User talk:Tanetris/Archive 1

This is a blank talk page, for the moment. - Tanetris 23:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Lmao. Calor — talk 23:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

lol --- Raptors / RAAAAAAAAAA!

Yay for pants? --- -- (s)talkpage 05:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

circular categories?

See Category:Guild Wars 2 Wiki? Is there any reason that I am not aware of for listing a category page in itself? --Xeeron 13:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

This was also brought up on my talk page. -- pling 13:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Long story short is, since it and Category:Guild Wars 2 are top-level categories, it's a means to keep them off uncategorized categories and mark them as "special" (someone removed it from the GW2 category back in August and I didn't care enough to make an issue of it). The same thing is done on GWW with the equivalent categories. I have no particular attachment one way or the other, I just thought it was more appropriate than mtew's making a "Category:Category". - Tanetris 22:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It is a minor thing, but I would prefer a "root" category (though I would not name it Category:Category). Not only would that eliminate the need to list the category in itself, it would also enable users to get from any category to any other category by browsing the category links, without the need for another index page. --Xeeron 01:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Category:Root. 16:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Eh. As it stands, we have 2 root categories that crosslink to each other with "See also"s, so I don't think it's a problem. If you want to come up with an "extra" root category to put both of them in, I don't mind, but I don't see how it solves anything. It still leaves that one category either listed in itself or on the uncategorized categories page. - Tanetris 21:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Better to just have 1 category listed there (or linking to itself), rather than many. And it would also make for easier tree-search in categories compared to a "see also" link. --Xeeron 18:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd call two "many", and I certainly don't see any reason why there would be more (if something isn't ultimately related to GW2 or about the wiki itself... It doesn't really belong here in the first place). But again, I'm not emotionally attached either way, so feel free if you prefer. - Tanetris 02:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, I am tempted to put Category:Guild Wars 2 into Category:Guild Wars 2 Wiki and vice versa to see what happens. Joke aside, I'll implement the Root category, mainly with regards to have a "full" category tree for browsing, and on the off-chance that we might once have more categories next to the two linked before. --Xeeron 16:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the stub kills...

My bad. I'll try to be more careful... --Max 2 00:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Naut, myself and possibly many, MANY others thank you for moving the Elder dragon article to the page with proper capitalization. -bows- - Infinite - talk 22:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

^ Agree, Thank you :D --Naut 22:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

^ I'm with the stupid. Thank you. :3 --Super Igor 22:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I also thank you. ***EAGLEMUT*** TALK 23:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Front Page

Would you mind moving the necromancer next to the elementalist? Looks better than having that blank profession there, tis a cosmetic thing.--Corsair@Yarrr 17:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, in case you were wondering (@Tanetris); 'Tis supported ;). --Naoroji 17:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Probably isn't my place...

...but isn't a block on Aryien of 1 month a tad harsh? I understand she had a block of 3 days in june for similar offenses. And I don't really know what went on in GW1W, but that should not carry over here. While based on previous acts I agree that perhaps a block this time of longer than 3 days may be warranted, I would like to point out that a 30-day block seems extreme. Venom20 19:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

It is purposely harsh because her disruptiveness has gotten to the point that I really don't think anything less will get through. While she's only had one 3-day ban so far, there have been near-uncountable warnings both before and since, all unheeded, largely falsely labelled as personal attacks, and when on her talk page, usually quick-archived. Her history on GW1W is not a factor.

It's fine to ask me to reconsider/explain adminly actions btw. It won't always change my mind, but I'll at least listen. - Tanetris 19:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, you watch things more closely than I do (after all, that's what we metaphorically pay you for ;)). I trust in your decision. Personally, I think it's harsh, but this is probably why I'm not admin. Thanks for the explanation though. Venom20 20:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

O

Ok. (Was the image interfering with any wiki coding that I might've missed in the way I displayed it?) Edit:
<div style="position:absolute; z-index:100; right:338px; top:0px;" class="metadata">''' [[File:User Neil2250 The Roof Runner Top Bar Member.png|210px|link=User:Neil2250/The Roof Runners]]'''</div>
I have no direct knowledge of wiki terminology, but position:absolute implies to me that the image is static, as opposed to a float. If it messes up wiki lay-out/features you will need to correct me as I state the image in the way I displayed it, is in fact a harmless accessory to any of my pages. So please elaborate for me if you would. - Infinite - talk 22:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

'Floaty crap' is probably not the strictly correct term. I use it to mean anything that is placed outside the normal content area or otherwise covers other elements, whether the position is absolute or relative. In this case, yeah, the box was covering the sitenotice (without a sitenotice, I assume it's meant to go alongside the pagetitle? Which really I would still consider 'outside the normal content area'). In general, talk pages should be left for other users to contact you, not to advertise things (which is more what the userpage is for). - Tanetris 22:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I see. I did not have the sitenotice (immediately dismiss them, easily missed in setting up a lay-out) but without it, it seamlessly blends into the space between the top border and the article header line. As for the advertising; I assumed that, with all of those pages being a direct part of my userspace, it should be fine. Though of course, I hate it being spammed, which is why it was found in the navigation header and pages using that template. Is it still okay for me to put them on my Characters article also? :) - Infinite - talk 22:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, characters page (or any other non-talk subpages you like) is fine. The only reason I'm making a big deal about it on the talk page is because it's the primary way for other users to contact you, so while it's nominally "yours" (in the sense that your name is on it), in a certain sense it really belongs more to the community. - Tanetris 22:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

for resolving my problem with the news template. >_> Varve 06:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Protesting Neil's new ban

I would just like to point out that I disagree with another 1 week ban for Neil2250. He was originally banned on October 27 and there was not a single edit by him until Nov 3. For all intensive purposes, there were no posts by either usernam nor IP for at least 6 days. He served his time (less a day), I do not think it is fair that a second block of a full 1 week be placed on him because the original blocker forgot to also block the IP. If need be for publicly stating the error, please reduce the block to 3 days, although I disagree that he should be punished for showing the community the error, he technically did not serve his full 7 day sentence. Venom20 21:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, less a day. Ban evasion is ban evasion, no matter whats the reason behind it. He just had to wait one day more, and he didn't. -- Cyan 21:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm really not inclined to give credit for serving most of a ban. There was no error: when banning an account, the wiki software only autoblocks the IP(s) associated with that account temporarily (I think it's a day, but don't quote me on that). Otherwise it would be a problem with permabans and dynamic IPs. That doesn't make it okay to evade a ban by logging out, any more than it makes it okay to evade a ban by using a proxy just because the software isn't capable of recognizing that it's the same person trying to edit. He was aware that he was banned, and he edited anyway, not to point out some perceived error, but simply because he didn't feel like waiting out the ban to contribute. Only abiding by a ban when it's convenient is missing part of the point of a ban. Bans should be inconvenient. You should not be happy to lose your editing privileges, so maybe next time you don't do whatever caused you to lose them in the first place.

To some degree I'm trying to make a point, to Neil and in general, that circumventing bans is Not Okay, however easy it may be to do so. Users are expected to abide by their bans without the admins having to check and additionally ban each IP, or play whack-a-proxy, or whack-a-sock, or whack-a-proxysock, or whatever. If a fellow admin feels that that point is inappropriately applied here, I won't hold anything against anyone who decides to shorten or remove the new ban, but I stand by it.

Completely off-topic: it's for all intents and purposes, not intensive purposes. - Tanetris 22:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

If it helps, I approve of the block. pling 22:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

You know what, I actually knew that about "for all intents and purposes", and by knew I mean that I had heard it before and put it in the back of my head. It's where I keep other literary items, like comma usage. And while I don't disagree with the re-ban completely, I was just voicing a concern for the length of time. Interesting though, how the software might work (no quotes). You'd think that the autoblocking of an IP should be something of equal length. The again, I can see that being a problem for people on public connections, or shared private ones. Anyways, my mind isn't all with me tonight (wrote a 2hr nuclear midterm today), but I thank you for taking the time to explain it to me. Venom20 00:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that the ban of the Ip should match the User Id. I feel that and I would like to see a script of some sort that can detect when an account is accessed as someone can login to their account when banned, just no edits. Anyway, I'd like to see this script detect the Ip address associated with this login and if it's a different address - for it to be banned for the 'remainder' of the ban time - this would eliminate any edits by that user and can easily be associated with that user. However, despite that. It's not easy to tell when someone uses a proxy or if someone is and if they're a banned user or not. Now, I don't know if a wiki can have or do like say an "id" of a computer or not... like I know Routers, etc. can with Mac Addresses... Anyway, what i was thinking was - things like that (the Mac Addresses) you can't change and you can't really use too many computers around your area, not unless travel was involved, etc... What I'm getting at is that there are ways to "make sure" users are punished, but as far as coding, etc. I'm not sure if there are things you could use to help with those ways, at least on a wiki. I hope I can be halfway understood... I'm not great at trying to type out my ideas, but better at like a well a show and tell lol. :-) Ariyen 02:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

That's not possible. - Tanetris 02:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

If it ever was - would it help? Ariyen 03:03, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Without getting into the technicalities of why it's not possible for it to be possible, the long and short of it is that there will always be ways for someone determined enough to evade bans. Users acting in good faith should know better than to try, and users acting in bad faith generally either get caught or act up enough to get fresh new bans applied. I wouldn't lose sleep over it. - Tanetris 15:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Then perhaps to not cause such a problem as some of the other sysops do, I'd say ban the static IP that's used for the same length as the handle. That's just my opinion. Ariyen 16:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: the previous section

"For all intensive purposes," ...*cringe* (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 05:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe he already poignant it out. --Riddle 06:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

She's not asking for an explanation, Riddle. Just stating that she's cringing at the statement of which she quoted. I don't think that answer was necessary nor needed. Ariyen 06:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Clearly, you didn't apprehend the humor. --Riddle 07:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

lol. -Auron 07:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

You guys are just the wurst. 09:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I did apprehend the humor, but I didn't find it funny. In my opinion, it was rather rude and not needed. Find better humor? Ariyen 16:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

For all the work with the candidates for deletion. The long list was actually bothering me, and with the wiki slow as it is these days that mustn't have been easy. Erasculio 11:17, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again for all the work you have been doing. I think you are the only admin who bothers with those day to day duties. Erasculio 20:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

RFA

Hey Tanetris,
I put up an RFA in my userspace and I want your opinion on it, for the content (my RFA), but also the format I have used.
As noted on that page, the methods for deliberation are up to you (and the other bureaucrats). As this sets a precedent, I figured it would be good for the RFA to be relatively free form.
--Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 01:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey, thank you.

Thank you very much for fixing the image to link where It should. I was wondering if you could delete my images that I have tagged for deletion, please? I am quite sure that I won't be using them any time soon. Thank you, again. Ariyen 00:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)