User talk:Wynthyst

[edit] Question

Is there a way to turn off the Discussion section on a Guild Page? To where no one can leave comments? Or do i hate to keep removing the comments made by people who just like to hate? Let me know. Thanks in Advance. Kelli 19:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

No, you can't turn it off. If you are having problems with trolls/vandals, post a notice on the Noticboard. -- Wyn talk 20:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I also think, that in regards to a comment you disagree with, you are not allowed to remove any posts. The only ones who are are the sysops and bcrats I think, and even then, only in extreme cases like racial remarks, and stuff that falls under a certain specific list of things. 42 - talk 02:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Hey Wyn

Are you around? I can't seem to find the page on how to make userboxes, I need to know how to change colors on them. Also, how does the new sig strike your fancy? -- Tha Reckoning 23:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Template:Userbox And it's easier on the eyes :D -- Wyn talk 23:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

You never told me you didn't like my last one D= -- Tha Reckoning 23:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Is there a place where the codes for colors are listed? -- Tha Reckoning 23:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

[1] that help? Simzy 23:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

[2]. NuVII 23:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Wiki color help -- Wyn talk 23:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Kk thanks guys -- Tha Reckoning 23:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit]  :D

This User Knows what happends when you try and run from wyn.

The occasion is right :D --Neil2250 00:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I think there is a typo... "happens" or "happened", don't think you can have both. --Neithan Diniem 02:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

lol i lawl'd at this one good job neil.Kelli 04:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Wiki guild page deleted

Our guild page (Knights of Mysterania ) has been deleted again. The first time I assumed that a former alliance party was taking revenge. So I restarted the page only to have it deleted again. Is vandal tagging it for deletion or did I miss something when I set it up? Apsco 13:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

You mean this page? ~Celestia 13:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

It might be because you're looking for Knights of Mysterania. Guild names here must follow in-game capitalization, which won't let you have the word "of" with a lower case "o", so it was moved to Knights Of Mysterania, or here, like Celestia said. ;) --★KOKUOU★ 13:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Man do I feel stupid :) Thanks Apsco 14:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Hey Wyn (part 2) aka I need to pick your brain

Wyn, I need to have you take a look at something I am working on, and "assist" with help if you can.

What I am trying to do is make up a template to standardize dialogue that is exactly the same on multiple NPCs. The ideas and notes and examples I have are on my sandbox page. Another problem I am having you will see when you get to the page. I have included page links to the pages being used as templates next to the spot showing what is roughly in each of them. Been getting punch drunk trying to figure this out, so they may be different. Either way, there should be enough there for you to see what I am trying to do. 42 - talk 08:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I've seen it and shuddered. Once again, you are inventing a solution to a nonexistent problem. Using complex templates for main article information is a real turn off to inexperienced users. -- Wyn talk 08:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Your template loop is caused by not actually having a template there, only calling the page it is on. User:42/Sandbox/NornNHPDialogue is NOT a template, but you are calling it like it is, same goes for User:42/Sandbox/NornInitDialogue. -- Wyn talk 08:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

This is what I think you are going for. It's a simple transclusion. -- Wyn talk 08:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

What you are doing is not so much creating templates, as creating subpages for transclusion. You have no variables that need to be filled in for each instance. While I understand what you are doing, once again, I don't get the why. The dialogue on these pages is already complete, so why reinvent how they are completed? You would simply be creating multiple subpages (as demonstrated in my sandbox) that would then replace text that is already there. I could understand it IF there was the possibility of that text changing in the future, and having to go and change each page separately would indeed be made much easier by simply changing the text on the subpages and have it be corrected simultaneously on each article page. The reality is, however, it is most unlikely that this text will be changed in the game, EVER. There is no reason for it to. Also, without visiting every article on bounty givers, I can't verify that every bounty giver has the same text. That would have to be checked and verified by visiting EVERY one of them. -- Wyn talk 08:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I have to call it a night, will take a closer look tomorrow. 42 - talk 08:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Wyn, I have re-edited my sandbox page, take another look. I have shown 4 different examples (Ogg, Ruven, Durdan, and Sorn) of NPC specific text that would need to be different on each page, and they are from many different map areas. Also, three of the examples listed at the bottom have no NPC page dialogue section text yet. The samples I have shown are what the standardized end result would look like. I am not quite done with the sandbox page, but you can check in a few.

It is not so much as the text would change, once it was put in for each specific page, but that is a part of needing the template, as each Norn talked to has a different text line specific to them. The template would allow people to enter it, and have the template do the formatting and add the icons where they are already in-game. 42 - talk 18:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

And the benefit of creating this "template" is easier than standardizing the formatting how? Indenting and bolding is simple, basic wiki coding, easily fixed by anyone (new or old), while the use of templates, often confuses new users. Again, I see you trying to find solutions to problems that simply do not exist, and in the end would mean a lot of work. Once again, I would like to ask you to just concentrate on completing one project before you move on to something else. I'm still waiting for your boss lists to be moved out of your sandbox into mainspace. While setting up dialogue initially (potentially for GW2W) might be easier with templates to begin with I see no benefit in doing it on GW now. Also, rather than discuss this only with me, you should have made a proposal on the NPC formatting page to see if ANYONE else feels the way you do. As it is, you are doing a lot of work on something that I highly doubt would be wanted by the rest of the community. If you have a standardized format you think this dialogue should be placed in, you should be proposing that and if consensus is reached approving that format THEN work out the formatting solution to achieve it (whether with a template, or by simply standardizing it in the formatting guideline). -- Wyn talk 20:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Another thing, we already have {{Offer dialog}}. Rather than creating multiple templates (one for each type of bounty giver) it might be easier to simply add an additional parameter that would change the to be whatever bounty image is needed. At least that would limit the number of templates people would need to learn to use. -- Wyn talk 20:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I already thought of using that template before reading this, and changed norn init to use it in the first chunk of text. This is not creating a different template for each type of bounty, this is intended only for the Norn NPCs. Their dialogue is identical, check my sandbox again. The only difference is character specific parts of the text. This is exactly like the infoboxes. They have the design, and the overall layout. Someone enters in what name the location is for, and a map pic, etc. This is the exact same thing, except that all the editor would enter is the specific dialogue that applies to that NPC. You are not going to use a different NPC infobox for a NPC that is in Pre-Searing Ascalon than you are for one in Post-Searing, or one in Fort Ranik. This is the same exact idea except for a dialogue section that is almost exactly the same on all the pages it would be used on, the only difference is the character specific text on each.

In effect, this "could" call the offer dialogue template as well. I am not opposed to that, and had actually considered using that to display the agree/disagree choices. I just don't know how to get the text entered by the editor to display back in the properly formatted layout. It would make more sense to make one call to one template instead of 3 different calls to the same template. If that template makes those calls is not the point, because that is "programmed" once. If all a person needs to do is enter the character specific text on each page into the template, instead of having to have what amounts to 3 different offer dialogue templates, it would be much easier on entry into the NPC pages.

I am not against using the offer dialogue template on the main "bounty Norn NPC dialogue" template, or for the first section. But that is the idea behind the template. The template provides the outline and the format, and all that is left is to put the specific text in, and have the template do the majority of the work. If a person still needs to hand enter the text that would be used in potentially 3 different offer dialogue templates, that actually makes it harder than just hand entering the format. Not that the offer dialogue is a bad design, it is just this template is designed to cover more than just that. I have even asked Dry to take a look at my idea, since judging by the history, he or she is the author of the offer D template.

The idea behind a template is to make use of something that is repeated on many pages, and make it so that, if it is the exact same thing, the template makes it easier to ensure that same thing applies everywhere. This happens to be an interactive template, as the infoboxes are, that allow the editor to enter page specific information, and still have the layout show up exactly the same way. 42 - talk 22:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I guess that once again, you are choosing to ignore the advice that is being given. Please propose the changes on the appropriate formatting guideline page. As I said, it's very unlikely this change would be approved. -- Wyn talk 17:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] User:Gordon_Ecker/Block_reviews#Festooned_Twinklepixie

Wait, i don't get it... Are you actually saying that it is ok for a user who has been banned for 3 months to just come when 1/3 of that time has passed and willing and openly bypass his ban just to be "funny and make you laugh"?

Who are you and what did you do with Wyn?.--Fighterdoken 18:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

He amuses her, so the usual rules magically stop applying. -Auron 18:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm? The account was created while Grinch was NOT blocked, and had 4 edits while he was, none of them trolling, or vandalism. I don't see the purpose of keeping this account blocked. If anything, the account should have been blocked for the same amount of time as his main account was, not perma'd. -- Wyn talk 18:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Auron, if that were true, I would have perma'd you long ago, you ceased to amuse me months ago. -- Wyn talk 18:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

THAT is the kind of argument i would like to see when discussing the reversion of a perma-ban, "his main was blocked for xx time, so his sockpuppet should have been blocked for the same amount given that yadda yadda...". I actually find saying things like "unban because he is funny to me" pretty insulting to the community.--Fighterdoken 18:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I find the entire "oh hey guise let's unban people who were trolly enough to get perma'd" page pretty silly, personally. The premise "hm well they could have changed" is pretty stupid, since they were given enough chances to be not dumb after the first dozen blocks. The ones who are supposed sockpuppets should also remain blocked, since a "real" user who got blocked accidentally would have either A) mailed somebody with the mail function or B) become butthurt and never come back, voiding the purpose of unblocking them. Finally, vandals are vandals and should stay blocked because they're, y'know, vandals. –Jette 19:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations Jette, that was almost entirely irrelevant to this section. Misery 19:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

How so? He's agreeing with Fighterdoken and extending that agreement to the situation in general. -- Tha Reckoning 19:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Because none of the blocking situations he describes apply to Grinch and Twinklepixie at all. I said almost entirely irrelevent, not entirely irrelevant. Misery 19:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say irrelevant at all, though he stated examples that weren't under the topic, he still addressed the issue. I can't find any info on those two users anyway. -- Tha Reckoning 19:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I shortened both names, User:Mgrinshpon and User:Festooned Twinklepixie. Misery 19:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing in my comments (TWO comments) to deny my personal bias in this case, in fact I think I made it pretty clear that I am biased. My initial comment indicates that I felt that the perma ban on this account was bad from the start, I'm sorry I didn't elaborate my reasons for feeling that way in the same manner that I did above, but it was my intent. I don't believe that just because someone has personal feelings in an issue, their arguments are less valid than someone else's, in fact I believe just about the opposite. I have in no way abused or invoked any sysop powers here (except jokingingly responding to Auron's comment above), I have not unbanned, nor have I even requested, let alone brought this petition for review. I'm sorry that indicating support for a friend that makes me laugh, who has done nothing harmful to this wiki with his main account since he was unblocked in July, is seen as a bad thing to the point of being pretty insulting to the community. -- Wyn talk 21:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, my comments regarding my personal connection to this account was in direct response to the assertions that this account was made with malicious, and disruptive intentions, it wasn't, as Grinch has confirmed with his comments. The fact that my personal bias is being used against the lifting of this ban, while others' personal biases are being used to keep it is really ironic. -- Wyn talk 21:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me, but i haven't seen the bias as "personal" more than as "situational". User was banned, user used a sockpuppet, sockpuppet was banned for eternity. That is pretty much standard procedure for any case of ban evasion.

As you say, the situation may differ a little from simmilar cases in that the sockpuppet account existed prior to the ban in question, which is why you should try to make this one of the points instead of insisting on "unban because it did no damage".--Fighterdoken 21:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Because the arbitration ruling didn't already clearly state how sysops were supposed to go about dealing with Grinch and his socks. Reading is a very difficult skill to learn and use, right? Pika Fan 22:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Haunted quest enemies

I was doing Haunted and taking pictures of the quest-specific enemies for their pages. There were no Regret_(monk), but there was an Anguish_(necromancer), which wasn't linked to on the Haunted quest page and in fact was only linked to on a user's archived talk page. I removed the Regret (monk) link and added an Anguish (necromancer) link to the quest page. I think someone just got mixed up and there isn't really a Regret (monk), so could you delete the page? Also the Sorrow page should probably be named Sorrow (mesmer) to keep in line with the rest of these enemies, could you please move/rename it (or can normal users do that?)? Thank you. Manifold 04:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, the notation of the profession is because there is already another page Regret in existance. So the Sorrow page is correctly named. It's possible that not all of the various forms show up each time the quest is done, so I am hesitant to put a {{delete}} tag on anything until it has been confirmed by more than one person. -- Wyn talk 04:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Invited

Kelli 09:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Wrong game hon :P Koda Kumi 19:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey Wyn just to let u know we changed the date to the 30th if you would like to come. Ad Koda not it's not i used it on purpose. ^.^Kelli 01:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Sowwie

for being an Uber bad anoyance...(Spelling can go to hell :| ) like always-its my fault for not controling myself,i suppose the mantis pictures arnt bad...*Grabs cosmetic antenai*(For the mantises...duh ^_^).--Neil2250 . 19:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Darn kids!

so I herd you got bitten on the ass by those that cannot wallow and delight in your carebearism. You know, it helps to call them out for the idiots they are being and then /ignore the rest of the whining. NuVII

Oh, I know... but a girl has to amuse herself somehow! -- Wyn talk 08:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Wishing...

Hi Wyn, Just stopped in early, to wish you a Safe & Happy Thanksgiving!
PS. Have some Pie and some Apple Cider
MystiLefemEle 10:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)