User talk:Calebchiam

I have archived my talkpage for the eighth time. I archive after every 50 sections or so. On my talkpage, please remember to be civil and polite. If you ask, I'll be glad to add you to my friends list. Also, remember not to leave messages like this after I archive (referring to certain dubious individuals). Thanks.

Stuff and things
Sorry man, I didn't make it back this morning, real life and such. I'll be happy to talk to you when you make it on later though.--Degenret01 21:36, October 9, 2009 (UTC)

A better explination
Last night I thought up a better way of explaining my warn/block method. I have never thought of it this way before, but it seems to explain it quiet well. I have two kinds of vandals: Opportunistic vandals and Vandal vandals. 01:29, October 10, 2009 (UTC)
 * Opportunistic vandals only vandal because they see the edit option and wonder "what will happen if I change something". They don't intend to harm the wiki, they are more curious. When they are warned, they stop vandalising since they realise that there are consequences for their actions. Most also seem to believe that they are completely anonymous since they are an ip. A majority of vandals seem to be this kind, with with gemw vandals the most common since the "update" button is right there in-front of them on every page, waiting to be abused. I never block these users since once warned, they don't vandalise any more and there is a chance that they might become a productive member of society.
 * Vandal vandals are the vandals that intend on harming the wiki. They are not curious about what happened, they just want to have fun be spamming and removing content. They become separated from Opportunistic vandals by ignoring a warning and vandalise another page. I would also consider users that try to push the boundaries by going crazy spamming swear words and/or racist comments vandal vandals. I block these kind of users since they really are vandals imo. I realise that "vandal vandals" is a horrible way of describing them, it was just a simple way of putting it.
 * I misspelt explanation in the heading I probably should have been more specific on the quotes. For the first one, I really only wanted the first sentence about not being too hard to an ip. The basic message of that quote to me is that you always have the option to (increase the) block if they continue on vandalising, preaching being hesitant to block. The second quote is about how you use that quote to the extreme. If someone vandalises 5 pages, it is worth up to a week long block. You would block for three days for one fifth only one vandal.
 * I am amazed how easily we managed to untangle the mess that I created to figure out where we differ, especially since I had such a bad argument/discussion thing yesterday. 03:32, October 10, 2009 (UTC)
 * To me, as long as a message does not go into the swearing/racism/personal vendetta league, one edit = one case of vandalism. Blanking one paragraph is just as bad as blanking the entire page, replacing the entire page with noob is just as bad as randomly writing noob at the start of a paragraph, vandalising one parameter of the gemw field is just as bad as vandalising three. No matter what they do, it is still vandalism.
 * I was also thinking about why I undervalue gemw to mainspace. To me, if someone vandalises gemw pages, then I think that they are more likely to be an opportunistic vandal. The GEMW pages are in obscure location with minimal visibility, and when players click update they are thrown onto the edit screen. 05:01, October 10, 2009 (UTC)
 * To me, a warning is the best method of separating them into the two categories. I will show how it would play out in your example.
 * The user blanks the entire page. I warn him, and if he vandalises again I block him 3 days.
 * The user removed the intro as a form of vandalism. I warn him and if he vandalises again, I block him 3 days.
 * The user removes the intro because he does not deem it necessary and does not leave a summary why. I warn him, he leaves a message saying otherwise. I apologise saying it is my fault for misinterpreting his edit, mention that he should always leave an edit summary then revert my edit if needed.
 * I do wonder what a better way to respond to the situation would be. I sorted him into one of the categories and blocked him if he was blockworthy, made up with him if I was wrong. Normally I would also check his previous edits to see how he has been editing to make sure, but I assume that this is the users first edit.
 * While I have only probably blocked one or two dozen users, I only give a 3 day block for defying a warning or any of the other blockworthy offences. I would give a week if they defy their ban and vandalise again 3 days later, and then a month after that. I have never encountered anything past this, and probably never will.
 * I really don't see the difference between changing one parameter and multiple parameters, they seem just as bad to me. I get the feeling that we will never be able to agree on this point. 06:22, October 10, 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, good to end it. I think that debate has to go in contention with the debate I had with plqx for the title of the longest debate I have ever been in. Thanks for spending that much time wading through all the muck I wrote to reach a conclusion. 06:34, October 10, 2009 (UTC)
 * One more thing. Which other admins block the same way as you?? I know that Karlis and Degen do, though who else?? 06:38, October 10, 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, makes sense. With the exception of powers who is semi-retired, I am never on-line at the same time as them which is probably why I thought that you were the exception. I am only really aware of how you, Muzzy, Powers, Ruud and Karlis blocked. 06:45, October 10, 2009 (UTC)

Jesse whitfield
I was just putting the d template in that article when you deleted it >.< 10:50, October 10, 2009 (UTC)


 * File:Avatar.png... Lol? I had already reverted it >.< 11:16, October 10, 2009 (UTC)

Gotcha.
Fair enough. The author didn't go into enough detail to warrant a personal tag, but if it's true, it's an unpatched bug. WWTDD? 12:57, October 10, 2009 (UTC)
 * Apart from the one I mentioned earlier, nope, no objection. WWTDD? 13:01, October 10, 2009 (UTC)

Category help
Can you help me? I want to remove Forum:Game Guide image template from the transparency category, but I don't want to remove the link from the page. Is there a way to link to a category without adding the page to said category? 08:12, October 12, 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it was just aggravating me to have that in the category. 08:19, October 12, 2009 (UTC)


 * It was a red link and a search did not bring up a page, so I removed it to make it disappear from wanted pages. 10:58, October 12, 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand the point of Special:WantedPages. I did not think an article needed to be created for Quest reward, as the quest rewards are at the end of each quest, and there is Quest experience rewards. Also, some quest rewards are repetitive, and any unusual or unique quest rewards generally recieves their own page. 11:10, October 12, 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I guess a page like that could be created, but really the only things it would contain are the quest complete images. Instead, how about making a new category, called Quest rewards? The quest reward articles, like Ava's accumulator,

could be added to the category. 11:25, October 12, 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you want to use the first idea instead? Basically it would be a page that lists each quest, and the rewards for it. I don't know if this is a good idea or not, but it has been done before, with Quest experience rewards. 11:45, October 12, 2009 (UTC)


 * One last thing before I do it. Do you think I should put the 'quest complete' images too? It would make the page pretty large, even if thumbnails are used. 11:50, October 12, 2009 (UTC)


 * I just found List of quests, which already has all the data in a table. So I don't think the page is needed.


 * I just wanted to check with you, because I did not want to create a page and work on it for a while just to have it deleted. 12:29, October 12, 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, but that means quests without material rewards will not be listed. 12:48, October 12, 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's done, until the next quest. Hey, how do you make those smileys?

PSLE
Yep, they are. ^^ BTW, I got RI DSA and NUSHS. 06:20, October 14, 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! 09:35, October 15, 2009 (UTC)
 * I feel that all of them are moderate! Maths is probably because of last question, it can be found on Yahoo news. C00l dud4 09:56, October 15, 2009 (UTC) (forgot to sign)
 * Lol? I don't know... 09:56, October 15, 2009 (UTC)

Ban appeal
Ip 99.55.167.157 is trying to appeal the ban that he has. Since it is only minor and you banned him, I feel that you should make the judgement. I just realised that Admins are Judge, Jury and Executioner on these subjects =P. 03:30, October 15, 2009 (UTC)

Re:FIMG nomination
Hey. I truly don't know what to do. I am not familiarised with the FIMG process. The opposes can never really be refuted because it is up to personal opinion I believe. In the end, I think it comes down to how many opposes and supports in the end. Because I am not familiarised, I'm not going to do anything. Sorry mate. Also, I agree with your concerns for the image Cheers,  08:16, October 15, 2009 (UTC)

Revenant hunting
I don't know what to redirect Revenant Hunting to. There are two articles Pay-to-play Revenant hunting guide and Free-to-play Revenant hunting guide, so I don't think a disambig should be created. 07:02, October 16, 2009 (UTC)