User talk:Aiiane/Resolved

From Guild Wars Wiki

Contents 1 redirects 2 Reverting the delete 3 Redirects 4 Your old sig image 5 Revert 6 RFA 7 Block 8 GWW:NPA 9 Not enough edits 10 GuildWiki and You... 11 redundant redundancy 12 Speedy delete 13 Holding sway... 14 Salvage kit 15 Help 16 Bad timing, but... 17 Bah beat me to it. 18 Your signature pic 19 Deleted image 20 Err hi :) 21 Banning policy 22 Untited 23 Image File Size 24 Request for comment 25 Template:NPC infobox 26 Questions 27 About you're comment on Readems page 28 template request 29 revisions 30 Regarding Category_talk:Unofficial_terms 31 A question 32 Formatting Talk Pages 33 I do not want you to resign as Sysop 34 About our guild description 35 Inactive 36 eww it's a troll 37 I would appreciate your input into the discussion 38 you are a moderator? 39 DON'T FEED THE TROLLS!!! 40 I love you Aiiane 41 Nomination 42 GG 43 Admin Policy Change 44 [12] 45 Raptaz, Raptaaz and Eloc/Lush Issues 46 http://wiki.guildwars.com/index.php?title=Guild_Wars_Wiki_talk%3AElections%2Fdraft_B&diff=701121&oldid=698925 47 Admin names 48 Arbcom: Readem 49 Not that I care 50 History 51 "An Apology" Removal? 52 Thank You 53 Ping 54 Questions about Bureaucrat 55 Hey Aiiane, some help here? 56 Pink 57 Question 58 Grammar 59 Unanimous? 60 Draft E 61 Re: Image uploading 62 Was just wondering... 63 Block question 64 Changing the Guild 65 Revenge of the Falcon 66 Need quick attention! 67 Archiving

redirects

Please see Guild Wars Wiki:Formatting/Redirects -FireFox 02:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I did, however most of those that I'm tagging aren't ones that I would consider as useful, hence the reason in the added tag - ones that would actually see use I'm leaving alone. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 02:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Mark of rodgort is a good example of a page that clearly shouldn't be tagged -FireFox 02:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, my mistake on that one, rhythms are bad when it comes to wiki editing. Going to go back and double check on some of the others. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 02:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, went back and did a couple of RVs - but (note to self) still need to tag a lot of them as the proper form of redirect. On a side note, that policy is still under discussion, is it not? (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 02:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

most of the points made there have been considered "semi-official" for quite a while and were also used back on guildwiki -FireFox 02:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

That's what I thought, just wanted to check that it hadn't been made completely official and someone forgot to untag it, because the talk page was a bit unclear in that regard. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 02:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Reverting the delete

I'd strongly recommend that you not revert an admin arbitrarily like that. You asked me a question, and before I even responded, you had already decided to over-turn me on a cleanup edit. Not a content edit. Your understanding of the policy is incorrect, as I pointed that out on my talk page (and I'll continue that discussion there), but I am here to suggest to you more patient in the case of conflict. The article is not gone, it's in the history books and any admin can bring it back. Anyways, I'd like to see how "shadow stepping" is a misspelling. --Karlos 04:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I reverted it because not only did the deletion not make sense, but it didn't even follow standard deletion procedures - last I looked, even sysops weren't supposed to speedily delete things that did not meet speedy deletion criteria. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 11:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

This deletion is controversial, and should not have been speedied - it was right to revert it. The deletion policy states that to delete something, the deletion tag must have been there fore 3 days, or the deletion must be uncontested. There was no delete notice, it is contested, and it doesn't meet any of the speedy deletion criteria. Ale_Jrb (talk) 11:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Redirects

I wanted to flag this to you, as you've been involved in some of the related delete tags. Please see talk:W skills for further discussion on redirects and my arguments for not deleting this type of abbreviation redirect. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Your old sig image

is stil in use on dozens of pages. Would you mind changing them all to use the new image? -- (gem / talk) 21:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

All I can say is... without a bot, ugh. I'd rather just have a red link. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 22:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

That's not a lot of work to do manually. If you want to, I can do it for you too. It's really just 'click edit', 'copy-paste to notepad', 'replace all [[Image:Aiiane-a.gif]] with [[Image:User Aiiane-a.gif|Go to Aiiane's Talk page]]', 'copy-paste back to wiki', 'save', 'open next page', 'click edit', etc. -- (gem / talk) 05:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

As mentioned here, doing that would unnecessarily ping a lot of people with 'new messages' notices. For now, I've just removed the deletion tag. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 11:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Revert

I heartily disagree with your censoring of Talk:Battle Lion. I agree that it can be construed as a personal attack (although it looks like standard pvp edrama), but it did not pose an ongoing threat to the user, and thus should not be removed. -Auron 22:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

My mistake, I agree that policy says it should stay - the handling portion of npa slipped my mind. I see you've already rv'd it, so I suppose it's taken care of. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 22:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't rv it... I was busy posting on your talk page. *checks article history* -Auron 22:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I guess my day at work was more tiring than I thought. Apparently my brain saw the RC log of you adding the above comment to my page titled "revert" and assumed it was a revert of the page in question. o.o (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 22:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Anyhow, I rv'd it. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 22:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Long days at work ftw :P -Auron 22:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Personally, though, I'd say "typical PvP edrama" tends to fall under NPA, even if it's "typical" - it's hardly something we need on the wiki. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 22:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Makes the day a little more interesting though. It has to be said. But I agree, we certainly don't want the floodgates of edrama opened up here. --Lemming64 23:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

RFA

I've nominated you for a sysop position per the guidelines at GWW:RFA. Please indicate a clear acceptance or refusal of the nomination. You've consistently been a trustworthy contributor, and I believe you would be good for the position. —Tanaric 21:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment, I'm a bit busy, just saw the notification email, but I'll try to fill out the proper section(s) sometime in the near future. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 21:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Block

Isn't the term "to block" or rather "cannot be blocked" in the skill description obvious enough? The notes you have added to Warrior's Cunning (and which was copied by User:Wongba on Way of the Fox) should be placed in either the block-article or the hit-article. Can you tell me why you want those notes added to these skills? --  (CoRrRan / talk) 21:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

i only added for sake of consistency. i don't really care whether it stays or goes, as long as it is the same on all. --VVong|BA 21:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response Wongba! --  (CoRrRan / talk) 21:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

As I see it, the Notes section for skills is designed provide a quick reference for issues that an individual might want to consider when utilizing (or facing) a given skill. The notes I added wouldn't really fit very well into the Block article, as they're not really specific to blocking (and wouldn't be nearly as much of an on-hand guide), likewise with hit. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 23:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

GWW:NPA

Just wanna know which part please.--§ Eloc § 03:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, let's see *scrolls through*...:

Editors should be civil when stating disagreements.

...

Additionally, editors are strongly discouraged from using profanity in comments to other contributors.

...

Frequently, the best way to respond to an isolated personal attack is not to respond at all. Debates can become stressful for some editors, who may occasionally overreact.

...

If you feel that a response is necessary and desirable, you should leave a polite message on the other user's talk page. Do not respond on a talk page of an article; this tends to escalate matters. Likewise, it is important to avoid becoming hostile and confrontational yourself, even in the face of abuse. When possible, try to find compromise or common ground regarding the underlying issues of content, rather than argue about behavior. If you are too angry to respond without violating this policy, consider taking a short break from the wiki, or contact an admin.

I believe those are the high points. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 04:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm "an editor, who may occasionally overreact".--§ Eloc § 04:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Then it's all the more important to pay attention to that 4th quote. :) (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 04:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Not enough edits

User:NieA7 has over 100 edits in the Guild Wars WIki namespace, and those count, afaik. Did you just check main namespace, or did I miss something? - anja 17:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Odd, when I pulled up the contribs log for that namespace it didn't give me any results. Must have been stuck on a weird offset or something. Go ahead and remove the strikeout, or I'll remove it when I get back from lunch. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 17:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed it. :) - anja 17:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

GuildWiki and You...

I wanted to discuss your comment on the GWW:USER talk page that you are SO tired of the argument that because it has worked on GuildWiki it would be good for Guild Wars Wiki. There are a few points to discuss here:

1. There are general issues that every wiki has to deal with, such as how to deal with open proxies, how to balance server load, how to deal with bots spamming links to gay websites in article. In this regard, I think Wikipedia is our best role-model to look up to. Simply because they are the oldest and most tested wiki out there. If it's been done, they'd know about it.
2. There are specific issues to being a wiki documenting an online game. These include (in my opinion, and are not limited to), the way the content should be layed out and presented and the way the user base should be managed. In this regard, Guildwiki is our BEST resource. It is, without question (and I know some GWOnline people won't admit that, and I hope you're not one of them) THE best online wiki for an online game and obviously for GuildWars. So, it sets the standard for most of the things we are trying to do. The majority of the contributors and the internal workings of how to do things were copied from there, whether we wish to admit that or not.
3. There are things specific to our situation that we have to figure out. Our relationship with ANet here is different than any other GW wiki out there. There are different legal rammifications to certain things we do here being hosted on ANet's servers vs Gravewit's servers.

This is how I see it. There are things we can learn from Wikipedia, from GuildWiki and things we should not learn from either. On the issues of formatting, content presentation and user management, I agree that GuildWiki is a VERY good example to follow. You can't really argue with success. It doesn't mean we have to follow their example verbatim, but it would be hard to claim that their way doesn't work. --Karlos 17:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

You missed my point with that comment. I'm not arguing that their way doesn't work, I'm arguing that it's not the only way that can work - and that I'm tired of the argument that because its done on one of those sites, that's the way it should be done here, without other supporting logic. By all means, reference previous history with how such things have worked on other sites - but don't leap directly from "it worked there" to "that's the way it needs to be here". (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 17:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The point is, if it's somethign we CAN learn from GWiki (like, say, quest layout), then the fact that it was used on GWiki, the most successful and influential wiki out there is in and of itself justification. It would be nice for the person quoting GWiki to also show their rationale for doing things in a certain way, but in the end, the fact that this practice is well established in GWiki is a strong argument in and of itself. --Karlos 17:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

A strong argument that it works, yes. A strong argument that it's the only method that works, no. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 17:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. --Karlos 21:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

redundant redundancy

LOL ... so, you got something against the use of redundant repetition? :-)

Although, editing someone else's post on a talk page seems inapropriate to me. While I fully acknowledge it was poor sentence structure and faulty use of the english language - and I don't believe it's technically written as policy - it still rubs me wrong to see anyone editing someone else's talk-page posting. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I keep a personal rule to myself only to edit talk pages if it seems to be a typo and I'm at least 99% sure it won't change the meaning or content away from what was intended. When in doubt I'd much rather leave something difficult to read on a page but preserve whatever intent the user had, than change it. However, that particular edit it seemed rather clear what you were trying to convey, and my head sort of spun the first time I read through it. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 18:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I never can resist the right mouse click on misspelled words (FF has that nifty spell checker for forms...) and now I really want to click on inapropriate in your comment Barek... *tries to constrain his ring finger* --  (CoRrRan / talk) 18:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Wut? I cee nutheeng rong wiht mie speling of "inapropriate"!  ;-D --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I have a spelling checker,

It came with my PC;

It plainly marks four my revue

Mistakes I cannot sea.

I've run this poem threw it,

I'm sure you're please too no,

It's letter perfect in it's weight,

My checker tolled me sew.

- Thulsey - talk 02:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

LOL! -- ab.er.rant 09:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete

A speedy delete on a newly moved guild page (redirect) is almost always a bad idea. I've learned from experience (seeing old admins do the same) They almost always come up again quite fast ;) Wait a bit so the user has time to see the change, and you don't have to do things twice :) - anja 18:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll keep the advice in mind - although I think also leaving a note on the creating user's talk page would help as well. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 18:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Yea, that would probably help, if they get a talk page notice like we do. :) - anja 18:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Anons do get talk page notices. The only thing to keep in mind on anon notices is that if it's a dynamic IP, the first user may leave without viewing the talk page - then later a second user will get the note and be totally confused. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

There's a special note on the bottom of anon IP talk pages to address that concern/confusion, Barek. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 18:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't think they got talk page notices. Should keep that about dynamic IPs in mind too. And sorry for spamming your talk page all the time Aiiane :P - anja 18:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Holding sway...

Did you really read all that talk page to the end? Did I say admin powers should hold sway over users? Are you sure I said that? --Karlos 23:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Trust me, I've read both that talk page and others in exquisite detail. While I used verbatim certain elements of the language you did, I was not necessarily basing my vote on anything you explicitly stated. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 23:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I know you well enough to "trust you." I want to know why you said what you said. You do not have to explain yourself if you don't want to, however, I feel it's unfair to paint this as something I said when I hvae said the exact opposite. I said admins should try their best to make it clear they do NOT have any sway, but that they should also be mindful of the fact that DO have sway over what others thinks. How can you interpret that as "Admins should exercise power and sway over regular users"? --Karlos 00:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

My statement was not an interpretation of the line you quoted above, thus my answer to "how can you interpret..." would be that I wasn't. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 00:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

---

I am wondering if you still feel the same way about admin powers on this wiki after reading this? And if we approached you to add your e-mail to that mailing list, would you agree? --Karlos 11:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

To your first question, yes, I do - I see nothing on the topics list that's more than tangentially relevant to user discussions, except possibly the bans topic, and mostly discussion with ArenaNet via technical aspects of the wiki. I think it's quite possible to distance that from the actual content-based operation of the wiki and decisions thereof. As for me personally, I'd be rather ambivalent to such an offer - I don't see it as a "right" of a sysop nor do I see it as something that absolutely shouldn't be allowed to exist, but rather as simply another means of communication. If I decide to discuss something about a policy I'm proposing with another editor over MSN or the like, as they're a friend, is it necessary to regulate that we subsequently post our MSN conversation on the wiki? I think not. At the same time, I think that any decision regarding content that comes out of private communication should be justified and potentially discussed publicly as well, but there's no reason why there can't be (and very little ability to restrict) private discussion. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 11:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I cannot disclose the details, but I can assure you (you can check with Biro) that there was an instace of content proposed to be added to the wiki which a few admins shot down and an other instance of content being removed from the wiki, which again, admins shot down and neither of which was listed in any detail in that list. And not for lack of effort by Rezyk. Do yo not see that as "power" and "sway"? --Karlos 11:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Those two instances aren't even the worst offenders to me. Of course, I am also unable to disclose anything more. Treat this as an affirmation of what Karlos is stating. —Tanaric 20:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Then I would say that's a fault of the list and the manner in which it has been operated, given the views which I and others (yourself included, Tanaric) have expressed on the role of sysops here. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 20:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

My last message to the list follows:

Gaile Gray wrote:

> I'd like to keep this sort of discussion private, for obvious reasons.

I don't understand the desire for privacy in this situation. This is a community concern, not one that has to do with ArenaNet involvement in particular. I don't think using the mailing list for this issue is appropriate.

As others have mentioned, I proposed a "no open proxies" policy to help prevent this sort of abuse from happening in the future. Unfortunately, the community seems mostly against such a policy. If they wish to allow said abuse, I don't think it's our place to circumvent their decision.

More particularly, even if ArenaNet staff wanted to assist, there's not a lot you can do. This is primarily a sysop concern -- J.Kougar should continue to be blocked whenever he makes himself known, and that's about the extent of it. I'd like to see us preemptively block known open proxies to make this sort of abuse significantly more difficult, but again, that's not something ArenaNet can really help us with.

I believe the list has been abused. I do not wish to see this occur again. That said, I think the list has its merits, too. Recently, ArenaNet approached the list members with an idea that, while neat and something most of our contributors probably would have liked/supported, was nevertheless horribly destructive and unwiki. Most of the list members shot the idea down. I hope beyond hope that they don't actually go through with the plan. However, the idea is such that they cannot advertise it on the wiki before doing it -- they either have to do it or not do it. Without the list, they may have simply gone through with it without any input from us, and that would have been a Bad Thing.

Personally, I'd prefer the list be shrunk to bureaucrats-only. Sysops are not systemically required to be wise. Bureaucrats are, more or less. ArenaNet could then use the list for issues that directly relate to their own non-consensus-seeking actions -- our bureaucrat team is more than capable of providing sound advice. Our sysop team initially was too, for the most part, as they were appointed by GuildWiki standards; however, theoretically speaking, that is no longer the case. This is of course not a slight against you or any of the new sysops -- I think most would give sound advice to ArenaNet. I'm merely commenting on the system itself. I have no problem with a sysop being appointed that has no idea what's good for the wiki in general here, because that's not a sysop's job. It's a bureaucrat job. Take the pressure off the sysops by removing them from the list.

—Tanaric 20:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

This discussion should be moved to a more appropriate place, since I feel it is pretty important to all members of the wiki. --Xeeron 20:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

And perhaps so my inbox doesn't get pinged every 5 minutes. ;) (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 21:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I thikn the Rampaging Ntouka thread is a better place to "discuss" the issue, I was only bringing it to her attention. --Karlos 22:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Salvage kit

Hey, when you moved that Char salvage kit to Charr salvage kit you actually overwrote a full & complete article :P When I went to look to see if there was a Charr salvage kit I saw the old one which you moved the new one on top of :S How do we fix it? --trekie9001 21:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't overwrite any articles - the other article has a different capitalization (I moved it to Charr salvage kit, the full article is Charr Salvage Kit). In fact, the version I moved has been updated to redirect to the full and correct article. So no fixing needed. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 21:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, OK. Well, no worries then. I'm still kind of new to editing wiki's so I didn't really know. --trekie9001 21:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Help

User:Eloc Jcg/Builds/EW's GvG build Go here and scroll all the way to the bottom, how do I remove the ]]'s at the end of the one box?--§ Eloc § 20:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem isn't with that page, it's with the template you're using (User:Eloc Jcg/Templates/Attributes) - you need to take the [[ ]]'s out of it, and just add them to the template arguments instead, otherwise, if you try to specify two attributes ([[A]] or [[B]]), you end up with ([[[[A]] or [[B]]]]. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 20:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

How come I'm able to hide the first one via <!-- --> but not the 2nd set?--§ Eloc § 22:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Because you're not actually hiding it, you're just making it so the [[ in the template takes the place of the one you commented out in the arguments. The way the wiki processes templates and the like, you can't just mess with it via HTML-based comments. I've already mentioned how it should be fixed above: move the brackets out of the template and into the values you're passing as arguments. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 22:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, new topic. I want a pic of Balthazar on my page that's sorta like your Dwayna. I wanna use the Concept Art of Balthazar though and still have it align left. How do I do that?--§ Eloc § 22:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Not sure exactly what you're asking. If you have the image you want to use, you should be able to simply use the same code I did, but swap the image names. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 22:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Bad timing, but...

Please take a look at Guild_Wars_Wiki_talk:Policy#Policies and guidelines. --Xeeron 21:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I had seen it already. However, the fact that it is listed as a policy, lays out certain specific criteria, and is currently accepted as policy (if debated whether it should remain as such) is what I based my actions on. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 21:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, what I am saying there (among many other stuff) is: It does not forbid his user sig. --Xeeron 21:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

And what I'm arguing is that while the wording may be poor (and hence Guild Wars Wiki:Projects/Policy Cleanup), the intent of the policy is clear, and is what is commonly accepted as of current. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 21:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm if that is your stance, we do have a problem here. --Xeeron 22:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

And I have no issues with clarifying the wording of the policy, although I think given the current discussion regarding changing the intent of the policy it would make more sense to reword an updated version - however, if that discussion is going nowhere it might make sense to try to fast-track an update to the existing wording. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 22:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I saw that you noted this conversation on GWW:NOTICE (which is fine, it's something that should be brought up), I should note that I'm basing my interpretation both on the policy's expressed intent, and also on the original discussion regarding that portion of the policy (see Guild_Wars_Wiki_talk:Sign_your_comments/Archive1#Exception) and the consensus there. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 22:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, lets just say I disagree with a lot here, so please let me ask you to stop deleting those riven sig pictures (seems he has stopped uploading them anyway) for now till this matter is clarified. --Xeeron 22:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The sigs could be deleted as duplicates as long as the first one remains --Lemming64 22:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

As Xeeron has mentioned on GWW:NOTICE, however, we do have an issue with speedy criteria in regards to repeat enforcement of policy violations or the like, so I agree with him in this case that it makes sense to postpone deletions until the matter is resolved. I do plan, however, to do my best to make sure such a resolution is arrived at as quickly as possible, this isn't something I want to see stalled out. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 22:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Bah beat me to it.

The next one is so mine! c'mon Riven6 --Lemming64 22:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, next one is yours. - anja 22:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Riven9 is already in the pipelines! --  (CoRrRan / talk) 22:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Hah, wrong! Like this name? I Love Aiiane 23:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Aww, you no love me? I Love Aiiane Even More 23:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Your signature pic

I just realized your signature pic is 20px. --Rein Of Terror (talk · contributions) 02:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Lol! Busted! :P -- ab.er.rant 03:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, one of these days I'll get around to making a 19px version. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 03:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I suppose I have a few spare minutes tonight, since it's been brought up. ---> (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 04:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I tried to help, but I guess that isn't appreciated around here, sigh. On a sidenote, funny how two of the people that participate(d) in the crusade against me violate the same policy themselves. Oh, speaking of which, User:Kurd, who I told his sig is in violation of the policy, still hasn't fixed his. BAN PL0X. Funny, considering he was the one that started this all. The irony. Love this wiki, really. Sigh 04:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

---> Fun fact, creating a new account only takes 20 seconds 04:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Fun fact, nobody gives a shit. GTFO and stop wasting everyone's time, including your own. -Auron 04:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Lmao, Auron! Aww, you're so cute! Yes! 67.159.44.59 04:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh and btw Auron, save yourself the effort -- I don't intend to stop this anytime soon. You see, I can do this perfectly fine while AB'ing or while doing PvE stuff etc. I'm not wasting any time! 83.170.97.219 04:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I should start using my sig icon again, what do you guys think? Image:User Hai sig.png 05:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Btw, I retract what I just said about User:Kurd, he apparently did fix it recently, I missed that. Anyway, the irony remains. Image:User Hai sig.png 05:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I think I'm done for the day. Aiiane, better sleep well tonight, I predict a busy day for you tomorrow! ;-) Image:User Hai sig.png 05:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

You're apparently still missing the whole point about why alot of other users were against you. You apparently have not realised how different their reactions and your reaction were when being told that their sig icon is too big. You became very confrontational, and then proceeded to being disruptive and adamant. But then again, your current behavior is almost exactly like certain other users that have come and gone, so you're not likely to listen to explanations and discussion for resolution. To you, it just has to be your way. -- ab.er.rant 05:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Deleted image

Aiiane, I'm assuming you are responsible for deleting ?

This image has not been used in any signature of mine, it was uploaded for use in my user space (hence it's not named User Riven sig.png or similar, but User Riven icon.png). Please do your homework, randomly deleting valid content is not expected from an admin I believe.

You will probably bring up the argument that I uploaded that image while bypassing a block, which is obviously correct. While blocking the ip or account that I use for bypassing a block is ofcourse expected and perfectly fine, deleting valid content added this way, is not.

If you are not responsible for the deletion of this image, then I request that you take your responsibility as an admin, and find out who did do this, since the person responsible for this deletion overstepped his authority and should be informed of this.

I will proceed to upload this image again, assuming no further "mistakes" will be made on the end of any admins. --Riven 18:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

06:20, 31 July 2007 Barek (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Image:User Riven icon.png" (GWW:NPA violation in image upload summary : I do not know the exact circumstance of this particular deletion but clearly something was up. I think the argument that you uploaded it whilst bypassing a block causes you to lose all of the higher ground in this. --Lemming64 18:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Lemming. In the image upload summary, I wrote: "This is not a signature icon, so fuck off." I don't see how that constitutes as a personal attack, since it was obviously not directed at anyone in particular, but a general statement. --riven 18:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from making general statements of that nature in future upload summaries. It isn't particularly friendly general or not. I still believe anything you do or upload whilst banned is forfeit though. --Lemming64 18:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Err hi :)

Trying to figure out how to make my sig image revert to my talk page, like yours does.. and well I accidentally pressed on one of the REV links at your image page. but I'm not sure if i did any damage.. sorry.. my mistake :) I'm still new and was wondering why your page looks like it worked and mine didn't, using the same steps you did. It would be great to set my mind at ease, as I am sweating right now from my minor mistake? If I broke something please forgive me :) Laura Brinklow 00:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about the (rev) thing, it's no big deal; you just reverted to a previous version, which is easily fixed.

As for making your sig redirect to your talk page, add #REDIRECT [[User talk:Laura Brinklow]] to the top of your sig's page, that should do it. Cheers, --Dirigible 00:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you kind sir. *removes load off shoulders* Much appreciated advice, and I realized after I had made this mistake, that my sig image page was actually edited correctly :/ Laura Brinklow 00:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Banning policy

What's the banning policy on GWW? I have seen this user trolling too much, and he is getting worse everyday. There are even complains about his behavior on his user talk page. Lightblade 08:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Looking at his contributions, none of them are constructive. Lightblade 08:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

For someone to be blocked they would have to break one of these policies. Generally people have only been blocked so far for vandalism and personal attacks. I don't see anything Readem has said to make banning a consideration though. - BeX 08:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I consider these to be personal attacks. He may not be personally assaulting someone, but he's definitely provoking it, which I think is worse than a direct assault.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

Lightblade 19:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

You say that there are complaints about his behavior on his talk page, but I'm not seeing them. Could you link me a diff? (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 19:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Only a couple of those examples could be considered a direct personal attack and a relatively mild one, however I do think a warning is appropriate. Generally it seems it is more of a brash posting style more than anything, however if it continues it could easily escalate and get him into trouble. --Lemming 19:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is 1 and...the second one is from me. Lightblade 21:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's another one. This one is uploaded by Readem himself and it's part of his user page. Now he's just asking for people to flame him.

Lightblade 01:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

more Lightblade 01:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a note, if you're going to continually add to this page, could you please mark your edits as minor to avoid spamming my inbox. Thanks. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 01:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

"I add because I can"~Readem, yes, I can also behave like Readem. Lightblade 03:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you too busy to do anything? Or are you just don't want to do anything? I can take this to another admin. Lightblade 04:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Actions taken in haste are often regretted. I'm still considering your comments as well as those of others, and if you'd like, you're welcome to bring other sysops into the discussion. (One of them is already here.) (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 04:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

And another has been following this thread, even though his actual posts in the wiki are infrequent nowadays  ;-) --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Lightblade if you continue your high and mighty routine I don't think any admin is going to listen to you. -- Scourge 04:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Lightblade if you would like another admin to review it please go to Guild Wars Wiki:Admin noticeboard. - BeX 04:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

...if you are trying to ban me, then why did you put the Suicide threat here O.-? Also, those were poor examples against me...one was me talking to myself...another completely nonsensical...and even one that was impersonal. The most I have done so far, has been arguing a different point of view. Perhaps I have said you were wrong, but you are seriously overreacting about this matter. Torp is just annoying, getting even his poor alliance members to spam me. If you consider me unreasonable for ignoring him, go ahead. I can only listen to so much dramatic BS ig, before I get srsly annoyed. Just my say on the matter. Readem Sorry, I'll stop trolling now. 20:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Here Aiiane, I'll save you some trouble =). Readem Promote My Ban Here 21:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

This is the exact reason why people don't like you. You mock people and say sarcastic things. And not just a little, it seems every other comment you make is sarcastic. This include having the ban thing on your sig. Lightblade 01:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

It's fine to bring potential violations of policy to my page, but please don't bicker between each other on my talk page. If you really must, do it on your own talk pages, but it'd be better to simply live and let live unless there's something truly obstructing your existence on the wiki. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 04:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Untited

i don't care if you ban me i will just use the other wiki its better any way. also my comment was constructive it was a commentary on how arena net hasn't added controls for the npc that love to run into mobs and die. i have had to do the Thunderhead Keep, Nolani Academy missions more then 3 times over because the npc would run in and kill them selves this was in no way "vandalism" it was more of a you guys need to fix this because it makes your game worse. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:75.165.111.62 .

Commentary of such nature belongs on talk pages, not on the pages describing the update notes themselves. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 04:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

then why did you give me the warning of vandalism if it was just in the wrong place gg

Image File Size

Thanks, that'd be awesome; none of the images are currently on GW Wiki. N E R Mo A Rt P W Me —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pae (talk • contribs) 10:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC).

It appears that using these kind of links doesn't work. I get an "access denied" message. --  (CoRrRan / talk) 11:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow! GuildWiki is checking referrers to save bandwidth. poke | talk 11:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Done and available here: [7]. Average image size after conversion was 25kb (JPEG quality factor 60). No loss of quality visible to the human eye, pretty much. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 17:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, could've sworn that I had added the tildes before posting >.<. Thanks for your help Aiiane ^_^. I can see where the quality degraded, but it's far better than saving it as a .jpg in Paint. GuildWiki checking referrers is probably the from the Wikia move, heh, since I'm pretty sure that it didn't do that before... ~ Image:GeckoSprite.gif Pae 20:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment

Maybe you want to take a look at User_talk:Auron#Signature_GWW:SIGN and give the discussion a little wiki spirit. ~ dragon legacy 09:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I've read that conversation (there's very little on the talk pages of most users who take part in active policy debates that I haven't read), and I see nothing I would want to add to it that hasn't already been said. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 09:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:NPC infobox

So why protect is when it has no history of ever being vandalized?--§ Eloc § 19:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Because it's included in so many pages that a single edit to it slows down the wiki noticeably for a number of minutes . See Guild Wars Wiki talk:Community portal#Protection_of_templates. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 19:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Questions

Question 1 being: is there any sort of policy on archiving talk pages? It becomes rather difficult to discuss something when anything one says about it is immediately archived[8] [9].

Question 2 being: does policy disallow "'discussions' of this nature" and does that warrant immediate archiving of any such discussion and any discussion referencing such discussions? --Edru viransu 03:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

1: See GWW:USER#User_talk_page_restrictions for the full sum of policy regarding archiving at this time.

2:Any discussion which violates GWW:NPA is disallowed. Specifically, "Comments should not be personalized and should be directed at content and actions rather than people." If you wish to express your opinions regarding individuals who happen to be part of the ArenaNet staff, you should probably contact their personnel department or other such individuals in managerial positions. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 03:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

How would I go about contacting such an individual? Defiant Elements 05:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind. I found the necessary information on Readem's talk page. Thanks anyway. Defiant Elements 06:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

About you're comment on Readems page

"No, quite simply, the discussion of whether Izzy and/or Gaile are good or not at their jobs is not something which belongs on this wiki. It's not a matter of one viewpoint or the other, the entire discussion simply doesn't belong here, which is one of the reasons why it conflicts directly with policy." So, the whole point of the wiki is to kiss anets ass and constantly praise whatever they do then? Izzy asked for feedback, and that is what he is getting. Regardless if it isnt what he expected.--Atlas Oranos 11:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

There is the option of providing feedback on content, not people. Backsword 11:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh ok, so we cant comment on someone's job on the game then. Wonderful.--Atlas Oranos 12:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, people have given feedback on content. I have not seen a comment by Izzy on one of his undepowered/overpowered sections in awhile. So, we cant say anything about how he does his job because it will hurt his feelings?--Atlas Oranos 12:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Criticism is okay. The way it presents itself is not. ~ dragon legacy 14:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

If you really feel the need to give negative criticism about the game, why are you playing it?--§ Eloc § 19:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

This is not about weather Izzy's feelings are hurt or not. This is about an over-riding policy that we have on the wiki. Just because Izzy is a dev, does not mean his isn't protected like every other user by the No Personal Attacks policy. The wiki is not here to kiss anets ass, or here to dev-bash. It is here to document the game. --Lemming 20:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Very well put. The point of a wiki is to document the game. Talk pages can be used to discuss better ways to do that, and of course personal opinion comes into play there; but bashing people in any way shouldn't be and is not tolerated here. I believe Aiiane even mentioned taking it to a forum, which is really the place for that kind of criticism, anyway. That is in no way kissing posterior areas, but rather sticking to agreed-upon conduct, regardless of who the criticism concerns. - Thulsey - talk 02:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anywhere is appropriate for that kind of criticism. I think they should just keep it to themselves. "If you have nothing nice to say, then don't say anything at all."--§ Eloc § 04:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Constructive criticism has its place, that place is simply not this wiki. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 04:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I feel it has its place here. Izzys talk page is really inviting it. However, just as Lemming pointed out: Constructive critisism must stay withhin the limits of GWW:NPA, just as every other edit on the wiki. --Xeeron 09:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

There are far too many idiots/unskilled players that feel the need to make themselves heard on izzy's talk page for it to ever be effective. It was nice back when none of them knew about it, but now it's just a retard fest. -Auron 10:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Does that matter, though? Isaiah mentioned he's not feeling like reading the wiki, so I would guess the great majority of those pages (all the ones about underpowered and overpowered skills, for example) are not going to be read. I don't even think we should make the update discussion page within his user space anymore; I doubt he's going to read all of that, either. So if a random person appears demanding Mending to be nerfed...He's likely not going to be heard anyway. Erasculio 10:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Does it matter? I'm pretty sure the retardfest is why Izzy doesn't feel like reading the wiki. It's definitely not something I'd do after a hard day's work. -Auron 11:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I think Izzy has given up here on the under/over powered skills place on his user space. I even made a userbox for it on my user page.--§ Eloc § 16:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I'd politely request that you keep user boxes off my talk page, as they're distracting. (If possible, could you edit it into a template link or some such?) Thanks. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 17:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I understand, I suppose I misunderstood... I can't really see why I thought that was ok in the first place. Though readem does make valid points he doesnt keep his criticism attack free.--Atlas Oranos 02:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

template request

Can you add a template for main article? Just like the main tag used on wikipedia. I don't know how to work the template thing. Lightblade 09:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The code for the wikipedia version is as follows:

:<div class="noprint">''Main article{{#if:{{{2|}}}|s}}: [[{{{1}}}|{{{l1|{{{1}}}}}}]]{{#if:{{{2| }}} |{{#if:{{{3|}}}|, | and }}[[{{{2}}}|{{{l2|{{{2}}}}}}]]}}{{#if:{{{3|}}} |{{#if:{{{4|}}}|, |, and }}[[{{{3}}}|{{{l3|{{{3}}}}}}]]}}{{#if:{{{4|}}} |{{#if:{{{5|}}}|, |, and }}[[{{{4}}}|{{{l4|{{{4}}}}}}]]}}{{#if:{{{5|}}} |{{#if:{{{6|}}}|, |, and }}[[{{{5}}}|{{{l5|{{{5}}}}}}]]}}{{#if:{{{6|}}} |{{#if:{{{7|}}}|, |, and }}[[{{{6}}}|{{{l6|{{{6}}}}}}]]}}{{#if:{{{7|}}} |{{#if:{{{8|}}}|, |, and }}[[{{{7}}}|{{{l7|{{{7}}}}}}]]}}{{#if:{{{8|}}} |{{#if:{{{9|}}}|, |, and }}[[{{{8}}}|{{{l8|{{{8}}}}}}]]}}{{#if:{{{9|}}} |{{#if:{{{10|}}}|, |, and }}[[{{{9}}}|{{{l9|{{{9}}}}}}]]}}{{#if:{{{10|}}} |, and [[{{{10}}}|{{{l10|{{{10}}}}}}]]}}''{{#if:{{{11| }}}| (too many parameters in {{[[Template:main|main]]}})}}</div><noinclude> {{pp-template|small=yes}} {{template doc}} </noinclude>

Most of that can just be used as-is, the only thing that really needs to be changed is the documentation (since we don't use a templated documentation system).

Is there a particular place you were thinking of using this? I'm not really aware of any article that needs it. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 09:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

See Guide to PvE Lightblade 09:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

IMO (but you're welcome to work it otherwise), it'd be better to split things into appropriate subject pages (such as Target Calling) and make the actual guide a shorter page with links to further detail in those subject pages, rather than just splitting the guide across multiple pages. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 09:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Do I understand this correct that it shall just add a link to the main article? What about Main article, Main article/sub article, Main article/sub article2, ..? Then the link to the main article is added automatically.. And for articles with multiple main pages you can simply add links manually imo.. poke | talk 15:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

What's the template for?--§ Eloc § 22:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

revisions

Is it possible to delete these revisions from the history? one two Fall 02:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Due to their pornographic nature, I've granted this request. While the log of the vandalism edits will still appear in the page history, the content of those edits will not be visible to normal viewers. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 02:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :) Fall 02:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I knew there was a reason I didn't read fan fiction... --Lemming 02:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Category_talk:Unofficial_terms

You said knowledge was better than distaste. What does someone gain from knowing that someone just said, ""Yo momma so fat..." for gamers," (taken directly from one of these pages), to them? Dancing Gnome 08:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

They gain a better understanding of the attitude that person has towards them.

Consider this: say you visit a foreign country, and your guide in that country tells everyone whom she introduces you to that you suffer from mental retardation. Wouldn't you rather know that your guide is insulting you and that is why everyone in that country seems to treat you as if you were unintelligent, rather than just assuming that's their normal way of treating people? (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 08:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

A question

Can't some sort of policy be made that says something along the lines of: Providing that it isnt information that effects the functionlity of the wiki, or cause anything offensive, that users can be allowed to pick and chose what to delete off of their own user pages? Not just me, but now its User talk: Kalsion Having issues with the welcome being posted by eloc, kalsion deleting it, and eloc restoring it and telling him not to delete it.

I realize that I have caused a lot of trouble (Ive been following Eloc's talk page), and I really am sorry. I just kinda want to be left alone,and I get the feeling that there are other people like me. These automated welcomes by Eloc/Raptor/others seem to annoy a good many people.(Raptors was totally unneeded, especially.) Maybe they should be discarded all together.

Again, sorry for all the trouble I have caused.--Ryudo 04:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed earlier and the policies now clearly state that you can't delete anything but you can archive anything. -- (gem / talk) 15:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)\

Yes, thats correct Gem. Hence why I said "policy be made" not "policy that currently exists."--Ryudo 21:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

And my main message was that 'this has been discussed before and an agreement was reached'. Ofcourse you can restart discussion, but then you should create a policy draft or a policy change draft. -- (gem / talk) 21:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Formatting Talk Pages

I think you ignored [[10]] on [[11]] talk page. Specifically: "Users should avoid modifying existing comments and sections, unless it is to correct minor typos or sentence structure." If we all start posting all over the place in sections on talk pages wherever we choose the conversation will be very hard to follow and you will confuse people. Dancing Gnome 09:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Um, I didn't modify anyone's existing comment, I inserted my own. It's perfectly acceptable on the wiki and something that happens quite often. That's why we have indentation to show which comments are replying to which. The policy you quoted is referring to modifying the actual text of someone's comment, for instance if I changed what you wrong above to "I love chocolate chip cookies." (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 13:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I am under the impression indenation is used to signify when a change in a person's speech occurs. How are people to know when someone has said somethign if they said it in reply to a comment made at the top of the page? The natural order of the discussion is to move down the page, if I know I have read the first five posts then the sixth post is new. If there is no new post after the fifth one then there must be no new posts. But wait, someone has replied to a comment in the middle of three other posts above, but unless I look there, which I likely won't because I have already read them, I will not see that comment. Now the order of the conversation is disrupted. Dancing Gnome 15:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the natural order is for discussions to go from left to right, not moving down. So making an indentation right after an old message is accepted if the content is about said message, and it's what we do here on the wiki all the time (I do it too, for example). Erasculio 15:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it's quite common to respond the way Aiiane did, and it's not wrong in any way. You can always use diff links to read what was changed since you last checked the page. - anja 15:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Nothing bad with that, indentation ftw. It's commonly used that way. -- (gem / talk) 15:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't seem very logical and very disruptive to a flow to the conversation. It is far easier to see the most recent comments after the last one you read than it is to look on recent changes to track down posts made above the more recent conversation. All of a sudden you will have two separate discussions occurring in the same section, one with the most recent posts and one with posts above the most recent ones splitting progression all over the section so any newcomers who come along will see posts out of sequence in which they were made and it will be confusing if conflicts occur with comments made afterwards. If a reply is made in response to a specific comment you can say "in response to comment x made by person y" and if you really want to be specific you can quote them. The indentation would become further confusing when users post with wrong indentation like Anja did making her comments appear merged with Erasulio, showing even experienced wiki users have wrong indentation sometimes or when an indentation is reset, it is not often said <resetting indent> it is just done. Aiine has even said it at the top of this talk page, "Please add your response to a topic 'at the end of its respective section'. I admit I rarely see this kind of indentation, likely by nature of the indentation I miss it completely - which doesn't seem right when you can simply say, "in response to" rather than disrupting an already continued discussion. If I am wrong about this then this discussion would be more appropriate on the formatting page rather than continuing it here. Dancing Gnome 15:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

<