User talk:Dr ishmael/Archive 2

Bit Harsh!
Dont you think? Edit and move sysop? O__o 93.96.58.79 16:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I just corrected it. -_- &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 16:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * RC sez I edited before you reprotected.. But RC can be wrong.. 93.96.58.79 16:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've noticed that - the other day I saw people preemptively reverting vandalism. &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 16:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Somewhat funny, ya. By the way, youre name is Dr ishmael, and your sig says Ishmaerl., so technically its brekaing gw:sign. I think.. ;P 93.96.58.79 16:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think so: "A substituted signature should resemble to some degree the username it represents. Signatures that obscure an account name to the casual reader may be seen as disruptive." I think a single capitalization difference would still "resemble to some degree".
 * In other news, the vandal is now spamming that YouTube link on all Nightfall missions. How do we deal with this?  &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 16:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh heck. We warned him to not put it up, so it could be considered vandalism. --- [[Image:VipermagiSig.JPG|Ohaider!]]-- (s)talkpage 16:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Banning is fine with me, but he's using a proxy - I've seen three IPs so far. We could keep banning his new IPs, but I didn't know if there was a better way to deal with that.  &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 16:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If he uses a small range of IPs, a range-ban would work? No idea how it works tho >< --- [[Image:VipermagiSig.JPG|Ohaider!]]-- (s)talkpage 16:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Range-ban would be 123.45.*.* or something like that, I think - it would work against someone who simple keeps reconnecting to their ISP to change their IP. Using a proxy, you can change the entire IP, though, so range-ban wouldn't stop them.  In any case, he seems to have stopped for now.  &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 16:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I highly dislike proxies, to say the least... we'll see if he strikes again, I suppose. And now for Nova to stop logging on and off on MSN. --- [[Image:VipermagiSig.JPG|Ohaider!]]-- (s)talkpage 16:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Consumables and their effects
should have seperate articles IMO. One is about the actual item, and the other about the effect that it gives you. thoughts?-- (Talk) (Contr.) 19:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * GuildWiki_talk:Community_Portal, GuildWiki_talk:Community_Portal, Talk:Birthday Cupcake (effect). Multiple users have said that they prefer having the effect on the same page as the item, and no one has given any real opposition to this until now.  &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 20:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok nevermind then. Sorry, I haven't been on here a lot recently, so I wasn't aware that this has already been brought up. I'll revert the one that I changed.--[[Image:Marcopolo47 signature new.jpg]] (Talk) (Contr.) 20:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That's fine, I understand. Actually, you gave me a chance to reconsider this.  I agree that the logical arrangement is separate articles, but practically it makes sense to combine them.  So, to satisfy both sides, I'll leave the effect articles separate, but include them into the item articles.  This also helps where multiple items give the same effect, like the standard/Everlasting tonics or Sugar Rush.  I can't see anyone objecting to this arrangement, except to say that the item page looks cluttered now, but I'll let someone else take care of the design aspect.  &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 20:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * On a related note, other than Consumables there are still many other minor effects and similar things which do not yet have a page...but they are hard to find because many don't have a redlink either. You know, obscure stuff like Rabbit valley. I always wonder if it is better to make redirect pages for minor things like "A whisper on the wind" (Vael in Sacnoth Valley) or just delete them because they are no consequence and leave a note on the page itself explaining. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 04:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I am far from knowledgeable about obscure stuff in the game; there's stuff already on GWiki that I'm just stumbling upon now. About the minor effects, though... A couple weeks ago I used this guide in order to build a spreadsheet of all 2851 skills/effects that are currently "active" in the game (there are ~150 others with descriptions in gw.dat, but they apparently don't have skill IDs assigned).  This is how I was able to get most of the icons I've been uploading recently and to confirm the descriptions I've been changing.  Many of these are invisible to the player or aren't even used, in some cases.  Still, I was wondering whether it would still be useful to post them here somewhere - maybe in my userspace to start - just to make the info available.  GWW, because of their Gamelink pages, already has some of them - exhibits A, B, C.  Would this be useful, do you think?  &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 05:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Huh...I remember when those things were first found, no one thought they ought to be mentioned but I guess times have changed. My opinion is that anything which a player may conceivably see without the aid of a "cheating device" or such, ought to be documented. Exhibit A is an example of a passive effect which everyone knows. Exhibit B is something which may be useful in explaining why such-and-such effect happens. Exhibit C is not relevant to anything. In the case of "invisible skills" which are actually used but players won't ever see it, I think those could be mentioned in describing some effect, but they may not deserve a full wiki page. Posting it all to userspace would be entertainment, sure...hm. Yeah, I guess if a player might see it, then it ought to be added in somewhere as a real article. Playing with gw.dat sounds fun, maybe I will look into it some day. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 05:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

protting
Protection is the last resort when dealing with a vandal. It should really only be used on pages which have a great impact (Main page), impact performance issues (Skillbox), could confuse users (Delete/Ban), or on a page which has a long history of repeated serious vandalism (Prince Rurik). The thing to consider before protection is this: "If I am going to remove the protection in a few days, then it doesn't need to be protected in the first place." Now obviously if it was something like the page was being moved ten times or he spammed a hundred links, that would be much more serious and for some reason prot was necessary because banning proved ineffective (proxies etc) then sure, prot. Otherwise, save the big guns for last.

Very few sysops ever use the prot feature in their careers, so even an experienced active user could hardly expect to know such things - this isn't a reprimand in any way, just a friendly admin reminder. As long as it stops the vandals, that the No. 1 priority of course. At the same time though, protting every page that gets hit with a mass vandalizer is counter-productive. (T/C) 04:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Heh, well, it was the first time I'd ever been involved in something like that, and when I saw the vandal start switching IPs, I just figured that protecting the page was more efficient than continually banning his new IPs. But then he started hitting a few other pages, and... meh, at least I've learned something from the experience.  I was not aware that protection was considered such a "big gun" - since it's relatively simple for admins to add/remove it, I thought it would be used more often to stop things like 1RV issues.  &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 05:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, you can check the log of past protections and consider how much smaller it is compared to the ban and deletion logs. That gives some idea :D No worries though, there's a first time for everything - every admin has to deal with vandals eventually. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 05:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

you haven't commented
on User:Entropy/bureaucrat. I was expecting a little bit more attention from the general public, so now I'd like at least all the sysops to chime in. After all, those are the people it most directly affects. If you're indifferent then I apologize for spam, and if you're busy I'm sorry for giving more work...nevertheless I desire your comments. (T/C) 05:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll comment on this in the morning, it needs a better response than my tired mind can give right now. &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 05:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow?
What a teamwork ;) But, RC says we both deleted the same page? Lolwut? --- -- (s)talkpage 17:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Oic now I recheck RC. pesearing and presearing. /Blind --- [[Image:VipermagiSig.JPG|Ohaider!]]-- (s)talkpage 17:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * And you EC'ed me on putting disambigs on BOTH of the existing pages. This is starting to get annoying. XD  &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 17:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, nvm, I got one of them. :P &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 17:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Ye, that was the teamwork I was talking about tbh :P But, I had to search for Restless Spirit (thrice...) and for the template... Did you just chime in later, or are you suddenly slow? O_o --- [[Image:VipermagiSig.JPG|Ohaider!]]-- (s)talkpage 17:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I only saw the "pesearing" one and immediately went to delete it and add the disambigs, I didn't know there was a second page with a discussion until you'd already nuked it. &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 17:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)