Formatting issue

For some reason, part of my profile page's formatting just stopped working (fairly recently). I use <span class="plainlinks"></span> for a few external links, and that still works fine. But I used to have the links colored as well, and for some reason now, they disappear instead of changing color. Here's the coding I'm using:

<span class="plainlinks"><font color="black"><big>'''GWW Profile'''</big></font></span>


GWW Profile

If you're seeing a small bit of white space under "Example", then it's not working on your end either. Now this did work like, a month ago; it still works perfectly on GuildWarsWiki and PvXWiki to boot. But for some strange reason, it doesn't work here, for me. I think it might still work in other browsers (I use Firefox), and possibly still works for other users. Is there anything different in Wikia's setup that could be possibly causing this to "malfunction" like this? --GEO-logo Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 09:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Formatting inside teh text of external links are being stripped as part of the javascript protection. The false-positives were caused by the need for a much belated response for the evolving attack methods being seen on GuildWiki, and I have not spent the time to see how I can make the net more specific without opening a hole for attacks to renew. -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa) 18:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, I see. One thing that's confusing me is, the formatting inside external links does still work, for other websites... doesn't work, does work, my personal site doesn't work, deviantART does work... is the coding particularly picky about what it does or doesn't shut down? I would think, if you're stripping formatting for external links, shouldn't that go for all external links? --GEO-logo Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 01:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
The script checks if there are any sub-elements inside the external link, then check if those elements have any attributes. If so, the entire link gets removed (and if the sub-elements don't have attributes, they are considered harmless). Does that sound about right? If not, please paste all the links with their formatting in a bullet list so I can easily compare across them. -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa) 06:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Let's see... I only half understood that, so I'll post examples instead. They're almost all different in some way, but a few of them just seem like they would both be the same...
I would assume PvX gets through because it's a fairly normal address, but I would have thought deviantART wouldn't then, by that logic...
...on this subject, there wouldn't happen to be a list of inter-wiki prefixes, would there? (talking about pvx:User:Jioruji Derako, wikipedia:User:Jioruji Derako, etc.) --GEO-logo Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 07:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
The only prefixes I know about are pvx: for pvx, wikipedia: for wikipedia articles and w: for wikia central articles RT 07:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, now THAT is weird. Let me check if it is actually the javascript I wrote that did that... -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa) 16:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Test a:
Test b:
Test c:
Ok, that's definitely a bug in my javscript )-: It's not specifically discriminating any address though, as Test c shows, it's just alternatingly skipping. -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa) 16:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

possible copyvios

See here, here, here, here, and here. Long story short: I suspect all but the first two on Lost-Blue's page are copyvios. But since I don't know really what I'm doing, I thought I'd mention it here. --Shadowcrest 22:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

advance notice

Notice for admins and others who may be interested

In a week or so I am going to do some desysoptions of long-gone people such as User:Adam.skinner, User:William Blackstaff, etc. There is just no reason to keep them either on GW:ADMIN or the system-generated list; it is outdated/obsolete information and is slightly misleading as to the number of actual sysops we have here. Besides, if for whatever strange reason someone came back, it is simple process to give back their adminship. I don't think this is a very controversial subject, unless I am much mistaken.

On the other hand, I want to know what the public opinion is on keeping people such as User:Karlos, User:Skuld, User:Fyren, etc. on the list as well. Although these folks are also pretty much gone for good, the length of time is not nearly as much as the very old ones listed above. I also want to know if it would bother people if I removed bureaucrat status from User:Gravewit, User:LordBiro, and User:Nunix.

Don't worry - this isn't me prodding the current "inactive" or "semiactive" sysops to log more hours. :) I just want to do a little housecleaning and give a more real picture. Anyone who has contributed even remotely recently, for example User:Gem, is perfectly safe. The provision in GW:ADMIN that "administrators are appointed for life" explicitly states that under no circumstances, even inactivity, will sysoption be removed. However, when you really look at the realities, the times have changed. The idea behind that provision was to ensure more legitimacy and less worrying about "reelections". But I think we almost all can agree by this point that we have a pretty good idea of what a sysop can and can't do, we seem to agree on RfA's about the various good and bad things that need to be taken into account, and we never take away an adminship except for resignations (1) or incredible circumstances (1).

In short: this is not about forcing you to log on more! This amendment only concerns those users who we can 99.9% say are never returning. Entropy Sig (T/C) 14:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Alright. Just put some Historical Monument of Dinosaur Guild Wiki Admins somewhere, respect for the dead and such. May be a burial ceremony too. lol but you get the point, right?Ereanorsignreanor 16:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
"Administrators are appointed for life. No amount of inactivity can result in an administrator losing his position." RT | Talk 16:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
She brought that up in her comment... --- VipermagiSig-- (s)talkpage 16:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh yeah, I agree with that RT | Talk 16:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I am of the opinion that the ones still active in the Guild Wars community should have their sysop/bcrat flags be kept, even if we feel there's little chance of them returning. I am fine with amending away the "sysops are appointed for life", but I feel if any old sysops have their flags taken away from them, we should proactively leave them a talkpage message letting them know they can have it back anytime they want, just let us know (so that effectively, the old ones can still have sysop status for life if they choose to). -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa) 21:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm fine with the idea that Sysop status is earned for life, but that doesn't mean thay have to be Sysops for life. Perhaps keep inactive Sysops on the admin list (they're already listed as inactive there), but remove them from the user group. If a inactive Sysop comes back and feels the need for Sysop tools, it's simple enough to make a few clicks and pop them back up to their original glory.
If someone's totally inactive, there's no need for Sysop powers. And someone going through the system-generated list in hopes of finding an Admin will just get confused at which one's actually active. Consider the Sysop powers being "turned off"; they're still there, they're just not "on" yet. And like mentioned before, it's really easy for someone to say "hey, I'm still using that" and have their powers back. So long as it's completely clear that a previous Sysop can always get their status back, then it doesn't matter what we do with them now. --GEO-logo Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 08:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I see no problem with prying sysop status from the cold dead hands of those long-forgotten users, none of whom I've ever talked to or care about. I also see no problem with removing bureaucrat status from Gravewit or Nunix, although I feel LordBiro's should be retained, since he can actually be contacted in case of a dire emergency. Felix Omni Signature 09:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I see no issues arising with this, especially if the users are notified they can retain their sysops powers if they send entropy a message. LordBiro can retain his bureaucrat status, though I believe Wikia can appoint a bureaucrat if Entropy suddenly dies :P --Shadowcrest 20:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed with everything else, but let Biro stay as bureaucrat. -- User Gem sig (gem / talk) 22:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I actually asked Gravewit to pass on my request to be desysopped everywhere after the Wikia move was done, but it never actually happened. Another request was to change the editing lock message on NeverWiki, not that it turns out to have mattered at all. Also, debot Fyrenbot. --Fyren 09:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Update: Due to a timely discovery, I can not perform these actions for who knows how long. I need to talk to Wikia to get back some of my bureaucrat powers. >.> Aside from that, I appreciate everyone's imput and think it's all agreeable. And thank you Fyren for posting from the grave. :) Entropy Sig (T/C) 03:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I am astonished that you would consider breaking policy (GW:ADMIN) outright without first changing policy. The policy states very good reasons why admins should not be demoted, and I don't see any of those addressed here. If the list is too cluttered (I believe the inactive admins section is good enough, though), present policy allows you to contact the admins in question and to ask them to step down. Don't fix it if it ain't broken, and "a little housecleaning" doesn't count as broken in my view. mendel 09:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the implementation details allows the process to actually adhere to a particular interpretation of the policy. We aren't asking them to step down, we don't even want them to step down, and we will not hesitate to give them back the actual powers if they show up. They are still considered inactive Administrators of this wiki, with their actual powers temporarily disabled until they show up again. -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa) 09:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
The proposal is to strip the admins of their powers and remove them from the admin lists. How this can be seen as them not "losing their position" is beyond me. The policy is crystal clear on this, there is no clause that says "it's ok if you only do it temporarily". I can see that Guildwiki consensus might be that it should be done that way now, but then the proper way is to change the policy first, then do the (temporary) demotions - although it could be done in one step. If I was cynically inclined, I'd insert a scathing comment about 'mericans having been conditioned to doubletalk like this by their current administration. mendel 10:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
The proposal is to remove their sysop flag and remove them from the list of sysops, while keeping them on the inactive administrator list. The difference is between "being an administrator" and "having the sysop flag". Too many people equate the term "administrator" and "sysop" on the wiki, and I am equally guilty of mixing up the terminologies. Those people would still be administrators of the wiki even when they lack the "sysop" flag. In fact, without the "Administrators are appointed for life" clause, there would be no reason really to give them back the sysop flag if they ever return, and currently I am inclined to defend giving them that flag back if they do return. Basically, you are defining "Administrator" as "user accounts with sysop flag", and I would like to point out that while being a common usage, is not a strict/technical definition. And while I probably have comparable distaste as yours for the current American administration, delving into such technicalities has been a disease widespread among people interested in policies even before the professions of lawyers and politicians officially came about. -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa) 10:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, the fact that GW:ADMIN and GW:SYSOP point to the same page certainly helps the confusion. ;-) That page states that "Administrators can ban users at will" and "Administrators can protect or delete pages at will". Is that still possible without the sysop flag? mendel 10:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Let's say we go through with the above consensus, and remove sysop flag from User:Adam.skinner (and proactively leave a note for him). Now lets say Adam comes back, and wants to ban somebody. The process he'd have to go through is:
  1. Leave a note on the admin noticeboard (and with a Bcrat) saying "Hey I'm back, give me back my sysop flag"
  2. A Bcrat notices the message, and gives Adam the flag back.
  3. Adam goes to the user's page he wants to block
  4. Adam clicks on the "Block this user" link
  5. Adam enters block details, and hit the block button.
If we don't remove the sysop flag from him, he gets to skip steps 1 and 2. So this boils down to a definition of "at will". The main difference is the amount of delay between wanting to do an action, and when it gets done. The current provisions in the above consensus is that Adam WILL get his sysop flag back as long as he shows up and gives the Bcrat a note. If Wikia or the Internet decides to be really slow, that affects the delay in steps 3~5. When the Bcrat(s) are on the wiki affects the delay in step 2. I personally feel we can still say Adam gets to ban ppl "at will". -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa) 11:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
On a completely separate note: Entropy has NOT taken action to remove the sysop flag from those people. If we go by your interpretation, then the above old discussion serves as a discussion on whether to amend the policy. As it stands, Entropy can't demote anyways, so the whole issue is currently moot until Wikia gives her the powers. "Considering doing things different from the current policy, and discussing it with the community before doing so", is IMHO a very good definition of "discussing to change the policy". Therefore the opening sentence in your first post of this thread is kind of weird... Your sentence essentially makes any discussion to change the policy an astonishing act, and seem to advocate "change the policy first without discussion" (I believe you don't actually advocate it, but that is how your sentence portrays itself). -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa) 10:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
My opening sentence makes any discussion to act against policy without considering to change the policy an astonishing act - and none of the contributors (whom I collectively addressed as "you") has suggested that the policy should be changed. To me, that speaks volumes about what the community thinks of its policies. mendel 11:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC) Why am I not getting edit conflict notices any more? mendel 11:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

*shrugs* "It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow." If an act against the current policy reaches wide acceptance, then somebody just needs to edit the article documenting the policy. I believe the vast majority of the policy articles are in fact not protected. Any discussion to act against policy isn't really different from a discussion to change the policy, unless you explicitly stated that "I think we should do this while keeping the policy that". If anyone says "I think we should use Title Case for article names", that is most definitely a discussion to change the GW:ULC policy, as opposed to trying to break it. -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa) 11:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

To summarize, there are two different issues at stake here:

  1. Whether admins with 99.9% probability of never returning should have their sysop flag removed - current consensus is yes, but if they ever do return they should get their sysop flag back.
  2. Whether the current policy needs to be amended if the consensus is yes - this discussion has not been happening because it's currently moot. I am of the opinion that removal of sysop flag does not necessarily conflict with the "Administrators are appointed for life" clause. If you feel really strongly about it, the policy can easily be amended into something that probably has more awkward wording (if we want to still give those ppl back their sysop flags if they ever return, a right I currently am inclined to defend). -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa) 10:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Suggestion: "No amount of inactivity can result in an administrator losing his position" changes to "An administrator loses sysop powers after a year of inactivity; the Bureaucrat will restore those powers if the administrator wants them back." Not too awkward, I hope. mendel 11:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I oppose keeping a clock on admin activity and remove them after "1 year" has ticked". )-: -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa) 11:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed with Pan. We shouldn't have a specific clock for them. If they're entirely inactive (from Guild Wars, forums, IRC, wikis, etc) they can be removed after awhile. It's really up to the bcrat to decide what "inactive" is, but I think Entropy's got a pretty good idea so far. And of course, any administrator that returns need just request his powers and they'll be given. -Auron 11:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
And just to make sure, even though Entropy had said "[I] think it's all agreeable", I just want to reiterate/reemphasizes that ppl who are still active in the Guild Wars circles (just not on GuildWiki specifically) should still have their sysop flags kept. In particular, anyone who left GuildWiki but is active on GWW shouldn't lose their sysop flag. I advocate for only removing the sysop flag from ppl who has completely vanished from the Guild Wars player circles. -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa) 11:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I still agree with changing the wording, Mendel, I just don't agree with an exact timetable. -Auron 11:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
My idea is that the policy gives a rough guide as to roughly how long the period is; from Entropy's suggestion above, half a year is not enough, and one and a half years is (I looked up the contribution lists of the admins concerned). Would you be ok with "at least a year"? That way there is still plenty of discretion for the Bcrat, but it'd be clear that you won't lose sysop because you're not playing GW in the summer months. mendel 12:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
No timetable. The bureaucrat would use discretion, so being inactive for 3 months while you're on a vacation isn't going to get you demoted. If she's hesitant on removing even semi-recent sysops like Karlos, then a 3-monther will have no fear of losing the position.
Not that it matters entirely much, because they can just ask for it when they return from vacation, if they somehow get demoted for only 3 months of inactivity. -Auron 12:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
PanSola has been arguing above that policies don't actually "govern" Guildwiki, but that they're rather an expression of community consensus (if I read him right). They describe (rather than proscribe) how the community works. That the Bcrat demotes sysops after a period of no less than one year of inactivity is current practice, just read it above. Hence, the information is accurate, on topic in the policy, and useful (to some extent). Why should it be left out? It's clear from this very discussion that the Bcrat isn't going to be "governed" by policy anyhow. I'm going to reword the Policies article one of these days... mendel 20:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Mendel, you might find this and this relevant. The policies aren't so much laws as they are documentation of how things work, and they're not always perfect or up-to-date. Also, Entropy does have a good bit of leeway when it comes to policy, but if she makes a change that everyone else really doesn't like, it would still be reverted. But I do agree that something should be added to the admin policy about this. Possibly something like "Inactive administrators may, at the discretion of the bureacrats, have their sysop flags removed to clear up the list of administrators. If these administrators return, they may at any time leave a request for the bureacrats requesting that the flag be restored." ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777(talk) 03:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason why action cannot be taken first, and then policy changed afterwards accordingly. How is that "astonishing"? And it hardly says anything about what the community thinks of its policies. We take them seriously and uphold them...but we do not follow due process and the letter of the law as religiously as GWW does. There really is no reason to do so if it impedes process or is not important.

Thus far, nothing has changed anyways since I am not in a position yet to wield such powers (should be fixed soonish?). So I am not sure what the problem is. As Pan explained, discussion like that which has taken place here effectively changes policies, even if the page itself is not properly updated at the same time. Policies are only snapshots in time; the current interpretations of them is almost invariably slightly different. This is due to two things: 1) The fact that very few users have the guts to edit Policy pages; and 2) it really is not seen as a big deal, to have totally up-to-date policies. It becomes a problem if the current interpretation is sufficiently different as to cause discord; but that is not the case here. Personally I never thought about it, but PanSola explains it very well, that technically this is not a policy violation anyways. Besides, GW:ADMIN is more of an explanatory page about how things work. It is not a "policy" per se, in that it cannot be "enforced" or "broken" - it really does not contain any specific guidelines or rules which can be cited for infraction. At least, to date, I have yet to see anyone use it like that. In any case you are free to edit it and any other policy pages as you see fit. I was always planning to change GW:ADMIN after I had finished up the task here, anyways.

As to including a concrete timetable - "That the Bcrat demotes sysops after a period of no less than one year of inactivity is current practice, just read it above." - um...where did you interpret this? I can not find such a comment. When you suggested 1 year, every user disagreed. I see no point why a specific time ought to exist, and I believe you are reading too much into some comments. I picked the sysops based more or less on "probability of returning to Wiki", not by last contribution or time absent. This is because it had to be done with discretion - unless you actually knew all of the sysops (except the very oldest, who were already inactive when I joined long ago) personally as I did, then you have no way to determine who may actually come back. I like Wizardboy's wording and feel that would appropriately address the issue.

Were there any other concerns? Entropy Sig (T/C) 06:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I understood the role of policies better now. GuildWars Wikia:Policy should probably be extended with a short paragraph about this and some of the links that Wizardboy suggested here and User:Defiant Elements has in his Reference section on his user page. It is astonishing that policies work that way on the wiki because governance by law has been working the other way around for more than 2000 years; and it is astonishing that you should choose to ignore a policy (no matter what technicalities can be cited) until I realized that you putting the matter up here means precisely that you're not ignoring it. I still think the policy should be changed ASAP.
I really want to make GW:ADMIN as specific as possible, and I looked at the inactivity times of the sysops you mentioned (I wrote above that I'd done that) and that suggested the year for me (i.e. in effect you're doing it that way, whether you consciously chose to do it that way or not). The reason to include this on GW:ADMIN is that it conveys a sense of the timescale involved. Right now you have "forever", and that's pretty clear, but if you strike that, it becomes unclear that an Admin is a very permanent position - well, not to everyone participating in this discussion, but policies bring new editors up to speed, so it may help avoid arguments in the future. As does updating policies ASAP.
Wizardboy's wording is an acceptable compromise, though I'd still like to have the year in it somewhere. Oh well. No, no other concerns. Thank you. mendel 09:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikis run extremely contrary to ordinary real-life systems of governance; it is a recurring topic of controversy. GuildWiki is pretty lenient and flexible. If I had tried to pull something like this on one of the more strict-interpretation wikis like GWW, people would be all over it and it is very likely that many more users would share your (initial) concerns. But, hey, we've been running like this for ever and it works pretty well. 2000 years of real-life law have brought us no closer to equality, because it is a perverted and corrupt system full of bureaucratic shit, etc. - on paper it is much more clear and definite, to the point of obfuscation, but in practice...? Meh.
I understand your concern about the policy implying that admins are not quite so permanent. I think PanSola's differentiation between "Administrator" and "Sysop" is the best way to explain it...once someone has passed muster with an RfA, they are always entitled to the sysop powers. But whether they will necessarily have them depends on when they need them. An active, semiactive, or even somewhat inactive admin does. An admin who is 99.9% never returning does not. So the policy should specify that "Administrators are appointed for life", but "Sysop powers are granted when they can be used" or such.
By the way, you are actually quite in the minority of new editors who orient themself by reading up on policy. Even a lot of the verteran users have never looked at all the policy pages. Entropy Sig (T/C) 23:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

In terms of timescale, according to what i am advocating, as long as somebody is still active on GWW, GWO, Guru, or any other GuildWars communities, they can be inactive from GuildWiki for 5 years for all I care, they'd still keep the sysop flag. -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa) 02:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that I agree wholeheartedly, PanSola. :) Although I'd need the knowledge of editors on those communities to tell me that kind of information, naturally. Entropy Sig (T/C) 04:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


Wikia are aware of the image redirection problem, I've been on IRC and a global bug report has been filed. RandomTime 20:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

So when will this be fixed? Cause my shiny new userpage wont work if images don't redirect.--AlariSig 01:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Unsure RandomTime 05:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Image redirects have been fixed. Dunno exactly when this happened, but they are working now. —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken 18:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Around may 29th...--AlariSig 19:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
A whole week already? Damn, guess I'm getting slow... —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken 22:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Week's nothing compared to how long it took them to fix it.--AlariSig 22:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a user that has been here for a while, but recently has started making a gwiki account for each one of his characters. See history list for some, and prolly checkuser him too. Someone deal with it. — Nova Neo-NovaSmall(contribs) 19:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

GuildWiki does not have an explicit anti-Sockpuppet policy. If any of the accounts is doing bad things, we'll deal with that particular account accordingly. If anybody is using sockpuppets to pretend to be good on one hand, and do bad things on the other hand, my inclination is to just ban the bad hand and exploit the good hand for the improvement of the wiki. As a user, you are encouraged to bring up your specific concerns of his using multiple accounts with him, or bring to attention here additional problems due to him having multiple accounts. -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa) 19:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
The only problem I have with him is the RC spam actually. Doesn't really matter that he has several accounts, as long as he's not trolling there shouldn't be repercussions. --OrgXSignature 19:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Monster pages

I was looking through some of the monsters I noticed that a lot of them have a '__NTOC__' thingie at the front, preventing a contents from being shown. Is there a reason for this because I've been removing them but since so many have them, I'm unsure if they're actually meant to be there or not. - b.r // talk 10:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The vast multitude of responses is overwhelming me, take your time people - b.r // talk 14:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't see any reason to not have the TOC unless its throwing off the page alignment. Sometimes it makes the page look weird, and sometimes it just takes up unnecessary space. Because its automatically put on a page that has a certain number of sections, its sometimes put on a page that doesn't really need. I suspect its on several monster pages because when people create new pages, they C&P the heading of old ones, some of which had it for some legitimate reason. —JediRogue 16:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
So I know what I'll be doing after I've fixed up the boss pages. Joy - b.r // talk 10:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

No "Unresolved" heading...

... on this page, like it says in the introduction up there. mendel 23:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Good point - I think nobody could be bothered, or perhaps resolved gets archived, I forget RandomTime 05:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Resolved issues are archived, yes, so anything still on this page would be unresolved. I don't see a need for even mentioning that header. —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken 14:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, I consider this issue resolved. --mendel 01:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Just a issue will be archived soon? I would but it's not my place to do so. -->Suicidal Tendencie 10:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Deleting pages at user request

  • Scenario 1: A user requests to have his/her Userpage deleted. Admin deletes page, leaving very many broken links from that user's signature.
  • Scenario 2: User's account has been moved to GW-User, User requests admin to delete page, admin sees empty "whatlinkshere" and deletes page. Redirect from old user page breaks, and can't be deleted because that'll cause many broken links from the signatures.
  • Suggested Solution: do not honor user requests to delete pages from the wiki. Tell the user to blank the page instead, suggest writing "This page has been deleted by me." on the blank page, and if necessary use oversight (Bcrat? or can an admin do it?) to remove offending versions of the page.
  • What to do with User:Helena and User:GW-Helena (Deletion Log)? I removed the redirect and placed a message and a link to the deletion log. Whoever says that you shouldn't edit other poeple's user pages, please make a better suggestion. mendel 23:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Broken redirects from a user's signature aren't an issue anyway. If a user has never created a user page, their sig still leaves a red link. —JediRogue 00:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I prefer to honor the user's requests, since a redlink does not hurt anyone really - if the user wants to be deleted, then they aren't coming back, so you don't need to contact them. Entropy Sig (T/C) 00:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
It's not an issue, since redlinks to the User: namespace don't show up on Special:Wantedpages. —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken 05:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Ah, that's ok then. That's how you know I haven't gotten around to look at WantedPages yet. ;-) (I am still surprised that [[:Template:Build archive]] has been deleted 4 times. That's (wiki) life, I guess. Is there a Special:Most_deleted_pages or some such? ;) mendel 07:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
That would be Under discussion. --Macros 01:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I've edited your link so it doesn't get on WantedPages. Astounding, but it looks like spam, unlike that template (I presume). --mendel 01:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thumbnail Sizes

I noticed today that some of the thumbnail images (particularly for NPCs) do not take up the full width of their given box. I began slightly increasing the sizes of some of these images and had the realization that there might be a policy that the thumbnails should only be 128px in width despite the give of their boxes. So I went to GuildWars Wikia:Style_and_formatting/NPCs and sure enough it says 128px. I thought about it and I'm not sure what to do. The 128px is probably just to keep everything simple, and the thumbnails that I have changed the size of are significantly clearer. Should I continue modifying the sizes of undersized thumbnails or leave them as they are?
Here's an example so you can see what I mean:

--Kirbman sig Kirbman 23:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The width of the box depends on the text in it,and on some font sizes set in the user's browser. The idea is to click on the thumbnail to see the enlarged image. That said, 200px looks good to me. What was the reason for keeping it at 128? --mendel 00:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
If you have a look at S&F/Bestiary, this was set to 160px (which appeared to work out as the best standard across a large number of "BeastInfo" articles), so maybe consider that number for universal adoption (of course there will likely be exceptions where the dimensions of the screenshot make a different width more presentable, S&Fs are guidelines, they can't cover every possibility that might arise). --Wolfie Wolfie sig (talk|contribs) 00:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I prefer the way it looks with a small margin on either side of the thumbnail. I think the 160px given in the Bestiary guidelines will look good in most cases. —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken 01:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Bigger is better IMO. But... considering why it might have been 128 to begin with... I'm just throwing this out there... but is it possible that 128, being a number in base 2, allows for the thumbnails to retain more clarity in resizing? Perhaps that number is rooted in something technical but kept being used because thats how it was done before. —JediRogue 01:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Clarity in resizing is caused by resizing at an even fraction of the size of the original picture - and that varies. It makes sense for icons that are 32x32 or 64x64; because they'll be blown up by an integer factor, they look fairly undistorted at 128x128, but that doesn't apply to screenshots. So I'd say no to that theory. --mendel 07:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I was viewing the different sizes I gave in my example on different resolutions and different text sizes (because of the good point that mendel made) and the new size only looks too large at 800x600 resolution with medium or small text, but at that resolution almost everything on this website looks too large. I guess I'll continue changing them but stick with 160px unless that looks too big or too small for a particular picture, then I'll go with my best judgment. Thanks for the clarification. --Kirbman sig Kirbman 04:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The matter may be complicated by wikia shoving ads on top of these boxes in the near future; the size of the screenshot should then ensure that the stats are still visible for most users without scrolling. --mendel 07:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Forum Namespace

Since it seems like we are going to start using this namespace, I feel like it might be a good idea to draw up some guidelines as to govern how we use and what kinds of things belong in the Forum namespace. What's the difference between the talk page and the article page of something in that name space? How do we categorize things? What goes there as opposed to userspace? etc. I don't really know where to start with this, so input from everyone would be greatly welcome. btw, lots of times that stuff ends up in teh GuildWiki namespace so consider things that go there that might not belong there.—JediRogue 06:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I really don't understand the point of the forum namespace at all. Merriam-Webster defines forum as, among other things, "a medium (as a newspaper or online service) of open discussion or expression of ideas." The talk pages generally suffice for that purpose. Felix Omni Signature 06:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm interested in the use of the forum namespace. I mean, there's plenty of times where you're sitting there with a question, or an announcement, or something you'd like to otherwise share and you're just like "Damn... I have no idea where to put this". Powersurge360Violencia 06:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I just made Forum:Coding (before I read this) because there is no single article that it could attach to. I also added an announcement and a link to the forum list (via Special page, so it's always current) to the Community Portal. The forums should work like the ´"request assistance" forum currently works: everything topical goes into the forum, meta talk about the forum (should it be archived? should another forum be split off? should it be renamed/deleted?) goes on the forum talkpage. --mendel 07:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Addendum: I think a forum is appropriate for any page where you expect the talk to soon exceed the content of the page, i.e. I could have made "GuildWars Wikia:Coding", but its talk page would soon eclipse any content on it (if the community decides to use it). --mendel 07:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm only gonna pause from trying to sleep to point out that your link on the CP page (thats right im calling it CP now) doesnt work. fix plix plox. —JediRogue 07:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Argh! I swear that was the correct link when I copied it! Sigh. Thanks for the heads up, it's corrected. --mendel 07:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused about the use of this Forum namespace. Is it for Q&A ? about Guildwiki and/of GW itself ? Overall remarks that can't be tight to articles or community page ? It is a bit unclear to me, TBH. If we want to make it more usable, this needs more considuration *and* links/'advertisment' to use these forums. Side note: In support menu there is also a 'forum' link linking to guildwarsguru forum, also a bit confusing.-- Merty sign-- ( talk ) 12:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikia central has a big Forums index. They use that to structure questions that we deal with here, on the CP talk or on the assistance page. Since each forum thread is its own article, they don't even need to archive much, just keep the index.
Instead of creating the forum:coding it would have been possible (and traditional) to create a GuildWars Wikia:coding article and discuss on the talk. But I feel that articles created with the purpose of discussion in mind should go to forum: space. Articles off forum hold information on its main page and discussion on its talk page. Of course tradition is to not use the forums on this wiki, but it's never too late to change. Wouldn't it be nice to have a Forum:Wikidrama and keep all of that off the user talkpages? ;-)
For the coding forums, I expect that the community portal announcement makes enough coders curious for now (and this post helps), plus there'll be links from other places in the course of wiki life. If wiki tradition changes to use the forums more, I can see a link on the sidebar. The Guru forums have a bout 3 messages per month on average, who is monitoring them? I know I'm not. --mendel 12:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Felix Omni, User:Banjthulu/User:Defiant Elements, User:Entropy

Sigh.... I have been debating whether or not to get involved for a while. I admit, I had my suspicions as well. I am always curious about new editors that seem to participate in namespaces where new editors seem to frequent less and show a familiarity with the wiki. At the same time, I am also aware that we have a precedent for not persecuting sockpuppets unless the puppets were being used maliciously. Still, I don't like them because they have air of secrecy and suspicions can be like poison. This is a perfect example.

There was nothing wrong with DE using a sockpuppet. Felix asked who Banj was a sock of. The question is a weak violation of GW:AGF. He didn't accuse Banj of malicious intent, merely requested to know out of curiosity. The appropriate thing to do would have been for Banj/DE to either tell the truth or to remind Felix that it didn't matter if he was a sock because there was no malice. After that, others jumped in accusing Felix of breaking AGF. This again was a weak violation of AGF because the accusers assumed that Felix meant to start trouble with his question. Entropy pointed out that Felix shouldn't have said anything because it could only serve to create tension. Entropy was right on the money.

At this point, I would consider User:Banjthulu to have gone from being an innocent account to a malicious sock. Regardless of personal disagreements accusing Felix of violating GW:NPA was downright inappropriate. It served only to inflame the entire issue and further increase tension. Not only that, it was again, a violation of AGF in that it assumed Felix was accusing Banj of wrong doing. And then we learn that Felix was correct in thinking that User:Banjthulu was a new account for an old user. I am not going to argue semantics about the difference between a new account and a sock here. But it brought to light some interesting things. Of course Felix felt vindicated at this point. His simple question had been elevated to violations of AGF and NPA. I don't disagree that Felix may not handle everything the best way, but I am really starting to believe that off-wiki relationships are fueling a lot of this drama. Accusations have been made blowing things way out of proportion.

Felix had been scolded by Entropy and he pointed out that he had been right in his guess of sock-puppetry on her page. His attitude here was challenging and unwarranted. Entropy's response, "What do you want of me?" should have been a clear indication that there was nothing to say. She wasn't going to beg for forgiveness for scolding Felix. She was correct that accusations of sockpuppetry would only cause drama. After Felix's continued challenging, I'm not really surprised with her response. It was obvious that continued dwelling on the matter would only cause more trouble. Perhaps her wording was harsh, but I pretty much agreed with her. I wouldn't ban her for saying what needed to be said. I wouldn't even call it an NPA.

As for DE, I reviewed your comments regarding why you felt that you wanted a new account. I understand your sentiments regarding the desire to talk to people away from your old-hand persona. However, as soon as you accused Felix of an NPA violation, the intent behind your sock puppet became malicious. You used the Banjthulu account to stir up further drama knowing full well that Felix was not wrong in assuming you weren't a totally new user. However, as those actions were carried out by Banjthulu, I am only going to ban that account for 1 week. You are free to use your DE account. If you chose to contribute as Banjthulu after that point, I welcome you to and will treat it as a separate entity from User:Defiant Elements in accordance with my own policies. It is my hope that you will continue being an active contributor on either account.

Finally, everyone else. This whole thing was greatly blown out of proportion. I believe that it was in part fueled by off-wiki drama which, I'm going to remind you all, shouldn't effect your editing. NPA is to keep disputes from getting personal. Additionally, remember that accusations of both NPA and AGF violations can be construed as violations themselves. I have placed an account and my decisions regarding it all here so that it can be easily located and reviewed for posterity. —JediRogue 22:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

So what do you exactly want of the admins since you posted on the admin noticeboard? If required I could go through all of the discussions and make a decision to ban someone / no one, but I'm not sure if that's what you are looking for, since it doesn't seem like anyone should get banned for anything at this point, and giving warnings probably wont have any effect anymore. -- User Gem sig (gem / talk) 01:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I believe the point of this post was to consolidate the reply into a place where it is easily accessible and visible to all. "I have placed an account and my decisions regarding it all here so that it can be easily located and reviewed for posterity." I do not think it contains any requests. Entropy Sig (T/C) 04:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I've added my judgment on the matter. I probably would have blocked Banjthulu for longer, but it's not something worth unblocking/lengthening over.
Everyone involved should have kept their heads a little better. Anger and resentment is expected in such a case; however, as with anything else on the wiki, civility is expected as well. Thus, Entropy and DE were blocked.
R Phalange and Felix Omni have been stirring up trouble and making the issue worse by adding asinine comments that didn't alleviate the situation. Phalange had a slightly longer track record in this last case, but had not been blocked (or even warned, afaik) before, so his ban was light. Felix only stirred up trouble near the end, but he's had a track record in the past, so he got a harsher punishment than normal (although tbh, I generally go one standard block length up, not down; he got off easy). -Auron 10:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
03:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC) Felix challenges/taunts Entropy
04:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC) Entropy tells Felix to "fuck off"
14:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC) Defiant Elements awaits "a ban for NPA"

Posts to User talk:Entropy by admins other than Entropy:
04:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC) JediRogue
15:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC) Dr Ishmael
15:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC) Cress Arvein
16:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC) Shadowcrest
16:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC) Vipermagi
22:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC) Isk8
03:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC) Xasxas256

Posts to Admin Noticeboard
22:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC) JediRogue bans Banjthulu, decides to not ban the rest
01:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC) Gem agrees with JediRogue's decision
10:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC) Auron bans Entropy, Felix, DE, and R.Phalange.

I did not see any posts by Jioruji Derako, Marcopolo47, PanSola, or Randomtime bearing on the matter.

I am much suprised that Auron is apparently the only admin who saw justification for those 4 bans, yet there wasn't as much as a single post of discussion before or afterwards. If the admins and bureaucrats don't work this out in a very visible way, I won't feel well on this wiki. --mendel 07:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

See my post here, explains both why I did not ban anyone and why I felt no one should be banned. —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken 13:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I trust Auron's judgment. Just because I didn't personally feel the need to ban anyone doesn't mean that I was against it. Besides, like parents, I prefer to present a united front to my children so if I disagreed, I would likely take it up with Auron in private first. But, there was no secret admin discussion about this matter as far as I know that we are hiding from you. —JediRogue 16:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I didn't act because my personal feelings (and emotional disorder) would get in the way. --- VipermagiSig-- (s)talkpage 17:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe bans need to be expressively endorsed by every admin on this wiki. If you are concerned about Auron/Jedi's decision, and wish to bring it to another admin's attention, please do so explicitly. Otherwise, please do not presume the lack of comments from other admins as a sign of lack of support. From the summary of events plus the comments you posted above, I can't actually tell if you have a problem with any of their actions, or if you are just troubled by the lack of chatter from other admins saying "I concur". -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa) 21:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Nothing what you write reflects the spirit of my post. From what I can tell, before Auron stepped in, most of the admins on the list seemed happy with JediRogue's decision. After Auron banned an additional four users, all of the admins seem happy with that. That indicates to me that something subtle is amiss, and I find it hard to interpret exactly what. Maybe there was a significant shift in position with no visible discussion, or perhaps many admins are not in fact aware of their own position.
  • The feeling of "I keep out of it unless it's important" is a valid position, but one that rarely gets defended. It means in effect that penalties are only levied when they directly improve a bad situation: banning a spammer means no more immediate spam, banning parties in a heated conflict means time to cool down. It was easy to "keep out" of this because the conflict had, in fact, cooled down; there was no immediate gain to the bannings. I call that the pragmatic position.
  • The position that I presume Auron to take is that bans are chastisement and retribution for an infraction of the rules. This elevates the rules above the needs of the users of the wiki, and it is a position I admit I am extremely uncomfortable with. Any attempt to connect the two by arguing that punishing rule infractions serves as deterrent to avoid rule infractions in the future must admit that at least DE and Entropy were aware of that and chose to not be deterred, and I can empathise with them. (Their need to vent weighed heavier for them than the impetus to follow rules; they did so in the least disruptive manner possible).
Can a person holding one position tolerate the other? In the case of the "punishment" position, I can see where it is hard to see a person "deserving of punishment" go unpunished. For a pragmatic person, the question arises of the effect that toleration or opposition would have. Toleration means short bans for 4 people, most of whom have indicated that they won't be affected much. Opposition means conflict with Auron, a bureaucrat who has had 8 supporting and 8 opposing votes (Admins 2:1, well, 3:1 counting Entropy). Could be messy. Of course tolerating Auron makes a lot of sense from a pragmatic viewpoint.
I am unsure if the philosphic conflict I outline here actually exists, because there is no discussion.
  • If it exists, that will become apparent when the consequences of tolerating the other position will become untenable for the pragmatic fraction; i.e. when an important issue comes up. Then the situation will be further complicated because "important enough" is different for everyone, and the issue itself will somewhat cloud what is going on underneath.
  • If the conflict doesn't exist, I need to know what the position is; otherwise I cannot successfully mediate in conflicts (i.e. the conflict is successfully solved, and then someone waves a banstick regardless: makes my efforts seem hypocritical), and it also affects what importance I have to attach to the letter of the policies combined with the amount of personal "Willkür" (arbitrariness?) the admin (any of the admins, actually) can be expected to apply.
That is why I am asking for discussion now. I thank the three admins who have responded. --mendel 09:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, the point of my post was to point out that I couldn't figure out what the point/spirit of your post was. Thanks for the followup clarification. While I do not presume to speak on behalf of the other admins, I personally hold the position that "I can see a case for banning them, although I personally don't think it warrants the ban". Thus, in general, I agree with your position, although I can tolerate Auron taking action for the other position. BTW, I don't quite see the relevance about Auron's position as a Bcrat with respect to this situation.
On the subject of mediation, if you successfully mediated a conflict, and an admin comes in later to ban, as that admin does not represent you, there is no hypocrisy. It does, however, undermine your efforts and future ability to gain credibility with parties in conflict. Thus if you have mediated in a conflict, you felt the conflict has been successfully resolved, but an admin comes in and places bans which you find unnecessary due to the resolution, I highly encourage you to bring up the specific case on the admin noticeboard and also directly with the admin in question. -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa) 23:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with PanSola and JediRogue. Specifically, the lines I trust Auron's judgment. Just because I didn't personally feel the need to ban anyone doesn't mean that I was against it. from Jedi and I personally hold the position that "I can see a case for banning them, although I personally don't think it warrants the ban" from Pan. I didn't personally see a need for a ban, though I can understand why Auron did it. Banning them wouldn't nececessarily deter future infractions (though it probably would), but it would at least be consistent. Not banning Entropy/DE/Felix/R.P. would be extraordinarily inconsistent if people were banned for similar cases in the past/future. --Shadowcrest 01:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Shifted ads

Image:Shifted_ad.jpg Take a look. The ad banner has been moved below the header for all actual articles on the Monaco skin- I don't know if it's the same in monobook. I don't know if this is just a bug, or if this is the big ad change Wikia was planning but told us they would postpone. Felix Omni Signature 10:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I skipped to random mainspace articles until I found one that wasn't a graphic banner- Image:shifted_ad2.jpg. This is indeed the ad switch. Felix Omni Signature 10:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
It's not just mainspace either. Image:Ironic_ad.jpg Felix Omni Signature 10:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:doubly_ironic_ad.jpg You see where I'm going with this. Felix Omni Signature 10:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Care.. -{[ PUL ]}- 08:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Firefox isn't my primary web browser, but thank you. Felix Omni Signature 08:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
The skin in those pics isn't monobook. Its monaco. The ads have been moved in Monaco. The change they are delaying is the forcing of us to use monaco as the default until we have finished customizing it. —JediRogue 08:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I discovered that a little while after I posted these images and such. Actually, for at least a brief period the default skin was forced to New Monaco Gaming, but that was presumably just a bug. Felix Omni Signature 23:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

RFA process improvement proposals

For those who don't follow RC (anybody?), there are two user pages where changes to current RfA procedure are being discussed: User:Defiant Elements/RFA and User:M.mendel/Admin Criteria. Comments are invited on the respective talk pages. --◄mendel► 19:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Real Icon for Favorites

I apologize, ladies and gentlemen, for not knowing all the proper methods and modes of correction here. I simply want to fix that icon that has been loaded as a "favicon.ico". I've uploaded a more appropriate one than the rather pathetic GW there now. Please delete all my entries after this is fixed. I do not usually visit this area or the edit side of this wiki. Thanks.File:Favicon.icoTyriaTwoSword Hope this works. The preceding unsigned comment was added by LetsReason (contribs) .

Thanks - but we rather like the GW RandomTime 17:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Not to be difficult, but I -much- prefer the shield icon. Felix Omni Signature 17:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
ORLY - well - please post here if you have an oppinon - and once we reach concencus we may change RandomTime 18:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
We've tried the shield with sword. It didn't look good when shrunk to favicon size (looked more like a rabbit's head with bent ears than anything else). I'm not sure if I proposed just the shield without swords before, but that might be something worth looking into. -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa) 18:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
You proposed that on Image talk:Favicon.ico --- VipermagiSig-- (s)talkpage 21:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Try putting the icon file I uploaded up there and ask people what they think. I manually added my icon to the GW link I have on my Favorites bar and it looks fine (not like a rabbit). The GW simply looks 80sish for an otherwise modern and nice looking Wiki. The current icon is simply weak. —LetsReason 18:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


Are the editors and syops interested in having a hfff page? Or is this considered redundant? Azwildbill 02:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

HFFF currently redirects to the FFF article. Perhaps, if you know about HFFF'ing, you could add a header to the FFF article and explain what HFFF is. I don't HFFF, and as such know very little about it... --- VipermagiSig-- (s)talkpage 08:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
HFFF? RandomTime 10:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
FFF'ing with Heroes. --- VipermagiSig-- (s)talkpage 10:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Orite RandomTime 10:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

User who doesn't like talk on his talk pages

Ok, would some admin take a look at talk page of user AgentWolf ? He's blaming everybody and everything for being childish and disrespectful but will not engage in discussions on his talk page about it. Removing/altering notes from others, denying messages on talk page and talks about admins don't like it either. I dunno what to do with it. Don't wanna start a revert war nor will I be interpreted as 'disrespectfull'. But something is wrong here..-- Merty sign-- ( talk ) 09:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like he's leaving the wiki anyways, so I don't expect it to get any worse then it currently is. The page history is rather convoluted and confusing, but checking over all the changes, he hasn't gone so far as to edit anyone else's posts, just his own... and it seems your comment (Merty) was the only one he actually deleted (and left deleted), because he viewed it as "disrespectful". I don't agree with him, but hey, it is his talk page, and he is allowed to censor it, if I remember the policy correctly.
I'm hoping he either leaves like he said he would, or better yet, forgets about whatever ticked him off and lets it rest. I'll keep an eye on his talk page just in case, anyway. --GEO-logo Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 11:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I added a rather lengthy comment on the issue he seems to be having grief with. Once he's come to accept that, and if he edits the wiki again, we can politely inform him of talkpage etiquette. --◄mendel► 11:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Please undelete [Acorns]

Mp47 settled an editing dispute by deleting the page, which I believe violates GW:AUNC, GW:AGF and GW:DID, and flies in the face of GW:YAV. See [Talk:Acorns] (deleted too) and User_talk:Marcopolo47 for details. --◄mendel► 09:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Acorns is the pagename. -Auron 10:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Wait, this is the page that was the delete issue? I don't know what exactly was being reverted/contested at the time, but I read that article before it was deleted and with all due respect to GW:AGF it was simply absurd. While a new item might make sense the claims that person made were mechanically nightmarish. The idea that you could arbitrarily alter a future instance by dropping an item in a current one is not even remotely believable. While hiding the drop location is common, it's unlikely someone would find a new rare item and not take a screenshot of it at all (still possible perhaps). Even if an item was discovered, for the claimed use it would need to have been around for at least a month and that's assuming the first thing they did with it was to drop their brand new ultra rare item in an instance and not pick it up again. Then they would need to revisit that spot one month later, at neither time did anyone in either party think to screenshot it. How about the fact that the article mentioned two people, by name, as the only ones to have gotten it as a drop. So then, the two people who got this drop happened to know each other? And they met without mentioning the drop to anyone in game. In fact, they didn't mention it on guru or anywhere else that I could see.
I took the page seriously, then I saw what they claimed, saw that they toted the rarity of the item, and saw that they had no evidence at all besides assertion, then they mentioned their names. My reaction was that this is some kid spamming* the wiki with false information so they can put their name up and try to steal some recognition. *spamming as a verb is ambiguous; there is spamming by form (the flooding variety), then there is spamming by content (if you get a single email with "NEW VI@GR@ CIALI$ CHEAP!" as the subject, is that not spam just because there's one of it? I would say it is spam by content) Ezekiel [Talk] 10:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh yes, I'm perfectly willing to take all of this back IF I'm given some actual proof. Plenty of people doubted IDSs before we got some good hard evidence. Ezekiel [Talk] 10:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
The characters who "found" the Acorns are listed as being willing to show people their trees. Go take a look at the tree, go back and check the location again without the player, and if it's still there, then it's just a part of the scenery, not some instanced tree created by an item. Problem solved. --GEO-logo Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 10:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, at least its a breach of GW:DID, if the information is correct (doubt it) or not. Therefore, I think Mendel is right (and we deserve a good laugh about postings before it is deleted, not ? ) We don't know the intentions why the page has been made. Come to think of it, it might also possible mentioned character names don't have anything to do with it, but are now being spammed by other guildwars players, asking how & what after reading this page, which might be the intention of the anon poster.Oh great..but still GW:AGF ? -- Merty sign-- ( talk ) 10:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
We can at least attempt to prove/disprove the article; ask the two players (if they exist, supposedly one of them doesn't exist anymore). If they exist, get them to show the tree. If they don't exist, then just delete the article. If they exist and refuse to show the tree, then delete the article.
We document the game, not things that might possibly be in the game somewhere but it's so rare nobody can tell. If there's an item so rare that nobody's ever got it, and thus there's no data on it, do we document it? No. But when someone actually does get it, they can go right ahead and make an article.
When nothing comes up from trying to prove the Acorn business, we'll delete. And when or if anything does pop up, we'll document it. There's absolutely no reason to have an article for an item we're not sure about, when it can just as easily be made after it's been confirmed. --GEO-logo Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 11:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for restoring [Acorns], Auron. [Talk: Acorns] is still deleted.
Instances change all the time when players complete tasks: NPCs appear or disappear, gates that have been closed may be open, etc, so it is not impossible, though I agree it is highly unlikely that Anet would implement such a feature and then hide it from the player base. The page is probably a spoof, but it's not linked anywhere, and the deletion tag is visibly on it, so it's not likely to mislead anyone if it is kept up for one or two more days.
Spam of the VI@GR@ kind is unsolicited and usually off-topic. We solicit articles on Guildwars, so this is not spam, it is merely probably incorrect information. --◄mendel► 12:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Hai. I prefer common sense over following policies to the letter. kthnxbai.--Marcopolo47 signature new (Talk) (Contr.) 17:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
You restored this? Really - ok AGF and DID and all that - but if it looks like a hoax, feels like a hoax and there is no other info on it, it should be deleted RandomTime 17:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
And while we're all on a policy high, I might as well propose GuildWars Wikia:When In Doubt, Use Common Sense--Marcopolo47 signature new (Talk) (Contr.) 17:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

If the page is to be restored, it need a major cleanup to remove any vanity stuff, leaving it as a documentation of something that somebody claimed to exist. We don't care about who has found it anymore than who's the first ppl completing the Tombs in 3 hours with a 3-man group. -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa) 19:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Read the policies you're citing more carefully:
GW:AGF: "This policy does not require editors to assume good faith in the face of evidence to the contrary."
GW:DID: "This policy does not apply to changes that are clearly vandalism or spam!"
The game mechanics claimed are so improbable that even if the claims came from ArenaNet, I'd still suspect that it was an April Fools' Day joke, stolen account, hacked web site, or something of that sort. Quizzical 20:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Attention seeker, or a vandal imo. :) Though theoretically, by the games mechanics, its possible- look at the Hall of Monuments? —MaySig Warw/Wick 20:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Doubtful; the Hall of Monuments is just one area, designed to be persistent in that it always displays your achievements. I wouldn't think that one item could be the same in any or all explorable areas. --R RPhalange star Phalange 21:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Quizzical: My standard of evidence is, if we can't reproduce it and so confirm the article, give the contributor a reasonable chance to provide evidence. It is hard to bring evidence for nonexistence; any evidence so far cited has been circumstantial at best and amounts to "we've never heard of it before".
It may be fabricated information. Do you think that is the same as vandalsim or spam?
If it was a quest the game mechanics wouldn't be improbable. There would be exactly one place where the acorn could be planted, and the quest would lead you to it. The improbability lies with Anet producing an elaborate quest such as that and then hiding it from players. --◄mendel► 01:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
GW:ACORN = Anet Can't Oversee Rouge Nuts. ky™ 03:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


Well I'm not really sure how I want to address this issue, so I'll lay it out rather flatly. GW:SIGN IS FLAWED. Must of what is written in the policy is OK but that part about linking back to a user page is in my opinion is unwillingly forced. Now I know it may seem like a mute point to argue this but I really do feel that its unfair that users are not allowed to have un-customized signatures.

Firstly I don't see why people who make unsigned comments are hunted down by the signature police. The policy clearly states that unsigned comments are expectable.

The policy should be interpreted as defining when and how signatures should be used, not that signatures must be used

This is second line of the policy and yet every time I make unsigned comments I'm badgered by people about it. I'm not waving the flag for GW:NPA but as far as I'm concerned I should be able to edit unsigned without harassment. I'm sure they put in the option for ~~~~~ for more then a cruel joke.

Secondly, is the forced linking in signatures. While this may serve as a convenience for some users I don't think that tis means I should have to waive my right to unlinked. The purpose of signatures on Guildwiki

Signatures on Guildwiki
*Identify you as a user, and your contributions to Guildwiki.
*Enable other editors to recognise the user name (or IP address) of the person who made a given statement, and the date and time at which it was made
*Encourage civility in discussions by identifying the author of a particular comment

Nowhere does it say that the purpose of signatures is to be a link to user pages. If unsigned comments are assigned the same value as signed comments then why should unlinked signatures be given any less value and be subject to harassment? An unlinked signature still preforms the 3 primary functions stated above. Also, unlinked signatures are the default on Guild Wiki for users who have desire or knowledge to edit their personal setting. Are these people to be subject to the signature police because of their personal reasons? And what about GW:AGF? I thought we were to assume that an editor has good intention in his documentation here on Guild Wiki? Why should an unlinked or unsigned, signature or comment come under scrutiny while we are to assume the editor of good intentions? I will draw the line of GW:AGF at, if someone cant get to my user page other then by clicking on my name, I will ASSUME they we don't want them to be editing.

If you notice in GW:SIGN, just about everything in there is given a reason for being done a certain way, but when you examine this line User signatures must have a link to their user page or their user talk page., there is no reason given as to way this section of the policy is implemented.

I would like to get some real feedback on this other then go pound sand kid. I'm not trying to spite anyone here or cause any trouble, it just seems like people want to avoid this issues for some reason. I'll even sign this with a time stamp and a linked signature as a token of good faith. ky™ 03:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The linking to userpages/usertalks is a necessity. Newer users especially might not know how to find links to your user page and the like in the history, and even for those who do, it's much less convenient. In addition, your signature says 'ky™'. If someone were to type User:ky™ into the search box, they wouldn't get to your userpage. It needs to Identify you as a user, and your contributions to Guildwiki. Your signature doesn't include your username and if it doesn't link to your userpage it provides no way to know your username just from looking at the comment. In addition, your user page is part of who you are on the wiki (and you have near-complete control of it), and your user talk is the primary means of contacting you.
As for the unsigned vs. signed comments... if no one signed their comments, it would be like having a conversation where everyone has the same exact username. You'd have no clue who was saying what. Signing links a comment with a specific person and makes discussions much easier to read. Signatures also clearly define the end of a comment.
If you want to remain anonymous, here's a nice solution - just don't log in! ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777(talk) 06:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Signing posts on talk pages is a convenience for the benefit of those who read the page later. Knowing who said what helps greatly in deciphering a conversation. For example, try reading this cutscene dialog with names removed:
"Kormir, we're going to get you back to Istan."
"Istan? No, you need to go north, to Vabbi."
"There's no way to get past the fortress of Jahai."
"There is another way. There is a passage at the back of the Waterworks of Mahnkelon."
"You told her about that?"
"So I took a risk."
"The passage leads to an old smuggler's cave. The cave will lead to Vabbi."
"You need a healer's attention."
"I can get Kormir to safety."
"And I can take you to the passage, but we'll have to be quick about it!"
"Very quick about it!"
Hard to follow unless you already knew before reading it what happend there, isn't it? Attach names, as at Pogahn Passage, and it makes a lot more sense.
People can find out who wrote what comment by checking the history, anyway. You don't gain any anonymity by refusing to sign comments. It just makes talk pages more readable, and hence more useful.
As for linking to a user page, that's less important, but still a convenience for those who read the page later. Having to check the history page whenever you would want to take a discussion to someone's user page is a nuisance.
And no, you don't need to make a custom signature if you don't want to. Mine, for example, is the default for my account. Quizzical 06:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
The second line of the policy clarifies the first line, and it is clarified by the third line. "When signing posts on GuildWiki talk pages, use a reasonable signature" is crystal clear: you need to use a signature. The second and third lines just protect you from the "signature police" deleting your comments or banning you for infringing the policy.
The reason given for the "must have a link" requirement is the heading for that section: to "clearly identify the user". It is this link that identifies "ky" with "king of yuri" for me.
The default is a signature with link. You construe the preference to use a "raw" signature as an option to have a signature without link; I hold that it is intended to let you customize that link, not remove it. --◄mendel► 08:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
As Mendle just said, so long as the Raw Signatures box is left on it's default setting, then MediaWiki will automatically link to the correct userpage. At no point does the signature policy disallow unedited signatures, it merely enforces incorrectly edited signatures. --GEO-logo Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 09:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Now see here, this is what happens when I leave that box blank. (King Of Yuri 16:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)) and I still have the box unchecked... its because I'm a mac user... *cries*. And you made valid points about signatures with links, but what about unsigned post? King Of Yuri 16:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Whereas the the comments each individual person makes are signed, and thusly associated with them, unsigned (and anonymous comments, for that matter) are generally treated as a single voice. It's just sort of a subconscious thing, for better or worse, and I doubt much could change that regardless of policy. EDIT I think that the point of signatures is to differentiate between users, and that is probably the reason why you are bothered when you don't sign. If you don't sign, you lose your identity and become the anonymous entity. Hope that makes sense. Powersurge360Violencia 16:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Yuri, that is a strange bug: if the raw sig box is not checked and you have saved your preferences, then the server should replace your name properly. Since there are lots of Mac users on Wikipedia (using the same software), it is unlikely to be a Mac issue. Can you provide a screenshot (cropped to the signature edit box and the check boxes blow)? What happens when you click the checkbox once and then save your preferences again? --◄mendel► 21:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I post a screen shot when I get a chance. I'm doing some last min homework thats due tomorrow ^_^ so don't hold your breath lol. ▂▃▅▆▇▉ky▶ 04:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
What in God's name is ▂▃▅▆▇▉? Felix Omni Signature 04:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
The typographical incarnation of a slug, my dear chap. Powersurge360Violencia 04:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, that would be "Powersurge360." Felix Omni Signature 04:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
It's my stairway to heaven... Duh! Ok... well not really. But it sounded cool right? ▂▃▅▆▇▉ky▶ 14:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)