DDD". I am not versed in post 98' html, but sure as hell those are not the same. Please revert your last revert or do the proper change, because it IS black font over black background.

Want me to post a pic too?--Fighterdoken 08:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, it appears that IE8 messes up the wikicode, and this is going to be a problem throughout the wiki. It should be fine now. -- Wyn talk 08:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

If you would put the arguments in quotes, I am sure it would work correctly, even with bgcolor. poke | talk 08:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)