User talk:Gemigemi

 

User box
Also, thought I might see if you liked this one I just made... it seems to fit almost anywhere: --Zerris- (talk) 03:19, 2 March 2007 (CST)


 * Woah, is that a serious screencap there? Who'd you need to fight to get a 4000dmg attack? And mind if I use this box? :D {Jioruji Derako} 04:48, 2 March 2007 (CST)
 * Answer: yes, it is real. Guessing the damage source should be relatively easy if you can identify the background (or if you come over and check out the full image at my page...).  Figuring out how I got it up to -8,000 may be a little harder. Incidentally, it was an entry for a contest I'm holding on my page. if you can get a higher damage number (w/ screenie), come over and post it! As for borrowing the template, feel free.  Just please leave the  bit, so I can feel all proud. =) --Zerris-[[Image:ZerrisSig.jpg]] (talk) 05:43, 2 March 2007 (CST)
 * 8000 dmg is an old trick and no one has got past it yet. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 06:09, 2 March 2007 (CST)
 * The meaning of that being? Since I think I can beat it, it'll just take a bit. All you need to beat it is a boss who can critical for over 670 dmg, and I think both The Leviathan and Mallyx can do that. --Zerris-[[Image:ZerrisSig.jpg]] (talk) 06:13, 2 March 2007 (CST)
 * I wish you luck on that one! --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 06:15, 2 March 2007 (CST)
 * Well, given that all Canthan/Elonian Bosses are x2 dmg, I stand a chance at getting it. --Zerris-[[Image:ZerrisSig.jpg]] (talk) 06:32, 2 March 2007 (CST)
 * Eh, luck sucks. I'm going to just test as many skills as possible in a scrim, and see how much damage I can deal that way. {Jioruji Derako} 06:18, 2 March 2007 (CST)
 * The idea is to have the largest possible sum of damage in one number, not in total from many numbers. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 06:21, 2 March 2007 (CST)
 * Oh, I know. I wonder, what effect would 25% Armor Penitration have on a character with a total of -40 armor?
 * And thanks a lot! you picked the perfect time to move that discussion to the bottom of the page. (just as I clicked the edit button, that is.) Took me a full minute to find out where the heck everything went. :D {Jioruji Derako} 06:26, 2 March 2007 (CST)
 * Well, my hint to you is that I bet you can't find a single skill (that isn't Sacrifice/Grenth's B) that'll do > 200 dmg to a 60 AL target. So try thinking just a little bit harder and you might get it. =) --Zerris-[[Image:ZerrisSig.jpg]] (talk) 06:29, 2 March 2007 (CST)
 * I think this is the most damage a PC can do. :P
 * [[Image:1890.JPG]] --Macros 10:30, 4 March 2007 (CST)

No more Campaign ?
Just want to make sure, so no more campaign for Gem icon? --Gusnana1412 13:05, 02 March 2007 (GMT +1)
 * No. I would appreciate people for removing the user boxes. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 07:01, 2 March 2007 (CST)
 * Aw... I was happy with having bragging rights, and now this icon will probably be all over the place :( &mdash; Poki#3 [[Image:Poki.jpg|19px|My Talk Page :o]], 07:10, 2 March 2007 (CST)
 * I still hope it wont. I didn't change my thought on the use of the icon although I stopped the campaign. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 07:14, 2 March 2007 (CST)
 * Even though the campaign end, would it be possible to keep the nogem icon available to use? at least for some members that still want to show appreciation for supporting the nogem and will not use your gem icon? --Gusnana1412 15:46, 02 March 2007 (GMT +1)
 * There is no reason why you cannot keep the support gem userbox, even though the campaign is over, the thought behind the userbox is still viable. &mdash; Gares 10:35, 2 March 2007 (CST)
 * Just a simple job of removing links in the userbox that go to the campaign, or possibly re-wording the userbox (perhaps something like "This user believes that personal icons should only be used by the person they are designed for", or something of the sort). {Jioruji Derako} 22:08, 2 March 2007 (CST)
 * Both are fine to me. :) --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 02:20, 3 March 2007 (CST)

page problems!!
ok...gem i like blanked my page unintentionally but instead of just blanking it made itr so whenever i got to my page it dosnt show the tabs at the top or on the side or anything please help me. | Asmodius  |  09:29, 3 March 2007 (CST)

Signature coding
Alright, I've been messing around with my signature... this new one is quite pretty. Unfortunately, it takes up about three/four lines of coding to make... I figured out a way around this by creating a template in my userspace (it works, too). Unfortunately, when I set this as my signature, it adds a SUBST: tag in there, which sticks all four lines of code whenever I sign. Is there a way to get around this tag, and just do the template link as my sig? I'll put a link to both of them here, so you can see the diference when you edit (I'm not going to be using this sig until I can figure out how to keep it small).

Direct template link:

Actual signature: J i o r u j i D e r a <font color=#237d00>k <font color=#156500>o.> 20:09, 3 March 2007 (CST)


 * You are not allowed to use temps. without subst:ing them in your sig &mdash;[[Image:BlastThatT.jpg]]Blastedt 20:32, 3 March 2007 (CST)
 * alright. Is there possibly another way to shorten this coding? (just pretend I've got a working signature here) 20:34, 3 March 2007 (CST) &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jioruji Derako (contribs).
 * Dont use it? &mdash;[[Image:BlastThatT.jpg]]Blastedt 20:36, 3 March 2007 (CST)
 * Yeah yeah, I suppose that's best. It is a bit silly to spend this much time simply trying to make a signature work anyway, and I don't see any way of making it non-disruptive. Thanks anyway... <font color="Green">{Jioruji Derako} 20:43, 3 March 2007 (CST)
 * Take a picture of the signature, make the background transparent and use that? &mdash; Poki#3 [[Image:Poki.jpg|19px|My Talk Page :o]], 20:54, 3 March 2007 (CST)
 * Yeah, that's probably what i'm going to do. In that case though, I might as well just make myself a decent picture for a sig instead... <font color="Green">{Jioruji Derako} 21:23, 3 March 2007 (CST)
 * Well, I've gotten myself a new signature, with a small icon instead of the fancy-coloring idea. I still love the fancy colors, of course, but unless a new way to add the colors pops up, this will do. :D --[[image:GEO-logo.png]] <font color="#237d00">Jioruji Derako.> 00:59, 4 March 2007 (CST)

I was sleeping but atleast you got it solved. :) -- (talk) 02:23, 4 March 2007 (CST)
 * Yeah, thanks for your help Gem! ^_^ --[[image:GEO-logo.png]] <font color="#237d00">Jioruji Derako.> 02:31, 4 March 2007 (CST)
 * There's nothing like using Gem's Talk Page as a GuildWiki Help Forum ;] &mdash; Poki#3 [[Image:Poki.jpg|19px|My Talk Page :o]], 07:51, 4 March 2007 (CST)
 * Welcome to the Offical GuildWiki Forums! :P but seriously, Gem is usually one of the better people to send questions like this. And of course, if he can't answer it himself, there's usually at least five other users patrolling his talk page. I guess the downside would be the fact that Gem rarely gets the chance to be the first one answering a question on his own talk page... --[[image:GEO-logo.png]] <font color="#237d00">Jioruji Derako.> 08:13, 4 March 2007 (CST)
 * Actually, I used to be the one who always answered stuff on other peoples talk pages. Now I'm trying to cut down on my wiki time for Kalomelis sake so I can't even answer stuff on my own talk page so quickly. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 09:16, 4 March 2007 (CST)
 * well, yeah, but not to mention, everyone else has this...

Gem has new messages (answer for him).
 * hehe... I just really wanted to try out that code, to be honest. :P --[[image:GEO-logo.png]] <font color="#237d00">Jioruji Derako.> 09:45, 4 March 2007 (CST)


 * That explains. ;) --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 10:14, 4 March 2007 (CST)


 * Dude, I want to make it so my login does that. XD --Armond Warblade (talk) 09:38, 9 March 2007 (CST)

GFDL
I know that the GFDL tag stuffs user pages into a category, but for people who have specific exceptions, do you know if a note under the tag be honored? Fyren's user page somewhat shows what I mean, though that involves public domain. ~ Pae 22:56, 3 March 2007 (CST)
 * It should be an is honored. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 02:21, 4 March 2007 (CST)

User:71.234.101.11 needs a ban.
Special:Contributions/User:71.234.101.11 &mdash;Blastedt 09:50, 4 March 2007 (CST)
 * I don't like banning people for 1 vandalism edit. It doesn't prevent nor punish. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 10:13, 4 March 2007 (CST)
 * OK, but his second contribution was also a vandalism, so just a heads up, since all his contribs are vandals. &mdash;[[Image:BlastThatT.jpg]]Blastedt 11:01, 4 March 2007 (CST)
 * The first one is from March 2006, the second from March 2007. I don't see a reason for banning. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 11:08, 4 March 2007 (CST)
 * ._o it was? Wow, >.> &mdash;[[Image:BlastThatT.jpg]]Blastedt 12:31, 4 March 2007 (CST)

Natures Owns needs a warning
Could you give Natures Owns a warning? due to his edits of others posts to make them look stupid? - Viktor 11:29, 6 March 2007 (CST)
 * I've reverted his changes to the other users post and I'm giving a warning. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 06:54, 6 March 2007 (CST)

More Sockpuppets
http://gw.gamewikis.org/wiki/Build_talk:W/Mo_Dead_Sword_Solo#Sockpuppet_parade. Yeh, if you can deal with these sockpuppets. Solus  08:38, 6 March 2007 (CST)

199.43.172.254
http://gw.gamewikis.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/199.43.172.254 Needs a ban. Solus  09:36, 6 March 2007 (CST)

Scams article
Gem, I'd like to go ahead and move List of popular scams to a better name (and hopefully, after that, do some major cleanup), but before I do I have a couple questions. Would "Common scams" be a better new name than "List of common scams"? I prefer the shorter name myself. Second, when I move the article, do I then need to move all the subarticles separately, or do they move automatically with the main article? And last question: I'll leave a redirect at List of popular scams for now, but should I also go through and edit all the links to it manually? With the exception of the main page link, which I guess I need to propose the change at main page editcopy, is that right? Thanks much! — HarshLanguage 11:45, 6 March 2007 (CST)


 * I like the short version Common scams. You need to move sub pages manually. And you need to update all links to the new article. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 08:20, 7 March 2007 (CST)
 * Thanks Gem. The only links left to the old article are on talk pages or in the user namespace. Obviously I'll leave the user stuff alone, but what about the talk page links? Normally I wouldn't even think of editing other people's comments... but is it done in cases like this when an article has been moved? I appreciate your guidance! — HarshLanguage [[Image:qswearing_small.png|HarshLanguage]] 13:25, 7 March 2007 (CST)
 * I saw the moves being done, so have already made the update to the Main Page.
 * On user pages, those can be left to the old redirect. As the page existed under its old name for so long, many people may still key that name in the search box, so I think we should keep the redirect that was created from the move.  As long as the redirect remains, the user page contents will still forward to the new location. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 13:34, 7 March 2007 (CST)

Ideas
It's just some ideas. What do you think about it? I can start a project page for thoose if you think it is good ideas. I may need some technical help but i'm ready to do as much as i can for it.--Ttibot 21:42, 7 March 2007 (CST)
 * Guild pages : What about adding adding a guids category wich would autorize guilds to make pages from them on the wiki? Guild would then be able to have a page where they can use links from the wiki and create builds with the wiki syntaxe. Guilds made builds would have a specific flag then it can be listed in page. This would fullfill the database and others users may send commentaries. I know that any ranked guild would never agree to share it tactic if they are still using it in PvP but PvE and non ranked PvP guilds could come in.
 * Translation : Many GW players are low english speaker and there is no equivalent for the wiki in foreign langage. What about adding translated pages on the wiki. All pages could have a link wich redirect to a translation in foreign langage.
 * Sub ideas for translation (if technically possible) :
 * Having thoose pages under GFDL liscence could help on exchanging with others GFDL sites.
 * Get an option wich will replace all translated pages when openning by the foreign langage equivalent if they have been translated. well, I don't think that it is possible but that could be fine.
 * Get a build syntaxe wich allow to make a build with the skills and professions in foreign langage. If the skills and professions are in the same category than english ones this would not be necessary. If they are in a different category the skill bar should specify that they have to be find in the foreign langage category.
 * Firstly make a page with all boss names, weapons, skills... translated from english to foreign langages could help on translation making.


 * Thanks for sharing your ideas, although GuildWiki talk:Community Portal would have been a better place. I'll still answer your suggestions here.
 * Foreign language wikis exist allready. I can't remember urls, but I'm sure you'll find the german and french wikis with google. ANet has also started an official wiki of their own and they will also make foreign versions later on.
 * Guild pages have been discussed earlier and been disallowed. In the new official wiki users decided to allow guild pages in a guild name space. Builds should still be kept separate from the guild section. If you want to start a discussion over adding a guild section to this wiki, feel free to ask my help and I'll help you with it. (Plus I might support you ;) ) --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 04:04, 8 March 2007 (CST)

213.48.45.34
http://gw.gamewikis.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/213.48.45.34 Vandalizing. Solus  04:15, 8 March 2007 (CST)
 * Allready blocked by Eightyfour-onesevenfive. :) --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 04:18, 8 March 2007 (CST)
 * I'm using "Too Slow!" on Gem! :D --<font color="midnightblue">84-175 (talk) 04:22, 8 March 2007 (CST)
 * That explains. ;) --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 05:25, 8 March 2007 (CST)

Gem has work to do (do it for him). ...Just tell me when this starts to get old, Gem. I'm waiting for your signal. -- <font color="#237d00">Jioruji Derako.> 04:28, 8 March 2007 (CST)
 * Hehe, a good one. Just be sure not to overdo it. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 05:25, 8 March 2007 (CST)

Add to work from above template box thing
Category:Nightfall missions What's with Blacktide Den there? I've stared at it a bit and fiddled once, but no go... (Let me know if you figure out how to fix it. I'm curious now. :P) --Armond Warblade (talk) 23:43, 9 March 2007 (CST)
 * Ehhhmmm... What was the problem? I didn't quite understand. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 06:02, 10 March 2007 (CST)


 * Blacktide Den was, for some reason, listed as a subcategory, and when you clicked on it it gave you a category list of all the monsters in the blacktide den mission. Seems like someone fixed it before you got a chance to see it, though. --Armond Warblade (talk) 12:27, 11 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Ah, I understand. There are categories for all missions and explorable areas which include all of the NPCs, monsters, bosses etc which can be found there. The category Category:Blacktide Den (Mission) was incorrectly added in the Nightfall missions category, but Kryasante fixed it. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 13:26, 11 March 2007 (CDT)

[[Image:Wingsthatheal-icon.jpg]] "Wings"
Does this build look good or even work?

Basicly use left to right until Repeating Strike then just spam that for 0 energy. If you get blind use Signet of Malice to remove it. use for PvP for basicly spiking casters, even spamming Repeating Strike on Melee's or Rangers. "Wings" 08:23, 12 March 2007 (CDT)


 * Why are you asking me? I have never played an assassin, and I don't play PvP. Could you please also always put your sig on the same line as your message, not make a new line for it. The sig policy sais that. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 08:39, 12 March 2007 (CDT)
 * And don't spam multiple talk pages with a large skill bar. Next time create a page in your user name space for the build and just give a link on the talk pages. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 08:42, 12 March 2007 (CDT)

fine then i didnt spam pages either. -- "Wings" 08:44, 12 March 2007 (CDT)


 * Atleast one other page on my watchlist. Sorry if I accused you wrongly. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 09:13, 12 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Wings, I can discuss Assassin Builds with you if you want, since I play practically only that class _^_ Since Gem has nothing to do with this, let's give him a rest, and move it to your talk page. &mdash; Poki#3 [[Image:Poki.jpg|19px|My Talk Page :o]], 09:56, 12 March 2007 (CDT)

ok done -- "Wings" 09:58, 12 March 2007 (CDT)

Guest Book
On my guest book on my talk page am i aloud to remove all wording except for the signature and date so i can clear it up and have coloums to save space? -- "Wings" 07:55, 15 March 2007 (CDT) i.e. 1. [Sig][Date]........ 2. [Sig][Date]........ 3. [Sig][Date] 4. [Sig][Date]........ 5. [Sig][Date]........ 6. [Sig][Date] 7. [Sig][Date]........ 8. [Sig][Date]........ 9. [Sig][Date] 10.[Sig][Date]........ 11.[Sig][Date]........ 12.[Sig][Date] 13.[Sig][Date]........ 14.[Sig][Date]........ 15.[Sig][Date]

without the dots in between. -- "Wings" 07:55, 15 March 2007 (CDT)


 * Well, you are allowed to do almost anything on your talk page, but editing other peoples comments is never allowed. Ofcourse this is a bit weird situation, but I would say no personally. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 14:07, 15 March 2007 (CDT)
 * You could move it to a sub page, like User talk:Wings That Heal/Guestbook or similiar. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 14:08, 15 March 2007 (CDT)
 * thats to much cause then people have to goto a different page, sign, then come back to do what they want and most people wont sign it. -- [[Image:Wingsthatheal-icon.jpg]] "Wings" 19:50, 15 March 2007 (CDT)
 * I was thinking the same thing... hm. What if you made a seperate page for the guestbook, like Gem said, but keep, like, the last ten slots on the talk page? For example, when someone signs the number 39-ish spot, you take all the signatures, move them over to the guestbook page, and restart the numbering at number 40. That way, you keep it easy for people to sign, you keep it short, and people can just click an easy link if they want to see the full guestbook. --[[image:GEO-logo.png]] <font color="#237d00">Jioruji Derako.> 23:08, 15 March 2007 (CDT)

thx that might work, i just didnt want people to have to go to a whole new page just to signt hen come back, cause if you look at 3/4 of the people that took me guest book have it on a new page and they only have like 10 sig's at most. -- "Wings" 23:13, 15 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Yeah, I would definately just keep it on the main page, and move the older signatures to a seperate page. So it keeps it nice and easy to sign, but doesn't take up all that space (also, you wouldn't have to worry about editing people's comments). --[[image:GEO-logo.png]] <font color="#237d00">Jioruji Derako.> 23:16, 15 March 2007 (CDT)

Just having the sig and/or date would make it look a lot cleaner and beta. -- "Wings" 23:33, 15 March 2007 (CDT)

im not sure that even works cause it wont count from 40+ it will start all over from 1 agian. -- "Wings" 23:35, 15 March 2007 (CDT)
 * hmm, that's right... there's probably some sort of coding you can use to set the numbers manually, I'll look into it. --[[image:GEO-logo.png]] <font color="#237d00">Jioruji Derako.> 23:37, 15 March 2007 (CDT)

ok thx. -- "Wings" 23:38, 15 March 2007 (CDT)

Gem, would you be able to ask the other mods or whatever you call them, if its ok do delete the wording before the sigs and dates in my guest book on me uer talk page, since they are not comments (only random sentences with 0% meaning) and its my user talk page, thx. -- "Wings" 05:26, 16 March 2007 (CDT) Finally got it all sorted out my guest book is up and running, hope i didnt break any rules or its in breach of any rules at the moment. -- "Wings" 09:48, 19 March 2007 (CDT)<Br>


 * Well, sort of, but it's ok unless someone complains. :) --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 05:47, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Good -- [[Image:Wingsthatheal-icon.jpg]] "Wings" 05:48, 20 March 2007 (CDT)

203.36.44.14 / Mosrael The Waker
This user (in Build:Team - Meteor Stormers) is the build author and also the only favored vote (as of my Build talk edit at 05:38 13 March 2007). He also has repeatedly struck out unfavored votes that he does not agree with. He is hand-signing his comments User:Mosrael The Waker, but I'm not sure if that is who he actually is. Jinkas 00:43, 13 March 2007 (CDT)

68.58.44.177
Nuff said. -Auron  21:57, 13 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Sorry, but his contrib list is empty as someone has deleted everything. Can't do anything about it. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 05:36, 14 March 2007 (CDT)
 * It was all vandalism, but another admin hit it first. Just thought I'd tip you off. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|||My Talk]] 06:16, 14 March 2007 (CDT)

joke?
would it be mean to add the joke template thingy to this Build:Team - Meteor Stormers? Its a nuking build for HA. and the wammo is the healer.--Coloneh RIP 13:23, 14 March 2007 (CDT)


 * Why don't you sell the organs of crippled orphans to microsoft while you're at it &mdash; Skuld 13:36, 14 March 2007 (CDT)


 * I oppose the use of the joke tag outside of user name space, and when used in the user name space it should be added by the user himself. Ofcourse I can't stop you, but you could instead be constructive and propose a deletion and move the content to your user name space as a monument to funny builds. :) (Ps. Didn't look to carefully and don't actually know if it's so funny. I trust your words.) --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 13:37, 14 March 2007 (CDT)
 * It's based on User:Curse_You/E/Me_Meteor_Storm (see the bottom of the page) and it looks like the author didn't get it, that it was a Joke :/ I'm check the article history a bit, and put a delete tag if it wasn't removed by an admin at some time. &mdash; Poki#3 [[Image:Poki.jpg|19px|My Talk Page :o]], 14:34, 14 March 2007 (CDT)

User:Kimberley brown
This user has vandalized several pages and deserves to get banned IMHO.- Leader Rat  19:26, 15 March 2007 (CDT)
 * The user has been banned. In the future, you can place a ban request on the user's user page (not their talk page) using the template

. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:30, 15 March 2007 (CDT)

Tormented Weapons
Well i saw that some one keeps changing the links to the annimations on them from a youtube like to a forign site link i changed them back last night but he changed it again :/. Which one should it be set to?==Blade (talk|contribs) 07:56, 16 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Youtube. Which pages? &mdash; Skuld 08:13, 16 March 2007 (CDT)
 * I saw this a while back, but since I can't view them at work, it slipped my mind when I got home. The one I noticed was Tormented Staff. I guess if both are legit, then the clearest one should be the linked in the article. &mdash; Gares 08:27, 16 March 2007 (CDT)
 * I just assumed youtube was better because its an english site the other is the same video just on a diffrent site--Blade [[Image:smallscout.png]] (talk|contribs) 08:29, 16 March 2007 (CDT)
 * If it's the same exact video, just on different sites, the one that was posted first should be the one that is used. Off the top of my head, I don't see why someone would change a link from one site to another when it is the exact same video. &mdash; Gares 09:44, 16 March 2007 (CDT)
 * That person's prefered video-sharing site ;p Youtube is far more widespread &mdash; Skuld 09:49, 16 March 2007 (CDT)
 * I saw this happening, too. I was going to revert the change, but the videos seem to be much clearer on the new site.  Seems like they have a better compression algorithm or something.  Anyway, once I actually looked at the videos I left the changes in. Jinkas 09:52, 16 March 2007 (CDT)

GW:RFA
Just posted a rather lengthy response to your question on my Request for Adminship. Hope that answers your question. I will try to add some more info later if you want me to do so. <font color="DodgerBlue">Defiant Elements (talk ~ contribs)

Quick question about logistics. I understand that the vote itself is not the determining factor in whether or not I am actually confirmed. However, I was wondering whether there is some kind of ballpark cut off point at which my nomination starts being seriously considered by the current Admins or if it is just the kind of thing that is played by ear. <font color="DodgerBlue">Defiant Elements (talk ~ contribs)

Also, I would like to point out an instance of GW:NPA being violated. It is actually on my nomination page.... an anon user writes: "Hes an asshole in-game." Since I don't appreciate being called an asshole, I was wondering whether I could get a ban or at least remove the vote. <font color="DodgerBlue">Defiant Elements (talk ~ contribs)


 * The decision is made by the bureaucrates. It's a sort of dictatorship. If one of them thinks you should be an admin, they have the possibility to make you one. If none of them want to, then you wont be made one. There is no rule that they need to follow. They can even promote a random contributor if they want. ;)
 * I wont strike the vote, but as the decision is made by the bureaucrates anyway, they will obviously not let such votes make their mind about you. The point is what kind of image your actions and the votes give, not what some random guy thinks. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 03:42, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
 * I wasn't worried about a single vote effecting my chances at adminship, I just don't appreciate being called an asshole. <font color="DodgerBlue">Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs)
 * I understand. :) --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 03:44, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Hmmmm... so more likely than not, my nomination will be decided by Tanaric and/or Lord Biro. <font color="DodgerBlue">Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs)
 * Correct. :) --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 03:56, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Well, it is 4:05 am where I live, I think it is probably time to go to bed and stop staring intently at Recent Changes and GW:RAF. :) <font color="DodgerBlue">Defiant Elements (talk ~ contribs)
 * Just as an FYI ... both the new anon posting at 58.169.49.176 and the one used earlier by Solus at 138.217.165.69 come from IP ranges registered to "Asia Pacific Network Information Centre". --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:59, 19 March 2007 (CDT)

message from Jagre, regarding builds policy
I think Tanaric is like George Bush, and we are like the American people.

I do not think he should have ultimate power over something like that. I do think the question was framed with an edge. If nothing else, the guildwiki builds section should be copied and pasted onto another website, along with it's vetting procedure (although the process (including voting, etc. should be explained more clearly before a user is able to post one). I think it is steadily moving towards perfection.  I am about to check the vetting procedure for possible improvements.

-Brian aka Jagre 05:32, 19 March 2007 (CDT)


 * Hi. Tanaric and the other sysops and bureaucrats in the wiki have dicator-like powers, but they have never been misused and I don't see a sweep of the builds section as misuse either as most of those that commented the talk page were supportive, me included. As stated many times, people have 4 weeks to save any builds they want into their user name space, after which everything in the builds section will be swiped and the new policy comes into effect. We are not going to permanently remove the section or harm the wiki in any way, we are just going for a fresh start with a working policy. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 05:44, 19 March 2007 (CDT)


 * George Bush? Does that constitute as a personal attack? -Silk Weaker 05:49, 19 March 2007 (CDT)

report of malicious behavior
i'm sorry to be doing this... the user, barek just banned me for no reason. He violated the "revert wars" policy. please look at the Meleemancer page for proof of this. My edits were beneficial to the article. His original "revert" was absolutely unwarranted. he said that it was because I linked to a meleemancer build on the meleemancer page. When I added the part on strategy again without the link, as well explaining myself (after also explaining myself to barek and receiving no response) he reverted it back again and IP banned me. He should be banned and demoted from the role of admin before he causes further damage to the community.

Please look at the article and the edits made. They are constructive and not anything close to a "personal essay." His actions, IE banning are personal attacks. This is an open page and each user is entitled to fair treatment. Fair treatment towards him would be banning him.

-Jagre 15:54, 19 March 2007 (CDT)


 * After a quick glance it's you who first broke GW:1RV, though Barek did it too. You contributed, he reverted, you reverted the revert (breaking 1RV) and he reverted your reverting of the revert (again breaking 1RV). I'll look at it more carefully after posting this message, but your going too far with your ban and demotion suggestions. One revert against the rules and a possibly poor ban are no reasons to demote and ban someone who does a lot of good for the wiki. (Besides, if someone banned him, you would deserve a ban too for the same crime) Most users break a policy once or twice, especially when spending multiple hours in the wiki every day. If I don't spot anything relevant in the contributions when looking at the details, I suggest to forget this incident. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 16:50, 19 March 2007 (CDT)


 * Ok, I looked through the article history nad the block log. Both of you violated GW:1RV, but only once before stopping, so neither of you deserve a ban. Bareks ban for you was out of place since he was involved and also broke a policy, so I'll post on his talk page about it. He reverted the ban quickly, so no action needs to be taken. Otherwise this was a small incident which you are making a lot larger than you should.
 * This is the second time today you post on my talk page to suggest (directly or indirectly) removal of powers of a sysop/bureaucrat, although you hardly know the users and their contributions. I suggest taking it more calmly and taking your time to get to know the wiki, the contributors, and the wiki etiquette. This is not work for any of us, we don't get paid for it, so let's take it calmly. I appreciate it that you held a proper tone in all of your posts unlike many other newer users who feel violated. I hope you'll enjoy your time here. :) --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 17:35, 19 March 2007 (CDT)


 * Forgot one thing: The text removed by Barek should not be in the article imo. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 17:39, 19 March 2007 (CDT)

Reply per request at Barek's talk page
First, lets get this out of the way. I take ownership of technically performing a violation of GW:1RV in this case. As such, I should be and have been warned on my talk page. My reasons and a clarification of the sequence of events are detailed below.

Some history on the involved user: Jagre had been warned for a previous incident of violating GW:1RV very early this morning. He was therefore aware of the policy prior to this incident on the Meleemancer article, although I now believe that he mis-understood the policy as written - and erroneously believed his actions were appropriate.

On the Meleemancer article, he posted a personal essay as well as a link to an unfavored build, neither of which belonged. I removed both contributions with the edit summary "remove personal commentary and link to unfavored build". While newer contributors don't always view the edit summaries, I knew from prior posts that he does view the summaries, and he later acknowledged reading at least part of the removal reason. He posted a comment on my talk page that he was re-inserting his edit, to which I replied that doing so would be a violation of GW:1RV as well as pointing out that the content does not belong.

When he went ahead and restored the content with no discussion taking place in the article's talk page, I initially viewed it as a second violation of GW:1RV, for which he had already been warned, and placed the temp-ban, removed the article content violation which at this point I viewed as vandalism, and posted my reasons on the talk page for the article. It should be noted that despite how it appears on the talk page now, my post explaining the reasons for my actions were not a reply to his post - his post was inserted above mine after the fact.

At this point I relized two things: (A) Jagre likely hadn't seen my reply to him on my talk page, and (B) that, as an involved party, I should have a different admin review the article. I removed the bans (both the user ban and the auto-block) before anyone else even commented on the bans (the times can be seen at Special:Log/block). I then requested on Gares' talk page that he review the postings and reverts. By the time I had posted on Gares page, Fyren had posted a reply to my entry on the article's talk page. Gares also posted soon after, agreeing that the content did not belong in the article. I agree with him that Jagre was acting in good faith, as he erroneously thought that his actions were appropriate.

Like Jagre, my initial actions in this incident were also done in good faith - I viewed the re-insertion as an act of willful vandalism at that point and a second violation of GW:1RV within 24 hours. My initial actions were based on my role as administrator, protecting wiki article integrity. However, I fully acknowledge that, as an involved party, I needed to have an uninvolved admin review the situation, which is why I reversed the ban and requested another admin to intervene and to review the actions taken to ensure they were appropriate. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:59, 19 March 2007 (CDT)


 * Thank you for posting the full story here. I was able to reconstruct most of this by going through the histotriesm but not all of the small details. Now I'm fully convinved that no banning should be taking place on any users and the minor violations of 1RV were done in good faith. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 21:23, 19 March 2007 (CDT)


 * My edit was about the strategy of playing a meleemancer. Jagre 23:32, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
 * WTF MAN WHY DON"T YOU WANT MY COMMENTS? I AM IN COMPLETE MISUNDERSTANDING here, and currently of the opinion that most of the people here are extremely arrogant to put it gently.  Also my edit after Barek's deletion of it was not a re-evert because it was not the same as before, I took out all "personal commentary" and as well as link.  ALSO, HEY!  if you guys want to delete all of my writing on that page!  you missed the first and third paragraphs on the intro!  better get those too ya deleters!
 * Jagre 23:32, 19 March 2007 (CDT)


 * To help clarify this: per GW:1RV "If you find your edit was reverted, take your case to the article's talk page. Explain why you believe your edit was good and belongs in the article." Your content was removed.  Per policy, you should have taken your argument to restore it to the article's talk page before restoring it and wait for community input.  My comment in the edit summary when I removed the text was "remove personal commentary and link to unfavored build" - yes, you removed the link when you restored the rest of the text, but left all other wording from your initial post.  Articles should be a place for factual content supportable with evidence if needed - your contribution contained personal opinions and musings, as well as being written in first person.
 * For reference: Here's the difference between original and second posting of disputed content. There are two intermediate edits by me, in which I removed the original posting, then removed the "abandoned" tag (that tag is specific to builds).  The only other differences are in the title, and wikification of some links.  Restoring this text was clearly a violation of GW:1RV; but, as I stated, I no longer believe that it was a willful policy violation - but one caused by a misunderstanding.
 * As for your comments on other paragraphs; I agree with Fyren that much of the article could be axed; but due to this dispute, I'm leaving that to other contributors for now. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:08, 20 March 2007 (CDT)

Just thought this would be appropriate in the whole Jagre vs. Barek conflict (Ah Monty Python):

Dennis: Help! Help! I'm being oppressed! Violence inherent in the system! Violence inherent in the system! <font color="DodgerBlue">Defiant Elements (talk ~ contribs) 03:39, 21 March 2007 (CDT)

Need some arbitration on a build
The author has removed the delete tag (twice) on claims that his build is different enough from other 55 builds because it uses Glyph of Renewal and 2 open slots. --8765 17:04, 19 March 2007 (CDT)

new subject
k, i do not believe my actions were in violation of RW because, when I re-added what Barek deleted, I ommitted the sections he said he had problems with. There, now do you still think I was in violation?

Also, to quote Barek's words from earlier in the day/week/whatever, "NOTE: The next person to blank out parts of discussions or to alter someone else's vote will be banned. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:47, 19 March 2007 (CDT)"

The first action of what ended up as a revert war was that he deleted my edit without any discussion.

He left a comment saying that he deleted it because there was personal commentary and a link to a meleemancer build page.

Assuming that he judge the edit based solely on what he stated in his comment, I told him my understanding of his actions and comments in his user talk page. Since he has never responded to my comments before that I have left for him, I went ahead re-added the text he deleted *(without (new edit))* the single statement he said he had a problem with.

Once again, the only thing I re-added were things unmentioned by his original comment, and IMO, 100% suitable to the page.

Now I still believe that future users could find value in my edits, and I would therefor ask that it be "re-reverted" by someone other than me.

Now, after I added this information, I was immediately IP banned by the user, Barek, and could not contact anyone via email, except for Barek himself, who I was pretty mad at at the time, since my understanding was at the time that he had simply deleted my edits for no reason.

He again deleted the information, which is, without question, in violation. and i think banning me was as well.

I am rather disappointed with the behavior of the guildwiki community in general - many people here seem to be in the rather annoying habit of jumping to conclusions.

I do not believe that providing an extra section on strategy to the meleemancer page should have caused people's opinion of me to decline - much less bann me for it :(

Oh well, if that is the community that is here, then that is how it is. I simply ask that I not be banned for such things in the future, or likewise equally petty things like this.

Like anyone else, I have a right to respect, and the only people I feel treat me with any, so far, in the countless people I have interacted with here on guildwiki, have been you, and auron.

Jagre 06:26, 20 March 2007 (CDT)


 * The ban on you wasn't right and it was removed quickly. After other admins looked at the situation, none of them banned you again. Mistakes happen, you should be fully aware of it and not take it too seriously. I know it's a hard thing to accept a ban, even a short one which is removed by the banner himself, but I suggest you do just that, accept that it has happened and live with it. Like you said, you have equal rights compared to any other user and that's exactly what we are trying to do here. Everyone, Barek included, realises that he also made a minor violation of the policies, but it seems like you haven't still accepted that you were a violator too, although you probably didn't know it at that time.
 * What comes to the situation of the artile, I believe that the text which was under this dispute did mostly not include usefull information and it was written in a bad manner. Therefor it was easier to remove than to rewrite the text. I would suggest you write a short text including all of the real information and place it to the article. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 06:50, 20 March 2007 (CDT)


 * Barek himself realized the ban was premature, and got rid of it. So to put it simple: "wtf is the problem ?" –Ichigo724[[Image:Ichigo-signature.jpg]] 08:29, 20 March 2007 (CDT)


 * I asked Jagre to post here, so there is no problem at all. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 08:30, 20 March 2007 (CDT)


 * I'm not sure I'm understanding what the problem is. I didn't read through the huge pile of text, but most of it. Tell me if I'm wrong on this:
 * Jagre submits a build
 * Build gets unfavored
 * Jagre edits the "meleemancer guide" with opinionated info
 * Barek rv's
 * Jagre rv's (breaking 1RV)
 * Barek rv's (breaking 1RV)
 * Barek bans Jagre for breaking 1RV
 * Barek realizes he wrongfully banned jagre after 10 whole minutes and unbans him
 * Jagre starts screaming "omg ban barek, taek his admin, abuse, abuse, abuse"
 * So, did I miss anything? –Ichigo724[[Image:Ichigo-signature.jpg]] 08:37, 20 March 2007 (CDT)


 * Good summary. No problem unless you guys keep posting about it. I don't know why you posted about the whole thing. It was solved allready --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 08:41, 20 March 2007 (CDT)


 * Comment - I view this issue as closed; but, seeing Jagre's post above, it appears that part of the problem is his misunderstanding of my comment when he repeatedly blanked out parts of a build's talk page discussion. I wanted to add a comment here to help define the difference should he view this discussion again (sorry that your talk page has been hijacked Gem, at this point you may want to look at Requests_for_arbitration and  consider moving this to a sub-page over there).
 * Anyways - I warned posters on his build "The next person to blank out parts of discussions or to alter someone else's vote will be banned". When I later removed submitted inapropriate material from the Meleemancer article, he seems to have viewed the two as equivalent actions, to which, all I have to say is that articles in the main namespace are not the same as talk pages.  In the Main namespace "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it."  While in talk pages, do not disrupt the flow of conversation by altering or removing someone else's post, and do not remove or alter posts of your own to which someone else has already replied. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 10:31, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
 * I'll let the discussion stay here as I have an arhive scheduled at the beginning of April. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 10:57, 20 March 2007 (CDT)

First of all, Barek: please refrain from accusing people of "hijacking" a user page when there is statements above stating that the user frankly asked me to post here. I think I have asked you to refrain from things like this before and would appreciate it if you honored my request. I do not really care, or hold anything against you for this, but am rather looking out for my own reputation.

I am not disputing the rules, only questioning them, and relating my understanding. And I usually try to be accepting of all the consequences of my actions.

Second, in regards to my misunderstanding. Before now, I believed that when someone deletes an entire article with a comment in reference to a single statement, it would have been okay to re-add the rest of the deleted article without the statements that the deletor had problems with.

However, apparently this is not the case, and as thus, I will move on. I do not wish to bicker about petty stuff, but will point out one last thing, which I will phrase in the form of a question.
 * Am I supposed to believe e that deleting entire articles is okay, and that banning people even when they gave justification before they acted is okay?

I refer you to: "Removal of text Removing unquestionable personal attacks from your own user talk page is much less of a concern than removing comments from other pages in GuildWiki. For text elsewhere, where such text is directed against you, removal requests should be directed to an admin to determine if the comments should remain, be archived, or be deleted. However, deletion should be rare, limited to situations where the comments pose an ongoing threat to a user such as revealing personal information in the attack."

I see now that some users and even admins will break policy and nothing will happen to them. Not even will anyone tell them they were wrong. But because of my actions, which are much less concrete in terms of definitive policy breaking, I get banned, and the discussion pages (as well as my user page) are flooded with statements against me.

This is nothing other than an observation. I do not think I have posed any opinion or judgment on the matter, but rather simply wish to point it out to whoever reads this.

However, it is my opinion that I should, from here on, be treated with more respect than I have been till now.

Jagre Jagre 21:20, 20 March 2007 (CDT)


 * A few things on your post were untrue.
 * Barek said "sorry that your talk page has been hijacked Gem". He did not accuse you of hijacking it, he was sorry that this has grown so large on my user page. I said it's ok.
 * Although the edit comment of Barek only refered to the things that you refered, the rest of the text was still not suitable for the article. As I've said, the small hints of information canbe readded to the article, but without the long irrelevant parts.
 * You said "Am I supposed to believe e that deleting entire articles is okay, and that banning people even when they gave justification before they acted is okay?" Yes, deleting an entire article or piece of text is okay if there is nothing usefull in it. Banning people is okay to prevent vandalism or punish breaking rules, but in this case it was not ok, which Barek realised within 10 minutes.
 * You said "I see now that some users and even admins will break policy and nothing will happen to them." You are partially correct. These minor violations of the policies did not warrant a ban. However, you and Barek were both warned and breaking policies multiple times will cause a ban to be placed.
 * "However, it is my opinion that I should, from here on, be treated with more respect than I have been till now." I'm trying, but it gets harder all the time when you ignore anything I say to you. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 03:37, 21 March 2007 (CDT)

Re: Your job
Do eet. Do eet. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.139.17.252 (talk &bull; contribs) 12:50, March 20, 2007 (CDT).
 * What? --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 14:21, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Wow. Out of left field there.  Looks like your talk page is on the road to becoming the another Skuld talk page if this keeps up.--[[Image:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG]]  Vallen Frostweaver  14:27, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Gem, did you sign in using those links? Anyone that clicks on those links are browsing under your user name. &mdash; Gares 15:20, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Interesting. Perhaps that is part of the reason that person put those there.  I'm no detective but it's interesting none-the-less. --[[Image:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG]]  Vallen Frostweaver  15:27, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
 * I registered on those forums after this message was left here, but I went manually to bbs.gamewikis.org, I didn't use those links to do it. I'm confused? You guys are logged in as me? And what was the intention of the original message? I quite didn't get it. Did he think I'm admin on those forums and asked me to delete those spam topics? --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 16:08, 20 March 2007 (CDT)

. o_O--Dirigible 16:12, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Could someone try those links again. I logged out on the forums. Do you still see yourself logged in as me? --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 16:13, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Nope, gives me the option to Log In now. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|19px||My Talk]] 16:15, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
 * (edit conflict) Nah, that fixed it. Pretty weird though. --Dirigible 16:15, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Logged back in. Please test now. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 16:18, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Seems fine, asks me to log in again. --Dirigible 16:20, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Ok, great. But yeah, I can't do anything about those spam topics as I just registered and I'm not an admin there. :) --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 16:21, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
 * You sure you didn't click those links? It could be an elaborate attempt at identity theft, you know. Can't be too paranoid:P --Ishmaeel 16:31, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
 * I did click on them, after which I manually went to bbs.gamewikis.org. Well, if it was a user name theft attempt it didn't work well as I didn't have a user name before this. :D --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 16:33, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
 * When you clicked those, that session ID could have been stored in a cookie on your box. After that you would sign in and if the phpBB was coded crappily enough, the server could serve your profile page to anybody with that session ID on their boxes. It probably wouldn't give out your password but possibly your e-mail. Ok now imagine me naked, running around the streets, flailing my arms above my head and screaming "the end of the world! we're all gonna die!!". yeah. --Ishmaeel 16:39, 20 March 2007 (CDT)

Yup, it's just that. Those links contain the Session ID. How did he get it, who is he, and what was the purpose of this though? :/ Gem, check the forum and see if "you" didn't make any stupid post's recently :/ &mdash; Poki#3, 16:46, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Like I said, I registered on the forums after this was posted on my talk page. I think it's just a mistake made by the anon. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 16:47, 20 March 2007 (CDT)

omg attention!! uh, sorry to start a fuss, but those pictures are still there...so that forum has no administrators, does it? What's a session ID?

(I'm just kidding. Sorry, cut&paste) &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.139.17.252 (contribs).


 * I replaced the signature you placed there (my sig) with the unsigned template. Those kinds of fakes might cause harm and distraction. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 03:26, 21 March 2007 (CDT)

sig
dude, why do you have a pink shield? Do you feel attracted to men? --<font color=#2a7510>Sig <font color=#d8be01>mA   14:32, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Pink shield = a gem? Ok. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 14:34, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Gem? Isn't that a stone? --[[User:Sigm@|<font color=#2a7510>Sig <font color=#d8be01>mA

]] 14:49, 20 March 2007 (CDT)


 * ... I don't know what to say without being impolite, so I'll leave it at that. <span style="font-family: Georgia, serif"> &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 15:47, 20 March 2007 (CDT)


 * Sigma, I'm seeing those as personal attacks as there seems to be no other point in your messages than insulting me. I suggest you hold your tongue and don't do this to other users, or someone will have to take administrative action because violation of GW:NPA. If the problem is your eyes and english understanding, then you should probably see the larger version of my icon and try a internet translator for gem. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 16:12, 20 March 2007 (CDT)

"Racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, or ethnic epithets directed against another contributor. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual preference, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse." Seems pretty clear. <font color="DodgerBlue">Defiant Elements (talk ~ contribs) 03:30, 21 March 2007 (CDT)

Looks more like a ruby to me, can I call you ruby to save confusion? Solus  03:35, 21 March 2007 (CDT) Only joking :) Solus   03:36, 21 March 2007 (CDT)

Inscription/Trivia
I saw that you're on at the moment - can you take a look at this history and my comment to the author here? Background: the trivia was initially removed from the article per community discussion at Talk:Inscription. Thanks! --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:22, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Isn't that the same "Do eet! Do eet!" person?--[[Image:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG]]  Vallen Frostweaver  16:28, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Yup. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:28, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
 * What do you exactly want me to do? I can go on and delete the page which you could do and post on the authors talk page which you already did. Seems like a trivial case to me. Delete the page and if someone wants it back, restart the discussion first. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 16:30, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
 * I tagged it originally because I wanted to spur discussion on if it should be kept (the author was claiming it was a more factual version - so I wanted to allow for the community to weigh in on if the stripped down version was acceptable). Once the tag was removed, my replacing it would bring back GW:1RV issues again. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:40, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Ah that's true. :) I was too hasty when looking at this as I get ~1 edit every minute on my talk page now. I'll add the delete tag back and start the discussion on the talk page. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 16:41, 20 March 2007 (CDT)

Pricing on an Ascalon → Lion's Arch
What price is Ascalon → Lion's Arch from the rr? Ebany Salmonderiel (Talk) [ Leave a note] 16:28, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
 * See http://www.runningrangers.net/ --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 16:30, 20 March 2007 (CDT)

More Problems
Alright, I am becoming way too emotionally involved in this whole User:Jagre thing. So, I am reporting tampering with my user talk page (He messed with one of the headings/sections because he didn't like what it said) buy Jagre. <font color="DodgerBlue">Defiant Elements (talk ~ contribs) 03:33, 21 March 2007 (CDT)


 * The heading was "User: Jager" and please don't talk shit about me any more. PLEASE.


 * Yeah, the heading was User talk:Jager, but you have no right to go and change it. People are also allowed to talk about you if they don't violate GW:NPA, which they didn't. You are taking the wiki too seriously and you think that everyone tries to attack you when they in reality don't. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 03:44, 21 March 2007 (CDT)