User talk:Gemigemi

 

About RfA comments
As always, I'm always happy to discuss my thoughts with you if you need more information. I like you personally, and were we on a wiki like Wikipedia, I would immediately appoint you to administrator myself. &mdash;Tanaric 00:23, 1 February 2007 (CST)

I posted the above before I saw your reply at RfA. Let me state again that your assumption that I dislike you is absolutely false; indeed, I like you well enough, and I'd have a beer with you if we were ever within drinking distance. :)

Also, my comments on RfA were not based solely on that one conversation. That conversation was merely the most recent. My opposition to your appointment is based on your editing mindset. You believe that uniformity, ease of data maintenance, and style are big concerns of ours, and you would stifle information&mdash;even trivial information&mdash;based on these concerns. Whether you'd intend to or not (and I genuinely believe you wouldn't intend to), stating these sorts of beliefs as a sysop would give them significantly more credence than you saying them as merely a long-time editor.

&mdash;Tanaric 01:12, 1 February 2007 (CST)


 * While I would personally support you being promoted into an admin, because I think you generally display more maturity and wisdom than Tanaric gives you credit for, I have to say that in this instance... His opposition to you being promoted, you have displayed poor judgement that can only give credibility to his doubts.
 * Do not make this about you and Tanaric. Tanaric hardly knows you and has no reason to hold a grudge/dislike you. He has serious concerns. He thinks you are being too easily dismissive of regular user needs and that you're overly protective of the bureaucracy of the wiki in contrast with the usefulness of the wiki. He highlights a pertinent example and you would do well to examine that example and discuss it with him as well as try and show how your overall edits and views on the wiki counter his claim. Don't turn it into a personal issue with Tanaric, don't get "pissed" at him for criticizing you. Doing that only casts doubt on your maturity and wisdom that we are saying are greater than Tanaric thinks they are. Don't prove us wrong. --Karlos 07:04, 1 February 2007 (CST)


 * I did not try make this an issue about me and Tanaric and tried to keep the two things as separate as possible, but in the end, personal opinnions are often (that's the human nature) tied to decisions that people made. I didn't get pissed by the criticism as I clearly stated and I would have accepted (and I did when I learned that he had allready posted on my RfA) his opposition and I do understand partially (probably better than some of the people involved in the discussion) why he would not like to see me as an admin. I said aloud what I think that Tanaric thinks of me because thats how I have felt for a pretty long time. I'm sorry that I didn't make it too clear that I don't think that his personal opinnions on me in general would be the reason for him not wanting to make me an admin. After seeing his explanations I'm fully aware of the problems he sees in my adminship.
 * The thing which irritated me was that he posted on another users talk page a not-so-positive sentence about me and I thought he hadn't said anything to me personally about it. When I was told that he had allready commented on my RfA, I felt pretty bad for saying the things which didn't have any reality base, but you must understand that before that point I did not know that he had posted. How would you have felt in a similiar position? A simple mistake which everyone is capable of doing. Think of it as a simple communication error.
 * Tanaric: Thank you for explaining you reasons even further. I really appreciate it that you are willing to do so even while you don't seem to spend a lot of time in the wiki. What comes to your thoughts on my 'editing mindset', I don't think that making me an admin would give me any more power and credibility when discussing about wiki policies/layout issues/anything else. People allready know me from my contributions and the fact that I get involved in many policy and other larger discussions. I don't think that it makes any difference to other people participaiting in discussions if I really am an admin or not. New users who don't know me also do'nt know if I am an admin or not so there is no possibility to abuse adminship there either.
 * As I have said earlier, I think that the adminship is in regular normal life of the wiki only a set of tools which allows a trusted user to do a few simple tasks to help the wiki. Ban, protect, delete, revert easily. When more complex issues arise, admins are usually the ones to discuss and make the decisions, but it isn't always so. It might be an illusion created by the fact that most of those users who use most of the time in wiki and are interested in such things have been made admins, so it is natural that mostly only admins take part. The fact that someone is an admin shouldn't and doesn't give his words any more credence. For example I hav ebeen taking part in a lot of policy and other discussions lately, and even though I'm not an admin I ahve been able to get my views heard and discussed equally. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 07:34, 1 February 2007 (CST)


 * You've hit the nail on the head, but you don't understand why you're swinging the hammer. That is, most of what you said is correct, but you and I differ in our interpretations of those facts. I believe that, as much as I wish it were otherwise, the words and stances of sysops on the GuildWiki have an immediate and tangible effect on the culture and standards of this place.


 * If I believed that adminship were only a matter of additional tools, I'd grant you them right now with no qualms or hesitation.


 * I really do appreciate your calm attitude toward my criticism, Gem.


 * &mdash;Tanaric 13:50, 1 February 2007 (CST)


 * Do you think that making me an admin would affect the way people react to my comments in discussions? On the levels of commitment to the wiki which the admins and a few other die hard contributors like me have I don't think that adminship is what matters, but the fact that the user knows how things in the wiki work, has a well known history of good contributions, presents his opinnions nicely and is willing to accept other peoples opinnions if well presented. (I would like to write more but I am in a hurry to get to the sauna. I'll be back within an hour) --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 14:00, 1 February 2007 (CST)


 * Yes, I think making you an admin would affect the way your comments are taken. Right now we're under significant pressure to make the wiki a better resource for the general public, and you are more concerned with, as far as I can tell, making it a better resource for those of us studying computer science. I'm just as guilty for starting the trend as anyone else, but I certainly can't afford to give admin privileges to another one of us (us being wiki editors) who's out of touch with how real people think.


 * Give the community another year to figure out how to restructure information in a straightforward way, and then maybe I'll appoint you. :)


 * &mdash;Tanaric 15:00, 1 February 2007 (CST)


 * Not meaning to get involved in this discussion much, but Tanaric, it's hard to count the number of times newcomers to GWiki have thought Gem was an admin already. :) So I don't think if he actually was one it would change much how his comments are taken, they are already taken that way it seems. Entropy 15:06, 1 February 2007 (CST)


 * What makes you think that I prefer complex presentation over ease of use for the general public? In my studies we have been concentrating on user friendlyness and in the wiki I haven't constructed hard-to-use templates or other new user unfriendly stuff, in the contrary. None of the every day complexities have been influenced by me. For example the skill pages with their template inclusions and the build system are a pain for many new users which I never agreed with. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 15:10, 1 February 2007 (CST)


 * The best example is probably the conversation I linked to in my RfA opposal. Ignoring the arguable personal attack, you essentially said "You can't put that information there, even though you find it useful, because it breaks editing symmetry."


 * Usefulness to the user must always be our primary concern.


 * &mdash;Tanaric 15:24, 1 February 2007 (CST)


 * I saw the following problem in inserting the information there: Once something like that is put into one article, someone else sees it and then thinks that other similiar skills should have the same thing. Then someone else sees it and thinks that another trivial thing should also be noted. You can see where this is going. The great thing about wikis is the link structure which allows keeping the information in one page and linking to it everywhere where the information might be relevant.
 * I can't think of other cases where I would have opposed something which is usefull to a new user. I remember often giving advice to new users how to present their ideas for the community and helped them to be heard. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 15:42, 1 February 2007 (CST)


 * Hm. Let me double check some things, and I'll get back to you later. Maybe I messed up. &mdash;Tanaric 15:50, 1 February 2007 (CST)


 * No, I still disagree with you. "Damage" is an English word and is fairly well understood. I would never have clicked on damage, because I would never have imagined that "damage" means anything other than "somebody hurting me." Thus, I would never have realized the limitations of "They're on Fire!" or any other similar skill. The clarification of what damage is absolutely belongs in the skill article, because that's where it's relevant. Personally, I'd like to see damage moved to damage calculations and the skill articles stop linking to it. It's not generally useful information, to most people, because most people hate math. Because damage is apparently complex and interesting, a clarifying note like Lodurr's could also have a link to the damage calculation article in question.


 * What's more important, however, is that my saying this does not obligate me to implement it. Further, Lodurr's addition of the note to the article does not obligate him to implement it everywhere else. Wikis are built by a staggering number of small, individual edits. If every 500th person who looks at an article like that adds such a note, we have a pretty well-constructed document in a surprisingly short time. This "redundancy" isn't bad -- it makes our wiki more useful to everybody. You must get away from the object-oriented-programming perspective that redundancy is bad&mdash;our training in software is exactly the wrong mentality for a resource like this (I graduate with a computer science degree in four months).


 * &mdash;Tanaric 16:03, 1 February 2007 (CST)


 * I'm not the one who pursues great ideals to the end of the world and I certainly don't say that all redundancy is bad, but I still hold my opinnion in this case as damage in the skill descriptions of the game always means the same thing. (Ie life stealing and degeneration is not damage) However, I don't think that a single case where I have said no to a new user is a big deal conserning adminship, especially when the thing which we were discussing about was a single line of text in a single article. It must be something else in addition to this that has caused your opinnion on me. As far as I can analyse my actions in the wiki, I can't say that your accusations in this field have much to base them on. If you think that I'm not suitable to be an admin, that's okay. But if you want to present reasons for it (which you don't have to although it is great that you do) I would like the reasons to be something more than a single discussion which I had way past midnight.
 * Besides, the current admins have taken part in similiar and even more questinable discussions but you nor anyone else has said anything about it. Why am I judged by only one discussion? --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 16:16, 1 February 2007 (CST)


 * I still think you're wrong, and I intend to bring this up again, in a more public place, soon. I am willing to admit that I will probably lose the argument. :) &mdash;Tanaric 16:40, 1 February 2007 (CST)
 * Tanaric, I suppose its somewhat irrelevant now that you have bestowed adminship, but I wanted to point out that I agree with your general comments about helpfulness being a priority over formatting or style concerns, but I agreed with Gem's comments regarding that specific edit, as did Barek. There has to be some type of guidelines about what should and should not qualify for a useful note, otherwise the skills pages would end up with too many notes to remain useful. Its a tricky balance but I don't think Gem should be penalized for his opinion on that balance.  Tanaric, I also agree with your comment that the damage article should be changed to a more straightforward definition, and the math should be moved to another page named damage calculation. This would make the damage article more useful and less overwhelming for new users. -- BrianG 16:45, 1 February 2007 (CST)


 * I am willing to discuss this matter somewhere wlse wher ethe discussion fits better and I am willing to rethink my opinnion if needed. Please note me when you start the discussion. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 16:49, 1 February 2007 (CST)


 * I'm curious to know where this place is that the discussion will continue. I'm surprised I found such a wedge issue among GWwiki editors.--Lodurr 18:57, 1 February 2007 (CST)

CONGRATS ON ADMIN!!!!!!!
&mdash;Blastedt 16:28, 1 February 2007 (CST)


 * It's raining Admins. That's the second one this week! Entropy 16:28, 1 February 2007 (CST)
 * YAY GEM! &mdash;[[image:Blastedt sig.png]]Blastedt 16:29, 1 February 2007 (CST)


 * You guys are quick!


 * You've convinced me that there is a significant chance that I'm being unreasonable, so I've appointed you as sysop. Let's see how you do. Welcome aboard! &mdash;Tanaric 16:30, 1 February 2007 (CST)
 * Whee!!! &mdash;[[Image:BlastedtSigleft.jpg]]Blastedt[[Image:BlastedtSigright.jpg]]&mdash; 16:31, 1 February 2007 (CST)


 * My faith in Tanaric has been restored. He really is a reasonable guy after all. ;) Entropy 16:31, 1 February 2007 (CST)
 * Hax. Two admins in one day. Could this be lucky number one? &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 16:36, 1 February 2007 (CST)

What? I didn't really expect this nor want this to happen immediately after the discussion where I defended myself. It feels a bit wrong to be appointed for 'whining'. ;) I will certainly do my best. If anyone thinks (now or in the future) that I don't suit the job, please leave a note on my talk page.

Thank you for he discussion Tanaric. I am still really sorry on how I started it by not noticing your comment on my RfA, but it turned out well in the end. No arguing or negative thoughts at all. -- (talk) 16:44, 1 February 2007 (CST)
 * On a completely unrelated note, you'd better not be TOO busy to run the RRA now ;) &mdash;[[Image:BlastedtSigleft.jpg]]Blastedt[[Image:BlastedtSigright.jpg]]&mdash; 16:45, 1 February 2007 (CST)


 * Grats my love. :) Hope you'll have time left for me too. --Kalomeli [[Image:Heart-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 16:49, 1 February 2007 (CST)


 * Thank you my love. As promised in the RfA, I will not take any extra time for the wiki from the time I spend woth you, so don't worry. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 17:05, 1 February 2007 (CST)

Welcome to sysoption! I know you'll do a great job! --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:49, 1 February 2007 (CST)


 * Thank you everyone! --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 17:05, 1 February 2007 (CST)

Good luck :) &mdash; Skuld 17:27, 1 February 2007 (CST)

Late congrats! I was too busy playing Guitar Hero II to be the first person to start this thing. :P — Jyro X 17:54, 1 February 2007 (CST)

About time :P Late congrats. --Armond Warblade (talk) 19:15, 1 February 2007 (CST)


 * I'm late to the party too, lots of stuff happens when I'm at work. :(  Let me be the most recent to tell you congratulations and welcome to the madhouse that is Adminship.  :)  --Rainith 22:55, 1 February 2007 (CST)


 * Geez I'm late on this one, I'm not really sure what to say, there's just so much going on at the moment and I'm a bit lost about what I should write. I'd have a drink or two with you in celebration but you know the distance could be a problem! So I'll just have to offer a hearty congrats in text which just isn't the same but know that I'm sitting in underpants (it's damn hot here in Melbourne!) giving you two thumbs up, you'll just have to picture that image instead. :P This is a satisfying moment for me, it's always to see a nice guy get a win! Well done Gem! --Xasxas256 05:19, 2 February 2007 (CST)


 * Thank you everyone, especially Xas! I would love to join you for a cold one, but the flight prices are a bit scary for a student. ;)
 * Actually that reminds me of something. I'm getting a new flat in the beginning of march and I'm inviting anyone from the wiki to visit me for a few days if they happen to visit Helsinki. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 08:00, 2 February 2007 (CST)

Congrats Gem. :) While I think you'll be a great admin, I find the timing of Tanaric quite odd. But I've taken that up with him. Coolest thing about being an admin is... The "rollback" button. Mwa ha ha ha haaah! >:) --Karlos 08:16, 2 February 2007 (CST)


 * Damn, why do I always take a break right when someone gains adminship. Guess I gotta go congratulate tetris as well.  If it s any consolation though, this comes much quicker than my congrats to Xas.  Sooo...  Congratulations!!!  &mdash; [[Image:Azroth sig.png||builds]] Azroth  [[Image:Azroth sig2.png||talk]]  21:11, 4 February 2007 (CST)

About damn time :P &mdash; Poki#3, 08:21, 5 February 2007 (CST)

Wow, I just noticed you were an Admin now. Saw your userbox and went "Really?" Congrats!! --Nova 15:57, 7 February 2007 (CST)

Delete
here's an inaugural deletion request, User:Blastedt/Templates/PWUBC :) &mdash;Blastedt&mdash; 16:56, 1 February 2007 (CST)
 * Thanks! :P :) &mdash;[[Image:BlastedtSigleft.jpg]]Blastedt[[Image:BlastedtSigright.jpg]]&mdash; 16:58, 1 February 2007 (CST)
 * Heh. Thank you for letting me test how things work. It will take some time to explore all of the new tools. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 17:01, 1 February 2007 (CST)
 * :) &mdash;[[Image:BlastedtSigleft.jpg]]Blastedt[[Image:BlastedtSigright.jpg]]&mdash; 17:01, 1 February 2007 (CST)

Archive
sheez, you should archive your page =P -- S i  g  m  A   12:36, 2 February 2007 (CST)
 * I will when all of the January topics are ready to be archived. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 17:03, 2 February 2007 (CST)

E-Mail
Check E-Mail, please. --75.126.48.146 11:12, 5 February 2007 (CST)
 * Checking... --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 13:39, 5 February 2007 (CST)

Deleting images
Wow You're busy! -- S i  g  m  A   05:36, 6 February 2007 (CST)
 * Cleaning the unused images has been on my list for ages and now I'm finally able to do it. A note to everyone: If I happen to remove anything important, please leave me a note. I try to doublecheck everything. (For example I wont delete character images from users who have recently renewed their user page layout to not include them) --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 05:40, 6 February 2007 (CST)

Heh you're having fun aren't you? :P We might have to change your preferred role in GuildWiki talk:Administrators to image deletion specialist! ;) Just remember that if someone does tell you that you've removed an image that somebody still wants, there's not much you can do about it, images don't undelete so good. --Xasxas256 06:32, 6 February 2007 (CST)
 * Your absolutely right, I'll go change it myself.
 * What aabout images? Can't they be undeleted? Need to be even more carefull then. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 12:45, 6 February 2007 (CST)
 * Images that are deleted are gone forever or until they are re-uploaded. Nothing in an admin's toolbox can bring them back. &mdash; Gares 12:55, 6 February 2007 (CST)
 * Thanks. It's good to know so I'll be even more carefull not to delete anything which might be missed and hard to recreate. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 13:11, 6 February 2007 (CST)


 * I don't think anyone's using Image:Baxter-guildwiki-logo-135x135.png :P  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 13:33, 6 February 2007 (CST)
 * There's you one Gem. Just don't even read the blue bar below the image. It's nothing important. *walks away whistling* &mdash; Gares 13:39, 6 February 2007 (CST)
 * Yup, haven't seen that for ages now, better delete before it comes back. ;) (Love to Skulds css <3 ) --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 13:46, 6 February 2007 (CST)

Editing Images
Hi, I noticed you uploaded some images lately. I was wondering if you could help me. Take f.i. Image:Titan_Source_Charr_boss_locations.jpg image where you see the possible spawn locations of those bosses on 1 image. How do you create / manipulate an image to make it look like that ? I noticed most of those images are Photoshopped, which I don't have. I do have Photostudio - have been trying to figure it out by myself but I'm getting nowhere :p. --Erszebet 10:01, 6 February 2007 (CST)


 * I take the screenshot from the area from the 'M' map when I'm not in the area and I don't have any quests active which would cause the area name to be green or a green star to be visible. Then I crop the wanted part and add the green markers which I photoshopped out of a screenshot (It's the marker showing where the player is, with a transparent background) If you want, I can upload the marker for you to use. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 12:45, 6 February 2007 (CST)
 * Ah yes, that'd be great - thanks :) --Erszebet 16:42, 6 February 2007 (CST)
 * Not sure what file format you wanted it in, but here are the .psd, .jpg and .png versions. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 17:07, 6 February 2007 (CST)
 * Btw, the psd version includes a layer colored pink which I used on the charr boss map. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 17:09, 6 February 2007 (CST)
 * Thanks again, works like a charm ^-^ --Erszebet 16:01, 7 February 2007 (CST)

My Sig
From my (Hyperion`) talk page:

Your new sig doesn't follow the sig policy. The new sig icon without your user name doesn't reveal who the user behind the sig is. I spent some time trying to figure out how the icon related to our user name and jut couldn't figure it out. (Sorry to bother you, but someone else would have if I hadn't :) ) -- (talk) 08:32, 5 February 2007 (CST)


 * Huh? First of all, AFAIK there is no approved sig policy. Secondly, you (Gem) and me both use a signature without user name, only with an icon. How is that different from Hyperion's sig? --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 08:54, 5 February 2007 (CST)


 * Np, thanks for pulling me up on this, was thinking about it myself. I guess it's not an obvious one with my name but I wanted just a simple icon that people would know is me (after a bit of time), like yours, Tetris L's and Feather's for example. It's actually Seifer Almasy's gunblade from Final Fantasy VIII (which was called Hyperion), but most people probably wouldn't know that so I'll stick my name in, cheers. One question, if I were to keep the sig next to my name long enough for people to recognise it, would it be ok to remove my name after a while? EDIT: I'll let you discuss the sig policy, but I'll follow the rules whatever you come up with :p &mdash; Hyperion` [[image:Hyperion_sig_icon.png]] (talk) 08:56, 5 February 2007 (CST)
 * One thing I will say is that all it takes for someone to find out it's me is to click on the icon to be redirected to my user page or just mouse over it to see "Image:Hyperion_sig_icon" at the bottom. &mdash; Hyperion` [[image:Hyperion_sig_icon.png]] (talk) 19:18, 5 February 2007 (CST)
 * Tetris: GW:SIGN. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 13:47, 6 February 2007 (CST)
 * The policy states "Signature must show their user name or by other means make clear the user name." My interpretation of that is that if no text appears next to the icon used, then the icon used must be commonly associated with the name by anyone not already familiar with the user or even a first time user of GuildWiki.  A gem, feather, the L shaped tetris block I can see as all commonly associated images - but the Hyperion will require an explaination to associate it for anyone not familiar with the game from which it comes. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 13:58, 6 February 2007 (CST)
 * Great, thanks for clearing this up :). &mdash; Hyperion` [[image:Hyperion_sig_icon.png]] (talk) 14:30, 6 February 2007 (CST)

Was wondering if I could get your thoughts on that? Thanks in advance :). &mdash; Hyperion` (talk) 13:38, 6 February 2007 (CST)


 * Answered on your talk page. As Gares said, GW:SIGN is the policy. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 13:52, 6 February 2007 (CST)

Build Deletion and GFDL
Hey Gem, a couple of things. Firstly I have a delete request: Build:A/Me DB Nuker. What started as a misguided concept became a build which is already in favoured so it needs deleting it that's ok, basically everyone on the talk page agrees.

Secondly, I see you and many others have a banner about this GFDL thing which everyone seems to be talking about recently, I was wondering if you (or someone else) could explain it to me and what is the purpose of having a banner about it on your user page. CONFUSED.com &mdash; Hyperion` (talk) 19:46, 7 February 2007 (CST)


 * I'm not touching builds with the deletion stick for a long time. See what happened to Skuld after he did...
 * The GFDL is meant to help the new official Guild Wars wiki. They use the GFDL license which is incompatible with the Guild Wiki license, so users have to release their contributions with the GFDL license to allow copying them to the new wiki. Anything not realeased like that can't be copied. (There are some exceptions, but that's the easy version) --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 19:53, 7 February 2007 (CST)


 * Edit conflict ... basically a duplicate of Gem's post ...
 * As for the GFDL, see Community_Portal and User:Fyren/Licensing for explainations. Basically, those with that tag are saying they're okay with their edits being copied onto another wiki that uses the GFDL license.  Of course, if an article was build by multiple users, then it requires all contributors to support allowing dual-licensing of their work, so it's not a clean ticket to copy anything, but it gives some leeway.  Just keep in mind that the decision is binding - once released, you cannot recall contributions back.  --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:57, 7 February 2007 (CST)


 * Edit conflict again. :P
 * Oh yeah, see what you mean about the builds, fair enough.
 * Didn't know about a new official Guild Wars wiki, is that what this was about? Sounds like a good idea to release contributions under the GFDL, I'm happy to do it and will stick that userbox on my page right away. Thanks to both of you for explaining it to me :) &mdash; Hyperion` [[image:Hyperion_sig_icon.png]] (talk) 20:06, 7 February 2007 (CST)


 * Yup. That's what that's about. (Made any sense? :P ) I hope more people will start to release their contributions, especially the most active ones. I've been looking for some stuff which might be easy to transfer and noticed that some great stuff could be copied directly if the super active users released their contributions. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 20:10, 7 February 2007 (CST)


 * All this sounds promising, but what worries me is that a lot of the community we have within the wiki (which is one of my favourite parts of it) may be lost. I hope that's not the case. &mdash; Hyperion` [[image:Hyperion_sig_icon.png]] (talk) 20:32, 7 February 2007 (CST)


 * That's my main worry. Atm they are not allowing great user pages and use of user name space, which limits the way in which people can get to know each other and relax. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 20:46, 7 February 2007 (CST)

Secondary GFDL comment
Just a note Gem that your (unique?) GFDL box doesn't link to the Category that the other 2 (or more, I dunno, I lost count) boxes do. Could you add that to your box or your page manually if need be. I believe the thinking behind this is that if you can easily see in one place which users agree to the license, it will be easier to migrate things that can be migrated. Plus you can join the cool crowd. ;) --Rainith 21:19, 7 February 2007 (CST)
 * Bleh, I've never wanted any categories for my user page, but you convinced me. For the greater good! --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 21:22, 7 February 2007 (CST)
 * I feel your pain. ;)  It is the only category on my page, and I don't see myself adding any other category there.  I miss being uncategorized and uncategorizable. :(  --Rainith 21:25, 7 February 2007 (CST)

Section Redirects?
A quick question: I somehow managed to set up a image on my userpage to redirect to a section on another page. Now, this confuses the hell out of me. Just this morning, I was looking up how to do this, and my general understanding was that this isn't possible, without doing an external link directly to the section... did something change recently that makes this possible? I'm just trying to get a better understanding of Wiki coding, but it doesn't help me if I do things without knowing how I did them. apologies in advance for such a silly question... {Jioruji Derako} 13:12, 8 February 2007 (CST)
 * Almost two weeks ago GuildWiki upgraded its software to MediaWiki v1.9.1. The newer version supports redirects to page sections.  See Wikipedia:Redirect for more info. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 13:23, 8 February 2007 (CST)
 * Wow, that's a great update which I missed. Need to read the update notes again. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 13:28, 8 February 2007 (CST)
 * Oh, that would explain the edit conflict... thought it had something to do with my refreshing the page after clicking save... Anyway, thanks for the info. It had been really confusing me how the hell it was working (I just finished reading one of the most confusing, complecated discussions on MetaWiki, arguing how it wasn't viable or possible. I probably should have read the whole thing). {Jioruji Derako} 13:33, 8 February 2007 (CST) (EDIT: whoops, messed up the formatting a tiny bit in my reply. P.S., I love the update now... my userpage is even better! I need to read the rest of the update info.)

In The Groove...
...or something like that. It says you are top 8. I take it that it is similar to DDR? I like DDR :P. I can play on Heavy which is second hardest difficulty. Eloc jcg 00:38, 9 February 2007 (CST)
 * Yes, it's the same game idea but from a different company. DDR is by Konami, ITG by Roxor. Because Konami has the patents and ITG is a far better game, they sued Roxor and now they own ITG too, sadly for us players, because Konami is going to ruin ITG instead of continuing selling it.
 * Enough with the bitter talk and on to my personal playing. In DDR the hardest songs have the difficulty 10, but ITG goes up to 13. I can pass 2 of the 3 level 13 songs on our machine and I'm close to passing the last one. Only 2 players in Finland have passed it and one or two besides me has come really close. My accuracy isn't too good yet so that's why I'm only top 8.
 * Hmm. If you want to ask anything, feel free to. It might be better that I don't write a full history of my machine dance hobby or anything unless somone is interested. :D --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 05:41, 9 February 2007 (CST)

Administrative dealings
Please deal with Game updates/20070201, it has been vandalised by 3 seperate IP addresses, 3 seperate times over today and yesterday. Thanks. &mdash; Skuld 07:48, 9 February 2007 (CST)
 * I will protect the page for a day or two. It has only had one meaningfull edit recently so I think this wont disturb too much. Thou I'm not really sure if it's worth it. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 07:58, 9 February 2007 (CST)

Signing
Feel free to pick on me regarding not signing my comment. That is very non-wikiholism like and I hang my head in shame. :p &mdash; Gares 09:51, 9 February 2007 (CST)
 * You should indeed. I was going to say something about it later on. :) You managed to save yourself from it early enough. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 10:01, 9 February 2007 (CST)