GuildWiki has been locked down: anonymous editing and account creation are disabled. Current registered users are unaffected. Leave any comments on the Community Portal.

GuildWiki talk:About

From GuildWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

hi i did not no any body could make pages!!!


This should be protected though. --Karlos 07:50, 28 October 2005 (EST)

... and wikified and updated, maybe? --Tetris L 09:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Anything further needing wikified and/or updated? Looks like a great candidate for protection to me. --161.88.255.140 07:13, 23 March 2006 (CST)
Protected. Any glaring errors found here should be posted on an active Adminstrator's talk page. --Rainith 07:19, 23 March 2006 (CST)

license version[edit source]

Is it specifically binded to version 2.0, or whatever the newest version is? not that I would notice the difference, but the link points to 2.0 which isn't the newest. Just wondering -PanSola 11:18, 11 February 2006 (CST)

I agree, it's not clear if guildwiki is intentionally remaining at by-nc-sa license v2.0, or if it merely failed to update the link to the current v2.5.
Comparing the two, the only difference in the license versions is in clause section 4(d). Here is the clause with the changes (the language removed is struck out, while the new language is in bold italics): (REMOVED - SEE HISTORY FOR DIFFERENCES).
Are Gravewit/Nunix the ones to make the call on which license the site utilizes? Or should we be automatically adopting the newer version of the licenses? --Barek 09:51, 23 March 2006 (CST)
I realized overnight that we may not be legally able to migrate to v2.5. Fortuneately, the changes are minor enough that I don't believe that they affect the Wiki in any way.
We would need to get legal advice on this; but I believe that for the license to be changed to 2.5, one of two things would be needed. Either the written agreement by everyone who contributed under the old license (not practical for any Wiki); or a policy in place when those contributions were originally made saying that the license could be updated without notice. Because I don't see either, I believe we need to remain with 2.0. But, I'm not a lawyer, so I could be mistaken on this.
In either case, like I mentioned, the differences between the two are so minor that v2.0 is more than satisfactory for the purposes of the Wiki. If anyone wants to see the differences, look at the History for this page, my contribution from Mar 23, 06 shows the details of the change. --Barek 22:13, 23 March 2006 (CST)

179th largest MediaWiki in the world[edit source]

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_wikis Use your find tool to quickly get to it. My question is: Should this little bit of information be included in this article?

GWW is now 179, we are 154. RT | Talk 07:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Change?[edit source]

Perhaps a small change from: as a resource for the just launched NCSoft game, to: as a resource for the then just launched NCSoft game, RT | Talk 07:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

More importantly a removal of the by-nc-sa license, which states NOT for profit. Gravewit sold the site AND the information in it to Wikia, since he was required to delete any archives. StatMan 01:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The information (minus private user data) is free. You can get the latest dump at GuildWiki:Database dumps, last updated Jan 3 (Wikia generates a new dump about every month). If you believe Gravewit made a profit against the terms of the license, that just means Gravewit violated the license, it does not change the license of this site. Just like if a legislator or a cop breaks a law, that doesn't make the law disappear. -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa.png) 02:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Why is this page protected?[edit source]

It needs a link to GuildWiki:Copyright . --◄mendel► 06:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

This page was protected on 08:16, 23 March 2006 by Rainith for the reason, "Spambot target". I looked through the history and only saw one instance of it being hit by a spambot; however, there were 3 instances of content-removal. Still, that hardly qualifies this page for protection, in my opinion. Other opinions? —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken.gif 17:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)