User talk:Elric Coy

ARchive - User:Elric_Coy/archive1

Your signature

Hi Elric, I noticed that you were using the monk icon inyour signature and wasn't sure you were aware of our signature policy. Do you mind re-uploading your current signature image () as something like [[Image: User Elric Coy sig.png]], this is mainly due to the policies requirement that images used for signatures to be uploaded under the users name as a user image and preferably redirect to your user/talk page, thanks. --Kakarot 04:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

okie dokie... my bad... will do... Elric 04:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

How is this for a sig? talk 17:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Not good. The sig policy says images can't be over 19x19px. Might want to give it a read to save future effort :P -- Brains12 \ talk 17:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Is it the file itself or the fact that its long? do they have to be square? I was under the impression that they had to be only 19px tall to match common text height. talk 17:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Guild Wars Wiki:Sign your comments#Images. -- Brains12 \ talk 17:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

As I said.. I was under the impression that it had to not be disruptive. The link you sent me to says exactly

• The image used is constrained to a maximum size of 19x19 pixels, to avoid disrupting text spacing and readability.

I am not trying to change the world but does it have to be square to avoid disrupting text spacing and readability? I could shorten it to just Elric and leave the last name off. My sig isn't half as blinding as I have seen nor is it half as long. talk 17:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) for example User:PheNaxKian has a hideously colored and long appearing signature yet my icon is smaller than his whole sig. Yet I noticed the only thing you told him about his sig is to get rid of the template. Not trying to argue. I just want to understand policy. edit for sig comparison Elric talk 18:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC) talk 17:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) "19x19 pixels" = 19 pixels wide by 19 pixels high; everyone's signature image should, and does (unless unnoticed and the user uninformed), adhere to that. If you want to change that limitation, you could discuss it on the policy's talk page - that's the only place where you'll be able to do so. I can't just say "yeah, sure, go ahead". Some people have tried to change that size limitation in the past but consensus has stuck with 19 by 19 as the compromise. -- Brains12 \ talk 17:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Well I fixed the sig. Now its just an edited ankh and some text. I can't say I am not pissed that I can't use an icon that is longer than it is taller since the height is the only real determining factor in the rules where it states "to avoid disrupting text spacing and readability" Elric talk 17:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

There are additional problems with having a sig that is only an image, like the recurring redirect problem every time the wiki gets updated. Having text guarantees the link to your userpage will always be viable. You can change the font you use to give it much the same feel as the image. You are also not the only one that has had the same issue, and you can feel free to propose a change to the sig policy and see if you can gain consensus on changing it. -- Wyn 18:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I mean... Seriously, if my sig icon was and I included a text link to my talk page along with the icon why would that be disruptive if I was only honestly trying to make a recognizable signature that made it easy for people to know who they were dealing with. That is the point of the sig icon isn't it? for example... cut and paste from Wyn's own sig... Her icon next to mine... there doesn't seem to be a LOT of difference so how could I be any more disruptive than any of the other multicolored and large font sigs out there? Elric talk 18:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure, there isn't a lot of difference. But you do recognize there is enough of a difference between what is 19px square and your own. Again, if you feel this strongly about it, please suggest a change in policy. I think I can make a somewhat similar corollary to the phrase "If you don't vote, you shouldn't complain". If you don't speak up where it is accepted to ask for a change, then there's the good chance that the change you want won't happen. --Antioch 18:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd vote for this. It'd be neat to draw up a full funky lettering for my name :P-- anguard 18:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) see... my sig is even smaller than Antioch's if I use Elric talk 18:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

It really has nothing to do with whether it would be smaller than someone else's. And again, while this is your talk page to rant on if you wish, it's not going to do anything to change the policy regardless of how many people agree with you here. Make your proposal to change it on the policy talk page, and see if you can get consensus. -- Wyn 18:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I am aware of that Wyn... I was just discussing the matter with those that read my talk page. However, my last post did give me an idea for encouraging the change I want. Thank you all. Elric talk 18:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

And the flag is planted in the sand!!! Elric talk 21:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't give up

If this is something you really want, don't give up. Changing policy is a very frustrating process. Leave it be for a day or two, see what other opinions come in. It may feel to you like the sysops are blocking this because they don't want to do any more work but it is something that has to be taken into consideration any time a policy is changed. I work very hard in my role as sysop here. I make every decision based on what I feel is going to be best overall for this wiki as a whole. If I didn't want to do the work as you put it, I would not have fought for 3 months for the Guild page policy change that increased my workload by leaps and bounds, but overall is better for the wiki. -- Wyn 20:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why everyone is so hung up on long and distracting signatures. Truth is... after reading my own conversations back and forth on that page I can actually see an argument FOR BIGGER signatures to help separate the comments of one person from another. The indent system is bullshit and looks like shit when talking about a subject. Maybe its not the signatures that should be changed. Perhaps a policy regarding comments on talk pages should be drafted to ease that problem. Elric 20:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Guild Wars Wiki:Talk pages/16-12-2008Draft

I don't know how much experience you have with other wiki's, but here is an extreme example from a wiki with a very lax signature policy [1] -- Wyn 21:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

bad example.. they have animated icons... but actually... I like being able to tell who said what and being able to see CLEARLY when a comment ends. Elric 21:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, I don't blame Elric for quitting. I actually spend 15 minutes reading the massive wall of text that came after I went to bed last night, and all the people who opposed seemed to say nothing but "Your logic is flawed!" "It's too much work!" "I don't think it can be done!" Which is sad, because I've seen it work on PvX.-- anguard 21:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) This is as good as wiki discussion is going to get. Signatures aren't markers or bookends, they're navigation and identification tools. Unless MediaWiki reveals some revolutionary way for wiki discussion, it's not going to get any better. By the way, w:Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point might interest you, if you really are serious in proposing a link-only signature policy. Also, you need a link in your signature. Thanks. -- Brains12 \ talk 21:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry... still have raw sigs turned on... Elric

(Reset indent) I wasn't disrupting the system to prove a point. I honestly thought this would have better support. I can not honestly see the difference between a icon and a string of text that draws the same image. The policy and the refusal to bend is bullshit. We are told "we understand your desire for individuality so here is a tiny dot", "we accept your desire for recognition but refuse to give you any elbow room to work with even though other people can be more disruptive with the already existing rules. If I was being disruptive I would have changed my sig to something hideous to prove my point. Instead I used existing signatures that are not being told to change to compare to my request. I am kind of insulted that you compared me to that kind of personality by suggesting I need to read an article written for teenagers and drama queens. Elric 21:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

WAIT A MINUTE... WTF Wyn, you oppose me and then tell me not to give up when I realize the subject is making no head room? I am confused. Elric 21:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Changing policy is often like beating your head against a brick wall.... I know, I've been there. While I don't agree with the change, and have I believe clearly stated my reasons, I recognize your right to request the change and argue for it. If you do gain enough support for it, I will abide by the consensus, and will 'do the work' it will require to implement, and enforce. It doesn't mean I will agree with it. I just hate to see your arguments degrade into personal and professional insults which is where it's going. -- Wyn 21:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The argument against is stupid. It carries no real merit. I can do "virtually" the same thing with css by plopping down twice as much code but I can't do it with an image. The whole argument is seriously flawed. We can have icons but only if they are tiny. And btw.. you might want to re-read that page... I only reset the indent like twice... or would you rather my verbose responses be funneled into a narrow column that takes half an hour to scroll through. I am very serious though(this isn't a temper tantrum)... If adding this much work is enough to make you guys shrink from it then maybe policing signatures is too much work in the first place. Why is ok to give the "bad guys" a gun but I can't have a paintbrush. See.. the logic is just flawed. I am not insulting anyone... Everyone else started by insulting me... Saying I am verbose. If you are going to say something let me respond the way I see fit or this isn't a discussion. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Elric Coy (talk).

Your dumbing down of your statements in response to the opposition you are getting IS insulting to both yourself and us. As for our arguments against, well, the biggest one is regarding the load time and image cache issues that you have been brought up that you have totally ignored in your walls of text. Saying "The argument against is stupid. It carries no real merit." is also insulting and demeaning of our experience and intelligent and is unworthy. And if you think that my arguments against are ALL based on the amount of work, you are sooooooooooo wrong, and haven't read or comprehended a thing I've said. -- Wyn 22:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

And now you are begining to piss me off. Mistaken yet again... I am not dumbing down my responses due to lack of support. I am dumbing down my responses based on peoples accusations that my responses are too verbose. I also didn't ignore the load time or image cache issues. In fact if you go back and re-read my well written responses, I addressed those concerns. All browsers have cache. Pages that are visited often get cached. the image size is remarkably tiny in comparison to all the other visual crap we download as we surf. So back to my statement... the arguments against... are all so far... stupid. They all say that selling guns to humans will cause death so we should only sell bb guns. 68.96.104.199 22:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not talking about browser cache. I'm talking about server image cache, which on this wiki has a history of problems/issues. If you really understood this wiki as well as you think you do, you would know that,but of course, you never leave your userspace. Your dumbing down your your statements FOR WHATEVER REASON is insulting to everyone, keep in mind sarcasm doesn't translate well in text. -- Wyn 22:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Either way I am done with the conversation. And yes I do understand the cache issues on this wiki. I've been prey to them myself. You say its too much work and then cite your current duties as your reasoning behind not making the change. It follows logic that if this small change is too much to handle for everyone involved then perhaps signatures should be link only.

BTW... even though you scratched it out... I could still consider your statement a personal attack. A sly one too since it was crossed out but still left intact.

Sign your comments please; perhaps you didn't read that Wikipedia link. -- Brains12 \ talk 23:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, I'm a bit slow. Didn't see the last comment you made. (By the way, the striking out is because comments generally shouldn't be removed from talk pages.) -- Brains12 \ talk 23:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Brian but if you check the history the strike out was not added as an after effect. It was a part of the statement and yes I did read the policy. Perhaps you should too. The third sentence of the policy is "This policy defines when and how signatures should be used and to be kept reasonable; it does not dictate that signatures must be used." --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Elric Coy (talk).

I really hope I don't sound like a wikilawyer, but farhter down it does state: Any post or comment made to talk pages should be signed, regardless of the namespace. Hopefully that'll clear up some confusion, if any... -- Wandering Traveler 23:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) While you may not need to sign your comments, its a good idea. If everyone didn't sign there comments it would quickly turn into who said what and when? Yes you can do that in the history but its must faster, and easier to just sign. Dominator Matrix 23:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is wikilawyering... The first sentence states that there is no requirement the sentence you suggested uses the word should. Besides... this is MY talk page.

To wikilawyer some more, let's clarify. This is not your talk page. This is a community talk page used to contact User:Elric Coy, who conveniently happens to be you. So, the rules of the wiki do still apply here, which include signing comments and retention of non-trolling comments. Now, why would you want to make a comment and not have people recognize it as being yours? calor (talk) 00:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Everyone wants to be a lawyer but nobody really knows how to read. The Third sentence says that a signature is not required. Anything after that is fluff. The page here is used to contact ME... not anyone else... I've made a few comments today that I haven't signed... So am I earning a ban now because I refuse to follow a suggestion

Seriously there is a signature icon (seen here). its right above the text box. Its there for a reason, if its required or not. Dominator Matrix 00:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Is this what they call trolling? Bothering someone about an insignificant detail to spur conversation? I am frustrated and don't feel like dealing with the whole signature subject period. I still think the arguments against do not take into consideration the fact that the same thing can be done with wiki code and that if human nature was really such a big factor then the same argument could be made for something like money. People steal it so why make it? See... it doesn't make sense. But if it will shut you up. Elric

w:Troll_(Internet). Generally, people due it just to deliberately piss someone else off. Unless I've mistaken Dom's, Brains', WT's and Wyn's intentions, they weren't trolling. Also (off-topic): where's the link to your archive? I saw in the page history you did some archiving, but I can't find your archive page. (For more info: GWW:USER)--Riddle 01:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixed archive... added link... signed comment...--68.96.104.199 01:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

your new project

I fixed the RfC link to point to the project rather than the talk page, formatted the page as a project page, and added it to GWW:PROJECTS. -- Wyn 16:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I wasn't completely sure if it was in the right place. Elric 17:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Good to have someone else helping out with this :) I've been doing it on and off for a while (when I have extra time) and was mainly focusing on the mainspace links at the beginning but am now including guild pages as well as other pages. --Kakarot 22:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Huh? Elric 22:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Working on cleaning up Wanted Pages, that is your new project right? --Kakarot 22:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Derr... feeling derr... I think we need a bot to do the work. The guild pages have a tremendous amount of links to clean up before we even start to make a dent in the unncessary wanted guild pages. Elric 22:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually a bot created the work to be specific. "I pick you wikichu!!!!!!" *doh Elric 22:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, just an idea... You might want to check your own talk pages and use the nowiki commands to turn off links to any old or deleted pages that were referenced in any conversations. Don't forget your archive. I wonder... Would it be ok to nowiki the entire page of an archive? nevermind dumb idea... Elric 22:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

self is your friend. Making a link with [[self:page name|link name]] will create a link to this wiki without making the linked page appear on the Wanted pages list. It also does not appear on the "What links here" page. The problem is that the link will always be blue, so someone wouldn't know if the page doesn't exist, but IMO it's still useful. If all the bad links had been made using that, the Wanted pages problem wouldn't exist. Erasculio 23:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually its really easy to just go through the pages that were put into historical status and just paste the (historical) after each link... but still.. lots of work... Elric 23:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Guild wanted pages

Is there some reason you can't just ignore the guild wanted pages for the time being while we work out other solutions? I mean, there are plenty of other wanted page issues without focusing on the guild portion. -- Wyn 23:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It's an issue... It's something to be fixed. No I can't ignore it... There are way too many of them. You told me to find something constructive to do. I did try to find something to do but I found a huge roadblock. Don't be another roadblock. Elric 23:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm asking you to work on the others as we are trying to find alternative solutions that aren't going to give me a major migraine. I am beginning to believe you are doing this intentionally to harass me. -- Wyn 00:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me... AGF... It's not my fault I am finding things on peoples pages. I just started at one point and worked my way down. I am eliminating all the links other than the ones on the wikichu logs. Which happened to bring me to yours. Don't take it personal. If it was personal I could do much worse than suggesting you empty out a sandbox that is putting pages on the wanted section. Just because I am not making thousands of edits doesn't mean I am not making thousands of clicks hunting down issues. Stop trying to block every fucking thing I do. Elric 00:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

BTW, by asking you to kill that sandbox I eliminated that many links to that many pages in the wanted pages. Elric 00:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem emptying that sandbox page, I'm simply pointing out that the wanted guild pages are a more complex issue than can be solved overnight and we are working on some solutions that will fix them enmasse, and asking you to give us time to do that. It's not so hard to simply skip over the guild pages on the wanted page list. I know there are a lot of them, which is why we are trying to find alternative solutions to fixing the problem other than any one (or 10) individual having to fix all the links. I do applaud your desire to contribute constructively, there are just so many ways you could do it that don't get in the way of other things that are being done. -- Wyn 00:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I know things are being done... I am the one that found the problem even though I am not a sysop. In fact I've traced one of them down to wikichu himself. Every single move that wikichu makes is putting a guild page on the wanted pages. Elric 00:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Um.. you did not 'find' the problem, it's been a known problem, and yes we know that the wikichu moves create entries on the wanted pages list which is one reason we have been working on solutions since we used the bot for archiving the guild pages. -- Wyn 00:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

So you already knew the problem existed before I ever proposed the project? But never added a project to discuss it? Hrrm... and you know the bot is to blame for a big part of it but you aren't doing anything about it like... shutting it down? What is more important... a guild that isn't active being moved or a useful wanted pages that can be used to find Main Space articles that need to be written? You want people to contribute but the list of pages that are still empty and need to be added is completely useless because it is full of template fuck ups and fucked up bot moves. Great idea moving guilds into the historical status. Elric 00:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, the wikichu run to archive guild pages has happened ONCE. And no, we didn't create a project, because we were working out solutions to the issue. The bot is not an ongoing thing, it is directed by poke, and run only when requested. Please don't assume things that you haven't educated yourself about and make accusations out of thin air. The change to the guild page policy only occurred in August of 2008, and we have done ONE batch of archive moves with the bot for the simple fact we've been trying to address the issues that were going to be caused by this archiving process. Oh.. and if you have anything CONSTRUCTIVE to add to how the archival process can be done without created these problems, feel free to add them to the discussion on GWWT:GUILD-- Wyn 01:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Add this to your monobook.js and stop bugging wyn. Lord Belar 01:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Guild Page Tagging

Hi I noticed you recently jumped into my tagging of Guild Pages. Please stop that immideately and let me finish it. There are several things that need to be considered and im almost done. Thanks --SilentStorm 00:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The only pages I tagged were ones that needed to be deleted for housekeeping since the guild page was moved to historical status and the subpages are not being saved. Elric 00:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Oops, my bad... the pages you are referring to were deleted because it was an alliance and not a guild page. Those pages should be deleted for that reason. I put them on delete list for a reason and yes I researched it before I did it. so please don't revert me on an assumption that I did something wrong. Elric 00:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Well while you didnt do something wrong I still reverted you and would like you to let it this way for now. The Reason is that several of the Pages you tagged are heavily used. Deleting that Page would just throw it on WantedPages (what you dont want) and create ~100 redlinks. I will make sure they get tagged again once we can sort out all of this stuff. --SilentStorm 00:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Hrrm... good point about the redlinks and heavily used. But the reason I put them on the delete list was legit. Elric 00:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I never said something else tho... Its just better this way for now until we can fix all those Inclusions and Links. Like I said I noted all those that will stay for now down so I dont forget about them :) --SilentStorm 00:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I am working on something else then... There are a few pages on the wanted pages that aren't guild pages and are just template mistakes or other things that got heavily talked about like the welcome template. So I am turning off as many of the links to it as I can with self: or nowiki as needed to preserve the page. Elric

I might suggest a nice Solution for your Issue. Go to Special:Mypage/monobook.js and add the following code:

hookEvent( 'load', function()
{
   if ( wgPageName !== 'Special:WantedPages' )
     return false;
   
   var removeNames = [ 'Guild' ];
   var removeWords = [ 'Guild' ];
   
   var i, li, lis, xpath, remove = new Array();
   xpath  = '//div[@id="bodyContent"]//li[ ';
   xpath += 'contains( a[4]/@title, "' + removeNames.join( '" ) or contains( a[4]/@title, "' ) + '" ) or ';
   xpath += 'contains( a[1]/@title, "' + removeWords.join( '" ) or contains( a[1]/@title, "' ) + '" ) or ';
   xpath += 'contains( span[@class="comment"], "' + removeWords.join( '" ) or contains( span[@class="comment"], "' ) + '" ) ]';
   lis    = document.evaluate( xpath, document, null, 4, null );
   while( ( li = lis.iterateNext() ) )
   {
     remove.push( li );
   }
   while( ( li = remove.pop() ) )
   {
     li.parentNode.removeChild( li );
   }
 } );

to it. That will get you rid of the Guild Namespace on WantedPages and should make your life easier. --SilentStorm 01:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I asked if there was a way to remove these entries from the wanted pages list in the first place. I wish someone had just given me this answer earlier. However, not everyone knows to edit their monobook to get rid of the Guild pages. Hopefully we can come up with a better solution than this soon, so the other less technical users can at least find the articles they want to work on. p.s. I am not bothering Wyn on purpose. It was purely coincidental that her page came up while I was sorting through the links that lead to some of the guild pages on the wanted list. Please... AGF... I really am only working to improve all users experience. Accusations of "pestering" someone specifically is not nice as that is not my intentions. Elric 01:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

It was not mentioned earlier, because Belar just figured it out. -- Wyn 01:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

That explains a lot... Thank you Belar... Elric 01:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

One Down!!!

Whew... wipes sweat off brow... Just got done with the much debated Template:Welcome which was ultimately deleted yet talked about heavily on many pages... Now completely off the wanted pages list. Maybe some can see I am working hard and start to agf. Elric 01:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations Elric! You have tackled a monumental job, that changes every day as pages are deleted. -- Wyn 01:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

With Firefox it isn't overly difficult, just tedious. I use the highlight all to find the links in the edit window and then just nowiki or self: them depending on if its a link or a template. The hard part is hunting down the link when its inside of another template inclusion. I assume that the wanted pages are sorted in order by the most wanted on top. If I can at least keep the top 50 or 100 clear of unnecessary links I'd feel good. (especially once the other guild page issue is figured out, not every one will edit their monobook) Elric 01:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

wow, ure about a year late. --Cursed Angel 02:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Late? Well, I did join late and it did take me a while to get up to speed and have some idea what I was doing with wikicode before I could start defining problems and issues that need to be dealt with. Elric 02:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Editing tagged guild pages

Ok, I know what you are doing, and I'm not trying to be difficult, but can you please refrain from editing guild pages than have been tagged as inactive? That edit reactivates them and we have to wait 3 more months to retag them. -- Wyn 02:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

oh crap... sorry bout that... was just getting rid of other links that are on the wanted list besides the guild pages. will avoid editing anything that leads to a tagged page. Elric 02:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Editing historical guild pages is fine, but even doing maintenance edits on inactive tagged guild pages is counted as an edit. -- Wyn 02:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

But does an edit always qualify as making the guild active if it is a maintenance edit made by someone not it the guild? Elric 02:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

We only look at the history... if there are no edits in 3 months, it's inactive. I know.. silly, but it keeps it a clear cut line. -- Wyn 03:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Yea, that seems silly if the only edit is a maintenance edit. Elric 03:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Curious

→ moved from User talk:MisterPepe/AVT

You reverted my edit to your page... Why do you need an active call to a template that no longer exists and was deleted because it was deemed unnecessary? Elric 15:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, why do you post that on Pepe's talk page when _I_ reverted your edit that changed a page in his namespace?

And as you already read the discussion on the Admin noticeboard talk page, you should have read, that I changed the {{tl}} template to not link to a page if that page doesn't exist. And putting nowiki-tags around tl-calls is really not something you should do, as that completely breaks the text flow and especially on Pepe's AVT, which is a tool that should make things easier to people, it doesn't make it easier to read some {{tl|something}} lines where that shouldn't be. poke | talk 15:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy Valentine's Day!

Happy V-Day!!! - Tesla 01:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Red links and wanted pages

A red link on a page indicates that information about it is currently non-existent/undocumented, while a blue link shows the opposite. "Wanted page" means the same thing as the former - nothing currently exists at the moment, but it's linked to from another page, meaning information on it is wanted. Being on Special:Wantedpages doesn't mean "we want it blue, regardless of whether we want or have information, just for the sake of making it blue and removing it from Wantedpages". People using that special page look for pages to create with information, so creating a blank page for no reason other than to take it off Wantedpages nullifies its purpose.

A "stub" tag indicates a 'short' article - it has some information, but needs expansion. It doesn't serve the exact same purpose as a red link or wanted page.

I think that may help when discussing blank pages or Wantedpages. "The crappy sysops here won't let me put the page up without anything on it" - hopefully this gives a reason as to why, as well as how wiki articles work. -- Brains12 \ talk 18:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Its really interesting how sysops jump on my mistakes yet make tons of their own without the same repercussions. I know this is a different subject but it explains why I am pissed that the page was deleted. User_talk:Great_Darkwolf/ArchiveSpecial1#Paybacks_are_a_biotch..... Wyn can spam a guys page with bullshit even though she was the one fighting me so hard against my proposed change to the signature icons due to the distracting visual noise arguement. She can personally insult me and my edits because I don't participate in the mainspace as much as she does and when I try to help in the mainspace by helping to create pages that are on the wanted list they get deleted by her. Can you imagine why I am currently a little upset? This feels very personal.

While I do understand your statement and the difference between stub and missing information, the page elements that I added would make it easier for someone who doesn't know wiki code to simply fill out the missing information. I personally think people are misunderstanding the concept of the Wanted Pages. Not every person who wants to help knows what to do with a completely blank page. Sometimes people just need a push or a slight nudge in the right direction to get them started (i.e. the outline including the templates and page elements for the pages that I added) Just because the page does not currently have any information does not mean that someone with the information might not add it because they see it in the stub area. I moved it from Wanted to Stub (i.e. missing information) so that people who don't know what templates to use can simply enter the information. The "its empty so get rid of it" argument is seriously flawed if you consider that concept. Elric 18:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

If someone put information on that page but formatted it incorrectly, it wouldn't be deleted, it would be formatted. You are formatting vacuum. This is not a useful thing, please spend your time more usefully so sysops won't delete it. Misery 18:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)