User talk:Tanetris

From Guild Wars Wiki

Contents 1 User:Eloc Jgc 2 Thanks for ruining the "secret" emote. 3 Grinch 4 June Election 5 User:JonTheMon 6 e drain 7 Question 8 Thanks 9 Congratulations! 10 Commenting from the problem with igor on the notice board

[edit] User:Eloc Jgc

Nice catch on that, didn't even notice the switched letters. --Kakarot 03:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for ruining the "secret" emote.

Now everyone will be spamming it. Written down in history for biggest loud-mouth kid ftl. ;) --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Uchiha Lena (talk).

The wiki is about documenting stuff. It's purpose is to remove secrets. Complaining about it is as complaining about there being letters in text. Backsword 08:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Let me start off by saying welcome to the wiki. I see that you are not new here, but here's something you may have missed: we're here to document the game. Attempting to lord it over the rest of the wiki population that you have "secret" knowledge that they don't is specifically counter to this goal. If you wish to give hints toward something that is not generally known without giving it away outright, you are free to do that on any number of guild wars forums or on the wiki's talk pages, but it doesn't really belong on an article, and you shouldn't be surprised when someone who's trying to help document the game rains on your parade.

From your edit summary: "when emote is announced, remember my name as one of the few people knew how to do it" is entirely the wrong attitude to bring to the wiki. You shouldn't be coming to the wiki for personal "glory" at all, but if that's what you're after, the only way you're going to get it is with extraordinary contributions: getting the perfect screenshot of a hard to get to monster or super-rare item, taking on a massive project that benefits the wiki but is too large or tedious for most people, or actually adding information other people don't know, not saying you could but you're not going to.

As to the "secret" itself, it isn't one. That's why I keep putting quotes around it. /sit followed by /stand has been used before, and I can assure you, will be used again. Anyone who knows this would try it with the new form and discover the "secret". If you want anyone to be impressed by your knowledge, you are simply going to have to try harder.

When you post on a talk page, please sign by using four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comment. This posts your username and the date and time, to make it easier for other users to follow conversations. Thank you. - Tanetris 19:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Grinch

Kind of a dumb thing to ban him over. Yeah, you *said* you'd ban him if he recreated that page, so you had to ban him to save face, but I'd have thought that for something as not-offensive as that, you (the general you) would leave him alone. Now he's just going to stalk the wiki on proxies and socks and vandalize all sorts of things. While I think the ban is deserved by his actions after the ban, I don't think he did anything to be banned in the first place, and I know I'm not the only one.

We have a sort of J.Kougar-like situation here - bans mean nothing to Grinch because he has access to plenty of proxies - but things are worse here: he doesn't care what happens to his image or to the wiki because he feels there's nothing he can do to redeem himself in the eyes of the sysops. While Kougar would rant for a while until he got an answer he considered satisfactory for why he was banned and then go and serve the entire length of his ban, Grinch is quite liable to simply troll the wiki on various IPs until he gets bored of it (read: days or weeks from now), unless he feels things are "made right", so to speak.

I'm not saying he hasn't earned a month's ban by this point, but perhaps an apology for the original ban would be helpful right about now.

-- Armond Warblade 02:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I will simply note that the version of the page that I deleted and banned him for was not the innocuous version that's been up since mid-May, but an edit he made a few minutes before the deletion and ban. I knew when deleting it that general users would not even be able to see that he'd made an edit and might assume I was being unfair, but frankly I was more concerned with killing it before massive wikidrama started than with public opinion about me. If you did see the version that I deleted and banned him for and still believe it was non-offensive, we'll have to agree to disagree. - Tanetris 12:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

As he stated on the admin noticeboard before Pling deleted the message, the message is viewable on GuildWiki. As he also stated on the admin noticeboard, it certainly wasn't sexual, nor do I honestly see how it could be offensive unless the reader has had a lover that died of spinal whatsit in the past. -- Armond Warblade 14:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

And you really believe GWW will let it go and not mention it or any other edits by Mgrinshpon? Who are you, and where's the real Armond? -- Brains12 \ talk 15:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

If people saw it and wanted to bitch about it, that's their own damn problem. All they have to do is hit the "unwatch" button on his user page, or the template page. -- Armond Warblade 16:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Grinsh has already shown that he does not edit in good faith, but rather with the intention of causing drama for his own amusement. For that reason alone he should have already been blocked long ago, and I have exactly zero sympathy for him. You say "he'll just stalk the wiki now", but he does that anyways, and saying that he shouldn't be banned because of what he might do is effectively him blackmailing us. No thanks. If that means reverting some vandalism, so be it. That's all I have to say on the matter. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 17:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say he shouldn't be banned - in fact, I specifically said I think he's earned it - I just said I think the original reason for the ban was invalid and therefore deserves an apology. -- Armond Warblade 17:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't, the edit was still intended to cause drama (with which you're helping), regardless of whether it was sexual content or not. Nor do I feel like debating the specific text on a ban for a user who obviously deserved it (and probably deserved more). (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 17:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

There's a difference between drama that's harmful to the wiki and an attempt to, you know, stop vandalism, which happens to be interpreted as drama. Also, go ask Auron about the time I banned people for minor edit. -- Armond Warblade 17:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Armond, trust your bureaucrats and sysops. Once they have proven themselves capable, allow them to do as they wish; do not doubt that they act for anything other than the good of the wiki, no matter their actions.

Oh, and if you're also willing to 'prove a point' with disruption, then yeah, you do get banned. Regardless of the original ban, his actions, as you said, are certainly ban-worthy; why the need for an apology?

As I said, what have you done with the real Armond? -- Brains12 \ talk 17:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm having trouble with the conditional of your first paragraph, I think. And I'm still looking for a reason as to why recreating the breaking news page as he did was a banable offense. -- Armond Warblade 18:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The story was not sexual in nature, but it was still a "shock" story, which belong on /b/, not GWW. As I said, if you don't find it offensive, you're entitled to your opinion, but don't expect me to agree with it. - Tanetris 18:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

There's shock value in spinal meningitis? My evening news is more shocking than that, what with all the stories of people suicide-bombing religious centers or tomatoes picking up diseases that kill people and what not. -- Armond Warblade 19:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Most people don't log on a Guild Wars wiki to read about the evening news. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 19:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Suicide bombings and jihads and what have you are, sadly, expected and accepted on world news. The same does not apply for a small-scale wiki. Calor 19:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

So if they don't want to read it, they don't click "read more". Pretty simple, really. -- Armond Warblade 19:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Or, Grinsh could just not post it here in the first place. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 19:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

This is where we go into your ideal gww where talk pages are only used for content and any other discussion is a banable offense, isn't it? (Oh, hey, look at this discussion, which isn't topical but still pretty critical to the wiki.) -- Armond Warblade 20:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussions of wiki operation are topical to the wiki, by definition. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 20:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You defined the wiki as a place to document the game. Wiki operation has about nothing to do with the game, except for technical issues that actually affect /help (which no one really uses, do they?). -- Armond Warblade 00:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Wiki operation has to do with documenting the game, even though it's not about the game itself. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 01:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] June Election

As I said I would, I nominated you for this month's election. You can find your nomination here. Calor 18:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:JonTheMon

This guy was reverting. :P A mistake I could have made too, though. --Chaiyo Kaldor talk contribs 21:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, got a bit trigger-happy. I noticed just after I blocked, but Brains beat me to the unblock. - Tanetris 21:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] e drain

i come back a few days later to see how people responded to my and my friends paraphrased comment and i see nothing there. checking the history, i saw you'd removed it. why'd you remove mine and grinch's comment from it? it was pretty damn relevant to the discussion, educates people, etc. there's no reason to remove it. none whatsoever. Bubble Connections 19:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Grinch is currently blocked. If we let him edit as he pleases during a block, either as sockpuppets or via another user, that makes the block pretty meaningless, so a recent Arbcomm decision was to revert "any edits made by sockpuppets of User:Mgrinshpon, or by other users in response to such edits" if he's blocked at the time. He can comment all he likes when his block is over. In the meantime, don't try to post for him. - Tanetris 19:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question

I figured this is a good place to ask this as any and perhaps you can point me toward the right direction if necessary. Several of pages listing skills (for instance, List of Skills related to fire damage and List of snare skills) have different formats and the organizational freak inside me just want to come up with a consistent format for all of those skills. I'd hate to go to all the trouble of doing so only to have the community reverting my work. So is there a way to make a proposal for the community to reach a consensus? I don't mind doing the work as long I know the community is behind it. Or I have to accept the haphazard nature of the wiki? Anyway thanks for any help or suggestions you may have. – Barinthus 21:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

My best suggestion would be to draft up a guideline on a subpage of Guild Wars Wiki:Formatting (for example, Guild Wars Wiki:Formatting/Skill lists) and link it on GWW:RFC for other opinions. While I'm not sure one single format will necessarily work for all different uses for lists, at least standardizing what to use where might help. I think in general {{Skill table}} is preferred where possible, but that does rely on categories for DPL, and my gut feeling (with no proof to back it up whatsoever) is that we'd wind up with some pretty extreme category clutter if we tried. - Tanetris 23:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

You will also want to look at how each of the different pages are used, for example, Fire Damage is an article dealing not so much with specific skills as a specific damage type, and all the damage type pages are the same, where List of snare skills is a page dealing with a particular type of skill, and I believe all of those pages are the same. Trying to make those two types of pages look the same is going to be very difficult as they each have specific needs to accomplish their goal.-- Wynthyst 23:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point and I'll have to take into the purpose of each article into consideration. Perhaps there's no way to develop some kind of "universal format" for those listings but surely we can agree upon some "universal principles" such as alphabeting skills by professions then within each profession and marking each skill as an elite if it is? My desire is to encourage unified approach to formatting such articles for better readability but if it's not possible or cause clutter, of course I'll bow to the wisdom of the community. There's always a possibility I'll just never get around to it, although!  :-p – Barinthus 00:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand, I'm an organization freak too, I have no problem with coming up with a consistent format, I have gone to great lengths to bring consistency to many of my projects as well, I just wanted to point out that the two examples you used were like comparing apples to oranges :D-- Wynthyst 00:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Many thanks for undoing what that vandalizer did to my page =] Suicidal Romance X 05:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations!

--Silverleaf 17:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

grats ^^ - Y0_ich_halt 17:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

May not have been the outcome I had hoped for, but congrats anyway :D You will make an exceptional bcrat, I am sure of it =) --Shadowphoenix 00:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations. May the decisions you make be seen as wise and virtuous. Good luck, and once again congrats! --People of Antioch 02:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the warm words, everyone. I'll try not to disappoint! - Tanetris 03:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Congrats :D -- Indochine talk 13:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Now.. when can I expect payback for those "special favours" I performed? -- Brains12 \ talk 15:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Congo-Rats!! @:) --Lemming 16:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Commenting from the problem with igor on the notice board

and THAT, is one of the reasons why i strive to be an admin (im commenting here because the noticeboard is a noticeboard, not a talk page.)--Raph Talky 17:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

And still you felt the need to comment on the noticeboard in the first place? - anja 17:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

er.....which comment...the uhm what? statement was trying to figure out what lord of all tyria was saying (being sarcastic or not).......--Raph Talky 00:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)