From GuildWiki

 ! NOTE: Please start new messages at the bottom of the page.

---

Contents 1 Congratulations 2 My job 3 User talk:67.35.153.187 4 Welcome New User! 5 emails 6 Revisions 7 Sig 8 you really shouldn't have retired you know 9 Template:Delete

[edit] Congratulations

I wish you only the best =). Readem (talk*contribs) 18:00, 4 September 2007 (CDT)

Thanks! --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 11:09, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

Heh, it's still a year away. Anyways, gonna drag her into the world of Guild Wars also? d-: -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 12:49, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

I wish. I've tried a few times, she just doesn't want to start a character. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:28, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

Hey, just a random guy from nowhere, but good luck, and hope you get back on soon (depressing losing a sysop)Armor of the Sun 04:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I am still looking onto this wiki about once a week, just not posting very often anymore. I doubt that I'll become active enough in the wiki anytime soon to justify my re-requesting admin status - although once GW2 comes out, my game-play may pick up again, so my wiki activity would likely pick up again at that point as well. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My job

Barek,

I may have sent you an email about this -- I don't remember and my email box is currently inaccessible due to moving, so I can't read your potential reply in any case. Since I've managed to confuse myself, I'll ask this here -- I can't lose this. :)

I'm not so active here anymore, and neither is Biro. We both feel that you could do the bureaucrat job well. If you'd like to be my replacement, you're welcome to the role. What do you think?

—Tanaric 01:22, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

He would do a great job, I am sure. Readem (talk*contribs) 02:11, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

Here's a copy of my reply from the email ...

LOL ... interesting timing ...

Thanks for the offer, I consider it a huge vote of confidence in my history on the wiki. But, I'm going to turn it down.

I just posted a few minutes ago on GWW that I'm resigning my sysop status on that wiki. I'm not planning to do the same on GuildWiki, but I also don't think I should pick up additional responsibilities on GW given my reasons for resigning my sysop status on GWW.

I've actually been posting on this wiki at the community portal and on the RFA talk page trying to recruit some more active sysops for here. The only reason I haven't abandoned my sysop activities on this wiki is because, while there are other admins on this wiki still, they are far less active and with much less time coverage than the pre-GWW days. I'm mainly concerned about the vandal activities here - they're already learning that they can get away with more than they could in the past and for a longer duration. That's really the only reason I've continued to check here in my minimal free time - to try to help keep the vandalism in check until more sysops are created, which needs to happen soon. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 10:05, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

Update for those reading this page. A few days after the above, I voluntarily resigned my sysop status on this wiki.

The decision was not directly tied to the Wikia move; that change merely became a clean transition point for me. If you have any questions on this, please feel free to ask. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:15, 15 September 2007 (CDT)

[edit] User talk:67.35.153.187

No revert wars When you see somebody breaking this policy (ie, an article getting reverted twice), do not revert it back to the only-reverted-once state. Just leave it alone and note the occurrence in the talk page.

However, such reversions may be used at most once.

Trivia: unimportant matters : trivial facts or details; also singular in construction : a quizzing game involving obscure facts

pot calling the kettle black... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.35.153.187 (talk • contribs) 19:27, September 13, 2007 (CDT).

[edit] Assuming bad faith Assuming any edit is a bad edit will prevent objective analysis of every edit. This often results in good content being lost because articles are summarily reverted or removed.

Assuming bad faith of editors naturally leads to suspicion and conflict, which slows or halts improvement. Always assume your fellow editors are working for the betterment of the wiki, and act to assist them when you can.

Assuming any edit is bad, or any person is acting to the detriment of the wiki has a profoundly negative effect the functioning of this site. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.35.153.187 (talk • contribs) 19:27, September 13, 2007 (CDT).

Your addition to the article was not necessary. If you wanted to link to UrbanDictionary.com with an outside link ([www.urbandictionary.com] or such) then that would be fine. As it is, we don't port content directly from other sites like that, especially not verbatim. Barek did not break 1RV per se (he was not involved in the revert war), nor did he break AGF. People can not claim infringement on those policies each and every time they get reverted. (T/C) 20:03, 13 September 2007 (CDT)

/agree Wolfie (talk|contribs) 20:16, 13 September 2007 (CDT) (PS: Check out the Links section of the editing guide for more syntax detail on linking to external sites).

Necessary? In a section named Trivia? Whatever... 90% of content here is ported, verbatim, from the Guild Wars site. At least I cited my source. And Barak was the one who wrote with the warning, so he's getting the reply. Need to call anyone else in on this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.35.153.187 (talk • contribs) 21:17, September 13, 2007 (CDT).

UrbanDictionary is not a dictionary anyway. --Macros 21:20, 13 September 2007 (CDT)

So, you're saying, it might be considered TRIVIAL? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.35.153.187 (talk • contribs) 21:29, September 13, 2007 (CDT).

Um...Trivia section is no more or less exempt from our usual Editing rules. Just because it is laveled "Trivia" does not mean that users can fill it to their heart's content with useless junk, very unlikely references, far-fetched links, etc. (not necessarily referring to you there) I also lost you on the "ported from the Guild Wars site". Are you talking about ANet's wiki? If so, then you're wrong, since we existed first. Are you talking about GuildWars.com or whatever it is? If so I fail to understand what you mean - ANet does not have pages for NPCs in the game, profession guides, area maps, skill progression tables, strategies for quests and missions, storyline flow...just to name a fraction of the stuff we have on GWiki.

Citing your sources is good, yes, and I'd commend you for that considering all the reference-less trivia that other users are so fond of adding. I should have reworded my statement to "The form in which you posted your trivia was unnecessary". I don't care about the actual trivia itself (it helps a bit for users looking for possible inspiration on the term Bookah), but I am pretty strict on keeping things according to the Style and Formatting guides as much as possible. Sorry if it seemed like I was personally criticizing you.

Barek did his duties - he is an GW:ADMIN and so it's his job to write these sorts of polite warnings whenever he does reverts and such...

"Need to call anyone else in on this?" I hope you were being sarcastic, because this really is not worth the time or effort to escalate into an all-out arbitration inquiry. Seriously, drop it, you lose nothing more than perhaps your pride and gain nothing from arguing this further. And the trivia in question is still up, so I see no reason for the latter course of action. (T/C) 21:36, 13 September 2007 (CDT)

Well actually, I just removed the "booka" term, as it's not the same spelling (despite sounding the same), and has a fairly unrelated meaning. But I feel the UrbanDictionary "bookah" article does make sense, and is a rather clever find. -- Ĵĩôřũĵĩ Đēŗāķō.>.cнаt^ 21:38, 13 September 2007 (CDT)

To reply to the original anon user: Per site policy GW:1RV, I only ever made on revert on the Bookah article, whereas you violated site policy by re-inserting your edit after it had been removed. If an edit you make is removed, site policy is clear that you are not to just re-make your edit without discussion. Instead, you should have brought up the issue on the article's talk page. If community consensus exists to keep the edit, it will get edited back into the article.

Your comments regarding GW:AGF is irrelevant. I assumed your edits were done in good faith. That does not change the fact that I found them irrelevant and not useful to the article itself. Are you accusing me of making a bad faith edit in my removal of the content? If so, then it's you who is assuming bad faith. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:48, 15 September 2007 (CDT)

[edit] Welcome New User!

Hey Barek. You know how we often greet new members to GWiki with the "Hello, please use the Show Preview and Minor Edit buttons" -type generic message? Well, I was wondering if there was ever at some time a policy, like GW:SP or GW:ME that discussed why exactly it's a good thing to use the Show Preview and Minor Edit buttons. Usually most new users comply fairly quick and/or learn from experience that it's just easier for everyone that way. However, once in a while there are users that ask that damned question: "Why?" The best answer I've ever been able to give is a kind of convoluted reference or paraphrasing of the general GuildWiki:Editing guide. But, that never really seemed adequate...

Anyway, I was wondering if you'd perhaps have more insight into how one should deal with such a situation as this. I'm sure you would know, having been around since forever and having dealt with user-related issues (compared to say, Fyren, who I'd consult mostly for technical stuff, nothing against him though). (T/C) 02:04, 16 September 2007 (CDT)

It's quite annoying when you see Recent Changes clogged up with people who change their userpage and stuff like that. —ShadyGuy 02:44, 16 September 2007 (CDT)

To the best of my knowledge, we don't have an official article explaining why on this wiki. It is good wiki etiquette to use "Show preview" and "Minro edit", but I believe the only write-ups on it are on the Meta-wiki at Wikimedia.org#Help:Preview and Wikimedia.org#Help:Minor_edit. It probably wouldn't hurt to have one or both ported over here (and maybe merged) into a single entry (not as a policy, these are more of a guideline type thing). We don't use the "Help" namespace on this wiki, so I'm not sure if we should start with these in that space, so I would probably just use the "GuildWiki" namespace here, and only move it to the help namespace if the community discusses it and decides it should go there. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 12:26, 16 September 2007 (CDT)

Probably, if someone does ask, it's not too hard to simply explain that it's good etiquette and makes editing easier, rather then make it seem like they must use those buttons.

A possible example for Show Preview:

"Multiple edits can normally be avoided by using the Show Preview button; this allows you to proof-read your edits before you post them, and you can check complex coding to make sure it works before you submit it. Editing the same page too many times will clog up the Wiki's Recent Changes list, and make it harder for some users to patrol this list for edits." -- Ĵĩôřũĵĩ Đēŗāķō.>.cнаt^ 15:03, 16 September 2007 (CDT)

[edit] emails

FYI: Emails to me from the wiki are currently disabled. See my GWW user page for the reason. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:00, 21 September 2007 (CDT)

[edit] Revisions

Thank you Barek for dealing with this retard that keeps messing with the Profession page. Farlo 23:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sig

Just so you know, the contribs part of GW:SIGN has been added in. You are legally allowed to have your contribs in your sig again :) --Shadowcrest 23:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

...Uh? What you talking bout? I've had my talk and contribs in my sig since forever. I didn't know it was not allowed. (T/C) 03:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It was techinally not explicitly stated in GW:SIGN that contribs link was allowed, so he added it in.-- (Talk) (Contr.) 04:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] you really shouldn't have retired you know

If inactivity on the wiki/game is a good reason for removal of adminship, I would've been removed 10 times over by now. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 22:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

True, but I've found that I began enjoying the game more once I distanced myself from the politics in the GWW policy discussions (and without sysop status I cut way back on playing "watch recent changes", and actually started playing Guild Wars again). I could've stayed on at this wiki; but it seemed a good time to take a step back from things. Plus, I'm enjoying retirement ... I can fix minor stuff and make suggestions without the added responsibilities of sysop status. :-) --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I also noticed a nice change in my wiki life after losing the sysop status on gww. Being a regular editor and backing off from policy pages felt great. Good to hear that it's the same for you. :) -- (gem / talk) 01:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Heh, well on this wiki one can be a sysop and actually not do anything sysop-related. Policy discussions here also does not require sysops to participate. Anyways, you just reminded me, I should find time to actually play the game again... q-: -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 01:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you can be ignoring the sysop stuff, but even though it sounds weird, there is a difference in actually not having the tools versus having them and not using them. Atleast for me there was. -- (gem / talk) 02:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I know for a fact that if I had delete tools, I would spend more time on this wiki just looking for things to delete. Same goes for the other tools. Just having the tools is quite a draw... you would have to mentally set yourself rules to not use them, IMO. (or forget you had them.) Kinda one of those weird head-tricks, you can say having those abilties won't change you, but it's almost impossible to hold to that, one way or another. -- Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 15:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Delete

What I did was add the coding for the date to be enabled (IE 17:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)) ~~~~~ gives you the date, so admins can see how long the delete has been there for (Since somtimes we have days till an image is deleted). -- Warwick (Talk)/(Contr.) 17:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

That may have been the intent, but I tested it, and it doesn't work. It shows "As of ~~~~~" in the output (not the date, it shows the tilde). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

(Add some <nowiki> tags to that xP ---Jamster--- 17:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Mind if I revert? I think I know what the problem is. -- Warwick (Talk)/(Contr.) 17:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

At this point, we should document a discussion on it on the template's talk page before either of us makes another revert. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

By that I meant quickly revert, then if there was an error, revert it back/ -- Warwick (Talk)/(Contr.) 17:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)