User talk:GW-Stabber

/archive 1 /archive 2

You're back
Since I am here, and I'm sure you and I will have many discussions...welcome back. - Jack  20:14, 26 May 2006 (CDT)


 * Guildwiki is becoming an official ANet sponsored thing??? Anyway, welcome back hopefully. --Xeeron 05:35, 27 May 2006 (CDT)


 * See GuildWiki talk:Community Portal. Welcome back Stabber. :) --Karlos 06:44, 27 May 2006 (CDT)


 * Nice to see you (again). Just stop leaving, you can't stay away! Ahahahahaha!!!11eleventhirteenseventeennineteentwentythree *ahem* (That's as many primes as I can list off the top of my head.) Nice to meet you ingame too, yesterday. --Tinarto [[Image:Tinarto-gold-Monk-icon-small.png]] 07:40, 27 May 2006 (CDT)


 * Welcome back, nice to have you again. - Unchain 16:10, 27 May 2006 (CDT)


 * * Moves in silently hoping not to scare her away* Welcome back! *Disappears* --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] 17:24, 27 May 2006 (CDT)

Former mentions
Ha ha you make me laugh, well you knew the GuildWiki would fall apart in your absence didn't you :P Actually I do still have one thing over you, you've made exactly 100 more edits to your user page than I've made to mine, so who's really spent more time on it? :) Besides some of that elaborateness directy related to you and my red candle I was burning in your honour while you were gone. Also I'd like to point out that you don't have the ultimate user page on your list, check out Fyren now that is impressive! It's good to have you back. --Xasxas256 12:07, 27 May 2006 (CDT)

"but if it is going to become an official Arena Net sponsored thing, then I want in."
Well, if it does go that way, the type of people whose behavior drove you away would probably increase 100-fold... Glad to see you back, but just want you to be prepared and not hold any illusions of what GuildWiki will see in the future d-: - 18:28, 27 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Eh. I don't blame anyone but myself for getting into fights. &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 18:35, 27 May 2006 (CDT)

Community expectations
I heartily endorse this product and/or service! Kidding aside, if you wanted to show up those who thought of you as "just a wikignome", you could not have done so more effectively. Glad you're back and contributing again. Hope you stay a while this time. --Bishop (rap|con) 05:01, 28 May 2006 (CDT)
 * That wikignome stuff was a load, heck she run the GuildWiki's only bot, clearly she's more than just an editor who fixes a few spelling mistakes. --Xasxas256 05:57, 28 May 2006 (CDT)
 * And I'm definitely almost as much a wikignome as Stabber. Heck, I don't even have factions yet and I'm making all these edits on Factions stuff. - 06:27, 28 May 2006 (CDT)

The death of victory
Honestly, why not just correct the silly typo? I don't think we have a policy against fixing typo's in religiously sacrosanct ANet announcements... :p --Bishop (rap|con) 13:51, 2 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Why not indeed. I am not the author of that policy, however. I have half a mind to raise this issue on the Community Portal, but at the moment I am distracted by a call to GvG. Maybe in a few hours. &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 13:53, 2 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Fair 'nuff. I wasn't aware of the policy, thank you for bringing it to my attention. If you do bring it up, I'll second a change in a heartbeat. --Bishop (rap|con) 13:59, 2 June 2006 (CDT)

View on an official wiki
I would like more info on some of your points. First off your choice of people that can edit the wiki. that goes agaist all what wiki stand for. I see that an official wiki need to be more control then guildwiki but cutting user for editing is not a good idea. My view on that would be allowing everybody to see it and if you want to change something you need to link your username with your guildwars accounts. that would prevend most people from doing dmg because losing your game account if you do vendalism would scare most children. (I see that this limit the users permited to edit but if you dont trust Anet with your account you probably wanted to hurt the wiki.) Second point, the idea of not having weapon screenshot. I dont see why not. Anet have shown there concept for weapon and show some armor screenshot. Just to see own many demmand on forums for weapons and armors screen shot would confirm the need for such page. Since Anet have approuved some build ( the pvp one) I dont see why they shouldnt allowed more. Since they want to keep the game balance why would only a handful of people have access to "secret build" to farm and domminate other players with money? Well I would accept that Anet prevend those build to be put on the wiki but they should fix them in the first place. Im just looking for explanation on your view. --Aratak 14:26, 2 June 2006 (CDT)


 * My proposed access restriction is only for editors. The official wiki should be publicly readable, of course, or what's the point? For screenshots, I think a company making an RPG should leave some things for the players to discover. If everyone knew about Zodiac skins from day 1, for example, they wouldn't have been so highly sought after. As for builds, the build articles in the GuildWiki are highly opinionated and even several of the so-called "tested builds" are not necessarily superior to possible variants. The funny thing, though, is that these articles pretend to be objective and factual. Now, you'll note that I do recommend certain opinionated articles be allowed in an official wiki, but these articles would be obviously (marked as) opinions. The premade builds are an exception because they have already been officially blessed by Arena Net. &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 19:35, 2 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I must admit, that as a long time user of GuildWiki, I'm glad to see that it's finally getting the recognition it deserves. I've found it to be an invaluable resource.  But what happens to the user such as myself that has information to profide, but has only recently started to take a part in providing to the Wiki community?  Are we just cut out of the loop altogether and go back to being a pure user?--Xis10al 15:55, 3 June 2006 (CDT)


 * No, users such as yourself would still be welcome on the GuildWiki. I do not wish to see the GuildWiki dead. My opinion is solely about an official wiki sponsored by Arena Net. &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 15:58, 3 June 2006 (CDT)

What would be the difference between this new wiki idea and a page like this http://guildwars.gameamp.com/, or any number of other Guild Wars fan sites? They already have most of the content you seem to want, and they also only allow a few priveleged editors to modify the content of those pages. Is your main goal to be officially sponsored? Is it to control content in peace and quiet without the unwashed masses making a mess of things? I don't want to sound harsh, but it seems like you don't really want to be a part of a wiki community. It seems like you want your own page that's officially sponsored and can only be edited by a select group of friends. That's great for you, and a few select others, but kind of irrelevant to the rest of us. --Tjoneil 22:54, 3 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Well, first of all this new wiki idea isn't mine. See GuildWiki talk:Community Portal. Secondly, it doesn't describe a fansite, but rather a site created and sponsored by Arena Net. Thirdly, while I do participate in several fansites, I have no loyalties to any of them. If an official wiki sprouts, I will move there if allowed, because I believe an official wiki stands to benefit the Guild Wars community more than a fansite. Lastly, I suffer no delusions that I would be allowed on any official wiki that follows my suggested design. I don't as such have any problems with not being given access, as I don't consider any activities I am engaged in here or on any fansite to be particularly necessary for the well being of the Guild Wars community. &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 23:01, 3 June 2006 (CDT)

Style & Formatting box
Hey Stabber, I quite like the Style & Formatting box you recently added to all of the Style & Formatting articles. Was there a discussion on this?  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 05:33, 4 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Yes, but the discussion was conducted entirely inside my head. It was a heated debate, with a narrowly contested conclusion that had to be won with ridiculously overblown campaign promises. &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 05:35, 4 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Ah, ridiculously overblown campaign promises FTW, as the kids say these days. Ho ho ho.


 * So did you win or lose the debate? I'm guessing you won, but perhaps you lost and you are now forced to implement changes that you don't agree with. That's always a tough position to be in.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 05:53, 4 June 2006 (CDT)


 * There was no majority. The minority parties had to scramble together a coalition at the last moment, but a no confidence motion is imminent and the coalition is sure to collapse. Stock markets have been down in early day trading. &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 06:10, 4 June 2006 (CDT)

template:Userbox
The template you made is a few pixels too big... which makes my user page look ugly.. I tried to tinkering with your code but it is beyond me... any chance of fixing it? here is a picture displaying the difference between it & common userboxes on the wiki. --Jamie 09:22, 5 June 2006 (CDT)

GuildWiki:Requests_for_adminship
Question: On Requests_for_adminship it appears that the only entry on which you have listed as one of the counts for "Support" is the one which you did not nominate. Did you intend to vote support for all the others that you had nominated?

FYI: I'm not a contender. I don't consider myself admin material. Besides, I'm playing other games now and will be here less often going forward. --I am 161.88 12:57, 5 June 2006 (CDT)
 * According to the RfA, a nomination counts as a support vote (see bottom of page). --Draygo Korvan 13:01, 5 June 2006 (CDT)