User talk:Salome/Jun 10 - Oct 10

''This is an archive of past discussions. Please do not edit this page. If you wish to leave me a message, do so on my talk page.''

Guild
I've moved to the one my sister's in. Figured I could just reach you through the friend list instead of a gray guild roster. Thanks for providing shelter, be sure to message me when you see me online! &mdash; Why 12:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No Worries mate. ASH is pretty much dead these days, might be thinking of moving myself soon once I'm back online more. -- Salome   [[Image:User_salome_sig2.png|19px]] 13:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Images
oh, you stated, is there anything I can help or do? I want to see if I can get the transparent images not to look jagged, if it's possible. Previously Unsigned 15:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure matey, I'm now using a fairly good GPU and although the images are now FAR better quality the jaggedyness is actually in the avatar itself not the image. I don't know if their is a way to reduce the jaggedness of the image, as it's not the image which is producing the jagged lines. Maybe someone more informed about this than I would know. Their are a fair few artistically minded peeps on the wiki. So please ask them. For now I'm just going to do the ranger mask galleries as a first run and let people respond as to what they think about it. That's also why I haven't yet deleted the old images, as if people don't like the new images, it makes it easier to revert to the old template without having to undelete/re-upload stuff. -- Salome   [[Image:User_salome_sig2.png|19px]] 15:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh I just meant when you use the background eraser tool, playing with the AA tolerance on it and seeing if it does anything. Or maybe poking into forced graphics card AA options, like the Catalyst Control Center or such. Previously Unsigned 16:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * done that matey, forced the AA as far as it can go. :) -- Salome   [[Image:User_salome_sig2.png|19px]] 16:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

question
a little while back i stumbled on a page on the wiki that i have forgotten the name to. the page was based on the windows interface for the guild wars properties when you right clicked the shortcut icon (here's an image to what I am talking about). do you have any idea what the page maybe be titled? i have been looking for the last hour and can't find it. :\ --24.126.139.64 18:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Command line arguments? – User Balistic B d-dark.pngalistic 18:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * no, not that. the page i am talking about literally haves an image similar to the one i linked. --24.126.139.64 18:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The page Balistic linked should be the page you are looking for, since it's the only one that has to do with the properties window. The image you think was there may have been removed, or you may be thinking of the other wiki.--[[Image:User Pyron Sy sig.png|19px| ]] Pyron Sy 18:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * no, it was on this wiki. it was yesterday when i was on the page. it discussed strings iirc and literally had an image on the page similar to the link i gave as an "example of what the guild wars shortcut looks like". --24.126.139.64 18:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Silly question, but have you tried checking your web history? Or if it has been removed on the wiki as Pyron Sy suggested, then I suppose checking the deletion logs on here might help? Tylenol Jones 18:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You were probably thinking about GuildWiki they have this image on their command line page. – User Balistic B d-dark.pngalistic 18:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems you've gained alot of help already. I would have directed you to the command line page aswell as it does seem to be the one your referencing and I don't believe any of our wiki pages has an actual image such as the one you linked, thus again I would have to go with Balistic on this one and say its probably the page on guildwiki you were looking for. If not please say and I will have a word with some of the other admins and they may know which page you mean, as each of the admins are more familiar with different parts of the wiki dependent upon personal activity on the wiki and personal interest. Sorry I can't be of more help. -- Salome   [[Image:User_salome_sig2.png|19px]] 19:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey
Are you still Catholic? elix Omni 01:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * yup. Why do you ask? -- Salome   [[Image:User_salome_sig2.png|19px]] 01:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Just curious. Glad to hear it. My uncle and his partner are practicing Catholics too. [[Image:User_Felix_Omni_Signature.png]]elix Omni 10:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries. When I was in seminary, a great many of my friends (who are now priests) all had boyfriends too...(many still do as far as I'm aware) -- Salome   [[Image:User_salome_sig2.png|19px]] 13:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey 2
Can I have your Llye panel transparency TexMod? :) – alistic 04:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You can have what I use, but I should warn you it isn't transparency. For what I'm doing a transparent background wouldn't work as I would still have to take the screencap and no matter what the background colour (whatever that may be) it would still have to be cut out. Instead what I use is a texmod which changes the background to the brightest white possible (due to the contrast between bright white and every other colour in the game) and then use Gimp to add an alpha level, fuzzy select the white, delete it and then save as a png. It used to be quite alot of work but because I have all my hotkeys sorted, I can take a picture, edit and save it in about 3 minutes. I'll see if i can upload the texmod file somewhere for you, if you are still interested in it. -- Salome   [[Image:User_salome_sig2.png|19px]] 13:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm still interested in it :) – User Balistic B d-dark.pngalistic 16:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Bump? :) – User Balistic B d-dark.pngalistic 00:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Yuck
I really hate what you are doing to the armor pages. The bald Dervishes are just nasty. I also hate the "rendered" look of the images, they remove all in game context. I really wish you would rethink this, and at the very least give them hair. -- Wyn  talk  22:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Wyn the point of the armour pages is to display the armour on an ingame model (and bald is a hair choice for dervishes, blame anet for that). True the bald dervishes are not the sexiest in the whole world, however the point of those pages isn't to appeal to ones sense of the personal aesthetic, it is to convey the detail of the armour on an ingame model, while showing the most detail possible to the wiki-user so that they can make an informed choice as to if they wish to have that armour on their own character model. The bald avatars reduce any issues with personal hair styles covering up details on the armour which may or may not be present dependant upon personal hair choice. Therefore choosing models with the least amount of hair is in effect the best way forward in this instance as it serves the need of the entire WIKI base rather than just the needs of people who happen to have chosen the same hair style.
 * As for the rendered look of the avatars, I can assure you that they are not rendered. They are each taken within the dye preview screen, which has been discussed before and has the best neutral lighting in the game. As the background to the dye preview screen is mist and thus lacks any form of context, one is not losing anything by having this distracting background removed. Further to this point having these images taken on a beach or anywhere else, just serves to show what the armour looks like in that particular lighting, the context is meaningless as it negatively effects the general utility of the page itself. Everyone knows what armour will look like in the dye preview screen and thus have a frame of reference for images taken from this, to which to base their choices upon, not everyone however will have been to the exact instanced area where an image is taken out in the wild and as such the context is actually detrimental to the user in this instance.
 * Any context given is solely dependant upon situation and personal avatar choices, thus for the utility of the armour pages it is imho best to remove oneself from this and instead focus on the purpose of the armour pages, which is simply the following:
 * to convey what the armour looks like,
 * on an existing ingame model,
 * in the clearest way,
 * with the most detail,
 * in good ambient lighting,
 * with the least amount of distractions or obstructions (read: hair, backgrounds, odd lighting etc...).
 * All of these criteria are being met with the images I am uploading at the moment and due to me actually doing the whole thing rather than just bits and bobs, one can now actually fairly compare armour against one another in these instances, which could be quite tricky to do before with the somewhat varied images we had.
 * However As you will see Wyn, I have purposefully left the original jpgs alone and not deleted them, (which in part is why im uploading as png's), so that the page can be reverted to its prior form if consensus is against these changes. My plan was to finish the dervish pages (both male and female) as a test run and then have the community decide if they like the way the pages look after I've worked on them, if they want them returned to their previous form or if they want some kind of fusion of the two. I hope this explanation explains my stance on this issue.
 * In future may I also say that although constructive criticism is appreciated, when someone is working towards the betterment of the wiki (even if you don't agree with what they are doing), beginning a post with "Yuck" possibly isn't the most tactful way to broach the subject. -- Salome   [[Image:User_salome_sig2.png|19px]] 00:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That being said, I am looking into which hair styles could be used for both genders which aren't too obstructing to the armour images. I think I've found 1 for both male and female and shall proceed to re-upload the composite images with hair. It should be noted it takes me several hours to do a full set of composite armours, so this will not be an immediate change. -- Salome   [[Image:User_salome_sig2.png|19px]] 01:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Gorgeous. You have almost made me want to buy another character slot to make myself a dervish. G R E E N E R  04:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you kindly! That is most appreciated! If you tell me what proff your main is, I shall work on that profession's gallery next. :) -- Salome   [[Image:User_salome_sig2.png|19px]] 04:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * My monk has been spoiled enough (though not played enough, recently). If you put up even nicer pictures of monk armour, I'll be out real money as well as in-game money! G R E E N E R  04:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well if the community thinks that my changes to the Dervish galleries were an improvement, I shall be working through each of the professions in turn, so I'll put Monk to the top of the que. Thanks again for the compliment though, it really is most appreciated! ;) -- Salome   [[Image:User_salome_sig2.png|19px]] 05:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if I "offended" you. I have never ever been a fan of "rendered" pictures when it comes to documenting the game. I have expressed that repeatedly since they've started replacing user provided screenshots. The fact that I don't see what you are doing as a "betterment" to the wiki is my perfectly valid opinion, so deal with the way I express it rather than berating me for it. I had enough of that bullshit when I was a sysop. I do completely hate what you are doing and I feel it's my right to tell you that. Oh, and btw.. it's general practice that you get consensus for MAJOR changes BEFORE you implement them, not after. -- Wyn [[Image:User Wynthyst sig icon2.png|19px ]] talk  06:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Wyn I'm not offended, I was just saying, as a person who respects you, that perhaps your communication style in this instance was not the most conducive to progressive discourse. As for gaining consensus beforehand, I direct you to Be Bold, adding existing images to an already existing page, in accordance with the formatting guidelines, is not a major change, it's simply a stylistic improvement. Even seeking consensus afterwards in this instance is not necessitated by the wiki guidelines, but I am doing so to make sure that the project is wanted by the community. As I have said, thus far I have not deleted any of the old pictures and all it will take to revert the pages to the previous forms is a wee look at the page histories, which I'm happy to do if the community wishes it. You do indeed have a right however to vent your dislike of the work I'm putting into this project and I appreciate the feedback you can offer on this, however what would be more helpful is if you could instead voice what you would prefer in it's place, as personally I've seen a move away by the community from varied and practically useless "in the wild" screenshots, to uploading dye preview gallery screenshots, which is in essence the pattern I'm following, just with the removal of the mist background. The armour page's, left how they were, had many gaps and in many cases the composite pictures were just not helpful to the general user. I have wanted to get the pages sorted for some time and with the ever approaching GW2 release, I wanted to get the armour pages sorted here before then.
 * Further to that, I would like to draw your attention to the addition of hair to the dervish models, as you "asked" me too (which took several hours). In the very least that should show a strong willingness to build a compromise suitable for the entire wiki.
 * Saying all that Wyn, your combative communication style is not appreciated in this instance. You have a right to your opinions, in fact I welcome them, but I also expect you to be civil and approach any discourse on this wiki in a reasoned manner. As an Ex-sysop, you should know, that posts like your one above can quite easily, in other circumstances, devolve into shouting matches and that their is simply no need for the tone of your messages. I would therefore ask you, if you wish to continue this discussion on this page, to post in a less combative form, as I truly am open to ideas and suggestions to make the armour pages as functional as possible for the wiki-base. If you cannot do that however, further aggressive posts from you on this page, will not be responded too. Regards -- Salome   [[Image:User_salome_sig2.png|19px]] 11:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * In addendum, I should highlight that I have sought comment on this project throughout, from several sources; in game, in the test krewe, on IRC, and of course I always welcome comments from other wiki users. Further to this I have also been whispered ingame asking for the texmod file which allows me to make these screenshots and congratulating me on the project. I now only have the render resize to do for the male dervishes and the Dervish armour galleries will be completed, at that point I will link what I have done on the "request for comment page" so as to increase this projects visibility and gain insight from interested wiki users. I will also list the size and scope of the project and what I intend to do in this area, so as to give clarity to my actions and allow people to object in advance if they wish too. -- Salome   [[Image:User_salome_sig2.png|19px]] 12:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm...I, personally, like the hairless renders because it showed only the armor and the neutrality of the characters. (The hair is not a part of the armor piece). Also I found having no distractions from game backgrounds a more neutral & clearer pcture of the armor profile.  S ilverleaf   [[Image:User Silverleaf sig.png|Special:Contributions/Silverleaf]] Don't assume, Know! 13:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's just me that thinks this but for me, it's a equivalent of bald women and men modeling for clothes... unless it's for odd fashion like this . I don't mind the rendered looks of the armor though. It doesn't have to be an oppressive amount of hair, but this level would be okay IMO for armor.  .  I dunno, Bald is just weird for women, but I think it's ok for men. -- Lania [[Image:User Lania Elderfire pinkribbon.jpg]] 14:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Do the dye preview screens properly show the out-of-town better quality textures? --JonTheMon 14:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Afaik, they do. -- Lania [[Image:User Lania Elderfire pinkribbon.jpg]] 14:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm aware, the dye preview screen shows the highest amount of detail, thus why I choose to use it. :) -- Salome   [[Image:User_salome_sig2.png|19px]] 15:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Saying all that, what do you guys actually think of the Dervish galleries? Do you prefer them how they were, how they are now or is their other ideas which you have which can be used to improve them? -- Salome    15:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * For anyone interested on commenting on this and reading the project aim in more detail, I would like to direct you to the following page: Guild_Wars_Wiki_talk:Formatting/Armor_art_articles -- Salome   [[Image:User_salome_sig2.png|19px]] 18:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * So you basicly texmod the back of the dye preview window white? Sounds good.-- Neil  2250  User Neil2250 sig icon6.png 18:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yup, then I change the image to a png, add an alpha level, remove the white background and save. Thus you get images which can show transparency. (not sure if IE allows you to see that though, I know firefox does) EDIT: just checked IE and apparently it does, although it does seem to struggle a bit. -- Salome   [[Image:User_salome_sig2.png|19px]] 18:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Want me to do some Warrior renders? ive got some money to blow.-- Neil  2250  User Neil2250 sig icon6.png 18:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No Neil, thats alright matey. I have access to ALL the armour in the game already and the whole point of the new project is to ensure conformity throughout the images. Thanks for the offer though, it's most appreciated. -- Salome   [[Image:User_salome_sig2.png|19px]] 18:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I stumbled upon your page, and
I'm a complete noob at wiki coding, but I really like your page, could I please copy it, and replace it with my information/characters etc? I would credit you. Thanks.  Maskeus  12:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Please feel free. Some of the coding isn't exactly complex but can be quite hard to get your head round if your new to wiki coding. So if you need any help please give me a shout. :) -- Salome   [[Image:User_salome_sig2.png|19px]] 19:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much! It seems a simple matter of editing the text/links. Good luck in the elections. - Maskeus User Maskeus sig.jpeg 20:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've got the template to work, against all odds ^^. I was wondering if you could please fix/show me how to fix the spacing issues. - Maskeus User Maskeus sig.jpeg 21:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Having a look at the code now, to see what you can do to fix it. -- Salome   [[Image:User_salome_sig2.png|19px]] 19:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much ^^ - Maskeus User Maskeus sig.jpeg 20:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Rendered images
ohai

For what it's worth, I much prefer the rendered images - so thanks for taking the time! :)  A F K  When  Needed 13:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * .*Feels left out* Keep up the good work Salome, but for your own safety, stick to armor ¬_¬ *Hiss*-- Neil   2250  User Neil2250 sig icon6.png 13:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Didn't know mantids hissed. -- Konig / talk 13:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Its all in the teeth and tounge positions.-- Neil  2250  User Neil2250 sig icon6.png 13:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL @ hissing mantis. Also Thanks AFK, that's really appreciated. :) I will be doing Monk, Paragon and Sin next, as it's easier to do the extra proffs first. (and i just want to have monk done) -- Salome   [[Image:User_salome_sig2.png|19px]] 19:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I would also like to extend my thanks for the rendered images - they're looking great! Shadow Runner  20:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * .*Hiss* -- Neil  2250  User Neil2250 sig icon6.png 20:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Are all the renders you're uploading renders of your characters? *that's a lot of money you got there if so, bucko* @hissing mantis: Just use the no wiki coding for the first astrix, instead of using the period. -- Konig / talk 21:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No. He hacks peoples accounts, then deletes the characters after taking the screenshots.
 * And that's why you should do the right thing.
 * (Not you specifically, I know you alrady have.) User A F K When Needed Signature Icon.jpg A F K  When  Needed 22:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

any ETA on the headpieces (especially mesmers)? Previously Unsigned 23:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Not yet but I plan on having alot of it done this week coming, so will put mes masks on the top of the to-do list for masks. -- Salome   [[Image:User_salome_sig2.png|19px]] 23:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Awesome! I wasn't trying to dictate the order though. You should do whatever you find interesting since you are doing them. Previously Unsigned 23:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * For anyone wanting the texmod which allows me to get this rendered effect with my images, please find it here: Background Mod. If anyone needs help using it, give me a shout. --  Salome   [[Image:User_salome_sig2.png|19px]] 23:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Whoo! thank you, that's an awesome mod :). -- Lania [[Image:User Lania Elderfire pinkribbon.jpg]] 19:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Why?
Why did you abandon us? ;( - J.P. Talk  20:55, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ????? I'm assuming this is about chess? -- Salome   [[Image:User_salome_sig2.png|19px]] 22:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh wait, did we change alliance? -- Salome   [[Image:User_salome_sig2.png|19px]] 22:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't become a yellow leaf, Salome. -- Konig / talk 05:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah you did, Salome :( - J.P.[[Image:User J.P. sigicon.png| ]] Talk  18:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought you would know better
than to put your email adress in a place where people can easily view it. To reduce the amount of spam you might get in your salome.rial (atttttt) hotmail account, feel free to remove it from the 'real name' field in your preferences.  Koda   Kumi  20:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you Koda.:) However I created the salome.rial account solely for use on this wiki. It is not found anywhere else and nor do I use it for anything else. (it's not even linked to my personal email accounts in anyway) It is only there for people from the wiki to contact me if they need to. However I agree with you, the spam is getting somewhat tiring now. Lots of spanish people keep trying to flog me viagra and a bigger penis. Although initially hysterical reading lines like "Endowed like a pigeon?", the emails have somewhat lost their amusement value over time. Thank you again though Koda, as your concern is truly appreciated. I shall go and delete it now. :) -- Salome   [[Image:User_salome_sig2.png|19px]] 21:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. Also, watch Bill Maher's documentary "Religulous" if you have the time. It might convince you to throw away your faith and adopt a more solid view instead.  Koda  [[Image:User_Koda_Kumi_UT.jpeg‎|19px]]  Kumi  21:24, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I've watched it before. IS that the one where he meets all these religious nutjobs and basically goes "look these crazy people are religous, therefore if you're religous you are crazy too!", which is somewhat akin to pointing at George Bush and saying "look this arsehole is a republican, therefore all republicans are arseholes!". Hold on a minute....he may have a point. ;)
 * That aside though, I'm what's termed as a "progressive catholic", which seems somewhat of a conflict in terms, but is apparently possible. Basically you take the important bits and run with them and then look at the rest using a certain common sense approach. E.g follow the whole "don't kill people or steal their shit" bit of the bible, ignore the "don't eat shellfish, cut your hair, lets all shag our maid and then chuck her out on her arse" bits of the bible.
 * I suppose it falls under being a general follower of "natural law" which Aquinas chats alot about, which is a kind of moral objectivism in that it states some things are just innately wrong and others are innately right and all people, free of mental defect, know this to be so. The problem being is that while I was doing Law in uni, I also got interested in Sociology, Psychology and Criminology, which meant that I found out about cultural relativism and how that then effects moral relativism, which makes the whole natural law thingy somewhat dubious.
 * Needless to say I think my religious bent can be described as "Don't be a dick to people and hopefully they won't be a dick to you". As for the whole afterlife thingy, who knows? I try and be nice for the sake of not hurting people, not for the promise of some unlikely spiritual reward when I eventually pop my clogs. It would be nice to chill out on a cloud, drinking mojito's and having a natter with my winged mates, but I ain't gonna hold my breath for it either. Won't find out til it happens but if I die and find out the scientologists were right all along, i'm gonna be SO PISSED!!!! -- Salome   [[Image:User_salome_sig2.png|19px]] 01:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I am wondering, if you only follow the biblical morals that make some sense, why would you be a catholic at all and not make your decisions based on logical processes instead? I mean, our ancestors never had any religion, but they did not steal from each other, and did not kill, rape, or torture each other. They knew morals just as good as we do now. Why do we need to be told how to live, and how would anyone learn how to live a better life by reading a 2000-year-old book mostly written by israelian nomads and italian monks?  Koda  [[Image:User_Koda_Kumi_UT.jpeg‎|19px]]  Kumi  09:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * .*Cough* i somehow dout those three.-- Neil  2250  User Neil2250 sig icon6.png 09:35, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * bahahahahahahahaha - Auron 10:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ^ Shadow Runner  10:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * We having a contest,auron? O_O-- Neil   2250  User Neil2250 sig icon6.png 10:11, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I always use quote2. - Auron 10:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * i prefer quote3, orange is better than blue ;D -- Neil  2250  User Neil2250 sig icon6.png 10:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I was talking about apes, but apparently human civilization has done nothing but going downhill.  Koda  [[Image:User_Koda_Kumi_UT.jpeg‎|19px]]  Kumi  11:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It got even worse when the internet was created. Shadow Runner  12:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Errr... apes do kill, rape and steal. Actually most animals do. As for being told how to live, it all depends on interpretation. I like alot of the messages in the bible, such as be kind to your fellow man and everyone is your neighbour, don't kill each other, don't rape each other and don't steal each others stuff. Those founding principals are very liberal in nature and something that personally I agree with.
 * On another point I also believe their is a higher power than myself. I don't think it takes the form of some fatherly old man, but I hope that in some way it's benign and good, the same way that I hope people are innately benign and good (despite the evidence to the contrary). That belief however does not mean I run about like a crazy person saying "thank you jesus" for anything. In fact I don't think I've ever uttered those words. My success is my own as are my failures, neither caused by nor influenced by a higher power. I will admit that alot of Christianity takes on an odd form in America. The whole saying grace thing, thanking jesus for everything from winning a game show to scoring a touch down (or whatever you call scoring a point in eggball). It all takes on a wee bit of maniacal turn to it imho, which just isn't as evidenced in the EU. Sure we have many religious crazies here too, they just seem to either be not as abundant or as loud about it.
 * Saying all that however and getting back to the point, having faith in itself isn't a bad thing. A belief that something higher than you exists and that from that belief one can objectify a moral structure is at it's most basic a way to justify one's own morality, which in itself is unjustifiable. All morality is subjective, however as we are a pack animal we need an overarching morality to allow us to get on with things. The majority of people believe that killing someone or raping someone is wrong and therefore that becomes an objective morality for that society, with a minority not agreeing with it. In religion one asks "why does a group of people have this same view that killing people is wrong?". The answer "just because it is", is never good enough but beyond that, their is no answer and thus religious people justify it by saying "well their must be a higher power that we in some way reflect those noble principals", where as behavioural scientists would argue its a natural evolutionary instinct, due to us wanting to further the species. None of which however explains remorse, guilt or self sacrificing acts for strangers.
 * Any member of any progressive religion will have their own interpretations, mine is that people are noble in nature. Kind and good and willing to help others for no gain to themselves. This may come from evolution as a social animal but I also feel due to the fact that much of the stuff we do is not beneficial to the furtering of either ourselves or our race, but simply because we want to be nice, comes from a hardwiring if you will of a benign higher power.
 * As most peeps know here, my background is in religion and law. Due to this, I find alot of times I end up sat thinking how law can objectify certain things and how we know what's right and what isn't. Alot of the answers come back as "well it just is" and none of the scientific answers explain it completely to my liking. Therefore the only answer I am ever left with is that maybe their is something higher than us, that pushes us to be better people.
 * On a more cynical note however, what am I losing by having faith? I put my more noble aspects to some attribute of the divine being reflected in man, you put your's down to simply wanting to be the best person you can be. In essence they are both the same, we just apply different reasoning to why we are doing what we're doing.
 * I have never felt the urge to convert people or to even say my beliefs are right. (one of the many reasons why I wasn't cut out for being a priest, that and my dislike of church Dogma) I do believe that good people are good people, regardless of creed, colour, gender, sexual orientation, etc... and I am of the opinion that all people who dont want to be a dick, are, regardless of faith, living in a christian manner. Which regardless of if I'm right or not, is good enough for me. :) -- Salome   [[Image:User_salome_sig2.png|19px]] 12:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that you don't have to subscribe or identify yourself with a specific religion in order to still believe in god or a higher power. I'm not religious at all, I don't go to church, and yet I still believe in heaven, hell, souls, god etc.  I just don't like to call my self Christian, Shinto, or Buddhist even if my views match parts of the religion because people have certain expectations of your beliefs when you identify your self with an organized religion.  I mainly want to distance my self as far away as possible from the religious right-wing psychos.  In my view, god is basically the energy of the universe itself, in it's primordial form, an infinitely dense spec of energy that have created the universe through the big bang. It has no agenda, it doesn't take sides, it has no humanly emotions or desires, it just simply exists throughout everything. I think there is an entire world out there that is invisible to us and exists in different dimensions... and that's where heaven, hell, and souls exist.  In my view, souls are a form of electromagnetic energy that reside within us and gives rise to consciousness...  Who knows, maybe there are life forms that live inside the sun that's purely magnetic in nature, and that's where heaven/hell and souls exist.  Maybe souls come here riding the solar wind and implant themselves on any empty vessels they find?  In any case though, i don't think the law of the universe can have any contradictions or paradoxes so Scientology can't be right. -- Lania [[Image:User Lania Elderfire pinkribbon.jpg]] 15:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty much as atheist as one can get. I think the notion of a higher power is rediculous in itself, as I have no reason to assume there is one since everything can be explained by science or our lack of knowledge, which to me sounds way more plausible. Similarly I dismiss the notion of "souls" as human thought can be boiled down to a horendously complex interplay of neurons. That all doesn't mean I don't see the benefits of or disrespect religion though. There's a lot in the Bible (and other "holy" scriptures) we, even atheists like me, can learn from. I'll never mock people for just being religious, because as long as you share the core values like, don't kill people, don't steal shit, et cetera, it really doesn't matter where you derive those from. I, personally, try to be good to others because it makes me feel good, and while that is a very selfish way of going about your life, the results are largely the same. And even the "mysterious" part of religion has it's use as it can provide a lot of confirmation to those who are in need of such things. I personally suspect I'll never actively become religious, but recently I gave one of my friends, who was feeling quite extremely down about the loss of a distant family member, the advice of finding some religion or spirituality to guide him, and I really think it would've helped him. In the end he chose to work it out on his own though, and that went well too. &mdash; Why [[Image:User Why s.png|User talk:Why]] 23:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That made me curious. Considering morals like "do not kill each other" or "do not torture each other" are innate to the human mind, as witnessed by more primitive versions of humans thinking in those ways, what kind of things can we learn from the bible that we do not already learn at primary school?  Koda  [[Image:User_Koda_Kumi_UT.jpeg‎|19px]]  Kumi  15:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Military strategy. Over the last 2000+ years there have been many generals and military commanders that have used the bible as a guide for military strategy along with Sun Tsu's "art of war".  I think god and life can eventually be explained by science... maybe that makes me atheist because I don't think god is sentient like we are, but rather an infinite (probably finite but so vast like the universe that it might as well be infinite) source of energy.  Maybe when the grand unified theory of everything is finalized, the answer will be there... who knows? -- Lania [[Image:User Lania Elderfire pinkribbon.jpg]] 18:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What do you lose by having faith? I do not know. That is the only answer I have, and that is the only answer anyone should have, because if there is one thing I hate the most about religion (and I hate a lot about it) is its certainty about the truth. Why do humans have 5 fingers? Because this here god made them that way. But why 5? There is no explanation for that. Ask the same question to a rationalist, and he might tell you those were once used to swim, but as the predecessors of humans evolved to land animals, they needed appendages instead, so slowly their bodies changed to fit their needs. Faith gives you simple answers, but they might be different from the truth. And not only when it comes to scientific questions, but also with social or even biological questions religions are often dead wrong.  Koda  [[Image:User_Koda_Kumi_UT.jpeg‎|19px]]  Kumi  16:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I really hope you don't believe that the scientific approach provides truth. It simply provides models which can be used to predict future behaviour which has not yet been observed. Believing scientific models to be truth is the gravest sin a scientist can commit. Explanations are never very important, it is the conclusions you derive from them that matter. If Salome has decided not to violate my nether regions with a broom before choking me to death and taking my property I don't really care if it is because Jesus said it was bad, a magical goat farted shimmering rainbows at him or because he would likely face criminal prosecution, all I care about is that he made the right decision. I'm not into erotic asphyxiation. Misery  16:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree with just about everything you said, but have we ever come to an agreement?  Koda  [[Image:User_Koda_Kumi_UT.jpeg‎|19px]]  Kumi  20:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I totally forgot that classical mechanics completely explains exactly the way the world works and the invention of quantum mechanics wasn't required to predict anything new because science is true and classical mechanics came from science. Oh I suppose you think classical mechanics was just wrong and now quantum mechanics is the truth? Let's see what models exist for mechanics in 500 years time. While I am going to use the results from my density functional theory calculations to make predictions about the geometry of catalyst precursors on metal clusters in aqueous solutions and use this to try to come up with reaction mechanisms and predict possible reaction products and geometries, I'd be a fool to believe any of this was the truth. It's only convincing until someone finds evidence to the contrary. That's how science works bro. Misery  08:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Look, I know little about science, but what I do know from it, is that every bit of scientific knowledge gained comes from the logical steps of thinking up a theory, experimenting with it, observing the results, and concluding the evidence. Biblical knowledge completely ignore the middle 2 steps, so it makes no sense to take that knowledge seriously. I would say conclusions are irrelevant if there is no explanation for it.  Koda  [[Image:User_Koda_Kumi_UT.jpeg‎|19px]]  Kumi  18:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Scientific knowledge isn't clear cut like they make is sound like in the movies, media, and TV shows. In biological research, it's all about a confidence interval where p=0.05 for us usually.  There is no such thing as 100% but rather, we're >95% sure that the effect is significant.  So even if we are at least 95% sure that x growth factor reduces proliferation of MDA468 cells but induces proliferation in T47D cells we can't explain it but we can conclude that x has that paradoxical effect.  Lets say that later we find out differences in the signaling pathway between the two cell lines, like for example the T47D has significantly higher STAT3 activity compared to MDA468 cells in response to growth factor x.  We can now conclude that the difference is partly due to STAT3, but what is STAT3 doing down stream in the pathway, and just because STAT3 isn't upregulated as much in MDA468 cells doesn't explain why their growth is inhibited.  It's not like religion at all (since traditional religion lacks critical investigative analysis of anything), but even in science there is a lot of leap of faith when it comes to drawing conclusions, and a lot of guessing involved when trying to explain possible mechanisms.  It's just that when science is filtered to the mainstream it sounds all nice, pretty, and oh so certain; when it might even just be an educated guess based on statistically significant results. -- Lania[[Image:User Lania Elderfire pinkribbon.jpg]] 18:56, 27 Jul 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't 100% agree (maybe 95% agree) with the whole statistical thing, but the general idea of what Lania is saying is right. See the thing about religion is that it explains something, usually without any way to disprove it and no way of making useful predictions from the explanations. Therefore, the explanation is fairly useless and you can make up any story you want. It does have other benefits for people, but religion as a scientific theory is useless. Likewise when you take scientific theories that have no predictive value, they aren't scientifically useful at all and fall into the realm of fantasy. A pretty story that exists until it is proven to be impossible. There are scientists and non-scientists who believe that the explanations derived from science are gospel truth instead of useful tools that could be proven incorrect at any time. When you act in this manner I believe that you are taking science as a religion and pretty much shitting all over the general principles of science. You see the water get really muddy in the whole creation vs. evolution debate. Most of the people arguing for the evolution side of things are using it as a story to explain how things occurred rather than a useful predictive theory, which in my opinion makes them about as bad as the creationists. It weakens the argument for science in general and makes scientists look like crackpots. We don't know how we went from single celled organisms to more complex forms really, but the information we have gained about genetics and the nature of hereditary traits has lead to selective breeding and the ability to treat certain diseases, which is more useful. Ok, I'm not a biologist so I don't know what we actually get from the theory of evolution, but I reckon that waffle is close enough. It probably has something to do with zoology and I don't really know what they do with that at all, so meh. Misery  09:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Scientific knowledge isn't clear cut like they make is sound like in the movies, media, and TV shows. In biological research, it's all about a confidence interval where p=0.05 for us usually.  There is no such thing as 100% but rather, we're >95% sure that the effect is significant.  So even if we are at least 95% sure that x growth factor reduces proliferation of MDA468 cells but induces proliferation in T47D cells we can't explain it but we can conclude that x has that paradoxical effect.  Lets say that later we find out differences in the signaling pathway between the two cell lines, like for example the T47D has significantly higher STAT3 activity compared to MDA468 cells in response to growth factor x.  We can now conclude that the difference is partly due to STAT3, but what is STAT3 doing down stream in the pathway, and just because STAT3 isn't upregulated as much in MDA468 cells doesn't explain why their growth is inhibited.  It's not like religion at all (since traditional religion lacks critical investigative analysis of anything), but even in science there is a lot of leap of faith when it comes to drawing conclusions, and a lot of guessing involved when trying to explain possible mechanisms.  It's just that when science is filtered to the mainstream it sounds all nice, pretty, and oh so certain; when it might even just be an educated guess based on statistically significant results. -- Lania[[Image:User Lania Elderfire pinkribbon.jpg]] 18:56, 27 Jul 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't 100% agree (maybe 95% agree) with the whole statistical thing, but the general idea of what Lania is saying is right. See the thing about religion is that it explains something, usually without any way to disprove it and no way of making useful predictions from the explanations. Therefore, the explanation is fairly useless and you can make up any story you want. It does have other benefits for people, but religion as a scientific theory is useless. Likewise when you take scientific theories that have no predictive value, they aren't scientifically useful at all and fall into the realm of fantasy. A pretty story that exists until it is proven to be impossible. There are scientists and non-scientists who believe that the explanations derived from science are gospel truth instead of useful tools that could be proven incorrect at any time. When you act in this manner I believe that you are taking science as a religion and pretty much shitting all over the general principles of science. You see the water get really muddy in the whole creation vs. evolution debate. Most of the people arguing for the evolution side of things are using it as a story to explain how things occurred rather than a useful predictive theory, which in my opinion makes them about as bad as the creationists. It weakens the argument for science in general and makes scientists look like crackpots. We don't know how we went from single celled organisms to more complex forms really, but the information we have gained about genetics and the nature of hereditary traits has lead to selective breeding and the ability to treat certain diseases, which is more useful. Ok, I'm not a biologist so I don't know what we actually get from the theory of evolution, but I reckon that waffle is close enough. It probably has something to do with zoology and I don't really know what they do with that at all, so meh. <font color="#A55858">Misery  09:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

How the hell did a post about Salome's email adress end up in a discussion about religion? :/ - Mini Me   talk  17:26, 19 July 2010
 * It's the internet. There's a 50/50 chance of it turning into a) religion or b) hitler. <font color="Black">Shadow <font color="Red">Runner  17:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * or c) porn. &mdash; Gares 17:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Or, most unfortunately, d) all of the above. <font color="Black">-- <font color="#0104C6">FreedomBound [[Image:User_Freedom_Bound_Sig.png|19px]] 17:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yay internet. <font color="Black">Shadow <font color="Red">Runner  17:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Not all of us are into religious hitler porn though. Previously Unsigned 08:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Godwin's Law. This discussion is over. 216.125.168.2 16:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Fog
hmm... since you removed the "preview" fog with mod, could you perhaps do one for fog as well? The only one I've found is broke and I've searched for other mods but couldn't find much of anything. Instead of white, could you just make the fog textures pure transparency? Sounds like it would work to me. Previously Unsigned 23:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Which fog do you mean matey. As a bit confused. -- Salome   [[Image:User_salome_sig2.png|19px]] 19:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The fog that appears when you open the world map. Gordon Ecker found where the fog textures reside too: "90821...90824 for the Battle Isles, 90825 for pre-Searing, 90827...90841 and 90876 for Tyria, 90843...90849 for Cantha and 90855...90865 for Elona". Sounds like it should still hold true. Previously Unsigned 22:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * So I guess we're clear? Or you have no idea what I'm talking about? Previously Unsigned 05:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I know what you are talking about, however you are crediting me with more skill than I have. I didn't actually remove the initial fog from the dye preview screen, I just changed it to white. I could try uploading them as a transparent alpha level, however not sure how the mod would cope with both the lack of a substantial graphic or the change in image type. Further to that, I'm not really sure what utility a fog remover has. If you are going for carty, might i suggest the Pyron cartogrpher mod. Easily the best mod about for this. When I get some time however, I will give this fog removal thing a shot, but I can't promise it will even come close to working. -- Salome   [[Image:User_salome_sig2.png|19px]] 18:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I know you only turned it to white. But I was suggesting pure alpha channel since it sounds like it could work and you have experience making. I'm not going for cartographer, just to fix that broken mod. If it doesn't work, oh well. Worth a shot right? What is the worst that could happen? Previously Unsigned 03:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Yo
Keep the faith, brother. Represent. elix Omni 17:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No comment.  Koda  [[Image:User_Koda_Kumi_UT.jpeg‎|19px]]  Kumi  18:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Hai :D
so i was stalking and using your White- dye preview backround mod and thought, could you make a black backround one instead? pwease? <3 -- Neil  2250   20:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure mate, however I should say that black can be quite a let down on armours. Alot of the silhoutte detail is dark on the armours and thus you lose alot of detail, but i'll get on it for you. -- Salome   [[Image:User_salome_sig2.png|19px]] 22:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Its just alot of the weapon mods i make either glow or shine (on purpose) and a white backround isnt realy useful >_< -- Neil  2250  User Neil2250 sig icon6.png 22:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, although a dark grey may retain more detail than pure black, but whatever colour you want ill make. -- Salome   [[Image:User_salome_sig2.png|19px]] 22:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * HOT PINK!! Just Dead Black please :P -- Neil  2250  User Neil2250 sig icon6.png 22:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Done, you can find it in the mod section. Hope it helps. -- Salome   [[Image:User_salome_sig2.png|19px]] 00:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Weird
How did that IP violate 1RR? I don't think he even reverted anything. -- <font color="#ef8f50">R <font color="#916142">i <font color="#333333">ddle 02:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 01:14, 17 September 2010 Salome (Talk | contribs) blocked 80.192.156.3 (Talk) with an expiry time of 1 day (anonymous users only, account creation disabled, autoblock disabled) ‎ (violation of 1RR: NPA breach)
 * NPA breach was probably the reason, though the only thing I see is this . – User Balistic B d-dark.png<font color="#7777cc">alistic 03:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, yeah, I was kinda aware that he violated NPA. I was just wondering how 1rr fit into the equation -- <font color="#ef8f50">R <font color="#916142">i <font color="#333333">ddle 05:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Bugger!!!! My laptop is having an issue with drop down boxes at the moment, in that it keeps choosing the wrong one, either that or im a fanny and clicked the wrong box and didnt notice. It was the NPA he got banned for (calling everyone faggots for no reason), their was no breach of 1RR. That was my bad. Sorry for the confusion caused, glad i type in my reasons as well normally, so at least it added some clarity to my actions. -- Salome   [[Image:User_salome_sig2.png|19px]] 08:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

RC spam and your comment on User talk:Tanetris
am I the only one who believes that, after repeated requests/warnings, if someone still continues to spam recent changes in a disruptive way you can 12hblock them for disruption? To me it sounds like an ideal way to get the message across. &mdash; Why 16:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Haven't 10-15 minute blocks been handed out for ignored warnings about RC spam? If theres a prior precedent, then it should be okay... --User Wandering Traveler Sig2.png <font color="#D2691E">Wandering <font color="#D2691E">Traveler  16:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well yeah, 15 mins would probably be better, to start with. 12h was pretty much just a random number I threw out to illustrate my argument. I hadn't given it the consideration I give an actual block, obviously. &mdash; Why [[Image:User Why s.png|User talk:Why]] 16:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict) Well, it depends on what the user is doing. If they are ignoring their talk page, then it's like a 1-5 min block typically. Then if they keep on spamming RC, then it depends on how responsive/agreeable they are on their talk page. --JonTheMon 16:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, let's see if that helped. &mdash; Why [[Image:User Why s.png|User talk:Why]] 16:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That kinda solved itself while I was away. I personally believe that continual RC Spam should be blockable, however historically we've only ever used a 1-5 min ban to get the users attention to check their talk page, however if they then ignored it I don't think we've ever took it further. I could however have missed when this happened, but I beleive this was raised in the past and the consensus was that it didnt fall under the remit of an actual blockable offense. I was actually hoping of finding an admin (like yourself) who could speak dutch, in the last ditch effort to get her attention. Then after that I was considering setting a precedent of a few hours block to get her to stop with the annoying spamming. (EDIT: Also my flemish is more than a tad rusty thus why I didn't attempt the dutch message, as although i can understand the meaning of your post to her, I would be lying to say I understand close to half of the words) -- Salome   [[Image:User_salome_sig2.png|19px]] 17:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope I didn't scare her off the site with that 30min block. Oh well, my message was pretty polite :) &mdash; Why [[Image:User Why s.png|User talk:Why]] 17:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries Why and if it's any consolation, if she hadn't of stopped after the request in dutch, I was going to give her an hour block myself. So you were more lenient than I was going to be. Unfortunately I knew how to ask her to stop in dutch, just not how to ask her to stop politely. ;) -- Salome   [[Image:User_salome_sig2.png|19px]] 17:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The Mention
Just wanted to say thanks for the mention. I created my page based on an old version of your's and I think someone else's (can't remember who). Nice to know I helped you back.--Thor79••Talk 22:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)