User talk:Auron of Neon

oops
wow i didn't realize i put it in the ip tak page. i dident kno there were people who watched the recent changes that closly either

wtf?? lol
Actually i just copied the builds directly from the page that they were on, not from the "edit" tab, I learned how to edit things and stuff, and then I've been editing all the builds so they show up as normal builds do...

btw...why did u delete it??

and also, how do you make new pages on the wiki?? (like your build page)..?
 * They were all improperly attributed (or not attributed at all). According to the Builds wipe main page, instructions for all those wishing to archive builds were: "If you find a build you'd like to keep handy after the builds wipe, you can copy it into your userspace. You must copy the article history into your userspace as well to meet the license requirements!". Everyone who ignored the bolded part let their archives become copyright violations by not preserving the history of each build.
 * To make new pages, you can reach the page you want through the search bar (on the left). When I made my builds page, I just typed "User:Auron of Neon/BestBuilds" (no quotes) into the search bar; it gave me the option to "Create this page," because one didn't exist at that point. Just choose to create the page and edit away. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|19px||My Talk]] 22:34, 3 May 2007 (CDT)

So now I'm going to have all my builds wiped every time I try and post them...?

Image Attribution Crusade
Just so it's straight: the new policy is that, "If you cannot get licensing / copyright information for an image that you want to upload, you should not upload it in the first place." The exceptions, of course, are things like screenshots, character images, images for weapons and armor, game items, skill icons, etc. which naturally go on GuildWiki with no problems. But I am thinking of images that people use in the Userspace or in Templates and Userboxes - thou they may be Guild Wars related and/or simple photoshops of existing, attributed GW images, these would technically be tagged as "Unattributed" and eventually be deleted. Right? And then there are the images we all upload which are of no relevance to Guild Wars at all. They may not be blatant copyvios, but perhaps they are photos, pictures, symbols, .gifs etc. that we found on Teh Internet. The current policy/project is full of a lot of legal fine print which is hard for average Wiki users to sort out - "How do I know which tag to use?" For an image which is probably fair to use or public domain, I think that a tag of "Unknown Copyright/Licensing" should be created. This would subsequently include these images in a category, and more law-savvy users could from there search and find copyrights that the original uploader could not find or was too lazy to.

Yeh, we're not lawyers so it's better to be safe than sorry. But it seems sort of...iron fisted...to discourage spontaneous uploads with the policy of "if you cannot find or produce copyright then you don't have permission and shouldn't upload". Kind of like with that image Sarah untagged - yeh, it's Unattributed, that is true. But, let us say no-one cared enough to bother with adding the "User Created Content" tag. Then, according to the "Unattributed Image" tag, it would get deleted after 7 days. It just seems sort of unfair, because images such of those are 95% certainly not a copyvio and should be retained as "Unknown License" (or perhaps "License Needed"?) instead of just deleted...tis one thing to enforce a policy, and another to enforce it mechanically. I think what I'm saying is that Wikians on a whole should get a little bit more leeway - some sort of "Warning Period" - so that they understand this process and issue a bit better. Just like with Builds wipe, it needs to be brought to the attention of the community at large since it is such a pressing thing. If there is a banner up, a notice, and people don't bother to attribute images anyways...well, then all is good, and we shall delete away. But, if noone is aware until after the images start to go missing, then people get confused, re-upload images, accuse the policy of being stupid and unnecessary, etc. You must admit that it was quite sudden and that Tanaric + that anon guy gave little notice about what was going on. Many users such as myself were very puzzled and if you don't live on Wiki by watching Recent Changes, this whole issue could be going right past you at this very moment and you'd know nothing about it. (T/C) 23:51, 3 May 2007 (CDT)
 * most of those issues are being fixed up, see GuildWiki talk:Image attribution project, templates are being created to ease the process as well as documentation on how and when to use the licenses. The images that are tagged were a mistake, but it is currently being rectified. It is not unfair that someone can upload a picture without giving legal information, it is illegal. -- Xeon 01:20, 4 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Ok let me modify that statement - it is unfair that GuildWiki dragged its feet for so long about this; the Image Upload Policy has not been changed since forever, and the Upload screen as well contains little to no practical information about the illegality of uploading a picture without giving legal information. Sure, we all have the common sense to know that alpha-leaks, porn, and things like that clearly shouldn't be uploaded. But, the influx of images for Userpage-only usage started long, long ago, and it just seems inconceivable that only now are we trying to stem the tide of unattributed images (and with such sudden ferocity). That's all I'm saying. I'm not advocating contempt for the copyright laws (thou they are way more complex than they should be) but I'm only observing as a Wiki-user that this seems somehow unjust, to spontaneously attack something we didn't even know was a problem - or if we did, no one acknowledged it. Heck, seeing things like Gares upload pictures of elephants, Skuld getting a picture of a missile on his talkpage, and other such image use led me to believe that on GuildWiki, we were purposedly lax on enforcing any sort of serious image-upload policy beyond the bare basics we had at the time. It was pretty rare for people to include the Web address of where they got pics on teh Internet, and now we are asked to add Copyright and Licensing tags or else things we upload get auto-tagged and deleted in 7 days? It just seems unfair, emotionally, or spiritually, or whatever you want to call it. Law and justice are blind and disregard human feelings, so that's not what I was intending to say...It would be better I guess to say I feel gimped or cheated, since I've been so accustomed to this "illegal" process of uploading pretty much whatever. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 01:35, 4 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Better now than never. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|19px||My Talk]] 01:37, 4 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Once again, Auron wins PvE, QQ at me. >.> [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 01:39, 4 May 2007 (CDT)
 * QQing is fun :) -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|19px||My Talk]] 01:41, 4 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Hmm, I'll just upload a QQ image to make a Userbox for Auron...but wait, it's unattributed! Oh noes :( The new Image Attribution Policy is killing Userboxes and Wiki humor! Oppression in the system! [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 01:43, 4 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Really its not that much of a big deal in the long run, the original setup for this project is considerable massive and it will only get bigger for each day that passes and the 7 days allocated for the first massive tagging should be extended to 14 days or more so people that are idle get a good chance to fix their images. The images that get put onto gwiki after this date will all be marked as 7 days, as that is enough time to verify its legitimacy. Images wont be effected, you just need to properly check if it can be used and say your source, it takes only a few seconds more. Wikipedia use userboxes, and they have a stronger image license system, so i really dont see them dying. -- Xeon 01:50, 4 May 2007 (CDT)

How do I delete an image?
 * add at the top of the page, than an administrator will delete it, if the reason is convincing. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by  Y0 ich halt (contribs).
 * (i.e. at their discretion if their is no opposition) &mdash; Skuld 15:23, 5 May 2007 (CDT)

builds
well, maybe other people have already asked, but i don't get this:
 * 01:27, 4 May 2007 Auron of Neon (Talk | contribs) deleted User:Y0 ich halt/FarmingArchive (Builds Copyvio(s))
 * 01:27, 4 May 2007 Auron of Neon (Talk | contribs) deleted User:Y0 ich halt/SliverArchive (Builds Copyvio)

all i want is an explanation of the word "copyvio". of course, "copy" is no problem, but i've never heard the word "vio" and i can't think of a word of which it could be the abbreviation. maybe if you explain that i understand why you deleted the archives. have i overread some section of a policy saying that copies of builds aren't allowed? - Y0_ich_halt  contribs 08:08, 4 May 2007 (CDT)


 * Copies of builds are allowed, but they require a copy of the editing history. If people copied articles without including the history, they have committed a copyright violation (which we usually shorten to "copyvio"). &mdash;Tanaric 08:19, 4 May 2007 (CDT)
 * darn. how do you copy the history btw? - Y0_ich_halt [[Image:Y0_ich_halt_logo.jpg|15px]] contribs 08:38, 4 May 2007 (CDT)
 * At this point? Kinda tough since the builds don't exist anymore. If you can find it on PvX builds, you could simply copy and paste the information from the history tab. &mdash;Tanaric 08:59, 4 May 2007 (CDT)

Block messages
Hey Auron, I know all of us on the team are guilty of this on occasion, but try to use block messages that don't depend on knowledge of the user's vandalism to interpret. Especially with anon vandals, it's possible that IP address might be an innocent person tomorrow, and if they log in to see "blocked: Yes they are," nobody's happy.

&mdash;Tanaric 09:01, 4 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Kk. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|19px||My Talk]] 14:40, 4 May 2007 (CDT)
 * * crack* &mdash; Skuld 18:05, 4 May 2007 (CDT)