User talk:Gordon Ecker/Archive 2

Archive

---

February-June 2007
July-December 2007
January-June 2008

Moved page

Thanks for moving the page, but can you explain me what to?? I do not want to make same mistake ^^

Thx M'vy 19:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok don't worry... was just the User: missing before the name. Thx a lot.

I though it concern my problem with one image. M'vy 20:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you let me get the feedback I want?

Every time I post somewhere asking about species you are quick to interlude and intervene and point out why my question or proposal is not correct or doesn't really need an answer. Can you please lay off? Your understanding and mine of the species issues seem to be diametrically opposed. If you feel my proposal has issues why not disucss them on the proposal's talk page? If you feel my understanding is flawed, why not alk with me about it, instead of stalking every question I ask an ANet person and then quickly interjecting to derail the discussion?

Please, for the sake of my own sanity and civil discourse... When I post a question on some ANet employee's page asking for details about something, do NOT rewrite the question, nor answer it nor point out that its's not a proposal but an amalgamation of theories from other sources. It is clearly obvious (to me) that you don't want the proposal to be accepted as cannon. And while you are free to believe that, it is also obvious to me that you're not very fair in your attempt to "enforce" that reality on the wiki. Please backoff my species questions to ANet employees. I don't intervene in your dicussions (not even aware of them) about the issue with ANet or anyone else. Give me the same amount of fairness. Thanks. --Karlos 22:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. The intention of my latest post was to say "I was wrong, Karlos was right, this is what convinced me that Karlos was right and this is why I was skeptical in the first place". I responded to your post because it included a comment on my post, so a clarification of my post was on-topic, if it did not mention my post, I would've posted the EoE test results in the previous section or another talk page. I did not mean to attribute the holy damage arguement to you, it has been brought up by several people on GuildWiki's Carven Effigy talk page. I'm guessing the typo of "your" as "our" really made me look like a dick, it has been corrected. In the future, I will be more cautious about responding to other people's questions on dev talk pages. -- Gordon Ecker 22:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am sorry for being vey harsh up there. I just wanted it to stop. I ask a dev/ANet person a question and your post makes it sound like it's not that big of a deal (whether you meant to make it sound like that or not). Read that first line in your response (It's really not a theory, but a proposal made up of mixed....) and even if you hold that to be true, posting it right there and then tells the dev that another user thinks this is not really that big of a deal. If he gets that message, he might not look at it thoroughly if he even looks at it at all. He hardly knows you or me, so he'll assume it's not that big of a deal if another user took the time to actually point his attention that they shouldn't really consider it all that important.

And while you may not have MEANT to do all that, it is an obvious end result that could occur. And all I am saying is, PLEASE give people a chance. You did the same with a question I asked to Emily as well.

Again, I'm sorry myself for being so blunt, but I just feel it's not fair. And if I took the time to respond to your interjections at that point, the discussion will get derailed and the issues I want answered will be lost. I aprreciate you did the testing and I am grateful that you published the results even when they were against your initial thesis. But please be sensitive to this issue. Thanks. --Karlos 23:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, the problem with my post is now painfully obvious, when I was writing the response, I didn't notice that "it" was ambiguous and could be interpreted as referring to either your proposal or my table. -- Gordon Ecker 23:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

RFA

Hello, Gordon. Just noticed you aren't a sysop over here yet. If you're interested, could you note your acceptance at Guild Wars Wiki:Requests for adminship#Pending nominations? Cheers, --Dirigible 01:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Gordon Ecker 03:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Andrew McLeod/Species

Don't want to edit that talk page, as it's more of an article, but I'm wondering where you got the information that some of the questions are based on, eg. Charr having no type. There is a (charrslaying) mod.Backsword 11:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Andrew McLeod stated that Charr have an army but no family on talk:Species, and that weapons of Charrslaying are based on army like weapons of Deathbane rather than being based on family like most slaying weapons. -- Gordon Ecker 23:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations

Grats on gaining sysop status, and welcome to the team ;) - anja 08:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Gordon Ecker 08:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Grats indeed. Seems that the influx of new sysops has come to a (temporary) end now. --Xeeron 09:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Skill type

By skill type I refere to Skill type, Since it has an official meaning, using it for something else may cause confusion, which is why I changed it to 'skill group', and moved Adrenaline there. Backsword 12:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've changed it back to groups. -- Gordon Ecker 21:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Plagueborn

Hi, I fixed your copy-and-paste errors on your recent drop research additions.

==Drop research==
Observed Drops for [[{{SUBST:PAGENAME}}]]
{| {{STDT}}
!Mode||Amount Skin|| Drop || Signature
|-
|N||[[CREATURE]] in [[LOCATION]]||~~~~

|}

is the template I use for new pages, so there is no link to wrong item page :-) - MSorglos (talk|contrib) 05:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Gordon Ecker 06:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

profession "sorting"

On a talk page, it really makes more sense to just alphabetize them, I'd think. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 00:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Its the generally accepted order GWW:PCU, here and guildwiki, I honestly have no idea why. --Lemming 00:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah ha - the order they appear on the character creation screen :) --Lemming 00:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer to use the same order everywhere for consistancy, but I'm not picky about it. -- Gordon Ecker 00:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Alphabetical ordering is much easier to use when you're trying to find a specific profession (which is what most people attempting to post comments on a talk page will wish to do), thus, I'm going to revert your reordering for now. Consistency is great for mainspace articles, but as far as talk pages go I'd say accessibility outranks consistency, as long as breaking the latter doesn't tremendously impact the former, which in my view it wouldn't in this case. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 00:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of ease of use, I'll add the icons to make finding things at a glance a bit quicker. -- Gordon Ecker 00:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Dredge

are they really multi campaign? or is that just an accident? :p --Lemming 01:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the Prophecies and Factions Dredge share the same models. -- Gordon Ecker 01:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

(conflict) oh sorrow's furnace, I'll shut up now :) --Lemming 01:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

"The Great Destroyer is connected to the Great Giants"

Hey! That's a good prediction. I was wondering if the Great Giants would ever be more involved in lore, and that'd be a great way to do it. --Talonz // 01:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm thinking the Destroyers are either the great giants or are responsible for the extinction of the great giants. -- Gordon Ecker 03:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Polymock

Actually, the skill icon for "Polymock Spell X" is the same as "Spell X". It should be possible to modify the Skill infobox template in order to let us choose the icon but that's out of my wiki knowledge. Otherwise we would have to re-upload every skill icon with a different name which wouldn't be very wise imho. Can you help? Chriskang 09:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, I brought it up at Template talk:Skill infobox. -- Gordon Ecker 09:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, didn't see it :/ Chriskang 09:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. I saw you changed all my "Polymock Pieces" into "Polymock pieces". I'm not familiar with GWW policies and I think your change was referring to this one. I just wanted to let you know that I find the new capitalization quite unlogical. Imho, it should be either "Gargoyle Polymock Piece" (as in-game description) or "Gargoyle polymock piece" (following the policy). But having 1 capitalized letter and not the other is a bit disturbing to me. Don't you think so? Chriskang 09:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I just assumed that Polymock was a proper noun. If it's not, then "Gargoyle polymock piece" would be more appropriate. We'll probably end up having to rename them once the game's released and we find out final names for the Polymock form effects. -- Gordon Ecker 09:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

You're probably right about Polymock being a proper noun. After checking again inside gw.dat I saw that the environment effect was : Gargoyle Form : You are playing as the Gargoyle Polymock piece. So the current capitalization is correct. May I just create a template to make changes easier if needed? Chriskang 09:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Title track vs rank

Why did you change the attribute listing back from deldrimor rank to deldrimor title track? As we are listing the sunspear as sunspear rank, and not sunspear title track, I thought this was the way to go :) - anja 13:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It was interfering with the DPL lists at list of PvE-only skills. -- Gordon Ecker 13:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

That is easily fixed once we agree on one way of naming it. It's just to change the category link :) Should we bring this up at the skill formatting? Maybe sunspear and allegiance rank should be changed to title track? - anja 13:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure, right now my main concern is keeping the DPL tables working, and {{skill table}} can only filter skills out by category, so there's no way to set things up in order to make the DPL lists include both categories. -- Gordon Ecker 13:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is. Set category = Deldrimor title track skills to category = Deldrimor title track skills{{pipe}}Deldrimor rank skills instead and it should include skills in both categories. Although, it would be alot better to agree upon what to call it. :) - anja 13:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Anja to change the category label to "Deldrimor rank skills" instead of "Deldrimor title track skills". Chriskang 13:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Anja, I've fixed the DPL in list of PvE-only skills and rolled back my DPL-related skill infobox edits. I'm going to call it a night. -- Gordon Ecker 13:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Glimmer

IS not bad foo. Readem Sorry, I'll stop trolling now. 00:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Progression tables

Hey. This template might interrest you :) See sunspear skill for examples. Chriskang 23:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I forgot about that template. -- Gordon Ecker 00:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I created it yesterday just a few hours before you start editing norn/deldrimor skills to add their max value :-) Chriskang 07:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I remember some discussion about creating such a template back when the title skills came out, but I guess no one got around to it until now. -- Gordon Ecker 07:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

HS

hi, i wanted to add some information to the salvage research table on jeweled daggers, but i didn't know what "HS" is...i first thought it could be the "Measure for Measure" inscription, but this would be shortened with MfM i think. i made several other "salvage research" table on other item skins, but i used other tables (material,amount,skin (only if the same name has several skins), value and rarity. is there a page somewhere how one should make such tables at best? Zerpha The Improver 23:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's the highly salvageable property, regardless of whether it's from an inscription or an inherent bonus. I don't believe there's any standardised salvage research table. -- Gordon Ecker 23:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

ok, thanks. :) changed the table on Bronze Crusher as well. do you think the req and dmg makes any diffrence? (i'll first look in my profile why i din't get a message that you answered me :P) Zerpha The Improver 23:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but salvage results seem to be related to value, and value seems to be related to req and damage. -- Gordon Ecker 23:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

you may be right. i once had a scythe that was worse 300g+ without an "Show me the money" inscription. i think it was req13, but i'm not sure. Ah, and i made an Highly salvageable article. not the best atm especially cause of the grammar, but i added all i know about it, which finally wasn't even as few as i thought. (and i still didn't figgure out how to change my profile that i always get a message when sb answers me >.<) Zerpha The Improver 00:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It's difficult to determing what is and is not a factor without extensive research. Highly salvageable is defenitely a major factor, but base stats, req and value are closely intertwined, making it difficult to isolate the effect of any of the three. -- Gordon Ecker 01:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I think it would help a lot if Anet would explain it, they know how the things are.^^ Zerpha The Improver 15:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Central Transfer Chamber

Hey, Gordon. I saw you added hasHeroArmorer to that article. Thanks for helping to fix this up--I'm guessing I'd mistyped it the first time, since it wasn't showing up (which was why I'd removed it). Glad to see my first submission's becoming something more complete. Cheers! Duminas 11:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Polymock again

Hi. I saw you edited many polymock pieces names to add an alternate name (like "Skeletal Mage / Skeleton"). Could you please explain to the polymock-noob that I am how it works? Which one is the in-game name? Should articles names be updated? Why are there 2 alternate spellings? Chriskang 09:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The long name is the one that appears on the menu and on the polymock piece items (at least the ones I've gotten). The short name appears on the polymock piece NPCs that show up in the arena. -- Gordon Ecker 09:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok thanks. I never thought those could have different names -I'm unable to beat the third encounter :-( Chriskang 09:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

What about "Charr Flamecaller"? You updated the link on the main Polymock page but not the label. Is "Charr Flame Keeper" the piece name and "Charr Flamecaller" the NPC name? If it's the case, i'm gonna change the link back to the piece name (as you did for others) and put Flamecaller as an alternate label. Chriskang 12:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the piece name, the only pieces I actually have are the Gaki and the quest pieces, but Charr Flamecaller is the name used by the NPC. -- Gordon Ecker 21:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Where

were we talking about the Dmg: links? I've found a problem. ;) - BeX 04:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

It was at Guild Wars Wiki talk:Formatting/Unique items#Damage links. -- Gordon Ecker 04:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, it doesn't really fit there now that I reread it. Maybe you will have an idea of where to discuss, but about a hundred articles link to Enchanted and the moment when they should be linking to Enchantment or "while Enchanted". - BeX 04:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Argh, Enchantment is a redirect. Why don't we have an article called while Enchanted? - BeX 04:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Bounty

I'm quite certain that the 2nd rank reward for a boss is 100, not 200. I was looking right at my Hero window. Are you sure you weren't under Hunt Rampage or something at the time? - Tanetris 20:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. It's possible that bosses provide a random bonus within a range, or that the boss bonus depends on both rank and kills. -- Gordon Ecker 23:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Norn Hunting Party

Isn't your research data reversed? Backsword 00:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, it's fixed now. -- Gordon Ecker 00:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

admin board

Is there a reason being the {{resolved}}'s? They seem sort of pointless given that the only things they can really be objectively applied to are spam bot entries etc, and those are simple to tell at a glance if they've been handled or not. I wouldn't really want to put one of those templates on an issue that was more complicated because even if I have nothing more to say about something, someone else might - so I'd think it better not to "close" an issue before its archived. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 11:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeh it is actually quite annoying to have to do that, with the amount of bots putting blocked --~~~~ is pretty quick, but having to faff with a template too.. --Lemming 11:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, the template in question and a series of related templates are intended as a completely optional way of showing which issues have already been sorted out, which discussions have died and which issues are ongoing but unresolved. I'm about to copy over and trim down the descriptions from Wikipedia. -- Gordon Ecker 23:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

That's all well and good, but they're not something I want to see on GWW:NOTICE, personally. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 00:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Since it doesn't seem popular, I've stripped it out for now. -- Gordon Ecker 00:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Well it would be useful if we had more complicated issues and processes like wikipedia, but most of the cases on there are simply a bot spamming captcha information weirdly. --Lemming 13:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, on the noticeboard it generally doesn't really serve any purpose beying being a "feel free to archive" tag. -- Gordon Ecker 07:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

guideline move

http://wiki.guildwars.com/index.php?title=Guild_Wars_Wiki_talk:Guidelines&curid=8356&diff=473884&oldid=471008 recursiveness wins the day? --Xeeron 16:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I accidentally edited the wrong page and didn't notice. -- Gordon Ecker 03:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I changed it to what I think you intended. Backsword 09:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

BTW, were you still interested in making an argument for using internal terms on the NPC infobox talk page? Backsword 09:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. As for the NPC infobox, I'd prefer to sort out the default rule in general formatting talk page before dealing with possible exceptions. So far, there's overwhelming concensus in favor of using official terms, while the status of internal terms is still unresolved. -- Gordon Ecker 10:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

hai

http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/58.173.92.233 -Auron 08:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked again. -- Gordon Ecker 08:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Your input

Hi Gordon. Would you be willing to weigh in on the discussion taking place here? Thanks. Mohnzh 20:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Drop Research template

Well, i looked through your talk page in search of the drop research template, but all i found abaut it was this section. Where is it saved? I have a improvement suggestion. No one said to me that i shouldn't do so, and if i remember right, aberrant also used this. Well, the fact is that the "drop" column always says "[Creature] in [Location]". I suggest to split this into two columns, e.g. "Dropped by" and "Location". That makes the chart clearer, especially the locations. (I always used "Dropped by" so far as i couldn't remind that there's a existing noun for a Thing that drops other Things. Hence one would be forced to use a neologism, and this could be a bit confusing to others.) —ZerphaThe Improver 17:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It isn't, I just copy it from other talk pages. -- Gordon Ecker 23:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It's on the formatting pages for items/weapons. - BeX 00:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

ok, i finally found it. may i change? —ZerphaThe Improver 16:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

They are guidelines so you can change them. If a change is non-controversial you can change it without discussion. - BeX 03:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

ok, thanks for this information. And how can i see that a page is controversial? —ZerphaThe Improver 15:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

If people start getting peeved off. ;) - BeX 02:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

k.^^ that means, it's a "regular" page, and revert wars could possibly begin there like on any other common page —ZerphaThe Improver 12:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

hiya

Sorry for being a dick to you recently, I'll try to be nicer. -Auron 11:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

It's no big deal. -- Gordon Ecker 11:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

help

Could you please take a look at the Admin noticeboard. There is some serious vandalism going down which we need taken care of. Thanks --Aspectacle 04:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm on it. -- Gordon Ecker 04:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I was concerned that they were going to bring the server down for a bit there. --Aspectacle 04:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

protecting

I think you can stop now. =) — Skakid HoHoHo 05:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay. -- Gordon Ecker 05:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Out of interest, what prompted you to protect "User:Thulsey/TOCright" about an hour and half before you protected Template:IP (which is much more critical and had it been vandalized would have been much more damaging)? Also, who plans to revert all of those protections (considering the attacks stopped hours ago)? File:Defiant Elements Sig Image.JPG *Defiant Elements* +talk 06:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I was going through the categories alphabetically. I was watching TV and wasn't really paying attention to the huge number of templates. In retrospect, I probably should've just gone through Special:Mostlinked looking for templates. -- Gordon Ecker 06:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

"Interesting" new site

Hiya Gordon! I just wanted to get your attention and point you in this direction. Check it out when you get a chance, and let me know if you have any questions! -- Emily Diehl (talk) 19:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Gordon Ecker 04:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Models

Why the move of envoys to gosts? I'm pretty sure Andrew said they're demons. Backsword 13:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

He did? Sorry, I thought that envoys were arbitrarily shoehorned into demons like avatars are shoehorned into undead and moved them due to their appearance. -- Gordon Ecker 03:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Skimming through his talkspace, I can only find confirmation on Shiro being a demon as an envoy. (And human as a human). Perhaps I extrapolated from that, or he made another mention somewhere else. Backsword 17:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for following behind me and correcting missing info. :) Drago 06:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Gordon Ecker Never Sleeps!

He just sends me bugs. ;) Happy New Year, Gordon! And thanks for all your help. Bobby Stein 18:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Gordon Ecker 01:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)