User talk:Karlos8903

If you have questions or wish to discuss anything, please leave me a note here...

Thanx
I just wanted to say thanx for the comments and criticism. I am new to wiki so I wasnt completely sure how it worked. Also, i know the symbiosis build isnt a new concept, but i put it up so it would get more well known, and it isnt documented anywhere i could find(even though its probably not documented because it doesnt have too many practical uses) but i think that i could get credit since i was the first person to document it. Again, thanx for the comment, BMW 19:59, 3 September 2006 (CDT)

Comments
ok...so i know how to do signatures now. but how do i make an icon next to it...such as a shrunk veratas sacrifice icon?

--Hypernecrofear 05:53, 21 June 2006 (CDT)


 * if you look at my user talk page I tell you how to do it, essentially my process replaces the name part of your signature with a template... --Jamie [[Image:Jamie.jpg|24px|Here me ROOOARRR!!! (Talk Page)]] 05:55, 21 June 2006 (CDT)

(Object) article deletion
Why were these deleted, or were they moved somewhere? There was no comment given. - Greven 18:42, 7 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Unnecessary. Those "objects" are just tablets/monuments with the story of Tahmu/Hai Jii/... so I put the info in Tahmu/Hai Jii/... etc. No information was lost. Did you know that? If yes, are you saying it was better to thave those aticles split up like that? --Karlos 19:36, 7 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I hadn't seen the updated boss articles until now. I must have missed the movement of the information.  It does look better there, honestly, but I (mis?)recalled objects which you could read as being seperate. - Greven 20:50, 7 June 2006 (CDT)

Parked
Why did you delete my artice "Parked"? It's not really a big deal, as I only created it because it was not listed under Slang & Terminology. But the information that was contained in my "Parked" article contained a bit more useful information than the present "Park" article. Also, I notice when checking the Category:Slang & Terminology, "Park" is not listed, while "Parked" is but is a dead link now. As I said, no big deal, but you might still want to include the information I included about how to utilize a parked character.--Xis10al 07:35, 8 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Was checking the history of Elite Mission and noticed the information I'm speaking of was created by you. I didn't mean to take credit for it, if it came across that way.  I just think it's very useful information and should be included.--Xis10al 07:53, 8 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I don't wanna forestall Karlos' answer. Let me just explain that per policy we keep all article titles on GuildWiki in the infinitive grammatical form. That's probably why Karlos dumped "parked". Off course, if you think that any important information from your (deleted) "parked" article is missing in park, then feel free to add it there. :) --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 07:57, 8 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Looking further at the history of park, Karlos moved your article "parked" to "park" (for reason explained above). Then Foo removed some of the detailed instructions. I assume he did that because those instructions are already available in the articles ferry and Elite Mission, where they belong. --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 08:09, 8 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Hi, sorry, I had already gone off to sleep when you posted this. Pretty much what Tetris said. At first I moved it to "Park" automatically and without reading it because we keep verbs in the infinitive form. i.e. "Faction farm" not "Faction farming." This also makes it easier to conjugate the article name in different ways since moast of the time you can link to the article without using pipes. i.e. You can link to  Park Parked Parking .
 * As for removing the points, again, as Tetris said, the information was already in other articles (regardless of who put it there). Now, my issue is that I don't like to repeat info in other articles. The steps for ferrying are valuable info but if they are placed in more than one article then, after a little while, they will be different as different users edit the same list differently. So, I just made a decision... Should the steps for ferrying through the guild hall be explained in Park, Ferry or Elite Mission. Since both Ferry and Park point to Elite Mission for details on how to ferry through the guild, I think no information is lost. --Karlos 18:59, 8 June 2006 (CDT)

Amber Drops
I was posting before without logging in, I was posting where i had found amber to drop from enemies, and after I posted I had typed something wrong, i went to correct it and my ip was banned, why was that? - Warcobra Edit: It also said (Blanking) when I did no such thing, I added on the very last line of the comment, I did not remove anything.


 * Can you give me the IP or the Article? --Karlos 20:03, 8 June 2006 (CDT)

Warcobra: 71.125.152.54 | article name is Amber Chunk User:warcobra 13:52, 9 June 2006 (EST)

I wasn't aware that the monsters needed to be added on. But I will do that, I am pretty sure it was a kurzick Warrior. And I was not able to grab a screenshot, I was just happy to have the amber at the time. Do you want me to add that on or just leave it be until I get more proof? warcobra 17:41, 9 June 2006 (EST)

Flare
For some reason, I found it funny to read "Rewritten to take out the horrific skill, Flare" in the E/any Fire Nuker change history. C'mon, Flare is wimpish, but is it really horrific?!? Those poor underdog skills of the world, beaten back again! --- Barek (talk &bull; contribs) - 22:05, 8 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Read my notes in the talk page... It's not for that build. It's the biggest crime heavy nukers make. If you're a heavy nuker, then you're not worried about a single target (especially in a party of 8 with other people). You don't have to get in the kill yourself. On the flip side, it cuase the pathetic side-effect of teaching them a habit to "spam" Flare when they are waiting for their skills to recharge. The problem with that is that Flare costs 5 energy and gives back only 1 energy. i.e. you are losing energy while waiting for skill recharge. Just a really bad idea. --Karlos 22:11, 8 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Sorry, didn't mean my comment to be taken so seriously. Like I said, I read the edit summary as humorous - calling it horrific just seemed to make me laugh for some odd reason.  I agree, it's a heavilly abused skill - especially in earlier quests of Prophecies where it's possible to get away with it at least through Kryta, by which time the bad habit is hard for many to break out of using.  If they really want to do damage while waiting for skills to recharge, in the long run Conjure Flame is marginally better; but personally I wouldn't bring either one.  Better to learn energy management and timing rather than either of the spamming options. --- Barek (talk &bull; contribs) - 22:23, 8 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Agreed. :) I hate Flare because it makes so many nukers in the game so lousy. When I play Fire Nuker I never ask anyone for energy, I never stop the party for energy, I just pace myself. Then you see all those nuker pinging "My energy is 11 of 85" and you see them spamming Flare. :( --Karlos 22:25, 8 June 2006 (CDT)

Games to Movies
On your user page, you mentioned that you would like to see a number of games turned into movies. Well, one of my friends recently pointed me towards this entry in IMDb. I just thought I'd let you know. --Thervold 17:01, 9 June 2006 (CDT)

moving pages
You commented ''I would recommend people use the move tag if they wanna indicate the page's name itself is in question. Qhen I looked at the page nothing told me there was any discussion about the name. I admittedly did not check the talk page, but I think I had no reason to do that.'' in justifying your move. However, I have to strongly disagree with the procedure. Moving a page haphazardly without a solid reason is not a good idea. Sure, if there is a page nameing rule that the page is breaking move it. But if you think the page is mis-named as a matter of opinion YOU are responsable for adding a Move tag. The move talk on the article you moved was already concluded and the article was moved (and thus the move template was removed from the page). Then you came along and moved it, then turned around and blamed us for it. If you were following proper procedure you would have added a move tag yourself and reopened the discussion on the talk page.

Please, dont try to pass the buck like that. Not that I mind what you moved the page to (and I dont think you should move it back) its just rude to blame us for something that squarely falls in your arena. --Draygo Korvan 11:28, 14 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I am not blaming you or anyone. You were upset that I moved the page "under the radar" and I wanted to let you know that I was not aware of any sonar emissions. I did nothing wrong to try and shift blame. How do you expect me to know there is a controversy about the name if there is no indication in the article. What you are saying now is that there was no controversy about the name and that the debate was resolved and the former name chosen. What I will say to you is that obviously that debate went wrong somewhere because everyone NOW thinks the name I moved it to makes more sense. Even though that name (or something similar to it) was proposed in your vote. I don't get that at all.
 * In general, if an article is clearly misnamed (in my own little view of the world), I will move it unless I see a move/delete tag. If the article is misnamed but attached to a large legacy, I will discuss it. If the article is moved by someone else and I think the old name was better, I will say it in the talk page. If the article was poorly moved to a new name, I will revert. This is the procedure I am following. Slapping a tag on everything that needs to be done slows everything done. Use move tags if the proposed move is not very certain. --Karlos 11:38, 14 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I'm saying that it was previously moved, thus you should have commented on the talk page. If you checked the history, you would note that your move would be the second move in a period of 24 hours. --Draygo Korvan 11:42, 14 June 2006 (CDT)


 * * sigh* I was unaware of the move or the discussion. Even though I watch the Recent Changes page very religiously, I just missed it. I don't know how. So, when I came across the page for the first time, I thought this is what it was named. I didn't see any tags implying any debate and didn't know it was recently moved. Had I known of either I would have left a comment in the talk page. This would fall into a "not so important move" and "a move that is being discussed" but I was unaware of this. --Karlos 11:48, 14 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Thats my point, how are we supposed to let you know that it was recently moved? What sort of tags should I leave on the page to tell you that the article was recently moved? Should I comment out the move tag? Would you even see that? I am not upset about the move, but I want to head off an issue that could be far more controversial in the future. --Draygo Korvan 11:52, 14 June 2006 (CDT)


 * My comment about putting a tag was because I thought you were complaining (with the radar comment) that I moved it while a debate was GOING ON. So, I was saying how was I supposed to know that. But what you are saying now is that after a decision was made, I came in and did my own thing. Well, that was becaus eI had no idea a debate was made. I do not just go change things that people vote on, I was unaware. --Karlos 11:55, 14 June 2006 (CDT)


 * And I'm saying is that you shouldn't be advocating a double standard. Unless a page breaks the GW:ULC, is obviously mis-spelled, or breaks some other guildwiki policy - I dont think the page should be moved without discussion. In this case, you should have added a move tag yourself to the page, which would averted this thing entirely. Obviously Guildwiki lacks a policy on this matter. --Draygo Korvan 12:04, 14 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I don't see a problem really, but I don't have energy for this. If you want to devise a Guildwiki article moving policy, by all means. I think it is overkill, I think 99% of the moves done are responsible and agreeable and I think we have better things to do. The "move" tag is a new invention to me. You'll notice I am old school and when I want to move an article I suggest that in the talk page. So, if the move tag has been adopted as a standard, that's news to me. --Karlos 12:08, 14 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I'm confused, you said: "I would recommend people use the move tag if they wanna indicate the page's name itself is in question. " and "I admittedly did not check the talk page, but I think I had no reason to do that." and now you say " The "move" tag is a new invention to me. You'll notice I am old school and when I want to move an article I suggest that in the talk page.". Which is it?--Draygo Korvan 12:12, 14 June 2006 (CDT)


 * What are you confused about? If people want to indicate the article name is disputed (at the time I thought you were saying it was), then they should certainly mark the article with some marker. In the second sentence, I am saying I personally don't really use it that much and when I want to suggest a move, I just put a note in the talk page. Do I need to explain to you the difference between "article name disputed" and "suggest a move"? --Karlos 12:17, 14 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Nope still confused, because I still see the double standard. My guideline on when an action would be deemed acceptable or not is simple: If an anon user can do it, and no one would revert it or question it, then it is fine to do it autonomously. Otherwise, because guildwiki is a community project, the community should get a chance talk about it. I am also confused in your reasoning here. In the discussion here I understand that:
 * If you have a dispute with the word please in the article name, by your admission here you should post it in the talk page. However in the talk page of the article you moved, you said you did not feel like you needed to view the talk page. --Draygo Korvan 12:31, 14 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Weeee. Let's keep going in circles: I moved it because I thought it was a straight forward move and I thought no one would object to it. Guess what? Turns out I was right. Now, my point about the move tag is, if the contributor feels the move is questionable or knows there is a debate about the name, then they should just put a tag and talk about it. My personal tendency is to just talk about it.
 * Also: I categorically disagree with your assessment that the standard of what a seasoned contributor to the wiki can do (let alone an admin) is the same as that of an anonymous user. That's not even true on Wikipedia. The good old "Be Bold" rule says I don't have to timidly ask before any change I want to make.
 * Again: The whole thing is a misunderstanding. I did not know there was any debate on the name and had I known you can be sure I would have posted a request on the talk page. --Karlos 19:19, 14 June 2006 (CDT)

For your consideration
Don't know if you're at all interested in this, but I'd appreciate your feed back here about this. --Rainith 00:42, 15 June 2006 (CDT)

Congratulations!
You have just broken GW:1RV. &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 20:44, 15 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Heh heh, I was going to post "fight, fight, fight" on the talk page when Stabber first reverted but decided that I'm slightly more mature than that (not much more mind you). Maybe I should have :D I'm not sure if I should treating this more seriously but hey, low wikistress means I'm seeing the humous side at this point. --Xasxas256 20:50, 15 June 2006 (CDT)


 * You can't RV an edit of a fellow contributer who has been around for a reasonably good amount of time and NOT explain it and expect me as an admin to hold it. So, three things happened here:
 * Karlos, the contributor, made an edit.
 * Stabber, the fellow contributor, RVed and didn't explain why (heh, I recall the heated debate that admins should not be able to revert without explaining, yet, y'all seem fine with doing ityourselves).
 * Karlos, the Admin, saw that and was like: What the...? And so, Karlos the Admin, viewed the edit in quesiton, saw that the edit made sense and the RV didn't, RVed Stabber's unexplained (and against policy) RV, and asked Stabber to explain or not RV.
 * Now, explain yourself on the talk page there. --Karlos 20:55, 15 June 2006 (CDT)

The update revert war
Karlos, I'm sure you're aware that I am not one to beat around the bush, so I am going to say straight up what is on my mind: The revert-war on the update article was extremely poor judgement on your part, in direct violation of a policy that it is your responsibility as an admin to form and uphold, especially by setting a good example. For a user, that might be acceptable and even excused. But for an admin, who has been shown the trust and support of the entire community, that is simply not good enough.

On a side note, I agree with your reason for doing the revert and I understand (although don't agree with) your tendency to value long-time contributors much more highly on conflicts than new users. And I encourage you to seek to have both of those opinions formed into policy through discussion. However, currently, they are not. And as such, in my mind, it is your responsibility to live up to the consensus and policies decided upon by the community, rather than your own interpretations of such. -- Bishop [ rap|con ] 05:30, 16 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Since this is not between you and me, I kept the discussion where it started, on the update article's talk page. --Karlos 07:37, 16 June 2006 (CDT)

Span frenzy
Please block 64.12.116.X and 64.12.117.X. -- 04:21, 17 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I blocked 64.12.116.0 and 64.12.117.0, hopefully that will block the whole IP range. If it doesn't work this way, somebody please tell me how to block IP ranges. :) --84-175 (talk) 04:27, 17 June 2006 (CDT)


 * It didn't work. :( No idea how to do t though. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] 04:28, 17 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Hey, it's sorted, I've posted an explanation at GuildWiki_talk:Community_Portal.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 05:08, 17 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I don't think you should have blocked 152.163.100.9, Karlos. He has not, as far as I'm aware, carried out any vandalism. I can understand why you banned him, but I think you are jumping the gun slightly :)  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 05:29, 17 June 2006 (CDT)

Nar. Either he is or he isn't the guy. If he isn't then he has issues, blocking the range for a week is not that big of a deal. Butting heads with the wiki and thinking this is a game is serious business to me. --Karlos 05:32, 17 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I, too, take it seriously, but I'm not going to get drawn into a conflict with a 14 year old. If someone vandalises something then they get banned, this I can deal with. I don't have an issue with you banning 152.163.100.0/24, he is probably the vandal. My concern is that now there are ~765 IP addresses banned from the GuildWiki (64.12.116.*, 64.12.117.*, 152.163.100.*), 255 of which have the ban message "let's play". If you were a first time visitor to the GuildWiki and you recieved a ban message saying "let's play" would you come back?


 * I know that it's unlikely a genuine contributor will arrive from that IP address range, but I think we should be careful about this, that's all.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 05:40, 17 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I see your point, However, for innocent by-standeers, the ban message does give them a way to contact admins if they get the message in error. --Karlos 06:01, 17 June 2006 (CDT)

SoC check
Next time you're in The Falls with your ele, could you see if you can find Hoss Rainswell and do an SoC check on him? I just saw him use both Healing Breeze and Ice Spikes. In fact looking at his page, it looks like there is only the one Monk skill listed, but he has a monk's blue aura. Weird. --Rainith 16:10, 17 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Hmm, I'll try and get around to it. I can run all the way to him if I have to. Problem is, I will have to kill him :). We did come across him in our Axe farming runs and he had a blue aura yet used Ice Spikes on us. We were all like, what the... --Karlos 16:19, 17 June 2006 (CDT)

just stop reverting it...
and let it be for a few hours... reversion hardly ever solves problems. - 21:11, 17 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Let me state this bluntly: Karlos needs to seriously consider resignation as an admin. His inability to think objectively or react calmly is undeniable at this point. This is his second revert war in... 3 days? Today's even began with him infringing on a user's namespace, which is in itself inexcusable. He also seems to favor excessive usage of blocking and banning -- see above comments on his blockage of entire IP ranges. Often, he uses those tools as an easy way to ensure that he gets "his way," again for example in the dispute today. To make things worse, in every single discussion I have seen him take part in, he has been arrogant, condescending and dismissive. Frequently, he claims that admins should be valued above other users, in direct contradiction of Guiding principles: Admins are just users. This disrespect of others is perhaps the most compelling reason he should be removed from authority.
 * Karlos' contributions as a user have been many, and he has proven his value in that role. However, his actions as an admin have repeatedly demonstrated that either he does not understand the responsiblities, or worse, that he operates at his own whims in spite of them. His history as a positive member of the community is being overshadowed by his failure as a sysop. He should step down.
 * -- 66.92.33.187 22:45, 17 June 2006 (CDT)


 * It's unfortunate you feel this way, however, if you wish to make a formal request for review of my actions/request for removal of my admin status, I think you should do it here: GuildWiki talk:Administrators or here User talk:Tanaric (though I believe Tanaric is away for now).
 * I never said admin edits are more valuable than anyone else and I have never practiced this. I actually challenge you to find one instance where I said (or practiced) that.
 * I have always believed that admins have more leverage and power in terms of administrative edits. No one should go into a revert war with an admin. That's preposterous. If an admin says: "Leave this article alone." Then that should be it. It's the same on wikipedia or any organization of any form. I have never limited people from diagreeing, never prevented them from saying "You know what, that policy of yours is a load of crap." And more importantly, once the disputed issue is discussed on talk pages, I will let the final decision stand be it my view that was favored or another view.
 * The one thing I need to practice is to say things in a nicer way. But I actually take my administrative powers very seriously and choose to administer them very carefully.
 * If you wish to discuss the specifics of that incident, please feel free to do so. --Karlos 23:37, 17 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I know that many people here do not like the way Karlos acts. However I don't think he is using his admin powers and status wrongly. It might be true that he acts against some wiki policies sometimes, but nothing that he does has harmed the guildwiki. He always acts in the wikis best interest. I personally don't care about the policies as long as breaking them is not causing problems to the wiki. I think Karlos has never harmed the wiki in a legal or nonlegal manner. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] 04:29, 18 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I don't think Karlos has done anything wrong here, but I don't think this situation has been handled very well. I may not be in full possession of the facts. Could someone other than Karlos or DK (I'm looking in your direction Gem, but anyone will do) provide some sort of summary of exactly what has happened? I don't want to get involved in this without understanding the full argument. If you don't want to leave the summary here you can leave it on User_talk:LordBiro. Thanks.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 08:02, 18 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I'm not fully sure about anything anymore. I just logged in and saw the proof of Stabber and DK being the same person and I'm too schocked and confused at the moment. I'll try to sort it all out later, but I haven't seen any action made by Karlos which I would critisise. If someone else can provide LordBiro with a summary, please do so. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] 08:34, 18 June 2006 (CDT)


 * The following is the rough organizations of events as I understood them:
 * It started with Deldda Kcarc going through some clean up stuff (including placing delete tags on many unused images, and appearantly some projects that Stabber started).
 * Then Karlos went to DK's talk page and had a talk regarding delete tags on Stabber-created pages. DK responded that he was merely cleaning up the namespace, and disagreement with any of the delete tags should be taken up in the respective article's talk page: The conversation.
 * Karlos: Intention here was actually to protect Stabber work from what I thought was an attemt by Deldda to get rid of some of her work now that he feels she is gone. The marking of List of skill anomalies as unused and abandoned (when its history is so full of recent edits and it was recently featured on Guru) was over the top.
 * Later DK essentially blanked that section (including Karlos, Gem, and part of his own comments), except the note saying to discuss deletions on their own pages.
 * Karlos created an article User:Deldda Kcarc/Track record which contains what was deleted. DK responded with a blank + delete tag, and the two of them reverted each other for a few times (plus some talking on the talk page).  Karlos banned DK, and the revert war turned into Karlos vs multiple IPs that Karlos probably banned (didn't keep track of the ban record).
 * Karlos: Actually there was not much of a revert war. I placed the deleted discussion in the sub-page with a note saying it should be kept somewhere even if he doesn't like it. He reverted, I said he should not do so again, and kept his delete tag (because he had every right to request deletion), he blanked the page again and I banned him for 2 hours so that he can cool it off. Much of the reversions afterwards were by anonymous IPs implying it was him.
 * At one point I deleted User:Deldda Kcarc/Track record, partly to stop a revert war that I find ridiculous, and partly because I don't think Karlos has a right to create articles under another user's namespace. Karlos later restored the deletion and moved it outside of DK's user namespace, to Deleted/Deldda Kcarc talk (the history of this article includes the revert war before the article was moved; the talk page is also moved).
 * Karlos: The deletion was a very strange move. 1) It was direct intervention without even dicussing the issue and 2) my issue of the thread not being lost was not even addressed. I felt it was very improper of an admin to just jump into the work of another admin without even as much as saying a word to him. In general, I believe PanSola's intervention, though well-intentioned, was poorly informed and poorly executed. Deleting the page in question in the middle of a dispute without talking to both sides will not solve anything. Discovering half way through an intervention that there was a ban in place for an hour does not help either.
 * At one point after DK got banned, anon IPs blanked and put delete tags on his user page and user talk page. Not realizing DK was banned at the moment, I reverted both pages with the reason that only the actual user should be the one blanking their user pages.  KD's user page and user talk page then turned into a revert war between anon IPs (re-blanking + delete tags) and Karlos (who restored to my reverts).  Additional bans on IPs might have been made by Karlos, and Karlos later protected both articles.
 * Karlos: At that point, I was carrying out what I thought was PanSola's issue of preventing an anon from editing the article until the registered user comes to edit his own page. After a few bouts I just protected the page against anonymous edits. I did not know that PanSola did not know what was going on. :)
 * At one point after DK got banned, the Community expectations was edited by anon IP with a rather bitter tone about admins powers. the bitter edit.  This was reverted by Karlos without furthur incident.
 * I might have missed a few stuff, and some descriptions might not be completely accurate, but this is as far as I can describe the main turn of events in the incident. - 09:23, 18 June 2006 (CDT)


 * (To Gem's post) I feel the harm he causes is indirect. I know that I, personally, become more reluctant to participate in a wiki every time a poor administrative decision is made. After all, what happens when it is one of my edits that is deemed "unworthy"? Conversely, of course, the volume and quality of constructive contributions to the site is encouraging to me -- but different people may not be as optimistic. Neither will many of them be as vocal; the more obvious solution is to just leave. A wiki's strength is its users, and so anything which deters newcomers should be a matter of grave concern. -- 66.92.33.187 21:21, 18 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I challenge the concept of administrative edits -- what you consider as administrative edits are edits where, from my perspective, edits that are of equal level as other user edits, but which you think have more leverage and power. Any edits I have made in reverting or attemptting to moderate discussions since becoming an admin, I would've made them anyways even if I were just a regular user.  Thus, from my perspective, your banning for the reason that the user in question reverted your "administrative edit" was uncalled for, and I disagree with its justification. - 04:45, 18 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Then you and I have orthogonal views on this matter. You're saying that, let's say there is a revert war between two users, and you step in and say "Ok, stop" that if either of them RVs your edit you would just let it go? Say, ok, they have a right to edit my edits?
 * The concept of an administrative edit is clear and is there. You may choose to say I will not exercise my power in this incident because it bring about more good, or for whatever reason. However, if you're saying that an Admin can be reverted on administrative requests (don't edit this page, don't revert, don't overwrite this image, ...) then you and I see the role and power of an admin quite differently. --Karlos 05:07, 18 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Indeed we do disagree and see things differently. If there is a revert war going on, and someone reverted a request of mine asking them to stop the revert war, I would treat it exactly the same manner as if another user (non admin) has stepped in to ask people to stop the revert war, and get reverted.  Would that have resulted in a page protection or banning of the revert war participants, that depends on the circumstances.  However, any random user, even an anon, stepping in and telling people to stop the revert war are, from my perspective, of the exact same level and value compared to an edit by me to tell people to stop the revert war.  Any user, even anon, saying "don't revert / don't edit this page / don't overwrite this image / ..." do have, from my perspective, the exact same weight/value compared to an admin.  It needs to be backed by sound reason/logic for other people to accept it. - 05:18, 18 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I look at this just as a police officer. A police officer does not have unlimited power, but there is still a basic assumption in the system that an officer uses his powers responsibly, and another assumption that for an officer to be effective, he needs to have some authority in the street. Therefore, if an officer tells you that you cannot go into a street at this time, you have to listen to him. Does not matter how much you like the street or how much you think it's your right to go into the street. If you even disagree with his reasoning, you need to listen to him. If you break his order, he has the right to arrest you. Resisting arrest in it-self (even if you are innocent) is a charge. All this power is not so that cops can push people around, but because in order for them to be able to resolve disputes they need to have this kind of authority.
 * Likewise, if an admin steps into a situation and says "Freeze!" then everyone should freeze. Anyone breaking that command risks to destabilize the whole situation. The admin should have the powerto neutralize that person.
 * Now of course, I know that it was Stabber, which actually changes a few things. Having just butted heads with Stabber a few days earlier, I would have actually let him/her have the final word and left a note on your talk page to intervene. I would not have banned Stabber two days after I had a run-in with her/him. In the end, placing the page in that user's space was not the right place. I guess that's what you get for having sockpuppets. --Karlos 05:33, 18 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Again, all of Karlos' above comments confirm the fact that he does not believe himself subject to the same rules as everyone else. He also obligingly provides an example of his childishness in the last two lines, which read like: "OK, I was wrong... but it was his fault!" My initial concerns still stand. -- 66.92.33.187 21:21, 18 June 2006 (CDT)


 * You counter arguments with jabs at my personality. "He is childish" "He considers himself above other people." I will not bother with this. If you are expecting me to step down based on that crap, I will not. So, your best bet is to join Deldda Kcarc and his many personas (if you are not one of them) on the Community Portal talk page in his request for my demotion. Because I will not cater to this style of discussion. --Karlos 21:28, 18 June 2006 (CDT)


 * So you counter attack with a sockpuppet accusation, nice. Frankly, you seem a little tense lately (or maybe it's just me). Go kill some noobs in RA, maybe it'll help you relax. :) --Theeth (talk)   21:34, 18 June 2006 (CDT)


 * This is a static IP, based in Los Angeles, which I have had for quite some time. But you can still consider my opinions "crap" if you wish. -- 66.92.33.187 21:44, 18 June 2006 (CDT)

Some rules lawyering is needed here. Whatever Karlos' actions in the recent debate may have been, they are in line with Administrators. In particular, He has been accused of violating policies, but as a matter of fact he did not violate any stated policies of the GuildWiki. With respect to repercussions, if Karlos does not wish to resign, there are no remedies except to appeal to Gravewit and Nunix to remove him from office. Users and sysops are not given the power to demand or request demotion. Karlos has stated that he will not resign. Therefore, the matter is closed.
 * He is allowed to ban users at will. It is only a matter of courtesy that sysops will not ban users they are directly interacting with, but sysops are not required to be courteous. Note: we don't have the equivalent of WP:CIVIL.
 * He is allowed to delete pages at will. I read this as extending to protection also, though it is not explicitly stated in the policy (and the policy should be clarified). Although sysops are discouraged from doing so without consensus, there is no prohibition against it.
 * He is allowed to counteract other administrators. The reverted administrative action was the deletion of that page by PanSola (if I understand the timeline right). The onus is therefore on PanSola not to re-delete, not on Karlos to abide by PanSola's action.

To summarize: if you started on this wiki unaware of these policies, then the blame isn't with Karlos. Arrowsmith 21:46, 18 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I actually didn't mind him restoring my delete, as he then moved it elsewhere and redeleted the article. What was deleted could've been otherwise retreived from the history of the User talk page, but it was simpler to undo my delete, move, and redelete.  AND the two of us discussed it (he was faster than me, but I would've posted something on his talk page regarding why I deleted it if he didn't initiate the conversation first).  Thus I consider the example cited in the third bullet above invalid. - 22:05, 18 June 2006 (CDT)

my comments on administrative edits
Karlos, I think my comments on administrative edits should remain here, instead of being moved to Community talk. It was a direct response to what you wrote above, and has nothing to do with the discussion about demotion (though issues brought up there do intersect with here somewhat). - 08:20, 18 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Ok, move what you want here. I thought we were having the same discussion in two pages. --Karlos 10:04, 18 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Well, I would've moved the entire paragraph you moved away back here. And then, to have things make sense, the follow up three paragraphs (including two of yours) would also be moved here too.  Wanna check about that before I move. - 10:19, 18 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I'd say copy it then (because Xasxas voiced his opinion there and he had the same concern). Copy the parts you deem relevant here and delete this part. --Karlos 10:23, 18 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Moved back here. Not sure about the deletion, so I just splitted a new section off. - 19:39, 18 June 2006 (CDT)

Really really really excessive compulsive request
Hey something really bugs me about the Chat window page, please please please could you change Image:Chat_team.jpg from "hello" to "Hello". It drives me crazy that its different from all the rest...  --Jamie  04:55, 21 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Heh. I will when the game is back up. :) Kyle needs the action. :) --Karlos 05:06, 21 June 2006 (CDT)


 * THANK YOU!!! lol... --Jamie [[Image:Jamie.jpg|24px|Here me ROOOARRR!!! (Talk Page)]] 05:07, 21 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Just a reminder --Jamie [[Image:Jamie.jpg|24px|(Talk Page)]] 00:47, 1 July 2006 (CDT)


 * And a further reminder. Don't let the citizenry down, Karlos! :) &mdash;Tanaric 06:47, 28 July 2006 (CDT)

ward
I thought the actual skill type is "Ward Spell" as opposed to "Ward". I thought someone even reprimanded me about it when I thought it was just "Ward"... This is with respect to the edits you made to the individual skill templates. - 08:36, 22 June 2006 (CDT)


 * As I said in y reasoning for the move: We have kept Enchantment and Hex in their respective locations and not in Enchantment Spell and Hex Spell (which are redirects). Why would we break that for Wards? I don't mind if we move all three one way or the other (I think without spell is better). But to move one this way and keep the other the other way is wrong. Right? i.e. If we want to move Ward to Ward Spell, we have to decide that we are moving all "X Spell" references to "X Spell" instead of just "X." --Karlos 15:46, 22 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Right now what we use for skill types for a skill is different from what we do for articles. Pick any random hex or enchantment spell, and see if their skill type say Hex/Enchantment or Hex Spell/Enchantment Spell.  So now we have a second level of inconsistency... - 16:07, 22 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I don't care about ward vs. ward spell articles, but the skill type must be ward spell. --68.142.14.37 17:44, 22 June 2006 (CDT)


 * And the categories say "Enchantment Spells" instead of "Enchantments." Champion! I suggest starting a discussion on one of the style and formatting pages. I believe there was a thread talking about this before. --Karlos 19:45, 22 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I'm almost certain all the skill pages match the game type exactly (besides the wards Karlos changed, heh). --68.142.14.40 20:00, 22 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Yeah, I'll revert those. --Karlos 20:07, 22 June 2006 (CDT)

Star Sentinel skill icon revert?
I was under the impression that we were changing all used skills to use the skill icons, but I noticed that you reverted that change in Star Sentinel. I just wanted to check the reasoning for removing the skill icons, did I miss something? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:23, 25 June 2006 (CDT)

Moreover, this was an RV without any explaination. When the history doesn't show any obvious vendalism or whatnot, I think it'd be nice if people doing RVs included reasons in the edit note. --Theeth (talk)   21:28, 25 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Old votes &mdash; Galil  21:40, 25 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I was reverting the second edit that Anon did. The first edit he put the skill icons, the second edit, he put the word "Elite" next to the elite. That's against what we agreed upon. I was reverting that. For some reason (and it just happened now again), the revert through rollback just reverted to an earlier version. I rolled back to the version with the skill icons and no "Elite" and it rolled back one extra. Just now, I rolled back my revert up to that middle version and it just rolled back my RV and went to the version witht he word "Elite." No idea what's going on. --Karlos 21:44, 25 June 2006 (CDT)


 * That (Elite) note isn't supposed to be there? In that case there are lots of boss-pages to update, cause I've seen several with that note. &mdash; Galil  21:46, 25 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Star Sentinel aren't bosses. There was a discussion at GuildWiki_talk:Community_Portal on this. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:49, 25 June 2006 (CDT)


 * For future reference, the "rollback" feature will undo all consecutive edits made by the most recent contributor. - 21:51, 25 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Heh, easy to tell it's 5:55 am. Point taken. ;) &mdash; Galil  21:52, 25 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Instead of using the revert fonction, you can just browser to an older version, hit edit and then save page, writing the RV comment manually. This is probably safer. :) --Theeth (talk)   21:57, 25 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Hmmm, wow, been an admin for 10 months and I never knew that. That explains some weird things that have happened in the past. Thanks Pan. Theeth, when you get to my age, you become a "seasoned" contributor. One meaning that carries is: "Lazy contributor" :) --Karlos 22:02, 25 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Actually, only 264 days. Not that I'm counting.  --68.142.14.40 04:19, 26 June 2006 (CDT)


 * You're right. October to June is 8 not 10 months. --Karlos 04:22, 26 June 2006 (CDT)

The Deep question
You commented you disagreed with the opening of the doors once the monsters around the Aspects are defeated. It's actually a true statement. -Gares 16:17, 26 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I seem to recall it was after killing the aspect itself, but I had no solid recollection, this is why I did not remove it or even question it until I did the Deep. Haven't been there in over a week, both the Deep and Urgoz are growing very old very fast. --Karlos 16:56, 26 June 2006 (CDT)

SS Neco points
As this is your build, I'll ask you. N/Me_SS_Nuker had 205 attibute points required so I dropped down blood magic to 3 (as it was the easiest way to get back under 200 points. If this isn't correct can you fix it? Thanks. --Xasxas256 22:47, 27 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Thanks. That was [the original plan], it must have gotten jumbled when the basic SS necro was put on top and this was pushed as an Illusion heavy build. Attributes were being changed back and forth. --Karlos 23:00, 27 June 2006 (CDT)

heavy nuke
you voted "The Big Duh. :)" on Talk:E/Me Heavy Nuker. what does that mean? --one confused Honorable Sarah 09:25, 29 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Seems like he wanted to vote for and put it in the wrong spot =X --Draygo Korvan (Yap) 09:27, 29 June 2006 (CDT)
 * i've been staring at it for three days, and i still can't ponder it out. is there something i should fix? was it a vote for in the wrong spot? am i so dense that i'm the only one who doesn't understand? every time i look at the talk page, i get the dazed halo.--Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 09:34, 29 June 2006 (CDT)
 * You gotta wait till he gets around to fixing it himself. Moving his vote for him would be fraud. --Draygo Korvan (Yap) 09:37, 29 June 2006 (CDT)
 * i wouldn't move it even if i understood it, which i don't. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 09:46, 29 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Sorry about that, put the vote in the wrong spot. Y'all don't use line spacing, so Unfavored was smushed with your own vote. So I blame you Sarah. :) --Karlos 10:56, 29 June 2006 (CDT)

Phantom chests
Have you been to UW recently? After a few trips of clearing all of the Labyrinth, Forgotten Vale and Ice Wastes, I have only seen one Phantom Chest, when it normally was 2-3 per trip. Have the chests really been 'nerfed' or is it just my bad luck? -- 23:59, 30 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Me thinks it's your luck. I have been to the UW several times in the past week for different reasons (a friend needing ectos for armor, another testing a build, me testing Spirit Bond), and the same chest in the Ice Wastes keeps popping up in the usual places. Was gold most of the time too. :) --Karlos 00:54, 1 July 2006 (CDT)


 * My friend just reminded me of another one we saw on the same trip that we saw the first one. Both were purple. It must be my luck then. :( --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] 01:55, 1 July 2006 (CDT)

Curiousity killed the cat
I have certain Wikians on my friends list just in case I can't get any Alliance members to do the tedious tasks I do. I check my friends list regularly, to see who is online in the Alliance for any troublemaking we may cause. Anyway, I notice you on from time to time, not a lot (I'm EST), but I see you are blowing the titles away, already having 4/5 for Kind of a Big Deal. I have to ask where do you find the time, cause I never see you on much. I am on from 6:30pm - 11:30pm M-Th and F-Sun all day long. I've seen the "15 hour, time to take a break" msg come up more than enough times during the weekend. :P As the title states, I am a curious cat. -Gares 08:07, 3 July 2006 (CDT)


 * Glad to be on your N list. :) Umm, I am usually on from 7-8 PM (PST) till 2-3 AM (PST) depending on my work schedule. I usually sign off around the same time Gem and Skuld get on. :) On the weekends, I am on most of Sunday during the summer, but not during the school year. Yesterday for example, I was on from about 1 PM all the way till 2 AM. :) Right now I am going out to work parking my ele on the rings :) so you'll see me "Away." Feel free to message me when you see me on-line. My other chars will all be making a raid on Luxon lands soon to uncover that part of their map, so I could party with you in your turtle infested frozen waters. I never imagined I would be scarce to find in-game. :) --Karlos 15:14, 3 July 2006 (CDT)

Urgoz
Hurrah for error7's and tanking ritualists! No better way to start the day. :) --Dirigible 03:51, 13 July 2006 (CDT)


 * That was the end of a 50k faction farming day for me... Quite depressing. :( Thanks for the run though, Royal Beast was right, we should never have gone for that chest. :) --Karlos 05:40, 13 July 2006 (CDT)

Re: Kurzick-Luxon border
It really makes no difference to me if we keep Kurzick-Luxon border over Alliance border. But, as the two articles were identical prior to your most recent re-write, it would be cleaner to move the contents of Alliance border over to Kurzick-Luxon border, rather than having two nearly identical articles. I previously had kept Alliance border as all the links were to that one, but those can be changed. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:18, 18 July 2006 (CDT)


 * I think this comment is a little dated after I completed all I set out to do. Do you still have concerns after I finished changing the links and rewriting the article? --Karlos 20:20, 18 July 2006 (CDT)
 * None, I deleted the Alliance border article, and moved it's talk over to Kurzick-Luxon border so that the original discussions wouldn't be lost. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:22, 18 July 2006 (CDT)

Unanswered question regarding Bound spirits
I asked it twice (in slightly different ways) on the bound spirits talk page, but never got your attention there )-:

Regarding "my objection to that is that the stupid game designed chose to name some creatures "Bound Karei" (instead of Shiro'ken Karei") and "Bound Monk" (instead of "Shiro'ken Monk")", do you consider the "Blah Ancient Blah Blah" bosses to be Shiro'ken because of their looks, or do you consider them to be non-Shiro'ken bound spirits because of their name? - 22:02, 23 July 2006 (CDT)


 * I consider them to be bound spirits because of their drops and because of their nature, just like the construct bosses. --Karlos 23:07, 23 July 2006 (CDT)

Battle against Shiro
I have a few questions conserning Shiro and the battle against him and I think you are the best to answer them. Questions conserning skills can be found at Talk:Meditation of the Reaper and Talk:Battle Scars. Also: In some parts of the wiki it is said that the bound things give a morale boost, in some parts it is said that they don't. Do they? -- (talk) 05:31, 27 July 2006 (CDT)


 * Bound do give moral boosts. -Gares 06:05, 27 July 2006 (CDT)


 * They do give a morale boost. Gares is correct. Your main problem as I see it is that Shiro's regular attacks do anywhere between 70-160 dmg (to my ele). So I guess maybe 50-110 damage to your ranger. And he has a chance to double strike. And if he puts on Impossible Odds then it becomes a massacre. I don't see how your touch rangers can survive the damage output he deals out. Even if Battle Scars does not trigger (I expect it won't) and even if you can get him out of the meditation quickly enough (hard with the Ranger celestial skill being a defensive one), the longer the battle gets, the greater the chances of Shiro obliterating your group. This has been my experience. If you can find a way to Prot Spirit yourself (maybe a third player), then maybe you have a chance, cause then the life stealing you're doing would be able to catch up to his massive hits. --Karlos 19:25, 27 July 2006 (CDT)


 * Maybe Greater Conflagration + anti-fire armor will help? - 20:09, 27 July 2006 (CDT)


 * I think Gem (and Tetris) plan on waiting for him to use meditation and then killing him in those 30s with life steal. --68.142.14.19 20:21, 27 July 2006 (CDT)


 * Well, to get him INTO meditation of the reaper you'd have to damage him to about 75% of his health at least and survive a few banishments in the process. He does not take damage while in the meditation, however, Life stealing DOES work. I just tried it. --Karlos 20:42, 27 July 2006 (CDT)


 * We didn't really plan on going there with only 2 touchers. I'm fully aware that he hits hard before using the meditation. Maby 2 touchers with the ranger celestial skill and a prot spirit spamming monk will be able to survive long enough to get him into meditation and then... --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 05:50, 28 July 2006 (CDT)

Southern Shiverpeak images
I flagged two images for deletion that you appear to have been involved in, but that I can't find in-use currently on the wiki. They are: They're some of the larger images in the database, so if okay I would like to delete - but I wanted to confirm with you that they are not in use. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 10:00, 29 July 2006 (CDT)
 * Image:Map Southern Shiverpeaks (optimized).jpg
 * Image:Map Southern Shiverpeaks.jpg


 * I deleted the big one and put the smaller one in Shiverpeak Mountains. --Karlos 13:28, 29 July 2006 (CDT)

Major rewrite of Elona
Due to hard evidence from the PvP weekend, I have re-separate the Elona article in a similar manner to my last restructuring of it. Since you were the one who held strong objections and reverted my restructuring, you might want to talke a look and neutralize anything POV I accidentally overlooked. - 20:31, 31 July 2006 (CDT)


 * Unless I am looking at the wrong article, it's not that big of a rewrite. I would have waited till we actually know what Elona is exactly, but it's fine by me. Thanks for dropping a note. --Karlos 01:44, 1 August 2006 (CDT)

Revertion Comment
Hi! I've noticed that you (and others) put a certain text thingy when ou revert stuff - is there a hidden 'revert edit' button that automatically does that, but isn't called what you think it would be, or do yuo just type that out every time? (talk) 16:26, 1 August 2006 (CDT)
 * remember admins have special magic that we mortal users are not privy to. probably among those is a rollback feature. i've heard Skuld refer to it at least once. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 16:34, 1 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Sarah is correct, it's called rollback, admin only - 16:35, 1 August 2006 (CDT)
 * ahh...Evil Dark Mages with their strange Magicks... [[Image:ST47logo.jpg|User:ST47|50px]] (talk) 16:44, 1 August 2006 (CDT)


 * The Rollback button appears in the versions comparison page. When you click on two versions to compare, a very juicy tempting button will appear next to the new version inviting you to exercise your awesome powers and totally pwn that user's contribution. Very few of us resist. :) --Karlos 17:15, 1 August 2006 (CDT)

Now I remember why I stopped editing articles...
...nothing makes sense anymore, and my head is starting to hurt. There are more templates than text in half of 'em, it seems! &mdash;Tanaric 06:10, 2 August 2006 (CDT)


 * I fought valiantly to keep this wiki noob, ;) er... Tanaric-friendly but I have been losing more battles every day. Was a time when something like the weird skill templates would never have been approved. This time is long gone it seems. I had a fit about it, people put it to vote and my objection did not garner enough interest. I have had 2 users approach me in game saying they can't add content cause they don't get how to add it. Yet, everyday, more and more complex boxes and modules and templates are developed.
 * You'll notice I myself have not been editing much. It's getting harder and harder for me to associate with the way everything is being uber-automated. Slowly, the wiki is being transformed into a site where a collection of elite editors provide content and a large number of users just "consume." The problem I have is the editors don't seem to mind that, whereas the "old school" editors knew such a thing was very bad. Used to be a time when I would come across this NPC in a town or monster in an area and I would say, someone will grab his info and put it into the wiki. This is not as true now. The elite missions are still missing a ton of info which no one has provided over 3 months. That makes me believe there are barriers in people's minds.
 * Anyways... I'm not sure what to do about it. If you have any ideas, let me know. --Karlos 07:25, 2 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Since I added my email contact information to the sidebar, I've been getting about 3-4 messages a day. Many are to the tune of "I want to add this, but I don't know how." I'd really like to gut this place and simplify it, but we'd have a war on our hands.


 * I wonder how server performance would change if we got rid of all these templates. &mdash;Tanaric 11:27, 2 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Although the templates may be useful (progression, anyone?) and I'm able to edit without a great deal of trouble, I definately agree that having templates all over the place causes problems. The Wiki is much easier to maintain with templates, but more difficult to expand. - Greven 11:42, 2 August 2006 (CDT)


 * There are two specific situations where I would support the use of template/module:
 * Where we have tables with fancy formatting (Beast Info, for example), then I strongly believe it's better to have use template as opposed to each beast article having the raw wiki code for the beast box. Whether we want to have those boxes in the first place is a battle I do not recall ever took part in (though my memory could be wrong).  We had skill boxes, beast boxes, and item boxes all over the place before I got here.  The only box I ever invented from thin-air was the location box, the rest I simply took part in revamping/redesigning.
 * Where a certain information is to appear in multiple places, I would support the use of module (that has an edit link directly to it) so the information is centralized and easily kept up to date by only having one thing to edit, as opposed to remembering to edit 5 of them and forgetting another 3 existed.
 * - 12:38, 2 August 2006 (CDT)
 * BTW, just to add, when I was a n00b contributor to GuildWiki, it was things like the Beast Info boxes that kept me away from wanting to add information, as opposed to the modules used in Collector listing articles. The problem for me personally was that I was too lazy to want to remember the template syntax, and too lazy to want to open up another beast article to copy the box from to edit with.  When I was in better moods, I would just dump the information in plain text and let Karlos clean up after me. d-: - 12:46, 2 August 2006 (CDT)
 * No doubt about it the GWiki is more difficult to edit now. I end up spending a lot of time these days just helping users out which I don't mind, but it is symptomatic of it being more difficult for a new user to just dive right in. For me, I think that one of the problems is that our templates themselves normally have very little documentation, it's often really time consuming for me to sit there and work out what a template it doing. It's ok when they're explained on a S&F guide (like the beastinfo box) but many are not. Templates seem to call a dozen other templates which then also call others and you have to open each template and try to read the code to work out what it's doing. Although I don't do any programming any more I find it interesting to "shake it, pull it apart, work out what it does then put it back together and finally use it" but I'm sure not everyone has the time or inclination to do this. I'd like to see templates have some appropriate documentation in the talk page saying what they do, it's a pain but when you write something here, there's lots of other people who might use it. Template:skill bar is an example of a really good template, it looks nice, it's easy to use and is explained in a S&F guide, temlates like that are good for the wiki IMO.


 * Even ignoring the whole proliferation of templates issue, new users still end up making the same mistakes. I've had a help guide on my user page for ages and often suggest to new users that they read it but they rarely seem to, instead preferring to ask "how do I do this" (which is explained on my user page) or just stuffing up anyway. A while ago we had this discussion, I don't think the changes to MediaWiki:Edittools did enough and I definitely don't think this: Editing guide is up to scratch, fixing it would help new users a lot I'd say. --Xasxas256


 * New users are allowed to make mistakes. It's far better to have information added that's in an unusual/atypical format than not to have new information added at all. Right now, we've scared away a ton of the one-off contributers&mdash;this is a Bad Thing. &mdash;Tanaric 04:27, 3 August 2006 (CDT)


 * I think I ranted a little above and I don't think I expressed my feelings very well :( I actually like helping out new users, I don't consider myself to be a concierge or something but I do make a conscious effort to help out our new contributors. Actually new users making a few mistakes isn't too much of a worry provided we notice those mistakes. It's not a worry because it gives more senior users a chance to "greet" new users, when I post a welcome on a user's talk page I don't know if they'll never contribute again after today but by giving them a friendly welcome they have a positive first experience which encourages them to continue helping out. Losing one time editors isn't a problem, losing the opportunity to turn a one time editor into a long term editor is. Perhaps Tanaric you were thinking that discouraging people from taking the plunge and making a first edit is bad, in which case I'd wholeheartedly agree. If over useage/overly complex templates are causing this then it's something we need to address. --Xasxas256 04:37, 3 August 2006 (CDT)

Rez
In regards to Mo/Me Boon Sheath, I think in GvG you can probably get away with no Rez Sig on monks. There isn't one on our venerable Mo/Me Boon Prot for example. In HA you might be able to but in Randoms/TAs it's harder. But generally it's hard for monks to Rez, if people are dying then they should be healing, in the time it takes to rez you may let another person die! --Xasxas256 04:47, 3 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Absolutely no reason whatsoever to not carry a res sig in TA and RA, even in HA too. In GvG you res periodically, this does not happen in the other arenas (except in one type of map). So, yeah. As long as the article lists TA as a venue for the build, then Res sig is a must. I have been burned TOO many times in RA with people who did not bring res. If you're a monk and you don't have res... Other team is down to 2 people and your team is down to just you. They would win (beat you up) if you don't res, you would win if you res. Maybe it's better to not be the first to res, but you must have a res equipped. --Karlos 18:41, 3 August 2006 (CDT)


 * I would never take a resurrect skill on a non-smiting monk in TA, HA, or GvG. At the very least, you will not see one in GvG or HA on either a high-rank/rating team.  As for RA, I'm a little biased, but you could take an empty skillbar and win close to half the time.  --68.142.14.106 18:55, 3 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Your comment is so exaggerational, I will choose to ignore it. :) Sorry. --Karlos 19:13, 3 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Whether you mean the part about signets or RA, it's true. One day I went into RA as a mesmer (to attract attention) with no skills and did nothing but kite to try to stay alive.  I won 4 of 10 games before I stopped since I didn't really want to annoy my teams (not that anyone had said anything about never seeing me use a skill).  Long ago, due to the "infuse arena" article on GWG (or was it Guild Hall?), I monked in RA with only infuse and touch and I won far more games than I lost.  RA is a cesspool of randomness.  --68.142.14.106 19:58, 3 August 2006 (CDT)


 * You keep retorting with instances. I won an RA match 2 against 4, me (Air spiking) and a monk against a full team that included a monk. Would I ever use that experience as a reference in how to win (or lose) in RA? Nope. It was a rare feat that I would never pull into an argument and say "here this proves you don't need 4 people to win."
 * Your argument above is simply saying (whether you meant it or not) that Any/Any RA Dominator should really be the only RA build article we maintain, since you CAN possibly win with that build. Just have 4 people with no skills running around, kiting damage and wanding their enemy to death. You could actually score a few wins with such a build. Would that prove anything what so ever? No. --Karlos 20:11, 3 August 2006 (CDT)
 * I'm saying that because of the randomness of what people are doing (whether from inexperience or having their own goals such as having fun or testing something), RA is almost meaningless. Yeah, you will lose a lot in RA because your team members don't have signets or don't think to use them till they're the last one left and about to die.  The point of it was more to say "don't ever argue that anything about RA applies anywhere else."  But, saying no one takes signets in GvG or HA is not anecdotal.  You will not find any team with even a moderate measure of success that takes resurrects on a monk.  This is not to say you can't take a resurrect on a monk and not suck.  It's taken as a truism that, in an organized setting, your monk will much better serve your team by using that slot to keep someone alive than by hedging his bet for when he fails.  --68.142.14.106 20:51, 3 August 2006 (CDT)

Redirects Policy
On User talk:Panther you mention "The policy is being discussed and voted on on (forever, I know). So, just set a date for the vote if you want and move on." I was under the impression that the vote is over, the only thing left is to have the policy drafted and a final discussion (or maybe another vote? is it needed?) on the wording. Or are there other discussions that I'm not seeing in GuildWiki talk:Redirects? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:07, 4 August 2006 (CDT)


 * There is a crucial problem with that vote. No policy was actually spelled out. At least I may have missed it, but when I read the vote and discussion, people just said "Yeah, don't chage it." They never said what "it" was. The only policy listed was what I listed as my perception of our policy. So, I just put that in the poicy page for now. But we never actually said: Here is a proposal of the policy, vote on it, pass, ok, put the tag on it. --Karlos 15:10, 4 August 2006 (CDT)
 * I see your point. The vote wording was specifically about anon's request to add the three types of redirects he/she had proposed, namely:
 * Synonyms (Hall of heroes -> The Hall of Heroes)
 * Plurals (Weapons -> Weapon)
 * Mixed-capitalization workaround (Amulet of the mists -> Amulet of the Mists))
 * But no vote / discussion took place to clarify our current policy on any other type of redirect. I suppose we'll need to hold additional votes to clarify the current policy.  For instance, I know that different capitalization on acronymns are currently routinely deleted, so there's already difference of opinion on that item.  --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:21, 4 August 2006 (CDT)

GuildWiki Policy
You might be interested in what I did to Policy. &mdash;Tanaric 18:07, 5 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Thank you, sir. Looks very good as does the Redirects rewrite. Well done. :) --Karlos 19:51, 5 August 2006 (CDT)

Calculating Health
Each test takes several (generally 20+) screen shots, more with larger hp targets. This would be tedious to include, so to prove my method works, how about we just meet in a scrimmage and I will run the test on you. Bring whatever HP total you would like (from 55 to 5k+ with Symbiosis). I can guest you into my guild to settle this, my IGN is Righteous Theory. Ubermancer 19:32, 31 August 2006 (CDT)

Historical articles
Hey Karlos, not sure if I should tell you since I think you'll disagree with me ;) hehe, but I just thought I would let you know that there is a discussion going on at GuildWiki_talk:Criteria for deletion that you might be interested in.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 11:57, 14 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Thanks for the note. Actually I am aware of it and I did voice my opinion in the first part. Since Fyren is on board in that discussion as well as Barek and somewhat Rainith, I think my views are well represented.
 * My current disdain for the deadly skill combo (Song of Regurgitation along with Form Committee) that is being used widely in the wiki now like IWAY in HoH makes me not want to touch this again. I am convinced, beyond any doubt that some user will come along 3-4 months from now and challenge whatever solution you guys come up with and the whole saga will continue.
 * The wiki is supposed to be based on a set of principles, not people. However, lately I have seen that it is based on people, not principles. i.e. If Karlos is not around to constantly and consistently push for more user friendly code and more data integrity then these things will get ignored. If PanSola is not on to push for the principles he cares about, no one will. It's as if the very founding principles of the wiki are not binding to anyone. Anyways, I digress. Please carry on without me. ;) --Karlos 21:31, 31 August 2006 (CDT)


 * I'm avoiding that discussion besides from pointing out problems or discussion of technical issues, heh. --Fyren 06:27, 1 September 2006 (CDT)

Currently Testing the Viability of…
Hey, could you just take a glance at the above named section on my page and just give me a quick review on my discussion page for each one? Basically this is my personal solution to the lack of comments in the untested section (I agree there should be more, but I'm getting tired of all the arguing about it, people just keep repeating the same things and nothing really gets done/decided). My hope is that by doing this and then asking people for feedback, not votes, I can get the builds perfected before the untested section and save the testers a lot of grief. So far it seems to be working, and I look forward to your help. Thanks in advance.--Azroth 23:03, 8 September 2006 (CDT) PS-Please read the previous discussions for each one as they may answer any questions that you have about the related build.

Not a fifty five arbitration.
Per his request, Requests for arbitration/Not a fifty five vs Karlos. &mdash;Tanaric 13:37, 11 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Thanks. I've looked at it. Glad we agree. --Karlos 15:44, 11 September 2006 (CDT)

To bring to your attention
GuildWiki_talk:Administrators incase you missed it :) &mdash; Skuld 13:38, 13 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Nope, I had no idea. thanks for the heads up. I put in my info, and pushed you below Rainith, alphabetically. :) --Karlos 17:44, 13 September 2006 (CDT)

"The Mists" Revert
Please explain why you reverted edits in the articel The Mists. I will wait for your reply on my talk page. I am raising this issue because you did not put any reason for your actions in the discussion page of the said article. P. Rodriguez 21:00, 16 September 2006 (CDT)


 * There is no point to putting a "citation needed" on text we ALL know where it comes from. i.e. The definition of the Mists is in the manual. So, at first I reverted because I thought our definition was true to that, then I looked it up (what I expected you to do instead of slapping a citation needed) and found that the "ether" part was not there, so I took it out and put what they had verbatim.
 * CN in this situation I think is uncalled for as the information is readily at hand. It's lazy and makes outr content seem unreliable unnecessarily.
 * I thought my second edit made it clear what I was trying to do. Go to the known text and avoid slapping atag that will stay there for God knows how long. --Karlos 21:06, 16 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Thank you, I will keep that in mind. I have placed a "Citation Needed" tag because although it is not part of the manual, it may have been announced officially by ArenaNet or NCSoft, and as of now I do not have time to scour through the Internet to verify and find appropriate sources. Although I have seen in the manual that it is not included in the text, I did not want to remove it because the original author of the article edit may have acquired it from a credible source. Please refrain from making unneccessary unexplained reverts in the future as it may create tension between you and other authors. Good day. P. Rodriguez 21:12, 16 September 2006 (CDT)


 * I appreciate your note, but it's unnecessary and uncalled for, like your CN note. I did not make an unexplained revert. I explained my revert in the next edit because as an admin, when I rollback a change it does not give me the ability to explain. So, I edited it as fast as humanly possible to explain what I was doing, at which time, you had already posted your request. I have not made an unexplained revert in ages.. Mainly since we established the policy.
 * The question with regards to the Mists article was: Was the comment about the ether important or was it better to stick to what we know. --Karlos 10:44, 17 September 2006 (CDT)

protection
Assuming you actually intended for the two pages to be protected as opposed to just placing the tags there, I went ahead and protected User:Stabber and [[User talk:Stabber]. - 03:14, 19 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Oh yeah. Sorry about that. Heh, doesn't putting the protected template make it protected? :P --Karlos 04:03, 19 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Just curious: Why did you protect these two pages just now? Did I miss something? I was under the impression that it's very calm around the whole Stabber sockpuppet drama. No need to "wake up the sleeping dog", as we say in Germany. --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 04:57, 19 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Read User talk:Stabber. Also, based on Karlos's clue that Stabber was back, I did a bit of snooping around and discovered his current personas, User:Zaishen Reject and User:ZR2. The trail wasn't hard to find since this user continues to be careless in hiding it. Also the ip 66.90.73.113, which is probably an open cgi proxy (note: not a Tor node as it stays consistent over long periods of time). This new set of identities has already been outed on User talk:Zaishen Reject by User:KittySoft; this discussion topic, unsurprisingly enough, is a war between Stabber and two admins, User:Gares Redstorm and User:Barek, for contravening policy on Feathered Longbow. User:Zaishen Reject's sole edits are to policy pages, build cleanup, and protracted debate on GuildWiki talk:Builds, where he has already staged a mini walkout. The pattern is easily and indisputably recognizable, and indeed was recognized. User:Gem remarked -- before solid proof was presented by KittySoft! -- that this person's behavior resembles Stabber's. Hope this brings everyone up to speed on the state of the drama. This is a general warning to the wiki: with Nightfall's release this fellow will be (or is) back in earnest and the drama will resume (or has resumed) where it left off in June. The dog ain't sleeping.


 * As a favor to the wiki, I will mainly quietly stalk recent changes and new users. I will only comment when I find evidence for new identities assumed by this Stabber person. I am not worried about my "credibility", as Karlos says, because I don't need any: the evidence speaks for itself and people can make up their own minds whether to welcome the new Stabber socks or not. I do however want to make it very hard for this user to simply repeat the usual shenanigans. You are right about me becoming a demon, Karlos, but I made the Faustian bargain consciously. 64.78.164.226 06:02, 19 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Ok, now you have officially truned into a "stalker." I just told you that we do not CARE and you insist on pursuing this information and harrassing people about it. You know what.. I could get all riled up and tell you that I'll ban you (and everyone of your alternate IPs, and dedicate my life to hunting down your anonymizer servers and what not), but it would be a waste of my time and probably yours. It would also signify that this fiasco is worth more than it really is.
 * So, go ahead, knock yourself out. Stalk, track, follow and build an encyclopedia of Stabber sockpuppets.
 * However, here is where I draw the line: Do NOT harass other people. Do not go flagging their user pages, do not go assaulting them on their talk pages. Wanna come here and notify me (or Tanaric or whoever) everytime you find a sockpuppet, that's fine. But, do not throw out that junk in the wiki. Otherwise, you WILL be disrupting it and we WILL be going after you, not Stabber. And if you laugh it off (just as you did on Stabber's talk page) and brag about how you can go around banning, then you are no different than the crime you are condemning. Therefore, your witch hunt will lose any meaning to observers, as will your posts. --Karlos 06:37, 19 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Come on, Karlos. I was a stalker way before this. Now, while I think you admins are hamstrung by your own policies and can't really stop me -- how easy is it to find a fresh IP again? -- I will make you this promise: when and if I need to expose anyone, the evidence should be at least as strong as the case for User:Zaishen Reject here.
 * Before I part, let me say that I do object to your speaking for the wiki. You may not care, but there are plenty who might. Observe that ZR was exposed by someone other than me, so people other than me are watching out for Stabber's reappearance. And they should be wary. You should be wary, given your history with this person. And one further point. I don't consider my actions since March to be noble or praiseworthy. Stalking a user is pretty contemptible by any standard, even when the user himself is a blight. Does my "witch hunt" have any meaning to observers? I doubt it ever did to most, and it probably no longer does to any. I hope I am not leaving you with any doubt regarding my character or motives. 64.78.164.226 07:11, 19 September 2006 (CDT)


 * This is getting worse, with the protection of the pages, can we stop all these personal attack and 'unproven insult'. The issue with Stabber should be finish with the protection of the User:Stabber. Opps, I am Cwingnam2000 and i'm in University network atm. 130.88.194.49 06:27, 19 September 2006 (CDT)


 * I already put a troll tag there, and people wouldn't stop feeding. It wasn't Karlos or the protection that woke up the horse-beaters. Thus protecting the page couldn't really make it worse that it was.  - 12:37, 19 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Opps, need to improve my puntuation and grammer. It should be a period after the getting worse, that statement is describe the problem is getting worse and the statement after that sentence is just my 2 cent saying that personal insult should be stopped and die down with the protection of the pages. -- [[Image:Ritualist-icon-small.png]] Cwingnam2000 17:35, 19 September 2006 (CDT)

Vote on builds
I want to try to get you to change your vote there. Your idea of having a time limit is valid, however both of the two proposals allow for adopting such an idea later. It is just to hard to change everything at once. If that current proposal fails, I fear that no builds policy at all will be adopted and the current state without any policy is worse than any of the proposals. --Xeeron 04:55, 20 September 2006 (CDT)

Mo/E
''*Once positioned adjacent to boss, press "C" (closest target) to make sure the boss will be the victim of sliver armor. If the boss is not the target of C, then try circling around him till he becomes the closest foe.''

Please read discription of Sliver Armor - whenever you are the target of a hostile Spell or attack one nearby foe is struck for 5...29 earth damage.. How close you are to the target has nothing to do with it getting hit. Gcardinal 09:35, 20 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Where does this say that "the nearby target will NOT be the closest target"? --Karlos 09:42, 20 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Go ahead and test it your self, it has nothing to do with closest target. I have used it for a veeeery long time and it never had anything to do with closest target. Go and test at the Isle of the Nameless. Gcardinal 09:58, 20 September 2006 (CDT)


 * It is possible that we conduct this experiment by boasting which one of us has used Sliver Armor longer (and if you look at my ele on my user page, I doubt you would say that you used it more extensively) :P, however. All I am asking is, do you know for certain that it does "not"? I have been testing this extensively these past few days (did about 2 dozen runs) and it has been holding true. However, scientifcally, I could simply be getting lucky. I am not sure how I can get the stationary armor pieces on the Isle of the Nameless to attack me, perhaps you can help there. :) I have been testing it on simple melee foes like the Undergrowths and the Kirin.
 * I would reconsider my finding if you (or anyone else) could state that you've tried experimenting and had opposite findings. --Karlos 10:17, 20 September 2006 (CDT)