User talk:Xeeron/Feb-Nov 2007

From Guild Wars Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Xeeron absolutely awesome to see you again mate! You've been missed a lot but it's great to see you again. --Xasxas256 13:54, 9 February 2007 (PST)

Hey Xeeron, I still want to give you responses in various discussions, but might not have time to until after this weekend. Just wanted to let you know. --Rezyk 19:15, 9 February 2007 (PST)

"I WIN!" button[edit]

Agreed, they actually do need to add one of those to the game as soon as possible. :P --Dirigible 12:16, 12 February 2007 (PST)

Indeed! Actually, a "Xeeron wins!" button would do as well ;-) --Xeeron 14:11, 12 February 2007 (PST)

Request your comment[edit]

In Guild Wars Wiki talk:Adminship#Arbcomm, you wrote "I was arguing for an arbitration committee formed by members that are not bureaucrats or sysops at the same time. Sysops being checked by arbcomm which is made up of sysops wrong to me.". Could you review the draft at Guild Wars Wiki:Adminship/version B and comment on whether my idea there makes things any more agreeable to you? --Rezyk 22:14, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Any opinion on this? --Rezyk 22:17, 5 April 2007 (EDT)


You are user 1337 as of 20:58 Pacific Time, 3/28/07. Armond 23:59, 28 March 2007 (EDT)


I become l33t and lose my leetness without even noticing. Damn you holidays! A few more days till I am back. --Xeeron 13:02, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Holy crap! That's a lot of new users over the span of two days! Armond 22:22, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Nice catch[edit]

Thank you for noticing that PvE/PvE thing. Ironically, I'm the one that messed that up, and I've played nothing but PvP (especially GvG) for the last six months =P MisterPepe talk 15:09, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

New Skill[edit]

You working on the bugs for that new skill ANet announced? I think it was called "Rantful was Xeeron."  ;) Just kidding.

Honestly there isn't much we as users can do as it's already been decided by the powers above the average user (though a few of those don't like it too). I don't like it either but it's already been said it would happen anyway and I've been trying to support a way to get some build guides up at least though I've a lack of motivation to help anymore since most of any "help" seems to be constantly deleted as useless. In the mean time eveyone is making a copy of the builds they like which takes up even more space IMO. It's ridiculous yes, and I have lost all hope of a positive outcome for at least a few more months. I can only hope that things will be better here as I'm liking this wiki better and better just for the cleanliness of it so far. It just needs more content. Anyway, I'm just dropping some thoughts on your userpage that were spurred into being typed after I read your agreed upon rant.:) Nothing is directed at you. I'm just venting too and thought you might like to know you aren't alone. --File:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG Vallen Frostweaver 08:18, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, I am tempted to move all tested builds to my userspace over there just before the delete, but I had hoped that someone else over there would propose that obvious solution first. --Xeeron 08:22, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
I know a few users already have but they mostly have zipped them or something similar. I saved a few that I had put a lot into myself but I find it's only for others really as I know the content of those forwards and backwards. Too bad your build monitor volunteer program didn't take off as well as I had hoped. I had made a lot of progress on the Ranger builds and just when I thought it was completed and looking great, this happened. Very disheartening. --File:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG Vallen Frostweaver 08:28, 13 April 2007 (EDT)


If you don't mind me asking -- do you know German? --Rezyk 06:29, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

I sure hope so ;-) --Xeeron 07:11, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Btw, I'm still working on an answer to your question. Sorry for taking so long, but it takes some time to make sure it has any chance of success. =P --Rezyk 15:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, I forgot to ask -- Can you explain the difference in meaning/connotation between "höflich", "zivilisiert", and "zivil"? --Rezyk 16:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Both höflich and zivilisiert refer to adhering to some kind of ettiquette. However höflich is more strikt than zivilisiert. You can be zivilisiert without being höflich, but it is hard to imagine the other way round. Think of zivilisiert being something you expect of every human, höflich something you expect only of some humans, or only of humans in a certain situation. It can be ok not to be höflich at times, but it is almost never ok not to be zivilisiert. Zivilisiert is rarely used btw.
"Zivil" is usually used in entirely different contexts, e.g. zivil clothes are the opposite of military clothes, or "Zivilrecht" is a part of the law system in Germany. --Xeeron 17:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Is it possible to not be zivilisiert within online communication? --Rezyk 22:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like "zivil" is "civil". I've seen civilians be uncival plenty of times. -- Dashface User Dashface.png 04:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I would not use that word, but I guess it is possible. --Xeeron 09:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
What other word/phrase would you use to say it? --Rezyk 15:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
That depends on what happened really, what situation are you thinking about? --Xeeron 16:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Ideally, I'd like some level of etiquette that just demands some minimal responsibility and reasonability with respect to communication. I didn't have any particular situation in mind, but a (completely hypothetical) example might be: someone persistently responding to comments/questions from others with "Please just learn to play better or shut the ---- up". What's wrong with zivilisiert? --Rezyk 07:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Zivilisiert is somehow old fashioned. And it has that additional connotation of "western way of life=zivilisiert" is better then "primitive way of life=unzivilisiert". For etiquette, I'd use Respekt, which is similar to respect. Mind you, there is nothing horribly wrong with zivilisiert, it is just that I find Respekt a bit better. --Xeeron 09:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I see. What do you think about (switching to english now) the terms "respectful" and "civilized"? Would there still be any connotation of westernized versus non-westernized? (My general feeling is that they're around the right ballpark for the level I want, but "respectful" is a bit high and carries an unwanted connotation of admiration/deference, while "civilized" is slightly low and tends to describe people rather than behavior.) --Rezyk 18:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, I am sorry, in english both terms sound ok to me, but I dont know the *exact* connotations there. --Xeeron 23:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Understood. Thanks for being so patient with my questions. =) --Rezyk 23:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any particular preference for how to manage Guild Wars Wiki:Policy/Builds/draft B as a proposed idea? (Try to get User A/B/D's to hammer out kinks or anything?) If not, I'll start driving it as a full policy proposal, inviting more User C's to comment, etc. --Rezyk 19:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was waiting whether there are any further comments, but with no activity there after a few days, one can thing about asking "the question" ;-) --Xeeron 21:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


You've been nominated. --Rezyk 22:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Latest Xeer-talk edit[edit]

It was a length of 666... >.> ...must be the work of (in his best Church Lady voice)... mmm... I don't know... Satan?!  ;) --File:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG Vallen Frostweaver 19:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, didnt notice, but I am sure some encyclopedia publishers might think that satan had his hand in creating wikis and deriving them of profit ;-) --Xeeron 09:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


Hey bro, I've nominated you for a sysop position at GWW:RFA. Seeing as you stuck it out during the bureaucrat election, I'm assuming you'll be okay with this. If not, give me a chance to convince you before you say no. :)

Tanaric 21:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


Why did you make that RFA page for me. If I wanted to do that, I could have. I'm pretty sure I didnt say "make me a RFA page", now seeing as I didnt even want to be one. Thanks for making me look stupid. --20pxRein Of Terror (talk · contributions) 15:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Not to butt in, but - this kind of indicates otherwise. -- AT(talk | contribs) 15:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Quoting from your userpage:
Are you still interested in nominating yourself for sysop? - BeX 13:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Don't think he would be fit as a sysop. Hanks Gotcha (talk · contributions) 13:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Whether or not he is will be determined on the RFA page later, the question here is only whether he still wants to become sysop. --Xeeron 13:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Sure, i'll be one. --Rein Of Terror (talk · contributions) 14:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
You just get nominated, it doesnt mean you become one. Hanks Gotcha (talk · contributions) 14:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Dude, I know. --Rein Of Terror (talk · contributions) 14:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Nominating yourself for sysop means a RFA page will be created, please read the rules. --Xeeron 15:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I never nominated myself, I thought you were asking me to be one, I never did any nomination. --20pxRein Of Terror (talk · contributions) 15:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

You know, some person who deals with new army recruits I once knew had this clever saying which he used a lot:
"Those who are able to read have a clear advantage."
It was mentioned twice on your own talk page that you would be nominated. --Xeeron 15:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
PS: If you do not want to go through the RFA process, please go to Guild Wars Wiki:Requests for adminship/Rein Of Terror and indicate so on that page. The RFA will then be dropped. --Xeeron 15:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Just so it's made clear, according to this and this, the evidence states you did want to nominate yourself, but as Xeeron stated, you can decline the nomination. — Gares 16:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I am arguing that this RFA should be simply removed, see Guild Wars Wiki talk:Requests for adminship#This revert. --Rezyk 16:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


Congratulations on making admin! --Santax (talk · contribs) 08:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Grats :) - anja talk 08:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to our team! Good to have you with us atlast. -- Gem (gem / talk) 10:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Heh it does seem like it's taken a long time, well done mate. --Xasxas256 16:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Thx. Maybe some old time admins can tell me what is up with the red exclamation marks next to the watch list and recent changes? --Xeeron 16:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
It's supposed to indicate that no sysop has 'checked' that page - if you actually view the page, you'll notice a little "mark as patrolled" link at the bottom of the page, theoretically clicking that removes the ! from it (basically, as a note to other sysops that a given edit is fine and doesn't need to be looked at). Go to Aiiane's Talk page (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 16:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
So by checking how many old recent changes have a red mark, I can see how lazy we sysops are? ;-) Thx for the info. --Xeeron 16:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Lol. Well, it has to be manually marked as patrolled, and only if you view the diff - so most edits won't get marked. Go to Aiiane's Talk page (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 16:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Just joking. However it seems to be a used feature, from a quick glance at RC. --Xeeron 16:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Any edit from a sysop will also be automatically marked as patrolled. I have been thinking if you other guys use it or not, or if we should use it at all :P - anja talk 16:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, it seems to be a useful feature, especially for high profile pages (like Gailes talk page), which get changed a lot, but not all admins might want to check it every time on logging on. Seeing no red mark is a nice way of showing that one needs not to check. --Xeeron 16:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I swear that prior to the new admin influx nobody used to use the patrolled edit feature. I'm also sure that someone is going though RC and marking edits right now. I'm not imagining things am I?!? --Xasxas256 16:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I personally don't use it, but then again, I'm not really the patrol-recent-changes type. —Tanaric 17:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I guess no one used it before this day. :P I always go through all edits done to any pages in my watchlist, which includes a lot of the high profile pages and page that get vandalised often, regardless of the red exclamation marks. :) -- Gem (gem / talk) 19:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Well came here to congratulate ya. well congrats.--Bane of Worlds (talkcontribs) 23:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I'll add my congratulations, too. If you'd like, please drop me an email so that I can ask your interest in being on the emergency contact email list. Thanks! --Gaile User gaile 2.png 03:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Last night...[edit]

I am concerned that you have not commented on the little play I did to your user page. I did it teasingly to see how you'll react to the crappy user policy that allows any Joe to edit your user pages (and Tanaric the Uncompromizing blocked me for it, yaaay) but I did not hear from you. I am concerned that you did not appreciate it or was upset, and if that is the case, I apologize. No matter how cute I think my jokes are, I was raised that if they hurt, I should apologize. --Karlos 16:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, you did not offend me. In fact, I feel that some jokes help everyone get along better. Just your timing was not the best one: With the big discussion on user pages and what is appropriate to change policy, it was just to easy to missunderstand. However be assured that I did not take it as offensive at all. --Xeeron 18:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Sweet. --Karlos 21:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

sysop guide[edit]

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)

User talk:Riven#Sig[edit]

As you are one of the other admins online atm, could you please take a look and maybe make a comment on the signature issue? I'm not sure how to proceed. - anja talk 17:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Left a message there. --Xeeron 18:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks alot. - anja talk 18:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

A teeny tiny favor[edit]

I don't really want to edit others comments, could you possibly wikify "deletion policy" in your original list on GWW:NOTICE? I know I keep referencing it as discussion progresses and it might save some time. Go to Aiiane's Talk page (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 22:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Did that. Just as a related note: I plan on proposing a new speedy policy deletion paragraph for policy violation issues as soon as I get to internet tomorrow morning and maybe (though this might take more time) are reworked sig policy, but now I need to log for a bit. --Xeeron 23:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. In regards to a new speedy criteria, I already initiated a discussion regarding such on deletion policy talk page (see here), but I've left it rather open-ended as to a specific proposal, because I'd like input on exactly how broad we want to make it. As for the sig policy, I guess we'll have to see how extensive any changes might need to be. Go to Aiiane's Talk page (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 23:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Policy vs guidelines[edit]

I think we have a somewhat similar view of how policies and guidelines should be different. Do you have any plans to revise Guild Wars Wiki:Guidelines? I hope that the discussion on the policy page brings that some more attention because it's been lingering there untouched for too long. - BeX iawtc 03:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Bureaucrat Election[edit]

I've nominated you for the August bureaucrat election. I hope you'll accept, I think you'd make a very good candidate for the position. If you'd prefer to remain a sysop, however, I can understand. :) Go to Aiiane's Talk page (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 20:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

As Aiiane's nomination text was rather short, I've added my own comments from your last nomination to this one. If any of you feel this is inappropriate, please feel free to revert. —Tanaric 21:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, does he accept?--§ Eloc § 18:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
He has plenty of time to decide, Eloc. :) LordBiro 21:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
So if he doesn't accept by the time the next stage starts, it's like an auto decline?--§ Eloc § 22:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
From GWW:ELECT with emphasis added: "Candidates who are nominated by another user are urged (but not required) to indicate a clear acceptance or declination before stage 2." So no, unless he specifically declines, he's a candidate. - Tanetris 23:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Hmmmm, I get most support while being away on holidays, not actually doing anything here, should I be worried? ;-)
To get it out of the way: I accept (though I would normally write much more than that, my only current internet access is once a week in an internet cafe). --Xeeron 12:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Results phase[edit]

Xeeron, you garnered one more vote than I did in the voting phase. Some people are discussing which of us should get the bureaucrat seat, on the basis that our votes were too close to be considered decisive. I have no problem with you taking the position, but people (myself included) would like if you could post your opinion about the matter on the election talk page. Sorry to disturb your holiday! —Tanaric 20:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Responded there. Thx. =) --Xeeron 19:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Failproof monk build[edit]

I must have it! Please? :'( - BeX iawtc 04:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Err, maybe I should not have called it fail-proof, but I tried to make a smite monk build work and this is what finally did the deal for me:
Reversal of Damage.jpg
Reversal of Damage
Shield of Judgment.jpg
Shield of Judgment
Bane Signet.jpg
Bane Signet
Protective Spirit.jpg
Protective Spirit
Ether Nightmare.jpg
Ether Nightmare
I switched the optional spot around between Judge's Intervention, the new vanguard assassin and direct damage smite skills. The idea works like this: Keep spamming Reversal of Damage on yourself and Shield of Judgment whenever ready to keep yourself alive and damage them. Guardian against melee foes in case Shield of Judgment is down. Prot spirit against heavy hitting casters and especially the end boss. Against casters, start out with Backfire and they should drop really fast. The biggest problem is usually melee attackers with self-heals: Here you need to utilize Bane Signet and Ether Nightmare to help bring their health down faster. --Xeeron 09:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Awesome, I will give it a go when the game comes out. My monk is pretty new and doesn't have many skills so it helps to have an idea of what to buy before I go shopping. ^_^ The new assassin skill is awesome though, I've been taking that everywhere. :P - BeX iawtc 09:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Congrats on your bureaucracy.[edit]

Okay, so maybe it's not quite the right word, but I couldn't resist. :P Congratulations on your election. Go to Aiiane's Talk page (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 14:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Congrats. :) -- Gem (gem / talk) 19:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Gratz you ftw! ~ KurdUser Kurd sig.png 19:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Grats :) - anja talk 21:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Guess I need to update my userpage now. --Xeeron 09:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
/congrats Xeeron.--Bane of Worlds 03:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Guild Wars Wiki:Adminship needs your email address. --Rezyk 01:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. Btw, is there anything else I should know? Like "dont press that shiny red button" or the secret bureaucat handshake? --Xeeron 10:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the handshake, meet us tonight at the hideout. The password is "fishcake". LordBiro 12:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Everyone, to The Hideout! Congrats on bureaucracy, btw. Ranger-faded-large.pngCalor| talk 15:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Remember that your sysop status is automatically on hold, and you should not perform blocks/unblocks/deletes/undeletes.
  • Remember that arbitration is a function of bureaucrats as a group, and not as individuals.
  • Some primary "watchpoints" for bureaucrat-specific duties include: Guild Wars Wiki:Admin noticeboard, Guild Wars Wiki:Requests for adminship, Guild Wars Wiki:Bots/StatusRequests, the batsignal glowing in the night sky, your talk page, and your given email address.
  • So far, any/all private arbitration discussion has been done through direct email to the other bureaucrats while cc'ing Gaile so that ArenaNet has a reference. (I asked her to let us know if always cc'ing her was any problem; she hasn't said anything so I presume it's okay.) This is not a strict standard or anything, but might be a good convention to keep up.
  • If expecting to be away-from-wiki for more than a few days, you should probably let the other bureaucrats know (if not the whole wiki)
--Rezyk 00:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Monk Guide[edit]

Hey man, thanks a lot for putting it in that category for me! If you want to help me out with that guide, it would be greatly appreciated. --Zakek xek 01:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Factions vs Nightfall[edit]

<3 - BeX iawtc 04:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Wiki ethics[edit]

For User:Xeeron/wiki ethics, one strong suggestion/request I have is for you to comment on similarities/differences with the potential usage of content from this wiki. For example, what if a for-profit company used freely-contributed GFDL content from here to make a profit (while following GFDL legal rules, giving attribution, etc)? What if ArenaNet sold this site's hosting, along with potential advertising revenue, to a third party? --Rezyk 07:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

A general similarity between this wiki and guildwiki is that both are likely to make ANet money: A game with a good documentation is bound to be sold more often than a game without documentation and a wiki costs less than paying for in-house documentation. I have no problem at all with this, but everyone working on either wiki should be clear about that fact. An important difference is that guildwiki started out with the stated aim of being "non-for-profit" with regards to the wiki itself, while this wiki did not. Yet, this wiki (detached from the games sales) does not have any income, thus is a loss maker for ANet, while the other wiki did make money.
what if a for-profit company used freely-contributed GFDL content from here to make a profit (while following GFDL legal rules, giving attribution, etc)?
I have a hard time imagening how that would happen. The best example I can come up with is someone publishing something like the Prima guide using wiki content. However that would make any such guide GFDL content as well and anyone could legally host free copies of it for download.
What if ArenaNet sold this site's hosting, along with potential advertising revenue, to a third party?
If the wiki ever is used to create more cash income than needed to break even on the costs of hosting, I will likely stop contributing, like I did on the other wiki. --Xeeron 09:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC) concern is whether or not you would feel those cases would be morally wrong (and I'm still not too clear on that). Are you contributing with the expectancy that your contributions should not be used for profit, other than through increasing the value of the game? (The spirit of the GFDL isn't well suited for that..) --Rezyk 04:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I think the main issues involved in the GuildWiki move are both the potential license violation (the NC in by-nc-sa), but also the fact that Gravewit is now turning a profit off of something which he originally took donations for, and didn't actually contribute all that much to himself. Essentially, most of the contributors feel like capital investors who have been sold down the river. ArenaNet, on the other hand, has both avoided the licensing issue (given that they've licensed as GFDL from the start) and also has funded the venture entirely on their own, asking for volunteers only to assist with the management. In short, ArenaNet has been open and respectful of its contributors, and GuildWiki, it turns out, hasn't. Go to Aiiane's Talk page (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 05:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that gravewit lied to the contributers by explicitely stating that guildwiki would be non-for-profit, when it turned out to be exactly for (his) profit. Likewise ANet stated, when they started the official wiki, that they wanted to run guildwiki's contents without adds. If they were to introduce adds, I would feel they broke their word (even more so if it is to make a profit instead of only breaking even). --Xeeron 09:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


Thanks! :D -- Gem (gem / talk) 12:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

An odd page[edit]

I found an oddly named page in your userspace with a backslash in it's name. (Here) Was that intentional? :P It can't be reached with normal wikilinks and such :/ - anja talk 14:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

That was a mistake when I entered the wrong symbol while creating the policy sub-page. What I find interesting is that you could directly reach that page. If you follow the link from my userspace;namespace=2 you will find that the page was deleted by Xasxas256 a long time ago. --Xeeron 14:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
The recent mass vandalism on GuildWiki helped me reach that page, because it taught me how to. Wiki can't handle backspaces very well it seems :/ I had to type in an extra backspace in the url to get to the correct page. - anja talk 14:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, if you also know a way to get rid of it, feel free to do so, it seems Xasxas was not as successful as I hoped ;-) --Xeeron 15:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted :) - anja talk 15:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

ArbComm request board[edit]

I've written up a draft at Guild Wars Wiki:Arbitration committee/Requests, and I'd appreciate some input. -- Gordon Ecker 07:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


just wanted to let you know, i added your suggestions. the colors don't change accordingly to primary, but i made them optional. i wanted to let those greens stay as default, but the parser functions wouldn't work, so i decided to do it this way. - Y0_ich_halt User Y0 ich halt sig.jpg 20:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thx a ton, working great. --Xeeron 20:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
looks good :) - Y0_ich_halt User Y0 ich halt sig.jpg 21:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Requesting comment[edit]

Hi. Lemming "warned" me for personally attacking Karlos - you disagreed with the warning. Lemming has done so again, and, not surprisingly, has provided no solid reasoning. Could you take a look at Karlos' troll thread on the noticeboard and sort things out? Thanks. -Auron 12:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

"sort things out" is not among my powers here. You are free to complain about Lemming to the arbitration committee (like about any other user), but it is not my role, nor the arbitration committee's one to second guess every sysop decision. If you feel that Lemming did use a too harsh punishment, try to get other users and other sysops to comment on it so it can be work out whether Lemming with out of line of normal sysop behavior.
Remark 1: I can give you my personal, rather technical, opinion about that but only as a normal user.
Remark 2: If you feel that you have a problem with Lemming that needs arbitration, dont be put off by this. You always request arbitration. However I hope that this will not be necessary in this particular case. --Xeeron 13:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

My favourite[edit]

"Since Wikipedia is not censored, is it appropriate to include a huge picture of a tarantula for illustrative purposes on a page discussing the fear of spiders?" lol.. - BeX iawtc 01:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


those are really pr0... you just don't notice their 1337ness because they hide it behind a mask of n00bishness... - Y0_ich_halt Have a look at my page 15:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Inactive guild[edit]

Hi Xeeron, some of the guilds in your alliance have been tagged as inactive guilds, but feel free to remove the tag if they are still existent. poke | talk 20:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, coincidence. I just logged in to finally get around to update the alliance template. I'll use that opportunity to check the tags. As far as I know some disbanded, so they should probably be deleted. --Xeeron 00:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)