User talk:Shadowcrest

Oh why can't this wiki have a Template:Clear like Guildwiki? /sigh.. --Shadowcrest 04:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Many wiki(a)s have them located at T:Clr, T:Clrl, and T:Clrr. :) --Sky (t · c · w) 22:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Win! I've only used GuildWiki and other Guild Wars wikis, didn't know that. Thanks! --Shadowcrest 20:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Fighter Pages

First of all, thanks for helping out with cleaning up the character pages. Secondly, just so your not editing something that is going to go away soon, take a look at SmashWiki:Post-Merge Cleanup to see the format that all the fighter pages are going to be put in once I/we get enough time to do them all. Falco (SSBB) and Meta Knight (SSBB) are already in this format. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 14:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I had noticed the format on different characters was off. I'll work on it when I get the chance (eg now). --Shadowcrest 02:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Or not, I apparently share an IP with GalaxiaD and have been banned until tomorrow. Unless Randall checks his email between now and then. Remind me to rant on the admin noticeboard (wherever it is) about not using the auto-block feature. --Shadowcrest 03:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we have to use the auto-block feature because many of the vandals have a range of computers or a slightly variable IP. Hitting with auto-blocks keeps them from just logging out after they are banned. It's much easier than calculating a binary range block code, and most of the admins wouldn't even know what to do. Plus, that can go wrong and lock out whole continents. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 20:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I have a perfectly reasonable and rational explanation in my head, but it doesn't look good on paper :<

On an unrelated note, who are the prominent members here? There are a couple sysops that I can think of, but other than that I don't know anyone but Entrea, GalaxiaD and Oxico (and they have both left, or so I hear). --Shadowcrest 21:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, Randall00 and I are the most active sysops on here. I take care of a lot of the day to day work and gameplay information and Randall does a lot of the back end work, although we really do whatever is needed at any point in time. Sky2042 is another sysop, and he's probably the most knowledgeable about templates and MediaWiki type stuff. Also, Silverdragon706 is a sysop, but she hasn't been around as much lately. The active non-sysops that I often work with are Gargomon251 and Wolf O'Donnell, as well as my crewmate Ax. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 21:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

re-write of Zelda (SSBB) article

moved to User:Shadowcrest/Zelda

qualms with merge-cleanup

1. Costumes, Entrance, idle poses, victory pose
2. changes from melee->brawl
3. debut
4. audio
5. rename of tilts

auto-block

go rant. --Shadowcrest 04:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

And prepare for a policy invasion. Must set up for that too. --Shadowcrest 04:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me have a look at fixing the block. --Sky (t · c · w) 16:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Should be fixed. --Sky (t · c · w) 16:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Still blocked. #818, if you need it. --Shadowcrest 16:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, only my IP is banned. My account is fine. Since Galaxia and I share(d) an IP, autoblock banned my IP for a day, and I am thus unable to contribute outisde my talk page. --Shadowcrest 17:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, that stinks. (By the way, Hi!) I must be missing something here, what with mostly being outside the community here, but... what exactly got Galaxia (and, by extension, you) banned at all?–Entrea Sumatae 17:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Entrea! How'd you find me here? You weren't even on IRC when I brought SSBwikia up.

I'm not quite sure, really. I think it involved him being a prick to someone who was an admin and they blocked him for it. Oh, and it might have also involved impersonating a user (who I think was an admin, and the same admin at that). Except for the impersonation, would you agree that would not have happened on guildwiki? --Shadowcrest 17:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I found you here because I RC patrol here too. I usually just correct facts and such, mostly ignoring talkpages and such except for rumors or stuff that are up for deletion. As for what happened, I still have no idea what event sparked it, but I'm sure as hell that a 3-month ban for a first block wouldn't last more than a couple hours on GuildWiki before someone overruled it.–Entrea Sumatae 17:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It's odd that on GWiki I don't do a lot of mainspace overhauls and crusades, but here I am planning on cleaning up a bunch of stuff. Did you know this place merged with Wikia like we did? And they all hate monaco? If I could figure out how to change the logo, I'd give them the "monobookization" customization Pan/Jedi/May did.

Unless it was Raptors (raa!) a 3 month ban would never have passed, I agree. I also saw a threat to ban anyone who disagreed with the blocking of Galaxia- am I correct in saying that that would have resulting in possibly a consequence as severe as desysoption on Guildwiki?

Do you think it would be a good idea to import a bunch of our commonly referred to policies? NPA, 1RV, maybe YAV, AGF, AUNC (users not content)? And the admin noticeboard. --Shadowcrest 18:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure it would be a cause for desysoption (unless they actually carried out the threat): everyone overreacts sometimes.

And I did know about the Wikia merge (except they actually did merge, Wikia didn't have a Guild Wars wiki when we were absorbed). And if they don't like Monoco, showing them how to monobookize would be great. And yes, every wiki should have the exact same policies and stuff as ours, but it's probably unneeded to do a major overhaul.–Entrea Sumatae 18:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, stupid line.–Entrea Sumatae 18:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Since I can't post anywhere other than my talkpage, I have to do everything here until I'm unblocked. Including importing policies, test revision of the Zelda (SSBB) article, and any other main/wikispace action I would have taken until then. I'm separating the talk from the policy with (you guessed it) a line. I hate licensing. A lot. Why couldn't guildwiki be GFDL?!? :( --Shadowcrest 18:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure there must be some way to have our customizations without our logo (Smashwiki with Guildwiki logo in the corner lol), so I'm going to find it.–Entrea Sumatae 18:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The simplest way would be to ask Pan, but he hasn't been seen in quite some time. --Shadowcrest 18:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Easy. Copy [1] to it's SmashWiki counterpart (Or your monaco.css). Monobook background looks a little wierd with Beach, but that can be changed.–Entrea Sumatae 18:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Way to edit conflict me. That's basically what I was going to say. We'd have to persuade smashwiki to set the same code but with their logo as their default to import it. I think. --Shadowcrest 18:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The code there will use SmashWiki's own code. On my own .css, I fixed the colors too. It has the right colors and logo, so anyone who likes the monobooco skin can just copy (or import) that. By the way, monobooco is now the official name for the Monoco/Monobook hybrid.–Entrea Sumatae 18:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

According to who? Lol

I'd test importing your page, but I probably can't edit my own monaco.css. Anti-lol. --Shadowcrest 18:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

You should be unblocked now. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 20:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. --Shadowcrest 20:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

---

SW:NPA

Do not make personal attacks anywhere in GuildWiki. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks will not help you make a point; they hurt the community and deter users from helping create good articles. Equally, accusing someone of making a personal attack is not something that should be done lightly, especially if you are involved in a dispute. It is best for an uninvolved observer to politely point out that someone has made a personal attack, and for the discussion to return to considering the content, not the person.

What is considered a personal attack?

Different contributors often do not agree on some of the content within an article. Contributors often are members of opposing communities who wish to have their viewpoints included in articles. Synthesizing these views into a single article creates a better article for everyone. Every person who edits an article is part of the same community.

Editors should be civil when stating disagreements. Comments should not be personalized and should be directed at content and actions rather than people. However, when there are disagreements about content, referring to other editors is not always a personal attack. A posting that says "Your statement about X is wrong because of information at Y", or "The paragraph you inserted into the article looks like opinion", is not a personal attack. Even some comments that might appear to be a personal attack, such as labeling an edit that removes a substantial amount of text as "vandalism", may be well-intentioned. The appropriate response to such statements is to address the issues of content rather than to accuse the other person of violating this policy.

There is no clearly defined rule or standard about what constitutes a personal attack as opposed to constructive discussion, but some types of comments that are never acceptable include but are not limited to:

• Racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, or ethnic epithets directed against another contributor. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual preference, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse.
• Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme.
• Threats of legal action.
• Threats of physical violence, particularly death threats.
• Threats of vandalism to userpages or talk pages.
• Threats to interfere with the usual operation of a user's computer.
• Threats or actions which expose other contributors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others.
• Posting a link to an external source that fits the commonly accepted threshold for a personal attack, in a manner that incorporates the substance of that attack into discussion, including the suggestion that such a link applies to another editor, or that another editor needs to visit the external source containing the substance of the attack.

Additionally, editors are strongly discouraged from using profanity in comments to other contributors. These examples are not inclusive. Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all.

The prohibition against personal attacks applies equally to all contributors, including admins. It is as unacceptable for anyone to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action as it is to attack any other user. GuildWiki encourages a positive online community: people make mistakes, but they are encouraged to learn from them and change their ways. Personal attacks are contrary to this spirit and damaging to the continued growth of the wiki.

Responding to personal attacks

Initial options

Frequently, the best way to respond to an isolated personal attack is not to respond at all. Debates can become stressful for some editors, who may occasionally overreact. Additionally, talk page discussions are in a text-only medium that conveys nuances and emotions poorly; this can easily lead to misunderstanding. While personal attacks are not excused because of these factors, editors are encouraged to disregard angry and ill-mannered postings of others when it is reasonable to do so, and to continue to focus their efforts on improving and developing GuildWiki.

If you feel that a response is necessary and desirable, you should leave a polite message on the other user's talk page. Do not respond on a talk page of an article; this tends to escalate matters. Likewise, it is important to avoid becoming hostile and confrontational yourself, even in the face of abuse. When possible, try to find compromise or common ground regarding the underlying issues of content, rather than argue about behavior. If you are too angry to respond without violating this policy, consider taking a short break from the wiki, or contact an admin.

Attacks that are particularly offensive or disruptive (such as physical or legal threats) should not be ignored. Extraordinary situations that require immediate intervention are rare, but may be reported to any active site admin on their talk page.

Recurring attacks

Recurring personal attacks that do not stop after reasoned requests to cease should be reported to any active site admin on their talk page. Especially when personal attacks arise as the result of heated debate over article content, informal mediation and discussions with third parties are often the best ways to resolve the conflict. In most circumstances, problems with personal attacks can be resolved if editors work together and focus on content, and immediate administrator action is not required.

Removal of text

Removing unquestionable personal attacks from your own user talk page is much less of a concern than removing comments from other pages in GuildWiki. For text elsewhere, where such text is directed against you, removal requests should be directed to an admin to determine if the comments should remain, be archived, or be deleted. However, deletion should be rare, limited to situations where the comments pose an ongoing threat to a user such as revealing personal information in the attack.

Consequences of personal attacks

Although editors are encouraged to ignore or respond politely to isolated personal attacks, that should not imply that they are acceptable or without consequences. A pattern of hostility reduces the likelihood of the community assuming good faith, and can be considered disruptive editing.

Users who insist on a confrontational style marked by personal attacks can receive administrative disciplinary action, including short-term or extended bans. If an administrator believes that a personal attack is severe or disruptive enough to warrant it, a user may also receive disciplinary action on a first offense. Subsequent violations can result in disciplinary action, such as bans, being applied for longer durations.

---