User talk:Rezyk/Archive 1

Hey :) — Skuld 00:40, 8 February 2007 (PST)

Congrats

Congrats are in order are they not? Having only conversed with you a few times, I look forward to working with you a bit more ;) --Xasxas256 01:08, 8 February 2007 (PST)

Hey guys, thanks for the warm welcome. I'm really looking forward to working with everyone again. =) --Rezyk 14:28, 8 February 2007 (PST)

Good to see you on the official wiki ... so, does this mean that the Wikia GW wiki is without a steward for now again? :-) --Barek 11:25, 9 February 2007 (PST)

Well, you didn't leave GuildWiki, did you? =) My current thinking is: I'll continue my position there for now. Assuming that the development of this wiki goes smoothly, I'll see if anyone is interested in continuing work on that project. Assuming that nobody does, and that I finish all of my intended uses of it, I'll bring up the issue of its status with the Wikia staff and see if they want to close it. --Rezyk 23:11, 11 February 2007 (PST)

Skills

Can you please capitalize the names of skills? I've gone through the List of skills by use or whatever, and I'm capitalizing almost everything. Anyways, I need someone to help me, I'm gonna eat BlastedtGuildWiki page 09:52, 11 February 2007 (PST)

Hi Blastedt. I'll certainly title-cap skill names on any content I directly generate on this wiki, presuming that is the consensus way of having it. The only reason it wasn't done on that content is because that work wasn't originally created directly for this wiki. Sorry for any headache I've caused you; I'll lend a hand with it. A question, though: When I have content that I think is useful for the wiki but I know doesn't conform to the consensus format, should I submit it? --Rezyk 23:11, 11 February 2007 (PST)

Submit it, but fix it first? BLASTEDT 12:48, 19 February 2007 (PST)

Images

You still can't undelete images in MediaWiki. :P --Rainith 17:12, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Thank you for experimenting on Guild Wars Wiki. :P As you have just found out, you can't restore images, which is why you need to be careful when you delete them. — Gares 17:19, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

That's what I originally thought too, but Wikipedia undeletion policy (and its talk page, especially) seems to indicate that Wikipedia can do it now. (Come on guys, don't I generally do my homework? =) --Rezyk 18:32, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I noticed they said something similar on another page (Deletion process maybe? not sure), but the link they provided on that page was dead (404). I'll look a little bit more tonight if I have time. According to what I saw it looked like they've been able to undelete images since last summer, but I know we're using a more recent version of MW then that so it might be an add-on. --Rainith 13:55, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

I think this is the corrected URL for that dead link: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2006-June/026851.html . Not a lot of info there either, though. --Rezyk 19:35, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

I found more info on this, and posted Guild Wars Wiki talk:Requests for technical administration#Enabling image undeletion. --Rezyk 07:11, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Once upon a time I uploaded "my" mission map of Sunjiang District Mission here to the official wiki. It was the very same version I uploaded to guildwiki. The deletion log showed you did delete that image here again "(deletion unopposed for 12 days; potential copyright violation)". I have no clue what that means in detail. If it's only due to license issues between guildwiki and official wiki then, well, guess why I uploaded it myself to the official wiki again?! I'd appreciate to hear a "no, don't do that again because XYZ" or "ok, go ahead, upload it again" from you. Thanks T.T.H. 03:44, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

I will answer, because I requested the deletion. You haven't released your contributions in Guildwiki by adding the appropriate user box to your page. So while you say you're you, we can't show that and can't know that we really have permission to use that image. If you add the {{GFDL}} template to your user page on guild wiki you are most welcome to put the image back in this wiki. :) --Aspectacle 04:03, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Thank you very much, both for detailed answer (hope I "GFDL-ed" it correctly) as for "image overwrite permission" T.T.H. 06:56, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Your contibutions are now licensed under both GFDL and Creative Commons. You can transfer any contributions you have made, i.e. the map, over to this site now. — Gares 07:33, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Subpages disabled in "Guild Wars Wiki" namespace?

Hi, can you help confirm something that I'm suspecting? I noticed that "subpages" in the Guild Wars Wiki namespace don't show links back to their parent page (like what we get in the user namespace). I hadn't thought anything of this at first, until I tried using the "magic word" {{BASEPAGENAMEE}} in a template, and it just pointed to itself from what should have been a subpage. From this, I'm guessing that subpages are disabled in that namespace, but I'm not sure how to confirm. Any suggestions on how to verify? Or does it take someone with server access to confirm? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 13:06, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

It looks to me like you'd need server access for confirmation beyond what you've already noticed. Also, according to http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:%24wgNamespacesWithSubpages#1.5.0_and_above , we should expect that GWW subpages are off by default (since there is no "NS_PROJECT => true" line). --Rezyk 13:40, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Ah. Well, that adds a kink to archiving issues from the bug reporting article then. In your opinion, should we just work around it, or try requesting ArenaNet to investigate activating subpages for that namespace? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:00, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm definitely for trying to get ArenaNet to enable it. It seems like it should be a really simple one-line fix (add "$wgNamespacesWithSubpages[NS_PROJECT] = true;" to LocalSettings.php) and shouldn't need any major consideration like extensions do. Of course, we should get community opinion in Guild Wars Wiki talk:Requests for technical administration first. =) I'll get that process started if you want. --Rezyk 14:28, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Feel free to start the process. Thanks! --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:39, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Discussions

We've had a wonderful time, though at times frustrating, discussing certain proposals. I want to make sure you know that you know our back and forth is not meant for any animosity between us. Just two strong-willed individuals stressing each others' ideas regarding certain issues. I hope you feel the same way and are not taking anything personal during this discussions. I got the feeling last night that you may have been, and I wanted to make sure you know that when I am commenting on something you have written, it is meant to prove the point on the subject and not the man that wrote the passage. I'm sure we will be "butting heads" on more issues over time, so I hope you agree with me about this. Cheers! :D — Gares 13:25, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Generally it's all good, although especially frustrating whenever we end up arguing over semantics. =) sHeck, I consider it one of the main advantage of the social status I aimed for to know that my controversial proposals will always be scrutinized and discussed thoroughly. There was one recent comment that really troubled me though (where I responded that it was "so wrong"), in that I thought it hit below the belt and propagated some bad/wrong impressions. If you want, I could explain what I thought was wrong about it. (or maybe it'd be better to discuss it another time, or drop it altogether)

In any case, I'd also like to try cutting down a bit on the lengthy debates between us, just out of concern that they put off other users from voicing as many general comments as they would otherwise. (Does that make sense?) Of course, this may be easier said than done, especially when sysop powers is a potentially looming issue. =) Maybe I'll wait for some more general opinions before getting deep into the debate? I don't know; just giving you an idea of my tentative plans, and so you know it's not out of personal animosity/frustration with you. It'd be nice to find more issues you and I agree on too, simply so we're not always butting heads with each other. --Rezyk 20:21, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Hey, we agree on something. :D I don't like arguing over semantics either and I do think our discussions probably do dissuade others from voicing their opinions as well. I posted the original message to make sure you know that our interactions are just discussions and nothing more. I don't like arguing with anyone at all. It doesn't solve anything, except to raise tensions between those involved.

My philosophy is that I am a contributor first and an admin second. I don't like to even mention I am an admin, as that might make users act differently than they normally would. I've been thinking the same thing regarding topic discussions. I want to get back to my roots of why I joined GWiki in the first place. To add and make sure content is correct and to try and keep the community a peaceful, fun, and productive place. I look at GWW and GWiki the same as my workplace. There I try to make sure everyone is happy, joke around with them, and they can talk to me about anything, more of a friend than a boss I guess. I feel the same way here.

I remember your comment about "that is just wrong", and I'm not quite sure which part offended you. If you would like to discuss it, please don't just let it go. Since it is something between us and you may not want to discuss it openly on here, you can find my contact information here. I don't want you to think I did you wrong in any way. — Gares 08:54, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

If it's all right, I'll probably continue this discussion later, on this talk page. Too much to do right now and I don't want to tie you up either. =) --Rezyk 12:05, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Speedy deletion of Guild Wars 2 article

I believe the Guild Wars 2 article was inproperly deleted. The information is from the May 2007 PC Gamer article, and PC Gamer is one of ArenaNet's official media partners. -- Gordon Ecker 23:40, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

My understanding of consensus is that we speedy delete these kind of articles which are improperly sourced (and it didn't mention PC Gamer anywhere). I'll restore it and add a delete tag instead, so it can have a chance to be fixed up with the proper source. --Rezyk 23:46, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Thank you. If all it needed was proper sources all of which are available I can provide those because none of the assertions on the page were rumours - many of the salient points have also been backed up by Gaile's forum posts during the day. --Aspectacle 23:51, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Thanks. If I hadn't already seen the forum thread I probably would've made the same assumption. -- Gordon Ecker 01:11, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Categories

Urgh, thanks for confusing me even more than I already was about those creature pages. :P

Guild Wars Wiki:Formatting/NPCs#Categorization seems to suggest to use the (Bosses) suffix, (e.g. Category:White Mantle (Bosses), and not Category:White Mantle bosses). I'm assuming that's wrong? Dirigible 13:37, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Heh, I was going by Guild Wars Wiki:Formatting/Article names#Disambiguation identifiers. Another contradiction in guidelines to resolve... --Rezyk 13:41, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Quick question

What is the code to make a link to an outside website w/o the arrow caused by using single brackets? Also what is the accepted practice on using that vs. the brackets? I'm just curious.  :) --Rainith 01:53, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Use the class "plainlinks", applied to some span (or div, table cell, etc) around the text that uses single brackets. Example: <span class="plainlinks">Visit [http://www.guildwars.com GuildWars.com]!</span> For accepted practice, none that I know of is decided on this wiki. A common baseline might be "only use it for external link code that is actually linking to an internal page" (like "[{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Special:Log|type=delete}} Deletion log]"). --Rezyk 02:57, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Reverting vs deleting copyvio edits

I noticed you're simply reverting those copyvio edits. I was under the impression that the actual common practice with those was to delete the article, then restore all revisions minus the copyvio one. Simply reverting it leaves the copyvio version in the history. --Dirigible 12:19, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

If other admins choose to do that, I probably wouldn't mind, but I'm not comfortable with doing that myself for a few reasons:

1. Now that we have a deletion policy, I generally try to limit using my ability-to-delete to the ways explained there. (Otherwise, what's the point of even maintaining a policy? =)
2. I don't know for sure that everything I revert is a copyright violation. Sure, in 99% of cases like this, it probably is. But as far as I know, one of the edits might be something that the user authored himself on GuildWiki. Before I could do speedy deletion on these, I'd (personally) feel obligated to take more time and do a thorough examination of each case (and even then I wouldn't really know). With reverts, I'm comfortable with just doing a cursory check as it shouldn't be as big of a deal if I make a mistake and I can get through a lot more. And since 1RV is not in effect, the user can easily put their content back when I am mistaken about the violation status (which I have been, a few times). ;)
3. Frankly, I'm not sure if the practice of deletion is really necessary at all. The revert removes the violation from our primary content, and if/when anyone complains about a particular violation in the history pages, we should be able to easily get it removed. Without strong reason to delete, I'd generally favor a practice that allows normal users to deal with violations themselves and move on without leaving a giant delete tag on the page, at least for pages that have had copyright-okay content. Maybe if the practice of simply-reverting is interfering with those who really want to remove violations from histories, we could consider making a small template {{history-copyvio}} that we could slap on the page (or its talk page) after reverting?

--Rezyk 13:24, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Or to put it another way: I guess I'm mildly opposed to the delete-restore practice, but not enough to make a fuss about it. If consensus is to do it that way, fine, but I might try to help here just as a user rather than a sysop, or wait until it's discussed and changed in deletion policy. --Rezyk 13:39, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Hey, I happen to come across this and that was actually talked about last night on another admin's talk page. — Gares 14:29, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

I think it's very important that we make it clear for everyone whether deleting a copyright infringing revision from an article's history is necessary or not. If it is necessary, then sysops need to do their magic. If it isn't necessary, then it means that even us non-sysops can revert these copyvio edits, making everything move along faster. Furthermore, if it isn't necessary, then tampering needlessly with an article's history shouldn't happen, as it is very heavy-handed action that shouldn't be taken lightly.

Both Wikipedia:Copyright violations on history pages and Wikipedia:Page history#Copyright status state that reverting to a clean revision of the article is in fact sufficient, and that there is no need to delete the entire article unless there's no clean revision to revert to, or if the copyright holder requests for that information to be removed even from the history. That's good enough for me. It would be great if this was mentioned at Guild Wars Wiki:Copyrighted content#Dealing with copyright violations, because right now that section says that the copyvio article will be deleted. Having these things written down clearly on policy pages gives us something to point at if these questions arise again.

(Somewhat unrelated, but check out http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Copyright&diff=prev&oldid=46412116 .) --Dirigible 14:54, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

I would be happy if a revert was sufficient as that would get some workloadoff from the admins. We aren't machines you know. :) -- (gem / talk) 17:18, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Hmm, Guild Wars Wiki:Copyrighted content does say that, doesn't it.. (my own fault, I wrote that without intending that it would apply in these cases) I agree that we should iron this out. Also, I think this is an issue that we should really get ArenaNet input on -- I guess I'll ask them on the mailing list (since there are potential legal ramifications). Basically, I'll point out this discussion and ask if they feel a need to remove all violations from histories, or are willing to leave it up to us. Once we get their input I think we should continue discussing this on Guild Wars Wiki talk:Copyrighted content. Sound okay? Or should we just have our own community discussion first? --Rezyk 17:42, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

That sounds good to me; bringing this up with ANet first seems the most sensible step to take. If they don't want copyvio articles in history, what we think about it wouldn't really matter anyways. =\ --Dirigible 02:43, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

I've sent the question. --Rezyk 11:40, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

If there's no objection/opposition, I'll continue doing reverts for now since it doesn't seem like it would hurt our ability to also clean the history. (And if any sysop wants to also clean the history of violations, I am not objecting) --Rezyk 17:42, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Request to move an image

I can move an article, but apparently cannot move an image. Will you plese move Image:FarmerHoggit.jpg to Image:UserFarmerHoggit.jpg and Image:DireWarpigBabe.jpg to Image:UserDireWarpigBabe.jpg? Thanks in advance. Banaticus 19:59, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

No one can move an image, not even admins. =\ It'll need to be reuploaded with the new name, and the old pic tagged for deletion. --Dirigible 20:04, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Right, what Dirigible said. I can try to help just as a regular user, though. =) I'll reupload those under a proper name for you (which I think is supposed to be Image:User_Banaticus_*). --Rezyk 21:09, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Article names

As our resident article name expert, I'd like to ask what this article should be called. Is the current name sufficient? I get the feeling we're moving away from using "quick references" though so I thought I'd check. - BeX 04:11, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I'd actually merge that page into rare crafting material. It's not such a huge list that it would overwhelm that article. If it didn't get merged, I'd rename it "List of rare crafting materials" and let it grow into a more general reference (with columns for "where to get it", "what it can be used in", "merchant sell value", etc, rather than just the artisan crafting aspect). This is just my personal preference though, not necessarily our accepted naming scheme (which hasn't been ratified yet). So far, it seems to be just me who is particularly against "quick reference" and have been slowly renaming them into "list of ..", although I haven't seen any opposition to that either (only some mention of dropping the "list of" altogether). --Rezyk 04:50, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, I merged it, but because I did this I combined it with the existing table, and added the non-craftable rare materials. It turned out a lot longer than it originally was. Putting that added information in may or may not be a great idea at this point, but I'm working on it more now. - BeX 05:23, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Finding a Rezyk

I think that you're going to get a lot more popular now that people don't have to pay four gemstones to unlock you as a Hero. -- Dashface 21:45, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Destruction seems a natural part of the human condition. --Rezyk 22:20, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Thanks

...for moving my proposals to the right user space... stupid me forgot that little User: in front of article name. - MSorglos 03:54, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

Admin noticeboard

Hi (we need to figure out a way get that installed...) Just letting you know about the admin noticeboard, in case you hadn't seen it already. :) --Dirigible 18:11, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, I saw it. Nice job. =) --Rezyk 18:13, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

DPL

Hey Rezyk, the discussion at MediaWiki talk:Common.css has got onto DPL and I wondered if you could provide some input, since I'm not 100% sure of its abilities :) Thanks. LordBiro 04:12, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Hot topics

Hey there, I was just about to create an entry for the "fanbased content" discussion on the hot topic list, when I saw that there was one which you removed. Any reasoning for that? It looks pretty hot to me. --Xeeron 10:09, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

At the time, the topic had been inactive for over 2 weeks. I have no objection to having it re-added now. --Rezyk 12:21, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

Categorize parameter

Hey Rezyk, I can see why you added this parameter, but I am a little nuts about parameters, in case you hadn't noticed already :) Would you be opposed to altering the parameter name to be more descriptive of the reasoning behind the behaviour? i.e. user-page-skill = yes or something? LordBiro 19:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but I really dislike that name. =P I agree that it may sometimes be better to fold more reasoning into the template, but I can't see it in this case. Consider that "user-page-skill=yes" really isn't encompassing enough -- the no-categorization effect is also handy for usage in talk pages (throwing up an example infobox in the middle of a discussion) and sandbox experimentation. But then to encapsulate that too, it seems harder to come up with a phrasing that's still nice and succinct. Experimental=y? Real=n? Main=n? To me, these all sound pretty forced and unclear (maybe you can come up with something better?). I'd also be more inclined to accept a reasoning-phrasing if/when there is another effect to be folded in with the de-categorization, but until then I think it'd be hard to beat the simplicity and clarity of "categorize=n". --Rezyk 20:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Did that convince you at all? Also, your question about CreateBox gave me another idea that I just added to {{Skill infobox}}. See how you feel about it now. --Rezyk 19:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I had some points I wanted to make about it, but I decided to leave it for now :) hehe

And your change to skill infobox makes a lot of sense! I like it :) LordBiro 19:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...don't forget that we'll probably want something similar on other infoboxes too, sooner or later. We might consider just asking GWW:RFC if you still feel strongly about changing it but (like me) don't really want to argue. =) --Rezyk 20:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

RfA

We need to get our RfA process up and running, as I feel our pool of sysops is dangerously small. Since you're the local draft policy guy, would you like to take care of it? If not, I'm totally willing to do it myself.

—Tanaric 04:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take a swing at it. It's actually been at the top of my todo list for a while (but I got a bit sidetracked by builds). --Rezyk 04:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

"but I got sidetracked by builds" Story of GW wikis? ;) (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 20:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Rezyk produced a build policy proposal that has been praised by everyone. I wouldn't call that "sidetracked" but rather "busy producing a medium sized miracle" ;-) --Xeeron 20:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Differences of articles

I tried to create a diff link like yours at the build policy draft here, but I couldnt get it to automatically use the latest Draft A version. Any idea what I need to do? --Xeeron 13:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

AFAIK, the 'oldid'-part of the URL refers to the GWW:USER/Draft A revision, while the 'current'-part refers to the GWW:USER-current article revision. --  (CoRrRan / talk) 13:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I figured out as much. However in the builds draft, Rezyk used revisionID to get the articles number, in my code line the "oldid" will have to be updated manually is the draft gets edited. --Xeeron 13:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, he used {{REVISIONID}} as a variable in the {{fullurl}}-parserfunction. Since this parses an ID of the latest revision, I think that should work on your page too. Use the following URL on the draft page:

[{{fullurl:Guild Wars Wiki:User_page|diff=current&oldid={{REVISIONID}}}} diff with Guild Wars Wiki:User_page]

That will give you a variable revision ID. --  (CoRrRan / talk) 14:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

When I tried exactly that, I got an error code, thus my posting here. --Xeeron 14:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It works on my sandbox: User:CoRrRan/Sandbox, I get a nice diff between my Sandbox and the GWW:User_page --  (CoRrRan / talk) 14:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

CoRrRan is right, you just need to use REVISIONID. The trick is that it won't work in the preview because previews don't get an ID. --Rezyk 14:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, that explains it. I was using it out of the preview and got an error message. Thx for the clarification both =) --Xeeron 16:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/131.161.79.220

Hey Rezyk, seeing as you're the last person with sysop powers online at the time I thought you might like to know of the disruptive contributions of User:131.161.79.220. --Jamie 00:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It looks like they've stopped now. --00:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

yea looks like it, probably best flag cheese as a delete just to remove the mess this stuff has caused. --Jamie 00:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The testing articles he/she created have been deleted now. --Xasxas256 00:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks for cleaning up. =) --Rezyk 00:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

NPA comment

I assume the comment at http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/User_talk:J.Kougar is is directed to me, as mine was the most recent post.

My comment was a specific reply to his statement "he's the only one to not come in acting like some twelve year old brat". However, I recognize that the policy specifically states to not reply in-kind. As such, I acknowledge my error in judgement with my post. If this was the reason for your post, and if you do view it as a policy violation, then to maintain fairness to all contributors and to show that no one is above the policy, I would request that you place a warning on my talk page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I stated it as a reminder to everyone editing or reading that discussion; yours just happened to be the most recent post. Regarding being fair: I'd of course try my best in any arbitration case, but for this, I'm a regular user concerned with just getting it to stop, and personally I often prefer an earnest reminder to an authoritative warning. --Rezyk 20:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Template question/issue

Heya Rezyk! Can you poke your head over here when you get a chance and see if you have any ideas about this issue? :) -- Emily Diehl (talk) 20:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Species talk..

Ok, I finally posted my proposal at: Talk:Species#Alternate Proposal

Let me know your thoughts. Thanks. --Karlos 03:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

List categories

Can I ask why it is Category:Assassin-related lists, but it's Category:Lists of skills rather than Category:Skill-related lists? -- ab.er.rant 03:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

IMO, "Skill-related lists" can work, but "Lists of skills" is preferable because it's more precise and explanatory. If we had enough stuff (such as a hypothetical "List of creatures with monster skills") that could fit in the former but not the latter, I'd even suggest fitting in "Skill-related lists" as a parent category of "Lists of skills". "Lists of assassins" would be preferable over "Assassin-related lists" too, except that the lists we have there can't really count as lists of assassins. --Rezyk 03:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense. Thanks. -- ab.er.rant 06:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Various Pepe-related stuff

Since you know way more about MediaWiki than I do, mind taking a look at this and adding your thoughts? MisterPepe talk 18:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts on that. I'd recommend taking a look at wikipedia:WP:CHECK - they have a really cool table ^^

Other than that, mind taking a look at/messing with Guild Wars Wiki:Bots/DraftA? I finally got around to making something less mean heavy-handed, and I know you were planning to take a crack at it too (at some point, obviously, I'm not really on the ball on this one either =P) MisterPepe talk 05:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

so call "civil disobedience" issue re: Karlos and GWW:USER

Please take a look at Guild_Wars_Wiki_talk:User_page#This_policy_is_a_load_of_Charr_Doodoo. I've posted my thoughts on that page. While I have no objection to changing the policy, I do object to any user choosing openly defy site policy just to make a point. Changes should be made through discussion, not through so-called "civil disobedience". My understanding is that sysops can not, technically, ban other sysops (can someone confirm this?) As a result, I urge the bureaucrats to treat this as this wiki's first requirement for an arbitration committee to resolve. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

First and foremost, sysops can block any user, be they standard editor, sysops, or bureaucrats. I imagine, but have not confirmed, that we can block ANet employees as well (though I hope such a need never arises!). Further, a blocked sysop can unblock himself. However Barek, before you block Karlos, I urge you to read my argument on his talk page about why I did not block him myself.

Secondly, and I hope this is not out of line, but I strongly urge the ArbComm to decline this case. This is not a user arbitration issue. That said, I have no objection to the bureaucrats considering removal of Karlos from his sysop position.

Finally, I believe this is a community issue. As it stands, we have no guidelines for enforcement of this (or most) policies. Even a community-authored policy as general as "sysops have authority to block policy offenders as they see fit" would suffice, though I strongly discourage such a general policy for our administration. I do not wish to perpetuate a GuildWiki-like authority among sysops with this (or any) issue.

—Tanaric 19:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Tanaric, a blocked sysop (at least according to MetaWiki) loses out on all administrator rights during the course of the block. I'd assume that also includes unblocking. MisterPepe talk 19:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

LordBiro managed. Maybe that's his bureaucrat powers at work, though. —Tanaric 19:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a 'crat ability, yes. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 20:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Xas claimed similar abilities on Guild_Wars_Wiki_talk:User_page#This_policy_is_a_load_of_Charr_Doodoo... LordBiro 20:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

And tanarics link shows he can back it up. --Xeeron 21:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to put myself up for reconfirmation seeing as to the number of people who believe I have failed my position. However, I do not want this to be seen as some ploy by myself to circumvent any punitive action ArbComm was going to take (let's say you guys were going to strip me of my adminship to begin with), so, I want to check with you guys first... Is it ok if I put myself up for reconfirmation? --Karlos 20:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

We are conferring on this in addition to the case in general. I believe we'll have answers for your question soon. --Rezyk 21:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I consider it perfectly fine for you to do so. Thanks for being prudent about it. --Rezyk 00:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh god....

I saw the word "refactor" in an edit comment of yours and it brought back bad bad Software Design assignment memories. Bad Rezyk!! (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 06:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Heh. BTW, Rezyk, feel free to remove the comments from that draft - they were really just there to amuse you (since I knew that you would end up editing it =P) MisterPepe talk 06:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

They were so amusing that I really didn't want to remove refactor them yet. =) --Rezyk 07:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with refactoring? REFACTORING IS GOOD!! :P LordBiro 08:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I "refactor" three or four times a day. —Tanaric 08:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Gem's reconfirmation

Since you're the bcrat that has had the most recent edit at the time of me sending you this message, I'm just letting you know that gem has failed his reconfirmation, so he needs his sysop rights revoking. --Santax (talk · contribs) 19:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Btw, I think things like this can also just be noted on the admin noticeboard, so you don't have to pick and choose a bureaucrat to notify. --Rezyk 19:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, ok, thanks :) --Santax (talk · contribs) 15:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Deleting images

Can I go about deleting those images you have moved for others, or do you want me to wait/not do it? :) - anja 23:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

It's fine with me; all I'm worried about is getting them moved before deleted. --Rezyk 00:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I always check and double check that they are moved and not linked anywhere :) - anja 00:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, in case you're wondering why I don't delete them myself: it's because I'm not supposed to delete as a bureaucrat. --Rezyk 00:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I realized that just before I asked (That's why I asked, was waiting for you to delete yourself before) - anja 00:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

sysop guide

Some people have started working on this, thought I'd leave you a note as you may find it useful, or may want to make some changes. --Xasxas256 04:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

1RR

About a month ago you expressed a few concerns over Guild Wars Wiki:One-revert rule, and I was wondering if the latest version might alleviate your concerns and gain your support, or perhaps raise new ones you'd like to see refined? Hope to see you on the relevant talk page. - Tanetris 06:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

It may take me some time, but I'll try to respond there. --Rezyk 07:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughts, I've addressed them as I see things. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 22:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to note, while the 3RR discussion is all well and good, the 1RR discussion has fallen quiet with the ball in your proverbial court. - Tanetris 02:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, working on that at this very moment. =) Sorry. --Rezyk 02:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Your sandbox2

[[Image:Guild Real Teazer groupe.jpg]] is currently pending deletions for being unused, yet it is linked to from your sandbox (as are plenty of other images). Do you have any need for those pictures/can we ignore a link from sandbox2 when deciding to delete? --Xeeron 12:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

You could safely ignore sandbox2. I've also removed the linking to make it simpler. --Rezyk 12:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for Review

(Repeated here, as I realize we have Bureaucrats in different timezones.) Can you tell me how a wiki member requests a review of another member's talk page? There is content currently on a member's page that I feel is a continuation of a personal harassment issue. I'd like to ask for administrative review, but I cannot find where there is a process or a page in order to request that review. Thanks for the info. --Gaile 16:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The closest I can find, Gaile, would be Guild Wars Wiki:No personal attacks#Recurring attacks. If you wanted to raise it at the bureaucrat level, however, it'd probably fall to contacting a bureaucrat directly, either via talk page or for more sensitive matters, private contact of whatever form that bureaucrat has made available. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 20:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

For minor issues and/or stuff that needs to be solved fast, Guild Wars Wiki:Admin noticeboard is a good place to go as well. However this sounds like it is a User conflict, so contacting a bureaucrat on his talk page is probably the best way. --Xeeron 20:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

There's no formal process for specifically reviewing a particular talk page. If it is a matter that sysops can deal with (which often includes personal attack problems), bringing up the matter on Guild Wars Wiki:Admin noticeboard is the straightforward way to go. If is a question about what we should do with existing problematic content and you don't see it covered in any policy, it is probably something to bring up with the community. Use any related talk page, like perhaps Guild Wars Wiki talk:No personal attacks, Guild Wars Wiki talk:User page, Guild Wars Wiki talk:Policy, or if it's really ambiguous, Guild Wars Wiki talk:Community portal. If it is an ongoing problem with a specific user's conduct and you feel that the general community or sysops cannot adequately handle it for whatever reason, as a last resort you can make a case to the arbitration committee to try and convince them to step in. (Guild Wars Wiki:Admin noticeboard should also work okay for that too, but please be clear if you are requesting that) --Rezyk 22:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, Aiiane, Xeeron, and Rezyk. :) --Gaile 22:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Election

Just letting you know you've been nominated. --Dirigible 12:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

DPL

I just wanted to say I'm amazed with the solution you found for the DPL lists. Very elegant solution, thank you : ) If you don't feel like editing the skill lists for the other profession, I'll do it when I get home tonight, so don't worry about it. Erasculio 18:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. =) Feel free to work it in wherever; the main reason I haven't changed all the professions myself yet is just to give people some time to point out any problems. --Rezyk 18:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

List of core monk skills with the upkeep :( It linebreaks. - anja 18:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. --Rezyk 18:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you have access to IRC? (#gww on gamesurge?) --  (CoRrRan / talk) 19:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, no. Any problems? =( --Rezyk 19:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Nah, just wondering, since Anja, poke and I were talking about DPL stuff on IRC. And we were wondering if you could come on, but apparently not. :) --  (CoRrRan / talk) 19:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Revision

Whoa looks like ya merged the tables on the paragon skill page :) undid it for ya. --Lou-Saydus 02:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Heh, that was intentional, actually. It's the trend nowadays. =) --Rezyk 02:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

RFA

Hi Rezyk, I just saw that you moved your bureaucrat rights to Xeeron. In my opinion you were a great admin and so I nominated you for adminship. poke | talk 00:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd vote for Rezyk if he went for admin. I've seen him pop his head in during discussions, and in the recent changes page a fair amount. Good job! Calor 19:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikia

Just curious, as you're listed as the one who adopted the Wikia wiki for Guild Wars at [[1]] ... had you been contacted by Wikia now that they've purchased the gamewikis domain? Gravewit indicated that Wikia currently plans to maintain both wikis for Guild Wars, but wasn't sure about any longer-term plans re: merging them within the wikia family. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Nope. --Rezyk 04:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikia purchased the gamewiki domains? Interesting, do you have any link for that? --Xeeron 09:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

There's this. - BeX 10:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunate to see all my dark suspicions about Gravewit realised. Makes me twice as happy I stopped contributing there. Don't be fooled by his "This is not about the money" talk, that is exactly what it is about. He stopped being active in any wiki activities that did not involve money a long, long time ago. --Xeeron 13:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I've since been contacted on my Wikia talk page. --Rezyk 18:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm ... I understand their reasoning, but I find it unfortunate that they are just scrapping the current Wikia wiki for Guild Wars to make way for GuildWiki at Wikia. Out with the old, in with the new. At least they acknowledged the license difference prevents a merge. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I was wrong about you

I'm packing my bags in preparation to leave here, but I could not leave without telling you that I was sorry. Ever since that incident with the Hex article, I have not fully trusted you. I have always been leery of your motives and your words.

Recently, these past few weeks, I have been paying closer attention to this place and observing the patterns, the groupies and the different mindsets and I have to say, I am very very sorry for how I thought of you and how I undervalued you these past 2 years. You are much wiser and patient than I gave you credit for, and you work for what you believe is right 100% of the time. There is no malice in your motives, and you are very dedicated. I could not leave without trying to rectify what is possibly the biggest mistake in my 2.5 years in the Guild Wars wiki community.

It has been an honor working with you (and sometimes against you), even if I did not always recognize it. Best of luck to you. --Karlos 09:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, and don't worry about it. For me, things ultimately ended up fine, and I was far from faultless myself. I am also very sorry for grief I've ever caused you, no matter how well-intentioned my actions. I have one request: Regarding your planned leaving, please just don't close the door irreversibly. In any case, I wish you the best.

(And to everyone reading: I suggest that the question to ask yourself isn't whether Karlos is/was right/wrong, but how and how far you should go to avoid misjudgments from potentially becoming big mistakes.)

--Rezyk 08:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Help

The skill Icons of mantra of inscriptions and mantra of signets are wrong, but I can't get them right. Can you help? Jelmewnema 13:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Huh? There's nothing wrong with those icons. -- ab.er.rant 14:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Look at the history, mantra of signets had the mantra of inscritions icon and vica versa. futhermore, my cache was tricking me in believing my uploading went wrong all the time.Jelmewnema 16:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. It's not wholly your cache though. The wiki software has an image cache issue. Newly uploaded images can't seem to display properly until at least several long minutes later. -- ab.er.rant 03:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Thnx for saying that;). That saved me numerous attempts to manually clear my cache.Jelmewnema 06:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

err

I think you linked the wrong diff. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 06:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, perhaps not, but I still think it doesn't really sum up your actual thoughts towards the issue well (or if it does, I'm not seeing it). Perhaps you could elaborate. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 06:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Good timing. Backsword 06:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Nice. =) --Rezyk 18:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the categorization

Thanks for adding the categories to my collector items by profession lists... I wasn't sure where they should go, and Anja hadn't gotten to it yet. :D -- Wynthyst 12:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure. Thanks for all your work on those lists! =) --Rezyk 10:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Adminship draft

Hi Rezyk, just a little bump regarding the response I've made to your concerns at Guild Wars Wiki talk:Adminship/Draft 2007-11-14#Some concerns. -- ab.er.rant 05:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Replied; sorry for the delay. --Rezyk 19:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)