User talk:SilentStorm/Archives/Jan 09 - Feb 09

Happy Hogmanay

You are way too speedy with your edits! :) Have a great Hogmanay and a fab 2009! -- Salome 01:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

seconded :D - Y0_ich_halt 03:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Historical Content

Feel free to move this page to historical content stuff. Doesn't exist any more. Erz 15:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Done --SilentStorm 16:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Speedy

I'm too quick for you? =D - TheRave (talk) 20:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

lol just coz you got one a second before me? :D --SilentStorm 00:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for doing all the work :) Now I now how to do it to :) ty :D

Btw. How did you know what mine guild page was? :D

Alixmoswanted —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alixmostwanted (talk • contribs) at 21:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC).

Most likely he looked at your contributions or specifically the guild space ones. Also when you leave a message on a talk page use either the second last button on the edit toolbar or four tildes ~~~~ to sign :) --Kakarot 21:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome ;) Also Im watching RC from time to time when im here and beside that im patrolling Guild pages every now and then your many Edits plus the Edit to Kakarots Talk made your recent edits getting my attention ;) --SilentStorm 21:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Moving my post from Regina's page

Why? I was addressing the Community Manager, it was acceptable where it was. Excuse Me Will I Ignore You In Advance 22:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

You where commenting on the Developer Notes which Regina put on the DevNotes page. As such it should be on the Talk Page of the Article you are commenting on. Thus I moved it to the place where it actually belongs to. (On a sidenote: Please change your Signature to reflect your actual Username. thanks) --SilentStorm 22:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

How do I sign?

hi how do i sign?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Forbidden Truth (talk • contribs) at 01:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC).

Just type ~~~~ at the end of your Message on a TalkPage or click the Button which will do it automatically for you. For more Information on Signatures check GWW:SIGN --SilentStorm 01:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

--Forbidden Truth 01:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC) ok thx

You're Welcome. But please! Dont add Messages at the Top of a page. Just click the [edit] Link that you find on the right side of this Section header and add your Message to the Bottom. Thanks. --SilentStorm 02:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

--Forbidden Truth 02:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)ok sry

One more word of advice: signatures usually come after one's post. But you are free to be a trendsetter! Mori no Kinoko ni go Youjin 02:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Also write your Message FIRST and then click the Button when you've finished typing your message :). --SilentStorm 02:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Moved? Tagging?

Moved??? tagging ??? what is this strange language you speak of lol thanks anyway.... I think :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Darthbaz (talk • contribs) at 22:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC).

Hehe yeah may sound strange but its rather harmless and you will get used to it... Snograt just wanted to let you know your Image is now at another location (it has been moved) and tagging is well adding certain Templates to Images / Articles to show Users that they're up for deletion, require to be moved, or to show its a screenshot etc. You can also take a look here --SilentStorm 22:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

ah right ok then :) Baz 22:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, thx for the quick response :D

I was wondering if you or someone you know could take a look at this Anti-aliasing problem I am having, I have posted here --> http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/ArenaNet_talk:Art_bugs#Anti-Aliasing_Armor_Bug

thank you very much :) --Core Shadow 23:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing I or anyone else on the Wiki can do about this I fear... Especially as you already got the latest Drivers as you wrote. However ArenaNet reads those Pages and will look into it. Tho I might suggest you to use Internal Wiki Linking for Links within this Wiki. You can find more about it at Help:Editing. To avoid the images to show up directly just use the following: [[:Image:Image Name here.jpg]]. --SilentStorm 23:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why...

I retagged that as R2. I guess I thought it was moved or something -_-. Nevertheless, thanks for catching that. -- Wandering Traveler 23:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

No Prob ;) --SilentStorm 23:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

You Vandal!!!

ZOMG ... YOU VANDAL!! Ghosst • Talk •

lawl I knew that had to come :P --SilentStorm 23:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I know you killed Kenny too ... Ghosst • Talk •

OH NOES I killed Kenny (again).... --SilentStorm 23:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

My uncle's, brother's, father clearly saw it happen too ... you're's goin to da jail! Don't bend for the soap ... Vandal man! Ghosst • Talk •

Jail? Nah killing Kenny is no crime :P --SilentStorm 23:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

JAIL! I demand recompense! Jail! Jail! Jail! Ghosst • Talk •

oO You didnt sign Properly... thats more of a crime then killing Kenny... so JAIL For you :P --SilentStorm 23:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Shush ... you just want a cellmate ... no ways. 'Sides, I can sign with 3 or 4 tildes ... usually my first is 4 the rest with 3, but since you killed Kenny ... it's 3 for you. Oh ... someone Rick Rolled you ... LOL. Perfect timing that. Ghosst • Talk •

Nah I wouldnt want you as a cellmate no way :P - And yes I noticed... got him the second time. --SilentStorm 23:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah! Well I wouldn't want you as one either ... smelly Vandal man! Ghosst • Talk •

Nah that Anon's the vandal not me :P Also you just beeing envy :P --SilentStorm 23:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a conspiracy ... all of the mods here are vandals! You all killed Kenny! YOU VANDALS! Ghosst • Talk •

I said it earlier: Killing Kenny is no Crime. :P Also Conspiracies are fine :D --SilentStorm 00:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh I see ... you change the rules as you go so anything you do is ok ... I get it now. ... Fine I'm going to go kill Kenny too then. Ghosst • Talk •

Aww... *pats Ghosst* poor man. And as I change the rulez as I go killing Kenny is a Crime from now on :P (Not past kills tho :P) --SilentStorm 00:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Hah! Faked you out! Kenny is safe at last. Ghosst • Talk • 00:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

He'll never be safe :P But dont worry he has more lifes than a cat ;) Also dont forget I could change the rulez again for the lulz :P --SilentStorm 00:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I owe you one

Again >_<. Didnt know that parameter existed. -- Wandering Traveler 00:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

You're Welcome :) --SilentStorm 00:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Image cache

Hey, saw your edit on my guild page. I wasn't aware it actually took time to update the image, as when I uploaded a new version of our cape picture it still stuck with the old one, so I assumed something went wrong. I didn't exactly want our black and silver cape to look like it was black and yellow. Out of curiosity, how long does it usually take for the image to actually be updated on our guildpage? --Deon 16:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Depending on how the Server feels and how busy the Server is somewhere between 10 Minutes and several hours. The Big Image actually was already updated when I checked it and edited your Guild Page. However the Thumbnail wasnt yet but this will work out within an hour usually. But the Wiki is already slow at the moment so it might take a bit longer. It will work itself out. If it hasnt updated by lets say tomorrow then you could try to upload a new Version again. --SilentStorm 16:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

It didn't update itself up until this morning so I went ahead and uploaded a new (third) version. Now the thumbnail on the Guild Page is the second version, and the big picture is the very first version. For whatever reason that image just isn't wanting to cooperate. I still think uploading the new image with a different name was the easy solution. ;) Oh well. It's not pretty, but it works. --Deon 18:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Hm weird... the Server must be feeling really bad at the moment. --SilentStorm 18:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Clean up tag

Is not for User pages :P -- Wyn 02:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

not playing anymore

willkommen im club... - Y0_ich_halt 14:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

hehe danke. :D Die Notiz hab ich eigentlich schon ziemlich lange da stehen (genauer seit Oktober) ;) Im Grunde ist sie zwischenzeitlich sogar wieder falsch gewesen... Ich steh öfter mal dumm inner Gegend rum und versuche meine ZKeys zu verkaufen die keiner haben will aber hey spielen kann man das nicht nennen xD. Ist halt nicht mehr wirklich was los was man machen könnte... Ich könnte meine HM Titel fertig machen aber naja... immer nur mit Henchies ist auch zum k*tzen. --SilentStorm 14:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Uhm, Yeah i do have a couple of questions how can i add like, well, a small information box To my Characters Page? --The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Rogue Fighter (talk • contribs) at 20:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC).

There are several Character Templates around this Wiki. You could check out Y0's Templates, Lensors Templates or take a look at the Category to see a listing of Character Page Templates that you can use for your Pages. Just pick the one you like most and follow the Instructions for it that are found on that Page. As for creating your Character Page: Just go to your Userpage and then add /CharacterNamehere to the Addressbar of your browser and press Enter. A possible Page would be User:The Rogue Fighter/Warrior. This will take you into Edit Mode directly where you can put in all the Information about your Character. Should you have any more Questions feel free to ask :). Also please sign your Comments on Talkpages by typing ~~~~ at the end of your Comment. Thanks. --SilentStorm 22:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Tagging pages inactive?

Hey,

I'm glad people are going around and keeping things clean, but I'm curious why you marked Guild:Loreseekers_Vigil inactive. In keeping with the policy, due to their continued activity in-game, I have reverted the tag.

I'd have mailed you privately about it, but you appear to have no email address on file.

Thanks,

Anja Anjastjarnskott 18:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The "inactive" tag only means the article has not been edited recently, not that the guild is inactive. This tag is usually added without double-checking (contrary to what happends with the "historical" tag).

The article being tagged as inactive also allows for those interested to start contacting with the guild in order to see if they are alive, and for the people of the guild to note that their article has not been updated recently, in case they want to update. Also, note that the "inactive" tag is just used for maintenance purposes, so any user can remove them at any time if they know an article doesn't meet the requeriments for it (like you did).--Fighterdoken 18:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Probably the policy page would be a better place for an open, detailed discussion of the actual policy and its general purpose and application. My question is substantially more narrow, regarding how Silent Storm applied the policy to a specific page. Nonetheless, the following text from the inactive tag's template seems to contradict your explanation of its meaning:

"This Guild article has not received any edits in over 3 months. If this is not rectified by Sunday, 7 Dec 2008 then it will be automatically moved to historical content, per our Guild pages policy. Guilds that have not received an edit in over 3 months are assumed inactive or disbanded, and will be moved to historical content 3 months after tagging."

Further, the policy states:

"Guild pages will be tagged as { { inactive guild } } if both of the following two conditions are met:

* Condition 1: Wiki inactivity - The guild page has not received any edits for 3 months.

* Condition 2: In-game inactivity - The listed contact (forum, website, guild leader, etc) is inactive. "

The page in question had current contact info and in-game event times listed. So, there seems to be some inconsistency between the policy, the inactive template, and its application, and this is what my question is really about: Was in-game inactivity determined, for the purposes of Silent Storm's edit and this policy? If so, how? Anjastjarnskott 19:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The second condition requires a lot of effort for the high number of guild pages we have daily that qualify with condition 1 (which is very easy to check btw), so most people working on tagging guild pages as inactive don't bother checking the second condition directly as it is very likely that, within the 3 months the inactive guild tag is active, the author or a member of the guild checks the page and removes the tag. However before further action is taken (resulting in an archiving of the guild page), condition 2 is checked so the original requirement is checked.

Btw. simply removing the tag on the guild page is completely fine. poke | talk 20:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Hi there, I go around and tag Guild Pages for inactivity when they did not receive any Edits within the last 3 Months. Furthermore before actually tagging a GuildPage with the inactive Tag, I roughly check the GuildPage for compliance with Policy and also check if they got a website listed. If they do have a website listed I move on to the Website checking to see if they've got a forum. If they do I check the last Post dates. If there are active Topics that I can see I just close the Tab and move on to the next. However if I get a 404 Error, a Warning from my Antivirus, or dont see any active Topics I go back to the Guild Article on GWW and tag it for inactive. I think you agree that one cant be asked to actually note down every Ingame Contact, run Guildwars, add them all to Flist just to see IF they are online and to ask them wether their Guild is still active just because of a simple Guildpage here on the Wiki. After all we're just contributors here and dont get paid for anything, not to mention that it would look strange to get a whisper from someone you dont know saying something among the Lines of "Hey, is your Guild still active? Otherwise I would tag it for inactive on GWW". However an inactive guild Tag is nothing that harms and like Fighterdoken said already you are free to remove it if you know the Guild is in fact still active. Also if you update your Guildpage regulary with up2date Information at least once every 2 months you wont even get into the situation. And finally there is the Watchlist here on the Wiki, just click the Watch button on your Guildpage and you'll get an email whenever your Page gets changed. You can then easily stop by and check whats been changed and if it's been tagged just update it and remove the inactive tag. This Response got very long in the meantime and I'll just stop here now in the Hope that things are more clear to you now and that I didnt violate any policy. --SilentStorm 20:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Anyone tagging guild pages for inactivity should be checking forums at the least for recent activity. Basing a tag solely on wiki ativity is inappropriate. If it wasn't an expected part of the process, it would not have been included in the policy. -- Wyn 20:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer, maybe a link to our Yahoo Group or something would prevent this in the future. Although, that's not really "in-game," either. I realize that this is a volunteer effort, and I'm glad that you do actually try to check forums when listed. I'd like to suggest, though, that since the policy strongly implies that Guild Page edits should be low volume (not for use as a "guild web page," forum, nor for posting volatile information such as ladder status nor weekly events), the date of last substantive edit is not sufficient to satisfy the question of whether the guild is active. A guild that is compliant with the policy, is successful and has a stable focus and officer/contact roster may not be making many edits. When an editor applies only that half of the "inactive" policy which is convenient for them, they will frequently label active, compliant guilds "dead." 24.153.134.90 21:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Those are the Reasons why I do check Forum activity prior to tagging Guildpages for inactive. A Guild that is active and does Events together has them listed in their Forums and is actively posting in their Forums. Of course there will always be guildpages that get tagged even tho they are in fact active, but thats why there is the Watchlist and the Email notification Option for Watchlist changes in the Preferences. After all an inactive Tag is not a big deal as like poke already said there is a 3 month grace period for any Guild Member to stop by and change their Guildpage and remove the Inactive tag. And especially after the Policy got changed to not delete Inactive Guildpages anymore its even less a big deal as it can easily be moved back to the original Location of the Guildpage by anyone. --SilentStorm 21:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Happy Birthday

Happy Birthday Silent hope it's a good one :) --Kakarot 00:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Happy Birthday SilentStorm. Dominator Matrix 00:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Happy Birthday! =D — Jon Lupen 00:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Here again: Congratulations to your birthday! :D poke | talk 01:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks all :) --SilentStorm 01:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

You Vandal!! ... err ... Happy Birthday ... you ol' vandal... ;-) Ghosst • Talk • 03:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Happy Birthday! --Riddle 04:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Happy Birthday ^^ enjoy =P |Cyan LightHere!| 09:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

alles gute, alter sack :P - Y0_ich_halt 10:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Happy Birthday! --AlexEternal 14:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

thanks again all :) --SilentStorm 02:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

A very belated happy birthday. Sorry. :( Lord Belar 01:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh I missed this line. A belated thanks Belar ;) --SilentStorm 01:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

ArenaNet images

The {{ArenaNet image}} tag should not be used for images that were taken from in game. That tag designates that they came from some other official source. All images taken from in the game (even if people have cut the background off of them) should be considered and tagged as screenshots. -- Wyn 13:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you tell for sure that it IS in fact a screen from ingame if the Background has been cutoff just leaving the Statue over? It could aswell be an image from somewhere else on this or another Wiki, gw.com and whatsnot. I always thought the ArenaNet image to be used for Images that are copyrighted from Arenanet but are not screenshots... But meh... --SilentStorm 14:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Double tagging Guild pages

I'm curious why you are double tagging guild pages as inactive and needing cleanup. This page does not meet the policy requirements for a cleanup tag, and now due to the edit does not meet the requirements for inactivity. If a page qualifies for cleanup, simply tag it that way, if it meets the requirements for inactivity tag it that way. Adding both tags serves no purpose, especially when one is not warranted. -- Wyn 00:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding... The Page in Question does qualify for both. It does not have a Guild Tag specified which qualifies it for {{guild cleanup}} unless the Guild Policy has been changed again and noone told me. It also did not have any edits within more then 3 months which qualifies it for {{inactive guild}} which it is still qualified for as the Guildpolicy states "No meaningful edit within 3 months" if I'm not mistaken. And seriously... Tagging is not a meaningful edit. --SilentStorm 00:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The policy does not require a [guild tag], just the {{guild}} tag. The only elements that are 'required are the guild infobox, the alliance nav if the guild chooses to display alliance information, and a contact (wiki contact, ign contact, website, or forum). I see all those elements on that page. -- Wyn 00:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Im going to directly quote the Policy now: "Must contain information about the guild other than just the name, tag, and/or basic formatting. This must contain a minimum of one in game or wiki contact, or other contact method, such as a website, forum or email. " How I see that part, it actually requires more then the Guild's Name, Guild tag and Contact Information. Thinking about that there are indeed several Pages I tagged for inactive that should've been cleanup instead. --SilentStorm 01:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

That line is strictly talking about the contact information.... I know.. I wrote it. There was never an intent and I don't believe it is reasonably implied that the guild tag is required. -- Wyn 01:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

That line is about what content is required and clearly states that it requires more information about the Guild then those Listed in that line. Which does include the Tag. While I agree that half the line is about the Contact Information it doesnt render the other half of that line useless. --SilentStorm 01:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I can tell you from being in the middle of 3 months of discussion about the guild page policy that you are misinterpreting it and the intentions, and I will continue to remove your cleanup tags if you are tagging for just not having a guild tag. -- Wyn 01:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

While I am all for the interpretation of policy based on its underlying meaning rather than its exact wording, that interpretation must come from one reading of the line itself, rather than statements by the author as to the original intent. In the case in question, I would have to agree with Silentstorm's interpretation of the policy, in that more is required. If you feel that this does not accurately represent the intent of this policy, perhaps you should propose a change in policy wording so that it does. moreover, under no circumstances should one continue to pursue a hotly disputed action before the dispute is resolved, particularly when you are already both involved in and the cause of said discussion. Lord Belar 01:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Fine, suggestion to remove the word tag from that line of the policy has been made. -- Wyn 01:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) As Belar said the policy is quite clear imho. However I did tag Guildpages for Cleanup because of missing GuildTags in the past and I will definately continue doing so if I feel its necessary and within policy of course which as I stated I feel it is. While I might not tag solely for the purpose of a missing Guildtag if the page is alright otherwise I will do If I feel it does not. --SilentStorm 01:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

wtf?

(+guild cleanup (Feel free to revert me on this Empty Page Wyn ) | GWWT) I don't have a problem with anyone tagging pages that don't meet the policy requirements. Why you are turning this into some personal bash match I don't understand. I don't believe the policy requires a guild tag. As I've stated OVER AND OVER, it was never my understanding that it was intended as a required element. Since I've been editing here, the spirit and intent of a policy has been just as important a consideration as the actual words, but suddenly that has been turned upside down, and I'm just dumbfounded by that shift in attitude, as I am with your attitude toward me, it has grown absolutely hostile, and I don't understand why. -- Wyn 02:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah sorry about that one. I was possibly overreacting on that one but I just couldnt resist... The opportunity was there and well... About the attitude well I think you are partly responsible for it yourself with your recent moves which noone really seems to understand, your withdraw on the elections, your comments or certain talkpages and so on. As far as my attitude is concerned I just cant understand whats such a big deal about the guild pages that I tagged for cleanup. I just strongly dislike such blank pages and fail to understand how someone (in this case you) can have a will to keep those pages. All that has been adding up to it I think. --SilentStorm 02:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Considering the page I referenced in the above section that started all this has substantially more information that simply the required elements and ONLY lacks a guild tag, yet you tagged it for cleanup kind of negates all your claims that you don't tag pages just because they don't have a guild tag. As for my withdrawal from the election, as I said on my talk page, other priorities made it unfeasible for me to continue, but I really don't believe I owe you or anyone else an explanation, as for comments I've made on certain talk pages? I really have no clue what you are talking about, and if they weren't directed at you, they shouldn't concern you. As for how I can have a will to keep those blank pages? Because I've had my head bashed in repeatedly by the rest of the community when I've asked for the required content to be more, both during the policy change discussion and since, and I have resigned myself to the fact that enough of the community is ok with the amount of information they represent, and as a sysop I try to do my best to uphold consensus. So I can't sit back and see those pages that the community consensus says have enough information be tagged and deleted because YOU don't agree. (even though I personally agree with you) -- Wyn 03:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Your last sentence is a good illustration of the frustrations of sysop life. It's all for the greater good, and if the community wants to be wrong that's their choice, amirite?

"I really don't believe I owe you or anyone else an explanation" - just a small comment I'd like to throw out, is that a lot of people have been talking about your "decreased activity, no time for bcrat, only working on my userspace" declaration. It's true that you don't owe anyone an explanation, but a lot of us are just confused cause despite you saying that, you are still going all-out on issues of rather small importance like this whole guild tag business, writing lengthly arguments etc. So it seems like a contradiction. (Don't take this as criticism from me, I've been through the "I need a wikibreak" thing many times, and you're [still] doing it with much less collateral damage than I could pull off...) Vili 06:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I realized that other priorities were suffering because of my candidacy in the election, priorities that for a short while I had lost sight of, not that I wasn't going to have time. I chose to put those back on the top of my list. I never said I was going to stop being involved in the areas of the wiki that are important to me, and the guild namespace has been a personal project of mine for over a year now, thus my participation in that subject. As well there are a couple of personal projects I want to complete in my userspace. I never said "I'm leaving the wiki", it's not a case of ragequit which some people have assumed, it's a case of "I'm tired of the troll hate in game, email, as well as here, etc. for doing MY personal best as I see it as a sysop for this community and need a break". The fact that wanting that break seems to have turned me into some sort of persona non grata is just baffling to me however, and that the attacks have been coming from people who I respect and care about makes it even harder for me to understand. -- Wyn 01:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)