User talk:ViruzzzDK/Archive 1

You need an apostrophe in He can remove a character's pet. And welcome! --◄mendel► 10:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Pfft, I know this, why didn't I put this in at first? D:
 * And I've been here a while, just not very.. active :P GW-Viruzzz 10:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That should do it.


 * Yeah, you have been. I've been misled by the pristine look of this talkpage. So can I welcome you to the wiki 1½ years late, and with the benefit of hindsight add that I'm happy to see you here? --◄mendel► 10:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Never done much talkpage socializing, if any. (i watch a lot of it though on other users talkpages) Same thing with my user page, it reads "Temporary" just so my name wouldn't be a redlink when signing comments in discussionpages GW-Viruzzz 10:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't "placeholder" make more sense, that way? :) --- [[Image:VipermagiSig.JPG|Ohaider!]]-- (s)talkpage  14:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe, When I put it there I actually meant to make a user page, but I never got around to it, I had stuff to do in RL. stopped playing guildwars for a number of months, and then it caught my interest again recently. The edit is over a year old, and since no one is complained about it in that time I don't really see a reason to change it. Maybe I'll work on a meaningful userpage, maybe not. I pretty much just go here whenever I'm bored doing other things. Take a look through RC and hit random page/follow random internal links and look for errors, inconsistencies etc. in them. I've been unusually bored in the last week :P GW-Viruzzz 15:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If that's what you do when bored, be bored more! ;) --◄mendel► 20:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

GW305
Easiest way to fix it is to reupload the image (with luck and firefox, hit the backbutton on your browser a couple of times and just change the name), and then edit the image page for GW305 and put on it, an admin will take care of the rest. --◄mendel► 10:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll do that. Thanks. GW-Viruzzz 10:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: splat
"Splat" is a nickname for the asterisk, most commonly used by SQL programmers. When you want to get all columns from a table, the code is "select * from table_name", which is typically referred to as a "select splat statement". Whoever wrote that in the article was referring to the times when a primary profession is specified but a secondary is not, denoted as "W/*" which they read as "warrior-splat". It's probably not a commonly-used term among GW players, though, so your removal is fine. Just thought you'd like an explanation. ^_^ &mdash;Dr Ishmael  16:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

?
"GL tryign to sell your necrid horseman minipets. but don't use GWW for misinformation)" GWW? --- -- (s)talkpage  19:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Mistype. but I can't change it now. can I ? :) GW-Viruzzz 19:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not in the article anyway, it's just an edit summary, It'll be forgotten in a matter of hours anyway. I don't even use GWW, for some reason I prefer this one because it's the "original" :)
 * OMG U SAYD GWW BURN TEH WICH!!1! --Macros 19:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I demand a trial. Anyone in possession of a duck? GW-Viruzzz 20:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No, but I have a chicken which once beat up a duck.--[[Image:Gigathrash_sig_G.jpg]]îğá†ħŕášħ 20:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Witchsmeller: "You are a witch." Edmund: "You are a quack." Witchsmeller: "A what?" Edmund: "Quack, QUACK". Witchsmeller: [turning to crowd] "BEHOLD how the evil spirit          of the duck speaks through him. He is indeed a witch." Crowd: "Burn him, burn him!" [Black Adder, starring Rowan Atkinson as Edmund, Duke of Edinburgh, accused of being a witch by the Witchsmeller Pursuivant]

(T/C) 22:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I was making a reference to monty python's the holy grail. Never seen the one you're talking about. GW-Viruzzz 02:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Black Adder is a more recent group trying to pretend they're Monty Python. You can either call it an homage or a rip-off, depending on your point of view. [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 02:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * And Macros made a reference to Yugioh The Abridged Series. My voice gives me super strength, too. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 05:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Good thing I've never played Yugioh, because then I might know what you're talking about. --Macros 06:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * ATTENTION DUELISTS. My hair says:  Quit making not very obscure references!--[[Image:Gigathrash_sig_G.jpg]]îğá†ħŕášħ  00:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Vandal fighting
Good job! --◄mendel► 10:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, nice. I must say, though, wouldn't it be smarter for a vandal to do lots of little edits, instead of big chunky ones? I wouldn't be surprised if most vandals here were bots, however. King Neoterikos 10:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Just happy someone blocked him. I was trying to get on IRC to get someone to block him at the same time, when i finally got on the server and found the channel he had gotten blocked by Uberfuzzy - Space so link and sig don't get mixed - GW-Viruzzz 10:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Is the web applet for IRC not working again? Is it too hard to find? Or did you suffer from the transatlantic connection problem? --◄mendel► 12:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm gonna go with Too hard to find. I never heard of such a thing. GW-Viruzzz 13:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually It's probably easy enough to find. I just didn't realize you had one, never saw it mentioned before, I could have gotten in IRC much much sooner, but I thought you were still around since you made an edit 6 minutes before the vandal started. after 15 minutes of reverting I opened my IRC and tried to find the name of the channel while reverting at the same time. I had about 8 tabs open in FF at this point trying to revert and everything simultaneously. And when i finally found the channel name his contrib's stopped :P Looking back at it I spend a good 20 minutes doing that, didn't seem like that long. GW-Viruzzz 13:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's mentioned on the Community Portal, but other wikis have it linked in the sidebar (is there a link on Monaco's "support" flyout?), and I guess I should add it to the admin info page (which is just as hard to find, so it's probably not much of a help). The real deal-breaker is that the wiki's search function doesn't do three-letter words &mdash so I made a redirect that helps people find it fast.
 * Anyway, there's your reward. What do you think I would have done if I had been still around? --◄mendel► 19:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I know you're not an admin, but it seems people here on wiki know eachother a bit better than I do. Other than IRC and wiki I couldn't really contact anybody, I just assumed you would know how to contact one of the admins. I don't know who knows who here, so I'm probably wrong. It's all good though.
 * Love the IRC redirect though. Makes you wonder why it wasn't there before :) GW-Viruzzz 06:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You can also try to contact people in-game. I don't use IRC anyway. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 06:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know anyone else on the wiki's ingame nicknames :) GW-Viruzzz 07:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Administrator information has several, otherwise you could check the relevant admin's userpage stuffs. Usually it's a last ditch resort, but ehh. That's how Felix usually gets my attention. >.> [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 07:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Noted for future reference. I'm not a seasoned wikier so I don't know where to find all this stuff on the top of my head. GW-Viruzzz 07:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, as a consequence we made some of the info easier to find (have a look at the top of RecentChanges now ;-) &mdash; you shouldn't have to be a seasoned wikier to find this. --◄mendel► 15:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) This is gonna sound like criticism(at least in my head it does), it's not meant that way though. But I'm pretty sure I would never have seen that notice if it had been there before. I wouldn't read that line because I'm already familiar with what the RC page is and how it works. Subconsciously I am ignoring anything above the edit list. Plus trying to find something while constantly reverting is very confusing. In hindsight maybe I should have tried to notify an admin first and started reverting later. Or at least take a break reverting. Doing both at the same time didn't really work out :) GW-Viruzzz 16:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Your approach was good - somebody noticed you reverting and did the adminny things.
 * I am starting to run out of ideas where to put the info: hopefully it'll be in "support" on the Monaco sidebar soon. Where would you have found it? --◄mendel► 16:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That's what I meant with the criticism notice, it wasn't meant as such, I don't know where you should put it.
 * It's not the wiki's fault I can't find it, It's my own because of the way I do things. The very first edits I made on this wiki I was scared I was doing something wrong and might blow up the wiki, proofread everything, had no idea what a template was, or that there was a RC. But over my time here I picked up this knowledge, and next time I will know where to find contact info because I had this experience.
 * Don't worry about putting it anywhere that I would have found it, chances are even if it had a flashing neon-like sign on the RC page I would have overlooked it, I think that notice on the RC page is brilliant, and the redirect on Irc too. I would never have thought of those, but when I see it done it makes so much sense. You're probably a hundred times more qualified to put that link somewhere suitable than I am :) GW-Viruzzz 17:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The point is, we need to work together because you are qualified (or were, until a short time ago) to be a searcher for that info &mdash; I know it's at GW:AI so I can't really put myself in the shoes of someone who needs it &mdash; and let's face it, someone who is looking for this info is usually somewhat stressed out. That's why I am going against your wish and taking your post as constructive criticism: because I think this information is there for people in your situation to find, and people with my experience should be able to put it where you can find it. Actually, I am not doing this for you - we are doing this for the next editor who finds him- or herself in the same situation. Oh, and proofreading everything is still a good idea, no matter how much wiki-XP you have. :-P --◄mendel►
 * Well it's in the sidebar now. That's where I was looking for it. Maybe a link directly to the admin info directly from Admin noticeboard instead of going through GW:ADMIN. And I do still proofread. just not 3-4 times if all I'm adding is a period :) GW-Viruzzz 05:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That's how it started with me, too. Now I usually don't proofread those trivial edits at all and have to re-edit at least one in ten to correct them. Sigh. --◄mendel► 10:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Belated Good Job. I am sorry I went to bed so you had to deal with that. (T/C) 14:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for stopping that rampage (-: -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 19:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

levelup
Your brave and honorable deeds (detailed in the above section) have earned you rollback rights. (T/C) 08:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

yea. Just box
You don't like them? --◄mendel► 00:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Just a joke. I thought it was sorta funny. :p GW-Viruzzz 06:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It is funny. In a lonely sort of way. ;-) (I'll tell you a secret: For the longest time I only had the IRC box.) --◄mendel► 09:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You don't exactly have a lot now either :p I could go search through them and find the ones that apply, but I don't really care enough to do it. GW-Viruzzz 10:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The Afflicted Huu
All monsters in the Dragon's Throat (mission) do not drop loot (except for bosses who only drop scrolls) making the note pretty useless. This note is already on the Dragons Throat page but not on the bosses that are in Dragons Throat. Supervillain-ToX 13:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I haven't ever done Dragon's throat so I didn't recognize the boss from there. Didn't know they didn't drop loot either. I don't know if the note is useless though, it might need a change to include that all mobs in the mission behave the same way. GW-Viruzzz 13:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * How about
 * The Afflicted Huu, like all bosses in Dragon's Throat, does not drop anything except for Insight Scrolls which are dropped by all bosses in the game.
 * GW-Viruzzz 14:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Changed all the Dragon's Throat (mission) bosses. Also noticed (after id finished them all) that I have spelt ya bloody name wrong, sorry lol (also excuse my bad french). Supervillain-ToX 16:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll survive :) I wasn't around for the wiki move sadly. Or it'd just be Viruzzz. don't really like the GW- GW-Viruzzz 16:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Put "Viruzz" in your signature in your wiki preferences. That way you're still Viruzz, but with a different userpage. --◄mendel► 23:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * noone likes my 3rd z :( Viruzzz 07:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid if I use it, I'll get infected, too. --◄mendel► 07:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * ViruZz z would be so much better :) --- [[Image:VipermagiSig.JPG|Ohaider!]] -- (contribs) &emsp;(talk)  15:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Be more careful
A bunch of the recent edits you've made have re-added the old notes that no longer apply --Gimmethegepgun 18:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * whoops >_< Viruzzz 18:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Random comment
"[...], and a lot of the time I end up writing something and not posting the comment because I don't think it's good enough."

I do that myself, too... A lot. Sometimes it's really annoying, and other times you're glad you (general you) didn't make that comment after all. Ironically, I usually do that when I'm involved (partially or mainly) -.-" --- -- (contribs)  &emsp;(talk)  14:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sometimes I do that also, but often, I'll be ready to post it and get EC'd and just not want to deal with it/felt like the person ahead of me dealt with it. --JonTheMon 15:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Same here. Usually it's the walls of text that discourage me: "How can I hope to have any effect in this discussion if I can't write as much as they do?"  And of course, that carries over to other discussions with the same people: "If I say anything, they'll just WoT me to death..."  It just makes me feel inferior that I can't elaborate on my opinions as eloquently as they do.  &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 15:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I usually do it too. I think about posting something, then about what and I start debating with myself what to say and how to say it, and start thinking about possible answers someone might give to my post (making me doubt even more). Usually I just think "screw that" after a while, and don't post at all.--[[Image:El Nazgir sig.png]]El_Nazgir 15:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've always been bad at accepting something I've made as good enough, unless it's something I'm really really good at(like English assignments the first 4-5 years I had English in school). But that's not really why i wrote it. What I meant with it was that it's hard for a normal user to feel valuable. The first time I saw ishmael on a RC rampage I actually wondered what I was doing here other than casual discussion page .. discussion, I didn't really realize how big the wiki was and how much info there was to be maintained/updated back then, my point is that if all the big editors are admins, then how would you think a normal user thinks of him/herself? Viruzzz 17:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * On the last WoT I wrote I thought to myself, what I'm writing is really a series of comments. If these were 5 comments by different people instead of 5 paragraphs by me, you'd think nothing of grabbing one of them and writing a reply.
 * If you see editors that are good with words, you ought to imagine them sitting in their underwear expect that they are equally adept at extracting meaning from comments that are not as well written. In other words, the value of a thought lies not in how well it expressed, and ideally we recognize that. In practice, it may need some insisting (but I hope that doesn't happen too often).
 * In fact, it's happened to me to, that people (even Entropy) basically said: "wtf was that what you just wrote?" It's the kind of comment that you might have shied back from posting, but I post them anyway because I'm more confident than you. That doesn't mean they can't be crap just because they're well-polished.
 * So here's a suggestion: you post your comment that you think may not be well expressed, and we go and ask what you mean if we can't make sense of it; and in return, you go and ask (for a summary, if all else fails) if you can't make sense of a WoT. Deal? --◄mendel► 22:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I do the same thing as well. I end up writing something to comment, read it, and then say to myself "What's the point?" and then usually change the page without posting said comment. It happens to everyone, and as you can see here, even admins. It's better to post your comment and have someone ask you to clarify what you meant than to not post it at all and not contribute to the conversation. If you decide to post it without reading it, you'll usually get responses, and over time you /might/ get more confident about posting comments. I don't really read what i type and more or less just type what I think with no regard to how it actually reads. This might even be a good example of this. Anyways, long-story short: post it even if you don't think you should. It's better to get people asking "what?" than to miss out on contributing to something that you could've made a difference to. But that's just my 2 cents (except that it's only worth 1.2 with the economy how it is ;p). Slurry 04:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The WoT is a signature tool for controlling and dominating a discussion. Even if you are completely wrong, as long as you can out-WoT the opposition, the general public will usually feel that you are the winnar. I know that many times when I write something huge, people don't even bother to read the whole thing. This has three advantages. (1) Those people who had a neutral stance will usually give up at that point and admit I am right. (2) Those people who were opposed will now have to out-WoT me, but because I was first they are fighting from a weaker position. This puts me at an advantage. (3) People who agreed with you anyway will just agree with you even more, their thoughts being something like "Yeah! You show them!" This happens regardless of the quality of your arguments.
 * So I can completely understand why those who can't WoT feel inadequate. Not just because they are foced into one of those positions, but because they would like access to such a powerful technique. That being said, I would like to emphasize something - getting the point across is often more important/valuable than being able to WoT. And in fact, I think it is much better to cut out the bullshit and not "beat around the bush" - if you can clearly and succintly explain something without using +4,567 character posts, that is great. It means less "wtf?" and more "ftw". And I think many users are fully capable of that. (Looking at you, Doc.) [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 07:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not that I can't WoT. I can, and I used to do it on forums back when I played another game, but I got tired of it, and I just refuse to do it now, it's as pointless as interviewing a politician, you already know what they'll say, and you know they'll say it in an overly complicated way that can be interpreted in more than 1 way. It's a bit like the saying "Don't argue with an idiot, because he will just drag you down to his level and beat you with experience." It's the same thing just in reverse, if that makes any sense Viruzzz 08:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * On the same note, I don't see anything wrong with WoT'ing, I admire the people who can do it, cause that's what you need if you're ever going to write anything professionally Viruzzz 08:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "you already know what they'll say, and you know they'll say it in an overly complicated way that can be interpreted in more than 1 way." &mdash; if you ever see me writing a WoT like that, please give me a gentle (or not so gentle) nudge via my talkpage, because I like to think I've actually got something to say when I WoT, and it helps me adjust when I get told where that just isn't so. --◄mendel► 11:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Most people think they do when they make a WoT, I'd like to believe very few people make them deliberately to drown the opposition in text. I just think a lot of the time, the length is unnecessary, for example, if you can predict what the last section in a WoT will say after reading all the previous ones, the last one is unnecessary, or can at least be made much shorter. Rinse and repeat for every section. I don't want to go find concrete examples for it though, I hope you understand what I mean. Viruzzz 15:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I know exactly what you mean. If I make a WoT, it is to get my point across, or to reply to a WoT. I can honestly say that I've never made a WoT just to "drown the opposition" as you put it (good choice of words, btw). I'm sure that some people do in hopes that the other person will just give up, but I'd say the majority doesn't (but then again, I could be wrong, and it could be the minority that doesn't). Slurry 16:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the very last section of a WoT should ideally be a summary that ties it all together, so if you were paying attention, you ought to be able to predict it alright. ;-) But yeah, I know that's not what you mean. It's just hard when I write the WoT, because I myself am obviously able to predict what I'm going to say, so telling me that you can do it when you see it actually helps me get better. --◄mendel► 17:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Confidence
Wikis are hard. You need a lot of confidence. In a conversation, you look at people's faces, and you know how they feel about what you said. On the wiki, there's a huge area where you don't know nothing: you might get a correction (but you don't know how many people agree with who corrected you), and then there's this whole range of contributions where you usually don't see a reaction until you get to the extremely good ones that will make people take notice. If you don't know how you're doing on the wiki, you're usually doing fine, and you tend to underestimate that because if you got as little feedback as that in real life, you wouldn't be. You definitely are doing fine, Viruzzz. It helps to realize that the people you think are demi-gods are sitting there in their underwear make mistakes, too, and probably started small as well. --◄mendel► 06:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)