User talk:Ilr8038

Main Talk
Hello, welcome to GuildWiki! Pklease sign your comments with 4 tildes like shown ~ ~ ~ ~ except without the space inbetween Lost-Blue  04:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thx for the suggestion, but I do sign every comment I make and it does indeed link to my user page. However I only time-stamp them by manually listing a Date when I believe the comment is time-sensitive. Until I see evidence that brevity is a bannable offense, I'd prefer to stick to: --ilr

Images for running guides
As part of your running guide improvement project, since you're uploading new images for them anyway, could you upload them with better names if they need it? Like the two you just did, "Firstleg.jpg" and "Lastleg.jpg", those names aren't really descriptive enough. Something like "Lion's Arch to Bergen run.jpg" and "Bergen to ToA run.jpg" would be much better (and if you can think of something even better than that, great!). And of course, tag the old images for deletion. &mdash;Dr Ishmael 05:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree too, they should have been renamed / made more descriptive. I'll be sure to do that with future updates. --ilr[[Image:Ilr_d-small.png]](03,Jan.'09)
 * Speaking of running guides, someone made a new one, Yak's Bend to Lion's Arch. Maybe you can work together with that guy. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 05:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll check it out. (I'm almost done with the last 2 and will be there soon) --ilr[[Image:Ilr_d-small.png]](03,Jan.'09)

Idea for Running guides
Might be an idea to add whether or not the run is safe for a survivor (standing at the entrance portal) since that title is a reason for many people to get run. Viruzzz 23:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Aye! I'm just about to ready to start the Guide for Drok's Run and that same thought Occurred to me last time when I had Heroes in Tow who got wiped out in Dreadnaught's Drift... Diessa & Griffon's Mouth are also kind of sketchy so I'll add a note there that the Runner would be required to bring some kind of Nuke (because the White Mantle guys at the Shrine can't fight them off alone).   Now I don't think it's Impossible to get a Survivor through Droks... I just think it would take massive coordination between Guildies to pull it off to the tune that PL'ing them in EotN instead would be much smarter... :p --ilr[[Image:Ilr_d-small.png]](11,Jan.'09)
 * adding notes on how to make it survivor safe might be going a bit far, I just meant adding a note about whether or not there are mob patrols that go past the entrance portal Viruzzz 02:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Sig/Img Fixed & Redirect added
(test test) --ilr
 * PS: The following nitpicking is out of date & and will be shoved to the bottom of the page where I don't have to look at it anymore (this page is still part of MY Dojo). Plz add any RELEVANT comments/flames about skills/spells & gaming in general in the space provided above. ...Thank You.


 * Also: Please read GW:SIGN you need to upload the dervish image under your own name.--[[Image:Gigathrash_sig_G.jpg]]ìğá†ħŕášħ  is hosting a beauty pagent! 23:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you're talking about b/c the Dervish image is Part of this site already. Infact it's pre-cached on anyone's client who uses the Quick Skill-Reference. I read the Signing page, and see no violations.  Both of you have failed to explain what the specific problems are.  Plz Elaborate better or I will simply write this off as pointless harassment.--ilr
 * The template inputs an image. And thanks to the aforementioned policy, all images in your signature must redirect to your userpage.  So you need to upload a new version of it and link it into your signature and have it redirect to you before you can use it.--[[Image:Gigathrash_sig_G.jpg]]ìğá†ħŕášħ  is hosting a beauty pagent! 23:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * K, I get that much, you're complaining that only the text portion of my sig links to me while the image auto-links to somewhere else. That is intentional.  Thanks again for the suggestion.  I'll give it the full consideration it deserves.  --ilr
 * Your not understanding, it's HAS to link to your user page or talk page. From the GW:SIGN policy page itself:

# The image file must redirect to the users user page or talk page. ''# The icon's image file should be exclusive for the signature, not shared with anything in GuildWiki. This allows for a redirect on the image file to the user page or the user talk page. Note: The image can be a duplicate of another image, if it's resized appropriately.''
 * Please either stop using the image or reupload it, if you want me to, I can reupload it for you.--[[Image:Gigathrash_sig_G.jpg]]ìğá†ħŕášħ is hosting a beauty pagent! 02:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, its too big. It can only be 50x19 pxs.--Łô√ë [[Image:Gigathrash_sig_G.jpg|Colors! ]]îğá†ħŕášħ  21:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, Let's look at my my full sig width: --ilr[[Image:Ilr_d-small.png]](xx,Jan.'09) ...Now look at yours. Notice anything?  That's right, even on the Universally most common resolution of of 1024 or lower, mine takes up HALF the space yours does.  Or oh, lemme guess, is it because it's 1 pixel too tall??  ...just fixed it.
 * Don't try common sense, the sig police have so far always proven impervious to it and can't be bribed. See User talk:Silver Sunlight and the old revisions of that sig. The 19px height rule is sensible, though, because even 20px visually disconnects the last line of any of your comments from the comment on most browsers.
 * You could try gathering consensus about changing the width rule to a "total width" rule for the signature, or simply bask in the glory that signatures images need to be even smaller on GWW. --◄mendel► 22:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I refuse to be refuted. Even if I have to be the bad guy who everyone hates, the reason the rule is 50x19 is that a line of straight text without modification is 19px high, so if you insert a 20px picture, it will create a gap in between that line and the one below it.  I don't know 100% about why it can only be 50px wide, but thats probably their to make sure people don't get really long pictures.  And I was talking only about the image, not the signature in whole.--Łô√ë [[Image:Gigathrash_sig_G.jpg|Colors! ]]îğá†ħŕášħ  22:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * *Yaaawwn* ...I don't mind Bad guys, I'm usually one of 'em. Now Tedious guys OTH.... --ilr[[Image:Ilr_d-small.png]]


 * Be glad noone noticed your current pic is 20px too wide. --- [[Image:VipermagiSig.JPG|Ohaider!]] -- (contribs) &emsp;(talk)  18:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi. You sig currently violates GW:SIGN because your image is 20px too wide- I also suspect it contains copyright violations. Please fix it... sorry. -- Shadowcrest  18:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You can suspect it all ya want, but that don't make you right... --[[Image:User_ilr_icon_L.png]]ilr[[Image:User_ilr_icon_R.png]](20,Jan.'09) **this is not a real Signature**
 * You may not use 2 images- it has to be one that is smaller than 50x19 px. --  Shadowcrest  22:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Since - When? ...and do you intend on following this through to a bitter conclusion?
 * BlastedT was before GW:SIGN was established. And yes, an ultimatum seems appropriate at this point.  Follow the regulations, or try to get them changed.--Łô√ë [[Image:Gigathrash_sig_G.jpg|Colors! ]]îğá†ħŕášħ  23:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to follow through on what I write, and I also have to enforce the policy.
 * I can't allow exceptions for anyone, because then I have to allow exceptions for everyone. Take, for example, if Entropy's sig was 1px over the limit and we decided to allow it. Then, when we tried to enforce the rule upon someone else 52px over, they'd say "well, it's only 1px, and Entropy was allowed an extra pixel, why can't I?" and so on and so on. When could we ever draw the line after that? See where I'm going with this? --  Shadowcrest  23:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) And that is why we have the 50px limit for sig image width (I wasn't here at the time, but I've read the discussion). We had to state something as a limit, otherwise we couldn't enforce anything - like if someone decided to use a 800x19px image, we'd have to allow it.  50px was chosen as a reasonable size that would allow for ample creativity of expression, while disallowing anything outrageous (i.e. 800x19px sigs).  &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 23:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I got talked to about my image name being a very common use. I hate the rules and how simple members who are NOT Areanet have to give you just a hard time about it but hey, its better to fix it rather than have all this negativity continue. You may not admit it here but this kinda stuff effects you and how you feel about the game. Just fix it bro and have a blast playing! :) This better for you mendel? --My Tv is Broken 23:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey, we are not ArenaNet, and we have no "simple" members (read GW:YAV). But this is "our" (read: the community's) wiki and we (the community) make the rules, and GW:SIGN is one of these. I already wrote this a few days ago, so let me put that in more visibly: You could try gathering consensus about changing the width rule to a "total width" rule for the signature. I know you would get some support, not least of all from me, but I am too interested in other stuff atm to start a cause that doesn't even directly affect me. Giga, too, writes that the rules are there for the changing, and those aren't empty words to appease you. Try it! (Feel free to ask me for advice on how to get that going, on my talkpage or on irc). --◄mendel► 23:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Reset indent First of all, let's take this slow and also consider the bigger picture before hitting send. Second, Hi Ish! Glad you decided to step in, I will greatly respect your opinion / guidance on this: Thanks, and here's to the Democratic process, Gentlemen... on this day of major historical Import :) --ilr(20,Jan.'09)
 * I'm happy to follow procedure → Currently that "sig" is not in violation of anything b/c it's confined to my user space.
 * Comparing Width to Height is Apples-to-Oranges from a technical standpoint
 * Again, The "have to allow exceptions for everyone" ship has already sailed, Not once but Several times. It's not a "violation" I intend to earnestly repeat, it was just to cite precedent and lack of enforcement.
 * Now let's consider what's really being enforced here by quoting "Policies":
 * " Images should be used sparingly and not be large enough to disrupt normal text spacing."
 * -again: My sig naturally conserves more space than anyone else's. Therefore it wasn't disrupting in any serious way.
 * " Emphasize content over presentation whenever possible."
 * - At what point does discussion of protocol hurt Content providers?
 * "Unsigned comments are assigned the same value as signed comments."
 * - So not doing it at all is REALLY better than doing with tiny imperfections?
 * "Use a reasonable signature."
 * - "Reasonable" is not a Scientific measurement directly convertible into an exact pixel width, any Professional designer would agree with this. While Citing an "ultimatum" for failing to meet what is clearly intended as a proximity-goal, is rather Unprofessional.  A certain individual's lack of popularity here is not 100% the fault of those who resist his methods. *wink*


 * I want to stay out of the actual policy discussion related to GW:SIGN itself, since that policy was in part targeted at me. But some stuff to consider include
 * Excluding "text-replacing" images from consideration, the "icon" type images typically increases the distance between the text before (actual post, or username) and the text after (username, or timestamp). Thus there is an argument to be made to keep the "density" of textual information within a certain range (subjective to general community standards?), instead of being too spaced out horizontally.  Obviously, this doesn't quite work as a blanket consideration that also cover users using image to carry textual data and happen to have long usernames.
 * Wiki is not a democracy d-:, despite the historic import of the date
 * If you don't sign posts, other ppl applies a template for you that can be considered as a "supplemental signature". Thus for fairness you can advocate that people not adhering to the signature formatting policy should only get their signature replaced by a genric vanilla ugly one, without other additional ramifications.  That way not signing and having a bad sig are treated equally.
 * -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 00:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You should also do your homework. Both of those users were taken to task for their unscrupulous flaunting of the policies, and they fixed their sigs. In other news, discussing violation of policy has nothing to do with content over presentation. Also, I would prefer if you did not sign your comments, because then at least you would not be breaking policy. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 06:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As to the suspected copyvio - at least for Leonidus' head, that one is in the clear; if it's not, then we already have like a dozen other such violations related to various joke skills/pages. But I am not sure what the other thing is. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 07:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The other thing is a meme response a friend of mine drew. ...but I guess some folks never heard of Parody protection &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ilr (contribs).
 * "Parody protection" may mean that you cannot be sued for it by...whoever made 300...but it probably does not qualify for fair use as specified under Template:Fair-use image or Template:Public domain image. But I want to keep the Guild Wars 300 image so I won't complain.
 * Btw, if you are going to use Template:Unsigned for your signature, it ought to be Ilr instead of . It is the difference of seeing ~ when I edit the page, and an actual signature. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 20:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)