User talk:Gares Redstorm

Archive1

Task List
As of May 12, 2006, my characters ages are:


 * Whoof. So, are you buying Factions for each account? And, for your later reference, they're adding buyable character slots... eventually. I hear. I want to say this summer but I have no citation for that. :) --Tinarto [[Image:Tinarto-gold-Monk-icon-small.png]] 16:33, 12 May 2006 (CDT)


 * Damn! That's like 1700 hrs total, or 71 days of straight playing. When I reach that much, maybe I'll have enough cred (and confidence in my ability) to make real edits at this wiki. Maybe I'll even have a fighting chance in PvP by then. You never know... --Fenris (talk) 17:16, 12 May 2006 (CDT)

Real World Guild Wars Class
Taking the quiz brought to my attention by Phoenix on Fun page created by Gem.

My results:

Mesmer 75% Warrior	75% Necromancer 50% Elementalist 40% Ranger 35% Monk 20%

Even had a tiebreaker question between Mesmer and Warrior, it was that close. --Gares Redstorm 09:52, 12 May 2006 (CDT)

Request for adminship
I added a bit of a comment on your rfa, just wanted to say that I'm not having a go at you, your worth to the GuildWiki is unquestionable because of your tireless contributing and I think you'll make a good admin. But over at Wikipedia they have quite an involved rfa process where the candidate states why they're "worthy" and users are allowed to ask a whole lot of questions etc. You're under no obligation (or even expectation) to respond, I just thought you might find the feedback useful. Good luck with your rfa (although you look like a shoe in, I'd better stay on your good side :P ) --Xasxas256 22:51, 5 June 2006 (CDT)

Addition: I should say that the other reason why you can just read this (ie there's no need to respond) is that it could just be me. I couldn't remember really bumping into you much so just had a look over your contributions, seeing how many of your edits were to talk pages (and having a look at a sample of your talk page edits) and precieved a lack of visibilty from you, but others (and yourself) may disagree and think I'm crazy. That's ok too, I like being crazy, normality is for chumps! Besides it's not necessary for admins (or potential admins) to have massive community involvement, as I said above, it's just feedback. --Xasxas256 22:59, 5 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I hope your not having a go at me. My girlfriend would go nuts. Hehe. Really though, I love feedback. Don't know if you are doing something wrong till someone tells you or you blow something up. :P


 * Here is one of my recent rambling episodes. I'm more for the collection, validation, and protection of the data that is found here at GuildWiki. But I do keep tabs on all the discussions. I don't want to be a step behind in something. ;) --Gares Redstorm 23:12, 5 June 2006 (CDT)


 * "Don't know if you are doing something wrong till someone tells you or you blow something up." Can't you do both!? Anyway it's a shame you don't write on talk/user talk pages more, you seem pretty laid back and fun. However your example of "rambling" is way off, check out some real ramblings I've put on the user page of poor (yet tolerant of my general craziness) Karlos. User_talk:Karlos and User_talk:Karlos. They were a bit before I took a short wikibreak and went off the boil a little. I wouldn't bother reading it because it's a dead discussion from a time I was angry and annoyed but look at the sheer length of those comments! You've got a long way to go mate, also your "ramble" actually made sense! --Xasxas256 23:41, 5 June 2006 (CDT)

Categories go at the bottom
Whoah there cowboy. :) I do believe the current consensus is Style_and_formatting. One of the reasons is that categories on top disrupt spacing on the page. --Bishop (rap|con) 06:35, 8 June 2006 (CDT)

For the rest of this discussion see User_talk:Bishop.

Skill icon RVs..
If there's a question on whether or not we should use those skill icons in skill listings, then I suggest you raise the issue on a talk page. Reverting what seems to be a nice edit is really uncalled for. Do you have any concerns about listing the skills with the tiny icons next to them? The format is simple enough and it looks a lot prettier. This is how a lot of good looking things on this site started, just someone tries them on a few things, people like them then propagate them.

So, yes, it is not our standard monster template, but that monster template can always change if someone comes with a nice idea to add to it. These colorful little icons are certainly a nice idea. I won't counter revert your reverts, but I will start the discussion if it's not already started. --Karlos 00:34, 10 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Its already started. --Gares Redstorm 08:18, 10 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Personally, I think because the discussion hasn't finalized yet, and there are already other articles in that state, your reverts are as pointless as the person's edits. Of course, reverting yoru revert back tot he person's edit is equally pointless etc.  It sufficies to let the person know the matter has not been finalized.  Reverting his edits places you on the same level as he was. - 12:43, 10 June 2006 (CDT)
 * After the first edit he made, I explained it to him. I can't make someone read their talk page. See what I said here. I can only explain that there is a discussion in the works and that his edits, whether they are in good intentions (and I believe he does think he is doing the right thing), is still under review. So until that review is finalized, I feel his edits on skill icons are not necessary at this time until policy has changed. Whether I am depicted as the bad guy on this topic is not my concern, my concern is to try my best to keep the Wiki as uniform as possible until a consensus has been finalized. --Gares Redstorm 12:52, 10 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Personally, I think until the decision is finalized that the articles should conform to what we have listed in the S&F pages. Otherwise, why have the pages at all, just make a talk page and let people discuss things there endlessly and do what they want with the pages.  <-insert sarcasm as necessary  --Rainith 13:26, 10 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Personally, I think the beauracracy is getting to us. The boss maps, how were they started? In the boss template or just good intentioned people adding maps to boss articles. Did we RV the ones added until the community approves the addition of (yes a more useful feature) those maps? This is no harm, look good, quick IDing of most skills, why not? This is not the beast box that has to be all migrated quickly, this is an alternate listing, I don't care if we have half the pages using one and the other half using the other. Anyways, let's get off this poor guy's talk page and keep it in its thread. --Karlos 03:22, 11 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Poor? Hehe, I am far from being poor, although if I keep buying lottery tickets, I might be one day. It's nice when people visit my talk page, I don't keep it clean for nothing :D I'm not one for much discussion, I'd rather see action, so I say let's just take a vote and be done with it and let the cards fall where they may. --Gares Redstorm 05:12, 11 June 2006 (CDT)

For your consideration
I should have posted this here last night, but I was tired and I forgot, so please let me know any ideas that you might have. Also if you could add whatever text you are using to seperate the categories from the main article to my example I'd appreciate it. Original message follows:

Don't know if you're at all interested in this, but I'd appreciate your feedback here about this. --Rainith 15:53, 15 June 2006 (CDT)

Hey hey
I couldn't help but notice you jumping onto Talk:Game updates/20060615. So has the slow transformation from hiding in the shadows to standing on a soap box begun? :P --Xasxas256 21:58, 15 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Hehe. When I see something wrong, I will speak out. No soap box though, just stating an observation out loud. --Gares Redstorm 22:02, 15 June 2006 (CDT)