User talk:Entropy/Archive 30

The Historical Unofficial Official Public Forums Unsure of where to turn for help? Need input on matters large or small? Just want to chat? Look no further! These are the current hot topics. I reserve the right to move threads to more pertinent talkpages. Add this page to your watchlist and stay on top of things!

Archives

[Add an archive]

1. ~November, 2006 - February 3, 2007
2. February 4 - February 26
3. February 27 - April 2
4. April 3 - April 18
5. April 19 - May 3
6. May 4 - July 21
7. July 22 - August 5
8. August 6 - September 16
9. September 17 - September 22
10. September 23 - September 30
11. September 31 - November 2
12. November 3 - November 11
13. November 12 - November 16
14. November 17 - November 24
15. November 25 - December 5
16. December 6 - December 14
17. December 15 - December 31
18. December 31, 2007 - January 18, 2008
19. January 19 - March 3
20. March 4 - March 26
21. March 27 - May 6
22. May 7 - May 31
23. June 1 - August 13
24. August 14 - September 28 (note: last C/P archive)
25. September 29 - November 2
26. November 3 - November 21
27. November 22 - December 18
28. December 19 - December 20
29. December 21 - December 28
30. December 29, 2008 - January 25, 2009
31. January 26 - March 12
32. March 13 - April 18
33. April 19 - July 18
34. July 19, 2009 - January 28, 2010

[Add an archive]

Today's birthdays: none

Fri 19 Apr

---

Upsetting

Well, of course Spanish Guild Wiki is a fansite. They aren't competition. We on the other hand, directly compete with their (dare I say, at the time of it's launch, redundant and absolutely pointless?) wiki, and naturally they can't endorse the very thing that inspired and in many cases formed the foundation of their own (rip-off) service. Now I must stop talking before this turns into a wall of text rant. By the way, I've been waiting about 10 hours to post this anti-Anet message, but I will refrain from Qwest-bashing here.Entrea [Talk] 01:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

It's still a slap in the face considering that we once had specialty fansite status - and in fact, could have qualified for even higher...and around the time (I think) that GWW came out, it was revoked. I realize that GWW only supports the English language, and so the "threat" theory is valid. But still...it angers me. I suppose that's how things always are in corporate business, though...so stupid that the two wikis are separated by basically only a license (and the all-important "ownership", which translates to either +e-peen or $$$). (T/C) 07:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Ditto everything Entropy said above. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 07:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Ditto again. I wasn't even an active editor here at the time, just a reader, and the whole license/fansite issues were annoying enough to permanently bias me against GWW. —Dr Ishmael 08:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Let's just hope that Regina has the decency to give us a answer or at least act as if she is looking for one.I can't believe the answers your getting over there.I wasn't around as a contributer during the dilemma they talk about,so i wouldn't know.But so what if someone sold the wiki, like you said there wasn't a change in quality and from what i believe there wasn't a change in "rules" either,are they just jealous that they didn't get any of the money?I mean even if it's that should that be a reason to deny other people that have nothing to do with the issue information?As far as i know we don't censor any linking to the official wiki ,the thing is that why link to their page of the warrior when we can just link to ours?Isn't more choices better anyways?So what if i think this wiki is more complete and someone over there thinks that one is better, give people both links and let them choose or use both as they see fit. (Delete this biblepagepost if you wish) Durga Dido 07:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Two Words

I'm sorry.--Łô√ë îğá†ħŕášħ 09:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Me too. (T/C) 10:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The music is great. Standing up to what you are is, too. Welcome back. --◄mendel► 01:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Celebration

Hurray, Entropy's still here. It's good to know, although I'm still a bit confused over what happened. That doesn't really matter though, whaat matters is that ENTROPY DIDN'T LEAVE!!! Seriously, Entropy, even though you may not really know us in reall life, we consider you a friend, or at least I do, and I know that others do too. Arcdash 16:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

You keep your friends chained up in the cellar so they may never leave you ever again? Oh wait, hmmm, I mustn't ... there's something I need to do, like, take soem Xmas cookies down to the cellar because ... erm, that's where my room is, yeah, I live in the cellar. Not YOUR cellar, obviously, erm, what can I say? Gotta go! --◄mendel► 01:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: "post of leadership"

While I am happy to see the concept of the administrative positions named as a non-identical concept from the "post of leadership" in your message, something in what you wrote brought up an issue that has troubled me for a long time.

Yes, you have a de facto "post of leadership" on this wiki. It happened due to a combination of factors, and your position as a Bcrat happened to be, IMHO, one of the earlier triggering catalysts that ends up placing you in that post.

You have been in a rather unique position in the history of GuildWiki. You see, the GuildWiki community never really had a de facto leader previously (at least going as far back as the GuildWiki history I am acquainted with). Gravewit happened to won the "ownership" of the actual wiki, but he was nowhere near being the community's leader. Nor were the other Bcrats. They were just active community members with the actual system permission to promote other sysops. The ones trusted to be asked to arbitrate just have a fair reputation (and have sysop rights to enforce the result if necessary), but they aren't seen as the de facto leaders of the wiki community either.

GuildWiki was led collectively by the active members of the community, many of whom weren't even admins at all.

The above sentence is still more or less true today, in terms of what happens in the main article space. On the other hand, much of the community also considers you as a de facto leader, something we didn't use to have. It is hard for me to really decide whether that is a good thing or not. For a healthy wiki that reached critical mass with much more room to grow, I would generally consider having a singular leader at the top as a bad thing. However, for a wiki that from a number of perspectives is already dead (in fact, has been dead for many many months), having a focused leadership might help give a sense of direction to the community, or it might worsen the health of the community such that the singular leader holds/becomes the last straw.

Basically, I am worried about the community becoming dependent on having somebody in the "post of leadership". If you did not return, I would not have assumed that post. It's not something that just came with the Bcrat position, and even if I had a perfect score in all the other criteria to be trusted with the post, my semi-inactivity along would have disqualified me from being the leader of the community. If you did not return, I would have continued to observe and see if the post of leadership would have naturally fallen onto somebody else (who probably would not be a bcrat), and if that didn't happen by the time some kind of alarm in my head starts to scream, I would have tried to spend more time on the wiki to try to get the community used to not having a leader again.

Back when Mendel was recently promoted to adminship, I told him that it was now his responsibility to doubly make sure that for any stuff he used to do as a user and would be continuing doing as admin, new users will perceive those as stuff they themselves can do also, as opposed to something Mendel does because he's an admin. I feel we have to proactively reinforce the YAV principle, instead of just passively obeying/quoting it.

In response to your "request for judgment" from the community, while the outcome you listed were simply whether to continue grant you in the post of leadership, I (with all the authority a fellow community member may command) would "sentence" you something else:

For every person ("A") who valued you and deferred to you as de facto leader, you need to empower somebody ("B") through motivation, encouragement, and/or other means of positive reinforcement such that A will also value B and consider B one of the co-leaders of GuildWiki. A and B can be the same individual.

Or in plainer language, you need to make everyone on GuildWiki who considered you as its de facto leader to feel there are other de facto co-leaders. It's not something you can simply solve by promoting Bcrats, because we do have a huge precedents of Bcrats who aren't considered leaders.

In any case, I still trust you with the tools of Ban/Del/Prot and user rights management, regardless of what I think about you and the "post of leadership".

Moving to a slightly different topic, to your original farewell address, I only responded on the topic of identities on the internet, as that was a topic I had strong opinions about. On the topic of your departure itself, I pointedly ignored it. But now that you are back, I would like to refer you to something I wrote on one of Warwick's talkpages a long time ago. Unfortunately it is now extremely hard to locate because Warwick uses move to archive. If somebody will dig up a list of all my contributions scattered in the histories of the various Warwick talk page articles, that would be quite helpful so that I can actually show Entropy what I wanted to refer her to. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 10:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh good, so I'm not the only one who is bothered by such things. :p

I know in the past I've (usually) tried to emphasize how what I do is not because of my user rights, and such and such, but I get what you are saying...YAV doesn't just cover that aspect of being valuable. There's also the, shall we call it, "solidarity aspect". We're all brothers and sisters in this together, with intrinsic worth that does not need to be proven to be appreciated. (Correlates to AGF too.)

I'd like to claim that I have never actively sought out to become this leader type person; it wasn't a premeditated plan. Like you say, it is a combination of factors - bureaucrat, "cult of personality", activity, etc. But then again, I've never actively opposed it either.

For your sentence, I would like to imagine that I have served it, but I would probably be overestimating what "certain users" feel about themselves. I try to empower other users, whether through spreading democracy or other means, but I don't have a real "success story" so to speak. I believe that through my influence I have made certain users more important/empowered than they otherwise would have been, but probably not to the standards you have specified. (For that matter, in recent memory I cannot recall anyone who even approaches "co-leader" like status...I begin to see the trouble.)

Lastly, if you could give me even a rough estimate as to when this post would have been, that would help. I probably even know what it is, if you have some contextual clues. (T/C) 11:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Rly now... User:Dr ishmael has a good deal of influence when it comes to technical things. You could think of him as a co-leader of sorts. 07:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not about who Entropy personally thinks is a co-leader, it's about everyone who thinks Entropy is a leader also thinks that at least one other person co-leads. And not everyone who accepts Entropy as a leader would necessarily consider the same person B as a co-leader. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 07:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I was not attempting to persuade Entropy per se, Pan; I was pointing out that other users already have a leadership role on this wiki, due to their own efforts and abilities. 01:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with your claim, though the truth of that claim does not alter my main point, because the claim was about intentions, and my point was about an effect that is all too capable of being independent of any intentions. It is fine to consider yourself as having been serving the sentence, but have served to me would imply that you have fulfilled the sentence, to which I would disagree and your own "I begin to see the trouble" admits the lack of fulfillment. Thus you have not completed the sentence yet, despite having started serving it before I named it. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 07:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Pan, I went thorugh your contribs in User talk namespace by the 500s looking for "Warwick" and reviewed all the edits, and except some pretty generic YAV stuff, I could find nothing that would even remotely apply here. (Here's an overview of her archives.) Maybe you wrote that in connection with GW2W somewhere else (e.g. the Community Portal or GW2W itself)? --◄mendel► 06:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S. this? 06:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Nope that's not it... Maybe I mis-remembered and nothing I wrote when Warwick was pulling warwicks actually was applicable here )-: Blah, so much for my laziness. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 07:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I said it before but w/e. Leadership is not a post, it's a relation. Entropy can't promote other leaderships nor can she choose to be or not to be a leader. I just happens. It's not about being the one, since it's about how we are. So there's no gain in going around looking for prospects, it'll be the way we make it to be, leader or not; Entropy or not. 20:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed Entropy can't just "promote" others to leadership, and I am not telling Entropy to do that or to look for specific prospects. I'm sentencing Entropy to empower other user B's to develop that relationship with other user A's so that Entropy isn't the only one with that type of relationship with the A's. You would agree with me that Entropy can't just declare "PanSola is now the co-leader", it doesn't work that way. But what Entropy can do is work towards influencing the relationship between Ereanor and other users, between Ish and other user, between every user with each other. Entropy can help encouraging the people who look up to her to be more confident, step up the plate and become more involved, and be more independent. Entropy has such influence exactly because of the relation she holds with others.

The community didn't hold an election and explicitly chose Entropy. It just happened. If more and more people become dependent/reliant on having a figure in Entropy's current role around, then if we ever lose Entropy the devastation would be unnecessarily greater than it needed to be. As it was a process that "just happened", I claim it would be overly optimistic to think we can just make it happen again with somebody else exactly when we need it. Thus I argue that it is essential to the health of the community to not have the relationship of leadership be centralized into the basket of a single person. And thus we need more people to have the type of relationship that Entropy has with many on GuildWiki, and that is something Entropy has some degree of influence upon. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 01:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

If we're going to change the leadership model, moving from "supreme leader" to "supreme leader with co-leader" ain't going to cut it. I have seen a good wiki community that gets by with a leadership team, with a blurry border into who's leading without an admin seat, and while we don't have any co-leaders stepping up to the plate, we do have people who can form a team. It takes no nominations, it takes an interest in the wiki and its community, and if you have that and invest time, you're in - it's as simple as that. --◄mendel► 23:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not disagree wit you. I'm not trying to move the model to "supreme leader with co-leader", I am just trying to return to the model of "no single supreme leader". I'm not trying to get an official "co-leader" of GuildWiki, I am trying to have everyone who perceives Entropy as the leader of GuildWiki to also perceive at least one other person to be in an equal position. What one user consider the leaders of GuildWiki to be may or may not be the same as what another user thinks, because it's not an official position, and different people see/notice things differently. Ideally, everyone is a co-leader, but realistically it usually manifests as your description of the "leadership team". Entropy's current relationship with other users gives her leverage in shifting the perception of users, as well as positively encouraging people to be active in the wiki. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 01:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh my god, I'm like Steve Jobs, and you want me to be more like Sam Walton. It all makes sense now! :O (T/C) 16:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to do your keynote address. :/ — Nova — (contribs) 04:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

A question about editing tips

Sorry to bother you, do you guys have a page or somthing that explains basic wiki stuff? New to this all....looked at the Editing tips provided, feel like there is still a good bit I have no idea about. Bad soles 16:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Most of us learn as we go, Wikipedia has some good guides that you might need to look at, or you can ask an experenced user here, or at any other userpage (almost everyone watches Entropy's page, so it's a good page to start) RandomTime 17:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

RT's been gone for a while, so I guess he doesn't know about the shared Wikia help system. Check out Help:Main Page and you can find help on just about anything wiki-related. —Dr Ishmael 17:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks ^.^, seems a good bit of my very, very limited HTML knowledge works for this. Bad soles 18:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Wiki formating isn't HTML, it's a different (simpler) formatting language RandomTime 20:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

GW:EDIT, guys. 23:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought soles had read that, but "editing tips" means just the stuff that the Monaco skin throws up, right?

Anyway, append ?action=render to any wiki page URL and you can look at the source of that to see the HTML that comes out of the wikicode, and yes, you can use some HTML directly, and while some tags are prohibited, Templates actually make wikicode a whole lot more complex than HTML, and almost everything in CSS2 works (except background images, afaik).

Oh, and I have a bonus tip for you: try to make your section titles more telling than just a question. ;-) --◄mendel► 03:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Another helpful hint is to just watch what others do and learn from that; I've never looked at any of the official help stuffs, instead I learn by examples and copying others' work.

Also, this is my talkpage, and so I reserve the right to keep section headers as ambiguous and unhelpful as I want. :\ (T/C) 07:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Man oh man

I wish I had been here for the drama. To sum up my thoughts on the whole thing: Sorry to see you go/glad to see you back/surprised to discover your penis.

There should be a newsletter for these things. — Powersurge360 07:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Eternal rofls 07:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

... >.> (T/C) 07:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Srsly. Penal discovery is big news. 23:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the word "Penal" was ever designed to be used in that way... -- Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 23:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Nothing is impossible in the way of Possessed. 23:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Pop culture policy change

I am shamelessly using your talkpage to advertise. Everyone please read this and tell me what you think. I think it will help with trivia revert wars and related stuff. --Macros 18:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Approved. 18:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Silver Sunlight (T/C) 19:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good, puts down a good idea of what actual trivia is. Arcdash 20:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Fourthed.-- (Talk) (Contr.) 04:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought this was already part of the policy/was the norm. I approve. (Now of course, there will be arguments about what constitutes "oldest", and whether or not the most popular reference ought to be used instead...so perhaps an "Ask Linsey" clause should be added?) (T/C) 04:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I already added the "Ask Linsey" clause. :P —Dr Ishmael 05:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

This is the trouble about linking to diffs. Thanks. :) (T/C) 05:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

This is the trouble about not using the policy talkpage to discuss the policy. --◄mendel► 06:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

"This is the public forums", as you've said yourself on numerous occasions. (T/C) 06:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd say the same thing if this discussion was on teh community portal: if you want to be able to find the comments later, they need to be near the page they pertain to, and that is the policy's talkpage, in this case; and of course they can be moved there when the discussion is died down, but it just makes more sense to have them start there to begin with instead of discussing everwhere that the notice is posted. --◄mendel► 06:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Ditto mendel. But on the "This is the public forums" note, I fear that mentality may foster elitism. This place is useful for catching the attention of a group of GuildWiki regulars. But opacity increases if significant bits of actual matters are discussed here instead of the talk pages of the pertaining topics. That's why I used to do talk-page shuffles, moving even on-going threads from a user talkpage to the pertaining talkpage. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 07:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Many people already point others to this page, and this group of regulars uses the page for anything and everything, including some very actual matters from time to time. I am not adverse to this, because I do not mind my talkpage being treated as the public forums. I don't see any problem with explicitly stating what it implicitly has become.

I understand the concerns about paper trails and moving threads to the relevant places, and I could start doing that more if it would help allay your fears. I just don't like moving others' comments/disrupting the flow of conversation. (T/C) 07:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

IMO, this is only a forums for those who know where this place is. Unless you link this page from the sidebar or main page or the community portal talk, I would disagree with the publicness of this forum, and I would consider this place only a forum for the "in-group". Just because some new people get pointed to this place by others doesn't make this place easily accessible to the general public IMHO. (btw, this paragraph is about the general principle. I am aware that on the CP talk regarding this specific issue there is a link pointing here helping transparency for this particular case) -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 07:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I changed the title to better reflect this. (T/C) 07:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, posting the note makes it more transparent, actually. People are commonly more ready to post to a talkpage than to any "official" page, see for the example the amount of assisstance requests that the docor gets. So the question is, do you want to change the way we do things, or do you want to make it transparent? It may well be the case that only one option is possible.

Doing the moves when archiving at the latest would probably be a good idea. --◄mendel► 07:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I want things to be transparent and easily findable, which means more linking from high-profile talkpages (to get attention) to actual topical talk pages, moving threads when necessary. This does not stop people from asking for help on Entropy's talk page or the Request for Assistance page, they can very much continue to do so. To me it wouldn't be changing the way we do things, but rather unchanging the way things are being done. d-: -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 07:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm Glad to Have You Back

We all get upset sometimes, there's absolutely no need to apologize for what you did IMO. Anger is simply a human emotion, and showing it does not make you any less of a leader, it makes you more of a person. I don't think anyone is going to actually look down at you for saying you would leave and then going back on it. I think I speak for all of us when I say, I'm just extremely happy to have you back!-- (Talk) (Contr.) 04:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. (T/C) 04:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

"I don't think anyone is going to actually look down at you for saying you would leave and then going back on it." ... One name: Warwick. --- -- (contribs) (talk) 16:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

If there is one person in a worse position to look down on people who leave and then come back than Warwick, I must've missed something. --◄mendel► 16:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

My point was that people are looking down on her for leaving and returning. --- -- (contribs) (talk) 16:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The difference between "I need to take a wikibreak, I can't take it anymore" and "I am never coming back" is one of self-control at the time you are writing this, and possibly one of how quick you are to take this step — I would venture that Entropy and Warwick both must be driven farther than almost anybody else before they would even consider leaving the wiki for any length of time (although things have changed somewhat with Warwick, from what I can tell). I can't possibly look down on this, and I believe anyone who does is completely unjustified in doing so. --◄mendel► 18:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Do wiki ppl actually think about something so futile as looking down on other users? Is it even an issue worth discussing? 20:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

YAV is important? --Shadowcrest 20:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Ereanor's point was that there was that it's silly to discuss the inferiority of other users on a wiki. There was no conflict with YAV in his statement. — Nova — (contribs) 22:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I took it to mean that it's not worth discussing violations of YAV (looking down at other users), which is a topic worthy of discussion. --Shadowcrest 22:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Ereanor, I believe there is not much that makes wiki people special or better than other people, so yeah, I'm certain soem of them look down on others, as is Viper; even if it's futile. And it's not a violation of YAV to look down on other users if you have reasons. You just can'tlook down on them because of their edit count or their position in the wiki hierarchy. --◄mendel► 23:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Personal Skin

I'm a little hazy on this, but could I somehow create my own personal skin for GWiki, and if so, how would I go about doing so? talk 00:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Special:MyPage/monaco.css or Special:MyPage/monobook.css, whichever you use. Edit it to do stuffs. 01:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

You have to keep in mind, though, that anything you do not explicitly overwrite which is part of the common .css and .js will still show. (T/C) 16:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

A Disgrace

Well, I finally listened to "the music"... evil... you should be ashamed for that, catching people unawares. Oh, and I asked a question on my talk page that nobody helped with, if you have the time, thanx -->Suicidal Tendencie 19:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I saw that, you're twisted. -->Suicidal Tendencie 20:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

You, sir, are a miserable failure when it comes to catching people unawares. Also, you would be the first person ever to refuse a Purple Heart. That's pretty disgraceful if you ask me. :\ (T/C) 20:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually he is not a complete failure and i can be proof to that :|, i just clicked the link to his "talk page" before it got change and was caught.Stupid FireFox your suppose to protect me against these things! Durga Dido 20:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

1) I apologise for being new to coding and trying my best. With being tired and little experience I consider my attempt 'brave'. (Yes, that's what I'm calling it.)

2) What the hell is a Purple Heart?

3) Change the "Victims" addition to "People who have been RickRoll'd. Not like it could be any more obvious now, so may as well.

4) In the position you're in, being known to have a list of victims is a bad idea. Will add moar wafflez when they occur -->Suicidal Tendencie 20:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC) (damn signature won't fuction as an external link... why is this so damn complicated...)

Damn EC, thanx Durga, feel better now -->Suicidal Tendencie 20:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It was clearly brave; but was it also strong? :D

Wikipedia:Purple heart. I think being RickRoll'd counts... (T/C) 21:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I keep looking at your userpage with my volume all the way up. Music broken? 22:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

You need to click "play." 22:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you clicked the volume button; it's the same as mute. You can't open up the slider because it's scaled too small, though, so if you muted it by sliding the slider down; edit the page and increase the height to, like, 90. --- -- (contribs) (talk) 13:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

My speakers were unplugged for some reason. Anyway, good song choice. 15:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

.... Explains a lot :P Clever --- -- (contribs) (talk) 17:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah... so... I'm in the US Military now? Was that a pun on my name? Sorry, but I'm still just as lost here. -->Suicidal Tendencie 22:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

birthday user box

Today's birthdays: none

Fri 19 Apr

It works, it doesn't need DPL, and it uses the birthday list as is = easy to edit, simple to display, uses very little server resources. We pwn GWW. ;-) --◄mendel► 01:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

That's oorsome :D (T/C) 07:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The Template:User birthday/today is meant to return just the name, so that people who want the design around it to be different can put it in their own design as is. For that to work, the output of /today needs to be as neutral and basic as possible. The thing to do for your own design is to change the userbox, or to roll your own userbox or page code or whatever (e.g. subst: the userbox and modify it). --◄mendel► 11:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC) & 11:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't the outcome be cached, just like the "You visited this page at " userbox? --- -- (contribs) (talk) 12:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

That's why I put the date on, so you can see when it was cached, and you can click the tiny dot next to the day to purge the cache = recompute the page if it is out of date. --◄mendel► 13:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Clever Was Mendel. --- -- (contribs) (talk) 13:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Aye, indeed he is :P -->Suicidal Tendencie 18:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Well I think it is important to have at least some minimal text such as "Today's birthdays:" , because a userbox which just says "none" most of the time does not make much sense, and the small text at the bottom referring people to the Birthday list is overly long compared to the rest of the box. The purge link is also non-obvious unless someone actually bothers to read the documentation, I think it could be made into a <small>Update</small> in the main portion of the userbox. (T/C) 21:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I'm fine with it now, but you're free to edit (or copy to your sandbox) Template:User birthday - it's just the /today that I want you to not touch.

I was kind of loath to put an update button in a visible place, because people go "ooh! shiny! what happens when I click that?" and create server load. Ideally I wanted to make the number clickable, but for that I need to override the color change that goes with visited URLs or it looks like crap. I'm certain it can be done with CSS, but I'm too lazy to look up whether we have that already installed. --◄mendel► 12:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe no birthdays today instead of none? that would have to be edited into Template:User birthday/today, in fact. --◄mendel► 22:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I will just edit the template, I guess, since I think "Today's Birthdays:" is more inclusive. (On a day where there is a birthday, that name is displayed, and like I said it's not immediately obvious that it is a birthday. "Birthday" is the operative word, as soon as I see that I know what the box is about.) (T/C) 23:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

gw gold ads

we don't still have them, do we? I remember we had a vigilance thing where if any user saw one it was reported and blocked. Anyways we all know they're not listing us because we're pro competition and they dont like competition. — Nova — (contribs) 15:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see ads anymore because I hide them with .css hax, but as far as I know we haven't had gold ads for a long time; Wikia continually works to keep those on the blacklist; and any gold ads that slip through, get reported quickly. (After the way to report bad ads became a direct e-mail instead of posting something on the wiki, I can't be sure anymore what bad ads people are reporting, but I am confident any gold-selling ads are top priority.)

But anyway, yes, I think that's a bullshit answer because unless we have gold-selling ads appearing *right now* there is no reason to keep us off the fansite list for things that are (1) not our fault and (2) in the past. GuildWiki does not condone gold-selling ads, and neither does Wikia. (T/C) 21:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

On a side note, Wikia has continually made it more difficult to report bad ads. But here's my idea: why don't we scour all the other listed Guild Wars fansites and look for gold selling ads? If we find a single one, we can rape Regina's talk page. 00:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Macros already reported GWO and Guru for once having gold-selling ads. (T/C) 00:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

ogud 00:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Regina finally answered and it seems she is saying that its because of the gold ads we have.(we know that isn't true but whatever)How do you get ads here in anyways?I haven't messed with any .css or any wiki settings that i know might have removed ads, but i don't see any ads.I am currently going try the whole list of fansites on GW and checking if the sites have any gold ads, i already have found one on lore of mytos site, when i gone tru the whole list i will post pics for regina to answer about.Durga Dido 01:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

If you are using the Monaco skin, then you will only see one ad, and it's only on the main page. 01:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

In your preferences on the skins tab, there is a checkbox ("Show all advertisements") that lets you see the same ads that the anons get. --◄mendel► 06:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I've never understood why anyone would want to see ads... (T/C) 06:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, the idea was so editors would be able to see how page layouts work for anons without having to log out. Or to find and report gold ads. --◄mendel► 06:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Regina's probably just upset that I called her a lesbian. 05:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you may have just shown why GuildWiki isn't held in high regard.Lurkerabove 18:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Well I used to elaborate on the topic, but since her picture and its corresponding talk page were deleted, no one without deleted revision access can see that it was actually User:J.Kougar who called her a lesbian. So nowadays it's easier to just say I started it. 20:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It's kinda hard to tell with a wiki who wrote what where, but as far as the image talk page goes, Kougar wrote "she's not really interested in their [the boys'] persuasion.  ;)", and Felix is in the clear both with reagrd to that and the race debate that ensued. Still, not exactly high class, the whole conversation. --◄mendel► 21:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like things haven't changed between Regina and Gaile. They're both idiots. I'm sorry, but the gold thing now and Gaile's completely baseless argument supporting ANet's retarded decision have removed all respect I have for almost any ANet employee, except maybe some of the programmers; and I only have respect for them because they're willing to suffer what must be total development hell. talk 01:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Protect Site

See w:c:help:Help:Protect_site. Let's hope we never need that one. --◄mendel► 18:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Is that like a db lock? (T/C) 21:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems like it. --- -- (contribs) (talk) 21:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

No, it just shifts permissions around, with highest protection being "sysops only". If vandals somehow got into/hacked the sysops or whatnot then a db lock is probably only initiable by wikia scrubs. — Nova — (contribs) 02:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Userbox?

I would be honored if you created an userbox with this image --Balistic Pve (T/C/E) 04:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

LOL. On a side note, there is a bug if you hover your name over a party in your invites list (to display a list of party names) and someone joins that party while your mouse is hovered over it, that guy's level is 255 (until server refreshes, which for me was a few seconds). Screenshot it but not sure if it caught the level before it updated. — Nova — (contribs) 00:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I've heard of these "255 bugs" before but never seen one in practice. Will make userbox eventually (it's a bit big for a userbox though, I might crop it) (T/C) 00:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Ghostly's level before getting in range, after defeating Zaishen in HA, used to be 255, I can remember. I think bug is fixed now tho. Yeah, the only thing that matters about that pic is "Size: 254/8 (253 Heroes)" but that's not a very good l/w ratio for a userboax :/ — Nova — (contribs) 04:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Moar Heroes Plz

--◄mendel► 22:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The red 254 is nearly illegible in the .png version, not that it was great in the .jpg to begin with... —Dr Ishmael 00:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

(253 Heroes) is epic enough. — Nova — (contribs) 00:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I'm over-analyzing this like I do many things, but since when does altering a variable cause it to temporarily jump to its maximum value? talk 01:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Image an unsigned binary number. Decrement it below 0 (i.e. subtract 1). What do you get if you keep on? --◄mendel► 02:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Rolling userboxes

Are now much more userboxing look likes.--Łô√ë îğá†ħŕášħ 04:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

SO GO COMMENT ON THEM.--Łô√ë îğá†ħŕášħ 05:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I missed this section on my talk. (T/C) 07:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Finally getting more storage

The Live Team is now designing the first big content update of 2009, which we expect to release in April. We had many discussions towards the end of last year and ended up with a major wish list and a plan for what it would take to make that list a reality. At this point, we have a clear idea of what is ahead of us and we hope everyone will be as excited about these prospects as we are.

Here are a few features we are currently developing for April:

• Increases to account-based storage
• Improvements to character-based storage
• Account-based changes to the Hall of Monuments

So after years of asking and being told it wasn't feasible and us accepting that, now they say we are gonna get it anyways?Well I'm not one to complain just to complain so HURRAY!! It's about freaking time.But by april i would want to not care anymore and want GW2 news.I hope they actually give us something worth it and not just something to say they gave us something. Durga Dido 00:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

April Fool's? Also, the thing about "storage isn't feasible" referred exclusively to storage for Storybooks, iirc. Also, this is not going to be the change where you can access a "master inventory" for all of your characters at once. So, meh. Not that I'm complaining, I need more storage.

HoM changes were expected/announced for long time, so that is irrelevant. (T/C) 00:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Also note in the section above that where they say, "By spacing out our content releases, we gain the time to tackle larger and more difficult projects that, previously, would've been impossible. Some features that once seemed unattainable are now being explored as upcoming projects." So basically, the definition of "what is feasible" has changed - in the past, increased storage wasn't feasible, but now that they have an expanded and experienced Live Team that can focus on these projects, it has become feasible. —Dr Ishmael 05:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

You know, I think that's bullshit, because the reasons they said it was not feasible was a lack of server space. Having more people on the Live (lul?) Team is completely irrelevant to that. But then again it is ANet, and we all know they are bastions of truth and honesty and are completely unambiguous at all times. Knockdowns cannot be scaled, Miniature Polar Bear is a hoax, etc etc.... (T/C) 07:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Better compression algorithms (or having the data in a format that compresses more easily) means more storage in the same amount of space. ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777(talk) 09:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Uh huh. And so suddenly the impossible becomes possible? ANet should never say "X is never going to happen/is technically impossible", in that case, unless they start adding "...at this point in time" qualifiers. (T/C) 12:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

3 byte ID + 1 byte amount per slot times 25 slots per chest page * 5 million chest pages max = 500MB = 0.5 GB server space. Nowadays that's peanuts, so maybe ANet simply upgraded their servers? And they don't need as much reserves for expansion since that has slowed down? --◄mendel► 13:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Hope they'll put in a /storage command or something, some of the outposts have some pretty stupidly placed storage chests Viruzzz 14:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Henge of Denravi and Central Transfer Chamber come to mind. :\ I remember there were suggestions for a button or something that would automatically target the Xunlai chest. A slash command which just opens it for you anywhere would be cool, too. (I would also like to be able to see my storage while outside of town...) (T/C) 14:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Auto-Target the Xunlai Chest in a given area with a single keystroke (maybe key combo)? Hell, that shouldn't be too hard, especially if they store the NPC locations locally (in client memory). Hell, maybe a 3rd party (OH NOES) targeting app to help you get to stupidly placed, but all too often necessary NPCs such as merchants, chests, traders, and the like. talk 01:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I want the F9 inventory to show on the character selection screen so I know which mule to pick. --◄mendel► 01:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Ion beam

I disagree. Ion beams don't cause burning or deal damage. It just disables machine that relies on electronics. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 03:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

orly? (T/C) 03:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but CnC takes place in an alternate history/universe, thus its physics doesn't apply here. On the otherhand, stuff that happened a long time ago, in a galaxy far far away does. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 03:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

You are mistaken about a great many things. (T/C) 07:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I dunno, I think ion cannons can deal damage. 14:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

8 yrs of Bush video

You didn't know that? No wonder you can't understand why the US image in the world has suffered. --◄mendel► 13:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It's too bad no one took a leaf out of Stephen King's book... namely, Dead Zone. 14:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

That wasn't the point and you know it. (T/C) 00:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Holy Crap, and i was afraid Bush would start WW3 , now im even more scared of the guy. Durga Dido 01:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I am a little upset about all the crap Bush is getting. Yeah, he screwed up some a lot of stuff, but half of the things in that video are just things from his presidency, not things because of his presidency (How exactly is his evil and/or stupid Vice President's homicidal tenancies relevant to how he did?) Anyway, a video that aims to portray Bush in the worst light possible (he did do one or two positive things, you know) is probably not the best thing to base your opinions of him off of.Entrea [Talk] 07:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It irritates me that they made it seem like Cheney shot his friend on purpose. He felt really bad afterwards, you know. That's not only mudslinging, it's downright mean. 07:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's just a downright misleading and malicious video. Not that Bush had a great run, but he didn't screw up as much as they try and make you believe.Entrea [Talk] 07:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Truthiness > the truth tbh (T/C) 09:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The point Olberman makes is that Cheney wasn't tried (immunity?), and I should say Bush is responsible for whom he chooses as VP and advisors. Entrea, what else would you like Bush remembered by? "No child left behind" working out well? The video pretty much summarizes what I'm going to remember him by, (although that mining disaster thing is not memorable to me). --◄mendel► 12:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

He wasn't tried because his friend didn't press charges. >.> 15:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

On a scale of one to ten

Your existence gets a j.--Łô√ë îğá†ħŕášħ 08:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Do I get a cookie? (T/C) 09:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Only if you're nice to him. Otherwise I get the cookie (Muhahahaaa!!).--El_Nazgir 12:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

You guys!

400 posts over approx. 8 hours? I go to bed and find the recent changes to be flooded wtf? XD You sure do your work well. Guess I need to be nocturnal to keep up.--Alc ^^ 06:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

We used to have 500+ edits within fewer hours... d-: -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 06:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

But whyyyyyyy....?--Alc ^^ 06:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

To add stuff.--El_Nazgir 06:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, this is nothing compared to an active wiki. Besides, like Rurik says, "Sleep is for the weak!" (T/C) 20:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

13 or older

here. Cress Arvein 03:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah yeah. Before Wikia owned us, you didn't have to provide anything at all to make an account; it's the same at GWW and some other wikis. So back in those days, such things didn't make sense. I understand now. (T/C) 05:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

What are the chances of some people on this wiki who ARE 13 or younger? I mean people that age play GW and are willing to give in fake dates of birth, that's really something we can't avoid. Just wondering if you know of some children here on the wiki ;P --Alc ^^ 09:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I even know a baby that gets on this site (^.^) --El_Nazgir 09:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we do know of certain users who are under 13 now or were when they registered. But it's a secret- Wikia spies are everywhere. 13:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

hai guyz im rly 12 (T/C) 14:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Legal consequences

(Reset indent) If a 12-year old uses GuildWiki, Wikia violate COPPA and could be held responsible (they'd probably need to be shown to have been negligent, but I don't know). By the terms of service, the 12yo user registering is "unauthorized, unlicensed and in violation of these Terms of Use". So if that clause holds up in court, the user's access is unauthorized. What could the legal consequences of such unauthorized use be for the user? Civil damages, obviously, which is neglible; but are there criminal charges that could be pressed, and would any D.A. be willing to prosecute on that? --◄mendel► 14:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, the wonders of the intracability of accounts. <3 the shroudedness of Internet. Some organ in the White House should get people to survey the www 24/7. Would prevent e-crimes a bunch I reckon - big or small. Just saying...--Alc ^^ 15:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikia has done its due diligence by requiring the user to enter their birthdate, they can't be held responsible if the user lies about it. It's negligence on the part of the parents for allowing their <13-year-old to visit sites they aren't supposed to. But as we all know, nothing is ever the parents' fault anymore. >.> —Dr Ishmael 15:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Clarification: My question specifically is about consequences to the user. --◄mendel► 15:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I would presume that a Wikia-wide ban would be the least hostile course of action. 15:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

That's not a legal consequence. Wikia can ban anyone for no reason: The Company may terminate your account, delete your profile and any content or information that you have posted on the Service and/or prohibit you from using or accessing the Service for any reason, or no reason, at any time in its sole discretion, with or without notice. --◄mendel► 15:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Hence least hostile. I would imagine Wikia could, hypothetically, contact the FBI or whoever takes care of stupid federal laws, but I wouldn't expect them to. 15:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) They wouldn't. Wikia is badly organized as it is, no offense...--Alc ^^ 15:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

COPPA only regulates websites and the personal information they collect, not the users of the websites. The only thing regulating the users is Wikia's ToS, which as mentioned above allows them to terminate unauthorized accounts. —Dr Ishmael 16:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It also allows them to terminate authorized accounts, so by using Wikia unauthorizedly, you wouldn't have weakened your legal position in that respect; therefore, though that might be a consequence, it wouldn't be legal in character. --◄mendel► 22:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Whatever, it's still the only consequence that can come of a <13yo using Wikia. —Dr Ishmael 22:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Child Protection Services could get involved. (T/C) 14:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Special

You are.

Special!

This user is in a category all by herself.

--Łô√ë îğá†ħŕášħ 00:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I was already aware of this well-established fact, but thank you for for publicizing it. (T/C) 14:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I apologize

Concerning the footnote of this edit, I was completely in the wrong; I had no right to be angry about the way you handled the unblocking, since you were following established GuildWiki policy; and it was unprofessional of me to bring my anger to the wiki in this way. It will not happen again. --◄mendel► 19:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

..................................................................................... (T/C) 02:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I think most people believe you demoted me because I banned Auron; though I suppose that's not entirely true. Could you post an explanation? If you do, feel free to use my talk; it's been newly archived, and the rest of this affair is already on it anyway. --◄mendel► 13:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I must say, I would like to know why as well. An unfair ban doesn't warrant demotion in my opinion. Silver Sunlight (T/C) 13:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

This is just what I think, and it's very much possible I'm wrong, but..

"Overruling me this way means I hand in my badge and take a long wikibreak if you ever do this again." from Mendel's post, and "(because it will happen again)" from the User rights log, typed by Entropy makes me think she prematurely took your "badge" because she thinks you guys will be conflicting again (which imho is quite reasonable; nothing personal against either of you). --- -- (contribs) (talk) 16:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Isn't asking Mendel to avoid situations where Auron is involved a better option than to demote him? I seem to remember something about admins avoiding conflicts where they have been personally involved. If he does/doesn't have a grudge against Auron, it doesn't stop him from doing other things. Silver Sunlight (T/C) 16:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)