User talk:Rainith

Unique items
Any change requests for the Unique items list page go here.

Ok. So where are we going to put new Factions Greens? I have one to post. --Katia Steelheart 6:55, 29 April 2006


 * You can post Canthan greens here. --Gares Redstorm 09:17, 29 April 2006 (CDT)


 * I added two links to the Canthan unique items list to that page now, one at the very top, one at the bottom under Related Articles. I hope that will be enough for people, but if anyone has any suggestions, please post them here.  --Rainith 16:27, 29 April 2006 (CDT)

Victo's Blade does not have complete weapon stats. Damage and weapon type isn't listed, it just says "Swordsmanship" instead. Fixed. --Rainith 00:07, 14 May 2006 (CDT)

Thanks for the A/Rt bosses with pics list
I was going to do it after getting dinner, but I noticed that you've done it for me! Yay creative use of slack! &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 18:32, 24 April 2006 (CDT)
 * No problem. Of course Tarosian seems to be adding more today so it'll need updating again.  --Rainith 11:49, 25 April 2006 (CDT)

Main Page
I think that you did it the last couple times. Is it possible to sync the main page to the editcopy? Stabber and Barek seem to have made quite a few minor adjustments that look cleaner than the current version. --161.88.255.140 13:46, 25 April 2006 (CDT)
 * Done. I'd meant to do that earlier today, slipped my mind tho.  --Rainith 13:57, 25 April 2006 (CDT)
 * Thanks - but I noticed a problem after the sync - not sure how I missed it earlier. You can probably fix it faster with your magical admin powers.  The upper left box currently reads "Day of the Tengu – 2006 Apr 26, in-game headstart event".  Isn't the event on Apr 27th instead? --161.88.255.140 14:15, 25 April 2006 (CDT)
 * Fixed. --Rainith 14:32, 25 April 2006 (CDT)

Hero Panel and Hero window
Hey, can you rm Hero Panel and move Hero window over so that the history stays? A user tried to do it manually, but I think the history of Hw is worth preserving. Thanks. &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 14:47, 29 April 2006 (CDT)
 * Done. --Rainith 16:22, 29 April 2006 (CDT)

Delete GuildWiki_talk:Protected_page
Could you delete GuildWiki_talk:Protected_page, it was spam, then blanked (protected page) Skuld  02:17, 5 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Done. --Rainith 21:08, 5 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Thanks Skuld  01:19, 7 May 2006 (CDT)

Problem
At the moment, the wiki is serving blank pages instead of articles to anyone not logged in. Not sure who to let know. Seems to serve up anything that's not an article page fine, though, like recentchanges. --Fyren 20:11, 5 May 2006 (CDT)


 * So that's what people on the forum were talking about. I couldn't figure out why everyone was saying the wiki was down, when I was having no problems with it.  Unfortunately I can't do anything about it.  --Rainith 20:19, 5 May 2006 (CDT)


 * I put a note on Gravewits talk page. Hope it gets fixed soon. --Gem [[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] 02:31, 6 May 2006 (CDT)

Protection request
Fellow wants to fight a war with Tetracycloide about Mo/Me PvE Life Barrier Monk. Can you protect the page until this has been settled in talk? &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 19:53, 6 May 2006 (CDT)
 * No war. You're misjudging the situation. --64.229.196.153 19:54, 6 May 2006 (CDT)
 * So, the admin picks the obviously wrong side of this situation. I guess it's false information over morals, eh? -64.229.196.153 20:03, 6 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Actually it's someone who I know, vs. someone who I don't. Someone who has a history here and a good one, vs. an anon who seems to be acting childishly.  --Rainith 20:09, 6 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Yes, and the "i take your side because uve been here longer" attitude is just THAT much better, isn't it? Keep in mind the fact that you're taking the side of who is seemingly a "maintainence worker" of this Wiki, who is acting like your average street thug; making threats over nothing, and providing bogus proof to back themselves up. And yet, people listen to them because they are just the followers... --64.229.196.153 20:12, 6 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Take it up in the talk page, that's what it is for. Reading it now, everyone is saying that you are wrong.  Make your case there.  --Rainith 20:17, 6 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Yes, looking at past run-ins by other people whom have made justified reverts, it's this wiki's way of saying "get out, your expertise is not welcome here". -64.229.196.153 20:25, 6 May 2006 (CDT)
 * * sigh* If that is the way that you feel, don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.  If you're interested in explaining why your way is better, then the talk page is where you want to do it.  --Rainith 20:27, 6 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Please calm down, 64.229.196.153... There's no conspiracy beyond the blatantly obvious need for sticking to how things work. Naturally, you're more than welcome to participate in writing articles here, but please try to understand that the way a wiki works is by collaboration and discussion, not by individually "fixing" everything to fit a particular personal notion (regardless of merit). --Bishop (rap|con) 20:35, 6 May 2006 (CDT)
 * But yet, this one issue is capable of dragging as much as 4 "opposing members" to me. And now that I have stated my position on this issue on your coveted talk page, hopefully my contributions will at least be somewhat acknowledged. No offense, but some people have a "trigger finger" for warding off newcomers, eh? :P --64.229.196.153 20:41, 6 May 2006 (CDT)
 * There really, really, really is no conspiracy. You just happen to be going "against the flow" at a time when several long-time contributors are editing. And since they (we) know how things work -- and work well -- around here, we're naturally in (somewhat) agreement and telling you the same things. Noone is trying to "ward you off", but we're all trying, in different ways, to explain to you that the method which you were using to get your point across, was not acceptable. --Bishop (rap|con) 20:50, 6 May 2006 (CDT) Sorry, Rainith, for hijacking your talk page like this
 * Then let there be light. I've been offended enough with such comments by so many "long-time contributors". As cheesy as this may seem, I will mind my own business from now on. It makes me sad to think that so many people in a highly-respected GW information database must act so absurdly just to defend one person who provides incorrect information. --64.229.196.153 20:58, 6 May 2006 (CDT)

Alphabet Soup
Saw you alphabetized the skills of Bonesnap Turtle. Let me get Grasping Root for ya. I just put them as I see them on my notepad. :D --Gares Redstorm 23:24, 6 May 2006 (CDT)
 * No problem. General rule is to alphabetize skills and drops in the bestiary, but I know I'm guilty of putting them in out of order too.  --Rainith 23:29, 6 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Off-topic from the title (Mmm...soup), but thank goodness your an admin. With Salvage Item, I wasn't having very much fun copying and pasting. You beat me to it too. Next time, Rainith, next time... :P --Gares Redstorm 23:43, 6 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Ah, yes, I used to think that was the only way to do it too. Next time, go into the history and choose the last "good" edit.  Then click "edit" on that version and save it (without making any changes).  Voila, c'est fini.  --Rainith 23:46, 6 May 2006 (CDT)

Protect Main Page/site notice
Could you protect this please so it the editcopy can get synced with the main page =) Skuld  01:20, 7 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Done and synced. I can't guarentee that Gravewit will use it tho.  --Rainith 01:34, 7 May 2006 (CDT)

Policy violation note
Just a heads up- Talk:Zos Shivros Channel (Location). I'm posting this anonymously for obvious reasons.

Advertisement users
I see you did not have the same opinnion as I conserning the advertisement users User:Blood and User:Brother Bim. These users have no other contributions than the clear advertisements on their user pages. This is the same as someone would create a user and then put links to pornsites/viagra sites/whatever on their user page. I don't think that Guild Wars related advertisements are any better. If these user pages were deleted and the users would like to have them back, they could later do it, but it seems that the users in question have long ago abandoned the wiki after putting theyre ads here. I know that people here think that anyone can put almost anything on their user page, but I do not want people to create users just for the cause of advertising, Especially User:Bloods user page irritates me. I would like to hear yours and the communitys thoughts on this. -- 03:14, 15 May 2006 (CDT)
 * I agree, they've made no contributions other than creating their advertisment/user page. I know our policies are different to Wikipedia but really your user page isn't your own webspace is it? Blood's is particularly bad. --Xasxas256 03:57, 15 May 2006 (CDT)
 * I didn't even go through all of the user pages this time, just the first 2 pages. (500 names on each) I hope there aren't more of these. I know that some of us regular contributors have some kind of adverts on their pages, eg I have a link to my running services webpage, but its a bit different than creating a user just for advertising. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png|User:Gem]] 04:21, 15 May 2006 (CDT)
 * They are just user pages. Don't you yourself advertise your running guild on your page? I seriously doubt Blood is getting any customers from the wiki, and he may well use the login for his own purposes. Perhaps he watches several pages for updates. Deleting users is almost never a good idea. 70.20.116.223 05:27, 15 May 2006 (CDT)
 * I think the idea is more just removing the user page content rather than banning anybody. That's what I'd like to see anyway --Xasxas256 05:39, 15 May 2006 (CDT)
 * I am NOT suggesting removing the USER, but the USER PAGE. User pages created for only advertising should not be tolerated imho. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png|User:Gem]] 05:47, 15 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Why not? Didn't we have a recent arbitration where it was decided that users can say whatever they want in their user pages, barring illegal material? 70.20.116.223 05:49, 15 May 2006 (CDT)
 * There was no official decision. If someone wants to make that an official policy, I definitely vote against it. I am strongly against these advert user pages. I would however first want to hear the thoughts of Rainith himslef who was the one to remove my delete tags. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png|User:Gem]] 05:52, 15 May 2006 (CDT)
 * How can an official arbitration that hinged on the premise that users are allowed full freedom to say whatever they wish not have been an official decision? You are arguing for different standards to be applied to different users. 70.20.116.223 05:55, 15 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Give me a link to the exact place where this was officially made official. I will do anything to have this policy forgotten. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png|User:Gem]] 05:57, 15 May 2006 (CDT)
 * If the user never contributes, I don't see why/how it is a concern that the userpage becomes an advertisement. Nobody will notice it beside the ppl who already know the user, and that would probably be preaching to the choir.  While I disagree with absolute freedom on user pages, the contents on the two user pages linked to above look absolutely acceptable to me. -PanSola 05:59, 15 May 2006 (CDT)
 * The ruling included a provision that user pages could say pretty much anything on them. The GuildWiki didn't have an official policy on what is acceptable on user pages. However for something like that to be made official, a discussion and/or vote would have to occur first. The arbitration couldn't wait for that so Tanaric made a decision on what he thought would work for that particular arbitration case. That doesn't mean it's an official policy, and there's been plenty of discussion since about what is acceptable on a user's page but no official policy. --Xasxas256 06:05, 15 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Users "can say whatever they want on their talk page" (Requests for arbitration) for one. Granted, it says "talk page", but I assume this leniency extends to the user page too, as I can't imagine the user page being more restricted than the talk page. 70.20.116.223 06:07, 15 May 2006 (CDT)