User talk:Tanaric

I'm notified of any edits to this page via email, so I will be with you as soon as possible if you need assistance. If your concern is private, you may email me at &lt;cory@tanatopia.net&gt;. You may also leave a note on any other administrators' talk page. Also, if you choose to email me, you need to include your GuildWiki username or your IP address. I can't unban you if I don't know who you are!

Old conversations and dead threads can be found on /Archives. If you want to dredge something up, bring the whole thread back here.

Joyous tidings
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* &mdash;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!  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 15:35, 29 July 2006 (CDT)


 * <3 &mdash;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? - 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. &mdash;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. &mdash;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. &mdash;Tanaric 04:01, 3 August 2006 (CDT)

Main Page
Would you mind updating it with the edit I made on the editcopy? I just added the Policy link, that's all. &mdash; Rapta   (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&mdash;knowing our policies is a plus, but contributing at all should be emphasized over contributing in the optimal way. &mdash;Tanaric 19:05, 5 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Yes, I agree with the wording. Thanks for the quick update. &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 20:03, 5 August 2006 (CDT)

Nomination
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...) -- 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&mdash;was just waiting for "one more good thing" to push me over the edge, and our policy conversation was it. :) &mdash;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)

Of socks and puppets...
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. &mdash;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&mdash;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. &mdash;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)

Translation
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.

Bureaucrat status
Congrats - or my sympathies ... not really sure which is more appropriate here ;-P --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 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. :) &mdash;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.


 * &mdash;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  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 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. :) &mdash;Tanaric 07:41, 16 August 2006 (CDT)

Policy deleted
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 (talk • contribs) - 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. :) &mdash;Tanaric 20:08, 21 August 2006 (CDT)

Builds discussion re: site policies
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 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 (talk • contribs) - 20:44, 23 August 2006 (CDT)

password request
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. &mdash;Tanaric 10:54, 31 August 2006 (CDT)

glossary malfunction
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. &mdash;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,, 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." &mdash;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. :) &mdash;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. &mdash;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)

Bot
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&mdash;I'll draft one up by the end of the day. &mdash;Tanaric 13:33, 3 September 2006 (CDT)

problems with Tested/untested builds
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 if you want to read &mdash; Skuld 02:09, 5 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Thanks :) (Not a fifty five 03:26, 5 September 2006 (CDT))

Unreasonable vote down.
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 &mdash; 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 :( &mdash; 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 &mdash; 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 &mdash; 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 &mdash; 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 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.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 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&mdash;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 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. :) &mdash;Tanaric 15:32, 5 September 2006 (CDT)

Sorry to clutter your page
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))

Heh
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!  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 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))