User talk:Lemming64/Archive0707

RFA

I have nominated you for sysop at GWW:RFA. I think you'd be great so I hope you accept! :) - BeX 04:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the nomination bex! :) --Lemming64 15:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Shing Jea Arena (arena)

would u be ok w/ moving this article's name just "Shing Jea Arena" and mentioning the beginner arena in the infobox and article? right now, this is the only map that is named this way. i've been discussing changing the infobox to allow display of allowed levels, so once that is done, if u don't have objections, i'd like to move the article. --VVong|BA 21:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I have replied on the article talk page, but I have no objections. :) --Lemming64 21:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Question

Hey, Lemming...is there anyway yo can lock my guild page from everyone exept me and two of my guild friends? Rein Of Terror 17:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

No there isn't I am afraid. An admin may protect the page from edits in exceptional circumstances but that would only allow other admins to edit it. Generally other users will be watching recent changes for obvious vandalism and revert that fairly quicky, apart from that it is up to you to stop your own guild members from making other changes by the use of your in game guild announcement or forum and your own guild rules. If other wiki users are editing your page who are not members you may report them for breaking policy in which case they may face suspension for repeated offences. Hope that helps. --Lemming64 17:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. I was just curious. Rein Of Terror 17:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I'm happy to answer questions I know the answer to :) --Lemming64 18:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Another Question: Are we allowed to post a Guild Meeting, or Annoucments on here? --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Rein Of Terror .

No, the intention for the wiki guild pages is that they remain relatively static, hence the policy stating that rosters and other notices for contacting members are now allowed as they would change frequently. The article should be in it's nature encyclopaedic. --Lemming64 18:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't edit conflict me xD

Bad Lemming!=P Vengeance Signet 23:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Mess with the best, die like the rest. :) --Lemming64 23:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, oh btw, is that page alright? I've been working on Senji's Corner. Improved Akane and started Inugami...Vengeance Signet 23:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It look's ok to me, I was just fixing a glaring mistake though :) I would check it against the formatting guidelines here if you want to be certain. I would check myself but I don't have time right now. The only other thing I would suggest is to add the NPC stub if you are unsure if there is something missing. --Lemming64 23:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. ^^ --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Vengeance Signet .

congrats

.BLASTEDT 02:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. - Tanetris 02:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Hooray! :) *cheers* - BeX 02:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Woo freaky, logged on this morning and there is all these new buttons. :) I wonder what this one does.... Just kidding! thanks everyone who vote for me. --Lemming64 06:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Damn, there goes the neighborhood -FireFox File:Firefoxav.png 06:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Grats Lemming :) - anja 20:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

pve skill categories

wanted to draw ur attention to something that needs input since u were editing this area. currently the sunspear and allegiance rank skills (not lb skills) have a parameter: pve-only = yes. the purpose of this parameter was to place the skill in the pve-only category. however, any skill that uses attributes of pve title rank are already contained in the pve-only category under their respective subcategories. so in effect they would be in the main category and the subcategory. but the only skills which are currently like that are the lb skills because those are the only skills which use the parameter correctly. i.e pve-only = y. i'm suggesting that we take out the pve-only parameter on sunspear, lb and allegiance rank skills so they aren't redundantly categorized (or have useless parameter values). what do u think? --VVong|BA 14:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

AoD

AoD wasn't a redirect, but whatev... :P I didn't see any speedy fitting that one, so I didn't delete it. - anja 19:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It was basically a redirect, just not done in the redirect format :) --Lemming64 19:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

In fact I could definitely argue the case for A1 if it came down to it. --Lemming64 19:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

True, not really appropriate content. I guess my real reason was laziness and wanting the user to know it was going to be deleted. :P - anja 19:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

6000000000mph

dude, wtf?, i pressed the save button and the page loaded with No file by this name exists, you can upload it. ~ Kurd 22:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

What, I'm confused, you tagged your image for speedy deletion. So I deleted it. --Lemming64 22:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I tagged it for delete, i press save and before the page loaded again, the image was gone. You work fast ;) ~ Kurd 22:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah right, got you. It was actually complete luck, I just happened to check the speedy deletion category at that second I guess :) --Lemming64 22:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

speedy

I'd have to disagree with your recent speedy deletion of Gey - even though it fairly obviously doesn't belong on the wiki, it was hardly patent nonsense (thus, G1 would not apply), and it was a NPOV article (while the term might be offensive, the article itself was not) - thus not falling under G5. It should have been subject to the standard deletion process. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 23:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

why would we post internet slang (although ive never, ever seen gey used) on a guild wars wiki? commonly used ingame terms, sure, but stuff like that is now related to GW in any way and should not be on this site. - 75.75.148.44 23:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

We wouldn't. However, that doesn't mean we can skirt the deletion policy, which states that unless something falls under one of a few strict speedy deletion categories, it should be subject to the standard deletion process (tagging, allowing 3 days for discussion, then final decision). Quoted from said policy:

Non criteria

* Pages of content that is deemed inappropriate by some user(s), but not explicitly forbidden by any policy. If it is not covered by policy or the application of policy is questionable, the General Deletion process should be used instead.

(Aiiane - talk - contribs) 23:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree Aiiane, in the sense of a wiki about guild wars I would say that term is nonsense and thus qualifies for G1, unless we are agreeing to document every term used in pvp discussion which seems a tad irelevent to me (I see the merits of the ones which may be useful as descriptions of tactics etc and accept those whole heartedly, but the terms of abuse are not however NPOV they may be). --Lemming64 23:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

No one said we're agreeing to document anything. The standard deletion process is still a deletion process, and the end result is still that it goes away. Patent nonsense is just that: "cat rubber spoon bumblebee". (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 23:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I see your point of view. If you strongly feel it should go through the 3 day period then by all means restore the page. I still believe I did more good than harm though, if that was another attempt by the same people who started the Battle Lion page that got madly out of hand (as I believe it probably was) to stir up more friction, then a Speedy may have just saved us an awful lot of time, so by exercising some discretion in bending the rule (as you see it), may have indeed been prudent. However if you believe I have gone to far by all means you won't offend my by recovering it. --Lemming64 23:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

We should add articles like that to the speedy deletion page. Letting the article stand for 3 days does nobody any good. -Auron 00:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, after reading the deleted article, my interpretation is that it did fail the NPOV test in attempting to credit a particular user for the creation of a little-to-unknown known slang term - but that in itself does not qualify for speedy deletion from what I see in the policy. So while I consider the content entirely irrelevant to the main article space (although potentially appropriate on a user space entry someplace), I also view it as not qualifying under any of the currently established criteria for speedy deletion and it should remain for three days in order to follow established policies and procedures. From what I see in the policy, deleting it without waiting the three days appears to technically be a violation of policy - not that I disagree with deletion, I just fail to see where policy currently supports speedy deletion. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

We have started a discussion here about adding/or altering the policy to gives us more clarification for a situation like this. --Lemming64 00:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

well, if i did a bit more research, i would have seen that junundu and celestial skills are already setup similar to what i'm proposing. if u don't object, i'll just go ahead and start removing the parameter. --VVong|BA 14:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

That sounds fine to me, it is a tricky one though, it sounds like maybe the auto-categorisation parameter in the template is useless if that is the case. --Lemming64 14:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

i had the same thought and concern. there would still be 3 skills that use the parameter. i mentioned the double categorization issue in the skill infobox template talk page. i suppose we could put the 3 remaining skills in a misc pve-only skills subcategory and remove the auto-cat parameter... --VVong|BA 14:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Yet, another question

Lemming...is there anyway to change your signature? --Rein Of Terror 21:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

No there isnt!! your bound to your standard siggie!!!, *cough* look here --> GWW:SIGN ~ Kurd 21:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

lol, thanks --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Rein Of Terror .

Newbie help

You stole my newbiehelp line! ~ Kurd 17:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I just copied it for that instance as it seemed like it was his friend, I haven't actually stolen it... yet ;) --Lemming64 17:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Tabs

Hey dude can you teach me how to do those tabs?Hells 15:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty complicated, you need to make about 10 different sub pages. --Lemming64 21:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you teach me like on vent sometime?Hells 21:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I can try but if you can't figure it out from the code on my page and the sub-pages it is going to be tricky to explain. --Lemming64 17:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Lemi Winks

mind if i steal that char box from you? =) Skakid9090 00:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure, it was not me who originally created it, I'm just using the template. --Lemming64 00:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Eloc Jcg#asfd

That past the line?--§ Eloc § 05:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Cough Cough

We miss you in the guild! Never see you around.... Now that you are a big deal on the wiki we never see you. ;-( And just like on the show "Little Britain" You use to be the only Englishman in the village. ROFL---White wasabi 22:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Lol was on vacation this week! no computer! :( --Lemming64 22:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

RE: Blanking

You wrote: Please do not blank talk pages. --Lemming64 00:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC) Ive edited my pages as per guild wiki policy and consider the matter closed. Unless you can point out a specific policy concerning blanking talk pages, I shall edit my Guild page as I please. Anita Blochob 00:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)Anita Blochob

It is mentioned in this policy here Guild_Wars_Wiki:User_page#User_talk_page_restrictions as an overall rule for all talk pages, it is the rule here that unless the content is offensive it should remain on the talk page, or an archive of it. --Lemming64 00:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Ladytemp Section

Old guild "Amagawd Dx" isn't disbanded, my other account holds it.. It's still alive technically.. I just have a different leader assigned to it. :) 『♥LadyTemp♥』 23:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Well one of your members Doll has tagged it for deletion, if you would like to keep the page which you are entitled to do, you can remove the tag, otherwise just leave it and the page will be removed in due course. Up to you really. --Lemming64 23:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Sea Turtle With Lasers

DON'T DENY THEIR EXISTENCE! -FireFox File:Firefoxav.png 23:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

haha, I wish :p --Lemming64 23:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)