Talk:Main Page/December-January 2007/2008

Skill trainers

Just noticed a minute ago; in the "Player vs. Environment"-box, under "Non-player characters"-section: shouldn't there also be a link to Skill trainers ? Erszebet 17:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Add it to the Main Page/editcopy if you want, and if you have any other ideas put them there too. Although, if the change is too drastic and would require a lot of change, post the idea on the talk page of the editcopy instead. -- br12 • (talk) • 17:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thnx, looks like Snograt beat me to it though :-) Erszebet 18:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

News

Should we incorporate specific news items into the main page? -- Gordon Ecker 06:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't we already do that with the Upcoming changes and features? — ク Eloc 貢 16:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Under upcoming changes and features. But, with the current formatting, it would be messy to include it under news. -- Gordon Ecker 02:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a whole new formatting is in order? This Main Page is starting to get a little worn out imo. — ク Eloc 貢 02:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

This site is plagerized a useless stupid copy

Here is the ORIGINAL guildwiki, for all you "noobs" out there that JUST recently got into guildwiki.

guildwiki.org

it recently changed to gw.gamewikis.org, but the ORIGINAL link still works. 67.131.227.19 11:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

hey, why don't you just copy the ORIGINAL guildwiki? it's BETTER anyways?

why in the world did you make A COPY OF THE ORIGINAL? WTF, ANET? 67.131.227.19 11:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

...you have lots of reading to do. I'd recommending starting here or here. -Auron 11:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

it's still just a bad version of the original. and at most it can only equal the old one. so they just did it so they can have adifferent license, eh? and what does that license do for them? so they can release things on the site commercially? and not have ads? ........... it doesn't really seem worth it to me, man. sounds like a wast of time, and a cause of needless confusion. but hey. i understand not wanting ads though - why don't they just donate to guildwiki? or buy them a server or something. ;p just kidding corporations don't donate, do they? they just own their own things. just corporate take-over in action, RIGHT? 67.131.227.19 11:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

let me give you an example, today i was talking to a guildmember of mine, and i said "it should say "getting there" or something like that - he was like "there's nothing that says that - just quests..." i was like wtf? see - needless confusion, and a lot of it. 67.131.227.19 11:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

It's obvious that you don't have a clue what you're talking about, which is fine, not everyone has to be educated, but please don't post absolute rubbish here because it just wastes everyone's time. LordBiro 12:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

is there NPA on this site? i think that you saying "** don't have a clue what ** am talking about" and suggesting that i'm not "educated" would be a VIOLATION HAHAHHAAHHAAHAHA! 67.131.227.19 12:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

oh and of course i disagree with you on your statement that what i said was absolute rubbish, so feel free to discuss that further and use examples if you want to back that up. 67.131.227.19 12:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

btw i have a bachelor's in physics, so i think that if you were suggesting that i am not educated, then that would be absolute rubbish which in america we would normally call "horse-0000"

Apparently reading and basic research skills were not part of your education? — Skuld 12:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

skuld the very first thing i read that you wrote was a violation of NPA and you are still doing it. 67.131.227.19 13:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm delighted that small amounts of people on web still take their time to amuse their fellow users by acting like a 10 y/o. Nice job, keep it up. ~ dragon legacy 12:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

You aren't educated on the subject and you don't know what you're talking about. These are just facts. If I had called you an idiot then I suspect it would have been a violation of NPA. Please discuss this with a sysop if you like.

do you want me to cite NPA for you, and which statements you violated?

Also, just for the record, [1]. Please don't try to tell the contributors here that this wiki is plagiarised when most of us helped to build GuildWiki. LordBiro 12:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

it was crossed out before you wrote this. 67.131.227.19 13:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

In addition, i'd like to point you towards [2]. — Skuld 12:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

it's still a waste of time. and this site is still worse than the original. and most of the people who participated in the old one were umm, shallow. and this is still a copy of something and there are still 2 copies of the same thing. so still, WTF? 67.131.227.19 13:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

If this is a waste of time, what are your posts here? Further wastes of time? What exactly are you besides a hypocrite? A troll? Why should we listen to you, in fact, why should we even care, given that your motives are clearly not constructive in nature? (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 13:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

calling someone a troll is a lot like saying "f--- you" to someone? you think they'd tolerate THAT, aine?

You're right, this wiki is a useless copy, what are you going to do now that everyone knows your polite and carefull advice ? lussh 13:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

just letting everyone know.. what more can i do?

I personally don't think that this wiki is the useless copy. This wiki has a license that allows for the in game help system to use it while GWiki does not. (the license thing was the reason for this wiki to be made) Imo the help system makes this wiki hte superior one, although I do agree that GWiki is still far ahead in some parts of content. If everyone was to move to this wiki that problem would be solved easily. -- (gem / talk) 14:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

as always, gem, you are mature, and respectful. 67.131.227.19 14:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• Editors should be civil when stating disagreements
• Comment on content, not on the contributor
• Comments should not be personalized
• should be directed at content and actions rather than people
• A posting that says "Your statement about X is wrong because of information at Y", or "The paragraph you inserted into the article looks like opinion", is not a personal attack.
• Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done.
• Users who insist on a confrontational style marked by personal attacks can receive administrative disciplinary action, including short-term or extended bans. If an administrator believes that a personal attack is severe or disruptive enough to warrant it, a user may also receive disciplinary action on a first offense. Subsequent violations can result in disciplinary action, such as bans, being applied for longer durations.

Retrieved from "http://gw.gamewikis.org/wiki/GuildWiki:No_personal_attacks"

"You aren't educated on the subject and you don't know what you're talking about." -Lord Biro "It's obvious that you don't have a clue what you're talking about, which is fine, not everyone has to be educated" - Lord Biro "What exactly are you besides a hypocrite? A troll? -Aiiane " - wow this is the worst - that guildwiki actually made a SPECIAL FORM of personally attacking people called trolls! thanks admins!

67.131.227.19 14:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Only one problem: you haven't contributed any content. All you've contributed is hate, slander, and misplaced malice. Furthermore, if NPA meant that the conduct of users could not be discussed, it'd be impossible to have GWW:NOTICE and ArbComm - yet that's obviously not what it means. When people call you uninformed, they're talking with regards to the content, and calling someone ignorant is a statement regarding a topic; it's no more a personal attack than saying "this point is wrong". Which happens to be exactly what they're telling you. Sorry, but hiding behind NPA doesn't work. Trolling is disruptive to the wiki and NPA is not an excuse to continue it when asked to stop and clearly shown why. Your arguments are still hypocritical and nonconstructive. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 23:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

it's not slander. i think what i posted is legitimate discussion. apparently we disagree there. but you are totally wrong about NPA. calling someone a freaking TROLL is a personal attack. it's like calling someone a "bi----." did you read NPA or do you just want to flame more? cuz i'm done.

Though similar, policy from GuildWiki does not apply to this wiki. Feel free to quote from our version of GWW:NPA instead. That said, it's a little hard to take seriously someone who started off by insulting the wiki as a whole.

Personally, while we're still significantly behind GuildWiki in terms of content and probably have fewer contributors, I prefer this wiki over GuildWiki. Between the nice, shiny renders that Emily has been working on for us (examples: Image:Mad King Thorn.jpg and Image:Tengu Axe.jpg), the input from Anet staff on trivia, updates, etc, the integration directly into the game, and Anet's ability to host the whole thing on servers that can actually bear the load of so many players without ads or risk of being taken down/selling out/etc, GWW is clearly the superior infrastructure and could far surpass GuildWiki in functionality with the same effort. So this is where my effort goes, and this is where I look first for information. - Tanetris 15:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

okay, i have a solution: get anet to give their artwork to guildwiki.org. or just post it there. would they be willing to do that? obviously not, since they went so far as to COPY-CAT / plagurize another website. JUST SO THEY DON"T HAVE TO DO THEIR OWN IN-GAME help, which guild wars severely needs (not a web-based help thing, that's just retarded). it all just needs to be clear and concise - not confusing. my friends all hate the game. and i think it's because new players don't know about things like improving your character by changing / unlocking new runes, skills, etc. THIS IS A MAJOR PROBLEM. and creating a 2nd wiki which is, as of now, factfully inferior to the original one, does NOT IN ANY WAY SOLVE that problem - although the excuse for making this site is an attempt to solve that problem. oh yeah but it has official artwork, which is nice, but... (see my above solution - much easier way if you ask me). 67.131.227.73 12:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The OP isn't entirely wrong. There are very few advantages to the official wiki. The three main advantages I see are; 1)The official wiki acts as a platform for Arena Net to interface with the community with a little bit more control than a fan forum. 2) It is linked to in game (I don't know anyone who uses it, probably mostly people who edit the wiki anyway). 3) Financing problems don't prevent content from being added, although because of the old "consensus" moved from GuildWiki to this one, a lot of these now redundant issues remain simply from fear of change, (Mouse Over skill icons?). There is one big complex disadvantage which the OP pointed out, the split of the two wikis creates a split in the community and a split of editors attention. Instead of all interested parties working on the same one wiki, they are now divided between two wikis. Some content exists on one and not on the other. When the BMP was released I had to bounce between the wikis to see which one had the information I wanted. Had only one wiki existed all information would be in the one place. This IS a big problem, most users (or the most active users for CONTENT not user/talk pages/policy/arbitration) remained on the original wiki and so when new content is added that community is much faster in creating it than this one. I will admit I have seen a higher standard in formatting and general style (not style as in cool sunnies and a leather jacket but style as in english, grammar, spelling and sentence structure etc) on this wiki compared with the old one, but this comes at the cost of much more slowly added content. Usually at least half the recent changes are in user space such as Gaile's section or policy discussion. Next time new content (something sizable like the BMP or an expansion - I know a long wait) comes up, I suggest you look at the two wikis around the time of release, the other wiki is just faster. Anon

Didn't mouse over skill icons require a third-party extension which used a database that had to be updated server-side whenever the skills were updated? -- Gordon Ecker 08:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as content being added slower, most of the people who rabidly added content at gwiki did so because they were playing through campaigns and quests for the first or second time (I know that is when I was contributing the most). Now almost everything is old and no one goes through it anymore. I have to say though, that almost all of the active editors I knew of or worked with at gwiki, about 90% came here. I think a lot of us were a bit bleh at having to do things twice. An exception though was that I felt doing the armor section here was fun because we got to do something new. But for things like quests and missions, you can't really innovate that very much which makes it kind of boring. - BeX 10:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

back to the subject - 2 copies of guildwiki

I personally don't think that this wiki is the useless copy. This wiki has a license that allows for the in game help system to use it while GWiki does not. (the license thing was the reason for this wiki to be made) Imo the help system makes this wiki hte superior one, although I do agree that GWiki is still far ahead in some parts of content. If everyone was to move to this wiki that problem would be solved easily. -- (gem / talk) 14:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

and they can't just get a new license? 67.131.227.19 14:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Changing license isn't possible unless every user of the wiki gives their permission, and quite frankly that's impossible with hordes of IP users etc. Fyren has a nice page about this at GuildWiki. -- (gem / talk) 15:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

go ask anet, coming messing around here won't improve anything except stress for everyone. lussh 14:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I sure missed alot of conversation. Anyways, there's no way that Guildwiki can be made ingame as ArenaNet has no power over Guildwiki what-so-ever and it's owned by Wikia. — ク Eloc 貢 21:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

oh so this one is "in-game" then... and they can't release the content "in-game" unless they have the license this one has. i get it now. however, does ArenaNet OWN this site? if so, since this is basically a democratic site, it would seem to be susceptible to corporate censorship. for example, could i post accurate encyclopediatric articles that anet wouldn't want here? wouldn't just the overflow of arenanet fans and what-not just delete it and keep it deleted? and not let it ever get posted? 67.131.227.73 12:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Eloc please refrain from posting when you have no idea about the subject. Wikia only owns the domain name of GuildWiki, but not the content. ANet could, or anyone else for that matter, copy the whole content of GuildWiki and host it on their own servers. BUT. They would be forced to use the same license as GuildWiki uses now. preventing any commercial use of that material, so they couldn't link to it from the game, so that's why they started a wiki of their own. -- (gem / talk) 21:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Umm, "Imo the help system makes this wiki hte superior one"...— ク Eloc 貢 21:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Eloc wasn't wrong... Anon

BTW *thanks eloc.* your post was very *informative.* 67.131.227.73 12:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

This is not a democracy. Can't remember the word to describe it, but it's lead by discussion and etc etc, not voting. br12 • (talk) • 12:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The main point of this wiki was to take the load off of guildwiki, as the traffic was too much for the owner to keep up with, and give anet a place to put up their own content with licenses and policies they can control. --Lou-Saydus 21:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

That wasn't really the main point... the main point was to have a wiki whose content ArenaNet could use within the game. If GuildWiki had had a sensible license from the start then this wiki probably wouldn't exist. LordBiro 21:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The main point was to take a load of off Guildwiki? I think ArenaNet just wanted to have their own Wiki as it would work a lot better. Saying that they made GWW just to help Guildwiki would be like ArenaNet making a forum just to make Guild Wars Guru less laggy. — ク Eloc 貢 07:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Anet already has a forum. And if their point was to use it in game, they haven't done a very good job at that. having to type /help really isn't that intuitive. --Lou-Saydus 23:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

try F10.. And ANet does not have an official forum; ANet has multiple well known fansites which have a forum but there is no official forum made by ANet. (And no, Izzy's and Gaile's talk pages are not a forum -.-) poke | talk 12:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

i'm done

messing around with all these immature little 14 year olds or however old they are. they own this site. and i don't care - who does? it's a kids game anyways, let them be immature little brats who the fuck cares?--The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:67.131.227.19 .

Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. -Auron 15:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

what was that mr. admin?--The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:67.131.227.73 .

how i lern to be nature liek u? -FireFox File:Firefoxav.png 15:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Well congratulations you just made half of this discussion page a total waste of space... (Terra Xin 14:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC))

blame the people who made it that way.--The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:67.131.227.73 .

Remove Bonus mission pack from upcoming changes & features

It's just bugging me a little, that's all - thanks :) (Terra Xin 14:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC))

Anja's taken care of it :) --Kakarot 14:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

recently created a significant problem?

let me quote someone," There is one big complex disadvantage which the OP pointed out, the split of the two wikis creates a split in the community and a split of editors attention. Instead of all interested parties working on the same one wiki, they are now divided between two wikis. Some content exists on one and not on the other. When the BMP was released I had to bounce between the wikis to see which one had the information I wanted. Had only one wiki existed all information would be in the one place. This IS a big problem, most users (or the most active users for CONTENT not user/talk pages/policy/arbitration) remained on the original wiki and so when new content is added that community is much faster in creating it than this one. I will admit I have seen a higher standard in formatting and general style (not style as in cool sunnies and a leather jacket but style as in english, grammar, spelling and sentence structure etc) on this wiki compared with the old one, but this comes at the cost of much more slowly added content. Usually at least half the recent changes are in user space such as Gaile's section or policy discussion. Next time new content (something sizable like the BMP or an expansion - I know a long wait) comes up, I suggest you look at the two wikis around the time of release, the other wiki is just faster."

Furthermore, no one uses the "in-game help." IMO game help should be done IN GAME (not link to an outside site - that just seems LAZY to me) - that is one of guild war's BIGGEST faults, is that beginning users can't figure out how to play well - and have fun, or start being creative. 67.131.227.73 12:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

If you want MY solution which you all don't, of course, it would be easier to COnstantly copy and paste everything from one wiki to the other to keep One of the up to date. *beep* -in' fools. 67.131.227.73 12:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

And that idea is great, except for the part where it's illegal. - HeWhoIsPale 13:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

All opinions are valued. But, as HeWhoIsPale says, it's not legally possible. -- br12 • (talk) • 13:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

(EC)Users may copy and paste content from this wiki to the other one. However, most of the time we cannot do the opposite - copy and paste has the same license problems that prevent Arena Net from simply buying the older wiki. Not to mention the formatting problems - even in those cases in which we are allowed to copy and paste content from there (when said content is done by users who have released all their contributions on the proper license), just c&p doesn't work as the article needs to be reformatted in order to fit the general style of this wiki.

Ideally, IMO, the old wiki would have been locked and left as "read only" after this wiki had been created. Theorically the community would then be forced to come here (although that would not have happened anyway), and we would end the redundancy that leaves two incomplete wikis.

But hey, if you want to take a look at all articles that GuildWiki has and this wiki doesn't, check if the contributors of said articles have released their contributions on the proper license, copy and paste everything here and then reformat everything so it fits this wiki's style, please, be my guest. No one is stopping you. Erasculio 13:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

i think it would be easier to copy and paste to the other one anyways.--The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:67.131.227.73 .

Good for you, I prefer the faster wiki without ads and with contributions from the developers (Insight and accurate information instead of speculation ftw). - HeWhoIsPale 13:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

fine.. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:67.131.227.73 .

Erasculio: "Users may copy and paste content from this wiki to the other one." - this is not true. GFDL says that the content can be copied but then it has to be released under the same license. poke | talk 14:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Problem? What problem? The fact that you're being inconvenienced at having to jump between two wikis? What exactly is the problem at having to jump between wikis? Since we're at it, why isn't a suggestion being made to GWO's wiki and telling them to also abandon their efforts and do a merge? And the previous GW wiki on wikia? How come no one suggested they stop doing it and merge with GuildWiki long before the controversial Wikia sale happened? How about telling all those people who create offline utilities that attemptes to duplicate all the info that's already on wikis to stop working on them and asking them to connect to a wiki instead? What about all the non-English wikis? Why is there no effort at linking all of them up and making sure they all translate amongst themselves rather than typing them out individually? I suspect that each and every raised hostility against this wiki from unhappy users is either less than noble or just has a problem with this wiki being called an "official" wiki. And to answer the anons numerous unfounded allegations...

"no one uses the in-game help".... I suspect this is more "no one you know uses the in-game help". Without statistical data to back them up, it is a baseless statement (unless incredibly, me and my guildies are the only ones who find the ability to fire up the browser from in-game to be rather helpful in searching the wiki...).

"IMO game help should be done IN GAME" ... ok... do share as to which other game has an in-game help about every single part of their game, I'm extremely interested in knowing what game actually provides walkthroughs, tips, help, and definitions for every single part of their gameplay.

"beginning users can't figure out how to play well" I usually tell them to RTFM. If the very first alpha and beta players could play it without the wiki, I can't see why they can't play it now. And all those in-game dialogue, tips, and popups? It's RTFD or RTFT then. -- ab.er.rant 06:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

alright.----well then, which wiki should i post on? 67.131.227.73 07:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

And IIRC they plan on eventually making the wiki browsable in-game. -- Gordon Ecker 07:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Whichever you like. -- ab.er.rant 08:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Random Page

I was bored and just clicking the random page button on the left, and most of the time i clicked it a page of a certain armor popped up. Possibly a glitch?--‎FireTock 23:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It's perfectly random each time for me. Perhaps your browser is caching pages a bit too much? (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 00:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Wintersday

The link is to 2006's Wintersday. :P -- br12 • (talk) • 18:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

well spotted! and fixed :) --Lemming 18:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Layout

The guildwars campaign icons are too big, i thought i fixed this in the edit copy but i guess somebody changed it back. they stick out of the side of the page and cause large white blocks. --Lou-Saydus 19:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any "white blocks" - which browser/resolution are you seeing it from? Also, the page was not taken from Main Page/Wintersday, but from Lemming's version in his own userspace, whereas you fixed the Main Page/Wintersday version. -- br12 • (talk) • 19:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Erh, so... what was the point of the Main Page/Wintersday page then, if another version was put up? Anyways, the color combination for the current main page looks weird... Maybe merging the current one with the combination from MP/W?.--Fighterdoken 19:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what was going on in the other one, the one in my sandbox had been planned for a while, I left it on the editcopy for a day to allow anyone to make any changes. Please feel free to change the edit copy and I or another sysop will synch it with the main page. --Lemming 19:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Im running at 1024x768 and firefox. Also changed the edit copy to fit. --Lou-Saydus 19:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

What resolution are you using Lou because they look fine to me. Personally I think the smaller ones on the EditCopy don't look as good as the full size versions, they're too blurry and you lose some of the detail. --Kakarot 19:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not Lou but I'm using Firefox at 1280X1024 but in a non-maximized window. The entire main page overflows off the right. --Valshia 19:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm in Firefox at 1024x768 and I get a horizontal scroll bar on the main page now which makes me cry. Lyra Valo 20:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a thought, but how about using the special images on only the campaigns which have access to the event? Would that look weird maybe? Factions and Eye of the North would be the regular with Prophecies and Nightfall with the Wintersday. Then Dragon Festival time the Factions one would change, etc. Idea worth anything? Prof alf 20:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The idea of the campaign titles changing to suit the event currently going on is just to decorate the main page slightly. Having some titles decorated and some not, while it corresponds with lore, doesn't really look effective in a design point of view. br12 • (talk) • 20:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

i'm w/ fighterdoken. i thought we had gone away from this particular color scheme b/c it didn't look so great. the one on the wintersday page looks much better. --VVong|BA 22:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Personally I don't like that version. The borders are too thick and as noted by Poke the content is pushed away by big images (namely the Dwayna, Grenth and Grentch images). On what Prof alf mentioned I have to agree with Brains. About the logos, guess it's better to have blurry images that fit on lower resolutions, but what happens if someone with a lower resolution has the same problem? --Kakarot 23:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The images for the campaigns link to the actual images page, not the page of the campaign, that needs to be fixed Hime-chan 00:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Fixed! -- Emily Diehl (talk) 03:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Shrink it

Doesn't fit on 1024x768. — Skuld 22:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Latest Update

Latest game update was on Error: invalid time lol :P --Wizardboy777 03:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't usually delete things, but I jumped in and did this since it was breaking the front page. Don't take that to mean that I'll make it a habit :) -- Emily Diehl (talk) 03:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Travel bug

This is important! Anyone that works on GW please listen to this! WARNIGN:DO not use a wipe! there is a bug that causes anyone to go anywhere. A friend showed me this. What you do is, one person gooes to a place then to a gh. Another person goes tot he same gh. The person that went to the place becomes leader, and they go to the guy that can show ghs. They go to any then immediantly resign and the people travel to the last place the people went. Plz do not make a wipe, just mkae an update that amkes resigning in ghs cause them to go back to the orrigional guild hall. Thank You. -- ‎ChristmasTock 18:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

This was already fixed. poke | talk 21:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Nope, it still works. I can show it to anyone who wants it to be proven.--‎FireTock 23:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

If you check User talk:Gaile Gray, the team are already aware of it. Also, try to keep these bugs/expolits/whatever as ..."unpublic" as you can - Anet, understandably, don't like getting too much notice onto them. -- Brains12 • Talk • 23:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

missing holiday stuff

I dont know when this happened but a bunch of people said that they lost a bunch of title points, had no hats, and all of their presents were gone. This didn't happen to me, so i don't know when it happend or how it happened but maybe they just logged on and their stuff was gone. I keep hearing a ton of people saying that.--‎FireTock 17:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

If this is concerning Wintersday, then please put this on Talk:Wintersday 2007 where it is related, not on an archive of the main page. There is also a statement of the bug on Wintersday 2007. -- Brains12 • Talk • 17:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)