Talk:Main Page/June-August 2007

From Guild Wars Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

We are no longer in the nomination phase...

Can someone fix that thing up there to make it say we are in the voting phase? Or tell me how and I'll fix it. I'm supposedly an admin with uber leet powers, but I am clueless. --Karlos 08:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

See previous notes regarding putting up the first notice. MisterPepe talk 08:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
ZOMG! Someone did it already... Curses! :( --Karlos 09:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry. ;) I saw this here and changed it. -- Gem (gem / talk) 11:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Mediawiki Extension:PageNotice--Moeilijk 13:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Drake teeth

moved to Help:Ask a game question

hi

--The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:216.160.225.84 .

Hola! - -Dirigible 01:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Lol! -- ab.er.rant sig 07:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

9000+

Woot, almost 10k articles. Way to go folks. Keep it coming. -- CoRrRan (CoRrRan / talk) 22:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Over NINE THOUSAAAAAND — Skuld 07:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

hahaha nice use of a meme. He Who Likes Arrows 00:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Help article links to the support toolbox

I think we should add links to Help:Ask a wiki question and Help:Ask a game question to the 'support' toolbox on the left, just above the 'Report a wiki bug' link. Comments? -- Gem (gem / talk) 09:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Skip the wiki question one and add the Ask a game question one IMO. It's getting ridiculous how many people don't read the top of the page for Ask a Wiki question. --File:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG Vallen Frostweaver 11:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Also to make it faster, we may want to have direct links to that section of the site, instead of just the help centerDervish-icon.png--Raph 12:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Vanquishing

Could a link to the Vanquishing page be added? --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Archangel Avoca .

There is a link to the titles page, which has a link to the vanquisher article. -- Gem (gem / talk) 19:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Vanquisher is not front-page material. Titles is. -- ab.er.rant sig 02:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Woot! Pwned Guildwiki

We now have skills that Guildwiki doesn't which makes us better I suppose. If they use it I think thats like a copyvio type of thing and isn't allowed.--§ Eloc § 04:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it's the fact that Anet support this one? Who really cares anyway, Guildwiki has more complete information on things, so meh. -- Fenix 04:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
But we got skills and they only got mor einfo because they've been around longer, overall, we've been growing faster.--§ Eloc § 04:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Do you honestly see this as a GWW vs GWiki thing? That's childish at best. -Auron 04:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Eloc....this site is practically controlled by Anet. They give this site the information as a trade off that they get some control over what is put here. So they put the new skills here first, that just means that guildwiki will get them later. zzzzzzzz bragging about a wiki page is dumb. -- Fenix 04:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Lol controlled.. - BeX iawtc 05:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Bexor, you know we are all actually bots created by Arena Net so the other users think there is anything other than Arena Net controlling this wiki. It's also a very clear fact that all policies are approved by Arena Net and their bots only, with discussions made up by the quest writters so those outside actually believe there was any sort of discussion between users. I only wish I had been programmed with a better Grammar mod : ( Erasculio 05:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I think Eloc's just joking around. It is technically controlled by ANet, they're just taking a hands-off approach. -- Gordon Ecker 05:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Looks like Erasculio's malfunctioning again. Didn't they just debug his code last week? - Tanetris 05:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Fenix, GWW:NPA, & yes, I do consider it kind of a rivalry. If it wasn't like a rivalry, then why can't we use there info if it's released unde rthe GNU act?--§ Eloc § 05:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't see a personal attack and Eloc you should read the GWW:FAQ. - BeX iawtc 05:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I believe calling my topic dumb is considered a personal attack as it brings down my confidence to be able to be posting a simple topic as this and not be criticized which could eventually lead to me never posting anything here again.--§ Eloc § 06:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Calling your topic dumb is totally allowed -- in fact, that's what we encourage. Calling you dumb for posting the topic would be a personal attack.
Beyond this, there is no reason to consider this place a rival to the GuildWiki. Biro and I practically run the GuildWiki, and we're both prominent contributors here as well.
Tanaric 07:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Everyone and everything needs a rival, even if it's not official. Who else we gonna rival against? Wikipedia?--§ Eloc § 08:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
You imo -Auron 11:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Auron wins! --Santax User Santax club symbol.png TALK CONTRIBS LOGS 11:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I've considered us rivals with the new wiki as well. Personally I find it pointless to contribute to the old wiki much, if at all anymore. Think about it! At this time we should focus on bringing the new wiki up to speed, and only using the old wiki to look up things we haven't added yet. In terms of new things we can add them just as fast as they can, if not faster (our skill tome article PWND their skill tome article). Once this wiki has everything the olde wiki has, new things can be added as quickly as they can be added the old wiki, except we have awesome formatting! I want to know just how many people working on the old wiki know about this wiki. Because quite frankly, it seems most of GuildWiki's regulars transferred here, and most of the current editors on GuildWiki are random schmos. File:Esig2.jpg Eldin 14:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Good point and keep this in mind, we get all the information first from ArenaNet, example would be those EotN skills which they can't put out until EotN comes out.--§ Eloc § 22:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

And this guy wanted to run for bcrat.. — Skuld 11:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah... anyway, can some of you guys stop with the old wiki, new wiki thing? Calling it rivalry is fine, but bashing it is not. As was so nicely noted, a lot of us here were regulars at GuildWiki and we still keep watch there. It's not a "here or there" thing. -- ab.er.rant sig 01:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, this entire discussion seems rather childish, from all sides. It's time to move on, people. Go to Aiiane's Talk page (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 01:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
But mine is the biggest ... err I guess I am late here ;-) --Xeeron 09:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Can we move this to Eloc's talk page or something? --Karlos 22:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
LoL, I stopped this discussion 2 days ago.--§ Eloc § 05:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Now that the fansite kit is released, could we switch to a background-free EotN logo? - anja talk 19:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The one we currently use is transparent, while the fsk one has a solid white background. Transparency benefits those using a custom skin. --Santax (talk · contribs) 19:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
And that is not easily fixed with the psd? I thought psd files was quite easy to switch to transparent, I'll have a try :) - anja talk 19:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
You can easily make a transparent PNG from the provided FSK logo >_>...--HallwayGiant 19:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I think it's updated now, but the image cache is having fun as usual. - anja talk 19:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't seem to be any difference, though it could be a image cache issue as you said.--HallwayGiant 19:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Client

Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm not seeing the "download the client" logo thingie on the guildwars.com page. I was wondering if it would be appropriate to have something similar here, even if it's just a link to where that logo thingie is? (I just got my new laptop like ten minutes ago and I want gw. :D) Armond 20:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

download client, but I agree it might be interesting to have a link here on the main page --LemmingUser Lemming64 sigicon.png 20:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Not directly on the main page, but how about Running the game? --Xeeron 22:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

German GuildWiki & Licensing

I noticed that the German GuildWiki (which was started as a copy of the original GuildWiki) uses a lot content and layout from GWW. For example Vorlage:Infobox Gegenstand and our Template:Item infobox or Vorlage:Infobox Fertigkeit and our Template:Skill infobox (even with LordBiro's background images).
I've started a discussion there some time ago on this, because afaik they have to publish the content to GFDL then too (but use CC-NC-SA atm). One of their admins answered me the following (translated):

"I have added an appropriate passage to GuildWiki:Lizenshinweise, so the Licensing and the "naming of authors" should be satisfied. If that is not ok, I ask the users of the official wiki to discuss this on THEIR wiki and then an ArenaNet member (for example Martin Kerstein) to clarify that with Benutzer:Chronos on how to handle that in future. Greetings --Flece"

As I don't know how far it is allowed to copy things from here to a non GFDL page I wanted to ask you because of this. poke | talk 23:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

You are correct, I'd say; posting GFDL content on a CC by-nc-sa wiki won't work, since the licenses are not compatible with each other (f.i. the CC license doesn't allow commercial use, while the FDL specifically does permit it). One major problem will be that the FDL requires all derivative versions of this content to be also released under the FDL; the way that the German GuildWiki is currently set up these modified versions will have parts which are released exclusively under the CC license (e.g. in the case of that infobox template you mentioned, all edits from May 7th till July 30th are CC by-nc-sa modifications of a FDL article), thus violating the FDL. And since they are not complying with the FDL, they don't have a valid license which permits them to redistribute these articles, thus they are violating copyright. So, yeah, it'll need some work to get issues like this set straight. =\ --Dirigible 05:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I believe Dirigible is correct on this point. For clarification I should point out that all of my contributions are also released under the CC by-nc-sa license, specifically so that GuildWiki can use my images, but of course this allows anyone using CC by-nc-sa to use my images. LordBiro 08:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

A stupid question, but please answer!!

moved to Help:Ask a game question

New vs. Old?

I don't believe this is actually a competitive relationship. It seems to me that many advertisments appearing on the old wiki (which are needed to keep it online) advertise for ingame currency for real world money, power leveling service, and many other less than legal things. These advertisements were applied by a third party, who paid for the space, and "sub-let" the space to a large pool of advertisers who were put into a rotating schedule, meaning that the old wiki has no control over the content of the advertising.

I, for one, sent many emails pointing this out to Arena Net, as it violated the terms of agreement for GuildWars. It also made the old wiki incompliant with listed fansite criterion.

The old wiki was a great tool for a considerable time, but it has become very cluttered with unformatted contributions, and it indirectly lends support to those individuals, organisations and companies which seek to profit on rule violators. It also has been riddled with bots and vandals, both of which may eventually end up trying to migrate to here.

With the support of Arena Net behind this wiki, we are in a much better position to deal with these issues head on. IP addresses are logged here, and the game links directly to this site for ingame help. You can be assured that Arena Net will actively seek out posters who wish to harm the wiki, the game, or supporters, users and contributors of either.

All in all, I think this is not a wiki vs wiki. It is a logical migration that allows much better control, facilitating a much more constructive, and helpful environment for wiki contributors and users, while complying with the terms of service for the game, and the regulations for listed fansites. Gwynna Vive 07:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

...? -Auron 08:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
So what your point? ~ KurdUser Kurd sig.png 08:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I think they just wanted to say something positive. - BeX iawtc 08:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Gwynna, your comments are so wrong on so many levels.
  • Read Guild Wars Wiki:About.
  • Why are you so enthusiastic and insistent that a very useful resource like GuildWiki lose its fansite status for something as trivial as ads (that get filtered out as they are noticed)?
  • GuildWiki is still a very useful resource. Care to give examples of "cluttered unformatted contributions"? You might want to know that wikis work that way.
  • This wiki has a lot of bots and vandals too. It is natural for wikis to have to deal with such issues as they get more and more popular.
  • Both wikis use the same software, so yea, IP addresses are logged in all Mediawiki-powered wikis...
  • ArenaNet does not seek out such "evil" posters.
  • And no, this is not a fansite, it's the official wiki. -- ab.er.rant sig 08:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I posted in respose to the section about "Woot! Pwned Guildwiki", to objectively point out that the wikis are not in a competition, and stated some reasons for the existence of both in layman's terms, without having to refer to a large "about" page that can be pretty thick reading, and considering the licensing syntax...very thick.
For ab.er, please read this before posting such biased and insulting remarks. It promotes flaming. Comments are based upon opinion, so they cannot be wrong, on any level. They can be unpopular or disagreed with, but this is not a forum. Everything you have pointed out was not directly said in my post, and you are reading far more than the printed page. Furthermore, this is a very innapropriate place for your post. Such attitude from an administrator does not reflect well upon the wiki. Gwynna Vive 21:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
What exactly do you think that is a personal attack in aberrants post? I can't see anything hinting to personal attacks. And how is this an inaproppriate place to post for an admin? -- Gem (gem / talk) 23:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Aberrant's post could have sounded like harsh sarcasm and misunderstanding and just being fed up with the user who first posted the message. But this is the internet, you cant tell how you want the message to be read. Gwynna, calm down there were no personal attacks, but if you want to talk to a nice administrator, Aberrant is not the one to choose. --- Raptors
Do I count as a nice one? ;) --LemmingUser Lemming64 sigicon.png 01:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Not Lemming either. Or Bexor. I suggest Misterpepe --- Raptors
Raptors and Gwynna, please see GWW:ADMIN on the role of admins. Me being a sysop has nothing to do with my views on the comments.
Gwynna, my tone was sarcastic and perhaps you find it demeaning and insulting. Apologies for the hurt feelings. I did not like the fact that you were bashing GuildWiki for no valid reason. Everything I pointed out was either mentioned or implied by your posts. Opinions are one thing, facts are another. I will definitely apologize sincerely if you explain why you feel I have misread your comments. The things I mentioned about bots and vandals and logging IP and not being a fansite and Anet taking action are all facts, not my opinions. You claim cluttered unformatted information. I asked for examples. Contributions from many users usually start off unformatted properly, it's the same thing with this wiki and Wikipedia. And finally, my second point was perhaps the harshest. I find it appalling that you would send "many emails" complaining about GuildWiki's violation because of something as trivial as random ads that almost never stick around for more than a day or two before getting filtered. -- ab.er.rant sig 04:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I know what admins do, I was just ranking them on niceness. --- Raptors
I'm nice. Unless you're an idiot. —Tanaric 22:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I was gonna rank all the admins on niceness, but I figured I could stir up more controversy making a list of the best to worst admins. Here it is. --- Raptors


Aberrant, since you ask. I shall explain, though you might have tried that approach first to avoid your misconceptions. This is likely going to be a very lengthy post, sorry in advance.
You admit being sarcastic and feel I was "bashing" the other wiki which apparently offended you to a great degree. So you post, on this, the main page to publicly insult me...mission accomplished. You then proceed immediately to my contributions page and re-edit, in five consective edits, mine and only my contributions, replacing proper grammar with improper, and deleting some relevant information, in an attempt to satiate your raging desire for vengence. This is a poor attitude, administator or not. But my feelings are not hurt. I am no little girl, and have endured much worse. You say I implied something...wrong, you were trying to find something that was not printed. Look anywhere and you will find that. Implication leads to misunderstanding, and in a global community, that happens enough all by itself. Do not put words into my mouth, and then hold me accountable for them. Being an administrator does indeed have nothing to do with your views, but an administrator should know better than you have demonstrated. Your actions and admissions confirm your intent was malicious, and that reflects poorly upon the wiki, and to a greater degree, because it came from an administrator. Administration requires objectivity. Some contributors cannot use English fluently, others are simply less gifted with format, spelling or grammar. My point is that you chose to read what is not specifically there, and decided to create a bad situation by tossing sarcastic insults and demanding sources, as if this were your personal web page. It is the community's space, generously funded by Arena Net, for the purpose of assisting players, while conforming to the policies of Arena Net. It is not a soapbox for disguntled supporters of the other wiki, and I am certain that either wiki's benefactors would agree, partly due to their relationship, and cooperation to arrive at a solution that unfortunately could not legally merge the old wiki here or fund the old wiki as is.
Now to respond to your initial rant, and provide you the answers you seek, in order:
  • I did read it.
  • Not that it is your business what I e-mail, and to whom, but I mentioned it, so I'll humor you. I pointed out policy violation to Arena Net, nothing more or less, save to comment on how useful the other wiki was and how helpful the wiki community can be. Nothing was said anywhere in my post (or my e-mails for that matter) that insinuated I made complaints, those came from your own mind. Breaking rules is immoral and unjust. I like justice and morality, and I (and the majority of society) expect application of these to be unilateral. I have spent years consulting for corporations, and truthfully, this issue could have hurt Arena Net, and with them, a game that I enjoy and support. Consider for example, the legal recouse other fansites would have against Arena Net should they allow even one fansite to violate policy...the flood of lawsuits would have no end, and the game would suffer at many levels. Corporate policy is very complex, but a simple way of explaining is to call it legislature, that can be legally enforced, and by the same token, can give grounds for legal recouse against the corporate body. Because of Arena Net's policy on violations, legally and morally they can not allow the advertisements on the old wiki while promoting it as a fansite. Also, failure to take action would promote the wrong image to Arena Net's investors and customers. Arena Net attempted to work with the old wiki, but the licensing excluded any merger and financial support solutions, and it is not possible to remove the old wiki's advertising, through no fault of the old wiki. Those ads still appear, and today I have seen at least twenty different ones in a span of under two hours, some appearing several times, some I've been seeing for months, all consistent with page title and keywords, so "filtered out as noticed" is patently false. The advertiser bought that space, gets paid to place those advertisements, and can not remove specific ones without descriminatory practice, and lost advertising revenue. This wiki doesn't rely on the revenue of advertisers...issue solved. That you find it appalling that anyone expects policy to apply unilaterally, pays homage to your character, and calls into question your morality, honesty and judgement. I am impressed by Arena Net's efforts with the old wiki. The other wiki operates at a deficit despite the advertising, so there is no lost income to the host, also very nice to see. All these points have nothing to do with "bashing" the old wiki, but you chose to view it that way.
  • I never said the old wiki wasn't useful, I use it still. I am not sure of the licensing, but citing the other wiki here is likely not legal. And if you expect me to cite examples for you, no. I doubt your intentions, and suspect that you would correct any cited examples anyway, further wasting my time while you take credit for it, and attempt to elevate your status there on my efforts. I am far too busy to try to please just you, and frankly, the reward is pitiful at best. Yes, I am aware of how a wiki works, and how your agenda apparently includes political position and stature within this one.
  • Nobody said bots and vandals were not here. I said there could be more control here, and in fact, a fresh start can present a great opportunity to avoid the pitfalls, by learning from the old wiki, and taking proactive steps before they become an issue. Again, you have read more than was written.
  • This wiki is hosted on Arena Net owned servers, and the logs (IP's included) are accessible by Arena Net personel if needed. If something became a major problem, Arena Net holds the switch that can shut down the servers, and ultimately this entire wiki. IP's are logged in the game as well, and accessible by Arena Net personel. Do the math.
  • If you think there's no monitoring, consider someone posting links or advertising to sell game currency, items or accounts, perhaps a competitive game or how-to articles or tools for decompiling the software, making a bot, or even posting personal information about people in the game or company, or far worse, something illicit and/or illegal? Believe what suits you, but in the real world, investors insure their assets and interests. There will be nothing that violates policy, promotes competitors nor otherwise harm Arena Net here. Arena Net can not responsibly permit the use of their servers for such purposes. Arena Net's investors would not permit it, and niether would either party's insurers. Every corporate network in the world is monitored, bar none. This is done to meet the corporate insurer's demands, and to safeguard the corporate body from being held responsible for criminal action, should laws be broken using that network (or a spoofed IP), whether from outside (ie: hackers) or even inside.
  • I did not call this a fansite, I said it conforms to the listed fansite criterion and policies. You called it a fansite by trying to read more than is printed, again. That this point causes you any concern, or offense at all is rather puzzling. Do you have any ill will towards this wiki? Are we not all fans of Guild Wars here?
As for your personal attack (inquired about by Gem, who did not see the whole of the situation at the time), the very first line of your initial post sets the tone for the entire post, and the admitted sarcarsm and feelings about implied "slamming" confirm your intent. I understand that English may not be your native language (according to your user page), but you applied to be a "sysop" by your own hand. If you are unable to comprehend and use the language fluently, you might consider a more constructive role in this wiki. I say this because you do not seem to read what is there, and that immediately following insulting me, you accessed my list of contributions (nobody else's) and hurriedly re-edited five of them in a row, using incorrect grammar, and deleting relevant information in your haste. To do so indicates malicious intent, and a deliberate and irrationally biased assault upon me, my works and contributions as well as complete disregard towards the wiki community, simply because you misinterpreted and imagined my post as "bashing" that which you hold sacred, and you wanted to exact immediate revenge, without regard for anything but yourself. What is most certainly appalling here is that you have run for bureaucrat, where patience, understanding, objectivity, and a "native tounge" language ability are prime requisites.
I merely wish to contribute, and aid this wiki in becoming as vast and useful as the other, without compounding upon irrelevant clutter and incongruent format that occurs in wikis. Looking at my talk page and my contributions (which you obviously have) will illustrate this without question, as I sought input about format before posting anything that might cause format variance, and I have posted only to talk pages whenever I was unsure, leaving a note to ask someone better capable of maintaining the format to apply my contributions(s). That in itself, allows someone else to take credit for my contribution, elevating their own status toward becoming a bureaucrat, sysop or whatever their goal here is, demonstrating that I have no agenda here other than to expand and improve this wiki.
I can simply avoid your insults and malicious actions by not contributing to the wiki at all. It does not matter to me, except for losing an efficient way for me to help players, something I feel a need to do in the game anyway, even though it sometimes means, that I have to put off completing my in-game goal(s) or dealing with guild affairs. But simply allowing insults to drive me off would do little to help this community. I am not the first to "feel your wrath", I will not likely be the last.
You demonstrate that you can not maintain objectivity, you read what you feel is implied over what is written, and you willfully insult contributors without so much as a second thought or request for clarification. Impulsiveness is not the best quality for an administrator to possess. It may be prudent at this time, for you to evaluate your abilities and decide how you can best contribute to this wiki.
Please do not mistake anything I have written here as a personal attack, you and your input can be valuable to this community. My intention is to cause you to examine you actions, and intentions, as these are things that you alone are capaple of altering. Honestly, I find no joy in any of my statements in this post, and I mean you no harm or ill will. I have tried to word this objectively while pointing out errors that you have made that you seriously should consider with respect to how you treat contributors, and how you apply your "sysop" position to the wiki. I have some techniques that work well for objective writing, that I would glady share with you, and/or the entire wiki, if you wish, and direct me to the proper place to post them appropriately. But, I doubt that there isn't already such a guide here on this wiki. If lashing out at me is something you must do, it has little to do with the main page of the wiki, and as such, it does not belong on this page. For that matter, much of this discussion does not belong here, and should likely be moved, including my initial post, and the "woot pwnd" thread, but that is solely my opinion, and the reason I had posted here at all in the first place, to try to dissipate any them versus us attitude.
At any rate, I hope that this has answered all your questions, and that we can put this issue to rest, and try to be friendly towards each other. Again, I hold no feelings of contempt, and can chalk it all up to a misunderstanding that could have been dealt with differently.
To the rest of the wiki community, my sincere and humblest apologies. I am sorry that this discussion has escalated into it's current state, to satisfy misconceptions ab.erRANT has found in my well intentioned post. I find it upsetting that I have failed to simply validitate the existence of two wikis without a competitive relationship. My Mother always told me where the road paved with good intentions led; I must have had a momentary lapse of memory. I will try harder to remember not to do it again. Gwynna Vive 09:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Latest Update

On the main page, it still says latest game update was the 23rd of August, even though it was the 24th. I don't know if that automatically updates, or someone does it, but it's relatively annoying because I use that link a lot to find out what the uodates are that are occuring. Could someone please fix it, considering I'm not a sysop so i can't edit the page. Calor 15:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

You can also see the latest updates under the Updates, News and Events section on the main page. You don't even need to scroll down to see the link. --Sktbrd341 15:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Oi! Thanks. Calor 15:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
The top link now has been updated. Usually it is updated pretty quick, but because of all the edits happening sometimes little things get forgotten. --Sktbrd341 15:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Emily usually add the update notes for us, and then she use to update that note also. I simply forgot about its existence. :) - anja talk 15:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Boss lock/key

moved to Help:Ask a game question