User talk:Gcardinal/Archive 3

support

 * Missing Builds - All of the Legacy Premade (disconinued) builds are gone. I was wondering if they were put somewhere or fell victim of the builds wipe.  Please see the wik's - premade builds article - and the result of when I tried to see if they were here on our site  Premade Legacy. - Shireen 10:20, 5 May 2007 (CEST)
 * hmm Yes I see the problem. I will see what we can do about it... thx... GCardinal 13:24, 5 May 2007 (CEST)
 * I nuked 'em (at least, I'm pretty sure it was me). Cardinal said (and I agree) that they're mostly useless. Well, they are. If you want to learn to PvP, you certainly shouldn't be doing it with a mesmer primary that uses a sword, much less a monk who deals damage (mostly through final thrust). If you want to learn to PvP, use any of a number of builds here, or just use the skills they give you and add on two random ones that look like they'll work well with the ones you already have. -- Armond Warblade[[Image:Armond sig image.png]] 01:16, 6 May 2007 (CEST)
 * But we are loosing build documentation when we make that call, GuildWiki Deleted them because they were builds, so these builds are now completely lost? I feel those ideas can give inspiration for future builds and show how the game has changed over time.  I just ask that you put them back, and I will re-categorize them so they are no longer in circulation and are there for refrence.  I am currently working on trying to improve the pre-made section of the site and have a proposed policy submision PvXWiki:Premade Builds Policy.  I'll do all the work if I can just get my hands on those builds. Shireen 01:25, 6 May 2007 (CEST)
 * I'm going to continue this discussion on PvXwiki talk:Premade Builds Policy. -- Armond Warblade[[Image:Armond sig image.png]] 01:33, 6 May 2007 (CEST)

bugs
If I access the main page from my school computers on firefox 2.0.0.1, all the bullets are black rectangles filling the entire area that the character takes up. It reverts to normal bullet points if you select them (I've started using ctrl-a when I come to the site). Is this something on the school's end or on the site's end? -- Armond Warblade 20:05, 7 May 2007 (CEST)
 * wow that was strange... can you send me a screenshot ? GCardinal 21:05, 7 May 2007 (CEST)
 * Odd, it doesn't do it now. Maybe it's only the first time the computer starts up? I'll restart and see if I can get a screenie. If not, I'll cap one next time I see it. -- Armond Warblade[[Image:Armond sig image.png]] 22:29, 7 May 2007 (CEST)
 * I've not been able to reproduce it. Maybe the school computers got used to the site. -- Armond Warblade[[Image:Armond sig image.png]] 16:31, 10 May 2007 (CEST)
 * I think I know the problem. site uses overLib a javascript lib that are used on many many websites. If older version are stored in cache it wont work properly as our overlib.js is a latest version. Usualy it helps with shift+f5 GCardinal 18:36, 10 May 2007 (CEST)
 * I'd just do ctrl-a. -- Armond Warblade[[Image:Armond sig image.png]] 20:46, 10 May 2007 (CEST)

vetting system
I think there's something wrong with the voting. I got ticket number 0. FearedKid 22:42, 13 May 2007 (CEST)
 * I will check it out. GCardinal 22:46, 13 May 2007 (CEST)

Just thoguht you should know
All shouts that seem to be in quotation marks (ex: "You're all alone!", "Charge!") images appear to be missing. Readem (talk *contribs ) 11:28, 6 May 2007 (CEST)
 * Its an old system, we are converting to PvXwiki:PvXcode. So if you see an build with an old skill/att system, please use PvXconvert to convert it to the new PvXcode. GCardinal 12:35, 6 May 2007 (CEST)

Account Creation Not working?

 * It seems I cannot register. The Confirmation box is telling me that I entered the wrong code.  I've tried several times and even attempted clearing cookies and forcing refresh.12:48, 6 May 2007 (CEST)
 * What is your username and email? GCardinal 14:33, 6 May 2007 (CEST)
 * I think it's case-sensitive. That screwed me up the first time I tried to register. --Wizardboy777 03:15, 8 May 2007 (CEST)

I attempted to register at nimmØ2, and later just nimm02. EDIT: I've successfully registered. It seems lower-case letters is a must, although it says to type it 'exactly as shown'--which happens to be all upper-case.~Nimm02 06:13, 11 May 2007 (CEST)
 * Yes I will fix hte problem today, thank you for your bug report. GCardinal 12:27, 11 May 2007 (CEST)

broked
meh, i broked some builds. they no longer sit in the archived like they should. how do i move them back. Eronth 21:12, 7 May 2007 (CEST)
 * What builds were they, how were they before, and how are they now? -- Armond Warblade[[Image:Armond sig image.png]] 22:34, 7 May 2007 (CEST)
 * Archive:A/W Shovesin Archive:A/W Frenzy Sin Archive:A/W Flourish Assassin
 * Before: not formated the PvXwiki way. Now: formatted the PvXwiki way, but won't go in the archived section, even when i try to re-unformat Eronth 23:08, 7 May 2007 (CEST)
 * You must have been fiddling with them while I was deleting Template:Archived-build. We were actually going to delete all the archived builds to clean up the wiki, but I didn't get around to finishing that. Now I've got a personal policy (created out of complete and utter laziness) of waiting for an official vetting policy to come up and wait and see if they're approved based on the current metagame before seeing if they should be deleted. -- Armond Warblade[[Image:Armond sig image.png]] 23:21, 7 May 2007 (CEST)
 * I think they are gonna stay in archived up until they are edited. cause there are hundreds of builds still there or something.  I'm just glad i didnt bork ne thing Eronth 23:29, 7 May 2007 (CEST)

generic res template
Dunno where im supposed to go with this, but there is no skill template for generic resurrect. so when converting, it just breaks. Should we replace generic res with optional, or is a generic res planned on being put in. Eronth 19:43, 9 May 2007 (CEST)
 * Some skills has generic resorection, some has gen res and so on. It is impossible to predict all combinations, so solution is simple: use real skills like Resurection Signed. GCardinal 20:31, 9 May 2007 (CEST)
 * I usually do, it's just that convertion of builds will produce many builds with generic res on them, i was wondering if we should change thos or not. I'll start changin if i see them Eronth 21:04, 9 May 2007 (CEST)
 * Thanks :) But the conversion tool was made to be manual exactly for reasons like that. Becouse it does work fully automatic and I can convert all builds using bot, but it will produce many and many errors like that. GCardinal 21:15, 9 May 2007 (CEST)

database import error
FYI: I posted at Build talk:Rt/any Spirit Nuker that it appears there was an error when importing the build talk pages. They're all in the database, but aren't accessible to anyone except yourself (requires database and/or server access). I know that Fyren has fixed similar issues on GuildWiki when this has come up over there, so he may be able to give some pointers here if wanted/needed; but that was only with a page or two - not the thousands of pages here, so not sure how or if you want to address the problem.

Basically, it looks like all of the build talk pages were imported from GuildWiki, but not loaded into the "Build talk:" namespace. They're all in the "Main" namespace, so there's now an article named "Build talk:A/E Icy Spider Shackles" in the main namespace ... but, when you try to access it, the software seed "Build talk:" and assumes you want the build_talk namespace, so instead of pulling up the "Build talk:A/E Icy Spider Shackles" from the main namespace (which exists), the Mediawiki software instead tries to pull up the "A/E Icy Spider Shackles" article from the "Build talk" namespace (which doesn't exist). There's a long list of similar types of pages which can be found on this list of articles in the Main namespace with article names starting with "Build talk".

Where this is even more confusing is where a talk page has been created in the build talk namespace. So, for example, there's currently both a "Build talk:A/E Signet Spiker" in the main namespace, plus a seperate article with totally different content titled "A/E Signet Spiker" in the build talk namespace.

I'm not sure if you want to try recovering all of the build talk articles that are in the main namespace, or just delete them. I think it would be best not to just leave them there; but that's more to do with my personal preference for a tidy database - I doubt they're causing any serious harm, other than some minor confusion if/when those pages are shown as linking to something that can't be edited. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:30, 12 May 2007 (CEST)
 * The thing is that there is no working solution for this problem. There is some bugs with mediawiki that prevents this from being fixed. As it was written in our news I decided to leave it as it is since there is no harm or problem at the moment. I will work on it as soon as I will get some more time. But since its not a problem more of a "garbage" thing I will solve it when I have time or best when we going to upgrade to new mediawiki 1.10. GCardinal 01:38, 12 May 2007 (CEST)

Dude!
Why are you blanking and protecting all the discussion pages on the proposed policies? How are people supposed to view the discussion/debate occuring over each one? How are they supposed to contribute to the discussion? Of all the times, this is probably the absolute worst to do this. How are people supposed to make an informed vote about what will likely be the most important policy on the wiki now that you have blanked and protected all the talk pages? - Krowman  (talk • contribs) 03:14, 12 May 2007 (CEST)
 * I am working on starting the voting process. It is May 12. Please read PvXwiki:Voting_on_Vetting_Policy. GCardinal 03:16, 12 May 2007 (CEST)
 * What you are doing isn't starting the voting process. You are denying voters the information they should have access to to make an educated vote. - [[Image:Kowal.jpg|15px]] Krowman  (talk • contribs) 03:21, 12 May 2007 (CEST)
 * Discussion on all policy's are done now as it says in PvXwiki:Voting_on_Vetting_Policy. People had a lot of time to prepare their candidates, and from my point of view not much was done even after several warnings on quality. No as its May 12 all discussion is closed and voting will begun as soon as extension will be installed. And that is what I am working on now. If there was any problem witht he PvXwiki:Voting_on_Vetting_Policy it sould be posted in discussion page when that page was posted and not 5min before vote starts. GCardinal 03:33, 12 May 2007 (CEST)
 * Excuse my language, but the is the most idiotic, moronic, and dumb idea I've ever seen on a wiki. How the hell is it a wiki where there is no discussion. It's plain stupid.--Sefre  [[Image:Sefresig.jpg|15px|]] Talk*Cont. 03:35, 12 May 2007 (CEST)
 * Where exactly does it say discussion ends when voting begins? I can't find it anywhere in that article. Maybe you could direct us? In the absence of any such comment, you are simply censoring the information people have at their disposal. - [[Image:Kowal.jpg|15px]] Krowman  (talk • contribs) 03:37, 12 May 2007 (CEST)
 * It's a tiny line at the bottom of the page..... Never saw it before and doubt most others had too. Gcardinal, how the hell are people suposed to make a informed decision when half of the info was blanked and asking questions were made impossible... what the hell.....--Sefre  [[Image:Sefresig.jpg|15px|]] Talk*Cont. 03:39, 12 May 2007 (CEST)
 * 'All discussion on policy proposals pages will be erased and there will be place for vote placement only. it was posted 9 days ago. Any comment like "omfg this is so stupid" are kind of to late now. Voting starts in 10-20min. Any user that are so hungry for old discussion page can go and check the progress using history. GCardinal 03:40, 12 May 2007 (CEST)
 * People had almost 14 days to prepare policy Proposals. This is voting - this is not "let's discuss on our next policy". All information that is needed to take that vote MUST be included in the policy. GCardinal 03:42, 12 May 2007 (CEST)
 * You hypocrite, one of the reasons you stated for making this wiki was for open discussion on new policies and non erasing of the build section. You just used a little line on one page to announce that you were locking a bunch of pages. Which is little more warning then the build wipe was given before it became irreversibly decided. And now you are carrying out your decisions just like certain users had over there, without actually asking any one outside of yourself if it was a good idea......
 * I strongly advise you to reverse this....--Sefre  [[Image:Sefresig.jpg|15px|]] Talk*Cont. 03:47, 12 May 2007 (CEST)
 * And ones again anyone can access discussion page by checking history. I am sure anyone with a litl bit of wiki knowlege can do that. I has been erased so people will not start asking why can't we discuss, why its protected. Policy proposals are final, no changing or editing are allowed. People had plenty of time to get them ready, whole process was very clearly described in PvXwiki:Voting_on_Vetting_Policy. If anyone had any problem with anything on that page why it wasnt posted when that page was created? GCardinal 03:48, 12 May 2007 (CEST)
 * Because it wasn't noticed! Why the hell elee do you think, your getting objections now by two people that have said they never saw that line. I'm sorry to say this but your are a lying hypocritical power abusing admin, one of this reasons I stopped posting on guild wiki...
 * You have been acting on personal opinions since the first proposals were made, at first without any harm but now.....?--Sefre  [[Image:Sefresig.jpg|15px|]] Talk*Cont. 03:52, 12 May 2007 (CEST)

Easy solution would be to just revert and unprotect the discussion pages... - Krowman  (talk • contribs) 03:57, 12 May 2007 (CEST)
 * How people can vote on anything when what they vote today on will be changed tomorow ? You want me to move back discussion pages? I can do that no problem. But they will be protect and no discussion or editing will be allowed what so ever. User can change they vote, they can create as many pages as they want to discuss what ever they want, on they talk page or when ever they want. But this is voting, this is not discussion. And when you vote for something you have final candidates and people VOTE for them. Not discuss. When you have president election there is maybe a reason why they stop they election programs a day before election? Why are you so afraid of people voting? Do you think they are so stupid that they need to read 10 pages of talk before making up they mind? I dont think so. Plenty of time was given to prepare candidates, most of people didnt do "#¤")". Not a single user messaged me about scripting, that means if I will play by the rules that almost non policy passed quality control. Not a single policy has a complete extension. People just ignore my warnings one by one and no one cares. And no 10min before voting there is a problem ? c'mon. GCardinal 03:59, 12 May 2007 (CEST)


 * Discussion pages will be reverted. People will have possibility to read discussion pages but not to edit. GCardinal 03:59, 12 May 2007 (CEST)


 * I never saw that line in all the time I looked at that page, but I'm staying out of this discussion, as I won't have internet for a couple days... Though I'd like to see how you protect the discussion page but let people vote on it. Perhaps make voting on PvXwiki Talk:Voting on Vetting Policy? -- Armond Warblade[[Image:Armond sig image.png]] 04:02, 12 May 2007 (CEST)
 * It will be online in a 5min. GCardinal 04:03, 12 May 2007 (CEST)

/sighs/ I am 100% against this actions of yours. It's reasoning is horrible and irrational. You are running things your way and not giving a shit to what anyone else says. I hope you either realize your folly and stop being a dictator or your idea crashes and burns....--Sefre  Talk*Cont. 04:06, 12 May 2007 (CEST)
 * How am I a dictator? I am making a voting process where people can read each policy proposals, spend some time to understand them and vote based on what they want to be next policy. They will vote without being manipulated by some people who scream "vote for this vote for this" in the talk page. They will vote on candidates that is 100% alike, nothing makes one of another better. All candidates are alike. Anyone can vote in a 100% democratic way. What is dictator about this? GCardinal 04:09, 12 May 2007 (CEST)
 * Just to get some history of this, when you call me dictator, in the start I even suggested that admin's can't vote. I even gived away my right to vote? How does that make me dictator?... The only thing I have done by removing those talk pages: making sure that non of candidates stands out. That's it. GCardinal 04:13, 12 May 2007 (CEST)
 * You are pushing your ideas and theories on how a build policy should be decided with complete disregard to any objection or criticisms. Thats fucking dictatorship. Quit dodging the issue, I'm calling you a dictator based on enacting of this plan of yours, not what it does. You obvisouly wont listen to anyone but your self. --Sefre  [[Image:Sefresig.jpg|15px|]] Talk*Cont. 04:16, 12 May 2007 (CEST)
 * I posted that page like 10 days ago, it was open for discussion. No one did. Now I am an idiot pushing my ideas ... in 9 days not a single user posted comment about any problem with that system... not its complete bullshit?.. hmm... Now its my problem when I post something, that clearly will be main proposal on how voting will be, people completly ignore it, dont even care to read it completly and now I am dictator since they didnt had time to read?.. I am not enforcing any build policy. I posted my proposal just as anyone else. And anyone else including me had they chance to write a policy - very few did. GCardinal 04:21, 12 May 2007 (CEST)

Sefre, what are your suggestions for what should be done differently? - Krowman  (talk • contribs) 04:23, 12 May 2007 (CEST)
 * Yes what exactly do you want to change? Since this is voting, there will be no place for editing candidates and discussion pages with comments like "To all the noobs! This is it! Vote for THIS policy now and I will powerlvl you to lvl 30 today" is also not an option. Do you want a talk page created for discussion voting process where people can convince others to change they vote to They policy? GCardinal 04:25, 12 May 2007 (CEST)


 * I will join in on this, as I don't think it has been just this. You're doing whatever you want, blocking pages, saying it's your way or nothing, taking back things you said, etc.. I understand you are doing what you think is best for the wiki, but sometimes what one person thinks is best, is not what is best for the whole group. When more than a couple people say something about something you did, you might want to rethink what you did and make sure that it benefits the wiki as a whole. Not trying to be down on you or make you mad, but just something I thought that I should say. Bluemilkman 04:27, 12 May 2007 (CEST)

Gcardinal, read my posts, I never accused you of pushing a policy, I accused of pushing this plan for picking a policy with complete disregard to very viable objections. Now, quit avoiding that issue and stop blaming me for not noticing it earlier, this is ridiculous, you aren't a politician who's job it is to avoid issues but your admin who is supposed to take advice for users on how to improve the wiki. which you refuse to do on the new policy voting issue. Your acting just like a politician who has a dirty secret but is doing all that is possible to get attention to others, and you know it. Now, I and others have stated that at least discussion pages should not be protected, mainly for the purpose of asking questions related to the policy! Like I said read my freaking posts.... --Sefre  Talk*Cont. 04:31, 12 May 2007 (CEST)


 * So, basically, re-open the policy discussion pages for, well, discussion? Sounds reasonable to me. I think that your actions were well-intentioned GCardinal, in that you didn't want people using the talk pages to bribe or influence votes, but in all fairness, is this really what is happening on those pages? Mostly, they are used to raise questions and concerns about the policy. What's the harm in allowing that to continue? - [[Image:Kowal.jpg|15px]] Krowman  (talk • contribs) 04:35, 12 May 2007 (CEST)


 * Okay, not trying to be a kiss-ass or anything, but I am going to side with Cardinal on this. He did give warning and it is pretty clearly stated that the POLICY needs to contain all the rules, guidelines and aspects of the Policy, on the policy page - Not the discussion page.  What I am going to point a finger at is that he was unclear when the final policy date got moved to, (No highly visable public announcement was made).  He gave warnings about policy and what a policy should contain on each page.  It got my but in gear to do a lot of work in cleaning up and working on my policy.  Protecting, or temporarily locking out discussion pages would be reasonable for a vote - but after the vote is over those discussion pages should be restored.  I know on my proposed policy I stated that a vote was needed to explore and put my policy into a testing patern as it constituted a very LARGE project that would constitute a very big change in the way we handle voting procedure.  The destruction of the Discussion page would set back that testing procedure significantly, as it also may set back refinement or future changes of adopted policies.  I understand why Cardinal is taking the actions he is doing, as he is trying to create Beuricratic Law to help govern the PVX wiki, as opposed to simply fre-forming the whole chaotic thing.  He gave warning, and is not the villian here.  And I Sefre, I never posted on your proposed policy because I didn't particularly feel it was a strong policy.
 * But when it does come time for voting on a policy we SHOULD temporarily bury the discussion page, as it's the POLICY we are voting on, not the discussion that came from it. Shireen 04:39, 12 May 2007 (CEST)

If I ever do something "wrong" and in past 7 days I can't even think of anything I have done, but its okey. If you or anyone else thinks I suggest something that is wrong, why dont you say so then? Why wait until deadline and then start a discussion? And all those things you refer to.

Blocking pages, I think you talking about protecting pages - it says in PvXwiki:Voting_on_Vetting_Policy posted 10 days ago. Taking back things I said - ones when I did a mistake? I am sure that anyone can make a mistake. There is clearly no etc. If it is please let me know I will answer for them too. Saying it's your way or nothing - I used my let's say "veto" on 1 thing when some 5 people was about to make policy proposals to a official policy - I did that to protect democratic right of people to vote.

There is never a solution that will work for everyone. Some wants never ending discussion. Some people wants to get on working. Some people flood talk pages when there is tons and tons of work to do on this wiki. Some people just post comments since they have nothing else to do. There is many and many peoples on this wiki and each and everyone had a chance to propose They way. Very few did. And if you want to blame me for making a democratic vote that is used to elect presidents and governments around the world and call me dictator for making a democratic vote I can handle that.

If you have a suggestion - post it. Please don't post any personal comments on how big d%%%head I am. For me it takes some time to get to know a person before making that kind of comments about anyone. GCardinal 04:42, 12 May 2007 (CEST)

Now to the suggestion on opening the discussion. There is no problem about that. How ever they will start empty and they will be monitored by admin's to make sure that no one post things like "this is next big shit, vote for this one!". GCardinal 04:42, 12 May 2007 (CEST)


 * It is 4:45 AM in Norway and it is time to hit the bed even for me. So lets finish this up so I can activate voting and go to sleep. Please post what you think we sould do about Discussion pages taking into considiration that it will effect voting and not in a good way. GCardinal 04:46, 12 May 2007 (CEST)


 * Dude... the discussions can point out flaws in builds, answer people's Q's, etc... Why block them??? --[[Image:User Frvwfr2 signature.jpg|User:Frvwfr2]] <font color=#6e8b3d>frvwfr2  (talk)(contributions) 04:52, 12 May 2007 (CEST)


 * I mean policys, not builds --[[Image:User Frvwfr2 signature.jpg|User:Frvwfr2]] <font color=#6e8b3d>frvwfr2  (talk)(contributions) 04:53, 12 May 2007 (CEST)
 * Some noob can enter discussion and ask I am not sure about this policy. Is this really good? And some elite users will tell him - yes it is vote for it now. GCardinal 04:55, 12 May 2007 (CEST)

Flip Flop
(this comment is based on events occurring in above section) Gcardinal, either you are actually learning something or you are just trying to save your ass, I suspect the latter. You act on your opinions alone and disregard everything else someone says about them, until you get called out that is. Even up until you realize that you are caught you deny your faults and blame the accuser. Grow some balls and admit you error or at least quit blaming me for pointing out the fact that you ignore suggestions. I will not say more on this, any more and you will start accusing me of lying because NOW you change your mind and are open to suggestions. --<font color="Black">Sefre  Talk*Cont. 04:57, 12 May 2007 (CEST)
 * Sefre I dont get what's you problem and why you call me all that bullshit names? Do you have a suggestion on how do to it better? I hear only personal comments that has nothing to do with the subject. Are you now telling me that I am saving my ass just becouse I ask YOU who started this conversation for a solution? Ahh no wait... it doesnt make me look like a dictator you trying to make me into. All I hear from you is some kind of protecting "bla bla bla you are idiot bla bla bla you talk bullshit" comments without any REAL solution to a problem you started to discuss ? hmm interesting. not. GCardinal 05:05, 12 May 2007 (CEST)
 * Gcardinal, quit the bullshit, you know very well that I have proposed alternatives and you've ignored them until I called you out, and then you attack me again. You are reading between the lines to promote yourself looking good and me looking bad. Quit it.--<font color="Black">Sefre  [[Image:Sefresig.jpg|15px|]] Talk*Cont. 05:13, 12 May 2007 (CEST)
 * Then put a message saying only informative questions, no is this good questions. Then, if they try make their vote not count. --[[Image:User Frvwfr2 signature.jpg|User:Frvwfr2]] <font color=#6e8b3d>frvwfr2  (talk)(contributions) 04:59, 12 May 2007 (CEST)
 * That will be not easy to do and I will need to adjust my extension. GCardinal 05:05, 12 May 2007 (CEST)

Can I make one final eddit to my True Builds Rating policy to move my visual example of the voting procedure to the actual Policy page, I've allready backed up the discussion page and she will be ready to be wiped. After that the voting page will be ready to be wiped and set up for voting. Shireen 05:14, 12 May 2007 (CEST)
 * Sure no problem. GCardinal 05:15, 12 May 2007 (CEST)
 * Let me know when its ready. GCardinal 05:19, 12 May 2007 (CEST)


 * Done, Difiant Elements took care of the re-protection. Thank you Shireen 05:22, 12 May 2007 (CEST)

Important Note for Parties Involved in the Above Discussion
As per a discussion I had with Gcardinal, all talk pages on proposed vetting policies have been unprotected and the discussions were restored and subsequently archived. These talk pages should be used for the time being for substantive and constructive criticisms regarding the merits of a policy. Any attempts to influence voter behavior, such as spamming "Vote for x proposal" will be stricken, and repeated attempts may result in a bad. Please realize that this renders the above discussion a moot point. *Defiant Elements*  +talk  06:01, 12 May 2007 (CEST)

Vote
"You can vote for build vetting policy here! You can vote on any policy, but we will ask you to consider first policy that has script guarantee as they will be a lot easier/faster to implement. You can change your vote anytime during the voting time."

This is not fair. This will steer users away from a policy just because of difficult to implement. Easy isn't best, usually it's the worst.... I know for a fact that on at least one of the ones marked "hard to implement" that a effort was made to find one and according to this section somebody had been found to do it by the 14th. although I personally know nothing of that situation tho. Please remove that line, if you really aren't biased in the situation that is.--<font color="Black">Sefre  Talk*Cont. 06:29, 12 May 2007 (CEST)

Is Special:Vote anonymous? I don't know if I'll have a chance to vote later during the session, so I'd like to be able to vote now if I can... -- Armond Warblade 23:08, 13 May 2007 (CEST)

Birthday
Is it your birthday today?! -- Nova   --  (contribs) 22:50, 13 May 2007 (CEST)
 * yes it is :) GCardinal 22:51, 13 May 2007 (CEST)
 * Happy birthday to you..
 * happy birthday to you!
 * Happy birthday, dear Gcardinal!
 * Happy birthday, to yooooo!
 * -- Nova  [[Image:Jirouji-Nova.jpg]] --  (contribs) 22:53, 13 May 2007 (CEST)
 * HB2U :D:D:D -- Armond Warblade[[Image:Armond sig image.png]] 23:08, 13 May 2007 (CEST)
 * Happy bday. - [[Image:Kowal.jpg|15px]] <font face="dauphin" color="maroon">Krowman  (talk • contribs) 23:16, 13 May 2007 (CEST)