User talk:42

From Guild Wars Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Firefox.png This user's user page is best viewed with Mozilla Firefox.

User:42   Projects   Feedback/Talk page   User:42's Sandbox   42's Helpful Links   How-To Guides (Basic Level)   How-To Guides (Advanced)   How-To Guides (Beyond)   Archives    

Please add new topics to the end of the page.



What branch?User DrogoBoffin sig icon.png Drogo Boffin 07:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It says on my user page, Drogo. Check the userboxes closer. :P 42 - talk 07:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I did look and didnt see it. How about just answering the friggen question. That would be the courteous thing to do. I also see why I missed it. User DrogoBoffin sig icon.png Drogo Boffin 07:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
What did you do in the Navy. I used to ride on Navy ships tho I wasnt in the Navy. User DrogoBoffin sig icon.png Drogo Boffin 07:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict x2) Guess you didn't see the {{User USN Vet}} box. 42 - talk 07:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I was active, and got out as an Aviation Electronics Tech (cockpit electronics), and went in the active reserves in the SeaBees as a Construction Electrician. 42 - talk 07:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I cant read the blue text on the yellow background since it is small. I just had to look back at your page and look for USN. I was in the Corp. Loved riding on the commando carriers. User DrogoBoffin sig icon.png Drogo Boffin 07:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Figures, damn Jarheads! :P When I was on my Med Cruise, the shop I worked in had a Gunny from one of the deployed squadrons as the Shop Chief (E-7). 42 - talk 07:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
One of my best friends was the craziest Gunny I ever met. Note I have never met one that wasnt crazy in some way. I was fishing with this guy off of a pier for King Mackerel and a shark took his bait and his rod holder broke so his rod went swimming. He pulled out his Ka-Bar and dove off of the end of the pier and got his rod back. We were promptly asked to leave and never go back. User DrogoBoffin sig icon.png Drogo Boffin 08:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Was that because of what he did, or because they figured out he was a Marine? :P
Kidding here, in all seriousness, I have a lot of respect for anyone who puts on a uniform with honor for their Country. 42 - talk 08:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Yup Yup. User DrogoBoffin sig icon.png Drogo Boffin 08:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Were you aware that Marine actually stands for
M - y
A - ss
R - ides
I - n
N - aval
E - quipment
? 42 - talk 08:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
BTW Drogo, since you were in the Corp, there is a Userbox tag for ya {{User USMC Vet}}. I made up one for all the services. 42 - talk 21:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Thanks for the userbox but I dont tell everybody. I have friends that I havent told. User DrogoBoffin sig icon.png Drogo Boffin 03:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right, it is kind of embarrassing admitting to being a Marine (Especially one that doesn't notice they misspelled Corp). :P 42 - talk 07:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Yup Yup I did. I actually saw action I didnt get to hide away in a boat. Thats why I dont talk about it often. User DrogoBoffin sig icon.png Drogo Boffin 16:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Not sure if anyone else has or not yet, but Thank You for your service Drogo. 42 - talk 16:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I wish I could go back. Thank You for your service. I never know what to say when somebody says that. Your Welcome just doesnt seem right but it will have to do. User DrogoBoffin sig icon.png Drogo Boffin 16:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
It is enough if it is truly and honestly meant. I know both sides don't even start to cover it, and I know from first hand experience. After my time was done, when some of the men and women were coming back from over there, I saw someone who said it best. Not sure which branch but it doesn't matter really. This guy was asked why he did it (the service), his response was "So so-and-so (don't remember who) doesn't have to." 42 - talk 16:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, here's a good enough answer for you guys, from my son, a SSG in the Army in a sandy place at the moment - whenever someone thanks him for his service, his reply is honest and true: "Thanks for paying me." -- 16:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
A true patriot. | 72 User Seventy two Truly Random.jpg | 18:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The sections arent missing because they dont belong.[edit]

If you would look on most of the boss pages there is a map of their location in the mission. So there you have your location. Even though they are only in the mission. Put in the explination what you change, there is no need for stuff like this "still missing location and items dropped sections". It is redundant and looks stupid. User DrogoBoffin sig icon.png Drogo Boffin 17:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, they are missing. Just venturing a wild guess but, in probably about 25% or more of the NPC pages, they either already have a location section (this part is actually closer to 75% I believe), or need to keep the location section because the location and mission/quest names are different, or have the mission/quest name already listed in the location section and there is no mission or quest section.
It makes more sense, since all NPCs are actually in a location, to have location sections for all NPC pages. If they are appearing there only from a mission or quest, that can be noted there and the quest or mission section can be added when needed. It was never my intention to add the missions and quests in the location section, and this is under discussion on if it is needed or not (it still applies even if people don't want to see).
As far as if the "still missing sections" looks dumb or stupid is your opinion. Since it isn't seen on the finished page, one, what is the problem?, and two, since they are missing, and people might be looking for that information to help add, this helps flag it, and keeps the page clean, which seems to be an issue to many people who want to hide what needs to be added. 42 - talk 18:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


Have a proposal to take out wildlife and anything they're not participating with like where they live on affiliation and to take it out of the npc box. Please don't add any more. I have stopped with having more against affiliation and how some of it is placed in the formatting npc. And also with this proposal, would make more to have to go to - to remove any unneeded affiliations. That is if it's passed. -- User Ariyen sig icon.gifriyen 22:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Please cease adding affiliations and creating new pages for them until a consensus has been reached here. Feel free to add to the conversation, but refrain from anymore affiliation-based editing until some format has been reached. Thanks. --KOKUOU 07:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Please stop with the affiliation. You have people wanting you to stop. This is a consensus here too. OBVIOUSLY, you do NOT know how the wiki works, else you would respect that there is talk going on with affiliation and that you are not to have anything to do with itAdding that to npc pages, etc., while it is going on. This is very very disrespectful to the wiki community. -- User Ariyen sig icon.gifriyen 06:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Ariyen, since it seems you don't understand the meaning of the word consensus, go look it up before trying to use it to justify an argument where it isn't appropriate. The use of affiliation on certain NPC pages is in dispute, that is correct, but there is no consensus either way yet. 42 - talk 06:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Seems you don't either... Not how this wiki works with consensus. -- User Ariyen sig icon.gifriyen 07:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

What's up[edit]

Your name used to annoy me because of the humongous amount of pointless edits you make, so I squelched you from my Recent Changes, but this functionality only seems to work on already existing pages. Could you not create new pages when I'm online? Thanks. ~Shard User Shard Sig Icon.png 03:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

You used to annoy me, but then... oh, wait. | 72 User Seventy two Truly Random.jpg (UTC) 03:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
rc.each{|line| line.hide if line.include?("[[User:42|42]]")} -- Armond WarbladeUser Armond sig image.png{{Bacon}} 03:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) I am sorry that you think that missing links and information are useless, sorry, pointless. And I have only created a couple of new pages. The greatest majority of my edits are to place missing links, clean up skills list notes, and sometimes when I am in there already, to fix links that go to a redirect page.
And how exactly do you expect me to know if you are online or not? I am not going to stop making improvements because you are online, even if I could be bothered to check. 42 - talk 03:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
You just got trolled hard. /facepalmPika Fan 07:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
LoL he calls his edits that most of which are getting reverted or changed because they are wrong "improvements". Somebody needs a dictionary. User DrogoBoffin sig icon.png Drogo Boffin 20:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
You guys need to shut the fuck up and stop being such BRAVE internet warriors. - Mini Me talk 20:52, 9 December 2009
It sounds like the discussions they probably had when the light bulb was invented and electricity in every house was proposed (not that I am trying to imply my improvements to the wiki are anywhere near the importance). "Why is this needed?" "What good is it?" (I am presuming these were the discussions.) Drogo, most of them are getting reverted, if they are, because people refuse to see they are improvements (pull out that dictionary yourself). It is the same mindset allegedly shown by Bill Gates when he made the now infamous comment about "640K ought to be enough for anybody." (NOTE: I did some research, and from the wikiquote site I have been able to find, Gates denies ever saying that line.) 42 - talk 05:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


Please stop linking headers. Most people dislike the linking of headers as it makes the page look, well, absolutely crap. You also do not need to link every single possible word that needs a link, as then the page just looks even crapper... ~Celestia 02:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Linking first occurance per guidelines, not every single word that can be linked. If you had bothered to check more than a couple you would also see I am removing repeated links. Also, how can it not need a link and still need a link (your words, not mine)? Might I recommend you spend more time fixing missing information and links than you do worrying about someone else filling in missing stuff. 42 - talk 02:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Chill out Celest. Not everybody knows what a skill is, or what a boss. 02:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Mystical. I think we need a consensus on the Links and NPCs. You can have too many links. -- User Ariyen sig icon.gifriyen 02:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Just because it's the first instance, doesn't mean it has to be linked. If it does need a link, the first instance is the only only that needs to be linked, unless it will ease the flow of reading (i.e. one section drags on so long, that the next section could possibly do with another link so the person doesn't have to scroll a whole page to find it). Also I wasn't talking about removing repeated links, I was talking about adding links to the headers and possibly easing back on linking like crazy. "Might I recommend you spend more time fixing missing information and links than you do worrying about someone else filling in missing stuff" Coming from you that's ace advice. I guess I'll just add links to pages, instead of doing projects, or filling in pages filling in pages that are of higher priority than links, and because of my ~3200 contributions there's 150 talk discussions complaining about other people filling in "missing stuff" (like links or sections that are meant to be omitted). ~Celestia 02:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Celestia makes a point there. Regardless what the guideline's current wording says, is better to exclude title sections from the "link first occurance" rule. In these cases, just link the second one.--Fighterdoken 02:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict x4) Besides, the links help people, and I know this is a wild idea, but bear with me, easily look up related (linked) information they might want to read.

"better to exclude title sections from the "link first occurance" rule. In these cases, just link the second one." Except when there is no second one FD, that is a respectable idea.

I agree with you on one point Ariyen, the use of repeated links is not needed, and I have been removing links on some pages that have had almost every single occurrence of a particular phrase or word linked.

"Coming from you that's ace advice. I guess I'll just add links to pages, instead of doing projects, or filling in pages filling in pages that are of higher priority than links," So while I am working on a project, and noticing that links are missing, I should just ignore them now, and have to waste loads more time later when I don't remember where they are to find them, or worse, leave them for someone else to have to take the time to fix.

You are right, it makes so much more sense to see an issue while working on something else, and not fix it while I am there. Means more work later for other people. That kind of attitude is a huge part of why this wiki is not even close to being as complete as it could. Let me give you a "for instance", how about the pages that need a type set, how about the pages that need an affiliation set, how about all of the NPC pages that don't have a map. I could go on, but you will not get the idea with more if you don't already. 42 - talk 02:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Linking headers is unsightly and unseemly but Celestial goes on an unjustified rampage based on a tenuous connection, just as everyone does with 42, for some reason. Fighterdoken is the worthwhile read here and I'll make a section to that effect...: | 72 User Seventy two Truly Random.jpg (UTC) 03:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Well, I am sure that the above post can be traced by the sysops to who posted it, because it falls under NPA rules and standards. It doesn't matter who it was directed at, even if against someone who disagrees with me. It was uncalled for, and the person should be made aware that type of thing isn't allowed. 42 - talk 03:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Affiliation... Not every page needs it and I do agree with others on that. Hence all the Affiliation discussion that's on going. -- User Ariyen sig icon.gifriyen 03:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
As you've maybe read I agree with you on that one. I said 42 was the subject of rants, not that you were the creator | 72 User Seventy two Truly Random.jpg (UTC) 03:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The Above Section Summarized[edit]

Avoid linking headers. Otherwise keep fixing over/underlinking in a sensible way while passing pages. ~~~~Celestial ~~~~Fighterdoken ~~~~42 | 72 User Seventy two Truly Random.jpg (UTC) 03:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

(Back to the above section (above the summary)) Personally, I think that it would be better to link almost every word that can be linked, even if it repeats links. That way, no matter where in the article a person is, they can click the link to the information they want to read, without having to go looking for where that word might be linked. 42 - talk 03:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

And yet if it's in their head already, they have a search box right to the left. While links provide a small convenience in time and effort (open in new tab anyone?), the point is to show the person that the subject has an article for them to read more about it. If they're already aware of this, extra linking only pays off a tiny bit of convenience, which is probably offset by the annoyance in flow and difficulty in distinguishing which links they've investigated out of a sea of them. | 72 User Seventy two Truly Random.jpg (UTC) 03:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Again, it comes down to making someone go hunting for more information when there is no need to do so. Click the link that is right there, or make them work more to get to the same information.
Also, and I have not changed any settings on this, my browser has a different color to links I have already visited, and I am pretty sure that the majority of browsers in use have this also. 42 - talk 04:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
It's not sending them hunting for more information if they have to type for a second instead of click for a second, and one is less offensive to the eyes. And it's also a matter of which you've noticed, not just visited; which (Captain Denduru) of (Blind) these (PvP reward) have (Shadow Form) you (Captain Denduru) visited (Mysticism) have (Elite skill) you (you) visited (Gold Zaishen Coin) have (system for removing bad sports) you (42) visited (Elite)? That's what over- and re-linking does... | 72 User Seventy two Truly Random.jpg (UTC) 04:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Using the wrong words to link to articles (even with what they link to in parenthesis) isn't really the best example to use. The point is, by not having links where there could (and should) reasonably be links, you are making it harder for the person who might be interested in, let me say it again in this post for emphasis, easily finding out the additional information they might want to read, and by so doing, detract from the purpose of the wiki, which is to be information for the user.
It comes down to by making it harder to find the information, then how helpful is that information that you cannot find? They can find it, you might say, and you are right. But why make them work harder for it when there is no reason to do so, and when the link makes it that much easier. If seeing links makes it that hard, then why don't those people who have a problem with that change the settings on their browsers so they don't see them as links except on mouse-over, instead of making the wiki harder to use on everyone else? 42 - talk 04:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
If there's an obvious disapproval from several users about something you are doing (as evidenced above and by several other wiki-goers' undoing of your linking), the best course of action is to open up a question on the appropriate formatting page and set up a Request for Comments, as continuing to do something when so many are not in favour of it is not going to win anyone's approval for you. That, and it's just plain bad form.
As an aside, I also think it's silly to link headers and looks tacky. --KOKUOU 04:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
You haven't yet clarified how it makes it "easier". I theorized that it's because the link is right there to click, but the search box is right there and so the main point of the link -- to suggest you go there -- is already achieved if it's been linked above, whereas the small convenience it now affords is probably offset by the inconvenience it adds to reading. | 72 User Seventy two Truly Random.jpg (UTC) 05:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
The primary concern should be for the greatest usability of the information contained within the wiki. This is supposed to be (according to the statement on the main page of this wiki) a "comprehensive" reference for people to use. You don't hear people complaining about how a dictionary looks, or how an encyclopedia looks if it contains the information they want to make use of. Too many people forget that this is a reference for players of the game of Guild Wars to use, not just the members of the community.
I could carry their argument to the ridiculous extreme (which it isn't too far away from already) and say why have any links to anything since there is a search box there? Make peoples' search (needlessly) harder on them to find the related information they want to read, just because the page already exists, or a link looks tacky (to use your word). 42 - talk 05:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
BTW, I could have used a valid (but overkill) example, by listing every single entry in the Charr boss list page here, under regular (properly titled) links to prove my side, but I choose not to. Just look up the list, if you are so inclined. 42 - talk 05:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Don't you see that adding extra links does not make it more comprehensive? If a printed encyclopaedia article contained:
Bismarck was born in Schönhausen (see Schönhausen for more info), the wealthy family estate situated west of Berlin in the Prussian province of Saxony (see Prussia for more info). His father, Karl Wilhelm Ferdinand von Bismarck (Schönhausen - see Schönhausen for more info, 13 November 1771 – 22 November 1845), was a landowner and a former Prussian military officer (see Prussia for more info); his mother, Wilhelmine Luise Mencken (Potsdam, 24 February 1789 – Berlin), the educated daughter of a politician. A.J.P. Taylor later remarked on the importance of this dual heritage: although Bismarck physically resembled his father, and appeared as a Prussian Junker (see Prussia for more info) to the outside world—an image which he often encouraged by wearing military uniform, even though he was not a regular officer...
then people most certainly would complain. They don't need to be reminded about Prussia and Schönhausen like that. The idea is present throughout the article.
As for your ridiculous extreme, no, you could NOT carry it to that extreme; I already stated the purpose of links. The first "see Prussia for more info" and "see Schönhausen for more info" are perfectly justified; it's when there are many, yes, even across distances when that distance is replete with the sense of the linked article, that it gets silly.
As for your example proving your point, I see you wrote and edited that article. | 72 User Seventy two Truly Random.jpg (UTC) 05:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
That is not even close to the same thing, and you know it. That is not how it is done here, nor would it be if this was an actual paper book. Electronic books, some at least, do also have "see such and such for more info", but in an electronic book, as this is, the links are the method used to allow that 'reference'. A link doesn't have "see this page for more info" listed every single time there is a link.
That was only one example. I could sit here and list 20 different articles I didn't write, and link them properly to make the same point. That one, I remembered. 42 - talk 05:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Wake up and smell the coffee burning. This is not an electronic's book. This is different compared to that. If you think wiki is a book. You are sourly wrong. Linking to what the wiki it's self is about -> wiki. -- User Ariyen sig icon.gifriyen 05:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) KOKUOU, the problem is, it seems that any time anything is done, someone will have an issue with how it is done (something might be said, or not). It is almost guaranteed. I think peoples' actual problem (not that they would admit it, because it is a ridiculous argument) is that I am finding all of these things missing or wrong, and fixing them. Because I am fixing so many of them, they are showing up a lot in the RC page.

If the wiki was as complete as many of these people seem to want to think (judging by, why are you changing/adding/fixing this? comments) than the wiki actually is. Their argument works down to (my paraphrasing here) "this is how it has been for years, so there must be nothing wrong with it", never mind the examples of all the stuff I have found (and pointed out some above), the missing links are just one example. 42 - talk 05:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

If nothing is said, then either no one has noticed or no one cares. In either case, there'd be no reason for you to stop what you are doing. Unfortunately, however, this wiki works on consensus, and if some (in this case, several) users have an issue with something, what we do is stop and get input from everyone (that has an opinion, that is) instead of acting like a 12-year old and continuing on what you're doing. Yes, this means things can take a while to get done, but fortunately for us, Guild Wars is now a (mostly) static game, meaning there's not a huge rush to get things done.
As for your dictionary analysis, a dictionary is meant to be used by speakers of the language it is in, and assumes a basic level of understanding. In the same vein, the wiki is meant as a reference material for the game. If someone is here that doesn't know what a mission or a skill is, then they simply haven't played the game at all, as these terms are presented very early on in any of the campaigns.
Lastly, there's something to be said for the saying "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." --KOKUOU 05:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Many are all for improving it, but they disagree with your method.
A link doesn't have "see this page for more info" listed every single time there is a link. Precisely my point. If by that you don't understand what I mean, then I will stop trying to convince you as it could not be more clear. | 72 User Seventy two Truly Random.jpg (UTC) 05:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
And Ariyen, if you don't see that the wiki is like an electronic book, then you are missing the whole idea behind links, and having category pages, and the like. Go get out an electronic reference book, and take a very close look at how it operates. Every single one I have dealt with had links in it that you could "click" and it would bring you to that particular point, amazingly like what a wiki link does.
BTW, thanks for proving my point how like an electronic book it is by providing the wiki link. You also missed that the entire web is a repository of information, and is also (while massively spread out) similar in operation to an electronic book as well. I am sure you didn't mean to help argue my side, but I appreciate it nevertheless. 42 - talk 05:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
correcting everything in sight might be your intention, but the wiki is a ripple effect. You don't realize that one change, can effect/affect many other pages. Hence must really look at what is being done, before making 'simple' changes to a page that could end up being worse than originally intended. That's why so many are questioning your motives on some things, including not having the pages look good but filled with links. As I'll quote someone on wikipedia "In brief, Wikipedia is not a collection of external links." In short, guild wars wiki is also not a collection of links on pages. It's a collection of information it's self. -- User Ariyen sig icon.gifriyen 05:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Equivocation: When you use the word "links" once to mean "external links" and the other time to mean "internal links" and pretend that the difference doesn't backfire on your argument. Ariyen, you're not helping :P | 72 User Seventy two Truly Random.jpg (UTC) 06:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
(Edit conflict x2) ":A link doesn't have "see this page for more info" listed every single time there is a link. Precisely my point." and yet you tried to use a regular paper book example to prove the point, which doesn't apply here, and doesn't prove your point like you intended. If you want to give a clear example, then do so. Don't use one that has no validity.
"You haven't yet clarified how it makes it "easier". I theorized that it's because the link is right there to click, but the search box is right there and so the main point of the link". Then you are missing the point, because I did point out how it is easier. I am sorry that it wasn't clear. I will try again. Click a link right there, easy. Click the search box, type in what is wanted, more work for the same end result (providing the link is done properly). 42 - talk 06:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
"As for your ridiculous extreme, no, you could NOT carry it to that extreme;". I was not trying to, nor do I want to, carry it to that extreme. Other people, by using the arguments they are, are not far from that extreme already. I was using that ridiculous example to show how ridiculous some of these "arguments" against something being improved are.
"there's something to be said for the saying "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."" There is also something to be said about not giving someone flack for fixing or improving something that could be improved. It doesn't seem to make a difference, because many people have what I call Ostrichitis (the tendency to stick their head in the sand when presented with an idea that is different from theirs) (For the record, I did check, and ostriches do not actually do this).
"That" is where I get all of the idea that no matter what you do, someone will almost guarantee to have an issue. Just because something isn't finished, and hasn't been finished for a long time doesn't mean that a person who is trying to help finish should be raked over the coals for it. Nor does it mean that improvements can't and shouldn't be made.
Ariyen, RE: adding affiliation, I am not adding any to pages that don't have one. The problem with your other argument is that people abuse the hell out of it to justify things not being done to fill in missing information. "Just because it has been that way for years" is an argument that someone made to explain why things were the way they were. It doesn't make the point any more valid because of that.
Having a ripple effect might be an undesired side effect, but when something isn't finished, and finishing it might cause that ripple, is that a reason to not complete it? I don't know about you, but I would like this wiki to be what it is intended to be, a reference. To be a reference (at least a good one) means not hiding the information access points, and using excuses like "it looks tacky" or "it has been that way for years" to justify it.
And you using that link to prove my point doesn't all of a sudden make yours more valid because it didn't prove yours Ariyen. A link is a link, if it is internal or external. The only difference visually is the non-wiki links look different when viewed in the pages. 42 - talk 06:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I used the quote for similarity. not to proove your point for you as it doesn't. I'm showing (in so many words) that having a lot of links on a page at all. Looks BAD. That's what the quote is about (see my user archive on wikipedia). Secondly, on affiliaton. Don't touch it until it's done, don't even fix the old ones any more, until discussion is done. No matter how much you want to (yea hard not wanting to bite the bullet). It's best to leave affiliation alone or join the discussion, until it is over.-- User Ariyen sig icon.gifriyen 06:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
42, the definition of "easier" that you give is clearly refuted by me above. "Clicking > typing." And that's the extent of it.? As I said, and will say a third time, the minor +convenience from that is probably offset by the difficulty in reading text (where too many words are highlighted in much the same way as bolding does to catch the eye of the reader)000000. And that is a fair example, more fair than my ambiguo-links one above, because that is what it does to reading. | 72 User Seventy two Truly Random.jpg (UTC) 06:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) It didn' get refuted 72, my point is still as valid, more work going to the search box. Read my part below about making the links less visible in the browser instead of making the wiki's functionality suffer for it.
And yet, you (Ariyen) are still such an expert on telling other people how to do things properly. Even though you don't want to see it, Ariyen, it does prove my point that the wiki is like an electronic book. Proof doesn't all of a sudden become NOT proof just because someone refuses to see it. To be useful, a reference book, and here is a wild concept, be able to oh I don't know "reference" something, which is the function of a link. It provides access to that linked information.
Basing having links or not because something "looks bad" is not as valid an argument as you would like to think, Ariyen, for two reasons. One, the links are there for cross reference purposes. Not having a link look up the linked information partially defeats the purpose. Two, and you are not the only one to see it this way, judging by some of the posts, seem to think that this reference is here only for the editors, and the people who work on it. Guess what? It isn't. It is for the players of the game. Some of them are working on the wiki, but some aren't. Many of them are not going to sit there and take hours looking at pages, going "gee I wish the links looked different."
I am not sure if the browser you use has this option or not, but mine does. You can change it so that the links only look and act like links if you have the mouse pointer over them. It might be a good idea to check that, instead of taking away from the functionality of the wiki.
That discussion is about adding affiliation. You want to sit there and base your edits on technicalities, I can do the same thing to argue this point here. 42 - talk 06:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Not everyone has a perfect broswer like you. So please, for all of us, don't add links to the ==Areas like this== That doesn't look too good on npc pages, you don't see it in the formatting npcs do you? No, because the rest of us know that having them in the ==Areas like this== not only looks bad, but is not helpful to the eyes far as npcs and two, do we really need a lot of links? In my opinion, no, because you don't want to go to a page where every other word is linked. Don't have the pages become redundant. It really is not helpful, but will have more going to guildwikia instead. Due to so many pages being linked that if they click on the page to scroll, they may click on a wrong link and get frustrated. It's about the ease of the viewers, not the editors. You want them to 'read' the page not 'miss click' and besides if they want to know information on things that's what the search is for. -- User Ariyen sig icon.gifriyen 06:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Never claimed I did Ariyen, so stop trying to put words in my mouth (words in my fingers?). I have the same browser access as anyone else. You using an argument like that to justify keeping exising capability (the wiki can do it already) from being available to users by using that argument still doesn't make it any better. And I don't ever remember adding a link to anything titled "areas like this" (it is a useful link). Your opinion is no more or less valid than anyone else's, Ariyen.
Let me save you some trouble before you try going further with that ridiculous line of discussion about the scrolling. The scroll bars are nowhere near the text, in regards to links, and if they click a link accidentally while trying to scroll, then that is another issue altogether that having links on a page or not will not solve.
I happen to like being able to go to a page that I can read and say "Oh, that might be useful information, let me click that" and here is another wild idea, being able to get to that information easily. Stop trying to look at it like the wiki is there solely for you. It is for the players of the game, those that work on the wiki, and those that don't. You forcing a lack of usefulness on it because you don't like how it looks only hurts the wiki's usefulness. 42 - talk 07:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
It's already clear you're looking at the wiki as solely for you. Else you'd know it doesn't look right on most npc pages to have ==[[Skill]]s== all over the place. I'm not the only one having that as a problem. This is clearly something that you are obviously over-looking. Stop calling your own kettle black. -- User Ariyen sig icon.gifriyen 07:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Ok guys, this has extended long enough already. Ariyen, drop the discussion please. 42, just put links on the text body, and not on title sections, at least as a general rule. If you don't agree, go to GWWT:GENFORM and discuss it there.--Fighterdoken 07:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

FD, what about the cases (as I believe I have said before, if not I am doing so here) where there is only one instance of that particular word? I am willing to accept that people don't like the headers being linked. However, I do think that there should be a link of first occurrence of words, and if there is another word after a header in the article, then that word could be linked.

"Else you'd know it doesn't look right on most npc pages" Your opinion Ariyen. I don't have a problem with how it looks. And it doesn't look right or not look right, it is still an opinion either way. 42 - talk 02:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


Because it's funny. Look at the history (newest one at time of post). In fact, 42, you'll see that even your edit with "sign please, whoever you are" has the mysteriously unprocessed text of my sig in it. :D | 72 User Seventy two Truly Random.jpg (UTC) 03:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it is slightly better to not link the headers, if there is another possible link. However, when the header is the only link point for that particular page, first occurrence still applies.
At the time, that was posted in the middle of an EC battle, and the text post got lost somehow. (Your unprocessed sig text was nowhere to be found. All that showed up was the time stamp.) 42 - talk 03:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


Please archive your talk page. it's "Warning: This page is 106 kilobytes long; some browsers may have problems editing pages approaching or longer than 32kb. Please consider breaking the page into smaller sections.". -- User Ariyen sig icon.gifriyen 07:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Please worry about yourself. I am well aware of what it says. I am not going to archive in the middle of posting when I am already getting a huge amount of edit conflicts. 42 - talk 08:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Whatever, seems you don't care if it causes users problems with their browsers. You can archive when there's no more talk. Simple, you know. -- User Ariyen sig icon.gifriyen 08:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I know well how to archive, check the top of this page. I am also not going to sit there and have my active talk page open and cause edit conflicts for myself and others while moving the sections. It seems you want to have an issue with me no matter what I do, so feel free. Apparently no amount of reason can be used to show you. 42 - talk 08:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
No, 42. You have an issue to not listen to several people. I'm sorry for that. I'm sorry you're not willing to work with people for the community, but only for yourself. I'm also sorry you wish to point this back at me and others, blaming it on us. I hate to say, but you need to work on you then, if you can't get along with anyone at all. I'm sorry, really am.-- User Ariyen sig icon.gifriyen 08:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Dunno wtf browser you're using but any modern/up-to-date browser has no problems with a page of this size. Even "big" pages like Linsey's or Regina's talk rarely cause problems anymore. (If you are using like IE6 or something then you have worse problems than viewing the wiki...) Vili 点 User talk:Vili 09:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Ok, please stop now. I really think that you both need to give each other some space. First because you both create drama, recent changes polluting and unneccesary shouting. Second for you both in person, you both can't tell me that you like all this stuff where you're in to. Please understand that I dont want to offend one of you, but this has gone to far. -- Cyan User Cyan Light sig.jpg 09:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
In case you are totally oblivious, 42 hasn't stepped on Ariyen's talkpage in ages; on the other hand, Ariyen is repeatedly harassing 42 on his talkpage, over silly things like archiving when far larger user talkpages exist(just look at Gordon Ecker's). I don't see her on Gordon's talkpage, so I don't see why she should be here heckling over it. Pika Fan 14:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't mind at all, they were creating drama this morning and spamming on recent changes, thats why I requested/asked. And we all know how you think about Ariyen, based on your fights with her. So, like I said, I don't mind what you have to say, it was just a simple request for both. -- Cyan User Cyan Light sig.jpg 15:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Pika, the few times (actually only once I think) I have tried to give Ariyen information on her talk page, she moved it here. I will not say more to avoid opening back up that particular can of worms.
Cyan, I am sorry that you think that adding missing links and information is "polluting" the RC page. I guess you think it would be better to take the attitude that seems to be prevalent here that the wiki doesn't need to have anything else added or improved on it. As far as liking "all this where you're into," I am not intending it, nor am I taking it personally. In other words, I don't like or dislike it. It happens. I would not presume to say how anyone else is taking it.
Ariyen, I have no problem listening to people when they make a valid point. I even have no problem listening to people who have a point of view I don't agree with. "Listening" to someone and following (doing) what they say are two separate things. I do not "point it back" to anyone if it is something I do. I let people do that to themselves, even if they want to ignore it when they do so. It seems to be a constant issue that certain advice is given, and that advice is not followed by the person giving that advice. 42 - talk 02:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
You are opening cans of worms again. calling your own kettle black. 42, do yourself a favor. Take a vacation. Stop this drama you're continuing. You're not defending yourself, but creating things worse, you are a troll, who can't let his ego go. Good bye, not talking to you anymore Here, because what you say to me or about me is nothing but filthy air. -- User Ariyen sig icon.gifriyen 03:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
42 has good intentions, polite speech, and is sometimes right and sometimes wrong. Ariyen, you are clearly intending to troll or insult for no good reason, you never cease making disingenuous remarks even when attempting a reasoned discourse, and you almost always respond as though the other person had said "You're stupid and wrong" instead of what they actually wrote. Please, please, please, realize how much your passing off rude feelings as intelligent discussion makes you look foolish. | 72 User Seventy two Truly Random.jpg (UTC) 03:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Ariyen, you seem to have an issue with me, and with almost everything I do. That is fine, I can accept that. I will try to not have too much of a problem about it. It is not my purpose in life to be liked or disliked by you. 42 - talk 03:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


Do you mean you tried or that I should try? -- My Talk Lacky 04:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I tried clearing the post you had listed as #1, and I did clear the post you had listed as #2. Looking back now, I am not sure I should have cleaned the vandal posts, since it is an admin noticeboard. 42 - talk 04:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Alright, thanks for that then. -- My Talk Lacky 06:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Profession capitalization[edit]

Hey, 42. You may not have noticed as it was buried pretty deep, but we don't capitalize professions ('monk' as opposed to 'Monk') as a general rule. I noticed that you've capitalized a few professions lately, so I thought I'd let you know before you did too many. :D --KOKUOU 06:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

It is in accordance with proper English capitalization when used as a proper noun, which when referring to an entire class, it is. Like when you would capitalize Dwarf as a race, but not always the dwarf Kilroy Stonekin, for one example. 42 - talk 06:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Cough* I'd get consensus on that *cough*, see what they say, before 'capitalizing, based on 'Proper English Capitalization'. Remember, this community has their own guidelines, that may be different to the 'English' you know. Happy editing, off to buy a laptop keyboard. (borrowing this keyboard atm.)-- User Ariyen sig icon.gifriyen 07:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh, but if he does that you'll jump on him for having an issue or something. Vili 点 User talk:Vili 07:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Already this is turning out badly. Can we focus on the issue please? :\
I see no problem with capitalizing professions that are used as proper nouns, but if there is even a hint that its used differently, leave it be. --User Wandering Traveler Sig2.png Wandering Traveler 07:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree, but there should still be a consensus. User DrogoBoffin sig icon.png Drogo Boffin 07:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) That is proper English capitalization and according to the guidelines (not just in proper English), proper nouns are capitalized. Ariyen, you have no room to speak about this, since words change meaning depending on when you use them and who else uses them. 42 - talk 07:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Drogo. Nothing more to say. -- User Ariyen sig icon.gifriyen 07:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Not to mention that she clearly does not know how to use proper English capitalization. In any case, now I see what you're saying, 42, about referring to the entire class versus talking about a specific NPC's profession, and I agree with it. Carry on, then, and don't mind me. o_O --KOKUOU 07:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) This has been discussed until it's a dead horse. 42, for the LAST time, we do not treat professions as proper nouns on GWW, we never have, and I doubt we are going to start now. Please stop capitalizing profession names unless it is part of a name (i.e. Necromancer Nunne). Whether you and your books consider it proper English capitalization it's NOT how it's done here, and you've been told and told and told, and being one voice out of many means you have NOT achieved consensus on this issue, so it is not changing at this time. By you doing it on some pages, you are just creating inconsistencies. -- Wyn User Wynthyst sig icon2.png talk 07:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
So to be clear, Wyn, "...uses Ranger emotes..." (as opposed to "he is a ranger"; i.e. referring to the whole class versus referring to a single entity) would be incorrect? To be honest, it doesn't really matter to me either way (both methods look fine and make sense), but consistency is a good thing. ;) --KOKUOU 07:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) It isn't just "me and my books" Wyn, it is the entire English language that considers them (when used like that) to be proper nouns, and the guidelines state that proper nouns are capitalized.

It needs to be decided once and for all, either people are supposed to follow the guidelines or they aren't. Don't sit there and tell someone to follow the guidelines, and then when they do, tell them they are still wrong when it is inconvenient for the other side of the argument. You (not you specifically) sit there and tell people to follow the guidelines, then you basically tell them when it is inconvenient for your side of the discussion, that they aren't supposed to follow the guidelines. Make up your minds! 42 - talk 07:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

42, they have been here LONGER than you. I told you this wiki was different to your 'english' that you 'use'. You are going against what people are telling you, not just me. This is done by the wiki community for the wiki community. Changing it, just because outside sources says or shows differently, is meaningless here. Go to the Wikipedia, if you want to play that game. You're the one causing this drama, going against several, not compromising. It's sad, you say you want to help, yet show nothing, not even reasoning with things, just looking for more trouble to start up. Good nite, off to bed. 08:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) It was decided "once and for all" almost 3 years ago when the wiki was started. Everyone has told you that every time you have brought it up since you started editing here. Why don't you understand that? What part of "That was, and still is the community consensus" don't you get? The amount of work to go back and capitalize every instance where a profession is being used to describe a class just doesn't have enough benefit to be worth changing it at this point. We don't capitalize profession names unless they are part of a proper noun (i.e. names like Necromancer Nunne). Doing so is creating inconsistencies that will need to be fixed. -- Wyn User Wynthyst sig icon2.png talk 08:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
One Wikipedia example of non-capitalised class: Marine. And the opposite, Profession. The second one looks a bit odd, no? Follow each of those profession links and not a single one capitalises the "profession" (hey, it's the closest analogue we have in "standard life") in body text. I would not say that appealing to "standard English" allows you to capitalize a person's class, profession, job, personality type, caste, or anything of that sort. | 72 User Seventy two Truly Random.jpg (UTC) 15:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
And haven't I repeatedly told you that it is optional to capitalize the name of a class of items? --JonTheMon 16:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
"We don't capitalize profession names unless they are part of a proper noun (i.e. names like Necromancer Nunne)." Wyn, I have shown many times that this is used as a proper noun. And Jon, the wiki quote says it is optional, normal English usage is to capitalize it, not "may be captitalized."
It is the same concept as calling someone a Dwarf (in game reference only), and that is perfectly fine and is supposed to be done that way, and yet using the same meaning and naming in regards to professions when used in that manner isn't OK.
Wyn, the problem is that if using "we have done it that way since the beginning" is used to justify doing something the wrong way, then it is still being done wrong. People could be beating their fingers with hammers for years, and someone suggests not beating their fingers with hammers, and someone else sits there arguing "we have done it this way since the beginning". That point for not correcting something makes as much sense either way. Why don't you apply that argument to ANY changes that anyone else has made if the page is over two years old then? Because that argument isn't one that should only be applied whenever it suits your purpose. Either use it all the time and argue against any and all changes. If something is right, and needs to be corrected, then it needs to be corrected. The "benefit" is that it is done properly.
72, on your link example Professions, it doesn't look odd at all. In fact, it shows what I am talking about, and how it is supposed to be done. In fact, if I might further your Marine example to some degree, from my personal experience in the Military (personal preference of caps here). You would not refer to someone as major Johnson, but as Major Johnson, because the rank of Major is a title. And, when the profession name is used like that, I believe the term used to describe it is honorific, it is accepted, and expected to be capitalized, because it then also becomes a title when used that way. Titles, and words used as proper nouns, are supposed to be capitalized. 42 - talk 04:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Sorry but I missed this last time. 72, on the first page, it shows how classes are supposed to be capitalized. You notice that every "title" in that lineup is capitalized. When that is how the professions are used, then they are titles, and proper nouns, and Wyn has said (again) that proper nouns are supposed to be capitalized. 42 - talk 04:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are reading, but I don't see anything anywhere about "normal English usage" stating that a class of items is always capitalized; they all say "may". You're gonna have to be specific where you heard it from. --JonTheMon 05:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
The example saying "may be capitalized" is from the wiki. In other examples throughout my life, from English textbooks when I was in school (regular and college), and real-life experience, a profession, when used as a title or a name (a.k.a. a proper noun) is always capitalized. See my example above about someone being a Major. See common real-world usage when referring to Doctor Burke (fictional name) when referring to a doctor, or Father Henry (also fictional name) when referring to a priest in the Roman Catholic Church. When the profession (such as a doctor or a priest like that), it is a part of a name. When used to refer to an entire class, it is the NAME of that class, and as a name, is supposed to be capitalized.
Go check 72's examples on professions. Every title in that list is capitalized. Each member that belongs to that group, or that class, has the class name capitalized when referred to them. Go check military ranking, the rank is a title, and in some cases (such as a Petty Officer in the U. S. Navy, or a Sergeant in the U. S. Marine Corp) and is capitalized. Go check my example above, Dwarf. That refers to an entire race or class of beings. Asuran, Norn, Dryder, all are classes, and all are capitalized. 42 - talk 05:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, and then following the links to those articles, those professions are not capitalised. The guy who capitalised them is the minority. Furthermore, the one in "Major Johnson" is not the same part of speech as "a major", in much the same way that "King George" is "the king" and not "the King" in standard publication etc. Personally, I don't even think calling someone "a Dwarf" deserves capitalisation, as even race (a much bigger distinction than profession, and note that all professions in GW are human) doesn't get capitalised in regular English: "I beheld a Cat who was playing with a Dog. Both of them were my Pets."
Also, after this discussion, I intend to edit that page to properly decapitalise that list... | 72 User Seventy two Truly Random.jpg (UTC) 05:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I say, we should just use wingdings. Start anew. /endjoke -\-comical relief anyone... please?-\- Discuss 05:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that some people will ignore facts and use "it has been this way for years" to justify almost anything. Other times they will tell someone to follow the guidelines, and then get upset with that person when they do follow the guidelines, because all of a sudden, the guidelines either don't support their argument, or else can be shown to be followed and they will pull out this other example of how this person isn't following the guideline. 42 - talk 05:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, and now other arguments have been made. Besides, language (and the fineties of grammar) has been and is a matter of "the way people have done it is what it is." | 72 User Seventy two Truly Random.jpg (UTC) 05:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Why is this convo still going. The policy is set " It was decided "once and for all" almost 3 years ago when the wiki was started." User DrogoBoffin sig icon.png Drogo Boffin 05:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Because 42 doesn't easily accept direct contradictions. | 72 User Seventy two Truly Random.jpg (UTC) 05:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Because that excuse for not changing anything (and it is an excuse) should be applied equally to everything, if it is a valid reason for keeping things the same. That attitude implies (actually, just barely misses actually saying it) that the wiki is done, and needs no more information or tweaking to be done.
Since the wiki is apparently as done as people want, and cannot be improved at all, then why is this argument not being used against every single change being made?
Actually, 72, my issue is more with bullshit excuses being used to justify something. For example, I get told (on a previous occasion about another issue) to follow the guidelines. I do, and I then get told that I am not following the guidelines. I show how and where the guidelines that I am following are, and get accused of wikilawyering, because apparently following the guidelines now isn't acceptable.
I extremely dislike people who have an issue with how I do things, when how I do things is how they tell me to (following the guidelines). I then get told (for one example), when quoting the NPC formatting page about how, if there is a conflict, to follow the general formatting guideline over the NPC formatting page, that there is no conflict, when the whole discussion basically says that there is a conflict.
It is like the only way I can do anything properly is by not doing anything at all. There is a potential major issue here that I see. People seem to spend more time being wikilawyers telling this person and that person "stop it, you are not doing that right" and "follow the guidelines", and when that person shows they are following guidelines, then that person is accused of wikilawyering themselves. 42 - talk 06:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Yes, I use the fact that this was actively determined by the community when this wiki was started as justification for continuing to do it. I really don't give a shit what some other wiki (even Wikipedia) or some textbook may claim as being "proper English", I care about what the community determined would be considered the proper way to capitalize things HERE on GWW. That is part of how this community consensus thing works, you just can't grasp that concept for some reason. I also look at the amount of work/time vs overall benefit that making a change of this magnitude would entail, and I personally don't think it's in any way necessary. We are not here to teach the kiddies "Proper English", they have teachers in school for that. -- Wyn User Wynthyst sig icon2.png talk 06:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
My point is that the guidelines are quoted and used like they are holy writ, and I get told to follow them. The guideline that I then quote says proper English capitalization is preferred (if I am remembering it properly) so I try to get things fixed on the wiki that I notice that do not follow that guideline. I then get read the riot act for what amounts to following the guideline. As you said on your talk page, you are right, it does get old, being told to follow the guidelines and then being accused of wikilawyering when you do and show it. 42 - talk 06:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
The guidelines are guidelines. Common practice, based on community consensus, developed over almost 3 years of the creation of this wiki will almost always take precedence. You've been told and told and told that it was determined, and has since been common practice to not capitalize professions unless used as part of a proper name, or the first word in a sentence. You continue to ignore everyone who has told you that and go back to quoting the guideline. There are some things you just have to take people's word for (especially people who have been editing here a LONG TIME). Stop being a wiki lawyer and start applying good faith. If you really want to help improve things, stop creating drama and controversy over non-issues, and simply add information where it's needed, rather than trying to change things that affect MASSIVE amounts of pages. -- Wyn User Wynthyst sig icon2.png talk 06:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
42, I can tell you're having trouble grasping the difference between a proper noun and a regular noun, so I made a little chart for you. Enjoy! ~Shard User Shard Sig Icon.png 06:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Property Capitalize?
Person's name Yes
Unique place Yes
Unique title Yes
Everything else No
I am not creating drama, I am trying to fix things that I see wrong. The response, the reaction I get, being told to do something and then being told when I do that, that that isn't right either is what is creating the drama. Being accused of wikilawyering by people who do the same is what pisses people off, and is a bigger part of this drama than I was ever making.
The problem with adding information where it is needed, Wyn, is I do that, and still get told that I am not doing that right either. I will continue to think that fixing something that is wrong, even if it affects pages is the right thing to do. I will strive to leave broken things broken because "it has been that way for years" instead of trying to continue to make good contributions. It is like I said before, just because people keep slamming their fingers with hammers and have been doing it for years doesn't always mean it is the right thing to do.
Shard, I will give you advice that I have posted before, although I doubt you will accept it because it goes against the way you see things. When used as a proper noun, a common noun is considered to be a proper noun, and proper nouns are capitalized. 42 - talk 06:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Profession names are NOT proper nouns. You don't capitalize words like Electrician, or Plumber, or Doctor, unless they are used as part of a proper name ~ Electrician John, Plumber Joe, Doctor Phil. You are NOT fixing something that is wrong, you are creating inconsistencies that will have to be fixed. -- Wyn User Wynthyst sig icon2.png talk 06:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
When you try to "fix things that I see wrong" (also bad grammar monster says bad grammar) doesnt mean its the right thing to do. i.e. Old man on a squeaky chair, says chair is perfect and he loves it, young man sees this as a broken chair and attempts to fix fix the squeak, squeak goes away. Old man comes back, sees young man near chair, then old man sits on chair then jumps out of chair saying that its broken. Young man confused says he fixed it, old man outraged and hits young man with convenient golf club. -/- Discuss 06:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Young man fixing old man's chair if the young man doesn't sit in it, has nothing to do with it, OK, I can see that. However, if the chair is as much the young man's as it is the old man's, then the young man shouldn't be torn apart for trying to fix what is partially his chair. 42 - talk 06:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

"When used as a proper noun, a common noun is considered to be a proper noun, and proper nouns are capitalized."
2/10 (2 instead of 1 because I laughed). Try harder. ~Shard User Shard Sig Icon.png 06:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Young man=good samaritan (omgs mozilla is telling me to fix that word to be cap'd) old to young man no relation. Young man came onto old man's property without consent, trespassers shall be bludgeoned within an inch of their life. -/- Discuss 06:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Discuss, I got that. But, in your example, the young man has nothing to do with the chair. That is not the case here. The young man is a user of that char (the wiki) as much as the old man is. And as I have said before, just because something has been done a certain way for a long time doesn't automatically make it right. Someone could be doing something wrong for years (and sometimes decades depending on the job), and that still doesn't mean they are doing it right just because of the length of time they have been doing it.
Shard, the ratio isn't even close because people want to ignore facts when presented that oppose or are inconvenient for their side of the argument. Ignoring proof doesn't make it invalid. Try harder yourself. 42 - talk 07:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I believe you misunderstand, Shard was giving you your trolling score. Vili 点 User talk:Vili 07:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I dont believe that you do "got that". Young man, new user to chair shouldn't go all willy nilly fixin wood without a go say, or however that last saying goes to say... Just because new chair user is familiar with ways of something else, dont go off now fixin things new to him. saying this only in comparison to the elders of this wiki and you. I'm super duper new to this. -/- Discuss 07:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey,guys, I got a better idea. I think we should write the wiki in all caps. That would solve all our problems. Or, we can use a font that has no capital distinction, like Castellan. NuVII User NuclearVII signature 3.jpg 11:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Here, 42, proper English is in line with the way we have been doing it (as it happens). And as I said, the niceties of grammar are never objectively "right"; they are decided by the people who use it.
One thing I am sick of, however, is when people agree with me for the wrong reasons, or something I want passed gets passed on stupid arguments. When those cases win, it makes those arguments look justifiable for another, but wrong idea, later on... Much like what's happening to you and your cases.
Wyn, things have not been done universally since the beginning of the wiki, not even in profession capitalisation. The amount of old pages that have or used to have capitalised professions (see Cape) shows that many wiki editors, even IPs, were not aware of the guidelines, which means they probably also didn't vote on them. And for heaven's sake stop using the argument of oldest editor(s); if someone is a bad editor they shouldn't be treated with more respect than a new good editor.
Discuss, "what I see [adjective]" is fine grammar except in your grammar book from fifty years ago. And stop pushing a bad analogy. And by the way, Good Samaritan traditionally capitalises both words; it is not an adjective describing a common noun. It is a proper noun, referring to a particular person in a particular story.
Shard, thanks for your correct information. :D
| 72 User Seventy two Truly Random.jpg (UTC) 14:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I believe I just got owned, but! Really? here is his whole sentence, "I am not creating drama, I am trying to fix things that I see wrong. When he used a specific generalization (lol contradictory-ness) I point to the word "things", I believe it would have been correct to insert the word "are" in between see and wrong (or at least sounded more correct). My little analogy >.> I made that up on the fly and didnt really intend for it to be taken halfway seriously, sorry if it turned out that way tho :P -/-50 years ago o-O does that imply...that im ol~d... Woot!if yes, and aww if its just saying the book was 50 y/o -/- 15:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC) --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Discuss (talk).
Oh snap muffins i did forget to sign :'( makes me a bad cookie. -/- Discuss 16:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Eh, both with "are" and without it are usable, at least in colloquial language.. in a formal essay I'd probably use "are" (though in a formal essay I'd probably use "consider" and that's a whole 'nother doughnut...). Sorry for sounding harsh if I did :/ I forgot you're here to lighten things up :P | 72 User Seventy two Truly Random.jpg (UTC) 18:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
@72, I wasn't trying to make an overall blanket statement, just pointing out that when you are relatively new to anything, and you have several veterans telling you something, the reasonable thing is to listen and learn, the unreasonable thing is to continue with your chosen course and ignore what you are being told because you don't feel it's "right". -- Wyn User Wynthyst sig icon2.png talk 20:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I agree 100%. I just don't necessarily equate "older editor" with "more veteran editor". | 72 User Seventy two Truly Random.jpg (UTC) 22:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Wyn, see my many comments (one on this at least) about doing something for years doesn't automatically make it right (or wrong). It is very easy to miss things when someone is immersed in a system for such a long time, that they can miss obvious problems (I am not saying that this is automatically the case here). I have done it myself sometimes. It is the same concept as someone having a problem with figuring something out, and having to get another person to look at it for them, to see where things are going off-kilter.
People can get used to doing something a slightly messed up way, and have, I don't know any other way to phrase this, except "adapt" to how it is done in that way. Then, someone else sees a potential problem, or possibly a way to make things easier, and brings it up, in this case at least, that person is just automatically wrong "because it has been this way for years." It doesn't mean that the person trying to suggest improvements is automatically right or wrong, and neither does that mean the people who have been doing things a certain way for years are automatically right or wrong. 42 - talk 07:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
monk. -- Tha Reckoning File:User Tha Reckoning Sig2.jpg 07:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


stopit. —ǥrɩɳsɧƴɖɩđđɭɘş User Grinshpon blinky cake.gif 06:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Why are you creating subpages for the text on an already completed page? I mean, I really want to know what your reasoning is for creating 15 pages when one is sufficient. -- Wyn User Wynthyst sig icon2.png talk 06:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Auron says you're going to write a diatribe about how oppressed you are so this is a eCockblock. Edit conflict. —ǥrɩɳsɧƴɖɩđđɭɘş User Grinshpon blinky cake.gif 06:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) You don't need redirects of pages that no one will type. I can name two right now that are purely dead pages. -- User Ariyen sig icon.gifriyen 06:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Ariyen, stop it. I seriously want to know what reasoning he is using for his actions. -- Wyn User Wynthyst sig icon2.png talk 06:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

We've been discussing this in IRC. We've come to the consensus that you should make a template for every word in the english language. —ǥrɩɳsɧƴɖɩđđɭɘş User Grinshpon blinky cake.gif 06:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

42, will you please answer my question before you continue creating these pages? -- Wyn User Wynthyst sig icon2.png talk 06:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Mgrinshpon, you have been reported twice for vandalism, mostly because of what you put on the pages. Wyn, if you want to know why, then read the notes on the page creation log. I said right there why. It says right there why the subpages were made, "to allow transclusion of specific tablet of wisdom." 42 - talk 06:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
But WHY? The Tablet of Wisdom page is COMPLETE, that text is never going to change, why do you think creating 15 pages is better than one? It makes absolutely no sense to me which is why I want your reasoning beyond your edit summaries. -- Wyn User Wynthyst sig icon2.png talk 06:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Ariyen, the "Tablet of wisdom" is a redirect page for capitalization, and the "Tablet of wisdom/Subpage" is because I didn't notice at first it was creating "Tablet of wisdom/Subpage" instead of the "Tablet of Wisdom/Subpage" I was trying for.
What part of "tranclusion of a specific tablet of wisdom" is such a hard concept to understand? It allows someone to transclude a specific tablet of wisdom instead of having to port the whole page. This is the same idea as having a subpage for the collectors, that list their specific "trading table". 42 - talk 06:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Once again, that was badly done. You just refuse to learn. That makes editing that page a NIGHTMARE. It was not necessary, and should have been discussed, but oh, that's right, you don't discuss ANYTHING. -- Wyn User Wynthyst sig icon2.png talk 06:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Your view of things Wyn. Personally I think that it is stupid to keep telling someone to follow guidelines and then when they do, and show that they are, accuse them of wikilawyering because they show their side, because it goes against what someone else thinks is right or wrong. I show precedent and example and still it is wrong.
Great way to encourage people to try to help, have issues with almost everything they do, spout AGF (not this time, but it was done before) at them when they take issue to how something was said to them, then basically blow AGF out the window when it comes to what they do. 42 - talk 06:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, you have 3 days to prove why those subpages are necessary. Where will those transclusions be used other than the Tablet of Wisdom page, etc. For the time being leave the main page alone while it's discussed. -- Wyn User Wynthyst sig icon2.png talk 06:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
42, it seems you are misunderstanding Wyn's question. WHO would ever need to use those transclusions? ~Shard User Shard Sig Icon.png 06:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
The problem I have is that you decide something would be better, ALL BY YOURSELF, and then just do it, you don't bring it up as an idea on a talk page and see how everyone else feels about it. The minute you get questioned about it, you get defensive. I asked because I wanted to know, and rather than answering my question, you just continued merrily on your way. -- Wyn User Wynthyst sig icon2.png talk 07:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I have gotten defensive because of how almost every single idea I have had has been treated, many with no logical reasoning being given when asked for. I get told to follow the guidelines, so I do, and then get told I am still doing it wrong, and get accused of wikilawyering when I show I am following the guidelines. I get defensive when people tell me to do one a certain thing, and then when I do, say I am still doing things wrong. I get told AGF, when it seems that that same courtesy isn't applied to me. That is what is pissing me off and making me "defensive". How would you feel if someone tells you to do things a certain way, so you do, and still get told all of the time you are still doing them wrong? 42 - talk 07:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
No, 42, it is the other way around. Everything you do seems to have no logical reason behind it, and when asked why you think those changes are needed, you come back with the equivalent of "It's obvious, isn't it?" Fixing typos and adding missing documentation is fine, but when you're going to perform surgery on a page or a template, you need to make sure it won't break anything. You never do this. You are not following guidelines. If you were, there would be a post on Talk:Tablet of Wisdom made by you, saying "I think we should split this into 15 different pages." ~Shard User Shard Sig Icon.png 07:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) x3 Believe it or not, I DO understand. Can we start from scratch here? Please explain in plain English exactly what purpose you see for those transclusions beyond the main Tablet of Wisdom page. Ignore the trolls, and just talk to me. -- Wyn User Wynthyst sig icon2.png talk 07:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) It allows for the transclusion if needed elsewhere, instead of forcing the whole page if someone only wants one tablet's info. Say for example, if it was decided that the text from the tablet of wisdom for PvP was decided to be placed on the PvP page.

Or, this idea could be applied to the in-game manuscripts. There could be one page that has all of them transcluded from subpages, and each specific section, like the one for Cantha, the one about Rangers (for general examples), could have that specific part transcluded from each individual page. You seem to want to force someone to have the entire thing done from the get go, instead of realizing that things might not be done completely and instantly. Or to disallow something just because you (generically) don't see the reason. I don't see the reason behind telling someone to follow the guidelines and then give them flack for doing so (and Shard, this HAS been done) and then giving them MORE flack for showing they are. And yet, it is something I am forced to deal with.

Shard, the problem is that people CAN follow the guidelines, and because it doesn't follow the way this other person says or thinks it should be, they can pull out this other guideline that the first person aren't following. It doesn't mean that the first person isn't following guidelines.

You cannot reasonably expect someone to just be able to snap their fingers and have something done instantly, and yet, the attitude about many of these things is exactly that. Many changes can be done quickly and almost instantly, but not all. It takes time, and unless someone can change them instantly, then it isn't OK.

Or, if someone is willing to take the effort, just because someone else doesn't see the sense of that effort, then that idea or change must automatically be bad. 42 - talk 07:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Why is your system more efficient than copy+pasting? User Felix Omni Signature.pngelix Omni 07:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I completely agree with your last points 42. That's why you haven't been permabanned yet - we still want to give you time to learn from your mistakes. It's just a slow process that's aggravating us. Whenever you want to do something bigger than adding new information or fixing typos, ask on the talk page, wait a day or two, then do it if there are no objections, and if anybody gets on you about it, you can say "I asked and nobody said no." ~Shard User Shard Sig Icon.png 07:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Shard, the problem is, that I have talked about changes before, and waited for input, and no input, so I made the changes, then someone got on me about making them.
And as far as learning from mistakes, is it a mistake to have an issue with being told to do things, then doing them, and still being told they are wrong, and being accused of wikilawyering when they show they are following guidelines? Most people I know would have a problem being told to do something then being told, when they do them, that they are still doing things wrong. I am pretty sure you would.
And for the record, I have been trying to fix small problems and still have been given flack over them. Don't ask me to show where, because I will just get more and more pissed off about it. 42 - talk 07:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
You didn't give enough time period on those requests you did make, that is why you had gotten 'flack' over it. -- User Ariyen sig icon.gifriyen 07:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I remember waiting about 3 weeks for input when I started on this wiki and wanted to implement my "small" projects. I have prepared a lot for the projects and basically waited the rest of the time just to make sure that everyone agrees with me, or at least has no objections. Discussion requires time, so does being trusted. You have to do a lot of edits, everyone is happy with, before you can step out and do things without, or with a lot less, discussion - but at that point it is then clear, that you are basically following what everybody else feels about it, you adopted the style and flow of this wiki.
Please just take your time with your projects; I have seen some ideas by you that were really good in its core, but you just rushed with them, without waiting for other input on how to improve it, so it really fits. However some of your ideas were not very helpful, for example this one. There is no real gain from moving text to subpages so that they could be transcluded, which is very unlikely that it will ever happen. Because even if the text fits on a different page, it is much easier to work with, by simply copy/pasting the text. It's not as if the text will change again, and even if it does, there is not much work required to fix it then again.
But I can see that you only want to improve the wiki with this idea, to centralize information. I have seen some other people with this idea before, to interpret this wiki as a database. While a lot of the data from the game could be represented in a well structured database, and things like DPL might make this wiki look like one sometimes, wikis are simply not databased. Wikis are only a collection of textual articles. All we have is text and a bit formatting to make it look nice. And all these nice tools, such as template transclusions, are only tools to make repetitive and overly complicated elements (infoboxes) easier to work with. But that doesn't change the fact that we are still bound to pure text on the other side. poke | talk 08:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Now, say I wanted to quote just the middle paragraph of Poke's speech. I should make new pages called "Poke/42_start, _middle" and "_end"; copy his text to each of those respective pages; make three templates entitled "Poke42_1, Poke42_2", and "Poke42_3" which, when called, transclude their respective pages; then replace Poke's speech directly above this with



:::::{{Poke42_3}} ~~~~

Is that what's being done with the Tablet of Wisdom? | 72 User Seventy two Truly Random.jpg (UTC) 15:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

There are places where this type of subpage transclusion makes sense, like the Cinematic dialogue, where it appears on more than one page (both the quest/mission page and the cinematic page) or the way it's currently used on collector pages, allowing the tables to be used on multiple pages. It creates a consistency both in formatting and text that in some cases are now lacking. But on a page like Tablet of Wisdom it just doesn't make sense. To the best of my knowledge, that text does NOT appear anywhere else, and there really is not a lot of formatting that would make copy/pasting it unfeasible. Having 16 pages rather than one just in case anyone should want to transclude it elsewhere is not a strong enough reason for the excess, imo. -- Wyn User Wynthyst sig icon2.png talk 15:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Wyn, he doesn't understand that we don't want everything to transclude. Just certain pages and even then those pages would need to be discussed on how to be transcluded. -- User Ariyen sig icon.gifriyen 19:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
And Ariyen, Wyn just articulated that for him. | 72 User Seventy two Truly Random.jpg (UTC) 22:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

These heated conversations are always fun to read. I was going to say, "I dare you to try and 'fix' Mehnlo's page," but I see that you already did try, 42, but got shot down =( Anyhow as Shard had said above, that minor edits like Fixing typos and adding missing documentation are fine, I've done some weapon page edits adding in stats and such. But, if I have this correct, creating 15 subpages? Without even asking on the talk page, hey anyone think we should split this? I think you overstepped your bounds. Then again I dont know if my words should be taken with any weight, i havent really memorized the rules/guidelines of this wiki :x -/- But maybe as to bypass all this frustration for next time, it might be more tactful to ask before going through with a project you just came up with-/- Discuss 20:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

"The Tablet of Wisdom page is COMPLETE, that text is never going to change," If that is the case, Wyn, then why is this "That makes editing that page a NIGHTMARE." a concern, if the text "is never going to change"? This is another example of telling a person one thing, then telling them the opposite (previously, follow the guidelines and then tell the person they are still doing wrong for following them).
Ariyen, you have already proven that you like to give me flack almost no matter what I do. You still seem to want to speak for people, and tell them what they do and don't know (or in this case tell someone else what another person does or does not know). Once again, stop. To paraphrase your words on another issue, your vote doesn't count. (I don't actually believe that, but you want to use it as an argument against something I do, so you should get it back, and see how it looks.)
Poke, the problem is that no matter what is done, and when, there is a better than average chance that someone, if they have an issue with something that is done, will be able to pull out some guideline or policy in proof that person isn't following, even though that person is following another guideline or policy. The copy/paste is a possibility, but why should it be done when there is an easier option?
The separation of the tablet pages allow the use of them individually on different pages. For an example of how it would be useful, and how it would look, open up one of the pages that are linked in the tablet headers for each subject, and enter {{:Tablet of Wisdom/Subpage}} and preview it. This would end up looking better without the tablet header and the location code, but it would be similar in idea to the manuscripts, and would work well. If the entire page had to be transcluded or substituted or whatever, then it would not work. 42 - talk 04:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
If I'm not mistaken, there are spelling errors on at least one of the tablets. At some point in time those might get corrected. If that does happen, anyone wishing to correct the wiki page, would have to find the specific page that text is on, rather than just going to the Tablet of Wisdom page. You just aren't getting the main points here.
-- Wyn User Wynthyst sig icon2.png talk 04:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
42, the case is not that someone disagrees with the change so much as that everyone does. And one may as well ignore Ariyen's non-point-making posts. | 72 User Seventy two Truly Random.jpg (UTC) 04:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) And you aren't getting my points.
  • Tell someone to follow guidelines. (Which they can do, and still have someone else pull out another guideline that they aren't following.)
  • Still have a problem when that person does follow the guidelines.
  • Accuse them of wikilawyering when they prove they are following the guidelines, when that is what is being done to them. (Or in any way show their side of the issue, using proof of any kind, if that side differs in any way from the other one being presented.)
  • Wonder why they have an issue with this. Sorry, I should say wonder why they get defensive about it.
  • Oh, I almost forgot, just assume that because that is "how it has been done for years" means that no one else can "ever" have a new idea, or that the "system" is done, and can have nothing else added to it, improvements or otherwise. And for a new idea to get 'accepted', it means that not only does the person proposing the idea has to overcome that mindset, they also have to know how to have it done automatically right from the beginning.
So, Wyn, if there "is" an error that gets corrected on these pages, and the page is substituted, that means that now that copy needs to get corrected as well, unless I am mistaken. I do not claim to be an expert on this whole substitution of templates thing, I admit. However, if it is transcluded, then the correction to any extended "copies" gets done automatically. On that, I am pretty sure is how that works. 42 - talk 05:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Much in that same vein, the same amount of effort needed to vandalize one page would be used to vandalize many (Template:Gold, anyone?) --User Ezekial Riddle silverbluesig.pngRIDDLE 05:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that in this case it's not a matter of guidelines or not; it's a matter of courtesy and wiki environment and whether a change makes sense. Generally, if someone points out something you're doing and they tell you to stop, you stop and convince them otherwise, or figure out the gist of why they don't support the idea and adjust. That's courtesy and how the wiki environment works best. No, as to splitting the sections, it just doesn't make sense. You're anticipating a problem that isn't even remotely on the radar, and likely won't be. And you're making a simple page overly complicated. That's it. Martyr less plzkthx. --JonTheMon 05:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
42, stop following guidelines. Everyone who told you to is stupid and wrong. They were written eons ago and often conflict. Just use your head. User Felix Omni Signature.pngelix Omni 06:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Omni >.< Word it better, cause you be addin fuel to tee fi-ah >.> -/-But if he isnt, wrong be me-/-
Yes guide lines may be old, but I think people use them as the default argument. Instead of writing out a meaningful thoughtful riposte to what you/anyone does, that they honestly feel should not have been done, they pull out this dusty pamphlet that's been sitting on the top shelf, but sometimes the pamphlet is right. But yes, use your head, or more so I think it means use common sense. Its a community wiki, not your personal editing playground, as I've tried to get across before (I gets no lurve [mozilla why would i want to write the name Lurleen?] D: ) please ask around if you want to start a project or something another. Its like (oh god not another one of his analogies) when somebody decides to set back an atomic clock one hour because of the ... the... [Name of event that tells us to set a clock back] and then the world implodes. The world is imploding on your page, do you like the world imploding all over your page? No implosions dont taste like salseberry muffins. -/-Good lord my analogy really sucked this time, whats with me talking about implosion?? seriousness stops before analogy and has gaps within the main seriousness talk-/- Discuss 17:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Guild Wars Wiki:Elections/2009-12 bureaucrat election/42 Plaid Pony 18:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Let's play "sock or not?" part 2! 18:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Is it love? or just a wierd coincidence?[edit]

I just realized I have 42 pages on my watch list... not counting talk pages. -/- I vote coincidence -/- Discuss 05:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Now its 43 pages, Im watching some other pages now. I guess it was a coincidence... But we could have had something! -/-Love is for punks! (I wanna be a punk)-/- Discuss 06:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I have 1371 pages on my watchlist. I > you - Mini Me talk 21:15, 17 December 2009
I have over 9000 pages on my watchlist. --Frosty User Frosty Frostcharge sig.jpg 21:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I think its lust, not love.--*Yasmin Parvaneh* User yasmin parvaneh sig.png 21:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I have 300 brave watchlists on my watchlist. ---Chaos- (moo) -- 21:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I take things i no longer have interest in, off my watch list... maybe i should stop doing that >.> -/- Discuss 00:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


You now hold the record of most Opposing votes. It currently sits at 41. User DrogoBoffin sig icon.png Drogo Boffin 02:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I am quite sure he can check that himself, Doffin'. | 72 User Seventy two Truly Random.jpg (UTC) 03:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
WTG 72 its Boffin. User DrogoBoffin sig icon.png Drogo Boffin 03:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
portmanteau User Felix Omni Signature.pngelix Omni 04:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Felix wins. The clue was in the apostrophe that made it a real world. | 72 User Seventy two Truly Random.jpg (UTC) 04:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)