User talk:Seventy two

From Guild Wars Wiki

Contents 1 User images 2 Associated elites 3 sig 4 Please...lmao 5 zz 6 Rainbow Phoenix in menagerie 7 sig.js 8 |{∅}| < 72 9 Thanks 10 Pretty sweet. 11 so you see I am a particularly meticulous meticulator...

[edit] User images

Hi. As per our user pages policy, images uploaded for being used on talk pages or your own userspace have to be named following the format File:User your_username image_name.extension (ie.File:User Seventy two Chemotherapy.jpg). Remember to follow the proper naming format to prevent the deletion of such images.

Also, the wiki can't accept copyrighted content (or derivated works from it) such as File:Godfather.jpg, so please avoid uploading that kind of images. Original content (as in, yours) is fine, though.--Fighterdoken 01:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Should I change them? have you started already? I'll change the Godfather image by tomorrow if that's all right. 72.38.32.223[evolved] 01:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I've renamed all your images, and corrected your skills page to use the {{User skill infobox}} rather than the mainspace {{Skill infobox}} -- Wyn talk 01:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Much thanks! In future, I'll upload images with that name. 72.38.32.223[evolved] 01:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, when uploading images, you should see two rows of radio buttons under the file names. The top row specifies the licensing for the image, the bottom row specifies the usage. You should choose one of each for your images. Thanks! -- Wyn talk 02:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) On your multiple uploads: The wiki tends to do that, a lot. It takes a while to update itself and sometimes it never does. For me, I just end up deleting and remaking under a different but similar name (like tacking a number on it). It's annoying, but whatever works.-- anguard 02:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I hope this is correct now, at any rate. Thanks, y'all. 72.38.32.223[evolved] 02:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

You should check the talk page of your skills page, too. I have an interesting and recent anecdote there.-- anguard 02:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Your image is fine now Seventy two. I have deleted the copyright violations, so you are good to go. As for the reuploading of new versions... there is an internal image cache on the wiki that at times causes a delay in the resolution of new versions. It can often take an hour or more for a new version to appear. What I have found works the best is just upload your new version, and go away for an hour. If you still see the old version after an hour, purge your browser cache (ctrl+F5) and see if that doesn't solve the problem. Reuploading simply makes the problem worse, but on rare occasions, it is necessary, and in even rarer instances, it needs to be brought to Emily's attention to have the IT guys "unstick" it. Anyway, thank you for resolving the copyright problem. -- Wyn talk 03:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Associated elites

hey hey, welcome to the wiki. Although i appreciate what you are trying to achieve, their really is no need for that information as it is all on the relevant boss pages. We don't list that information on zquests at the moment as it's somewhat unneeded. Thus may i ask you to stop for now and maybe ask other users oppinion on your idea and then with enough support we can go about changing al those pages. Regards -- Salome 22:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I did, see the talk page for Zbounty. and this information is a lot better than not having it. anyone without Skill Hunter looks up the boss for which elite it has whenever they take a zbounty. I'm not stopping unless others express a good reason why a useful, short line shouldn't be there. Thanks. - 72[evolved] {U/S/C} - 22:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but a 2 day wait with 1 response is not a consensus matey. The information is their, you just press the link for the boss article. The elite is not relevant to the quest itself. It is however relevant to the boss page. If however you would like more contributions on this you could always submit the page here: Guild_Wars_Wiki:Requests_for_comment, that way you have a stronger chance of gaining a consensus. -- Salome 22:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not a consensus but it's not a disagreement. So far, two members--and all are equal, I believe that's our policy--think it's a good idea and one doesn't. - 72[evolved] {U/S/C} - 22:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Salome. Before making mass changes to many pages, you should propose the changes you wish, and seek consensus from the community. I would recommend you stop and do this. -- Wyn talk 22:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) When there's a content disagreement between two or more users, the proper course of action is to hold off on further edits and iron out a consensus. — Defiant Elements +talk 22:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Stop, wait for consensus and try again. Please and thank you. --Dominator Matrix 22:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) X4 agreed with the users above me basically. -- Salome 22:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

By the way, until there is a consensus, the edits shouldn't be reverted either. -- Brains12 \ talk 22:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Check ZB page, I'll prpose it - 72[evolved] {U/S/C} - 22:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Thus why I have stopped reverting the edits. I believed his edits were in error due to him being fairly new and misunderstanding how the consensus system works. When he responded that they were intended I ceased my reverts so as to facilitate us reaching an amicable solution beneficial to the wiki at large. :) -- Salome 22:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for good faith :) I've proposed it there, though I don't know how to call attention to it. - 72[evolved] {U/S/C} - 22:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The request for comment link Salome gave you earlier. -- Wyn talk 22:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. by the by, they've all been reverted already? -_- - 72[evolved] {U/S/C} - 23:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] sig

Hey, could you take out the /Skills link you have in your signature please - Guild Wars Wiki:Sign your comments#Links mentions that that signatures should only have links to a main userpage, talk page, or contribs. Thanks. -- Brains12 \ talk 15:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems kind of silly, but here you go, since "|S" is so obnoxious. | 72 {U|T|C} - 15:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Please...lmao

I love your binary approach to game updates. Thanks for posting, concisely and pithily, what a lot of us have been thinking all along.   — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 00:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] zz

"Though it's true that the bars they chose are somewhat disappointing and unoriginal, you forget one advantage of this replacement, which is that neither skills nor heroes were universal to all PvPers, which frankly wasn't fair. Now, unfair AI or not, everyone gets it; the field is level. By the by, for those of you decrying replacing the heroes with henchmen as opposed to, say, nothing: the time to make such a complaint was when the program was announced, not when the results were announced."

There are a few problems with this I'll get out of the way right now. Firstly, nobody cares about henchmen in PvE. You still have heroes, which means that you still get to pick the bars that matter. Ever since heroes were released, henchmen were the thing you picked 4 of because you had to and not because they were remotely good. Secondly, the complaints from the PvPers stem from the fact that adding in henchmen with the same gay ass gimmicks that the heroes are currently running solves absolutely nothing and is therefore a huge waste of ANet's time and resources. You don't understand our frustration - you don't have to fight these henchmen. You just get them on your side, never on the other team's. Their broken skills, their hex stacks, their reflex interrupting is something you'll never have to deal with. It will plague PvP until they are removed or the bars get changed.

Secondly, I've been complaining about the henchmen idea since it was announced. As Jette said in his letter to Linsey, we knew it was going to be a catastrophe. Heroes needed to be removed because they introduced an element of PvE that shouldn't exist in PvP. Replacing them with henchmen that do the same thing isn't removing that element of PvE from PvP. My complaining aside, nobody could have possibly known that when ANet said they would be picking original builds and that known gimmicks would most likely not be picked, ANet would just turn around and make pretty much every single winner picked a meta gimmick.

ANet fucked up massively. There's no way anyone can begin to claim otherwise. They ignored the premise of their own contest while ignoring the point of removing heroes in the first place. They then wasted countless man hours sifting through 30,000 submitted builds they could have saved by just going to PvX and achieving the same result. Lastly, they awarded prizes to winners who... did what, exactly? Submitted a shock axe build that has been in use for 4 years? I guarantee that more than 1 person submitted that exact bar, skill for skill - some probably even submitted it in the same skill order. So how did they pick the winner? Random selection? Seriously? The entire thing is a joke. There is not one redeeming factor in this whole situation that makes all of their mistakes less painful to think about. -Auron 01:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

also, i posted here because users shouldn't really respond to one another on linsey's talk, they should just be talking to linsey. -Auron 01:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I will and did agree that the choices they made for winners were ridiculous (an understatement--but as we can see, any point I could have expressed about it has already been expressed, not least by yourself). I don't believe I was trying to justify the henchmen or their bars or the people who copy-pasted template codes from PvXwiki: they were not good.

However, there is a difference between an unfair thing that only some people can take advantage of (because they happened to buy Nightfall), and others can't (because they happened to buy Factions), vs. an unfair advantage everyone can use. (That is, if you hand out guns, the people stuck with swords will say, "Fuck this"; but if you don't plan to take away guns, the next best thing is giving them to everyone--fair play.)

As for whether or not you stated your views about the contest before it began, that doesn't change the fact that it finished & they don't need to be restated as if a judgment on the results, which is the air they gain from being placed among comments on the results.

Thanks for the input here, I am always glad to read and reply to intelligent commentary. | 72 {U|T|C} 02:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Rainbow Phoenix in menagerie

Thanks, I wasn't sure if that was the case or not. Had a feeling it was, but, currently no way to prove. -- FreedomBound 19:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing. If he had ever actually tried to death level one, he would not have made the comment... | 72 {U|T|C} 19:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Love the new explanation! But... you've got about eight too many L's in there. :) -- FreedomBound 12:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and--Bleh, silly me! I wonder if anyone will mind? Oh well, the wiki may be Hamerican, but its users ain't.. | 72 {U|T|C} 14:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

It gets the point across. At least, I hope it will. -- FreedomBound 15:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] sig.js

Personal configuration are automatically locked so only yourself and admins can edit it C4K3 Talk 19:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Nice. Suck it, possible vandals :) | 72 {U|T|C} 19:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Mediawiki is freaking awesome :D C4K3 Talk 19:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] |{∅}| < 72

1. a → b
2. ¬ b
   

    → ¬ a
Ɲoɕʈɋɽɕɧ 16:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

You remind me of a Rubic's Cube. However, the comment on your talk was, to be honest, more of a (non)reply to the fellow concerned that I didn't start new topics. | 72 {U|T|C} 21:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, poof! less =/ Ɲoɕʈɋɽɕɧ 21:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I said less, not more. Ɲoɕʈɋɽɕɧ 00:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

^ I'm gonna get the hang of wiki code sometime. I'm studying website creation atm, so it should all come into place. Edit: sweet quote mention btw. --smøni 18:28, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Pretty sweet.

Checked out your portfolio. (?) I like how you showed the progression of your music, from when you hardly knew anything to what you know now. I was the same way, but I was so disappointed in my work that I trashed most of it. .__. Anyway, sweet photography too. You're quite talented and I could see you becoming Kind of a Big Deal (I'm lame) in the future. And btw, what attracted me to your profile (and thus caring about you enough to see what you've made) is your manner of speaking, so if you ever thought to yourself, "I wonder if people like how I speak?", then I can at least guarantee you that I do. Vael Victus 20:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

That's the best compliment I've received from someone who doesn't know me personally or through a friend. Thanks a lot for taking the time, but even more for liking it, :P . If you decide some of your music (and other artistic endeavours?) is worth showcasing, I'll check it out in return (as well as your GW page shortly, just doing some chores now). | 72 {U|T|C} 20:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm not amazing, I knew very little about music composition when I made these. I guess you can see here. http://vaelvictus.com/compport.php The only one I'm really proud of is apartment scenes, but I doubt you'll like it. I'm actually getting back to music in about a week (bought a new MIDI cable, got more time) and I'd like to make a christmas song. Thankfully almost a year later, I've now got a clue about how to compose music... but I think I won't scrap these, instead just hide them. :S My sound pack's pretty cool, though. Vael Victus 04:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Listened to them all with interest. You were right in assuming that it's not my style, but that doesn't mean I don't like them. Needless to say, they're not the "melodic"-ness I'm used to, but the feeling evoked was strong and convincing, at least in some. As you gave me a small selection only, I'll comment on individual pieces. In Aperture, I forgot to distinguish instrument sounds from ambient sounds, until the violin at the end mixed with the dying cry of Glados, which made the whole thing come alive in my mind. Apartment Scenes being for a large part like a soundclip rather than a musical piece, I won't try to apply my unsuited impression, but as a representation of skill in cohesion I assume it deserves your favouritism :P . Mildy Hill was by far my favourite, making me laugh when I read the description and again when I heard the surreal landscape come into being. And the bits of piano hinted at showed that besides conceptual arrangements you can still be musical. Anyway, thanks for the listen and the yank from my usual round of composers. | 72 {U|T|C} 17:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] so you see I am a particularly meticulous meticulator...

"so you see I am a particularly meticulous meticulator. after all, these dates are listed on the wiki, not in Lion's Arch and Kamadan! ^_^"

in re: [1] — Nice! Not entirely convinced that the original phrasing was bad; however, I prefer your version (unambiguously unambiguous; and bonus: best summary edit of the hour!).   — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 20:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, frabjous day! Calloo, callay. (And that is the extent of what I think right now.)

If you wish for a little mental stretch in terms of syntactic and lexical ambiguity, try expanding this sentence (paraphrase it for me): "Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo." (Hint: one of the meanings of "buffalo" is "to deceive".) For level 2, try "Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo." | 72 {U|T|C} 22:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)