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



Welcome to GuildWiki, Delia! --Jamie 06:02, 5 May 2006 (CDT)

Thanks! I've actually been here for a few months, but have begun hardcore editing only recently. Delia Rashesh 06:18, 5 May 2006 (CDT)

Hey there, that userpage on the wikipedia is just cool. Mind if I "borrow" those NWN and GW user boxes? ;) # Nilles 06:27, 5 May 2006 (CDT)

Not at all. If you check, I actually contributed the Guild Wars userbox. Can't say who did the NWN one though. --Delia Rashesh (talk) 07:12, 5 May 2006 (CDT)
Holy schmoly, I think your wikipedia page has put other babelbox to shame, take notes F G & Stabber --Jamie 06:32, 5 May 2006 (CDT)
Heh, yeah, I think I could portray myself entirely through userboxes, albeit a lot of them. --Delia Rashesh (talk) 07:12, 5 May 2006 (CDT)

New builds[]

If you create a new build it needs to have {{build-stub}} added to it so it can be reviewed & brought up to standard before it is put into the appropriate category, thanks & welcome! Skuld Monk 08:59, 5 May 2006 (CDT)

Even though it's not a stub... and in the right category... --Delia Rashesh (talk) 09:01, 5 May 2006 (CDT)
On GWiki, we like to get the community to decide when a build is suitable for being a full build listed in the builds category. This ensures that junk builds do not crowd the good builds out. This is just a standard procedure and is no comment on the quality of your article of the quality or the content of your article. Shandy 09:02, 5 May 2006 (CDT)
Build-stub is a bit of a misnomer, build review would be better Skuld Monk 09:06, 5 May 2006 (CDT)
Too much of that line of thought and you won't have a wiki anymore. Honestly, procedures do not bother me, it's when an article is assumed junk before proven good. I'm from the AGF camp. While I can see builds being a particular problem, as everyone submits their favorite crappy build, the "five-vote minimum" that has been imposed is short-sighted and stupid. If people were encouraged to tag specific builds they think aren't up to par, I think the cleanup would go considerably faster and result in fewer deletions, while still keeping only the good ones. --Delia Rashesh (talk) 09:08, 5 May 2006 (CDT)
Ah, you've come at a time of overhaul for the build-stub category. It was growing too big, so Xeeron has instigated a massive purge of the category to eliminate the ones who will never make it to the correct non-stub category. Usually it works on a "If two people think it works, and the article has standard formatting, then the build gets unstubbed" basis. Shandy 09:12, 5 May 2006 (CDT)
Incidentally I'm one of the more 'progressive' users of GWiki here, and even I see the value of the build-stub category and peer review. Shandy 09:14, 5 May 2006 (CDT)
Can we peer-review without making good-intending build authors feel like they're being placed under a microscope naked? --Delia Rashesh (talk) 09:18, 5 May 2006 (CDT)
Sorry! That certainly isn't the intention. That's one of the problems with Wikis - people are always misconstruing intentions, and it leads to people forgetting to assume good faith. Shandy 09:31, 5 May 2006 (CDT)
I know it's not the intention. I am assuming good faith. But it doesn't make this process, however misguided, any more pleasant for constributors. As I said, what is wrong with tagging crappy builds when they're seen? --Delia Rashesh (talk) 09:34, 5 May 2006 (CDT)
I think, in the end, having a positive or a negative method for controlling the builds category doesn't make much difference, as long as we have a standard procedure to follow. I think our current method will produce less articles but of higher quality, whereas the proposed method will make it easier for articles to get through leading to a more encyclopedic account of builds in GW. Shandy 09:47, 5 May 2006 (CDT)
You can always initiate a vote for changing this. I personally think that your method is better. A new contributor can't know that he is required to mark the build as a stub and the poor builds can easily be marked as stubs by others. --Gem Gem-icon-sm.png 09:13, 5 May 2006 (CDT)
Having come from Wikipedia, I would strongly recommend many of their policies and guidelines, especially when it comes to the deletion of articles. A wide sweep of deletes will do more harm than good. Tag things that look crappy, delete if nobody defends. --Delia Rashesh (talk) 09:16, 5 May 2006 (CDT)
Then let's purge the stubs, and leave the non-stubs alone. --Delia Rashesh (talk) 09:16, 5 May 2006 (CDT)
By the way, I agree with you. Build-stub was and is a terrible idea. I've tried to argue against it, but to no avail. Once this wrongheaded policy was set in place (before my time), people seemed reluctant to consider any other options. — Stabber  09:41, 5 May 2006 (CDT)
If this policy is maintained, it will dramatically affect whether or not I decide to publish any other builds. If this site doesn't want them, why should I waste my time writing them up? --Delia Rashesh (talk) 09:44, 5 May 2006 (CDT)
Please, don't feel obliged to post your builds. GWiki is a purely voluntary project and I don't see why anyone should do anything that they don't want to do. Shandy 09:47, 5 May 2006 (CDT)
No, I wanted to post my build to help others. But if this is the sort of welcome new contributors get, I think I have better places I could be exerting creative effort. --Delia Rashesh (talk) 09:49, 5 May 2006 (CDT)
New contributors are the lifeblood of any wiki. I personally have nothing against you, your build or your proposal. I'm not sure what kind of welcome you perceive you have received, but please don't leave out of frustration or anger already! Try to change the system, if you sincerely think it needs changing, by making a vote and talking to Xeeron (who has taken it upon himself to try to maintain the Builds section). If you notice above I already added my thoughts about your proposed method of peer review. By the way, GWiki isn't Wikipedia, but some things obviously carry across easily between the two. Shandy 09:55, 5 May 2006 (CDT)
Oh, I'm not going to leave completely, just stop posting builds, and generally stop editing builds at all. --Delia Rashesh (talk) 10:01, 5 May 2006 (CDT)
Fair enough. I'm still not sure why, though. You object to your builds being scrutinised or do you object to the way we try to ensure build quality? Shandy 10:05, 5 May 2006 (CDT)
I object to the way it's being done -- it's very un-wiki-like. Particularly in regards to the build I added, if anyone has a specific point they would like addressed, I have no quarrel. But I object to this "hey, someone needs to make sure this build isn't BS" BS. --Delia Rashesh (talk) 10:08, 5 May 2006 (CDT)

OK. I think the rationale is that the current way the process of deciding which builds are good is transparent and highly community involved. Are you going to raise this point in a vote? It's quite a major issue so I don't think anyone would disagree with a vote on this change of policy idea. Shandy 10:11, 5 May 2006 (CDT)

If I knew where to raise the point, I would. --Delia Rashesh (talk) 10:12, 5 May 2006 (CDT)
I've taken the liberty of putting out a call for votes. — Stabber  10:35, 5 May 2006 (CDT)
Thanks, I've cast my vote. --Delia Rashesh (talk) 10:47, 5 May 2006 (CDT)

A deletionist's perspective[]

As a fellow Wikipedia deletionist, I wish to ask for your support in putting an end to the current [Main Page/site notice] ([Talk:Main Page/site notice|talk]). — Stabber  09:51, 5 May 2006 (CDT)

Sorry, I don't quite understand what you mean. Do you want the page you linked to be removed? Do you want the Wikipedia article to be removed? Or expanded? --Delia Rashesh (talk) 09:53, 5 May 2006 (CDT)
The Wikipedia article removed, or, if that is too extreme, the banner removed from this site (that page is transcluded into Main Page). I don't think we should be encouraging users to fill Wikipedia with junk. — Stabber  09:56, 5 May 2006 (CDT)
I've prodded it as it fails WP:WEB. --Delia Rashesh (talk) 09:59, 5 May 2006 (CDT)

Profession Icons[]

Please do not revert the profession icons. They were intentionally made to the newer size so that they would align equally in tables throughout the wiki. If they appear pixelated to you, that is likely a local cache issue on your machine. Refresh the cache, and the pixelation will be eliminated. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 19:24, 28 September 2006 (CDT)


Sorry for asking and this may sound stupid but.. are you Egyptian? ~ KurdKurdsig.png13:18, 17 February 2007 (CST)

No. --Delia Rashesh (talk) 06:42, 1 April 2007 (CDT)