User talk:72

From Guild Wars Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

User images[edit]

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 User Wynthyst sig icon2.png 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 User Wynthyst sig icon2.png 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.-- User Vanguard VanguardLogo.pnganguard 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.-- User Vanguard VanguardLogo.pnganguard 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 User Wynthyst sig icon2.png talk 03:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Associated elites[edit]

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 User salome sig2.png 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 User salome sig2.png 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 User Wynthyst sig icon2.png 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 User salome sig2.png 22:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
By the way, until there is a consensus, the edits shouldn't be reverted either. --User Pling sig.png 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 User salome sig2.png 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 User Wynthyst sig icon2.png 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)

sig[edit]

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. --User Pling sig.png 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)

Please...lmao[edit]

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)

zz[edit]

"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 User 72 Truly Random.jpg {U|T|C} 02:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Rainbow Phoenix in menagerie[edit]

Thanks, I wasn't sure if that was the case or not. Had a feeling it was, but, currently no way to prove. -- FreedomBoundUser Freedom Bound Sig.png 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 User 72 Truly Random.jpg {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. :) -- FreedomBoundUser Freedom Bound Sig.png 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 User 72 Truly Random.jpg {U|T|C} 14:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
It gets the point across. At least, I hope it will. -- FreedomBoundUser Freedom Bound Sig.png 15:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

sig.js[edit]

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

Nice. Suck it, possible vandals :) | 72 User 72 Truly Random.jpg {U|T|C} 19:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Mediawiki is freaking awesome :D C4K3 User C4K3 Signature.jpg Talk 19:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

|{∅}| < 72[edit]

  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 User 72 Truly Random.jpg {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)

Thanks[edit]

^ 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)

Pretty sweet.[edit]

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 Pancakes. 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 User 72 Truly Random.jpg {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 Pancakes. 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 User 72 Truly Random.jpg {U|T|C} 17:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

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

"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 User 72 Truly Random.jpg {U|T|C} 22:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

:[[edit]

im sorry. did i blow your head apart? jokin 128.176.178.20 10:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

In a desperately literal sense, yeah :/ | 72 User 72 Truly Random.jpg (U|T|C) 12:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
baww Q.Q what can i do? 128.176.178.20 12:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Allow the classification of "least ungrammatical name in the game" ;) | 72 User 72 Truly Random.jpg (U|T|C) 12:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
but you cant maesure ungrammar like miles :/ 128.176.178.20 12:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
You measure it in errors, of which this skill, having 2, dwarfs every other one with 0 - why, to an infinite degree! it qualifies | 72 User 72 Truly Random.jpg (U|T|C) 12:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
my forebear? i see him not anymore thanks for remind my father is dad QQ 128.176.178.20 01:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

[2][edit]

It's upsetting how bad you are. Karate User Karate Jesus KJ for sig.png Jesus 18:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

It's even more upsetting how stupid even the mature users allow the wiki to become without a qualm.
I see you have been working with teens for 7 years; they rubbed off on you? | 72 User 72 Truly Random.jpg (UTC) 18:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Ups, NPA. Ban please. Karate User Karate Jesus KJ for sig.png Jesus 18:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Whatever. I like the undo button. | 72 User 72 Truly Random.jpg (UTC) 18:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

My post in short Karate User Karate Jesus KJ for sig.png Jesus 18:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Awwww, I liked it better written out.... Karate User Karate Jesus KJ for sig.png Jesus 18:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
lulz
I like a clear talk page :/ | 72 User 72 Truly Random.jpg (UTC) 18:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Grammar[edit]

I'm dyslexic so I could be wrong here but I think the IP may have been right in this instance. In that I think the line should read "...those objectives in the quest log were not...", the use of the semi colon changes the subject to be the objectives themselves which are plural in this instance. (this is me trying to drag up the memories of Grammar I learned back when I was 16, so as I said I could be wrong) -- Salome User salome sig2.png 04:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

IP and you were correct. 72 clearly did not see the change in subject. Pika Fan 04:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Upon closer reading, you're absolutely right and I should eat my hat, not to mention crow. Luckily the new revision works around that. | 72 User 72 Truly Random.jpg (UTC) 04:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Fellow Canadian linguist :D[edit]

*High fives!* :D --KOKUOU 06:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Double redirects[edit]

For images that redirect to another image ex File:"Shields Up!".jpg, don't fix the double redirect. The redirect to File:Shields Up!.jpg is needed or else [[File:"Shields Up!".jpg]] will show up as File:"Shields Up!".jpg, instead of 25px. — User Balistic Pve Sig.png Balistic 02:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I gathered that from your edits. At least the "don't fix" part. | 72 User 72 Truly Random.jpg (UTC) 03:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

hey[edit]

i suggest you to check befroe failin

127.0.0.1 00:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

And I suggest YOU to check befroe failin. You had put your info on the identification page, not the salvage one. | 72 User 72 Truly Random.jpg (UTC) 00:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
whats identifiaction? 127.0.0.1 00:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Maybe you should read the page :/ | 72 User 72 Truly Random.jpg (UTC) 00:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
nao it makes sense why my freind wants to look at all my items D: 127.0.0.1 00:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for trolling hopelessly. | 72 User 72 Truly Random.jpg (UTC) 00:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
whats trolling? 127.0.0.1 00:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
It's derived from the Swedish word "trolla", which literally means "magic'ing", or more correctly, casting a spell. ---Chaos- (talk) -- 18:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Almost right, but Swedish came much after the language it's from. It's from Proto-Germanic, approximated at "truzlan", and probably with a supernatural meaning but it's unknown precisely what. (The Swedish one also derived from it.) That describes the noun troll; as it happens, the English verb and noun likely came from different sources. The P.Gmc word "truzlan" had turned into "trollen" ("walk with short steps") in Old High German, and French took it with the form "troller": to wander or look for game (as in hunting) without purpose. This is probably the one that English took for the verb; the meaning is about the same. | 72 User 72 Truly Random.jpg (UTC) 19:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I think it comes from Norwegian or Latin. That's where all the Germanic words come from anyway. NuVII User NuclearVII signature 3.jpg 19:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I just gave the correct etymology, but anyway, most of the major languages and language groups in the West ultimately derive from Proto-Indo-European (P.I.E.), which historical linguists reconstruct from traces of similarity between languages. It spawned things like Proto-Germanic, Slavic, Finno-Ugric and Sanskrit, the first of which split into most Germanic languages (German, Dutch, Swedish, Norwegian, Danish, etc), the second into Russian-ish languages (Russian, Polish, Ukrainian, etc), the next to Finnish languages (Finnish, Hungarian, etc), and the last into our old favourites: Hindi/Urdu, Greek/Macedonian, and Latin, which itself become so dialectized that its branches became different languages (French, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, etc). There are, of course, other language groups, including the oriental languages (Japanese, Chinese, Korean, etc), African (Swahili, Baloi, Kongolese, etc), Native American (Iroquois, Mikma'q, Huron, etc), and many others. English is at base a Germanic language (its grammar and basic vocabulary is Germanic), but also has a number of Saxon elements (i.e. Norse) and Norman elements (i.e. early French), from which it gets its other half, namely Latinate, which is mostly vocabularly; some Greek vocabulary was added quite late on, mostly for scientific/academic colleges. | 72 User 72 Truly Random.jpg (UTC) 19:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Germanic words don't come from Latin. Germanic peoples have borrowed Latin words, but that makes the words Latin. ---Chaos- (talk) -- 20:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
^that's how it's done Chaos. Live and learn. NuVII User NuclearVII signature 3.jpg 20:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
And the case is more often (as I implied) that both Germanic words and Romantic (Latin) words came from the same PIE root being sisters, not with either as parent. | 72 User 72 Truly Random.jpg (UTC) 21:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I dont beleive...[edit]

I gave you permission to mess with my user page. Wanna try the discussion page next time? Briar 04:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, crap! Oops, I most certainly mistook that for your discussion. Sorry. | 72 User 72 Truly Random.jpg (UTC) 05:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

1rr breach[edit]

revert yourself as your in breach of gww:1rr 127.0.0.1 01:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

How about the two of you discuss your differences of opinions on the page content rather than just issuing a demand to revert the revert? It's called gaining consensus through discussion and is a basic premise of this wiki. -- Wyn User Wynthyst sig icon2.png talk 01:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
rule for rules sake thats how you practice it so no 127.0.0.1 01:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I am in high favour of reverting edits which are made without good premise by users whose track record is unpromising and whose talk pages have been archived before they've gotten anywhere near too long. On GWW, when someone vandalizes a page, the vandalism is undone, because discussion won't win over a troll. Even a slightly more sophisticated vandalism with as stupid a reason deserves to be reverted. If undoing changes that are (or ought to be) blatantly a worsening of the page is a bannable offense, I ought to be banned. | 72 User 72 Truly Random.jpg (UTC) 02:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
In a smaller side note, "rule for rules sake" is the most offensive way you can respond to someone who makes rules; the people who require good sense to be phrased in a legalistic way before they follow it are exactly the ones the maker would prefer not to have to deal with. | 72 User 72 Truly Random.jpg (UTC) 02:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
in case you didnt get it its arbitrarily chosen if rules are followed because they exist or if the are not followed because of some sensus what will be the right thing to always follow? oh and how you word it is teh most offensive wording by a user with negative background 127.0.0.1 02:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
You are mistaken in saying that it is not arbitrarily chosen; it is chosen with an attempt at wisdom.
The rest of the answer should follow from that, but in case you have trouble extrapolating, the goal of this wiki is not to establish a site where nobody ever reverts material more than once without discussing it, and if you thought that was the be-all-and-end-all of such a creation, I advise you to rethink it. The goal of this wiki is to establish the best possible wiki it can, and the above rule usually conduces to that goal. However, when the above rule opposes that goal, it is an offense to obey that rule. For example, that rule leaves the wiki worse off, and thus opposes the goal of creating a good wiki, when the material to be reverted leaves the wiki worse off. I don't believe I can make it clearer. | 72 User 72 Truly Random.jpg (UTC) 02:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Allow me to interject here. 72, you are in violation of our policy, and for that I could ban you for a day, but I would much rather see discussion of the disputed content... on the page's associated talk page. 127, don't simply report things on the noticeboard for the admins to "deal" with if you haven't tried to solve the problem yourself. I see ZERO discussion by either of you anywhere. Both of you have been contributing here long enough to know how it works, I really should not have to be here explaining it to you like a couple of 3 yr olds. Get over yourselves, both of you. -- Wyn User Wynthyst sig icon2.png talk 02:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
If you want more specific discussion of the exact edit made, you will find it here. If that's not enough, allow me to expand on the point (I don't mind doing it here, or if you want to move this section over, feel free). The page is titled "Skill nomenclature," and is a record of the patterns in skill names and their associated effects. As such, it really should be enough to list the patterns in skill names and their associated effects, but since it would be strictly on our word that the readers take it, we also offer some examples to show you what we mean. This is like defining a term and adding, "such as", or "e.g.," or the like, and then giving a few examples exemplary of the kind. This does not mean defining every member of the kind. That would be as absurd as saying, "A consonant is a sound which involves some stoppage of the air flow, such as b, c, d, f, g, h, j, k, l, m, n, p, q, r, s, t, v, w, x, y, or z." The whole point of the article is to give some info that people can use to generalize and understand other skills without referring back to a list (it's easy enough to search for skills that have the word "Pious" or "Lotus" in them...) . So, yes, to list more than 3 or 4 examples for each definition, especially if it involves listing every skill the term can apply to, is wrong. | 72 User 72 Truly Random.jpg (UTC) 02:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
.
.
.
But, Wyn, you don't see discussion? Allow me to direct you to it; it's right above your post, where I try to give reasonable answers to prods by the other. Your comment that you can ban me for a day is not so much an interjection if you read the end of my first reply. But I digress, and in bad form, too. | 72 User 72 Truly Random.jpg (UTC) 02:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Edit summaries do not equal discussion. Quite simply, you are allowed to revert an edit once, if it is then put back, you need to get on the talk page and open a discussion as to why you disagree with the edit and try to gain a consensus over the dispute. By simply reverting again, you find yourself in violation of our policy. I'm sorry if I'm going about this in a way you don't understand or don't like, or that telling you you are in violation of our policy and can be banned is somehow "unsysop" of me or worse yet some sort of passive aggressive behavior that is seemingly so abhorrent to people here. I would simply rather see two editors following the rules, (and the spirit of the rules) and discussing their differences of opinions rather than just wielding the almighty ban hammer every time someone gets their nose bent out of joint because their edit got reverted. And yes, the above explanation post should go on the appropriate talk page as part of a discussion as to why 127's edits should be reverted. -- Wyn User Wynthyst sig icon2.png talk 03:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I'm gonna have to say that you stepped over the line there. While I may have agreed with you, no real consensus was reached yet. --JonTheMon 15:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

About identification[edit]

Hello! I saw, you almost reverted my notes here. Really it's not a problem for me, would I understand that I made a mistake and wrote something wrong, but your explanation in comment is little strange. OK, I try to explain my point because it should be much better than revert back (I dislike reverts, really).

In the first case I tried to give a good example why extracting the upgrades can be profitable, especially for beginners. In low-level areas, like Istan, player can pick up the dropped weapon which has an upgrade (blue) but after identification it's value is very poor, like a few gold. If a player identifies such items hoping to find the inscription Measure for Measure, Show Me the Money or any useful (near maxed) upgrade, he can be disappointed with such almost useless items and can simply throw them away because inventory size is limited. I tried to explain that it's not a best choice. Any extracted "white" and "blue" upgrade, even without identification, can be sold for 25g (not for 10g as you wrote). After identification, the minimal value is 26g and can be much more depending of the exact type of upgrade and some random circumstances: you can identify 2 same runes and get a difference near 2 times (maybe such details are excessive, maybe not). On other side, there is a chance to break an item after salvaging the upgrade, so need to calculate our spendings and possible profit. Let's take that we pick up an unknown blue item. Cost of first identification is 4g, cost of salvaging using the Expert Salvage Kit is 16g. If an item has a value 5g, we salvage an upgrade and can sell it for 25g without loss, no matter whether the item was broken or not; if items is more valuable, need to take into account the chance of retaining (50% or more). If we identify an upgrade for another 4g, we have a chance to get more than minimal 26g. So, the strict "loseless border" cannot be exactly calculated, I only show that the point "Salvaging identified upgrades is recommended when the item's value is below 10Gold, because these upgrades, when salvaged, can almost always be sold for more than 10Gold." is at least inaccurate.

Now the second case about runes and insignias, when we sell them to rune trader. Before salvaging the rune from an item, we should predict how profitable/unprofitable it will be. It's known that minimal prices of identified runes depend of their rarity: 25-50-100g for blue-purple-gold (unidentified runes can cost less) and can randomly vary up to 2 times. But if there is a good demand on a particular rune, identification is unnecessary because we can get much more money anyway. So, we need to make a decision twice: should we salvage a rune or sell the item with a rune to common trader and should we identify a salvaged rune before selling it to rune trader. The problem is, we cannot predict exactly the trader's offer before salvaging, we can only look at current market price of this rune and compare with a value of our identified item. If item's value is less than values mentioned above, we can be almost sure in no loss, otherwise it's a chance. In many cases, the items with gold runes can cost about 200g or more, so no much reason to attempt to salvage a rune when a trader sells such rune for 200g. OK, we salvaged a rune and now request its price. If we see that price is "basic", we can identify it, which is almost always loseless. However, if we identify a rune having a trader screen opened, we need to request a price again, otherwise trader will give the initual value, not an identified value (it can be counted as bug or anomaly).

I attempted to explain all the said above in a few words (yes, maybe not in best way), but you decided to remove it. Well, it can be more suitable for another article, I will think about it. But it would be well if you think too... --Slavic 07:26, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, as you describe it, in the first case 10 should be changed to 25 (or, if you really prefer, 26). That should be changed. But certainly we don't need to provide a specific example, particularly with the second half of the sentence. Consider: "You should salvage the upgrades on an identified item when it's less than 25Gold, because the upgrades are almost always worth > 25Gold. For example, an item worth 5Gold may contain an upgrade worth 50Gold." If you read that and think the example is anything other than painfully redundant, we shall have to agree to disagree and ask other editors for an opinion. As for the rest of your description of that case, it seems to me that it fits under Salvage better than Identification.
I didn't know about those respective minimal prices (I thought it was always 100 minimum), and that's what the confusing second half of my revert summary notes. Again, that number should be changed, I am mistaken. However, it seems to make no sense whatsoever to me to say "identification is unnecessary because there is demand on a particular rune"; how do you know what that rune is before identifying? Nor do I understand "Identify a salvaged rune before selling it," because as far as I recall you cannot identify runes. If this is not the case, shoot me for ignorance. As for "we can only look at current market price of this rune and compare with a value of our identified item," this is obvious and is very clearly indicated by the sentence that existed before and after your edit. I have no clue what you mean by the last part: "we salvaged a rune, requested its price,... now we can identify it." Identify what? And again, much of this sounds like salvage information (it's more of a decision whether to salvage something which you've already identified).
The bug you mention is worth adding to the article but needs not be in that particular place (I assume that all NPCs fail to update if you identify while the window is open). So, the list of changes are:
  1. Update "10Gold" to "25Gold".
  2. Update "100Gold" to "25, 50, or 100Gold, depending on whether it is blue, purple, or gold, respectively."
  3. Add bug note under Notes section.
Thanks. | 72 User 72 Truly Random.jpg (UTC) 14:42, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

henchies[edit]

why should they be min/maxed again? -- Armond WarbladeUser Armond sig image.png{{Bacon}} 02:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what the above sentence means, but if you're asking about the line under "Controversy" on the skill bar contest page, lemme just quote what it used to be:
"As community representative Martin Kerstein stated that these henchmen builds "are not meant to replace human players", it can be argued that maximum effectiveness should not be required of these builds (though by no means should effectiveness be disregarded)."
So they're saying that because henchmen =/= humans, they don't need to play to maximum effectiveness. This assumes first that humans are maximum effectiveness, which is ridiculous (not only does skill vary, but the fact that the BEST humans could not match some AI was the whole reason for the AI contest). After that, it assumes that somehow "not replacing them" entails "not being as good as them", whereas it could mean "being not as good," or "being as good," or "being better," or "filling absolutely no role humans would otherwise fill". In any but the (only possible) first case, there's no reason to make these builds perform worse than a human.
In short, Kerstein saying they're not replacements =/= them needing to be crappy builds.
But since some people do think the above, I a) made the line a slightly more plausible version of the conclusion and b) phrased it to "some players argue that" rather than "it is true that" or something like it was before.
Happy? :P | 72 User 72 Truly Random.jpg (UTC) 13:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I wrote that section, I know what it means. What I'm asking is, why should bringing AI to PvP be just as good a solution as bringing humans to PvP? Maybe I should have put that in the rewrite? -- Armond WarbladeUser Armond sig image.png{{Bacon}} 20:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
For the sake of fairness against teams that can fill themselves up with all humans. A team of AI doesn't have the Right to a Fair Match, but humans do and AI shouldn't get in the way of that. Players shouldn't be punished for other players not being there. I may be missing something, and am being sincere when I say I want to hear the opposite argument. | 72 User 72 Truly Random.jpg (UTC) 23:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
The opposing argument is basically "GvG and HA are serious business". If you can't be bothered even pugging those last two spots, you shouldn't have them filled. People don't (or more accurately shouldn't) sign up for PvP expecting to face AI opponents (GW is the only game I know of where "PvP" means "PvP or PvP+AI"). Furthermore, since the AI is significantly better than humans when it comes to to certain roles (interrupting, enchantment removal, spreading hexes, etc) and since those roles are covered by the builds some of the henchies have, you're in a sense rewarded for not going out to find two pugs. (Granted, it's somewhat less serious than when heroes were allowed, but it's still an issue.) -- Armond WarbladeUser Armond sig image.png{{Bacon}} 00:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
PvP is an acronym for Player versus Player. -Auron 00:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I realized I missed a step. Because you're not taking a human, and thus aren't exerting the simple effort of finding someone, you should be punished (thus, the builds should be less effective than a human's would be). The fact that the AI is pretty lolawesome in this game doesn't help. -- Armond WarbladeUser Armond sig image.png{{Bacon}} 00:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes, I will grant you that some skills have advantages that are unfair when used by the AI. But we should not mix the problem of these skills with the idea of making AI as effective as human players. It is also true by what I said earlier that players should not be rewarded, either, for other players not being there. Where the AI can exceed humans in ways that prevent (almost) any team from winning this should be regarded as cheating; and obviously any build assigned to the AI should have limitations in the same way that skills have PvE and PvP versions, or "exemptions" from use. --It's a separate matter that the ones they chose broke this rule. But it does not mean that they should not have chosen fair, excellent builds.
You should never be punished for some other(s) you have absolutely no connection with deciding not to play the game. It is not your fault if there is a lack of players for your team.
Elitism in PvP is no argument. In fact, people do (and should) sign up for PvP expecting to face skilled opponents with dangerous builds.
Auron: if the name fails to apply (in this case because it's impossible to fulfill sometimes) you ditch the name. Unfortunately it does not take a particularly stupid person to attempt a straw man fallacy. Stating a name that has failed to apply for years as though it described the current state of affairs is ludicrous. (Now if you mean your preference is that it be solely human vs. human, that is another argument. Stating a name that has failed to apply for years as though it described what should be the current state of affairs is alright, but unrelated.) AI has been in PvP for years and the current discussion has nothing to do with their removal or not. It has to do with their effectiveness. | 72 User 72 Truly Random.jpg (UTC) 00:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
You want heroes back yet you haven't given a single good reason why. Don't expect people to bother giving you good reasons in response.
Heroes destroy Guild Wars PvP and have since the day they came out (I'm not even joking here - late 2006, whenever it hit, I bought nightfall and went to go back to tombsing, except every team now composed of 2 people and 4 heroes). This is a problem particularly unique to Guild Wars - ANet made heroes too good at certain abusable mechanics, and because ANet also failed to balance those mechanics, the heroes are just stupidly ridiculous. Other games don't have that component - if your partner in a 2v2 SC team didn't show up and you were fighting two humans with an AI ally, you would lose. Repeat that for pretty much every other competitive game ever. Bots in FPS games are a cinch to kill after you've fought players for years. Computer-controlled enemies in games like Street Fighter or even Brawl are just a joke. Guild Wars is the only game I can think of where I would willingly take AI-controlled party members over humans, and it's because they're great at abusing poorly-designed mechanics and stomping face.
Until you propose a solution to fix that problem, don't try to bring heroes back - they will do more damage than good. -Auron 01:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
"You should never be punished for some other(s) you have absolutely no connection with deciding not to play the game. It is not your fault if there is a lack of players for your team."
Bullshit. You have a party invite button; use it. In better games (and even in unorganized PvP, for some reason), if you don't have enough friends online and there aren't enough randoms to fill your party, you don't play, end of subject. You don't get your terrible friends replaced by better AI players just because you can't be bothered finding a few more people.
"Elitism in PvP is no argument."
Yes it is, actually. Elitism exists; deal with it. You're not organizing a 25-man raid when half the (comparatively small) server doesn't know what they're doing, half of the rest are saved and can't come until next week, and half of the remainder are offline because of RL/time zones/etc (and it's still entirely possible to set up a raid in that situation). You just need eight people. Not hard by any standard. As a very wise woman once said, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the oven.
-- Armond WarbladeUser Armond sig image.png{{Bacon}} 01:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Auron: I don't wish for your trolling. I never said I want heroes back whatsoever.
Armond: So "you don't play" the game is better than "you play the game reducedly"? For fuck's sake! I can do that without logging in.
Armond: There is no need to perpetrate terrible situations, even when they now exist. I don't play WoW and have little idea what the situation you're referring to is like, unfortunately. However, nobody should be forbidden from a part of the game (half of the game, according to much of the playerbase) because they are forced to play with bad AI, or no AI, or people who won't let them learn.
I'm updating the page with a note sympathetic to your and many others' positions. | 72 User 72 Truly Random.jpg (UTC) 02:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
/facepalm. You just fell from one fallacy (AI is justified in PvP ever for any reason) to another (paying for a game entitles you to do whatever you want within it). -- Armond WarbladeUser Armond sig image.png{{Bacon}} 03:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Falsities are not fallacies, my friend. (A fallacy is a failure of logical progression. A falsity is failure of fact/truth.) More importantly, opinions aren't truth. And the two propositions are intricately connected. You may stop misrepresenting the second ( by once again using the straw man fallacy, in which you attack a weaker version of the opponent's ideas) which should read, "Paying for and choosing to play a game entitles you to the basic gameplay within it, [regardless of obstacles presented by factors outside of the developer or the consumer's control]". If you cannot agree with that statement, we have nothing more we can reasonably argue about. ... Whereas if you do agree with it, you will see that AI is justified in PvP -- which is half of the game by popular consensus, and thus certainly part of "basic gameplay" -- to eliminate those obstacles which are outside of the developer or the consumer's control, before someone can enjoy an essential part of the game.
(In the unlikely case that you comprehendingly reply, "Playing against AI is a basic part, sure, but that can be done in PvE!" -- Playing against AI is not the issue here, once again. Playing against humans is the basic part we're getting at, and when it becomes impossible there is no need to compromise it by failing to provide the props it may need to be played.)
I will not bother taking much time to reply to statements which show any more lack of thought than this last one, thank you. | 72 User 72 Truly Random.jpg (UTC) 04:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Read history section on Animal Companion article[edit]

That is all (Xu Davella 14:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC))

I have left the professions lowercase. However, a) size is part of appearance and b) dependant is a noun. :P Therefore the only thing I believe your wording had over mine was that in mine it isn't explicit that level corresponds exactly to size. In my new edit, this is fixed. I hope you agree to a compromise | 72 User 72 Truly Random.jpg (UTC) 20:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Nothing is wrong[edit]

You're just linking to the same page you're on. -- FreedomBoundUser Freedom Bound Sig.png 16:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

OH, DUH!! You, sir, have just become the Greatest Hero of Our Time. | 72 User 72 Truly Random.jpg 16:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
You can color links, too: 72. "Crimson glory" just isn't a recognized color. -- FreedomBoundUser Freedom Bound Sig.png 17:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Oh no! My crimson glory! Also, you have just become the even greaterest hero of our time. | 72 User 72 Truly Random.jpg (UT) 17:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Shiro Tagachi -- Thanks![edit]

I meant to change it back but I totally forgot about that article. Thanks! :-D --Lania ElderfireUser Lania Elderfire pinkribbon.jpg 19:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Is it possible?[edit]

Why am I writing this on my own talk page, you ask? Probably because it's not so important as to interrupt what people in power are doing. Though if there is no reply I will go poke someone.

It's just this | 72 User 72 Truly Random.jpg | 19:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Afaik there is a merge tool that admins can use to merge user's contributions together into one user. Not sure how it works though, but yes it's possible. --LaniaUser Lania Elderfire pinkribbon.jpg 19:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! | 72 User 72 Truly Random.jpg | 21:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

(merge talk from June 2010)[edit]

It has come to my attention that my user name would be a million times better if it was 72. Therefore, I have created this alternate user (who I never intend to log in as) to bear my name, redirect to my actual page, and prevent it from being taken by anyone :O

However, it's mostly for a much higher priority: is it possible for an admin to move all my user to this new name (including contributions, user pages, watchlist, etc)? If so, I think it'd be for the win. | 72 User 72 Truly Random.jpg | 20:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Such a feature does indeed exist. It's called User Merge, and you can request it here. However, afaik, you can't move userpages and watchlists, just contributions and logs. Page histories and log pages are updated to match the name of the new account as well. Shadow Runner 19:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks doubly! | 72 User 72 Truly Random.jpg | 21:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

GWW:RUM[edit]

is not a place for chat. - J.P.User J.P. sigicon.pngTalk 23:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Eh, I thought it concerned his name (I was hinting to him, via my weak pun) -- but anyway, noted. I'll take my silliness elsewhere... | 72 User 72 Truly Random.jpg |
:< ---Chaos?- (^____________^) -- 11:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Happy Birthday[edit]

Happy Birthday, Mr. 72.--User Oneshot O.JPGneshot. moo. 20:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Happy birthday! :D -~=Ϛρѧякγ User Sparky, the Tainted guided sig.png (τѧιк) 20:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Happy Birthday! Shadow Runner 20:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Congratulations! ^^ - J.P.User J.P. sigicon.pngTalk 20:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, my compatriots! | 72 User 72 Truly Random.jpg | 04:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Triggering on attack[edit]

I will explain what this is about. (A list of all the skills this pertains to will be posted on my talk page.) Things that fail do not generally count as happening. Any skill that affects skills or attack skills should not trigger when an attack skill fails. The anomaly is that most of them will (the general trend being that negative effects trigger, positive effects do not). The same mechanic applied to non-attack skills creates entirely different results. Nothing triggers when non-attack skills fail. Thus, skills that do trigger for failed skills should be labeled as anomalies. This leads to notes on tons of pages. That, or I can overhaul the Fail page to actually describe how failed attacks work and link to this. -~=Ϛρѧякγ User Sparky, the Tainted guided sig.png (τѧιк) 04:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I see that, but I don't think I understand. You say "[Because] the game usually doesn't count fails as happening, any skill that affects skills or attack skills should not trigger when an attack skill fails." This is excellent in theory.
But then you say "Skills that do trigger for failed skills should be labeled as anomalies. This leads to notes on tons of pages." (Such as the Empathy one.) If there are tons of pages that are anomalous to the theory, doesn't that just mean that the game treats failed attack skills differently than regular fails, as a rule?
I probably misread your message. (Maybe I even repeated what you just said.) Please do a poor stupid editor a favour and explain again, specifically answering the questions:
  1. Why the Empathy edit?, particularly in conjunction with...
  2. Why the Vigorous Spirit edit if, as you said above, Empathy's behaviour seems to be standard on a lot of pages but only Vigorous Spirit's corresponds with your theory?
Thank you and please have patience with me. | 72 User 72 Truly Random.jpg | 14:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

i should have a better version done in oh say, 10min[edit]

happy? btw the target *must* be in the frame, it *is* a hex and the rules laid out for this project state that targeting spells must have the target in view so... yeah — Scythe 16:15, 5 Aug 2010 (UTC)

Certainly better... and sorry, I was just thinking of other animation gifs around here, I didn't know about the guidelines D: | 72 User 72 Truly Random.jpg | 16:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
np that 1 i had walked away to get a snack durring, spaced some things that need to get done be4 upload :) — Scythe 16:44, 5 Aug 2010 (UTC)
oh god, i just looked at deadly arts, looks like im in for the long hall on this 1 :S, oh well, got nothin better to do :) — Scythe 16:46, 5 Aug 2010 (UTC)

Categories vs. the lists[edit]

Backsword argued pretty hard for all the lists just to be additional categories, but my argument was that when the number of categories a page is found within exceeds a certain level, the categories become useless. The approach used basically tries to split the mass of categories into two groups. I'm not really trying to start a new debate here, I just thought you might be interested in the rationale for the change but it isn't really relevant to the discussion taking place as a whole. Misery 00:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

It would take a lot to get me to agree with Backsword on any matter, anyway...:P | 72 User 72 Truly Random.jpg | 02:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Seriously[edit]

Cut it out with that life sheath BS. There are ten walls of text on the talk page detailing all the ways mark of prot is completely unworthy of mention, yet you ignore all that and decide to list it anyway. That is not how wikis work. Don't add the note back until consensus is on your side. -Auron 03:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't remove the note until consensus is on your side. | 72 User 72 Truly Random.jpg | 03:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Generally, when an admin tells you to stop edit warring, your first move shouldn't be to continue the edit war. Just sayin'. -- Armond WarbladeUser Armond sig image.png{{Bacon}} 03:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
You misunderstand me - this was an admin warning to stop the edit warring or suffer a ban. I simply hit "rollback" to undo your edits, seeing as they were made without support of consensus. If you check the page history, I have no interest in the pissing contest revert war you and Flesh and whoever else keep stirring up - I simply want it to end. And end it will. Flesh got blocked for 1RR violation already, and you're well on your way. Consider this your official warning - stop the edit war and obtain consensus before making changes to the page. -Auron 03:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

some words[edit]

(Note that Jon's revert is the one that had consensus, not Auron's.)
I came by and saw that someone had placed MoP back under Related Skills. You may recall that I think it should be under Related Skills. However, when I saw this edit, I replaced it under See Also.
Auron then came by and removed it from See Also and thus all reference from the page -- a state not suggested by anyone on the talk page except Auron himself.
So I restored the immediately preceding version, asking Auron to reread the discussion and edit summaries before making an edit that "has consensus".
In reality, the edit that had greatest consensus is one in which under See Also, is not MoP specifically but a link to a list.
(Notice that the only item on that list which is not already on the LS page, is MoP.)
Then Jon restored said consensus-edit.
If you doubt anything in the above points, read at least the 2nd half of the walls of text, and use today's edit summaries as a study guide.
If I did wrong in the above points, ban me. | 72 User 72 Truly Random.jpg | 03:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, your summary skews intentions quite a bit. After seeing yours and Flesh's edits to the page, I used the sysop "rollback" tool to undo the damage to the page and came here to warn you about edit warring (Flesh required no warning, as he was banned by Jon). You then ignored the admin warning and, while pretending to care about consensus in your own edit summaries, ignored consensus to revert it back to your last copy. It was obvious by now you had misunderstood the intention of my post on your talk page - I don't give a shit about life sheath, and I have no intention of edit warring over it; I had simply come to tell you to stop prolonging the edit war Flesh had already been banned for.
Jon protected the page, went back through the talk page to figure out what the last supported version was, and restored it to that copy. The protection will no doubt stay up for longer this time, but when it ends, don't edit that page without first obtaining talk page consensus. Because you obviously didn't understand the sysop warning was a sysop warning, I'll let it rest without a ban. But really - your course of action should have been to either report Flesh on the noticeboard for edit warring or ignoring the page entirely, not moving related skills around because you agree they should be there. -Auron 04:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks
You're right. I didn't realize your edit was a(n attempted) rollback rather than -- as was my first thought from your part in the LS discussion -- yet another revert to one side or the other.
(Look about 6 edit summaries down: all I saw was a revert by Emissary, for which, as my edit summary suggests, I tried to go halfway and put it under See Also instead of Related Skills; then another sudden revert by Auron without an edit summary, which I misinterpreted so I undid, noting a little edgily that it wasn't the right version in any case.)
Anyway, I think the things I've said here and on the LS talk page section, esp. the 2nd half of it, show my attempts to compromise to some position which both sides agree to -- far from trying to intentionally revertstorm to my position... :P | 72 User 72 Truly Random.jpg | 12:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

How much is less than a handful?[edit]

Near as I can tell, there are less than 5 uniques that accept dye (depending on whether you count the straw effigy as one or many). I wanted to use a phrase that didn't lock us into a number, but implied more than 2 but less than 8. As you noted, a handful isn't up to the task (too ambiguous). I don't love a small number because that, too, can be interpreted to mean a small fraction. Probably the best term is several, which is defined as more than a few, but less than many (yeah, how vague can you get?).

I think the ideal thing might be see if we can count the exact number, rephrase to say only about x and then list them in notes. However, given that the collective group of editors missed costumes, bandanas, and crowns already...I think a small number is about as good as we can do for the moment.

Thanks for working with me on this.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 17:32, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Anytime. I think the reliability of your edits and the thoroughness of your discussion about them are among the best...
I agree about the phrasing of the amount. I think "very few" might be slightly less ambiguous as regards fractions, so I've put it in for now (though if you discover that 5 is correct, or you prefer "small number", change it without a second thought). | 72 User 72 Truly Random.jpg | 23:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Very few works for me...until we find someone who has been keeping track by trying to dye them all ;-)  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 23:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Random Link[edit]

Thanks for the link to my userpage? :)Jackster 21:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

But I -- ohmygoodness -- is this -- is this itself the li -- wha? Did you use to be someone else? | 72 User 72 Truly Random.jpg |
I understood none of that :D Jackster 06:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Mission uncomplished | 72 User 72 Truly Random.jpg | 15:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
(no but what?) | 72 User 72 Truly Random.jpg | 15:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Animal Hides[edit]

I was hoping you would offer a spirited defense of version 2. (I currently disagree, but perhaps I might change my mind based on your ideas.)  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 03:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Hyphens[edit]

I've only seen warm up or warm-up, never warmup. (I have seen cooldown, but more frequently cool-down or cool down.) I'm not going to add those spelling to skill or revert your edit, but I think the article reads better with the space or hyphen than without. — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 02:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The age of gaming and electronics mostly saw cooldown, as far as I'm aware. On the other hand, warmup and warm-up have both been around a long time.
But anyway, let's consult our third-party resources. Wiktionary has warmup as an alternative spelling of warm-up, while cooldown exists but cool-down doesn't even have a redirect.
Google: unfortunately not in top form, because it doesn't interpret the hyphen ("warm-up" yields "warmup", "warm-up", and "warm up"), and searching with a space still yields the verb, so both of those give wildly high estimates. We can search adjacent and guess the standalone reliability; warmup and cooldown. The former has a notable presence of 11 million, and the latter is fairly strong at 2 million -- notably, most of them related to gaming. They are certainly both extant and in circulation. We can also create a makeshift comparison by searching with the hyphen and browsing through the hits for which usages appear most; by this method, "cool-down" appears very rarely, while the majority of the hits use "warm-up".
I'd say "warm-up" is fine, but not "cool-down" (though in the game, I think one sees "cd" more often than anything!...) | 72 User 72 Truly Random.jpg | 03:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Commas (UB true, TEF be fail)[edit]

It's weird, but there are pitifully few treatises on comma usage that include examples that cover the specific situation we are discussing. I found lots of articles that go into detail on comma usage, but none that address how to use them in introducing a proper noun.

Ironically, I only became convinced that your version is appropriate on the two most-recent contentious changes when I started to ask you, which makes more sense:

  1. This is my friend 72. versus
  2. This is my friend, 72.

Clearly, I'm introducing you in (1), but introducing you to someone else in (2)... which is the point you were trying to make. I apologize for being confused.

(Side issue: you reverted to your version without citing; I'm not sure why the obligation was on me to find a reference when you were asking for a change in the status quo. Shouldn't you have posted a reputable grammar source when you changed things for the second time? It's moot in this case, since (a) I was incorrect and (b) we got to the right result without a flamefest. However, as we know from experience, disagreements on minor topics can escalate.)Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 16:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Quite right, I should have cited. Because it isn't covered by your summary either, I'll do so now. I should have linked to w:Apposition, particularly the distinction between restrictive and non-restrictive. Without a comma, "There Can Only Be One" specifies/restricts which "1986 film", whereas with a comma, it gives extra info about the 1968 film (which would be identifiable without the appositive). Thus:
  1. "I like the 1966 album Revolver." (There's more than one 1966 album and I want to say which.)
  2. "I like the Beatles album Revolver." (There's more than one Beatles album and I want to say which.)
  3. "I like the 1966 Beatles album." (There's only one; I don't need to say which.)
  4. "I like the 1966 Beatles album, TEF." (There's only one; I don't need to say which. But I do want to address you.)
  5. "I like the 1966 Beatles album, Revolver." (There's only one; I don't need to say which. But I do want to give you extra information about it.)
The distinction between specifying/restricting and qualifying, which separates (1) and (2) from (5), is the one that gets most people.
But indeed, you have shamed me by doing the work when I neglected to. May I never again be lazy in your company!
(Side issue: I don't know how to indent those numbered lists without the odd extra number there. Check the code to see why it confuses me.) | 72 User 72 Truly Random.jpg | 18:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, I think all of those examples reflect the same general rule; unfortunately, most of the grammar sources I found failed to address appositives clearly (they only covered specific instances, without providing a rule of thumb — your rule of what are you trying to specify is helpful).
Regardless, I was treating commas-before-proper-nouns as having one rule, which was... at best, incorrect. (PS I took the liberty of helping you with your numbering; my apologies if that isn't what you meant by your parenthetical above). (PPS I didn't mean to shame you; I merely hoped for you to consider an alternative approach should something like this come up again...which, it appears, I did :) )Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 19:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Welp, good to see that all's well. (Numbers: Ah, I see! Thanks; why didn't I think of that?) | 72 User 72 Truly Random.jpg | 01:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The ambiguity of loopholes[edit]

I thought of using the more appropriate term, ambiguity (as you did in your later edit of Wastrel's Collapse), but I hoped that, somehow, loophole would help convey a reason for keeping the note to those intent on removing it. I feared that folks might have trouble understanding why the fact that was obvious to them was not as obvious to others.

However, upon reflection (i.e. after reading your edit), I have to agree with you: loophole gives quite a different impression (we can leave the question for another day of whether loophole might be appropriately used outside of legalese). — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 01:25, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you're right that it can, contrary to my summary. In this particular case, I was getting the amusing impression of using the grammar to change the function of the skill :P And indeed, the controversy over that note was annoying; it's minor, but still valid... | 72 User 72 Truly Random.jpg | 02:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
You guys are entirely too civil. I am disgusted. -Auron 02:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you! | 72 User 72 Truly Random.jpg | 03:22, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you thinking you're gathering what I think you're thinking you're gathering?[edit]

Yo.

Not sure if you misread or if my message was misleading, but TEF no longer edits GuildWiki; which is what drove me to write such a message. I submitted it here as he has stated he no longer checks his other talk page.

So no need to worry here. Yet. ^ ^ User A F K When Needed Signature Icon.png A F K When Needed 14:02, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Nicely done, sir. Nicely done. | 72 User 72 Truly Random.jpg | 20:23, 10 September 2011 (UTC)