User talk:Fighterdoken/Archive002

Reverting Changes

Is there an easy way to revert changes?

Not really, just click on history, go back to the last revision that is right, click it, click edit and save.--Fighterdoken 00:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Help:Reverting. -- Brains12 \ Talk 14:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Name

I liked the Boatdoken better :P 71.31.149.63 22:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Nomination

I have nominated you for adminship (Yay u!!!!!). Please make a clear acceptance or decline on GWW:RFA. Good Luck, hope u get it :o) --Shadowphoenix 17:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I think i will pass for now, sorry. I have not the time required for performing the tasks, nor i have the knowledge of policy application, community management, or coding required to actually accomplish something by using the admin tools (even if nothing of this has proven to be a requeriment actually). Maybe in the future, but not right now.--Fighterdoken 21:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to say that there is no need to create the RfA page now ;) poke | talk 23:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeh Fighterdoken, as,when and if you choose to run, you will have my vote! -- Salome 23:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

bugged dedrimor items

hey hey mate, do you have any idea where i could put a notice to warn people that the gold weapons that are now purchasable after hell's precipice aren't allowing themselves to be modded properly, e.g. shields don't accept handles etc... -- Salome 23:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Each item would be the proper place i think, but i would go for a note in the update article, since it will catch more attention there, and is related too.--Fighterdoken 23:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Support

Hey Fighterdoken, as my recent RFA has been resolved successfully I want to thank you for taking the time to support me :) --Kakarot 02:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

In-Game THEFT with shadow-step skill

Nice comment you left on my talk page. NOT!. The Scamming page doesn't mention a shadow-step skill and i will add that to it. Just to warn other players. --Silverleaf 23:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Uhm, i was pretty sure it was, since this has been a known scamming tactic since i first came to the wiki. In any case, please do so, since documenting such methods is useful in that article.--Fighterdoken 23:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Why does this span across four different talk pages? If there's a "new" scam happening, put it on the scam talk page, or add it to the page itself. -- Brains12 \ Talk 23:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It started in two, then i left a message on the user's talk page about it, then he answered here after stopping and deciding to document such method... so it spans because the user probably was not aware of the proper procedure to follow in this case. It should have stopped now.--Fighterdoken 23:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

storage tab

Cool, i didn't know that eotn gives an extra storage tab for the vault box if you don't have all campaigns. :d But shouldn't we merge and reword these two notes then? —ZerphaThe Improver 21:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

If you can, please do so. I tried, but my english is not good enough to specify it while making clear the fact that the 4-storage tab limit remains. That's why i decided to just go the lazy way with a new note. --Fighterdoken 21:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

tbh i also could not think of any too good phrasing yet, possibly because i'm already a bit tired :P I'll try to change it tomorrow if nobody else already did then. —ZerphaThe Improver 22:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

What kind of 'Statistics' do you want?

I'm here to play, not to conduct a scientific study of how much stuff salvages if I use a Superior salvage kit rather than and expert, but after 9000 play hours and literally hundreds of thousands of drops, I can tell you that I get more materials if I use a Superior kit than if I use an Expert kit. If you wish to dedicate your play hrs to documenting every single item you salvage, go for it.-- Wynthyst 22:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, we kinda do it already, but we have never before separated the salvage rates according to the type of salvage kit used, which could actually prove to be useful if the information varies between them as you state. I can't really accept the statement as true just because you have "over nine thousand" (*smirk*) hours salvaging items, but i can't reject it either because which you state may be true after all. I am only saying that if it is, it has to be backed up by data so we can include it in the respective articles, and if it is not true, we may need the same data to reject such statement if it is included in the same articles. Since you actually put attention to such difference (which i must say i have not payed attention to), i thought you had gathered data about it, but meh.--Fighterdoken 23:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't sit here and keep a tally of what salvages, but I know when I use Superior kits, my materials accumulate much faster than if I'm using Expert kits, that tells me I'm getting more from the salvages. And why the smirk? I DO have over 9000 play hours, just go look at my characters and their achievements and consider the hundreds of times I have done missions/quests helping guild/alliance:P -- Wynthyst 00:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Internet culture reference to the expression "It's over nine thousand" coined in 4chan i think... but whatever.

About the other, there are still things to consider like the rarity of drops, value of items droped in the zone, expansion, playing mode, etc. Unless you can actually provide information that confirms that nothing of these affects the outcome, i think this doesn't go beyond another "gold drop rate was nerfed after this patch" (meaning, player appreciation and actual data are not really related, you could pretty much have a extreme good luck with your characters when salvaging).--Fighterdoken 00:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Black Bear

Seriously guys, at this point is better to just let it cool down a bit instead of keeping the revert war going. But a protect requestion could be useful also.--Fighterdoken 23:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Nah, this is fun :p Calor 23:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to think the admins would have done so already if they were active/around/attentive. So at this point, I doubt the request would get anywhere. In the meantime, we get to spam RC. Yay? — THARKUN 23:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly the reason why I say we need more sysops :P --Shadowphoenix 00:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

But that would ruin our fun! Lord Belar 00:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) But then what would we do for kicks? ;) *Defiant Elements* +talk 00:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Yes, but is hard to get more when all your candidates end in a revert war with a wanna-be raptors :).--Fighterdoken 00:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't care :D Calor 00:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) What about me *sniff* --Shadowphoenix 00:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that is a problem, isn't it? :P *Defiant Elements* +talk 00:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

hehe, why is it that everytime I mention my user rights it ends a discussion :P lol jk --Shadowphoenix 00:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The answer should be obvious. Lord Belar 00:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh I was just kidding, dont go all serious on me ;o) lol --Shadowphoenix

Thank you for proving me right. Lord Belar 00:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

huh? --Shadowphoenix 00:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Pwned. — ク Eloc 貢 15:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

huh?

"i am not hearing thriller, and you can't prove the opposite" huh? --Shadowphoenix 06:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Blame lensor and his template... trying to see if it can be cleaned up, but the link to mini-pet will not be removed sadly actually is easier to just go to those 50 pages and fix the links :/.--Fighterdoken 06:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Bcrats

Since you mentioned it before, is the current solution in Guild Wars Wiki talk:Adminship/draft E acceptable to you? Backsword 05:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

If you were talking about the "bcrats as sysops" issue, i think the current draft covers the concerns i had before. I don't see any other issue with it.--Fighterdoken 05:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Humor

<3 - anja 19:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Omgomgomgomg <3 -- Brains12 \ talk 19:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

<3 <3 <3 Kokuou 19:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

huh? - Y0_ich_halt 19:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I think this maybe helpful to put things into context (turn the audio to the minimum to avoid the horrible dubbing). It originates on a Gif image from years ago... and then derived into stuff like this.--Fighterdoken 20:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Didn't realise that was why you said it... I just remembered the original quote from the film :P -- Brains12 \ talk 21:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Normal sysops?

We have those here??? :P -- Wynthyst 07:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC) (I hope anyone reading this knows it is completely a joke)

There is no such thing! - anja 07:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

It's true. (On a side note, gogo purple and turquoise sigs.) (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 07:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Guild Page Naming

Ok, if guild page naming per policy is so important how is it that Guild:Gwonline_Guild has been allowed to go on for so long. They state right in their opening paragraph that the guild's name is Guild Wars Online Guild, yet their page continues to be Gwonline Guild. I guess I'm just a little fed up that my efforts at reworking the guild page policy have been completely and totally ignored because as ab.er.Rant puts it 'guild pages are trivial', yet there is all this inconsistency in the way things are done, and enforced. Oh nvm, just found the answer to my own question. -- Wynthyst 06:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) If you take 15 seconds to check the actual page, you will see a link to a "guild of the week" article where the guild is clearly called "GWOnline Guild [GWO]", and from the text of their guild page, there is no reason to belive they are not called "Gwonline Guild" in-game (because it appears that they were more worried about the tag than the name actually).

This is not the case of the other guild page. They clearly said that there was no "The Pirates" guild in their alliance, and that they called themselves that way because of a naming pattern. What will happend if the actual guild called "The Pirates" tries to create their page?. The in-game name part of the policy is there to avoid naming conflicts, and has to be followed.

As a last note, the discussion on the guild policy relates to content mainly, and the extension to which we want to police it. Naming, as per the way game integration works, is and cannot be in discussion here.--Fighterdoken 06:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, in that case, there should be no discussion about it, no 'suggestion that it be moved' it should just be moved to bring it into compliance. -- Wynthyst 07:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but i am not actually sure about which guild of the alliance they would want to move the article (or if it will be moved at all instead of just deleted and recreated again), so it's up to the will of the main editor to decide the final destination.--Fighterdoken 08:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

guideline policy

The policy stating how and whether guidelines need to be followed that you asked for at the guild policy talk page does exist: Guild Wars Wiki:Guidelines. --Xeeron 08:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

No Content tagging

To alleviate your obvious issues with the guild page tagging I'm doing, I've gone back through all of the tags I've placed, and removed them from any page that has any info beyond the name of the guild. If you can give me even ONE benefit to the wiki the truly blank guild articles offer, I will stop until such time as consensus can be reached on changes to the guild article policy.-- Wynthyst 13:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Simple, to document that a guild under that name "exists". In any case, that is not really what ticked me off, but the fact that there was too much different criteria applied while tagging. By example, there was a page previously tagged for cleanup where the tag was removed by an admin because under the "it meets formatting" reasoning, but you just ignored it and tagged it again.

In the same topic, "blank pages" (that is, pages that include the formatting but with no actual content) would probably be better being tagged as {{guild-stub}} (as in, not enough info) instead of {{guild cleanup}} (as in, no formating, which is not true). And you also must note that several of the pages tagged were already close to meet the "6 months mark", and thus being deleted, but after the edits we will have to wait 6 more months maybe.--Fighterdoken 18:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Guild Stub House of BloodRose

Hey wondering if you could have a look at this and tell me what else i need to add Guild:House Of Bloodrose--Smiley 08:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Not much as per our current standards. You could try filling the information on the infobox and upload a screenshot of your guild's cape, but as it is right now, it's safe to remove the {{guild-stub}} tag if you want to do it.--Fighterdoken 17:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

LDoA and Survivor

→ moved from User:Fighterdoken

hey, sorry for typing here, didn't know how to PM, but what is your in game name? is it fighter doken, I think I've actually figured a way for survivor+defender, but need 2 guys to test it, and if someone else needs to know, you're the only one worth it. --Prince godrik 20:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Heh, nope, Fighterdoken is the handler name i use when i don't want my real username being known :).

Regarding the other method, if you are talking about the "Academy mission 2nd part + Alesia", i don't think of it as possible because there is actually something that will stop you: "Captain Suicide" (aka, Prince Rurik). He will just keep pushing ahead, and even if you stop attacking to give time for monsters to regen, he will just keep hitting them ruining your chances of deathleveling. It may be worth giving it a shot, but i seriously doubt it is possible. After all, we don't even know if LDoA is still attainable during the Academy mission.--Fighterdoken 20:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

And would take the several mounths of death lvling time but also as non stop time, as disconnecting (turning pc off) leaves the party... well, I am leaving this discussion anyway, thanks for everything --Prince godrik 00:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

After some experimenting i came across Error 059 anyway :/ --Prince godrik 19:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe disconnecting could solve that. Remember that there is no way back from the ascalon mission, so after disconnecting and coming back you should still be there. Didn't you had problems with Rurik while testing?--Fighterdoken 23:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Notable guild tag

Can you change the variable from n to notable? As Anja pointed out, n is the standard variable for No.-- Wynthyst 05:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Was just doing that... Job queue is 4,320 (*runs away*)--Fighterdoken 05:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete

Thanks for putting the tag on. Was in the process of looking up the template for it. |Foul Bane| 01:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

NPA

very well. I hope ursan advocate isnt in breach too. It's an issue and people need to understand why. Spawnlegacy 10:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

runes/insignia price research

I finally added my major rune. With your current list, it's now quite certain that minor runes and insignia can reach a value from 25 up to 50 , major runes a value from 50 up to 100 and superior runes a value from 100 up to 200 . In other words, they can reach a value up to twice their unidentified merchant prize. I think that's worth a note on the articles, isn't it? —ZerphaThe Improver 21:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It may be a good idea if "someone" adds it, since we have data now for proving it, and a way for fast-testing if there are doubts left.

(added) Oh, forgot to add, minimum prices of 25/50/100 would only be for unindentified (or trader) versions, identified minimum prices seem to be 26/52/104.--Fighterdoken 21:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh right, that's possibly also worth mentioning. —ZerphaThe Improver 21:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Image link...

HAHAHAHA I'm such an idiot sometimes. But he had the name wrong anyway :P -- Wynthyst 22:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Heh, he probably didn't realize he had to change the image name on his userpage, and just reuploaded instead of fixing the link. It happends...--Fighterdoken 22:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Guild Page Reverting

Hi, I noticed you "reverted" some Guild Pages I recently Tagged for Cleanup because of No Content. I dont consider Pages that contain nothing more then 3 empty Headings as Pages with Content! An {{Guild infobox}} with about 3 filled fields is no content either imo. --SilentStorm 19:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Policy currently doesn't state "i don't think it's content" as a reason valid for cleanup. Pages have been deleted in the past under the grounds of "no content besides name and/or formatting", but for the most part, having information in the infobox and having any way of contact information published is considerated "content".--Fighterdoken 19:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The Reason for having Guild Pages on this Wiki is to show of/present your Guild isnt it? Tell me where Guild:Killers_Retreat or Guild:Shattered_Pride or Guild:Silly_Swedes does in any way archieve this? All those Pages are empty Pages just containing 3 empty Headings with NO Content and a more or less empty Guild infobox. No Content to me means that there is at least some sort of text describing the Guild. --SilentStorm 19:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

They all provide links to places where the information you are talking about is more than likely available. Plus, the reason for having Guild articles is to document the existance of such guilds, not to present themselves. That is what webpages are for.--Fighterdoken 19:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, we are talking about Guild articles but as far as I remember article means that there is some kind of text. I don't like to document guild boxes, that is simply not the purpose of the guild namespace. I agree with the deletion/cleanup tag. poke | talk 19:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit conflictStrange. Why do 80% of all Guild Pages discribe their Guild on the Guild Page then or provide some Information about the Guild there? An Infobox is no real Information about the Guild nor is it content imho. --SilentStorm 19:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Then you are free to re-tag them. After all, we know Poke's word is the law here.--Fighterdoken 19:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) They have information - in the infobox. Putting Kurzick in the infobox is the same as putting "We are Kurzick" text anywhere else. The information resides in the infobox itself -- it's simply a stub, it's not devoid of information. I don't think it requires {{guild cleanup}}. -- Brains12 \ talk 19:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

A Guild Page having "We are Kurzick" on the Page and nothing else would get a No Content aswell. As its no real information of the Guild itself. ie. no Description of the Guild. imo. --SilentStorm 19:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Fighterdoken and Pling here. No info is not the same as nothing under the headings. No info means no info. They even provide links to external sites, so they are of much use to people wanting to join the guild, imo. - anja 19:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

If I would like to join a guild I search for a guild either Ingame, know that particular Guild and contact the Leader/an Officer or I use Google to search for Information about the Guild or their Homepage. --SilentStorm 19:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

No information at all = cleanup. Lack of formatting = cleanup. Little information = stub. Also, we all have our different ways of contacting a guild or finding information -- the wiki is simply just another resource for that. -- Brains12 \ talk 19:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

i'd have to agree w/brains, a stub tag is more appropriate--Sum Mesmer Guy contribs 19:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Yeah I consider those Pages "No information at all about the Guild". It doesnt seem right to have an basicly blank white Page so it goes no content. --SilentStorm 19:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Edited infobox = content = information = no guild cleanup. Sorry, but it's not about what you personally consider information; information and details, and their presence, are facts. Unless someone tells me that an infobox doesn't count as information, those guild pages do not qualify for guild cleanup. -- Brains12 \ talk 19:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit late getting into this conversation, but we have deleted all the empty pages. And by empty, I mean EMPTY. If you wish to see a required minimum content on pages, the policy needs to be changed, and there is a current change proposal in discussion. Guild Wars Wiki:Guild pages/draft 052508 -- Wynthyst 20:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

To someone who obviously knows it all

"Speaking of things killing the economy... Maybe i am wrong, but before EotN ectos were usually at 4.5-5k each. Now, months after ursanway, ectos are... you guess, 4.5-5k each... dang, they really ruined the economy. I am sure the change to SF for PvE will ruin the economy as much as ursan has XD.--Fighterdoken 22:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)" gg kyle, ectos went down to 3k

Check the article about Shadow Form to find the reasons why is not Ursan's fault :)... Or what, didn't you saw prices suddendly rising back to 5k after the patch, when all people thought favor had run out? :).--Fighterdoken 19:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

lol i know it isnt ursans fault, u wrote that to me when shadowform was buffed and i said it would ruin the economy. unless that last sentence isnt sarcasm as i assumed it was then.. gg read "i would like to thank you" section under the game updates discussion the for the day when shadowform was buffed (game updates/20080522), enjoy --Arrythmia 21:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, i see. Sorry, i thought this was just another "ursan" rant XD.

About the SF issue, yes, my prediction was totally wrong, but you have to admit that part of the blame for prices also resides on speculators and general market panic. People "believes" that the market is flooded by ectos, and is trying to sell to cut losses, thus forcing the price to go even lower. This was proven true by the July 2nd patch, that made the price rise again to 4-5k within hours, until people realized that favor was still available and thus the price went to the ground again. Note that the effect for prices of the "nerf" on SF was almost imperceptible, meaning that the skill is still abused, or that indeed SF was not the only one to be blamed.--Fighterdoken 22:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

i cant say its all shadowform, but its mostly shadowform,the rest is ursan, as soon as people figured out that u can perma ele 2ndary, everyone had a field day--Arrythmia 23:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

for pointing out that warning to me. Didn't notice it there. :D Kokuou 23:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Good thing...

...that you marked that post as unsigned. Can't have that. Backsword 03:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

XD. At least i didn't told him that he should remember to sign.--Fighterdoken 05:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

sorry! I didnt mean to, I thought someone was vandalising...Ill revert it back :( (Terra Xin 00:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC))

Thanks for...

Fixing my character link. However much I thought it was working... ;). Kaleal 18:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the guild page help

→ moved from User:Fighterdoken

Thank you for cleaning up our guild page (Guild:The Nercromancers)! Another question - how do I go about renaming our guild? Thanks, 24.115.7.193 16:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

User talk:24.115.7.193

Guild roosters? I'm fine with having chickens in my guild, but even so...... XD -- WanderingTraveler 03:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, i thought the message would just burn in hell, so it's better if it has some meat on it.--Fighterdoken 03:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

lol, nice. -- WanderingTraveler 03:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

"unreal" moves

D'oh, i caused a disorder with Hand Axe (Tyrian), Hand Axe (tyrian) and Hand Axe and the according talk pages... now the original articles are saved on Hand Axe (tyrian). Hand Axe should get deleted then, Hand Axe (tyrian) reverted, and then moved to Hand Axe, right? —ZerphaThe Improver 22:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Head spinning ... @_@ (but something like than, i think)--Fighterdoken 22:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Wait, no. Tyrian was moved right, Canthan is what is wrong. (added) But yeah, now Hand Axe also needs to be G4'ed so Tyrian can be moved over there...--Fighterdoken 22:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Well, i planned doing it on my own, but i wasn't able to move the pages properly as they already existed. But according to you deletition content, i should wait until a sysop deletes the other pages as i otherwise couldn't move the pages with their history to the new pagename. Or at least i don't know how to do so —ZerphaThe Improver 22:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

(added)So G4 is a tag especially created for creating pages moved? —ZerphaThe Improver 22:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Nope, G4 is for maintenance. About the other, yeah, just tag Hand Axe and Hand Axe (Canthan) for speedy/G4, and after they are deleted you can move Hand Axe (Tyrian) and Hand Axe (canthan) without problems.--Fighterdoken 22:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

ok, done. thanks :) —ZerphaThe Improver 22:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

1RR

"Also, note that first edits (that means, the moment at which the information is added) also count as a "revert" for these purposes." - No, they don't. Adding content is not reverting anything. From the policy:

A revert, in this context, means undoing, in whole or in part, the actions of another editor or of other editors. This includes both removing something an editor has added and adding back in something an editor has removed, but not changing, rewording, rearranging, or consolidating information that is not a change to a previous version, nor adding something new to the page.

My bolding. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 08:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe i expressed myself wrong, but you may want to check the talk pages where this issue was discussed. As far as i remember, if i add something, and someone else reverts its, i just can't re-add it again under 1RR... That, unless things have changed since the last time i checked.--Fighterdoken 08:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

You could always re-add it, once, ever since 1RR was adopted as policy (and there wasn't a revert policy at all before that). The concept of 1RR is that each person gets one revert, including the original author. It was intentionally designed to favor addition of content over deletion of content. Feel free to look through the talk page (and/or archives) of GWWT:1RR - you'll find discussions on this very topic there. However, the policy is very clear: addition of new content is not a revert. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 08:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, i see there was, indeed, further discussion added in the talk page.--Fighterdoken 08:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

copyvio

[1] - of course it's a copyvio, but it's just epic win. - Y0_ich_halt 21:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

?

Why move misplaced userpages to a bunch of semirandom names? Either move to userspace or delete. Backsword 05:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Hold on, give me one minute to check my crystal ball and see what the hell are you talking about...

I see... i see... ArenaNet:Guild Wars 2 suggestions/Customizable Race Specialization/Charr: The High Legions? The article was created in the main namespace, and the link for creation was at ArenaNet:Guild Wars 2 suggestions/Customizable Race Specialization. I thought it was natural to move it as a sub-page of such article instead of just tagging it for deletion, but historial shows that a couple of minutes after being moved, the original author recreated the pages on its own userspace instead, and then changed the links on the main article as to point to his userpage instead of the sub-pages where the content was moved. Hey, historial helps to understand things :).--Fighterdoken 05:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Guild cleanup tags

Heya Fighterdoken, I see you are tagging pages for cleanup. Only newly created pages should be tagged for cleanup prior to the September deadline indicated in the guild notice box. Existing pages get 6 weeks to make changes for the new policy. Sorry if this is confusing.-- Wyn 22:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me guess... Wrong automated-message template? XD

Nope, i am not tagging pages for cleanup, i am removing cleanup tags from pages that, even with the new policy, still are not "cleanup-able" since they do include contact information.--Fighterdoken 22:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh duh, you are removing cleanup tags.... sorry, I'm just stressed I think -- Wyn 22:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Lmao I knew you would come and do that :P You're just crazy... Anyways since I expected you to come I double / tripple Tagged them :P --SilentStorm 22:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• sigh* You dont like the Cleanup Template do you? http://wiki.guildwars.com/index.php?title=Guild:Les_Gardiens_Du_Phenix&diff=0&oldid=1049174 -> You would like that eh? *sigh* --SilentStorm 22:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Nah, i just hate careless mass-tagging (i have had fights with Wyn about that too :P), nothing personal against cleanups. In any case, as Wyn pointed above, it seems better to hold on cleanups until the amout of time given to guilds for updating their articles expires.--Fighterdoken 22:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Noticeboard

Yeah, wiki's screwed up. I didn't intentionally remove any comments. I was trying to add a test comment to see if the page purged and displayed the recent comments. It did, but I somehow inadvertently managed to remove two comments while I was testing. Anyhow, thanks for fixing. Calor 03:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you can achieve the same by doing a null edit -- click edit and then save, without adding anything else. -- Brains12 \ talk 14:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

archive

you might want to archive this talk page — Seru Talk 22:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Nah, i don't want to end in {{moved}} war with the "first" lovers... (but in any case, yeah, 1 year of comments might be a bit too much).--Fighterdoken 22:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

what about only archiving half? thats what Zerpha does. — Seru Talk 00:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm

Nah. =P RitualDoll 02:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC) RitualDoll 02:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC) RitualDoll 02:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC) RitualDoll 02:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC) RitualDoll 02:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC) RitualDoll 02:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC) RitualDoll 02:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC) RitualDoll 02:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC) --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:RitualDoll (talk).

Guild page translation

Heya, could you go back and summarize the additional wall of text that has been placed on Guild:Danzantes Del Fuego? Of course she waited until you were done to add it all. -- Wyn 06:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Nope, thanks. I already did more than enough for a guild article whose main editor is active every day in the wiki, which has made clear that he knows enough english to do it himself, which has expresed a lot of issues with the fact of the wiki being "english only" (ignoring any rational explanation), and that has made clear that is not willing to abide to the policy himself.

Just as an extra, i will translate you the last statement he left on his guild page: "By the way, what a funny english translation did they put us, what it says has nothing to do with what we say in spanish, but well, we don't give a damn.".--Fighterdoken 07:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

K Fighterdoken, thank you very much. And also thank you for the translations you have done. It is appreciated. -- Wyn 07:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way, if you get some time take a look at Guild talk:Los Guerreros Que Dicen Nii. Even google should be able to translate the guild page if you want to double-check it.

As i said in the talk page, the guild article states that they disbanded, so if you think it's worth, i can still salvage what content is useful there to make it a proper guild article instead of the whole LoL mess that it is right now.--Fighterdoken 07:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

If it says they've disbanded, it should be moved to Historical, with an English summary of what useable information there is, and the Spanish stuff can be filtered to only what is relevant historically. -- Wyn 07:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, will need a full rewrite even for the spanish sections, though. On it now.--Fighterdoken 07:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Category_talk:Guilds

Hi, I found your comment regarding Multilingual and International guilds on Category_talk:Guilds and thought you might be interested to participate in discussion about my proposal that can be found here User:HH_LEADER/Guild_Categories. Although I have created a multilingual category, it's not enough. Leave your comment on that discussion if still interested. Thanks.--HH LEADER talk 20:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)