User talk:Aiiane/Resolved

redirects

Please see Guild Wars Wiki:Formatting/Redirects -FireFox File:Firefoxav.png 02:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I did, however most of those that I'm tagging aren't ones that I would consider as useful, hence the reason in the added tag - ones that would actually see use I'm leaving alone. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 02:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Mark of rodgort is a good example of a page that clearly shouldn't be tagged -FireFox File:Firefoxav.png 02:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, my mistake on that one, rhythms are bad when it comes to wiki editing. Going to go back and double check on some of the others. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 02:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, went back and did a couple of RVs - but (note to self) still need to tag a lot of them as the proper form of redirect. On a side note, that policy is still under discussion, is it not? (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 02:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

most of the points made there have been considered "semi-official" for quite a while and were also used back on guildwiki -FireFox File:Firefoxav.png 02:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

That's what I thought, just wanted to check that it hadn't been made completely official and someone forgot to untag it, because the talk page was a bit unclear in that regard. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 02:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Reverting the delete

I'd strongly recommend that you not revert an admin arbitrarily like that. You asked me a question, and before I even responded, you had already decided to over-turn me on a cleanup edit. Not a content edit. Your understanding of the policy is incorrect, as I pointed that out on my talk page (and I'll continue that discussion there), but I am here to suggest to you more patient in the case of conflict. The article is not gone, it's in the history books and any admin can bring it back. Anyways, I'd like to see how "shadow stepping" is a misspelling. --Karlos 04:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I reverted it because not only did the deletion not make sense, but it didn't even follow standard deletion procedures - last I looked, even sysops weren't supposed to speedily delete things that did not meet speedy deletion criteria. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 11:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

This deletion is controversial, and should not have been speedied - it was right to revert it. The deletion policy states that to delete something, the deletion tag must have been there fore 3 days, or the deletion must be uncontested. There was no delete notice, it is contested, and it doesn't meet any of the speedy deletion criteria. Ale_Jrb (talk) 11:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Redirects

I wanted to flag this to you, as you've been involved in some of the related delete tags. Please see talk:W skills for further discussion on redirects and my arguments for not deleting this type of abbreviation redirect. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Your old sig image

is stil in use on dozens of pages. Would you mind changing them all to use the new image? -- (gem / talk) 21:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

All I can say is... without a bot, ugh. I'd rather just have a red link. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 22:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

That's not a lot of work to do manually. If you want to, I can do it for you too. It's really just 'click edit', 'copy-paste to notepad', 'replace all [[Image:Aiiane-a.gif]] with [[Image:User Aiiane-a.gif|Go to Aiiane's Talk page]]', 'copy-paste back to wiki', 'save', 'open next page', 'click edit', etc. -- (gem / talk) 05:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

As mentioned here, doing that would unnecessarily ping a lot of people with 'new messages' notices. For now, I've just removed the deletion tag. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 11:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Revert

I heartily disagree with your censoring of Talk:Battle Lion. I agree that it can be construed as a personal attack (although it looks like standard pvp edrama), but it did not pose an ongoing threat to the user, and thus should not be removed. -Auron 22:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

My mistake, I agree that policy says it should stay - the handling portion of npa slipped my mind. I see you've already rv'd it, so I suppose it's taken care of. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 22:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't rv it... I was busy posting on your talk page. *checks article history* -Auron 22:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I guess my day at work was more tiring than I thought. Apparently my brain saw the RC log of you adding the above comment to my page titled "revert" and assumed it was a revert of the page in question. o.o (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 22:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Anyhow, I rv'd it. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 22:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Long days at work ftw :P -Auron 22:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Personally, though, I'd say "typical PvP edrama" tends to fall under NPA, even if it's "typical" - it's hardly something we need on the wiki. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 22:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Makes the day a little more interesting though. It has to be said. But I agree, we certainly don't want the floodgates of edrama opened up here. --Lemming64 23:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

RFA

I've nominated you for a sysop position per the guidelines at GWW:RFA. Please indicate a clear acceptance or refusal of the nomination. You've consistently been a trustworthy contributor, and I believe you would be good for the position. —Tanaric 21:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment, I'm a bit busy, just saw the notification email, but I'll try to fill out the proper section(s) sometime in the near future. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 21:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Block

Isn't the term "to block" or rather "cannot be blocked" in the skill description obvious enough? The notes you have added to Warrior's Cunning (and which was copied by User:Wongba on Way of the Fox) should be placed in either the block-article or the hit-article. Can you tell me why you want those notes added to these skills? --  (CoRrRan / talk) 21:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

i only added for sake of consistency. i don't really care whether it stays or goes, as long as it is the same on all. --VVong|BA 21:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response Wongba! --  (CoRrRan / talk) 21:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

As I see it, the Notes section for skills is designed provide a quick reference for issues that an individual might want to consider when utilizing (or facing) a given skill. The notes I added wouldn't really fit very well into the Block article, as they're not really specific to blocking (and wouldn't be nearly as much of an on-hand guide), likewise with hit. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 23:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

GWW:NPA

Just wanna know which part please.--§ Eloc § 03:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, let's see *scrolls through*...:

Editors should be civil when stating disagreements.

...

Additionally, editors are strongly discouraged from using profanity in comments to other contributors.

...

Frequently, the best way to respond to an isolated personal attack is not to respond at all. Debates can become stressful for some editors, who may occasionally overreact.

...

If you feel that a response is necessary and desirable, you should leave a polite message on the other user's talk page. Do not respond on a talk page of an article; this tends to escalate matters. Likewise, it is important to avoid becoming hostile and confrontational yourself, even in the face of abuse. When possible, try to find compromise or common ground regarding the underlying issues of content, rather than argue about behavior. If you are too angry to respond without violating this policy, consider taking a short break from the wiki, or contact an admin.

I believe those are the high points. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 04:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm "an editor, who may occasionally overreact".--§ Eloc § 04:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Then it's all the more important to pay attention to that 4th quote. :) (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 04:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Not enough edits

User:NieA7 has over 100 edits in the Guild Wars WIki namespace, and those count, afaik. Did you just check main namespace, or did I miss something? - anja 17:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Odd, when I pulled up the contribs log for that namespace it didn't give me any results. Must have been stuck on a weird offset or something. Go ahead and remove the strikeout, or I'll remove it when I get back from lunch. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 17:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed it. :) - anja 17:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

GuildWiki and You...

I wanted to discuss your comment on the GWW:USER talk page that you are SO tired of the argument that because it has worked on GuildWiki it would be good for Guild Wars Wiki. There are a few points to discuss here:

1. There are general issues that every wiki has to deal with, such as how to deal with open proxies, how to balance server load, how to deal with bots spamming links to gay websites in article. In this regard, I think Wikipedia is our best role-model to look up to. Simply because they are the oldest and most tested wiki out there. If it's been done, they'd know about it.
2. There are specific issues to being a wiki documenting an online game. These include (in my opinion, and are not limited to), the way the content should be layed out and presented and the way the user base should be managed. In this regard, Guildwiki is our BEST resource. It is, without question (and I know some GWOnline people won't admit that, and I hope you're not one of them) THE best online wiki for an online game and obviously for GuildWars. So, it sets the standard for most of the things we are trying to do. The majority of the contributors and the internal workings of how to do things were copied from there, whether we wish to admit that or not.
3. There are things specific to our situation that we have to figure out. Our relationship with ANet here is different than any other GW wiki out there. There are different legal rammifications to certain things we do here being hosted on ANet's servers vs Gravewit's servers.

This is how I see it. There are things we can learn from Wikipedia, from GuildWiki and things we should not learn from either. On the issues of formatting, content presentation and user management, I agree that GuildWiki is a VERY good example to follow. You can't really argue with success. It doesn't mean we have to follow their example verbatim, but it would be hard to claim that their way doesn't work. --Karlos 17:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

You missed my point with that comment. I'm not arguing that their way doesn't work, I'm arguing that it's not the only way that can work - and that I'm tired of the argument that because its done on one of those sites, that's the way it should be done here, without other supporting logic. By all means, reference previous history with how such things have worked on other sites - but don't leap directly from "it worked there" to "that's the way it needs to be here". (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 17:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The point is, if it's somethign we CAN learn from GWiki (like, say, quest layout), then the fact that it was used on GWiki, the most successful and influential wiki out there is in and of itself justification. It would be nice for the person quoting GWiki to also show their rationale for doing things in a certain way, but in the end, the fact that this practice is well established in GWiki is a strong argument in and of itself. --Karlos 17:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

A strong argument that it works, yes. A strong argument that it's the only method that works, no. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 17:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. --Karlos 21:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

redundant redundancy

LOL ... so, you got something against the use of redundant repetition? :-)

Although, editing someone else's post on a talk page seems inapropriate to me. While I fully acknowledge it was poor sentence structure and faulty use of the english language - and I don't believe it's technically written as policy - it still rubs me wrong to see anyone editing someone else's talk-page posting. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I keep a personal rule to myself only to edit talk pages if it seems to be a typo and I'm at least 99% sure it won't change the meaning or content away from what was intended. When in doubt I'd much rather leave something difficult to read on a page but preserve whatever intent the user had, than change it. However, that particular edit it seemed rather clear what you were trying to convey, and my head sort of spun the first time I read through it. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 18:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I never can resist the right mouse click on misspelled words (FF has that nifty spell checker for forms...) and now I really want to click on inapropriate in your comment Barek... *tries to constrain his ring finger* --  (CoRrRan / talk) 18:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Wut? I cee nutheeng rong wiht mie speling of "inapropriate"!  ;-D --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I have a spelling checker,

It came with my PC;

It plainly marks four my revue

Mistakes I cannot sea.

I've run this poem threw it,

I'm sure you're please too no,

It's letter perfect in it's weight,

My checker tolled me sew.

- Thulsey - talk 02:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

LOL! -- ab.er.rant 09:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete

A speedy delete on a newly moved guild page (redirect) is almost always a bad idea. I've learned from experience (seeing old admins do the same) They almost always come up again quite fast ;) Wait a bit so the user has time to see the change, and you don't have to do things twice :) - anja 18:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll keep the advice in mind - although I think also leaving a note on the creating user's talk page would help as well. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 18:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Yea, that would probably help, if they get a talk page notice like we do. :) - anja 18:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Anons do get talk page notices. The only thing to keep in mind on anon notices is that if it's a dynamic IP, the first user may leave without viewing the talk page - then later a second user will get the note and be totally confused. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

There's a special note on the bottom of anon IP talk pages to address that concern/confusion, Barek. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 18:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't think they got talk page notices. Should keep that about dynamic IPs in mind too. And sorry for spamming your talk page all the time Aiiane :P - anja 18:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Holding sway...

Did you really read all that talk page to the end? Did I say admin powers should hold sway over users? Are you sure I said that? --Karlos 23:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Trust me, I've read both that talk page and others in exquisite detail. While I used verbatim certain elements of the language you did, I was not necessarily basing my vote on anything you explicitly stated. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 23:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I know you well enough to "trust you." I want to know why you said what you said. You do not have to explain yourself if you don't want to, however, I feel it's unfair to paint this as something I said when I hvae said the exact opposite. I said admins should try their best to make it clear they do NOT have any sway, but that they should also be mindful of the fact that DO have sway over what others thinks. How can you interpret that as "Admins should exercise power and sway over regular users"? --Karlos 00:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

My statement was not an interpretation of the line you quoted above, thus my answer to "how can you interpret..." would be that I wasn't. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 00:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

---

I am wondering if you still feel the same way about admin powers on this wiki after reading this? And if we approached you to add your e-mail to that mailing list, would you agree? --Karlos 11:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

To your first question, yes, I do - I see nothing on the topics list that's more than tangentially relevant to user discussions, except possibly the bans topic, and mostly discussion with ArenaNet via technical aspects of the wiki. I think it's quite possible to distance that from the actual content-based operation of the wiki and decisions thereof. As for me personally, I'd be rather ambivalent to such an offer - I don't see it as a "right" of a sysop nor do I see it as something that absolutely shouldn't be allowed to exist, but rather as simply another means of communication. If I decide to discuss something about a policy I'm proposing with another editor over MSN or the like, as they're a friend, is it necessary to regulate that we subsequently post our MSN conversation on the wiki? I think not. At the same time, I think that any decision regarding content that comes out of private communication should be justified and potentially discussed publicly as well, but there's no reason why there can't be (and very little ability to restrict) private discussion. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 11:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I cannot disclose the details, but I can assure you (you can check with Biro) that there was an instace of content proposed to be added to the wiki which a few admins shot down and an other instance of content being removed from the wiki, which again, admins shot down and neither of which was listed in any detail in that list. And not for lack of effort by Rezyk. Do yo not see that as "power" and "sway"? --Karlos 11:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Those two instances aren't even the worst offenders to me. Of course, I am also unable to disclose anything more. Treat this as an affirmation of what Karlos is stating. —Tanaric 20:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Then I would say that's a fault of the list and the manner in which it has been operated, given the views which I and others (yourself included, Tanaric) have expressed on the role of sysops here. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 20:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

My last message to the list follows:

Gaile Gray wrote:

> I'd like to keep this sort of discussion private, for obvious reasons.

I don't understand the desire for privacy in this situation. This is a community concern, not one that has to do with ArenaNet involvement in particular. I don't think using the mailing list for this issue is appropriate.

As others have mentioned, I proposed a "no open proxies" policy to help prevent this sort of abuse from happening in the future. Unfortunately, the community seems mostly against such a policy. If they wish to allow said abuse, I don't think it's our place to circumvent their decision.

More particularly, even if ArenaNet staff wanted to assist, there's not a lot you can do. This is primarily a sysop concern -- J.Kougar should continue to be blocked whenever he makes himself known, and that's about the extent of it. I'd like to see us preemptively block known open proxies to make this sort of abuse significantly more difficult, but again, that's not something ArenaNet can really help us with.

I believe the list has been abused. I do not wish to see this occur again. That said, I think the list has its merits, too. Recently, ArenaNet approached the list members with an idea that, while neat and something most of our contributors probably would have liked/supported, was nevertheless horribly destructive and unwiki. Most of the list members shot the idea down. I hope beyond hope that they don't actually go through with the plan. However, the idea is such that they cannot advertise it on the wiki before doing it -- they either have to do it or not do it. Without the list, they may have simply gone through with it without any input from us, and that would have been a Bad Thing.

Personally, I'd prefer the list be shrunk to bureaucrats-only. Sysops are not systemically required to be wise. Bureaucrats are, more or less. ArenaNet could then use the list for issues that directly relate to their own non-consensus-seeking actions -- our bureaucrat team is more than capable of providing sound advice. Our sysop team initially was too, for the most part, as they were appointed by GuildWiki standards; however, theoretically speaking, that is no longer the case. This is of course not a slight against you or any of the new sysops -- I think most would give sound advice to ArenaNet. I'm merely commenting on the system itself. I have no problem with a sysop being appointed that has no idea what's good for the wiki in general here, because that's not a sysop's job. It's a bureaucrat job. Take the pressure off the sysops by removing them from the list.

—Tanaric 20:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

This discussion should be moved to a more appropriate place, since I feel it is pretty important to all members of the wiki. --Xeeron 20:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

And perhaps so my inbox doesn't get pinged every 5 minutes. ;) (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 21:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I thikn the Rampaging Ntouka thread is a better place to "discuss" the issue, I was only bringing it to her attention. --Karlos 22:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Salvage kit

Hey, when you moved that Char salvage kit to Charr salvage kit you actually overwrote a full & complete article :P When I went to look to see if there was a Charr salvage kit I saw the old one which you moved the new one on top of :S How do we fix it? --trekie9001 21:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't overwrite any articles - the other article has a different capitalization (I moved it to Charr salvage kit, the full article is Charr Salvage Kit). In fact, the version I moved has been updated to redirect to the full and correct article. So no fixing needed. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 21:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, OK. Well, no worries then. I'm still kind of new to editing wiki's so I didn't really know. --trekie9001 21:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Help

User:Eloc Jcg/Builds/EW's GvG build Go here and scroll all the way to the bottom, how do I remove the ]]'s at the end of the one box?--§ Eloc § 20:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem isn't with that page, it's with the template you're using (User:Eloc Jcg/Templates/Attributes) - you need to take the [[ ]]'s out of it, and just add them to the template arguments instead, otherwise, if you try to specify two attributes ([[A]] or [[B]]), you end up with ([[[[A]] or [[B]]]]. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 20:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

How come I'm able to hide the first one via <!-- --> but not the 2nd set?--§ Eloc § 22:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Because you're not actually hiding it, you're just making it so the [[ in the template takes the place of the one you commented out in the arguments. The way the wiki processes templates and the like, you can't just mess with it via HTML-based comments. I've already mentioned how it should be fixed above: move the brackets out of the template and into the values you're passing as arguments. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 22:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, new topic. I want a pic of Balthazar on my page that's sorta like your Dwayna. I wanna use the Concept Art of Balthazar though and still have it align left. How do I do that?--§ Eloc § 22:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Not sure exactly what you're asking. If you have the image you want to use, you should be able to simply use the same code I did, but swap the image names. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 22:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Bad timing, but...

Please take a look at Guild_Wars_Wiki_talk:Policy#Policies and guidelines. --Xeeron 21:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I had seen it already. However, the fact that it is listed as a policy, lays out certain specific criteria, and is currently accepted as policy (if debated whether it should remain as such) is what I based my actions on. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 21:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, what I am saying there (among many other stuff) is: It does not forbid his user sig. --Xeeron 21:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

And what I'm arguing is that while the wording may be poor (and hence Guild Wars Wiki:Projects/Policy Cleanup), the intent of the policy is clear, and is what is commonly accepted as of current. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 21:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm if that is your stance, we do have a problem here. --Xeeron 22:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

And I have no issues with clarifying the wording of the policy, although I think given the current discussion regarding changing the intent of the policy it would make more sense to reword an updated version - however, if that discussion is going nowhere it might make sense to try to fast-track an update to the existing wording. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 22:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I saw that you noted this conversation on GWW:NOTICE (which is fine, it's something that should be brought up), I should note that I'm basing my interpretation both on the policy's expressed intent, and also on the original discussion regarding that portion of the policy (see Guild_Wars_Wiki_talk:Sign_your_comments/Archive1#Exception) and the consensus there. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 22:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, lets just say I disagree with a lot here, so please let me ask you to stop deleting those riven sig pictures (seems he has stopped uploading them anyway) for now till this matter is clarified. --Xeeron 22:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The sigs could be deleted as duplicates as long as the first one remains --Lemming64 22:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

As Xeeron has mentioned on GWW:NOTICE, however, we do have an issue with speedy criteria in regards to repeat enforcement of policy violations or the like, so I agree with him in this case that it makes sense to postpone deletions until the matter is resolved. I do plan, however, to do my best to make sure such a resolution is arrived at as quickly as possible, this isn't something I want to see stalled out. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 22:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Bah beat me to it.

The next one is so mine! c'mon Riven6 --Lemming64 22:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, next one is yours. - anja 22:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Riven9 is already in the pipelines! --  (CoRrRan / talk) 22:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Hah, wrong! Like this name? I Love Aiiane 23:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Aww, you no love me? I Love Aiiane Even More 23:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Your signature pic

I just realized your signature pic is 20px. --Rein Of Terror (talk · contributions) 02:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Lol! Busted! :P -- ab.er.rant 03:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, one of these days I'll get around to making a 19px version. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 03:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I suppose I have a few spare minutes tonight, since it's been brought up. ---> (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 04:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I tried to help, but I guess that isn't appreciated around here, sigh. On a sidenote, funny how two of the people that participate(d) in the crusade against me violate the same policy themselves. Oh, speaking of which, User:Kurd, who I told his sig is in violation of the policy, still hasn't fixed his. BAN PL0X. Funny, considering he was the one that started this all. The irony. Love this wiki, really. Sigh 04:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

---> Fun fact, creating a new account only takes 20 seconds 04:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Fun fact, nobody gives a shit. GTFO and stop wasting everyone's time, including your own. -Auron 04:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Lmao, Auron! Aww, you're so cute! Yes! 67.159.44.59 04:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh and btw Auron, save yourself the effort -- I don't intend to stop this anytime soon. You see, I can do this perfectly fine while AB'ing or while doing PvE stuff etc. I'm not wasting any time! 83.170.97.219 04:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I should start using my sig icon again, what do you guys think? File:User Hai sig.png 05:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Btw, I retract what I just said about User:Kurd, he apparently did fix it recently, I missed that. Anyway, the irony remains. File:User Hai sig.png 05:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I think I'm done for the day. Aiiane, better sleep well tonight, I predict a busy day for you tomorrow! ;-) File:User Hai sig.png 05:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

You're apparently still missing the whole point about why alot of other users were against you. You apparently have not realised how different their reactions and your reaction were when being told that their sig icon is too big. You became very confrontational, and then proceeded to being disruptive and adamant. But then again, your current behavior is almost exactly like certain other users that have come and gone, so you're not likely to listen to explanations and discussion for resolution. To you, it just has to be your way. -- ab.er.rant 05:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Deleted image

Aiiane, I'm assuming you are responsible for deleting ?

This image has not been used in any signature of mine, it was uploaded for use in my user space (hence it's not named User Riven sig.png or similar, but User Riven icon.png). Please do your homework, randomly deleting valid content is not expected from an admin I believe.

You will probably bring up the argument that I uploaded that image while bypassing a block, which is obviously correct. While blocking the ip or account that I use for bypassing a block is ofcourse expected and perfectly fine, deleting valid content added this way, is not.

If you are not responsible for the deletion of this image, then I request that you take your responsibility as an admin, and find out who did do this, since the person responsible for this deletion overstepped his authority and should be informed of this.

I will proceed to upload this image again, assuming no further "mistakes" will be made on the end of any admins. --Riven 18:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

06:20, 31 July 2007 Barek (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Image:User Riven icon.png" (GWW:NPA violation in image upload summary : I do not know the exact circumstance of this particular deletion but clearly something was up. I think the argument that you uploaded it whilst bypassing a block causes you to lose all of the higher ground in this. --Lemming64 18:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Lemming. In the image upload summary, I wrote: "This is not a signature icon, so fuck off." I don't see how that constitutes as a personal attack, since it was obviously not directed at anyone in particular, but a general statement. --riven 18:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from making general statements of that nature in future upload summaries. It isn't particularly friendly general or not. I still believe anything you do or upload whilst banned is forfeit though. --Lemming64 18:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Err hi :)

Trying to figure out how to make my sig image revert to my talk page, like yours does.. and well I accidentally pressed on one of the REV links at your image page. but I'm not sure if i did any damage.. sorry.. my mistake :) I'm still new and was wondering why your page looks like it worked and mine didn't, using the same steps you did. It would be great to set my mind at ease, as I am sweating right now from my minor mistake? If I broke something please forgive me :) Laura Brinklow 00:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about the (rev) thing, it's no big deal; you just reverted to a previous version, which is easily fixed.

As for making your sig redirect to your talk page, add #REDIRECT [[User talk:Laura Brinklow]] to the top of your sig's page, that should do it. Cheers, --Dirigible 00:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you kind sir. *removes load off shoulders* Much appreciated advice, and I realized after I had made this mistake, that my sig image page was actually edited correctly :/ Laura Brinklow 00:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Banning policy

What's the banning policy on GWW? I have seen this user trolling too much, and he is getting worse everyday. There are even complains about his behavior on his user talk page. Lightblade 08:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Looking at his contributions, none of them are constructive. Lightblade 08:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

For someone to be blocked they would have to break one of these policies. Generally people have only been blocked so far for vandalism and personal attacks. I don't see anything Readem has said to make banning a consideration though. - BeX 08:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I consider these to be personal attacks. He may not be personally assaulting someone, but he's definitely provoking it, which I think is worse than a direct assault.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

Lightblade 19:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

You say that there are complaints about his behavior on his talk page, but I'm not seeing them. Could you link me a diff? (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 19:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Only a couple of those examples could be considered a direct personal attack and a relatively mild one, however I do think a warning is appropriate. Generally it seems it is more of a brash posting style more than anything, however if it continues it could easily escalate and get him into trouble. --Lemming 19:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is 1 and...the second one is from me. Lightblade 21:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's another one. This one is uploaded by Readem himself and it's part of his user page. Now he's just asking for people to flame him.

Lightblade 01:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

more Lightblade 01:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a note, if you're going to continually add to this page, could you please mark your edits as minor to avoid spamming my inbox. Thanks. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 01:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

"I add because I can"~Readem, yes, I can also behave like Readem. Lightblade 03:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you too busy to do anything? Or are you just don't want to do anything? I can take this to another admin. Lightblade 04:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Actions taken in haste are often regretted. I'm still considering your comments as well as those of others, and if you'd like, you're welcome to bring other sysops into the discussion. (One of them is already here.) (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 04:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

And another has been following this thread, even though his actual posts in the wiki are infrequent nowadays  ;-) --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Lightblade if you continue your high and mighty routine I don't think any admin is going to listen to you. -- Scourge 04:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Lightblade if you would like another admin to review it please go to Guild Wars Wiki:Admin noticeboard. - BeX 04:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

...if you are trying to ban me, then why did you put the Suicide threat here O.-? Also, those were poor examples against me...one was me talking to myself...another completely nonsensical...and even one that was impersonal. The most I have done so far, has been arguing a different point of view. Perhaps I have said you were wrong, but you are seriously overreacting about this matter. Torp is just annoying, getting even his poor alliance members to spam me. If you consider me unreasonable for ignoring him, go ahead. I can only listen to so much dramatic BS ig, before I get srsly annoyed. Just my say on the matter. Readem Sorry, I'll stop trolling now. 20:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Here Aiiane, I'll save you some trouble =). Readem Promote My Ban Here 21:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

This is the exact reason why people don't like you. You mock people and say sarcastic things. And not just a little, it seems every other comment you make is sarcastic. This include having the ban thing on your sig. Lightblade 01:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

It's fine to bring potential violations of policy to my page, but please don't bicker between each other on my talk page. If you really must, do it on your own talk pages, but it'd be better to simply live and let live unless there's something truly obstructing your existence on the wiki. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 04:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Untited

i don't care if you ban me i will just use the other wiki its better any way. also my comment was constructive it was a commentary on how arena net hasn't added controls for the npc that love to run into mobs and die. i have had to do the Thunderhead Keep, Nolani Academy missions more then 3 times over because the npc would run in and kill them selves this was in no way "vandalism" it was more of a you guys need to fix this because it makes your game worse. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:75.165.111.62 .

Commentary of such nature belongs on talk pages, not on the pages describing the update notes themselves. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 04:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

then why did you give me the warning of vandalism if it was just in the wrong place gg

Image File Size

Thanks, that'd be awesome; none of the images are currently on GW Wiki. N E R Mo A Rt P W Me —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pae (talk • contribs) 10:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC).

It appears that using these kind of links doesn't work. I get an "access denied" message. --  (CoRrRan / talk) 11:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow! GuildWiki is checking referrers to save bandwidth. poke | talk 11:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Done and available here: [7]. Average image size after conversion was 25kb (JPEG quality factor 60). No loss of quality visible to the human eye, pretty much. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 17:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, could've sworn that I had added the tildes before posting >.<. Thanks for your help Aiiane ^_^. I can see where the quality degraded, but it's far better than saving it as a .jpg in Paint. GuildWiki checking referrers is probably the from the Wikia move, heh, since I'm pretty sure that it didn't do that before... ~ File:GeckoSprite.gif Pae 20:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment

Maybe you want to take a look at User_talk:Auron#Signature_GWW:SIGN and give the discussion a little wiki spirit. ~ dragon legacy 09:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I've read that conversation (there's very little on the talk pages of most users who take part in active policy debates that I haven't read), and I see nothing I would want to add to it that hasn't already been said. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 09:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:NPC infobox

So why protect is when it has no history of ever being vandalized?--§ Eloc § 19:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Because it's included in so many pages that a single edit to it slows down the wiki noticeably for a number of minutes . See Guild Wars Wiki talk:Community portal#Protection_of_templates. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 19:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Questions

Question 1 being: is there any sort of policy on archiving talk pages? It becomes rather difficult to discuss something when anything one says about it is immediately archived[8] [9].

Question 2 being: does policy disallow "'discussions' of this nature" and does that warrant immediate archiving of any such discussion and any discussion referencing such discussions? --Edru viransu 03:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

1: See GWW:USER#User_talk_page_restrictions for the full sum of policy regarding archiving at this time.

2:Any discussion which violates GWW:NPA is disallowed. Specifically, "Comments should not be personalized and should be directed at content and actions rather than people." If you wish to express your opinions regarding individuals who happen to be part of the ArenaNet staff, you should probably contact their personnel department or other such individuals in managerial positions. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 03:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

How would I go about contacting such an individual? Defiant Elements 05:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind. I found the necessary information on Readem's talk page. Thanks anyway. Defiant Elements 06:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

About you're comment on Readems page

"No, quite simply, the discussion of whether Izzy and/or Gaile are good or not at their jobs is not something which belongs on this wiki. It's not a matter of one viewpoint or the other, the entire discussion simply doesn't belong here, which is one of the reasons why it conflicts directly with policy." So, the whole point of the wiki is to kiss anets ass and constantly praise whatever they do then? Izzy asked for feedback, and that is what he is getting. Regardless if it isnt what he expected.--Atlas Oranos 11:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

There is the option of providing feedback on content, not people. Backsword 11:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh ok, so we cant comment on someone's job on the game then. Wonderful.--Atlas Oranos 12:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, people have given feedback on content. I have not seen a comment by Izzy on one of his undepowered/overpowered sections in awhile. So, we cant say anything about how he does his job because it will hurt his feelings?--Atlas Oranos 12:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Criticism is okay. The way it presents itself is not. ~ dragon legacy 14:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

If you really feel the need to give negative criticism about the game, why are you playing it?--§ Eloc § 19:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

This is not about weather Izzy's feelings are hurt or not. This is about an over-riding policy that we have on the wiki. Just because Izzy is a dev, does not mean his isn't protected like every other user by the No Personal Attacks policy. The wiki is not here to kiss anets ass, or here to dev-bash. It is here to document the game. --Lemming 20:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Very well put. The point of a wiki is to document the game. Talk pages can be used to discuss better ways to do that, and of course personal opinion comes into play there; but bashing people in any way shouldn't be and is not tolerated here. I believe Aiiane even mentioned taking it to a forum, which is really the place for that kind of criticism, anyway. That is in no way kissing posterior areas, but rather sticking to agreed-upon conduct, regardless of who the criticism concerns. - Thulsey - talk 02:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anywhere is appropriate for that kind of criticism. I think they should just keep it to themselves. "If you have nothing nice to say, then don't say anything at all."--§ Eloc § 04:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Constructive criticism has its place, that place is simply not this wiki. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 04:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I feel it has its place here. Izzys talk page is really inviting it. However, just as Lemming pointed out: Constructive critisism must stay withhin the limits of GWW:NPA, just as every other edit on the wiki. --Xeeron 09:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

There are far too many idiots/unskilled players that feel the need to make themselves heard on izzy's talk page for it to ever be effective. It was nice back when none of them knew about it, but now it's just a retard fest. -Auron 10:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Does that matter, though? Isaiah mentioned he's not feeling like reading the wiki, so I would guess the great majority of those pages (all the ones about underpowered and overpowered skills, for example) are not going to be read. I don't even think we should make the update discussion page within his user space anymore; I doubt he's going to read all of that, either. So if a random person appears demanding Mending to be nerfed...He's likely not going to be heard anyway. Erasculio 10:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Does it matter? I'm pretty sure the retardfest is why Izzy doesn't feel like reading the wiki. It's definitely not something I'd do after a hard day's work. -Auron 11:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I think Izzy has given up here on the under/over powered skills place on his user space. I even made a userbox for it on my user page.--§ Eloc § 16:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I'd politely request that you keep user boxes off my talk page, as they're distracting. (If possible, could you edit it into a template link or some such?) Thanks. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 17:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I understand, I suppose I misunderstood... I can't really see why I thought that was ok in the first place. Though readem does make valid points he doesnt keep his criticism attack free.--Atlas Oranos 02:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

template request

Can you add a template for main article? Just like the main tag used on wikipedia. I don't know how to work the template thing. Lightblade 09:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The code for the wikipedia version is as follows:

:<div class="noprint">''Main article{{#if:{{{2|}}}|s}}: [[{{{1}}}|{{{l1|{{{1}}}}}}]]{{#if:{{{2| }}} |{{#if:{{{3|}}}|, | and }}[[{{{2}}}|{{{l2|{{{2}}}}}}]]}}{{#if:{{{3|}}} |{{#if:{{{4|}}}|, |, and }}[[{{{3}}}|{{{l3|{{{3}}}}}}]]}}{{#if:{{{4|}}} |{{#if:{{{5|}}}|, |, and }}[[{{{4}}}|{{{l4|{{{4}}}}}}]]}}{{#if:{{{5|}}} |{{#if:{{{6|}}}|, |, and }}[[{{{5}}}|{{{l5|{{{5}}}}}}]]}}{{#if:{{{6|}}} |{{#if:{{{7|}}}|, |, and }}[[{{{6}}}|{{{l6|{{{6}}}}}}]]}}{{#if:{{{7|}}} |{{#if:{{{8|}}}|, |, and }}[[{{{7}}}|{{{l7|{{{7}}}}}}]]}}{{#if:{{{8|}}} |{{#if:{{{9|}}}|, |, and }}[[{{{8}}}|{{{l8|{{{8}}}}}}]]}}{{#if:{{{9|}}} |{{#if:{{{10|}}}|, |, and }}[[{{{9}}}|{{{l9|{{{9}}}}}}]]}}{{#if:{{{10|}}} |, and [[{{{10}}}|{{{l10|{{{10}}}}}}]]}}''{{#if:{{{11| }}}| (too many parameters in {{[[Template:main|main]]}})}}</div><noinclude> {{pp-template|small=yes}} {{template doc}} </noinclude>

Most of that can just be used as-is, the only thing that really needs to be changed is the documentation (since we don't use a templated documentation system).

Is there a particular place you were thinking of using this? I'm not really aware of any article that needs it. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 09:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

See Guide to PvE Lightblade 09:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

IMO (but you're welcome to work it otherwise), it'd be better to split things into appropriate subject pages (such as Target Calling) and make the actual guide a shorter page with links to further detail in those subject pages, rather than just splitting the guide across multiple pages. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 09:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Do I understand this correct that it shall just add a link to the main article? What about Main article, Main article/sub article, Main article/sub article2, ..? Then the link to the main article is added automatically.. And for articles with multiple main pages you can simply add links manually imo.. poke | talk 15:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

What's the template for?--§ Eloc § 22:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

revisions

Is it possible to delete these revisions from the history? one two Fall 02:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Due to their pornographic nature, I've granted this request. While the log of the vandalism edits will still appear in the page history, the content of those edits will not be visible to normal viewers. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 02:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :) Fall 02:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I knew there was a reason I didn't read fan fiction... --Lemming 02:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Category_talk:Unofficial_terms

You said knowledge was better than distaste. What does someone gain from knowing that someone just said, ""Yo momma so fat..." for gamers," (taken directly from one of these pages), to them? Dancing Gnome 08:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

They gain a better understanding of the attitude that person has towards them.

Consider this: say you visit a foreign country, and your guide in that country tells everyone whom she introduces you to that you suffer from mental retardation. Wouldn't you rather know that your guide is insulting you and that is why everyone in that country seems to treat you as if you were unintelligent, rather than just assuming that's their normal way of treating people? (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 08:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

A question

Can't some sort of policy be made that says something along the lines of: Providing that it isnt information that effects the functionlity of the wiki, or cause anything offensive, that users can be allowed to pick and chose what to delete off of their own user pages? Not just me, but now its User talk: Kalsion Having issues with the welcome being posted by eloc, kalsion deleting it, and eloc restoring it and telling him not to delete it.

I realize that I have caused a lot of trouble (Ive been following Eloc's talk page), and I really am sorry. I just kinda want to be left alone,and I get the feeling that there are other people like me. These automated welcomes by Eloc/Raptor/others seem to annoy a good many people.(Raptors was totally unneeded, especially.) Maybe they should be discarded all together.

Again, sorry for all the trouble I have caused.--Ryudo 04:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed earlier and the policies now clearly state that you can't delete anything but you can archive anything. -- (gem / talk) 15:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)\

Yes, thats correct Gem. Hence why I said "policy be made" not "policy that currently exists."--Ryudo 21:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

And my main message was that 'this has been discussed before and an agreement was reached'. Ofcourse you can restart discussion, but then you should create a policy draft or a policy change draft. -- (gem / talk) 21:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Formatting Talk Pages

I think you ignored [[10]] on [[11]] talk page. Specifically: "Users should avoid modifying existing comments and sections, unless it is to correct minor typos or sentence structure." If we all start posting all over the place in sections on talk pages wherever we choose the conversation will be very hard to follow and you will confuse people. Dancing Gnome 09:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Um, I didn't modify anyone's existing comment, I inserted my own. It's perfectly acceptable on the wiki and something that happens quite often. That's why we have indentation to show which comments are replying to which. The policy you quoted is referring to modifying the actual text of someone's comment, for instance if I changed what you wrong above to "I love chocolate chip cookies." (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 13:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I am under the impression indenation is used to signify when a change in a person's speech occurs. How are people to know when someone has said somethign if they said it in reply to a comment made at the top of the page? The natural order of the discussion is to move down the page, if I know I have read the first five posts then the sixth post is new. If there is no new post after the fifth one then there must be no new posts. But wait, someone has replied to a comment in the middle of three other posts above, but unless I look there, which I likely won't because I have already read them, I will not see that comment. Now the order of the conversation is disrupted. Dancing Gnome 15:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the natural order is for discussions to go from left to right, not moving down. So making an indentation right after an old message is accepted if the content is about said message, and it's what we do here on the wiki all the time (I do it too, for example). Erasculio 15:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it's quite common to respond the way Aiiane did, and it's not wrong in any way. You can always use diff links to read what was changed since you last checked the page. - anja 15:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Nothing bad with that, indentation ftw. It's commonly used that way. -- (gem / talk) 15:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't seem very logical and very disruptive to a flow to the conversation. It is far easier to see the most recent comments after the last one you read than it is to look on recent changes to track down posts made above the more recent conversation. All of a sudden you will have two separate discussions occurring in the same section, one with the most recent posts and one with posts above the most recent ones splitting progression all over the section so any newcomers who come along will see posts out of sequence in which they were made and it will be confusing if conflicts occur with comments made afterwards. If a reply is made in response to a specific comment you can say "in response to comment x made by person y" and if you really want to be specific you can quote them. The indentation would become further confusing when users post with wrong indentation like Anja did making her comments appear merged with Erasulio, showing even experienced wiki users have wrong indentation sometimes or when an indentation is reset, it is not often said <resetting indent> it is just done. Aiine has even said it at the top of this talk page, "Please add your response to a topic 'at the end of its respective section'. I admit I rarely see this kind of indentation, likely by nature of the indentation I miss it completely - which doesn't seem right when you can simply say, "in response to" rather than disrupting an already continued discussion. If I am wrong about this then this discussion would be more appropriate on the formatting page rather than continuing it here. Dancing Gnome 15:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't become a problem in smaller discussions where you can easily spot the two separate 'discussion trees'. In larger discussions I tend to use the article history to view the comments in the correct order. The reason why this 'discussion tree' system is better than continuing all of the discussions at the end is that the discussions might actually be discussing very different things and this makes it easier to discuss them as the messages aren't mixed up but divided for easy separation. -- (gem / talk) 15:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Indentations are a politeness, not a requirement. I don't believe any polices cover their usage, and I feel strongly that this is something so trivial that it should not be covered by policy. Perhaps a guideline would be acceptable, I don't know...

"Wrong" indentation strikes me as being something of a contradiction (although I am being a little pedantic here) since they are not required, but if you think that they are being incorrectly used you are free to alter them, provided the meaning of the comment is not altered in doing so. I'm sure no one would mine (please, correct me if I'm wrong). If you think someone else might find Anja's comment above distracting then you could freely edit it.

I tend to agree with Dancing Gnome that adding comments in the middle of an existing block of text can be confusing, but this is at the discretion of the commenter and sometimes it does make sense - if a comment has been added that is on another subject then two discussions might well begin to take place independently of each other, at which point the discussions can be separated with sub-headings. LordBiro 16:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

"showing even experienced wiki users have wrong indentation sometimes" - the thing is, her indentation wasn't wrong. You may see it as something not exactly pleasant, but that kind of indentation (in which the person is replying to the comment in the previous identatition, not the one above his/her own) is common here, and I think it makes sense. Old internet forums used to be just like that, in fact, and many of the newer ones have the ability to display their topics in such way. It's not new to the internet, nor new to this wiki. An easy way to know the limit between Anja's indentation and mine is simply to see where my signature is - that's the end of my comment. Erasculio 22:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, this intendation method is common in the internet. For an example see [this discussion website]. At the bottom you can see all replies to the original topic. The discussion is branched in multiple parts and some replies have discussion branches under them. The most recent messages aren't always put at the bottom but at the bottom of that particular discussion branch. It's intuitive.

A policy would be overkill, and a guideline hasn't been needed before, and imho isn't needed yet, maby in the distant future if it becomes a poblem. -- (gem / talk) 22:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Well my initial comments were wrong, I honestly believed there was some kind of guideline or rule which dictated how indentation etc were to be done. I will say again, myself and other users likely miss large parts of conversations if they follow the manner above but I understand this is something you can see either way for. Is there anything to dictate how someone should format their comments on a talk page aside from signing their posts and not editing others? I would honestly be surprised if there wasn't, but I would explain that as an unwritten rule, with minor variations between them. Dancing Gnome 10:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

No, there aren't any further specifications for talk pages, simply because there are enough situations where such rules would get in the way of expression more than they'd help it. It's generally a common sense standard of "try to make your comments easy for others to read". (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 10:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

(ec) No guideline yet. I thought about making one once, but then decided not to since any problems have been minor. -- (gem / talk) 10:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not want you to resign as Sysop

I disagree with you quite a lot but I don't believe you should no longer be a Sysop because of that. I don't want you to resign because of that policy or my opposition to it, it will not change my view. I will try to consider my mention of you or others being a sysop in future to make sure I don't give off this impression unless I intend it. Btw thanks for bolding that on the talk page, I would have missed it otherwise due to the above conversation. Dancing Gnome 10:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

About our guild description

Hey, I don't know if this is the place to ask - if it's not, please tell me. Anyway, our guild description (used to be Guild:TPKS) has been deleted, and since there is no edit history, and there are no longer any entries about that page in my "my contributions" log (they used to be there, I'm sure about that), I don't know when or why the page was not only deleted, but sort of annihilated. I'd like to know what happened, there. However, there were some issues: An admin said (on the talkpage) that Guild:TPKS should be renamed, but I objected and argued that it shouldn't, and there was no further reply by that admin (for at least 2 months), while another admin seemed content with my explanation after he raised the topic again. Unfortunately, I'm not sure who this admins were - maybe the first one was Anja, the second one Corran Ironclaw, but there's the possibility I mix something up, here. I'm glad for any information you can provide. - TeleTeddy 16:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I've restored Guild talk:TPKS, you can view the comments there. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 16:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I don't get it, but thanks for the information. You can re-delete. - TeleTeddy 19:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Inactive

Moved Guild_Wars_Wiki:Adminship/Draft-2007-9-16 to inactive, as it would seem not needed now that we have a arbcomm policy. If you mind, just revert. Backsword 04:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

eww it's a troll

(Aiiane

hey, well if you're gonna violate NPA, then it means that everyone else can too right?

how does it feel, aiiane or should i say troll

I like the fact you don't bother to sign your junk posts.-- Wynthyst 08:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I would appreciate your input into the discussion

Heya, would you be so kind as to go here and chime in on the discussion? So far it's just Backsword and I and that doesn't make for much of a discussion :P -- Wynthyst 08:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok... I took your idea, and have posted a link to a sandbox page... feedback????-- Wynthyst 07:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

you are a moderator?

what happens if moderators ban or suspend people for no reason at all - or are prejudiced and flame people and then bann them? are there consequences or rules against that?

There are no specific rules governing review of administrative procedure beyond potentially bringing up the matter with ArbComm. Requests for reconfirmation of any individual sysop's status can be made at GWW:RFA.

However, let me advise you that if you are intending to contest the ban of 67.131.227.19, you will probably not get far - there was plenty of reason behind that block, and most of the flaming in that particular conversation was coming from the blocked user. You are still welcome, however, to bring up the matter if you so desire. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 13:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

ACTUALLY THERE WAS NO BLOCK WAS THERE OTHERWISE I WOULDN"T BE HERE TALKING TO YOU WITHOUT BREAKING THE RULES WOULD I? THE ONLY BREACH OF RULES WAS ON YOUR PART, MISS ADMINISTRATOR.

would you like to specify any reasons in particular? or CITE any GWW:NPA statements, so everyone knows WHY EXACTLY you are BANNING SOMEONE????

or are you just going to go head and do it, without justification, and possibly without any reason whatsoever? is it because *you* flamed me? is that why? i don't see any other reason why you would ban me. 67.131.227.73 14:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

1. The block was on Dec. 1st, for a duration of 3 days. Obviously, that block has expired, given that it is the 5th of December.

2. I was not the sysop who instituted the block, nor did I have any part it putting it in place, nor contact with ab.er.rant in regards to such when he did.

3. Ab.er.rant specified a general description of the ban reason, as all sysops are required to, in the block log. If you wish to have that description clarified, the place to ask would be User talk:Ab.er.rant, not my talk page.

4. Given that I had nothing to do with your block, I'm curious as to why you're addressing me. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 14:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

i'm going to make a new rule. look for it in GWW:NPA 67.131.227.73 14:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I would advise you to first bring it up on the talk page. It will most likely be reverted without consensus. -- br12 • (talk) • 14:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, Aiiane hasn't banned anyone since Nov28. See: Special:Log/block - HeWhoIsPale 14:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

23:32, 1 December 2007 Aiiane (Talk | contribs) blocked "Raptors (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 year (Blocked per ArbComm decision: http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Guild_Wars_Wiki:Arbitration_committee/2007-11-15-User:Raptors)

guess who reverted it? 67.131.227.73 14:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

plx ban him for fail --Cursed Angel 14:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

and ban her for personally attacking me. i demand it.

Intentional violation of GWW:POLICY is grounds for blocks. Backsword 14:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

i never violated anything. aine did, though. i will quote it all for you if you want.

Quote it then, please. I am confused as to the reasons behind your claims. br12 • (talk) • 14:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

" What exactly are you besides a hypocrite? A troll?"

So how does that break policy? -- (gem / talk) 14:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

"Do not make personal attacks anywhere in the Guild Wars Wiki. Comment on content, not on the contributor."

"Comments should not be personalized and should be directed at content and actions rather than people."

"Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done."

i'd be more curious to see how i broke policy, but hey i'm probably going to get banned more because people flamed me, and i'm trying to talk about it. 67.131.227.73 14:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't even see the reason why you started this..? poke | talk 14:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

because i think it's unjust that people banned me for other people flaming me, that's why.

67.131.227.19 started it, Raptors deserved it. Just which previously banned user are you? - HeWhoIsPale 14:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

i didn't start anything except a discussion about the double wiki sites. actually Lord Biro started it, but you'd know that if you'd read it.

I mean this discussion on this page which is completely unneeded! poke | talk 14:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Except you ignored the explanations provided as to why this wiki was started and became completely agitated whenever anyone didn't agree with you. Also it's not NPA to say someone doesn't know what they are talking about when they in-fact don't know what they are talking about. That's a statement of fact. - HeWhoIsPale 14:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

"Comments should not be personalized and should be directed at content and actions rather than people."

"Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done."

If you want to ditate that policy to the word, you have been breaking it a lot recently. The policy is not ment to be used in a lame ass situation as this, it's meant to prevent bigger conflicts and direct name calling. This is laughable. -- (gem / talk) 23:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

want to quote me anywhere, gem? i'm not sure if i want to get into this, but at this point, i think that if i didn't break the rules before i was banned, then... well the ban was un-warranted, and as such, in my opinion was wither over zealous or something... get my drift? 67.131.227.73 07:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

DON'T FEED THE TROLLS!!!

haha

yeah sorry to take all the hate out on you and all - i just hope that you understand that i was getting bashed on at that point in time a lot, and you called me a troll and a hypocrite - ya know? but right now i forgive you and hope you do the same for me . 67.131.227.73 07:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I rarely take much personally. However, might I suggest you take a look back over the page, and see if perhaps you didn't help just a little to cause such "bashing" to come about? Your attitude was at the very least a little bit antagonistic towards those who were responding to you (and your initial post was sort of bound to create controversy). Perhaps consider approaching such issues in a less "dynamite" manner. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 07:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

seeing how it still doesn't excuse people flaming me, and it really isn't my fault or responsibility that people flamed me when all i did, when it comes down to it, is bring up the subject of there being 2 guild wikis, and how i felt about it, and you called me names. i guess, i'll just have to let it go and hope for the best. oh well :\

When you come to a wiki where people dedicate their time, and call it "useless", "stupid", and "plagiarized" (the first two rather subjective, but quite aggressive, and the latter simply untrue), it should be obvious that you are not going to endear yourself to those who have contributed to it. Likewise, when people point out to you the reasons why this wiki does exist instead of merely using GuildWiki, and you laugh at them, they're not going to be inclined to show you any more respect. There is an FAQ that would have answered most of your questions about why this wiki exists instead of GuildWiki, which Auron pointed you to in the initial response to your post - and you dismissed it without considering the fact that ArenaNet's lawyers probably know more about the licensing issues than you do.

When you felt you were being flamed, you didn't respond by politely asking others to stop by rather by attempting to rub policy in their faces, laughing at them in a quite antagonistic manner. What it comes down to in the end, though, is that the discussion was pointless from the start: lussh summed it up quite nicely on the original talk page - what does it matter if you think this site is useless? You're free to ignore it, it need have no impact on your life. Thus, there was nothing constructive to come of making an issue out of it, so in effect creating such a "discussion" was doing nothing beyond unnecessarily provoking people, which is generally what most communities consider trolling. While you may not see it as that, it's how it comes across and in general how it will be received. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 14:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

If it matters, I, as ex-GuildWiki boss, totally support this wiki more than the GuildWiki. —Tanaric 09:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I love you Aiiane

Just sharing the love :D. Anon

Nomination

Unrelated to the above comment, I have nominated you for bureaucrat. My apologies if this is not what you wished for. Anon

Thank you for the compliment, I'm still considering whether I'll accept the nomination or not. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 13:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd support you. —Tanaric 19:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

As will I...--Ryudo 20:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not so much a question of whether people would support me as whether it would be the right thing. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 10:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

You're intelligent and level-headed. The only question is if you're willing to give up sysop tools. As far as I'm concerned: we can always find another acceptable sysop. Good bureaucrats are tougher to find. —Tanaric 10:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

GG

I noticed this here. I know it happened a while ago, but I want to say it was certainly needed. I lurk alot and have always had negative feeling towards Skuld, and think its anoying that he gets off so easily beacuse he has all those friends in high places. I think you making it painfully clear that the community couldn't stand his negativity was a good thing. You're very responsible, and definitely have my vote in the coming election. Keep up the good work.--Mortazo 00:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

For the record, to anybody who's listening, it's always good to make your opinion known about stuff like this, like Aiiane did in this example and like Martazo is doing here. With Skuld in particular, I often interpreted his actions as caustic but for the greater good. Because very few people ever dissented, I never really analyzed that perspective. I ended up defending things that maybe I shouldn't have.

I'm not one of those "Fight the establishment!" guys -- I'm simply noting that over the years polite dissent has been overwhelming helpful to every wiki I've been on.

—Tanaric 07:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Admin Policy Change

Hey Aiiane,

Was just wondering if you would care to provide some input into the currently proposed policy change at Guild_Wars_Wiki_talk:Adminship/Draft_2007-11-14. Thanks, and congratulations on your bureaucrat nomination. --Indecision 16:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[12]

+1. Maybe the wiki has a bit of hope if you two keep that sort of thing up... Armond 07:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Raptaz, Raptaaz and Eloc/Lush Issues

As an admin I expect you to abide by our policies and leave your personal feelings out of conflicts. In these issues I have seen you go beyond policy and taken action which you had no right to, or supported a block which had no right to be made. You have been brought up for a reconfirmation over two of these issues in the past. I don't care if you personally dislike wikilawyering, myself and many other members put a lot of time into policies and policy writing. Most of us try VERY hard to abide by the wiki's policies even when we don't personally agree with them. Sometimes when we personally disagree with a policy we propose a change, instead of taking vigilante action and supporting bans of people who tried to do their role on the wiki and support the policies we have consensus for. As an admin I expect you and Tanaric to do this at the very least and your abuse of your position in this conflict disgusts me and I've seen other users. You have repeatedly been acting in this trend and even when faced with a request for reconfirmation you continue to support this stance which is more in line with your personal views and in conflict with out wiki's policies. If you have a problem with policy do not extend your personal views in admin action. I expect you to apologise for your disgusting actions and if it continues I will take further action. Please recognise this is not your wiki, your personal views don't justify anything here. 122.104.227.220 14:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Abuse of policy to hinder the purposes of this wiki "digusts" me. I have always made it known that I support enforcement of the spirit of a policy rather than the letter in accordance with promotion of the wiki's purpose; if you have a problem with this you are more than welcome to request my reconfirmation.

I will repeat what I said on Tanaric's page, not blocking someone doesn't mean you approve of their actions.

Also, your wiki login session seems to have timed out prior to your posting, since apparently you're not normally an IP user (just in case you didn't notice). (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 15:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess its not really my place to post here, but I feel the above is somewhat unwarranted. With regard to Eloc/Lusshe, although Lushhe clearly got frustrated with Eloc's behaviour there was nothing in his actions prior to the "witch-hunt" which violated any policies, GWW:SIGN or otherwise. Although he signs as Lusshe when logged in as Liche they are clearly the same user, and there is nothing in the signature policy indicating this action is specifically forbidden afaik. Nor is this action particularly confusing to other editors, or in any other way harmful to documenting the game (i.e. against the spirit of the policy). Particularly when said user has explained that the creation of multiple accounts was due to technical difficulties. As far as Aiiane extending her personal views into admin action I would like to point out that all admins must act with a certain level of personal bias and discretion and that not only is this unavoidable, but that it is in some circumstances preferable. Although I personally feel that Raptaz & Raptaaz perhaps should have faced slightly different treatment (benefit of the doubt from users other than Aiiane), the fact is that their contributions to the wiki were highly suspicious and whilst not violating the wiki's policies in letter, were certainly indicative of their being sock puppet accounts of Raptors. Finally I would like to say that nowhere have I seen Aiiane's actions show a disregard for policy or consensus. The last paragraph are my opinions only and do not reflect any others, if anybody has a disagreement with this I would prefer them to address it to me on my talk page as opposed to Aiiane's. --Indecision 14:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Spirit of the policy is just your cowardly way of saying "my personal interpretation and agenda which isn't justifiable by words agreed upon in the policy". Eloc wasn't using loopholes to harass anyone, neither was he using loopholes to vandalise the wiki or attempt to disrupt the wiki. He was trying to communicate to a user about what he believed to be a policy breach. The consensus is represented by policy not by what you think I don't know what you were smoking when you created the illusion the community was with you on this one, the only people I can see who supported your stance are you, Tanaric and possibly Armond. Quite a few people have taken issue with it and you have refused to budge. I only posted this on your talk page to inform you what you did was wrong and I am not going to accept it. If you keep this abuse of policies up I will take further action. I didn't accidentally log out or session time out, I never said I am not a normal IP user. Another example of you seeing what you want to see as opposed to what is there. 122.104.227.220 18:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but it is obvious that you are not a normal IP user normally not an IP user. I think he was actually assuming good faith, because that could be interpreted otherwise. Coran Ironclaw 19:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

So I'm an abnormal IP user? What kind of drugs are you on and where can I get some? 122.104.227.220 20:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Jajaja, change the phrase "normal ip user" to "normally an ip user". Do you really want to know where? Coran Ironclaw 20:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

You speak of "when you and others work on policy", yet your contributions show no other edits than those in the past couple of days these talk pages; hence my comment. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 20:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

In case you didn't noticed, Tanaric blocked Eloc, not Aiiane. Aiiane dealt with Raptors and Liche, both of whom violated policy, both of whom sysops are authorized to deal with as they see fit. Being given leeway in enforcement does not just mean no upper cap on responses but also the right to show leniency, if the sysop thinks that is the best course of action. Backsword 20:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Where did Eloc violate policy? It makes a lot of sense to give leeway to a user who's entire talk page is the same conflict with several different users and an open statement about their intentions to ignore all policies they see fit but ban the guy asking them to conform to the same standard everyone else does. I mentioned Aiiane did not make the block but it is very clear she supports the block and participated in bullying Eloc, a trend so many from her clique participate in. Had another user been in the same position as Eloc, such as Xeeron, Anja or probably even Auron they would not have had the same action taken against them. 58.110.142.135 05:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Xeeron and Anja would have been in the right in that situation. The sysops are tasked with policy enforcing, and Xeeron and Anja both represent the sysop force. Even though Xeeron could not have blocked etc for policy violations, he could still give warnings. They wouldn't have been blocked because they were doing their job, not because they're popular or well-liked.

I wouldn't be in this situation to begin with, and I think this is my main argument. It is not my job (as a user) to pester or harass other users about policy. It can be my job as a member of the community to leave a note explaining policy (if I wish to do so), but I would be wrong to do anything past that. If the user disagreed with me, that's fine; he can either A. get blocked by sysops for policy violation or B. post his argument against said policy on the policy talk page. Not my problem either way - definitely not worth risking a block on me for.

If "the guy" (Eloc) was "asking them to conform to the same standard everyone else does," there would be no problem. Eloc was doing no such thing - he was, as he has done in the past, pestering and arguing with the user beyond what his role entails (which is a friendly one-time note about policy). Harassment is harassment, even if you want to argue it was in good faith.

I will not argue that Tanaric's block was supported by policy, but I will argue that defending the spirit of the wiki and the spirit of policies is more important than wikilawyering and/or blindly following what we have written in the Good Books. -Auron 07:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Eloc didn't enforce policy he requested compliance. He can't even enforce policy, he has no admin rights. I recall a discussion recently about who can give warnings and who can say what about our policies and the "consensus" including I think Aiiane herself (I may be wrong about who said it) was that any user is allowed to bring up policy violations to another user. Eloc has been criticised for taking these policy violations to the admin noticeboard and now people are saying he isn't allowed to request compliance either, deeming it harassment and banning him for doing it, when the other user was the one violating policy. Rather than take things to admin noticeboard, which he has been criticised for doing, he tried to resolve the issue himself, it was only because lussh has demonstrated a strong desire to ignore any policy compliance requests that this was "an issue". The rules on how to conduct yourself as far as warning and requests for compliance are certainly vague. You can argue against following the "Good Books" all you want, it's a shame you don't represent consensus, because they do. 58.110.142.135 08:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

You're missing the subtleties again.

Eloc is perfectly entitled to post a single notice explaining policy to a user. He is wrong to do anything else. He did not simply post that single notice, he stayed on the page and bitched and whined at the user - even whined at the sysops when the sysops attempted to take control of the situation.

I don't care how much sysop power he lacks, as soon as he tries to second-guess Aiiane's admin warning, he is overstepping his bounds.

I will make this painfully obvious. Aiiane asked Lussh to be polite (notice nothing about the signature at this point) and admonished Eloc for going on "witch hunts." Eloc responds with basically "im just following policy lol" and is again reprimanded by Aiiane.

Does he stop here? Does he take the admin's word to heart and stop his harassment? No, he doesn't. Instead of, say, posting a notice on Aiiane's talk page (because the disagreement at this point is solely between him and Aiiane), he continues posting his "lol but the policy sez this" line of crap.

Simultaneously (or probably to start this whole fiasco), Eloc reports Lussh for NPA (most likely for this post). Aiiane responds on the admin noticeboard with pretty much the same message she posted on Lussh's talk; "don't make something out of nothing." Lussh responds and pleads innocent and Aiiane requests him/her to stop potentially elevating the conflict (yes I know she said exacerbate; it means the same thing).

Back on Lussh's talk page, Aiiane attemps to explain the subtleties of any wiki; the same thing you were having trouble understanding earlier. Aiiane points out that wikilawyering means nothing when you've missed the point of the policy ("If a policy is inhibiting that goal, it is null.").

Tanaric responds and expands more on Aiiane's point. Consensus is what drives the wiki; not fine print on policy pages. While the fine print must exist, it is nobody's job but the admins to enforce it (or even to pester users about it incessantly).

Lussh then strikes out his/her personal attacks - not erasing them by any means, but showing at least some remorse for his/her actions (or at least wanting to seem like s/he is showing remorse).

Like I said before, you are correct in that Tanaric had no fine print to support his block; but he did have consensus and was acting for the good of the wiki overall. -Auron 03:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You are wasting my time by posting wrong statements like that. If a signature is found to be in violation of this policy, a notice should be placed on that user's talk page explaining the violation and requesting compliance. That user is expected to comply with the notice within a week. Failure to comply would warrant a subsequent warning notice on that user's talk page. Lists two warnings. Unless you count the discussion 3 sections above that, which was about another issue and Gem agreed, then Eloc had only issued one warning and then brought it up again in his defence to Aiiane's criticism. Aiiane's stance as admin adds no weight to her opinion. Eloc can't be banned for defending his stance on an issue, if he believed there was a policy violation and made a disagreement with Aiiane that is no reason to ban him - he didn't cross the 2 warnings set out in the policy and I see no other violations, the only thing he did was disagree with her. I said it on another page, the fine print is there for a reason, if we have included something in a policy we likely had good reason to include it. If that part of the policy is driving people away from the wiki, then yes maybe we need to review it but that does not mean we should ignore it or count it as useless. If Lussh was having trouble understanding what to do or why to do it perhaps more effort should be put into helping lussh understand why the policy is there, which I believe in this case is to prevent confusion. Considering Lussh was banned for NPA and the entire reason for this dispute User:Liche was not I think there is good reason why Eloc's message was needed. Raptors and all of his other known accounts, including suspected ones which were in fact not his accounts, were banned. If someone comes along to review the block log now for Liche they won't see the NPA violation - I'm not familiar with looking at block logs or how blocks work in the finer details but that's how it appears. I'm tired of pressing this issue but I beleive it is important because when an admin exercises discretion it should be done very cautiously, carefully and with great hesitation (unless in extreme cases) and these cases are growing precedent of admin making mistakes and exercising unreasonable discretion. Admin actions are incredibly hard to protest - unless it is an extreme abuse, the established editors and other admin take the side of each other creating an environment where the less established or unpopular people are vulnerable. Aiiane has already demonstrated this admin discretion can be used and be wrong which is precisely why admin need to follow policy more closely. 58.110.142.135 04:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Stop seeing this in black and white. Look at the shades of gray; they will help you understand what you've missed in this situation.

"the fine print is there for a reason, if we have included something in a policy we likely had good reason to include it." Very good. The fine print is indeed there for a reason. However, you've ignored (or didn't read) what I said already; the fine print isn't the spirit of the policy, and is thus LESS important than the main point. The fine print, however, must still be followed; nobody has said anything to the contrary. But it is not Eloc's (or any other user's) job to go around like a vigilante harassing people until they conform to policy. Like I said already (go back up and read it, please), it's fine if he innocently notifies another user of a policy vio. Anything past that is wrong and out of his territory.

For the record, I disagree with Lussh's block (although not enough to contest it). It was too early. By far, most people that violate NPA get (at most!) a warning. Eloc's treatment was quite fair compared to Lussh's; a ban on first offense is far harsher than usual. Eloc has been warned countless times and (when he didn't take the hint) Anja flat-out told him to stop pestering. A block for similar behavior didn't exactly come out of the blue.

I understand that you want policies blindly, zealously followed. I understand that you think they solve conflict and are the end-all solution to the wiki's problems. They are not. Small wikis get along pretty damned well with minimal policy and lots of admin discretion; as long as you have a say in who gets to pick the sysops (which you do; isn't that the point of the Bureaucrat elections? Talk about a waste of time, if you don't even let their decisions mean anything), you can sleep well at night.

And lastly, I don't think Aiiane "has already demonstrated this admin discretion can be used and be wrong." Her blocking was definitely admin discretion, but you haven't shown a bit of proof as to how it was wrong. Your argument is as baseless as you claim hers to be. If she is allowed to use her discretion as policy states, how on earth is blocking someone that creates accounts with names similar to "raptors" "wrong?" -Auron 06:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Well I am beginning to see Aiiane's and Tanaric's action's for what they probably are - an intentional exploration of what has been weakly defined as "discretion". I don't believe this does fall into discretion, I think the decision was unfair, and so did others. I can find the quote from Xeeron on the Ratpors abitraction... I will find it. "Since we don't have checkuser installed yet (and he might be using proxies anyway), the only way to indentify is by convincingly agrueing that the edits made by the account in question could only have been made by raptors." --Xeeron 14:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC) As for a convincing argument, well there wasn't really any and Raptors even said it wasn't him as well as listing all his other sockpuppets (including the unknown Entropy at the time). These blocks are both Aiiane and Tanaric trying to influence or change policy by setting a precedent which was previously not allowed as the norm (everyone winging about the "weak" admins here support me on this because this is their main gripe with them being "weak"). Tanaric even said it was his first block for reasons listing "common sense" with a weak "ignored AGF". Rather than taking apropriate routes to clarify what has been an accepted norm on the wiki and/or change any discrepancy they instead chose to act and influence policy through their actions instead of consensus. 58.110.142.135 10:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

So Eloc posts a warning saying that Liche is violating GWW:SIGN, which on GWW:SIGN is said to post it on the talk page and if they don't comply, post a second warning. A second warning is posted an entire month later. First this Lich does is pretty much say "Fuck you all & your fucking policys.". Eloc then goes to the Admin Noticeboard in which on GWW:NPA it says to contact an Admin as a way to deal with personal attacks. The noticeboard is the most appropriate place as the noticeboard says at the top of the page (first line) "The Admin noticeboard is one way through which users can notify administrators of issues needing administrative attention.". After that, Eloc gets banned for 2 days without any way to give his reasoning for supposedly violating a guideline, in which Tanaric violated himself by not assuming good faith towards Eloc. Tanaric then trys to defend "I must have been right if no one took off the block". That's got to be the stupidest escuse by anyone that I've ever heard. Since when has a block ever been taken off by another Sysop? Final line

1. Eloc wasn't doing anything wrong by following what a policy explicitely says to do.
2. Lussh should have both of her accounts blocked, not just one as she went around the block by just going on the other account.
3. Tanaric should formally apologize to Eloc and wipe the block off of his record as he did nothing wrong. 75.155.71.72 10:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I said don't bother me with useless details, i would like to work on the wiki, i don't like to loose time arguing, thank you. lussh 19:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

And the entire month later was later this : "Alright, that should work now :) — ク Eloc 貢 16:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC) " Please don't forget that sentence lussh 20:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

We're not bothering you as this is not your talk page. If you don't want to be bothered by this, then stay off this talk page, simple as that. Also, obviously I was wrong as your signature still violates GWW:SIGN. — ク Eloc 貢 21:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

i said it because i found a slight difference between my voice and the "Fuck you all & your fucking policys." from the ip. And even if it's not MY talk page, it talks about ME, i found it a suficient reason to get involved (and bored). i wonder how many time you'll still all loose upon my "primordial case".lussh 03:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

http://wiki.guildwars.com/index.php?title=Guild_Wars_Wiki_talk%3AElections%2Fdraft_B&diff=701121&oldid=698925

Did you mean "discussion only" stage where you wrote "deciding winners" stage? --Rezyk 03:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I meant exactly what I typed. Notice the following quote from the Stage 4 heading: "The community decides the winner(s) through discussion and consensus on the election talk subpage, based on the guideline that every eligible voter who has edited the wiki regularly at some point within the past 6 months should have relatively equal weight in the voting process." And yes, I realize that the same wording is used in the current policy as well - that's a problem too. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 00:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Admin names

May I have your vote and/or opinion regarding the Admin names (on a three level draft) discussion here? Coran Ironclaw 22:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom: Readem

Guild Wars Wiki:Arbitration committee/2008-02-07-User:Readem#Decision about accepting the case for arbitration is still waiting for your decision. --Xeeron 10:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I am aware, but thank you for the reminder. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 22:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Not that I care

But I do think that that removal is steadily tiptoeing over the line a bit. I personally dont call that a direct NPA violation, Auron gets away with worse on a near daily basis. Didnt see anyone telling him off when he changed his user page basically saying "fuck you anet, is balance such a fucking hard concept." Other users do things that can be considered worse and they arent removed to my knowledge, I know ive seen it in the past. I do believe this issue is getting special treatment because its gaile, and also possibly because this guy has a radical opinion (maybe also cause hes gay)

As I said, im not here to point fingers, nor do I give a damn what happens in this situtation. Just wanna say....be careful.--Ryudo 09:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I was not removing it because of an NPA violation. I was removing it because I perceived a situation in which sysops had taken action and that action was being subverted in a manner both beyond their means to deal with, and non-conducive to the well-being of the wiki as a whole. I see no reason for a user who has been blocked to be allowed to post what is, at the very least, questionable material on talk pages and then abuse the very policy and administrative base he is willfully choosing to ignore to prevent those additions from being removed. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 09:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

And said ability to remove is a right expressedly given to a buru? Im not too familiar with the powers burus get. If not, then yes, I do believe you far overstepped your boundry. But since everyone here loves Gaile so much, I doubt anyone will call you on it, so no fear, eh? :P--Ryudo 09:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not expressly given to a bureaucrat. If you think I shouldn't be able to do anything that isn't expressly granted to me by policy, then feel free to say so and solicit others' opinions on the matter, but I personally think that my actions are justified in this case. If you see it as something that needs to be contested, so be it; I stand by my statement above regarding the actions of blocked users with regards to policy. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 09:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually Ryudo, it isn't just about the Gaile admiration but Aiiane has had a thing for J.Kougar for a long time in banning him whenever she gets a chance and most of the time he never broke the NPA just like there was no real cause to remove the post. ~ Sabastian 09:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Meh. Ive too much going on in life to bother meddling too deep in this. So one person wont be able to post here without playing IP tag....oh well...--Ryudo 14:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Ryudo, although i agree with your sentiments on this, in that I feel that special consideration is being paid because of it being Gaile. (not saying that i dont agree with the ban though, as i do) I don't think the gay thing is of consideration. As a fairly out wiki user myself, who has had my fair share of e-drama on this site, i can state that no one has ever treated me any differently due to my sexual preferences. just my 2 cents anyway, trying to stay out of this one as much as possible as its just too much drama. -- Salome 06:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

History

Aiiane I thought I should inform you that history is repeating itself. I agree with the removal btw. --Shadowphoenix 09:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Aiiane, I'd like to file a formal complaint about this user. She stalks me on the wiki, trolls my every posts, attacked me on my user page earlier, and has ignored all pleas from me, as well as my attempts to kindly ask her to mind her own business and stop trying to play moderator with me and attacking every post I make. At this point it's more than become harassment. ~ J.Kougar

In my eyes, by bypassing your block you've forfeited any right you might have had to "file a complaint". (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 10:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

So basically anyone can break the rules by harassing someone who is banned and only circumventing that ban to find out why they where supposedly banned and contesting the unjust parts of the ban. After all, harassment is harassment and aren't the rules supposed to be held to everyone and anyone who breaks them is supposed to face the punishment? Correct? If not then you are admitting to double standards for people and biased dealings against J.Kougar which would mean you should hand it over to a bureaucrat who can do the job of enforcing the rules without prejudices as well as undo your previous acts in this banning case such as the deleted apology. ~ Sabastian 10:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Sebastian, there was no pressing need for J.Kougar to bypass his block, and he has specifically stated that he is willfully ignoring it or has plans to do so. I don't think you have much grounds to stand on here, and I do think your personal conflict of interest is clouding your judgment. His block was for two days. If he cannot wait until that time is up to continue the discussion on wiki, he had the option of contacting a bureaucrat via email, or many of the sysops who also provide their contact info. He could also simply look at the block log.

If you personally have a complaint against another user, than lodge it. My statement was simply that I would not accept complaints from users who are blocked from editing the wiki, as their rights in such a regard are temporarily (or if relevant, permanently) forfeit. That is all I have to say regarding this. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 10:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Sabastian, and just FYI Sabastian is the first one to call me out and jump onto me for stuff, he doesn't let me get away with much... so you can expect him to remain objective here as well. Blatantly allowing other users to get away with breaking the rules, simply to get back at someone you don't like isn't very professional and really calls into question your qualifications. Might want to rethink that? As for me, I'm out for the night, see ya tomorrow. ~ J.Kougar

Dang, you replied before I could... ohy, okay... If you'll check the reply in the section below, I'm only ignoring my ban because it's so questionable at the time, since apparently some rules aren't rules for all users. Please see below for the details.

What good would it have done for me to wait? If I'd have waited and then dug all the stuff back up and made it active again, I'd only have been banned again... not to mention that there is still a lot of reason to believe that I was banned unjustly, since you have already pointed out that some of the rules don't apply to everyone. Again, see my post in the section below. ~ J.Kougar

When someone breaks the rules and you are aware of it then you should act on it since you are abureaucrat.It should not take someone to file a complaint on an issues you are aware of. Turning a blind eye to blatant harassment when you know it is there and hiding behind the strawman arguement of "He is bypassing his ban" shows a lot of conflict of interest on your part. This is furthered given the history you two have in arguements and all.

However, I would like to request something be done about Shadowphoenix harassing others on the wiki. I am not banned so there should be no reason not to enforce rules against someone breaking them by harassing others. Correct? ~ Sabastian 11:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Please note that in my entire time in this wiki, I have never once broken GWW:NPA, as you have. There is no rule saying I cannot look into J.Kougars archives if I please. I was in your archives because I was told that something similar to this has happend before. After reviewing the policies I have found that in my debate with you I have broken no policy; I did not call you names, I most certainly did not use profanity (which isnt against the rules, but it is quite rare for me to used uncensored profanity), and I have not made a personal attack against you. I was upholding current polcies. I have nothing against you, I never said I did not like you, but I did not like your constant NPA violations against Gaile. --Shadowphoenix 17:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that stalking and harassment are a violation of the rules, so your running around trying to find all my posts just to troll with and post off-topic junk in them... yea... not exactly a courteous thing to do. ~ J.Kougar

I agree with Aiiane here about rights when bypassing a block. However if you feel that injustice is being served, and you are being harassed then you need to start a request for arbitration by bureaucrats for cases of harassment. Sysop are not the correct channel (though Aiiane is a bureaucrat and I forget occasionally, I still think Biro is sometimes! (Sorry aiiane)) for this kind of complaint. --Lemming 19:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Well given my ban was extended for the simple fact that I asked about it when no details were given, and the only excuse the moderator who extended the ban would give was that he thought it needed to be longer... I think it's rather silly to expect full cooperation from me when the ban was unjust. They called NPA violation when I laughed at ShadowPhoenix for her attempts to play moderator and her fascination with me that lead to further harassment and stalking, and because I called her "Pathetic" ... I was called out for NPA, yet Aiiane gets away with calling people pathetic and worse, and she's fully allowed to do so (and to turn a blind eye to other rule violations, despite being a bureaucrat). Same with the rule violations that Gaile made, they were ignored because they were Gaile that did them. So apparently if you're popular or a moderator you're allowed to break all the rules you like... and since no one has argued this fact, despite my bringing it up a few times already, I have to assume that you're basically admitting it and all okay with this sort of double standard, correct?

So can you point it out to me where it says in the rules that if you bypass an unjust ban, that you forfeit all rights to be protected from harassment and NPA violations from other users, including moderators (and where it says they are fully allowed to break the rules as they see fit, in such an instance)? ~ J.Kougar

"An Apology" Removal?

So why was the post removed? It was a formal apology that also informed Gaile of the rules since her lack of knowledge of that one rule ment she kept breaking the rules. So why was it deleted? Was is deleted because of your admiration for Gaile and the fact J.Kougar keeps calling her on her failures so that she knows where she needs to improve herself for the job or was it more of your biased nature against him from the forums and on this wiki where you have banned him before without cause and neither you or the other mods could justify it. So why did you delete a formal apology of his to Gaile that also let Gaile know about a rule she appearantly was unaware of? Not to mention that nothing in that post broke the NPA either. ~ Sabastian 09:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like to know that. She claims she has nothing against me personally, but her actions always speak a clearly different message. Deleting posts such as the apology I made to Gaile when it contained no NPA violations is just one such instance. If she were true in her claims that she is only upholding the rules and doing what's best for the community, then she's fix the mistakenly banned IP mentioned on my userpage as well as hold other users (even Gaile) to the rules when they break them. ~ J.Kougar

While from your previous postings, and your relationship with J.Kougar, I have a feeling that your bias will cause any attempt on my part to provide a rational explanation to fail, I will attempt to address your questions.

First and foremost, any apology which is delivered in such a tone as the one which Mr. Kougar delivered his can at best be described as tongue-in-cheek, and at worst condescending. Such apologies are effectively meaningless, they convey nothing of the actual feeling an apology is intended to represent.

Secondly, it needlessly continued a matter which had already become disrupted and addressed by the sysop base, while in circumvention of a block put in place by that sysop base - if your partner is going to quote rules to another user, he really should do so while not in breach of them himself. It is not his personal decision as to what blocks are valid, and thus not his initiative to ignore/evade them as he pleases. Doing so shows a remarkable lack of respect for the wiki community as a whole, a sense of selfishness as it were.

Thirdly, Mr. Kougar has shown an inordinate amount of interest in constantly attempting to direct the community's attention towards his personal grievances with Mrs. Grey that the community has repeatedly shown it does not wish to provide that much attention to. While this is certainly expected to vary throughout the community, Mr. Kougar's actions have reached the point where they are genuinely and visibly disruptive of the wiki community, while providing no visible beneficial aspects to the growth of the wiki. As such, if Mr. Kougar truly had the best interests of the community in mind, he would realize that he himself is proving much more of a detractor from the game's community than Ms. Grey herself, and move on from this obsession of his with critique of Ms. Grey. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 10:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

To Mr. Kougar: I will not entertain discussions of "blame"; the only one responsible for the blocking on a proxy here was you: your choice to utilize such a proxy to circumvent a ban. Attempting to blame sysops for the consequences of your own actions is both childish and pathetic. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 10:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

You do realize that when I accused ShadowPhoenix of being pathetic and childish, it was labeled as a breach of the NPA and used as a reason for extending my ban (despite the fact that ShadowPhoenix has done nothing but stalk, troll, and harass me for some time now) so either you just broke the NPA and need to ban yourself, or when I said those same things I wasn't actually in breach of the NPA and thus not deserving of the ban I'm under. Which is it, or is this just more double standards? If you truly care about the community you need to make a straight answer on that one.

As for me, yes... I know evading a ban, just because I don't agree with it, doesn't show much respect for the wiki... but given there is no way to discuss the ban without evading it, and it's clear that there are a lot of sketchy issues about the ban and if it should even have even been made, I don't exactly feel so bad about evading as I currently am. Not to mention, it's clear that many other users are breaking the rules without repercussions, and yet somehow I'm held to a different standard, can you please explain that one? How is it a broken rule when I do it, but not when others do the same things and often even worse?

This all started because I tried to be nice and wish Gaile good luck on her new position, and it was rudely and in violation of the rules, archived away shortly after I made it, while the rest of the page was left untouched. My apology pointed out why and how Gaile was breaking the rules, since I'm guessing no one else ever told her about them, so my post was informative to her and not in any way condescending.

I understand that you don't want to help me while I'm actively evading a ban, but given you have already thrown the ban into question by taking the same actions I did, the actions that were labeled as NPA violations, it's really left to question what the rules actually are and who they do and do not apply to. ~ J.Kougar

There is also the question of how far we allow users to bend the rules to their own ends, as you are so fond of doing, while violating the spirit of the rules as a means to promoting the goals of the wiki. Perhaps you should consider that before you begin preaching about the perceived injustices that have been visited upon you. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 11:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

So nobody's going to have the balls to come out and say the double standards are rampant? It's pretty obvious.

The double standards everywhere. Gaile's blind zealot fanbois will support anything she says or does, no matter how rude or condescending it is; every unfunny post she makes on guru or GWO is followed by pages of "LOL UR SO FUNNY CAN I LICK YOUR SHOES GAILE" kind of posts. Every time someone calls her out for fucking up, she gets all ragey and basically threatens the mods to remove the offending post(s) or their site won't maintain fansite status.

That thread Kougar mentioned, near the beginning of this discussion? It was one of the best threads I've ever read. It started out with Andrew and Gaile posting a general "fuck you, our general consumer base; we're the professionals, we're going to do what we want to do because we know everything." That didn't fly well, for obvious reasons. People like JR and black_mischief posted absolutely epic replies - no trolling, no flaming. Simply great responses and rebuttals to the bullshit logic that AP and Gaile tried to pull on everyone. What happened the day after? Both epic posts were deleted and the thread went on as if nothing had happened. Surprise surprise, eh? Gaile and AP are allowed to shit on people all they want and the blind zealots go out of their way to make sure that shitting-on is a one-way street - any semblance of resistance is punished immediately and harshly.

Back to the wiki... each popular user has a clique of followers that support everything that user posts without thought or reason. That lets them slip in bits of NPA here, bits of trolling there, and nobody wants to bring it up; because to call Aiiane on something like NPA would get a small army of users pissed off and ready to debate (even though the majority of those users are absolutely clueless, they'd debate anyway; and on a wiki, the loudest side - not the most correct side - is the winner).

I've seen at least two violations of policy from non-Kougar users in the discussion on his/this talk page (and countless acts of asshattery from many more). Unless those people (including the sysop) get banned for policy violation, I'd have to say Kougar's won the argument. Which isn't really a surprise to begin with, though. Everyone was deflecting from the topic so they wouldn't have to face their own little nest of hypocrisy.

Anyway, Kougar, you won the argument. Double standards are everywhere, and with the good ol' boy network that this wiki has, they won't go away any time soon. It's probably best to contact ArbComm (via their e-mails) and request the ban length reverted, instead of continuing to post. Even though blocking won't stop you, it does hurt your reputation a bit. If you care, that is :p -Auron 12:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm a fanboi for you, Auron. At least untill you actually say something I disagree with. But then that wouldn't make me 100% fanboi.- Vanguard 13:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not there is a double standard, I've never quite understood the argument that the actions of others someone provide relative justification for one's own actions. Even if you believe that there's a double standard, that doesn't give you the right to break the rules yourself. If you think someone else is breaking the rules, it's perfectly easy to do so without violating NPA yourself. *Defiant Elements* +talk 14:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. Despite the extremely....unkind feelings I have for Auron, given how he acts to me, I do have to admit, as I have said before, it does appear gailes page is getting special treatment. But as I said above...no one will call anyone on said treatment because of the feelings most of the mods of this site have for gaile. And since she works for the company that pays the service fees, its arguable both ways as to the correctivness of this, or the lack of it.

Want it stated directly? Yes, Gaile's page gets 100x the pageviews of any other userpage on the wiki, and as a result generally gets special attention. That help? It's not so much "fanboism" as the fact that User talk:Gaile Gray and subpages generally have more traffic than the rest of userspace combined, save perhaps for Izzy's talkpage, and thus a good portion of attention is focused there. It's not really some shocking revelation. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 15:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

As long as you can admit it to yourself that your not being fair to Kougar in this situtation, Im satisfied. No need to get a 'tude, dude. :P--Ryudo 15:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Equality is a lie, everyone is biased towards something in some sense or another, hm? Still, this is pretty interesting, wonder how this will all pan out.--Ryudo 14:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

@DE; I don't think that was the argument, though. Kougar wasn't breaking policy because of the double standard, it's just something he noticed from his time here. His curiosity keeps him from going away in the meantime though, so it's in the best interest of everyone to get the argument over instead of fiddle-farting around.

It's obvious that Kougar has strong beliefs. He also has the power to get around blocks whenever he feels like it. He isn't using the proxy to vandalize, to sway bureaucrat/adminship votes, or anything of the sort; he's merely using it to get an answer that people refused to give him until after he was banned. Once he was banned, however, his quest expanded to include finding out exactly why he was banned. It's bad for everyone to keep dragging it on. If a ban won't work, the sysops have no power over the user. Nobody does. If/until we get some kind of anti-proxy thing going, it's dumb to think that way; if he's immune to punishment, why would you continue using it on him?

I don't like that he's proxying to get around bans, but I also don't like how thick people are being in dealing with the situation. If a block doesn't work, try actually reasoning with him. The ability to adapt is one of humanity's greatest assets; don't let it go to waste. If your tried-and-trusted block feature doesn't solve the problem, I guarantee doubling the block length isn't going to do a damn thing. -Auron 14:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

No no no, I don't think he did it because he believed there was a double standard, but I do believe that after the fact when people accused him of NPA, he brushed the idea aside because other people were doing worse things according to him. What I'm saying is that I don't believe that relative correctness/goodness gives him any more rights than if he was the worst vandal in site history. When I re-blocked him on PvX, Napalm Flame was extremely indignant because he was banned, but Rawr and others were not. That doesn't change the fact that he broke policy after being unbanned because he had "signed" an agreement not to violate policy again. The same applies here. *Defiant Elements* +talk 14:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

"He isn't using the proxy to vandalize" - that's debatable.

"he's merely using it to get an answer that people refused to give him until after he was banned" - not everyone is entitled to an answer, nor are they entitled to harass someone if they don't receive such.

"If a block doesn't work, try actually reasoning with him." - May I point you to User_talk:J.Kougar/Archive4, among other things? Reason only works if the two (or more) parties can agree on a set of base axioms, and that hasn't proven to be the case. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 15:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I much prefer the "pretend we actually have sway over him and thus keep deluding ourselves into thinking blocks actually work, and thus focus on those more than discussion of the matter at hand" method of handling issues. It's worked so well in the past, why would we stop now?

He's not going to get up and go away simply because you want him to, nor will he go away if you ban him. I also very much doubt he'll run out of steam. The ball is in our field now, and we'd be stupid to waste everyone's time (including our own!) by spending so much thought on banning.

He's not vandalizing. NPA violations and vandalism are two pretty different things. Seeing as he's pretty much keeping to talk pages, he's not a danger to any of the mainspace articles.

I can't say posting on his own talk page strikes me as harassment tbh, but to each his own. For the most part, he's kept to himself; he made a rude comment in reference to Gaile, but last I checked, we don't have GWW:DONT BE RUDE or the like. Other people kept the discussion going by posting mostly stupid comments, but he never left his talk page in his quest to find out if Gaile gets special treatment. His ban was based on a comment he made on his own talk page, and again, he kept to his talk page when he tried to find out the reasoning behind the ban. I'm not sticking up for how he says things, but he's been pretty accurate in reading how things go on.

I'd have to say reasoning works better than banning, because the latter has about a zero percent chance of working. -Auron 17:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I would point out that the only action I've taken with regards to J.Kougar beyond discussing here on this talk page has been removing an incidence of where he did not "keep to himself". In fact, this entire discussion was based around Sabastian (and later, J.Kougar) asking me to explain why I had removed said instance. I have not issued any bans (given that I am not currently a sysop, it wouldn't be my place regardless) nor have I asked a sysop to ban him. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 21:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, as Auron said... if one methoud doesn't work, try another. The problem is, you guys aren't willing to attempt to reason with me or even talk to me in a rational manner, because doing so would force you to admit to the rampant double standards and your own frequent rule violations. You may not have been the one to have initiated the ban, but since it's clear that the ban was unjust, you are the one who should be talking to the moderators (who are ignoring me and the other user's violations on my userpage) and trying to straighten out the mess, or make some sence of it. That is you're job, is it not? When Moderators make bans that are not deserved, you have to deal with it... just like you should be dealing with issues of harrasment, but you seem to be ignoring those too. How can you be doing a good job in your position, if you ignore all the issues that you are responcible for? If you ignored less of the valid points that I keep making, and addressed them for a change, this would have already been worked out.

According to the section that describes the job of the Bureaucrats, you are "held to a higher standard than sysops" so should you really be ignoring the rule violations of others and commiting NPA violations yourself? ~ J.Kougar

"Breaking the rules" does not simply call for a ban. The NPA policy even encourages ignoring isolated incidents. The section relevant to standards of administrator enforcement is: "Users who insist on a confrontational style marked by personal attacks can receive administrative disciplinary action, including short-term or extended bans." I'd guess that the sysops simply found that more applicable in one case than another.
If there is a clearly continuing problem with a particular user's conduct despite this standard and all attempts at reasonable discussion, the next option is to consider directly requesting arbitration to review/resolve the situation, especially if central concerns are fairness within the process, or leveraging more community-powered solutions (e.g. authorizing everyone to revert comments from a specific user to reduce the incentive of ban evasion). Though if it's not a continuing problem, it would be preferable to save everyone the time/effort/emotion. --Rezyk 18:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank You

Hey Aiiane, thanks for helping me with formatting and all. Im new to forums and posts in general. About the Survivor issue with the bug, could you please check with a GM or something to see if they, or yourself, could at least remove that very unfair death? Thanks.

189.61.59.34 17:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC) I Legendary Archerl

Hi Legendary Archer, I'm actually just another player like you - I don't have any special access to GMs. However, given past situations similar to yours, from what we know ArenaNet doesn't, as a rule, modify individual accounts like that - it's just not something they do, either they roll back the entire database or they don't touch characters at all. You could try opening a support ticket about it, but other than that I'm afraid you're probably going to have to start a new survivor character. :| (P.S. - typically when adding a section to a talk page, it's courteous to add it to the bottom of the page so sections stay in roughly chronological order - but no worries. :) (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 17:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Ping

Hey You around? Izzy @-'---- 01:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, what's up? (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 01:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to get Regina set up on GWO, you use MSN? Izzy @-'---- 01:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

dr.aiiane@gmail.com (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 01:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks I just added ya! Izzy @-'---- 01:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Questions about Bureaucrat

What is the point of being one? What do you do? I heard about it and how do you apply to be one?

Bureaucrats settle disputes among users. If you want to be one, you need to register an account and be active on the wiki, as well as prove that you can be an effective moderator of heated disputes. Lord Belar 17:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Most of it is laid out at GWW:ADMIN#Bureaucrats. In short, bureaucrats are part of the administration of the wiki, and deal mostly with user rights and disputes. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 07:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey Aiiane, some help here?

Hey Aiiane, I figured you could help me with this. I took a great picture of the Emerald Blade and edited it to remove the background and distractions around the sword so it just shows the sword, and nothing else. I didn't enhance the photo in anyway (with the exception of the handle), in order to preserve likeness to the in game model. The handle was incomplete because a characters hand covers it. I restored what I could using clone stamp ability, but that won't matter much as you can't see that in game anyways. I can't seem to upload it though. Here it is uploaded on wiki. Image:EmeraldBladeFullPicture copy.jpg Can you upload that so it doesn't create errors on the emerald blade page, and use it as the main picture, or show me how to do it/what I am doing incorrectly. Thanks! LordSojar 08:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

What "error" were you getting? (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 08:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, I've changed Emerald Blade's infobox to use Image:EmeraldBladeFullPicture copy.jpg and it doesn't seem to be causing problems. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 08:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Pink

So I'm not going to make much point on pink - because I'm not a fan of the colour pale or otherwise. I just wanted to have a bit less of that brighter pink which (on my monitor again I suppose) contrasts poorly with the followed links... and on my monitor, yes the pink that I chose did seem pretty close to white. I could make it even closer to white if that's more suitable or are you all for the pinker pink no negotiation? --Aspectacle 10:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

What color does your browser use for followed links? The typical color on most browsers is a purple, which is fairly dark in contrast to the pink that was in place (see Image:User_Aiiane_Ap_bg.jpg for an example, the first 3 links are visited). I've lightened the background slightly, but kept it to the point where it's not effectively yellowish-white (which is how the color you had swapped it to renders on most monitors). (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 17:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Aiiane. Your comment about my monitor on the revert left me wondering what was going on. On all my browsers at home and work the colour came up as the same white with a hint of pink - both monitors are Dell LCDs. *shrugs* Currently the colour is a sort of apricot which seems more yellow than my change to me. :) Anyway - I don't want to war about a colour so I agree to disagree if that's what is needed. --Aspectacle 00:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like you might need to tweak your monitors' color balance some - as if they're shifted a bit too far towards green on the red/green scale. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 11:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe a wrong color temperature? Try using 9300K (or 6500K) poke | talk 11:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Question

Good moring this is METANIGHT im new to this wiki site i really need to ask you question because on the guild wars game no one listens so i hope you can answer my quesion. question number 1 i heard that you can increase your blathzer points at random arena by 100k instead of ten thousands. and how do i farm ectoes or do you got any good areas were i can farm at because running mission take awhile and i need a certain spot to stay in. because my goal ids to beat eye of the north and get my vanguard monk clothes but i need money for it can you please contact me back when ever u get the chance --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:METANIGHT (talk).

your maximum balthazar (but not luxon and kurzick) faction limit is raised by 5k for each step of the gladiator title and by 2k for each step of the hero title. ectos drop only in the underworld. - Y0_ich_halt 16:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Questions of this nature would be better off asked at Help:Ask a game question. Y0 has been kind enough to provide an answer here as well. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 17:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Grammar

Saying "my decision is 'accept' doesn't make 'accept' a noun - any more than saying "the grass is green" makes "green" a noun. The noun would be "acceptance", hence "summary acceptance" would be correct. Yes, I'm a lawyer, sorry. :-) Cassie 18:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily. In your example, green is describing the grass. However, in the case of "my decision is accept", "accept" is not directly describing the decision. That would be if my decision were acceptable. In this case, "accept" is a choice of many, and thus is being referred to as an object to be chosen from, not as a modifier for some other object. It's a subtle difference, similar to the phrasing with regards to "I affirm" versus "I'll add a "yes" to the vote." Yes, I'm a grammar lawyer too. :P (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 20:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Unanimous?

Then what is consensus? A unanimous decision? (brought this here, didn't feel it was appropraite for that discussion). --Shadowphoenix 17:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Ideally, it's a solution that is acceptable to everyone. It doesn't have to be preferred by everyone, but it should be a solution that everyone can at least bear.

Failing that, it's something that is overwhelmingly supported. That's far cry from a simple majority - majority support implies anything over 50%, overwhelming support is more in the realm of 90%. (And of course those are not specific numbers, but just examples.) (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 18:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I can understand that. Thank you for explaining :) --Shadowphoenix 18:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

To add on...

Consensus is theoretically reached after all parties express their opinion, and all parties have given in a little to make the other parties happy. It's basically a compromise.

As Aiiane said, consensus is different from majority opinion, where the biggest (or loudest) crowd gets their way and everyone else gets shafted. With consensus, even if you're the only person who thinks a certain way, you can usually enact some change in how things are run (as long as your views aren't patently insane). -Auron 18:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I can understand that as well. Although, I think it is kind of hard to be loud on the internet unless you have a microphone, hehe just teasing :). --Shadowphoenix 18:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it should be thought of as a vote at all. It's a process that strives for a general understanding. Backsword 09:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Draft E

Would this change cover what you suggested? Backsword 08:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer if you could work what changes you wished into draft B, since it's currently the one with popular support, and thus it'd be more evident the extent of the changes you were merging in. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 15:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not comfertable doing that yet. At this point, I want to avoid further misunderstandings, so I'm checking if this is indeed what you meant. Backsword 09:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't be afraid to edit. Worse case scenario? Someone reverts it. Modifying things is not a "big deal" no matter what, don't let someone convince you otherwise. :) (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 02:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Editing, I'm fine with. I, if anyone, have done that. What I want to avoid is misrepresenting the views of someone else.

Thing is, it seems to me as some people are not reading Rezyk's system the same as I do, so there is some sort of misunderstanding here. I wanted to make sure I go your idea right, which I'm still wondering about. Some of your comments makes me thing you read B as having the same meaning as this change to E. Is that so? Backsword 09:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

If someone thinks you're misrepresenting their words, they'll revert it. Please, just make your changes to B and let people see them. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 09:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Problem here, is my preference is not to push for my own ideas, but get something acceptable to everyone. As such, information on what the community actually thinks is what's important. I've altered B to reflect what I think Rezyk is proposing. If it turns out that's what people actually wants, I'll stand aside. If not, I'll try copying over from E.

Anyway, won't bother you more, I'll see the reponse on the relevant talk pages. Backsword 09:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

But see, modifying the draft allows other people to see where you're going: ideally, they wouldn't flat-out revert it, but instead modify it with a compromise (as, you might notice, I did to your most recent edit). That's how you move closer to consensus. Creating draft after draft just creates dichotomy and chaos. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 09:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Fine with me. I did a seperate draft as that was people requested before. Anyway, I'm OK with the current version of B. I'd like to hear from Rezyk on it, tho'. Backsword 09:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd note that on the draft B talk page then, since afaik you were the last person wanting to make changes to it before it was accepted. I'm fairly sure, however, that none of your changes (at least, after my edits) will be of issue for Rezyk. You might leave him a note telling him that he can move it to accepted status if he doesn't see any issues with your changes. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 09:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Image uploading

Hi there, I'm new to the Wiki and am trying to get a character bio page up and running. I was just wondering if you know how I could upload screenshots from my PC to the page I want? I've tried reading the FAQ's and such, but i'm still hopelessly confused! Any help you could give would be greatly appreciated. Cheers

--Nick-Of-Troy 10:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

First of all, use Special:Upload to upload the file. Make sure you name it according to the user image naming guidelines - i.e. the image name should start with "User Nick-Of-Troy", so if the image was originally "bananas.jpg" you'd want to name it "User Nick-Of-Troy bananas.jpg".

After that, just place [[Image:YOUR IMAGE NAME GOES HERE]] into the page where you want the image to be. So using the image from the previous example, you'd put [[Image:User Nick-Of-Troy bananas.jpg]] somewhere in your page, and the image would be inserted there. If you want some examples, you can hit the edit button for my userpage and take a look at the code there - just please don't save any accidental changes to my page. :) (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 10:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Was just wondering...

What qualities do I need to work on to better expand my "knowledge" of the wiki? Just wanting to know so I can start working on them :) --Shadowphoenix 19:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Being aware of policies, and their actual reason for existence rather than literal interpretations; being aware of how and why decisions have come about (the cliche "those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it" holds true here), being aware of the potential consequences of actions (such as the fact that "testing" a bot by modifying multiple user talk pages not your own, especially those of administrative or previously-administrative users, is bound to ping a lot of people's inboxes and/or watchlists), and in general just showing a better judgment overall with regards to your wiki editing. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 19:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Block question

Hey Aiiane, something that I have been wondering for a long time but never remembered to ask regarding blocking and since you just did a perfect example regarding User:Maddmax55 I thought I'd ask you. If he was to try to edit during those two minutes, would he get a message with that reason you gave? I know I could easily find out by blocking myself but I'd prefer to keep my own block log clean. --Kakarot 02:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. It would say "You have been blocked by <admin name> for <duration> because:<reason>." or some such. Lord Belar 02:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Correct. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 03:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thought it should show something but as I've never been blocked it's been bugging me for quite a while now and then you reminded me with that block, thanks :) --Kakarot 03:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Changing the Guild

I did it because I ran across a sysops page that had links to guilds on it and there was one that had the code that I copied over for it. So if you did it to mine, you better do it to theirs otherwise I will revert war with you. I don't like doing crap like that, but if someone else gets to do it, then I better as damn well be able to do the same thing. I can't remember offhand who's page I saw it on, but I will try to find it. Devi Talk 10:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

"otherwise I will revert war with you" - you better don't make such promises. If there are guild pages without the correct guild template, then change it or ask someone else to change it. But just because someone else is wrong, you are not allowed to do the same. poke | talk 13:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Revenge of the Falcon

Apologies if I have violated some regulations, but in the process of creating the guild page for one of my allies, who doesn't know how to use gww, you seem to have deleted the page... Any reason at all? :S --Alex 18:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Read the note I left on your talk page. It wasn't deleted, just moved (to Guild:Revenge Of The Falcon) - I deleted the redirect that was left behind. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 18:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Need quick attention!

There's a spammer going on and you was the first I saw online. Just warning someone with something of admin status ~~Brodly 19:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Already being dealt with. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 19:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Archiving

I wasn't going to repeat what noxify did, instead I was going to go through the page and archive it, one dead topic at a time, as it's killing my browser. It seems however that you would rather the page be left alone, so fair enough. EDIT: just realised that sounded huffy, that's not how it was actually meant, it was just that if you would rather I leave the page as is, I will. :) -- Salome 17:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sorry - I thought you were just adding the link to the (now non-existent) page NoXiFy had created. If you were planning to archive it properly yourself, go for it! Normally when archiving, I create the archive page first (via just manually editing the browser URL) and then add the link to the page afterwards, so that there isn't a red link on the page for any period of time. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 17:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

yeh thats my error, i normally have to make the wee link first so i can just click and crack on with it. Just before I get started, am I right in that anything that hasn't been added to in over a week can just be put in archive 17 or do i have to put chat about certain skills onto the relevant skills talk pages. As i don't really want to move them away from izzy's pages, as I would rather he still has a quick easy reference to the feedback rather than have to look through each individual talk page? -- Salome 17:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Izzy doesn't typically have categorized archive pages for his main talk page (unlike Gaile/Emily/Regina), so you can just put it all in Archive 17, yes. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 17:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Also just a quick note, typically when archiving you don't leave {{moved}} templates on the page you're archiving, since you want to remove the headings as well. :) (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 17:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Was being overly cautious as its one of the most visited talk pages on the wiki. My apologies for not catching it sooner and thank you for clearing it up for me. :) -- Salome 00:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Palette-based guild formatting

Dear Aiiane, if palette-based formatting is what we're planning to consider for future use, could you please add the color palette I'm using on my guild's page into your fg and bg sandboxes? I'm pretty confident no one will have objections against these colors as they perfectly harmonize with each other and create absolutely no difficulties for the reader. The page background color I'd like to see included is: #002336 (dark teal) and the color of the foreground font is: #93CFF1 (sea-blue). Thank you. Dmitri Fatkin 01:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I personally happen to find the dark box on the otherwise bright-white wiki page rather painful. At the moment I deal with it, but I can't honestly say I like the color scheme choice; and I would not wish it to be part of an accepted palette. If there is considerable support for it to be added, I'm sure it will be, but I hope you understand my hesitation in that regard. I would highly prefer an accepted palette to stick with dark-on-light color schemes. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 01:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, since the palettes are designed to be independent of one another, it's quite possible that your proposed background color would (and does) conflict with more than one other option in the foreground palette, and vice versa. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 01:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

It's always possible to make the font / background colors conflict with each other, it's just a matter of bad taste. :)
Personally, I've based my coloring scheme on this expert designer's color choice. Such palettes aren't my invention, I've seen dozens of them here are there. This color scheme looks familiar, eh? :) (yep, dark palettes ftw!) Dmitri Fatkin 02:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The difference between here and wowwiki is that wowwiki's entire color scheme is dark. None of the colors in fg conflict with a white background, and none of the colors in bg conflict with black text, which is their intended use. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 02:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

And if one will want to mix them (use both bg and fg), or you aren't planning to allow such combinations at all? Dmitri Fatkin 02:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed the note on the actual discussion page? From Guild Wars Wiki talk:Guild_pages/draft 052508#Palette-based formatting.3F - For example: "Page authors may, if they wish, modify either the background color of a page or the foreground (text) color, but not both. Non-default colors must be chosen from either the foreground or background palettes corresponding to the element which is being changed." (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 02:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Add "within reason" somewhere in there before I go off to make a page for my guild and make the foreground color white and/or bright yellow. -- Armond Warblade 03:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Armond, you missed the part about palettes. You couldn't choose "bright yellow" as an option because it wouldn't be in the foreground palette. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 03:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Aww! -- Armond Warblade 03:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I have hoped for the better, anyway, the whole restriction is a very warm welcome to: "you're not allowed to do this'n'that" ghetto. :) I wonder who enlightened you the page background should be either white or some other thing that looks as a 1996 bulletin board, I would call that a perfect illusion of choice.

Try considering this, to your heart: "I do not wish to see the required templates customized, but after going through so many of the guild pages, there are some design styles that I do really like, that I think allowing for a 3 color palette rather than 2 might make easier. I have been trying to find an example to link but basically they are the ones that use the dark 'bar' for the subheadings on a white background. I think offering a background color, a font color, or a highlight color might make that kind of page design better, the ones I've seen that stick in my mind have been using white text on a maroon bar for the subheadings, black text on white for the rest of the page." -- Wynthyst 22:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC). Dmitri Fatkin 03:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference; at least to me; between allowing it for headings alone and allowing it for the entire page. --Kakarot 04:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Correct. I have no issue with dark-color headings, they're not the majority of the page. Dmitri, the reason for wanting page backgrounds to be white or a light color is because that's what the overall wiki theme is. It's not about "I hate light colors", it's "the entirety of the site is white, including large portions which show on guild pages as white no matter what". (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 04:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Can we have some more light color options added then please? And personally, I find this background color to be very annoying. Dmitri Fatkin 04:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The palette in my userspace was just an example of a palette, it is by no means finalized. I'd prefer if you would take discussion of changes to it to the same page on which it was originally being discussed, or on the talk page of the palette itself, instead of my talk page. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 05:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Dmitri, if you are in fact going to quote me, you need to add the rest of it where I provided an example, and it is for a LAYOUT, not a color. "Found one :D Guild:Apostles Of The Risen Phoenix--Wyn's Talk page Wynthyst 22:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)" I also have a serious problem with the dark background pages such as yours, especially with the choice of colors for your text, it's very difficult to read, and as Aiiane points out, it clashes with the overall skin of GWW.-- Wynthyst 05:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Please check the new background of my guild's page, is it something I should stick with? Dmitri Fatkin 05:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Assuming you change the links back to their proper color? Sure, go for it. You don't have to use that particular color if you don't want to, but it'd be acceptable contrast-wise. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 05:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

There's a bunch of pages to edit, but I'll manage to do that :) The color of the links is to be decided yet, it has to agree with that background color, at any rate, I don't feel like we need a guideline for the color of the links! They weren't changed simply because I haven't saved the new template as Notepad text yet. Dmitri Fatkin 06:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The comment about the links was more of a side comment, I doubt they'll be mandated.. more just the kind of thing that someone would probably drop a helpful tip to the page author if they're not readable. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 06:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment

He accused me of deleting his comments and I did look to find out who was doing it to tell to stop. When I found out it was just himself re-posting over himself and blaming me for it, I felt that it was fair to point that out to him. Perhaps the *dies laughing* wasn't the most conducive comment in the world but it was hardly baiting considering the groundless accusations in the first place and my genuine intent to help stop whoever was deleting his comments. -- Salome 10:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

In general, "ROFL" and "*dies laughing*" are hardly necessarily, and their presence there only serves to create dislike in the eyes of the reader, so why would you put them there if not to incite a response? Last I looked, laughing at someone wasn't considered a friendly action.

Respond with facts and/or helpfulness, or don't respond at all. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 10:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

As said in my previous comment the bulk of my comment was informative, in that it pointed out it was him who was reverting over himself. Thus being helpful, as for ROFL and *dies laughing*, considering he blamed me for it in the first instance, I thought it was apt, maybe not conducive but apt. I admit that in hindsight it probably wasn't the most progressive but then neither is baseless accusations as to my behavior on the wiki. I may not be the most calm of all the wiki users but one thing that no one can accuse me of is vandalizing other peoples pages. -- Salome 10:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Quid pro quo doesn't fly here Salome, you should know better than that. Regardless of what another user is doing, you shouldn't be adding stuff like that to comments. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 10:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

It was hardly tit-for-tat Aiiane. In regards to baseless accusations, I actually think my response of "ROFL" is rather mild. As I've already said, I've admitted it wasn't the most conducive comment in the whole wide world, but I think you're stretching some if your trying to say it was in anyway an attempt at Quid pro quo. And ALL of us have said the occasional inappropriate thing while dealing with an offensive user who is aiming baseless accusations at us, now haven't we Aiiane? -- Salome 10:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Which doesn't mean we should. Mild or not, it shouldn't have been there. You think I didn't get called out for the occasional such comment? (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 11:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

While I do agree that the "ROFL" and *dies laughing* may not have been the best things to use given the circumstances, I get the feeling that Salome was genuinely trying to help until the other user called him annoying. Not that any one side was right here, but I'm just saying that that's what I got from the situation. Kokuou 11:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm merely pointing out, that speaking from experience here, if one starts to become annoyed when attempting to help someone, one should let things go for a bit rather than continuing to struggle and getting upset. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 11:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

A point with which I am in total agreeance. (That's right, I said 'agreeance'.) Kokuou 11:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Salome, Aiiane (rightly) pointed out that your comment came across as more inflammatory than helpful. This does not make you a horrible person, nor is anyone trying to say it does, but nonetheless it is something you should endeavor to avoid. Take the advice for what it is and take a breath. - Tanetris 11:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll be honest, I was just getting all hurt and upset about Aiianes comments. I respect Aiiane alot and I think that's why the slight telling off, which was completely valid, just upset me. I really have to learn to stop being so emotional. (i have the same problem at work too, the amount of times I end up crying in the toilets is just a bit laughable) -- Salome 11:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Assssin hero and Assassin hero

Is it safe to tag these redirects either R2 or R3? I'm not sure which. I only say tag them because there is another assassin hero out there, and it could be misleading. Needed a second opinion, as I've never tagged anything R2 or R3 before....>.< -- Wandering Traveler 05:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd tag the first for R2; the second should probably be made into a {{disambig}} page. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 05:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I'll go ahead and do that. Thanks :) -- Wandering Traveler 05:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry about that edit, I'm new to the wiki and didn't realize I deleted that, if you could restore that for me I'd be very thankful. Baddock

It was already restored before I left the message. :) (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 01:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Noticeboard comment

Don't have to go hysterical accusation on me. "Typically one would have a sense of what they think is being done wrong before they report someone here... the noticeboard isn't a witchhunt." Aiiane I know your being blunt but thats very rude. I know this is going to turn into a don't get offended to easily but tone down the rudeness. Thanks. I'm not 2 years old. I though the noticeboard would be a place where I could get a honest question globaly answered but it turned into a place that I've nearly gotten NPA. (again) Dominator Matrix 07:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Calm down, you've edited the same paragraph on my page 4 times in under 15 minutes. :) The reply on the noticeboard wasn't meant as a "hysterical accusation", simply a reminder that the noticeboard is meant to be something to call sysop attention to something specific, and you hadn't specified anything. Where did I imply you were "2 years old"? I would have given the same answer to anyone who posted a report that vague on the noticeboard.

If it helps, general questions are probably better left on the talk page for the noticeboard, rather than the noticeboard itself - saving the noticeboard for reports of actual incidents, and using the talk page for more general queries, makes it easier for sysops to tell when there's an urgent situation as opposed to something that is just seeking input. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 08:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Well in both cases that user could be alarmed at the question, and ask why he/she is being questioned. It seems that I'm asking a question no sysops here wants to answer. Why does it seems like you don't care anymore? Not part of your job, or your responsibility -- or is it just to hard to continue to be nice? It's in my nature to be like this, though I need to control it (and thats another time/place) Dominator Matrix 08:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The only person who posted at all on the noticeboard after you stated the actual question was Gordon. You posted the question less than 30 minutes ago, yet you state that "no one" wants to answer it? I think you're losing your patience a little. Again, calm down, take things slowly. It's a quiet time of night on the wiki, and even during more active periods it sometimes takes hours for everyone to weigh in.

If you'd like my answer, however, I'd be glad to help: There is ample precedent for combining topics on talk pages if they're related; topics are moved from talk page to talk page all the time, and headers edited, if it serves the purposes of the wiki. Archiving others' pages has typically been treated as a matter of tolerance - it's permitted as long as the corresponding user doesn't have a problem with it. Policy is somewhat lenient in its wording on the matter, so it's mostly been treated as a common-sense kind of thing - respect the wishes of the user for whom the page exists. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 08:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Error on my part. Failed to explain (and realise) that I've wanted to say that for so long. And those kind of edits seem like policy should be there as well: Archiving 3 different pages, merging them, and calling it a day. Its bad as you could easly lost track of things that way. And I feel like i'll have to do this a million times over -- I apologize for my anger, it was not warranted. I'm normally calm but as I explained before has a low tolerance for people/users with high rights (in any shape or form). Dominator Matrix 08:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, the IP user did archive their own talk page (well, as much as an IP can claim ownership of a talk page) in with the actual Corsair article. Not sure if that's allowed or not. I also left a not explaining that it could be considered rude to archive other's pages. Kokuou 08:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

As theres no order, what happened were, or what belonged to where. Dominator Matrix 08:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict x3) (this is a bit off topic) For some reason Dom, your recent actions seem oddly familar. You seem to be taking a similar course of action towards things that I did up until a few weeks ago. I suggest you go work on something else for a bit and get your mind off the wiki. I am not suggesting you leave, still log on and check your talk page etc., but just stay away from your normal editing for about 2 weeks or so. Now, back on topic; I personally did not find Aiiane's comment rude as it was pointing out the "lack of info" that you put. Additionally, the low tolerance towards the "powers that be" (pun intended) never turns out good; try keeping your stance on issues but with a bit more tolerance towards the admins. --Shadowphoenix 08:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Seems like it's more something that should be fixed then, Dom, and mentioned to the user as being confusing; but not something that's an explicit violation of policy - like Gordon said, a bad edit made in good faith. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 08:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Ok. Dominator Matrix 08:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't if this helps at all but "Typically one would have a sense of what they think is being done wrong before they report someone here..." <-- That confused me. And was slightly rude. "the noticeboard isn't a witchhunt." Consused me more but with the other section seems like your implying that a) im either dum or b) not realising my actions. or c) im here to just gather attention. To aviod this in the future (to all syops/users), be keen on what you say -- think "could this be persived of being rude?". And reword it. What you could have said is "This better suited for the talk page, moving". That would have been more worded nicely and seen as a way to learn from. So next time I or any other user knows where to put it. Pretty much what I mean is assume worse case senerio. Hope that helps! Dominator Matrix 10:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Revert

I disagree with your revert on Guild Wars 2: The Status Quo, Aiiane. Instead of insisting on your corrections you should rather help to keep the original meaning if it is not understandable in english. It still should be a translation of the original text and it isn't one when the original meaning is not maintained. poke | talk 11:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Poke, to be the best of my knowledge the original meaning is maintained, if not the original wording. Some of the changes you reverted detract from the meaning; sometimes in translation it's necessary to take a few liberties to maintain meaning rather than literal wording, because two languages have different ways of expressing the same concept. As the note you added yourself said, it's a paraphrase of the article, not a word-for-word translation. If people wanted the latter, they could use Babelfish or the like. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 15:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Translation is a tricky beast, and there are several valid arguments on both sides of the 'direct translation vs. semantic translation' fence. When untrained individuals translate, one of the biggest and first mistakes they make is translating too subjectively; that is, they read into the meaning too liberally and begin to add things that weren't in the original text. Translating too literally, however, can sometimes leave the finished product lacking in comprehensibility and sounding awkward. It's a very fine line, and both methods are used depending on the purpose of the final product. In terms of this article, I'd suggest erring on the side of literal meaning rather than trying to read into the context. After all, we're after the facts presented in the article, not someones subjective interpretation. (Wait a minute, maybe ArenaNet has a transcript of the actual interview in English? Jeff Strain doesn't speak German, does he?) Kokuou 11:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

We've been constantly revising the translation to try to get closer and closer to that balance, Kokuou. One of the advantages of a wiki format is that it allows us to keep refining that. :) If you look at the timing of poke's original comment, a few hours later we collaborated together and systematically worked through the document to try to resolve some of the discrepancies. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 15:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

For the Chilling Victory edit. What can I say, Ive been having a bad night so far with my edits :P Gogey 00:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem. That's the point of the wiki, so everyone else can catch the things each of us miss. :) (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 03:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

not sure if this is the right place...

I need a little help. Long story short i put something in the wrong place and only now about a week later when i went back to check realized its in the wrong place. The thing i misplaced was in User talk:Regina Buenaobra/Journal (#24 pet info) when i wanted to put it in plain old User talk:Regina Buenaobra. Im not really sure how to fix this and some help would be appreciated. Thank you in Advance. EDIT: forgot to sign Mashav 10:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Just edit the page (using the Edit tab at the top), remove the text, then go to the real page you wanted to put it on and insert it there. While generally you shouldn't remove text from talk pages, we make exceptions for things like moving comments from one page to another, especially if the location was an accident. :) (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 15:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

thanks

for reverting the vandalism. Didn't notice that one yet :P —ZerphaThe Improver 12:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Guild Page?

Hey Aiiane, could you take a look at the article Puurhollands? From what I'm seeing in the article, its a guild page, but I'm hesitant to move it because I dont' think its possible to have one-word guild names. Not knowing what language its in doesnt help either >.<. Any ideas? -- Wandering Traveler 15:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It's Dutch (the language spoken in the Netherlands, as referenced by "the NL guild"). You are correct that it's a guild page, it has been moved to the appropriate page name. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 15:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. And....on a second note, do you know anyone that speaks Polish, of curiosity? o.O -- Wandering Traveler 15:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Um, not off the top of my head. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 15:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Dang, ok then. Thanks though ^.^ -- Wandering Traveler 15:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

W00T, Your revert on the 16th of June?

I got my userpage violated on the 16th of june and you reverted it back to the existing page before i noticed? If so, thank you :). --Silverleaf 10:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Eagle cape icon blue.png

its orphaned dunno if you still need/want it or not. Fall 15:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Thanks for undoing that recent vandalism on my page :) – Barinthus 07:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Green day in LA

Hello Aiiane. I have seen your work on GWO, you are a great staff member,

Anyway.. The page mentioned above can be located in the special events section under "player organised events". This page needs to be remoddeled with a new name etc, so plase can you delete it.

Thanks, --Burning Freebies 21:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Just tag it with {{delete}} and it will be taken care of. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 00:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Category Question

I have a question about two categories that link to a userbox, which linked to a subpage in my userspace and which is now in a subpage of my userspace. You could read on the problem here. Please help me with this, and thanks in advance. ^.^ --Elven Chaos 23:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks alot Aiiane! --Elven Chaos 00:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

You forgot one

Talk:Ursan_Blessing is also locked...Dominator Matrix 06:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Ursan Blessing is not a user talk page. I have no problems with it being temporarily locked. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 06:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

That would be the case, ya user talk pages don't need to be locked like that. Dominator Matrix 10:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The following is constructive. Please don't label everything I wrote as non-constructive.

Just to bring this back in line with Ursan, casters have gotten a buff to their armor and health but it is
short-lived. The point of the nerf was to encourage people to use more than 1 skill on their skill bar. 60
seconds instead of permanent (by rampaging) use of the skill is not a very long buff. Armor of Earth 
can do the same thing for elementalists and it has it's own caveat, slowed movement. There are a lot of 
ways to increase health temporarily, not only with Ursan. If the all attributes are set to zero was
removed this would deserve an elite status, in line with the Dervish avatars. As the skill sits, it should
no longer be considered an elite.

- Ghosst • Talk • 11:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

My apologies Ghosst, I think I just missed that in the middle of everything else. :/ That's the downside of having a ton of walls of text on a page; it makes it hard to spot anything that's actually trying to contribute in a positive manner. Feel free to bring your comment back off the archive page to the main one. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 01:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Why not?

Because the article's historial is already conflictive enough. If we allow linking to several particular builds in one section, there is a chance that more builds are added to the others, and in the end the article could become just a big PvXwiki link-fest.--Fighterdoken 23:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Remove them if it becomes a problem. If it doesn't, they might as well stay; they offer information not available in the article. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 23:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

My user page

Check out my user page and do what you feel right. I won't be discussing about this anymore since I've moved to the another wiki but giving up abusive admins feels right thing to do. (Limu Tolkki - talk) 16:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh well, has the Brains' administrator abilities already been disabled? (Limu Tolkki - talk) 20:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Just curious but your message on your userpage is contradicting itself: ...But during that ban I was banned by Brains for "circumvating my block" (with out a proper reason if someone didn't realize that already). Only thing I can say is that I did not circumvate my block anyhow..., first you say that it was you; But during that ban I was banned; then you say is wasn't; I did not circumvate my block; which is it? --Kakarot 20:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

If you believe a sysop is in error, you should request their reconfirmation at GWW:RFA. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 22:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm saying that I was being banned for breaking 1RR (ban was a day or something like that) but during that ban, brains, for some odd reason, banned me for cirumvating my block which I did not do. (Limu Tolkki - talk) 09:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, considering the fact that someone with an IP address in the same block as one you have used in the past was making the exact same changes that you were trying to make to the suggestion page, it seemed reasonable that it was you doing it. As for Brains' administrative abilities, no, they have not been changed, since to do so requires someone ask for a reconfirmation, which you seem unwilling to do. I will point out to you that several of us made suggestions to create a personal suggestion page in your userspace and I offered to assist you in doing so since you kept claiming to not have the wiki skills to do things yourself. You did not accept those suggestions, and continued in a very aggressive manner to do things 'your way' even though you had been told they didn't follow GWW policy. I don't think your ban, or the extension of it was unreasonable. If that makes me a bad admin, I guess I will have to live with that. -- Wyn 09:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I did not get banned for making edits from the same IP address you fool! I got banned because someone else was vandalising my suggestion pages with proxy server or something like that. And for some odd reason Brains assumed that it was me. And yes, I've made the reconfirmation now. (Limu Tolkki - talk) 10:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The "odd reason" was that the IP address was almost identical to one you had used in the past. The odds of a random "someone else" having an IP in the same IP block as yours are somewhat low. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 10:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've no evidence to prove that I didn't vandalise those pages. Brains said that they were vandalised with proxy server so I assume it can be anyone. (Limu Tolkki - talk) 11:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you DID get your ban extended because of the IP once again reverting the suggestion page after you were blocked and violating GWW:NPA here is not making your case any stronger. -- Wyn 17:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you show me the banning log or something like that. Brains said that the long ban (a week or so) was for someone vandalising the pages with proxies which Brains assumed to be me. (Limu Tolkki - talk) 07:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I assume

you are watching the discussion on personal attacks on Gaile's talk. Please bitch at me if I start being too dickish; It's a habit I'm trying to avoid, and, well, maybe I could use a little help. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 20:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Personally I'm wondering why the hell everyone is arguing semantics. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 00:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Wiki-lawyering at it's best. --Lemming 00:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It's no secret that Shard and Gaile don't get along well; Shard should realize by now that his tone and endless badgering isn't welcome, and Gaile should just ignore him already. Seriously. Beyond that it's up to ArbComm - the request for a case has been submitted, any further discussion should really be happening there. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 00:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Hangonhangonhangon

We have an active discussion going about categories, so don't get tooo hasty, I think the ones you've created have already caused a ragequit or two... (Satanael 04:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC))

I'm perfectly aware of that discussion. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 04:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit: I'm also sick of people on one hand saying that we need to discuss things more, and on the other hand saying that we're taking forever to do things. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 04:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, I was talking with Wyn (before I had created a single category at all) until she decided to quit off IRC. I would have been glad to continue discussing the matter with her, and it was her choice to leave. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 04:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

We don't want to move forward much until poke has figured of the mechanics of the suggestion list thing, since that will directly affect how we do the categories. But we still want to do something, so we are discussing and planning. We are all frustrated that this isn't going faster, but when you have several moving parts, sometimes timing doesn't work out. I'm only saying that while we may have some idea what categories we want, I'm not sure we've figured out that the traditional category page is how we are going to do it, as that will depend on what poke has to say about the coding of the lists themselves. Therefore, while I see that your categories are in line with what we have been talking about, I'm not sure that is how we are going to be doing them in the end. (Satanael 04:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC))

As someone who does know the technical end of things to an extent (see the "attn:poke" section, that was a conversation with poke, not a "oh poke, save us"), it's pretty certain that the topical categories can be created now without issue. Furthermore, last I checked the catchphrase of a wiki is that anything can be changed. Weren't you and Erasculio the people pushing to be able to "create the actual things instead of mocking them up in userspace"? You're welcome to continue discussing things. I see no reason why that conflicts with creation of a category or page. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 05:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what drama happened between you and wyn, and frankly I don't care, there is no need to transfer that frustration on to me. If you say that the categories you are creating are the obvious and clear way to proceed, I believe you. My understanding had been that other options were still on the floor, but as you point out, I am not a technical expert on this so I am in no position to argue. From my own experience some people have not appreciated it if I pressed forward too quickly, and I wanted to avoid repeating unnecessary drama, that was my only intent. If you feel comfortable that drama can be kept to a minimum, then I have mispoken and please continue. (Satanael 05:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC))

Before we continue, let me clarify; if I'm frustrated with you, it's not due to my interaction with Wyn; but rather due to the mixed messages I've gotten from various people, yourself included, regarding proceeding with this. One day, you want to start working on things directly, the next day you want to sit and deliberate without touching anything. I'm sure you see how this seems somewhat of a reversal, yes?

In addition, let me also state that the categories I'm creating are not holy writ. As I mentioned in my previous response, the core concept of a wiki is that anything can change. This includes new category layouts; just because something has been created does not mean it is final. However, typically when something is created there is more of an impetus for people to actually do something with it, even if that doing is merely saying that they prefer it were a different way.

I think we're past the stage of "avoiding unnecessary drama", because as far as I can tell, people are determined to create drama no matter what is done - in fact, it seems like every single step of this process has been fraught with drama because people aren't willing to just let someone else run with an idea even for a moment - everyone wants to be in control over the entirety of the process, and anyone who makes a step in another direction is instantly taken to task over doing something "wrong". I'm not immune to this either, but I am getting a bit tired of people seemingly working more towards destructive ends than constructive ones. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 05:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, let me point out: I have created a sum total of sixteen pages. That's it. Sixteen. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16. If for some reason, we decide that we want to lay things out differently, how hard is it, exactly, to either move or delete those pages within the category structure? (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 05:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Last but not least, I should also note that I don't mean to direct all of this towards you personally Satanael - you just happened to be the person to post on my talk page. The majority of what I've said here though is really aimed at those involved in the feedback namespace in general. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 05:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with someone getting things done if no one else is doing anything, I do it all the time. The fact of the matter this time is there ARE other people who have been involved in a discussion regarding this, and I spent this entire day working out an option for the categorization structure, that YOU didn't like, and decided to just do it your way. I could just have easily (more easily in fact) created the categories the way I saw them, but instead asked for discussion by those who have shown an interest in being involved. -- Wyn talk 05:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) x2Forgive me, but from my point of view, we are never past the stage of avoiding unnecesary drama. Unnecesary drama is, by definition, unnecesary. I am sorry if I have given off any mixed messages, at the time I was demanding action, it was because the steps people had agreed upon were not being taken, for reasons I could not see, and even the discussion of this process was dying. As for my own actions over the past few days, I can only say that I have been out of town over the weekend and did not have time to work on this as much as I would have liked. Again, if this sent a mixed message I apologize. I am not certain why this has caused such frustration, but it was, nevertheless, unintended.

As for your categories, by all means continue, I did not come to demand you stop. I just wasn't sure if you knew about the discussion and the issues as I understood them. As you have made it clear that you are aware of the discussion and are moving forward with that discussion in mind, then I can see no reason for you to stop your work.

I would only ask that, the next time you see me sending mixed messages, please ask me about them before you become angry with me, as that will make the whole process easier. (Satanael 05:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC))

To Satanael: I am not angry with you, merely frustrated. Were I angry, this conversation would be taking place on your talk page, not mine. ;)

To Wynthyst: Again, I would emphasize that what I've created is by no means set in stone, nor need it overrule whatever eventually consensus might be arrived at via continued discussion. If anything, for me it helps with discussion because it provides yet another reference point for opinions. Also, I am not sure if you noticed, but the categories I've created so far fit within the chart you had created exactly - so I'm not sure what you mean when you say "structure that you didn't like, so you did it your own way". (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 05:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

This is somewhat funny.. The last time somebody prepared something for the namespace and asked for discussion, you, Wyn, ignored that and just edited everything while expecting that the first person would just accept that...

Aiiane is correct, whatever categories are being created, a structurization system can easily be wrapped around them (and it is better that way anyway). I talked to her last week a bit about it and I think she is quite aware of what is possible and what not. And still the categories she created are very general. There are mainly only categories created for systems we will adopt anyway (all the bug report pages).

I am quite surprised actually how you all are reacting to this, where Aiiane just took the initiative. I don't remember anything in this direction when Wyn created all those Feedback pages at the very beginning for the ANet developers, as placeholders for redirects (which is alone quite hilarious imo), and without any structure; or when Wyn created multiple Skill feedback pages and deleted them later because the discussion made visible that the old structure was not the best idea to go with. I really don't understand that you expect others to discuss things, when you go around yourself and change everything yourself because you want it like that, or just to have something to do... poke | talk 09:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

My original comments were based on a misunderstanding of what could/should be done at that time, and I apologize, Aiiane, for causing unnecessary drama, which is precisely what I was trying to avoid when I first posted. (Satanael 14:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC))

Dear Aiiane,

I respect your position and all, but I don't think [13] is very... nice. Then again, you may not want to be nice, so it's up to you. Have a nice day #___^ ~~~ (Oh wait, I can't sign!) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Moo Kitty (talk • contribs) at 19:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC).

What's the big deal with it anyway Aiine? You block him if he doesn't fix his signature image? Sounds bullshit to me :P - J.P.Talk 20:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Not image, the whole signature. It's not bullshit, it's written in the policy. poke | talk 20:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, i get it. I thought it was about his image again. My mistake. - J.P.Talk 20:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion titles

I'm not sure if you know the answer to this, but in our instructions we have been telling people that there is a 40 character limit to suggestion titles. I'm wondering if, on the coding side, this is actually true? When I first wrote it, there were no mechanics for suggestion creation, and I thought 40 characters was a good number, but I don't actually know if anybody coded that limit in as I had thought they would. Do you happen to know if that limit got coded in anywhere? (Satanael 15:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC))

There's no way to code a limit into the createbox afaik; one 'might' be able to code it into the template so a suggestion wouldn't be listed if the name were longer than that, but that wouldn't prevent the page from being created. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 16:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, okay, thanks. I'll reword our instructions to reflect that. (Satanael 16:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC))

technically there is no limit in page name lengths (no, I won't give an example now.. However there was a vandal for example which name went over three lines in the page title..); but restricting this somehow prevents people from writing essays in it and would blow up the lists. And I agree that 40 is a good number for that :) poke | talk 17:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you like the number :P I've reworded the instructions to reflect the 40 character limit as more of a desire than a technical limitation. We may have to deal with people that ignore it and write on essay in the title. Unless either of you would be willing to try and put a limit into the template, as Aiiane posits... (Satanael 17:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC))

I don't think we would currently be technically able to check if the length is okay.. poke | talk 18:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I see, well, I guess we'll just have to go with it as is then. I doubt super long titles will become a big issue anyway. (Satanael 19:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC))

Wrong pic sorry

I uploaded the wrong picture for the monk elite monument scalp design. could you delete it for me please?

17:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)Azoth Rumithan17:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Just upload a new image over it (and remove my deletion tag ;)). -- FreedomBound 17:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

French Wiki

Hello, Aiiane, I'm Boungawa, one of the administrators of the main French Wiki, I would have liked to know if, now that almost all articles exist on our wiki, it could become the French official Wiki with the IG links (F1) which clock on, for the France, this one. Thanks for your answer. - Boungawa 15:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

That'd probably be something you'd need to talk with Emily Diehl or another ArenaNet member about. There might be some licensing issues involved. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 17:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer, I'm transmiting ;). - Boungawa 14:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not angry, son, I am disappoint

When you believe a user's actions to be disruptive, it is generally considered polite to flash their talk page before applying a block, unless those actions are so disruptive as to be an immediate danger to the health of the wiki or its users. Thank you, have a nice day.

P.S. If you must block me, please instead ask me to stop posting. It's easier, and for some reason, vim won't work on the whole site while I'm blocked so I have to use the stupid mouse to browse. –Jette 07:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

http://wiki.guildwars.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Auron&diff=prev&oldid=1753363 You had your request. Even without it, you should have known better. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 07:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

You know, putting a message to user A on user b's page isn't the best way to reach user A... I didn't actually see that message until after you blocked me. –Jette 08:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, the message shouldn't be necessary in the first place. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 08:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

i got a problem with attribute points a quest called forgoten wisdom seems to be missing for me for some reason was woundering if there was a way to fix it? thx kronicle man

Not Inactive

http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Guild:Wings_Of_Lythia_%28historical%29

This guild has been labeled inactive, this is my Guild, and I am most certainly not inactive. The note ont he page indicates that there is no Wings of Lythia guild on GW anymore, which is just simply wrong. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:58.106.155.19 (talk).

As per GWW:GUILD, if a guild page on the wiki doesn't receive any updates in three months, it gets tagged as historical. That said, this is a wiki, which means you are certainly free to remove the historical tag at the top of that page. --★KOKUOU★ 08:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I see, it's just that the top of the page states that this page should not be edited. I was concerned about that having repercussions were I to alter it myself. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:58.106.155.19 (talk).

Oh, no, that just means that information shouldn't be altered if the guild is, in fact, disbanded/inactive and the historical tag is required. If it is still active/not disbanded, then by all means, the historical tag should be removed. I can do it if you're not sure how to, if you'd like. :) --★KOKUOU★ 06:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Moved back to its original location. Remember that guild articles are expected to be edited at least once every 3 months to make sure the guild still exists.--Fighterdoken 06:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks like Kokuou has cleared this up for you already, 58.106. :) (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 09:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Not really, more like FD and Wyn. :O --★KOKUOU★ 09:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much :)

Wrong IP blocked

Per this, you offered to simply extend the block of the IP address I had previously been using and instead you mistakenly blocked the IP address that I was currently using. Can you please rectify this? Thank you. 71.125.151.194 04:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, how is your username pronounced? I'm struggling with the four consecutive vowels. Thanks! 71.125.151.194 04:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

"eye-anne" if I am remembering correctly, although there is more than one pronunciation. Vili 点 04:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. My best guess was "eye-e-ain". 71.125.128.29 05:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

When I blow up a wiki archive of nearly 600K bytes, it's really nice to be able to get help, especially on a holiday weekend. Thanks a lot for helping me put out that fire. I split my Support Issues archive pages and will try not to tempt the Gods again with an over-sized page. ;) -- Gaile 00:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Poke's reconfirmation

Ping: Project:Requests for adminship/Poke

—Tanaric 17:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

For seeing reason. -- Wyn talk 20:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

:<

I didn't think you were serious about not promoting me because I smell... Misery 22:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh wait, 2 hours still. I can't panic yet. Misery 22:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Technically the election is not over and your term didn't start yet.. poke | talk 22:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Pokes RfA

"Poke: There is nothing which explicitly requires me to actually leave this open for precisely 7 days or more, and I see no chance of a different result." It should have never been started. The troll request should have just been removed and forgotten. Instead we(the wiki) went through all of this time wasting to give the troll what the troll wants. Congrats people LtS got exactly what he wanted, a bunch-o-attention. Drogo Boffin 02:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I know, right? And now there's yet another section on a talkpage to complain about how upset we all are! Vili 点 02:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Ditto, now lets forget about it eh? Poke's still a sysop, and everything is still peachy and happy. --Lania Elderfire 02:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

1. By posting this here, you are continuing that.
2. When the initial request was made, and Tanaric pointed it out to me, I actually spent a fair amount of time considering what the most beneficial path to take w.r.t the wiki would be.
3. The result of that consideration was the conclusion that starting the RfA and allowing it to simply go through as normal would be the least disruptive in the long run.
4. In fact, if people had not decided to make a giant deal out of it merely on principle, it wouldn't have wasted much time at all. The total sum of effort involved would have been negligible.
5. Instead, people decided to play white knights and crusade against someone attempting to disrupt the wiki.
6. Rather than accomplishing their goal of preventing disruption (if that was truly their goal in the first place), they merely exacerbated the problem.
7. Given this, I am rather disappointed with a number of members of the wiki community for their short-sighted and/or ill-considered actions in this particular matter.
8. However, I am also of the mind that it would be better to move on, lest the same cycle of making mountains out of molehills continues.
9. The greatest strength of the wiki is that minor annoyances can merely be ignored; the overall resources of contributors greatly outweigh the potential force of a few individuals attempting to disrupt it.
10. Thus, the greatest disruptions only occur if those few individuals manage to bait larger numbers of individuals into feeding the controversy.
11. As such, I would request that all involved individuals let this matter rest, including not replying to this section. If you'd like to discuss matters further with me, feel free to contact me via email, IM, or IRC. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 02:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Food for thought. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 02:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Drogo Boffin 02:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I have a problem with this.

And I am taking it up with you on your talk page. That email correspondence was by no means a private matter. It was a business matter relating to the wiki and one of its Sysops. I fail to see how when it is strictly a matter of Wiki related business how it can be referred to as private. --Master Briar 00:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Email, unless directed towards a distribution list, newsgroup, or other public forum, is inherently a private communication. The subject of the messages sent has no bearing on whether or not the communication is private. If you desired to conduct a conversation with the individual in question in a public setting, the proper means to do so is available elsewhere - namely, talk pages. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 00:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Very well then. Can you guarantee that, Should I start a discussion in said area, it wont simply be dismissed as trolling and me being blocked yet again and left in the nether while the rest of the sysops allow Auron to use the wiki as his personal playground? --Master Briar 00:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

While I cannot unconditionally guarantee that any posting wouldn't be dismissed as trolling (after all, if it actually *is* trolling, that would be a rather bad idea), you are always free to appeal any sysop actions to ArbComm. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 00:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

And how does one create an ArbComm when one is blocked? --Master Briar 00:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

This is why bureaucrats are required to provide non-wiki forms of contact (see the email links on the bureaucrat list) so that we may be contacted even by blocked users. Note that those links lead to actual email addresses, not Special:Emailuser, and thus access cannot be revoked to them. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 00:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Very well then. I will see to that later. Thank you for your time and and the cordial fashion with which you replied to me. --Master Briar 00:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Holy mother of everything holy

Fast vandal was fast. -- Tha Reckoning 02:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

^^ 24.167.55.144 02:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Wiki user templates

As a new GW player and wiki user, how do I use templates in my user space? Copy one I like? --Ray37212 20:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Is there a particular template you're thinking off? Normally, wikicode templates are utilized via the {{template name}} syntax. However, if by template you actually mean complete page design, that might be more complex. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 21:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking about a complete user template such as [14]! Thanks for responding! --96.24.211.82 23:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Aiine.

I would like to take this moment to notify all 3 of the bureaucrats that I want an official appeal from the extremely high level of harassment that I have received these last few days. I request, rather, I BEG for an official review from you three, whom are to be considered the "high-end" support of technical problems such as this, to please help me get rid of this witch hunt once and for all.

Here are some key points of interest that can help you get a better idea of the level of harassment that I have directly and indirectly received and have had to endure because of other people's ignorance:

• My contributions

• Where it all started when I simply left 1 message onto Lemming's talk page

• People accusing me to be IP addresses and claiming me to be the Wikipedia user Lena

• My block log. Harassment?

• Block log for 69.162.89.226 (look at reason given)

• Block log for 83.142.230.28 (look at reason given)

• My previous account. It was a legitimate account that belonged to me! (look at block reason given)

• My contribution logs for my original account. How can anyone come to the conclusion that I am the user "Lena" when I have never done anything remotely close to the disruption he did? And believe me, I've looked through his logs and compared them to mine and I am a saint compared to him.

My name has been severely tarnished for reasons that I still can't seem to comprehend. Everything is "Magikarp is Lena", "Magikarp is the IP, whom is Lena" and the user Lemming claiming to have talked to me in-game under the name "Puerto Rican Chick" that he posted a link to on his talk page (I have never had any contact with anyone on this wiki in-game. I do not feel comfortable giving out my IGN to random people who I do not know), ect ect.

I Have never done anything wrong on the Guild Wars Wikipedia. I follow each and every policy to the T. I revert vandalism. I upload extremely high quality images. I keep articles up to date and most importantly, I do any and everything possible to make sure that the Wiki thrives as an encyclopedia.

Most Sincerely,

Sarrah Dash --174.49.120.131 01:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

French wiki 2

Hello. I asked you a few month ago if gwiki, french wiki which I'm one of sysops, could be link IG and here. You're answer was negative because it was too late. But at the approach of Guild Wars, I renew my question about this partnership for our website gwiki2. Thank you so much and perhaps sorry for my english^^--Boungawa 08:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Would probably be best to talk to an official ArenaNet rep about this, like Emily Diehl. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 16:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Kind of a stretch

But, I suppose the policy does allow you quite a bit of leeway. I didn't really think it was that much, though. -- FreedomBound 18:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

RfAs have never been a straight vote. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 18:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, bureaucrats can actually completely ignore the RfA and follow their guts if they feel like it. Which was evidently the case. elix Omni 18:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Er, who said I ignored the RfA? I actually very carefully read through all of the comments on both the RfA votes and the discussion page itself, as well as doing my own examination of a number of other items on the wiki. Please, just because you don't agree with my decision doesn't mean that I "completely ignored" the RfA. If you have objections, please actually state them rather than just making snippy quips. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 18:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

My primary objection is simply that, while of course it's not a straight vote, the policy calls for roughly 3-1 support, whereas at best, she had less than 2-1 support, if you completely ignore the volume of neutral votes. I don't think you necessarily ignored it, but I'd be interested in knowing your reasoning for taking it so far from the noted 3-1 support. -- FreedomBound 19:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

In general, balancing the concerns and benefits expressed by the various involved users; gauging for myself how applicable I believe those concerns to be, and so on. My end goal is to do what I think will benefit the wiki, not what necessarily pleases the most people. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 19:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

My Rfa (1) was also not a 3-1 case, but I don't think anyone complained then. :/ – Emmett 19:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Aiiane, I'd very much like a wall of text explaining why you think what you've done was a good idea. 5000+ characters please. elix Omni 20:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

No. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 20:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Lets just drop this eh? We voted Aiiane in as a b-crat because we trust Aiiane's decision. Now lets just trust and hope that Aiiane's decision is right, and that Raine will do her job well and not abuse the sysop powers. --Lania 20:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, "we" didn't all vote for Aiiane, and "we" don't all trust her judgment. I ask for transparency and solid rationale, which the situation is currently lacking. Even if I don't agree with a decision someone makes, I can accept it if I know the thought process behind it. And "the pros outweighed the cons" is not acceptable. elix Omni 20:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Even if you don't trust her, she was voted in by the community, thus in a way she makes decisions for the community. You have the right to ask, but at the same time, she also has the right to ignore your requests for more clarification. You can continue to ask, and even demand for explanation, but I'm not sure you'll ever get one. --Lania 20:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

your idea of election is twisted, disgusting ... and wrong 88.153.105.75 22:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

1 – Emmett 22:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

2 3 not questioning questions your right to vote 88.153.105.75 22:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) If you have specific questions, I'd happy to answer them, but I'm not going to write essays justifying simple yes or no decisions in response to vague questions. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 22:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Why did you pass Raine's RfA? elix Omni 22:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

That's the same question you asked before, minus the demand for a wall of text. --Lania 22:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Good eye. elix Omni 22:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll stand behind Aiiane's decision, but I will not speak for her. If anyone has any questions they would like to ask me pertaining to this I would be happy to answer them on my talk page, as the policy suggests I should be prepared to answer any questions relating to my actions as a bureaucrat. Misery 23:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) To Aiiane originally, but Misery could answer too ^___^

1. Which specific points outlined in support did you think merited sysoption?
2. Do you share concerns shown in the oppose and neutral sections?
3. How did you come to the decision that the points raised in support outweighed those in opposition/neutral (most of which were leaning towards opposition)?
4. What aspects of Raine's comments, answers, and contribs did you think displayed her merits as a potential sysop?
5. What were these "other items on the wiki" that you examined?

I suppose what could also help is what your comment would be on the RfA were you not a bureaucrat. -- pling 23:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

1. I don't usually go by specific points; after all, we don't op users to fulfill a specific role and then take it away again - we make them sysops, full stop. While there are often "platforms" that potential sysops seem to create RfAs for, in the long run those tend to fade away, with the actual day-to-day actions of the sysop being what sticks around. With this in mind, I suppose one could say that one of the "points" which I looked at favorably towards the RfA were those commenting on Raine tending to be fair in her actions.
2. There is always the question of how frequently the option of banning users should be utilized; there's also the *different* question of how quickly it should be utilized in cases where it may be warranted. While I do think some of Raine's statements may be pushing one way or another from what we'd overall desire for either of these questions, I also don't think that this is something which is set in stone, and I trust that Raine will consider input from others, both the rest of the sysop team and the community, when it comes to finding a proper balance - just like I would expect of any other sysop.
3. This is basically just asking "why did you pass the RfA" with different wording, and is not really any less vague, but I would disagree that "most" were leaning towards opposition - I can see 2, maybe 3 "Neutral" votes which actually lean towards Oppose. In general, however, there seemed to be a number of users in the Oppose column that were objecting specifically to the "platform", so to speak, and not to Raine's actual capability as a sysop. As I mentioned in the previous two answers, I find this less relevant to the decision of whether or not to make someone a sysop, and more relevant to something that should be discussed with them and/or worked out if they actually push the limits of their power too far.
4. This is not something that I could link you to any specific contribution and say "this is why she should be a sysop"; nor could I do so for any other sysop that we've promoted. That said, Raine has been more than willing to elaborate on her views and answer questions about fears other users had regarding her views (ex.).
5. "Other items" included the editing history for Raine as well as those for quite a number of the users voting in both support or opposition of the RfA, to get a general sense of where the various users' opinions were coming from.

(Aiiane - talk - contribs) 02:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I will state that no communication, nor consensus was made regarding this RfA. I believe that Raine is friendly, alright in my book, and I believe she can grow into an good sysop. But as of right now I still do not believe that she can be impartial enough for what she proposed. She has spent a lot of time on user talk pages in plenty of heated conversations, however, I do not find her examples or any other conflict resolution to stand out. Although there is a chance that this will prove useful as I, in bureaucrat status, had to be called to the wiki in order to ban Scythe. Something, which I believe Auron has already stated, should not have occurred.

With all that said, the question remains, why do I not object or overturn Aiiane? Simply, I do not have the time to spend on a lengthy argument with my current rl obligations. I will say that the lack of communication is a major reason why this wiki has gotten to this point. It was not the emergence of the PvX crowd in 2007 or the trolls that followed, it was the lost of sysop cohesion to deal with such small issues as a few trolls. Also, I thought about this over the past few days in light of my minimal wiki activity. I am resigning from bureaucrat status, so that someone more active can take my spot. — Gares 03:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Most of those questions aren't relevant to my actions or my statement, so I'll leave them to Aiiane. Misery 07:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

This was a tough call either way. There were lots of reasoned supports, reasoned opposes and reasoned neutral votes. Passing the RfA would piss off the people who voted oppose, and failing the RfA would piss off the people who supported - most of whom, on either side, put some serious effort into discussing the candidate. But standing here after the fact and pretending Aiiane didn't put thought into her decision is a bit ridiculous, Felix. -Auron 11:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to know what her thoughts were, not deny their existence. Passing an RfA entirely without comment is a poor precedent. elix Omni 18:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Feel free,,,

To delete my contributions of reverting the latest vandals. I'd rather not have their username in the history. -- Konig/talk 07:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Done. — Why 17:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning that up, and my page as well. G R E E N E R 17:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Deleting users

Hey Aiiane, please do not use the user merge extension to delete accounts. Due to our link with Guild Wars 2 Wiki, the user deletion is highly broken and will just lead to problems. Instead you should rather permaban and hide the ban and the creation log entry to hide the username. poke | talk 14:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing (rather accurately, since I put it there) that that's why "do not select this option!" follows the "delete old user" option. -- pling 14:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi poke, I don't plan to use it in the future; it was more a very small-scale experiment to figure out the extent of the actual deletion. Mostly, I was trying to see if it would remove the user from page history, but that doesn't appear to be the case. Either way, I'm not intending to continue using it. :) (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 17:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Good, thanks :D poke | talk 22:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)