User talk:Fyren4632

Old talk stuff.

Deletions
I went through and deleted the obvious (read: easy) stuff. Most of the rest are empty pages but pages that should exist. I'll go through and stub them later, if no one has already. A few are questionable and probably shouldn't exist, but I didn't want to just go delete them. --Fyren 03:41, 3 Aug 2005 (EST)

Congrats on the sysop :) 22:31, 3 Aug 2005 (EST)

check this [green numbers range-template]

You deleted Green Hills County today. Deletion log says because of "Emptiness". I can't believe it was really empty. Was it? Please check and restore the article in case this was a mistake. --Tetris L 03:26, 7 Sep 2005 (EST)


 * I can vouch that Green Hills County was empty as I'm the one who marked it. --Rainith 03:37, 7 Sep 2005 (EST)


 * Yup. In its long life from June 17 till today, it never had anything in it but categories and a stub template (and the delete template).  --Fyren 03:55, 7 Sep 2005 (EST)

Didn't know where to put this so forgive me if it's wrong. I removed my note from Energy Tap because of the recent skill update. My note was for the old skill and I didn't want to leave an inaccurate footnote there. - FlameDragoon

Most recent spam
I went through the warrior, monk, etc. categories and removed the stuff miscategorized. I bumped recently edited talk pages above (though, two were my edits to begin with... didn't mean to just bump my stuff) so they'd be more visible. There's probably more de-categorization to do. --Fyren 12:08, 14 Aug 2005 (EST)


 * And we love you for it. :) &mdash;Tanaric 15:43, 16 Aug 2005 (EST)

Went through the NPC, locations, and skills categories. --Fyren 14:49, 19 Aug 2005 (EST)

Signatures
Um just a quick question: how come you (and others) have the date automatically appear after your posts? is there like some signature option i cant find, or is it coz you guys are sysops? - Crusty
 * In the toolbar above the editbox there's a "signature" button. That's many users use.  --Fyren 10:49, 16 Aug 2005 (EST)
 * Ah rightio, the old quadruple tilde ... cheers ;) - Crusty 16:31, 16 Aug 2005 (EST)

Limiting the Mathematician
I would like to place a request to the moderators (not sure if this is the right way, so, Fyren, please move it if it is not): I would like a hard number to be placed on the number of edits that Ollj can make per day. Here are my reasons: As such, I believe the content he is putting is inferior in quality and it is making using/editing for others less easy as they try to track articles in a jungle of green number edits. I also believe a hard limit on the number of edits he can do per 24 hours (like 30 edits a day or so), will force him to first of all use the Preview button and the Sandbox and then to verify his info more accurately. Thanks. --Karlos 14:49, 18 Aug 2005 (EST)
 * 1) He is not responsible with his edits. He edits the same page 5 times just to add a new sentence. He has already been introduced to the "Preview" button and the "Sandbox" and he continues still to make 6 edits just to add one paragraph.
 * 2) His information is incorrect/incomplete many times. For the past month he has been editing and re-editing and hashing and re-hashing furiously the hundreds of "green number" pages he has created. Everytime he thinks he figured out how 3...18 works, he finds a new special case, so he goes and makes a 3...18m page and a 3...18f page and a 3...19 page and so forth.
 * 3) He is spamming the recent changes list with these massive edits. At times even looking at the past 500 edits is not enough to get me past all the edits he did in one night.
 * I'd like to second Karlos' suggestion. I know I'm not as big a contributer here, but it can get very tiresome to wade thru all the green number edits in the recent changes log.  --Rainith 15:06, 18 Aug 2005 (EST)
 * I'm not the guy to ask. I started working on the wiki, one day Biro mentions he's asking Gravewit to promote some people, and then suddenly I'm an admin.  (Just being an "admin" doesn't mean much for MediaWiki; I can delete, undelete, protect, and edit protected pages, and also completely block users/IPs, and a couple other little things.)  I agree with your assessment of his work, though (horrible English, too many edits, math that might be correct but ignores relevant issues/the actual game).  I guess Gravewit's the one that needs to be contacted, but I've never spoken with him and don't know if he pays attention to his user page.  Martin and Biro might be able to, but they don't seem to be around as of late.  --Fyren 15:43, 18 Aug 2005 (EST)
 * hehe hes just pissed because i put most of my ranges pages on !!! So im already one step ahead. And im just adding more to the wiki than you understand. --Ollj 16:55, 18 Aug 2005 (EST) anyways karlos is overexaggerating.
 * No, Ollj, you actually are on thin ice. Nearly everyone here agrees with Karlos.  The only reason I haven't banned you yet is that you do add useful information, even in its entirely useless form.  I have typed your name on the ban page quite a few times, only to decide not to hit the "ban" button.  It's serious, and you should treat it as such. Back on topic, Karlos, I don't believe there exists a method for limiting the number of edits Ollj makes without changing the source itself.  As such, he'll continue as he chooses until he aggrevates a sysop enough to ban him or until the users themselves get together and request that we ban him--there is no process for such a thing in place, but I'm sure we could work it out ad-hoc.  &mdash;Tanaric 17:54, 18 Aug 2005 (EST)
 * For the record Ollj, I never check what you are doing with those 3..18 pages. And for you to brag that after spamming our changes list with hundreds of entries and altering the content of dozens of pages to link to those pages, that they were actually useless is mind-boggling for me. Go ahead, knock yourself out. You are only digging yourself a deeper hole. --Karlos 18:58, 18 Aug 2005 (EST)

Whee
Due to impending natural disaster, I may not be around for a while. With luck, it won't be long. --Fyren 05:24, 26 Aug 2005 (EST)
 * Ouch. Florida resident, I presume? Good luck with that. --Talrath Stormcrush 05:35, 26 Aug 2005 (EST)


 * Yup. No power for like 29+ hours, but pretty much okay besides that.  --Fyren 16:29, 27 Aug 2005 (EST)

wikipedia
I have no idea where to post about this because there isn't exactly a forum here, but Guild Wars doesn't have a Wikipedia page! It has it's own Wiki, but no Wikipedia page, this is an outrage to common decency. Anyway that page would be an ideal place to link to the site. --Koorb 22:07, 9 Sep 2005 (EST)


 * It does have one, and there is a link to this wiki there (added it myself a while ago). Guild Wars.  --Fyren 12:22, 10 Sep 2005 (EST)

Suspicious dude
Hey Fyren.. Check out what the user 81.242.155.70 did on the Skill Quests page and see if actions needs to be taken. Thanks. --Karlos 14:08, 10 Sep 2005 (EST)


 * When people have reverted their own "vandalism" I haven't been blocking their write access. --Fyren 17:51, 10 Sep 2005 (EST)


 * Fine by me. Thanks for checking. --Karlos 19:05, 10 Sep 2005 (EST)

OK, thanks for the advice. Haven't done much of this before so I'm still learning the protocol. Caspian

Where to get help?
If I have questions about how to help, please can you tell me what is the best way of asking? For example, some of the pictures I uploaded work OK, and some don't. Who would be the appropriate person to ask about something like this? Thanks, Caspian.
 * The first place to try is a relevant talk page, but sometimes people won't notice the edit in the recent changes list. I guess if it's more general, try User Questions (which I just sort of moved out of the community portal link).  --Fyren 02:25, 14 Sep 2005 (EST)

Bans
May I suggest that we make the penalty for wiping out content more severe than that of doodling and grafiti? I believe a user who comes in here to wipe the entire Unique Items List should get the boot harder than one who simply scribbles "Go Mariners!" into Molenin's page. (Another Molenin sighting.) :) --Karlos 17:45, 14 Sep 2005 (EST)


 * Dunno. If other people agree, sure.  I've been saving longer bans for repeat  offenders (as in, they come back after their block is up).  --Fyren 15:19, 15 Sep 2005 (EST)


 * Since it's so easy to bypass IP bans with non-static IPs I think bans are not the way to put off trolls anyway. If somebody really wants to sabotage GuildWiki the only way to deal with it is to restore the content every time. Ater the 10th or 20th time he'll eventually give up frustrated. It may be some work, but we got 10+ people monitoring the recent changes 24/7 and he's all alone. I trust any content erased will be restored within 1 hr max. --Tetris L 15:58, 15 Sep 2005 (EST)
 * Good point. Bans really stop the 12 year olds, not the pros. --Karlos 17:18, 15 Sep 2005 (EST)

Bah, my ISP was busy being on fire or something for the last week and was unable to provide me with service. Anyone in particular I need to ban? --Fyren 06:11, 23 Sep 2005 (EST)

A small favor
Fyren, can you access the game right now? I have been unable to start the game for the past 3+ hours. My analysis has lead me to the conclusion that ANet's servers (at least on this side of the globe, the west coast) is down. I am still uneasy about that discovery. Is the game fine where you are at? --Karlos 18:08, 23 Sep 2005 (EST)


 * Nevermind. It was Norton! @#@@!%@#%!! --Karlos 18:27, 23 Sep 2005 (EST)


 * Heh. Sorry, I was busy... playing.  --Fyren 20:42, 23 Sep 2005 (EST)

change to unique items
it seems as though unique items can now be upgraded, however of course this actually replaces the perfect upgrade that was already on the item so it is costly I've tested this out once but without accepting the new upgrade (you get the usual confirmation box)


 * I believe to call it a proper test, you'd have to apply the upgrade and actually see it there. It may be that after you say "yes" the game says "nope" :) --Karlos 08:57, 30 Sep 2005 (EST)


 * Someone report back if it works after you accept. --Fyren 09:55, 30 Sep 2005 (EST)

Categories &amp; Trees
I'd like to discuss your notion that categories should form separate trees -- and even whether they should really be true trees (where branches have no common leaves). My hope is to convince you otherwise. To start off, what are your thoughts on Wikipedia:Categories_do_not_form_a_tree? If you like, I can provide an argument for why this Wikipedia guideline is best. (Also, are you familiar with graph theory terminology?) --Rezyk 03:50, 4 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * I know something of graph theory, since I have a computer engineering degree. If you have an argument, it's fine to bring it up,  but it should be relevant to GWiki, not just Wikipedia.  In very short, for things like skills, we have something like Skills -> Mesmer Skills -> Domination Magic -> backfire, but backfire is in each of those categories.  But then for Skill (which is for the skill type "skill") -> Spells -> Hex Spells -> backfire, it's only in Hex Spells.  Perhaps the root category for the latter structure should be different, but backfire is inconsistently not in spells or inconsistently in skills and mesmer skills.  At the moment the structures we have might actually be trees because of shuffling around done by people other than me, but the skill categories once had, for example, Skills -> Warrior Skills -> Shouts -> Otyugh's Cry.  Shouts was also under "Ranger Skills."  The major top level categories we have now are for items, skills, and locations/things in a location.  With the categories we have, I do not think it makes sense or is helpful to the reader to have duplication within our current structures.  --Fyren 12:28, 4 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * I think you're misinterpreting me (my bad, I should have said "where separate branches have no common leaves" or "exclusive subcategories"). I think Backfire should not be directly linked in Category:Skills, Category:Mesmer Skills, or Category:Spells (Worded as a guideline: an article should not be directly linked in a category if it's in a descendant category).  We seem to be agreement here. --Rezyk 08:07, 5 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * What I'm asking about is why would you think that "perhaps the root categories [..] should be different"? Or: in Category_talk:Warriors you imply that for "articles to end up in the tree twice" is bad -- what is bad/nonsensical about it (if they're appearing twice through different subcategories)? I'm not arguing yet as I simply just don't see your reasoning (my only guess is that you're getting there by oversimplifying the above guideline..?). --Rezyk 08:07, 5 Oct 2005 (EST)