User talk:LordBiro

Decision
I saw that you were concerned about User:Timir111. I banned him for the continuation of blanking pages, lastly being my user page. Somehow, he found out I was the one that deleted an old tagged build and had to blank my page in order to ask me why I needed to delete the build.

This user wasn't as naive as he lead on, I am guessing. How he knew enough to know the build was deleted, then sift through the delete logs to find out I was the one who deleted it, yet still does not have the knowledge to know not to blank or overwrite a whole article. Something didn't add up. -Gares 15:54, 30 August 2006 (CDT)


 * I've been monitoring his contributions recently and waiting for him to blank things again. Whether he is naive or not, he's blanked a lot of pages and I guess he's read the warning... since he blanked that too. He deserved to be banned and you did the right thing Gares :)  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 16:57, 30 August 2006 (CDT)

Response to your comment on User talk:Gravewit
This is in response to this comment. I'm keeping this out of Gravewit's page as it's off topic there.

I'm not sure if you saw the full Stabber saga, but you are wrong about him not causing harm to the wiki. Long before his sockpuppetry was discovered he had already received several warnings (including an official arbitration) about his behavior on the wiki. Read what Tanaric wrote in the arbitration: he was fully in agreement with me about Stabber's behavior and contributions to the wiki. Stabber was more than a pain in the ass: he was actively harming the wiki with his drama. After his sockpuppetry was discovered, it was found that he had been using his socks to stage fights and dramatic exits without taking responsibility, and, in one instance, to double vote. His "Deldda Kcarc" identity was used almost solely to fight with Karlos and vandalize the wiki over a period of several days, leading to a series of blocks. All the while his "Stabber" persona kept up a demure front to attract sympathy. All this is well documented on the wiki. It's a completely unbelievable tale. You are maybe one of three people to still claim that his sockpuppetry was not proven. Also, if you read Xeeron's link, the community consensus about sock puppetry is clear. You are again a holdout here as nearly everyone wants socks banned on sight.

Now, I've heard it said several times that Stabber's negatives were balanced by his contributions to the wiki, but that is a ridiculous equivocation. I myself was initially of that opinion, but then I spent an entire day going through Stabber's edit history, and the only conclusion I could reach was that this user was far too big for his breeches and a net negative to the wiki. And this was before his sockpuppetry was exposed. I know that everyone now wants to make this issue about me, and that's fine, but please don't exalt Stabber in the same breath that you damn me. 64.78.164.226 (a.k.a. F G) 64.78.164.226 10:19, 20 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Thanks FG. I've read this all before, both in your posts, in other people's posts and in the arbitration.


 * I appreciate that I am very likely in the minority with my view on Stabber. I think that she was a positive influence on the wiki, for the most part, and of course you are welcome to disagree with me. That's not to say I was a fan of Stabber, we butted heads occasionally, but she argued her point reasonably and I believed (and still believe) that her intention was only ever to accurately document Guild Wars as she thought best.


 * I really don't want to further discuss this issue here. I am aware of the facts and also of the speculation and my mind is made up.


 * I am also aware that I am in the minority with regard to my view on sockpuppets, but I think my point of view is entirely reasonable. If you don't agree with me then that's fine. I posted my views on Gravewit's talk page to reiterate that I personally see no immediate need, at present, to ban sock puppets or open proxies.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 11:51, 20 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Just for the record, I want to reply to this sentence specifically: "I know that everyone now wants to make this issue about me, and that's fine, but please don't exalt Stabber in the same breath that you damn me." I don't know if this was aimed at me specifically, but when have I ever damned you? Or even spoken about you? I certainly don't want to make this issue "about you".  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 12:01, 20 September 2006 (CDT)

Deleting unused images
I've been submitting lists of images needing deletion to Skuld earlier, but I just realised that currently there are 1197 unused images in the wiki and it would be a pain to go through them AND list the onews needing deletion for someone else to delete. Could we agree on a time some day this week when you temporarily make me an admin so I can use the deletion ability myself when I go through the list? Then you could demote me again after I'm ready with the task.

On a side note: You might want to archive this talk page. ;) -- (talk) 11:38, 27 November 2006 (CST)


 * Hey Gem :) I'll get round to archiving this at some point.


 * I am a little hesitant to give temporary sysop powers. There are two reasons for this. I'm not aware of this being done before on the GuildWiki and I think that granting you temporary sysop priveleges sets a precedent that would be undemocratic (harking back to the time before GW:RFA when Gravewit decided who the sysops would be).


 * I would rather discuss the second reason with you off-wiki before I post it here, as I might not have all the facts.


 * I would appreciate any other contributors input on the subject of temporary sysop privileges. :)  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 18:54, 27 November 2006 (CST)
 * If Gem have it, I want it to. ;)  I think the reason you gave about precedent is a good one and I don't see the need for more reason not to give people temporary Sysop.  Why grant it to one and not the other would be a pain to choose too.&mdash; ├ A  ratak  ┤  19:12, 27 November 2006 (CST)
 * Agreed. Although, I have no problem with someone starting a GW:RFA for Gem to put in place the framework to eventually grant him permanent access when it's decided more admins are needed. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:19, 27 November 2006 (CST)
 * The category will be cleaned out before next Sunday. I have to ask, though, where Biro found the original of the Image:Warrior-pink.gif, considering I lack the mental capacity to figure out how to change it's color. I can remember the transitive closure procedure, but I can't change pink to black (sad really). &mdash; Gares 20:42, 27 November 2006 (CST)


 * No problem then if someone else is going to do the job. Honestly I'm really impressed that you took it like you did LordBiro, just as I had imagined. :) What comes to an RFA for me, I don't think I'm a suitable person to be an admin by the current guidelines (atleast now that I'm not too active) and I would probably reject the nomination. The only reason why I even dared to ask was the reason that I don't see adminship as any kind of status thing but only as a bunch of extra tools. (which I have really often hoped for as they would have eased my work here a lot)
 * Gares: I'll be checking the category on Sunday. ;) Please don't remove anything which might be usefull later on. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 02:19, 28 November 2006 (CST)


 * Gah! I knew that you were "back" Gem and I actually had everything ready to go to nominate you but got called out of the office and when I came back you'd written this. I think you'd make a great admin, maybe next time I see you online I'll bring it up.


 * On a related note, our list of active admins has taken a bit of a hit of late. Eightyfour-onesevenfive's contributions have been a bit sporadic over the last month, PanSola doesn't have as much time for the GWiki as previously and Tanaric has retired recently. With Xeeron also calling it quits not long ago I figured that it'd be the perfect time to nominate Gem. It'd be nice to have someone else join me in limbo! --Xasxas256 03:21, 28 November 2006 (CST)


 * Well, feel free to nominate me if you think I'm worth it, but you better convince me too. :) I really would like the admin tools so I could better help the wiki, but I fear I would also get more responsibility on stuf that I don't like to interfere with. I need to think about it more if someone really nominates me at some point. Untill that I'll just keep cotributing as usual. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 12:16, 28 November 2006 (CST)

Settle this dispute please!
It's between me, another person who agrees with me, Skuld and another person. Skuld has voted without testing demanding to know why it's better than another build to which I argue that he has no foundations on his argument since it sounds like he hasn't even looked at it in-game. The other person voted on this PvE build after testing it in PvP. I accuse them of 1) not testing it 2) changing it from tested to untested after the votes had already come through. Both these things are against the regulations of this site, I feel skuld may have an ego problem. The page with the proof: Build_talk:A/D_Disciple_of_Death. Yours, Sir On The Edge 16:44, 4 December 2006 (CST)


 * Hi Sir On The Edge, I've been reading through the talk page of the build in question, but unfortunately it's very late here (in the UK). I will continue reading it tomorrow morning and post my thoughts on this dispute then.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 19:23, 4 December 2006 (CST)


 * I've found what you asked for and Have added it to the Disciple of Death page. G-night. Sir On The Edge 17:11, 5 December 2006 (CST)

Explorable Areas
I'd like your opinion for a S&F template I created for Explorable Areas. Thanks. &mdash; Gares 15:36, 6 December 2006 (CST)

New builds policy proposal
Hi. As somebody who has made several contributions to the discussion at GuildWiki talk:No Original Builds I just wanted to draw your attention to an alternative policy I've proposed at Build Split. If you've got the time I'd be very grateful if you could give it a read through and leave any comment you may have on its talk page. Thanks! --NieA7 10:42, 19 December 2006 (CST)

Hi
If you could take a peek at User:Bexor/Collectors and leave any feedback on the discussion page there, I would appreciate it. :) - BeXoR   07:02, 22 December 2006 (CST)


 * I've had a look, looks good! I will comment there though :)  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 11:05, 23 December 2006 (CST)

Interactive map project
Hi LordBiro, you sent me an email regarding the project a couple weeks ago, though I haven't heard back from you since. Just wanted to drop you note here in case my response disappeared in some junk mail folder ;) DeepSearch 07:05, 27 December 2006 (CST)


 * Hey DeepSearch, sorry about not replying :) I'm a bit busy at the moment, as explained above! I'll try to hunt for your email and reply! If I can't find it I'll just post on your talk page ;)  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 09:22, 31 December 2006 (CST)

Could you make a "Silver Armor" icon?
People keep messing it up in articles and builds. Occasionally, you see Image:Silver Armor.jpg being uploaded. Do you think an icon that somehow communicates "No, you got the skill name wrong. It really is Sliver" would be a good idea? If so, could you make one. &mdash; 130.58 (talk) 04:09, 5 January 2007 (CST)
 * It would just be easier to do a search for "silver armor" and correct it. We should be fixing errors, not compensating for them. - BeXoR  [[Image:Bexor.png]] 08:58, 5 January 2007 (CST)
 * Couldn't it just redirect? --Xasxas256 09:15, 5 January 2007 (CST)
 * The intent was to yell at them jolily when they look at their build bar, thus getting people to self-fix. Bad idea? &mdash; 130.58 (talk) 09:27, 5 January 2007 (CST)
 * How about redirecting [[Image:Silver Armor.jpg]] to Silver Armor and locking the image page? &mdash; Skuld 09:29, 5 January 2007 (CST)
 * That would be logical and easy to do, yes. &mdash; 130.58 (talk) 09:49, 5 January 2007 (CST)
 * Or what about redirecting to a userbox in the Humour category that says "this user can't spell Sliver." Eh!? Eh!? :P No seriously Skuld's idea sounds good. --Xasxas256 09:30, 5 January 2007 (CST)
 * HAHAHAHA BEST IDEA EVER!!!!!!!--Midnight08 09:36, 5 January 2007 (CST)
 * To Bexor, true, except the search function looks at Silver and armor searhes for each, so for each correction you have to look through about 100 mentions of silver dye and various armors=P (i just tested by adding the term to my talk and searching with user talk included, i had the dye articles, the scams article, this article, and a ton others, but no other mention than this 1 on LB's talk of "Silver Armor" (i searched w + w/o "'s). --Midnight08 09:42, 5 January 2007 (CST)
 * In over a year here it's finally happened, not just my best idea ever or the best idea on the GuildWiki, I came up with the BEST IDEA EVER!!!!!!! I should hang up my boots and retire, I've done everything I can now! :P --Xasxas256 09:46, 5 January 2007 (CST)
 * I'll just add the 'What links here' for Silver armor on my 'pages under surveillance'. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 17:27, 5 January 2007 (CST)


 * Someone should make you a best idea ever user box Xasxas :P If they haven't already, I shoul dprobably have a look first.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 06:04, 10 January 2007 (CST)

Please review
User:Gares Redstorm/Action

Hopefully users will notice this as I can't possibly post on everyone's talk page. &mdash; Gares 18:23, 5 January 2007 (CST)


 * Lol :)  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 06:04, 10 January 2007 (CST)

Asset
You, sir, are an asset. When I read what you write about usability, contextualization, and use of color, I wish you worked at my software company. Good show. -- Oblio (talk) 15:43, 19 January 2007 (CST)


 * Wow, er... Thank you so much. This is the nicest thing anyone has said to me on the wiki (I think). I really appreciate it!  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 20:58, 19 January 2007 (CST)

Gem's RFA
I suppose you didn't get my message in irc. (I believe I left it almost 2 weeks ago) Just wanting to make sure as I hate not being replied to. :) -- (talk) 05:32, 25 January 2007 (CST)


 * I didn't Gem, sorry! If you want to contact me off-wiki IRC is probably not the best way at the moment. I would recommend emailing me. :)  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 11:22, 25 January 2007 (CST)


 * Okay, thanks. It wasn't too important, I just wanted to know if you got the message. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 14:27, 25 January 2007 (CST)


 * Well I didn't get it. I would have tried my best to reply if I had, because I also hate it when people don't reply ;)  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 17:19, 25 January 2007 (CST)


 * On a realted matter to the one which I messaged you about, what is the situation with my nomination? I'm eager to receive all possible extra tools to help the wiki to the best. I've received more nominations and in a shorter time period than any of the admins who went through the nomination process before me, so I suppose trust from other users isn't an issue, but nothing has been done for a long time. Are new admins made only when the situations calls for extra manpower, or is a certain time period from the nomination point needed? Or is it just that no one remembered the nomination or that the current admins don't want more new admins? I would like to have the situation made clear so that I know what to anticipate in the near future. I'm in no way trying to push anyone and will accept any reason given even if it makes little sense. :) --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 17:50, 25 January 2007 (CST)
 * As it was explained to me when it was set-up, the nominations make an available pool so that when it's viewed that an additional admin is needed, it's easy to spot a community supported candidate. Just being nominated and receiving support doesn't ensure being made an admin, but when an admin is needed, it does identify those who would be most seriously considered. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:00, 25 January 2007 (CST)
 * Thanks! I think that the process should be clearly documented on the RFA page. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 18:08, 25 January 2007 (CST)
 * On GW:RFA, it already says "Please note that a well-supported nomination is not a guarantee for an administrator position—the decision of whether the GuildWiki needs more admins and whether a particular user is well-suited for the role rests with the current administrative team."
 * Of course, with PanSola and Tanaric both now inactive; it could be argued that it is time to consider adding an additional admin - but some claimed we had too many anyways. I'm neutral on it myself.  LordBiro is the one who needs to make the final determination of if another admin is needed, as he's the one with the ability to add/remove admins. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:09, 25 January 2007 (CST)
 * Yes, I have read the whole RFA page carefully, but it leaves some space for confusion. The process could be documented better. I'll do it tomorrow if no one else bothers.
 * And I'm not asking for any special treatment for myself, so no need to make me an admin before there is need for it. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 18:13, 25 January 2007 (CST)


 * Tanaric had a conservative view as to promoting contributors, and it's one that I think is sensible. He believed we should only promote contributors to admins when there is a need to do so. I don't know how many admins currently patrol recent changes, but I think the current admins have vandalism covered, and I don't think there are more disputes than we can currently handle. If you think otherwise please correct me ;)


 * Despite all of the above I'm not as conservative as Tanaric when it comes to promotion. I will have to consider this whole thing a bit longer, if that's ok with you.


 * And I would also like to apologise to you, Gem. Ever since User talk:LordBiro I have failed to give my opinion as to your suitability as an admin. I think you would make an excellent admin and I'm certain that the next person I promote will be you, although I can't say when ;)  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 19:47, 25 January 2007 (CST)


 * Just think Gem, I had to wait in line after Barek and Skuld. :P When I did get it, I didn't even know till I saw the new options. Gravewit pulled a fast one on me. &mdash; Gares 19:55, 25 January 2007 (CST)


 * I was pretty vocal on the topic of the RFA system prior to and during Xeeron's nomination so maybe it's worthwhile me saying something again now that my own process has completed (or maybe being demoted would be a complete cycle but let's not go there!). I can see why have a system where we only sysop a new user when we "need" one (ie when an old admin has left), prior to Auron's RFA people here were pretty unwilling to vote unfavoured, if we had a Wikipedia style system it could lead to a massive influx of admins, some of which may not have been deserving/ready yet for sysoption.


 * I guess for me, I can't see many disadvantages of Gem being sysoped, he'd make an excellent admin IMO and I've noticed that he's got into moderating user disputes more recently, presumably in preperation or practice for promotion and has been doing quite well thus far. Also I don't know how many admins is "too many" but I don't think we're at that point yet. Furthermore I'd like to have the RFA process less drawn out and better defined. I'm not sure a "finishing line" system is best (ie get to 20 votes for or against and it's over) but I don't like the current "limbo" system. I've got in my mind some vague idea where the nominations come from the current admins (I guess the current admins want someone they feel they can work with) or perhaps even nominations coming from LordBiro himself, being our current beurocrated user, he's always going to be the one with the final say anyway. I don't think I've quite got my head around what I could propose as a better idea so I've just kinda let my thinking spill out onto the screen for now... --Xasxas256 20:08, 25 January 2007 (CST)


 * Although I would like to, I wont comment on or propose changes to the RFA process as long as I am still being processed, just to be fair. And LordBiro: There is nothing to appoligize for. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 04:17, 26 January 2007 (CST)

GW:NPA aka GW:GARES
I wanted to request your comments on No personal attacks, to see if you had any concerns with the contents (wordiness, definitions, flexibility, enforcement concerns, etc) of the proposed policy. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:29, 26 January 2007 (CST)


 * Hey Barek :) I have been keeping an eye on NPA for a while now, but I haven't really felt the need to get involved; I think it's looking really good!


 * I have a couple of suggestions and I'll post them over there :)  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 18:35, 26 January 2007 (CST)

advice on icon?
Hi, I've made an icon for my sig. Well more of a 2D array of pixels at the moment, so I'd like to hear your short advice: The icon is supposed to be a revolver crossed with a rose, but the upper leaves of the rose are exactly over the revolver and it's all a bit hard to make out. So I was asking myself, What Would LordBiro Do? Would He stretch the icon horizontally a little, lower the angle of the two props and raise the upper leaves to be just below the bud? --Roland of Gilead (talk) 18:59, 30 January 2007 (CST)


 * Hey Roland :) I like your icon! But I do see what you're asking. It's a difficult question. I would say if the icon isn't clear you need to simplify it until it is. I'll assume that you really want to keep both the rose and the revolver, but I will say that having just one would make the icon more easy to discern than having them both together.


 * To simplify the rose I'd recommend looking at the rose in heraldry. It's a very common feature in English heraldry and the Wikipedia article on the War of the Roses has some good examples. They might not be exactly what you want, but they're a good starting point! I wonder if a good possible icon would be a rose crest, similar to the Image:Lancashire_rose.svg, with a revolver overlaid on the top? I think it would be worth trying anyway :)


 * I've said before that I recommend using vector graphics programs (like Inkscape and Illustrator) rather than bitmap graphics applications (like GIMP and Photoshop), but that really is up to you.


 * I'm not sure how much help this is, but feel free to ask again if I've missed anything of if you'd like any more advice :) <span style="font-family: Georgia, serif"> &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 05:47, 31 January 2007 (CST)

Userboxes
Just recently made some that are linked to categories with your icons. Feel free to use/distribute the profession userboxes as seen on my talk page. Hope you like them and approve. If you don't like them, I can change the icons easy enough or if you have better profession icon ideas then I'll gladly change them.--  Vallen Frostweaver  14:38, 31 January 2007 (CST)

Contacting me
Hi. I noticed you had tried to contact me in irc a few hours ago. I will be on my computer for an hour or so and tomorrow probably for most of the day so feel free to contact me at any time if you have something important. (Doesn't need to be important thou :) ) -- (talk) 19:07, 31 January 2007 (CST)


 * Hey Gem, it was nothing important really, I was (and am) just on IRC this evening :) <span style="font-family: Georgia, serif"> &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 19:08, 31 January 2007 (CST)

Icons
Hello. I'm here to ask a question regarding the icons you created (namely those like or their smaller counterparts like ) and was wondering if you knew of a way to produce the icon without the gray box background so that the color of the page it is posted on is seen instead? Thanks.--  Vallen Frostweaver  13:45, 6 February 2007 (CST)


 * Hey Vallen, this has been asked a lot. I had a quick look around and found an answer in one of my archives.


 * The icons are PNG images, and PNG images are not rendered properly by IE6. If you view the wiki with Firefox or IE7 (any standards compliant browser) then you will see that these images are translucent, i.e. you can see through them, but they have a dropped shadow. <span style="font-family: Georgia, serif"> &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 14:26, 6 February 2007 (CST)