User talk:Konig Des Todes/Archives17

Trouble at the Roots enemies

As per the recently agreed-upon description of what phantasms should be in this game, none of the creature enemies seen during this instance fit it so if you could please stop labeling them as such, that would be great. In my mind, a live hallucination somewhat fits the page if we include visions taking place in the present but if the consensus does not, all pages unique to that instance should be deleted then since they wouldn't fit anything we have, made-up or not. 70.82.113.198 03:57, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

They're not memories, which are echoes of past events. Memories will never react to the player. And those hallucinations attack the player. They may not fit phantasms perfectly well (TBH, we can't say what that drug was, maybe there was mesmer magic in it), but it fits far more than memories. Furthermore, in the core game, phantasms always have a purple transparent look... just like those NPCs (except for the bugged out oozes).

Either way, I'm not gonna fight you over it, do whatever you want. Konig (talk) 03:59, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

You're the one who hammered on the "past-only" (even though Light in the Darkness exists) and "no reaction" angles onto the page so that's up to you to decide if you want to "fight" me on this. Either way, I think Memory as in Hallucination fits much more for these than Phantasm at this point. 70.82.113.198 04:03, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I did add that to the article, because you just made the article and it isn't complete. I mean, the very reason why they're called memories is because they're representations of past events. That's why the term was chosen to depict these types of NPCs.

And it should be noted that you're just repeating the same issue that began the discussion on Talk:Phantasm (race) in the first place. You labeled every NPC with unclear origins as phantasms, and now you're just relabeling them all as memories. That's not what was agreed on. Konig (talk) 04:26, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Apart from the enemies that caused this discussion, which are more ambiguous, all the NPCs on the page right now are seen as/during visions, unless you'd like to provide examples for the claim you just made. If the past-only aspect is that important to you, the page could always be renamed to 'Vision' to be more broad, which would suit me fine. 70.82.113.198 04:30, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

That's largely because I had already moved some you had altered (e.g., [1] and [2]) and you didn't further dispute it unlike these, leaving just these four. And the more important part is that memories - or visions, name does not matter one bit so long as it is remotely accurate - are non-interactive with the modern environment. Those drunken hallucinations that are visually identical to core phantasms (e.g., transparent purple), do interact. That's the key thing. Interaction and reaction. Konig (talk) 20:47, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Concepts arts on my user page about possible expansion.

I read your message, thanks for giving me the tips. I redid gw2 wiki already existing ones.

All of the others are GW1 concept arts and so the code don't work for them (have to keep my uploaded ones). Tell me if you see one that need to be changed.

File:User Ezrielia QuoraSum.jpg,File:User Ezrielia RuinFores.jpg,File:User Ezrielia FracWall.jpg,File:User Ezrielia ArtEun1.jpg,File:User Ezrielia ArtEun2.jpg,File:User Ezrielia AmphRuin.jpg are now tagged for deletion.

About the reason of why i haven't used the original concept art and resized them, it's because I've found them on several artworks/concept arts websites and wasn't aware we had them so sorry. Haven't made it on purpose.

--Inquest Overseer Ezrielia (talk) 10:40, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Hey, no worries about it, we can't know it all. :) By the way, it is technically against rules to remove talk page comments (nvm, I saw just now that you merely archived it - would be best to archive after a short period for discussion though), and a single conversation is best kept in one location. It would have been fine if you replied on your own talk page in the section I made. Anyways, cheers!

As to concept art that's not uploaded - always feel free to upload it under the mainspace yourself! It's fine if you accidentally upload a duplicate - if the image is the exact same, then you'll get an error notice before you can actually upload, and if you happen to find a larger version, that's all the better. If you happen to come across more concept art you want to upload, I wrote up a brief guide to help myself here a while back. Konig (talk) 15:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Boneskinner: That is one quality image!

That is one quality image!--Rain Spell (talk) 00:22, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

??? Promo images tend to be good quality. I didn't take that image if that's what you're trying to say. Konig (talk) 01:58, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh lol I thought you did. Nice upload all the same :)--Rain Spell (talk) 02:00, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Tanetris's RfA

Hey, I've been thinking about some of the stuff you said on Tanetris's RfA, specifically "It's rather insulting that multiple people would indirectly but plainly accuse me of bringing up an RfA due to a grudge or something." I'm fairly sure I'm one of the people you're alluding to, and I want to apologise for not assuming good faith. My lack of understanding of the details of recent discord drama should have been a reason to shut up and learn more, not to blindly throw my half-baked suspicions around. I also failed to assume good faith in the Dragonsawareness discussion, which was especially unfair of me as it turned out your simple statement of fact—and not my overly-polite pussy-footing—was more effective in getting the point across to said user. So, I'm sorry. —Idris 14:30, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I would infer from Konig's well mannered reply that he's likely referring to me, given that I ungraciously booted him and smiley from discord. -Chieftain Alex 19:40, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I feel I owe him an apology regardless of whether he was calling me out or not. Some of my comments on the RfA were clumsy, and Konig unfairly took the brunt of most of that. —Idris 19:49, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

For reference, I was referring to the whole of those who kept bringing it up time and time again, since who made the RfA is there for all to see. It would have been less offensive to blatantly call me out on it, than to try and fail to skirt around the issue.

That said, apology accepted, Idris. Konig (talk) 02:11, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

fyi

Just so you know, "transgendered" is highly offensive. The preferred term is transgender. horrible | contribs 01:59, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Also, grammatically incorrect. see here. horrible | contribs 02:03, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Phrases like "for your information" and "just so you know" can also be taken as offensive and condescending, especially in short, curt comments. If you fancy yourself a social justice warrior, as you seem to be given your recent topics of focus, you might take into consideration not to fall into the same follies that result in the oft mockery of others in the same positions.

And, not that I need to defend myself, I'd rather be corrected by someone it actually influences, than someone who feels the need to take up arguments for other people without their knowledge let alone consent. Konig (talk) 02:09, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Obviously Horrible does not win any tactful points for his call-outs, but this is a sensitive topic and words do matter. As a guy who's basically the character creator defaults in all ways I get the impulse to scoff at the "PC police," I really do, but consider this: if you say you'd rather wait for someone it influences to correct you, aren't you really just saying you won't change until you've already hurt someone? - Felix Omni 03:18, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

In all fairness, Konig did correct the spelling immediately, even if he was a little saltier than necessary. :p I do agree with your point though. —Idris 03:33, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely, and props for that. But in general, being proactively considerate is the best way to win friends and influence people. - Felix Omni 03:42, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Context is more important than vocab, Felix. And the reason I said that, is because I've been in numerous discussions with transgender people about being transgender, and they never once corrected me for any vocab choices I had. Either I was lucky, or they knew from context I wasn't being insulting. In fact, the only time I get corrected is by people who aren't transgender, and there's enough people on the internet telling others what to be offended by that I don't need such BS being directed at me here. Konig (talk) 23:48, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

In case my original comment wasn't clear, I'm telling you. I'm offended by it. horrible | contribs 23:54, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

"Either I was lucky, or they knew from context I wasn't being insulting." Why not both? ;) A lot of minority folks have the grace to be patient with default-character-setting folks when they slip up, and the guile to choose their battles -- letting clumsy vocab slide so they're not seen as a tedious SJW when they need to call you out on something worse, for example -- but that doesn't mean you shouldn't be mindful and make the choice to do better in future. :) —Idris 00:06, 22 June 2020 (UTC)