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

User talk:Zaishen Reject

From GuildWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Test1 template[edit source]

May I ask what the intended purpose of the Template:Test1 is going to be? For me it looks like a joke at the expense of someone. --Xeeron 09:37, 5 September 2006 (CDT)

It's a standard warning template from Wikipedia. zaishen
Hmmm, I dont like it. Either it is intended to be used in cases of minor vandalism, in which case it should say so, instead of "Thank you for experimenting ..." or it is used for people who actually wanted to do a proper edit, but failed to do so, in which case refering them to the sandbox and calling their edit a "test" is an insult in my book. There should be separate texts for vandals and newbie editors. --Xeeron 09:44, 5 September 2006 (CDT)
This template will be substed. The situations where this template is used are not clear cut cases of vandalism. The v-word is not to be used lightly. zaishen 09:46, 5 September 2006 (CDT)

I don't mind :) look after yourself — Skuld 13:50, 8 September 2006 (CDT)

Well, the test1 templates are pretty neutrally worded. I've only used {{test1}} and {{bv}} once each, I believe. Do you want me to stop using them? zaishen 14:17, 8 September 2006 (CDT)
Use them if you want, but I don't know if anyone else will. --Fyren 14:53, 8 September 2006 (CDT)
The Bv template is well worded for its intended use, but I agree with Xeeron on Test1 - it comes accrosss as condescending. I've never liked the wording on Wikipedia, and porting over that bad wording just extends that problem to here.
I'll think about it more, and try to come up with a proposed alternate wording it the talk page for that template. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 09:42, 13 September 2006 (CDT)

nightfall archive2.5[edit source]

ty that looked so ugly the way it was, i didnt know how to make it look better but the "archivebox" idea was great (as was the renaming to 2.5 from whatever it was) --Midnight08 Assassin 15:55, 5 September 2006 (CDT)

User talk:[edit source]

there's no way that was a valid edit. i'd have just applied a ban request to the user page, but if you think your subtle poke will work, i'm willing to see how your technique pans out. --Honorable Sarah Honorable Icon.gif 16:19, 5 September 2006 (CDT)

Banning on first offense is self-defeating. Give him a chance to repent. But whatev. zaishen 16:25, 5 September 2006 (CDT)

So...[edit source]

What is up with the AAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaa article you made? --Karlos 16:41, 5 September 2006 (CDT)

Uh, look at the history again. I added the delete tag. zaishen 16:42, 5 September 2006 (CDT)
True dat. Sorry.
Miss.jpg This admin has bad aim.
---Karlos 16:45, 5 September 2006 (CDT)
i'm stealing that box, Karlos! --Honorable Sarah Honorable Icon.gif 16:47, 5 September 2006 (CDT)
Be my guest. :) The credit goes to Fyren, however. :) --Karlos 17:00, 5 September 2006 (CDT)
I thought I was special :( <LordBiro>/<Talk> 15:27, 12 September 2006 (CDT)

September 12, 2006[edit source]

Can I bring this to your attention? --Xasxas256 23:01, 12 September 2006 (CDT)

Archive box[edit source]

Since you seem to be, can you tell me if you made your archive box into a template (it looks like it is supposed to be one, but is not made one)? If yes, I would like to change the size (it is quite big) and have a look at the syntax. Thx. --Xeeron 08:26, 13 September 2006 (CDT)

PS: You might want to check out this as well: Category:Templates/Subst --Xeeron 08:29, 13 September 2006 (CDT)
That was something I just knocked up for the community portal ages ago, Zaishen's is far better — Skuld 09:11, 13 September 2006 (CDT)
I know, it looks good, would be nice to have that as a template with syntax description somewhere. --Xeeron 09:15, 13 September 2006 (CDT)
It is currently a substed template: {{archive box}}. I'll turn it into an unsubsted template now. 09:19, 13 September 2006 (CDT)
All right, you can now edit {{archives}} to your heart's content. 09:40, 13 September 2006 (CDT)
Ok just to make sure I understand this correctly: If I edit {{archives}}, the formating elements of {{archive box}} will be changed (but only on the next use, since the subst copies in the current content? Or does it change old applications as well?) Oh and is there a reason to make it subst, instead of something that will produce less code in the actual page? Thx for helping a non-wiki-code-crack =) --Xeeron 09:47, 13 September 2006 (CDT)
No, I just went through and changed all the substed instances to use {{archives}} instead of have the formatting inlined. The purpose of {{archive box}} is that, when substed, it automatically inserts the dates and links to archives. It can be phased out if no one finds this useful, as I mentioned in Template talk:Archives. However, all the formatting now resides centrally in {{archives}}. 09:50, 13 September 2006 (CDT)

Policy[edit source]

You created the article Feathered Longbow. If you had read the delete template, you would know that article creators can not remove the delete tag themselves. Please do not act on impulse again. I will review your gurus thread link when I get home from work. -Gares 14:44, 14 September 2006 (CDT)

Read your own policies. GW:DID. 14:46, 14 September 2006 (CDT)
That is useless in this situation since I did not delete it. I only placed a delete tag. Since you brought up GW:DID, let's look at it. If you feel the page is beyond hope and of no use to the GuildWiki audience, put a delete tag on it and discuss on the talk page. As I said I will review the gurus thread, if there is proof (as there has been no proof uploaded on wiki), I will not delete the page. -Gares 15:00, 14 September 2006 (CDT)
You can spend 5 seconds clicking on the provided link in Talk:Feathered Longbow instead of wasting fifteen minutes trying to drill processa obscura into me. You might have asked me why I recreated the page before slapping a delete tag on it. Now really, if you feel that I have committed such a heinous crime as to remove an unwarranted delete tag, use your admin powers to impose a discretionary block. I find it extraordinary that you lecture me not to "act on impulse" when your addition of the delete tag was no less impulsive. 15:17, 14 September 2006 (CDT)
I figured you would suspect that I was acting on an impulse, which in fact, I was not considering my circumstances. As there was no proof uploaded on wiki, I can not access gwg from work, and there has only been rumors on wiki until now, your creation was considered False advertising. I actually only wasted but a few minutes on your talk page, in between doing my job. I will ignore your sarcastic remark regarding banning. If you believe that is what admins do here then you are sorely mistaken. I can now see the image on gwg, but I suggest you follow wiki policy to the best of your ability. Thanks and good work on the link. -Gares 15:34, 14 September 2006 (CDT)
You added the delete tag mere seconds before I provided the proof. For crissakes, assume a modicum of good faith on my part. "False advertising" indeed! I suggest waiting 10 minutes before throwing the book at people in the future, unless you think that express delete tagging + warning users is the only way to save the wiki from chaos. 15:38, 14 September 2006 (CDT)
Read the wording of the delete tag. "If you disagree with this page's deletion, please explain why on its talk page. If this page obviously should not be deleted, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from articles that you have created yourself." This is not a deletion, only a tag that an article is up for consideration of deletion. Proof can be added to the discussion page, which would then result in the removal of the tag. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 15:55, 14 September 2006 (CDT)
Are you enjoying this? Because I am not. I am through with this discussion. Use your administrative powers if you think any further action is needed to "correct" me. 15:58, 14 September 2006 (CDT)
The only person who has even hinted at the use of "administrative powers" against you is you. That is not the purpose of admins here, although they do exercise that ability when warranted. No one has "thrown the book at you". You went against the instructions within the delete tag, and a message was left. The only one to be making a big deal about this is you. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 16:04, 14 September 2006 (CDT)
"Please do not act on impulse" from Gares Redstorm is not a "message". It is a warning from an admin. You obviously will not see this, and I am sure Karlos and Pan Sola will soon pipe in with their words of support for Gares's original action, unless Xasxas256 beats them to it. My patience is now exhausted. 16:13, 14 September 2006 (CDT)
Actually, I can see that as a warning. But, that's all it is - not a threat of impending action for your current act, only a warning not to repeat it. You ignored the instructions on the tag that you removed, and a polite message not to repeat it was given. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 16:27, 14 September 2006 (CDT)
Why do so many new/newish users remind me of Stabber nowdays? Getting flamed really fast just like her. Hmmm..... --Gem-icon-sm.png (talk) 16:33, 14 September 2006 (CDT)
Gem, if you're suggesting a connection between any current users and Stabber, I'm choosing to ignore it. I will assume that all new users are as they appear/claim, to be new users of the wiki unless evidence comes up to the contrary. Even then, if no harm is being done, it wouldn't bother me if there were a connection. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 17:10, 14 September 2006 (CDT)
Barek, I have proof this account is infact stabber, see Stabber's most recent contributions and the fact this account (not the responding IP address, which is an open proxy (which is more proof Zaishen Reject is stabber)) hasn't made any edits at all since and ironically, the redirect user page they made hasn't been used. --Kitty1.jpg (Talk) (Cont) (Cool) Soft2.jpg 16:10, 15 September 2006 (CDT)
This is really really strange. First an admin flags a post for deletion without verifying, gives me a stern warning when the flag is removed with proof, doesn't give so much as a hint of apology when proven wrong, and now people are coming in here making vague threats? Stop making this a circus. This is a minor issue between me and Gares Redstorm. If he has dropped it, that is the end of the matter. All non admins, and preferably all persons not Gares Redstorm, back off! 15:49, 15 September 2006 (CDT)