User talk:Sagius Truthbarron

Teaching a W/mo basic HTML
There is a preview button ;) Shandy 08:23, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Ooooh, thanks. I'm not really new to Wiki but I haven't really done much editing before. Any help would be appreciated. Err, how do you put the time in with your discussion edit?Sagius Truthbarron

Just type ).  Read some active talk page (eg. Talk:Tank) to see how it's done. BBCode (i.e., stuff like ) does not work here. &mdash; Stabber 13:20, 28 February 2006 (CST)

Is it possible to quote, then? I noticed my ability to add  seems to have been removed. I remember being able to use that before. I quote from different sources alot, so just using a "-- [source here]" to signify quotation is going to look really confusing. --Sagius Truthbarron 13:34, 28 February 2006 (CST)


 * You nave never been able to use . MediaWiki (the software GuildWiki runs on) uses an entirely different kind of markup than sites like gwguru. You can read up on MediaWiki's markup on Wikipedia:Help:Editing. Quoting in responses here tends to be ad hoc, but you might be able to use normal HTML for it. I often set apart quotes with , a standard HTML tag. Incidentally, and not to be a broken record, but I note that your response to my comment above was not indented. &mdash; Stabber 13:43, 28 February 2006 (CST)

PvP Articles
Good work there. Its nice to see a veteran PvP player contributing, there are not enough of them around here in the wiki and the whole PvP content is quite underrepresented here compared to PvE. --Xeeron 18:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Or Else?
During the discussion on talk:IWAY you have made two threats: In addition, you have mocked the community in both intelligence and in skill. I would like to use your technique with you and see if perhaps it will give the wiki more success than it has given you:
 * 1) At first, you told the plebians that they should leave your edits alone or you will take them away. You proclaimed that only admins were fit to critique your work.
 * 2) When the admins told you that you were wrong, you most recently threatened to start spreading the content on other sites (as if we care).

'''If you threaten to do ANYTHING ever again to this wiki because your opinion is not taken, whether it is to take your content and go, to spread it around hoping to make us feel bad or even threaten to tell the teacher on us, I will ban you. I could not care less if you were the inventor of PvP himself.'''

I hope this is clear. --Karlos 07:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok. I'm not going to argue with you. I'de just like to ask for the approval to move all of my hate mail to this talk page so that it doesn't interfere with genuine questions about the builds. Really, all of those posts share a common theme that would probably be best at home in my talk page, do you agree? --Sagius Truthbarron 16:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I believe most of the discussions were not specific to your person, but general Wiki issues like the terms of the license, whether or not builds should be attributed and so forth. They are useful where they are right now so that future users can read and learn about these things instead of re-inventing the discussion every now and then.
 * If you feel, however, that any part of those threads was personally offensive to you and you wish to remove it, go ahead and if the removal is fair, it will stay, and if it's fair, someone will get ticked off and put it back. :) --Karlos 17:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Joking in Articles
I sick and tired of Chuck Norris jokes, :) seriously though, please do not make such edits to an article again. Purposefully putting jokes that have nothing to do with the article has a name, it's called "vandalism" and it has a penalty known as banning. I am not about to go banning a confirmed contributor like yourself on this little thing, but if we allow you to do it, we might as well allow 89.122.13.62 as well. If 89.122.13.62 edited that article and made that joke, we canbe sure Rainith would have banned him for a month. Please be mindful of this. --Karlos 11:07, 1 March 2006 (CST)


 * 1. I was pointing out the fact that the page was full of jokes. 2. JoDiamonds made a joke about Oink being the greatest fighter who ever lived. I went ahead and added you post above to his talk page, just to be fair :)


 * I find it funny that I am the only person warned from this, but that's ok. :) I was going to change his class to Assasin, but thought that would be too much. I've sinced cleared all the junk out of the article (IE, Oink is a little piggie, Oink! Oink!). --Sagius Truthbarron 11:24, 1 March 2006 (CST)


 * Jo Diamond put what was in the talk page, he was being sarcastic, but what he said is TRUE. We do not ban people for being sarcastic as long as what they are trying to do is infrom. What you put in the article was a load of, you guessed it, Charr doodoo. And please do not distribute my warning as you please, if I wish to warn others, I will. In general, putting words in someone's talk page with another person's signature is very dishonest. Thank you for clearing the article. --Karlos 11:28, 1 March 2006 (CST)


 * You allowed the article to drift to where it became at the time of JoDiamonds' edit. You even editted twice but did not remove the giberish. I point out the ammount of foolishness on the page and then you threaten to ban me or revoke some rights from me.


 * I have no problem with you Karlos, but the way you act at times is very aggrivating. Judging from your talk page, you aren't everyone's friend either. Those who live in glass houses - ; you know? :) --Sagius Truthbarron 11:39, 1 March 2006 (CST)


 * If you can find me one instance of an edit to that article (or any other actually) where the criteria I set above (sarcastic/joking comment that has NOTHING to do with the article) was met and I left it as it is, then go ahead and accuse me of having a double standard. The reason I posted a warning was because this IS the first time EVER I see a regular user post such gibberish in an article. And go ahead, use the old "Karlos is a known trouble maker" routine. It's a well known method in the "I can't oppose his arguments so I am goign to cast shadows on his character" school of thought. --Karlos 11:49, 1 March 2006 (CST)


 * Who else is going to read this besides you and me? I'm not opposing the removal of that giberish, your authority, or whatever. I'm just asking why you are driving on this so hard - and only toward me - when you let others get away with it? --Sagius Truthbarron 11:53, 1 March 2006 (CST)
 * I am reading this, and I guarantee you aren't winning anybody to your side with this. --Ravious 12:04, 1 March 2006 (CST)
 * Karlos is right that if an anon. user had made the edit I would have banned him, although probably for a week or two, not a month. But since your return, you have seemed to be making a good faith effort, so I did not ban, I just reverted.  I left in JoDiamond's edit as it did serve a purpose of getting out the info that had been discussed on the talk page.  Had I more time at that point, I probably would have edited it a bit, but as I was at work, I didn't have the time.  The 'Chuck Norris' entry served no purpose that I could see.  --Rainith 14:09, 1 March 2006 (CST)
 * Now that that is settled, lets all have a group hug. --Sagius Truthbarron 14:16, 1 March 2006 (CST)


 * My edit may not have been in the finest form, but it truly was intended to be informative. The article did not previously reference Oink's ability to attack or invulnerability, which are unusual traits.  I felt the article should reflect that information.  While I should have spent more time writing it out in a better fashion, when I clicked "submit" I decided it was better for the information to *be* there than lacking, even if I hadn't spent the time to clean it up right then.  While it's not good policy (I freely admit) to depend on this, I also realized that someone (perhaps myself, later) would probably clean up the information to improve the writing.
 * I'll happily stay out of the rest of this discussion, but I feel it's significant that my post was intended to improve the information provided by GuildWiki. --JoDiamonds 12:16, 1 March 2006 (CST)

R/W Constant Stance Slasher
Your article (R/W Constant Stance Slasher) has an incomplete sentence, I'd fix it myself but I'm not entierly sure what its intended meaning is. The line is:

While a R/W may not be the target of Mesmers as quickly as a Warrior might be, degenerate and other hexes will certainly

If you could fix it that'd be good, thanks. --Xasxas256 08:07, 2 March 2006 (CST)