User talk:Tanaric/Archive 1

Key work: some. just kidding. -elviondale (tahlk) 04:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Howdy Tanaric! Armond 07:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Heya Armond. Glad to see you here! :) —Tanaric 07:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh lawds, *****'s done stoled another wiki. -Auron 11:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

mainpage copyedit

Hey Tanaric, one of the things I try hard to achieve is giving everyone an equal hand in designing the main page. That is the reason for the copyedit. If you want to make changes to the main page, please edit these into copyedit and then copy them over, else they'll get overwritten the next time copyedit is synced. --Xeeron 13:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Honestly I'd much rather try unprotecting the main page -- we don't get a whole lot of bot vandalism on the wiki, and real vandalism gets reverted immediately anyway. —Tanaric 16:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Will need protection eventually. There are no links to this wiki I know of yet, but once they exist, and they'll show up on fansites and such soon enough, this wiki gets added to the spamers list of mediawiki wikis, and the bots come visiting. Backsword 16:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Then let's protect it then. How often do you see bots on GWW? —Tanaric 16:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

In periods, daily. Backsword 16:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, good to know. I'm still in favor of unprotecting the main page, but since I don't think anybody else cares, I'll shut up about it. —Tanaric 19:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind unprotecting it, I am just sure that we will need to protect it again soon, but why not try for a while? --Xeeron 19:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

If it ain't targetted for vandalism, we can live without the protection. So I'd say, give it a shot --- -- (s)talkpage 19:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Unprotecting the page for now should be no problem. I'm just sure that it's just a question of time until we need to reprotect. Backsword 20:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, but let's just see how it fares unprotected. Worst case we just need to make a few extra clicks. Calor (t) 01:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Unblock

Tanaric, you blocked my account, preventing me to creat new ones, in GWW. I'm user:Against skuld . Can you please take it off, even if just to create a new account? I really promise I won't even try to vandalize anymore. Gimme a second chance please.

You mean a third. Armond 00:50, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Well why'd you vandalize in the first place? If every person in prison said they wouldn't commit a crime again, they'd all be free. Calor (t) 01:43, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh well, I made a mistake, I'm aware of it, I apologize and I ask for amnesty [[1]]. And actually, ppl in prison sometimes say this too, and it may happen that they really mean they are sorry. What I ask is the chance to create a new account on GWW so that I can start again as if I'd never vandalized before. --89.97.35.64 02:08, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, some people do mean it. But I'd never seen you before now, and having openly admitted you've vandalized, it would seem there's no reason to grant you re-freedom. This is up to the admins, not me, but I suppose I'll be wary of you simply for being an ex-vandal from now on. Calor (t) 03:13, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

You're unblocked, on the conditions that you don't tell me or anybody else your new username and that you contribute positively to the wiki from now on. Happy holidays! —Tanaric 07:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

As has been stated in ArbCom Requests

I have taken action to deal with a conflict I had with you. I brought it up on your user page and made aware I disagree with your action. That is the right path to take in my view, not ArbCom as it would merely be rejected because it was a stand alone case and I hadn't yet spoken to you about it on your user page, which I did. Could you please stop telling me to go to arbcom as I have explained to you my reasons for not doing so. 58.110.142.135 07:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You don't get to say "I can't hold sysops accountable for their actions" while simultaneously saying "I won't use any of the options available to me to hold a sysop accountable for their actions." Plenty of users have voiced disapproval and I've explicitly stated that I still remain convinced my actions were correct despite their disapproval. I'll stop telling you to go to ArbComm when you stop trolling on every talk page available. —Tanaric 08:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

As I see it, ArbComm exists as a last resort. One of its functions should be to mediate disputes that have become irrevocably deadlocked (as I would posit this one has become). If you have in fact made a good faith attempt to resolve the situation with Cory, then, failing that, you either need to resolve it by some other manner (Cory suggest ArbComm) or, to put it bluntly, shut up. Continuing to escalate a discussion that essentially ended when you both stated your firm (and might I add diametrically opposed viewpoints) and it became clear that neither would shift your position. Given that this is true, well, as I said, if you wanna find a way to hold Cory "accountable" find another recourse. *Defiant Elements* +talk 08:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

But we don't have ArbCom here, lol. ok, I stop trolling. Coran Ironclaw 08:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Eloc's marijuana image

On one hand, I understand the reasoning behind the deletion, but on the other hand I don't. I understand it's not really appropriate content for a wiki about GW2, but deleting it because it's illegal in the US? Should we delete stuff because they are illegal in China/Sweden/random country of your choice too? My point is, deleting the image without any notice to the user in question on such grounds comes out wrong to me. I can agree with the deletion, but not the stated reason and the way of handling it. I would appreciate your comment on this. :) - anja 08:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Aren't the wiki servers in the US? That would make content that is illegal in US also illegal on the wiki. -- (gem / talk) 10:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

You can legally have a photograph of canabis in the US, so as far as that is concerned, it's legal. Besides, Kryta and Maguuma are just full of hallucinogenic plant life. I saw the picture before it was deleted, and I have to say it was in no way obscene, it was actually a tasteful picture of it in a natural environment. Kai Nui 14:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see what was wrong with the image. The substance itself may be illegal, an image of it shouldn't be. And I have to agree with Anja about a notice first on Eloc's page. It's basic etiquette, and in any other situation, a notice is normally given saying why the image is up for deletion. -- Brains12 \ Talk 15:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused, what was wrong with the image? I got it off of Wikipedia, which is also located in the US, so why should it be deleted? — ク Eloc 貢 16:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

We import an American magazine to my shop in england called Weed World, the whole thing is full of picture, I don't see that being outlawed either. You could reason that it is a copyright violation though. --Lemming 18:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is also under the GFDL. I don't totally know how their image copyright system works, but I would think it's not a violation. -- Brains12 \ Talk 18:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I doubt highly it's a violation. Also, search "Marijuana plant" on Google images. You'll recognize Eloc's image in the first page. Legal to have it there too. There's nothing illegal about having an image of marijuana, or any other drug on the wiki, unless it encourages use, which that image in no way does. Also, how do we know it's not the medicinal marijuana that is legal in some states? Calor 19:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

So in conclusion, it's a picture taken off of Wikipedia, whose servers are also located in the United States and there is nothing illegal about having a picture of it. I'm going to reupload it now. — ク Eloc 貢 06:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I would wait until Tanaric has responded. I mean, holy crap, dude - it hasn't even been a day. -Auron 10:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

If you reupload it, I'll continue to delete it. It has absolutely no relevance to the matters at hand and can only serve to anger our benefactors providing the hosting. If you want to advocate the consumption of a controlled substance, do so elsewhere on the Internet.

Pornography is not illegal in the United States, but I don't think the deletion of a pornographic image would be contested. Why is this any different? It's questionable and it doesn't further the mission. That's enough, in my mind.

—Tanaric 16:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

For your reason of not being necessary for the wiki, the user namespace should be, in reasonable terms, exempt from that. There are many things in the user namespace (talking in GWW terms) that have no reference to Guild Wars or its wikis, yet it's allowed and should be. I don't understand why Arenanet should be angered with something that causes no substantial harm - it's not like it's saying "Come on, smoke weed you twelve year olds" nor is it a copyright violation. As to your analogy with pornography, well, one could argue the exploitation of the human being is completely different to a picture of a naturally occuring substance that happens to carry some weird side effects.

By the looks of it, most people here seem to think it causes no harm, so I would appreciate it if the matter was taken to the other sysops. -- Brains12 \ Talk 16:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

As other sysops were asked to respond, here is my take on the matter. I'm in agreement with Tanaric. These types of images should not be allowed regardless if they are naturally occurring. Uploading pornography can also be argued that it is the same as the uploaded image of the plant. The human body is, using the same terms found here, 'naturally occurring' (unless surgery of course). So one would assume that the reasoning of naturally occurring would apply to both images and thus uploading a Playboy centerfold would also be acceptable. On a lighter note, a picture of a naked female also has "weird" side effects on most men as well.

I do encourage a person's right to express themselves on their userspace, but to a certain extent. This image passes that extent in my opinion. If a userspace policy draft is created, I would expect such issues to be discussed there and restrictions made where needed. — Gares 17:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Apart from the issue of the reason for deleting (as pointed up above, there is no legal issue with the picture, so it needs to be evaluated in terms of wiki policy), I am also interested in the reason for uploading the picture (and that would have an influence on me deleting that image or not). If the picture should serve to illustrate a point, beautify your user page or be used in a user template, it is a very different story than simply uploading it to cause a stir. --Xeeron 18:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm in total agreement with Xeeron and Brains12. Also in my opinion, there is no 'advocacy to use a controlled substance' implied by a picture of a marijuana-plant. As for the part about the difference between porn and a marijuana-plant, as for the user policy on GWW:

• Do not include any material generally deemed offensive and insulting.

(This line is probably going to be put on GW2W's user page policy, and also probably the most relevant text of that policy in this situation.) Porn IS generally deemed offensive (especially on a website where a lot of teenagers come to), while a picture of a marijuana-plant is not. Possession of that plant might be illegal in some parts of the world, but that doesn't make its image generally offensive. --  (CoRrRan / talk) 18:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Tanaric, what made this image so harmful you felt the need to delete it without a note or warning to the user in question? As for pornograhic images, I would probably contest a deletion there too if it was done in the same way as this one, and if the image was "as harmless" in my eyes.
If Anet came and said "no, you cannot post this content", that would be a totally different subject. But bringing up the issue of Anets hosting of this wiki comes out to me as weird. We shouldn't try to guess what content Anet will allow, we should base the rules on the community consensus until Anet actually says no. - anja 20:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

ANet hasn't taken a stance on this yet, so they're a no-factor. And porn shouldn't be allowed on the wiki because the viewing of porn, at least in most American states, is illegal by people under the age of 18 or 21. A substantial group of users are under that age, including me. Porn is defined as, by the American Heritage Dictionary, "Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal". A picture of a naked woman is porn. A picture of marijuana is not marijuana. It's a picture of marijuana. That picture doesn't encourage any illegal activities, such as using, producing, or distributing marijuana. Calor 23:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Tanaric, for one, a Marijuana plant is not the same as pornography. Pornography is illegal until you're like 18 or 21 or something like that. A picture of a pot plant is not illegal in anyways, especially since I have gotten it off of Wikipedia, whose servers are also located in the states. Like, do make sense behind your reasoning. Here's a small list of reasons for the sake of trying to be neat and get some thoughts together

1. It's a plant that grows naturally in the ground...what makes it any different than any other plant?
2. The image was taken from Wikipedia, so there's no copyright issues. Also, their servers are located in the states too, so that punches a hole or two into your argument.
3. In what way did I encourage people to consume it or anything?
4. There are a lot of other images that might not be deemed worthy of this wiki, but I don't see those getting removed. Heck, all images that aren't of GuildWars should be deleted too if you're going to be going around deleting things like that
5. And so on and so forth. — ク Eloc 貢 02:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I will be so glad when this wiki gets some content to work with so that we can stop wasting our time with issues such as this. Sure, this image isn't offensive or pornographic, but just ask yourselves why it was chosen in the first place. A picture of a pretty plant? I think not. I think this image was uploaded to cause exactly the uproar that it has. A picture of a marijuana plant suggests nothing other than the drug that extracted from it. As an aside, I am pro-cannabis, but this is not the place for it. --Snograt 12:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Because Eloc is such an attention whore, amirite? --71.229 15:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC) by which I mean of the many things he is, Eloc isn't an attention whore or a troll and you should feel bad for suggesting it.

Eloc is retard and a 6 year old kid that needs attention, ignore him ~ SCobra 20:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't help :S Lord of all tyria 20:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Says Super Cobra, the same person who thought the skill, "Finish Him!" wasn't a reference to Mortal Kombat, and adamantly tried to revert and oppose all attempts until it was confirmed. I don't see anything wrong with marijuana, unless it's prepared to be smoked, and even then it's still OK. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:208.80.72.253 .

Whats that got to do with anything? ~ SCobra 23:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Snograt, the image wasn't intentionally put for the purpose of getting people mad. I just thought it was a nice picture. — ク Eloc 貢 23:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Let us leave that offshoot of the discussion at that, and not delve further into the motivations of Eloc calling a picture of a cannabis plant "nice", as I would prefer not to know, and leave my own mental picture of Eloc as it is. Calor 00:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I never claimed the picture was illegal -- I claimed that the consumption of marijuana, except under very particular circumstances, is illegal in the United States. My reason for deletion is not that the substance is illegal -- it's that the picture is disruptive and contrary to our mission -- it makes the wiki worse. I will delete any picture that does this -- Eloc's weed picture just happens to be the first.

Since my stance is clearly contentious, I will agree to mediation by the bureaucrats (or barring that, a collection of sysops), on the condition that Eloc refrains from uploading the picture again until whatever arbitrators determine its appropriateness.

—Tanaric 01:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I would agree to mediate this, but (on second thoughts, there are better mediators for this issue around, I'd rather not do it). I'd prefer to solve this in the context of formulating a policy on article retention/content/user content that defines what we allow on this wiki and what we do not. --Xeeron 10:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I would say it's best left to "sysop discretion." Eloc doesn't care about a weed pic making his page look pretty - he's just uploading it to stir up trouble, not because he's proud to be a pothead. If he was just a proud pothead and didn't have an extensive history of causing ruckus just to garner attention, he'd have much more of a case. Motives count, y'know. -Auron 12:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I know (and asked about them a bit further up this page). However, without Eloc elaborating on that topic, it is quite hard to establish whether he feels that picture makes his user page more pretty. For reference, I feel Eloc's page is one of the ugliest around and that it DID look better with some green on it. Just how will you ever find out whether he thought that as well, or whether he thought "cool, I'll cause a ruckus with that one". --Xeeron 14:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I will not continue to contest this deletion. It seems Tanaric has apologised to Eloc for not notifying him, I have got the explanation I wanted and I don't feel this issue is important to me, not enough to fight for it. - anja 16:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Tanaric, seems you seem concerned with signatured etc, can you look at mine, especially the image? MP47 okayed it with a rofl, but I'm not so sure.. Nukleaer VII 21:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

NuclearVII, it's not something I'd delete outright, but I think it's something likely to cause contention in the future, and I'd prefer it if you changed it. —Tanaric 23:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Mmmkay. thanks for the heads up. I got rid of it. Nukleaer VII 21:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. :) —Tanaric 00:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Question...

I realize that we currently don't have any policies or whatever, but I was just wondering what would happen if I got a sockpuppet. Not that I would, mind. Not really. Just wonderin'. uh-huh. Nukleaer VII 10:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I could answer, its ok to have a sockpuppet as long as u dont vote on any election with it or use it to share ur opinion on something or break npa with it, but if anyone finds out that its ur sockpuppet it will get infinite banned and any violation u might have done with it would be on u. But its not against any rule to have one as long as u dont tell. --Cursed Angel 15:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

99% of the time there's no need for a sockpuppet. Using them for humor could be considered acceptable, but after doing it once, it gets old. Brother Cadfael was acceptable as a one-time joke, but it would've gotten unnecessary is grinsh kept using him. Voting or gaining favor in a discussion by using multiple socks is 100% illegal and will get the socks perma-banned, and you a short ban. I'd recommend staying away from using sockpuppets unless you need one because you can't access your current account for some odd reason. Calor 17:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

But, let's say hypothetically, I registered another use, linked to my page as a, let's say, "alter ego" to be used now and then. Just for laughs. (this is pure theorycrafting, don't take me seriously) Nukleaer VII 20:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

You could if you wanted, I guess, but there's really no need. Calor 21:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

E-e-e-excellent...Nukleaer VII 09:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, we don't have any policies regulating sockpuppets yet, but I dislike the notion of having a sockpuppet "just for laughs". --Xeeron 12:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Nah, this is pure theorycrafting. I'm not planning to get an alter ego and save the wiki (yet). Nukleaer VII 15:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I see no reason to punish a sock that hasn't done anything. Just my opinion. -- Armond Warblade 22:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for my late response. Personally, I'd prefer it if you didn't. There's nothing to be gained by it, and you'd confuse people (most likely me, actually). —Tanaric 17:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

QQ

No tanaric makes wikis sad. Lord of all tyria 13:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh... dear. Tanaric, that was.. sudden... nuke7 14:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Now the wiki will fall into utter chaos! Lord Belar 21:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I mean, seriously, I am assuming real life here, with no warning and explanation at all. It doesn't feel like him... (What do I know, again?) nuke7 22:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it does feel out of character for him. Stress from real life maybe? Hope you feel better about the wikis soon and come back. -- ab.er.rant 03:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Files

How do I fix this "one file remaining" bullshit? Keep in mind I have no patience. —Tanaric 05:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I think this might help? Not had the problem myself though. Also, what's your ign? pling 09:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Wow, Aric is still alive, good to see you! poke | talk 10:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)