FANDOM

Revision as of 14:41, July 4, 2007 by Barek (Talk | contribs)

| User:Gcardinal



Bug reports

Alt Text

Hey GCardinal, how's it going? I didn't see any point this out to you, but when you mouse over the text hyperlink (not the image!) of a skill on a build page, the box that pops up reads "gw:Optional." This seems to happen only with the new PvX style of skiil bars, the old "{{skill bar|.....}}" method displays the skill names properly when moused over. Clicking on both types of bars takes you to the correct GWiki page, but it's a problem you might want to know about. - Kowal Krowman (talkcontribs) 08:05, 14 May 2007 (CEST)

Fixed. GCardinal 03:18, 14 May 2007 (CEST)

Default Search Settings

Hi, this was a point raised on the discussion page for the main page, not sure if you saw it yet, but, I wanted to point it out just in case. We really should have the builds namespace as a default setting for searches since we are, after all, a build wiki. DE Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 02:47, 14 May 2007 (CEST)

Fixed. GCardinal 03:18, 14 May 2007 (CEST)

Double Redirects Page

The special page for Double Redirects is currently producing a Database error. Not a huge problem, but something that I figured I would mention to you. DE Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 22:48, 14 May 2007 (CEST)

PvXcode

Descriptive text for PvXcode doesn't show up until all PvXcode template thingies have loaded on a page. Pain on a team page with a lot of PvXcode and a slow internet connection. Is it possible to make the caption load as the images loads? -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image{{sysop}} 08:18, 15 May 2007 (CEST)

Not possible since it must load whole page before doing any DHTML at all. GCardinal 08:36, 15 May 2007 (CEST)
Shame. Ah well. -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image{{sysop}} 08:42, 15 May 2007 (CEST)

Headbutt

Headbutts immage is missing the elite golden frame. I have no idea how the image is coded into the bbcode so I don't know how to fix it, the image is fine on guildwiki and the link works fine but the image does not.--Sefre File:Sefresig.pngT*C 05:23, 16 May 2007 (CEST)

Fixed. Thx for report. GCardinal 00:25, 19 May 2007 (CEST)

Double account blocking

You blocked User:Moo, User:Mooo, User:General Nutcase, and User:Generalnutcase. I recently received an email from someone claiming to be Moo giving an explanation for the two moo accounts, but before I decide on what to do with either or both of them I'd like to know the IP addresses of all four, and whether any of them have voted on any policies. Can you do that for me? -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image{{sysop}} 20:07, 17 May 2007 (CEST)

Fixed. GCardinal 23:55, 18 May 2007 (CEST)

Icon mixup

I don't know if this is the right place to put it and if you already know it but the icons for Mantra of Signets and Mantra of Inscriptions are mixed up. Just thought you should know. Swiftslash \\ Impale 01:34, 15 May 2007 (CEST)

Ohh didnt know that. Thanks will fix asap! GCardinal 01:41, 15 May 2007 (CEST)
Fixed. GCardinal 00:28, 19 May 2007 (CEST)

PvX Convert

For whatever reason, PvX Converter had trouble converting
{{attributes | Ranger| Paragon
| Expertise | 9
| Wilderness Survival | 9
| Marksmanship | 9 + 1 + 3
| Command | 9
}}
{{Skill bar|Barrage|Savage Shot|Lightning Reflexes|"Stand Your Ground!"|Favorable Winds|Troll Unguent|Throw Dirt|Generic resurrect}} to it's pvx format.

-(eronth) no u 20:51, 19 May 2007 (CEST)

Ok, I just got another one like that, and I think the problem is in the skill bar. As soon as I decapitalized the s ({{Skill bar|etc...) it translated it perfectly. -(eronth) no u 20:57, 19 May 2007 (CEST)
Wow nice one! going to fix asap. thx m8 GCardinal 21:03, 19 May 2007 (CEST)

Main page bullet points

Finally managed to reproduce the effect. Image:Main page bug.JPG -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image{{sysop}} 20:03, 21 May 2007 (CEST)

Hi, how did you do that ? I kinda need to reproduce it too in order to fix. GCardinal 22:31, 21 May 2007 (CEST)
I have no idea, I just went to the main page and it was there. I think when I've gone straight to other pages (instead of to the main page) I've seen the same effect, but selecting the bullets (either manually by mouse or simply with ctrl-a) removes it, as does clicking the "log in/register" link at the top of the page. (Theoretically, going to any other page would also fix it, but I don't know for sure because it didn't occur to me to test it.) Given that no one else has complained about it and it doesn't happen very often to me, I don't think it's that big of a deal, but if you have a brainwave that fixes it I wouldn't complain. -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image{{sysop}} 22:41, 21 May 2007 (CEST)

Go for the eyes

I noticed that both the text and image of "Go for the Eyes!" links to the guildwiki main page instead of the skill article. View here. --Wizardboy777 04:08, 30 May 2007 (CEST)

All shouts and chants have that problem. -(єronħ) no u 04:18, 30 May 2007 (CEST)
Extension issue I am pretty sure. None of us, nor the admins besides Gcardinal, know what to do about that issue. Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 04:31, 30 May 2007 (CEST)
I just tried Anthem of Flame and it links fine, and that's a chant. I think it's just shouts, and probably because of the quotation marks. Maybe the exclamation points, but it's more likely the quotes. I'll see if my immense brainpower can't figger sumthin' out :P --Wizardboy777 22:04, 30 May 2007 (CEST)
Yea, I just checked and Godspeed works fine, that's a shout but it doesn't have the quotes. --Wizardboy777 22:08, 30 May 2007 (CEST)
"It's just a flesh wound.' doesn't work either, and it doesn't have the exclamation point, so it appears that any skill with quotation marks doesn't work right. --Wizardboy777 22:12, 30 May 2007 (CEST)

Database

It seems there's a lot of old stuff hanging around in the database, probably from GuildWiki, which leads to inconsistencies on special pages. For example there are tons of non-existing categories with no members (sounds paradox, but that's the problem). Any plans to fix that? I guess it's not urgent, just wanted to let you know. --Hhhippo 14:12, 3 June 2007 (CEST)

New Server Bug (&)

Hey, found one. When you follow the link to this page, it will say that there is no text there. However, there was text there before the new server. What's more, you are following a blue link, while a link to a non-existing page should be read. I don't know of any other pages named in a similiar fashion, so I cannot verify that this is where the problem lies. If I need to, I'll create another page and double-check, then delete the page immediately. Anyways, this page also displays as 'User:Krowman/P,' without the '&H Flagger on the end of it; that could be part of the problem. - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 09:16, 10 June 2007 (EDT)

:P yeah. You wrote that link somewhere and I saw it and clicked on it and it showed up as "P" instead of "P&H Flagger." Still does. -- Nova Jirouji-Nova -- (contribs) 12:24, 4 July 2007 (CEST)

Recent Changes

Here's another. After saving my above post, it did not show up in the recent changes page. Well, not immediately; I could wait for a while and see what happens, but nonetheless it is different from the way it worked on the old server. There are other minor edits showing up, as well as patrolled ones. I made an edit to the talk page of another user, and that did not show up as well; maybe that is the root of the change/problem? - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 09:22, 10 June 2007 (EDT)

Seems to be working now. Must have just been the server time difference, as has been suggested below. - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 19:45, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

Server time

Could you check the time on the new server? I have the impression it claims to use GMT, but it's 8h and 5min ahead. --Hhhippo 11:38, 10 June 2007 (EDT)

Correction: It's 16 hours behind. That explains also the recent changes problem. New edits do show up, but not at the top, they are in between the edits done 16 hours ago on the old server. --Hhhippo 11:45, 10 June 2007 (EDT)

Candidates for Deletion

After deleting Guild Wars, it continues to show up in the Candidates for Deletion category. - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 19:45, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

Template Saves 404

When you press save for skill template, it directs to template.php page but gives a 404. --Flag of South Korea Grumpy (Talk | Contrib) 10:36, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

Image Links

Example:[1] Scroll down to Links and click on Sliver 55. Why/how does that happen and can it be fixed? -- Nova Jirouji-Nova -- (contribs) 12:09, 4 July 2007 (CEST)

That is b/c those images are stored here and the skill bar just links them to the image locally. ~~ User Frvwfr2 signature frvwfr2 (talk · contributions) 13:02, 4 July 2007 (CEST)
huh?!?
If what he's asking about is why does it show something links to the image, but when you click it, there's no article, it's because most of the build talk pages were imported into the Main namespace. It gets a bit confusing from that point ... basically, there's an article in the main namespace titled "Build talk:Mo/E Sliver 55", but it's unreachable. Whenever you type in the above title, the MediaWiki software thinks you actually want to read the "Mo/E Sliver 55" article in the "Build talk:" namespace (which doesn't exist) instead of the "Build talk:Mo/E Sliver 55" (which does exist). Even if you create the new article in the Build talk namespace, the Mediawiki software will still internally see both pages as existing, but only give user access to the one in the build talk namespace.
There is a fix for this, Fyren has done this several times in the past on GuildWiki; but it requires server access to modify the database directly. With the large number of build talk articles impacted by this, I'm not sure if there are plans to ever either fix or purge these. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 16:41, 4 July 2007 (CEST)

Recent Changes RSS Feed

The recent changes RSS Feed doesn't work. I can't subscribe to it. ~~ User Frvwfr2 signature frvwfr2 (talk · contributions) 13:02, 4 July 2007 (CEST)

Discussion

Discussion Regarding RFA's

Also, I don't have time right now, but if you (or any other Admins) plan to be on MSN Messenger later tonight, we should discuss how we want RFA's to be handled considering we have 5 Bureaucrats with no regular Admins (Although that doesn't mean we necessarily need any), and, we have no formal RFA process yet. DE Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 02:49, 14 May 2007 (CEST)

Given the fact that we will be transitioning into a new vetting policy, and, given the inherent policy violations (particularly NPA) and disputes that inevitably arise, I think we need to think about having more Admins. We will also need people deleting the inevitably large number of builds that violate PW:WELL. Also, while there are only 610 registered users as of now, as we grow, we will need more Admins, and we appear to be growing rather rapidly. Despite the fact that we don't have an official RFA, I would be willing to nominate Krowman and perhaps a few others right now for Adminship. Feedback? DE Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 06:15, 14 May 2007 (CEST)

Well more admins is a good idea, but I would really like to get the ones we have working. There is tons and tons of work to do. We have to organize our efforts so it's easy to see what we need to get down and check when its done. GCardinal 19:36, 14 May 2007 (CEST)
Remember I'm always willing to chip in some work along with the others who want to support this wiki. '~\^/~' Napalm Flame Napalm Flame Sig Image (talk)(contributions) 20:20, 14 May 2007 (CEST)
Thanks man :) Any help are always welcome! :) GCardinal 20:31, 14 May 2007 (CEST)
I'm also ready to do anything that needs to be done. Now that school is mostly over I have a lot more time to spend doing things here. Bluemilkman 22:39, 14 May 2007 (CEST)

MediaWiki:Sitenotice

FYI: To help raise awareness of site-wide issues (such as the vetting policy vote), you may want to consider implementing MediaWiki:Sitenotice. That should display at the top of every page (I think it's default MediaWiki to work - but if it doesn't, some config on MediaWiki hooks may be needed). --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 03:39, 15 May 2007 (CEST)

Site Growth

Has anyone looked at the statistics special page recently? In two days, we have gotten 200 new registered users. Granted, most of them probably have 1 or 0 edits, but, still, that is pretty impressive. DE Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 16:15, 15 May 2007 (CEST)

Keep in mind voting is going on. I'm not saying ALL of them are vote cheaters, but some may very well be. It's still good to know we have more and more users finding out this place exsisted. People on GW would randomly replace pages with "Y U DELET BILDS?????/". I kept introducing people to here before they got banned for vandal. I'm not sure if any of them actually came or not. Ya, so i guess thats my life story. Eronth 16:22, 15 May 2007 (CEST)
How bad is the faux voting getting? I've seen several IP ban issues and a lot of radom chit chat pop up here and there. 200 new users? Wow. I wonder who's ballet is getting stuffed. Shireen 16:59, 15 May 2007 (CEST)
Security has been improved after that small ban of a few users. I think users who got banned was authors who wanted to speed-up voting on some policy. Take look on User:Gcardinal/Stats :) Now users must verify email to vote, and since most of the users want to take part in voting process most of them do. GCardinal 17:38, 15 May 2007 (CEST)
I would say that the good 199 of those 200 users are sockpuppets. I strongly request that you remove all votes with people that haven't confirmed email, and post it on the Main Page requesting them to confirm Email, before they can vote again. Also, please make sure that there are no email duplicates, because of course, they would just link 10 users to one email. This is a really big issue... A Mini Bone Dragon means a lot to some people (including me, but you can be sure I don't have any sockpuppets :P) -- Nova Jirouji-Nova -- (contribs) 22:11, 15 May 2007 (CEST)
I know you've blocked ~7 users, but do you have this anon growth under control? I'm sure the majority of them are sockpuppets. (I mean 200 for crying out loud!) Have you removed illegible votes? I'm sure there are a lot of them. How are you keeping track of all of this? How are you going to be sure at least the majority of the votes are eligible? I just want to know what measures are being taken, because, it's plainly obvious the majority of those people are sockpuppets. Don't forget, for those who want the mini, their votes aren't accurate too, and therefore the policy that will be voted in probably won't even be a good policy. I really hope you have this under control... -- Nova Jirouji-Nova -- (contribs) 22:20, 15 May 2007 (CEST)
User must verify their email and they must use Captcha to register. If you have any better security solution you are welcome to implement it and send it to me. As far as I know we have done evrething a wiki can do. There is no anonymous votes, there is no unverified votes. I dont see a problem. GCardinal 23:10, 15 May 2007 (CEST)
I have a sinking suspicion that we may end up with an inadequete policy from all this. In the words on good old Han Solo, "I got a bad feeling about this" Shireen 00:06, 16 May 2007 (CEST)
As with I. If Gcardinal cannot handle the problem of anons, I strongly recommend restarting voting and taking away any prizes. -- Nova Jirouji-Nova -- (contribs) 00:12, 16 May 2007 (CEST)
Sorry, I didn't see that. I meant sockpuppets by anonymous users. Anyways, are you sure that there are no duplicates of emails? -- Nova Jirouji-Nova -- (contribs) 00:14, 16 May 2007 (CEST)
More or less yes. I do check database with various sql requests to check for users who tried to fake something. Its not 100%, but it is pretty tight for a wiki to be. Remmber, even wikipedia does not requere email to be verified. GCardinal 00:19, 16 May 2007 (CEST)
Wikipedia may not require it, but then they also have the policy WP:!VOTE that says "...In addition, even in cases that appear to be 'votes', few decisions on Wikipedia are made on a 'majority rule' basis, because Wikipedia is not a democracy." and goes on from there to explain why they don't use voting and to elaborate on the difference between voting (which they avoid) and straw polls (which they do use).
By using votes for defining policy and for use in vetting, you automatically drop Wikipedia as a role model for issues related to voting processes.
The problem is voting in general on the internet. The measures taken so far will help, but should not be mistaken for a secure method. My ISP gives me 7 email addresses, and that's before adding in email accounts via hotmail, g-mail, yahoo, etc. I'm sure most users have similar or even more available accounts. You can try preventing registration from web-based email services, and blocking registration from IPs with known open-proxies, but you still won't eliminate the problem. You can't prevent it completely without solutions that would do even more harm to the site, you can only minimize it and try to manage around it.
Urgh. I'm leaning towards restarting voting with no prizes, or perhaps very minor prizes. If we get this much for a bone dragon, imagine what we'll get for a tormented item... Though I can personally verify that Fradigit is not a sockpuppet, but that's only because I watched my girlfriend create the account in the first place. -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image{{sysop}} 01:39, 16 May 2007 (CEST)

Anyone ever consider a voter registration act of some sort? Where there is a voting registration period, followed by the voting it'self? May help prevent the 'quick spam everything!'... Would give a buffer zone to screen for proxies, and better criteria could be made (such as one of those verification picture thingies). If a narrow window for voter registration was given, and each account required a manual puch in, it might diminish concerns against these rabbid, evil, pillow stealing sock puppets. Shireen 01:51, 16 May 2007 (CEST)

Or we could require people to vote while logged out, and they sign both their IP and username. You can't sockpuppet IP addresses without another, um... I'm not sure if you need another computer or another internet connection. But either way it would limit sockpuppetry more. I have gmail, and I have 96 more invites sitting in my inbox that I could send to myself and use to create 96 more email addresses that I could use. It would at least make it less convenient to try to cheat the lottery. --Wizardboy777 02:21, 16 May 2007 (CEST)
I agree wholeheartedly with Armond. -- Nova Jirouji-Nova -- (contribs) 03:32, 16 May 2007 (CEST)
I think that anyone who goes to the trouble of setting up 86 email accounts just to try and get their policy to be voted on, has way too much time on their hands, and should find something better to do with that time. I think the voting is fine the way it is, since this is the most accurate way to vote. GCardinal has done everything you could ever hope to make this vote fair. I think we should just let it go. The only thing I think we should do is make sure the winner of the bone dragon is someone real, and not someone who made the account just to vote 86 times. Bluemilkman 04:15, 16 May 2007 (CEST)
I disagree with Wizardboy. Switching to IPs just trades one set of problems for another set. PCs at home and at work/school would be on different IPs, so two votes for everyone right there. Using IP's, anyone on dial-up can just disconnect then re-logon to get a new IP. Anyone at a university could have every PC in the computer lab vote. People in an office frequently all go through a single IP, so it would look like a single user voting multiple times instead of the actual multiple users. Then there's just using open proxies or onion routing to fake hundreds of possible IP addresses. Using IPs just requires extra work and gives the illusion of improving things, but actually offers no real benefit. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 05:39, 16 May 2007 (CEST)
I do understand everyone concerns about fast growth of this site. But again, this voting on policy I think is the last one as well. The only reason we go this voting road is becouse we dont have time for discussion. We just had to decide where to start, when we will have winner we will have something to get keep us busy and all other things around policy and things like that will be done using good old discussion way.
When it comes to giving high-end prizes as part of the voting, its just amazing cheap (in any way) way of advertising. I know that out of 100 new registered users only 3-5 will be wiki-active, but we do need those 3-5 and maybe rest will follow one day as well. We will have more prizes in future, more or less regular. But users will have to earn it contributing to wiki or it will be just plain lottery where people does not need to do anything - they will have just to get a lottery ticket and wait for a prize. And again, I could spend 1000$ on advertising and would get just as much new users of the "same" quality as by adding this lottery. Different ways to go, different price to pay - same users, same results. GCardinal 12:37, 16 May 2007 (CEST)
@ Wizardboy777. My friend has an IP changer that makes his IP show up as if it was from different countries. IP watching wouldn't do the trick. Eronth 13:08, 16 May 2007 (CEST)
You will have to change your IP, you will have to type all registration information again, since you must type in capthca thing, then you will have to check your email, click on link, go back to our site, go to vote page, vote. then do it all over again. I am sure that most people will have something better to do. GCardinal 14:06, 16 May 2007 (CEST)
Here's the problem: Yes, they could do all that, yes, we all know that they need to get a life and/or do something better with their time, but just because it's stupid of them doesn't mean they don't do it. -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image{{sysop}} 16:05, 16 May 2007 (CEST)
Exactly, some people really have nothing better to do. Also, consider hackers. Many hackers have absolutely no reason to hack other than to annoy other people. Yet another display of people that have nothing better to do. I wish I could suggest something usefull as a way to help weed out imposter accounts, but I'm not very good at computer stuff. Eronth 16:18, 16 May 2007 (CEST)
Guys I really don't see where this discussion going? You want me to close this site, make only 1 user from each country? This is Internet and most important of all its Wiki. I am fully aware of all problems and I have done my best to protect this site. What more do you want me to do? GCardinal 17:26, 16 May 2007 (CEST)
I honestly don't know what we can do, aside from using your talk page to go complain and grumble. Sorry, Cardinal :P -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image{{sysop}} 17:28, 16 May 2007 (CEST)
Lets hope that my talk page are the only place that will be touched by all this :)) GCardinal 17:45, 16 May 2007 (CEST)

We love ya cardinal, and we appreicate it... *Wipish!* That said... Get to work! =) Shireen 17:47, 16 May 2007 (CEST)

small secret

Just wanted to tell that I have some more ideas on how we can give out more prizes. Next thing will be pure competition where everyone will see really great results and prize this time will be Tormented weapon of winners choice! :P GCardinal 17:41, 15 May 2007 (CEST)

Not that I wouldn't love a tormented shield (my current mantra is "I want that ****ing shield..."), but I'm worried that offering so many high-end prizes will incite even more sockpuppetry. -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image{{sysop}} 18:19, 15 May 2007 (CEST)
Well this time it for be reward for contribution users have done to this wiki not a lottery. And if you have a better idea for a prize you are welcome to suggest it (I'am paying a bill). Think of it as extremly cheap advertising. GCardinal 23:14, 15 May 2007 (CEST)

Voting Improvement

So everyone is saying how it won't work. Does anyone who is criticizing how the voting is being handled have a better way of doing it? As far as I can see, this is by far the best way. Bluemilkman 16:20, 16 May 2007 (CEST)

0's my hero

Got zero again in the lottery -_-... Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 03:24, 18 May 2007 (CEST)

Worked fine for me. Maybe you just have an Aura of Suckness on you something ^_^ Blame the monk :P --Wizardboy777 03:28, 18 May 2007 (CEST)
Not sure how that is possible, code is re-written. Try again please, just hit vote and you will get another number. GCardinal 07:33, 18 May 2007 (CEST)
Who won the lottery? Who won, Gcardinal?! :P -- Nova Jirouji-Nova -- (contribs) 14:00, 18 May 2007 (CEST)
Will be annonced today :) GCardinal 14:55, 18 May 2007 (CEST)
Hehe, I know I lost :p. Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 15:38, 18 May 2007 (CEST)
Hmm... real vetting. Apparently that was the first one on the list. I really have to say that I strongly suggest revoting... The prize makes it far too incentive for those with absolutely no opinion (sockpuppet or not) to vote, and then they just choose the first one they see... Because, really. If it were you, and say you don't give half a crap which policy gets voted in, but you see "miniature bone dragon!" on the front page and go "wow with that 100k i could buy 15k armor" they go "oh well, i'll just place my vote just for the chance to win." But that's just me, and I can't even remember what was first on the list, I just saw someone talk about it ^_^ -- Nova Jirouji-Nova -- (contribs) 21:41, 18 May 2007 (CEST)
Yeah, Real Vetting was one of the worst ones. I agree with Nova on the revote. Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 21:55, 18 May 2007 (CEST)
First of all, Real Vetting really isn't bad, it is just poorly explained and poorly presented. Based on discussions with BrianG and Krowman, I suggested edits to the extension that is to be created as well as the policy, and they were all incorporated by Cardinal, so, I think the product should be all right. As to re-voting, while I do acknowledge that in any survey format, the order of the choices does of course matter, if we allow a re-vote, first, it means we have to wait even longer without a policy, and, second, no matter which policy wins, someone will be unhappy and they will also want a re-vote. I would say that we should try it out. If it doesn't work, well then, it won't have hurt us too much, and we can always edit or change the policy after we create it. DE Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 22:25, 18 May 2007 (CEST)
People voted and we will respect their choice. If you have constractive comments or additions to the policy they are always welcome. However - no re-vote for now. Maybe in 3-4 mounts. GCardinal 23:41, 18 May 2007 (CEST)
Gcardinal, about 100 more votes on the first policies does not make you suspicious one bit? Real vetting was one of the ones thrown together very close to the closing date. It had virtually no criticism or suggestions before it was put on the list as finished. The very fact that you created this policy alone and it was put near the top of the list does make me suspicious tho.
The prize was a bad idea from the beginning, many people stated that. And I'm sure many casual users didn't read any policy or just the top few before clicking vote on whatever one was on top or looked nicest(pictures on the winner...) and hoping they get picked for the prize. If and I am sure that was the case of many votes we now have a winner in a unbalanced vote....
The fact you made that policy has nothing to do with this of course... Once again you look blindly to what anyone else says, good job.--Sefre File:Sefresig.pngT*C 00:06, 19 May 2007 (CEST)
I dont look blindly. I will not point out that policy "everyone" wanted so bad are on the #4 place. Let's not start that discussion again. I know that what ever I do people will hate it. And the fact that this vote was fair and as secure as I could possibly make it, keeping in mind that this is Wiki and not a FBI.gov; It comes as no big news that some people are not happy. However I provided all logs to other admins to see and I just want to say, no matter what you guys think and will think, I was 100% honest about this voting thing. You may see me as a great evil and dictator, but (even it maybe hard for you to see) I really want whats best for this site. I am sure the speed of developing on this site shows it pretty much clear. GCardinal 00:22, 19 May 2007 (CEST)
You want whats best for the site, and what you think is best is put down secure in your head and you tell people who think otherwise to basically fuck off and this is how its going to be. You don't want me to bring up this issue of course, so you can either ban me or admit it.
Your blatant denial of obvious flaws with your voting thing proves this. 100% honest is just a bit to much I think.
Let me say one last thing on the vote. If people really wanted to help the site they would not need a contest to get them to vote. If you only saw that before this there would be only a very minimum problem here. --Sefre File:Sefresig.pngT*C 00:56, 19 May 2007 (CEST)
Well to bad some policy, you refer to be the greatest thing ever, the one you Voted for are #4. Lets keep that in mind. And about people who wanted to help, some people used time before voting some did not. You have to put some work in your idea and explain it as good as possible. I clearly see why Real Vetting and Test Before Voting policy are on top and you simply don't. And I know that you will never admit that I do what ever right, you are here to get all personal about me and all the bad things I do. It just to bad that you can't see why Real Vetting and Test Before Voting are on top. GCardinal 01:06, 19 May 2007 (CEST)
Don't put words in my mouth. I never claimed to be upset about the policy I voted on. I think its better then the one picked sure. You seem to be the one defending your policy, so don't accuse me. I am not being personal either. I find that the leader of the wiki wont listen to anyone else so I criticize him. Someone has to and you intimidate anyone who stands up against your actions, but you wont intimidate me.--Sefre File:Sefresig.pngT*C 01:11, 19 May 2007 (CEST)
My two cents, the 900+ votes does make me suspicious. On the other hand this whole debacle does bring forward awareness to the whole scheme. My proposal is that the administration honestly sit down and look at the proposed types. Cardinal's sytem was created by the administration, and being the last system created, has many taints and flavors that came from some of the other proposed policies. I know I saw the influence of my detailed (yet arguably complicated) policy on some of the other policies that showed up. Perhaps if the admins sat down, took the best pieces of the proposed policies and made one that worked. Almost everyone wants a simple list of things: (1) A defined ratio of favored to unfavored votes to determine level of favor. (2) A simple way to give builds a hard rating outside of the totalitatian favored/unfavored, (3) a superior sorting and organizational system, (4) An emphasis in the sytem that encourages testing and/or actual critical thinking about a build. We should take Cardinals (the winner's) as the skeletal template (simplicity) and incorporate those features from the other policies that make sense. If not, a LOT of people are going to be shaking their heads at this for some time. Shireen 00:17, 19 May 2007 (CEST)
Yes, but, there is no harm in at least implementing Real Vetting. Anything else can be added later if we decide to. To be honest, a lot of Real Vetting already is stuff from other policies. For example, it does use percentages for determining the level of favor. In fact, out of the things you listed, it has the first three, it has the 4th in so far as it requires users to input a reason and votes without a reason (or without a good reason) can be removed by admins. So, to be honest, while it wasn't my favorite policy, I think it is at least ready to be implemented, and, we can always edit it, or, if it just doesn't work, we can always adopt a new policy. DE Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 00:21, 19 May 2007 (CEST)
Then lets stop whining about the prizes and sock puppets and get Real Vetting up. We can fix it as we go. This site is in gridlock towards it true purpose. Shireen 00:26, 19 May 2007 (CEST)
Fully agree. Real Vetting is not so much different from other proposals. It has to be fleshed out anyway and in that process other ideas may be incorporated making the final result a good compromise for everybody. Fleshing out will be done by discussion and sockpuppets or uninterested voters don't discuss. So let's concentrate on implementing and optimizing this policy. Fighting should be done in game, not in wiki.
If there ever should be a vote on anything again, I suggest to present the proposals to each voter in random order. This way people without an opinion will just form a uniform background without influencing the result. --Hhhippo 12:52, 19 May 2007 (CEST)

Deleting unused templates

<quote>We'll get those eventually, so you can lay off the delete tags. Gcardinal said a few weeks back that any templates unused for X amount of time will be automatically deleted by the built-in mediawiki software; just let that happen. Save the delete category for stuff that must be deleted by hand. -Auron 12:43, 18 May 2007 (CEST)</quote> I run my own wiki and am curious as to how you are going to remove all the Unused Templates... are you going to run a bot to remove them or is there some mediawiki function that can delete unused templates every XX days? Thanks. --MasterPatricko 20:08, 18 May 2007 (CEST)

Hmm I know its kind of pain... I am not sure how to fix it... Looks like we will have to do it manual GCardinal 00:03, 19 May 2007 (CEST)

Let's end this

Just to end all discussions about cheating, changing or of new/spam/anonymous users changed or influenced voting results I decide to filter results the way some people wanted voting to be.

Originally there was 915 votes. That includes all registered users on this site. We all know results.

How ever, for this proff-of-the-vote I decide to take only votes from people who contributed (edited anything at all) at least twice. In MySQL : user.user_editcount > 1

Then I counted all results. Adding this filter removes a lot of votes and lefts us with 116 votes. And results are:

  • Percentage Favored : 33.
  • Real Vetting : 37.
  • Test Before Voting : 21.
  • True Build Ratings : 9.
  • Ranked User Vetting : 8.
  • Rating Based on Tag : 9.

I am sorry to tell you, then even if only old-timers voted, only people who contributed voted, if there was no prize and only 100+ users voted: Real Vetting is a winner. And this one goes specially to you Sefre :)

Admin can request database dump any time and double check this.

Best regards

GCardinal 01:26, 19 May 2007 (CEST)

I will take that. Post this on the hard votes results page as well Cardinal Shireen 01:28, 19 May 2007 (CEST)


F%%% you gcardinal, quit attacking me for pointing out your leadership style flaws. Dodging my accusations by attacking me isn't going to get me off your case, only if you change or ban me will you. Putting a smiley face doesn't change things either. --Sefre File:Sefresig.pngT*C 01:29, 19 May 2007 (CEST)
Well I just wanted to make sure that everyone can see results from all angles. You pointed problem about voting - I showed you results Your way. What the problem now ? GCardinal 01:32, 19 May 2007 (CEST)
You know very well, and results from vote does not change it. I will state it again if needed: You do things your way without listening to anyone else, you are a despot. And you use unrelated factors to try to stop the issue once brought up. The only thing the vote has to do with it is how I and others questioned its results and you denied it and had made up your mind, so you are right(maybe) about the votes, that doesn't change all the other times you act of your own free will without listening to criticisms.--Sefre File:Sefresig.pngT*C 01:38, 19 May 2007 (CEST)
Well since as I stated before voting and build policy probably last thing I am active about on this wiki lets hope other admins will do a better job. As they will do most of the work on this wiki in time to come and I will do the coding and extension writing. GCardinal 01:41, 19 May 2007 (CEST)
Sefre, please stop. No one is forcing you to come to this wiki. And GCardinal, that's very good proof. Thanks :D -- Nova Jirouji-Nova -- (contribs) 13:39, 19 May 2007 (CEST)
In all reality, the offering of a Prize was fun, but not at all practical. There are not 117 active users. In fact, there are fewer than 30, if even that. Your supposed statistics are in no way accurate. Though I do not support Safre’s breakneck accusations, I still am able to realize that you and a few others undermine his/her opinions. As an admin, this should not be acceptable. So without further ado, refrain from fighting and come to a reasonable compromise. Others including myself, Nova, and administrators should no longer interject at this point. This is between you and Safre to resolve. Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 20:39, 19 May 2007 (CEST)

Um, Gcardinal, I have a small favor to ask of you. Could you please forward the results of user.user_editcount > 9? Thanks, I would appreciate it. -- Nova Jirouji-Nova -- (contribs) 00:12, 22 May 2007 (CEST)

I don't have vote results in database anymore. I have only PDF dump of it so need to calculate manual. Unless its critical I will spend my time writing extension for Real Vetting. And if we take user.user_editcount > 1000 it will be only one vote, and its for Real Vetting :) GCardinal 02:14, 22 May 2007 (CEST)
Yeah, but, as I recall, based on what you told me, if you counted users with 7 votes or more, Percentage Voting Favored would win. And anyways, those edits were made by your bot, and, if we count all of the contributions in my "My Contributions" section, I have 4500+. DE Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 04:30, 22 May 2007 (CEST)
Well it was a joke. I was talking about edits on this wiki and user_editcount in database and what ever that represents and not about contributions and you know that DE. GCardinal 04:45, 22 May 2007 (CEST)
I know, I was just messin' with you. DE Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 05:01, 22 May 2007 (CEST)
loll :P Thanks anyways, Gcardinal. -- Nova Jirouji-Nova -- (contribs) 03:36, 23 May 2007 (CEST)

Sig

I try too hard... Anyways, this has stuff to do with the cool version of my sig (which I would rather use). Check out the conversation at PvXwiki_talk:Sign_your_comments. (yes, I am persistant/impatient). -(єronħ) no u 04:41, 20 May 2007 (CEST)

Image:Hp news.png

From an image packet from Arenanet, or a modified in-game screenshot? Curious because it was borrowed. -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image{{sysop}} 07:55, 20 May 2007 (CEST)

Modified in-game screenshot of Dervish Elite rune. Its not must not be redistributed. GCardinal 02:16, 22 May 2007 (CEST)
Darn, alright. Thanks. -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image{{sysop}} 06:41, 22 May 2007 (CEST)
Wait, before I go saying it needs to be taken down, did you give permission for its use on dandwiki? -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image{{sysop}} 06:43, 22 May 2007 (CEST)
Yes :) GCardinal 10:40, 22 May 2007 (CEST)
Ok, good, thanks. -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image{{sysop}} 15:47, 22 May 2007 (CEST)
Fixed. GCardinal 20:58, 22 May 2007 (CEST)

Admins

I will be am planning on promoting at least three people to Sysop on Friday. Depending on the contributions of some other people I'm watching, I may promote up to two more. Of course, if between now and then they show themselves unworthy, they won't get a promotion. No, I won't tell you who here, I don't want them to start suddenly becoming good people just in time for the promotion. If you want to know, send me an email. You are, of course, free to demote them afterwards, though I think it would be nicer to check with me who they are beforehand and ask me to refrain from promoting some if you don't think they should be.

Just wanted to let you know. -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image{{sysop}} 20:47, 22 May 2007 (CEST)

Hi, Can you please contact me on MSN about this ? GCardinal 20:56, 22 May 2007 (CEST)
My opinion here: If you're not using an RfA system, then the admin team should go off-wiki to discuss potential admin candidates among themselves prior to anyone being promoted. If someone is promoted that the rest of the admin team disagrees with, and who subsequently gets demoted, it can cause bad feelings between the site and that user. Better to have the majority of the current admin team in agreement before any promotion. No need for unanimous agreement, but at least get majority support. --161.88.255.140 01:01, 23 May 2007 (CEST)
What happened to rfa system anyways, from what I understand the admins would get together and nominate someone then the rest of the user base would get a chance to choose if that person would be good or not. I just think that this would be a more wiki like system then having the admins do the choosing offsite and out of the knowledge and ability to critique of the regular users. I assume a republic like system would be more favorable for non-admin users. --Sefre File:Sefresig.pngT*C 03:39, 23 May 2007 (CEST)
I find I mistyped a rather important bit of my babble. I've striken it and re-typed it. -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image{{sysop}} 04:11, 23 May 2007 (CEST)

What do we need more admins for atm? The Candidates for Deletion, Requests for Admin Review, Requests to Modify Protected Pages categories are all empty. We've only blocked 2 users since I was sysop'd. 2 users in 8 days is very manageable, espcially with the 6 admins we already have. I don't see why we need more admins, all the admin-related functions are already well taken care of. - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 07:17, 27 May 2007 (CEST)

You are right Krowman. There is a few things I would like admins to do more of, but until we have a proper to-do list for admins and users and with tasks admins have today I dont see need for new ones. So far I see response time as all admin's was Me/R with 16 in Fast Casting ;) gcardinal 07:44, 27 May 2007 (CEST)

Black Template

How about turning this site to a black theme ? Like the on on GuildWars.com. White is not much a of GW color. Whats your ideas on that topic. Do we need a black template? or maybe just a new white template? GCardinal 00:05, 23 May 2007 (CEST)

This can be done via skins. If you create a new skin to change the appearance and make the new version into the new default, please keep this one or a copy of it available for users who prefer the white background. Personally, I find a white background easier to read. --161.88.255.140 00:10, 23 May 2007 (CEST)
White definitely loads faster, but you do have a point with white not being much of a GW color. I'm gonna test out some backgrounds to see if anything looks good. -(єronħ) no u 00:13, 23 May 2007 (CEST)
I also like the current default skin. Black on white is most comfortable to look at, and it also appears more like trustworthy information than if it looks like a game. No objection against adding a black skin to the list, but I'd prefer to keep using this one, and I'd also suggest to keep it the default.--Hhhippo 00:45, 23 May 2007 (CEST)
okey then I will use my time on making new icons and tweaking templates so they all have same style. gcardinal 00:47, 23 May 2007 (CEST)
Isn't that cosmetics that can be done later? I thought you're busy coding Real Vetting ;-) --Hhhippo 00:55, 23 May 2007 (CEST)
Heh I am a coder :) I just got a friend on MSN who asked if I need any gfx help. Thats why I ask't :) gcardinal 00:56, 23 May 2007 (CEST)
ok, feel free to use your friend's time on cosmetics then :-) --Hhhippo 01:04, 23 May 2007 (CEST)
A little task for your gfx friend: How about a favicon? --Hhhippo 22:55, 24 May 2007 (CEST)

New Builds

Ok I'm all confused now. I thought we weren't posting new builds until a policy was decided on and until that policy had come into use. Yet I see a bunch of new builds, posted directly in Untested. Are we open for posting builds in Untested, even before the policy work is done? Or is this a violation and in that case, what can we do about it? Some of them shouldn't even have left stubs... Swiftslash \\ Impale 11:32, 23 May 2007 (CEST)

This is kind of violation or actually its more of a bad sysop work since no information given to users on how to behave in time of extension implementation. I am busy with coding extension so I simply don't have time to check all kind of things and write notice messages and so on. I kind of expect other admins to do so. We will see if this issue will be fixed or I will have to deal with it my self. Thanks for point out that problem gcardinal 13:54, 23 May 2007 (CEST)
I could help, if I knew what to do. Move, delete or just point it out to the authors? Swiftslash \\ Impale 13:57, 23 May 2007 (CEST)
Need to message authors and edit pages that is related to policy, the ones that can be found linking to from main page and from community page. Its most important to let people know that its not right what they do now. Moving and deleting will be done as new extension will be added. It just important to stop more junk of being submitted. gcardinal 14:06, 23 May 2007 (CEST)
I'll just tell the authors of the new builds to move to userpage for now, until the policy is in action. Swiftslash \\ Impale 14:17, 23 May 2007 (CEST)
I think this needs indeed some admin action. The main page says don't submit builds until we have a policy, but it also announces that we do have a policy. The policy page says new builds will go to drafts, so people could feel encouraged to submit builds if they don't read the smallprints. Both pages are protected, so we need an admin to take care of that. I guess they're all watching this page so we don't have to annoy each of them.--Hhhippo 15:07, 23 May 2007 (CEST)
Another candidate is PvXwiki:Style_and_formatting --Hhhippo 16:57, 23 May 2007 (CEST)
I actually noticed that myself when I opened the main page and said to myself "So maybe that's why there's so many new builds!" Main page announcement has been changed, if that'll help the problem. (I've noticed that not everyone who uses a wiki reads the main page...) -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image{{sysop}} 19:36, 23 May 2007 (CEST)
Umm, this really isn't specifically for you, Gcardinal, but considering everyone visits your page... :P Anyways, I've noticed that the builds in the Archived category have improper tags. Right now they are like {{archived_build|reason for archive}} even though the template is set to {{archived_build|date|reason for archive}} making the tag look something like this: This build has been archived as of reason for archive due to the following reasons instead of This build has been archived of date due to the following reasons: reason for archive. Is there a simple way to fix that? Anyways, just letting you all know, and I've fixed the ones up to the E section (inclusive). Thanks! -- Nova Jirouji-Nova -- (contribs) 03:13, 24 May 2007 (CEST)
you could change the template parameters to {{archived_build|reason for archive|date}}. it's not quite what i'd like to see in a template as the parameters aren't in the same order that their values appear in the template, but it would help. - Y0 ich halt 15:15, 24 May 2007 (CEST)
If you do it that way, you would have to somehow compensate for multiple reasons. (currently displayed by putting{{archived_build|date|1st reason for archive|2nd reason}}. -(єronħ) no u 15:44, 24 May 2007 (CEST)
Hmm that's true. I think we should just fix them all manually. There's only a few dozen, really, so I think it should be a quick task as long as a couple of people or more work on it. Subsequent archiving should be done correctly though. -- Nova Jirouji-Nova -- (contribs) 01:36, 25 May 2007 (CEST)

Slow loading

I don't know if it's just my computer, but the site has been excessively slow whenever it loads today. -(єronħ) no u 18:26, 24 May 2007 (CEST)

Hi yeah I know. And I am very sorry about that. I am getting a new fast dedicated server in a week or two so its just a temporary issue. gcardinal 18:39, 24 May 2007 (CEST)
When the new server is up will you be able to pretty-print our urls? E.g. http://www.pvxbuilds.com/wiki/User_talk:Gcardinal instead of http://www.pvxbuilds.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Gcardinal. At the very least you should be able to get http://www.pvxbuilds.com/index.php/User_talk:Gcardinal. Thanks. --MasterPatricko 16:23, 27 May 2007 (CEST)
Sure that will be no problem. We will have several improvements there. gcardinal 19:14, 27 May 2007 (CEST)
If you want some tips I'm here, I have knowledge in server and MediaWiki administration. I recommend you to use Debian Etch, and install PHP5.2 + Apache.
You have to use APC or eAccelerator (no package, you have to compil it, but it's easy). When you'll have many servers you should use Memcached and Squid (Squid is a really improvement for a wiki).
For pretty URL : I have made this in the apache2 configuration:
Alias /wiki /home/user/www/w/index.php
<Directory /home/gwiki/www/w/index.php>
Options Indexes FollowSymLinks MultiViews
....
with "/w" the mediawiki folder. Don't forget to modify localsettings.php : $wgArticlePath = "/wiki/$1";. Hope it can help ;) --Ouroboros 00:57, 1 June 2007 (CEST)
The problem is that at the momment we dont have dedicated server and access to the config. It will be fixed when we will get dedicated server. gcardinal 01:59, 1 June 2007 (CEST)

Extension

Hey GCardinal, what's new? How is the Real Vetting extension progressing? - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 05:58, 29 May 2007 (CEST)

Hey Krowman. Its all old stuff as usual :) Extension will be ready in a few days for administrators to test on a separate server. gcardinal 06:45, 29 May 2007 (CEST)

Category:Users/

If we come across a Category:Users page that isn't created yet, but has people under that category (e.g. [[Category:Users/Mesmers]]) should we go ahead and create it? -(єronħ) no u 19:03, 30 May 2007 (CEST)

Sure. -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image{{sysop}} 18:41, 4 June 2007 (CEST)

Checkuser

Hey, you haven't been around much lately (presumably you are coding) but, Auron/I were wondering whether it would be possible for one or more of the B-Crats to have the additional ability of checking User's IP Addresses. The reason I ask is because I currently suspect someone of circumventing a ban by using an Anon IP Address, but, without a way to confirm what the IP of the banned user, I am unable to take any serious action. Thanks. DE Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 01:57, 3 June 2007 (CEST)

I am sorry but I dont know any extension that does that. You can block users and include his IP, however I am not sure about checking IP. If there is extension for it let me know and I will install it. gcardinal 06:10, 3 June 2007 (CEST)
Apparently, from what Fyren has explained to Auron, there's an IP field in the recent changes table in the database and if you have servor access, it is accessible. At least, that's what I garnered from what Auron told me. So, if you trust one or more of the B-Crats with servor access, we really do need the ability to check IP addresses. DE Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 06:26, 4 June 2007 (CEST)
It's a MediaWiki extension called CheckUser. Shouldn't be too hard to find, we've got the name. -Auron 08:06, 4 June 2007 (CEST)
Yeah found it, will install when I move DB to new server as it needs changes in DB. gcardinal 08:12, 4 June 2007 (CEST)

Is CheckUser installed now, or is that on the back burner? -Auron 06:46, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

YEAH!!! It works... the server :) Do you feel the speeeeed ? :)) gcardinal 06:47, 11 June 2007 (EDT)
Hey, either CheckUser hasn't yet been installed, or I don't have permission to use it since I get an error when I try to go to Special:CheckUser. Explanation? DE Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 01:22, 15 June 2007 (EDT)
Are there urgent need for it? gcardinal 05:14, 15 June 2007 (EDT)
Mostly to prevent vandalism on a wide scale, if someone gets really pissed... which could happen, if someone insults their build. We saw all kinds of bad attitudes on GWiki about builds. -Auron 05:35, 15 June 2007 (EDT)
At the moment there is no problem with that as far as I can see. It will be implemented when I have time for it. Now I am planing converting builds structure to the one needed for real vetting. In mean time I think admins has some other tasks waiting to be done. gcardinal 05:40, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

Administrative Appointments

Some new admins have been appointed. This was done solely by the current admin. We are getting to a point were we need a system where the user base get a say in who will rule and control them. Otherwise we will get a system where all admins think alike and have similar ideology as to how the wiki is to be ran. That will not work as that ideology may not be correct one and would go unchallenged because we all know that admins are the final decision makers, as much as I hate that.
We need to establish a RFA like system so that above scenario may be prevented, where admins of different theories are appointed and therefore giving fair assistance to issues that may come up that would differ from the current admin theories.
I understand that this will not gain favor with current admins because it would mean a loss of power and un-opposition but the future well being of the wiki needs to be considered.
I also acknowledge certain users apposition to appointing new admins when we have a small user base. But I suggest that a system be created where there is x number of admins for every x number of users. Whenever that formula creates the need for a new admin a page is created where all users may nominate people and the person with most # of nominations(after a time period) is sent into a voting stage where users vote yes/no on good/bad admin with reasoning. Basically like the current RFA at guild wiki.
That way there would at least be the chance for a different theory of how to run the wiki may be introduced. Because that is after all how most free countries are ran, not like the dictatorship it is bound to become otherwise.--SefreSig 05:10, 3 June 2007 (CEST)

Please ignore below discussion and put comments relating to admin situation after this.--SefreSig 05:42, 3 June 2007 (CEST)
I have advised and told current admins that appointing 3 more admins is too much at this point. GWiki has 33000 users and only 18 admins. We have soon 2000 users and 9 admins. Math just doesn’t match the process. And even when I approved and partially support current choice of admins - I am not in favor of the process itself. However there is now 8 other admins and without RFA it can lead to more and more decisions making solo by that group. I think we need something like RFA, but even more we need a clear guideline of the admin's tasks, rights, together with a ToDo list. This will help both for users and me to monitor administrators work and if there will be clear signs that they have to much to work put up quastion about new admins.
When I first started I appointed 5 admins to make things going. They all wanted to be admins and had clear signs of being dedicated to guild wars and wiki. However not all 5 admins are always around and have time for Wiki and some goes on vacation and with new extension and complete re-building of the site coming soon 3 more active admins won't hurt. However when new extension are in place, site re-building finished and we are all up and running new RFA or something like it where Users can take part in admins appointment should be in place. gcardinal 06:06, 3 June 2007 (CEST)
That formula thing was just a example, it doesn't matter how many admins there are,it is up to you to decide when more admins are needed, I am talkign in the future. I just want you and other admins to understand what will happen if all admins are handpicked and therefore all think alike(most likely case when you hand pick someone)--SefreSig 06:09, 3 June 2007 (CEST)
We do however need to let the general user base both nominate and decide on who will be made a admin. After you say a new one is needed that is.--SefreSig 06:14, 3 June 2007 (CEST)
Yes I do see your point and formula thing can work. And just to say, its not up to me when more admins are needed. My point of view, we dont need more admins. Other admins think we need at least 5 new admins, and we come to ultimatum where we made only 3 new admins. If you ask me I think people must be involved in the process of making admins. Admin's at least should fight and campaign to win minds of other users. Admin must in someway represent users of the site. gcardinal 06:17, 3 June 2007 (CEST)
So you agree then that a system where admins pick admins without outside influence is not the way to go? If so lets start discussion on how to make a process to make new admins and when they are needed.--SefreSig 06:19, 3 June 2007 (CEST)
Calm down Sefre, personally I would prefer both of you to take this to chat and off the site, and post a synopsis afterwords. Everyone is getting a minor headache watching a full blown, very visable, very personal argument occour. From a sociologist perspective, and a buisness perspective, hand selecting the people that assist in creating policy and upholding rules on a site, in it's infancy, is normal, and is needed to ensure that the organization remains true to it's flagship goals when it reaches matrurity. After maturation, the organization has set a precedence and traditions that the founders wanted maintained and thus, when a great period of expansion occours, the organization is more likely to hold onto those values and traditions set forth by the founding and secondary personell. You can not blame them for hand picking at this point. You would do the exact same if it was a site and comunity you helped to create. If you need a counter example, say some undesirable got into the admin, started making policy influences and the next thing you know, we have porn banners all over the site to help offset site costs. It's an extreme example, at the far end of the spectrum, but try to scale that down a bit to subtle and you may see my point. But as I said, this is a personal argument at this point, make it personal, not public. Shireensysop 06:31, 3 June 2007 (CEST)
This is very relevant discussion and anyone are free to "chat" or discuss things with me on my talk page. When it comes to discussion on RFA or what ever policy/set of ruls at the momment I dont have time to start that kind of discussion I am to bussy with new extension and some problems IRL. In short my boss "forgot" to pay me and 10 other people in my department where I am chief. However I am advising current admins to take a look on need of such policy. It's just not a wiki way to handpick admins. Picking admins in the start is emergency, handpicking admins when we have users to ask - not a good thing. RFA or formula, something must be in place to control admin appointing process. 06:36, 3 June 2007 (CEST)

Shireen, wrong place and time, I asked Readem to stop and he seems to have, No parties have commented on the argument in awhile and you have interrupted constructive discussion based on a viable issue.--SefreSig 06:38, 3 June 2007 (CEST)

I stand corrected. My appologies, The rest of the statement outside of my viewing this as a personal argument, are valid though. Shireensysop 06:42, 3 June 2007 (CEST)

Misc.

He knows new admins have been appointed. He was there. Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 05:18, 3 June 2007 (CEST)
That is not constructive to the issue so will you please not post asinine comments that will clutter up and intrude on the issue. --SefreSig 05:21, 3 June 2007 (CEST)
[2] I find myself very much indeed involved, thank-you very much. Besides, being sporadically rude will not get you very far Safre. Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 05:30, 3 June 2007 (CEST)
I do not appreciate childish comments meant to distract from my post. Please stop. I will not comment on this anymore. --SefreSig 05:31, 3 June 2007 (CEST)
Well now, aren’t thy the hypocrite? Childish, pff. I will now refrain from speaking to you, as Shireen has advised, unless my name is once again brought up. Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 05:38, 3 June 2007 (CEST)
I will be a hypocrite just this once, please see this, thank you.--SefreSig 05:40, 3 June 2007 (CEST)

Pipe vs. Mouseover (notice)

I had a discussion with a few people (found here) that compared pipe and mouseover. Most people agreed that the mouseover variant would be much more usefull to users. There is a problem though, using mouseover means activating <pvxbig>, and each time that is acvivated, you get a hard return after the first mouseover. I was wondering if you were planning on "fixing" that or making a <pvxblah> tag that doesn't do that. Sorry to bother you. -(єronħ) no u 19:44, 3 June 2007 (CEST)

I am sorry but I dont quite see your point... What is "hard return" ? What is that you actualy want for X extension to do? gcardinal 20:44, 3 June 2007 (CEST)
He means a line break, see User:Hhhippo/Sandbox#pvxbig. --Hhhippo 21:27, 3 June 2007 (CEST)
What kind of line break ? gcardinal 22:18, 3 June 2007 (CEST)
And by the way dont use PvXbig this way... if there is a need to create a extension that will add mouseover info for a skill in text I will create it. PvXbig was created to do only 1 thing, please dont "customize" it to do several things as they will be broken as soon as I made a change or two to the pvxbig. gcardinal 22:20, 3 June 2007 (CEST)
Line break such as <pvxbig>[[Death's Charge] -> [[Dark Escape] -> [[Dash] -> [[Dark Escape].</pvxbig>Notice how there is a line break after "as", which was created by starting pvxbig, and a line break after Death's Charge, which seems to happen after the first skill that I coded to mouseover. I feel that the ability to mouseover all skills in text and builds would make the site just a little more user friendly. Not that it's absolutely needed to make this site successfull, it just sounds easier to have all of the information of any skill mentioned right there on the page in the form of a mouseover, rather than having to load a new page to find out what each skill does. -(єronħ) no u 23:30, 3 June 2007 (CEST)
Again pvxbig was made for a very very specific task - showing skill sand attributes. If you need extension where you can do <pvxsomething> Super cool skill, Another cool skill </pvxsomething> I will make it. Please dont use or try to use pvxbig for that. PvXbig are very complex and it slows site down, its okey when its used ones on each page, but its not good when you use BIG to do SMALL. Specially as you are admin - dont use it for anything else its actualy ment for. If you have suggestions on news extensions you would like me to make - make a proposal and I will code it as soon as I am done with this rateing extension. It will help keep this site clean and I want to know what kind of extensions are used on the site and for what. gcardinal 07:37, 4 June 2007 (CEST)
Yeh, when you get time, code something so we can do text mouseovers :) -Auron 07:43, 4 June 2007 (CEST)
Yes, please do (kinda seems like whenever you finish one extension someone else gives you a new one, sorry bout that.) ‽-(єronħ) no u 07:46, 4 June 2007 (CEST)

HELP!

I need some help here. The wiki code is being retarded. Look at the Mo/E at the bottom... then click the edit button... look where it goes. Why does it do that? I need help fixing this. ~~User Frvwfr2 signature frvwfr2 (talk···contributions) 21:22, 5 June 2007 (CEST)

You forgot the closing </pvxbig> at Melee 'Sin. With that it works (at least in preview). --Hhhippo 21:29, 5 June 2007 (CEST)
Fixed, you had started a <pvxbig> tag in an earlier edit section. Then, without closing the first, you opened another one resulting in both the edit button breaking and the build looking weird. ‽-(єronħ) no u 21:30, 5 June 2007 (CEST)
Thanks! I'm glad that you noticed... ~~User Frvwfr2 signature frvwfr2 (talk···contributions) 21:36, 5 June 2007 (CEST)

Can't We All Get Along

I wrote something, and I hope you will read. CWAGA is a project started by me, and maintained by me today. Please share. Bluemilkman 19:15, 6 June 2007 (CEST)

Read-Only

There's quite a lot going on in recent changes regardless of the wiki being called read-only. Will that all be lost? If not, can you give an estimate on when the old wiki will be frozen and when the new one will be running? Or should we just all go to the beach and come back on monday? ;-) --Hhhippo 11:14, 9 June 2007 (CEST)

I found a way to put it in "hard mode", so no changes what so ever will be allowed. At the moment I am stuck with that damn extension, it takes so much time, almost 600 lines of code now and still not 100% finished. gcardinal 12:11, 9 June 2007 (CEST)
Ah and until its in read only mode for real it just a notice so people will be prepared when it happens. gcardinal 12:12, 9 June 2007 (CEST)
I mentioned this back in May (see further up on this page), but I'll point it out again. For site-wide announcements (such as read-only), I would suggest placing the notice in MediaWiki:Sitenotice. That should display at the top of every page. The Official Guild Wars Wiki has a notice up in that space now, if you want to see an example of how it displays on every page. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 17:28, 9 June 2007 (CEST)
Thank for reminding about that feature. It site will be in read only mode for 15-30min. And if I am not mistaking there will be auto generated notice about read-only mode. I see your point about sitenotice it just I work alone on this extension and at the same time moving site and getting dedicated server up and running so its a lot to do and only 2 hands and one keyboard. However in feature I will try to use site notice a litl bit more. gcardinal 17:57, 9 June 2007 (CEST)
And one more thing, as you maybe noticed my english is quite bad, so each msg I write on the first page I have to message my girlfriend or some of my friends or ask in IRC to check spelling before I can post it, form that there is also delay on messages on main page. gcardinal 17:59, 9 June 2007 (CEST)
May I suggest a slight polishing of the recent news text? "We are happy to announce that we are entering the final stage of “Real Vetting” development. Our new extension is almost finished and will be implemented during this weekend. We are also moving to a new dedicated server so the wiki will be read-only for a short while." With the current phrasing people might think that edits they do now will be lost. --Hhhippo 20:26, 9 June 2007 (CEST)
Thx Hhhippo. In moments like this I wonder where is all 8 admin's are... :/ gcardinal 23:21, 9 June 2007 (CEST)

Archive Time

Just thought I'd let you know that I think your talk page is getting too long again. You could probably archive all the old crud about the lottery and whatnot. --Wizardboy777 18:02, 10 June 2007 (CEST)

A well deserved...

thanks for starting the website and putting so much effort into making it great. i'd never put up with this crap =P - Skakid9090 20:49, 10 June 2007 (CEST)

OMFG

Yeah I so sick of this I can't take it anymore. There is so damn many users on this wiki that my new dedicated server had a instant "kill" as soon as I tried to redirect traffic to it. I spend so much time on this wiki and there is absolutely no one around or no one to ask for help when server goes down... I just can't get it how other wiki's run and are so stable when I cant even get my server up and running before its shutdown... This is just sick!

Anyway, I will try to add some optimizations to server configs and try again later... we will see how that goes. gcardinal 02:27, 11 June 2007 (CEST) test


Don't worry you're golden(keep your warranty card handy incase you go mad) =) BaineTheBotter 22:34, 10 June 2007 (EDT)

And honestly, once you get that extension up and build vetting starts, people will be on here a lot more. It's just that right now there isn't much for most of us to do. --Wizardboy777 12:53, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

*innocent grin*

So, uh, want to make the timestamps on the unfavored tags dynamic? -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image{{sysop}} 23:40, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

Hmm what does it actualy do? gcardinal 04:06, 12 June 2007 (EDT)
Gets around the problem of trying to make a template substitute the current time and date into the page when you post it. Useful for finding violates of PvX:DELETE. -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image{{sysop}} 15:43, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

Uploads blocked...

May I ask why? I'm trying to make a userbox, but if I can't upload the images... ~~User Frvwfr2 signature frvwfr2 (talk···contributions) 12:49, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

IM

Hej. If you need help, I'm on skype now (16 June 11:27 CEST, server time is wrong again). --Hhhippo 21:25, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

Are you sure the time is fixed? At this moment server time (as seen in 'my preferences' and 'Recent changes') is 14:19 UTC, but in fact it is 22:21 (GMT, which is the same). --Hhhippo 10:22, 16 June 2007 (EDT)

User:Krowman/Improvement

Would you take a look at this when you get the chance? It's a good place for users to receive direction for edits that they may want to make, and it has the admin task list that I think you'll like. I want to move this into the mainspace and link to it from the Main Page once it has been reviewed by a few more people. Thanks. - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 14:36, 16 June 2007 (EDT)

Lux/Kurz & Sunspear skills

Just a reminder that these have to be added to bbcode so they display for builds. ‽-(єяøηħ) no u 23:51, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

Can you give any names for those skills? gcardinal 00:37, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

Theyre on guildwiki, but also note that each skill has one icon if you're a kurz, and another icon if you're luxon. Which ones should we use? gw:Game updates#Update - Friday, June 15, 2007 It's near the bottom of this section. --Wizardboy777 00:40, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

Ahh those yes, will be added asap. gcardinal 00:49, 19 June 2007 (EDT)
Kurz seems to be the one that both wiki and official wiki chose as the base icon. The lux was shown for people who wondered. Do we wanna go through and select which one is preferred or just use kurz like everyone else. OR maybe we can use Lux and be different. ‽-(єяøηħ) no u 05:27, 19 June 2007 (EDT)
Let's go Luxon just to be different :P But is Kurzick easier, since GWiki has it? -- Nova Jirouji-Nova -- (contribs) 08:27, 19 June 2007 (EDT)
Oh dear me, nvm. The Luxon ones look like they've been drawed by a child. -- Nova Jirouji-Nova -- (contribs) 08:29, 19 June 2007 (EDT)
Your fase looks like it were drawed by childs, what now‽ But for reazl, Lux Shadow Sanctuary is coolish, we could always upload both and have [Shadow Sanctuary (lux)] desplay luxon, while [Shadow Sanctuary] AND [Shadow Sanctuary (kurz)] displays kurz. ‽-(єяøηħ) no u 13:37, 19 June 2007 (EDT)
IMO upload both, force people to choose which one when they make the build. I like a bunch of kurzick ones, but the luxon triple shot owns. -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image{{sysop}} 03:16, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
People are starting to think they broke something because the skills arent around when thy type it in, so let's agree on something simple rather than telling each person they have to choose one or the other. ‽-(єяøηħ) no u 03:20, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
There is nothing to upload. I have to wait for gwbbcode to be updated. gcardinal 06:50, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
Wait? I thought you did that stuff, if not you, then who? ‽-(єяøηħ) no u 15:55, 24 June 2007 (EDT)
PvXcode are based mainly on gwBBcode, so I have to wait for the to update gwBBcode in order to have all updated skills. Read more: [[3]] gcardinal 11:54, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

User:Hhhippo's RfA

I was wondering whether I could get a little input from you regarding my nomination of Hhhippo as per PvX:RfA. I know you are in general opposed to more Admins, but, I think his work ethic (just look at his work on the new templates), combined with his coding ability make him an excellent candidate. DE Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 15:54, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

I do have to agree, he did a great coding job. Have him give you a tour of it. ‽-(єяøηħ) no u 15:56, 24 June 2007 (EDT)
I have some special ideas when it comes to Hhhippo. I will contact him as soon as I have some time, been very busy with a new job. And things like templates was generally a way for people to show how they can really contribute. I will try to make more tasks like that so we can get a clear picture of who can do what and how :) gcardinal 11:57, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

RfAs

Because these candidates are people who might theoretically be working with us, next time you're on, would you mind reviewing the candidates and, in cases where it looks like the candidate has some support (i.e. the nomination could actually result in Sysoption), could you at least indicate some kind of opinion. Thanks. DE Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 14:02, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

Updates

While surfing untested builds, I noticed that Mark of Rodgort still has the skill info w/5 second recharge. Skills need update since the last change.Mgelo21 04:39, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

We don't update them. When bbcode gets updated, ours will get updated as well. DE Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 06:51, 30 June 2007 (CEST)

Real Vetting

I did a major cleanup of the PvXwiki:Real_Vetting page, moving it from 'suggested vetting system'-style to 'this is how things work'-style and including the new criterion descriptions. Please have a look if you like it, in particular the percentages for the Great/Good/... categories, which I changed to match this. --Hhhippo 18:41, 30 June 2007 (CEST)

On the build ratings page, I was wondering if you could change the size of the horizontal "Rating Totals" graphs. If they were shortened, then users wouldn't have to scroll left and right across the page to see the Innovation ratings that a build gets. I'm not sure if this is browser-specific (Internet Explorer here), so it isn't a big deal; just a minor edit to make the page easier to view. Let me know how it goes. :-) - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 20:05, 30 June 2007 (CEST)
I just started looking at some of the ratings (I'm using Firefox by the way), and it doesn't require scrolling as far as I can tell. DE Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 21:21, 30 June 2007 (CEST)
Percentage > Rating out of 5 imo. Maybe add in a preference to let people choose? — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 11:11, 4 July 2007 (CEST)

Reminder

I won't be here in two weeks, so I'll leave you this note instead. Just remember in two weeks, we gotta clear unfavored, so get your bot ready ;). DE Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 00:26, 1 July 2007 (CEST)

Could You Please Add...

Hey, I've noticed that just about no one actually moves builds to the appropriate categories after the 5th vote. In an attempt to possibly fix that, is there a way to add a "Vote Count" section that just has a constant reading based on the current tally of votes. I'll most likely be on a plane by the time you get this note, but I think it might help. DE Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 06:03, 2 July 2007 (CEST)

Skills

Any chance we'll get a skill update here soon? They havent been updated for the recent skill balancing updates (June 15-June 19).--Midnight08 09:42, 2 July 2007 (CEST)

quote: We don't update them. When bbcode gets updated, ours will get updated as well. *Defiant Elements* +talk 06:51, 30 June 2007 (CEST) endquote – HHHIPPOsysop› 13:12, 2 July 2007 (CEST)
ok then,where is this code coming from? and who updates it? Note: that comment was for the sunspear/luxon skills. Those skills perform a bit different and i thought thats why he said that.--Midnight08 05:55, 3 July 2007 (CEST)
See the new FAQ. The whole database comes from gwShack. If you wanna help them, great idea! – HHHIPPOsysop› 08:27, 3 July 2007 (CEST)

Talk

Is there any way to have a private chat with you? I don't have MSN, but if that's what I need, I can get it. Thanks. Bluemilkman 07:28, 3 July 2007 (CEST)

His e-mail address is posted on the admin page (link can by found on the syop portion of my signature) Shireensysop 07:35, 3 July 2007 (CEST)

Community content is available under CC-BY-NC-SA 2.5 unless otherwise noted.