User talk:Auron of Neon

Friday

19

April

08:17 UTC

Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14

congrats

on bcrat ;) — Warw/Wick 10:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations. Bureaucrat on 3 wikis ownzzz. Lord of all tyria 11:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeh, congrats from me as well. This is the least exciting b.crat promotion ever, since for some reason, I had already thought of you and Pan as b.crats from a while ago... :D -- Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 14:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Grats Auron. Cress Arvein 17:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Two appointments. Hmmm. Shouldn't one of you have been appointed Autocrat instead of Bureaucrat? Not only does it fit your proclaimed management style better, you could be the Acrat to PanSola's Bcrat. Auroncrat, even. Happy ´cratting and all the best for the future! mendel 22:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

lol @ Auroncrat. Congrats! ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777(talk) 03:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

:P -Auron 08:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Aha, bow to my presience!-- - (Talk/Contribs) 18:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah... Entropy promoting Auron? Who could've predicted that? Banjthulu is better than you 20:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Just about everyone on this wiki? --Dr R. Phalange 20:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey, i also roughly predicted the timing! Don't dis my powers - i can see into the future, remember! (Also, answering rhetorical questions ftw, yes?)-- - (Talk/Contribs) 13:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. --Dr R. Phalange 14:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

No. Banjthulu is better than you 16:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

/agree-- - (Talk/Contribs) 18:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

/disagree. Banjthulu is better than you 18:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

/Stab-- - (Talk/Contribs) 18:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

IRC

For the Mozilla FF users. Somehow, I can't go to the English version of the site, keeps redirecting me back to the Dutch site... --- -- (s)talkpage 14:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Chatzilla owns, by the way. I personally find it easier to use then mIRC. Works in FF3 as well, which is always good. -- Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 14:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, I fixed the link. Your link went to /nl/, when the english version's on /en-US/. Not sure if that's the redirect problem you had or not... -- Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 14:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

If I go to Mozilla.com, I get the Dutch site. Probably cause my FF is Dutch too :) --- -- (s)talkpage 15:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

FYI - I have been running irc://freenode/GuildWiki for a while, (a year?) - with occasional activity - i'm on it most days - and don't realy want to change networks - perhaps we can have a talk about what network we should use (I'm happy to give you op on #guildwiki) - I suggest freenode as that's what Wikia use for their support channel RandomTime 20:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

THIS JERK...

...IS TAKING OVER! RUN! Also, stop IMing me when I'm trying to sleep. Also, if you want to join my guild, you have to pay me and publicly acknowledge that I pwn you. <3 —♥Jedi♥Rogue♥ 16:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

laf. ♥Misfate♥ 16:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

gz

nub.  :] 21:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, gg telling me to 'stop being offline,' and then being offline yourself all day... jerkface. ): 06:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Section header

'Coz I can RandomTime 18:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

yo

see train and the talk page. you could probably fix it better than me. <3—♥Jedi♥Rogue♥ 01:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

you know...

I was running, so I typed /stuck at the start. And I started to talk to you. And I got stuck. And talking to you fucked me. One more reason that you suck. Also... 5 minute timer = masturbation time. amirite?—♥Jedi♥Rogue♥ 04:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I always get 5 minute timers followed by 12 minute timers :< -Auron 04:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Splooge? —♥Jedi♥Rogue♥ 05:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

guild namespace

You should talk to Shadowphoenix about that - if I recall correctly she was considering starting up a similar project. As to my personal thoughts - what the hell, historic guild information has been markedly absent from both Wikis since the dawn of time. Though it's late in coming, if we were to do something with guilds I think it would be a fitting salute to start it off with vD and such. (T/C) 04:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Shadowphoenix actually did create a separate wiki solely for Guild Wars guilds, it can be found here. 04:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

We'd be making a namespace on this wiki for it, though. -Auron 05:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) GuildWiki:Article retention specifically states that we retain no info on guilds, and while that can obviously be changed, I'd like to at least point out what I can find about the precedents for that policy. The best example of past discussion on guild pages that I can find is here. The main issues seemed to be:

1. Guild information isn't really important, compared to the other encyclopedic content of the wiki.
2. Potential for vandalism by sore losers.
3. Inherent volatility of guilds/guild membership leading to RC spam.

Looking back on this from 2½ years later, and considering the significant reduction in the size of the GW playerbase since then, I don't think any of those issues would be especially problematic anymore. If your intent is to restrict it to a "historical content" perspective, then the issues are pretty much nonexistent. I have no objections to this. —Dr Ishmael 05:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason not to create a guild namespace. My position can only be labeled "indifference." 05:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Look at GWW, Ish. The vandalism by sore losers never happens. RC spam is a very very weak argument, it happens more from mafia spam and general retardation (which doesn't benefit the wiki in any way, as opposed to even a minor improvement via providing information on guilds).

Lastly; I disagree on your first point. Guild information is very important in a game called guild wars. Guilds have paved the path for both PvE and PvP; early on, [Rare], [SMS] and a slew of PvP guilds set the standard for farming builds (the original warrior solo farm for UW was made by Racthoh, future leader of SMS - he was also the first noted person to beat DoA hardmode). PvP guilds have had a loooooong and rich history, dating all the way back to guilds like Eternum Pariah and Bring Back The Rifts.

Part of the section would be devoted to historical guilds; ones like Rebel Rising, Idiot Savants and Servants of Fortuna, that have directly influenced the game and community. The other use would be more recreational; used for people looking for guilds, or guilds looking for people.

Like I said earlier, we assumed flaming was going to be a big problem. Well... it wasn't, at least not on GWW. People aren't going to be at each other's throats, and if they are, we have an admin noticeboard to help take care of any issues that arise. -Auron 05:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what potential benefit a guild namespace would bring. It already exists at GWW and is fairly meaningless there in my opinion. Who's going to write these guild namespace articles on historical PvP guilds? Creating an article on notable guilds could be worthwhile, I'm not convinced that creating a new namespace is though. --Xasxas256 05:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a Guild wars guilds wikia RandomTime 05:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh god no. I can't stand looking at all that guild junk in RC on GWW please don't bring it here. Except in few cases when the guild is very old and well know (like the spearmen), the guildnamespace tells you nothing and is full of fail. Its hard to standardize quality content and it.... the only arguement I can think of in favor of it is that it would give me more sysop work to do which amuses me. —♥Jedi♥Rogue♥ 06:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

In the case of historic guilds liek the ones you mentioned, I could be persuaded. If we can make some system for deciding which guilds are worth having pages for and which guilds we dont care about cause its just 5 guys who like to pve. —♥Jedi♥Rogue♥ 06:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps if the guild has a) a certain GvG rating, and/or b) has been featured in the Guild of the Week article? 06:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It might do well to consider Wikipedia's policies on deciding whether or not something is notable enough to deserve an article.—♥Jedi♥Rogue♥ 06:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I dunno about GotW tbh. A bunch of those have really been trash guilds (especially in the last year), anet just picks the least trash one because they had to pick someone. They've missed some of the earliest PvP guilds, and they missed Idiot Savants entirely.

I think for a historical section we'd have to play it by ear. Plenty of high-ranked guilds (current and past) have done nothing to actually affect gameplay; they didn't introduce new build ideas that changed metas (iQ with the touch ranger, KGYU/QQ with thumpers, etc) or host semi-official tournaments (like rawr's cup).

We'd also need a way to recognize influential PvE guilds without setting the bar too low. Ones like Scars Meadows and SoF are obvious, but what about newer guilds like The Arctic Marauders [TAM]? They've got excellent players, they coordinate some in-game events, are active (as a guild) on forums... where do we set the bar?

I'll look at what wikipedia has. -Auron 06:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Dammit, Auron its 3AM here. I need to sleep. Stop posting new things when I'm about to go to bed. —♥Jedi♥Rogue♥ 06:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like you didn't even read my comment, beyond the numbered list. Those weren't my points, those were the points that Fyren/Rainith brought up back in 2005 as their arguments against guild pages. My position is exactly the same as yours - those arguments are no longer valid (if they ever were in the first place). —Dr Ishmael 14:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Makes no sense. PvX was split off because it was recognized that this a separate subject matter that needed to be kept separate from the article base and that needs a slightly different community style. Keeping the guilds here means they want to link from articles mentioning them; it means RC gets more traffic. Use guildwarsguilds.wikia.com as our Guild namespace; it's just an interwiki link away (could some admin set this up right away?), every user here is already registered there, and it'd have a separate RC. Only the watchlists are separate, that's the drawback. --mendel 08:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and the admins. We might want to see some admins/Bureaucrats from here be admins there, too, for better integration. ;-) --mendel 09:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

IRC

I have downloaded the mIRC.. but i dont think it is working. I have the program, but i cant type/do anything.. any ideas? 10:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)