User:Dirigible/Archive 3

 Careful: This is an archive page of past discussions. If you wish to leave me a message, please do so on my  talk page  and not here. Thanks! --Dirigible

CheckUser extension
Since you know way more about MediaWiki than I do, mind taking a look at this and adding your thoughts? MisterPepe talk 18:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * =P nvm, looks like you started before I posted here... MisterPepe talk 18:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Tada! --Dirigible 18:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Jump to links
I am perfectly happy with not having the link in the header, just out of curiosity: Which link is not working for you? They all seemed to do fine for me. --Xeeron 15:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The links I meant were the &rarr; ones in the edit summaries for that section, which can be seen from Recentchanges or watchlists. If I clicked on one of those &rarr; links pointing to a section which has an external link in its header, it will only load the article without jumping down to the appropriate subsection. In this case, the link being generated was, instead of  , which would have worked. It seems this is only a problem with external links, as internal ones work fine. --Dirigible 16:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strange. Well, I'll try to stay away from links in headers then. --Xeeron 18:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

so call "civil disobedience" issue re: Karlos and GWW:USER
Please take a look at Guild_Wars_Wiki_talk:User_page. I've posted my thoughts on that page. While I have no objection to changing the policy, I do object to any user choosing openly defy site policy just to make a point. Changes should be made through discussion, not through so-called "civil disobedience". My understanding is that sysops can not, technically, ban other sysops (can someone confirm this?) As a result, I urge the bureaucrats to treat this as this wiki's first requirement for an arbitration committee to resolve. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I've emailed you (Dirigible) on this. --Rezyk 19:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to put myself up for reconfirmation seeing as to the number of people who believe I have failed my position. However, I do not want this to be seen as some ploy by myself to circumvent any punitive action ArbComm was going to take (let's say you guys were going to strip me of my adminship to begin with), so, I want to check with you guys first... Is it ok if I put myself up for reconfirmation? --Karlos 20:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep, I personally think you can certainly do so if you wish. :) --Dirigible 01:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

sysop guide
Some people have started working on this, thought I'd leave you a note as you may find it useful, or may want to make some changes. --Xasxas256 04:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll take a peek at it. --Dirigible 16:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Gasp! How the mighty have fallen!
Yes Dirigible, I wasn't bluffing. I literally take screenshots of everything in Guild Wars. Here's my 15 pics of me meeting Dirigible... -- §  Eloc   §  10:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I wasn't bluffing either:
 * [[Image:User Dirigible Eloc.jpg]]
 * --Dirigible 10:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * ??? - anja  [[Image:User Anja Astor sig icon.png|talk]] 10:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Accuse of cheating?-- §  Eloc   §  10:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You took so many screenshots, upload them here, fill up the wiki with useless stuff, just to prove a point? ~ Kurd [[Image:Kurdsig.png]] 10:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Just harmless fun. That's all. No harm done. I even removed his name like he requested.-- §  Eloc   §  10:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Was that really you Dirgible? If so, I thought you would be more mature ;P - anja  [[Image:User Anja Astor sig icon.png|talk]] 10:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes it was him. He said he'd make a ban for life button in one of the pics and he posted the pic below my pics.-- §  Eloc   §  10:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm also referring to another thing yesterday. :) - anja  [[Image:User Anja Astor sig icon.png|talk]] 10:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh ok.-- §  Eloc   §  10:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Your seventh picture still has his in-game name. Did you put any effort into this at all, or is this just a quest to irritate people to death?
 * Oh shit. lol, srry Dirigible.-- §  Eloc   §  10:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Will pleading insanity get me off the hook? :P --Dirigible 10:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Quick Dirigible, go to speedy deletion category.-- §  Eloc   §  11:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm going to bed. 5AM here. I'll see responses in like 12 hours. GG though Dirigible :P-- §  Eloc   §  11:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Image gone. Be happy I didn't also state your name on admin noticeboard Dirigible. I almost did. ;P - anja  [[Image:User Anja Astor sig icon.png|talk]] 11:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yay, safe for another day. Didn't wanna give it away without making some money ;P (See last pic)-- §  Eloc   §  11:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What an utter waste of time and energy. Go do something productive. - Auron 11:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * ZOMG! You were not joking last night!!! Resign your post immediately!! :P --Karlos 20:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Aww, no need to be mean Auron. Not everyone has to be stuck up and all serious like you are. People are allowed to randomly meet in a town and turn into a 1v1.-- §  Eloc   §  22:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You completely missed Auron's point. He didn't say you can't meet someone in town. He said it was a waste of time editing and posting those images here. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 13:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hell, when it's 5AM, what else am I supposed to do? GvG?-- §  Eloc   §  21:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!
I just noticed! The No 1 reason I ever wanted to become sysop gone! BRING BACK THE GUILLOTINE! ;-) --Xeeron 11:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I eventually came to the conclusion that Karlos was right, hence nuked it from orbit. Just for you though, . Have fun! --Dirigible 18:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * *have to resist clicking* ... ;-) --Xeeron 19:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

ty
sorry if i caused trouble, but ty for moving it =]--Insane Maestro 01:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Captcha upgrade
As you're more familiar with the technical details, I would feel more comfortable if you posted Guild Wars Wiki:Requests for technical administration/ConfirmEdit/Update as an actual request rather than myself. Can you take a final review and post it? Due to recent activities on the wiki, it's becoming an issue again. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry
You're right, I realized that myself after I updated the page. -- (CoRrRan / talk) 07:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Nothing to worry about. Expanded on that a bit at the talk page, it's just that it'd be setting a bad precedent, which we really can do without. :) Cheers. --Dirigible 07:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Blatant display of nationalism
Hello Dirigible. I almost choked as I saw the userpage of a user that I appreciated for his contributions earlier, but no longer. Rather the opposite, as he abuses his userpage to blatantly display his nationalist beliefs. I noticed some days ago that user Kurd uses, quite fitting, the Kurdish Coat of Arms as his user icon. [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Kurdistan, compare: http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/User_talk:Kurd ] which made me wonder what is going on there. Then I read his userpage. Discussions about making jokes about arabs, even if it seems to have been a friend in this case. Links to Peshmarga and displays of nationalism like "For Kurds, There is no better glory than to die for your fatherland." and stuff should not be permitted. I called it kurdish propaganda, this happened a lot in the German Wikipedia and other websites, where it caused serious trouble. It is the belief of some Kurdish people that you have to fight and die for your fatherland or have at least spread the word. This is all fine and dandy, but it ended in Kurdish users linking to anti-turkish and anti-whatever sites in various articles and on their userpages, which were much more confrontational than that of Kurd, he is rather contained in this regard. I might not have been too diplomatic, but his answer on his own talk page when confronted with this accusation http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/User_talk:Kurd and reading other parts of this talk page really make me wonder if Wiki rules allow such tendentious abuse and so much freedom on userpages. --Longasc 10:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Replied there. --Dirigible 12:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

"This Guild article does not meet the standards set in our formatting section"
To bring this back into discussion please see my points here: "This Guild article does not meet the standards set in our formatting section", and feel free to comment on them. -- The Great Tomato 08:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Congrats
On your rank --- Raptors
 * Just so there's no confusion on this matter: I didn't comment on that discussion because I sympathized with what you were doing, Raptors, but because I thought the reasoning that was being used against you there could have further implications on the entire wiki if left uncontested. --Dirigible 04:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I just think youre doing a good job. --- Raptors

Thanks
Thanks again for your help Dir :) -- Scourge   13:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts on bot policy?
When you have time, could I get your opinion on Guild Wars Wiki:Bots? (Any better than before?) --Rezyk 02:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * =P I tried to get his opinion on it once, didn't really work out for me: here. MisterPepe talk 22:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, I think you meant to link to Guild_Wars_Wiki:Bots/DraftA =P MisterPepe talk 23:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I kinda like this one much more than what it was, Pepe! :) There's less arbitrary requirements and more common-sense kind of tips there ("only do good things, never do bad things, never put a sock in a toaster, never put jam on a magnet, never lean over on Tuesdays", etc). So, aye, looks good to me, Rezyk! --Dirigible 14:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * "never put jam on a magnet" - words to live by! LordBiro 17:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not fun to be right...
I was right about Gravewit, and I was right about Tanaric and the only thing left is to be right about this place too. Then I'll start to feel like the guy in Sci-Fi movies who can see into the future and can see the death of his friends/loved ones before they happen but is powerless to change anything. The kind of knowledge you don't want to have. :(

Give me hope. I am losing faith in this whole online communities business. Why and how did it happen? I am not psychic, I am not even the most rational person in the GWiki community. Why did so many people oppose me for so long preferring to be blind to his malice. Just give me your insight as to what you think went wrong. I'm starting this here because you are more active here and because I don't want the discussion in GWiki to get diluted into different pages. Thanks. (Note, I didn't name you among the leet players I did DoA with) :P --Karlos 23:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I thought you'd be used to it by now tbh - Auron 23:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Define "it." --Karlos 23:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know what insight I can give you, since I feel the same way, disappointed, disillusioned and confused. Not only by what Gravewit and Wikia themselves are doing (greed at least is a motive I can understand), but by how the community is dealing with it. Why are you so bothered by people opposing you way back when you first discussed this, when they're still to this day supporting Gravewit and Wikia, even at this point when they're defending what's virtually undefendable? Similarly irrational behaviour (to me, at least), was shown by the community here on the GWW in the latest discussion on Gaile's page, so many people so eager and willing to give ArenaNet carte blanche on this site and how it's run, without realising what that would entail.


 * In the case of Wikia and Gravewit, I think the situation is over. They're doing their deals behind the screen, and a handful of people complaining about it in one talk page of the wiki won't stop anything. We're demanding from them transparency and justice and whatnot, and they are simply laughing it off. These guys are paying a quarter million to buy these sites, I doubt they're even really scared of having to take this to court; they can simply squash us with money.


 * It's the GWW that I'm worried about now, it's this community that I'm not sure what to expect from in any future difficulties we may have. For instance, the next time there's a clash of horns between us and ANet, whose side will the masses take (even simply through their silence)? I'm aware that, at the very end, it will happen what ANet wishes to happen, since no matter what cards we're holding, they have the "I Win" button within reach. I was simply under the illusion that at least the rest of the editors here would at least to try and delay that day as much as possible, but I guess I was wrong.


 * Esan (by the way, is it that Esan?) dropped a message on the talk page of Gaile, hoping for ANet to intervene in this Wikia mess; over on this side, I'm half waiting for the news that ANet has sold Wikia permission to use GuildWars content on their wiki for a fat chunk of money, or something along those lines. I don't blame ANet for anything, though; they're ultimately a for-profit company, it's normal for them to look after their revenue stream in all ways possible. Same with Wikia. It's the communities which I really wanted to expect something more from.


 * I guess there's two lessons to learn here that I can see, depending on the kind of person you are. Either a) (as someone in the FFXIcyclopedia thread wrote) Find a new MMO, open a wiki for it, wait for it to grow, then sell it and become rich, or b) Invest only as much passion and effort in community projects as you need to have a good time, but not so much as to get attached to these doomed-to-come-crumbling-down initiatives. I find it a bit ironic that these days I'm finding real life to be a pleasant and relaxing distraction from the online stress. It's a sign that something went wrong somewhere along the line. :) --Dirigible 05:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There is another option: Create structures which serve to keep those with power from scamming the normal contributers. Structures that help honest people get to the top and provide a way to get rid of dishonest people. Don't set up wikis as being owned by one person, set them up as owned by a (legally) non-for-profit organisation like a club. Make sure that organisation votes on the leadership.
 * And for the record (so Karlos doesn't feel to SciFi), I never trusted Gravewit either, the thing surprising me was that he found someone paying a stack of money, no that he tried. Btw, there is one simple way to hurt Wikia (and by extension make sure they dont hand that much money over to the next Gravewit): Make this wiki better than guildwiki. Make sure everyone uses this wiki and their ad revenue will make them regret buying guildwiki. --Xeeron 09:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

ArbComm
Given that it seems it falls within the current definition of ArbComm's jurisdiction, I'd like to formally request that ArbComm look into the general behavior of User:Skuld, particularly with regards to talk page discussions. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 01:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I have created Guild Wars Wiki:Arbitration committee/2007-09-19-User:Skuld. --Xeeron 09:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I've written up a draft at Guild Wars Wiki:Arbitration committee/Requests, and I'd appreciate some input. -- Gordon Ecker 07:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for Arbitratoin against Erasculio...
Hi,

I'd like to ask ArbComm to take up and evaluate my request for arbitration against Erasculio. He has been harrassing me since day 1 (for reasons beyond my comprehension as he supposedly comes from GWOnline, which I do not read/post in).

I submit as evidence his contrubtions to these discussions:
 * 1) Guild Wars Wiki talk:Requests for adminship/Karlos
 * 2) User talk:Gaile Gray/Archive Game-Related Topics/August 2007
 * 3) Guild Wars Wiki talk:Arbitration_committee/2007-09-19-User:Skuld

The basic premise is that he always turns the discussion personal about me, he always attacks me in his debates and is never trying to reconcile views. Basically, intimidating. While I am more than capable of matching his bully tactics, I think they are very unhealthy and I feel if not stopped he will bully many others and the wiki will only suffer because possibly good ideas will get killed by his blind zeal and his inability to rationally discuss things with users he has a "grudge" against.

I have asked him to stop this trolling and harrassment and was told off by the same type of bully tactics:
 * 1) User talk:Erasculio

And I seek as as judgement that he is ordered to stop and that upon furhter such interactions is blocked accordingly.

Thanks, --Karlos 20:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Following conversation:

(Dir, I hope you don't mind me moving this as it seems to be growing rather large and the topical discussion page created by Xeeron is probably better - if for some reason you don't want it moved, simply ask and I would be more than glad to restore it. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 09:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC))

Arbitration case erasculio
Any specific wishes of how to proceed? After spending half this day reading old and new talk pages, I have mostly made up my mind about this. It seems LordBiro has choosen not to be involved here, so that leaves us. Possible routes to proceed:
 * Draft an arbcom statement in private and publish when finished
 * Draft an arbcom statement here on the wiki
 * Post individual statements (and somehow make our two statements to come to the same implementation) --Xeeron 20:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * While I think that #1 may generally be the most efficient route, at least for this case I'd like it if we could keep the discussion from the beginning to the end on-wiki; it both gives us some concrete experience for future reference, and I think the circumstances surrounding it would benefit from keeping all details in plain view. From the two on-wiki options, I think #2 seems somewhat more practical than #3, but they're both similar enough not to make a huge difference.
 * Your thoughts? Agree/disagree? :) --Dirigible 17:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Thought I have no idea whether this works out or not. I guess I put something up, then you can tear it to pieces and reassemble and then I'll do, you'll do, we'll continue doing that till we are both happy =) --Xeeron 19:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking about the decision and whether it is practical, Xeer. If one of them comments in one discussion, then is the other one automatically excluded from that discussion somehow? Maybe we should skip the "replying to the other user's postings" bit, or change it to "directly replying to the other user's postings", hoping that the "and directly or indirectly bringing up the other user" part will be enough to prevent any hostility? --Dirigible 23:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I just saw the draft and the result. Thanks to both of you for dealing with the issue, and I apologize for all this mess. Erasculio 23:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * as far as I understood it's still a draft, not a final decision. Am I wrong? -- [[Image:User Gem sig.png|Gem]] (gem / talk) 23:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's still just a draft. --Dirigible 23:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I noticed, after I made the above comment here. I first thought that the result was apart from the draft, and that it was the final result; then I noticed it's still part of the draft (duh me >.>). Erasculio 00:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually I wanted to write "directly replies", must have forgotten it. --Xeeron 08:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, I am ok with the current wording, if you are as well, please remove the draft status. --Xeeron 08:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * /pokes the arbitration... Ok, now that I'm sure it's over, thanks to both of you for your work, and sorry for all this mess (I'm ashamed of being the reason for the first complete arbitration on this wiki >.>). I would like to make a suggestion, though: the way the draft was written feels a bit...clumsy to me. This time we had only two bureaucrats, and two who (apparently) thought pretty much the same way, so it was not a problem, but on the next times it might be, I think. So instead of one bureaucrat writting the draft and the others editing it as they see fit (something I feel is a bit too clumsy for a discussion), I would suggest something more similar to number 3 mentioned above: each bureaucrat would state his opinion, and then those opinions would be combined to write a draft and then a conclusion (just like the one for my own arbitration). We would still have one bureaucrat writting the first draft and the two others editing it, but the bureaucrats would do so after knowing what each one thinks. Erasculio 00:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think I agree with you. When I saw the original draft that Xeeron had posted I felt somewhat in a weird spot, because I was both a) surprised that it was the complete ArbComm statement, including the decision (I think I was expecting we'd bounce ideas off each other before getting to that stage) and b) surprised that we were pretty much on the same wavelength regarding how we felt about the case and the decision needed and thus there wasn't much I felt needed to be changed. Maybe it was just the kind of case where there weren't that many possible outcomes to begin with, but as you said, if we try to have a discussion about the various aspects of the case before starting to formulate the official statement it'd probably be more appropriate. Worth a shot. --Dirigible 01:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess we are all still learning about this. We should try out method three on the next arbitration case to see which whether it works better. PS: Dirigible, please also read my post on LordBiro's talk page. --Xeeron 08:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that the third method is probably better in general; if Xeeron and Dirigible had very different ideas about what an acceptable solution would be then it could have gotten a little messy. LordBiro 16:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Skuld's arbitration
In re: to Skuld's case, and the request for comments, are you asking for formal statements from anyone to be posted on the main page? Because there are already quite a few comments on the discussion page, and while the originally were aimed at ArbComm accepting the case, they obviously moved out of that scope. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 20:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I don´t think we´ve yet reached that level of bureaucracy as to require from people to repost their comments in order for us to take them into account. :) I´m not really sure what the goal of this stage should be, but right now I´m seeing it as a ¨does anyone have anything else to say before the committee retires for the decision?¨ sort of thing. Suggestions for possible solutions, bringing up a point which may not have been adequately made before, a re-summarizing of the arguments for either of the sides, Al Pacino´s last speech from ¨Scent of a Woman´, all that would belong in this stage, in my opinion. --Dirigible 21:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks for the clarification. *goes off to google al pacino speeches* [[Image:User Aiiane-a.gif|Go to Aiiane's Talk page]] (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 00:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
...for sorting out my userpage :) brains12 18:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:The Dragon's Lair map.jpg - Monster Icon for Glint
Hi. The picture is well done :) But i think it required also time to handle the monster icon for Glint. Well, the uploaded Icon is newer than the age of this picture, but in case you don't know that this exists and in case you create such a map abstract another time, i'd only wanted to say that the icon Image:Monster-tango-icon-20.png from Bexxor would suit quite well. (There are also icons with the same name and a 48 / 200 instead of a 20 from lord bexxor which may be better) —Zerpha The Improver 15:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * We're lucky I still had the original PSD for that image, with all layers still intact! It made updating it a breeze. I uploaded the new version of the map with Lord Bexxor's monster icon (she's going to like that name!). Let me know what you think. Cheers, --Dirigible 22:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * rofl ^_^ - B e X  [[Image:User BeXoR sig.gif|iawtc]] 02:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * lol... :) LordBiro 14:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration Raptors
Do you still need more time on this? There has been nothing new forthcomming, I have pretty much made up my mind about this case. If you have as well, we should move this forward. --Xeeron 12:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Trolling
Is there a reason why what I did is trolling and what Skuld did isn't? --- Raptors / RAAAAAAAAAA!
 * Raptors, one of the conditions of your being unblocked was for you not to post anywhere but your arbitration page, or be rebanned. Dirigible quite clearly posted that condition to your talk page.    Whether Skuld is trolling or not is moot, you are currently breaking the rules of your parole. --Aspectacle 02:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I had so many messages on my page when I came back i didn't notice I was on parole, I thought my block was over. --- Raptors / RAAAAAAAAAA!

Guild Wars Wiki:Elections/2007-06 bureaucrat election/Sonner
But there's like nothing on the page really. No votes, no statement, no nothing. &mdash;  ク  Eloc  貢  22:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a record of the election, Eloc. Even if it's a record that the candidate in question got no votes for/against, it's still a record and thus not something that is proper for deletion. [[Image:User Aiiane-a.gif|Go to Aiiane's Talk page]] (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 00:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I wonder why not one voted. &mdash;  ク  Eloc  貢  00:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It was stroke out before the voting started. See the discussion here. poke | talk 00:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[]
See [|here]. 115 last time I checked. And fuck your account requirement, an IP is more concrete than an account could ever be. --71.229.204.25 00:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I just checked, you still have less than 100 edits. -- scourge  00:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Microsoft Word lied to me, then. ): --71.229.204.25 00:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There's a simple way to check, go to your contributions page, Click the 100 at the top ---> "(20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)." and if there is more than 1 page of contributions then you've done over 100. -- scourge  00:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Eh. I'm used to having more than 500, so I just copy/pasted them into Word, Ctrl+F -> Replace, type "2007", hit Replace All. --71.229.204.25 00:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "editors who have made at least 100 edits (excluding the Guild and User namespaces) under a registered account" from GWW:ELECT&mdash;♥ Jedi ♥ Rogue ♥ 00:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "And fuck your account requirement, an IP is more concrete than an account could ever be." from five lines up. --71.229.204.25 00:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, what's up with that attitude? You assume that because I disagree with your policies, it means I haven't read them?  Or did you just skim the discussion and assume I hadn't read the policy because I'm an anon?  Or did you really want to be rude, but this site's obsessive enforcement of NPA meant you had to link me to the policy because it was the only thing you could get away with posting to annoy me?  Because I encourage you to be rude, rudeness keeps the world honest. --71.229.204.25 01:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Creating an account has its advantages, have you thought about creating one? (not that you have to) -- scourge  01:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Created four separate ones on PvX, three are blocked (two for a sockpuppet show on the Admin Noticeboard, one when I made my last), fourth is only used for votes, moves, and jokes. I like being an IP, and the account creation system won't let me use periods in my name. --71.229.204.25 01:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Register an account under the name 71.229.204.25 :P &mdash;  ク  Eloc  貢  04:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Umm... the anon already mentioned that the account creation system does not let him use periods. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 04:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You can use periods as long as your account name isn't in the form of a valid IP address. &mdash;Tanaric 04:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry Aberrant, didn't see where he said that. &mdash;  ク  Eloc  貢  05:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Lol! I can't believe it... I was dumb enough to actually forgot I had periods in my user name too... :D :D *smacks self on head* -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 05:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that makes sense. I like being anon anyway, so it's kind of moot. --71.229.204.25 05:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Little problem is you could vote for your fav 100000k times through proxies if you stayed as an IPKiller Revan 21:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

NPA Explanation
I'm just curious because I don't understand 75% of what Anele Mea says but what does ''Gush a u gay??? and what do you have vs. teenagers? cck lckr =)'' mean and how is that an NPA? I am having trouble figuring out how a question is an NPA... Especially when they guy states his sexuality on his user page. 122.104.227.103 17:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * i guess cck lckr is cock licker, which is a personal attack, however u see it. anyway the question isnt breaking anything. --Cursed Angel [[Image:User_Cursed_Angel_Signature.jpg|19px|talk]] 17:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't read it that way but I see it now. TBH I thought it was just one of those click languages you see african tribes speak in the movies speak (I know she/he speaks russian but I thought that was something else). 122.104.227.103 17:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Poorly written is all., &mdash;  ク  Eloc  貢  08:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Auron's RFA
Guild Wars Wiki:Requests for adminship/Auron is open more than a week now so it should be closed. Since this is the first time a RFA is close by the standards of the policy, I suggest we discuss whether it is successful or not on its talk page. --Xeeron 13:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

"Interesting" new site
Hiya Dirigible! I just wanted to get your attention and point you in this direction. Check it out when you get a chance, and let me know if you have any questions! -- Emily Diehl (talk) 19:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)