User talk:Tetris L

Old Stuff
Old stuff has been moved to the Archive.

Category:Factions quest items
Shouldn't this be Category:Quest items (Factions)? &mdash; Skuld 02:10, 3 November 2006 (CST)


 * Hmmmm ... yes, I remember we did decide to put the campaign at the end at one point, but I don't think we followed the concept 100% strictly, at least not for categories, did we? It's fine for me either way. --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 02:16, 3 November 2006 (CST)


 * P.S.: See for example: Category:Factions quests, Category:Factions armor, Category:Factions missions, Category:Factions NPCs, ... --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 02:20, 3 November 2006 (CST)

Hmm.
I'd like to point out Xasxas isn't American. That is all. --Fyren 04:16, 21 November 2006 (CST)


 * Damn, there goes my stereotype. ;) --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 04:59, 21 November 2006 (CST)


 * Ah, I didn't notice this until after I posted :)  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 08:06, 21 November 2006 (CST)

Sorry
Yawp.. )

Sorry for unsigned talk on skill hunter.. usually, Isign but it seems that this time.. I simply forgot.. :$

Corsaire 07:11, 26 November 2006 (CST)


 * No big deal at all. Happens to me all the time. I wish there was an auto-sign option in the preferences menu. :) --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 07:21, 26 November 2006 (CST)


 * Yes, it should be.. but this is just an "education" (can't find another word in english).. :) I'm still learning how to use correctly Wiki.. ;) .. learned not long ago the benefits of the "summary" box.. :D ;) Corsaire 07:45, 26 November 2006 (CST)

games
good to see someone else convert from UT, i was a new convert in 04 =] --Fatigue 21:16, 27 November 2006 (CST)
 * yay - still more of us! I played the original UT, and UT04 (which is where I joined my current guild, many of us migrated to GW) - but I never bought UT03. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:24, 27 November 2006 (CST)
 * UT is probably the only game that had an even larger impact on my life than GW. Back then I didn't have wife and family yet, so I could spend all my spare time gaming. I was a total junkie, and I had a blast with my clan and the various leagues, websites and forums that I was involved in. I'm still not sure if I'll get UT2007 when it comes out next year. I'm afraight I'm getting too old for FPS games, my fingers too slow, my aim sucks. I don't like gettin' my ass kicked by 12 year old kids with lightning reflexes. I think a medium-paced, more strategic game like GW is more my cup of tea now. :) --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 02:21, 28 November 2006 (CST)

L
Is it just coincidence that you're sitting in an "L" shape!? :P I take it that it's more than just a name, it's a way of life!!! ;) --Xasxas256 03:25, 28 November 2006 (CST)

Just so you know
Shade Murtagh was warned for his behavior on Talk:Heart of Abaddon. Though he dismissed it, his behavior has not gone unnoticed. &mdash; Gares 12:23, 7 December 2006 (CST)
 * He has been noticed by several people. I spotted his behavior over a week ago, and still re-check it periodically.  --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 12:33, 7 December 2006 (CST)
 * I wasn't sure how to reply, or if at all. He's obviously not the sharpest tool in the shed, but other than that mostly harmless, so I'll let it slide. Time will show if he turns into a real troll. --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 14:39, 7 December 2006 (CST)

Check that out!
It seems that "Barek" has decided to delete my entire article. So how many people are there in the little exclusive club that are actually allowed to contribute? &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bale Thorn (contribs) 17:24, 14 December 2006.
 * All are welcome to contribute, there is no "exclusive club". If you wish, I can restore your essay into your user space; however, for article content, we try to maintain a neutral perspective and ask that all contributors abide by the style and formatting guidelines as well as the site policies.
 * As had been stated by others, the useable parts of the essay were mostly redundant to Effective monk guide, and should be maintained in that article. Also, keep in mind that below every edit window is the phrase "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it."  I can't count the number of my past edits that have been modified, re-worded, re-written from scratch, or eliminated.  It happens to all of us.  In the end, it's that community effort that has brought the site to its level of content it has today, and which will continue to help the site grow going forward. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:50, 14 December 2006 (CST)
 * What Barek said. He could have moved the article to your user name space (which I would have preferred), but the result would have been essentially the same: With no other articles linking to it, without maintainance and improvements, it would have been forgotten. Might as well delete it then, instead of going through the hassle of filtering out the valuable parts and merging them into the effective monk guide, which you weren't going to do yourself. After all, you said very clearly that you're leaving and that we should do with the article what we want.
 * Dude, reading your essay you seem like quite a reasonable and smart person, but I have to say you brought it upon yourself. You walk into this wiki, obviously with very little clue how it works, both technically and policy/etiquette-wise. I'm sure you had good intentions, but what you did simply didn't fit with the way this community works together. You're more than welcome to contribute, but maybe you should accomodate first. Read articles (and even more important: discussion pages!), make some smaller edits and improvements, and then, when you've got a clearer picture, start writing your own articles and guides. I'm sure we'll get along. --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 02:43, 15 December 2006 (CST)

I see nothing in your effective monk guide about the benefits of having one monk run healing while another runs protection. I see nothing in your monk guide about using Regen with a small amount of smiting prayers to control aggro. I see nothing in your monk guide about group composition from the perspective of a monk. Nowhere in the monk or warrior guide does it mention anything about lines of battle or healing range. Most importantly, I see nothing in either the effective monk guide or effective warrior guide about blocking. How to give and take a block properly may be the most important thing any high armor / low armor class should know. On this subject I see three or four sentences concerning pvp, and a set of pictures that are almost useless.

The effective monk guide, and especially the effective warrior guide, need complete re-writes. Consider that people looking to learn more about how to play the game will most likely come here. Now think about all those crappy groups you've had. Something can be done to change it.

Most of the guides here are less guides and more guidelines. They explain the attributes, just as the mouse over does in game. They link to builds. If your looking for a build your probably in the builds section. The area's that do attempt to take on a less technical and more informational tune are under-written and poorly explained. Merging my article would have made no sense. The two things did not go together. You want redundant? Consider that almost all of the information in the “Effective” guides are provided to the player in game via tutorials and tool tips. Consider the following snippet from the effective monk guide.

"A monk has 2 roles in combat: Staying alive and keeping the team alive. Since the second requires the first, staying alive should be the highest priority." If this needs to be explained to someone, than that person is in grave mortal danger of being too stupid to know when to breath.

To say that my guide / article was largely redundant with the effective monk guide shows a lack of understanding of either.

I'm not one for politics. I don't tend to beat around the bush. This seems like a political arena. That's all I meant. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bale Thorn (contribs).


 * If you know what you are writing about, please go and improve the effective monk guide. It's not useful to have many similiar articles, so please contribute to the existing one. With your help it will probably get better than it was. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 04:46, 16 December 2006 (CST)


 * Yes, there are definetly aspects in your guide that are not covered by the current effective monk guide. Especially the "Team Tactics" section is clearly marked: "This section of the article is a stub. You can help by adding to it." This is where much of your guide would fit in nicely. Nobody claims that the current guide is perfect. No article is ever "finished", let alone "perfect" on a wiki. There is always something that can be improved, added, re-worded, ... That's how a wiki works. It evolves, constantly.
 * I seriously doubt though that any of our profession guides needs, as you put it, "complete re-writes". The current monk guide is far from perfect, but it's not bad either. It is the result of more than 100 edits by more than 20 people, with many of them experienced monk players. If you seriously think that your guide is sooo much better, then you overestimate your own insight.
 * Whatever. Regardless of the content, the point is: Both your new guide and the old guide serve the same purpose: A general guide how to be a good monk. And by policy on GuildWiki we try to avoid having two articles on the same subject. It always means redundancy, more or less, and double maintainance work. So the two articles should be merged into one. And since the old one was well established, it is clear that it will be the basis of the merged version.
 * One last thing: You don't tend to beat around the bush? In that case I'll stop beating around the bush too. I tried to say it polite, now I'll say it more clearly: GuildWiki has proven to be very effective, and to yield good (but never perfect!) results. This is the result of community cooperation, with certain etiquette and policies, some written, some unwritten. Either you accept and adapt to these, or I see little future for you here. A wiki isn't the place for a prima-ballerina attitude. If you're willing to work in a team, you're very welcome. If not, then don't let the door hit you on the way out. If you want your name in bold letters above the guide, try gamefaqs.com, or a similar site. I'm sure you'll find a place to host "your" guide. The decision is up to you. --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 07:14, 16 December 2006 (CST)

Realtime.
I'm online. want to gather a party? Foo 14:05, 18 December 2006 (CST)
 * Does GuildWiki count as "instant messaging" now? ;) It's Monday night, that means "quality time" for my wife and me, that means no gaming. (For some reason I do not understand she doesn't consider GW "quality time". ;)) Maybe we can team up tomorrow to repeat that UW trip to tame a spider for me. Or do something else in Elona. --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 15:04, 18 December 2006 (CST)

User:Tetris L/Main Page
Your page is showing up in Category: Protected pages due to inclusion of the main page. Any way to get round that? >.< &mdash; Skuld 19:05, 20 December 2006 (CST)
 * Ha ha I just noticed that myself. While I'm here, I don't like the show/hide boxes. I know they're used extensively over at Wikipedia but I find that 90% of the time they are unhelpful and create browser dependand rendering problems. --Xasxas256 19:08, 20 December 2006 (CST)

Hi
If you could take a peek at User:Bexor/Collectors and leave any feedback on the discussion page there, I would appreciate it. :) - BeXoR   07:06, 22 December 2006 (CST)
 * Also I see you're adding/editing categories. I had most of them listed in Category:Wintersday 2006 Collectors if you want to edit them. I was copying the 2005 name and used a capital letter. I'd do it but its time for bed here. - BeXoR  [[Image:Bexor.png]] 07:19, 22 December 2006 (CST)
 * I'll comment on your collectors page later, probably after x-mas. As for the Wintersday collectors, I can understand that you simply coppied the 2005 scheme, but the category name isn't in line with GW:ULC. I don't want to go back to correct all the past cases, but for this year and future events we should use lowercase. I'll make the necessary corrections, you may go to bed, don't worry. :) --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 07:29, 22 December 2006 (CST)
 * I fixed the old cats. :) - BeXoR  [[Image:Bexor.png]] 01:33, 26 December 2006 (CST)

GuildWars Visions
Hey Tetris, as a native German speaker, could you look at Talk:GuildWars Visions and give your $0.02? I don't know that anyone who has commented there speaks German, and I figure you could give a better opinion on the program. :) Thanks.  --Rainith 21:16, 27 December 2006 (CST)

Builds categories
It is fun reading the talk pages every once in a while. Seems that nearly everyone wants to remove or cut the builds section nowadays. Well I trust that the status-quo bias of the wiki (which almost succeeded in driving me insane when I tried to get a builds policy for months) will frustrate all these attempts. But dont sneak cut the section by not listing Multi-Campaign builds in any part of the category tree, eg here. ;-) --Xeeron 11:58, 4 January 2007 (CST)
 * I didn't change the content of these categories, only the parent category, if you know what I mean. All I did was moving these categories from Category:Builds to Category:Builds by campaign. --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 12:42, 4 January 2007 (CST)
 * Hey, it's the man himself! Before you disappear can you tell me what you think (as briefly as you like) of Build Split? I reckon it'd be really helpful and go a fair way towards calming everything down, but most admins and heavy users tell me it'd achieve nothing and isn't worth the effort... --NieA7 09:27, 5 January 2007 (CST)
 * I replied, very briefly, in GuildWiki talk:Build Split. And I'm afraight you won't like my opinion. ;) --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 09:39, 5 January 2007 (CST)
 * Hate to say it but I was actually talking to Xeeron rather than you :p And it's not really a case of disliking your opinion as just not getting it, to the point where I'm starting to wonder if I've missed something fundamental x.x Right now there's loads of friction behind the scenes of the builds. The shop front, however, looks good, and loads of people use it. Most the friction behind the scenes seems to stem from elitist PvP and PvE players going at each other hammer and tongs. Simple solution - give them both their own walled off playpen to toddle around in. Sure, it doesn't fix the policy problems as far as voting and whatnot goes, but it actually leaves us in a position where then can be solved (which, looking at both the discussion on the various proposed policy pages, and the way it's completely tailed off recently, seems very unlikely if things stay the way they are). --NieA7 09:44, 5 January 2007 (CST)
 * Blah dont mind me, some anon had wrongly removed the cats from Category:Builds by campaign, thus you forgot it when switching the structure. Somehow I didnt want to edit it myself, but of course that was childish, doing a small edit while browsing the build talk pages once every month wont change my stance towards the wiki.
 * Regarding the build split: Imho, it would ease things somewhat but misses the crucial point at which all conflicts start: The differing attitudes towards builds in the wiki. To many different people want to many different things from the build section at once. I once made it my task to get everyone to work together, but even if it looks like one big mess, it still seems to work somehow. I noticed even the untested builds are down. Don't give up on builds because of the (admittedly pretty constant) squabbling. My issue was (and from all I get still is) with Gravewit personally, not the wiki. --Xeeron 16:04, 5 January 2007 (CST)
 * Thanks for your thoughts Xeeron, it's always good to get the opinion of people who've been working closely with the builds :) --NieA7 08:43, 11 January 2007 (CST)

Build/Build Talk Namespaces
I noticed your request for a way to filter namespaces. It peeked my interest since the problems aren't going to go away anytime soon and it is starting to get annoying *rolls eyes*. I'm guessing you are currently choosing the Build namespace and checking the invert selection.

I did find an extension that will allow users to filter namespaces, though it's only implementable server-side and since it's dependant on the version of MediaWiki, might need updating as it was coded for an older version. All other ideas were shot down as well, as they also mean tinkering server-side. If you are also brainstorming an option to implement a filter on this side of the looking glass, let me know. I'll have more time this weekend to tinker and do some more research. Just letting you know your request did not go unnoticed. &mdash; Gares 07:55, 5 January 2007 (CST)
 * I think I first read Pan requesting something like this ages ago (well before the Build namespace existed). I personally don't like to think that admins would choose to ignore the Build namespace, it's a dangerous idea. Skuld is the only really active member of the admin team who gets into our builds and I think in the last couple of weeks a few things have become clear.
 * It's a tough job
 * Skuld is pretty determined to improve the quality of our builds
 * The job is also getting to him at times and he hasn't always acted as well as he'd like
 * He's getting very little support from his fellow admins (and I include myself here)
 * When I accepted my RFA I was a bit worried that I'd stop shaking my fist at an/the admins but I needn't have worried because here I am! I cannot speak for anyone other than myself on this but when I signed on as an admin it wasn't so I could do the easy or glamourous tasks (I'm not entirely sure what the glamourous tasks are, get back to me on that one!) and it's not a part time job, you have to consider what you're saying every time you post, it comes with the turf. I also don't think you can just choose to administrate the namespaces you like, our admins are not expected to be everything by any means but I don't think it's right to turn your back on the builds.


 * For example I disagree with some aspects of Redirect and voted against it at the time. But as an admin, like the police it's my job to enforce our rules even if I disagree, I can't pick and choose. If you don't like our build policies start voting on proposals or suggest your own, but for me, ignoring them is not an option. Like it out not our builds are popular and account for a heck of a lot of our edits. I see it as having one admin for half of the wiki and all the other admins for the other half, honestly that's basically it in a sentence. I can't speak for anyone else but I do feel strongly about this... --Xasxas256 08:31, 5 January 2007 (CST)


 * Gares: I'd like to filter out Build, Build talk and User (but not User talk). I think the best solution would be if MediaWiki would offer an option to apply the same criteria to the recent changes listing that they offer for a search (see preferences). But since that's not the case I'm happy with any workaround. I've tried a few things, but have not come up with any ideas that work. I'm clueless.
 * Xasxas: It seems that pretty much all admins are currently unhappy with the state of the build section, even, or maybe especially those who put a lot of work into it, but nobody seems to be willing to push the necessary improvements and changes. I've never been among those who supported the section, I've always spoken against it, so I certainly don't feel obliged to help cleaning up other people's mess. ;) Well, I'm not an admin, so I'm free to ignore whatever I want. :) But even if I was an admin, I don't see a big problem with certain admins ignoring certain sections of the wiki. This is something else where we can learn from Wikipedia: That wiki is so huge that it would simply be impossible for all admins to monitor the complete wiki. They must specialize and concentrate on certain areas. I don't see why that shouldn't work on GuildWiki. --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 08:54, 5 January 2007 (CST)
 * I get in moods about the builds section, sometimes I think it's good sometimes it seems to be the bane of the place. I dunno, I've met some good people through there but at other times I feel like you see behaviour there that you don't seem to find anywhere else. I guess you can only be so possesive of your edit but you can be so much more so of your build. But if we didn't document something as common as IWAY, B/P in the tombs, SS/55s, SF Eles etc. I'd feel like as documentors of the game we wouldn't be doing our job. Of course then starts the debate over what exactly should be documented and there's pages on that stuff. I miss Xeeron! :( (Even if he did pop in here today.) If we specialise like that then I'd say we need more admins and Wikipedia is incomparibly bigger than GWiki. I don't think GWiki is quite that big yet. But mostly right now at this point in my life I wish it'd cool down, 1:30AM and it's still 28 deg, no wonder I'm mixed up and complaining so much :P --Xasxas256 09:14, 5 January 2007 (CST)
 * I should have also said that you can filter out whatever namespaces you like Tetris but if this server side thing is implemented then...you know...admins might start using it! I mean I figure some pretty much ignore builds as it is anyway but to actually filter them, I don't like that idea. --Xasxas256 09:21, 5 January 2007 (CST)
 * Xas, I think you mistook my post to Tetris as I would always censor out the Build and Build Talk namespaces. When I volunteered to be an admin, it was to fight vandalism with greater efficiency across all namespaces. Ignoring certain namespaces, myself, would be going against my ideals. Tetris requested a solution for himself and possibly other users to ignore certain namespaces and I chose to help him in his search. Not as an admin and not for my own reasons, but as a person who enjoys programming, problem solving, and helping others.


 * I have spoke my peace regarding the builds section in many areas and have mediated arguements between users regarding builds. I definitely am disappointed with some of the attitudes of certain users and I plan on dealing with that in my own way. Thankfully, it does not go against my ideals for any builds, as I only defend accepted policy and not any certain builds. And, yes, you will see my long-winded comments on certain proposals, most recently Post No Builds.


 * As always, admins should be pillars for the community and their actions determine how other users react. An admin acts immature and inappropriate, others will follow. I'll leave that thought right there ;) They agreed to a duty of fighting vandalism, presenting themselves accordingly, and making sure the integrity of the wiki stays intact. None of us can honestly say we haven't slipped up once or twice however. We are human after all. Though when a mistake is made, it should be learned from and not committed over and over. Learning from mistakes not only applies to admins however, but to all users. &mdash; Gares 11:20, 5 January 2007 (CST)


 * You're great, Tetris is great, ignore me, I'm just tired and I think the builds thing is starting to get to me, I feel like we're fighting a losing battle. On a related note my house is full of ants at the moment, ants! How do you get rid of them! I'm waiting for the storm to break so it finally cools down, the ants will leave, my stress will go down and just maybe the build problems will resolve :| --Xasxas256 11:35, 5 January 2007 (CST)


 * Set the house on fire. Won't help much against the heat or the stress (let alone the builds section), but for sure it'll scare away the ants. ;) --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 11:53, 5 January 2007 (CST)


 * They're in the dishwasher now, how are you supposed to stop something that can get into watertight spaces! If I burnt down the house I think they're just find it easier to get around! --Xasxas256 12:14, 5 January 2007 (CST)


 * Have you tried to use Charm Animal on an Aardvark or an Anteater? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 12:33, 5 January 2007 (CST)


 * Heh, this made me think of The Ant and the Aardvark. In the German version the name of the aardvark was "Elise". That'd be the perfect name for a pet. :) --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 13:37, 5 January 2007 (CST)


 * I've tried Apply Poison but they seem to have natural resistance!! Actually funny you should mention Anteaters, in Australia we're more about echidnas called Rex! Is that what you were thinking when you said Charm Animal?! Is Elise as impressive as Rex!? :P --Xasxas256 21:38, 5 January 2007 (CST)

Well, I made a mistake.
I decided, after looking over the warrior guide, reading all the suggestions on the discussion page, and picking throught he guide for the wrong of it, to try fixing it.

I didnt get through the first stage of merging the guide I wrote (with illistrations) with the current content before some sewing circle noob came along and told me to tank with healing signet.

I say again. Political ... arena.
 * FYI: For quick reference, he's talking about Talk:Effective_warrior_guide and User_talk:Bale_Thorn. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:22, 16 January 2007 (CST)


 * Everything I could say now has already been said in section Check that out! of this talk page. This is the same thing in a slightly different flavor. I have nothing to add. --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 11:46, 17 January 2007 (CST)

Treasure
Just checking ... is this still on the to-do list? I thought about doing it for you; but decided to see if the delay was for some variation you were working on. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:34, 26 January 2007 (CST)
 * No, I'm not working on it, I was just distracted by other things (real life, mostly). Go ahead! --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 15:46, 26 January 2007 (CST)
 * Done - thanks! --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:10, 26 January 2007 (CST)

Are you willing to be an administrator?
I'm looking to appoint another admin, but I'm not willing to do so with Gem. Are you willing and able? If you are, it would be best to go through RfA, but it's not essential that you do. I wasn't appointed via RfA, after all.

&mdash;Tanaric 15:09, 31 January 2007 (CST)
 * ooh, I'll nominate and/or support. &mdash;[[image:Blastedt sig.png]]Blastedt 15:11, 31 January 2007 (CST)


 * Regardless of the outcome, thanks for considering me! I've been asked before, more than once even, and even though it was (and still is) flattering and tempting, I declined. It would be an honor, but it comes with responsibility and duty, and I'm not sure if I'm a good person for the job. So I think I have to ask back to you: What would you expect? There are things that I'm willing and able to do, and there are other things that I'm not (neither willing nor able).
 * Disclaimers:
 * I think I'm not cool-blooded and neutral enough to be good admin material. I'm quite affective, and tend to get involved into e-drama deeper than I should get. I'm a smartass, very stubborn, and a sore looser. I know that, so I try to stay out of heated discussions. That is the opposite of what a good admin should do.
 * Real life keeps me quite busy at times, so I cannot give any guarantee whatsoever that I'll be an active contributor in future. Just recently I've been rather inactive, and since I'm starting a new job in 2 weeks (same company, different department) I expect a phase of even less wiki activity. On top of that, there's always the risk that I may get bored with GuildWars alltogether, and stop playing, but that is a different matter, hard to predict.
 * There are certain sections of the wiki that I don't care much about, notably the whole build section. I'm not keen on getting involved in the difficlut discussions over there.
 * If you still want me despite these three big disclaimers, I'd feel honored and I'd be willing to be an admin. I wouldn't do much more than I've always done though: Patrol recent changes for trolls and vandals, chip in my 2 cents into discussions (incl. policy), and try to be an active contributor of original content. The only difference will be that I've got a few additional tools for quick reverts and banning people. No big deal.
 * If you don't want me after reading the disclaimers, no hard feelings at all. I'll simply continue to do what I've always done here, as a contributor. Not being an admin makes many things easier. --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 16:06, 31 January 2007 (CST)
 * P.S.: My nomination must be seen completely independent from Gem's. If there is ANY competition between me and Gem about who gets to be an admin and who doesn't, definetly count me out! --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 16:20, 31 January 2007 (CST)
 * Give us TETRISL! Give us TETRISL for admin!! *roars* &mdash;[[image:Blastedt sig.png]]Blastedt 16:10, 31 January 2007 (CST)
 * Please refrain from throwing underwear on the stage please. --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 16:13, 31 January 2007 (CST)
 * Gimme the L or Gimme teh death! *>.>* &mdash;[[image:Blastedt sig.png]]Blastedt 16:14, 31 January 2007 (CST)
 * As I said on LordBiro's page - I'm neutral on if we even need an additional admin or not. Also, I tend to keep out of the RfA discussions unless there's someone I feel very strongly against (If I support or am neutral, I keep out and let the community choose and discuss without me), and I leave the final selection up to LordBiro and/or Tanaric, unless they specifically ask me for my opinion.
 * That said, I wanted to share my opinions on your disclaimers, to see if it impacts if your decision on being a potential candidate. On being cool-headed; the important thing is recognising that issue in yourself - as long as you have and you acknowledge it, then there's no reason you can't be an admin despite that tendancy.  For example, if I get into a heated discussion, I have several times gone to any other admin that I saw on at the time of the discussion and asked them to add their perspective, just to ensure that I'm not letting my personal bias cloud my judgement.
 * On availability - it varies for all the admins, and we all have gone through phases of more and less involvement. As for boredom with GuildWars - that's a danger for everyone, and shouldn't be an issue.  Last, on opinions on various wiki sections; many admins only reside on the furthest fringes of build issues.  Personally, I've distanced myself from most of the various build policy debates except when I see a proposal that conflicts with other site policies, and I primarilly only get involved in the builds section on the various templates/tools, and with issues that affect all parts of the wiki equally (vandalism, 1RV, etc).  I monitor build discussions and moderate when asked, but other than that, I prefer focussing in other areas of the wiki.
 * So, your issues listed aren't major stumbling blocks, and in my opinion shouldn't affect your decision on being a candidate. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:34, 31 January 2007 (CST)


 * Barek listed my thought comprehencively, so I'll just say that I wouldn't mind Tetris being made an admin. Actually, I have supported him for the position from the first time he was asked to. The RfA process isn't needed for making an admin as the decision is always made by a sysop. The RfA is just a tool to show which users the community would recommend.
 * The second thing which I will post about should not be mixed with anything conserning Tetris; It's a completely different matter. I could post on Tanarics talk page but I don't feel like posting on multiple pages now.
 * I'm slightly pissed by what you said Tanaric. If you have issues with making me an admin, why do you need to talk behind my back? Why can't you post in the RfA and clearly state what you think? I wouldn't be offended if you posted an oppose vote and explained why you don't think that I should be an admin. You have all the rights for any opinnion and I honor what ever you think. However, saying nothing in the RfA, but then posting on someone elses talk page something like you just did is far from understandable. I've often had the opposite opinnion in discussions than you, but I've always held your style in appreciation. Now I was sadly disappointed. If you are willing to explain yourself, please do so. If not, that's okay too, but please refrain from insulting other contributors in the future with similiar actions. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 18:23, 31 January 2007 (CST)
 * pssst, Gem ... he posted on the RfA about three hours ago. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:28, 31 January 2007 (CST)
 * Woah, woops. I had allready gone through that in my watchlist and didn't notice. Thank you Barek for telling me and thank you Tanaric for posting there. Sorry for the unnecessary post. Feel free to continue discussion on Tetris. :) (Leaving the comment striked out for those who don't like to look at page histories) --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 18:41, 31 January 2007 (CST)

I think my simplest response can only be: welcome aboard, sysop. :)

Of course, that would be a little unfair. No, your appointment had nothing to do with Gem's lack of appointment (or Skuld's removal from service). In my mind, there was an L-shaped hole that only you could fill. It's about damned time you accepted the job! &mdash;Tanaric 00:46, 1 February 2007 (CST)


 * Oh, I didn't expect it to happen so quick! I accept, though. Let me test my new admin powers and randomly block a few users.


 * Having accepted, I still feel very uncomfortable that my appointment is somehow tied to Gem's (or rather, the lack of it). If there is the slightest suspicion that I was appointed instead of Gem, that would leave a very bad taste in my mouth. Even though you say it isn't so I'm afraight it's obvious that Gem's RFA was at least the trigger for my appointment. The number of supporters for Gem's adminship is overwhelming, and I'm one of them! I disagree with your negative assessment of his qualification. I'm particularry worried about your comment "Were admins here merely in charge of deleting and protection, he would be a great candidate." Because I feel that I'm not any better in that respect. Quite the opposite, I'm rather bad at mediating and arbitrating disputes (see my disclaimer #1). As I said myself above: "The only difference will be that I've got a few additional tools for quick reverts and banning people. No big deal."


 * On a side note, when did "Skuld's removal from service" happen, and why??? (OMGWTFBBQ!!eleven) I wasn't even aware of that, which shows that I didn't pay enough attention to the wiki community discussions recently. :/ --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 04:54, 1 February 2007 (CST)

Congrats
Let me be the first to congratulate you. We've had a few moments but I've wondered myself why you've never been nominated for adminship, now we know why queue jumper :P No seriously well done, I'm looking forward to working with you and good luck ;) --Xasxas256 05:14, 1 February 2007 (CST)

Congrats Tetris, best of luck :) &mdash; Skuld 05:21, 1 February 2007 (CST)

Congrats you old geezer. Hey we survived our little-epic clashes and are both admins now. :P Was a time when people would think "this wiki ain't big enough for the two of them." I always knew it work out. In the end, you and I both like to see this place succeed. I don't think you're as hard to work with as you describe yourself. And I certainly do not think you're a sore loser. Good to have you around, now I can engross myself even more in Titan Gem farming. :P Welcome aboard, old man. :) --Karlos 06:24, 1 February 2007 (CST)