User talk:Arkhar

FYI: I saw all the green number ranges in skills, and it looks like it takes a while to put in the coding. If it's easier, I just created a small template for them:

{{gr|1..2..3}}

will result in:
1..2..3...0...0
Hope that helps! --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:10, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

OK, I won't edit this one, since it's not my comment. *keeps hands away from keyboard* -- CoRrRan (CoRrRan / talk) 17:48, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Regarding GuildWiki

Please do not copy information over from GuildWiki. I am specifically referring to the Sacrifice article, though it appears that you have been doing the same thing on numerous skill articles as well. This violates the copyright terms, and we can't use that information here. If you wish to edit an article, please do not get rid of the attribute tables that we had to put in by hand, for one thing. Also, if you're doing the 8..12..13 thing, please make sure that it's actually the correct values. The first value is at attribute 0, the second at 12, and the third is at 15 (not 16, which is the value you've been entering, see Healing Signet for what I mean). Thank you, Pepe talk 18:34, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

You've told me to stop copying information from GuildWiki. This has me confused for two reasons. One, Guildwiki obtained its information from Guildwars. It doesn't belong to wiki because it's simply documentation of information in the game, and not original material. This alone absolves me of any wrong-doing in copying skill articles. Second, all of the information on GuildWiki is released under GFDL and is free for non-commercial distribution. Thus, even if the Sacrifice article can be considered original for its analysis of game content, it is free to be used here. Conclusively, I see no reason to do the same research as GuildWiki has to achieve the same results. Since there is nothing illegal about what I am doing, and since it is the logical course of action to take, please do not berate me for it. As for your note on my attribute progressions, the first skill article I found on this site was using a 0..12..16 format and I assumed that would be the case. Since you seem sure that it is not, could you please post a link to where it says otherwise? And I removed the table because the majority of skill articles I have seen are using the green lettered milestone format, and logic dictates that all skills are formatted the same way. Arkhar 18:53, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

(Moved your comment over so that this would make sense) Yeah, okay. GuildWiki does NOT use GFDL, they use CreativeCommons. There's a pretty big difference, since GFDL actually does allow commercial usage, we can't use anything that's licenced under the CC license (which bans commercial use). That's why we have the {{copyvio}} tag, and we end up using it a fair bit. So, it is actually illegal, which is why I asked you to stop =P As far as the attribute progressions, whoever did the 0..12..16 was wrong. We're using the 0..12..15 method, because that's the way that ArenaNet posts the changes on the Game Update section of their site. The discussion took place here. =) Pepe talk 19:00, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

For what it's worth, I just went back through some of your edits, and I blamed you for some stuff you didn't actually do =\ Heh, most of the skill articles were copyvio-ed by someone else, so I apologize for getting in your face like that. Still, that sacrifice article has been brought over (and deleted) at least two or three times now, so I came off more forcefully than I should have. 'Sorry about that. Pepe talk 19:05, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

As Pepe mentioned, GuildWiki is not GFDL - so there is a licence issue. Some users on GuildWiki have dual-licenced their contributions independently of the site license to make their specific contributions available; but that only helps if the only content contributors of a particular article have done that.

While the raw facts from GuildWiki are game content, the formatting and coding in how its displayed is original to GuildWiki and the users who licensed their contributions under the by-nc-sa license, which is not directly compatible with the GFDL - that's the license issue. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:09, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Alright, might as well make this a reply to both of you. Thanks for the help with this, lots of good things in here that I should and now do know. But a couple more things I'm wondering about. First - if we can't use the format as I've seen it on GWiki, what format are we using? It might be best if a format is decided on before I waste my time misediting any more skills :S. I'll leave my work as it stands for now, until I know what I'm doing. Arkhar 21:12, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Sadly, I don't think a format is finalised yet, all I see is ongoing talk. We just got the ParserFunctions available this week, so the skill info-box will hopefully be completed soon (we're using a temporary info-box for now - a redesign is coming). Once that's ready, I'm sure more progress will be made on the rest of the formatting. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:27, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Orphaned image

Two of the images you have uploaded are tagged for deletion because they are orphaned (unused). These are Image:User Arkhar Arkhar the Bloodied3.jpg and Image:User Arkhar Arkhar the Bloodied2.jpg. If you intend to use them, can you please remove the deletion tag? :) - anja 09:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I had intended to use them, but when I put them on my page the edit didn't go through and I never got around to trying again. I'll use them right now. -- Arkhar 18:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I tagged them with {{user image}} also, so they are categorized properly :) - anja 19:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't know such a tag existed :D. -- Arkhar 21:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Sig image

GWW:SIGN says that "The image file must be unique to the user signature. The image file should not be larger than 19 pixels wide and 19 pixels tall." Your signature image should be named something like File:User Arkhar sig.png and if you wish to use the necromancer icon you'll have to resize it to 19x19 and make sure that you link to the original in the description. Thanks - BeX 06:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I'll take it out and might put it back in later. Here's its last appearance: -- Arkhar 02:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Your user boxes

lol your userboxes are centered not cuz you wrote "<center" and stuff but because they blocked the way so that the u-box is pushed to center lol