User talk:Entropy/Archive 25

Bolded skill names in skill notes
Think it's worth making a "Policy" item in order to ensure consistency throughout the wiki? If so, I'd just like to state my opinion on it here: Firstly, I'd agree with it as per Entrea's talk page. Secondly, I think it should be completely avoiding mentioning the skill name in the notes of that skill's article altogether, but should it be mentioned it should be bolded. Up to you and whoever else needs to vote on it to make it whatever. Just offering my view. Zulu Inuoe 21:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your opinion. Policy? Nah, it just needs to find a place somewhere in the Style and Formatting Guides. I pretty much agree with what you think, but sometimes when doing a comparison in notes, it is clumsy not to re-use the skill name. For example, "Compared to its counterparts Flare, Ice Spear, and Stone Daggers, Shock Arrow is...etc." [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 01:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't know exactly where it would be placed, which is why there are quotes on "Policy". Sounds fine with me Zulu Inuoe 06:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandal
Could you do me a favor and take a look at this? I'm second-guessing the severity of my block on this guy, but I'm really not in the mood to unblock and re-block the guy more then once. Too long of a block? Not enough? Did I check enough boxes when I blocked him? I'm hoping this is something I never get too good at. :D -- Jïörüjï Ðērākō.> .cнаt^  11:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Seeing how that guy has no edits at all except for moves, and you can't move pages unless you're registered, it's clearly a vandal account, so infinite ban seems fine to me --Gimmethegepgun 18:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I was debating a year/infinite, but chances are, he won't care after a few months. So it probably wouldn't make much difference.
 * Took me an hour to undo his half-hour of work, and that's with the help of at least three other users; on one hand, I'm happy that I got to shut down my first "real" vandal, on the other... well, it took me an hour to undo his half-hour of work. :P --[[image:GEO-logo.png]] Jïörüjï Ðērākō.> .cнаt^  21:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Because vandalism by moving is only possible to registered accounts and because it usually takes additional time to fix, I'm with Gimme on this. The fact that he has no edits is also important. If an obscure user suddenly goes rogue, then that's one thing, perhaps it's just a bad day...if a user with no edits who you have never seen before starts moving pages to fake names etc. then you can assume it's a vandal account. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 03:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Just wondering...
How many more support do I need than oppose to become an admin? Thought ful  03:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There's no definite standard. Sometimes people get a landslide of supports, and that's easy. Sometimes there are nearly as many supports as opposes, and they still become admins. I'm more interested in the content of the votes rather than just the number. If someone has a bunch of opposes for trivial or otherwise unrelated things, that will have little or no effect on adminship, I won't pay as much heed; similarly if support votes are like "lol he iz gud" then that is not very convincing. I read the votes to see what people think about a user; would they be good for the job? Do they find a need for more admins? Does this person have good relationships with other users? That sort of thing. So don't worry as much about vote counting as about what people are saying. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 03:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Aaah, thank you. It was bugging me a bit. Thought ful [[Image:Thoughtful Sig.png|19.px]] 03:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

lawl
I blame it on force of habit :P -- (Talk) (Contr.) 03:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I get it. [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 05:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)