User talk:Ab.er.rant/2008Q3

From Guild Wars Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
This is an archive page of old discussions. Please do not modify or add to them.
Leave new messages on my talk page. Thanks.

Category:Users who are Vael Victus[edit]

Hello. I'm going to pretend I was on vacation during the times the notice was up.

So as I was vacationing in... say, the Bahamas, I did not notice my category was candidate for deletion. I'd just like to know why it warranted being deleted in the first place, as it only brings me joy and the wiki probably... 10 kilobytes of data, maybe. Vael Victus Pancakes. 03:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Backsword tagged it for deletion with the reason "..unlikely to ever get any use...". I tended towards agreement since that category is (1) almost certainly not going to be used by anyone but you and (2) is an orphaned category. However, with that said, if you were to recreate it, and it gets tagged again, I will leave it to the decision of another admin. -- ab.er.rant User Ab.er.rant Sig.png 03:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I understand. Thank you. Vael Victus Pancakes. 15:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Reverts[edit]

Where did I go wrong that you reverted my editings? Let me explain my rationale and you can point out where I'm wrong. Kamadan - one NPC is a merchant and he's the only one with his profession not blue-linked while other several NPC merhcants are. I'm going for consistency here. As for Vabbi one - Elon river is grammatically wrong. It's a proper noun so it should be Elon River. After all we have Ohio River, Yellow River, Nile River and not Ohio river, Yellow river, and Nile river. Same thing with Pre-Searing one - it's a specific place therefore it's a proper noun meaning it should be named Devourer Cave. Thank you for your time. – User Barinthus Magical Compass.png Barinthus 07:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the Kamadan article: In general, we try not to link to an article from one article multiple times. For example, if a quest refers to Kormir multiple times, we would link the first instance of her name to Kormir's article, but leave subsequent instances unlinked, even if, for example, the third time was in the middle of a list of NPCs whose names are linked. If you look higher up on the Kamadan article, under collectors, the same thing is done: "collector" is linked the first time, unlinked the second time, and "scribe" is linked the first time, unlinked for the three others.
I believe you are correct regarding the Elon River (a quick glance at Elon shows that River is part of the name according to the in-game description), but the devourer cave is not a proper name for that location, only a description. If you look at The Egg Hunter, the in-game text that refers to it uses a lower-case c. Of course, Aberrant may have his own reasons, but hope this helps in the meantime. - Tanetris 11:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
If we were absolutely wanting to only link once to any given page, then we should unlink the exits, since the infobox already links them. Honestly, for consistency's sake I'd side with Barinthus here; it's simply easier to have them all bluelinked (at least, in specific lists like that) than it is to go off hunting for where it was previously linked. Unlike full-paragraph text, which is usually read linearly and thus the link would have already been noticed, lists are usually pick-and-choose affairs. Go to Aiiane's Talk page (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 15:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Tanetris and Aiiane for your time in discussing this. I understand what Tanetris is saying but I have to side with Aiiane here. I agree that it's not neccessary to bluelink everything more than once in a paragraph but for some reason it makes sense to do so in lists. Its all about aesthetics, I suppose. A paragraph littered with bluelinks are not easy to read while lists with inconsistency in bluelinks are not attractive. Also who wants to hunt for a bluelink? Beside if we were to completely adhere to one-time bluelink rule regardless whether if it's in a paragraph or lists, we'd have to revamp the entire wiki. Visit any pages with lists and you'll see plenty of repetative bluelinks in those. As for Devourer cave... how do you know it was actual in-game text and not human error? I've caught plenty of human errors copying in-game text into this wiki including incorrect ordering of word choices used. To my mind Devourer cave doesn't make sense - Devourer Cave or devourer cave does. Anyway my primary goal here is to find out what the admin wants from editors since it's my goal to avoid having my edits being reverted since it's a waste of my time if my edits are being reverted. – User Barinthus Magical Compass.png Barinthus 16:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
"Anyway my primary goal here is to find out what the admin wants from editors" - admins are just normal users when it comes to content decisions. If Ab.er.rant reverted you, it was just acting as a normal user and should not carry more weight just because he is a sysop. You have just as much of a say in how things are formatted, and just as much right to revert (within GWW:1RR, of course). Go to Aiiane's Talk page (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 16:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
My reasons were correctly explained by Tanetris and Aiiane but I'll just elaborate. I disagree with repeated links within the same section, especially when they're right next to each to each other. I don't mind repeated links across different sections or portions of the page. If you prefer consistency of linking everything in a list, you might have to go through all the Nightfall location articles I've done and quite a lot of the collector pages to keep things consistent. I was just reverting so that it reflects the more common norm where we try not to repeat links.
There was never a mention of the Devourer Cave. It's just a cave where devourers lair. I doubt it's that's the only place where devourers lair so giving it a proper noun seems strange. If you prefer to be grammatically correct, go with "A devourer cave". As for it being a human error... well, I could argue the same for the Elon river. The river has been referred to as simple "the Elon", as well as "the Elon River", so it's arguable which is the error. It used to be written on the page as "The Elon river", iirc, so it just made sense to me to revert.
In short, I disagree with repeated links that are very visibly close by; I disagree with the devourer cave being a proper name, but I'm ambivalent enough about the river's name that I don't mind either way. -- ab.er.rant User Ab.er.rant Sig.png 14:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay re: listing - why stop at reverting? Why wasn't other links on the same page "corrected"? I'm not attacking you and if this appears to be so, I apologize. Just wondering why if you feel that strongly about bluelinks, why not "fix" that page while you're on that particular page? Foot in the mouth, I went back to that page. – User Barinthus Magical Compass.png Barinthus 00:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I make mistakes too so let me know if I screwed up :) Btw, if you're interested in getting some agreement or clarification on the convention that I adopted, feel free to bring it up on the guidelines pages and we can do something about it. -- ab.er.rant User Ab.er.rant Sig.png 17:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks :) – User Barinthus Magical Compass.png Barinthus 19:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Random Question[edit]

Is there a special template that should be put on orphaned pages? Oh, and a very belated greetings. -- NUKLEAR User NuclearVII signature 3.jpgIIV 16:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned pages end up at Special:Lonelypages. Once in a while, someone will go through him and put in some links or mark them for deletion :) I'll go see if some of them needs to be tagged for deletion right now :) -- ab.er.rant User Ab.er.rant Sig.png 17:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
And oh, bear in mind that a page is considered "orphaned" if no other page links to it. That list doesn't count page inclusions so most of the pages on that list are actually in use, but just not linked to. -- ab.er.rant User Ab.er.rant Sig.png 17:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
So, would it be helpful of me to slam delete tags on orphaned pages? -- NUKLEAR User NuclearVII signature 3.jpgIIV 08:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Just make sure the page can't be used and also to check the What links here link in the toolbox for each one since as shown by the first one it is used even though it is in that list, this would most likely be true about most if not all the "/Collector" and "/Collector armor" ones. --Kakarot Talk 11:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't It be Good to add an option of instances if you do not want to play with other players just like worlds? Just a random question =D --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:71.184.255.39 (talk).

Ok. Just a random answer, since I don't understand your question ;) -- ab.er.rant User Ab.er.rant Sig.png 02:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Guild page deletion[edit]

Hi, I recently joined a guild and decided to make a wiki page about it. I first searched if the guild page did already exists, and I see it used to exist, but you deleted it deu to being 'blatantly offensive'. My question is, can I just create the page again, or is it better for me to request an undeletion?

greetings, --Atreyo 14:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

When it was deleted being "blatantly offensive", I don't think there was actually a guild page before (we would have used a different reason for it), so it is fine, if you just create a new guild page (just follow our Guilds policy). Of course, you can give us the name and we can check if there was any valuable content which might be interesting to be undeleted. poke | talk 15:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I just checked the page, and it was really offensive, so just create a new one :) poke | talk 15:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the information^^

cheers --Atreyo 15:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Uncategorized files[edit]

One of the images seems to be corrupted here, anyway you can delete it? Fall 15:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. -- ab.er.rant User Ab.er.rant Sig.png 15:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Assuming you mean the one that was named Cherry-bomb ~WDC 087.jpg, how did you manage to delete that one Ab.er? I tried earlier when I first noticed it but couldn't get to any page that would allow me to delete it, all links went to a blank page with the words "The specified URL cannot be found". --Kakarot Talk 22:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Notice that when you do a diff or a delete or some other actions, the url turns into a "....index.php?title=<name>..." You can access any page by replacing the <name> part. This is the only way to access pages (deliberately created or not) that include illegal characters in their name. -- ab.er.rant User Ab.er.rant Sig.png 01:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

'Et tu, Eloce'[edit]

Ah.. I wonder how long you will have the energy to keep up your fight against all those vanquishers.... Backsword 07:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I suppose I shall finally accept it upon the third time you offer me the suggestion to quit bothering, heh :P -- ab.er.rant User Ab.er.rant Sig.png 13:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
We really need to get consensus on one way to document vanquish numbers as I've done the same as Ab.er at times. Good thing I checked, Fighterdoken has already brought something up on the Guild Wars Wiki:Formatting/Locations talk page. --Kakarot Talk 13:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

[1][edit]

Sorry Aberrant. I haven't vanquished much ingame, so I don't pay much attention to what happens here on the pages including vanquishing. I'll be sure not to do it again. :D — Eloc 07:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

No worries, I was just being a prick. I undo edits like that on a regular basis :D -- ab.er.rant User Ab.er.rant Sig.png 07:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


Community Portal[edit]

You might not see it as important yourself but if there's a high traffic area when compared to the rest of the wiki, it's safe to say that it's important enough to a group of people somewhere out there. Honestly, you could say that the disucssion pages in question are a documentation of player thoughts and feelings which I think are just as important to the rest since the players pretty much make the game as much as the NCsoft/Areanet employees do. Yes, it would need a lot of work and heavy moderation before it could be usable in any form but it definitely could be done. For example, on the skill pages, I'm not sure why after the talk that the project skill page isn't wiped clean and summarized with the main points discussed on the talk page. Someone (preferably interested and objective) would definitely have to decide what goes there of course and keep the discussion(s) on track to avoid circular arguments. It can't be hard to find at least one user who is willing to give it a try and get the work done. I do think the talk pages for users and the areanet namespace should be governed under different rules while the rest should fall under a guideline about discussions only to be about changes to the article.

Semantics aside about "discussion" pages, I'm not sure killing off something that is heavily used is the right direction to go. I understand that everyone wants to keep this wiki running smoothly but if a good sized group of Guild Wars player desire some form of actual discussion on this wiki, do you really want to stifle that? Something is always controversial to someone else. Squashing a resource that is popular was done before and from what I can tell, it was just the admins and a group of users that didn't want to deal with another group of users which resulted in a failure to see eye to eye (though this is a far lesser case). It's a rather catch 22 situation since the users that are interested in these areas don't necessarily interact as much in other places leaving a slightly separate community. No one is about to ask an admin who has no interest in it to act as a moderator and do the work necessary. No one from that "separate" community will likely hold any moderation power in the given area either since they are the point of contention. Yet, somehow, the people who aren't interested or involved deem it necessary to impose their rule of thumb on the other part of the community. Yes, that other part of the community might have issues but I think if you allow for them to actually sort things out themselves and give them the ability to do so, it'll work. Yes, it's a hassle choosing that right person and it probably won't end up in any shape that the administration/some users envisioned it. However, if the admins/whomever have already decided that this group of people are unwanted on Areanet's wiki due to whatever reason (reasoning that GWW is a documentation wiki is a very strong arguement), then this discussion on how to "fix" things is superfluous to begin with and it's basically a circle jerk with people deciding how far is too far. It does seem that solution being arrived at is the same though - go to a different site. PlacidBlueAlien 18:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

If nothing else, "go to a different site" is a better alternative simply because of how the wiki software is designed - its basic systems aren't able to fluidly support the kind of discussion traffic you get on skill/feedback pages. Forums are far more suited to that kind of rapidly-paced interaction. Go to Aiiane's Talk page (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 22:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


Hi, thanks for your thoughts, they're rather well thought out and I appreciate that. Let me lay out my thoughts on the issue.
First, I do not believe that high traffic directly implies importance; it merely implies popularity. I still hold to the thought that a documentation of player's thoughts, ideas, and feelings about the game is hardly documenting the game itself. I feel they do not really add to one's experience or skill in playing the game. Yes, discussion about something is healthy when done appropriately but when it devolves into name-calling, something is wrong - the majority of the high traffic are simply users wanting to lash out rather than engage in intellectual discourse.
And with regards to the purpose of talk pages on wikis, they are really only meant to discuss wiki content, not external happenings. Discussing the finer points of balancing Ursan Blessing again and again is mostly irrelevant to the maintaining of the Ursan Blessing article itself. I also disagree that us players actually have much influence in the direction of the game (but that's another issue), the idea I tried to point out over at the CP talk is that we have absolutely no idea how ArenaNet views those "discussions". We're simply working off the assumption (and hope) that ArenaNet reads them. It would take them to specifically state that and show that before I'm convinced.
Which "project skill page" are you referring to? If it is this one, Guild Wars Wiki:Projects/Skills, it's not deleted because no one has suggested that it be deleted. If someone does suggest, you can be sure that a discussion will be raised as to whether or not we ought to keep inactive/old projects.
Yes, I agree that those pages require special handling, but the point which has been raised multiple times is that a wiki talk page plus existing admin rights simply make that handling awkward at best. Hence my two rather extreme suggestions that I hope people try to discuss into an acceptable middle ground.
With regards to the users that "desire some form of actual discussion on this wiki", let me ask you two questions: (1) Do these players rely only on this wiki for those discussions? (2) Are those players here because ArenaNet staff are here, or are they here because they want to be a part of this community to improve the wiki?
Nothing of what they do cannot be done on better equipped forums (except for the fact that they are not moderated here). I simply believe a majority of these users (especially the anonymous ones) are here because they think they will be heard and are not really interested in learning how a wiki works.
I agree that this segment of players, many who would be undoubtedly heavily moderated in forums, require strong moderation. But who will moderate them? It has been months and since nobody among them has stood up to try to work it out (as I said, the majority are not interested in the betterment of the wiki), it was only a matter of time before someone outside attempts it. If you know of any person willing to take on the responsibilities of managing these pages, please, by all means, point them out. I think most of the current admins would be happy to let someone who wants it do it. The sysops here are primarily appointed to deal with content issues, not moderating other users. -- ab.er.rant User Ab.er.rant Sig.png 23:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd have to disagree popularity doesn't imply some degree of importance. It may not be the number one reason for them to visit the site or whatever but it is enough for them to read and make posts (even if it is to troll.) It's impossible to disagree with the fact that there are trolls who aren't here for the betterment of the wiki. However, perhaps due to naivety or whatever, I'd hope the majority of posters are. As to your finer points, no, this site is probably not the only resource that people use and I can't presume to know why everyone uses the wiki like they do. Izzy's page is a personal talk page after all. I used them because they were interesting tidbits that caught my eye here and there. I'm hardly in the position to say I contributed much to these sections myself (I don't have very many contributions) but reading what the other people said was rather important (at least to me.) Some of it was complete junk but you got a broad spectrum of people posting so you can see what everyone thinks from all paths of Guild Wars. Yes, perhaps all of this would be better served on something more forum like or on a different site but only if this were available on those places in the first place. Honestly, like I said in the last part, if the majority doesn't think the discussion improves this wiki in any manner or is supposed to be here, the discussion about how to "fix" it isn't really necessary and should be a hands up/down approach at getting rid of the whole thing. I'm not sure everyone would agree with this but that's just how I see things.
As for documenting players, I think it's more like documenting the metagame which is (fortunately or unfortunately) a huge part of Guild Wars at least on the PvP side. This includes some thoughts from players and their reactions to changes though not in the current state of things - as per your example, name calling isn't really a discussion.
I would actually agree that users don't normally have control over the finer points of skill balancing but Areanet has used suggestions taken from the skill pages and when Andrew was around, there were several other ideas taken from players that made it into the PvP arena. In short, while player influence is undeniable (see ursan nerf), we may be unsure where all the feedback is accumulated from - for example, Izzy doesn't always listen to his personal forums, he doesn't always listen to the fan forum sites and nor does he always listen from the wiki which is evident through some of the changes (which all 3 place disagree with). This is becoming a greater problem since he has hinted he doesn't follow his talk pages, the personal forums are sometimes in the state of WTF?! and fan forums are left scratching their heads and wishing their was a visible PvP coordinator to poke.
As for looking for moderators, I would imagine you would just have to ask people from the sections to apply. I'm sure several people would have stepped up since people complained quite a bit about how it was being handled though I'm not sure if they would have been the best candidates in the eyes of the administration. Granted, the current solution is rather devious and has a lot going for it. Admins don't have to worry about moderating a discussion or getting a moderator and just handles problem harassment cases. PlacidBlueAlien 17:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
My lack of metagame knowledge shows, so I'll take your word that all these feedback does get in somehow, although ArenaNet will probably never admit to where or from whom they got the idea from. I can see how it might be valuable to those who rely on the wiki as a more direct communication with ArenaNet (whether the perception is reality is, of course, a different matter), or those who prefer to look at things about the game rather than in the game. The whole "scrap it all" idea would never gain consensus, as you said, so yeah, I suppose the next best thing is to work with it. -- ab.er.rant User Ab.er.rant Sig.png 10:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Math[edit]

Lol i did do the math right on this page? I think i did. o.O — Seru User Seru Sig2.png Talk 00:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I saw that already but I didn't do any recount :) some of the min max numbers match up with those mentioned in the paragraph below the table so it should be all right. -- ab.er.rant User Ab.er.rant Sig.png 02:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
ok lol i would be embarassed if i messed it up. I placed in a state math competition lol. Who did the min max the first time? — Seru User Seru Sig2.png Talk 02:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Me :) (over here, at least; I basically just expanded on what GuildWiki had by putting in more numbers) -- ab.er.rant User Ab.er.rant Sig.png 03:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I'll trust it then ;) — Seru User Seru Sig2.png Talk 03:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Shtealing[edit]

Just thought I'd let you know that I'm copying bits of your code for my userpage. FromStokoe 13:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure. -- ab.er.rant User Ab.er.rant Sig.png 17:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Can i use this url http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/User:Seru?action=purge in my signature as the link to my page? Its the only way to make sure it updates the colors :D. I have it set to change each hour but it needs to be updated and idk how to make it purge when people view my page normally. — Seru User Seru Sig2.png Talk 23:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess it's all right for now, unless someone starts to complain about it. Is it really necessary to have your colors change every hour? But it's up to you I guess. -- ab.er.rant User Ab.er.rant Sig.png 01:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Its not necessary, but its cool to me :D Thx for the response — Seru User Seru Sig2.png Talk 01:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Now you...[edit]

deserve thanks once in a while. You work very hard here, and I'm glad to edit on the same wiki you do. Thanks for the hard work and dedication. Also, people must love you. Look at your user page's length! Anyway, have a good one! Take care. --TalkPeople of Antioch 03:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you :) You take care as well. -- ab.er.rant User Ab.er.rant Sig.png 03:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
And thanks for reminding that I need to archive my talk too :D -- ab.er.rant User Ab.er.rant Sig.png 03:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
No problem. See you on my next wiki ogre attack. --TalkPeople of Antioch 03:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

ArenaNet talk:Guild Wars 2 suggestions#The future of easy page creation[edit]

As it seems we two do the most work in keeping the number of bad pages down, I would appreciate your input here. Backsword 05:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

RE: Ramblings[edit]

— The Ursan nerf was a good thing, regardless of all the follow-up complaints from the other camp now. People just need to re-learn that other skills exist. I'm also finally giving some play time to my mesmer. Two years and still not ascended yet, heh. And I just realised that only one of all my characters have actually finished a campaign...

Same here, lol <HORSEDROWNER> 10:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Good :D -- ab.er.rant User Ab.er.rant Sig.png 04:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Blastedt's sig[edit]

Hey Ab.er, why did you change all that links to Blastedt's sig icon? I think we agreed somewhere that we won't do that because it pings too many watchlists - and we agreed to not even do that with a bot - now exactly that happened, I came online and had a lot unnecessary entries on my watchlist :( poke | talk 14:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

We agreed? Sorry, don't seem to recall anything like that; will keep in mind. I just didn't like red links that are never going to get removed. -- ab.er.rant User Ab.er.rant Sig.png 04:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, I thought a discussion about this was on the community portal but I don't find it.. But I found this and the second entry on this page.. But maybe we can bring that topic up again, as bot edits actually do not ping the watchlist.. poke | talk 15:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
They do, but it can be disabled in users' preferences. Not to mention it'll bring up the "you have new messages" notice for users' talk pages. --User Pling sig.png Brains12 \ talk 15:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
All right, my apologies to all who hated the pings. I just noticed that those sig icons had been sitting on the to-be-deleted list for so long, so I just proceeded to remove them the way I feel they should be removed. I'll try harder to ignore these next time. -- ab.er.rant User Ab.er.rant Sig.png 05:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I do think we should bring it up again. I hate them too, and the watchlist ping is a one-time thing, which makes it less irritating. If we could have a bot do several of them at a time, it would be less of a problem imo.
We don't discourage people from fixing typos or similar, and that edit is equally "irritating" on the watchlist :) - anja talk 07:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

meh[edit]

figured you'd want to commentSeru User Seru Sig2.png Talk 04:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Noted. Thanks. -- ab.er.rant User Ab.er.rant Sig.png 04:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

quick policy question[edit]

Hey hey mate, just a wee question. I've read the policy on RFA's and I understand it fully, however I was just wondering why in elections of bureaucrats do we have a requirement of 100 edits outside the guild/user name spaces and yet that same limitation isn't applied to that of RFA's. Just curious as to the reasoning behind it really. I understand the two opposing view points, that of the desire to involve the entire community in the process and that of protecting that process from interference and trolling. I suppose the confusion stems from the fact that we opted for greater protection to the voting process in one model and yet in the other voting process opted for a wider acceptance of those voting. I'm wondering if this difference is safeguarded to a degree due to the fact that bureaucrat seats are now a simple vote tally where as sysop seats are still to a degree at the discretion of the sysop them self. I hasten to add this isn't a complaint about the current policy, just curious as to why it is how it isand thought that you might know why. -- Salome User salome sig.png 12:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Bureaucrats supposedly wield greater power, and due to them being part of the arbitration committee, and having the discretion to confirm sysops, it was decided that there should be stronger control over who can participate in the selection of bureaucrats. So it's kinda like favoring the opinions of those who have shown a bit more dedication to the wiki than merely on things personal to them. Since bureaucrat election has been made into a mostly most-vote-wins scenario, it's even more important to filter out votes from users who may probably not even know what they're voting for. As for sysops, the discretion is on the bureaucrats, not on other sysops. -- ab.er.rant User Ab.er.rant Sig.png 13:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Historicaly, the reason was that bcrats were expected to do the same task for RfAs, but for elections, that provided a blatant conflict of interest, so a more formal rule was implemented. Backsword 09:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Loction Formatting question[edit]

1. Do we list NPC's that only apear before certains quests (or events)?

2. Do we list NPC's that only apear during certains quests (or events)?

3. Do we list NPC's that only apear after certains quests (or events)?

Thanks in advance Bart M 17:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

we document all NPCs as detailed as possible. if they only appear under certain circumstances, this is added to the article. see GWW:NPC for more information (in specific GWW:NPC#Locations for your question). - Y0_ich_halt User Y0 ich halt sig.jpg 17:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
But I mean on the location page not on the NPC page :P Bart M 18:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
ah xD not much harder though: "It is not necessary to list quest-only NPCs or quest-specific spawns, as these should be listed in the corresponding quest page instead. " (GWW:LOCATION#Middle sections) so, no to all three :) - Y0_ich_halt User Y0 ich halt sig.jpg 18:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
hmm, in contrary to that, they're listed anyway it seems, looking at Bukdek Byway for example. - Y0_ich_halt User Y0 ich halt sig.jpg 18:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't they be removed there then? Bart M 18:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
i think that sentence has to be removed or rewritten. not listing them would make the character list incomplete, not to mention the loads of unregistered ppl who will be adding npcs because they saw them there. anyway, i'd add them. we can still remove them later, if that's decided. - Y0_ich_halt User Y0 ich halt sig.jpg 18:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok thanks :P Bart M 18:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the answer is yes, no, yes for me. Yes, they're currently still in many of the articles, but that's primarily because I've only just cleared the Nightfall locations and just started on the Factions locations :) -- ab.er.rant User Ab.er.rant Sig.png 05:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
And how do we list Kurzick/Luxon Priests/Merchants/Guards at ressurection shrines? Are they listed as bounty givers at the shrines section? Are they listed under services in the NPC's section? And how do we list who controlles the shrines? What if both can controll the shrine? Bart M 15:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Only the bounty givers are listed in the shrines section. I haven't thought about the Luxon/Kurzick NPCs yet so I'll just shoot off some ideas here. The merchants can be placed in services while the priests and guards are under "Other allies". You can try "Kurzick allies" or "Luxon allies" subsections if they seem more appropriate. Or maybe even a more generic "Faction allies". As for which faction is present, I think a simple "or" will do, something like "Monk 20 Kurzick Priest or Monk 20 Luxon Priest". What do you think? -- ab.er.rant User Ab.er.rant Sig.png 15:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I tried adding it at the Pongmei Valley article, but it looks kinda wierd XD Bart M 17:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I edited it to use the "or" option. How does it look? I'm not sure which is better. The blessing can be placed in the shrines section. Oh, since you're helping with the locations, you might be interested in this as well. -- ab.er.rant User Ab.er.rant Sig.png 03:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Should the blessing be added something like this? Bart M 15:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Yep, something like that. -- ab.er.rant User Ab.er.rant Sig.png 03:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

User Name Origin[edit]

I've always wondered where your username came from. I finally decided to ask. Where does your username come from and what does it mean? 122.104.161.96 19:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

somebody asked this question before, gotta be in his archives somewhere... - Y0_ich_halt User Y0 ich halt sig.jpg 20:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
User talk:Ab.er.rant/2007Q4#Tiny query poke | talk 20:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
aberrant :) the dots came much later. -- ab.er.rant User Ab.er.rant Sig.png 07:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Google Chrome[edit]

From what I've heard it almost kills the computer if you have too many tabs open, and especially when you have ad-crammed sites. It eats CPU :/ Have you experienced that? - anja talk 15:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it looks too much like IE7 (that's reason enough not to use it, imo :P) --User Pling sig.png Brains12 \ talk 15:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't really remind me of IE at all (probably because I don't use IE at all :D As for CPU issues, no not really, but then I guess I haven't opened a lot of tabs with lots of stuff going on in them yet. Maybe all that sandboxing and multiple processes/threads per tab is not optimised to suspend themselves when not in view. But I have seen that certain times (not common, but did happen) where it actually took up more memory than firefox. Not sure what caused it, but yeah, closing tabs does noticeably free up memory. -- ab.er.rant User Ab.er.rant Sig.png 16:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
If Gmail is any indication, then firefox has something to worry about :D -- NUKLEAR User NuclearVII signature 3.jpgIIV 16:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict with below) Yep, that V8 vm for javascript really is something. Tested it on some of our webapps with AJAX and none of the occasional animation/transition hiccups that we sometimes see in Firefox. Looks like we may see another browser war once Chrome gets out of beta. -- ab.er.rant User Ab.er.rant Sig.png 16:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
What I find odd is that Google is actually the main supporter of Firefox. Why did they release a new browser when they could have just improved that? I presume it's so they can Google-brand it, which seems like a horribly Microsoft-like thing to do (though I have no problems with Windows; it's everything else). I think that this will push away many of the open-source advocates (even though it is open-source, open-source already has a flagship browser... and it ain't Chrome), and those that haven't converted from IE as of yet (even though there are better browsers available) are unlikely to suddenly do so now. Personally, I'm unsure. Ah well. Here's to the future! Ale_Jrb (talk) 16:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
A little competition is nice and I don't see why open source advocates are adverse to seeing more options. Firefox doesn't need to be the only flagship. Maybe the plan on wooing those still on IE than those on Firefox. But the branding is definitely part of the agenda (and likely the fact that they wanted to rewrite the entire concept of a browser). Maybe it was too radical a change for the Firefox community? -- ab.er.rant User Ab.er.rant Sig.png 16:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
It goes really slow when I try to look at pdf's with it. Though that might just be my crappy laptop :P ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777(talk) 05:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
And aah I just realized it won't let me scroll by holding the mouse wheel! ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777(talk) 05:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

On a different note, I heard from reliable sources that the user agreement license is set in a way that you agree to send data back to Google on what you surf. I'm not getting it, just for that reason. Not yet anyway, I don't see too much of a reason to chuck FF. --TalkPeople of Antioch 05:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah Wikipedia, how resourceful! Ahem: "By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any content which you submit, post or display on or through, the services." --TalkPeople of Antioch 05:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
But that is Google. All their services include that. They automatically go through your gmail-mails and read keywords from it, they look where you are looking at on Google Maps and they know what files you have on your computer (Google Desktop). Now they also know what site you browse to (they knew it before by searching anything on google).. Those who cannot live with that fact shouldn't get online at all.
To Google Chrome I have to say that the multiprocessing is really great. How often Firefox was about to completely shutdown (where IE wasn't able to even display that pages btw) where Chrome still works. They use the WebKit rendering engine so they bring quite a nice support for standards; also due to that luckily we probably won't see things like -gchrome-border-radius.. What I doesn't like so far is the fact that you always need to open a new tab first, before you can access any link from your favorites; in addition the favorites are really bad organized, a simple popup button shouldn't be all.. But we'll see what comes with future versions. poke | talk 06:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Maybe they assume you just use services like delicious and such for bookmarking. :P - anja talk 08:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Eh, GMail is my spam bucket. Plus, if you have some great idea, post it on the internet (if you're that stupid) even with a copyright, it seems like Google can take it as their own ("royalty-free", "publish", "distribute"). I'm no lawyer, but it kinda sounds like that to me. --TalkPeople of Antioch 14:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
No way, Anja - Google doesn't have an own bookmarking thing, so that can't be. PoA, read that section on Wikipedia again poke | talk 16:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh, pfft. X( When did that thing get there. I want to look at that ToS again later. --TalkPeople of Antioch 18:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
"When did that thing get there" - it's a wiki, you know how it works and how to find out when something has changed! :P poke | talk 18:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Don't bother looking. Google changed it already and credits the user with retaining the copright :) -- ab.er.rant User Ab.er.rant Sig.png 02:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Category reference[edit]

Just an FYI, that was a temporary measure until the Category tree extension gets installed, and it's surprising how everyone I asked before I added it had no problems with where I put it. --Wyn's Talk page Wyn 08:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I didn't notice you asking about this page so I thought it was created simply as an aid for guild page editors to figure out category subsets (and the table is helpful as an overview). -- ab.er.rant User Ab.er.rant Sig.png 08:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Deleting my userbox??[edit]

What is wrong with it and please help me correct it then instead of the cold, blunt tagging. What is not spelled correctly? --Silverleaf User_talk:Silverleaf 08:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall deleting any userbox recently, so... could you at least tell me the name of the page? -- ab.er.rant User Ab.er.rant Sig.png 08:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh I see. You mean "Category:Users who believe in paying it foreward"? There's also this: Category:Users who believe in paying it forward. The latter is spelled correctly, so I tagged the former for deletion. -- ab.er.rant User Ab.er.rant Sig.png 08:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 :). TY. I thought I tagged it for deletion a long time ago. --Silverleaf User_talk:Silverleaf 09:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

M.O.X. and G.O.X. size comparison[edit]

Too bad there is a hero flag right through MOX — Seru User Seru Sig2.png Talk 15:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Yea, I couldn't get him to stand still :) Stupid golem... -- ab.er.rant User Ab.er.rant Sig.png 06:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Ctrl +Shift + H doesnt get rid of hero flags? — Seru User Seru Sig2.png Talk 14:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
no, that only removes the HUD. poke | talk 14:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Really? i thought i removed everything. That's silly — Seru User Seru Sig2.png Talk 14:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Press "power" on your monitor to remove everything. :P poke | talk 14:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Click the flag icon on the compass, press ctrl+shift+h, and then place the flag, and it should be invisible. ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777(talk) 16:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Stand in front of GOX and type /attention and MOX will look at you, allowing for a clean picture. Sine he's a golem, there is no awkward "attention" stature. 74.129.68.132 00:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Abby?[edit]

Are you so famous that Daniel Dociu drew your portrait? XD - MORTUIЯUS 13:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Does my butt look big in that? :P -- ab.er.rant User Ab.er.rant Sig.png 01:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
No, it looks ok, feel reassured. And your tentacles are really nice too. Damn, I would never have imagined you were a Tannek... - MORTUIЯUS 08:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Babel[edit]

You're light years beyond en-4. I say change it to en-N. :D After all, it says "native level," not "native speaker." Gogogo! :D Kokuou 04:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and that's speaking as a linguist with Second Language Acquisition theory under his belt. ;) Kokuou 04:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Will do, thanks! :D -- ab.er.rant User Ab.er.rant Sig.png 04:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Going to WAR[edit]

And joining the community of lurker-sysops? calor (talk) 16:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Heard raving reviews about war and that it's toony and buggy. Maybe wait till a free trail is out before you buy? Besides...we donno wanna loose you just like that. --Silverleaf User Silverleaf sig.pngDon't assume, ask! 17:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
It's a slightly improved WoW clone. — Wolf User Great Darkwolf User Image paw.png 21:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
That would be very bad, Aber is not only the most productive community member, but useful in other ways too. We might even like him. Backsword 10:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I'd probably resign if I were to give up on this wiki, but I suspect that I'll still be dropping by once in a while until GW2 comes out. But I'm still managing to resist the temptation so far :D As for bugs... from what I'm hearing from my guildies, it's been a really smooth ride, including during the beta and the early access, except for a few having some login issues. Yea, it's toony like WoW, but if you look at the Mythic interview, they'll declare that their "toony" look comes straight from Games Workshop, so.... ;) But regardless, I find Warhammer lore fascinating, and their tome of knowledge sounds wonderfully flavourful. As for it being a WoW clone Wolf, that misconception is lost when you watch ppl play RvR and PvP right from level 1. It's more a DAoC clone/improvement than WoW clone. -- ab.er.rant User Ab.er.rant Sig.png 14:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Rather don't like to see you go to a toony MMORPG. --Silverleaf User Silverleaf sig.pngDon't assume, ask! 16:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Personal attack[edit]

This constitutes a personal attack by Armond. What do I do next?--Wealedout 03:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Best to report at the noticeboard. Unless there is another option that Aber knows of. --User Wandering Traveler Oie User Wandering Traveler Sig2.png Wandering Traveler 03:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)