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




Hi Mendel! I'm Isk8, I play GW too! All kidding aside, welcome to Gwiki! -- Isk8.png I~sk8 (T/C) 06:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. mendel 06:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
It's nice to see that you've made an account. I was hoping you would. Felix Omni Signature.png 18:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. This doesn't necessarily mean that I edit more, I'm still a casual player of GW and casual user of Guildwiki, but I thought it'd help if I got myself into arguments.... mendel 18:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
OMG, Isk, you don't actually play GW??? d-: -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa.png) 09:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Old talk about split skill...[]

... can be found here. mendel 06:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

well well[]

Its not often we get new members taking such an interest in the very goings-on in the wiki. Good job! :) —MaySig.png Warw/Wick 14:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! I've been using the wiki for half a year now and doing occasional edits, so I'm not exactly new. Best way to get into it, too. I hope you're not too miffed about my wondering what your bot does. I'm sure my first attempts at botting aren't going to be smooth sailing, either. mendel 14:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd advise starting with somthing simple, like AWB (search wikipedia for it- Auto Wiki Browser), then moving on to more advanced stuff, and if you screw up with the advanced stuff, go back to the simple stuff! d-:. I've been using my bot for a number of things. Recently I've been doing testing about trying to give the bot its own "mind", as you can see from its randomized contribs list. Its not working very well d-: —MaySig.png Warw/Wick 14:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, without a Bot Flag (request here) you maynt run full-auto bots. --- Ohaider!-- (s)talkpage 14:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Viper hates the RC spam you get. :P —MaySig.png Warw/Wick 14:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Who says and how would you know? ;-) (mendel)
'cuz viper told me ingame a while back ;p —MaySig.png Warw/Wick 14:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I know by the RC spam, yes (HAAAATEEE). A bot really stands out as other edits are only singular edits, and irregular. If someone's crashing RC with exactly 4 edits per minute and exactly the same edit each time... --- Ohaider!-- (s)talkpage 14:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
May, giving the bot its own mind, shouldn't that be tested offline? On an installation of Mediawiki on your own 'puter? We don't want it to take over teh Intarweb to erect an evil dictatorship, do we? mendel 10:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


The part you copied from me is only good here for now --Gimmethegepgun 23:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

If you change your template to use pvp_ prefix instead of _pvp postfix, you can use it with mine. mendel 23:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Suffix. Felix Omni Signature.png 00:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC) mendel 07:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm... I don't like it. Felix Omni Signature.png 07:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok. I'll suffix your suffix until you're suffix in the suffix. mendel 07:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I can't even think of a suffix that would fit in that context. Felix Omni Signature.png 07:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the role of policy[]

I noticed your discussion on the AN about Entropy's decision to deflag completely inactive Sysops. As far as the question about "the role of policy" is concerned, you might want to check out some of the Wikipedia essays in the "references" section on my user page (assuming you haven't already) and then for good measure read this -- by which I mean the discussion between Tanaric and Xeeron. This comment is predicated on the assumption that you're interested in the policy question; if not, ignore it. DE Sig Test 2.jpg *Defiant Elements* +talk 03:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm reading that now, it's a handy collection. Probably should be re-read once in a while. I'm going to collect some quotes here that I think serve my point - though arguing from (wikipedia) policy is not something I do lightly, and it's pointless as far as wikipedia policy is concerned: arguing from our own policies serves to identify where our own policies don't properly reflect community consensus (have you seen my comments on GW:ULC? Gah!). And of course they should, because it helps orient new members (such as me).
  • Frequently, we simply write down what already happens. (Last paragraph of Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Product,_process,_policy)
  • From your election talk: Never were policies justification for any action -- they merely reflected the common values the group already had. When new editors came to the GuildWiki, we pointed them to the policy portal so that they could see what our culture was like. (Tanaric)
Nothing what I read surprised me much. However, what is conspicuously missing from that is that policies are condensed history. Respecting a policy means willingness to learn from history. In the admin policy, theer are several sentences that deal with admins being admins for life and what that entails, so that's a strong hint that historically there was a need to express that consensus. Noone's (publicly) examined that consensus and whether the arguments for it might have a bearing on the current situation, and that's another thing that makes me feel slightly uneasy. But that may just mean that I'm the one to do the examining, then.
Thanks for assuming. mendel 08:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Tanaric added much of GW:ADMIN on March 20th 2006, and there is no discussion on the talk page. So if there is a history behind that, it may be hard to find. mendel 09:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
There was no discussion, but the policy's been cited a few times. I'd still have asked the admins in question to step down (rather than break policy); after all, they're the best judges of whether it's probably for them to return. Oh well. mendel 09:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


Dont undo edits that were actually useful, only ones that did somthing wrong. for instance, {{deletedlink|category:untested builds}} shouldn't be reverted, nor should {{User:PanSola/~}} to {{SUBST:User:PanSola/~}}. :|. Its "Cleanup", not "Revert every change" 17:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I have 300+ pages to revert in User:Talk alone. When I see in the history that the last edits were Maybot edits, I revert them unseen because I want to get the job done. The useful bot changes can more easily be redone by rerunning the bot than by me working by hand, I believe. That said, I don't usually do anything with the signature rewrites, so these should be ok. Where did you see these done by me? mendel 17:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
But the point is the effort of it. From what I can see, "Go Go the ability to do two tasks in one" is the one that is useful, and "Bot Testing" or "Relinking as per Bot Tasks" is the bad summary. 17:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
No, the GoGo makes wrong edits that delete information; it uses the DeleteLink template wrong, if I recall correctly. The only edits I trust are the signature rewrites. May I ask that wherever you revert my reverts (breaking policy yourself, btw) you keep the Maybot changes concerning the DeletdLink template reverted? Please read GuildWiki:Cleanup_after_Maybot. mendel 17:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
The GoGo is the one that does PanSola's sign. 17:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't normally revert that, but see above. Why does it break GW:SIGN? mendel 17:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
The stuff that Marvin works on is easier as it allows a simple rewrite to fix the Maybot edit, and that leaves any subsequent changes intact. Except for the earliest dozen or so, I did have problems with those on User:, I believe. May possibly changed the bot programming but didn't change the summary. Maybe that should be required in the new bot policy: indicate bot version in the summary, and make a new version whenever the bot gets changed (even a tiny little bit). mendel 17:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
A couple things:
  1. The anon reverting your edit does not break 1RV, as each editor has only reverted once. 1RV is only broken if the same editor reverts something more than once.
  2. It breaks GW:SIGN because signatures are not supposed to be transcluded. It's been mentioned off and on for a while now that old signatures that did use templates should be rewritten, but no one had bothered doing it yet.
Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken.gif 20:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Nope, GW:1RV isn't per editor, it's per article )-: -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa.png) 05:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, it was when I last read it. Considering it had gone 18 months without a significant revision, it's no wonder I missed what was added on March 20. —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken.gif 05:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Ah, that's nice, saves me ranting about that. I've still to write my POLICY:RFAQL proposal, though: "Revert first, ask questions later" seems to be pretty much community consensus. Without the "ask questions" part. (Present company excluded.) mendel 05:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

GW:SIGN was broken before. We don't have a GW:MATCHING BRACES or I could have invoked that on that revert, I think. Gah! UCS is dead (present company excepted)!

I'm pretty pissed off at the moment anyway because AWB has gone on strike. I click save, and it acts as if it saves, but the wiki doesn't have the changes. I think May has encountered similar behaviour. It is not a direct result of the stop via the talk page, because Marvin contributed after that no problem. No admin action has been taken either, I can manually post from the account, and the logs are empty. It might be that wikia is too slow at this time of day. But it does suck when you happily save away (and I've been lots of manual editing on that) and suddenly notice it was all for naught. Gah! Maybe some strange URL or page content or page size kills it, who knows? mendel 20:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

In that case[]

I guess I just wasn't paying attention. Felix Omni Signature.png 03:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

spam filter workaround[]

Why didn't I think of that... move the page, edit it, then move it back (don't think the spam filter blocks page moves). Brilliant! —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken.gif 23:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I wouldn't move them back - the users don't have any hope of editing them in that slashed state. mendel 23:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Duh. 8P —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken.gif 00:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and in case you missed it on the RC (and for posterity): thanks for helping out with the XHTML icon code and also fixing my DIV error on GuildWiki:Non-orphaned articles‎! mendel 00:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
No problem! I just thought of a suggestion for the XHTML template, actually, but I'll leave the comment over there. —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken.gif 00:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Good idea! Done! mendel 01:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Wiki Status (¬_¬)[]

You forgot to remind me that I am valuable xP--Cobalt6.jpg - (Talk/Contribs) 12:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm unsure what the proper etiquette is: does the more recent member remind the "older" one, or vice versa? --mendel 14:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Just incase i failed to convey my sarcasm across t'internet again, i was joking. In an ideal society nobody tells anybody they are valuable since its patronising and annoying to the point where you want to punch the person who said it, however cynicism is frowned upon so generally speaking it's older members reminding newer ones, along with such painful rhetoric as "Hi there valued contributor" and, as on my first talkpage, "Thankyou for your cool input". But yeah, t'was just joking :)--Cobalt6.jpg - (Talk/Contribs) 18:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Ha, I'm better at deadpan than you, then! "Proper etiquette", I thought that was a giveaway for sure.  ;-) I think I had that actually done to me by someone who wrote something along the line of "I'm writing this because of GW:YAV", and that sounds slightly insulting: "you only have value because the policy says so (if not, you'd be scum to me)." I'm sure it wasn't meant that way, though, or I misunderstood.
What other rites of seniority are there, then? Having your talk on more than 10 people's watchlists? Do admins count double? --mendel 22:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I try to ignore the wikidrama.. I wasnt involved in the Felix vs R and Banj at all! :o —MaySig.png Warw/Wick 15:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
xD, sorry i missed that :P I think that some people seem to perceive number of archives as some kind of status symbol (I have 3 - is that good? probably not), general talkpage activity might be another. I guess obviously sysop/bcratism is a right of seniority, despite people's insistence to the contrary. As for having your talkpage on peoples watchlists, is there even a way to find out who is watching a particular page (short of asking, obv :P)?--Cobalt6.jpg - (Talk/Contribs) 09:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Post controversial content, see who replies. You need a good knowledge of which buttons to push for which people to get reliable results, and even then they might just have been watching Recent Changes.
I'm going to fill my archive 'til my PC can't handle the size. --mendel 12:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I consider it quite impressive how long I've been here, in comparison to the size of my talkpage. Lord of all tyria 12:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
You probably have to relate that to the number of edits somewhat. --mendel 13:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Let's see then...

(I'm taking the liberty to add the Bytes columns to this table. (mendel 17:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC))

User First contrib Total edits Mainspace edits Talkpage archives Bytes talk+Archive Byte/edits
LoaT 19 December 2006 1,754 448 0 20529 11.7
m.mendel 26 May 2008 754 136 1 19227 25
Cobalt 30 November 2007 1,410 127 3 126253 90
Warwick 9 October 2007 8,536 1,391 46
Dr ishmael 30 June 2006 8,055 3,059 1 90476 11.2
Conclusion: Number of edits has no direct correlation to talk page activity, but characteristics of the user can be inferred from the data. LoaT is a lurker. Mendel is new. Cobalt doesn't really contribute much. Warwick wins at wikidrama. I am the least controversial person on the wiki (2 years, 8k edits, and only 1 archive? Yeah. :P ). Hooray for scientific reasoning! —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken.gif 15:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Builds section stole contributions from me. /sadface. Lord of all tyria 15:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
You lost 496 Contribs due to deletions so far, Loat :P --- Ohaider!-- (s)talkpage 15:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I lost like, 700 mainspace contribs from deletions :p Light Kitty 15:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
You dont even have 700 contribs :p. —MaySig.png Warw/Wick 15:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Contribs as an anon, much? --- Ohaider!-- (s)talkpage 15:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) what I was gonna say ;) Light Kitty 15:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Its a conspiricy! ;O —MaySig.png Warw/Wick 15:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm waiting for a redirect to appear for a GW-user page to Lightkitty. Makes sense for a 700+ edit user.
Anyway, I added byte counts (edit page - copy& paste everything into editor) to the table - feel free to add yourself if you aren't on the table yet, if it's popular I'll make a page of it. I hope that my bad ratio is indeed "new user syndrome". That said, I think "number of talk page archives" is indeed a status symbol in some circles. As is "number of user boxes", of course. --mendel 17:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
"Cobalt doesn't really contribute much" Plah! I beg to differ! Cobalt just didnt contribute much in his first few months, as such number of edits divided by number of months on wiki doesen't provide a very impressive figure (I also lost some to deletions), but i usually check the wiki atleast 2/3 times a day - i would consider myself to be fairly "active" anyways. I also did an event thing - that must count for something :P Also, a rough count gives me approx. 50 userboxes - TEH STATUS! (or perhaps not) - maybe we should count number of userspace pages/total size in bytes of userspace and/or position in special:Mostlinked/number of links to user created stuff. Still, interesting data, perhaps we can plot "The Maui Effect" on a graph :P--Cobalt6.jpg - (Talk/Contribs) 18:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) If you wanted to measure user activity, you'd have to get the Contributions list and find an average number of bytes per edit, multiply that with edits made. It's a bit hard to get reliable data from the main/non-main ratio, as the Dr has removed numerous redlinks from Userspace (I've been working that as well). Size of Userspace and Mostlinked can be gamed - May had her bot create over 300 pages that link to her userpage and talk page. It's still be hard to figure out how useful the edits actually are. --mendel 20:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


Lol, I forgot to thank you for fixing my userpage :D. --Helllbringer 22:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I just got lucky that you're not Gigathrash. ;-) --mendel 22:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Lol. --Helllbringer 23:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The subject stays the same (Tic TOC)[]

You can force a TOC by mashing in __TOC__, or you can force-hide it with __NOTOC__. Just a reminder (as per "TOC popped up -> named first section "Description"") --- Ohaider!-- (s)talkpage 10:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I know. But the first section won't be listed in the TOC (and won't have an edit link) if it doesn't have a heading, so the heading was needed anyway.
I have more of a problem on my talk page. It is ok for the TOC to appear when it does, but if I don't have a section header above the archive, it pops up in the archive box. So it's either have a permanent TOC on the page, or a section above the box - both not optimal solutions. Will the __TOC__ appear wherever __TOC__ is written on the page? Only the first occurence. What's community consensus on editing section headings on talk pages? Is it ok if I do it on my own page? Would make the archive more useful. --mendel 10:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
If I'd place __TOC__ here, the TOC would appear here, too :P --- Ohaider!-- (s)talkpage 11:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
No, it won't (unless the preview lies). Not "too". It appears wherever the first occurrence of __TOC__ is on the page, and only there. Since I don't have that code at the top,you could get the TOC down to here, but it wouldn't be at the top any more. If I had __TOC__ at the top of the page, you can add it down here all you want, there'll just be a blank. At least it works that way on firefox 2. --mendel 11:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Ino. Dunno why I typed "too" behind the sentence, as I knew only 1 TOC would occur >.< I'm an idiot tbh. --- Ohaider!-- (s)talkpage 11:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
NP, any thoughts on editing section headers? --mendel 11:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Don't give a damn, actually. The subject stays the same.... --- Ohaider!-- (s)talkpage 11:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
You know I had to, now, right? ;-) --mendel 11:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Yup. But, honestly, it's not like the starting post has a whole different meaning now :P --- Ohaider!-- (s)talkpage 12:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Page Title Doctoring[]

"Watch Yourself!". Just a reminder of an archived discussion :) --- Ohaider!-- (s)talkpage 22:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't work that way - all that can be changed is upper to lowercase, if you made the changed title into an internal link you'd still get to the same page, so it can't be used to mislead (although I admit I tried to, and had it worked, the discussion you cited would have applied). BUt really all users that want to have a lowercase username canhave that on their userpage, and that is nice. --mendel 22:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
The {{DISPLAYTITLE}} magic word is much more "friendly" than the <div> overlays that Warwick and others were using. This actually changes the text that gets displayed at the top of the article, instead of placing new text over it, so that it is guaranteed to not disrupt anything else on the page. Also, like mendel said, you can't actually change the article name, only how it is displayed. See here and here for explanation. —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken.gif 22:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Didn't know what it could and couldn't do, so I just brought up something similar, so you wouldn't be flamed about it. Prevention above remedy, amirite? :P --- Ohaider!-- (s)talkpage 14:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I noticed ("I admit I tried to"), so thanks. --mendel 15:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


if you;re going to keep making these weird templates, make sure they are fully documented and categorized. Because they are starting to look like a whole lot of gibberish. —JediRogue 02:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to remember that. --mendel 15:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Remember that because you have placed your templates in mainspace, they shouldn't use first person and try to avoid sending users to wikipedia to explain it. You should be able to explain it simply enough yourself. Otherwise, the documentation is lacking. —JediRogue 00:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Which template are you referring to? I thought mine were better documented than the average Template on here. --mendel 14:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Unyielding Aura[]

I double-checked, and there is a period where you added one. Just fyi, since your comment implied that you hadn't actually checked. —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken.gif 15:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I don't have GW open atm. And thanks for endorsing the coding forum, I expect the others (PanSola etc.) will see it via the community portal. --mendel 15:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

GuildWiki:Cleanup after Maybot[]

Are you finished working on that now? Your comments on the User and User talk namespaces imply that while there might be more to fix, you're not planning on doing any more with them. I'd like to do the final run of the build bot soon, so please let me know if you do plan to do any more work on that. —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken.gif 04:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

There is more to fix on User:Talk, but I've been putting it off because I didn't have the gumption to tackle the AWB bug that prevented me doing those. I'm going to attempt those in the next 24 hours. If you don't want to wait for me you can do those yourself, of course - I can email you the page list if you want, but it should be clear from my description on the project page. Is there anything that the {{build archive|[[Build talk:R/Me Underworld Speed Trap Solo]]}} type of templates should be rewritten to? So far I've just been reverting those when they were damaged. --mendel 08:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Revert them, my script knows how to handle them. —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken.gif 14:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


I just wanted to complement you on your diplomacy, sophistication in public and general knack for codes and the way things work. So um... keep up the good work! lol. Powersurge360Violencia 23:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Diplomacy? You must not have read my summary on the Doghouse thread.... but thank you!--mendel 23:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
The disturbing thing is that few people compliment me on my humour, which means that it's either a) far too dry to get noticed or b) not funny. --mendel 23:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
lol, I did, but I can recognize a joke. Besides, it's not so bad dating someone who's vaguely neurotic, keeps things interesting. Powersurge360Violencia 01:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


: P This user made all of his user boxes by himself. preciousss...

There is your evidence :P, I mean, I didn't do anything o_o -- Isk8.png I~sk8 (T/C) 19:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, much obliged. You're doing that just to keep me from doing a RfA, I'm sure... ;-D --mendel 19:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
LOL, not at all... I had to check to see if I could view revisions without undeleting, which I can, though it only appears as code, and not gui. And I would most likely support you if you were to have an RfA, as I think you are a great contributor. -- Isk8.png I~sk8 (T/C) 19:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Got to keep thanking you... thank you. I have no need to be admin. --mendel 19:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

You Win:[]

The Ruricu Awesome Star for today for your awesome reply on Maui's talk page. Congratulations! No one else has ever received this award, and it is likely I'll be too lazy to give one out ever again. -- Ruricu-sig.png (TalkContribs) 18:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! You mean the "First post after a spoilsport" one? Btw, nice sig. --mendel 19:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

My favorite food[]

Spam RandomTime 19:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC) link title

Chili. (See the archives for subject change policy on this page.) --mendel 19:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Neh, spam is better Asrael 11:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Auron Vendetta?[]

Ok, some advice you probably not want or waiting for, and I might be completely wrong about it but its more or less the impression you give dealing with several matters here at guildwiki. Before I go on, I want to make clear, My meaning -if I have- about any 'quarrels' you have/had isn't important, I'm not defending or attacking anyone or anything. I also think you're a good contributor to this wiki. However..I can't help noticing that you're questioning Auron motives and moves over and over again. Directly or indirectly. That gives me, and probably others, the impression that there is some sort of personal vendetta going on. Again, I'm not saying you're right or wrong nor will I defend Auron in this, but I'm afraid that dealing it this way you are doing it now might fire a nasty fight (yup, fight, wikidrama or whatever, not 'discussion'). So, *if* you are indeed unhappy with the actions of Auron, shouldn't you talking/discussing it with himself instead of general addressing issues, making pages ? *or* its your intention to improve adminship in general here ? If that is the case, I think you're not making it clear enough. And maybe it something else I completely missed. My apologies on forehand for this. I'm no native English speaker, so I miss a lot of nuances that's hidden in the discussions..-- Merty sign.gif-- ( talk ) 11:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I have been talking to Auron on irc; I will place another issue on his talk page shortly; the matter I raise on the admin board pertains to the admin community as a whole; I have no cause for a "vendetta", but I view Auron's attitudes with concern, and my discussion on this wiki is an effort to come to terms with that one way or another, and to identify who else shares these attitudes, if these attitudes are amenable to change, or whether it is I who should change, leave, or grit my teeth and tolerate. Oh, and thank you for your advice; it made me think. --11:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Auron is a very controversial administrator. He's grating, irritable, elitist and effective. There will always be people to stand against him and his tact, but he's always for the betterment of the wiki. Powersurge360Violencia 22:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Legendary Sword[]

Mendel, AGF does not mean "check brain at door". It means "assume good faith in the absence of contrary evidence". Anyone adding 100k+10ecto price to the legendary sword article is self-evidently acting in bad faith. It's a clear lie. No "new user" would be adding that. If they'd been adding "100g", you'd have a point. Normally, I'd think it was to try to scam someone, but this time I think someone is playing you - they thought you'd react this way and you've obliged, making yourself look very silly and undermining all your arguments against Auron.Lurkerabove 23:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Certain items in presearing jumped in price by a very large margin due to the closing of an exploit that allowed people to take powerful post-searing weapons into pre-searing. It is not impossible for the price to go like that, but definitely improbable. Powersurge360Violencia 23:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Lurker, I have not once argued that the ban had been unfair. I am arguing that it could have been better documented. That is now easier because you can plop GW:PRICE on the talkpage and use it for a ban reason, too. If some people think that's a good idea and start using that, I'll be happy. I had also been wondering if the revert war was really necessary, and again, maybe some people will try other methods next time, and we'll see how that pans out. --◄mendel► 23:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit Summaries[]

I gotta say I love your edit summaries. You hardly have to read the actual post, because you practically retype it in the summary bar.Entrea SumataeEntrea [Talk] 23:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

He's preparing for a HUGE vandalism outbreak once people trust his summaries and don't read the revisions! Mark my words. Powersurge360Violencia 23:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Argh, my evil play is foiled! ... Copy & Paste ftw. I think it helps me find it in the history if I ever need to. Plus I'm thinking of you RC readers, too, of course. Thank you! --◄mendel► 23:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
The edit summary that read "Added 'Take that, foul fiend!'" was actually longer than the revision. Also, my plans for tonight didn't work out, which is why I'm back on wiki and such. Felix Omni Signature.png 02:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


On delete teplates, you can type 5 tildes, rather than four, so only a timestamp will appear. (like this; 08:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)) --- Ohaider!-- (s)talkpage 08:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, and indeed the delete template doc shows that, but I missed it. I assumed it made sense to see who added the tag. Test(3): ◄mendel► Test(5): 08:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC) So I can sign with ~~~ in the reason and ~~~~~ in the date. --◄mendel► 08:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)