Guild Wars Wiki talk:Community portal

From Guild Wars Wiki

Contents 1 Dev Journals 2 Guild Wars Wiki:Requests for protection 3 page view statistic 4 Dealing with vandals 5 help reverting something. 6 Weaponsmith nav 7 What should we categorize... 8 Drop research 9 Language 10 Adding videos to this wiki 11 Clock

[edit] Dev Journals

I didn't know where this suggestion/idea/comment belongs. Hopefully this is the correct place. Anyway, I noticed that quite a few devs are keeping journals on the GWW, but they are in their User pages. Could there be a link on the front page to a Journals page, with links to the Journals? I find that there is good news in the Journals, and it is probably as beneficial as Gaile Talk and stuff was. Thanks for considering. --Ravious 18:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe this belongs at Arenanet talk:Portal? --Shadowphoenix 18:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd say it's fine right here. — ク Eloc 貢 21:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Either the ArenaNet portal or possibly in News. The CP is more for wiki matters than game matters. -- ab.er.rant 17:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Guild Wars Wiki:Requests for protection

Should we create a centralized location for protection and unprotection requests? -- Gordon Ecker 07:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The admin noticeboard..? --Rezyk 07:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Noticeboard has worked fine until now (since protection is mostly raised on massive vandalism cases), so i see no reason for creating a special place. Also, admins can always check the respective category if they want to do some cleanup on protected articles.--Fighterdoken 07:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree, that's what the noticeboard is for. -- Brains12 \ Talk 11:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

As the others have said the Admin Noticeboard has been fine so far for this, but one thing I was wondering, is there a category for proposed pages for protection? I had a look in Special:Categories but couldn't find anything, something like Category:Requested protection or similar would work. --Kakarot 17:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is one. Maybe it could be created together with a non-invasive template for pages that don't require immediate attention (like a user requesting protection of its own page), but not sure how useful it could prove to be.--Fighterdoken 17:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Does it need a template, seeing as only sysops can protect pages just adding it to a category like the one I mentioned might be sufficient. Having said that though including a template might help with discussion regarding the pros/cons of protecting a page, and as long as it's not overly invasive; maybe something similar to the stub template would work; I don't see any problem with including one. --Kakarot 17:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, no, it does not need it at all i think, but using a template avoids spelling mistakes when setting the category, and is easier to point. I was actually thinking in something like {{image needed}} instead, since it does not change the page, only adds the category.--Fighterdoken 18:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh right got mixed up with what you meant, yeah either would work although yours might be better. --Kakarot 18:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Fighterdoken's idea, something that could place it in the category without disturbing the page. This is a good idea, it would help out the Sysops a bit :o) --Shadowphoenix 20:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

A comment on the noticeboard would be much better. A page requiring protection occurs once in a blue moon -- even less than blocking users. It needs to be done far far less than deleting pages, which is why I don't think having something like GWW:DEL will be useful for protection requests -- a new request doesn't ping a watchlist. The noticeboard does, resulting in a quicker response. -- Brains12 \ Talk 21:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the admin noticeboard is alot more likely to bring it to my attention at least. - anja 04:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Brains replied with what I wanted to say. -- ab.er.rant 06:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Plus: Requesting protection mostly means that the page is vandalized; so how do you stop someone from removing the category then? So what I want to say: Noticeboard is good and enough. poke | talk 13:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] page view statistic

i don't know whether this came along w/ the wiki upgrade or not, but i just noticed that the page view statistic is missing from the bottom of the page. was this removed on purpose or was it accidental? --VVong|BA 19:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Odd, I'm pretty sure it was working yesterday. --Kakarot 20:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm also really missing it. Is it a bug or simply the new MediaWiki version 1.11? —ZerphaThe Improver 19:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Aww lame, it's gone. I enjoyed seeing how many hits I got on my User talk page, lol. — ク Eloc 貢 21:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I enjoyed seeing it on almost all pages. Can't we get it back? :( —ZerphaThe Improver 12:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) It might be best to continue this discussion over at this page as it has already been reported to Emily using that discussion. --Kakarot 13:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dealing with vandals

I've come online, and all I'm seeing on vandals' talk pages and users' talk pages is rubbish about waffles, sticks and other food oddities; "amusing" vandalism; "entertaining" vandalism; "fun" vandalism and revert wars and other inappropriate discussions. Frankly, it's pathetic.

Whatever happened to simply reverting something, posting it on the admin noticeboard, and leaving it at that? Instead of having ridiculous conversation about waffles and bacon? (And it's not just this occasion either, this new "waffle" craze is annoying, but at least it's bearable.)

I suggest we take a look at a policy on GuildWiki (one that I've previously said was unnecessary because of active admins and the noticeboard; however, it seems highly appropriate at the moment) and keep it in mind for another occasion of persistent vandalism. That's not to say I want to add it to our foot long list of policies, proposals and drafts, but perhaps we should give it a read. -- Brains12 \ Talk 15:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You might be right, while fun is always welcome at the wiki to keep up the community, in the last days it got a bit too off-topic. We don't need such a policy, but you're right, reading it might help. poke | talk 15:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Poke, although would point 3 under details be applicable to sysops since we do sometimes give warnings on the persons talk page; for example using this or this? (only two I could find at this time) --Kakarot 15:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Those warnings are usually given out after one or two minor-disruptive edits. Continuous vandalism or disruption typically ends in a block. Anyway, I didn't really want to go into the specifics of each point, just that it is something worth looking at. -- Brains12 \ Talk 15:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I do have to admit that the discussion on the vandal's talk page spiraled out of control (I was expecting it to end with my final comment, hence why I didnt comment again); but I don't think this requires a policy or anything. We could refer to that policy at times; but imo this is being blown out of proportion. --Shadowphoenix 16:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

To make this clear: Brains did not say that we need a policy, and as I said I don't think that we need one, either. The only point is that reading it might give some idea about the situation. poke | talk 16:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no. While first impressions may give that idea, that policy is not about the issue Brains is having. Backsword 05:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) What Poke said. --Kakarot 16:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh ok sorry I misunderstood. --Shadowphoenix 16:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Brains is right, this is a wiki, and serious stuff happens here. Though I participated in the revert-war (though not violating 1RR, as per obvious vandalism), I made little faces in the comment box. I think we could all do with a fresh coat and be a little more serious in our very important work here! ;-) On another note, I also feel, really, really bad I missed this line in the Admin notice board:

Always avoid a revert war with the vandal; it is far better to wait until an admin has a chance to intervene.

--People of Antioch 02:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

On the subject of 1RR: The bunch of us reverting was wondering where all the sysops were. We saw Gordon in RC making edits in a few places, but I suppose he missed the vandalism. So the bunch of us kept reverting while waiting for Gordon to ban the vandal, and, well, he never did. This isn't to place any blame on Gordon, but simply to point out how things got out of hand on RC.

I suppose, by and large, I'm guilty of "Not quietly dealing with vandals". In retrospect, I probably let my actions get a bit out of hand, but let me pose a question: What does the wiki lose from a handful of users making the best out of a bad situation? Sure, perhaps it's not 110% professional, but many people use the wiki as more of a social vehicle rather than as a source of information. That said, the wiki is gravitating towards socialism rather than professionalism, as seen with Shadowphoenix's projects and the talk pages of certain users. So this wiki isn't exactly the pinnacle of professionalism. I suppose the point I'm trying to make is that, on this wiki at least, dealing with vandals humorously accomplishes the same as reverting them quickly and quietly. Nothing is lost by a handful of us enjoying ourselves while reverting vandalism. After all, when life gives you lemons, why not make lemonade? Calor 03:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Though, I feel like I have learned something out of this (I feel like a little kid! ^^) in that revert wars, even when correcting vandalism, can be (and for the most part) bad. I think if we left it alone, it would have quieted long ago before. I apologize for that, and for not reading the lines of "Always avoid a revert war with the vandal...". --People of Antioch 03:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Funny how the one time I get time to actually play Guild Wars instead of spending time here is the time something like this happens. --Kakarot 03:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Calor, I remember times, when people came to my talk page to post issues that should be posted on the noticeboard instead.. When you see there is an admin active, but he is working on something other and not looking for vandals, just ping him by posting on his talk page! poke | talk 08:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

You do not deter a vandal by posting comments like 'oh if you keep doing it, we'll keep reverting and we'll have a jaunty time doing it' (not a quote, but effectively how those comments sounded). You do it by ignoring them. If a revert is required, you simply undo without the quotes, the unnecessary conversations on the vandal's talk page and in response to the vandal himself. What do you lose by not ignoring the vandal? You lose time that could be spent adding/maintaining content to the wiki; you waste your own time by encouraging revert wars; you lose any chance of deterring that vandal. -- Brains12 \ Talk 14:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Clearly I didn't get a degree in criminal psychology. Anyways, I apologize for any mistakes I made, and Brains, I'll keep that advice in mind for future situations. Calor 18:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] help reverting something.

I reverted the edits of 96.233.14.33 on User talk:Gaile Gray/Guild Wars suggestions because he was editing other peoples comments. Changing them into crap no less. Clearly vandalism. However, he later reverted my revert. Right now I can't revert that revert because "The edit could not be undone due to conflicting intermediate edits." Can anyone "manually" revert the thing, plus remove his later comments (that also don't make sense) and give him a time out? (i.e. ban) — Poki#3 18:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

If it's clearly vandalism, GWW:1RR does not apply. But you're right to stop. It's best to avoid revert wars with vandals so that they'll get bored and go away instead hanging around reverting for the heck of it. In the meantime, notify admins on the noticeboard. -- ab.er.rant 08:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I think they were more asking about the technical aspects of it, Ab.er.rant. Poki, you can just go into the history and click on a date/time to pull up the code of the page from that revision - then just copy out the relevant part, click the Edit tab at the top to pull up the current version of the page, and sub back in the proper text. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 12:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Right. Hmm... I seem to have missed the 2nd part of Poki's question... either I'm going blind or it's too bloody hot to concentrate. We're hitting an unprecedented level of heat these past 2 weeks. -- ab.er.rant 13:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The vandalism was in a lot of parts of the talk page, and there where unfortunately normal edits right after that. I didn't have time to vert through it at the time, so I left this note. After I came back I actually saw a revert war between a vandal that ended up protecting the page against anons _^_ Anyway it's over now. — Poki#3 14:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I went in and I think put it back to the proper comments but a number of times after finishing Igot an edit conflict and had to restart. Was about to do a full protection just so I could sort it out without ecs but since Anja had already done a semi it ended up that that was sufficient. --Kakarot 14:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Weaponsmith nav

Hi guys/gals, I was surfing through the weaponsmith pages today and I got to thinking; why don't we add a nav to each of the Weaponsmith's pages? It would allow an easier navigation through the weaponsmith pages. I have created a rough draft template here of what it might look like (but it does need to be fixed up a bit). I do realize that we have the lists of weaponsmiths, but I think with that plus this it would call for much eaiser navigation. So what do you guys/gals think of that? --Shadowphoenix 20:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, nav bars are always handy, but maybe order them by region for easier finding which is where? — ク Eloc 貢 23:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, by campaign --> Region --> Specific area --> Name of weaponsmith. That's just me. You can cross out the Region though.--People of Antioch 04:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion I don't see a reason why people would be interested to jump from one weaponsmith to another.. Interesting for visitors is where they get what weapon but with a simple name-navigation they would have to check all pages. Pages like List of Prophecies weaponsmiths (F/N/EN) are more helpful for visitors. poke | talk 08:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Well I was thinking about making it for people who need to get information on multiple weaponsmiths (maybe they need to get several different weapons, or they are finding something for a friend, etc.). I just have always found that the navs make it much eaiser to navigate through the pages. It couls also be helpful for people who do not know about those lists and just go to the weaponsmith's page. --Shadowphoenix 15:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

"maybe they need to get several different weapons" - still a list with all weapons is easier to use than browsing through all pages. And wouldn't it be better to improve those lists and link the lists from the Weaponsmith pages? poke | talk 17:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with poke. A weaponsmith navbar would be useless and redundant with the categories that we already have. If I'm searching for a weaponsmith for a particular weapon, I'd be searching for that weapon first, which means it's best to ensure that weaponsmith links are added to all the weapon articles. It's like skills. Having a navbar for skill trainers is pointless. If I want to search for a skill trainer, I'd visit the skill's article, not sequentially clicking on skill trainer names in the hopes of finding the one I want. -- ab.er.rant 02:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What should we categorize...

→ moved from Help:Ask a wiki question#What should we categorize...

... community event images as? Many of them contain ArenaNet images, so I though the ANet or screenshot tag would do. Then I realized that most of these images have been edited to such a degree it might not warrant that. I'm speaking specifically of the images that have been in Special:Uncategorizedimages for a little while. --People of Antioch 17:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Make a new category "Community event image"? It's pretty annoying seeing them sit in there all the time. -- Mini Me 17:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

If they're derivative works, and still contain easily recognizable elements of something that would be tagged as {{arenanet image}} or {{screenshot}}, they should be tagged the same. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 17:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

What about ones like this where we can tell it's a GW helm, but it's mostly user created; or even this in which I can't really tell what's in the background. Also, what about the concise/traditional arrows or the various screenshots needed for support? --People of Antioch 17:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The background of this image is a screenshot from Lion's Arch by the looks of it. --Kakarot 17:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The concise/traditional arrows could just be left uncategorized, or if you'd prefer not to have them show up on Special:Uncategorizedimages, create a template form them, something like {{wiki image}} or the like. For the others, if it contains GW content, tag it as such. It doesn't matter whether it's "mostly" or not, if it contains things that would be recognizable as copyright. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 17:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to make that template to get the experience out of making it, but what (if any) licensing would go with said wiki image? Or, can we just scrap that idea and place it under Special images (because if we made wiki images, a whole bunch of images would have to then be re-categorized). --People of Antioch 17:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Any image not otherwise licensed is GFDL, as per Guild_Wars_Wiki:Copyrights. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 18:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm working on something in my sandbox, that look okay (besides the lack of image and color)? It was based on the {{user image}} template, which was much simpler to edit. --People of Antioch 18:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It looks okay. I'd probably use a different wording, since technically every image uploaded here is used on the wiki. :P I'd opt for a message that's more information about the fact that the image is playing a support role... hmm. Maybe something like "This image was uploaded for use in wiki content for utility purposes" or the like. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 18:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Not another tag please.. Imo not all images need to be categorized.. The community event things just show up because they are not ANet images but they are simply images used for articles and so they don't need another tag.. poke | talk 18:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually poke, I'd say that a category for utility images makes sense. They're not uploaded for userspace, but they're ones that people might still want to locate easily, for reuse. Please don't fob this off as "not another tag please". That said, PoA you might consider tagging them as {{GFDL image}}, since that's the same as used by the Tango icons for the professions and such, which serve a similar purpose. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 18:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Wait, a little unclear there, Aiiane. Which images should be tagged? --People of Antioch 18:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

For images like those on community event pages, or on any other article, I would say: Please no category; otherwise we would also have to tag all other images that we use in some article.. For those utility images, a lot of them are already tagged in Category:Special images but I don't think we need always a template for that, simply add the category and it is fine.

Btw. {{GFDL image}} is the most useless template ever on a GFDL wiki :P poke | talk 18:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Not really. It makes the licensing explicit, which is handy for people who are just browsing through images. It also categorizes images which might not already be categorized, which is useful, as it's easier to highlight images that haven't been paid attention via Special:Uncategorizedimages. You might disagree, but your word is not law, and it doesn't hurt you to have it exist. "otherwise we would also have to tag all other images that we use in some article" - no one is forcing you to categorize any image yourself, nor does the existence of a category immediately obligate anyone to fill it. If you're opposing adding something to the wiki merely because it is work, then I guess we should just stop adding anything to the wiki at all, because that's work as well.

@PoA, I was suggesting using {{GFDL image}} on the ones like concise/traditional, etc. instead of using a new template. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 20:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Which leaves the original item: the community images. Is it simply okay to use {{screenshot}} or {{arenanet image}} for that? --People of Antioch 21:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, which is what I had said a while ago. :P (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 21:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Eh? "because it is work" - I never said that, I just said that when we add a category - for example for images we use on articles, which would be for example the images for the community event articles - then we have to use that category for all images we use on articles, not only those, that are not already in any category. I don't oppose because it is work, as I know that a lot people - including me - work from time to time on such monotonous things (Calor for example :P); but adding another category with 1000+ images doesn't help anybody. Then leaving the images out of any category is fine.

The thing is that I don't like redundancy, but adding categories to only some of the images which would fit into that category, just to "highlight images that haven't been paid attention via Special:Uncategorizedimages" is really redundant. Especially as I see no need to pay attention to uncategorized images..

"It makes the licensing explicit, which is handy for people who are just browsing through images." this is a GFDL wiki; everything which is not ANet content, is GFDL, so why do we need to make licensing explicit when there is no other choice? poke | talk 22:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Explicit in the sense that someone who has very little knowledge of the wiki, but clicks on an image, will be informed immediately of what terms they can use it under - without having to know about the licensing link on the bottom of the page, which is both a) not all that specific and b) small. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 23:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

One advantage is that explicitly tagging GFDL images is that it distinguishes verified GFDL images from images with unknown license information, which could be either ArenaNet images, GFDL images, public domain images or non-ArenaNet, non-GFDL images. -- Gordon Ecker 06:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Drop research

Does someone have an idea on how to interpret the information gathered in all the various drop research and salvage research tables? I can't remember who started it but we should at least try to make use of that information rather than having users just keep adding to it and not really amounting to much. -- ab.er.rant 03:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

By converting the raw data into percentages then putting them into a small table under "items dropped"? Calor 03:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been interpreting the drop research as observed drops from specific enemies and after so many entries (no specific number, just whenever a pattern is observed), I update the acquisition section. I observed the following drop patterns for weapons:

• Core weapons drop pretty much anywhere (ex. Ball Hammer).
• Some weapons drop anywhere in one or more campaigns, but not all of them (ex. Barrel Hammer).
• Some drop in a specific region (ex. Jade Hammer).
• Some drop from a specific type/affiliation (ex. Summit Hammer).
• Most caster weapons drop from caster enemies with the same profession. If the weapon can drop in different attributes, the attribute will usually be random (only somewhat certain about that), but still match the profession.
• Some caster weapons seem to only drop from non-casters (ex. Bo Staff and Raven Staff).
• Martial weapons can drop from both casters and non-casters.
• I haven't done the dungeons enough times to get an idea what the chest drops are like. Each dungeon chest seems to have its own special skins (ex. Frog Scepter, Aureate Blade?), but can drop a bunch of other skins.
• I think the Zaishen Chest drops most skins, but I'm not convinced yet that it drops all skins.

For trophies and salvage items, I use the drop research to figure which unit types drop which items. Some can drop from all types, but some drop from specific professions. There really isn't any consistency to it, and each campaign seems to do things differently. Tedium 05:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Language

Do we have a standard of which language to use, i.e. British / US English by default? I've seen some edits where people change some words on an article, but not all, leaving them inconsistent. Biscuits 22:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Not this again XD. IIRC, it was: "Official information as it was released. The content itself is not regulated, but US english is prefered if the editor is willing to pick one. Editing articles only to change between US english and British english is discouraged.".--Fighterdoken 23:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Uh not really. If we're doing things verbatim, we do things verbatim; otherwise it's left purely to the writer. Of course, an article should be consistent, so I would say go with the majority - if five words are American and two are British, go with American (and vice versa). -- Brains12 \ talk 23:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

So we don't have it defined anywhere then? Using the most common usage on the article is my preference too, but then you get people changing some words that were highlighted by a spell checker while they were editing a section, and leaving the rest of the British/US words in the other sections unchanged. Biscuits 09:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I was one of the ones who did that on a talk page I think. Not sure. But anything that looks wrong to me or is underlined in red that's terribly distracting I normally "correct". But I think sticking with the majority usage is a good idea. --People of Antioch 09:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Adding videos to this wiki

→ moved from Guild Wars Wiki:Admin noticeboard

Hi, wanted to suggest adding collaborative video capabilities to this wiki. We've developed a VideoWiki Extension, which is totally free and open source. This extension lets any user add media and edit it with users on any wiki page. You are welcome to see some examples here and contact me. Would love to hear your thoughts, IdoSet 08:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

This is not the right place for this suggestion and as such I am moving it to somewhere more pertinent. --Lemming 11:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Some of us already discussed this in IRC, as we got an email from you (?) some time ago but actually I don't think we should allow video uploads here. The chance of being abused is far to high and I don't think the additional server load wouldn't be ideal. Also when I look at a familar other wiki which allows embedding youtube videos, I have another reason why it isn't a good idea.

Finally if we really want videos for documentation (see the newest idea of the skill sounds project), I think it is better to create a player on our own to include restrictions and to have a design that fit's to GWW (and to not have a "powered by"-link) poke | talk 12:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It also raises copyright issues.-- Wynthyst 12:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a practical idea on paper, but in implementation, it would largely fail, as Poke and Wyn have pointed out. Thanks for the offer, though. Calor 14:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The only place where's it going to be of real benefit would be on the builds and certain types of user guides. But we disallow specific builds and youtube links works fine; it might still work, it would be of little benefit. -- ab.er.rant 16:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Clock

What genious added it? Great idea, i really like it :D —ZerphaThe Improver 19:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Clock? What clock? Where? — Poki#3 20:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Look up. No, further up. Further. Yes, further. And a little to the right. - Tanetris 20:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:Main_Page/editcopy#PDT_Clock_for_the_Wiki ~ Kurd 20:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, thanks Kurd —ZerphaThe Improver 20:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

OMG! Ingenious. 78.176.174.31 20:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Nice, but how do I get rid of it... ? It confuses me having a different clock up there to my windows one. Nevermind found it here MediaWiki_talk:Monobook.js --Lemming 22:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) See this page for how to change the timezone and for how to remove it Lem. --Kakarot 22:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Lol I'll try not to edit the wiki monobook next time lol --Lemming 22:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)