User talk:Gemigemi/Archive14

No more Campaign ?
Just want to make sure, so no more campaign for Gem icon? --Gusnana1412 13:05, 02 March 2007 (GMT +1)
 * No. I would appreciate people for removing the user boxes. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 07:01, 2 March 2007 (CST)
 * Aw... I was happy with having bragging rights, and now this icon will probably be all over the place :( &mdash; Poki#3 [[Image:Poki.jpg|19px|My Talk Page :o]], 07:10, 2 March 2007 (CST)
 * I still hope it wont. I didn't change my thought on the use of the icon although I stopped the campaign. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 07:14, 2 March 2007 (CST)
 * Even though the campaign end, would it be possible to keep the nogem icon available to use? at least for some members that still want to show appreciation for supporting the nogem and will not use your gem icon? --Gusnana1412 15:46, 02 March 2007 (GMT +1)
 * There is no reason why you cannot keep the support gem userbox, even though the campaign is over, the thought behind the userbox is still viable. &mdash; Gares 10:35, 2 March 2007 (CST)
 * Just a simple job of removing links in the userbox that go to the campaign, or possibly re-wording the userbox (perhaps something like "This user believes that personal icons should only be used by the person they are designed for", or something of the sort). {Jioruji Derako} 22:08, 2 March 2007 (CST)
 * Both are fine to me. :) --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 02:20, 3 March 2007 (CST)

page problems!!
ok...gem i like blanked my page unintentionally but instead of just blanking it made itr so whenever i got to my page it dosnt show the tabs at the top or on the side or anything please help me. | Asmodius  |  09:29, 3 March 2007 (CST)

Signature coding
Alright, I've been messing around with my signature... this new one is quite pretty. Unfortunately, it takes up about three/four lines of coding to make... I figured out a way around this by creating a template in my userspace (it works, too). Unfortunately, when I set this as my signature, it adds a SUBST: tag in there, which sticks all four lines of code whenever I sign. Is there a way to get around this tag, and just do the template link as my sig? I'll put a link to both of them here, so you can see the diference when you edit (I'm not going to be using this sig until I can figure out how to keep it small).

Direct template link:

Actual signature: J i o r u j i D e r a k o.> 20:09, 3 March 2007 (CST)


 * You are not allowed to use temps. without subst:ing them in your sig &mdash;[[Image:BlastThatT.jpg]]Blastedt 20:32, 3 March 2007 (CST)
 * alright. Is there possibly another way to shorten this coding? (just pretend I've got a working signature here) 20:34, 3 March 2007 (CST) &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jioruji Derako (contribs).
 * Dont use it? &mdash;[[Image:BlastThatT.jpg]]Blastedt 20:36, 3 March 2007 (CST)
 * Yeah yeah, I suppose that's best. It is a bit silly to spend this much time simply trying to make a signature work anyway, and I don't see any way of making it non-disruptive. Thanks anyway... {Jioruji Derako} 20:43, 3 March 2007 (CST)
 * Take a picture of the signature, make the background transparent and use that? &mdash; Poki#3 [[Image:Poki.jpg|19px|My Talk Page :o]], 20:54, 3 March 2007 (CST)
 * Yeah, that's probably what i'm going to do. In that case though, I might as well just make myself a decent picture for a sig instead... {Jioruji Derako} 21:23, 3 March 2007 (CST)
 * Well, I've gotten myself a new signature, with a small icon instead of the fancy-coloring idea. I still love the fancy colors, of course, but unless a new way to add the colors pops up, this will do. :D --[[image:GEO-logo.png]] <font color="#237d00">Jioruji Derako.> 00:59, 4 March 2007 (CST)

I was sleeping but atleast you got it solved. :) -- (talk) 02:23, 4 March 2007 (CST)
 * Yeah, thanks for your help Gem! ^_^ --[[image:GEO-logo.png]] <font color="#237d00">Jioruji Derako.> 02:31, 4 March 2007 (CST)
 * There's nothing like using Gem's Talk Page as a GuildWiki Help Forum ;] &mdash; Poki#3 [[Image:Poki.jpg|19px|My Talk Page :o]], 07:51, 4 March 2007 (CST)
 * Welcome to the Offical GuildWiki Forums! :P but seriously, Gem is usually one of the better people to send questions like this. And of course, if he can't answer it himself, there's usually at least five other users patrolling his talk page. I guess the downside would be the fact that Gem rarely gets the chance to be the first one answering a question on his own talk page... --[[image:GEO-logo.png]] <font color="#237d00">Jioruji Derako.> 08:13, 4 March 2007 (CST)
 * Actually, I used to be the one who always answered stuff on other peoples talk pages. Now I'm trying to cut down on my wiki time for Kalomelis sake so I can't even answer stuff on my own talk page so quickly. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 09:16, 4 March 2007 (CST)
 * well, yeah, but not to mention, everyone else has this...

Gem has new messages (answer for him).
 * hehe... I just really wanted to try out that code, to be honest. :P --[[image:GEO-logo.png]] <font color="#237d00">Jioruji Derako.> 09:45, 4 March 2007 (CST)


 * That explains. ;) --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 10:14, 4 March 2007 (CST)


 * Dude, I want to make it so my login does that. XD --Armond Warblade (talk) 09:38, 9 March 2007 (CST)

GFDL
I know that the GFDL tag stuffs user pages into a category, but for people who have specific exceptions, do you know if a note under the tag be honored? Fyren's user page somewhat shows what I mean, though that involves public domain. ~ Pae 22:56, 3 March 2007 (CST)
 * It should be an is honored. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 02:21, 4 March 2007 (CST)

User:71.234.101.11 needs a ban.
Special:Contributions/User:71.234.101.11 &mdash;Blastedt 09:50, 4 March 2007 (CST)
 * I don't like banning people for 1 vandalism edit. It doesn't prevent nor punish. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 10:13, 4 March 2007 (CST)
 * OK, but his second contribution was also a vandalism, so just a heads up, since all his contribs are vandals. &mdash;[[Image:BlastThatT.jpg]]Blastedt 11:01, 4 March 2007 (CST)
 * The first one is from March 2006, the second from March 2007. I don't see a reason for banning. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 11:08, 4 March 2007 (CST)
 * ._o it was? Wow, >.> &mdash;[[Image:BlastThatT.jpg]]Blastedt 12:31, 4 March 2007 (CST)

Natures Owns needs a warning
Could you give Natures Owns a warning? due to his [Build_talk:D/A_Dark_Silence_Runner#Yet_Another_Variant|edits of others posts] to make them look stupid? - Viktor 11:29, 6 March 2007 (CST)
 * I've reverted his changes to the other users post and I'm giving a warning. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 06:54, 6 March 2007 (CST)

More Sockpuppets
http://gw.gamewikis.org/wiki/Build_talk:W/Mo_Dead_Sword_Solo#Sockpuppet_parade. Yeh, if you can deal with these sockpuppets. Solus  08:38, 6 March 2007 (CST)

199.43.172.254
http://gw.gamewikis.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/199.43.172.254 Needs a ban. Solus  09:36, 6 March 2007 (CST)

Scams article
Gem, I'd like to go ahead and move List of popular scams to a better name (and hopefully, after that, do some major cleanup), but before I do I have a couple questions. Would "Common scams" be a better new name than "List of common scams"? I prefer the shorter name myself. Second, when I move the article, do I then need to move all the subarticles separately, or do they move automatically with the main article? And last question: I'll leave a redirect at List of popular scams for now, but should I also go through and edit all the links to it manually? With the exception of the main page link, which I guess I need to propose the change at main page editcopy, is that right? Thanks much! — HarshLanguage 11:45, 6 March 2007 (CST)


 * I like the short version Common scams. You need to move sub pages manually. And you need to update all links to the new article. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 08:20, 7 March 2007 (CST)
 * Thanks Gem. The only links left to the old article are on talk pages or in the user namespace. Obviously I'll leave the user stuff alone, but what about the talk page links? Normally I wouldn't even think of editing other people's comments... but is it done in cases like this when an article has been moved? I appreciate your guidance! — HarshLanguage [[Image:qswearing_small.png|HarshLanguage]] 13:25, 7 March 2007 (CST)
 * I saw the moves being done, so have already made the update to the Main Page.
 * On user pages, those can be left to the old redirect. As the page existed under its old name for so long, many people may still key that name in the search box, so I think we should keep the redirect that was created from the move.  As long as the redirect remains, the user page contents will still forward to the new location. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 13:34, 7 March 2007 (CST)

Ideas
It's just some ideas. What do you think about it? I can start a project page for thoose if you think it is good ideas. I may need some technical help but i'm ready to do as much as i can for it.--Ttibot 21:42, 7 March 2007 (CST)
 * Guild pages : What about adding adding a guids category wich would autorize guilds to make pages from them on the wiki? Guild would then be able to have a page where they can use links from the wiki and create builds with the wiki syntaxe. Guilds made builds would have a specific flag then it can be listed in page. This would fullfill the database and others users may send commentaries. I know that any ranked guild would never agree to share it tactic if they are still using it in PvP but PvE and non ranked PvP guilds could come in.
 * Translation : Many GW players are low english speaker and there is no equivalent for the wiki in foreign langage. What about adding translated pages on the wiki. All pages could have a link wich redirect to a translation in foreign langage.
 * Sub ideas for translation (if technically possible) :
 * Having thoose pages under GFDL liscence could help on exchanging with others GFDL sites.
 * Get an option wich will replace all translated pages when openning by the foreign langage equivalent if they have been translated. well, I don't think that it is possible but that could be fine.
 * Get a build syntaxe wich allow to make a build with the skills and professions in foreign langage. If the skills and professions are in the same category than english ones this would not be necessary. If they are in a different category the skill bar should specify that they have to be find in the foreign langage category.
 * Firstly make a page with all boss names, weapons, skills... translated from english to foreign langages could help on translation making.


 * Thanks for sharing your ideas, although GuildWiki talk:Community Portal would have been a better place. I'll still answer your suggestions here.
 * Foreign language wikis exist allready. I can't remember urls, but I'm sure you'll find the german and french wikis with google. ANet has also started an official wiki of their own and they will also make foreign versions later on.
 * Guild pages have been discussed earlier and been disallowed. In the new official wiki users decided to allow guild pages in a guild name space. Builds should still be kept separate from the guild section. If you want to start a discussion over adding a guild section to this wiki, feel free to ask my help and I'll help you with it. (Plus I might support you ;) ) --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 04:04, 8 March 2007 (CST)

213.48.45.34
http://gw.gamewikis.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/213.48.45.34 Vandalizing. Solus  04:15, 8 March 2007 (CST)
 * Allready blocked by Eightyfour-onesevenfive. :) --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 04:18, 8 March 2007 (CST)
 * I'm using "Too Slow!" on Gem! :D --<font color="midnightblue">84-175 (talk) 04:22, 8 March 2007 (CST)
 * That explains. ;) --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 05:25, 8 March 2007 (CST)

Gem has work to do (do it for him). ...Just tell me when this starts to get old, Gem. I'm waiting for your signal. -- <font color="#237d00">Jioruji Derako.> 04:28, 8 March 2007 (CST)
 * Hehe, a good one. Just be sure not to overdo it. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 05:25, 8 March 2007 (CST)

Add to work from above template box thing
Category:Nightfall missions What's with Blacktide Den there? I've stared at it a bit and fiddled once, but no go... (Let me know if you figure out how to fix it. I'm curious now. :P) --Armond Warblade (talk) 23:43, 9 March 2007 (CST)
 * Ehhhmmm... What was the problem? I didn't quite understand. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 06:02, 10 March 2007 (CST)


 * Blacktide Den was, for some reason, listed as a subcategory, and when you clicked on it it gave you a category list of all the monsters in the blacktide den mission. Seems like someone fixed it before you got a chance to see it, though. --Armond Warblade (talk) 12:27, 11 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Ah, I understand. There are categories for all missions and explorable areas which include all of the NPCs, monsters, bosses etc which can be found there. The category Category:Blacktide Den (mission) was incorrectly added in the Nightfall missions category, but Kryasante fixed it. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 13:26, 11 March 2007 (CDT)

Guest Book
On my guest book on my talk page am i aloud to remove all wording except for the signature and date so i can clear it up and have coloums to save space? -- "Wings" 07:55, 15 March 2007 (CDT) i.e. 1. [Sig][Date]........ 2. [Sig][Date]........ 3. [Sig][Date] 4. [Sig][Date]........ 5. [Sig][Date]........ 6. [Sig][Date] 7. [Sig][Date]........ 8. [Sig][Date]........ 9. [Sig][Date] 10.[Sig][Date]........ 11.[Sig][Date]........ 12.[Sig][Date] 13.[Sig][Date]........ 14.[Sig][Date]........ 15.[Sig][Date]

without the dots in between. -- "Wings" 07:55, 15 March 2007 (CDT)


 * Well, you are allowed to do almost anything on your talk page, but editing other peoples comments is never allowed. Ofcourse this is a bit weird situation, but I would say no personally. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 14:07, 15 March 2007 (CDT)
 * You could move it to a sub page, like User talk:Wings That Heal/Guestbook or similiar. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 14:08, 15 March 2007 (CDT)
 * thats to much cause then people have to goto a different page, sign, then come back to do what they want and most people wont sign it. -- [[Image:Wingsthatheal-icon.jpg]] "Wings" 19:50, 15 March 2007 (CDT)
 * I was thinking the same thing... hm. What if you made a seperate page for the guestbook, like Gem said, but keep, like, the last ten slots on the talk page? For example, when someone signs the number 39-ish spot, you take all the signatures, move them over to the guestbook page, and restart the numbering at number 40. That way, you keep it easy for people to sign, you keep it short, and people can just click an easy link if they want to see the full guestbook. --[[image:GEO-logo.png]] <font color="#237d00">Jioruji Derako.> 23:08, 15 March 2007 (CDT)

thx that might work, i just didnt want people to have to go to a whole new page just to signt hen come back, cause if you look at 3/4 of the people that took me guest book have it on a new page and they only have like 10 sig's at most. -- "Wings" 23:13, 15 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Yeah, I would definately just keep it on the main page, and move the older signatures to a seperate page. So it keeps it nice and easy to sign, but doesn't take up all that space (also, you wouldn't have to worry about editing people's comments). --[[image:GEO-logo.png]] <font color="#237d00">Jioruji Derako.> 23:16, 15 March 2007 (CDT)

Just having the sig and/or date would make it look a lot cleaner and beta. -- "Wings" 23:33, 15 March 2007 (CDT)

im not sure that even works cause it wont count from 40+ it will start all over from 1 agian. -- "Wings" 23:35, 15 March 2007 (CDT)
 * hmm, that's right... there's probably some sort of coding you can use to set the numbers manually, I'll look into it. --[[image:GEO-logo.png]] <font color="#237d00">Jioruji Derako.> 23:37, 15 March 2007 (CDT)

ok thx. -- "Wings" 23:38, 15 March 2007 (CDT)

Gem, would you be able to ask the other mods or whatever you call them, if its ok do delete the wording before the sigs and dates in my guest book on me uer talk page, since they are not comments (only random sentences with 0% meaning) and its my user talk page, thx. -- "Wings" 05:26, 16 March 2007 (CDT) Finally got it all sorted out my guest book is up and running, hope i didnt break any rules or its in breach of any rules at the moment. -- "Wings" 09:48, 19 March 2007 (CDT)<Br>


 * Well, sort of, but it's ok unless someone complains. :) --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 05:47, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Good -- [[Image:Wingsthatheal-icon.jpg]] "Wings" 05:48, 20 March 2007 (CDT)

203.36.44.14 / Mosrael The Waker
This user (in [Build:Team - Meteor Stormers] ) is the build author and also the only favored vote (as of my Build talk edit at 05:38 13 March 2007). He also has repeatedly struck out unfavored votes that he does not agree with. He is hand-signing his comments User:Mosrael The Waker, but I'm not sure if that is who he actually is. Jinkas 00:43, 13 March 2007 (CDT)

68.58.44.177
Nuff said. -Auron  21:57, 13 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Sorry, but his contrib list is empty as someone has deleted everything. Can't do anything about it. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 05:36, 14 March 2007 (CDT)
 * It was all vandalism, but another admin hit it first. Just thought I'd tip you off. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|||My Talk]] 06:16, 14 March 2007 (CDT)

joke?
would it be mean to add the joke template thingy to this [Build:Team - Meteor Stormers] ? Its a nuking build for HA. and the wammo is the healer.--Coloneh RIP 13:23, 14 March 2007 (CDT)


 * Why don't you sell the organs of crippled orphans to microsoft while you're at it &mdash; Skuld 13:36, 14 March 2007 (CDT)


 * I oppose the use of the joke tag outside of user name space, and when used in the user name space it should be added by the user himself. Ofcourse I can't stop you, but you could instead be constructive and propose a deletion and move the content to your user name space as a monument to funny builds. :) (Ps. Didn't look to carefully and don't actually know if it's so funny. I trust your words.) --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 13:37, 14 March 2007 (CDT)
 * It's based on User:Curse_You/E/Me_Meteor_Storm (see the bottom of the page) and it looks like the author didn't get it, that it was a Joke :/ I'm check the article history a bit, and put a delete tag if it wasn't removed by an admin at some time. &mdash; Poki#3 [[Image:Poki.jpg|19px|My Talk Page :o]], 14:34, 14 March 2007 (CDT)

User:Kimberley brown
This user has vandalized several pages and deserves to get banned IMHO.- Leader Rat  19:26, 15 March 2007 (CDT)
 * The user has been banned. In the future, you can place a ban request on the user's user page (not their talk page) using the template

. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:30, 15 March 2007 (CDT)

Tormented Weapons
Well i saw that some one keeps changing the links to the annimations on them from a youtube like to a forign site link i changed them back last night but he changed it again :/. Which one should it be set to?==Blade (talk|contribs) 07:56, 16 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Youtube. Which pages? &mdash; Skuld 08:13, 16 March 2007 (CDT)
 * I saw this a while back, but since I can't view them at work, it slipped my mind when I got home. The one I noticed was Tormented Staff. I guess if both are legit, then the clearest one should be the linked in the article. &mdash; Gares 08:27, 16 March 2007 (CDT)
 * I just assumed youtube was better because its an english site the other is the same video just on a diffrent site--Blade [[Image:smallscout.png]] (talk|contribs) 08:29, 16 March 2007 (CDT)
 * If it's the same exact video, just on different sites, the one that was posted first should be the one that is used. Off the top of my head, I don't see why someone would change a link from one site to another when it is the exact same video. &mdash; Gares 09:44, 16 March 2007 (CDT)
 * That person's prefered video-sharing site ;p Youtube is far more widespread &mdash; Skuld 09:49, 16 March 2007 (CDT)
 * I saw this happening, too. I was going to revert the change, but the videos seem to be much clearer on the new site.  Seems like they have a better compression algorithm or something.  Anyway, once I actually looked at the videos I left the changes in. Jinkas 09:52, 16 March 2007 (CDT)

GW:RFA
Just posted a rather lengthy response to your question on my Request for Adminship. Hope that answers your question. I will try to add some more info later if you want me to do so. <font color="DodgerBlue">Defiant Elements (talk ~ contribs)

Quick question about logistics. I understand that the vote itself is not the determining factor in whether or not I am actually confirmed. However, I was wondering whether there is some kind of ballpark cut off point at which my nomination starts being seriously considered by the current Admins or if it is just the kind of thing that is played by ear. <font color="DodgerBlue">Defiant Elements (talk ~ contribs)

Also, I would like to point out an instance of GW:NPA being violated. It is actually on my nomination page.... an anon user writes: "Hes an asshole in-game." Since I don't appreciate being called an asshole, I was wondering whether I could get a ban or at least remove the vote. <font color="DodgerBlue">Defiant Elements (talk ~ contribs)


 * The decision is made by the bureaucrates. It's a sort of dictatorship. If one of them thinks you should be an admin, they have the possibility to make you one. If none of them want to, then you wont be made one. There is no rule that they need to follow. They can even promote a random contributor if they want. ;)
 * I wont strike the vote, but as the decision is made by the bureaucrates anyway, they will obviously not let such votes make their mind about you. The point is what kind of image your actions and the votes give, not what some random guy thinks. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 03:42, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
 * I wasn't worried about a single vote effecting my chances at adminship, I just don't appreciate being called an asshole. <font color="DodgerBlue">Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs)
 * I understand. :) --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 03:44, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Hmmmm... so more likely than not, my nomination will be decided by Tanaric and/or Lord Biro. <font color="DodgerBlue">Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs)
 * Correct. :) --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 03:56, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Well, it is 4:05 am where I live, I think it is probably time to go to bed and stop staring intently at Recent Changes and GW:RAF. :) <font color="DodgerBlue">Defiant Elements (talk ~ contribs)
 * Just as an FYI ... both the new anon posting at 58.169.49.176 and the one used earlier by Solus at 138.217.165.69 come from IP ranges registered to "Asia Pacific Network Information Centre". --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:59, 19 March 2007 (CDT)

message from Jagre, regarding builds policy
I think Tanaric is like George Bush, and we are like the American people.

I do not think he should have ultimate power over something like that. I do think the question was framed with an edge. If nothing else, the guildwiki builds section should be copied and pasted onto another website, along with it's vetting procedure (although the process (including voting, etc. should be explained more clearly before a user is able to post one). I think it is steadily moving towards perfection.  I am about to check the vetting procedure for possible improvements.

-Brian aka Jagre 05:32, 19 March 2007 (CDT)


 * Hi. Tanaric and the other sysops and bureaucrats in the wiki have dicator-like powers, but they have never been misused and I don't see a sweep of the builds section as misuse either as most of those that commented the talk page were supportive, me included. As stated many times, people have 4 weeks to save any builds they want into their user name space, after which everything in the builds section will be swiped and the new policy comes into effect. We are not going to permanently remove the section or harm the wiki in any way, we are just going for a fresh start with a working policy. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 05:44, 19 March 2007 (CDT)


 * George Bush? Does that constitute as a personal attack? -Silk Weaker 05:49, 19 March 2007 (CDT)

report of malicious behavior
i'm sorry to be doing this... the user, barek just banned me for no reason. He violated the "revert wars" policy. please look at the Meleemancer page for proof of this. My edits were beneficial to the article. His original "revert" was absolutely unwarranted. he said that it was because I linked to a meleemancer build on the meleemancer page. When I added the part on strategy again without the link, as well explaining myself (after also explaining myself to barek and receiving no response) he reverted it back again and IP banned me. He should be banned and demoted from the role of admin before he causes further damage to the community.

Please look at the article and the edits made. They are constructive and not anything close to a "personal essay." His actions, IE banning are personal attacks. This is an open page and each user is entitled to fair treatment. Fair treatment towards him would be banning him.

-Jagre 15:54, 19 March 2007 (CDT)


 * After a quick glance it's you who first broke GW:1RV, though Barek did it too. You contributed, he reverted, you reverted the revert (breaking 1RV) and he reverted your reverting of the revert (again breaking 1RV). I'll look at it more carefully after posting this message, but your going too far with your ban and demotion suggestions. One revert against the rules and a possibly poor ban are no reasons to demote and ban someone who does a lot of good for the wiki. (Besides, if someone banned him, you would deserve a ban too for the same crime) Most users break a policy once or twice, especially when spending multiple hours in the wiki every day. If I don't spot anything relevant in the contributions when looking at the details, I suggest to forget this incident. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 16:50, 19 March 2007 (CDT)


 * Ok, I looked through the article history nad the block log. Both of you violated GW:1RV, but only once before stopping, so neither of you deserve a ban. Bareks ban for you was out of place since he was involved and also broke a policy, so I'll post on his talk page about it. He reverted the ban quickly, so no action needs to be taken. Otherwise this was a small incident which you are making a lot larger than you should.
 * This is the second time today you post on my talk page to suggest (directly or indirectly) removal of powers of a sysop/bureaucrat, although you hardly know the users and their contributions. I suggest taking it more calmly and taking your time to get to know the wiki, the contributors, and the wiki etiquette. This is not work for any of us, we don't get paid for it, so let's take it calmly. I appreciate it that you held a proper tone in all of your posts unlike many other newer users who feel violated. I hope you'll enjoy your time here. :) --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 17:35, 19 March 2007 (CDT)


 * Forgot one thing: The text removed by Barek should not be in the article imo. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 17:39, 19 March 2007 (CDT)

Reply per request at Barek's talk page
First, lets get this out of the way. I take ownership of technically performing a violation of GW:1RV in this case. As such, I should be and have been warned on my talk page. My reasons and a clarification of the sequence of events are detailed below.

Some history on the involved user: Jagre had been warned for a previous incident of violating GW:1RV very early this morning. He was therefore aware of the policy prior to this incident on the Meleemancer article, although I now believe that he mis-understood the policy as written - and erroneously believed his actions were appropriate.

On the Meleemancer article, he posted a personal essay as well as a link to an unfavored build, neither of which belonged. I removed both contributions with the edit summary "remove personal commentary and link to unfavored build". While newer contributors don't always view the edit summaries, I knew from prior posts that he does view the summaries, and he later acknowledged reading at least part of the removal reason. He posted a comment on my talk page that he was re-inserting his edit, to which I replied that doing so would be a violation of GW:1RV as well as pointing out that the content does not belong.

When he went ahead and restored the content with no discussion taking place in the article's talk page, I initially viewed it as a second violation of GW:1RV, for which he had already been warned, and placed the temp-ban, removed the article content violation which at this point I viewed as vandalism, and posted my reasons on the talk page for the article. It should be noted that despite how it appears on the talk page now, my post explaining the reasons for my actions were not a reply to his post - his post was inserted above mine after the fact.

At this point I relized two things: (A) Jagre likely hadn't seen my reply to him on my talk page, and (B) that, as an involved party, I should have a different admin review the article. I removed the bans (both the user ban and the auto-block) before anyone else even commented on the bans (the times can be seen at Special:Log/block). I then requested on Gares' talk page that he review the postings and reverts. By the time I had posted on Gares page, Fyren had posted a reply to my entry on the article's talk page. Gares also posted soon after, agreeing that the content did not belong in the article. I agree with him that Jagre was acting in good faith, as he erroneously thought that his actions were appropriate.

Like Jagre, my initial actions in this incident were also done in good faith - I viewed the re-insertion as an act of willful vandalism at that point and a second violation of GW:1RV within 24 hours. My initial actions were based on my role as administrator, protecting wiki article integrity. However, I fully acknowledge that, as an involved party, I needed to have an uninvolved admin review the situation, which is why I reversed the ban and requested another admin to intervene and to review the actions taken to ensure they were appropriate. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:59, 19 March 2007 (CDT)


 * Thank you for posting the full story here. I was able to reconstruct most of this by going through the histotriesm but not all of the small details. Now I'm fully convinved that no banning should be taking place on any users and the minor violations of 1RV were done in good faith. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 21:23, 19 March 2007 (CDT)


 * My edit was about the strategy of playing a meleemancer. Jagre 23:32, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
 * WTF MAN WHY DON"T YOU WANT MY COMMENTS? I AM IN COMPLETE MISUNDERSTANDING here, and currently of the opinion that most of the people here are extremely arrogant to put it gently.  Also my edit after Barek's deletion of it was not a re-evert because it was not the same as before, I took out all "personal commentary" and as well as link.  ALSO, HEY!  if you guys want to delete all of my writing on that page!  you missed the first and third paragraphs on the intro!  better get those too ya deleters!
 * Jagre 23:32, 19 March 2007 (CDT)


 * To help clarify this: per GW:1RV "If you find your edit was reverted, take your case to the article's talk page. Explain why you believe your edit was good and belongs in the article." Your content was removed.  Per policy, you should have taken your argument to restore it to the article's talk page before restoring it and wait for community input.  My comment in the edit summary when I removed the text was "remove personal commentary and link to unfavored build" - yes, you removed the link when you restored the rest of the text, but left all other wording from your initial post.  Articles should be a place for factual content supportable with evidence if needed - your contribution contained personal opinions and musings, as well as being written in first person.
 * For reference: Here's the difference between original and second posting of disputed content. There are two intermediate edits by me, in which I removed the original posting, then removed the "abandoned" tag (that tag is specific to builds).  The only other differences are in the title, and wikification of some links.  Restoring this text was clearly a violation of GW:1RV; but, as I stated, I no longer believe that it was a willful policy violation - but one caused by a misunderstanding.
 * As for your comments on other paragraphs; I agree with Fyren that much of the article could be axed; but due to this dispute, I'm leaving that to other contributors for now. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:08, 20 March 2007 (CDT)

Just thought this would be appropriate in the whole Jagre vs. Barek conflict (Ah Monty Python):

Dennis: Help! Help! I'm being oppressed! Violence inherent in the system! Violence inherent in the system! <font color="DodgerBlue">Defiant Elements (talk ~ contribs) 03:39, 21 March 2007 (CDT)

Need some arbitration on [Build:Mo/E_Sliver_renewal_55|a build]
The author has removed the delete tag (twice) on claims that his build is different enough from other 55 builds because it uses Glyph of Renewal and 2 open slots. --8765 17:04, 19 March 2007 (CDT)

Transfered here []. Mine is ready for deletion. Fexghadi 09:36, 27 March 2007 (CDT)

new subject
k, i do not believe my actions were in violation of RW because, when I re-added what Barek deleted, I ommitted the sections he said he had problems with. There, now do you still think I was in violation?

Also, to quote Barek's words from earlier in the day/week/whatever, "NOTE: The next person to blank out parts of discussions or to alter someone else's vote will be banned. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:47, 19 March 2007 (CDT)"

The first action of what ended up as a revert war was that he deleted my edit without any discussion.

He left a comment saying that he deleted it because there was personal commentary and a link to a meleemancer build page.

Assuming that he judge the edit based solely on what he stated in his comment, I told him my understanding of his actions and comments in his user talk page. Since he has never responded to my comments before that I have left for him, I went ahead re-added the text he deleted *(without (new edit))* the single statement he said he had a problem with.

Once again, the only thing I re-added were things unmentioned by his original comment, and IMO, 100% suitable to the page.

Now I still believe that future users could find value in my edits, and I would therefor ask that it be "re-reverted" by someone other than me.

Now, after I added this information, I was immediately IP banned by the user, Barek, and could not contact anyone via email, except for Barek himself, who I was pretty mad at at the time, since my understanding was at the time that he had simply deleted my edits for no reason.

He again deleted the information, which is, without question, in violation. and i think banning me was as well.

I am rather disappointed with the behavior of the guildwiki community in general - many people here seem to be in the rather annoying habit of jumping to conclusions.

I do not believe that providing an extra section on strategy to the meleemancer page should have caused people's opinion of me to decline - much less bann me for it :(

Oh well, if that is the community that is here, then that is how it is. I simply ask that I not be banned for such things in the future, or likewise equally petty things like this.

Like anyone else, I have a right to respect, and the only people I feel treat me with any, so far, in the countless people I have interacted with here on guildwiki, have been you, and auron.

Jagre 06:26, 20 March 2007 (CDT)


 * The ban on you wasn't right and it was removed quickly. After other admins looked at the situation, none of them banned you again. Mistakes happen, you should be fully aware of it and not take it too seriously. I know it's a hard thing to accept a ban, even a short one which is removed by the banner himself, but I suggest you do just that, accept that it has happened and live with it. Like you said, you have equal rights compared to any other user and that's exactly what we are trying to do here. Everyone, Barek included, realises that he also made a minor violation of the policies, but it seems like you haven't still accepted that you were a violator too, although you probably didn't know it at that time.
 * What comes to the situation of the artile, I believe that the text which was under this dispute did mostly not include usefull information and it was written in a bad manner. Therefor it was easier to remove than to rewrite the text. I would suggest you write a short text including all of the real information and place it to the article. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 06:50, 20 March 2007 (CDT)


 * Barek himself realized the ban was premature, and got rid of it. So to put it simple: "wtf is the problem ?" –Ichigo724[[Image:Ichigo-signature.jpg]] 08:29, 20 March 2007 (CDT)


 * I asked Jagre to post here, so there is no problem at all. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 08:30, 20 March 2007 (CDT)


 * I'm not sure I'm understanding what the problem is. I didn't read through the huge pile of text, but most of it. Tell me if I'm wrong on this:
 * Jagre submits a build
 * Build gets unfavored
 * Jagre edits the "meleemancer guide" with opinionated info
 * Barek rv's
 * Jagre rv's (breaking 1RV)
 * Barek rv's (breaking 1RV)
 * Barek bans Jagre for breaking 1RV
 * Barek realizes he wrongfully banned jagre after 10 whole minutes and unbans him
 * Jagre starts screaming "omg ban barek, taek his admin, abuse, abuse, abuse"
 * So, did I miss anything? –Ichigo724[[Image:Ichigo-signature.jpg]] 08:37, 20 March 2007 (CDT)


 * Good summary. No problem unless you guys keep posting about it. I don't know why you posted about the whole thing. It was solved allready --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 08:41, 20 March 2007 (CDT)


 * Comment - I view this issue as closed; but, seeing Jagre's post above, it appears that part of the problem is his misunderstanding of my comment when he repeatedly blanked out parts of a build's talk page discussion. I wanted to add a comment here to help define the difference should he view this discussion again (sorry that your talk page has been hijacked Gem, at this point you may want to look at Requests_for_arbitration and  consider moving this to a sub-page over there).
 * Anyways - I warned posters on his build "The next person to blank out parts of discussions or to alter someone else's vote will be banned". When I later removed submitted inapropriate material from the Meleemancer article, he seems to have viewed the two as equivalent actions, to which, all I have to say is that articles in the main namespace are not the same as talk pages.  In the Main namespace "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it."  While in talk pages, do not disrupt the flow of conversation by altering or removing someone else's post, and do not remove or alter posts of your own to which someone else has already replied. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 10:31, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
 * I'll let the discussion stay here as I have an arhive scheduled at the beginning of April. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 10:57, 20 March 2007 (CDT)

First of all, Barek: please refrain from accusing people of "hijacking" a user page when there is statements above stating that the user frankly asked me to post here. I think I have asked you to refrain from things like this before and would appreciate it if you honored my request. I do not really care, or hold anything against you for this, but am rather looking out for my own reputation.

I am not disputing the rules, only questioning them, and relating my understanding. And I usually try to be accepting of all the consequences of my actions.

Second, in regards to my misunderstanding. Before now, I believed that when someone deletes an entire article with a comment in reference to a single statement, it would have been okay to re-add the rest of the deleted article without the statements that the deletor had problems with.

However, apparently this is not the case, and as thus, I will move on. I do not wish to bicker about petty stuff, but will point out one last thing, which I will phrase in the form of a question.
 * Am I supposed to believe e that deleting entire articles is okay, and that banning people even when they gave justification before they acted is okay?

I refer you to: "Removal of text Removing unquestionable personal attacks from your own user talk page is much less of a concern than removing comments from other pages in GuildWiki. For text elsewhere, where such text is directed against you, removal requests should be directed to an admin to determine if the comments should remain, be archived, or be deleted. However, deletion should be rare, limited to situations where the comments pose an ongoing threat to a user such as revealing personal information in the attack."

I see now that some users and even admins will break policy and nothing will happen to them. Not even will anyone tell them they were wrong. But because of my actions, which are much less concrete in terms of definitive policy breaking, I get banned, and the discussion pages (as well as my user page) are flooded with statements against me.

This is nothing other than an observation. I do not think I have posed any opinion or judgment on the matter, but rather simply wish to point it out to whoever reads this.

However, it is my opinion that I should, from here on, be treated with more respect than I have been till now.

Jagre Jagre 21:20, 20 March 2007 (CDT)


 * A few things on your post were untrue.
 * Barek said "sorry that your talk page has been hijacked Gem". He did not accuse you of hijacking it, he was sorry that this has grown so large on my user page. I said it's ok.
 * Although the edit comment of Barek only refered to the things that you refered, the rest of the text was still not suitable for the article. As I've said, the small hints of information canbe readded to the article, but without the long irrelevant parts.
 * You said "Am I supposed to believe e that deleting entire articles is okay, and that banning people even when they gave justification before they acted is okay?" Yes, deleting an entire article or piece of text is okay if there is nothing usefull in it. Banning people is okay to prevent vandalism or punish breaking rules, but in this case it was not ok, which Barek realised within 10 minutes.
 * You said "I see now that some users and even admins will break policy and nothing will happen to them." You are partially correct. These minor violations of the policies did not warrant a ban. However, you and Barek were both warned and breaking policies multiple times will cause a ban to be placed.
 * "However, it is my opinion that I should, from here on, be treated with more respect than I have been till now." I'm trying, but it gets harder all the time when you ignore anything I say to you. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 03:37, 21 March 2007 (CDT)

Inscription/Trivia
I saw that you're on at the moment - can you take a look at this history and my comment to the author here? Background: the trivia was initially removed from the article per community discussion at Talk:Inscription. Thanks! --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:22, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Isn't that the same "Do eet! Do eet!" person?--[[Image:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG]]  Vallen Frostweaver  16:28, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Yup. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:28, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
 * What do you exactly want me to do? I can go on and delete the page which you could do and post on the authors talk page which you already did. Seems like a trivial case to me. Delete the page and if someone wants it back, restart the discussion first. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 16:30, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
 * I tagged it originally because I wanted to spur discussion on if it should be kept (the author was claiming it was a more factual version - so I wanted to allow for the community to weigh in on if the stripped down version was acceptable). Once the tag was removed, my replacing it would bring back GW:1RV issues again. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:40, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Ah that's true. :) I was too hasty when looking at this as I get ~1 edit every minute on my talk page now. I'll add the delete tag back and start the discussion on the talk page. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 16:41, 20 March 2007 (CDT)

More Problems
Alright, I am becoming way too emotionally involved in this whole User:Jagre thing. So, I am reporting tampering with my user talk page (He messed with one of the headings/sections because he didn't like what it said) buy Jagre. <font color="DodgerBlue">Defiant Elements (talk ~ contribs) 03:33, 21 March 2007 (CDT)


 * The heading was "User: Jager" and please don't talk shit about me any more. PLEASE.


 * Yeah, the heading was User talk:Jager, but you have no right to go and change it. People are also allowed to talk about you if they don't violate GW:NPA, which they didn't. You are taking the wiki too seriously and you think that everyone tries to attack you when they in reality don't. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 03:44, 21 March 2007 (CDT)

Builds wipe
Gem,

I'm a little upset about your behavior involving the builds wipe. Point by point:


 * 1) While I'm always the first to emphasize the nature of the sysops here as a team, I have to grudgingly admit that the builds wipe is me implementing what I feel is best for the wiki without a concrete, ratified-by-the-sysops plan. Basically, everything I've posted has been my plan and my implementation. I think most of the sysops support me in this, but so far, when one of them has seen an issue they wished to bring up, they've either discussed in on a relevant talk page or they've gotten in touch with me privately. You, however, have been making official, administrative statements that are simply wrong, because they're not what I'm doing. Additionally, you significantly edited the official Builds wipe announcement, changing its meaning, changing its timeline, and, worst of all, using it to push your pet builds policy. The problem with an official announcement is that, once made, it's more or less a contract to the users. We can't announce a May 1 date and then change it to say April 22. Even if my date was wrong or less popular, you should have just given me a hard time over instant messaging or something.
 * 2) Weren't you initially against the builds wipe? On the GuildWiki talk:Post No Builds poll I posted, you stated "I like the builds section is good and will get better if a good policy is agreed on." [sic]. Under the subheading "An interim solution," you argued against both wiping builds and testing new build policies in userspace. Further, you referred to my poll as a "vote" more than a few times, an attitude which makes me very uncomfortable. We don't do votes on the GuildWiki. Later, under that same subheading, you reverse opinion without explanation, but you do so while simultaneously attempting to co-opt the builds wipe in an effort to make no original builds the "official" replacement policy. Later, under "My return to the discussion," you either misinterpret or deliberately misrepresent the builds wipe to only take effect once another policy is in place. Such a thing would be okay, if you weren't a sysop. However, as an administrator discussing the only significant administrative action ever taken on the wiki, you just can't do things like this.
 * 3) You were against the builds wipe, and you have had no role in its planning or execution beyond the discussions many other editors contributed in, yet you continually say things like:
 * 4) *"This means that me and Tanaric could do the whole thing without any support from anyone else, but it wouldn't bee [sic] too wise."
 * 5) *" [Tanaric and I] are just the ones who are now actively trying to solve the problem after getting tired of this all."
 * 6) *"The sweep is not based on consensus or the poll. It is based on 2 admins using the GW:ADMIN to do what they want, trying to benefit the wiki with their actions."

Only tangentially related to the builds wipe:


 * You, in many places related to recent disagreements with User:Jagre, publicly "warned" Barek about his "mistakes" as a sysop. I don't feel any mistakes were made, though I agree with Barek's analysis that involving another sysop would have been helpful.
 * 1) Finally, and most scarily, on GuildWiki talk:Builds wipe, you state "we do not want to act against the opinnions [sic] of most of the users, that would be a political suicide." I think you greatly misinterpret the nature of your role here, Gem.

Please be mindful of the image you're projecting, as right now, it's not one that's compatible with a GuildWiki sysop role.

&mdash;Tanaric 21:59, 21 March 2007 (CDT)


 * I am sorry that I'm in a hurry at the moment and can't answer you throughly now, but I'll try to answer the most importnat points.
 * First of all, I thought you agreed on the timeline I had posted judging by this edit you made. I edited GuildWiki:Post No Builds so that it was what you wanted to implement once the wipe is done, Ie no builds accepted in the wiki. What comes to 'promoting my pet policy', I admit it and that is why I proposed removing this stuff in my latest comment on your talk page.
 * I was and still am against removing builds from the wiki, but this wipe is not directed to complete removal of the builds section, it is just a step to get the build section working. I don't see why I couldn't oppose permanent removal and support temporary removal. And even if I had changed my opinnion, which I never did, it isn't disallowed. Also, one of the best qualities of a contributor in a community project is that they can cope with and execute the plans of others when they have to even when they disagree with those plans. This is a thing that most wiki users do not seem to understand.
 * I am sorry for refering to your poll as a vote. This is a pure mistake caused by the fact that I do not speak english as my native language.
 * I also understood that the wipe will be done even if we have no policy agreed on and my intention was not to sound like I would think or want that the wipe should wait until we have a policy in place. I completely agree with the wipe and the possibility of a build section down time.
 * I didn't completely understand what is wrong with the three quotes that you have there, but I'll look into it more when I get back to my computer later today. And what comes to the Jagre case, it has been discussed a lot allready. I didn't give a warning to Barek or anything like you seem to think. The line which I said to him was "Barek: I hope you wont ban anyone in the future if you are invloved." and that is exactly what I think. I did not say that it is a warning or an administrative warning, it was my opinnion. See the word 'hope'.
 * I will hold myself from any build section related discussions until we can sort this out. That's probably best for everyone of us. :) --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 03:08, 22 March 2007 (CDT)


 * The one point I want to emphasize is that, as an admin, you should never really justify your actions by reminding the person questioning you that you have that authority. That's a lot like the president of a country firing a minister after the minister exposes a weakness/flaw in the country that needs to be addressed then saying he has the power to do that. While it IS within his power, it makes him look VERY bad to do that.
 * You need to play the admin role as LITTLE as possible when it comes to debates and dicsussion. Try and completely ignore your role as an admin when discussing policy and advocating for things to be done in one way or the other.
 * An admin CAN do whatever he likes, however, an admin has a greater responsibility than any other user, when he DOES act as an admin, it should never be according to what he likes, but to what he feels is in line with what the community wants and what is best practice for the wiki. It is because of that, that an admin has the power to do anything, because when he "does" things he is not just acting on his own behalf.
 * Most importantly, and I think that's what Tanaric is getting to, is that it's not portraying you, yourself, in a very mature light. You're a very nice person Gem, and I think part of the problem is that when you're faced with angry/rude behavior it kind of takes you by surprise. So, allow me to make this suggestion to you. The next time someone challenges your decisions or responds in a rude manner... Write your response, and then, before posting it, read it twice, once as if you are the person it's directed at, and once as if you are a third party not connected to the issue, and see how it sounds. Change anything you feel sounds awkward or not compelling. Every message you type has three readers: People who support you, people who disagree with you and people in between. Quite frankly, if someone challenged an edit I made and I told him "I'm an admin, as such I can do whatever I want" that kind of response only sounds good to people who support me. --Karlos 19:19, 24 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Thank you for the post. :) I actually do read all of my longer posts three, four or even five times before posting, but with short messages (less than three lines) I tend to only check for typos, or not even that. I know it is a problem sometimes and I'm working on it, but contributing to 2 wikis and a whole lot of other sites and having a girlfriend doesn't leave you too much time for one post.
 * In this case there wasn't really a choice but to tell people that the wipe is use of the admin rights, because there just wasn't anything else that authorized the wipe. No policy, no concensus, just a few people agreeing. Tanaric stated in the beginning that this is done by using the admin right to do what he wants, and I continued with that, although I realise that I should have put more time in actually saying why I am supporting what Tanaric is doing, not why we can do it. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 20:36, 24 March 2007 (CDT)
 * I hate to stick my nose into this discussion, but isn't there also a big difference between what a bureaucrat like Tanaric and LordBiro can do unilaterally, and what the administrators can do? I thought the roles were distinct in that regard, with bureaucrats having the ability to take action regarding content and policy in the absence of consensus, like the builds wipe. Whereas administrators administrate users, and generally take action on content based on consensus. I see the word "admin" being used for both, which is confusing me. If I'm wrong about the roles, please set me straight! — HarshLanguage [[Image:qswearing_small.png|HarshLanguage]] 03:40, 25 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Harsh, check GW:ADMIN, I think that should answer your questions better than I could without copy/pasting it here. :)  --Rainith 03:57, 25 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Ah yes, I remember reading that back in February. Does GW:ADMIN extend to making policy? It doesn't say. I guess the simple question is, are all admins and bureaucrats on even footing in all regards except admin status changes (and bot requests)? Or put another way, could any non-bureaucrat admin institute something like the builds wipe? — HarshLanguage [[Image:qswearing_small.png|HarshLanguage]] 04:09, 25 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Yes, but without discussion and support he would probably risk losing his sysop status. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 06:04, 25 March 2007 (CDT)


 * No, Admins don't have the authority to create and enact policy on a whim. However, Tanaric, Fyren, Biro, myself and I am sure many others have been talking about this and considering this for a long time. I did not know that this would take place at this time, but I knew for a long time it was coming.
 * Tanaric is not doing this because he alone feels that way. I myself don't like just wiping all the builds and would be more in favor of freezing addition and editing of existing builds, but I know that there is wisdom in doing this as well. --Karlos 16:43, 25 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Oh yes, I know. And while you and I share the same personal preference about the builds section, I'm not objecting to how the wipe came about at all. Anyway, I'm glad I asked about the admin/bureaucrat roles; the differences between them are much more subtle than I understood. =) — HarshLanguage [[Image:qswearing_small.png|HarshLanguage]] 18:37, 25 March 2007 (CDT)


 * As GW:ADMIN states, any administrator could do something as widely-reaching as the builds wipe. However, any of us could revert such an action, too, and the revert would stand. Thus, that I'm being allowed to go forward with the builds wipe implies (at the very least) acceptance of my course of actions by the entire administrative team. In practice, this means that any sort of wide-reaching action requires discussion and something resembling consensus before its implementation. &mdash;Tanaric 19:35, 25 March 2007 (CDT)


 * Technically none of the sysops or bureacrates are bound by GW:1RV according to GW:ADMIN, so they could in turn revert the revert of the wipe. However, all of the admins understand that actions like that would not cause any good for the wiki and we are all volunteers to make this site better, not worse. Discussion is the way to go. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 19:58, 25 March 2007 (CDT)

Drop rate/Birthday Present page
Hey Gem. I updated the drop rate page and as I was doing so noticed that you had necrid horseman and wallow listed in the white column as one each, but for totals on each of those lines you had two. :-/ I made the totals be one for each and recalc'd everything. If this wasn't right, sorry. Bsinkk 03:00, 22 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Necrid Horseman? I never got one of those. Someone has messed up the tables then. I don't have time to look at it now. I'll be back to this later today. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 03:09, 22 March 2007 (CDT)

Reverting
you reverted jagre talk page, but didnt revert his user page when they were both wiped by the same person -- "Wings" 05:46, 22 March 2007 (CDT)
 * I was just going ot do it when I saw the you have new messages box. :) I just stopped to ban him and post another warning on his talk page. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 05:47, 22 March 2007 (CDT)

LOL!
 * What did I tell you Jagre? --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 06:13, 22 March 2007 (CDT)


 * Gem, that wasn't vandalism. -jagre.


 * I also told you not to avoid the ban placed on you by using other IP adresses. However, I'm letting it go this time, but please read the message I put on your talk page. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 23:31, 22 March 2007 (CDT)

lol -- "Wings" 06:14, 22 March 2007 (CDT)

[[Image:Wingsthatheal-icon.jpg]] "Wings"
Can you protect my talk page, so that only logged in users can edit it, so no idoit signs my guest book? -- "Wings" 08:11, 22 March 2007 (CDT).......................................
 * If vandalism of your page becomes a problem it will be considered then. --Fyren 10:49, 22 March 2007 (CDT)
 * We do not protect pages per request. There are exactly two pages protected, Stabbers and Jagres, and I'm now removing the Jagres pages protection as it probably isn't necessary anymore. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 05:31, 23 March 2007 (CDT)

Jagre
The continued unblocking/extended blocking isn't going to solve anything in regards to that user vandalizing under dynamic IP addresses. Why would he care if you extended the ban on his user name, and its subsequent IP address, when he can still edit using different IPs? Deal with what's happening in front of you and if worse comes to worse, a range block can be done. However, right now the cause does not justify the effect for a range block. &mdash; Gares 08:27, 22 March 2007 (CDT)
 * I was by no means going to do a range block. I'm trying to signal him that he is not going to the right direction. If this 2 week ban doesn't work, there is nothing more I can do, but it is worth the try. I hope he comes to his senses. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 08:29, 22 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Nah, I won't suggesting that you would do a range block. That is a last resort option, only used in the rarest of cases. &mdash; Gares 08:53, 22 March 2007 (CDT)
 * After re-reading your first message I understood that you weren't saying that I was going to do a range block. Silly me. :) --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 09:06, 22 March 2007 (CDT)

Should a range block be decided to be needed later - all IP posts to the page have originated from IP blocks owned by O1.com
 * I don't see a range block as currently needed ... but for reference if it's decided to be done later, all of the anon postings involved in this appear to be coming from IP ranges owned by O1.com. Here's info on one of the ranges, we can get the others if needed later. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 11:00, 22 March 2007 (CDT)

Sacramento? That's not too far from me... I could go, you know, suggest some changes in action for him... :P --Armond Warblade (talk) 23:38, 22 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Thats the isp's office... -- Xeon 23:40, 22 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Armond enters the imposing building, yet ignores the receptionist completely. He wanders around a bit and finds himself in a large room filled with office workers. He rolls aside one of the desk chairs, employee included, and gets on top of one of the desks. After a few seconds, while already getting eyeballed by dozens of the employees, he shouts: "Alright, which one of you suckers is Jagre?!". 10 seconds of rumbling pass until one of the employees asks: "Jagre?!", after which Armand runs straight across desks towards that employee. Gasps left and right, Armand brutally lifts the startled man up from his desk chair and goes "You...make me...sick!" The man starts crying and Armand decides to leave early. It was just another day in the life of Warblade. Armand Warblade.–Ichigo724[[Image:Ichigo-signature.jpg]] 23:52, 22 March 2007 (CDT)
 * lol, (psst its armond with and o). -- Xeon 00:05, 23 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Eeep! Don't hurt me Armond, I'm innocent! (Yes, the eep is necessary) --User:Albinobird[[Image:Albinobirdsigicon.JPG|Albinobird]] 00:07, 23 March 2007 (CDT)

Still at it. –Ichigo724 23:39, 22 March 2007 (CDT) Can you create a cookie that will block a PC if they have that cookie on it? I know it is not a permanent solution, but not too many (=me) check their cookie folder, I personally hate looking through the folder, trying to delete one cookie w/o wiping the folder. Bah, forgot to log in. --User:Albinobird 23:47, 22 March 2007 (CDT)
 * If you've got Firefox, a quick press of Ctrl + Shift + Delete will fix that cookie... don't think we've got many cookie-monster-programmers here on the Wiki, anyway. --[[image:GEO-logo.png]] <font color="#237d00">Jioruji Derako.> 01:21, 23 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Phooey, forgot about that. I was thinking about how NWN can ban by PCs, but that is based off of a CD key, which will not work on GuildWiki. --User:Albinobird[[Image:Albinobirdsigicon.JPG|Albinobird]] 01:25, 23 March 2007 (CDT)

As I said on Jagre's talk page, if he chooses to evade his ban again, I will contact his ISP with a list of times correlated to IP addresses. &mdash;Tanaric 01:28, 23 March 2007 (CDT)

FYI, he was on as this IP tonight: 69.19.167.103 Jinkas 01:40, 23 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Hence my link above ;) –Ichigo724[[Image:Ichigo-signature.jpg]] 01:42, 23 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Oh right...I just ignored it since it was so tiny. :-) Jinkas 01:43, 23 March 2007 (CDT)

Yeah, it is around 3:30 am where I live and Jagre is still trying to defend his new build under the IP Jinkas mentioned. <font color="DodgerBlue">Defiant Elements (talk ~ contribs) 03:17, 23 March 2007 (CDT)
 * To be honest, I am less concerned that he is trying to circumvent the ban, but rather that he is doing so in order to defend his second build (which is also in unfavored). Looking briefly through his comments, he does not appear to be as emotionally involved as with the last build which is undoubtedly a good sign, but on the other hand, he is circumventing a ban meant to give him a little time to think about his actions (which largely involved his first build).  <font color="DodgerBlue">Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs) 03:25, 23 March 2007 (CDT)

Range bans
I had hoped that a range ban would not be required - but, given his repeated changing of IP addresses (in the 69.19.x.x and 69.85.x.x ranges), comments mocking the wiki ban process, and even use of a sockpuppet account, I believe the time has come for a range ban. I've attempted to place them on two ranges; but as I'm not very experienced at these, I've left a message for Fyren to verify they were implemented correctly. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 11:03, 23 March 2007 (CDT)
 * That's is how you block an IP range. &mdash; Gares 11:29, 23 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Scratch that, it should be 18 instead of 16. People coming in my office and getting me all distracted. Arghh. &mdash; Gares 11:50, 23 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Do you have a link for explainations on the logic of how those work? I've always wondered. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 11:51, 23 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Didn't see the other one. the 69.19 should be 69.19.0.0/17 and the 69.85 should be 69.85.0.0/18. Use the CIDR. &mdash; Gares 11:55, 23 March 2007 (CDT)
 * I tried figuring it out from the meta info, but the way it reads to me, 16 was correct for both. So, now I'm totally confused. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 11:59, 23 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Sorry, I went to lunch. Blocking more bits than the CIDR address block means you are blocking more host addresses than the network has permission to use. The /16 block was spilling over into other networks, blocking some of their addresses as well. &mdash; Gares 13:00, 23 March 2007 (CDT)
 * While /16 blocked too much, it appears from User_talk:Fyren that /17 and /18 block too little. But, it looks like Fyren modified the block range to catch the needed ones. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:31, 23 March 2007 (CDT)

I had no access to computer yesterday, but its good to notice that you took care of it. -- (talk) 03:53, 24 March 2007 (CDT)

User:Vallen Frostweaver/Project Archive/Profession Roles
You were very involved in GW:NOB and also commented on this idea so I thought I would ask you to review the rough draft of the policy idea which can be found here. Since this policy is more about extending the definition of acceptable builds as per GW:NOB I thought you would be a good person to talk to. Thanks. <font color="DodgerBlue">Defiant Elements (talk ~ contribs) 02:24, 24 March 2007 (CDT)

It is now a proposed policy which can be found at Profession Guides. <font color="DodgerBlue">Defiant Elements (talk ~ contribs) 23:08, 25 March 2007 (CDT)

Reason fot Deleting a Build
Hi! I made a farm Build yesterday for the UW. It was a Me/Mo 55 hp Build with IW. I just want to know why it is a problem that I use a 55 Build on a Mesmer which can solo UW? I know 55 has so much Builds that you need to delete them but...well you could leave it because it is a Mesmer Build which is rare for farming. Ty


 * Mo/Me IW 55 is a very common build. There's at least one on the site already, and I can remember when there were three "different" ones posted with few variants. Besides, if you have IW, you're not going to have Spell Breaker, and will thus die to the first Dying Nightmare you find... --Armond Warblade (talk) 14:07, 26 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Actually, Me/Mo 55hp in UW does work. I've seen it done both as solo 55hp with IW for damage, or as a 55hp with Shield of Deflection as your elite and a SS necro to back you up. You just bring Power Return to deal with Rend (and hope that if you trigger two nightmares at once, Power Return has recharged by the time the second nightmare starts casting). It's not as easy as a Mo/Me, for sure, but it's doable. :) --Dirigible 14:22, 26 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Me/Mo works and is almost as good as the Mo/Me one, but the build is almost the same. Put the Me/Mo version in the variants of the Mo/Me build. Ofcourse, if more people want the Me/Mo one to have it's own build article, I'll gladly revert the deletion. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 14:27, 26 March 2007 (CDT)


 * Ok. Understood. No more 55 variants. Zolee 10:03, 27 March 2007 (CDT)


 * Variants are not disallowed, but please keep them in the variants section of existing 55hp builds unless it is not reasonable. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 10:36, 27 March 2007 (CDT)


 * I know this is late, but I would like to respond to Armond's response regarding the Dying Nightmares. Even with the change of Rend Enchantments from 3 sec to 1 sec, you can still interrupt the nightmare(s) and wand him/them to death. It's not as safe as casting Spellbreaker, but it's in no way an instant death. It takes skill, knowledge of what you are doing, and who doesn't love some sort of challenge? Though I will say I do farm UW with a 55 monk, 55 mes, and duo monks, because it gets boring farming with the same class in the same way all the time.
 * As to the difference between a 55 Mo/Me vs. 55 Me/Mo, its mainly the attribute boost from runes. I have a lot of different Me/Mo farming setups, but they can be mirrored exactly, minus the attribute change as a Mo/Me. &mdash; Gares 11:07, 27 March 2007 (CDT)

Dunno where to put this
Still new to wiki but i just saw some guy named Terricor dleeting the info off W/Me uW solo and W/Rt uw solo. Taking that your an adiman - I put it here. -Torment 17:05, 27 March 2007 (GMT)
 * He has been blocked now. --Rainith 15:22, 27 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Ah right - I guess I did something right then :D - Torment 20:32, 27 March 2007 (GMT)
 * Yup. :) --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 16:14, 27 March 2007 (CDT)

Deletion of Comments
On several arctiles regarding possible choices for secondary proffesions, I posted a few suggestions, Yet User:Lania Elderfire deleted them, claiming it was bad advice regardless of the information I presented. Can you please hopefully give a summary on it was viable to be deleted, or considered "bad" advice. The Articles were Secondary professions for an Elementalist, Secondary professions for an Assassin and Secondary professions for a Dervish. Thankyou. Solus  03:04, 28 March 2007 (CDT)

For more information, see the talk page of those guides as well as Lania's discussion page. <font color="DodgerBlue">Defiant Elements (talk ~ contribs) 03:05, 28 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Cautery Signet Ele/Paragon... Apply Poison Derv/Ranger... A/P wasting points in Command for shouts that try to do Critical Strike's job and fail. Meh. Take it as you will. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|19px||My Talk]] 03:09, 28 March 2007 (CDT)


 * Seems User:Skuld has re-joined the band wagon by deleting my suggestions on Dervish secondarys claiming "poison spreading fails at melee range".  Solus  [[image:Shield_of_Judgment.jpg|19px]] 03:29, 28 March 2007 (CDT)


 * You added it, Lania removed it, you re-added without any sort of discussion or reasoning. I've given my reason, you have done nothing of the sort, nor explained why it should be there. &mdash; Skuld 03:30, 28 March 2007 (CDT)

Everybody duck! Revert wars are immanent! This is NOT a drill. <font color="DodgerBlue">Defiant Elements (talk ~ contribs) 03:30, 28 March 2007 (CDT)

But Skuld, it was a bad reason, can't I just revert it? Solus  03:32, 28 March 2007 (CDT)


 * Degen is the most effective when applied to many foes, a bow/spear can reach many without moving, a scythe is melee and requires you to run about and spread. I can see the reasoning, scythe AoE; but in reality there is few areas where all the monsters have a group hug. &mdash; Skuld 03:58, 28 March 2007 (CDT)

I'm talking about PvE. Solus  03:59, 28 March 2007 (CDT)


 * As am I. Scythe = adjacent &mdash; Skuld 04:28, 28 March 2007 (CDT)

You don't have license to re-revert. She gave a reason. If you think her reason is bad, you need to take it to the talk page in question and work it out with the editors of the articles in question. &mdash;Tanaric 12:44, 28 March 2007 (CDT)

That doesn't make sense, I gave a reason and was only told my suggestions were "bad advice". Does that mean I can delete any suggestions any user puts on wiki because I think it's bad advice? Solus  20:54, 28 March 2007 (CDT)
 * If it's Apply Poison on a dervish, yes. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|19px||My Talk]] 21:01, 28 March 2007 (CDT)


 * Our revert policy assumes that the articles as written are moderately good. If somebody adds something ridiculous, you get to revert it, and they have to justify their change to you and the other article editors before it gets admitted to the article. It's all in GW:1RV.


 * Note that abuse of 1RV is something that no sysop here takes lightly, so please, if you disagree with the policy, don't express that disagreement with frivolous reverts. The only person that hurts is you. &mdash;Tanaric 21:17, 28 March 2007 (CDT)

So spreading degen among 3 foes, using a perfect IAS with great sygnery with Vow of Strength and potienally healing over 180 and large damage is still considered bad avice? One is a very one-sided arguement with only me presenting information and evidence while other shunning my reasons. Solus  21:23, 28 March 2007 (CDT)


 * Don't try and convince me, it's not my call and I suck at Guild Wars. Take it to the talk page of the article in question. If people support you putting the information back in there, go ahead and do it. &mdash;Tanaric 21:48, 28 March 2007 (CDT)

Delete Spree
Hehe, reminds me of Skuld + Builds. Cheers for freeing up valuable MetaWiki Resources! (T/C) 19:56, 29 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Here was me (being clever as usual) clicking the link to find what you had deleted, only to find (SHOCKINGLY!) that it wasn't there! hehe --Chronicinability 19:58, 29 March 2007 (CDT)
 * You haven't seen the best of my deletion sprees I guess. I've even gotten the whole recent changes (last 150 or 200) full of deletions once.
 * Chronicinability: lol :D --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 19:59, 29 March 2007 (CDT)
 * But we still have 922 unused images. That's about 923 too many :( &mdash; Poki#3 [[Image:Poki.jpg|19px|My Talk Page :o]], 20:01, 29 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Some of them are actually linked to from discussions etc, but they appear in unused images as they aren't used, only linked to. Sad, but atleast it's pretty easy to tell if an image has probably been used for a discussion. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 20:03, 29 March 2007 (CDT)

Divine Aura D F.jpg
I'm not sure if this is the correct place to post this, but I'd like an admin to check out the Image talk:Divine Aura D F.jpg page and basically make a decision on the difference of opinion between Azuredraco and myself. -- Gemini 30 March 2007
 * FYI, I've uploaded a new version of the image that I think improves the depiction of the aura, and which should eliminate the need for intervention over the image itself. Gem or another admin might want to check the revert history, though. I think they both ended up breaking 1RV, unfortunately. — HarshLanguage [[Image:qswearing_small.png|HarshLanguage]] 22:22, 30 March 2007 (CDT)