User talk:Dmitri Fatkin

Welcome to the wiki!
Hi, I hope you find these links useful :) Hello Dmitri Fatkin, and welcome to the Guild Wars Official Wiki! Here are a few links to help you get involved. Please feel free to contact me if you need help with anything on my talk page.

Don't be afraid to edit - anyone can edit almost any page and we encourage you to be bold! Find something that can be improved, whether content, grammar or formatting, and make it better.
 * If you are new to editing wikis, have a look at our how to help article.
 * For information on the way that our articles should be laid out, see the formatting section.
 * To find out what you are and are not allowed to do on this wiki, have a look at our policy section.
 * Articles should NOT be copied directly from GuildWiki - see this copyright section for details.
 * For guidelines about personalized pages, see our user page section.
 * Before uploading any images, you may want to read the policy on user images.

Best of luck and happy editing! Fox 16:51, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Skill bar template
Please, instead of changing a template everyone uses to your liking, could you copy the template code to your own userspace and tweak it there? Also, it would be great if you could use the show preview instead of saving every little edit :) - anja   19:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It was you own! I'm so sorry! I viewed the page and I thought I was on the common template page, while I wasn't. Stupid me :P - anja  [[Image:User Anja Astor sig icon.png|talk]] 19:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That's ok, np! :) Dmitri Fatkin 21:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Dmitri_Fatkin/SoT_Builds/
Hi, I see you cleaned that Page. If you dont need that page any longer and want it removed then just put the following code on it:   -- Silent  Storm   00:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, just did, thx :) Dmitri Fatkin 00:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * np ;) -- Silent Storm  [[Image: User SilentStorm MySig.png|19px]] 00:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Guilds pages & holidays
Just to inform you all: I'm leaving for another 4 days vacation, so don't expect me to contribute to guild pages discussion in forthcoming days. Dmitri Fatkin 12:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

yo
I agree with pretty much everything you've said and are saying concerning the guild policies. The namespace, IMO, isn't worth maintaining as a "resource." Mostly because nobody cares about it. I don't ever hear in-game "oh, I'm lfguild, I think I'll go check wiki" or "hey check out our guild page on wiki, just type in /wiki Guild:With Super Long Name That Must Be Typed Perfectly Due To MediaWiki Search Restrictions." If it really had publicity, if NPCs talked about it and linked to it like they do the xunlai house, then maybe I'd find more merit. As of now, I'd much rather it be like the user namespace - a font of creativity that an entire guild can shape and mold. I don't see a point in unnecessarily regulating the information. If your custom page has all the same info that the infobox has (and has it just as visible/obvious), there's really no point in forcing you to change. Following the law for the sake of following the law makes one a blind zealot, and those are always dangerous to have around :/ I've asked about this several times, and that's basically the answer I've received. "Why is the guild infobox mandatory?" "We want to keep information presentable." "If the information is presentable anyway, why is the guild infobox mandatory?" "Because it's the rules." Yeah... okay. That's hanging onto policy like hell tbh. Keep up the fight. Wiki arguments are generally won by the loudest crowd, not always the most correct one. Don't cave in until the situation has been remedied, and the wiki will prosper for your efforts :) - Auron 15:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey. To tell the truth, I'd rather simply leave that discussion, as it attracts only a slight amount of new visitors, the ones who have bothered to design something worth in the first place. I simply don't feel like rephrasing one thing over and over again to same people, it's not going to change their opinion. What they basically want is a namespace of 5000 white-paged Ascalon guilds, writing the same stuff about themselves in 5 sentences with may be 2-3 images used with no sense of fashion. And, since I'm not in any way of support to such policy, I really don't have something I could contribute to its anticipated implementation. Dmitri Fatkin 15:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Reverting the color change on guild infobox and alliance nav
When you reverted the color change, you failed to revert it on all guild page templates. This creates a real problem. You should make sure when you are making a change that affects hundreds of wiki articles that you are thorough. -- Wynthyst 17:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, if Aiiane meant it should be a permanent, pre-draft change - so be it. I don't see a reason to make it in a hurry though. Dmitri Fatkin 17:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please note that some of the changes being implemented are not 100% related to the changes currently being discussed to the policy. Things like infobox color scheme and personalization, and notable guilds may be implemented even if the policy draft fails to meet concensus.
 * Also, if you really want to request infoboxes colors to be personalizable, you should propose a change, or request consensus for it on Template Talk:Guild infobox, instead of the policy draft being discussed.--Fighterdoken 18:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's already been covered by this request: Guild_Wars_Wiki_talk:Formatting/Guilds.
 * Also, it's worth mentioning, that at some point of time, they actually were. Until some guilds were forced to use the standard templates. As for the link above, I don't need to additionally post here - Tomato has already posted a similar request. Notice the 'Style and Layout' inquiry, too! Dmitri Fatkin 18:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yup, was covered there, but quickly derived somewhere else. And in regards of the tomato's request, please note that the policy forces users to use the actual templates without customization. If the templates changes to allow more options, you are not breaking the policy (which is why i am telling you to make your proposal in the infobox page, not here).
 * Also, please note that just because we have been ignoring the whole "infobox" deal up to now, it doesn't mean that we allowed them. I agree that breaking the status quo without a proper warning was rude (and mostly was done just to "make a point"), but still was in rule with our policies. This current draft is just trying to prevent that happening again.--Fighterdoken 19:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If something was used, and wasn't covered by the rules, it just shows that people needed these features not mentioned in the rules. Why should we throw away the handy features we used before someone decided to rewrite 80% of guild formatting guidelines in order to prohibit it? I'm not saying it's done by now, but this is where it goes. Dmitri Fatkin 19:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is, a portion of this "something" is as of today still covered by the policy (the guild tag). Even if the new policy draft were to be rejected, such tag would still HAVE to go, unchanged. I am not going to pronounce for this in relation to guild infobox and alliance nav because it's open to interpretation given the poor wording of the policy (something that the drafts tries to fix).
 * If you go and check the wiki, you will see lots of things that the policy prohibites and are still there, or that the policy forces but aren't done. This doesn't mean we encourage them or allow them, is just that most users have not the interest or the time to go and fix it themselves.--Fighterdoken 22:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Testing on the guild infobox
If you want to test something using that infobox, create a replica in a sandbox and edit that instead. Testing something used on thousands of pages unnecessarily raises the job queue - before you reverted, it was around 4,236; after you reverted, it was 8,473. Testing should not be done on such pages. -- Brains12 \ talk 00:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, sorry, was just in the middle of something and needed a really quick test, will not do that again! :) Dmitri Fatkin 01:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Halp!
Could you please confirm my point on this page? http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Talk:Odurra Thanks :) BlazeRick 17:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey. Okay, I've just answered there, yet it's rather an occasional coincidence in my eyes. Dmitri Fatkin 00:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Guild page
Why are you creating new pages for a guild page that has been archived for inactivity? If your guild is actually still active, you should move your page to active status and THEN create new pages for it. -- Wyn  talk  04:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't consider us way too active right now so that I could see a point of moving it back. It just got updated a little bit, but SoT is generally a history, as all of us play in RAF now. We simply didn't want to assign the same solid look the guild had as SoT to what we're doing in the present. The page might get a few slight updates here and there, but on the whole, it's not going to change in a matter of content othan than updated PvP builds anymore. Dmitri Fatkin 04:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I was surprised to see like half of the page deleted during the transfer. Whoever that was, he doesn't need to edit anything on this wiki for sure. ;) Dmitri Fatkin 04:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, we only keep the main guild pages in archive (see Guild page policy Historical guild page content will be limited to primary information and guild cape image. Additional images and content will be removed), so creating all those subpages, means it should be in active status, and maintained as an active page, which requires a minimum of a single edit every 3 months. So either it all moves back to active status, or the subpages will be tagged for deletion. -- Wyn [[Image:User Wynthyst sig icon2.png|19px ]] talk  04:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Just noticed it was a bot, so that explains a lot about missing subpages. Heh, you're still maintaining that policy in the name of policy? ;) Of course I can update it once in 3 months if that makes someone happy, though I really see no proper reason in editing it for the sake of showing that we're alive - we are, but under a different tag, so I don't get why it should be tagged as active. In fact, I wasn't updating that page on purpose for it to go into historical ones. Dmitri Fatkin 04:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Is the guild that is in historical status still an active, participating guild in the game? Simple question. You say you are active under a different tag, that's only possible if it is a different guild. If that is the case, the MAIN PAGE of the SoT guild should be left in historical, the rest need to be deleted, as per policy. If you have a new guild, feel free to create a new page for it, using the current, active guild name. -- Wyn [[Image:User Wynthyst sig icon2.png|19px ]] talk  07:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * SoT is a community, it's not just a Guild Wars guild. I simply don't understand the difference between whether it will be kept where it currently is or in my private space. The page was vandalized by the cleanup bot, all I did is its recovery. And, if you wish to insist that much, I can keep the initial page where it is and the rest on the non-historical SoT space, but what's the purpose of all of this? Dmitri Fatkin 08:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If your guild is active in game, it should be in the active space. If you wish to maintain all the secondary information, then again, it should be in active space, but properly maintained. As for the "clean up bot" as you put it, it is programmed to work in accordance with the guild page policy, which is that if after 3 months of inactivity on the wiki, and 3 months inactivity after being tagged, the guild page is moved into historical status, and secondary pages are deleted/removed. It's as simple as that. If you wish your guild space to remain in active status, and retain all it's secondary information, simply maintain it by editing it (even if that means simply removing the inactivity tag every 3 months). It's that simple. -- Wyn [[Image:User Wynthyst sig icon2.png|19px ]] talk  08:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not active in the game, we're playing in RAF. Period. Dmitri Fatkin 08:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)