User talk:Gwynna Vive

Relocated From My Anonymous Talk Page

Hi and welcome to the wiki. It's great that you seems to want to contribute to the wiki positively. I would recommend creating a user account to make contributing easier and more fun. -- (gem / talk) 21:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

---

Hi there and welcome to the wiki! Thanks for uploading the images in The Mesmer's Path. In the future you can and should feel free to upload the pics and update quest articles on your own. Not sure if you are uncomfortable doing that or did not know how so I just wanted to mention some links you may find useful:

• Guild_Wars_Wiki:Projects/Quests - all the quests that are in need of something.
• Guild_Wars_Wiki:Formatting/Quests - some information on the way we present quest information here on the wiki. Please try to stick to this as much as possible, and in the event of a question, just hit the talk page and join/start a discussion.
• Template:Quest_infobox - all the info that can be added to the infobox of a quest. When you edit a quest's page, the very first thing you should see is this template, so feel free to input any missing information!

Hope that helps and if you should have any questions feel free to swing by my talk page and ask, or just ask here as I tend to watch talk pages I've left messages on! - Thulsey - talk 03:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• I have limited knowledge of Wiki format, and HTML coding is well beyond what my tired old bones can grasp. I am quite good at writing, especially technically, which is what I've done professionally until my recent unscheduled retirement. I do love to play GuildWars, and it helps keep my mind sharp. I made a living out of figuring out non-standard methods of reaching solutions, and doing so requires that you know the standard. At any rate, I do like to contribute, so I will post ideas and such as I incounter them. I don't want to mess up the wiki's format, and will definitely check into the pages with the templates. Hopefully I'll be able to pry myself away from the game long enough to learn how to use them.

That's a great attitude, and your contributions are welcome! As I mentioned earlier if you have any questions about how to go about doing something feel free to ask - There's a great resource here, and my talk page is just a click away! ^^ - Thulsey - talk 02:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous Talk Page

Hi Gwynna Vive - responded to your comment on my talk page to keep the conversation in one location. - Thulsey - talk 01:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I notice you are racking up quite a list of helpful contributions. Way to go! Responded on my talk page again, btw. - Thulsey - talk 05:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Life Bond

Thank you! I don't know nor can I explain why but the lack of information on the NF skill trainer for this was driving me quite batty and the one character/account I have access to without that skill unlocked hasn't reached Gate of Torment yet. Phew. - Thulsey - talk 06:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't thank me yet, see your talk page. :) Gwynna Vive 09:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Elite skills checklist

First, welcome (back?) to the wiki! I moved your page "Elite Skills Checklist" into your userspace, at User:Gwynna Vive/Elite Skills Checklist. Pages for your personal use belong in your userspace; the mainspace is for articles related to the game, not for users' own lists or what have you. Anyways, enjoy wiki-ing! calor (talk) 22:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I think I misunderstood a slight bit. What you're trying to do, I'm pretty sure, has already been done on the pages in the infoboxes on the right of elite skill.

Actually, I was trying to provide a simple formatted list without graphics that could simply be printed or copy/pasted to a text file. The links in the infobox lead to full color pages with excessive and unneeded graphics for a player that is merely looking for a printable list to check-off skills as they capture them. Gwynna Vive 22:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea (there are lots of similar lists that would benefit from a printable or move-to-spreadsheet version). Is there any precedent for such simple lists on the wiki? (I can't think of one.) I would support any proposal to create such pages at e.g. List of elite skills by profession/Print list.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 23:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I cannot think of any precedent. I just went ahead and posted the list, and Calor helped by moving it to my userpage space User:Gwynna Vive/Elite Skills Checklist for now, as they are correct in the statements above regarding the proper placement of what is obviously useful, but does not conform to the wiki's standard format. I have placed a link to the list on the talk page for skill hunter, under the heading "Checklist", as this would be one of the likeliest places a wiki user would seek such a list. I never wanted to get involved in the wiki's beaurocracy; just contribute where I found a place that I could help...so if anyone else wants to pick up the torch and go with it, I'm sure that many players would appreciate printable lists. I'm just happy that the list is available on the wiki now. It could definitely use some format from someone a bit more experienced in wiki format and HTML. to shorten it. ...if the list were formatted to 2 collumns it would reduce the length by half...unfortunately I'm not the most proficient typist in the world nor the most patient. Hopefully I have helped save some typing, ink/toner and maybe even a tree or two...lol! Gwynna Vive 02:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

:D

Hiya, if you're tagging a page for speedy deletion you can just use the alphanumeric code, typing the whole thing out isn't required each time. Thanks for your help keeping the wiki clean from vandalism! -Auron 11:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Still Learning XD

I've recently discovered page histories...lol! While sniffing around on another matter, I found this [[1]] which explains where some of the edits I rememeber making but couldn't find are. Perhaps old dogs can learn new tricks after all...it only takes half a decade or so! Note to self, sign in please! Gwynna Vive (talk) 21:19, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

as an impartial observer, now that my popcorn is eaten

Here's my impression of the timeline of recent events, not really taking anyone's side:

1. You added an image to a lore page to showcase one of the skeletons the article already mentioned.
2. Konig notices the edit (from RC or watchlist or whatever, it's not terribly relevant) and sees outdated information in the Notes section
3. He makes a single edit re-touching one of the old Notes entries to be more "accurate" based on knowledge he gleaned from GW2; at the same time, he removes the image from the page since it's no longer relevant (if he's working under the assumption the bones aren't GL, which he is due to information he's pulled from GW2, then a picture of non-GL bones are unrelated to a page about GL).
4. You take to the talk page and start a new section about the edit and revert (which is good), but instead of focusing specifically on the facts related to the issue, you draw in a lot of basically unrelated arguments regarding general use of GW2 info on a GW1 wiki. This fractures any possible discussion on the topic into discussions on the topic and discussions on the general use of gw2 lore/info in gw1 articles.
5. Konig responds specifically to the discussion of lore related to the article, mostly ignoring the side issue of "should we use GW2 content to verify/disprove GW1 notions"
6. The argument basically reaches an impasse - he insists that no conclusive information can be found, anywhere, that the bones in the desert are without a doubt GL. He points out that the gw.dat information regarding the existence of the lupicus graveyard did not come with any coordinates or pictures, and as such we don't actually know where it is, or what's in it. He claims that, in addition to the lack of hard evidence, there's (potential) evidence from GW2 that casts additional doubt on the prospect of those bones being GL, due to the heads in GW2 not resembling the bones in GW1. He ends his discussion with the line "I get not including things not directly related to GW1 and GW1 topics, but I see no reason why we should intentionally mislead players into believing something that we now know is false.", an argument which is never countered or addressed.
7. Then... the argument quickly deteriorates. Your very next post is incredibly confrontational, from start to end; several times you drift away from the argument at hand to cast doubt on his character as an editor and contributor, including mentioning his existing ban on another wiki. The post is full of capslock and side rants, and ends with a martyr-esque "well, if you don't want my image, maybe I'll just leave then." That... doesn't cut it. Read the bottom of the page whenever you're editing. It says "Please note: If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." You are very obviously not okay with "merciless" editing, as a single revert and the corresponding discussion of said revert has, for a lack of better term, sent you over the edge, causing you to rant off-topic and delve into the argumentum ad hominem.
8. His response, surprisingly (to me anyway), is contrastingly calm. He quotes you, word for word, and responds to each quote. The argument has, for the worse, completely stalled by now. He's simply restating his position from several posts ago, that you mostly ignored in favor of various attacks on his character (which he ignores). He even includes advice to stop over-reacting to a single reversion and the corresponding discussion, and ends with the argument that "The wiki loses NOTHING out of an image that isn't of a Giganticus Lupicus - irregardless of whether or not it was intended to be such beforehand - from an article about the Giganticus Lupicus.". Again, this is basically a summary of his whole argument - even if you ignore all the walls of text on specific points, this is the "core" of his argument. Once he had updated the notes to reflect what information he gathered from GW2, he removed the picture that no longer had anything to do with the article (because, again, lack of evidence, etc, etc). What would have been a smart move here is to come back and specifically argue the evidence, or at least concede defeat gracefully in the face of no further evidence.
9. At this point I feel the conversation has gotten heated enough, and I post a comment to make sure both parties know a sysop is watching in the hopes they'd cut out any future personal attacks and keep the argument civil. Ryuu makes an offhand comment about people taking the wiki seriously.
10. And then you post, a fourth time on this talk page, agreeing with Ryuu about people taking the wiki too seriously after having devolved into personal attacks just a day before, and continuing to do so with your post. Skipping over the irony, you don't address Konig's core arguments at all - you simply link to your edit (the adding of the image) as some kind of proof that you've done no wrong. We know you added the image. We know you did it with good intentions. But that doesn't excuse your attitude problem and complete lack of respect for other editors and the wiki itself, and it certainly is not a viable replacement for a factual argument about Guild Wars lore.

Seriously. Read that section again. You lambast him for being an evil, self-absorbed Grinch of a contributor who is only looking out for his own interests by keeping tabs on his "personal property" pages... but look at his posts, and then look at yours. When you no longer have any facts to argue with, you immediately jumped to personal attacks and degradation of character. Despite this, Konig kept posting; he attempted to stay on topic and address your concerns point by point (by literally quoting you and then responding to each quote). Your posts after that were filled with nothing but bile, ranging from passive aggression ("Someone seems to think I want to waste my time discussing anything with them now or in the future?") to delusional martyrdom ("now that I've been looking at userpages, page histories... I see no point in bothering to post anything") to more defamation of Konig ("the next target of Konig's hatred"). And, despite claiming to "ignore" the Konig "tirade" (the one where he stuck to factual evidence instead of following your lead into asinine mud slinging), you continue posting, mostly to drag the argument out as long as you can without actually saying anything of merit.

Frankly, I'm disgusted by this whole situation. Partly because what started out as an honest quarrel devolved into depraved tongue lashing, but also because of the attitudes of those involved. Konig has a history of an inability to play well with others, but you have come off significantly worse in this argument by pretending to be the innocent bystander trodden under the foot of Konig's theoretical tyrannical crusade despite you being the instigator of the personal attacks and the only one to continuously post them to the exclusion of any real arguments, posting at least three times after you had completely given up any hope of a real argument for no other purpose than to stir up drama.

That behavior is not acceptable - on this wiki or any other. You have breached our No Personal Attacks policy multiple times, successfully derailed a conversation into nothing but pointless drama, and attempted to ham it up by fashionably ragequitting the wiki to show your distaste for "how bad things are around here," complete with a userpage post about it. I'm giving you a week break, which probably won't be enough time for you to re-think your wiki strategy, but it should be enough time to start pretending to play nice. If you prove that you need a longer timeout, worry not; continue with that kind of behavior and you'll have all the time out in the world. If you have any intention of seriously contributing and backing up your big talk with action, feel free to come back and act as part of a bigger whole instead of a drama queen that flips her shit the second she gets reverted once. -Auron 07:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

You've also confirmed everything I posted here with a snarky 21-paragraph logically fallacious rebuttal, followed by blocking any return emails. Great job proving me right, you were every bit as petty and egocentric as I assumed :D -Auron 14:26, 21 June 2013 (UTC)