User talk:Gemigemi

I need help with my MM hero builds! Any comments and ideas are appreciated.  

"Unused" pictures
I thought I should let you know that some images are shown as unlinked, when in fact they are being referenced from the body of an article. Specifically, I'm referring to the images of chaos axes dyed black and white (labeled translucent and pure white, respectively, though I suspect this is more widespread than these two images alone. I'm bringing this up to you because I noticed that you deleted them, and I wasn't sure if there was a particular admin responsible for these kinds of things. In the mean time, I've uploaded these two images again, let me know if this is a problem. Thanks! -- Imbril Shadowfire  17:26, 1 April 2007 (CDT)
 * PS. I did some testing in the sandbox, and I'm thinking the most logical explanation is that images referenced using the  Image:Chaos_Axe_Black.JPG  syntax don't get included in the "What links here" section in the image's page. Apologies if this is a known issue, but I figured I should bring it up... --[[Image:SmallMapleLeaf.jpg|19px|User:ImbrilShadowfire]] Imbril Shadowfire  17:32, 1 April 2007 (CDT)
 * I'm aware of the 'what links here' problem with images, so I've been pretty carefull when deleting unused images. The safest thing would probably be to make a sub page somewhere, probably your user name space, where you use those images so that they don't show up in the list and I don't delete them on my next unused images purge crusade. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 07:13, 2 April 2007 (CDT)

Builds Wipe
I posted a response to the builds wipe in a section that you commented on previously where you mentioned it was a good idea. Unfortunately a lot of other sections were made afterwards and it could easily be looked over accidently. Basically it was an alternative to the wipe by simply moving the builds to a new namespace and starting the new policy in the old (now cleaned) namespace. This would keep all parties satisfied. If it is said that it would be a waste of space, I would argue that the hundreds of users making backup userspace copies of the builds would total up to much more than that. Anyway, I just wanted to make sure at least one admin saw it and could spread the idea. GuildWiki_talk:Builds_wipe — RabiesTurtle (contribs) 17:33, 3 April 2007 (CDT)


 * Thanks, I had totally missed that one. I'm opposed to the idea though.
 * We've allready archived the builds multiple times on different users name spaces.
 * Having 2 build name spaces is definitely a bad idea, espcecially if one of them is staying as a copy the current build section. The idea was to get a fresh start, not to multiply the problems. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 17:43, 3 April 2007 (CDT)


 * Hmm, I fail to see the logic. I understand the fresh start and that is exactly what you will get by clearing the old builds namespace.  Even if a copy of all the builds in a new namespace exists, it can easily be ignored by those who wish to only view/moderate the new policy guided builds.  Also, even if the builds are backed up to userspaces already, the general public will never find them and prove worthless to all but that user. For instance I have no idea where to find a single one of these backups unless I do them myself.  Heck, even if I did know, I wouldn't have any way to sort through them.  If it is ok to keep builds because they seem useful to people, why not have them collectively stored instead of using more space for each person to try to make their own backups.  Once people see the builds are remaining but just under a new namespace (UserBuilds perhaps) then they will likely delete their own backups.  Not trying to whine at all, but more offer a constructive compromise which I don't see how anyone could complain about.  Both sides win and get the positives they are looking for. — RabiesTurtle (contribs) 17:58, 3 April 2007 (CDT)


 * I'm not saying that your whining, your feedback is reasonable. :)
 * The reason for not making an organised backup like a new name space is to avoid moving the old problems to a new place. We want to completely get rid of the old system and its flaws so that users can easily change to anything new that is agreed on. It does cause a small downtime, but as the NOB is doing pretty fine atm, I don't think the downtime will be big. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 18:01, 3 April 2007 (CDT)


 * See I don't like the replacement with the NOB idea because it takes out creativity and promotes cookie-cutter builds. Either way, it is out of my hands.  Can I make a proposal then... With the difficulty of copying over builds to my namespace due to having to copy the history separately, would it be possible to move the entire namespace over to my userspace?  I propose that instead of wipe.  It would still then be only in userspace but will be a fullbackup that can be sorted through by those who so desire.  Odd request I know... but I figure it is worth a try and should be as simply done with a script as it would be to delete the pages. — RabiesTurtle (contribs) 19:09, 3 April 2007 (CDT)


 * It's not possible as far as I know. Note that the NOB policy might get an addition that allow original builds, as long as they are categorised differently. I'll write my proposal later on today and we will see what people think of it. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 03:41, 4 April 2007 (CDT)

Copying History?
Would Build:W/Mo Regeneration IDS Farmer (Archive) work? Other than that, I guess there's copying HTML. ~ Pae 22:00, 3 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Is that the full history of the original build? The way to copy the history is to use the 'move' button to move the original build to your user name space, which copies the history too, then copy the build back to the original place. Note that most if not all builds have been backed up allready. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 03:41, 4 April 2007 (CDT)