Guild Wars Wiki talk:Community portal/Archive 2

Deleted old GWEN skill names

I'd like to keep those around, but having something like "this was a skill proposed by izzy, now the skill is named XYZ". Since we dont have any legacy policy, opinions? --Xeeron 20:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

If people want to know about this stuff, put it in the skills trivia section. Backsword 20:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, all the old names are still in the talk page and the article history, they can be added to trivia later. -- Gordon Ecker 22:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest changing the old names to redirect to the new names. --Rainith 00:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree ... have redirects from the old names to the new names, then add the old names in the trivia sections of the relevant skills. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Barek, I meant to say exactly what you said, but I was in a rush (and I suck) so I missed the trivia part.  :) --Rainith 06:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Guide to playing xxx

Recently, some users have started guide articles (see Guide to playing a dervish Guide to playing an assassin Guide to playing as a warrior) along the lines of guildwiki's profession guides. I want to draw attention to this for two reasons:

1. From experience, these articles are much more likely than other articles to produce user conflicts. While I personally fully support us having these articles, there may be others around here who don't. It would be best to have any discussion about these articles early on (if there is no disagreements, great, forget about point 1).
2. We only have three articles yet, but they already differ hugely in terms of content and formatting used. Any users inclined towards establishing common formatting should direct their attention that way. --Xeeron 12:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe there is a project started about improving the guides. - BeX 13:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm in support of the current builds policy proposal, and I'm in support of having detailed walkthrough and tips in missions and quests, so I'm also in support in guides. The guides are still quite short, so I doubt having a discussion on what needs to be included is a bit too early. And given that they are guides, trying to enforce a certain structure to guides is not going to be successful, as you can only really apply high-level guidelines. -- ab.er.rant 00:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem with these guides, as made obvious on GuildWiki, is that there's more than one way to play a profession. There's tips for newcomers and advanced players, PvPers and PvEers, defensive tanks and aggressive damage dealing warriors, those that hate the idea of putting a selfheal on a warrior and those that can't do without it, those that consider a W/R with Apply Poison to be the bee's knees and those that get a headache just thinking about it, and so on. Unfortunately, different editors supported different perspectives to these guides, and since their perspectives were highly subjective, it wasn't too easy figuring out what the final articles should look like, there were even many discussions considering simply nuking them. More than that, these clashes between the editors on all these different points of the guides had the sadface effect of not allowing the guides to be worth a damn; they ended up pointing in a thousand directions and simply being confusing and useless. How would we get around these issues here? --Dirigible 04:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

If subjectivity is of concern, perhaps they could be treated like user builds — move to userspace? -- ab.er.rant 05:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes please. Profession guides will just be a fiasco. -Auron 05:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

If we keep them, I think that the primary purpose of profession guides should be to help inexperienced players become competent. I don't think a guide can do much to help players become experts. -- Gordon Ecker 06:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Gordon Ecker is right. There should actually be a note somewhere on the articles stating that. Not only will that prevent misunderstandings by the readers, clarifying that up-front will also prevent plenty of editing conflicts. --Xeeron 09:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Something like this maybe?

Note: This guide is meant to be an introductory help for players unfamiliar with the concept or subject of this guide. It is neither a definitive reference nor a most accurate reference.

-- ab.er.rant 12:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help with the Notice. I know they caused alot of trouble but I am trying my best in my free time to make them wiki worthy. Any and all help is appreciated. Done25 15:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

One way to go might be to say that these mainspace articles should be, at their core, oriented as informative of the common strategy views, rather than directly instructive. When some advice is really disputed, the question should be "is that view common enough" rather than "is that view correct enough" (where "common" might mean something like: would be supported by at least 10% of the Guild Wars community who have a strong opinion on the subject). If it passes this, we just present it as one of the common view rather than the "right" view. If there's multiple clashing common views, we present each of them in this way and leave it up to the readers to decide for themselves. If it is not considered common enough, it can still live in userspace (with a link from the bottom of a relevant mainspace article?) or if it's just because it's too specific, maybe within a "list of tips" in the mainspace article. --Rezyk 20:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

To add to this: In a guide, I would expect less in the way of gameplay tips, and more in the area of general purpose knowledge that someone might not be aware of when playing this particular class or build. Tips and specific skill ideas could be relegated to a discreet section. Basically assume no prior knowledge on the part of the reader, as that is most likely the case in regards to someone who is reading a guide in the first place. - Thulsey - talk 02:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

No always true. Guides are also good for players who want to learn more about their chosen professions, or find alternative ways to play them. They are also good for players who have extensive experience with other classes and decide to try out a new profession. Alaris 13:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

hey everyone, just wanted to point out to my monk guide under construction :) i didn't want to put it in mainspace before it's foun acceptable, so it's still in my userspace: User:Y0_ich_halt/Monk guide. i don't have anything against generally keeping such guides in userspace, but in that case i'd like to see a page similar to the cat on GuildWiki where all guides are recorded with their location. - Y0_ich_halt 09:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, Category:User guides and Y0_ich_halt's guide to monking in there anyone? --Xeeron 10:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

that would also allow for some subjectivity. if the reader isn't ok with the guide he/she's reading, he/she can look for another one. i'd still say keep them as objective as possible. - Just me 10:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

For a moment I thought it was someone using Yo ich halt's sig... could you not change your sig like that so drastically in the middle of a discussion?... makes for some confusion ;) -- ab.er.rant 13:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

lol, sry. just thought i'd translate my name xD - Just me 13:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. --Rezyk 22:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

unfortunately, many people here don't speak german, so it could be thought of as misleading by many. that's why i changed it back to keep in line with the policy. lol, w/e. i'll add the cat to my guide. - Y0_ich_halt 16:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I've seen some good arguments in favor of different views of what guides should and should not contain. However, consider this: guides are usually read by people looking for ideas. Trying to restrict it too much impedes this. Instead, I'd think guides should elaborate more on what is common and functional, but also add short blurbs on variants and alternatives. Tell the reader what is common and what is uncommon, and let them decide what they choose to go with. Alaris 15:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Image cache

Do you think it would be beneficial to add a note in the text visible when you upload an image that tells people that the image cache might be slow and not update images at once? I see quite a lot of cases where new users get frustrated with images not updating, and reuploading over and over again. - anja 16:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

i was one of those, too, with my sig picture, but that happened on GuildWiki. i think it would save some entries in recent changes and in the pic history, but that's not really crucial imo. so if it's easy for whoever-would-have-to-do-it to embed such a notice there, i'd say do it. - Y0_ich_halt 16:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Skill Icons

I am fairly certain this would have been brought up already but I don't know where to look for it and i'm not sure this is where I should suggest it so I will go ahead anyway. When a page lists an NPC and their skills, could we do something that makes a little box popup when you hover over the skill icon which shows what that skill does? Like the PvX wiki has as well as the official GW site. I know we don't list builds here but neither does the official site, I still belive it would be a lot of use for many users who are browsing through the site, without having to click on the skill and open up a new window, they can just hover over it.Dancing Gnome 22:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

personally, i don't care about that, so it would only slower page loading (which is quite slow right now, what's up with my connection?). but for people who don't know what skills do it would sure help. unfortunately i'm not xpd enough to do something like that :( - Y0_ich_halt 22:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

It's been raised many times with no resolution or consensus. -- ab.er.rant 03:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

how about a specific page for it? Talk:Skill Tooltips with discussion and voting. - Y0_ich_halt 12:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Guild Wars Wiki talk:Requests for technical administration#Mouse-over_skill_descriptions. - BeX 13:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

FAQ link

Should we change the the FAQ link on the left from "Wiki FAQ" to just "FAQ"? It should direct more people to look at that first. -- ab.er.rant 02:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Guild_Wars_Wiki_talk:FAQ#Game_related_entries :P - BeX 04:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

GW:EN sneak peek

Whoa... updating is severely slowed... i'm only getting 30-50 kbps, while normally i get around 800 kbps... -- Alexanderpas Talk|Contrib|Guild 14:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

There's really nothing to complain :P it's average for me, being around 15k. Bad days, it goes down to 5k, and good days up to 30k, 40k :) Sigh. Sometimes I wish I lived in a different part of the world. -- ab.er.rant 02:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

So very much dissapointed in the Hall Of Monument rules;

1. Why Charr Based? solution: Account based

2. Why Customize mini-pets to characters? No other characters can use em after placing in HoM? solution: account based

3. Why don't my PvE titles count for shrine objects? Why do only PvP Maxed titles count? How many players have a maxed PvP Title? solution: one Hall Of Monuments for the Account. Characters have to reach and activate shrines to add PvE-titles. When i enter i see all titles from characters that reached and fought for it.

4. Why only 5 hero's on display? solution: all hero's on display just smaller.

5. Why is it that my tomented weapons don't count as High-end? for that matter..why do weapons from previous campaigns don't count as "High-end" for HoM???

6. Why do hero's only count with "upgraded armor"?

can go on-and-on. Nice surroundings etc...but what do i have there? after 5000 hours of PvE? Nothing? --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Omega001 .

I can understand that you are disappointed, but there is no need to post this several times on different places on wiki, is there? - anja 15:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Yea, things usually don't go exactly as we want them, you know. I think they're just trying to set a level of difficulty to make the HoM more longer lasting. They make you work for the bonuses in GW2. Try and think first before complaining. If everything is easy to get, how do you expect GW to last the 2 years before GW2 is released? This is something that they're hoping will keep players occupied until GW2 comes around. -- ab.er.rant 17:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I was hoping for bronze (completion), silver (Protector) and gold (Guardian) campaign completion monuments. It seems odd that every level 20 pet and every hero armour upgrade gets a statue, but saving the world three times just gets a mention on the plaque. -- Gordon Ecker 22:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Use "u" maps, instead of "m" maps for missions/quests

← moved to Guild Wars Wiki talk:Formatting/Images

Moving to a different campaign

I haven't easily been able to find information on how to move from one campaign to another (i.e., Prophecies to Nightfall, or Nightfall to Factions or Prophecies to Eye of the North). Actually, although I remember finding it once a while ago, I haven't been able to find it again. Something should be put in the main campaign writeup about moving to a different campaign, such as mentioning in the Prophecies writeup that Lion's Arch holds the NPCs that have the quests for going to any new campaign and that when moving to the Prophecies campaign from any other campaign a person will be sent to Lion's Arch. Also, a mention of this in the Lion's Arch page would also be helpful. The process could be repeated for the Nightfall and Kamadan pages, etc. Banaticus 08:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Port? ~ Kurd 08:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

It's in the GWW:FAQ also. - anja 08:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

This page

The community portal is one of the best linked pages of the entire wiki (being on the navigation panel), but I feel it is borderline worthless. Why so? Because it fails to serve as a common ground where interesting stuff happening on the wiki is gathered. When you look at the current page, the only listed current hot topic is so "cold" that is is already well burried in the respective talk page archive. There is no reason for active wiki users to visit the page and not a lot of useful content for new wiki users either.

Yet the original idea of the community protal is a very useful one: Given that not all users read all new edits, it makes sense to have one page that lists all the important and interesting developments. This would prevent users from missing topics that they are interested in, but fail to notice in time and also make for an easier start for new users. I would love to redo the community portal into something that resembles a wiki newspaper. If something interesting is happening, the community portal gets a short notice with a link. To achieve this, we need reporters. You might senibly now ask, why? After all, this is a wiki and everyone is free to add stuff and change this site. However there is one big problem: Those that could add stuff have no incentive to do so, because they already know what is going on and rather spend their time with the issues (whether that be arguing on a policy page or updating the GW:EN skills) instead of writing about it here. And those we do not check the recent changes frequently would not know what to write about. Seeing how this page has consistenly failed at attracting attention, I'd like people to step forward and promise they'll edit at least one or two entries about recent stuff per week (see disclaimer below!). This could be pointing out a talk page that got a lot of entries some new category tree, an election, just deleting old items, whatever. The community protal should stop being abbandoned and get some life.

Disclaimer: Of course there will be no penalty for not reporting. Neither will reporters enjoy any benefits over normal contributers. This is just a means to get people to reguarly edit the community portal.

Comments on that idea? --Xeeron 14:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course it's a good idea. It's the whole reason this page exists. It's just that I need to get into the habit of remembering to update this page. I promise (as per disclaimer :P) I stick some news here at least once every week or two. In fact, I'll go stick some in right now. -- ab.er.rant 14:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

This is great. The community portal is a forgotten place. I wont promise to update, since I can't rely on myself remembering to do so, at least not until I know the workload of this coming uni year :) - anja 15:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

What's the difference between Guild_Wars_Wiki_talk:Community_portal and Talk:Main Page? How does one know which issue to place in which location? The same kinds of things seem to be posted in each area. Banaticus 22:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess currently they fullfill similar roles, but I feel it would be nice to concentrate those issues here and use the main page talk page for matters concerning the actual main page only. --Xeeron 22:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Community portal talk page = discussion topics for stuff related to the community in general

Main page talk page = discussion topics for stuff related to the main page, or for off-topic issues that would be better off moved to the correct talk pages :) -- ab.er.rant 17:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Allow only registered users

Not sure where to post this, but can you please allow posting of comments to only registered users? This would highly reduce the number of low-quality posts usually coming from unregistered people. No, im not saying registered users are insanely better, but the difference can be seen easily. BTW if this cannot be done due to technical issues, never mind. Servant of Kali 19:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

you mean this page or the entire wiki? ~ Kurd 19:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Technically it is possible to prevent non-registered users from editing this page or even the whole wiki. However, we are deliberately keeping the wiki open to everyone, even though it does probably also allow a bit more vandalism. Registering isn't too hard so vandals can still register if they really want to. -- (gem / talk) 21:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

There's alot more good edits from anons than there is vandalism, and being registered doesn't stop you from vandalising :) - anja 21:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't really talking about vandalism. I was talking about credibility. There are a lot of sections in this wiki, such as skills discussion, which benefit greatly from player feedback. However, I believe it's a bit difficult for Izzy (and us, players) to browse through it all, and see who has valid points and who does not. For instance, when I don't have much time on my hands, I will read the comments of those who I know understand game mechanics, and I'll reply to their post if I have something to add or disagree with. On the other hand, reading posts of people who obviously have no clue, takes my precious time away. If a user is register I can simply 'ignore' him and not read it, but if he posts as unregistered user all the time, I can either ignore all unregistered users (which would not be good IMO) or read em all heh. I admit this isn't that big a deal. Just a thought. Besides, registering is really fast on wikis. Servant of Kali 23:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

That's a rather elitist attitude. We shouldn't discount potential feedback simply because they aren't registered. And you just haven't come across good quality comments from anonymous users yet. You can simply just choose to ignore comments coming from unsigned and ip-signed comments you know... -- ab.er.rant 02:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm an elitist and are you trying to say something is wrong with being elitist? I thought being an elitist is a good thing. Being an averagist is a bad thing. But anyway let's get to the point. Check this post by unregistered user in underpowered skills section: "Wow, I read this crap about swords and just... wow. Warriors kill people, period. If you can't kill people effectively with a sword you're an idiot. If you ragequit RA just because you see a sword warrior, you're a total fucking idiot." ...now... do you see my point? I don't feel like seeing wiki turning into GWO because in that case all the good and elitist people will move on, and the main feedback here will be by people who don't even understand basic game dynamics. If you want that, sure no problem, but I'm for quality over quantity. Sure, that's elitist attitude, but in real world it works. Servant of Kali 09:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The "real world" also has massive accreditation and schooling systems to allow it to work - which are not the case here. You can't say you have a Ph.D in Guild Wars and thus that qualifies you to post. In the case of the wiki, our process is more akin to publishing books - anyone can publish, but people will pay more attention if what you're publishing appears to be sound in nature. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 13:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

There is accreditation here too, in the game at least. For instance, titles, and each titles are worthwile somewhere. Gladiator and Champion titles make someone more credible to post on skill discussions, some PvE titles make someone more credible when it comes to PvE discussions etc. It's not a perfect system but schools aint either. As for the books, what's the point in that analogy either? People don't pay attention to books because they are good, but because books give em what they want. Just look at Harry Potter. It's total bleh of a book, there are zillion better ones who gain a lot less attention. Maybe some sections on this wiki should be popularity contest but most should not. You can say that it's good there are 1 million opinions and that people will pay more attention to what sounds better, but in reality when you open a page with 1 milion opinions of which 90% are made by people who have no clue, then no one will pay attention to 10% who knows, because these posts will be lost among others. That's how it works in reality. From the forest one can't see the tree. Servant of Kali 00:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I am sure for every stupid edit by an anon you bring, I can find three useful ones. A single example does not prove anything. --Xeeron 09:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

And what is to stop that user from posting thier comment after they have registered to the wiki?--Gummy Joe 09:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Nothing has to stop him, but the results show that people are more civilized and watch more what they type when they are less anonymous. Doesn't help always, true. Servant of Kali 00:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

You might be interested to know that the opposite of elitism is populism, a populist, not an "averagist". A wiki by its very nature is anti-elitist because anyone can make an edit. Forcing them to register before posting takes away their stupidity? I'm just saying that if you want to try to impose an elitist way of discussing issues onto a wiki, it's not going to work. And you are trying to put words in my mouth. I did not imply that I love to see stupid comments pop up on all talk pages. I was trying to hint that you have not been exposed to a wide variety of talk pages. -- ab.er.rant 09:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't anti-elitist when it comes to posted articles. It's populist when it comes to discussions. I don't expect all discussions to be elitist, that would be pointless. But some should be kept that way. If not, this wiki will turn into GWO forum withing half a year with "popularity contest is better than elitism".Servant of Kali 00:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly... isn't it? Discussions on wiki pages are by nature, based on a populist mechanism, simply because it gives each editor an equal visibility and weight in discussions until shown otherwise. I do agree that registering a username can place a restraint on users from posting non-sensical/stupid comments. I just feel that when you take away this nature of a wiki (even if only on certain pages), then it undermines it. I just feel icky about preemptively removing or hindering a person's ability to contribute because of actions of others. Even if it's the majority that's disgusting, it's punishing the minority because of the majority. I think with Anet's experience on fan forums, they should know how to weed out the useful comments from the piles of useless ones by now; or at least, know how to ignore them already. Would it come to a point where good feedback are no longer posted? I don't think so. I still see a few good threads on GWO and GWG once in a while, and they do stand out easily. -- ab.er.rant 01:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

"Until shown otherwise" is in your case based on a single message and not a persons whole opus, which is my point and why I'm saying it's flawed. Hindering persons ability to contribute? Come on, wiki has the fastest registering of probably all forums, it's not that time-consuming really. ANets experience on fan forums with weeding? Are you kidding me? If I wanted to bother I could copy paste dozen of clueless posts which show a failure of weeding, but that's another thing and I don't want to go into it. You still see a few good posts on GWO? Oh yea, among 1 thousand there's one that's good. The quality:quantity ratio is so catastrophically bad that people worth reading can be named on fingers of one hand, and even then I'd have fingers left. I've seen people saying that Mending is good on a wammo and others supporting him, now that's something I haven't seen on any other GW forum. On GWG for instance, I've seen tons of threads locked in Gladiators section, based on quality filtering alone, which is a step in right direction. Servant of Kali 08:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Servant of Kali that A.Net's filtering of relevant PvP topics in the fanforums can't be regarded as sufficient. For PvE it's better.

I do have to say that limiting contributions to registered users only will put a hit on the wiki. Although some anon edits on Izzy's talk pages probably are not really relevant, there are too many anon users that DO have great contributions to the wiki. Everytime a Balance change happens, there are multiple anonymous editors who keep the skill pages up to date before the 'regulars' have time to visit the sites to update them. And this is just an example. There are numerous others to be found. --  (CoRrRan / talk) 11:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

At least there should be a competent PvP mod for Izzy page. There's literary a guy whose 'signature' is "OK i'll stop trolling".... some people just troll the page :> Servant of Kali 11:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

That'll be User:Isaiah Cartwright. After all, since it is his talk page, it's his decision how to deal with it. All we sysops can do is make sure that there are no policy violations. Also due to the nature of the wiki, we are not allowed to remove any unwanted comments, just because they are unwanted. We can only remove comments if a policy is clearly violated or if we are archiving. After all, it's a wiki not a forum. A forum would have been much more preferable for the current nature of Izzy's talkpages. However, if you notice comments that you think are clearly in violation of any wiki policies, but don't see a sysop dealing with it, please make a note on (for instance) my talk page or GWW:NOTICE. We'll have a look and remove it if necessary. --  (CoRrRan / talk) 14:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Creating an account isn't a road-block to nonsensical posts. Just look at the log of blocked users. It's a pretty even split. And requiring registration is no roadblock to anonymity; look at the "names" that were blocked ... random strings of characters. Also, the use of sockpuppets makes it impossible to eliminate anonymity, even with registered users - registration just creates the illusion of credibility without actually changing anything. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

"In other wikis"

When using Wikipedia, I find the "In other languages" box very useful. for anyone who doesn't know, it's a feature that lets you easily find the same article in other languages' wikipedias. it is good for looking for extra info, and for other viewpoints. for example, in the code for this article in the english wikipedia, you can find the line "[[de:Hühnerei]]", which adds a line in a box on the left to the Deutsch article on the same subject.

I think that this kind of synergy between the official wiki and the unofficial one, could have a great benefit for the wikis and for the community, and I would be happy if the people in charge would seriously consider this cooperation. this suggestion is being posted simultaneously in the other wiki. Foo 19:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if it would be of great benefit fot the wikis, but I would love it! I'm always switching back and forth between these things by editing the address bar! -- 208.97.167.26 05:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

User:AT has figured out a feature, WikiSwap, that you can use if you are a registered user on both wikis, which adds a "switch" tab to your upper bar (where edit and discussion links are). It lets you see the same article on the other wiki with just one click. It's very neat :) - anja 05:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! (I'd still like to see this implanted for every user, but for my own use, this is great). Foo 10:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Most linked!

Woot! (This something really really trivial.. but hey, indulgence :P )

Just came from GuildWiki and what Barek said there prompted me to look at Special:Mostlinked. Guess whose user page shows up on the first page at no. 48 (at the moment) :P :D With Bex and Anja close behind on the second page :P -- ab.er.rant 05:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

That's what you get for having your user page and talk page in your signature. :P - BeX 07:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Haha, that's really cool Aberrant ;) And I feel important being on page two :P - anja 14:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It is a bit of a shame that our most linked to category is totally useless, because of all the item boxes. Then again, the boxes do a great job, so it doesnt matter.

PS: How on earth can you live with only having 50 items displayed per page? If not for the 500 option, I'd go insane when checking recent changes. =) --Xeeron 15:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm on page 1 too! 500 view of course, but nonetheless... -elviondale (tahlk) 16:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Lol, #145 with a wiki break and almost no talk page activity compared to the good old times. -- (gem / talk) 18:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, with my limited involvement lately, I'm surprised to be ranked #173 (and #219 for my talk page). I guess that I've been involved in more discussions than I realized! LOL --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

When I make a page with 1000 links to my userpage, does this increase the links by 1000? xD poke | talk 20:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe the count is of the number of unique pages linked to the listed page. So, 1,000 links from a single page would only count as one link in that tally. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Most of the User linked-to's are from signatures, which makes them a little less relevant (but is sort of interesting if you want to see who's active in the greatest number of discussion topics). (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 21:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

i'm only #507... how many users do we have again? - Y0_ich_halt 21:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm #285. Anyone higher talks too much. :) —Tanaric 22:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow. That must be the first time I've EVER been accused of that! LOL. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

--> #152 at the moment, personally. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 23:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It is not only a measure of how much one person talks, but rather on how many different topics one talks, since 100 links from one talk page count less than 1 each from 2 talk pages. --Xeeron 00:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Get in! #77 :D --Lemming 00:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

You know we're nerds when the thing we're comparing is our link count instead of.. well. Something else non-nerds compare. -elviondale (tahlk) 02:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Non-nerds compare material wealth? fashion? and all the mundane real-world stuffs? We're more advanced. We go digital :D -- ab.er.rant 02:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

This is not really fair. People who are (for example) only active on policy talk pages have a lot lesser links than people commenting in the Izzy namespace.. poke | talk 05:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Wahhhh... :'( I can say that my life had just as much worth before I found out I was like 484 or something. Its cool for bragging rights, but no need to go emo if you're not in the fav five. -elviondale (tahlk) 05:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm only at #100, and I talk waaayyy to much already...

And with 160.8M views already, I also wonder why this wiki doesn't show on this page... --  (CoRrRan / talk) 11:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

GWW is #186 - BeX 11:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

And #6 in viewed pages. It still strikes me as odd that we have more views than the English wikipedia... were those stats ever reset? --  (CoRrRan / talk) 12:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

LOL!! there are even more ppl interested in a gw lexicon than in an rl lexicon XDD - Y0_ich_halt 13:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Notice how other "game wikis" also have comparable view numbers. I rather find the wikipedia views strangely low than our high. I mean: ~60 million views for wikipedia? That would mean some 90% of the internet population never viewed it, and the other 10% viewed it once ... --Xeeron 13:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I've been slacking. ;) ~ dragon legacy 13:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The page views is only accurate if they haven't turned off the counters, which both Wikipedia and GuildWiki have turned them off. --77.232.66.107 14:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Arena Locations

Could we have a page of arena locations because I wasn't paying attention but I am slightly interested in PvP. It would list the names and nearest map points to them. Trying 06:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Arenas are all located on the Battle Isles, which is a completely separate map from any of the campaigns. You should be able to travel there via the boat which appears on each campaign's map. (See the linked page for more details on how to get there.) (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 06:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Not the beginner PvP areas though ... Ascalon Arena, Shiverpeak Arena, Shing Jea Arena and Sunspear Arena. -- pullus talk 09:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Category:Arenas? - Y0_ich_halt 14:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

As a page attached to the Category Arenas page. Even if its just a list of those 4 beginner arenas and the nearest 'safe' map location. Trying 05:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The page for each arena lists its location (and which "safe" town it can be accessed from), so I don't think it's necessary to have a list of each of them corresponding to its location. I have, however, created a subcategory in Category:Arenas for them, called Category:Low level arenas. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 05:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

GuildWiki

If any Sysops from GuildWiki are here, please get over there ASAP, thanks :) Biscuits 16:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, Lord Biro did it. Biscuits 16:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Biro temp-promoted me and Dir to help clean up stuff. - anja 17:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Does Gwiki always have move privileges for everyone? -elviondale (tahlk) 17:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

We have also move privileges for everyone.. poke | talk 17:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Yep, we just don't allow moving one page over another existing one, hence why sysops are needed for those cases (to remove the existing destination page). (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 17:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, look at that, I didn't see you could do it here too. The wiki I installed for the company I work for (used for project management) has that disabled. I just got used to not having that on there with my non-admin account. -elviondale (tahlk) 18:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

This is in a sense the entire problem at the moment for GuildWiki: a vandal was abusing this system quite thoroughly. He has a good grasp of wiki's and made some difficult to solve moves (especially moving to pages containing "\"-characters). --  (CoRrRan / talk) 18:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Or to put it another way... the wiki version of this. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 18:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Heh, yes good analogy. I just hope he doesn't find another IP and start again. I think the speed you two got it sorted out in is a good enough deterrent though. :) He seemed to be on a self-imposed campaign to disable as much as possible because of the non-commercial licence. Biscuits 19:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

@ Aiiane - LMAO -elviondale (tahlk) 19:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

If any dual site sysops are still available, there's a new anon blanking page content, placing fake ban tags, violating revert policy, etc. --24.22.225.85 14:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

more account based titles please?- or at least the option to spread the points..

← moved to User talk:Gaile Gray/Guild Wars suggestions

Issue regarding the use of PNG images with transparency

I don't know if this has ever been discussed here, or even if it is the right place. I have noticed that many images on this wiki are encoded in PNG and use the alpha channel to manage transparency (see [1]). Unfortunately, Internet Explorer 6 and lower don't treat the PNG alpha channel correctly, so the transparent parts of these images appears grey, which is kinda ugly. There is a way to fix this, but it involves modifying the IE-specific CSS style sheet. If an admin sees this, I could give some help regarding this issue. Well, that's only if you agree that's an issue. Don't just believe me, test it yourself and you'll see what I mean. I should maybe alert the mediawiki developers about this, but then it would be a very long time before the fix appears on this wiki. Note: the problem disappears in IE7, but there are still a lot of people using IE6. --Funky Jah (talk) 22:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

You shouldn't be using IE6 unless you're at work or something. [2], get IE7, or get Opera. It takes 5 seconds and you get a better browser in the end. —gr??s??o? 22:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

And you shouldn't be telling people what browser they should be using. IIRC, IE6 is still the most popular. — Skuld 22:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I recommend Firefox ^^ — Skakid9090 23:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Firefox is FTW! IE is FTL!...simple as! --ChronicinabilitY 23:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

IE7 is ok - it is shame that they didn't bring the CSS more up to standard thou. That aside - what is the fix for the transparency we can put in the style sheet? I know that some of the pngs around were given a white background using a png edit tool - like those on the main page so they didn't look quite as awful. Your solution would fix all png on the site and not interfere with other browsers? --Aspectacle 23:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

GWW:RFTA - BeX 01:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Just FYI, the ie-specific javascript already has a PNG fix included:

// png alpha transparency fixes
function fixalpha() {
    // bg
    if (isMSIE55 && !doneIEAlphaFix)
    {
        var plogo = document.getElementById('p-logo');
        if (!plogo) return;

        var logoa = plogo.getElementsByTagName('a')[0];
        if (!logoa) return;

        var bg = logoa.currentStyle.backgroundImage;
        var imageUrl = bg.substring(5, bg.length-2);

        doneIEAlphaFix = true;

        if (imageUrl.substr(imageUrl.length-4).toLowerCase() == '.png') {
            var logospan = logoa.appendChild(document.createElement('span'));
           
            logoa.style.backgroundImage = 'none';
            logospan.style.filter = 'progid:DXImageTransform.Microsoft.AlphaImageLoader(src=' + imageUrl + ')';
            logospan.style.height = '100%';
            logospan.style.position = 'absolute';
            logospan.style.width = logoa.currentStyle.width;
            logospan.style.cursor = 'hand';
            // Center image with hack for IE5.5
            if (document.documentElement.dir == "rtl") 
            {
              logospan.style.right = '50%';
              logospan.style.setExpression('marginRight', '"-" + (this.offsetWidth / 2) + "px"');
            }
            else
            {
              logospan.style.left = '50%';
              logospan.style.setExpression('marginLeft', '"-" + (this.offsetWidth / 2) + "px"');
            }
            logospan.style.top = '50%';
            logospan.style.setExpression('marginTop', '"-" + (this.offsetHeight / 2) + "px"');
 
            var linkFix = logoa.appendChild(logoa.cloneNode());
            linkFix.style.position = 'absolute';
            linkFix.style.height = '100%';
            linkFix.style.width = '100%';
        }
    }
}

As it stands, though, it looks like it's only for the logo image. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 02:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is a generic PNG fix for IE5.5+ on win32 platforms: [3]. I just hope that someone who has access to the source code of this wiki will see this. --Funky Jah (talk) 08:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

IRC channel

When the IRC channel was brought up, I was mildly sceptical about the issue, due to IRCs reputation for creating drama (instead of rational discussion). Recent happenings have reinforced my view that, overall, the existance of the IRC has a detrimal effect on the wiki. See for example:

• User_talk:Dirigible#A_question_to_Karlos_and_Erasculio
• http://wiki.guildwars.com/index.php?title=Guild_Wars_Wiki%3AArbitration_committee%2FRequests&diff=392424&oldid=392402

The IRC encourages formation of "in groups" of edits and raises huge problems with regards to policy applicability. Of course I can not will the channel out of existance, but there should not be such high profile linkage here, which gives the channel the resemblance of being official. --Xeeron 08:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I find it interesting that you removed the link when Biro was caught cussing someone on IRC, not when he did it. So, the formation of the in-group did not bother you as much as the fact that the in-group was caught doing something bad?

I agree with you though. But I also think it's a bit too late, the in-group is formed and they'll just hang out there anyways and form their opinions and insult others as they like, and even if that chat room is closed they'll find another, the in-group has been formed and the damage is done. --Karlos 08:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

That was a bit uncalled for. I would say he removed it when he realised that it's starting to be really detrimental when what goes on in IRC keeps getting dragged up on the wiki. -- ab.er.rant 08:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

He was on when Biro cussed me out, and when Auron made his very tactful remark about me strapping a bomb around myself and blowing up everyone (because I am Arab). He said nothing. I can't prove he was actually using IRC at the time or Idling. And I would actually be fully in favor of keeping the link here so people find out what other bueatiful things Auron and Biro are saying about them behind their back. Removing the link AFTER the in-group is formed just allows them to operate in the privacy of their IRC channel. Now that we know what garbage is said there, I recommend the link is reinstated. --Karlos 09:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

For reference: I logged into the IRC for the first time today, from my computer at home, which should atm be still logged on, with the intend to log the chat there. There was only one line spoken while I was watching (and that was not about you). IRC has an idle command to check whether users are active (though I dont know how reliable that works). After that I left home and did all my following edits from another computer. I removed the link as soon as I read Dirigibles talk page. To answer your question: Yes seeing that something bad happened indeed bothers me more than only suspecting it might happen. --Xeeron 09:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

My view on the subject is that the IRC channel should be for discussion about the wiki, coordinating project edits - that sort of thing. IRC to talk about wiki. The problem arises when the wiki references IRC as a source of information or authority. As already said though, there is absolutely nothing anyone can do to stop groups forming, and if #gww didn't exist, they would simply be somewhere else. On a positive note, I Lurk in #gww 24/7 and do actually see plenty of constructive chat from time to time. Shotmonkey 09:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The IRC channel is fine for wiki-ers to hang out and chat and discuss. Whatever they chat about is treated the same as whatever they chat about on MSN - absolutely irrelevant to the wiki. But since it's getting to a point where people keep referencing the IRC channel like it's some sort of special talk page, it's better not to publicise it anymore. -- ab.er.rant 09:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Disagree with removing the link. Obfuscating the existence of the channel only makes it more of an a place for people in-the-know to form into a clique. A welcoming, advertised irc channel is an ideal place for people to ask questions and receive immediate answers ... or coordinate against actual problems (such as a flood of vandalism, or a large block of information that needs to be digested.) That there is sometimes drama when people gather in groups is just an unavoidable aspect of human nature. You don't throw out the benefits of communication to avoid the occasional drama -- A: because it's not possible, B: because then nothing would ever get done. Any prejudice Xeenon has towards IRC as a communication medium is just that: prejudice. There is nothing inherit to IRC that makes it less of a good medium for productive communication.

To put it another way: there's more drama generated via the existence of user pages. And yet, would anything really get done if the user pages didn't exist?--Drekmonger 09:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You say it is prejudice, I say it is not. Real time chat and wiki talk pages are two different media, who produce different conversations, just like written letters differ from vocal conversation. --Xeeron 09:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Real time chat has advantages and disadvantages over wiki talk pages. I am contending that you are curtailing the utility of the irc channel ... for example a contributor outside the social circles asking questions and receiving immediate answers. Now, how is that contributor suppose to know the resource exists?

Are you demonizing a link to an irc channel because it's being used as a club in a silly fight? I think the silly fight is the problem, not the link.--Drekmonger 10:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a perfect resource for casual users to ask question just two clicks away from here. It is widely used (might I ask how many "contributor outside the social circles asking questions" that are not wiki regulars have actually shown up in IRC?), it is just two clicks away from here, does not need any external programs and stores answers already given. --Xeeron 10:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

There have been plenty of users coming onto IRC, in the time that I have been there, asking regular ingame questions or questions on wiki stuff, of course most of the convo's in that channel have been between the regulars. But even that has been without a problem whatsoever. However, after the 'profanity' issue started by Gaile, the importance of the IRC channel has been elevated to a level that it previously didn't have. At the moment people make it sound as if there is an malicious in-group there which is actively trying to disturb the wiki. That is not how I perceived the conversations on the IRC channel a few days ago. (I haven't been able to log onto the IRC channel the last 3 or 4 days on a regular basis, since my work is taking away all my free time at the moment.) And I even find it more paranoid that people are lurking in the channel for apparently the sole reason to record everything that is being said... --  (CoRrRan / talk) 11:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Nothing's changed, CoRrRan. People still hop on and ask in-game questions, wiki how-to questions, and chat about anything; the only thing that's changed is people lobbying on-wiki against the IRC channel out of fear and ignorance. What happened to Karlos is, indeed, a rare event; but I'm not going to start being rational or anything, so I'll stop there. -Auron 11:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Drekmonger, Auron's actions below, as well as the notice you added, make it clear that the IRC channel is not a part of guildwarswiki. The community portal is a high profile page with limited space. Additionally to my other concerns, I dont see why a channel that distances itself from the wiki should be linked at such an exposed place. --Xeeron 12:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Xeeron on the latter. If that channel is to be promoted here, it should abide by our policies. However, I'm not against having the IRC channel exist or promoted. ~ dragon legacy 12:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I withdraw my objection to the link being removed. It would be better for transparency and community participation if the link to the irc channel remained in a high profile place on this wiki. However, the racially divisive "joke" distresses me, esp. since it was authored by someone who apparently had (and still has) ops in the channel. A forum that tolerates mean-spirited comments on other's races or nationalities probably shouldn't be associated with the official wiki.

This withdrawal of objection is not support of removal. I'm neutral on the issue, as the incident may be entirely isolated rather than a general pattern. RE: Dragon Legacy, an irc channel could abide by the spirit of civility expected by this wiki, but the wiki policies could never apply to an irc channel. Too difficult to enforce. Too messy.--Drekmonger 14:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of that. ~ dragon legacy 16:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

This is rich...

My IP just got banned from #gww. What kind of joke is this? So, the idea is that the channel is to be used for backbiting and slandering and anyone who tries to find out what is said about them gets banned? Who is the channel Admin? --Karlos 09:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Woah, really? Just voicing my opinnion on thi matter: If you want to talk behind someones back, it's easily done by creating a new channel and inviting anyone who you want to to that channel. Do not ban anyone from the open gww channel. -- (gem / talk) 09:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

His IP is no longer banned.

Just for clarification, Gem, I don't op the channel as lightly as the sysops moderate the wiki; if someone is acting in bad faith (even just staying there so nobody else can gossip is stretching it), they can get banned. He's not there to chat, he's just there to get dirt on everyone; he's at war with everyone at once, I don't support it, and I don't want him taking his war to IRC. Remember, IRC is not governed by GWW policy. -Auron 10:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

As I just told him in the IRC channel, I logged on to talk to Dirigble and just as I got on, Tanetris, him and Gem were making fun of me martyring myself, strapping myself with a bomb and taking others down with me. Seeing others approve of this and then Biro gets on and cusses at me, there was really nothing for me to say. The block is pointless as I can get around it (and I showed him) but the principle itself of punishing someone for finding out that others cuss at him behind his back is extremely prejudiced. What kind of elite club is this? It casts very grave and long shadows on the involvement of admins there sitting and watching these users make fun of, belittle and insult other users on the wiki and just because it takes place off wiki pages, it's okay. While in reality it allowes certain users to charge others (including admins and bureaucrats) against other users who do not have the same privileged access, nor even knowledge of what is being said about them behind their back. This is a very dangerous precedent. --Karlos 10:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh now I was talking about bombs and stuff? How nice that I didn't notice this myself. Thanks again mate. (just for the record, I joined the channel just yesterday after seeing a mention about it on some talk page, so no big conspiracies on my part through IRC) -- (gem / talk) 10:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Karlos; You got around the block I removed? Very well done. -Auron 10:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Dude, how exactly do you plan on stopping it? They could be hanging out in a guild hall in-game or chatting together in real life. The medium is not important. The best the wiki can do is police itself and it's own pages to promote civility on the wiki itself. If people dislike you, for whatever reason, there is no way anyone can prevent people from talking smack about you.

I'm disliked by the majority of people that come into contact with me, and so have some experience to impart: if you worry about people talking shit about you, all you'll ever do is worry.

Just forget about it. Drop it. It's not worth the effort.--Drekmonger 10:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

@Auron: Didn't know you had unblcoked me when I got back on.

@Drek, I have no intention of stopping anyone from backbiting me. That's really between them and their conscience. My objection was regarding the wiki advertizing an IRC channel, forming a club of IRC groupies, then removing the link and even banning people who try to get on to find out what's being said. I found that pretty medival and sinister. It's the processes I care about. I can't control how much X or Y like/hate me. --Karlos 10:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

O_o ... okay, I have two questions. First, is the IRC channel considered part of GuildWiki for the purposes of policy? Second, is there evidence of the tasteless and offensive joke, and, if so, how reliable is it? This incident sounds like a clear-cut violation of GWW:NPA if it's within jurisdiction and can be proven. -- Gordon Ecker 10:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

No and yes. It should be very easy to produce chatlogs of the incident in question, however that chat is not part of the wiki and thus not bound by our policy. It is nothing more than any other chat out there, there simply happen to be GWW users in it. --Xeeron 10:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's the joke:

Though in principle, I actually agree that they can't be held responsible retroactively. There is no policy at this time linking the IRC channel to wiki guidelines. It's just in bad taste and something I would hope to never see anyone say to anyone. But I doubt anyone can make the case this is punishable under wiki policy. --Karlos 10:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm genuinely disturbed that you care so much about this petty matter that you would want it punished by wiki policy. I apologized for a lack of judgment concerning humor (ask anyone that IRCs with me; when I started ranting in all caps, I'm joking; 100% guaranteed), but that seems to not be enough for you. What are you after? Just destroying it for others, or getting revenge? Either way, it goes back to the "you aren't acting in good faith" thing. -Auron 11:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Look, you don't seem to be fully aware of what you did and what has happened here. I'm this lone black dude who works in a company of primarily white people who happened to walk into a room just as one of his white co-workers joking "let's just hope this nigger we got in sales doesn't try to steal the clients' coffee makers when he goes to their offices."

I dare say there is little recovery from that. I know you apologized more than once and verified you were "only joking" more than once. But you have no clue how hurtful your words are. Especially with those words in caps after them signifying that you know that these are offensive and racists words.

Would I WANT you to be punished for them, yes. But only fairly, I don't want anyone to change the rules and then apply them to you retroactively. I want you to be punished because quite frankly I believe there is no place for such treatment among civilized human beings.

As far as the IRC channel, I think it hurts the wiki obviously, however, since the in-crowd is already formed and Bex giggles to Auron's jokes and Aiiane tickles Tanaric's funny bone... I believe it is imperative that it remains open for others to have the ability to get on and know what is being said and discussed. This is not really for my benefit. I don't see my presence on this wiki (and thus the IRC by extension) going further than a few more days. I am not fighting for my right to "lurk" on IRC, I am fighting for the right of all users to KNOW that there is a medium OTHER than wiki talk pages where wiki decision akers meet and influence the decision making process. --Karlos 11:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I understand that you feel the IRC channel is detrimental to the wiki. There is, however, nothing you can really do about it, other than plead to our sympathies (not a wise tactic tbh).

The IRC channel is simply a place where people meet to talk. The people in the channel retain their opinions regardless of where they're talking; anyone that insults you on the IRC channel would insult you just as fast somewhere else.

I get into heated debates on IRC sometimes, but I don't rage at people when they disagree (or make jokes about my heritage or my physical appearance); I don't hold grudges or bring up old insults that nobody cares about anymore. It's just edrama. I'm too old to get riled by it... and I'm not very old.

I'm still pretty confused on your stance of the IRC channel; you think it's detrimental to the wiki (what with it being so visibly linked to), but you want to get the message out that there is such a place? Isn't that kind of contradictory? -Auron 11:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to repeat myself then:

My possition is: The forming of the IRC channel was a bad move. That's done and done.

Removing the link to it now is also a bad move, as it has become a part of the usual routine for many users and admins to get together and discuss issues (and make fun of users and so forth) and as such, it's better to keep the link so that at least ALL users know where that is and can join if they so desire.

Does that clarify my position to you? --Karlos 11:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

So we're damned no matter what we do? Oh, right, you said the same thing to Cory. I guess that's becoming a theme. -Auron 11:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Whether you're damned or not is between you and God, I can't really tell you that. However, my point is, keep the link to the IRC channel, that is more beneficial (to users who think the IRC channel provides help and those who think their demise is being plotted there). Transparency is what I am calling for here. --Karlos 11:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The IRC channel is not related to any wiki policy. On the other way round, there should be no wiki content referring to anything happened in IRC as it could also be done by using a telephone or email..

Also we cannot use the wiki policies for the channel as first, there are not the same operators as admins here, second, there is no possibility to really keep all content said in IRC (logs are not reliable), and third, it is not ANet webspace. poke | talk 11:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

For the record: User talk:Gem#Are you "Gemi" on IRC?. -- (gem / talk) 11:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm still in support of removing all mention of the IRC channel from the Community Portal. If anyone still wants it advertised, keep it to your user pages. The definition of "community" on this wiki should mean the community of users on this wiki and on this wiki only. All other forms of communications, be it IRC, whatever IM you use, and even email are strictly external to this community, regardless of the potential they offer in coordinating efforts on the wiki. -- ab.er.rant 13:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Karlos, two things. First, any time I've had anything negative to say about you, I've said it either 1) in public, on your user page, or 2) to you privately. I'd appreciate you not lumping me in to this, as I had nothing to do with it. I've said maybe 40 lines total in that channel -- I just idle there. Secondly, the fact that people are starting to get upset by your actions should perhaps indicate you're doing something wrong.

The IRC channel is unofficial, and nobody on- or off-wiki has the right to litigate it. It's solely under the purview of the channel operators.

Finally, Had I been present during this scenario, I would have contested your ban.

—Tanaric 16:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I did not mention you were a part of that joke. I mentioned Aiiane tickles your funny bone as a reiteration of your own claim that you've grown "quite fond of her actually." i.e. people are forming bonds on IRC that are not transparent to people here on the wiki. A user might be gullible enough to ask, say, LordBiro to arbitrate against, say, Karlos not knowing that Biro can't stand Karlos on IRC and cusses at him behind his back. Likewise, someone can ask you to take action against Aiiane not knowing that you've grown quite fond of her. So, that was what I am getting at. But I did not lump you with Auron... That was Tanetris, whose offense is significantly less than that of Auron. His offense is just backbiting and mockery, Auron's is that plus racist degrading remarks about my people. --Karlos 19:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I've never spoken to Aiiane directly on IRC. I've only spoken to her on IM twice, and those were both long after I made that comment. When I said that, it was based solely on her on-wiki activities -- I find her quite pleasant to work with. That's all.

I think your criticism of the "IRCabal" is overmuch -- while some of the more prominant names do chat in IRC regularly, a great many more, myself generally included (though I did chat a bit last night), do not. Secondly, for those who do regularly chat on IRC, those friendship, more often than not, were not formed on IRC. They were seeded on-wiki and took root via instant messaging or email. The IRC channel is simply another vector for communication.

Finally, I'm friendly with Skuld, but I've banned him before, even when others wouldn't. If anything, knowing me well makes me more likely to act against you, not less. As far as the community in general, every sysop has been upfront when off-wiki friendships (or even on-wiki rivalry) clouded their judgments, and all have given the right to supercede to the rest of the sysop pool. In no case has this posed a problem, as far as I can tell.

—Tanaric 20:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

(EC) It's hardly behind your back, Karlos, if I am in a public chat room. Regardless of whether you had caught me (and caught implies that I was doing this in secret) I would not have taken part in the arbitration in which you were involved, but I guess you will just have to take my word for that, as little as that might mean to you at present.

I don't agree with most on the matter of policy violations off-wiki; I think it is only fair that if a user personally attacks another user off-wiki then they should (or at least could) be held accountable on-wiki. If I set up a website called i-hate-tanaric.com then I think it's only fair that I should be held accountable on the wiki. I understand the impracticality of this, and I realise that in light of recent events it might even sound suicidal, but that's what I think.

As I have said before, I think it would be perfectly acceptable to log conversations on the IRC channel, but I realise that many don't agree with me on this point either. I tend to agree with Karlos that people should know what's going on there, and I have nothing to hide. Besides, all the important decisions are made in Tanaric's basement by the cabal.

Equally I agree that, even if IRC is not logged and made available to the wiki, there should be a link to it from the wiki.

On the subject of me swearing, I was expressing my frustration at Karlos, and I don't believe that I violated NPA in doing so, especially given the current climate and the fact that he had just claimed that I was afraid of making my own decisions. LordBiro 21:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to reconcile your view with Auron though. He banned me once they figured out I was on. Now he claims because I was on in bad faith. Because I saw you cuss at me (which you say you have every right to do and I have every right to see), and because I took exception to that and brought it as pertinent evidence to my own arbitration request... Somehow that made MY participation in bad faith. That tells me that he feels the top priority of the IRC channel is to protect the groupies and homies. Not to actually further anything in the wiki.

And yes, I don't take your word very highly. You did not express immediately that you will have nothing to do with the arbitration, but found time to pick a small fight with me about my low expectations of you. --Karlos 21:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It is apparent that my views are not in line with those of Auron. But then, it is (at least partially) his channel, and not an official "official wiki" channel. As I say, it's a complex matter, and I can understand Auron's viewpoint, despite not agreeing with it.

I did not take the time to 'pick a fight with you' -- I pointed out that your 'analysis' of me is not so different from Erasculio's 'analysis' of you, but I don't think this is the place to discuss that. LordBiro 21:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to respond to "He banned me once they figured out I was on.": I'm pretty sure most if not all of the active people on IRC had figured out it was you long before Auron banned you, Karlos. I personally strongly suspected it was you based on timing of activity and lack of immediately identifying yourself before I even made my first comment. I said it anyway because you might as well know that a -lot- of us are frustrated and tired of your constant lashing out at what you seem to perceive as threats and attacks against you. I have nothing against you personally. In fact, from everything I've read I imagine it would be enjoyable to sit and talk about/play the game with you. On the other hand, pretty much since the whole fiasco during your sysop confirmation, you (among several others) are one of the names that indicates to me a talk page may be about to go rapidly downhill.

And as I said last night, you're as welcome as anyone else is in IRC. - Tanetris 00:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah... I knew as soon as I whois'd you who you were on the channel, Karlos, and I've said so. When it became apparent (based on your posts) that you were just taking your war on everything to the IRC channel, I kickbanned you from it. Upon Tanetris' request, I unblocked you - and like Tanetris has said, you are still welcome to come and chat. -Auron 02:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Flaunt your electronic detection e-penis elsewhere. I am not bragging that I "tricked" you guys or anything, because as I said, that was never the intention. I logged on to you guys saying that stuff about me. If you;re saying that you guys proceeded to do that knowing I was on that even sets you at a lower level of lameness than I thought you were originally at. However, I personally don't buy it. I think it's e-peening after feeling like you were hoodwinked by this nobody. You don't have to prove me right or wrong, it's beside the point. --Karlos 06:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

My point was not trying to prove you "can't get one over on us" or anything like that. I was just trying to point out that there was no sudden storm of us all private-messaging each other that "oh no, Karlos is in here! Ban him quick before he gets any more of our secrets!" The channel is not out to get you, or anyone else. In fact the channel is not out to do anything; it's a bunch of individuals who, for the most part, enjoy talking to each other. Sometimes we vent to each other, sometimes we ask each other's advice, sometimes we even yell at and insult each other (especially Auron). My personal opinion, though I'm not an op, is that the only people who should be banned from the channel are people who actively disrupt the channel, and I doubt I'm alone on that one. - Tanetris 10:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I find this whole discussion about IRC "in-groups" and IRC "elite clubs" and whatnot simply FUD and people having knee-jerk reactions about something they are unfamiliar with. Karlos, would you be so upset if all these people had started talking with each other in-game instead of IRC? You and I have talked and played GW together relatively often, were we somehow bypassing wiki consensus or otherwise causing harm to the wiki? Multiple times in the past there have been suggestions here on the wiki about editors to idle in some low-population GW outpost and chitchat there. Would have there been a problem with that? How about a wiki guild (there've been a few of those already), would you oppose them too? I simply see IRC as a cleaner way of reaching that same goal, and on the plus side it's public and open to everyone.

I also find it strange that you are raising a fuss about an "in-group controlling the wiki" while you used to be pretty happy with taking decisions behind the scenes via email and ingame PMs with other admins in GuildWiki (most obvious example, the BuildsWipe). And just for everyone's information, the amount of wiki decisions taken every day on that IRC channel is ZERO. What you will see a lot, is people discussing about how to do this or that on the wiki (like Poke and Biro who kept going at it about timezones in DPL calls yesterday, for hours). Take a careful look at the list of people who are regularly in that channel, most of us disagree with each other on various policies and issues. I don't even like half the people on that channel and I don't even know half of the rest, and it's very likely they don't especially like me either. It's the same with everyone; most of the time we simply avoid those discussions we disagree on like radioactive silos, and concentrate on harmless topics like talking about Anja's cats or Starcraft or whatever else. The doors of that channel are open for everyone, there's no requirements such as "Only those who disagree/agree with Skuld getting arbitrated may come in" or "Only those who agree/disagree with Gem becoming a sysop may come in".

Everyone who wants to make sure of that is welcome to join the channel and simply lurk there. Alternatively, as Biro suggested, we can upload daily logs of the channel. I think it's important for the link to the channel to remain accessible, or for logs to be published, because otherwise we'll end up with "they must have organized their support for policy Xyz in the IRC channel"; or whatever else. For transparency's sake, keep the link to the channel public, and either let us upload logs or jump in there from time to time yourself (anon lurkers are also perfectly fine; we've had people doing so from the very start of the channel, both wiki administrators and regular users).

(As a side note, the channel reached an all-time peak of 26 yesterday, so this whole discussion may be getting more people there, not less). --Dirigible 18:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Please don't mention the build wipe. I might get allergic reactions to reading the talk page otherwise ... --Xeeron 19:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Absolutley nothing happens on the IRC Channel, yet we have screen shots of people cussing me out, making derogatory racial jokes about me. Everyone is welcome to join, but we removed the link to the IRC channel to prevent them from finding it (Xeeron didn't even put it up for discusison, instead removed it immediately, then offered an explanation). Everyone can come and lurk all they want, but we'll ban their IPs. Your words and reality do not match, Dirigible. Why?

If your point is that what happened is not indicative or does not happen all the time, well, put the link back and let people decide that. If your point is that it does not happen, then you are mistaken and the screen shots are there.

You bring up the times we've been together... How many times have I EVER discussed wiki business with you in a DoA run? How many times have I insulted another wiki user (even those I don't like at all) with you or allowed you to insult other wiki users in my presence as an admin? You are a bureaucrat sir, you are supposed to (even the policy page says so) conduct yourself at a higher standard. I did not see you say ONE word to Auron when he made that joke (and you WERE on and reading it because you were typing just before and just after it). Do yo unot think you had that responsibility? Was it not the responsibility of Mr.Xeeron to tell them not to speak of other users like that BEFORE he jumped on here and removed the embarrassing link? Your words and actions do not seem to be aligned with "higher standards."

Go ahead and referesh my memory. The builds wipe was DECIDED by Tanaric, I never set it up or asked for it or anything. Tanaric asked me what I thoguht would solve the issue, I told him appointing Xeeron (something I said on the GuildWiki). He said he was wiping the builds section, and after I proposed Xeeron to him, he said he would ask him and if he did not accept he would wipe the builds section. My understanding of my role there was not as a decision maker behind the seen but as an advisor to the bureaucrat with all the power in his hands. There was no decision making done by an elite group, Tanaric just walked in one day and decided he was gonna blow it up. I don't fault him, and I think it was the right decision, but it was never an elite group making a decision in secret. I read his action as him trying to make sure none of the major editors would oppose him if he did it. I never thought there was any doubt as to what he wanted to do.

But if you want to talk history, go ahead, ask Xasxas, Rainith, Fyren and Tanaric himself how many times we PMed each other to discuss things off the wiki. How many times we sat in a town or IRC or MSN messenger making jokes about other wiki users or laughing and giggling to jokes made by Auron. Go ahead, ask them and let me know what they say. Rezyk was right. He saw the corrupting influence of the in-group. He was right and I was wrong. --Karlos 10:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Reload?

Every time I run Guild Wars (on window) it re-downloads the entire dat file - any ideas on fixing this problem? 58.171.34.194 06:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Contact the support. -- (gem / talk) 09:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)