Archive:GuildWiki/User talk:Tanaric/Archives

From Complaint Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

These are in roughly reverse chronological order—the most recent stuff is on the top.

Heh[edit]

Last time I'm buggin ya but you say I have nobody agreeing me.. Just a bit ago in the arbitration Greven showed about 6 hours or so of effort in defending me ^^ thanks Greven! Anyways, you may want to look at it, he's quitting if you don't at least look at it :( (Not a fifty five 22:36, 12 September 2006 (CDT))

Haha, you are trying to threaten us. :) --Image:Gem-icon-sm.png (talk) 00:52, 13 September 2006 (CDT)
 :P no he actually wrote that lol. If you dont believe me look yourself. (Not a fifty five 01:20, 13 September 2006 (CDT))
I know he wrote it. But he wasn't threatening with leaving, you are trying to threaten with him leving. Lol at that. --Image:Gem-icon-sm.png (talk) 02:21, 13 September 2006 (CDT)
Anyone here has the option to leave whenever they feel like it. No one can force another to stay, nor will someone leaving be a cause to sway any community decision or activity. I do agree, however, that if a user feels they have to vote and they have an ounce of knowledge regarding skills and their usage, then one sentence explaining their vote will not waste their time. 55, you stated once that you recently became jobless. My advice, use the energy you spend commenting on every page possible to actually find a job. Been watching all this and it disgusts me. That's all I will contribute to this multi-page, out of control discussion. There are more important things to do around here. -Gares 07:03, 13 September 2006 (CDT)
Eh, I'm actually extremely ill and can't even walk very well atm, job's not much of an option :( (Not a fifty five 12:28, 13 September 2006 (CDT))
Sorry to hear that not a 55, hope you feel better soon! <LordBiro>/<Talk> 13:09, 13 September 2006 (CDT)
 :) thanks. It is clearing up, even if its taking its sweet time doing it >:( (Not a fifty five 13:12, 13 September 2006 (CDT))

Sorry to clutter your page[edit]

Tho you did say you loved your page when stuff like this happens lol. Anyways, I thought the matter would have been settled with karlos agreeing with any of the 5 reasons why his banning me was not a good idea, but he dismissed them all nonchalantly. I would like for you, when you want some light reading, to look at the bottom half of my now humorous talk page. Following precedent of karlos, I wish to call for about 2 years' worth of bannings for vandalism of build votes, and the temporary release of karlos' administrative powers. You'll find this somewhere in the topic "can we cut the crap now?"

Obviously, I dont believe this should be done. However, I find no alternative given karlos and 99% of the wiki's (one person agreed with me I think) flat denial that banning me was wrong, and the precedent as is must be followed.

Please do not post in this topic unless you are tanaric, I'd like for him to not have to sift through *^$&%$%$# "he did it, she did it" comments that would inevitably arise.(Not a fifty five 16:32, 10 September 2006 (CDT))

Unreasonable vote down.[edit]

I Very resintly decided to add my build to guild wiki(Ebond boon heal)and came back to find it in the unfavored builds. Normally I would find this ok if there were reasons as to why. I came back today and found it had been voted out because of two people for no apparent reason. I find this very annoying because they did not test or most likely look at this build for more than 10 seconds.

I would like my build to be reinstated into the untested builds if possible

I am fully with you on that, that 55 guy complains about the vetting then puts that on! Restarting testing for you, sorry about that. For Tan ([1]) — Skuld 01:41, 5 September 2006 (CDT)
Thanks for Resetting that Skuld :). I was proving a point by selecting about 5 builds every day and voting by flip of coin to show the community what its like. I had changed all of them back as of liek 3 hours ago, that one slipped through >.< Needless to say, it started lots of discussion, which is the only reason I had done so. (Not a fifty five 02:30, 5 September 2006 (CDT))
Dont tell me you rly think I'd condemn a build "cause I said so" after my long boring speeches on this matter haha. (Not a fifty five 02:31, 5 September 2006 (CDT))
You would do well to read wikipedia:Wikipedia:Don't_disrupt_Wikipedia_to_illustrate_a_point, please don't do anything like that again.. Haven't you seen any of my recent build comments and all the discussions? contrib and there is a link in the above section. I'm trying to improve but you're just upsetting legit build submitters and making an ass of yourself :( — Skuld 02:45, 5 September 2006 (CDT)
Piffle, Guildwiki was not disrupted, I did nothing that wasn't going on already. I was proving a point tho, you are right there.(Not a fifty five 03:12, 5 September 2006 (CDT))
It refers to WP but still applies to us if you replace WP with GW — Skuld 03:16, 5 September 2006 (CDT)
I meant GW in that lemme change it (Not a fifty five 03:25, 5 September 2006 (CDT))
And I'd like to point out, he said two people, rapta included. If you wish to chew me out on that, please do so with him as well (Not a fifty five 03:29, 5 September 2006 (CDT))
Rapta has nothing to do with this, he voted and after you went and added that notice, it was your reasoning, your decision to unfavour it at only 2 votes. The anon was pointing out it got unfavoured after only 2 — Skuld 04:02, 5 September 2006 (CDT)
sorry for the late reply, I was banned for 3 days. What you say is incorrect from "very annoying because they did not test or most likely look at this build for more than 10 seconds (Not a fifty five 23:27, 9 September 2006 (CDT))
It is actually part of the established rules that 2 unopposed unfavoured votes condemns a build. Hold on while I look it up. (Not a fifty five 04:04, 5 September 2006 (CDT))
YEs look at the vote section in Build discussion. At the time it was a tie to have 2 votes condemn a build and therefore allowed. If this is the only vanadalism you believe I have done then I'd ask you to get Kratos to remove that warning. (Not a fifty five 04:07, 5 September 2006 (CDT))

"...and found it had been voted out because of two people for no apparent reason." - anon

  1. Mu- (quote from some buddhist thing) Now that I have spoken some nonsense I get to unfavor this. - 55

You seem to be thinking it is acceptable to mess with the vote system because you believe others have done so? What sort of logic is that? I believe someone pointed out about murder in the same mindset :/ You're basding what you did on unsound logic — Skuld 04:10, 5 September 2006 (CDT)

Voting is evil. Voting leads to strife. Wikipedia learned this the hard way with Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion, which is why it is not called "votes for deletion" any more. There is an important lesson here. Build rating should not be a vote and any "vote" language should be carefully and deliberately removed from GuildWiki:Builds. It should be a process of consensus building. The fact that there are a lot of build articles is not an excuse to adopt broken policies: there is no hurry to move builds from untested to favored. Wiki is not being created on a deadline. Lastly, banning people for disagreement about this process isn't helping either. In case you didn't know, Karlos blocked 55 for "vandalism", which is a manifestly wrong. 55 should have been blocked for "disruption", even though it might have been good faith disruption. The block will simply turn 55 into an enemy of the wiki instead of resolve the very valid issues with voting on builds. This block should be reversed: 55 can be put on probation with his edits closely monitored by a third party. 81.169.180.248 05:02, 5 September 2006 (CDT)

I need to say it once, before I explode: I am SO sick of people comming here after having contributed close to nothing towards the testing process and starting to complain about it. Have you people been around before we had the votes? When builds sat in stubs forever without geting any testing? When at maximum one build per month was finally moved out of it? When the wiki builds category was totally useless, because it was empty???
Do you think we are all some vote-crazy addicts who hate discussions? There is a very good reason we use a process that takes infinitesimally less time than reaching a consensus on something as subjectiv as builds.
Dont get me wrong, critizism is good (especially the constructive type), but I dont think that I am willing to further argue with people that condemn the voting process without having contributed to it and right after their pet build was voted down. --Xeeron 05:29, 5 September 2006 (CDT)
Hey Xeeron, I realise you have invested a lot of time into the builds approval system, so it's not surprising that you are offended when people who haven't spent any time on it at all voice their concerns. But they are entitled to do so. The number of contributions someone has made to the wiki does not equate to the value of those contributions, so please try not to criticise those who complain when they haven't contributed to the build process, previous contributions are not a requirement for complaining. <LordBiro>/<Talk> 07:20, 5 September 2006 (CDT)
I agree on principle, LordBiro, however, I think his point is that fro someone who has not been around when there was no vote system to come and complain about this (a failry recent change) as if it was something broken for ages and beyond repair and using that as an excuse to maliciously mess up the process... I agree with Xeeron that it's a lame excuse. As I told him, I thikn he is greatly undermining the power of rational debate and greatly overestimating the worth of his own actions. --Karlos 07:50, 5 September 2006 (CDT)
The point is: When deciding between discussing till consensus is reached and voting, the strongest point in favor of voting and against consensus is the huge amount of time the discussion takes and the small amount of time needed for voting. When I read sentences like "The fact that there are a lot of build articles is not an excuse to adopt broken policies" (and I have read a lot of that lately) from people who have never contributed to the build vetting process, I severly doubt that they can make a good estimate of how important the time factor is when deciding for consensus or voting. I saw the result of having no voting process before and I see now the result of having a voting process, and while not perfect, the result with voting is lightyears ahead. --Xeeron 08:56, 5 September 2006 (CDT)
PS: The reason I got so anrgy is my deep antipathy for people who only complain, but dont do any actual work. I will always try my best to take their arguments into account and respond to them in debate, because they might be good points, regardless of who made them. However that will not change my personal feelings towards these people. --Xeeron 09:00, 5 September 2006 (CDT)

It's days like these that I love my talk page.

In any case, Xeeron, I actually agree with the anon above. I think the current vote-heavy nature of the builds process is, in the long term, a bad idea. However, I realize that this is an iterative process, much like how the rest of the GuildWiki has been since its inception. Everyone knows that I've championed some boneheaded ideas way back in our history, which were later fixed with insight and judgement from less involved, more objective editors.

In short, I think that just because the build process is currently better than what we had does not make it good. And just because there are potentially better alternatives does not make the current process bad. Over time, we'll all work together to refine the ideal process. Clearly we're making progress along that road—Skuld has slowed down his immediate deletes/unfavoring, as far as I can tell, which is a step in the right direction. The discussion on GuildWiki:Builds will also help.

Breathe easy. "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." This applies to policy, too. :) —Tanaric 15:32, 5 September 2006 (CDT)

problems with Tested/untested builds[edit]

I've noticed things going on in the tested and untested builds sections regarding voting. Yesterday I thought I was the only one who shared my opinions but I've found that countless people have stopped posting builds and people inside Guild Wars who are good (3+ranking gladiators or 10 rankers etc) refuse to even consider using or posting in Guildwiki their builds.

There are two things that those protesting think are wrong: first of all build's fate are being decided sometimes within a single day, and sometimes within a single hour!. Two people, noob or pro, can simply vote negatively on a build and it will be gone into unfavored builds immediately, most likely never to be seen again. Or the opposite happens, a build gets promoted within an hour and it is highly discouraged at the moment to move a tested build to untested after its been voted on. And so sometimes VERY good builds (such as Mo/any bonder powerhealer which I have beaten records on in Zos Shivros Challenge mission) get demoted and stay there simply from the beliefs of two people in the community of several hundred thousand.

Secondly, People are voting on Untested builds without in fact testing them (or even reading discussion sometimes!!!). Many times the comment they give for voting is flatly contradicted in the discussion below. Or in Skuld or Rapta's case they will say "This build completely lacks any offensive power, I dont think this build can work at all". Down below you will find agreements among people who have not tested the build. You can tell they havent simply from the amount of opinionated sentences (This but shoudl not, I think this wont be able to etc) as opposed to solid (I have found that, This cannot) sentences which implied testing. Among the people who actually DO test the build and use the solid sentences, you can sometimes find wild contradications to those who didnt test. E.g. A build I just made is about to be condemned on "lack of offensive power" I've tested it myself and in fact won most TA builds within a minute and even won a battle quickly where one of the members lagged out at start.

While the first problem has an easy solution, I dont know how one can enforce peopel to actually test builds. Anyways, I'd liek to hear your thoughts. (Not a fifty five 21:26, 4 September 2006 (CDT))

Hello Not a fifty five, there has been some discussion on the matter at Category_talk:Untested_builds#Professional_conduct_on_guildwiki if you want to read — Skuld 02:09, 5 September 2006 (CDT)
Thanks :) (Not a fifty five 03:26, 5 September 2006 (CDT))

Bot[edit]

I forgot you're a bureaucrat now. Could you flag Fyrenbot as a bot for me? Galil also asked Gravewit a long time ago to bot Galil.bot (it's in his talk archive), but he never did. Perhaps we need a policy for this since bot edits aren't shown by default on recentchanges. --Fyren 23:41, 1 September 2006 (CDT)

Done (for both users). I agree that a policy should be written—I'll draft one up by the end of the day. —Tanaric 13:33, 3 September 2006 (CDT)

glossary malfunction[edit]

Can't seem to access the first half of the glossary (A - L). The "Previous 200" link redirects to Mini Pet.

It's working fine for me -- I can't replicate the error. —Tanaric 12:35, 31 August 2006 (CDT)
As in the similar category bug listed on the bugs page, this only happens to users that aren't logged in. --Fyren 12:40, 31 August 2006 (CDT)
Ah, thanks Fyren. In that case... "I'd love to help, <insert user name>, but unfortunately I do not have direct access to the backend. Posting on the bugs page or Gravewit's talk page is your best bet for a fix." —Tanaric 12:46, 31 August 2006 (CDT)
Is Nunix still around? He hasn't been seen on the wiki much since January and not at all since June. Maybe another person with shell access would help things. --Fyren 12:52, 31 August 2006 (CDT)
Nunix indicated to me that he doesn't intend to do much with the wiki anymore. If you want to push for me getting shell access, you're welcome to. :) —Tanaric 15:10, 31 August 2006 (CDT)
If you have the knowledge, sure. I only don't suggest myself because I'd be suggesting myself. --Fyren 15:43, 31 August 2006 (CDT)
Either of you two would do excellent in my book. Both of you have been around since forever, and while I have had the most contact with Tanaric, I really think it is more a question of who has the technical skills, the time and the motivation to do the job. It currently feel Gravewit is doing a fine job, but it is also my impression that he is very busy and could need the help. Tanaric, have you talked to him about it? --Bishop 19:03, 31 August 2006 (CDT)
I have not for the same reason Fyren has not. —Tanaric 20:29, 1 September 2006 (CDT)
Seeing as you're both too modest (and I would choose the same path for myself), I have taken up the discussion on the gamewikis forums. --Bishop 07:24, 2 September 2006 (CDT)

password request[edit]

Hi,

I would like to ask you to send the password for the "Roland of Gilead" account. To the address it registered with, of course. I requested it twice in the last half hour or so, but nada. The address was an @web.de or an @compuserve.de, could you tell me which so I know which to check? Thanks.

We've discussed this over email, sorry for the delay. —Tanaric 10:54, 31 August 2006 (CDT)

Builds discussion re: site policies[edit]

You may already be aware of it, but if not can you take a look at the (long) discussion at GuildWiki_talk:Style_and_formatting/Builds#theoretical_builds and voice your opinion? I'm asking several of the currently active admins to take a look. The issue, to me, is one of interpretation of site policies and practices. I was involved in the discussions earlier, so I cannot consider myself totally unbiased in any attempt to resolve it myself. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 20:44, 23 August 2006 (CDT)

Policy deleted[edit]

FYI: As one of the admins with a strong interrest in site policies, I wanted to point out GuildWiki talk:Don't immediately delete to get your input on it. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 09:26, 21 August 2006 (CDT)

Thanks for the heads up; I've replied briefly with my thoughts, as I agree with Bishop and feel no need to type just as much out. :) —Tanaric 20:08, 21 August 2006 (CDT)

Bureaucrat status[edit]

Congrats - or my sympathies ... not really sure which is more appropriate here ;-P --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 20:03, 11 August 2006 (CDT)

Are you serious? *checks*
Ahahaha! Gravewit's got a hell of a sense of humor. I piss everybody off by stating my feelings about promotion to administrator, and then he makes promoting people to administrator my decision! I accept both your congratulations and your sympathies, as I'm sure both are in order. :) —Tanaric 12:20, 13 August 2006 (CDT)
Congratulations! I hoped we could settle this admin thing soon, but it's been a bit quiet after I left to Estonia. Well, this might or might not affect the discussion. --Image:Gem-icon-sm.png (talk) 14:55, 13 August 2006 (CDT)
I just read your reply on Pan's talk page, congrats on the position. It's probably a good idea to have another Bureaucrat given that Nunix is pretty much totally inactive and Gravewit's visits seem to be infrequent. It'd be nice to know exactly what role you'll be fulfilling though I suppose. On WP:Bureaucrats is says Bureaucrats can:
  • Promote other users to administrator or bureaucrat status
  • Grant and revoke a user's bot status
  • Rename a user account
So does this mean you're in charge of the promotion (and possibly demotion) of users to sysop and bot status? Are you now "the man" in terms of this stuff or will Phil still be approving/disapproving users for adminship? I'm just after some clarification because it kind of "just happened" without much fanfare or definition of your role. Cheers boss :P --Xasxas256 20:35, 13 August 2006 (CDT)
Feel free to consider me the point man for all concerns of this nature. Phil and I regularily communicate privately, so he'll be kept abreast of what I do, and I'll know what he thinks is prudent. He wouldn't have given me the authority if he didn't trust my judgment in using it.
Phil is still the primary point of contact for all technical concerns, as I do not have access to the database or the server.
Tanaric 10:49, 14 August 2006 (CDT)
Hehe Tanaric, rather you than me ;) congratulations! By the way, are you ever on Jabber? I often see you on there but you never reply... Should I be taking a hint? :P <LordBiro>/<Talk> 01:25, 15 August 2006 (CDT)
I leave my client running at all times, so if I'm not there, I won't say anything back. Also, if your message is something like "Yo Tanaric," I don't generally reply if I see it 12 hours later. :) —Tanaric 07:41, 16 August 2006 (CDT)

Translation[edit]

Merci d'avoir contacté GuildWiki. Il existe une version française de GuildWiki mais le projet est encore petit, il n'y a qu'un peu plus de 500 articles. Voici l'adresse:

http://guildwiki.fr

Le site de Guild Wars posède une list de site en français.

http://fr.guildwars.com/community/category/listing/fansites/

Finalement, je ne parle pas le français et cette réponse à été traduite par un des colaborateurs de GuildWiki. Si tu as plus de question, il suffit d'aller voir la list d'utilisateurs dont le français est la langue maternelle à cette adresse:

http://gw.gamewikis.org/wiki/Category:Users/Language/fr-N

Bonne chance!

Tanaric Administrateur de GuildWiki

p.s. Ce message a été traduit par http://gw.gamewikis.org/wiki/User:Aratak si tu as plus de questions tu peux toujours me contacter sur ma page de discution ou sur Guild Wars sous le nom de Micha Truefaith.

Of socks and puppets...[edit]

Did you get a chance to review that whole fiasco of sock-puppetry that took place? I would like to know your thoughts on it if you have the time. If you don't know the issue or need pointers on where to look let me know and I'll try to reconstruct the events. --Karlos 02:20, 6 August 2006 (CDT)

I know accusations were made, and I know it involved Stabber. Honestly, after the Stabber/egan vs. F_G thing, I tried to stay the hell away. I wouldn't mind looking at it now, though, if you can provide a link. —Tanaric 07:36, 6 August 2006 (CDT)
I can't recall all the loose ends, but the chronlogical trail goes something like this:
  • I had an altercation with Stabber, a fast and furious revert war over the stupid formatting on a game update page. She tagged herself and myself for banning and then stormed out the door, as usual. I believe this (which is the full discussion) and this (Stabber's only input on the matter) can bring you up to speed on that incident.
  • A few days later, User:Deldda_Kcarc who had been almost non-existent since just before Stabber first joined resurfaced and started getting to work right away. Marking articles for deletion that were mostly things Stabber worked on. At the time, I thought Deldda was lurking and waiting for Stabber to leave so he can remove what he felt was trivial work. I went to his talk page and put a warning that he should not do that and that a few of the things he marked for deletion were clearly articles people read and are working on. He started to blank his user page. The altercation is described in this thread.
  • He then made this request follow the link to that talk thread. During that thread, it was revealed that Stabber posted content on this wiki using Deldda's account.
  • This sparked this as well as all the talk on Stabber's talk page starting from the section marked as "Wow"
The community portal talk page and stabber's talk page point to all the different places the threads were moved to. Let me know your thoughts on the whole sock-puppetry issue and feel free to critique my positions in those disputes, I know they were less than exemplary. --Karlos 13:32, 6 August 2006 (CDT)
Absolutely none of those discussions should have taken place. If anyone had suspicions of sock puppetry, we should have looked for proof on the server side among the administrators. There is no justifiable reason to post accusations of shady metawiki activities on another user's talk page, or to start emailing random personnel connected by IP addresses. If F_G had information that was good for the wiki, he should have passed it to one of us quietly—and that's the only thing he should have done.
It's clear to me that attempting to make judgement calls on "harmful" vs. "harmless" sockpuppetry is a mire the administrative team doesn't need. Most of us don't like getting mired in interuser disputes anyway. I'd like to establish the following policy: "Any user found using a covert sockpuppet will have all his usernames immediately and irrevokably banned. Any user publically accusing another user of sockpuppetry will have his username immediately and irrevokably banned. Any user later claiming to be any user banned in this way will be immediately and irrevokably banned."
This allows the user to recreate an account if he likes. We should not ban based on IP in these circumstances. I'm guessing, but I imagine most users that we'd ever ban under a policy like this would be cases of users accidentally/unknowingly sockpuppeteering. The lack of IP enforcement allows them to continue working on the wiki without much of a penalty. Anybody maliciously engaging in covert sockpuppetry cannot be stopped by technical means anyway, so there's no point in making the policy any stricter than this.
If you'd like more detailed commentary on individual bits of that conflict, I can read through it all. I just glanced over the seemingly important parts for this. —Tanaric 14:07, 6 August 2006 (CDT)
And what would constitute proof of sock-puppetry to an admin? --Karlos 15:37, 6 August 2006 (CDT)

Nomination[edit]

You realize this is totally going to look like you're only nominating me because I agree with you on the current policy issues, right? :) (Although, wait, there was something... hmm... click, click... ah yes, here it is. I'm totally not with you on that one. I guess that's good enough as a cover story...) -- Image:Bishop icon2.png Bishop [rap|con] 21:10, 5 August 2006 (CDT)

I don't expect much controversy over the current policy issues anyway, so it shouldn't matter.
That said, it's something I'd been planning to do for a while—was just waiting for "one more good thing" to push me over the edge, and our policy conversation was it. :) —Tanaric 21:13, 5 August 2006 (CDT)
Haha, well, thanks. As you can see, I've accepted your nomination. When people get out of bed (or out of The Deep) I guess we'll find out if the rest of the usual suspects agree with your kind words. :) -- Image:Bishop icon2.png Bishop [rap|con] 21:20, 5 August 2006 (CDT)

Main Page[edit]

Would you mind updating it with the edit I made on the editcopy? I just added the Policy link, that's all. — Rapta 19px (talk|contribs) 18:46, 5 August 2006 (CDT)

Done, though I changed your wording. Let me know if you find it unacceptable. I think your wording made it sound mandatory, which it isn't—knowing our policies is a plus, but contributing at all should be emphasized over contributing in the optimal way. —Tanaric 19:05, 5 August 2006 (CDT)
Yes, I agree with the wording. Thanks for the quick update. — Rapta 19px (talk|contribs) 20:03, 5 August 2006 (CDT)


Joyous tidings[edit]

Tanaric lives!! Halelluja! :) --Karlos 00:49, 29 July 2006 (CDT)

I certainly try. Though, curiously enough, I'm going on a roadtrip with my significant other from August 8th–13th, and then am in training 12 hours+ a day for two weeks after that... *sigh* —Tanaric 06:29, 29 July 2006 (CDT)
Well, even if you're only on occasionally I'll be glad of your company and that reasonable mind of yours! Although saying that the last couple of weeks I've been busy with work, so I haven't been about as much as I'd like myself. Anyway, ahoy Tanaric! <LordBiro>/<Talk> 15:35, 29 July 2006 (CDT)
<3 —Tanaric 20:34, 29 July 2006 (CDT)
What should we call the NWN wiki, if such a thing materializes? Gravewit 15:44, 1 August 2006 (CDT)
I would think NWNWiki, NeverWiki sounds too corny. :) As for the domainname, I commented on the forum. --Karlos 17:21, 1 August 2006 (CDT)
NeverWikiNights? -User:PanSola (talk to the Image:Follower of Lyssa.png) 17:24, 1 August 2006 (CDT)
Yesssss! And then when my mates ask me what I'm doing at the moment I can say, "I'm on NWN!" and then hang my head and say, "no not that game, the wiki." in a similar fashion to how I do with GW. It'll be an awesome game, if I get into it like I did that last one...I may have to quit my job! --Xasxas256 00:11, 2 August 2006 (CDT)
Wow, it's sad when I'm the last to respond to something on my own talk page. :P
In all seriousness, I like NeverWiki. It rolls off the tongue, and it fits the naming theme established by GuildWiki. —Tanaric 05:20, 2 August 2006 (CDT)
A wiki called "NeverWiki"? Doesn't anyone see that as weird? :) --Karlos 05:56, 2 August 2006 (CDT)
Actually, one already exists, for the GPL Super Monkey Ball clone, Neverball. —Tanaric 06:12, 2 August 2006 (CDT)
Well, I lost the link to the forums we were discussing this and it doesn't seem to be accessible through the blog. I'd rather discuss the user mods topic there instead of here, so if I could get hit with a url, I'd be in someone's debt.
And it doesn't look like much is going on with that NeverWiki site. I have no opinion what it's called, I just can't wait to add my scripting knowledge to it. ;) I say if they haven't copyrighted the name, its fair game. -Gares 18:34, 2 August 2006 (CDT)
http://forums.gamewikis.org/
And, I don't see a problem with using the name either. —Tanaric 04:01, 3 August 2006 (CDT)


Away for a while[edit]

I tend to live with my parents over summers, when school is out. My parents just moved to a new place.

To make a long story short, I have just recently found out that this new place does not have Internet access, and will not for the foreseeable future. I'll try to change this, but it looks like I won't have Internet access for at least a month.

I'll still try to check in as often as possible. I'll leech access from Panera Bread / Starbucks if I have to.

Tanaric 00:18, 21 May 2006 (CDT)

In your absence, the forces of evil have been amassing. They are preparing to burst forth in an unholy crusade to undo the righteous acts of your original case crusade. You must heed the call to arms and not allow darkness to once again run rampant and hold sway over article names. Perhaps even your lack of a connection is their doing. All may be lost. --68.142.14.9 10:58, 24 May 2006 (CDT)

Request for assistance.[edit]

Ok two things first: There are 2 pages that I cannot seem to access to add a request delete tag to, they are broken redirects, cant really seem to edit the page either because of the use of non-alphanumeric characters. I can get them to show up in search results and special pages however.

http://gw.gamewikis.org/wiki/Special:Search?ns0=1&ns1=1&ns2=1&ns3=1&ns4=1&ns5=1&ns6=1&ns7=1&ns8=1&ns9=1&ns10=1&ns11=1&ns12=1&ns13=1&ns14=1&ns15=1&redirs=1&search=%C3%85%C2%A6%E2%80%9A%C3%A4%C2%BD%E2%80%A2%C3%A5%C2%B9%C2%AB%C3%A5%C2%BF%E2%84%A2&searchx=Search

and

http://gw.gamewikis.org/wiki/Special:BrokenRedirects

also links there.

That is a direct link to the search page containing the items.

Second there is a double redirect issue on a page that is locked, could you please fix it? http://gw.gamewikis.org/wiki/Special:DoubleRedirects

http://gw.gamewikis.org/wiki?title=Hall_of_Heroes_unique_items&redirect=no

--Draygo Korvan 15:54, 18 May 2006 (CDT)

Did the second; don't have time to do the first now, ask another admin. See below for why. —Tanaric 00:13, 21 May 2006 (CDT)

"If you ... I do not see a nice end for you"[edit]

How is that a threat? If I tell a kid "if you do drugs, I do not see a nice end for you", it's not like I am threatening the kid by implying I will do anything to him. I'm not even implying I'll tell the cops the kid is doing drugs, much less doing anything to the kid personally. It's a simple matter of pointing out that negative behaviors do not connotate with positive future. Gem did not imply any administrative authority with those words. I think you are reading too much negative intent from other people's words. -PanSola 08:13, 15 May 2006 (CDT)

Now after everyone has had a lot of time to sleep/take a break I want to start a discussion about this matter. You felt that I acted like an administrator, although I am not one. I do not think that I acted like one. I tried to talk, it failed. I reverted the blanking once, as I thought that blanking talk pages is not allowed, but it seems that I was wrong. (Or was I?) Then I contacted an admin, who decided what to do. If any one of these steps is admin only, then I won't do it anymore. If you think that the comments I made were admin like, that wasn't the purpose. I did not propose a ban or threaten with one. If I would have liked a ban for the user, I would have tagged him with a ban tag. Is it your task as the human relations admin to see everything so negatively? If it is, I'll apologise and forget the whole thing. --User:Gem 01:53, 16 May 2006 (CDT)

Image use policy draft[edit]

Hey, as the person who seems to have started most of the policy stuff here, could you look at my draft of an Image use policy? Comments can be put on the talk page there or in GuildWiki talk:Image use policy. Thanks. --Rainith 00:04, 18 May 2006 (CDT)

Funding of Guildwiki[edit]

Re: Your comment on Talk:Main_Page/editcopy

"We are a Gamewikis project, and the more exposure Gamewikis gets, the more funding we get. I rather like having a server that loads in less than twenty seconds per page!"

Which makes the fact that donations are disabled look quite strange. But that is a whole other can of worms. --Xeeron 08:14, 15 May 2006 (CDT)

I asked a question about the donations here. Seems donations are out. Guess I'll spend my extra money on booze and women. :P
We're actually doing pretty well with the Google ads, or so I've been lead to believe. I'll ask Nunix to update the ledger with the ad money, or at least make some sort of announcement on what's going on. —Tanaric 17:59, 15 May 2006 (CDT)
I should note that I don't mean to imply donations are out forever. It's that we got a *load* of donations after the server went down, and the server admins felt kinda guilty accepting any more when we had enough for a few months. —Tanaric 18:00, 15 May 2006 (CDT)
So let me open the can of worms fully, since we are talking about it anyway. The huge problem is: Noone here knows what is going on, except 2/3 people and those are not talking at all. You said there were enough donations for months to go, then why was the annoying (second!) google add at the bottom of each page introduced? Why are we making a direct advertisement for amazon in the navigation bar? For all I know, you might be making a nice profit of the work of volunteers here at guildwiki and should that be true, I would be pissed off to no end. Of course the issue would easily be helped by showing us the status of guildwikis finances (and this has been asked for many times now). That would not take more than 1/2 hour per month worth of editing. That this is not done is a sign for me that you (those who do know) either have something to hide or that you dont feel it is worth your time letting us know. I very much think it it not the former, but the later is bad as well, since it is quite disrespectful towards people who put in a huge amount of time and effort to make this wiki better. --Xeeron 04:53, 16 May 2006 (CDT)
assoc-amazon.com or something with a gamewikis ref link keeps appearing that its loading in the info bar Skuld Template:Mo 05:08, 16 May 2006 (CDT)
As I said in my post: "I'll ask Nunix to update the ledger with the ad money, or at least make some sort of announcement on what's going on." I'm not privy to the finances of GuildWiki directly. All I know is what I've picked up in conversations with those who do know. As I've said many times before, I wholeheartedly agree with you—more transparency from the top is always good.
As Gamewikis grows, they'll undoubtedly need to hire/appoint somebody who likes dealing with people. Until that happens, I'm doing the best I can in that stead, on a purely volunteer basis. I'm just another admin here, like Karlos or Rainith. —Tanaric 10:44, 16 May 2006 (CDT)

The Falls[edit]

Hey, can you see if you get the DB error on the article page for The Falls and if so can you edit the page and remove whatever image(s) it has, as one of them is causing this bug for me (and other people): Fatal error: Allowed memory size of 12582912 bytes exhausted (tried to allocate 7680 bytes) in /usr/home/guildwiki/public_html/includes/Image.php on line 1150. You might not be able to, I just figured since most pages are messed up now, someone might be able to fix this one. --Rainith 05:25, 14 May 2006 (CDT)

That's the one page I can access. Images removed. —Tanaric 06:49, 14 May 2006 (CDT)

Amusing[edit]

The GuildWiki:Software_&_Technical_Issues/Bugs is giving me a database error, heh. --68.142.14.79 01:17, 14 May 2006 (CDT)

You can still view it if you "edit" it. I filed a bug already for being unable to see articles due to database errors. As with all these bugs, they happen when Gravewit/Nunix will be least likely to see them until the next day. :( They will get to fixing it as soon as they see it, but I am guessing that's tomorrow. --Karlos 01:40, 14 May 2006 (CDT)
I've emailed them both. —Tanaric 06:51, 14 May 2006 (CDT)

Unique Items Quick Reference[edit]

The unique item quick referance chart was a page I had bookmarked, and used many times. Not sure how I came across it, but it was one of the most useful pages in guildwiki. I didn't understand the reason for total deletion without discussion... "Unused Redirect." I can't find it anywhere now. Why'd you delete it? Could I at least get a copy of the page and put is as a sub-user page, for reference? -Auron of Neon 04:47, 11 May 2006 (CDT)

The page in question was moved to unique items quick reference (Prophecies). Sorry about the confusion—I'll note where the redirects pointed to in my delete summaries from now on. —Tanaric 08:38, 11 May 2006 (CDT)

May I suggest instead of deleting the redirect pages (for popular pages), to temporarily place a small article that says "This page has been moved to XYZ, please update your bookmarks as this link will be removed shortly." And then list them some place where we can come back and delete them say a few weeks later. --Karlos 09:24, 11 May 2006 (CDT)

Is there any way to tell which ones are popular? If people are keeping bookmarks of redirects, there's no good way to test that. —Tanaric 23:08, 11 May 2006 (CDT)
Yea, when people notice it's gone and start bitching about it... lol. I dunno if there are any better ways to find that out, though. -Auron of Neon 02:59, 13 May 2006 (CDT)
I think I'll continue my delete policy of unused redirects, then. I don't mind pointing people in the right direction here. —Tanaric 04:36, 13 May 2006 (CDT)

Unique Items Quick Reference[edit]

The unique item quick referance chart was a page I had bookmarked, and used many times. Not sure how I came across it, but it was one of the most useful pages in guildwiki. I didn't understand the reason for total deletion without discussion... "Unused Redirect." I can't find it anywhere now. Why'd you delete it? Could I at least get a copy of the page and put is as a sub-user page, for reference? -Auron of Neon 04:47, 11 May 2006 (CDT)

The page in question was moved to unique items quick reference (Prophecies). Sorry about the confusion—I'll note where the redirects pointed to in my delete summaries from now on. —Tanaric 08:38, 11 May 2006 (CDT)

May I suggest instead of deleting the redirect pages (for popular pages), to temporarily place a small article that says "This page has been moved to XYZ, please update your bookmarks as this link will be removed shortly." And then list them some place where we can come back and delete them say a few weeks later. --Karlos 09:24, 11 May 2006 (CDT)

Is there any way to tell which ones are popular? If people are keeping bookmarks of redirects, there's no good way to test that. —Tanaric 23:08, 11 May 2006 (CDT)
Yea, when people notice it's gone and start bitching about it... lol. I dunno if there are any better ways to find that out, though. -Auron of Neon 02:59, 13 May 2006 (CDT)
I think I'll continue my delete policy of unused redirects, then. I don't mind pointing people in the right direction here. —Tanaric 04:36, 13 May 2006 (CDT)

Enchantment Removal Quick Reference[edit]

Oy! Deleting that article was uncalled for. Not only had I worked on it seconds ago, others had too. And it was useful! So what if nothing linked to it? Make a link instead. --Bishop (rap|con) 22:03, 9 May 2006 (CDT)

Check recent changes again. I moved it to enchantment removal skills quick reference first, and deleted the auto-generated redirect. In general, article names should use lower case. —Tanaric 22:05, 9 May 2006 (CDT)
Uh, right you are. And your point is well taken. I was just a little shook up about the article I was working on disappearing between my fingers. --Bishop (rap|con) 22:09, 9 May 2006 (CDT)

Request for arbitration[edit]

I wasn't planning on logging in here again, but this comment by User:F_G surely crosses a line that shouldn't be crossed. It barely matters that he is completely incorrect. Even if he were 100% right, it is an unjustified personal attack on someone who has had a long and positive history on this site, and on me (though he right on the money regarding balding and 40 years old). I am not sure what F G's motivation is, but please intervene here. I am asking you because on GuildWiki:Administrators you are listed as the person to contact regarding user disputes. esan 17:01, 9 May 2006 (CDT)

Done. See GuildWiki:Requests for arbitration. —Tanaric 21:26, 9 May 2006 (CDT)

On this subject - it appears from the above arbitration thread that we still have no official policy on personal attacks. I have posted on Talk:Grind that another users comments were offensive and that I want an admin to look at it. I honestly don't expect any serious action taken as there is still no policy on personal attacks, but I would like an admin to at least voice an opinion in that discussion, as well as hoping that it acts as yet another driver towards implementing an official policy on this. I would also like to add that I don't see a need for a full arbitration article on this one, I just want an admin to chime in one way or another over there - I'll abide by any admins decision, advice, or opinion even if contrary to mine; provided two admins don't post conflicting opinions - hey, we've seen it before! :-). --161.88.255.140 12:42, 11 May 2006 (CDT)

Note: Rainith spotted the edits and voiced his opinion already; so I'm satisfied to have had an admin opinion added to the thread. However, it still leaves open the question of if we require an official 'No Personal Attacks' policy. I feel we do, but I do not feel qualified to create a fair version even as a draft document. Given the recent growth and renewed interrest in Guild Wars thanks to Factions, it is something that I believe the wiki needs to address one way or another to meet the burden imposed by more users joining the community. --161.88.255.140 15:05, 11 May 2006 (CDT)
Why not simply adopt Wikipedia:WP:NPA? By the way, is admin-says-all really the best way to resolve conflicts? On wikipedia there is the Wikipedia:Arbcom, which moves at a semi-glacial pace but makes very well-examined decisions. Granted GuildWiki is nowhere near the size of WP... but should sysops be weaing so many hats? Seventy.twenty.x.x 15:11, 11 May 2006 (CDT)
To me, GuildWiki is still small enough that I don't believe that a formal arbcom is needed. In the past, admins have discussed issues with each other. If an admin sees a policy violation, he/she states that info clearly. If their opinion is questioned or if it's a larger matter, they request community involvement.
This particular issue honestly didn't require much attention, but I wanted an admin to voice in, and as long as it came up, I wanted to use it to try to prod along the implementation of an NPA policy, which I have believed for some time this site requires. --161.88.255.140 15:23, 11 May 2006 (CDT)
Somehow I missed this particular discussion; sorry about that.
There is a reason we don't adopt Wikipedia policies, in general. Wikipedia is more than just a wiki—it's a movement for the grand cooperation of all mankind. It's a grand experiment in mutualism—even if it doesn't intend to be. GuildWiki is... well... not. We're a fansite, plain and simple, and our policies (more pertinently, our traditions, which govern more than our policies do) reflect that. Our actions are designed to make this the best source for Guild Wars information on the web. I think we've succeeded in that.
The people who go to Wikipedia come from all walks of life, with a variety of interests and specialties—it's what makes Wikipedia work. The common thread that unites them is the ideal of the wiki wiki web, which is heavily romanticized there. The people who come to GuildWiki like Guild Wars, and their respective pasts are made (mostly) irrelevant by our singular focus. The thread that unites us here is Guild Wars. That's it. People don't come here because it's a wiki—people come here because we're the best.
From that point of view, it's easy to understand why our policies don't reflect Wikipedia's. Glacial, but potentially more fair, arbitration isn't important here. Quick resolution of an issue to maintain the GuildWiki's functionality is. Where discussion and consensus of a user issue is important there, it's actually somewhat discouraged here—my goal is to make user disputes invisible to the average contributor, and impact the site as little as possible. While I realize that I can never accomplish this goal, it's something I'll continue to strive for, because it allows the GuildWiki to run as smoothly as possible.
My summer project is to create a metawiki for GameWikis. I have attempted to impress upon Nunix the need for a central repository of policy and style, to prevent individual GameWikis projects from diverging too much from each other. One side effect of creating this will be the codification of many long-standing traditions of GuildWiki into proper policies. Even if I can't get the metawiki running, I'll definitely complete this codification. I agree that a NPA policy is appropriate.
Sorry to go off on a tangent. If there's anything I missed that you'd like me to cover, let me know. —Tanaric 04:33, 13 May 2006 (CDT)
Oops, actually, I did miss something. "Should sysops really be wearing so many hats?" The short answer is that we don't. Sysops are free to concentrate on the issues that interest them, or, in the case of our inactives, on nothing at all. I prefer user disputes, policy, and style—I wrote more than my fair share of content back in the day, and now I find the bureaucracy more interesting. (This is probably why I get along so well with Karlos.) —Tanaric 04:35, 13 May 2006 (CDT)

Request for Opinions on Factions campaign[edit]

I'm broke, and am trying to find out if Factions is worth buying. Now, this is clearly a biased community, but I'm interested in what you guys think. —Tanaric 00:06, 30 April 2006 (CDT)

Not -entirely- broke right now, but I'm currently lurking in Japan with my North America account; which means I'm fighting cruddy wireless connection across a whole bunch of miles, since they don't have any of the Asia territories available due to whatever bizarre price scheme they came up with over here. So while I'd certainly like to get it, and the network issues could probably be surmounted.. it's definitely no must-buy for me. Guess I'm just not enthralled with the new classes and the whole.. well.. factions thing. ;p --Nunix 06:07, 2 May 2006 (CDT)
It's nice... The whole proccess of PvE is accelerated alot, perhaps too much.. I don't mind lvling faster, but I don't like the AI getting better quicker, I ended up in Kaineng Center at lvl16 with my Me/E(Canthan Born) and I found the primary quest "Mayhem in the Market" impossible to do with henchies & my playing partner. I'm now getting on for lvl20 and I hope to be able to do the quest. That's my gripe... but the world is beautiful to look at.
To me every one of the early quests seemed like Villany of Galrath in terms of distance the character would have to travel.
I think if you're looking for a game which is similar to the 1st chapter you will be dissapointed, I had this train of thought for a while, that the game had pacing issues (I still do).
While browsing the wiki I've seen some armors I wanted for my monk but again the limited amount of armor on offer makes it not so enjoyable (READ: "he's scared of a little work").
On other notes from what i've heard people can not simply run to places so if you like running your characters to places then you might be dissapointed. The game has an anti-run sort of feel to it. well.. thats the end of my vent.. --Jamie 06:43, 2 May 2006 (CDT)
As Jamie, I have divided thoughts. The new world looks nice and the armor system is very fun. (Most appearances can be combined with most armor statistics) I also liked to start a new character, which I kept separate from my other characters (No access to storage). The quests give huge amounts of xp, skill points and gold, but no skills, which you can buy freely with the skill points and gold you get. More choice for the player, but too fast level gaining. The tutorial parts are well done, which should reduce the amount of really crappy players.
Even as a runner I like it that people can't just be ran everywhere. It forces them to learn to play their characters.
The world seems a bit too chaotic and unclear. When I first entered with my Tyrian character, I was very confused and uncertain of what to do. Playing with a new character from the beginning seems a good idea to do first. I also dislike the idea that I can't access the elite missions without a good alliance. I really would like to play those missions a lot.
All in all I like Factions, but its not THE greatest extension ever. --Gem Image:Gem-icon-sm.png 06:53, 2 May 2006 (CDT)
Hmm. Everything that you two have identified as negative seem incredibly positive to me. It sounds like a return to the difficulty and scope of the old Beta events. Damn. And I was hoping you'd convince I didn't need to buy it. :) —Tanaric 09:16, 2 May 2006 (CDT)
IMHO, the difficulty in Factions is not that high. I henched all but the very last mission with my ranger. I was expecting more of the Underworld level of difficulty, but what I got was the ruins of the Tomb of the Primeval Kings level. A disappointment. — Stabber  09:21, 2 May 2006 (CDT)

Request for arbitration[edit]

This is a formal request for arbitration. For unrelated parties, please be sure that you wish to be involved before commenting.

I am requesting arbitration over a potential user dispute involving myself. My main issues are the ways offensive statements are made about my character in this edit by Karlos. Also of issue is the same in this edit and this edit. Simply put: I would not have thought that these kinds of statements about me are supposed to be acceptable here.

Previously I have tried to assume good faith and not press it, as it is understandable that heated things are said in tense discussions (and a little forgiveness can go a long way) and I personally have a long and ugly history with him. However, from these and other edits, I am now losing the ability to maintain that faith of non-maliciousness. To be frank, I found many of the offensive statements in all 3 edits as gratuitous and out of line (and this is besides the provable inaccuracies), despite being technically related in some way to the issue at hand. Combined with other less blatant elements of our history, I tend to perceive an emerging pattern of harrassment.

As for hope of resolving this ourselves -- a while ago, I tried to address our major differences in straightforward discussion and reached a severe impasse. I have no reason to believe another attempt would fare differently (and it'd likely result in another ugly conflict), especially when considering how this request was rejected. Ever since, I have gone far out of my way in trying to minimize any potential headbutting, including:

  • avoiding areas where I cannot see how to deal with his practices (such as main article namespace)
  • restricting myself to my personal top priority issues (such as policy and how new users are treated) and strictly uncontroversial stuff like pointing out info
  • refraining from or greatly minimizing participation in many discussions just because he is involved
  • keeping any responses to him relatively short, simple and diffusive, even when it meant not defending myself from what I felt were baseless insults

These steps have proven insufficient, as I still repeatedly find myself at severe odds with him. At this point, I feel that to go any further in this direction necessitates my simply leaving the wiki entirely.

I respectfully request specific answers/direction from arbitration:

  1. Should I or should I not respond in kind to defend myself? On the one hand, I feel that various comments and implications about my character demand it. On the other hand, I think it's also obvious that the discussion would quickly degenerate into yet another inane fight.
  2. Are users expected to continually put up with comments from normal users that label them as childish, on a pride trip (second time I ask about this, btw), manipulative, insincere, or intent on stirring up arguments? Are they expected to put up with such from admins?
  3. Is the comment in question considered polite? If I am perhaps grossly misreading things just because of some language barrier issue, in what way?
  4. What could generally be expected if Karlos makes a similar comment in the future (about any user, not necessarily myself) and a similar request for arbitration is submitted?

Please note that I am not specifically asking for judgement about anybody's intentions, but rather about whether certain behavior is acceptable (a frequent point of confusion).

I'd also like to note these statements of possible relevance:

  • "I'm going to ban the next of [Karlos and some other user] to say anything to anyone in any tone I consider less than polite." —Tanaric 17:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • "Name calling, personal attacks and turning differences of opinion over Golems into an analysis of why this other person is evil are, to me, not only unhealthy ways of debating, but more seriously, they will leave the wiki with poorer content. Because instead of following a scientific system of determining how to classify undead, one guy scared the other with accusations of being a troublemaker and we ended up with one person's personal opinion of what undead are. I cannot believe how so many fail to see the danger in throwing around the label "troublemaker" at a contributor for questioning but readily accept another contributor's name-calling and harrassment as "normal behavior." I am trying to think of the long term consequences of open-debate and questioning vs the long-term consequences of allowing users to be harrassed and stereotyped and assaulted. Doesn't even seem comparable to me." --Karlos 04:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • "The issue here is when contributors decide to stray off-topic into attacks on others' character. Regardless of how stubborn Karlos is, I have yet to see him do that. If he does, I'll come down on him harder than my level 20 warrior comes down on the Charr." —Tanaric 19:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, --Rezyk 04:07, 3 April 2006 (CDT)

Karlos's response:
I have not assaulted your person nor called you names nor even proceeded to call what you did wrong. All I did was point out what you did. Which is turn a small thing into this crisis about whether or not Stabber will be banned. I said I am glad that people did not fall for your move and I am entitled to that opinion. If they had followed your lead, then you have every right to go and post that you're glad they took on your implicit request to undermine the existing policies on user conduct.
That is what I see at the heart of your post and that is how I read your text. I don't believe that is a malicious goal. You don't like the existing user policy changes and for some reason, your requests to change or clarify the policy have fallen on deaf ears. I don't like the fact that you have to basically "lurk" around the wiki until a situation arises between two users and then you post immediately to revive your demands for a change (in direct or indirect ways), and then blame me for you not contributing to the wiki anymore. I don't think that's a healthy way of getting your change to come about, but that's just me, you don't have to agree. I am truly amazed at how much effort you have put into logging and noting every comment to try and use them against me. I believe it is a great waste of your time and talents.
In the edits you have posted, I have never called you names nor ridiculed your character. That is all I have to say in defense. --Karlos 19:57, 3 April 2006 (CDT)
Tanaric's response:
I will not consider the quote from January, as it is no longer relevant. While the GuildWiki has no stated statute of limitations, I believe it is reasonable to ignore issues that happened almost a season ago. Further, I do not wish to encourage the hoarding of "dirt" on people. Everybody occasionally makes mistakes, and such hoarding would only make users less likely to contribute.
As far as Stabber's talk page, I think your warning was probably appropriate, though I personally would not have included the parenthetical on ban warnings. I believe that Karlos was somewhat out of line. Regardless of your history, he immediately assumed that you were attempting to use Stabber's talk page for policy changes in the wiki. From an impartial perspective, this is not apparent. I urge Karlos to exercise more restraint in the future, especially among users he's quarreled with in the past—as useful as such cynicism sometimes is in maintaining the wiki, it is clearly detrimental at times too, and, if it were to become widespread, it would become harmful to the wiki. Karlos, you yourself remarked against stereotyping in the quote Rezyk posted above. While out-of-context at the moment, it's still a good point.
However, Rezyk, you must admit that he was mostly correct about your prior editing habits. His assumption was not entirely without ground, and I believe, had you simply ignored his "Rezyk anti-establishment machine" comment, he would not have carried it further. The ":)" after said comment leads me to believe that he was being jovial. I often do the same sort of thing with people. Thus, while I urge Karlos to exercise more restraint, I urge you equally to take things less seriously. While your sense of humor may not coincide with his, try to recognize that he jokes around fairly often, even with those who have disagreed with him.
In short:
Karlos, write as if your text will be interpreted in the worst possible way, because it usually is.
Rezyk, interpret as if the text was written in the best possible way, because it usually is.
Moving on to the specific answers requested:
1. As you said, a little forgiveness can go a long way. If something he says bothers you, I suggest a simple message like this on his talk page: "Karlos, I'd prefer it if you didn't do __________ in your responses to me. It seems confrontational to me, even if you don't mean it that way." I'd hope that Karlos would respond favorably to something like that.
2. No, and no. As I said above, Karlos's comments (especially the second one on Stabber's talk page) were somewhat out of line. If it happens again, you're welcome to link me to the comment in question, so I can look at it from an uninvolved perspective.
3. Karlos and I have similar writing styles and personalities, at least as expressed in hypertext, so I tend to view his writings much less harshly than many others. However, I recognize that he has been at the center of a few user-to-user disputes. I imagine that you are misreading his comments to be deliberately inflammatory. If I recall correctly, his first language is not English, and his first culture is not American -- I've spent a significant amount of time over the last 8 years overseas, among non-English, non-American cultures, so I'm used to that sort of thing, but I could see how such a difference might affect your interactions with him. Unfortunately, since speaking with people from other cultures seems like the norm to me these days, I can't accurately gauge what difficulty this might impose. (I'm also assuming you speak English natively and are American, which might not be the case.)
4. From what you linked, Karlos did very little I'd consider wrong. I think he grossly misread your intentions on Stabber's talk page—I might be missing something (Karlos, feel free to point it out if I am), but Stabber herself posted the ban request, and you did little else besides request information on why -- but that's something he should apologize for, not something he should be banned for. Like I said earlier, everybody makes mistakes. If you demonstrate a pattern of abuse from Karlos, I'll do what must be done to stop it. As you quoted from me above, I've said this before. However, no user has stepped forward and given a clear transcript of abuse from Karlos, so I maintain the position that he's done no more wrong than anybody else.
If this is not sufficient or satisfactory, please respond and indicate what I missed.
Tanaric 17:13, 6 April 2006 (CDT)
Rezyk's response:
I had requested clarification from you about some of that stuff back in January, and didn't get it. Some frustration over that was one of the main reasons I brought it up this time. Anyways, on this point, the answer to #2 suffices for me.
I meant it when I said I don't think there's much hope of resolving this ourselves (at least, not peacefully). Your suggestions are appreciated, but they are really approaches that I can no longer keep using. I've done the "ignore" thing many times in the past. I even ignored a statement saying that I don't believe in any trust given to admins (and which the anti-establishment labeling kind of hit too close to); this is why I reacted seriously despite the smiley. I accept your point that he could have just been jovial and I really should have reacted in a better way, but please also note that his responses since indicate that it actually did reflect his true opinion. I've tried the passive "asking" method, more than once (I'd like to suggest that it might be better to ___ ; I tend to think a major factor of why [problem issue occurs] is ... you will tend to ___ ; I also wish you would stop ___); the responses were not favorable. IMO, everytime I try it greatly risks another escalating conflict. I know I jumped to requesting your help rather quickly in this particular case...but I really do consider arbitration as a last step, not first, for when I've exhausted almost all other options.
Hmm, I guess it might not be clear what exactly I am objecting to. I certainly am not against everything that was said in these edits (I'm just not responding directly due to the objectionable parts). If people want to discuss whether my comments are to blame for the ugly discussion that occurred, or if I forced/manipulated everyone into it, feel free! If anyone is curious about my reasons or has constructive criticism for me, you really can ask/post on my talk page. However, I do not invite anyone to make statements and labels about my intentions or state of mind as if you know them. I am not here to get random psychoanalysis nor to be crucified over thoughts that someone else can only guess I might have. Please comment on content/actions, not on the contributor.
Numbers:
  1. I tend to feel that an adequate response would have to rebutt with my own true opinions of his intentions. As this would be just as out of line, and against assuming good faith, I will just refrain.
  2. Thank you.
  3. His responses (especially the one above) make a lot of negative assumptions about my intentions/reasons/character and treats them as facts. That in itself seems naturally inflammatory to me, even if the inaccuracies are not deliberate (in that he believes his presumptions are correct, which I assume he does). If a cultural difference applies here, I'd be interested in understanding it.
  4. How and whether anybody is sanctioned is entirely up to you, and I make no suggestions. My only reason for asking is to better understand where we are. I also am not clear what your idea of "abuse" is (it is a bit of a vague term) so cannot easily take you up on that offer. I actually thought your perception was that "abuses of administrator power simply do not happen".
I am not so happy about having to be so personally reactive to this stuff as it comes up (as it does again in this discussion). Had I simply not noticed one these edits, there would be unopposed statements out there giving people wildly misleading/inaccurate ideas about me. Maybe there even is -- I don't review everything that comes up in every discussion, and there shouldn't be any reason I would need to. I already have to correct people's ideas about what I've actually said; I'd rather not also have to deal with so many wrong ideas about what I actually think.
Anyways, at the end of the day I still have to judge for myself, after considering all the responses, whether I really can have the faith to believe that the chance of seeing this issue again is reduced enough. I'm unclear where the line between acceptable and unacceptable is being placed with respect to this stuff (previously I thought it was apparent as a personal attack)...but no matter how it is classified, it is not something I personally care to have to continue dealing with, nor do I want to be part of a project where others may continue to be subjected to it. For this reason I will be taking an indefinite leave from the wiki altogether, and require no further arbitration.
Thank you for your considerable time and effort. --Rezyk 11:56, 9 April 2006 (CDT)

Banning Policy[edit]

Could you write up a document detailing the criteria/practices for banning on GuildWiki? I dislike having to make such a request of work from another, but IMO this has become important to have and I feel the system has generally restricted me from making any more effective progress by myself. --Rezyk 15:56, 13 March 2006 (CST)

Requesting User Ban[edit]

Hi, Tanaric. I would like to request a user ban on Wes Richard (User:Wesrichards). Please see Talk:Leaver. Aside from the childish mocking, check the e-mail link he placed. Thanks. --Karlos 15:28, 2 March 2006 (CST)

Thanks for looking into it. I will let you chart the path here. You are charting the path for future incidents so me and Wes are not the only ones observing this or affected by it. --Karlos 13:04, 7 March 2006 (CST)

He will not drop it, Tanaric: User:Wesrichards, Care to suggest something new? --Karlos 18:05, 7 March 2006 (CST)

Guildwikians[edit]

I wanted to let you know that as of now The Guildwikians have a sister-guild over here in Europe, called "Guildwikians Of Europe" [Wiki] :) I hope you don't have any objections about me copying your idea (if so, tell me). At least I certainly will never copy your cape ;). --Eightyfour-onesevenfive 20:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. :) —Tanaric 22:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I'd be interested in joining any formal GuildWiki Guild in game, as this remains my favorite GW site, even if my time and ability to contribute has decreased. In game name is "Yang Earth". --JoDiamonds 11:31, 24 February 2006 (CST)

What he said :p, and my ingame is "The Fire Fox" --User:FireFox/Sig 20:14, 24 February 2006 (CST)

How big are the 2 guilds? User:Skuld/Sig 20:53, 24 February 2006 (CST)

Mine has exactly two people right now (potentially four once JoDiamonds and FireFox accept their invitations), both of which do not play the game seriously anymore. Hence the non-advertisement. —Tanaric 13:55, 25 February 2006 (CST)
Mine's a one man show currently. I just wanted the [Wiki] tag and have no intentions to create a serious guild. But if someone wants to join anyway, just gimme a call. :) --User:Eightyfour-onesevenfive/Sig 19:54, 11 March 2006 (CST)

Answer[edit]

I really meant it when I said the discussion was closed over there. However, as you've stated and I have absolutely no problem supporting, you've been around damned near forever, and I have no problem having a discussion with you on this. If anyone's earned it, you have. I'd really love it to be real-time; IRC or IM (I've only googleTalk setup at the moment) would be awesome if this doesn't answer what you need.
First, I want to make a distinction on all this "ownership" stuff. There's hard and fast site ownership. Someone has that. That's the domain name, the actual hard drive with data.. all that stuff. Then there's content ownership which is what I think you've been driving at, and no, of course nobody owns that! That's the whole point of the wiki. But I think the people with site ownership still get to call what shots they want. Is that where we were tripping up? Physical vs Content? If so, that's awesome, cos pretty sure we're in agreement there.
Also, the conflict started because the way the issue was brought to us was unbelievably rude and hostile. I can't read it any other way, no matter who says it was benign and, "Oh, you're just assuming." Not saying anyone has but that's a usual fallback, and I'm coming clean and saying boy do I not care what was intended. =p
Anyway.

  • I, (Nunix and/or Gravewit), accept that I have the ability to do anything I wish to the GuildWiki, but choose to do only those things either 1. necessary for the maintenance of the GuildWiki, including its server and database, or 2. put through some sort of community process before implementation.

Absolutely. And aside from the splash page, this is how things have been going, innit? So you see how I get a little tetchy when the response is not, "Hey, this is a new thing you've done, why?" but, "We're voting to somehow limit what you can do." However!

  • "We maintain that we have the right to stuff like this in the future."

Which is true! But man, is it unlikely. No, I don't like conflict. And I've been trying so hard this week to figure out what the actual problem here is and sort it out without resorting to simply wiping the discussion away and banning people who annoy me, because of course that'd be the poor way to handle it. So if for no other reason than this has kept me up nights all week, while we certainly maintan that right - AS THE SITE OWNERS - it's probably not going to happen. So, would IM or something be needed? Wanted? Is there even a problem at all? And don't say you're gonna bail for a few days and be unable to respond, that's bad form, man. =p --Nunix 22:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

On Guild Wars[edit]

Can I ask: Why don't you play Guild Wars anymore? Shandy 04:09, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Sure. In short, it lacks depth.
But I'll expand upon that. Back during the beta events (I played in every one), a lot was promised of Guild Wars. It was supposed to be a more tactical game, in that if you didn't think during the map, you'd perish. I remember playing through the early versions of the post-Searing Ascalon missions. The enemies were incredibly difficult—usually three or four levels higher than you. The encounters were placed in such a way that you could attack them from different angles with different results. You could approach one group from on high, assault them with arrows as they approached, and then defeat the significantly damaged group after they finally got up to you. Nowadays, every mission is just rush in, attack, defeat, next mission. There's no challenge. There are a couple of "gotchas" that you have to remember—for example, not pulling all the switches at once at the Frost Gate, but other than those few tricks, no mission requires anything more than common sense.
I got what I could out of the game. A buddy and me skipped all the missions and explored our way to every single visitable area in the game (pre-Desert, obviously). I ran through most of the missions (I've yet to get past Thunderhead Keep), but they were pretty tame in comparison to what I'd played in the Beta. I started a guild, and recruited a bunch of very unique people—but I was stranded in a different timezone all last summer, and since I couldn't do much for the guild, I handed leadership over to somebody else. When I came back, the guild was mostly dead—and the few people who did still play were asshats. I resigned from the guild, but since I don't really play anymore anyway, I rejoined recently (I know a lot of the guys "in real life," and my not being in the guild was inconvenient). Still, I feel as if I've gotten most everything I can out of Guild Wars, and I'm happy to relegate my Guild Wars exposure to simply maintaining the GuildWiki.
I should probably also note that, even though I haven't really played in the last six months, I still have over 200 hours combined across all my characters. I put in a lot of time at release. —Tanaric 15:24, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Basically, this is why I PvP. Even before I finished PvE the first time around I knew it was basically about cheesing the AI enemy. At that point, I was just playing to unlock stuff. (I tried exploring, but the huge amount of emptiness after Ascalon made me eventually stop.) I guess if you don't have a good group to putz around with, then PvP isn't very enjoyable, but I think it's worth trying to find good people. --Fyren 15:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
PvP isn't that much different than PvE in this game. There's no tactics, or terrain to take advantage of, or even any way to meaningfully hide. It's just coordinating your builds and following a plan. While many people enjoy that, I really don't. The only game that had PvP I enjoyed was Ultima Online. I could skulk in the shadows, wait for somebody to walk past, take them out, take their stuff, and laugh all the way to the home I stole from some other guy. :) —Tanaric 15:39, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
While there's no classic rogue profession, there are tactics and terrain advantages. Line of sight, positioning, not simply playing characters in a mechanical manner, paying attention to what the other team is doing (and who is doing what) so you can react to it, and leadership of your own team are large issues. If you were playing in the arenas, yes, it's mostly a joke. GvG and, to a lesser extent, tombs is where it happens. --Fyren 16:26, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
If you like the challenge in PvE, you should not have stopped short of the fire islands. While, by now, there are known "tricks" tp get past nearly any mission, there is a significant increase in difficulty after the shiverpeaks missions and again after the fire island missions. Try your hand at the titans quests (without using one of the tricks) and you'll have a real challenge. --Xeeron 10:45, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
A mediocre beginning does not justify a great end. I won't slog through boredom to get to something fun. I've got plenty of other games that are already fun. :) —Tanaric 14:23, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree that the game is very "forgiving" up to the Southern Shiverpeak missions. Players can simply hack and slash and overpower their enemy in almost every mission until they get to Thunderhead keep. This teaches bad playing habits and is the main reason so many players get stuck in Thunderhead keep for long before they can advance to the Ring of Fire. The fact that players can be "run" to most of the high-level areas in the game doesn't help either. I am sick and tired of seeing level 6 players trying to get "hitch-hike" through the Desert missions.
But once you get to the harder areas of the game, the experience is very rewarding. Some of the explorable areas and missions starting from Droknar's Forge can be quite intimidating. They require actual preparation! :) Like you see party leaders asking for specific classes and builds. Really amazing! And of course the Fissure of Woe and the Underworld are simply sublime. There is no room for crap there. Lousy parties and poor group tactics result in a wipeout fairly quickly. --Karlos 06:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


PvP is the only reason I play. Although as I'm in a social guild I don't get to GvG, the Arenas are still very interesting. I look forward to Chapter 2 and the accompanying change in the state of play. At the moment things become fresh rapidly in the PvP world, as builds rise in popularity and get nerfed or countered. PvE-wise.. well, I'm having trouble finding the determination to finish the game with my Me/E - I've reached the last mission and I've been waiting for inspiration for a number of weeks :P. There isn't much incentive to complete the game more than once. In PvE I simply farm SF, FoW or the Underworld, these days, just for the hell of it. In short, PvP has amazing depth, once you get into it. Shandy 06:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Busy night. --Fyren 23:49, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

You're telling me. I don't really mind, though; I've been slacking off around here, I deserved a spambot attack. :) —Tanaric 00:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

ThK[edit]

Anytime you need help with it, seek me out. See my characters are listed in my user page. Lamees is the one on most often. --Karlos 22:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


Conversation[edit]

Hey Tanaric, sorry about earlier, FoW is hard! Anyway, was there anything you wanted to know? On another note, what do you think of Talk:Morale_Boost? User:LordBiro/Sig 10:39, 8 Aug 2005 (EST)

What timezone/region you play in, what your focus is, if you're recruiting people, etc. —Tanaric 23:30, 9 Aug 2005 (EST)

Thank you for your welcome :) Nectarine 01:13, 26 October 2005 (EST)

Amnoon[edit]

Requesting your input in Talk:The Amnoon Oasis. --Fyren 06:14, 2 Aug 2005 (EST)

Done, sorry about that. —Tanaric 20:02, 2 Aug 2005 (EST)

Sysop[edit]

I should've done it awhile back, I'm sure, but I just thought I should say thanks for all the work Tanaric, and in honor of all the edits and discussions and helpful info, you're a sysop now. Congrats. Gravewit 02:24, 3 Aug 2005 (EST)

Hey, thanks! I appreciate it. I was wondering when we'd get another sysop, as Biro seemed a little overworked. :) —Tanaric 19:34, 3 Aug 2005 (EST)
Tell me about it :P User:LordBiro/Sig 22:30, 3 Aug 2005 (EST)

Axe Attack[edit]

I was looking at the deletion log and saw you deleted this and Ollj remade it two days after. Is this the same content you axed? --Fyren 12:18, 8 Aug 2005 (EST)

"Axed"... heh. Anyway, mostly the same, yes. I restored the deleted edits so you can see (though you should have been able to see anyway). I should have dereferenced "Axe Attack" everywhere first, as it's a completely meaningless page (as the {{delete}} mentioned). *sigh* I see another battle in GuildWiki talk:Style and formatting/Skills coming. —Tanaric 23:29, 9 Aug 2005 (EST)

Game Update Archival[edit]

Category:Game Updates has an archive of all games and it is sorted chronologically. Just reference it at the top of the Game Updates article. --Karlos 18:38, 15 Aug 2005 (EST)

Didn't know that existed, but regardless, it's very unreadable, and not so useful. I thought we did away with categories for updates for that very reason. —Tanaric 18:42, 15 Aug 2005 (EST)
We did? I am sorry, I wasn't aware. --Karlos 19:30, 15 Aug 2005 (EST)
Well, clearly we didn't. :) But there were notes about it on Talk:Game updates. —Tanaric 22:15, 15 Aug 2005 (EST)

Older[edit]

That wasn't just cos I messed your name up on Biro's talk page, was it? I made sure to get it right when I did the credits ;p Nunix

lol :D LordBiro/Talk

Hehe, I didn't notice the thing on Biro's talk page. I don't see me mentioned anywhere on it now, but I'm tired and easily confused. Tanaric

just read you got a new job tanaric, what you doing? :) LordBiro/Talk

oh, and thanks again for -writing- that big long guide! It's a serious chunk of info that I know I'd never have gotten around to compiling due to chronic oh-look-a-shiny-thing Nunix

I'm the Summer Hire Program Coordinator for the US Department of Defense deployment in Stuttgart, Germany (and surrounding areas). I coordinate the hiring and placement of about 180 14-22 year old students who have parents stationed in the area. I also coordinate with their supervisors, giving training, advice, and helping in employee/supervisor disputes. I just sent out offer letters to the applicants today, so headaches abound as I get calls from irate parents (many of whom are high-ranking military and civilians). I just haven't been up to working on the wiki in my free time because of it, so... sorry. :) I'll eventually get back to contributing to this thing. @Nunix: To be fair, I think the side quests were stolen from another site. I don't remember writing them. If I had written them, they'd have a lot longer descriptions. I meant to go back and fill them all in, but I never got around to it. Tanaric

Tanaric, would you be able to call categories "Contains Iron Ingots" rather than just "Contains Iron"? BTW, I like the way the templates are shaping up :D good stuff! User:LordBiro/Sig 06:53, 16 Jun 2005 (EST)

You know, I thought about that, but decided against it initially. The item itself doesn't really contain ingots of iron -- we simply make the iron into ingot form after salvaging for convenience. The more practical argument is that I don't want to have a category called "Contains Piles of Glittering Dust" when merely "Contains dust" is sufficient. Think about it; I'll change if you're not swayed. :) Tanaric 15:30, 16 Jun 2005 (EST)
Hehe, well I do see your point, I hadn't thought of that. But there are some crafting materials that have similar names, for example there are wood planks and there are spiritwood planks, you could say that items that salvage into spiritwood planks also contain wood, which wouldn't be unreasonable ;) User:LordBiro/Sig 20:00, 17 Jun 2005 (EST)
Also a good point. Hmm. I still favor using "Contains wood" and "Contains spiritwood" and even "Contains Deldrimor steel", because I'm a grammar/verisimilitude nazi. Not to mention, I got there first. ;) Tanaric 20:17, 17 Jun 2005 (EST)
I'm late to the discussion, but I suggest "Yields Iron Ingots" instead to preserve the in game name. --Fyren 20:10, 2 Jul 2005 (EST)

Could you please exlain your "Case Crusade"? Is this a mutual agreement? I can't find anything in that direction in the Style & Formating instructions. I thought we agreed that only "minor" words should be lowercase. --Tetris L 18:29, 15 Jul 2005 (EST)

Nevermind. See my notes in Style & Formating talk. --Tetris L 19:03, 15 Jul 2005 (EST)
Will do. —Tanaric 23:41, 15 Jul 2005 (EST)

Just curious: As an American living in Europe, do you play on the American or European server? --Tetris L 19:14, 15 Jul 2005 (EST)

I play in the American region, because I live in America for most of the year. —Tanaric 23:41, 15 Jul 2005 (EST)

Another mention of SQL problems[edit]

I suppose you've noticed the MySQL errors that are popping up all over the place, just wondered if you had any ideas regarding them. User:LordBiro/Sig 07:05, 25 Jul 2005 (EST)

I've no idea. I would have suggested restoring from a recent backup, but I doubt such a thing exists. I'd also suggest upgrading to the latest stable version of mySQL, but that seems pretty impossible too. Table repairs might be our only chance here. —Tanaric 07:22, 25 Jul 2005 (EST)
I've been offline for several days and just noticed this reference. What're the problems? Can someone paste what they're seeing? At $dayjob I manage mysql servers with several hundred gigs of data so I might be able to help with whatever is going on. Also re: Backups, someone with shell access should setup a cronjob of "mysqldump --quick --add-drop-table -u root --password='$password'" on a daily basis. I'd also recommend an offsite sync of that data (which I'm more than happy to contribute server space for) MartinLightbringer 07:42, 25 Jul 2005 (EST)
n/m I just saw one. It's definitely a table corruption issue. I'd recommend stopping mysql and running mysiamchk -r on the appropriate table (or run REPAIR TABLE while mysql is running). As an aside does anyone know what version of mysql is running here? MartinLightbringer 07:49, 25 Jul 2005 (EST)
A cron job is a good idea, and colocation too. Btw, i think that should be myisamchk -r, please correct my if I'm wrong. I guess only the hosts can do this though (afaik cheap(er) hosting typically doesn't come with shell access). Is REPAIR TABLE an SQL command? And if so, are there any advantages to stopping the server and using myisamchk instead? User:LordBiro/Sig 09:32, 25 Jul 2005 (EST)
Yeah just a typo. myisamchk is correct. REPAIR TABLE is a mysql command. It does essentially the same things, although I have seen it fail to correct problems that running myisamchk -r with the db shutdown will fix. See REPAIR TABLE syntax for details. Re: the hosting, I'm not aware of the details of what's in place now but I've seen dedicated server (with root access) pricing at various hosts in the $30/month range. MartinLightbringer 10:41, 25 Jul 2005 (EST)
Thanks Martin, some good info there! Yeah, looking at the ledger it seems Gravewit pays around that amount for hosting, so perhaps he does have shell access. User:LordBiro/Sig 21:23, 25 Jul 2005 (EST)