GuildWiki

GuildWiki has been locked down: anonymous editing and account creation are disabled. Current registered users are unaffected. Leave any comments on the Community Portal.

READ MORE

GuildWiki
Advertisement

Did you write this whole thing in the last five minutes? Felix Omni Signature.png 19:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Took me more than five minutes, but yes. I did it all in one go. It was much easier than the archive policy. —JediRogue 19:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

GuildWiki:Censorship#Images-Excluding female ele armor of course?--AlariSig.png 19:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

proposed re-write of email section[]

"An email address is considered a form of personal information, and as such, unless posted by the email's owner, will be removed on sight. It is recommended that rather than post your email address, enable email in your preferences. " --Shadowcrest 23:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Like that better. I post my email so people can contact me with gchat and msn. —JediRogue 23:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Posting a public email address has ramifications that people can't judge if they're not knowledgeable in this area, and even if you have a reason to post yours and understand what you're getting into, people who imitate you possibly don't. I posted some public email adresses on the web and usenet years ago. Today, I get thousands of spam emails daily, even though I never gave any indication of reading any of those (I don't reply, and Pegasus doesn't pull any internet content when displaying them - if I display them). Posting your email address in public effectively burns it.
People can contact you via wikimail, and you need only reply and send them your contact info. Or you can use irc. I cannot imagine any reason for posting an email publicly when you can be reached by wikimail that outweighs the drawbacks. --mendel 01:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

How about..[]

IMHO, I'm missing information about talk-archives (same rules as talk or not ? Wat if someone wants to end a discussion by inmediatly moving it to archive ?) and the (mis-)use of HTML/wiki commands to hide other user comments (not rewording or deleting, just hiding). As 'newbie' on this matter myself, still can't understand completely what the general policy is for these things.-- Merty sign.gif-- ( talk ) 09:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

You can't end a discussion by moving it to an archive because you can't move the people, and they can still link to and quote from the archive. It makes a very clear statement that the archivist wishes to not continue the discussion, and that may end it, but then only because the other participants respect that.
It might be worth thinking about when content becomes exempt from censure - say, after a week? If it's been up a week and no-one has objected, you need an extremely good reason to censor (possibly M-rated content or clear cases of libel). If we had such a rule, it would cover most archives except those archived very recently. --mendel 10:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Isn't the original point of "archiving" something to "save it for later reference"? I think that needs to be made more clear here, that archiving isn't just a quick way to get rid of a discussion you don't feel like continuing. As a corollary, once discussions are archived, they should not be edited (except for necessary redlink fixing, etc.). Something that is archived isn't necessarily dead, however, as mendel pointed out - other users can still link to, quote from, or even un-archive discussions that they feel have not reached a satisfactory conclusion.
Hiding comments should be disallowed entirely, in my opinion. I can't see any reason that a comment would fall in-between "visible" and "removed completely". —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken.gif 15:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Deleting Pages[]

Can we add a section on this that covers deleting pages? Or is that elsewhere? Because it bothers me no end when laeving users ask an admin to delete their page, instead of just blanking it. It makes it hard to understand what others may have been reacting to. Is there some kind of community consensus on that? --mendel 18:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

You just accept the user's wishes, imo. If they don't want to have that page anymore, little you can do about it except enrage 'em some more. --- Ohaider!-- (s)talkpage 18:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
If its a page or file in a user's namespace that they no longer desire, why would there be a problem deleting it? Or are we talking about users who no longer contribute and want us to delete their page entirely? I don't really see a reason to not delete it... In general, we have a precedent of allowing users to pretty much do what they want in their user space. Within reason of course. —JediRogue 18:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
It just doesn't tally with people getting upset about discussions on user talk pages disappearing when a user can have the content deleted completely without a trace. I gave you a reason, btw. Viper, why not just offer to blank and protect it? No info on it, no spam on it, but the history'd still be there. The users may not have thought about that option. --mendel 19:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
You typically don't see users asking for their talk pages to be deleted because they had an argument on it. Typically deletions only occur for sub pages that the user doesn't want anymore, or if the user just isn't using their userpage/talk page, and/or quits. I can't recall any instance of anyone asking their talk page to be deleted to "cover something up". Is this something you are worried about? -- Isk8.png I~sk8 (T/C) 19:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
No, I wanted to see Flechette's user page to find out whether she had a gender user box on it because i was talking about that with someone, and now there's no way to find out unless I have a successful RfA.... which strikes as an unessarily complicated way to go ;-) --mendel 19:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Or, you could ask an admin to undelete it really quick and then re-delete it :P. I have no comment on this though >_> -- Isk8.png I~sk8 (T/C) 19:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Felix did. Only difference was, he could delete it himself. --Shadowcrest 19:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Btw, that link only works if you're an admin. --Shadowcrest 19:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

latest addition of removing text[]

Jedi I hope your referring to user talk pages and not main space talk pages with that recent addition. User talk:Xeon#Hallo points out that it should be stroked out instead (and how it has been done in the past) and as I was trying to say which morty mentions, talk page removal should not be conditional, instead it should be strictly kept for consistency and removal of text be reserved for "disturbing" content. -- Xeon 17:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

typos/rewordings[]

Usually people correct typos and reword posts some time after they've posted. See PanSola's WoT on Auron's talk page, I think that took 3 edits to hone. --◄mendel► 18:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, i think this should specify that spelling corrections are acceptable edits to a previous comment, however "re-wordings" could easily involve changing the meaning of a comment or making it conform to policy after it had been posted. For example, if i was to go back after posting this edit and change the word 'fuck' which i have just written to 'fork' to avoid my comment being viewed as a personal attack against another user, if it was in that context. So we need to define 're-wordings'. I also think that this policy should allow people to edit meaningless comments that break a page such as the letter 'z' spammed on one line so it forks the scrolling. However, if we could call it something a little less facist than 'Censorship' then i would support this policy with the afformentioned changes--Cobalt6.jpg - (Talk/Contribs) 19:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Would GuildWiki:Iron Curtain do anything for you? Felix Omni Signature.png 19:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
How about GuildWiki:Bowdlerization? Anyways, you said GuildWiki wasn't fascist? DE Sig Test 2.jpg *Defiant Elements* +talk 19:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

GuildWiki:What (not) to Delete[]

Another take on the same subject - the structure is different, the content should mainly be the same, and hopefully easier to understand and interpret. I found the Censorship policy to far-reaching and too definitive in some places as well. Have a look and tell me what you think. This is not a "one against the other" situation, we should take what is best from each (and in fact I have already taken from the Censorship policy) and go with the one that works best. Read GuildWiki:What (not) to Delete and tell me what you think. --◄mendel► 14:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)