User talk:Erasculio/Archives

This page is an archive. The contents have been moved from another page for reference purposes only, and should be preserved in their current form. Discussion or voting on this page is not current. Any additions you make will probably not be read.
The current version of this page can be found at User talk:Erasculio.

I'd try to get you bot status but then RC'd be empty. :P
Carry on =) A F K When Needed 06:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

: ) Erasculio 10:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Concepts

I can confirm that Battle at Orr and Charr concept are not official names, they are based on description. Charr concept was taken from the trailer, and Battle of Orr was taken from the trailer but has since had the "real" version uploaded over it. --Santax (talk · contribs) 13:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Spirits of the Wild links

Nothing states they are no longer existent. I guess because there is no mention of them, the spirit of Mountains, Seasons, Fire and Darkness no longer exist. I guess because there has been no new information on it, the Exodus of the Gods no longer happened. We have in game mention of lesser spirits - lesser means less importance thus less mentions and, for all we know, no form to them. I don't think we should be removing them from the god nav, yet. -- Konig/talk 17:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Uh, do we have mention of "lesser" spirits? This article is likely wrong - there isn't anything there stating the idea that the Owl spirit is lesser than the Raven spirit. All that Egil's quote mentions is how Bear is the mightiest spirit, but he doesn't state the others aren't anything less than equals.

Likewise, the information we have about the Norn spirits in GW1 is conflicting with itself, as the manual mentions a snow lynx spirit which Egil does not mention, and he has no reason to not mention all the spirits they revere. Considering this lack of coherency, it isn't impossible, not even unlikely, to think that Arena Net just retconned the other spirits away.

And if that's not true, if those spirits are actually mentioned in GW2...Then we can add their articles. Just like there's really no point for an article about Abaddon, if the god isn't mentioned at all in GW2; he happened, yes, but his story is part of GW1, not GW2. Erasculio 22:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

For the lesser spirits part, they are called lesser because they are not focused as much as the other three. The manual is made in beta or pre-beta of the game, and there are often points which are incorrect - for instance, the Factions manual bring up a completely unknown name for the leader of the Aerie. But until it is known if the spirits - Owl, Ox, and Wurm - are retconned out of the game lore, we shouldn't think it is. This is like saying that because there has been no further mention on Rotscale's origin, that he wasn't raised by the Stone Summit in the Shiverpeak Mountains, just because the Scribe doesn't mention he was animated that way. And yes, that argument was made by others and it is the exact same idea. Edit: And unlike with Abaddon, these spirits did not die. -- Konig/talk 23:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Uh, the fact they are not focused as much as the other spirits to our characters in game doesn't mean they are lesser spirits to the Norn. Not only no one ever claim they are lesser spirits, but they could have been simply the least useful to our characters in the game, or just spirits who weren't fond of helping human beings. It's a giant leap of logic to claim that the fact they are not represented as often as the others in the game is a sign of how those spirits would be lesser than the others; you could make the same claim regarding Melandru and the other five gods (as Grenth and Balthazar have their own realm, Lyssa has a shrine in Vabbi, Dwayna is mentioned all the time and we help make Kormir, but Melandru isn't mentioned as often).

You don't know if those spirits have died; you also don't know if they have been retconned away. What we do know is that which spirits exist is a matter of controversy (see the manual), and that no mention has been made in GW2 about any of them. Even if they have existed, there is no reason to assume they still do, not unlike the Titans.

(And there's nothing here about being raised by Stone Summit, for the records.) Erasculio 00:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I concede the lesser spirit part, but there being less interaction does point to that. Either way, that, in this discussion, is unimportant. And no, I don't know if those spirits have died or not, but a lack of new information does not mean that we shouldn't show the old information we have - it could be that they are lesser spirits, or less combat related (thus for now and most Norn, they are viewed as lesser spirits compared to the other 4). If it is retconned, then we can change it later, instead of removing it now just to add it back later, that seems pointless to me. And the lore on Rotscale being raised by the Stone Summit comes from beta, just because no one bothered to put it on there, or confirmed if that lore was retconned, doesn't mean it was. -- Konig/talk 03:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not about showing old information we have - we have no GW2 information about them. Given how this is, after all, the GW2 wiki, I see no point in mentioning them. For the records, given how the lore about Rotscale doesn't exist officially, I would also not add it to the wiki. Erasculio 08:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

GW1 lore affects GW2 lore, just as GW2 lore will affect GW1, and just as beta lore - until confirmed to be changed - affects the released game. If we say beta lore is not canon, then nothing we have for GW2, to be honest, because we're not even in the beta stage yet. In reality, it is canon until we have lore that came later contradicting it (i.e., retconning). -- Konig/talk 18:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

You...!

Make my deleting finger tired. -.- 11:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

It's ok, now I only have to rename the 152 pieces of concept art (and maybe a few renders) and we'll be done : ) (kidding, kidding). Erasculio 11:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Block

Unfortunately, it's come to the point where I've had to deal out a block for one of those discretionary-type issues. Santax, for one, has attempted to advise you or ask you to stop being less aggressive; I've given a somewhat official warning. However, your talk page comments today have included attacks on contributors, and they've been in an aggressive and non-civil manner, so it seems that those messages didn't work. One person acting in this way in such a small community has a more substantial negative effect than in a larger community.

As an aside, "how the lowest denominator is free to edit them" is one of the advantages of a wiki - anyone comes in and edits with good intent, and others improve, preferably without attacking the former editor. "As always regarding the wiki, wait until there's consensus for a change before trying to implement it" - the concept of being bold contradicts this, and I feel this applies here. I find Santax's revert appropriate, considering the opposition to your edit and the nature of your replies. However, I don't agree with your revert - at that point, it would have been best to continue the discussion (obviously in a productive and civil way) to find a solution or compromise. -- pling 13:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Formidable to Adaptable

Why'd you move the Formidable concept art to Adaptable_concept_art_0.jpg? The next version they release is likely to have a different word associated with it.-- Shew 15:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

"taking charge"?

I don't mean to sound too abrupt, but you seem to have a bad habit of making large changes without the consent of anyone else, which although is not specifically against rules, is an unnecessary thing to do in a community-based site like this, where every opinion matters. :D Secondly, the way you do it (a rather rude way, to be precise) is less than desirable.... I just wanted to mention this to you, because I feel perhaps you do not realize you act this way, and for all I know you could be a very kind individual who just made a few mistakes. ^^; I trust you are an intelligent individual, and as such I expect you shall grow as time passes. :) 75.90.149.4 17:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I have to wonder how much anal retentive someone has to be in order to believe that renaming two images equals "making large changes". If you would like to know what "large changes" are, I would be glad to teach you. Erasculio 02:14, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh haha I am not just referring to renaming images, but I suppose that could be included. ^_^; But, I've said my share and trust you are mature enough to handle the rest on your own. :D Good luck! 75.90.149.4 02:18, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Erasculio, I've warned and blocked you before about attacks and incivility - since your return, you've continued to act the same way. -- pling

16:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Hold on

Hey dude, stop with all the reediting and see what we've decided on first for categorizing. Clearly you weren't thinking about what you were doing, or you wouldn't have called Quaggan‎, Ogres, Mursaat, and Trolls all "playable species" :P. Please just chill and see what others have to say about categorizing; you AREN'T the only person on this site, after all... 173.190.17.186 00:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes it does feel like I am the only person who can read, though. Erasculio 00:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Well I'd like to know what you call "reading", Your justification for changing it was "Does the official site say "playable races" or "playable species"?"... Do you know what you're talking about? o_O 173.190.17.186 00:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

If you would like to know what "reading" means, I would suggest trying www.dictionary.com It's also a good place where to find out what the word "correlation" means. Erasculio 00:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Look, I guess I'll come out and say it: Your arrogant and ignorant attitude stinks, and the stench is filling up the website. So basically cool it and start working with others, or maybe you should leave. :P I mean honestly, you rely solely on your own opinions, and when someone challenges you on it, you stoop lower and lower. :P Honestly, smarten up already. 173.190.17.186 00:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Someone whose only arguments are personal attacks hardly qualifies as a good source of advice, or as a good source of any change to the wiki. No. Erasculio 00:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, if it is advice you want, then all right. Try being more polite to people, as well as opening your mind a little bit. It's amazing how much more one can see when one isn't shut in the corners of their opinions. It'll make you a more pleasant person, and you may come to make more friends. However, your specific trait that is slightly problematic is your strong desire to do things yourself. This can be a wonderful trait for certain aspects or jobs, but on a wiki site where everyone's opinion matters and nothing should happen without the consent of others; that's not a good trait to have. For instance: Many of the changes you made should not have happened, since you had not spoken with others about it. Konig took the time to talk with others on the ideas for categorizing these things, and you suddenly barge in with no specific permissions, and basically do your own thing regardless of what others are thinking. Although a bit thoughtless, I'm sure you did not do this on purpose; perhaps you were unaware that we were beginning a new system of classification for the moment. Whatever the case may be, you can see how the desire to do something yourself can be problematic... But, as I said earlier, I'm sure you will be able to learn to improve beyond these faults. After all, a "flaw" is simply an opportunity to improve oneself. :) 173.190.17.186 01:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Please, oh mighty source of wisdom, would you like to clarify how you went from the comment "Someone whose only arguments are personal attacks hardly qualifies as a good source of advice" to "if it is advice you want"? It's no wonder that such logic led to the Category:Playable RACES being removed from the [[:Category:Races]]. Erasculio 01:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Lol clearly you misunderstood. You were mistaking my scolding your actions as some sort of "advice", so I took the liberty of showing you what advice is. :) You're welcome! ^_^ 173.190.17.186 01:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course. So claiming I would want advice does not mean you thought, rather erroneously, that I would be interested in your opinion. If you would allow me to give you some advice: remember that site I mentioned above, www.dictionary.com? I would suggest using it before trying to speak. It's a good idea to know what you are saying before you do so.

And here, have a smile ^_^ Erasculio 01:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, I understand how people like you defend themselves, and it's only natural you would stoop to insults. :D But I wont give up, and please, try to follow some of my advice. It really might help. ^_^ And if you ever need more advice, I'm here for you. :) We all have flaws, and as humans it is a completely normal thing. Our job is to work on those things, and try to better ourselves, as well as help others better themselves. Sometimes it takes encouragement, and other times it takes a wake-up call ^_^ but in the end we're not alone, and there are others willing to help you. I must be going in a moment, but I do hope you have a great evening! 173.190.17.186 01:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I have heard of people who, when asked questions they could not propely answer to, hard to resort to insults such as "Your arrogant and ignorant attitude stinks". Woe to those people! Erasculio 01:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

(lol some "intellect" you have: you didn't even ask questions, silly) :D 173.190.17.186 01:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, which means you admit you had to resort to insults? Erasculio 01:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, much better after a quick therapeutic cup of tea. :)Well, I don't think I really resorted to insults at all. I was going by literal meanings and a factual basis. "Ignorant" because you never take heed of what others tell you, as though you aren't even reading what they type. "Arrogant" because whenever someone opposes an action of yours, you reply in a condescending manner (Need I point you to the many talk pages on which you have done this?). I don't think I really "insulted" you because all my claims of your behavior were quite accurate. However, I feel I may have been too blunt. I am not in charge of this site, so I should not take it upon myself to correct problems. But unfortunately I have such a nasty habit of getting myself involved when I feel someone should be "called out" on their actions. Although you did need to hear what I told you, I don't know if I did it for the right reasons. My ultimate goal should be to help you improve, but I'm afraid I did it in anger, and for that I am sorry. It really is getting late, and I must be off to bed now, but I do hope you will consider my apology as well as my advice. Who knows? Perhaps someday we could even be friends ^_^ But for now I must depart, and I wish you a pleasant evening. 173.190.17.186 01:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Much better indeed. The argument of "it's not an insult because it's true" isn't something I agree with, but I accept your apology. I'll also apologize for my condescending behavior, then.

Now, for the reason behind this discussion: I don't agree with using "species" instead of "race", due to the following reasons:

When speaking about the different entities that exist in the world, Arena Net has used the word "races", not "species". For example, when speaking about the Charr and the Sylvari, Arena Net has not called then "species", rather "races". Now, centaurs are not playable races; but a centaur is as much akin to a Charr as an Asura is akin to a Charr. Therefore, we have no reason to assume that Charrs and Asuras are races, but Centaurs would be a specie.
Species are almost the end point of biological classification; they are not what we usually link to groups of animals in real life. For example, "rabbit" isn't a species; the animals we call "rabbits" are part of a family which includes multiple genera, each with multiple species. If "species" is not the proper way to classify "rabbits" in real life, why would it be the proper way to classify rabbits in the wiki?
Looking around the wiki, I haven't found a place discussing this (it isn't at the community portal, nor at the requests for comments, nor at the [[Guild_Wars_2_Wiki:Categorical_index|index of categories]] or at the [[:Category:Races|Races category]] or the [[:Category:Species|species category]]. Considering how big a change this is, it should be mentioned in at least one of those places in order for it to be truly considered as being accepted by consensus.

Erasculio 02:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) You are all causing an edit war, please stop editing the categories until consensus has been reached. Thank you. --hnzdvn 02:41, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Uhm

[[:Category:Species]] mimics its gw1w equivilant, also species is the correct term. Playable races is playable races because Anet uses that, but these are species and races, species is more specific, and playable races makes more sense then playable species. Just keep it as [[:Category:Species]] and Category:Playable races. I do not see what's so hard about it. -- Konig/talk 02:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

See last entry in the above section. Species does not mean what you think it means. Erasculio 02:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes it does. "a class of individuals having some common characteristics or qualities; distinct sort or kind.", " The major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species." "one of the classes of things included with other classes in a genus." "the species, the human race; mankind: a study of the species". Race? "races, a series of races, usually of horses or dogs, run at a set time over a regular course: They spent a day at the races." Same. Damn. Thing. In fact, Species is more specific and is the most accurate description. -- Konig/talk 02:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Also: "Reptiles have backbones and reptiles breath air. Your point?" Did you miss Norn have boobs? I.e., mammary glands? Asura was confirmed on Guru2 in the Library of Whispers forum (I can't find the thread atm - said thread said the asura laid eggs, which apparently freaked Ree out according to Martin who then said they are mammals). -- Konig/talk 02:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

So the female Norns have thorax protuberancies that look like breasts - congrats. Do they produce milk, or is it purely your assumption that they are mammary glands? Do the Norns have "sweat glands, hair and/or fur, three middle ear bones used in hearing, and a neocortex region in the brain", as described here? Is it even worth wasting time trying to implement such pointless categorization when there are more effective ways to categorize those entities?

And regarding the categories discussion, in order to allow people to actually find the discussion itself, see it here. Honestly. Erasculio 02:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Also on the norn: They can mate with humans, humans are mammals, so norn must be close enough genetically to humans to be able to have hybrid children. And yes norn do have hair. -- Konig/talk 03:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

If norns can mate with humans, and if you insist on using species as your categories, then by your quote above ("individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves") norns and humans are part of the same species, and therefore you would have to merge their articles unde the same page.

And more importantly: do norns have "three middle ear bones used in hearing, and a neocortex region in the brain"? Erasculio 03:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow, you honestly don't know what a hybrid is? Its a being that is born from two other beings of two different species which have a close enough DNA to be able to make said offspring and said offspring is sterile. For instance, a liger is a hybrid from a lion and a tiger, and a mule is a hybrid from a horse and a donkey. Are you that ignorant? All it means is that their species are closely related via DNA and that they can produce hybrid offspring. -- Konig/talk 03:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and if you really think that the norn can have 90% qualifications to be mammals and not have that last 10%, you're clearly just instigating arguments. Seriously, what happened to you to make you turn into a complete assfucking bastard? And idc if I get a temp ban for that, because it's the truth, and in my opinion: Truth!=Insults. -- Konig/talk 03:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh mighty King, you don't have to resort to insults in order to hide your lack of knowledge about taxonomy. Do you have any proof that the result of the mating of norns and humans is sterile? Or is it just one more of your assumptions that such offspring would be sterile, and thus a hybrid?

And I'm still waiting for an answer to my question, do the norns have "three middle ear bones used in hearing, and a neocortex region in the brain"? Because if the requirement to be a mammal is, "Mammals (formally Mammalia) are a class of vertebrate, air-breathing animals whose females are characterized by the possession of mammary glands while both males and females are characterized by sweat glands, hair and/or fur, three middle ear bones used in hearing, and a neocortex region in the brain", and out of 7 requirements we know the norn have 3, I do have to question your math in stating that they have "90% qualifications to be mammals". Erasculio 03:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

It is known norn and humans are different races, as such the offspring would be a hybrid thus sterile. I'm not hiding anything, I never said I was a know all about everything, if you think that I think I am then you're the one who's mistaken more than anyone else. The 90% was just a generalization. And we know they have mammary glands (there are no species in GW which has two lumps that have no purpose, except possibly the sylvari - this isn't D&D, Anet actually makes their lore reasonable and limits themselves to the laws of science (except where magic is involved)), they have h air, they do sweat (Sif: "That is one beast even I would break a sweat slaying."), we know they have backbones, and breath air and are animals. We don't know of the ear and bone, though considering how similar they are to humans, it's likely they have that. I.e., they have 4, and are highly likely to have 1, and are likely to have the last 2. -- Konig/talk 03:29, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

You are defeating your own argument by mentioning the Sylvari. They have breasts, yet they apparently don't have mammary glands, and they surely don't give milk to their young since they don't have youngs to feed. Likewise, we don't know if the norns have mammary glands; we don't know if the norns have sweat glands (or if they don't just sweat through sweat ducts); we don't know if the norn even need to breath; we don't know how the norn's middle ear work; we don't know how their brain work.

Which means, the time you are wasting talking about the boobs of Sylvari in my talk page is as much a waste as the time you have spent categorizing the norns into a mammals category. Such category is simply not necessary; do you truly believe someone is going to have the urge to know which entities in GW2 are mammals? Erasculio 03:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Exceptions to rules do not define the rules. That is what I was saying. We know next to nothing about the sylvari, and they are plants not animals - norn are animals. Now you're just grasping at straws with your arguments. Arguing with you is worse than discussing with Knighthonor. In time, the categories will become worth having, once we get more info it will be more and more filled. As we get more information, there will be a GW2 version of this, this, this, and so on. -- Konig/talk 03:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

There are no rules, because there's no need for such rules; norns don't have to be mammals to be norns. Interestingly enough, the GW1W does not have the classification you are trying to impose here - there's no "Mammals" category, rather a more useful "Social species" category which, despite having a wrong name, at least classifies the GW1 beings into something more useful and far more relevant than what real world class of vertebrates they could possibly belong to. You should follow categories like that instead of adopting random definitions. Erasculio 04:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

No, there's no mammals. But there is birds, reptiles, arthropodes, marine animals (could be fish, tbh). Mammals just one step over. And I personally find the social species to be redundant, to be honest - all sentient creatures are social. -- Konig/talk 04:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Removal of images from website screenshots cat

I see you removed the category "website screenshots" from the articles I added the cat to. The screenshots were "officially released" by ANet. They were posted by ANet staff in the conceptart.org thread, which makes them the first "officially released" screenshots, even if they were capped from the trailer (although it seems more likely they were capped during the filming of the trailer), they have the same quality as other officially released screenshots, and so I'd like to keep all those screenshots together in the same category (i.e. website screenshots), rather than have these high-quality screenies lost in a sea of low-quality ones in the trailer image cat. I would have removed the trailer template altogether but, well... --Santax (talk · contribs) 06:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Really

I saw you requesting action against two users already,... Please, just stop baiting :O. Be a nice guy, discuss with others, don't just do as you please and then get in people's face that want to talk about it (Or w/e you do for the sysops to call you 'aggressive'). --N aoroji 21:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

"Please wait until a consensus is reached on the categorization system before making unilateral changes. Remember, the wiki is a group effort : )"

I won't even go into how hypocritical that comment is. But there has been no issue proclaimed with Category:Animals. Only Mammals (which was deleted despite there being a discussion) and Species/Race. -- Konig/talk 01:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Please wait until a consensus is reached on the categorization system before making unilateral changes. Remember, the wiki is a group effort : ) Erasculio 01:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Either way, categories shouldn't be left uncategorized, and instead of acting smug and hypocritical, you should link to it instead. Also, the Category:Animals is not under sway, and since you reverted again, you just violated the revert policy five times. gg -- Konig/talk 01:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no revert policy in this wiki, actually. The administrators here do tend to follow the spirit behind the NPA policy, though, which means that claiming someone is "smug and hypocritical" would be condemned on this site.

And of course, you could claim that the discussion about the categorization of beings in the GW2 world does not include a discussion about the category Animals, but then my only reply would be, I guess, "gg". Erasculio 01:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

You are being smug though, your deletions and reversions were uncalled for. Personally I'm not happy with animal or mammal either, but that is not reason enough to delete the damn thing. A discussion is nice, so at least pretend to care what others think, Erasculio.--Corsair 01:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Take it easy guys. Neither of you needs to continue this circular arguing -> just walk away. Both of you. Konig, we're discussing a few things about categories and presentation on the Community portal talk - I would value your opinion there. In the meantime please leave things as they are right now (no more to and fro I don't care what state it is in). -- Aspectacle

01:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Corsair: I didn't actually delete anything, as only admins here can delete articles and categories. I only removed entries from a category that an admin had deleted (the Mammals category) and began a discussion about how to categorize the beings of the GW2. I have reverted Konig's latest edits since I don't consider it proper behavior for him to ignore our discussion, in which we are trying to gather everyone's opinion before implementing a full categories system, and just do whatever he feels like without talking to anyone about it. Erasculio 01:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not taking sides in this, since honestly I have no right to try to say whether it should be one or the other, but Erasculio, I think you're taking the NPA rule a little too far; it's not wrong to criticize someone's behavior so long as the goal is to help them improve that behavior.. however, I don't think Konig is doing it with that goal in mind... >_> I don't know... I suppose it is up to Pling to decide how far that rule should be taken, given there is also a civility policy that should be applied. ^^ But, like I said, I am honestly in no position to say who is "right" or "wrong". Konig, I think they have been talking about making some changes to the categorization... didn't you come up with something, Aspectacle? --Aman nelle

01:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

No more accusations, no more taking sides or telling people how to interpret rules. Everyone just walk away because for the most part you aren't helping fix this.

If any of you are actually interested in the category stuff and not the drama we're discussing a few things about categories and presentation on the Community portal talk - I would value any calm discussion there. In the meantime please leave things as they are right now (no more to and fro I don't care what state it is in). -- Aspectacle

02:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) As Corsair said: "A discussion is nice" - there should be discussion before action, and when I put Category:Animal into those categories, it was to prevent them from being uncategorized and there should not be uncategorized categories. If a category is changed/deleted, then make sure that the category is replaced unless it was empty! That simple. That's what I did and that was right to do.
Also, by what Corsair meant with delete was putting deletion tags everywhere and removing things from articles before discussion was finished. When I first added Category:Animals to those pages, I didn't know of the discussion. Why? because of hundreds of edits that clogged up recent changes, and due to how little info there is here, Requests for comments is still rather unused, and has been.
@Aspectacle: I wasn't with that goal in mind, I was instead pointing that while he calls me egotistical, he has no right to criticize me while his faults are so blantant as well. @Erasculio: I honestly don't know what your problem against me is, but you have been at me when there's discussion for a while, and what's worse is that you use my examples of why things are and should be in the wiki and want them changed or removed! You're on a crusade and few people agree with you. You're the one person who has made me contemplate leaving the gw community because I play gw to relax and I come to the wikis to help others - something you seem to enjoy doing the opposite. You stress me out despite knowing that I shouldn't give a shit about you. You constantly sarcastically call me "king" when Konig doesn't even mean king! Koenig does (unless you're dutch then it is Koning). I purposefully mispelt the name to avoid people like you calling me egotistical because of a simple name. You annoy me, and I would like you to stop.
That's all I have to say to you Erasculio. -- Konig/talk 02:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

"there should be discussion before action": exactly, so the next time you would like to make big changes without asking what anyone else think or bothering to look at the most obvious places of discussion, take some of your royal time to think about how the wiki is a community effort, not a place where your ego is allowed to ignore discussions (despite being told about them) and stomp over what everyone else thinks.

As the title of this section says, "Remember, the wiki is a group effort". It's sad that even when facing such an abusive sign of disdain for what the community is trying to discuss, your reaction is to say "that was right to do". Such behavior is far from being what one would do to "help others". Erasculio 22:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Wowo, stop!

Because, well, month names are in fact capitalised in the English language. So I guess the other images, that made you do this, were wrong D: --N aoroji 22:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Argh, that means we have to rename dozens of screenshots. Oh well, thanks for letting me know. Erasculio 22:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Ohey, I'll do them. I'll let you know if I really can't do any more, though :P. --N aoroji

22:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Meaningwhile, would you so kindly provide me with links to the images that originally had uncapitalised months in their names?... If that sentence made any sense, damn being Dutch. --N aoroji

22:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I see what you mean about the other screenshots having uncapitalised months in their filenames,... Guess we'd have to discuss it somewhere and reach a consensus. Hmm. --N aoroji

22:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Good idea, I'll join the discussion there too. Erasculio 23:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

SS

Actually, the pics you're moving the SS tag from, is kinda SS. I don't know what the SS box said, but these are screenshots from the GDC vids on youtube. Just saying :p --Huginn 09:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

We use "screenshot" to talk about in-game screenshots. The images I have edited are pieces of concept art (not from the GDC videos, they're from the first GW2 trailer), and so aren't really screenshots. The concept art box already states those images have been captured from a trailer, anyway. Erasculio 11:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Heh

I completely agree with your profession predictions :). Reaper of Scythes** 23:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

1RR

You realise that you violated here? --Santax (talk · contribs) 16:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

It speaks loads about your character that you would rather accuse me of violating an non existing policy instead of trying to discuss the issue at hand. Erasculio 17:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, let's discuss the issue at hand. The comments on character can be pushed aside.

I think this is a part of Guild Wars 2 Wiki talk:Formatting, but on this individual issue, I'd rather not have the "skill icon" bit - I don't think it's necessary, and we'll probably have no reason to disambiguate filenames with that and make them longer than they need to be. Also, regarding "chances are people are going to want to screenshot each individual skill's in-game effect" - for the however many years we've had GuildWiki and GWW, we haven't done that, so those chances are low. (Ok, yes, we have animations now, but they've got their own naming system.) Speaking of those wikis, they also leave out "skill icon" in their names, so there's an argument for consistency there. pling

19:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the "skill icon" bit would hurt, and I'm not concerned about cross-wiki consistency. This is a completely new project and a new game, the "skill icon" is just an extra safeguard to stop us from creating extra work for ourselves later on, we might just want to distinguish the skill icon for the fireball skill from, say a picture of a fireball. But that's just a suggestion, I'm not going to push this. What I am concerned about is Erasculio's own unwillingness to discuss the issue. He first reverted the change with no explanation, and then reverted again, violating 1RR (which I am aware is not official policy on this wiki, but Erasculio full well understands the principle behind it and simply chooses to ignore it). When the issue was raised, he again said to try to discuss the skill icon issue, but instead of trying to actually start a discussion himself he chose to make personal comments about my character. --Santax (talk · contribs) 11:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Pick your battles, really. If you're not too concerned about the naming of the icons, there's not much point saying how someone broke 1RR (his two edits were made with almost a month in between, so it's not really worth bringing up), especially if bringing it up will cause personal attacks or the like. pling

15:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I suppose you're right, my only issue is that Erasculio's problem isn't with the issue, more of a personal problem with me, one that won't go away just by ignoring it. But we'll see how it goes. --Santax (talk · contribs) 15:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

"useless" Redirects

The matter has already been discussed and the consensus has been reached that they are not useless. Me and User:Naoroji are already making redirects to improve the search function of this wiki. While I see what you mean on skill abbriviations recerts on pages such as [[Rupt]] are uncalled for. Like profession abbriviations those are already and use and will carry on being in use. Also, you can't argue with "GW2 community doesn't use it" because a large part of it is GW1 community which will use abbriviations common to the first instalment in regards to terms o the same name used in GW2. This includes WM for White Mantle and SB for Shining Blade. --Super Igor 13:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

"which will use": which is the entire flaw in your reasoning. We are not here trying to predict the future, we are here to document what is. If people do use those expressions, we can then make redirects; speculating that they will one day use them is just a guess. It's pretty much the same kind of argument that led to the deletion of the Crowd control article: whatever his name was insisted that "crowd control" is an expression commonly used by MMORPG players, and so it would be used by GW2 players, despite how no one is using it now. You are insisting that GW2 players will use the expression "rupt", despite how no one talks that often about GW2 interrupts now. In both cases the redirect is not necessary and is just trying to document something which does not exist. Erasculio 13:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Unlike crowd control, the term "Interrupt" has already been confirmed. "Rupt" is a common way to abbriviate it in general, not just in GW1. You should also keep in mind that a large part of GW2 community comes from GW1 and there is a high chance they will use the same abbriviation for terms of the same name used in GW2. This has been confirmed to be true with Warrior and Elementalist being referred to as "War" and "Ele". --Super Igor

13:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if...

Hey Erasculio...not sure if your involved in the decision or not...but I was wondering if you would like [[User:Aquadrizzt/Sandbox/Main Page/Gold|this]] as the main page? (I just want to get some more opinions before putting it up.) If you have any edits you wish to make to it, please just messsage me :) Aqua drizzt The Weapon Master 02:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Heh, I was actually writing about that when you left your message here. I like the layout, but I think the "Articles of interest" section needs to be reorganized. Erasculio 02:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

So I was wondering what you thought...how about grouping Movement of the World and FAQ into "Guild Wars 2" removing "Ecology of the Charr" entirely, and grouping all the other (non book) media releases into Media. Aqua drizzt The Weapon Master 02:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Would you mind?

If i stole your design and editted it a little? I really like yours, to the point that I think we should use yours :D Aqua drizzt The Weapon Master 01:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure, go for it, considering how I basically took your layout and adapted it in the first place : ) Erasculio 02:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

YAY...its finished (or is it -_-) [[User:Aquadrizzt/Sandbox/Main Page/v1|The New(est) Version]] Aqua drizzt The Weapon Master 02:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

You're not helping. :-) Ariyen 18:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

For someone who's complaining in CAPS about "do not make it go all over the place, it CONFUSES people", it's not exactly smart to try to discuss the issue in one more different place. Would it be really that hard to discuss the issue at the place it belongs to, and nowhere else? Erasculio 18:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Main Page/editcopy

I would like it if you reverted your shuffling around of comments. My comments only make sense in the section they were originally made in. For example, I was talking about Aquadrizzt's proposal, but you moved the comment to the "to change or not to change" section, so half of that comment is now irrelevant. Another of my comments was made in semi-reply to someone else, but it's somewhere completely different now. Others' comments are in similar situations.

I realise the editcopy was and is a mess, but large discussions typically are best read in the sequence they were made, not edited by someone else. Context is important. Also, it helps people to rejoin the discussion later, as they can see which sections and comments were replied to during their absence; that's largely not possible now.

That said, I'm fine with you moving discussions from users' subpages, as long as it's clear which page they're discussing via a link.

(I made this comment here since it's regarding your edit, not the design of the main page/proposals, and also because I don't want to make more sections, derail the discussions there, and I'd no idea where else to say it.) pling 19:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Do you happen to have any idea about how to organize that page? It's not only a mess, but it's now a very big mess; it's so big that I wouldn't be surprised if it were breaking some brownsers already. Erasculio 19:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

As I said, revert to the unshuffled version.. and somehow stick the new comments below that.

That page is really beyond retroactive reorganisation - comments were made in a stupid way, proposals were thrown about everywhere, people discussed multiple things in one thread, and random sections were made by random people. (I include myself in some of that.) Some archiving of old topics could be done, maybe, but that's about it. pling

19:23, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I think I have restored everything back to how it was. Erasculio 19:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Faq

I'm not seeing it being linked twice. If you can clarify where - fine. Other than that, I think you're looking at a version you haven't purged. hope you can get over your vendettas. (attacking people's work is an npa as you started. so all fair in love war etc.) - best to just you know cool off, you really need to chill and take it easier with things, people instead of being so vocal or messing up talk pages by implementing other talk in various places. Ariyen 03:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The wiki has more features than you know it does. For example, your comment about "I thought you'd preview before you edit to make sure it looked correct - had to fix the dot that was removed more than once, so the books would not blend together"... Do you know it's possible to look at every single of my edits to that page and thus prove, without any doubt, that not a single of my edits has removed the dot between the books?

Now, considering how you have accused me of doing something (removing the dot preventing the books from blending together) which I have just proved above I have not done (not to mention accusing me of trying to remove the FAQ, while it's right there)... Do you really believe is there any way to interpret your actions other than "bad faith"? Erasculio 03:23, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

so

i haven't followed jack shit when it comes to gw2, have they mentioned anything about crafting/gathering professions? -Auron 01:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll answer this for you Era: No. They have said, I believe, that crafting will be bigger in the game. But no professions (to our knowledge) are focused on that. Unless you mean professions not as in this profession, and you're using terms used in other RPG games (which call GW professions "classes"). -- Konig/talk 01:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I think Auron is using the second meaning you mentioned, Konig. So far, nothing about crafting; Arena Net mentioned a while ago that they plan to add a crafting system to the game, but they haven't announced it yet. There's a lot of things they haven't talked about, such as the levelling system, how equipment is going to work, etc.

They do have some good ideas, though. It remains to be seen if they will be able to execute them well (execution has always been one of Arena Net's problems), but for example they don't want to have a dedicated healing profession, rather allow everyone to do a bit of support. So when trying to stop a spike, instead of relying on skills like Protective Spirit, a warrior could stand between the target and the enemies and use Shield Stance, which blocks projectiles from the direction the warrior is facing; since now projectiles work differently, that would protect the target behind the warrior. And the animation for the new Whirling Defense, seen here (scroll down a bit and choose the last video) is rather nice. Erasculio 10:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Admin Board

Reading what I did on Konig's page, just seems to show me that most are against what you're trying to do... I don't see this as an admin issue... Just resolve it or let it go... It's not worth trying to create drama over... Ariyen 22:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I see you are quite sensitive for drama, Ariyen? :/ Either way; this drama only affects Konig and Eras. Both have a reputation of being eachother's rivals, so,... Yeah, it's not going to get better, I'm afraid. --N aoroji

22:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I know and from my own personal experiences. It's best to let it go, if it can't be resolved nicely. Ariyen 22:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

What I want to know is what sparked Era being so hostile to me, I see others make the same or worse mistakes than me, but he only does certain things to me. I personally have nothing against him. I just want Era to stop picking on me. :"( -- Konig/talk 01:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Teamwork

Nice timing on altering the article Skill bar, whilst I explained why it was proper to do so. -high five- - Infinite - talk 15:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

:D Erasculio 15:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Your guess-profession list

Is exactly the same as mine. Good on you. Great minds think alike, eh? 68.40.56.56 05:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Skill bar picture

May i ask where you found the shot of the skill bar? I'm looking through as many demo video's, but few give such a high-quality picture :p Dilum2444 17:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

It is a real screenshot. It was uploaded by arenanet employee Josh Petrie. I wish we could get more. :) -- Aspectacle

20:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

where can I find them? And are there more? :D Dilum2444 21:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

They were uploaded directly to the wiki. You can take a look at Josh's contributions. There are only a few high quality images here. -- Aspectacle

21:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll just wait till you go to sleep

Before I re-edit this article. You do sleep, right? (I actually thought I did a good job. Current wording is fantastically horrible) :S (Xu Davella 14:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC))

Come on Xu, don't take edits personally. Venom20

14:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I don't really sleep, but I do work, so I guess you could reedit it then. I would suggest beginning a discussion at the article's talk pages about the changes you would like to implement; some were wrong (the number of skills given by a main hand weapon), some ambiguous ("the weapon type or environmental weapon they possess" isn't exactly right - what matters is the weapon the character has equiped, not the one they possess in their inventory) and so on. Usually big changes end up requiring some kind of discussion (and other times doing a big change is actually a good way to bring attention to one discussion). Erasculio 14:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks man. I'll take the requests to the talk page. I wasn't taking it personally, I was joking about the re-edit. Although someone's already reverted it....(Xu Davella 14:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC))

Several edits

Namely, [1], [2], [3], and [4]. I'd like to know where exactly the changes were discussed? The only place I can find a discussion is [[Category_talk:Soul_Warband|here]], and I don't see anything there remotely constituting a discussion. Just thought I'd give you a chance to explain yourself before I reverted your edits. --Santax (talk · contribs) 20:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Guild Wars 2 Wiki talk:Community portal#Warband categories. -- Konig/talk 20:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thanks Konig, I hadn't seen that. Although that hardly constitutes a discussion either, since it's between 3 people and only 10 hours were left from when it was started to when the changes were actually made. --Santax (talk · contribs) 06:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

10 hours. Right. Let's try to, you know, actually read the links above:

Time of the first entry in the Warband categories discussion: 02:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Time of what was the last entry in the same discussion until yesterday: 12:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Time of the first of the edits Santax linked above: 10:47, August 23, 2010

Now, I understand some people have trouble with math, but I have the feeling that the time between 5 August and 23 August is slightly more than "10 hours".

Santax, let me teach you something. That's how you discuss something on the wiki: you propose a change to everyone, and if it's accepted with no opposition, it's polite to wait some time (such as, you know, 18 days) in order to see if there's some opposition before implementing the changes. Which is also followed by the admins, who wait considerably before implementing big changes (such as, you know, 10 days, which was the time between when the categories were tagged for deletion and when they were actually deleted).

In other hand, you don't discuss something on the wiki by thinking you are being generous and claiming you are "giving people a chance" before threatening to revert their edits while failing to even locate the discussion you are trying to talk about. Erasculio 10:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I could have just reverted your edits, which would have been forgiveable considering that the discussion I originally linked to was the only one I was aware of on the subject, and you had failed to link to the actual discussion in any of your edits, as Gares did in the link above. Between that and the fact that I was afk for the majority of August, it would be rather unreasonable to to blame me for "failing to locate" a discussion I did not even know existed. Indeed, I am sure it would be considered good Wikiquette to have actually linked to those discussions, rather than make the edits (as you yourself said, long after the discussion was over) and expect editors to locate the discussion themselves. If you had been feeling really nice, you could have even notified me of the discussion, seeing as I expressed interest in it [[Category talk:Soul Warband#Spoiler|here]]<nowiki>, or at least made a note on that page that the discussion had moved. So actually, I think I was being pretty generous given the circumstances. ::::I do, however apologise for misreading the dates on the second discussion I was linked to by Konig, that was a genuine mistake. I would like to point out, mind, that part of the reason I had considered simply reverting the edits is because you are so much effort to deal with directly, and in that single comment you proved why perfectly. Your tone is, as I am sure you are aware since you must have been told by so many people now, abrasive and patronising and a general source of drama. I mean, seriously, "I understand some people have trouble with math"? "let me teach you something"? How do you get through life with such poor interpersonal skills? Or do you just like being an internet tough guy because you're hiding behind a screenname? --[[User:Santax|Santax]] ([[User talk:Santax|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Santax|contribs]]) 11:29, 3 September 2010 (UTC) :::::Guys, you're both capable of discussing maturely and getting a lot done in the process. Let's do more of that here, or else turn your attention to another project. [[User:Pling|pling]] [[File:User Pling sig.png| ]] 15:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC) == Congratulations == The "I Spent My Entire Saturday Being a Wiki-Bot" award goes to Erasculio :). Btw...thanks for doing all of it :) [[User:Aquadrizzt|Aquadrizzt]] ([[User_talk:Aquadrizzt|talk]])([[Special:Contributions/Aquadrizzt|contribs]]) 23:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC) :Thanks : D Venom did a lot of stuff today, too, though. We should probably share the award : ) [[User:Erasculio|Erasculio]] 23:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC) == Okay == Now you just need to make [[Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Adminship]] into some kind of “hub” for the available drafts/proposals, and my initial idea of cleaning up the Guild Wars 2 Wiki namespace is fulfilled :) [[User:Poke|poke]] | [[User talk:Poke|talk]] 19:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC) :How about redirecting it to the Policy article? [[User:Erasculio|Erasculio]] 20:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC) ::Yes, that would work too :) As long as nobody will find an actual policy page when they enter a random policy name, I'm fine :) Thanks for the work! [[User:Poke|poke]] | [[User talk:Poke|talk]] 20:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC) :::I'll make the redirects, then : ) [[User:Erasculio|Erasculio]] 20:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC) == D: == Have some patience dude, I can't type at 3000 characters a second. [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 09:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC) == Renaming images == I see you are organizing the images into better suited cats, but why are you then leaving the old names active? for instance [http://wiki.guildwars2.com/index.php?title=File:1237.jpg&redirect=no|this old image] and [http://wiki.guildwars2.com/index.php?title=File:1235.jpg&redirect=no|this old image] are still linked under the old names. Without correcting the file names in links, you are just increasing the size of [[Special:WantedFiles]]. [[User:Venom20|'''Venom20''']] [[Image:User_Venom20-icon-0602-sm-black.png|link=User_talk:Venom20]] 15:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC) :I have changed the links at the mainspace, but I'm in doubt about whether the users would like someone else editing their userspace to fix the links there or not. [[User:Erasculio|Erasculio]] 16:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC) ::Generally, maintenance edits in other users' userspaces, like updating links to moved pages or files, with an explanatory edit summary are fine. If you have reason to believe the user in question would take that amiss for some reason, it'd be polite to at least leave them a note on their talk page, telling them what moved, where it moved to, and perhaps which of their pages it's linked on. - [[User:Tanetris|Tanetris]] 22:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC) :::I was tempted to leave a message on the user's talk page at least, but I thought that it should be up to the one that moved the image to place the message, not me. [[User_talk:Ariyen|Ariyen]] 22:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC) {{ri}}Some of [[File:Ranger 01 concept art.png|80px]]these that you moved were placed in this GDC 2010 March images category and I feel that's why they were given the original name. I would recommend for those such as that to be placed back. As I'd like to see GDC categories and images, etc. be kept together. I feel that any Actual in game images should be done as you have suggested. [[User_talk:Ariyen|Ariyen]] 22:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC) :That's why the category exists. They don't need to be in the category and named the same for people to figure out they're from GDC. -[[User:Auron|Auron]] 23:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC) == Moving files == Once you move files, Why don't you go to the old one at what links here and correct the links? That would be better than leaving read links on pages. I came to my page to find a red link. I had to go into the move files just to see where you moved it to. That was not necessary of me to do as when I move files, I fix the links and if anyone is using them. I'd still fix, but I'd let them know of the move. I don't become ignorant and move each file and not bother with anything more. This is a wiki. You don't leave red links. [[User_talk:Ariyen|Ariyen]] 23:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC) == The Main Page Discussion + Admin Board == Just a thought, but perhaps, given your history with Ariyen, it would be best if you let *someone else* post on the admin board. I am not trying to be like I don't agree with you all the time, but when two people have a history, posts about one left by the other tend to not seem as legitimate. (See the Admin thing on Auran posted by Scythe, for an aggrivated example...) Again, not saying you're a troll, just a thought... :) [[User:Aquadrizzt|Aquadrizzt]] ([[User_talk:Aquadrizzt|talk]])([[Special:Contributions/Aquadrizzt|contribs]]) 15:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC) :I agree with you in parts, but [http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Guild_Wars_2_Wiki:Admin_noticeboard#Ariyen_.283.29 twice] [http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Guild_Wars_2_Wiki:Admin_noticeboard#Ariyen_.284.29 now] the risk of admin intervention has led to a change (even if only from [http://wiki.guildwars2.com/index.php?title=Talk%3AMain_Page%2Feditcopy&diff=96297&oldid=96293 this] to [http://wiki.guildwars2.com/index.php?title=Talk%3AMain_Page%2Feditcopy&diff=96305&oldid=96297 this]). While of course this is not something which would work forever (and so from now on you are probably correct), these last two times it had a positive effect. [[User:Erasculio|Erasculio]] 20:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC) ::Why is it that it seems like you whine to the Admin noticeboard? Have you not noticed intervention already? Pling, told me not to revert, which Another said they'd done. Personally, yes I should have left "comment" out, but I didn't and it's fixed by another. So, I feel it's best that you let things alone and let them handle it. I think they're doing a good job as is. Please, enough trying to jump on the banwagon via noticeboard, they're already on top of it. I don't think you need to make a scene. [[User_talk:Ariyen|Ariyen]] 17:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC) :::To be perfectly honest, Eras, the sysops ''are'' already aware of this discussion; while the last ones may have required notice at the time, this one doesn't. It does just seem like noise for the sake of condescending noise in light of that. --ஸ [[User:Kyoshi|Kyoshi]] [[Image:User_Kyoshi_sig2.png|19px]] 18:15, 11 December 2010 (UTC) ::::I'm not concerned about the current discussion; Pling has already seen it, and is dealing with it properly. I'm worried about the bigger picture, involving everything Ariyen has done here. The latest issue she has caused is just a good time to let the admins remember and/or know everything she has been responsible for, and for them to wonder if there's anything that could be done to prevent this kind of thing from happening (yet again) other than a permanent ban. [[User:Erasculio|Erasculio]] 18:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC) == Concept art files == I don't know all that you're doing with the concept art files, as I've been trying to avoid discussions that you're partaking due to our past history and wanting to avoid new arguments. However, I must say that I love the fact that [[:Category:ArenaNet concept art]] now ''shows'' the images, rather than listing them, and I'd like to suggest that whatever you did for ''that'' (only that since I don't know what you're doing) should be transferred to the gw1wiki. -- [[User:Konig Des Todes|'''Konig''']]/[[User talk:Konig Des Todes|''talk'']] 15:12, 18 December 2010 (UTC) :You know, I don't (really) bite, you should not avoid a discussion just because I'm part of it : P We do agree some times (I wish people would merge Keiran's pages at GW1W). I like the gallery a lot more than the list myself, but I would like to wait until the other issues are settled here before trying to implement any of those changes at GW1W. There are a few problems with the concept art images I have been unable to find a solution for. [[User:Erasculio|Erasculio]] 15:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC) ::File:User_Infinite_Category.jpg Please love, not hate. <3 :: :D - [[User:Infinite|''Infinite'']] - [[User_talk:Infinite|''talk'']] 16:10, 18 December 2010 (UTC) :::Does that page load really that slowly with dial up connections? I don't have dial up, I can't judge whether the benefit is worth the loss. [[User:Erasculio|Erasculio]] 19:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC) ::::We'd have to ask to make sure, but worry not. You can't play GW with a dial-up connection (well not if you actually wish to do something), let alone GW2. I think it's fine and looks nice. :) - [[User:Infinite|''Infinite'']] - [[User_talk:Infinite|''talk'']] 19:53, 18 December 2010 (UTC) :::::I disagree with that last statement, Infinite. When I first got GW, I had dial-up. Had it for about 6 months before getting high speed. It wasn't ''that'' bad - iirc, I was always at 500-600 ping, now I'm at 100-200 ping with Comcast. -- [[User:Konig Des Todes|'''Konig''']]/[[User talk:Konig Des Todes|''talk'']] 20:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC) ::::::I played for a good year or so on dial-up before moving to cable. It works fine, not the greatest, but it works fine. In regards to the gallery. It takes a little while to fully load, although I'm unsure if it's my connection or the wiki. Is there a way to prompt less than 200 images to load at a time. Perhaps limit it to 50 or 100? [[User:Venom20|'''Venom20''']] [[Image:User_Venom20-icon-0602-sm-black.png|link=User_talk:Venom20]] 20:46, 18 December 2010 (UTC) :::::::Then it was our dial up that just sucked. :) But the wiki *is* slow ever since the server moved. - [[User:Infinite|''Infinite'']] - [[User_talk:Infinite|''talk'']] 21:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC) {{ri}}FYI, it takes about 10 minutes on 28.8K dial-up to load the first 200. --[[User:Ezekial Riddle|Riddle]] 04:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC) :Are you using 28.8k dial-up, or are you just mentioning it from a theoretical point of view? [[User:Erasculio|Erasculio]] 09:19, 19 December 2010 (UTC) ::Alternatively, or are you reporting from someone who uses 28.8k dial-up? Also, when you say it takes 10 minutes - is this to load every image on the page, or is the page fully loaded but the browser says it is still loading? The later happens to me, I could easily just press the "stop loading this page" icon and get every single image and link after about 10-30 seconds. -- [[User:Konig Des Todes|'''Konig''']]/[[User talk:Konig Des Todes|''talk'']] 13:34, 19 December 2010 (UTC) :::I'm hoping that we'll use images rather than lists for weapon/item categories as well.-- [[User:Shewmake|Shew]] 15:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC) ::::I'm using 28.8K dial-up. The page and all the images are fully loaded after 10 minutes. --[[User:Ezekial Riddle|Riddle]] 20:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC) =====on a seperate note===== i noticed that pic had the new gw2 logo for wiki...how did u change it? the old one is bugging me. - [[User:Lucian Shadowborn|Lucian Shadowborn]] [[Image:User Aios sig.png|19px]] 02:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC) :That's a javascript feature, which you can use as a custom skin in your preferences. If you'd like to have it show that image, just hit edit on <nowiki>[[User:Infinite/monobook.css|this]] page and copy the line of text there. After it's copied, go to your preferences, Skin tab and click Custom CSS next to Monobook (the default skin). Paste the code into the edit there and save (but hit preview first, to check you did it right). If you then browse, it should have replaced the original GW2W icon with the one I photoshopped. :) - Infinite - talk 13:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

File:User Lucian Shadowborn alternate.png is my alternate. It has clear background and weird pixels are taken out. Lucian Shadowborn 02:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

On another separate note

The new video gives some official names to gw1 and gw2 (mostly the later) concept art that I don't think were named before. You may find those few helpful. It startss at roughly 3:35. -- Konig/talk 05:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Fixing image links

Cheers for fixing my links after the move. I wouldn't have noticed otherwise :D Shadow Runner 19:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

: ) Erasculio 20:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Anything I Can Do?

I noticed that you've been at your changes for several days now, and I was wondering if you wanted any help with anything. Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 01:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer to help : ) There are still quite a few things left to be done, but what has been vexing me the most is trying to finally decide on a filenaming scheme once and for all. Input here would be very much appreciated. Erasculio 08:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

For putting the concept on your Sea, I am rather occupied with Boxing Day myself at the moment and stuff. Would you mind if I edited the tree here with you so we can try and get a full tree visualized through time? :) - Infinite - talk 16:59, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead, edit it as you wish. Adding the entire category tree of the wiki is probably too much work for a single person. Erasculio 19:27, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Yay for big messes. :D I'm going to catch some Z's now, so I can think with a clear head about the tree tomorrowmorning. Don't do your head in trying to sort it all out alone, hehe! :D - Infinite - talk 23:14, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not even going to try changing something; for now I'm just copying what exists, adding the things you have changed in your own tree and adding some notes to the rest. Have a good night! : ) Erasculio 23:20, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

What the..

"...in progress (it's raining here, so we may get a blackout)..."

What kind of fucked up rain do you get?--Neil • 19:58, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm in the South hemisphere, so that was a Summer thunderstorm. Often those cause blackouts around here (although today it didn't). Erasculio 20:00, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Spoiler templates

Thanks for fixing the collapsing one. I've spent multiple times trying to figure out how to fix that... never occurred to me to use a parameter! >.< -- Konig/talk 20:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I kept the original functionality you had given it (its width defaults to 65%, so if the article has images the template likely won't conflict with them). I'm a bit worried that people won't understand that they're expected to add only the number, not the percentage, as the parameter's template (say, 90 as opposed to 90%). Erasculio 21:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

equiptment categories

I'm going through the uncategorized pages (I hate seeing uncategorized pages), and noticed that there were a few uncategorized pages. And since you appear to be taking a strong charge into category land (well you and infinite, but he's busy assisting with coding ATM), I thought I'd ask you. In respect to equipment, what names should be given to the categories? For example, for footwear? chestpeices? gloves? etc. Venom20 15:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I suggest Categories as per Equipment. (Head pieces, Shoulder pieces, Chest pieces, etc.) And I'm sort of stuck on the coding, can it be done at all, I wonder. :\ - Infinite - talk 16:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I wazs thinking that there might be no way to keep the categories similar. Head pieces

, shoulder pieces

, ear pieces

(sounds silly), finger pieces

(again silly). Then again, the jewelry might be different than the armour. so perhaps: head pieces, shoulder pieces, chest pieces, hand pieces (?), leg pieces, feet pieces (?), earrings, necklaces, rings or should we use the term wear: headwear, shoulderwear, chestwear, handwear, legwear, feetwear, earrings, necklaces, rings Venom20

17:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Wear will do. :) - Infinite - talk 17:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Foot-, not feet-. pling

17:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Hah! feetwear, nice. Didn't even notice. Venom20

17:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Actually, I would suggest a different scheme. IMO, someone at the Armor category would not ask, "what are all the pieces of footwear in the game?". I think he would ask, "what are all pieces of footwear in the game that my character can use?". Therefore, I believe the best category is to first divide armor pieces based on their class - Heavy armor, light armor and medium armor - and then divide everything in "Heavy footwear", "Medium footwear" and so on. Erasculio 22:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

In my edit haze I did not think of that, nice catch there. - Infinite - talk 22:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that is more detailed. I like it. Venom20

02:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

My suggested category tree for the Items category (since we were discussing weapons too):

Items
- Armors
  - Accessories
    - Earrings
    - Necklaces
    - Rings
  - Armor upgrades
    - Crests
    - Marks
    - Talismans
  - Heavy armor
    - Heavy chestwear
    - Heavy footwear
    - Heavy handwear
    - Heavy headwear
    - Heavy legwear
    - Heavy shoulderwear
  - Light armor
    - Light chestwear
    - Light footwear
    - Light handwear
    - Light headwear
    - Light legwear
    - Light shoulderwear
  - Medium armor
    - Medium chestwear
    - Medium footwear
    - Medium handwear
    - Medium headwear
    - Medium legwear
    - Medium shoulderwear
- Consumables
- Ingredients
- Miniatures
- Weapons
  - Environmental weapons
  - One-handed weapons
    - Axes
    - Daggers
    - Foci
    - Maces
    - Pistols
    - Scepters
    - Shields
    - Swords
    - Torches
    - Warhorns
  - Two-handed weapons
    - Greatswords
    - Hammers
    - Longbows
    - Rifles
    - Shortbows
    - Staves

Is that acceptable? Erasculio 08:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

That is perfect. :) - Infinite - talk 09:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

EDIT: Time for a minor addition; the "Event items" category! Crackling Lodestone. - Infinite - talk 12:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

You're right, I had forgotten about those. Erasculio 12:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Schizophrenia

I always feel it's a bit schizophrenic to begin a section in your own talk page, but I really couldn't resist: this is amusing me waaaay more than it should. I swear I can't see the point of this in the first place; here we haven't settled on anything so much to the point that it would be better to try to make a new wiki instead of changing things on this one. But regardless, if in the very uncomfortable position of trying to create a new community from scratch, I would think people would be more forgiving and willing to accept different points of views instead of throwing accusations around. Erasculio 12:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

This is going to sound redundant and possibly sparking arguments, but; don't backstab Ariyen like this. Regardless of her block, she's still a human being and she has no opportunity to defend her actions here. I understand that she needs to start her new community somehow, but openly feeling amused with her attempt here is sort of a low thing to do. In my opinion Ariyen should be unblocked soon (yes, still think so), as the GW2W seems to be heading in the direction she likes it to. I can't be sure though, so no implications there. Unfortunately it can't be so, in which case I'd like to request everyone (not just Eras) to get off Ariyen's case. :) - Infinite - talk 12:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Speaking as a person who tried and failed to work on the unofficial wiki, then watched it move (twice), only to immediately get troll baited by Scythe, defend myself and then get banned for "personal attacks", I can safely say that while I don't mind the user as a person, she should not be in any position of power (like ultimate only I can revoke bcrat). Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 12:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) What amuses isn't Ariyen's attempt to make a new community (which IMO is pointless, but anyway), rather the way that new community appears to be working so far. A block war with the only three active users isn't something exactly productive or inviting, IMO; it doesn't give me great hopes for the well being of that other wiki. Having a different point of view could be useful to us as it could give us some good ideas, but I wonder if that will ever come to pass.

Regardless, you do have a point that, other than Aqua, the other users cannot explain their reasons here, so it's best to not debate the merits of such behavior. Erasculio 12:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

To spoil or not to spoil?

As to not deriviate the discussion further/again, I figured I'd bring this up here. What you said was this: "I think a spoiler is any important revelation, made with the goal of having some kind of impact once it's revealed. The Searing falls into that category; Rurik's death and return do, too. The death of a random charr boss doesn't, for example."
What I said, in response, was this: "Which, seems to vary from "what's not in the trailer" (aka everything) - as stated by Eive, and somewhat by Era (since he considers something which is in the manual, the Searing, to be a spoiler)[...]" - Note the word "somewhat" which is not incorrect as you stated that the Searing, something which people can learn about before even playing the game via the manual and is, in fact, merely the ending to the tutorial, is a spoiler. The somewhat is in reference to the "aka everything" as you clearly stated that not everything was, the somewhat was an implication of "not everything but a lot of things" rather than "everything." -- Konig/talk 15:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Konig... We just have different opinions of what is a spoiler. The fact I believe the Searing is a spoiler does not mean I think everything in the manual is a spoiler; and following a similar reasoning, the fact I believe the Searing is a spoiler and you don't doesn't mean I believe "a lot of things" are a spoiler.

I don't believe in hard rules for that kind of thing - saying (for example, I know you haven't said all those things) "a spoiler is everything at the last scene end of the game", "a spoiler is everything past the last third of the game", "something in the manual can never be a spoiler" and other hard rules is IMO never going to be better than taking each event case by case. As I have stated, I think everything meant to surprise players or otherwise have some kind of personal impact when revealed is a spoiler; I can assure you that the list of what I think falls into that definition is extremely different from the list of what you think falls into that definition, but IMO the best way to decide if something is a spoiler is to ask people about it, instead of trying to find an all encompassing rule. Erasculio 20:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with Era. No matter what hard rule we set, there would always be an exception somewhere along the line, which would only complicate our job and possibly confuse people on the receiving end of spoilers. Eive

23:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking of a full fledged response, but I realize that would probably turn out as some tl;dr flame-instigating thingamajig; so I'll just say this: Understood and that would of been better stated in place of what you said in your, as of this post, latest comment in that discussion; as it is far more clear of what you meant. The thing is about a "rule" (btw I actually wanted a set-base for me to work with, not others) is that it would be good for a bendable guideline, rather than something set in stone, and if the purpose of said discussion I began fulfilled its optional purpose - to set up a consensus for a guideline on spoilers - then that would of been all the better, but I knew there would be exceptions. Hmmm, looks like I got rather tl;dr anyways. -- Konig/talk 00:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the restrain, I really appreciate it. Erasculio 17:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Oops

My mistake for that typo of your name on the Root edit summary, I meant you, of course. ;P - Infinite - talk 11:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry about that kind of thing, I learned a couple years ago that my name itself is kind of a typo : P Erasculio 11:43, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

weird

I think the wiki should apologise for the weird edit conflict it just caused. Interesting timing though... :) -- aspectacle 02:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm hoping one day I'll answer a comment before it's made : D Erasculio 03:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Color Scheme

← moved to Guild Wars 2 Wiki talk:Color schemes

Because you asked

there was no / at </table> .

so

all

words

showed

up

like

this. --

The Holy Dragons 10:43, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Somehow

it

reminds

me

of

a

haiku.

Erasculio 10:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

True

though

maybe

you

're

just

weird. =D --

The Holy Dragons 10:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Haikus

are

funny

But

sometimes

they

don't

make

sense

Wiki

Color

Schemes Aqua (T|C) 17:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Portal

One of your projects is finding a proper place for the portal thingies? well, (maybe it's speculation , -,-) but, if they really work as the portals in guild wars 1 then I personally believe they could get an article like they got on the guildwars 1 wiki ==>the page about portals on gw:wiki.Don't know if it's already mentioned.--Sierra 21:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. I think I'll wait a bit before calling it a portal, though, but you're right, we'll need an article like that now that we know those things exist. Erasculio 21:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I made an article in my sand box user:Sierra-Echo/sandbox , but my english-level isn't that great and I don't know if it's good enough for an official article, but feel free to change and post as you want. --Sierra 21:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

RE: GW1 lore

Hey, thanks for giving me those links, I missed those conversations. I gave the "overly" generic statement because I thought it would be good to have a conversation about this issue and was hoping it would start one, though I didn't realize that the conversations had already been had. I can't say I'm perfectly happy with the consensus reached, but I accept that the issue is more complicated than I first thought and am willing to go with it. Though it does make me wonder if it might have been better to keep things all under one wiki (like some other games). (Satanael | talk) 01:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Website image

re [5]

How is that template used? Those are images from the website. pling 00:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The template is probably outdated by now; it was made months ago, before the current (and incoming) image naming scheme. The idea was to let people know that the images came from a website, not from the game itself, so they did not necessarily represent stuff as seen in game; that's why it's currently used only for screenshots, although it could arguably be also used for renders and icons. Concept art images are, well, just concept art images; they cannot become outdated, so the notice about "As such, it may be an incomplete or outdated version of the content it represents" at the template doesn't really apply. It also doesn't matter where a piece of concept art is from; even if it were something captured from the game, it would pretty much look the same whatever the source is.

I'm not sure we need that template, though. With the current naming scheme dating screenshots, the template's main goal (letting people know that the images are not necessarily what they see in game) is a bit moot. Erasculio 00:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Another thing that's confusing me - the image naming scheme has changed? Can you link me to the discussion and also update Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Image formatting as necessary? pling

00:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, you mean for the concept art images? That discussion begins here and continues on the next sections. I was kinda waiting for more input before adding it to the formatting article. Erasculio 00:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. If it's being used (and images are being renamed to conform to it), then it should be in the article. pling

01:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Ahh ok, slapped it on since they were directly from website, seemed the appropriate title but if its outdated--its outdated. - Lucian

4:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Gauntlets concept art deletion

As the tagger, can I get your comment on File talk:GDC-2010-China-31.jpg#Delete? please? - Tanetris 17:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Autumn Sylvari

Where did this image move to: GDC 2010 sylvariawake.jpg? Please correct the autumn sylvari template Template:User_Sylvari_Autumn. I know you are aware of this because I have asked you in the past. But when you are rearranging images, please ensure that the images are not in use under old names, and if they are, fix them before they are moved. Thank you. Venom20 12:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Staff pictures

I wanted to keep the gallery personally, but I also want the little nav (which links to that cat) to appear on that page (as you can currently navigate to, but not from). I think some different coding may be appropriate. :) - Infinite - talk 13:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Image formatting

The image formatting article has not been amended since the new changes have been brought around. This article has not been updated since Nov 6 2010. Can you ensure that the formatting on the page is correct, else everything you spearheaded in this task may have been for nothing. Venom20 14:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Venom, I'm going to politely ask you to stop using my talk page until you learn to stop giving orders to people and instead learn to do yourself things you believe should be done; as well as until you learn to stop making false assumptions about people (a quick search would have told you that no, it wasn't me who moved that image). Erasculio 14:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Erasculio the two things you linked to highlight your tendency to delete things and/or move and delete things without fixing relative links before hand. I do believe that in Venom's defense, the general concept of "if it is 'useless', make it actually unused first," applies. In addition, as you are the self-proclaimed czar of all things image, it really (sorta kinda) *is* your responsibility to update that document as necessary (considering it seems to have been partially changed/ignored in your image sorting campaign.) Aqua (T|C) 16:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

(Yes, I'm here too!) To enlighten both sides here, all what Venom appears to be implying is that, since Erasculio has taken most images under his wing en mass, he would be most informed on the new formatting for them. Venom merely opted whether the article could be updated by Erasculio for that very reason.

Equally, Erasculio makes a fair point that sometimes Venom's comments sound rather commanding, which could lead to sparked tensions. It may be general agitation that redlinks are left behind, but we're still a young wiki and have no bots set-up to fix this.

In short, perhaps Venom could start altering the formatting article and inform Erasculio of the edit on his talk page (now slightly redundant to inform), where Eras can then check if the essence of his changes are written down as they stand. Without further asking, I am sure Eras would alter the article if mistakes are made and equally, share his delight if the edits were spot-on.

No need for throat-jumping. :) - Infinite - talk 16:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I apologize if you are taking any offense. I merely went to you as you initially spearheaded the image renaming convention. Again, since you brought forth the new convention, I am assuming that you would be the foremost expert on it. I can rewrite the article, but it would most likely be lacking in information or just be plain wrong as I was not a part of it. In regards to the image for the sylvari template, it has already been remedied. I assumed that Wikichu moved it, but if I recall, the list was provided by yourself. The reason I did not go forth and do it myself, was because you had already been reminded of fixing links in the past. Unfortunately I believe that people won't learn anything if other people keep fixing their mistakes. At the risk of sounding commanding, would you mind correcting or updating the formatting article please? If yo uare unable to, just send me the page(s) where the conversations took place and I'll gather the information from them Venom20

18:48, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

.

[[Template talk:Voice actor nav|Here]], if you really find it unnecessary, then go ahead and get rid of the linked pages then I'll support delete. Otherwise, that template will exist (as poke pointed out). That is how the wiki works. - Lucian 14:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

No, Lucian, that's not how wiki works. Wiki works based on consensus; and at its talk page, there is a rather clear consensus about how your little useless and pointless template is, well, little, useless and pointless. The fact that it's also so insignificant that no one has bothered to deal with it is only a sign of how it's little, useless, pointless and insignificant; that doesn't mean that suddenly there's a consensus about keeping it. Until you can magically produce such consensus, the deletion notice will be kept there just like poke kept it there. Erasculio 23:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Then I suggest you remove the template from the pages that it is used on --since you have a somewhat of a vendetta against it. - Lucian 23:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm also sorry that I appear to be mad. Not at all. I respect you and your opinion of the not needing --I agree perfectly now. So, sorry if I seem hostile; just want you to know that I do not, nor am not trying to start a pissing-match (as some people call it). - Lucian 23:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I will never understand straight men and their ego competitions. :> - Infinite - talk 00:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

You should see what happens when you get 2 divas and 2 straight guys competing for an acting internship. Better than HBO. - Lucian 0:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Look, I'm really, really busy during this week. A guy was fired at my job and I was reassigned to his position and asked to save the project he was working on, so I barely have enough time to sleep these last days. Next week I'll have more time and then I'll be able to remove the template from those pages, but for now just be patient, ok? Erasculio 00:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I hope you'll get through without too much trouble, Eras. :) - Infinite - talk 00:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Same. Since I know you're insanely busy now; I'll do it for you. - Lucian 0:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

A useful reminder for a few people (including, at times, myself): a wiki is a collaborative effort. If someone else can't or doesn't want to do something, you can. pling

00:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Finally, got it done with. Sorry for the outburst earlier, Lucian, last week was rather stressing. Thanks for removing the template from those pages. Erasculio 21:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Misunderstanding about removing dual colours

Good day. Firstly I was not attempting to remove the dual colour system, I was merely implementing a broken colour template. A good point was brought up in regards to actually using the colour templates. I currently have not the time to go through past conversations and ensure that the current colours are the correct ones (see the conversation on thief colours). The current colour template is only set up with 3 colours. There is no reason why the template should not be used, and rather than leave half the cells white, I worked with what I had. I'm almost certain you will take offense to this, but the template needs to be corrected for dual colours to exist. I assumed that since the dual colours have been implemented, but the templates never updated, it was in some sort of testing phase. If you have the time, are you able to scour the past conversations to ensure that the correct colours are being implemented. And if they are, could you correct the template to include a fourth colour. This isn't and order, but a request for assistance. If you haven't the time, I'm sure someone will get to it, or I'll see to it after work. Venom20 12:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

reverting colour implementation

May I ask why you undid all the implementation of the colour templates? The templates that were updated were done so with the colours agreed upon. Venom20 00:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

While I have recently been accused of being color blind, I still have a small feeling that this is not the same as this. Erasculio 00:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The point of the template is to allow the colours to be easily changed. If you don't like them change the template not all of the pages. Though venom, it is strange the necro colour is so much darker than the one already on the page? -- aspectacle

00:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem was that Venom used the template incorrectly; the templates themselves are fully functional. Aqua (T|C) 00:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Aqua. I had noticed there was something wrong considering how the entire table was at the same color (same with the warrior table). Nice to see it's being fixed. Erasculio 00:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes there appear to have been some parameter confusion on my side. But unfortunately the screenshots don't mean entirely too much because the colours are called from elsewhere. Thank you for the speedy response. Venom20

00:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

"But unfortunately the screenshots don't mean entirely too much because the colours are called from elsewhere"? What is that supposed to mean? Erasculio 00:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Specifically what I said. The colours are called from templates. So your screenshot was merely reflecting the fact that the light parameter was the same as the default colour. This was not a flaw in implementation as I had asked about, but a bad arrangement of code in the n-color template. Hence your screenshot is a poor reflection in the implementation of the original template being used . Which was correct at the time of it being used. Your screenshot actually reflects the next version of the n-color template. Therefore, your screenshot has less meaning. Hope this helps Venom20

00:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I will swoop in, foreseeing a very negative and likely outcome, and say: it's resolved, just move on. Aqua (T|C) 00:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

"While I have recently been accused of being color blind" Shade of red != Shade of grey <- Fact. I wasn't accusing you of being colourblind at all. The only thing I could have accused you of was you denying fact (you denied the one I just stated, which is 100% true, in the original discussion), which I didn't.

We all carefully worked around our own opinions just to cater yours. I hope you will be more considerate of those who put effort into your ideals, especially if you get it mostly your way and then still end up not being content. 'Cause we may be lenient enough to change our own input now, but if you remain stubborn with yours almost all the time, that will very likely come to a halt. That is all.

P.s: Should I pull an Amanelle and add a bunch of smiley faces to make it all less obvious that I'm being serious and make it imply that I'm actually just trying to outsmart you? (Which I am not, I just don't enjoy people talking faulty of my area of expertise; namely graphics.)

P.p.s: I don't actually want to come across as annoyed, because I am, but I am trying to remain objective. - Infinite - talk 07:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The thing is, I didn't get it "most my way". I'm not really concerned about the thief colors themselves; as far as I'm concerned, it could be any color you want, as long as we don't have to change our other color schemes because of it. There is only so many times we can go back to old, long and hard discussions and decide that no, we want to change what was decided in the past. My concern with the thief scheme comes from how it was in a color that would definitely clash at least with the mesmer colors and maybe with the elementalist colors; and while I don't like the current result (the current thief colors are ugly, but IMO far enough from the elementalist and mesmer colors to not cause issues), I would be satisfied as long as we did not have to change the current color schemes now (since we will likely have to discuss all color schemes later, when all professions are released, and the less times we have to repeat this discussion the better).

So did I get what I want? No. Not even close. If the elementalist colors and the mesmer colors were left alone, I wouldn't be bothered by having whatever you people want as the thief colors, so I'm not really happy with the current result.

(And please don't reply with something along the lines of "but the mesmer has not been announced, so we don't know its colors". Even if that's what you think, please keep it to yourself, that argument is not going to convince me.)

I appreciate the effort in building a consensus, though. Looks like I'm being an ass these days even to people who don't deserve it, and for that I apologize. Erasculio 13:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

"(And please don't reply with something along the lines of "but the mesmer has not been announced, so we don't know its colors". Even if that's what you think, please keep it to yourself, that argument is not going to convince me.)" As seen on my User page, the userboxes, I have already made my own guess as to what a semi-accurate guess for the mesmer colours entails. I was not planning on using the mesmer as an argument in the current day anyway, besides the wallpaper concept art gives us a great insight on what shades and hues we can expect.

My initial-initial colour scheme for the thief was much like what we ended up with, albeit a tad darker, but that looked too much like the elementalist colours. (There was even a moment where I had told myself to leave the placeholders I had picked for the sake of having the table in colour (well, greyscale back then), just because the thief's colours were already conflicting back then.) Either way;

I already see the foreboding event that, once all 8 professions and their various colours have been revealed, the colour discussion starts anew. All I wanted to know was whether we could keep as much of the current choices up and running, so the last 2 professions can be made without many clashing colour problems. It's either thief or elementalist and the elementalist is technicaly further away from the general elementalist colours in-game/concept arts. It's also the oldest profession and the colours sort of just rolled in for it. Though I also must state that, to me, the thief and elementalist are apart enough to be distinguished, save the "light" tones. - Infinite - talk 14:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

It wouldn't bother me if we have to discuss all colors once all professions are released; or rather, I expect another somewhat unpleasant discussion, but I think we do have to discuss all colors once all professions are revealed, even if just to say "nice, all colors are good, let's keep using them!" (which we know is never going to happen, but anyway). What I'm trying to avoid is having that discussion now (again), knowing that if we decide to change the old colors now, it won't be the last time we have that same discussion (nor the first, nor the second, and so on). I would rather keep the old agreements, and wait until we know we can finally settle this issue, before making any more changes. Erasculio 14:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree, which is why I think the colours are all distinctive enough for the time being and we can review them if required when we have all 8 professions. I rather we have to do so little changes at that point, hence why I bring up the light tone on the ele colour scheme now, because it's definitely not going to clash with mesmer. (And I reckon it also won't clash with the 3rd adventurer.) It's just clashing with the thief/the thief's light colour is clashing with the elementalist's. :P - Infinite - talk 15:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Lists and consensus

If you're making a possible list of consensuses (can't be a word), you have to include the current, prevalent suggestions. If I can't edit your comment, feel free to edit it yourself. —ǥrɩɳsɧƴ ɖɩđđɭɘş 22:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The layout of the one you are trying to add is almost identical to one of the currently existing infoboxes (the one based on GW1W). IMO, it's more important to decide now the basic layout, and leave that kind of detail for later. Which is one of the reasons why I have just copied the infoboxes themselves there, instead of linking to your examples; [[Template:Skill infobox/suggestion 6|there]] we have full skill articles, so linking to them could make people go in tangent discussions which are not really the point right now (such as what kind of table to use for traits, and so on). Erasculio 23:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Skill Capitalization

G'day Era. Are you certain that skill names are to be capitalized within an image's description? According to Guild_Wars_2_Wiki:General_formatting#Capitalization names should conform to normal capitalization rules. This extends to races, profession and I believe skill names. They should only be capitalized where proper nouns are used. At least this is my understanding, I could be wrong. Capitalization can be a tricky thing here. There has been many conversations on the wiki about it, but I don't recall discussing skill names, perhaps it is time to have that discussion. Venom20 19:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

You could have made a single section, you know. Skills have been discussed, and most people have kept skills in upper case. Which is easily seen; very often around here skill names are capitalized even in common text, and whenever a skill name has two words, both are capitalized. Erasculio 20:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Single section for what? The two topics at hand? True, I could have, but I have noticed that you generally only respond to what you feel like, and keeping them separate may entice you to respond at a later time to the second topic. You have linked to an orphaned talk page where to majority of content has changed. For instance, the conversation is hinting towards capitalizing profession names, this is not the case anymore. You linked to many skills, which are capitalized in titles, but we are not discussing titled articles. I agree that items should carry different capitalization in titles than the main article or descriptions of skills. Also, note that in one of your links, the word regeneration is capitalized for no apparent reason, I doubt you were trying to draw my attention to that, but you did. If we are using the ingame descriptions to determine if a word is capitalized, then I suppose we need to look at image content. The description of the skill Phoenix uses the word phoenix, but has a lower case p. Perhaps we should amend the article pertaining to capitalization to reflect that skill names are to remain capitalized when using the term as a skill but to remain lowercase when using the term as a description of the skill. This is currently contrary to what the article is saying, and we wouldn't want anymore confusion about the matter. Also, I trust that it was an oversight, but the discussion you pointed out happened after these images were uploaded, so it appears they were ignored even after that conversation was fresh. I shall correct the list of the images when I have an opportunity. Thanks for the input. Venom20

22:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. You know what I'm gonna say guys, so I can avoid stating it. Keep it civil. Aqua (T|C) 23:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Website image template

G'day (again). If I follow you correctly, you mentioned that I was attempting to secretly remove the website image template. While I agree that it was only mentioned on Poke's page by myself, it was not the first time it has been brought up. There was a discussion here pertaining to the usefulness of the screenshot template. It was a short discussion after the reconfiguration of the areananet template. Participants were mainly you and Poke. Again, I apologize if you felt left out of this, I was merely attempting to standardize the imaging. Cheers. Venom20 19:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Warning

I get that you're frustrated that you felt the project was going along smoothly, and then someone came along and raised a fuss. Unfortunately (and also fortunately, depending which side of such a discussion you land on), this is simply the nature of wikis. Nothing's ever final, and no discussion is ever closed if someone winds up having something to say. For the umpteenth time, you need to tone down the hostility or you'll be getting yet another block. - Tanetris 14:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

No, Tanetris, I'm not frustrated that the project would have been going smoothly (it wasn't) and someone would have come along and "raised a fuss". As I'm well aware of, that's how wikis work. For the umpteenth time, my concern isn't how the discussion there has been raised, but rather how someone who states "as such you, Erasculio, can continue discussing over stupid things as much as you like" and "but I have really better things to do than to have discussions about these details" is not bothering to read the previous discussion (claiming it was stupid, even) when trying to repeat it.

If you had spent one month discussing one subject, would you mind if someone opened the discussion again? You shouldn't, since that's how wikis work. Would you mind, though, if someone claimed the old discussion was "stupid", didn't bother to read it and made you repeat the exact same points you had already mentioned in the previous month long discussion? I don't know about you, but I do mind that significantly. Erasculio 14:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

In going-on-4-years of wiki editing, yeah, I've been in similar situations. Yes, I mind, but after taking a moment to sigh to myself, I discuss the issues raised civilly, summarize/link previously raised points, and listen and respond to any new points the person might have (or let someone else do it). The long and short of it is that it doesn't matter what the other person is doing: if you can't remain civil, don't edit. - Tanetris 14:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

If you just accept it so placidly, those who caused that situation would never learn to not do it again. Erasculio 15:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

We could probably spend a month or more debating the value of politeness and mutual respect in getting someone to listen, but let me be absolutely clear here: it's not your job to teach anyone a lesson. - Tanetris 16:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

So whose job is it? Erasculio 17:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Parents, schools, PBS. A neutral third party. Admins, if it reaches a certain level of disruption. - Tanetris 20:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Has any neutral third party (or any admin, even) recently taught anyone how it's a good idea to read a previous discussion before trying to start it again? The opposite opinion appears to be rather common these days. Erasculio 22:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't get it

You've made tons of userpages that nearly duplicate or seem to be an attempt to replace the already-implemented pages, and you're making one for everything... You've spammed the recent changes with all sorts of tiny tiny changes to your pages (which are things like templates that hold the same purpose as an already existent template)... What's the idea behind all of them? I've seen you seriously working on them, but I don't get it... o.o? ~~ Kio madoushi 02:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't like the current skill infobox, so I want to modify it. Instead of joining an year long discussion about the subject that would likely lead to something at least as bad as what is currently in use, I'm trying to make a infobox that at least I can use on my own userspace. In order to do so, I have to make a new infobox... And in order to make a new infobox, I have to make a new infobox template. The thing is, I have no idea how code works. And in order to check changes to a template, you can't just change the template and click on "Show preview" - the template page itself doesn't change. In order to see what happens, I have to save the template and see what changes on the pages that use said template. That's why I'm flooding recent changes with tiny changes on my infobox template - there is no way to preview the changes to the template without saving it, and I don't know how to make the changes to the template that I want to make without trial and error. Hence one thousand tiny changes.

Right now the template is (more or less) working, so the infobox is kinda ready. But I don't want just a skill infobox template - I want a skill table template (to make skill tables like this). In order to test that (which is also trial and error, so there go another hundred tiny changes), I have to actually make categories with pages using my skill infobox - hence why I have just made a copy of two skill pages on my userspace.

That's what has been taking most of my time on the wiki recently. The other things are small details: the weapon kit and backpack kit articles don't work with my skill infobox, so I have made a page that works (in my own userspace, in case someone doesn't agree with it). I have voiced multiple times how I'm not happy with the current color schemes for the professions, but since consensus is against me, I have made a new color scheme to be used in my userspace (hence my own color template). People wanted to delete the Professions reveal article once all professions had been released, but I don't want to delete it; since I don't have the ability to restore deleted articles, and since it's likely that someone will delete it regardless of what I think, I decided to make a copy of it now and place it safely within my userspace, so if someone deletes it after the mesmer reveal at least a copy will be kept around. Erasculio 02:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, that helps clear up all the edits a little, except I don't see why you need a skill infobox on your userpages, or a skills table, considering all the pages already work just fine... If you have problems with the currently existing ones, can't you just propose the templates be changed on their respective talk space? Of course, colors are the colors the game wants them to have, and going against the game is like saying you don't care about it, so if you want to do that, why do you even care about it in the first place? (imo)

And actually, yes you can preview changes to a template - assuming the template page already exists (save page at least once), and you use the template ON that page. Then the preview will show changes to the template itself, and any changes you use in the template preview. The noinclude tag means whatever is inside won't show up when you use the template on pages (it's not included). Use the following after the bulk of the template.

{{Template Name (yes, on the same page)
| all
| the
| parameters
| you
| can
| use
| together (to be able to see how they all work, and they can be changed in the preview)
}}

That's why almost all templates have an example of usage - when you preview changes, you can see how it affects its use. It's not permanent, obviously, so things like anchors won't work right cos then the page reloads to the old save, but other than that, it's all preview-able. ~~

Kio madoushi 02:44, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Erasculio, I have read the above wall of text and wanted to comment on a few things.

1. "Instead of joining an year long discussion about the subject that would likely lead to something at least as bad as what is currently in use". While I am aware that wikis are dynamic and that technically discussions could restart, this seems like you are almost trying to take advantage of the fact that the discussion in which we chose this infobox obtained a consensus. If you disagreed, you had 2 months of completely idle time (ignoring all of the time we spent discussing it) to voice your concerns.

2. You could be a team player on the skill tables. I was going to make it, but the infobox hadn't been added yet, so I couldn't make one. When it was implemented, I decided to take a break anyway, which is good, because Venom had already started working on his.

3. Colors can be decided at a later point, and I see no point in arguing over color choices that are very likely to change. I'm pretty sure that the general idea is that colors will be decided upon the last profession reveal.

4. Where the heck did you get the impression that Profession reveal was going to be deleted? Was there a discussion I missed? I'm pretty sure that we're just going to leave it in its final state or something like that (possibly with a protect).

Also, Kiomadoushi: you do have to save templates to view changes. When you show preview a template page with a usage, the usage uses the saved template, not the previewed. And colors are decided through wiki consensus so I really don't understand " Of course, colors are the colors the game wants them to have, and going against the game is like saying you don't care about it". It may be ArenaNet's game, but it is (to a degree) our wiki. Aqua (T|C) 03:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

@Kiomadoushi: "If you have problems with the currently existing ones, can't you just propose the templates be changed on their respective talk space?": it took nearly one year for people to agree on the current designs (which are rather ugly). Trying to change them now would only lead to another year long discussion that wouldn't likely change anything. Dealing with the problem myself is far easier, simpler, faster and - more importantly - far more reliable.

@Aqua: "If you disagreed, you had 2 months of completely idle time (ignoring all of the time we spent discussing it) to voice your concerns": I was busy, and I didn't really feel like being part of one more very long discussion that would dance in circles around itself and around apathy before reaching a consensus. I'm not going to just ignore the old discussion and ask for a change now, but I'm not going to blindly accept the decision and pretend there's nothing I can do about it, either.

"Where the heck did you get the impression that Profession reveal was going to be deleted? Was there a discussion I missed?": Auron mentioned deleting it once all professions had been released. I was against it, but I would rather not run the risk of having the page deleted after the mesmer is revealed. If it's not deleted a few months after that, I can just delete the copy in my userspace. Erasculio 03:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Um, Aqua, I know for a fact they can preview. That's what I do ALL the time. As long as the page exists for the template on the page itself to call to it, it can preview the current form. I literally do it all the time, playing with other people's templates, showing preview, and seeing how i affect it to see how it works, and never saving it (i like to break apart coding like that, that's how i learned all i know how to program, which i'm not a beginner). The only key point is that the template is being used on its own page... Unless they just changed that within a week that you can't preview (last time i did it was about a week ago, with shew's character bio templates), then you can.

And Erasculio, if the general wiki wants to work by a general consensus, then that's how things will be - you can't argue with that. Making your own duplicates just because you want it this way or that way is rather selfish, don't you think? You're taking up all this space with extra pages, unnecessary duplicates really, just because you want this added where it isn't, or you want it that way when it's not... I still don't get why you feel such a strong desire to not conform with the wiki in even the slightest... ~~

Kio madoushi 03:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

"You're taking up all this space with extra pages": if we were aiming to have as few pages as possible, we would be asking people to remove all the userspace subpages about GW1 characters. The wiki isn't exactly the real world, space is available rather freely around here.

"I still don't get why you feel such a strong desire to not conform with the wiki in even the slightest": I would ask you why you feel it's so wrong for me to not conform 100% to the wiki. Erasculio 03:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I don't think it's very appropriate to preemptively jump on a user who made his return after 2, nearly 3 months time. I (as well as Shew) made massive personal template edits like this in the past as well and I don't remember anyone jumping onto my talk page during those times either. I think all that really needs to be said is; Welcome back around, Eras. :)
P.S: Eras is right with his very last point; many users use their personal .css and .js to edit the wiki in ways they prefer. This is basically the same except focussing on the templates, rather than the logo/design/lay-out of the wiki. I see no harm worth jumping the gun for. - Infinite - talk 14:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering, does one's own .css hold more value over the common one? I would imagine so. Perhaps Era can adjust his css to display his version of the template somehow on the skill pages (I am ignorant to this, so feel free to flame for stupid ideas). Also, @Kiomadoushi, 2 things: firstly, I was unaware of that you are mentioning about templates. To the best of my knowledge you could only implement the current version of the template that had been saved. I will have to try using a modified (but not saved) version of a template on its own page to see if that works. Secondly, most of, if not all of, Era's edit were minor. If they are bothering you, you can simply turn off minor edits until he has completed his tasks. Tat way you wouldn't have to see them. Also, nothing is set in stone. While I will say that it is unfortunate that Era was absent for the discussion, that should not mean that he has missed his chance at an infobox. The infobox will most likely be debated several more times before the launch of the game, just like we're going to be revisiting all colour schemes and profession page versions as well. I will mirror Infinite and welcome Erasculio back to the wiki. Venom20

21:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes Venom: personal CSS does (afaik) take precedence over local. And Kiomadoushi, having assembled the code of a fair number of templates here, I am very certain that you can't preview any examples on the page. If you remove "includeonly"s, you could view how the code looks, but you definitely can't preview how an example would look without saving. Aqua (T|C) 21:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

You really can't preview changes to the template code. Try it, by deleting the code for the template, say here, but leaving the weapon infobox implementation. Click preview and the infobox still shows up. Also, I see no issue with Eras making his own infoboxes. There's no issue with him making something on his userpages so he can point to it later and say, i think it should be like this. Similarly with the colours, even if he disagrees with the current consensus. As much as its worth, i think his current skill infoboxes look much better than the current ones - I love the class icons in the backgroundsThering 22:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

A couple things with that: most changes people set as minor edit just because its not page-changing (not just for like capitalization change, etc); why NOT change your own css page to view things the way you want to instead of having to make all of the templates over again just to see the wiki pages in your userspace instead of the mainspace; i did just try, and i agree it doesn't work - but it does without the includeonly (you don't need to stack includeonly tag with a noinclude... they can work alone with equally opposite effects), and i did it with a lot of template pages, to see what such a small change would do in how it works without needing to make a save and then revert, or play with another user's templates, making changes only to revert them, affecting everyone; i'm not jumping on him AT ALL, i am merely stating that i am confused cos he's doing this and that and this and that, over and over and over, so he must have some real desire, and i don't get it.

HOWEVER, every single one of you who posted after him has jumped on me FAR more than is deserved. I was asking him why, cos he's been really doing a lot of this, over and over, for over a week. I've never seen anybody make duplicate pages, even in the userspace, so it all seemed weird he was doing things so backwards, and i was trying to make sense of why he was so driven to do so. A question with the point of understanding unusual activity does not need to be responded by everybody else with hostility. Or perhaps I should jump on all of you for every little thing YOU say on a person's talk space to comment on what they're doing, or to ask why? I'm seriously offended by all of you - infinite, venom, aqua, thering - for misconstruing everything and claim i'm doing something i'm not. go back and do your own tasks; you don't need to call me bad for asking a question. I'm not jumping on him; I'm not preemptively trying to stop him from doing anything; I'm not trying to make him not make edits. I wanted HIM to answer why he's making so many edits, and try to figure out why he's working on the same thing with SOOO many edits so i'm less confused and am okay with what he's doing. It's been driving me crazy with all the edits, and understanding is key to acceptance. ~~

Kio madoushi 22:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Remember this? "You're taking up all this space with extra pages, unnecessary duplicates really, just because you want this added where it isn't, or you want it that way when it's not..." thats why people "jumped on you" Thering 23:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Thanks to Infinite and Venom for the "welcome back" wishes : ) And thanks to Thering for the compliment about the infobox, I hope I can find a way to make it work. Erasculio 00:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

He already replied regarding the same thing, Thering. This was not on your talk space, this was not meant to include you. It was meant to include him, and he replied, and things were done, and left as they were for half a day, then people decided they had to leave their opinions on me asking why. I was never aware of him being banned, so duplicate pages seemed out-of-place, especially when you can choose to conform with stuff as they were chosen by your fellow wiki users. I wasn't here when the skill layout was made, but i went with it cos that's how everyone else made it. The duplicate pages DID seem weird cos there were so many of them that held little purpose that wasn't quite explained, and i was still confused as to why, but again, THINGS WERE OVER BEFORE ANYBODY DECIDED TO JOIN IN. I asked him to clarify cos it was bugging me and i didn't get it. He did, and everybody else had to get hostile, misconstruing everything (as you just did again, taking a single quote out of context). This is over, and has been fully discussed. I am done here, I get why (he made it obvious as we talked), and everyone can stop making claims against me, and start reading and understand when it's inappropriate to jump into another's conversation. I get now that he's back, and he missed that stuff, and wants his own of the things he missed out on. I got that from him, everyone else didn't need to turn my question into some sort of attack, which it wasn't. Also, welcome back Erasculio, and thanks for clarifying that stuff. Good luck with it all. ~~

Kio madoushi 00:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks : ) Erasculio 00:24, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

@Kio Ok, I'm dropping talking about this, because you're already upset/angry and i don't want/mean to make you (more) so Thering 01:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Firstly, I'd like to echo Infinite's welcome back message and that I personally think that how many userpages you have or make at a single time is rather irrelevant, however I do have one question, and I apologize if this was asked but I merely skimmed after Aqua's first comment (didn't want to read an argument, I wanted to read a simple Q&A): Why have so many? Your making edits and testing templates, couldn't this be done with only a handful of skills (at most, a handful per profession?), yet I saw the RC "spammed" with new articles for quite a while now. I'm all for unique templates, or even using the userspace to test templates ([[User:Konig Des Todes/Sandbox|I love]] doing that), so I'm just curious about the sheer number. Anyways, answer doesn't matter merely curious, no intent to start/continue/re-ignite an argument. Konig/talk 03:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Some things cannot be tested with only a few skills. In order to see if changes to one thing don't mess another, it's better to see everything at the same time; in other words, it was better to see all possible layouts of the skill table together than make one, replace it with another, and so on. Hence [[User:Erasculio/Skill icon|this]]. In order to test multiple parameters, I needed different skills (weapon skills, racial skills, skills with life force cost, adrenaline skills, skills with initiative, dual weapon skills, and so on).

Now, I'm one step ahead of that - I'm trying to see what happens when trying to organize the entire lists. For example, I want the weapon skills to be displayed in the same order as they appear on the skill bar, but in order to test that I need to have multiple weapon skills, both for a weapon and at least some for different weapons. Hence this.

My next step will be trying to make a list of non-weapon skills. In order to do that, I'll have to make skill articles of some healing, utility and elite skills, to see how can I sort all of them, if there's some kind of conflict, and so on.

I'm more worried about all the changes to the template itself than about the creation of new articles, but unfortunately I know of no other way to test a template other than saving it over and over. Erasculio 03:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Makes sense, though I do hope you're not intending/hoping to have GW1W's skill list set up as the set up for GW2W's. I have been enjoying the differences between the two (especially the ones that have a more artistic feel, though I think the few of those that existed have been removed/replaced in regards to mainspace). Konig/talk 03:33, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The coding between the two skill lists (mine and those from GW1W) are very different. Aesthetically wise, though, there isn't much room for variation. I would like to keep the dual colors seen on the currently existing skill lists, but unfortunatelly DPL doesn't allow for that kind of different formatting in common rows, as far as I know. Erasculio 00:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

About the similarity to GWW's skill tables, tables like what we have now aren't nearly as informative or useful as GWW's. Just because it's their's doesn't mean it isn't good. (That said, artistic skill tables would be awesome...) Aqua (T|C) 03:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd figure I'd ask

if I could steal your skill table code to mess with... Aqua (T|C) 01:51, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Be my guest. I'm bordering the limits of what I can do by myself. Erasculio 02:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Icons

Skill icon and a new recharge icon . I feel like I've made the skill point icon look a lot like what's in the game sacrificing some of the tango qualities. Let me know what you think. -- aspectacle 23:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I like the skill icon; you captured almost exactly what it looks like in game, while still managing to give it a bit of a tango flair. Looking on skill pages, it looks a bit dark, though; maybe it would look slightly better if the black borders were a bit less thick? I am not very fond, however, of the recharge icon, perhaps because I'm used to the old one looking a lot smaller. In a skill list (for example, here), it draws the eyes a bit. Maybe the inside could be made to be black, like the inside lock of the activation icon (

)? Or maybe it could be inverted, so the inside and the border would be yellow while the middle is transparent? I'm not sure that would be possible in a tango motiff, though...

Thank you for taking your time working with this. I know you're busy, so the fact you are helping the wiki with something as time consuming as this is great :-) Erasculio 00:13, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Great feedback, thanks Erasculio. I've uploaded new versions to the same locations. Are they better? This stuff is no problem really - I find it kinda fun. -- aspectacle

03:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, much better now! I like the consistency between the icons - now everything skill related has dark lines in its inside, and no empty spaces. Looks great to me :-) Erasculio 11:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

pling and poke

You have managed to thoroughly confuse me with your comments on pling and poke's bureaucrat reconfirmations. Some of them don't particularly make sense, while others I just blatantly disagree with, but my disagreement really has nothing to do with the RfAs anyway. There are a lot of things, so I'll outline them.

You have complained on both of their reconfirmation requests that they "barely use the block tool, the deletion tool, or do any of the maintenance activities that sysops are expected to do." (You also said that Tanetris made a good admin/bcrat because he used the deletion tool.) You demand that sysops be active janitors on a fairly quiet wiki, which I don't see the point of. If Tanetris can do deletions in a timely manner, then why does it matter than poke and pling don't? What should matter that it gets done. Blocks and deletions should not be a "count" to assess whether one is "worthy" of sysophood.
You argue that neither of them is capable of viewing the wiki beyond a lens of GWW, and that they don't understand the differences between the wikis yet. This directly clashes with your first point. On GWW, the idea that sysops are glorified janitors is/was (I'm not sure where it stands now) widely held. I don't see how you can argue that they are too much like GWW in terms of adminship while simultaneously arguing that they aren't janitorial enough. Beyond that, one should not be penalized for actions that helped somewhere else because those beneficial actions helped somewhere else. If they mean well, they'll do good wherever they go, regardless of which wiki they are on.
Thinking about it now, you seem to have reduced your arguments to various forms of number tallies (poke doesn't edit enough, pling doesn't use his tools enough, etc.). The only real things you seem to have considered are the number/frequency of contributions and the number of uses of various tools. Adminship is not about numbers, though often that point is missed. It is about skill in resolving conflict and being diplomatic; about knowing when is the appropriate time to take a certain course of action. It is not necesarily about editing
On poke's, you said that his very presence "leads other people to be lazy." It is not that we are being lazy, we are seeking help, which is a natural thing to do when faced with a problem that you can't seem to figure out. If you were having difficulty with say, a homework problem is high school, would you try to force the answer out on your own, or go get help from a teacher. Yes the teacher is a sort of leader of the class, but that's mostly because they are so much more knowledgeable about the subject. And its not like we're being spoon-fed poke propaganda (which seems to be the implication in your comment) when we ask for help.
Again on poke's you call for him to "not be a bureaucrat, or a sysop, or a contributor to this wiki" Honestly, who are you to tell someone that they aren't fit to edit this wiki? Is poke destructive? No. Does he harm the wiki directly or indirectly? No. Does he troll? No. Does he incite conflict? No. Is there anything that would warrant saying that he should not even be here? No. When you say someone shouldn't be a contributor, you are essentially asking for them to be banned or to remove themselves; poke has done nothing to warrant that kind of response. I don't get it.
Following on the previous point, you also ask him to "learn about the community before trying to become an admin." Again, this is a direct contradiction of what you previously said. One cannot simultaneously remove themselves from the community and learn from the community.
Also, because Wikichu: there has been no real need for Wikichu recently. (Removing icon redirects aside, but that is relatively fresh and not that important). Beyond the lack of need for wikichu, you fail to notice that even if we did need the bot, it would take time to code whatever programs were needed to run.

You seem to be spouting various GW2W platitudes ("different wiki, different community;" "we are not GWW"; etc.), but you misuse them by so much that it renders them useless or incorrect. While I too want to see this community become its own, removing key admins who have been here and have helped shape this community is a step back. It seems clear to me that you have some sort of personal issue with both of them, and I was wondering if there was a specific reason behind it. Aqua (T|C) 00:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Aqua, on this discussion, you made the following argument as a way to refute another user's proposal (and no, I was not involved in that discussion): "Long story short: "background-image" doesn't work correctly, and Pling (or poke) does not like the idea of using absolute position and opacity (both of which are 'gimmicky')". Now, why did you think that pointing how Pling and/or poke not liking a feature was by itself enough to not use it on this wiki, regardless of anything else? Erasculio 01:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I suspected you would do this. I would like you to answer my questions, instead of referring to a random discussion that has nothing to do with what I wrote.

I know that one of the two said something along the lines of "that has a tendency to note work". They have reasons for doing things, and though the specific reason has left my memory, I know they had a reason behind it, which is why I agreed with them. However, the relevance of that question to what I said is limited if not non-existent. Long story short does mean that there is something else in there.

I know what you're trying to do, which is prove that users such as myself blindly follow pling and poke. And you are incorrect. Aqua (T|C) 02:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

If you really assume you already know everything I'm going to say and the intention behind every word I will write, this will be a very short discussion. Erasculio 02:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

How about you answer my questions? Aqua (T|C) 02:44, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

First off, chill out. Second, this AfD format was implemented to keep discussions in one place, so please use the RfAs to discuss the relevant points.

03:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

(RI) Here you go:

Does Tanetris and the other sysops perform all sysop tasks timely, which then would excuse Pling and poke for not doing them? Somewhat. However, if Pling and poke are not needed to perform sysop tasks... Why do they have to be sysops? Or, in other words, if their lack of action as sysops is irrelevant to the wiki, isn't the fact they are sysops irrelevant to the wiki? This is because...
...I want sysops to be janitorial. I'm not fond of the alternative, which is to make admins some kind of leader or whatever. As far as I'm concerned, being a good sysop equals doing what a sysop is meant to do: performing maitenance (janitorial) tasks and blocking trolls. Pling or poke have barely done that here. Have they done something similar in other wikis? Not really my concern, this isn't "other wikis". Anyone claiming they are good sysops is doing so mostly based on how they have acted in GW1W, missing the point that the communities are different; and if you really think that someone considered a good admin in one wiki would be considered a good admin in any wiki, I would point you to the Pruning initiative Pling took in GW1W, in which he mentioned how many of the GW1W users who also happened to be admins on PvX wiki were bad contributors who should be banned; needless to say, they wouldn't make good admins from GW1W's point of view. For the records, Pling wasn't an admin when he suggested that Pruning initiative, which brings me to how...
...I disagree with you. Being diplomatic and helping to solve conflicts is something every user in the wiki should be. Being a sysop or not is rather irrelevant to those tasks; the only advantage a sysop has is being able to use the block feature, which isn't the first way to solve a conflict anyway (and for the records, I really don't remember seeing poke trying to solve a conflict, and I definitely remember many episodes in which he was far from being diplomatic). There are many ways Pling can help us improve the wiki, such as with his "Practice and processes" idea, but for those ways he does not need to be an admin. About poke, I'm significantly less confident about. Using the same example I mentioned above...
...Take a look at this section, near the end, where someone asked when was something going to be done, and the reply (your reply, for the records) was basically "we are waiting for poke". That's a common theme. Simply put, that's not how a wiki works - we do not stay still waiting for someone to act the way he/she wants to act. Using your metaphor, this isn't asking a teacher for help in your homerwork, it's asking a teacher to do your homerwork for you instead of trying to learn by yourself. To give another example, the section I linked before (this one) was about not using the tango items as the background for skill infoboxes since poke and/or Pling said that wouldn't work; the result was the (IMO, rather ugly) infobox we currently have. However, had people actually questioned poke's assertion, it would have been noticed that, as Nox showed us, poke was wrong. He is acting as a crutch to the community, while we have other users with plenty of coding knowledge that could easily prevent us from having to wait for him when something needs to be done, or accept his point of view as the only truth. So to your point...
... Is poke detrimental to this wiki? I believe so. People who don't need a crutch should not use one. Communities who do not need to see someone as the only person capable of doing some kind of task do not need to have someone like that. I truly believe it would be better for the wiki if poke gave up on being an admin and just left, for now; and...
... Some time later came back, after this community had outgrew him (and hopefully forgotten him), as a common user; and as any common user, stopped to learn about the community before assuming he can help manage it. Right now, poke is not needed here; and as far as not being needed here...
...Wikichu is also not needed. As mentioned in my first point, if we don't need a specific sysop, if said sysop is irrelevant to the wiki... Why keep that sysop? The same applies to this bot. If it's irrelevant and uneeded... Why keep it around?

Aqua, the aggressivity in your comments above is rather clear. I would rather have a civil discussion than bring this down to an exchange of unpleasantries. Erasculio 04:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

My only response to your wall is that GWW tried janitorial sysops, and it was a massive failure. It was easily in the top 3 biggest fuckups made on that wiki. The addendum to janitorial sysops, who, by the definition of being merely janitorial, can't use discretion to deal with trolls and other problem users, is that a system like ArbComm has to exist. Arbcomm was also a massive failure, and led to/multiplied trolling far more than dealt with it.

Luckily for us, the entire wiki realizes this. The entire wiki... except you. For reasons beyond my understanding, you still prefer janitorial sysops, despite the fact that they were tried and abolished on GWW for being too bureaucratic and ineffective (for emphasis: GWW calling something too bureaucratic and ineffective is saying a lot). Either way, this wiki community understands and accepts that sysops need to be able to think on their feet to be effective. If your goal is to be less like GWW, repeating the same mistakes they made seems like a very poor way to go about it. -Auron 09:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Auron, when I say "janitorial sysops", I mean sysops whose work is to keep the wiki running, by using the sysop tools in any way their discretion believe it to be necessary. From my point of view, the failure in GW1W was not in keeping sysops limited to maintenance tasks, it was in not believing in the discretion of sysops and trying to codify every little thing they were or not expected to do through policy. That's not an issue here - we don't even have policies (fortunatelly). Sysops are not limited in how their use their discretion when employing sysop tools. There is nothing preventing a sysop from banning an obvious troll based purely on the sysop's opinion, and nothing codified that the troll could try to find loopholes around.

The alternative to janitorial sysops is something I'm glad you are going to understand - Karlos. The idea that admins are not people who work on the wiki, rather people who lead the wiki, that they have more say in matters of content than everyone else (remember his "never revert a bureaucrat" comment?), and that they should take the important decisions on the wiki. Even the notion that they are better users, as opposed to people who are better at using the sysop tools, is something I don't agree with. You can say I'm insane and no one is ever close to trying to implement something like this here, but I disagree - you can see here the idea that admins are "leaders of the community", for example.

Pling and poke barely use the sysop tools. They barely use the bureaucrat tools since no one uses those often - changing user rights happens once in a blue moon around here. If they are admins but don't use the admin tools, what are they admins for? Erasculio 12:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

A question to people...

Ok, so when I heard the Collector's Edition of Guild Wars 2 was going to be "extremely rare", maybe I panicked a bit. Some times I have some trouble buying games, considering how I'm in Brazil, and CEs for less mainstream games (read: anything not by EA or Activision) don't get their CEs released here (and GW2 is not being released here period, for the records). So, to make sure I would get the game, I bought:

The Digital Deluxe Edition from the official website, so at least I knew I would play the game
The Collector's Edition from GameStop. I hate them and I wasn't sure they would accept my purchase (they have some weird protocols when selling to countries they don't have stores in, so there was a lot of room for trouble). They have accepted my purchase and sent me the beta code, though, so I guess this will work in the end.
The Collector's Edition from FNAC Portugal (hey, it was one of the few other places in the entire world to offer the CE and sell it to Brazil). Apparently this one is going to work, too, as they have sent me the pre-purchase CE box. The thing is, this one is from Europe, so I probably won't be able to play using it (due to the region lock).

It appears I will end with the Digital Deluxe Edition, one American Collector's Edition that I can use and an European Collector's Edition that I cannot use. I don't have any interest in having multiple accounts. I'm still trying to figure out if there's any in-game advantage of having the CE as opposed to having just the DDE, but probably there won't be. Which means I will have at least one copy of the CE that I have no use for.
What should I do with those extra copies? Suggestions? Erasculio 12:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

sell it to someone you know, or someone online (on an ebay like site) or, give it away? --

The Holy Dragons 12:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Depending on which version you've registered yourself an account with (and possibly linked your GW account to), you could hold on to the unopened ones and sell a CE past the CE purchase time frame for some extra money to cover the initial costs. I don't know if you're allowed to do that, though. They haven't been clear enough about their CEs, so maybe returning it with a written letter regarding the region lock confusion to get a refund could work, too. - Infinite - talk 13:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

a refund for a game that is to be activated only once? slight chance there kid. --

The Holy Dragons 13:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Hence the "unopened" part. - Infinite - talk 13:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I could sell it through Ebay, but I'm not really fond of using that kind of online service (the hassle is way too much, IMO). I don't know anyone in real life who's into Guild Wars 2 (or MMOs or even RPGs), so there isn't anyone nearby I could give the game away to. Asking for a refund is an interesting idea, but again, too much hassle.

Plan A will likely be selling it anyway. I'm wondering about what could I do for plan B, though... Erasculio 14:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Open an RfA and raffle the CE off to people who support you.

16:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Save it for when some poor stiff gets his account hacked, and offer him/her the key out of the goodness of your heart. Immediate popularity!

Alternatively, make an account similar to User:Sock (from gww) which can be played by anyone as a sort of "game demo" before they buy the game for real. Could link it from the main page and everything. Helping Anet generate sales with such an unusual approach would surely earn you an NPC reference or something. Vili 点

18:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Your second idea would likely be a breach of the EULA (there's something in there about not sharing accounts). But your first idea is very, very good... I think I may do that. Erasculio 21:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Skill icons

Just out of curiosity, is there a reason you're uploading JPG skill icons for your sandbox pages rather than using the PNG's with {{borderless}}? :P — Rhoot 21:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

While you were writing here, I was writing at the Image formatting article :-P Erasculio 21:55, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

So I noticed. :P — Rhoot

21:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

All your skill pages

I know that you were already asked this above, but I didn't feel like necro-ing that conversation. Are you still creating a duplicate wiki in your own userspace because you do not agree with the design of the infoboxes? If that's the case, why not just use MoWeS and carry it around on a thumb drive? Also, with your current support for Alfa's infoboxes, aren't you just going to delete all these anyways? I'm just curious. Venom20 03:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I actually have to thank you, Venom, you just gave me a great idea. I was going to reply that I could never make a copy of all skills, since I have to add all parameters manually; if, for example, ArenaNet changed the description of 100 skills, I would have to change those 100 descriptions manually by myself. But then it hit me - maybe I don't have to edit the articles manually; maybe it would be possible to summon those variables from the mainspace skill articles. And, thinking about it, that's how the skill lists here currently work, which means yes, it is possible. But the skill lists are summoning this information manually, skill by skill; I wonder if I could add the summoning to my skill infobox template... That would likely work, but the issue would be adding it to the skill infobox as a definition, so it could be summoned by the skill list template. I wonder if it's possible to add a definition within a template that the template itself will use... Or maybe use a phantom template for that.

I will answer your question later, when I'm home. Erasculio 11:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not duplicating the wiki; I'm making an alternative layout for the skill lists, much as CoRrRan did in the original wiki, with an alternative layout for skill infoboxes. I won't make that for all professions since it would require considerably more manual work than just replacing the current skill lists; but I want the code in my skill list to be able to handle all skills in the game, which means I need to create a few skill articles I don't plan to keep in order to see how the template deals with unusual skills. I'll probably only keep lists for the guardian, elementalist and engineer professions.

MoWeS wouldn't really offer me anything, and it would definitely not offer anything to anyone else who would like to use this alternative design. Alfa's infoboxes do little to no changes to the skill infobox design; most of his changes are to the other infoboxes. Erasculio 03:16, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused, why are you re-creating a lot of pages (articles, categories, etc) under your user name? ?.? - 201.24.9.137 22:55, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

See here and the top of this section. Erasculio 23:09, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

"bulldozing over the community"

I could do that just fine without being an admin, so I don't see how that has any bearing on my RfA. —Dr Ishmael 22:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

You know, that's not exactly the most conforting reply :-P Erasculio 22:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't meant to be. :P —Dr Ishmael

22:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

You consult the Devil's Advocate. It says:

'What do you do when the community is wrong and needs to be bulldozed anyway? Who will have the boldness to act?'

Vili 点

22:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Honestly I feel all the nominated candidates have that boldness readily available. Yes, even I. :P - Infinite - talk 22:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Vili, I honestly believe the community needs to pay for being wrong and left to suffer the consequences of its opinions. I really admire Tanaric for deleting all the builds from GuildWiki, all that time ago; that kind of decisive action to solve a problem once and for all is extremely commendable... But I'm not sure I would be very happy to see something like that again. The risk of having someone believing he/she knows better than everyone else and so free to act without restriction or restraint, regardless what others think, is somewhat troubling, to say the least. Erasculio 22:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you're quite correct. It's all well and good to say in hindsight that boldness was an excellent choice, but at the time of the actual decision it is quite scary to contemplate - even for heavy-handed authoritarian types like me that on the surface have no qualms about doing whatever they feel is right, screw the rules. Behind the computer screen, though, I worry about things excessively, and hitting that Save page button is one of the hardest things in the world right then. I can't imagine what that must have been like for Cory.

Of course, I can't really give a comforting response either, since my solution to this problem has always been "make sure you bet on the right side" (usually mine). You could definitely argue that since I have been more fortunate than not in where I place my support, that influences my stance on boldness. Yet, at the same time I think it's one of those things that one has to get a feel for. I call it intuition, but it's that feeling where you just "know" someone will generally make right decisions if given the authority to do so. To be specific, I get that feeling from the Doc (same now as I did back then on GuildWiki), and I trust it; but I can understand how others might feel differently from something that seems so natural/obvious to me, as it has no real logical basis or other way to back it up.

As to "making the community pay", I firmly believe in that method of instruction as well. But I'm sure you'll agree with me that nobody really enjoys the suffering part of it, and that's why it comes across as heretical even to mention such an approach :p Vili 点

23:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

A little help with the skin

Could you please replace your monobook.css with my current one, and tell me if the bur persists (don't forget to clear your cache!). TY! Alfa-R 12:24, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Fixed! Thank you very much, ~~Aqua~~ Alfa! (Sorry, guess I still haven't waken up yet :-O) Erasculio 12:32, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I wanted to ask you to try my custom monobook once more (and also vector, if you could, please), since you had issues with the previous version, and I'm worrying they may appear with an update again. Alfa-R

20:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The issue is gone, actually. Removing the fix you gave me doesn't bring the bug back; in fact, emptying my monobook.css doesn't show the bug anymore. Using your currently monobook or vector skins doesn't bring it back either. Nice job! Erasculio 23:59, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Editing from phone

I knew I couldn't be the only one who does that regularly (majority of my days, actually)! :P - Infinite - talk 10:50, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

That definitely needs to be made into a infobox :-D Erasculio 10:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Definitely! I'll get on that momentarily. :P - Infinite - talk 10:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I made this userbadge. ~~I am now going to make it into a userbox.~~ - Infinite - talk 12:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Template:User Smartphone - Infinite - talk 12:10, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Yay, thanks! :-) Erasculio 23:59, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Context: importance of editing

re: this edit

I'm surprised you interpreted my words to mean I don't think editing is important on a wiki generally. SLP asked whether we thought it was important for mobility access and I addressed that question: in my opinion, it's not. Only a small fraction of readers ever edit the wiki, so I don't think we need to cater to those who do.

It's fairly easy to undo vandalism or reply to a talk page from the phone, but the small screens don't allow people to reasonably preview complex articles before saving. Already on other wikis, including GWW, we see otherwise reliable editors apologizing for saving too quickly from their mobile and only later realizing what they had done.

I think there are plenty of people who are skilled enough to edit from their phone (added: my short list would include Infinite, Ish, and yourself), but it's such a tiny fraction of the wiki's audience that I don't think we need to do anything special for them. I also worry that there are also plenty of people who are not that skilled at mobile wiki editing and I'm not sure that we should make things easier for them. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 16:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

The issue goes a bit deeper than that. The most popular solution to the issue of accessing the wiki from a mobile device, in the previous discussion about it, was to adopt Wikipedia's solution to the issue. It has the following issues:

It does not allow someone using the site's mobile version to read talk pages, or to use the watchlist, or to look at recent changes.
It does not allow someone using the site's mobile version to edit anything.
It's not a setting someone can turn on or off easily; it autodetects if you are accessing the site from a mobile device, and it sends you to the proper site.
You can ask to go back to the full site, but this is done by a very short lasting cookie, so it's the kind of thing that has to be done quite often.

In other words, it's not a matter of saying, "editors are not that important, so let's do something that is not going to help them but will help everyone else". It's a matter of saying, "editors are not important, so let's do something that will actually hamper them while marginally helping everyone else". And the main reason why this "solution" is being seen so favorably is due to how easy it is - we could make a system that not only wouldn't hinder contributors, but also help them, however this would take a lot of time and effort. Copying Wikipedia's solution is far simpler and more immediate. It's somewhat ironic how this is being seen as something so important, considering how discussions here last months before they ever accomplish anything.

I do give up, though. This is the last thing I'll say about this subject. If the community tells me it doesn't want people to edit the wiki from mobile devices... I won't edit the wiki from a mobile device anymore. That is simple. Erasculio 02:19, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

guardian damage

How exactly are those numbers "wrong"? There was a discussion on my talk page about what baseline to use, and the best one is with a PvP weapon equipped, which is what I put on the guardian skills. You reverted them back to the no-weapon numbers, which aren't as useful for comparison between weapons. I even went to the trouble of documenting this baseline at Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Skill formatting before I updated the guardian skills. —Dr Ishmael 16:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I wonder why does the Skill formatting article have a talk page, since someone thinks his own talk page is the proper page to discuss wiki-wide changes to skill documentation. Whatever, it's not like you would ever admit being wrong about anything anyway. Erasculio 16:11, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Uh... the discussion just happened to come up on my talk page. I didn't mandate for it to happen there or anything like that, as you seem to imply. —Dr Ishmael

16:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Review

Trinity

I have to disagree with the trinity part. Its bad design, which is why people dont like it. Everything is DPS and zerg. None of the mobs have a decent aggro system like trinity games do. So it turns into a zerg for balance. look at all the dragon fights for example. The only placed that stop the zerg or at least control it is the Instanced content. Yet problem is, there is no large scale instanced PvE in this game to counter the zerg. all other large scale PvE is boring.--Knighthonor (talk) 07:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)