GuildWiki talk:Request assistance/Archive 2

This is essentially User questions. But, it's not linked anywhere besides the community portal talk. Also, most people who seem to contact Tanaric should actually be using a talk page somewhere, or at least user questions. --Fyren 12:00, 26 September 2006 (CDT)


 * I changed the sidebar link to point to this page&mdash;I actually didn't realize User questions still existed. I can merge one into the other. However, I think that "Contact an administrator" will get more notice than "User questions," but I don't really care which way they're merged. &mdash;Tanaric 12:11, 26 September 2006 (CDT)


 * While less support is a bad thing, more notice might also be. Maybe at the top of whatever this ends up being we should have a huge link to a FAQ about stuff.  People shouldn't be coming here (like they were to your talk page) to ask report vandalism, things about pets, things about builds, or whatever.  A FAQ could point them towards using the right talk page.  --Fyren 12:15, 26 September 2006 (CDT)

I was thinking bigger. Like: READ THE FAQ FIRST, NITWITS. --Fyren 13:52, 26 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Your comment implies to me that you expected me to remove the blink bit, so... I did. :) &mdash;Tanaric 15:30, 26 September 2006 (CDT)


 * lol, I actually burst out laughing when this page loaded. Awesome.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 16:32, 26 September 2006 (CDT)

Add these! &mdash; Skuld 13:54, 26 September 2006 (CDT)

Everything Tanaric has moved to this page is exactly what I'm saying shouldn't be things people bring to an admin. An admin bans, deletes, protects, and in rare cases, settles disputes between users. I suggest the sidebar link to the questions page instead. Have both this page and the questions page prominently link to the FAQ. In the FAQ, let there be a question about what should be brought to an admin's attention that could not be handled by the question or bug page. Off the top of my head, there's actually nothing that should really be directed at an admin. If you want something deleted, use the template. If you want something protected, take it up on the talk. If you want someone banned... calm down and discuss the problem with the user. If you're getting into a full-fledged argument with someone, it'll probably get noticed and wouldn't have to be brought to anyone's attention. If you forget your password, go complain on http://forums.gamewikis.org/comments.php?DiscussionID=9&page=1 to get me shell access since an admin can't help.

Encouraging users to go to an admin by having that link is, worst of all, anti-wiki in my view. We're just users with relatively insignificant powers, as we're supposed to be bound by policy that's forged by everyone. --Fyren 15:52, 26 September 2006 (CDT)


 * I pretty much agree with you Fyren, but I do think that "User questions" was/is a poor name. "Contact an administrator" is an active sentence and is exactly what most users with general questions will want to do, whether admins are the right people or not.


 * So while I agree in essence I don't necessarily agree that we should change the name of this page, or revert back to "user questions". I wouldn't be opposed to another name, like "Ask for help", or something like that.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 16:36, 26 September 2006 (CDT)


 * I agree that it might be slightly antiwiki... but it's also more fansite than an "ask for help" page. Most of our users are used to traditional fansites, not wikis. I'd argue that most don't even realize the difference -- the emails I get about content all ask for permission to post, or they wonder how to submit something for admin review. That said, I could live with "Ask for help" instead&mdash;the only problem is that the navbox will look silly with "Help" right above "Ask for help." &mdash;&mdash;Tanaric 10:55, 27 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Rename "Help" to be "Editing Guide" (as that's where it points), then rename this to "Ask for Help". --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 12:04, 27 September 2006 (CDT)


 * And out of the shadows I come. First, Help and Editing Help both send a user to the same page, the wiki markup help page. That seems a bit redundant. And even though the Editing Help option does not exist while editing a page, there are two editing links at the bottom of the page, linking to the wiki markup help page, another redundancy. That's serious user friendliness ;) As I ramble on, this will eventually get somewhere. Why not change the link Help to Helping out and link it to the Category:Helping out, an essential category for any user to keep in mind and to have quick access to, and keep Contact an admin or change the wording to Request assistance or something to that effect. Btw, I miss the giant blinking letters :D &mdash; Gares 12:35, 27 September 2006 (CDT)
 * I don't have any problem with the redundancy, as the wiki code is one of the more common questions I see from new contributors. I hate the idea of a link from the nav box to a category page.  But, I could be talked into linking to How to help - especially if a link to Editing guide were added to that article ;-)
 * As for this article, I could see naming it either Request for Assistance or Ask for Help. Both work equally well to me.  --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 13:01, 27 September 2006 (CDT)
 * The article How to help already has a link to Editing guide here. I thought about mentioning the How to help article, but it's a personal opinion whether to use the Category:Helping out or the article. I think using categories to navigate is simplier, but the article has descriptions along with the links. Any change should be made for the casual or new user first and foremost regarding that issue. Building on what Tanaric said, I think the terms Asking for Help and Help combined together would confuse a user, since both terms can be taken as meaning the same thing. &mdash; Gares 14:15, 27 September 2006 (CDT)
 * The first line of support should probably always be a FAQ or other page with text, not somewhere to ask questions. The how to help article probably shouldn't be linked to from the left navbar, especially not as "help" like it once was.  --Fyren 14:22, 27 September 2006 (CDT)
 * To me, both the link "Help" and "Contact an Admin" should be either removed or renamed. So, any name confusion to either of those existing names can be ignored - the important comparison is to the new names used.
 * So far, I'm seeing three suggested links:
 * Either How to help or Helping out.
 * Editing guide (currently labelled help)
 * This article, named either "Request Assistance" or "Ask for Help".
 * I wouldn't want all three, the box is big enough already. My preference would be for only the last two; in which case "Editing guide" and "Ask for Help" are not overly similar, so no conflict with the naming - although "Request Assistance" works fine too.  My second choice would be to only link the first two, then link this article as either Ask for Help/Request Assistance (or whatever it eventually gets named) via the "How to help" page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:49, 27 September 2006 (CDT)
 * Edit, I forgot to include GW:FAQ in the above list as another option for inclusion in the nav box. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:49, 27 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Now that I've read through everything again I think I'm mostly in favour of removing both the "Help" and "Contact an admin" links from the sidebar and adding "FAQ". I agree with Fyren, the first point of call for contributors with questions should be an FAQ, and the first question answered should be "Q: What do I do if my question is not answered on this page? A: Ask a question on Contact an administrator" or something like that.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 16:41, 27 September 2006 (CDT)
 * I agree, I had left that option off, and it really would be my first choice. Remove both "Help" and "Contact an Admin".  Then insert the FAQ link.  The other links I mentioned in my earlier list could then all be reached via the FAQ. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:52, 27 September 2006 (CDT)
 * Implemented. I would still like this to be renamed to "ask a question" or something that does not involve "admins."  --Fyren 13:12, 29 September 2006 (CDT)
 * I won't argue further against moving this article; however, I would like to note something.
 * Even though admins weren't expected to deal with users in the beginning, and even though admins had no prescribed duties, I believe our role has evolved to incorporate user assistance. I know that, at the very least, my personal role has. Please consider that one of the things admins around here are expected to do now (whether it's right or not) is help the users get things done. &mdash;&mdash;Tanaric 19:35, 29 September 2006 (CDT)
 * I think it's more helpful for us to just help users as we see they need or ask for help and do it without it being obvious we're admins. A more "anyone can do it" attitude would help people along into a more appropriate mindset for the wiki. --Fyren 20:55, 29 September 2006 (CDT)


 * I agree there Fyren. Should Gem, Xasxas and Xeeron be involved in helping users on this page? They are everywhere else. I'm not really opposed to this name, but I don't think it is the duty of admins to help users; it's the duty of anyone who wants to be helpful, and hopefully that will include most of the admins!!  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 03:38, 30 September 2006 (CDT)


 * I've stayed out of this discussion, but now that my name was mentioned, I'll take part. I really think that it shouldn't be only admins who help others and the name of this article is a poor choice. The original was better, although it could be improved. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 03:40, 30 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Lol, I'll have to try that more often... "What if Gem/Xasxas/Xeeron were here?"  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 09:29, 30 September 2006 (CDT)


 * It works always if I see the discussion. I'm a bit worried that someone might abuse it. ;P --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 11:57, 30 September 2006 (CDT)


 * It is almost like magic: Speak the name and the person will appear! --Xeeron 16:59, 30 September 2006 (CDT)

Anti-build (moved from request assistance)
Builds are a mistake to have on GuildWiki. They are as temporary as a guild list, and why don't we have one of those? Because they're *temporary*. Plus, having a build section promotes any loser new player posting shitty-ass poorly made builds, and getting super-defensive when people tell him it sucks. Frankly... this isn't buildwiki. Builds aren't something we should have. General minion mastery guide? Sure. A guide to tell people how to warrior effectively? Go ahead. Specific builds? No. They should all be removed, "vetted for" or not, as they go against what we stand for (and we are hypocrites if we claim they're not, because we don't host a guild list for the same reason we shouldn't host a buildwiki). -Auron
 * Trust me, you're not alone in that belief. As far as I'm concerned, the experiment in adding builds to the site has been a very good demonstration of why builds do not belong on a wiki environment.  Other forum or site software packages would be better equipped to handle builds and their vetting process over a wiki site structure.  I could see affilliating or partnering with another site in order to provide that type of data; but the only way to make a build process work within a wiki is to use very un-wiki-like policies that shoe-horn in processes which wikis are not designed to handle natively.  --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:36, 13 October 2006 (CDT)

Admittedly the whole builds thing is unwiki. However, guildwiki is the most popular fan web site in all of guild wars, almost surpassing the guild wars website itself! People want a builds section, they got a builds section. You don't like it? fine don't look at it. People want to argue about it? Fine let them argue about it. Its not disrupting anyone who doesn't want to deal with it except the admins, and I think they're just butting out by now anyways out of exasperation. Are builds temporary? of course. But so are skills, areas, Hall of Heroes, users, life, guild wars, etc. Guild wars will probably be gone 30 years from now maybe less. All this work will just stop and everything will be removed. In the mean time, I like it tho :)(Not a fifty five 19:09, 13 October 2006 (CDT))


 * Auron, the more I read of your posts the less I like you. It’s not what you have to say, you’re completely entitled to your opinions and should never let anyone stop you from voicing them.  However, the way you go about saying them I find very offensive.  For instance, "Plus, having a build section promotes any loser new player posting shitty-ass poorly made builds, and getting super-defensive when people tell him it sucks." is just blatantly offensive and no thinking person should go about voicing their opinions in this manner.  Please clean your posts up a bit in the future and try to take into account what adding senseless lines like this into your arguments makes people think of you, and how it devalues your entire point.  Thank you.&mdash; [[Image:Azroth sig.png||builds]] Azroth  [[Image:Azroth sig2.png||talk]]  01:38, 14 October 2006 (CDT)

I moved this from request assistance, as it clearly doesn't belong there. It doesn't really belong here, either, so feel free to re-move/remove. &mdash;Tanaric 07:24, 14 October 2006 (CDT)


 * Auron, sorry about my last post. I was pissed due to the issue with Onlyashadow and then saw your post and yelled at you for no realy good reason.  What I should have said was this:  Please try to clean up your posts in the future and refrain from posting comments which are insulting. Thank you.&mdash; [[Image:Azroth sig.png||builds]] Azroth  [[Image:Azroth sig2.png||talk]]  12:56, 14 October 2006 (CDT)