User talk:Gcardinal/Archive 2

Copyright
We are working on restoring history to each and every build. Please hold until work is complete. gcardinal 21:03, 21 April 2007 (CEST)
 * Problem fixed. gcardinal 04:43, 22 April 2007 (CEST)
 * Nice work man. :) -- BrianG 07:23, 22 April 2007 (CEST)

What Next?
So, it looks like we have solved most of our major issues. We have a good foundation policy wise, the accreditation issue got resolved, so what's next?

I guess the most major barrier we still have to overcome is to decide precisely what our vetting system is going to be, and, along with that, whether we plan on keeping all of the old builds. But, aside from those two things, keeping in mind that those things are very important, is there anything else that we really need to get done before we can start allowing discussion/the posting of new builds?

Also, how much input do we want from the community before we institute a vetting policy? Are we gonna make this a major point of discussion where we get polls and tons of suggestions and stuff? I assume we are just going to talk amongst ourselves, get something worked out, and then add or detract as we see fit once the process begins, but I am not quite sure. Also, when can everyone "meet" on MSN Messenger for us to discuss the vetting policy? *Defiant Elements*  +talk  05:22, 23 April 2007 (CEST)
 * I'm busy tomorrow night but will be available any other weeknight this week. Tuesday night good for anyone? -- BrianG 06:14, 23 April 2007 (CEST)


 * Start simple. Review the proposed policies. Give feedback. Think about a vetting system later - that's going to be a big thing, and I for one will feel better if we have at least a few little things out of the way first.


 * My MSN is mc_vcw@hotmail.com. If you leave me a note here or on Guildwiki, I'll get on if I can. Armond 08:25, 23 April 2007 (CEST)

Sorry I'm late...
Armond 06:12, 23 April 2007 (CEST)
 * Sure m8, my msn is admin@gcardinal.com gcardinal 06:16, 23 April 2007 (CEST)
 * When you have a minute, if you don't mind, could you sysop me? I have an urge to go around doing admin stuff and use some fancy anti-vandal things. :P Sorry if I seem too forward, I'm just kind of excited about the idea of being an admin on a wiki I'll be useful on. Armond 06:50, 23 April 2007 (CEST)
 * Thanks mate! Armond 07:51, 23 April 2007 (CEST)
 * You welcome mate! :) gcardinal 07:54, 23 April 2007 (CEST)

Administrators
Quick question. Do we want an official RFA? Are we planning to merely appoint users as necessary? How is the process going to work? I ask you obviously because you are the only Bureaucrat which means that if and when this Wiki begins to grow, the task of appointing new Admins will rest squarely on your shoulders. *Defiant Elements*  +talk  01:56, 25 April 2007 (CEST)
 * Task of appoint of new administrators will be given to current administrators (including me). And how it will be done will be pretty much up to us. But I think a general wiki RFA policy will work well here. But its totally up to administrators to decide. And all current sysop will be moved to Bureaucrats as soon as is open for public. gcardinal 03:29, 25 April 2007 (CEST)
 * Alright. [[Image:DE Sig Test 2.jpg|50x19px]]  *Defiant Elements*   +talk  00:44, 26 April 2007 (CEST)

Hmm... what are the requirements for sysoption? Nova 02:59, 3 May 2007 (CEST)

BBcode
Help please. its down or something. Doesnt show up at ALL. Help would be appreciated. Ill help work on it as well if its needed. Ni 21:11, 26 April 2007 (CEST)
 * Fixed for now, will be removed soon :P

hi there. i'd just like to know how to use internal links here now. i mean those that refer to pages existing on guildwiki but not buildwiki, such as all the skills. since Y0 ich halt 00:50, 28 April 2007 (CEST)


 * You can just use gw:Skill Name . --Wizardboy777 02:32, 28 April 2007 (CEST)
 * yup, ni told me ^^ - Y0 ich halt 14:46, 28 April 2007 (CEST)
 * Correction, Skill Name . Need to make sure links are like that. 19:58, 30 April 2007 (CEST)
 * gw:Frenzy gives Frenzy, why in the world would you write the skill name twice... --Dirigible 20:44, 30 April 2007 (CEST)
 * Well, for one, the pipe wasn't in the above, and for another, I didn't know that. :P Besides, I like typing out all the code. Call me crazy. :P 21:34, 30 April 2007 (CEST)
 * wow, thanks for telling me! i didnt know it works without the name twice either... :) - Y0 ich halt 23:17, 30 April 2007 (CEST)
 * The twice one is really only for use when you want to point to a link but give it a different label. Jaofos 02:09, 1 May 2007 (CEST)

bbcode copyright
When I said that I would prefer to keep the old attributes and skill bar templates in the pvx code, I meant the copyright problems we'd have with GuildWiki, not ArenaNet. 18:56, 28 April 2007 (CEST)
 * How bbcode relates to GuildWiki ? gcardinal 01:58, 29 April 2007 (CEST)
 * Attribtues and skills templates do, which I suggested keeping for use with PvXcode. 04:15, 29 April 2007 (CEST)
 * Well pvxcode are based on gwBBcode and their attributes and skill's database. I dont quite see what you are pointing at ? gcardinal 05:00, 29 April 2007 (CEST)
 * I was thinking of suggesting that pvxcode be based off of guildwiki's attributes and skill bar templates, but then we'd have to do all the copyright things associated with guildwiki and that would be a hassle. 19:56, 30 April 2007 (CEST)

Thoughts on My Policy?
Any thoughts on my policy? I just want to know if I should kill it or just leave it. Honestly, I dont think its really "flying" with the other members, but I would just like to see what you have to say about it. Ni 01:10, 30 April 2007 (CEST)

Aargh
Every time I hit the 'Random Page' button, it takes me to a talk page. These talk pages never exist. They are always the talk pages for builds. Sometimes the builds don't exist either. This is not ideal. I can't go to random pages when I'm bored. --Wizardboy777 03:48, 1 May 2007 (CEST)

PvXwiki talk:Percentage Favored Vetting
You said very early on that if there was strong enough opposition to one of your ideas, you would accept the consensus of the majority. Well, despite the fact that there aren't a ton of members who have commented, those that have (see and ) have made it pretty clear that they disagree. Very few people think we should wait, whereas the vast majority advocate implementing the policy now. It has significant support among users, especially compared to the alternatives, and, beyond that, the majority also support implementing it now. I would suggest that you read all of those comments and think long and hard before simply dismissing the policy for the time being. I think that there are some valid points that have been made which have not been addressed by you or anyone else, and if our fears are justified, this site may experience some major problems. *Defiant Elements*  +talk  05:20, 2 May 2007 (CEST)
 * Sure I hear you man, but I think you will agreed to at least wait until 10. may with this decision. There is a few simply reasons why, first of all Im working on my final paper in my university and I will not be able to spend any time on anything else in the next week and new policy needs implementation. And I want also have my say and I can't because I dont have time to extend my proposal now. And so far people like what I did so I think its fear to give also my policy a try. GCardinal 05:50, 2 May 2007 (CEST)
 * The Rating system was your policy wasn't it? here it shows you stating that you did not want it to act as the new vetting but as a organization system. I don't mean to sound rude or anything but there is overwhelming support to enact a solid policy for testing at least before the masses come. You have the final say I know but a wiki can not be ran by one person, like I said I mean no disrespect I honestly think that flaws in your proposal make in unreliable as the vetting procedure, and the percent proposal has shown the least amount of flaws that are possible to predict at the moment. --Sefre  [[Image:Sefresig.jpg|15px|]] Talk*Cont. 06:01, 2 May 2007 (CEST)
 * Nothing will happen in 1 week and its not really that much to ask ? As I told you in my last post I want to make my proposal and I just don't have time now, so I hope you do understand that it's only about 1 week and it is because of my university studies. And I'm not going to point that some thing I have asked people to fix has not been done thing like: Builds to check, Cleaning and Checking all builds, Replacing old posting system with new one and so on. I have to do it manual and by my self. I don't say that I am not great full for all the help it just everyone pushes so hard with new policy and there are so many things to do that is vital for stable running of this site. Before you create anything at all you have to create a stable platform (the site), you have to get skilled workers (the users) then you have to sit down and make a plan (the policy) and the implement it. What you ask me to do is to go backwards on this. And as long as I work 6-12 hours a day and spend alott cash on this site my word will be the last one. GCardinal 06:14, 2 May 2007 (CEST)
 * Just one last thing, please take a look on this from the Users point of view, the ones who just uses this site to get a build and they are majority and 100 times bigger then all editors together. One of the reasons why build got wiped out:
 * *Some old timers got together and decided "Damn this is crap, we need to re-do everething its not leet you know.
 * *They did it so silently that no one noticed until it was to late.
 * *If you see the build wipe out page the majority of votes goes into keeping the build, but they got wiped out.
 * Those and many other this show that it does not work to run a public site only by asking hardcore editors and guru's of the wiki. We have a more then a good example of how that goes and this is not going to be the case here. We WILL ask PEOPLE and not 65 users to decide on new policy. GCardinal 06:20, 2 May 2007 (CEST)


 * i totally favor that new policy... with percentages... if it works as its explained it would be great. - Y0 ich halt 14:52, 2 May 2007 (CEST)
 * whoops, wrong page...

Coding tip
When you want to link to a category page, for example Category:Templates, you should remember to include a colon (:) at the beginning of the link, so it will read as Category:Templates instead of. The first links to the category page; the second adds the page it's on to that category (and doesn't show up at all on the page). So yeah, quick tip :P 19:03, 2 May 2007 (CEST)
 * ohhh thanks m8, didnt know that. thank GCardinal 08:07, 3 May 2007 (CEST)

The Decision isn't Yours Alone
First of all, I would like to point out that the person most strongly advocating "democracy" is quite literally ignoring the will of the people. The people can be defined as whoever is on wiki, and they have spoken. Second of all, any Admin may make something official policy (and by reverting my addition of an official policy tag to Sefre's policy, you again ignored what everyone else had said). Finally, when you offered the current Admins, myself included, their sysoption, you had a line specifically stating that if you were out voted by the other Admins, you would comply with their decision. Well, from what I can see, of the current Admins, you are the only opposed vote. Even if we count Auron as abstaining since he hasn't "officially" voted, that means 3 in favor of the policy, and 2 against (since you count yourself as 2). If this really is a democracy at all levels, then you have not only violated the principles of democracy, you have also directly gone against your own word. You made sysops in large part to make policy, and if you aren't going to let us do that when the Admins and the users have both made very strong cases, and when you are the only one opposed on seemingly ideological as opposed to realistic grounds, then I honestly don't see how this wiki can function.

Furthermore, even if we view the current users as a microcosm of what will be an entire population of users, statistically speaking, it is unlikely that a greater number of votes would significantly effect the outcome. Take for example United States voting rates. The United States has a very low rate of both registration and voting for a variety of reasons. However, most political scientists agree that having 100% voting rates would not effect the actual outcome of the election. Or, take for instance the ways that polls are conducted. You ask a small percentage of the total population, and then look at the percentages. An assumption is made that those percentages would apply to the population as a whole, and, while polls are not precise indicators, they are accurate as general indicators. What I mean by all of this is that even if we had an entire population, while more people might vote opposed, from a realistic standpoint, the majority would still likely agree with the current users.

As well, there are a lot of issues that people have raised that to be honest, you have not really refuted. In fact, from what I have seen, it is your arguments that have generated the most criticism. I don't say this to be mean, merely that even if I don't take into account who voted for what, if I look at only the arguments themselves, I would have to say (noting that I am of course biased and not a third-party observer) that the arguments in favor of the policy seem to outweigh your arguments against instituting the policy.

There is one more analogy I will make. The Supreme Court of the U.S. is a body consisting of 9 individuals whose votes (by a strict majority), determine the laws of an entire country. Users, myself included, have noted that by allowing everyone to vote, we would never get anything done. That is the reason that there is no country in the world that is a true democracy. Instead, the democracies of this world are REPRESENTATIVE. There are two reasons for this. First, if every law had to be agreed upon by that many people, as I previously mentioned, nothing would ever get done. Particularly when it comes to cleavage issues, which if I were to pick one issues that causes the greatest divide on this wiki would be vetting policy. But, there is also another factor as well. Representatives and Supreme Court Judges are going to know more about the issues than the average citizen. In general, the users who have come here are people who were all involved in the policy debates on the previous wiki, they are people whom I know have sound opinions and can think rationally. The more people we introduce, the more problems that will crop up. Although Americans are among the most belligerent people when it comes to government, we do for the most part trust that our institutions of government work. At a certain point, we have to make the same leap of faith so to speak. Well, that is my diatribe. I hope you will read it because I think it is important to understand, not only for the vetting policy, but, also so that you can see and hopefully understand the impact of calling this wiki a democracy. *Defiant Elements*  +talk  04:33, 3 May 2007 (CEST)

Whew... I think that may be my longest single post ever. Hope it is a cogent argument since I wrote it in about 10 minutes. *Defiant Elements*  +talk  04:33, 3 May 2007 (CEST)

Oh, and one last thing I forgot to mention, once we let people in, once the "floodgates" are open, there is no going back, whereas if we institute a policy that doesn't work or that people don't like, we can always edit it. *Defiant Elements*  +talk  04:34, 3 May 2007 (CEST)


 * Off topic-Aren't the Swiss a true democracy still? Thought I read or saw it somewhere that they vote in a town square in every village and raise hands and are counted on issues. No representatives or anything?
 * Yes and no. The Swiss do have a system which allows for Direct Democracy via referendum.  However, they also have a parliament, so, even the closest thing in the world to a direct democracy can only be termed as a "half-direct democracy."  There are a bunch of other elements that play a role in the Swiss government, but, I think that is sufficient to answer your question.  [[Image:DE Sig Test 2.jpg|50x19px]]  *Defiant Elements*   +talk  04:54, 3 May 2007 (CEST)
 * From what I understood from that, I think I agree, I don't have a lot of time to throughly read through it but I think I got the gist.--Sefre  [[Image:Sefresig.jpg|15px|]] Talk*Cont. 04:47, 3 May 2007 (CEST)
 * That was one long post. First of all you made me into some kind of monster who does not keep his word and does what ever he wont. :That is not true and kind of assaulting but I will let it go for now.


 * And when you refer do all great democracy examples you are missing few very vital points.
 * First of all people did not choose you or other admins. All admins was appointed by me from people who were interested in this project. It does NOT represent majority of people in any way, however it does represent the most hardcore users of GuildWiki who really care. And that is very good, but it’s not MAJORITY at all.


 * For any democracy to take place it must be more than 2 candidates where 1 are unfinished and both written by same author. It’s not even near being democracy at all. Other candidates including myself must have time to prepare for the vote.


 * And I’m not going to enforce anything alone as you so kindly referring to several times, if I wanted I would just make policy and make it official. But I’m not going to do it because I really want people to vote, I want this site to be for the people and not for the “elite member of community”. However what you trying to push so hard is not going to happen and I’m not going to allow it. Simply because what you want goes against the very basic ideas of why this site was created. I can’t control what kind of policy will win, however I will do my best to protect how it will be chosen as well as overall voting procedure.


 * And personally I don’t really get it why are you so afraid of a fair vote procedure? C’mon guys, do you really think world will go under the ground if we wait a week or 2? Using that time wisely to prepare candidates? I don’t think so. I sense some kind of fear for something I don’t quite can see?

GCardinal 05:38, 3 May 2007 (CEST)
 * Honestly Gcardinal, I do think the slope will change downhill before to long. Now I am not trying to push the policy that I drafted but the majority(about complete) of new members that have come to this site have all backed one policy. And I doubt very much if that will change in 2 weeks. And 2 weeks is just time that we could get the wiki up and running solidly it. Now I understand your point, and do agree to a point, don't get me wrong. But I have seen enough evidence to support the enactment of the policy that everyone has backed. From both the long time members and the new guys that are coming in(no discrimination meant, I hold all opinions equal, even tho I ma disagree). People are backing one, and 2 weeks will either show overwhelming support for the popular one now or will show a loss of population due to inaction.
 * I am not speaking as the creator of the percent policy, but as a person looking from the outside. If a admin of a site ignores the overwhelming support for one side and wants to postpone it for what will be no doubt even more support then I would not put much faith into said site.
 * Like I said. People have been coming and supporting a policy overwhelmingly(spelled that word right the first time :0) and a day or two wont matter much but I think much longer then that will be detrimental to the wiki.--Sefre  [[Image:Sefresig.jpg|15px|]] Talk*Cont. 05:48, 3 May 2007 (CEST)
 * Sure I hear you man. But I am ready to take that responsibility of waiting a 1-2 weeks. And I also up for all types of talk saying how bad admin I am and how bad I do that and so on. Maybe sometimes I don’t make myself 100% clear, but I am sure I did this time:). And the only reason why I am making it so hard is because I feel this is so wrong, so extremely wrong that I can't accept it. And if your policy wins, deeply respect to you as a true winner and Yes to new policy whatever that will be. If it will show that I was wrong all the way I will suck it up and people can blame me for the rest of the life how stupid I was. But personally I don’t think it’s too much to ask specially when in the end its just waiting 2 weeks, prepare new candidates and make a real vote? GCardinal 05:57, 3 May 2007 (CEST)
 * Why will no one listen to me? I don't want it to be considered my policy. DE had a big part of the backbone in mind before me and Briang too. I drafted up there ideas form other pages and others ran with it from there.
 * But 2 weeks, thats a long time for the build section to stand still with no new solid contributions to the build section. People will get bored in two weeks of inactivity except on policy pages and will likely leave. I recommend moving it at most one week. That is plenty of time for people to look over and if there is conflict after a week then it could be postponed a bit more. Right now there is no conflict tho and likely wont be in a week. But a week I don't think will be too risky as long as promising signs show up, and no disrespect but that covers your attitude on the situation as well.--Sefre  [[Image:Sefresig.jpg|15px|]] Talk*Cont. 06:18, 3 May 2007 (CEST)
 * Okey, no problem. Can we agreed that by may 10. all candidates will be ready and we will have a vote that will end 13. may ? GCardinal 06:22, 3 May 2007 (CEST)
 * I'd support a maximum of one week, at the risks mentioned above. I will in no way set a double standard by pushing a policy without others agreeing to it. But where I am coming from is just that to long will be for the worse. A week shouldn't be to bad, and with your advertising attempts people should be coming, so for the time being I will support a short period to allow new ideas and voting, but keep in mind my issue is that it will take too long to do it.--Sefre  [[Image:Sefresig.jpg|15px|]] Talk*Cont. 06:27, 3 May 2007 (CEST)
 * The date we agree on will be the day when it happens. And if we do agree to vote on May 8-9-10 and then give 3-5 days to vote I will make sure that it happen without any delay for any reason. GCardinal 06:34, 3 May 2007 (CEST)


 * I would say may 7, and let voting go on until may 10. Either way, the date should be put on PvX:Policy, and perhaps the discussion on PvX talk:Policy. -- Armond Warblade[[Image:Armond sig image.png]] 21:12, 3 May 2007 (CEST)

Hey there
I don't want to be different just to be a thorn in anyone's side, but I think you're right about putting off the policy vote until we have a larger population of users here at PvX. Once we get some more users here, it will have a positive, snowball effect on the wiki here. I'm not sure if you remember me from GWiki, but I put a lot into the builds section there. It's a shame about what happened to it, but we have a shot at making something better here. We shouldn't make the same mistakes twice. Anyways, I've archived more of GWiki's best builds than anyone else, as you can see over here. I've read that, for one reason or another, the builds here may need to deleted entirely. If that's the case, I can share those that I have on my hard drive with the other users here, and we can at least rebuild the best of the builds. I'll be around, but if you need to get in touch with me, just message my talk page. - Krowman  (talk • contribs) 06:54, 3 May 2007 (CEST)
 * Hello Krowman and nice to see you here! There was some issues on copyright but they are resolved now and administrators of GuildWiki has kindly linked to our site from GuildWiki, so we are pretty much set here and ready to go. The only thing missing is the policy and I'm glad that someone supports my point of view :) Hope you will enjoy your time here GCardinal 06:56, 3 May 2007 (CEST)
 * To decide on a Builds policy, how are you going to organize the vote? Are you going to have people place their votes at 5 different locations and then add them up? I propose just starting a brand new page with links to, and a short synopsis of, all the candidates to be voted upon, and then hold the vote on the talk page of that article. It keeps all the votes in one location, making it easier for voters and those counting the votes, as well as clearly presenting all the potential candidates in one convenient location. - [[Image:Kowal.jpg|15px]] Krowman  (talk • contribs) 07:31, 3 May 2007 (CEST)
 * That exactly how it will be. Each user will be given 1 vote to place on 1 policy he likes. Things are totally chaos at the moment since few people have posted and re-posted same statements all over wiki. Thing will be organized and voting process will be clean and simple :) By the way you are also welcome to write a proposal :) GCardinal 07:38, 3 May 2007 (CEST)
 * If I were to suggest something, it would be a combination of GuildWiki's No Original Builds idea for PvP, and this site's Percentage Scoring System for original, PvE builds. I'll think about it, but I believe people will want to submit their original PvP builds for evaluation here. - [[Image:Kowal.jpg|15px]] Krowman  (talk • contribs) 07:57, 3 May 2007 (CEST)
 * Sure why not it's a different kind of system and maybe some people will like it :) Check out Voting on Vetting Policy. Maybe you can write policy proposal ? GCardinal 08:01, 4 May 2007 (CEST)

Hello
Hey, I am Readem from da wiki. I want to review all of PvX current policies. Is there any page you could link me to? Readem (talk *contribs ) 07:42, 3 May 2007 (CEST)
 * PvXwiki:Policy. Hijacked! - [[Image:Kowal.jpg|15px]] Krowman  (talk • contribs) 07:58, 3 May 2007 (CEST)
 * We are currently in processing of establishing new policy. More information about this project can you fond in Community Portal. GCardinal 08:01, 3 May 2007 (CEST)

User CSS/JS
Can you change these two lines in : $wgEnableUserCss = true; $wgEnableUserJs = true;

Enables user CSS and JS, for stuff like Special:Mypage/monobook.js. It's enabled on all Wikipedia projects, GuildWiki, GuildWarsWiki, etc. --Dirigible2
 * It will be enabled as soon as PvXcode development will be finished. In a week or two. GCardinal 08:48, 3 May 2007 (CEST)

Voting system
Hi I'm the GWiki administrator and I'm currently testing an ajax extension: AjaxRatingScript. There are some issues with the parser cache, but I think it can be fix. I think it could interest you ;) --Ouroboros 07:53, 4 May 2007 (CEST)
 * Ooops, I give you an example of a live sample: . --Ouroboros 07:55, 4 May 2007 (CEST)
 * Hi there :) I have tested it to, and it does work quite well. And I have made proposal on using system like that: Rating System but no one seems to like it :/ GCardinal 07:59, 4 May 2007 (CEST)
 * Gcardinal, I think something like this is much more simple than what you proposed in Rating System. To be honest you have a few different ideas there, trying to evaluate builds in multiple ways, and the ideas aren't expressed well.  If you could get a simple rating tool like that working on this wiki, and write a clear and straightforward policy around it, I think it would have a much better chance than your current proposal. -- BrianG 04:57, 5 May 2007 (CEST)