User talk:Inspired

Yes?

your account's characters

may i ask: why do you have three mesmers, but no sin? —ZerphaThe Improver 21:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I just was adding that. Because I was dumb when I started and thought second wouldn't change and found out about dye and consumables only after I left pre, etc. so I just created a new char. Anyway, 1st 2 are just mules now. Oh and I haven't gotten around to Assassin. Not a big fan of Factions also though. -- Inspired to ____ 21:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

ah, ok. Well that's right, pre-searing NPCs doesn't mention that you'll be able to change your profession again in the crystal desert later. I had a friend that gave me tips for the first steps into the game, so things like this didn't happen to me very often.

I wouldn't verbinden Professions and campaigns that much, actually you'd only have to become We-No-Suh, then you could theoretically go into Nf and continue playing there :P —ZerphaThe Improver 21:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes and I just threw that Factions bit in for very little reason. I actually started my warrior in Factions. All that not liking it as much as the others matters really is that its the only campaign I haven't finished. -- Inspired to ____ 22:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Elections policy

Ok, let's try to get things straight. I'm obviously reading your comments differently than you intended and you're probably reading mine a little differently. First, we were talking just stage 3 right? About what it is. Specifically, I believe this particular line, Both the total count and ratio of support/oppose votes should not be considered factors, is mostly ignored by most users. Many simply choose to go for the candidate with the most support votes instead of discussing who is more suitable. Of course, the weakness of the policy is seen when users start using the numbers as a basis for their arguments on why one candidate should be selected over another. That, of course, is a direct result of users usually not easily persuaded to change their views on who should take up the empty seat.

What I meant to say on the other talk page is that we should still treat the results as what it was meant to be treated (by the idea behind the written policy) rather than by what appears to be understood by the users involved. Put in another way, I was just trying to say that it's fine for people saying "I choose A because he has the most votes". I just don't think it's fine for people to say "A should take the seat because he has the votes." It's a small difference but that's the bottomline of what I was trying to get at. Either that, or I'm not communicating very well... hmmm... doesn't bode well when Xeeron steps down... :D -- ab.er.rant 04:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

First, there's nothing inherently wrong with "A should take the seat because he has the votes." Imho, it just gets dangerous when that becomes an absolute, and that for me explains why the policy uses the term "general" instead of absolute metric.

Now, you point to two things in the second sentence in stage 3. First, the easy one which is the final one. That is the ratio of support/oppose votes and it should not be considered. Now, the first one which is stated as the total count. Which, I would choose to take as the number of support votes, but I suppose one could argue that since it says "total" it should actually be the sum of support and oppose votes even if that makes no sense. Regardless, it doesn't matter because likewise this should not be considered. So now we're back to the first sentence which states that the "general metric to be used is the amount of support minus the amount of opposition." Now, for some reason some people either choose to argue that since general isn't absolute it can be ignored if they want, or they believe that that this difference is what is also meant by total in the second sentence and thus should not be considered. Well, not only are difference and total two very different concepts, but if that was what was meant then most of the first sentence is pointless. So, I believe that addresses the three most likely things people could attempt to do with both a support and an oppose vote which explains why they are presented. Yes, they could be multiplied or maybe averaged, but one would think that must have seemed too far fetched to be attempted. But, always willing to be wrong, I don't see where there's an alternative. Because while everyone likes to talk about consensus, if we're discussing consensus over who we prefer to win, that isn't going to happen. No, I suggest that the only possibilities for consensus are that certain votes obviously need to be ignored for one reason or another, or most often that such and such candidate has the most net votes and thus won the election. -- Inspired to ____ 05:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. You were looking at it from what's exactly written whereas I was running off some of it from my memory of the talk on it. Yes, I agree that the wording does leave room for a different interpretation or for confusion. I'm not so sure about giving different weighting for different votes though. Yes, it's easy to argue that certain users or certain reasons carry more weight, but I think you'll find little support for that on this wiki, where the general trend is to give equal weight. I think you'd be a good help to push things along at Guild Wars Wiki talk:Elections#Call for changes. However that turns out, rewording of the policy as it currently is should probably be done and completed before the next election comes around. -- ab.er.rant 05:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Elections Stuff

Apologies for the delayed response, I was away.

On April 30, you said:

Sorry, but its a little hard for me to believe you're not being disagreeable for the sake of being disagreeable, or should I really assume your opinion is so easily swayed (well, at least that would explain why some people think its important to have a discussion on the merits of the candidates at this point). For everyone who hasn't already noticed, I say this because not only did MiraLantis vote for Tanetris and not for Auron, MiraLantis actually opposed Auron.

I don't appreciate this sort of negative light and hope that in the future you have more positive words for wiki contributors. You're right! I did oppose Auron for b-cratship. Hopefully in his new term he'll prove my fears about him wrong and we'll have a wonderful new b-crat that this wiki can rely on regarding ArbComm etc. However, you have to understand that the argument was going nowhere; had I said my piece I would have just wasted space, as there were many wiki users who expressed the same viewpoints at my own. I hope that you realize that in elections, you have to do what is best for the wiki - although I opposed Auron when there were many candidates, when it came down to the endless disagreement between Tan and Auron, I looked to not only the strongest argument for any sort of decision - Aiiane's - but also what was best for the wiki - and losing a sysop to gain a b-crat is surely not as good a thing as keeping a sysop and gaining a b-crat. Being true to your community means knowing, and wanting, what is best for them - not just what is best for yourself. I hope that you'll come to know this in the future, and perhaps also drop the behaviour of futile character attacks. Happy editing! 165.134.208.102 04:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC) ....Forgot to log in... it's me. MiraLantis 04:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Aaaand another note. Reading up on how the elections went while I was on vacay, I believe you (and Diri) misunderstood my comment regarding your freshness. I was not dismissing you because you were new, or because you still had questions on how the election was working, or anything of the sort. I stated why myself (and others in the discussion) were unable to really respond directly to your comments (or were to write you off entirely), and offered a positive outlook on your activity at the wiki. Rather, mentioning your passion (especially in regards to your activity on the elections page) was a means to brighten the comment and hopefully leave others, like me, unable to respond, instead of just completely writing you off. I apologize for not wording it clearly enough that it was misunderstood, and always if you have any questions, just leave me a note and I'd be glad to help/stalk you/leave you silly userboxes. Whichever fits. =P MiraLantis 04:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Responded to here on MiraLantis' talk page. -- Inspired to ____ 15:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey!

Hi, I reverted your edit here because you shouldn't remove comments, not even your own. Next time if something like that happens, mark the page for U2 instead of deleting the comments. I marked the page for deletion so that is no longer an issue. Hope I helped :) --Shadowphoenix 02:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah...thanks! -- Inspired to ____ 02:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

THANK YOU

hey man thank u a BUNCH on helping me figure this stuff out, i love my oage, i added pictures and stylized it and stuff check it out!! and again thank u so much i would'nt have been able to do it without u! Brendan 02:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Hope This Helps :)

The RoC states, "The following rules govern basic interaction within the Guild Wars game and the Guild Wars websites. Please be aware that failure to comply with these rules of conduct may result in the termination of your Guild Wars game account according to the Guild Wars User Agreement.". The Rules of Conduct, as well as the EULA all apply here; the simple fact is that ArenaNet owns the servers, so they make the big rules (such as abiding by the RoC and EULA, on this website). Besides, the community made the choice to have each user abide by the RoC, anyway. Hope I cleared somethings up ;o) --Shadowphoenix 15:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Ooops I meant all the terms and conditions not just the EULA and RoC apply here, lol sorry --Shadowphoenix 15:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't really matter what the RoC (or terms and conditions) says except as it relates to our inclusion of it in policy since a user on this wiki does not agree to abide by the RoC when they create an account (and the creation of an account is not even required). Thus, there is no "agreement" between a wiki user and ArenaNet that covers the wiki. Thus, the wiki can choose to ban someone for darn near any reason they please since no one has paid anything for the right to post here, but that is not the same thing as being required to follow the RoC because ArenaNet requires someone to agree to it to play their game. Hope that helps. -- Inspired to ____ 15:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it is the same..... When you tick that box and you agree to the TaC then it applies ingame and on all of the Guild Wars websites, including this one. Please read the TaC, it says all about it ;) --Shadowphoenix 16:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

That applies to the game and game users. I'm sure you aware that you do not need to own or play the game to use this wiki. How is this confusing?

As I said previously, ArenaNet could theoretically ban someone from the game for their activity here. (Although, it is extremely unlikely since they would have a near impossible time of "proving" which in game account equals someone here.) However, there is no "it is the same," whatever the it is that you are referring to, because I did not click any box to agree to any TaC when I created an account on this wiki. Thus, there is no reason for any wiki user to read anything except if it is incorporated into the policies of this wiki by the wiki community. -- Inspired to ____ 17:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

You know what nvm, I am not continuing this pointless converstation. EDIT: The point remains TaC, RoC, and EULA still apply here whether you think they should or not --Shadowphoenix 17:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I suppose throwing out a non sequitur is your way of ending this...fine. -- Inspired to ____ 17:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I have provided you with sequiturs and facts, but you are very much fixed on your opinion. I am glad that you have such a strong hold on what you think is right, so I don't hold it against you. --Shadowphoenix 17:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Claiming that these are "facts" when ArenaNet themselves have never clarified it is rather misleading; we only have each of our own interpretations to go on. -- ab.er.rant 02:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Might want to hold off a bit on uploading skill icons...

I'm currently in the process of swapping the articles for PvP versions of skills over to {{Pvp skill infobox}}, which reuses the existing image for the skill icon instead of requiring a duplicate one. So you might want to wait on uploading duplicates, because I don't think they'll be needed. :) (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 03:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm done, but what you're doing doesn't work. It link bad on tables, etc. -- Inspired to ____ 03:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It would be great to reuse...but then they need to just be pictures and not icons and the tables, etc. all need to be changed. -- Inspired to ____ 03:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Ideally, the skill tables should be redone regardless. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 03:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Still an skill icon needs to go to a skill. And each skill should have a icon. This is why we had the discussion beforehand. ??? -- Inspired to ____ 03:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I should be able to make a PvE or a PvP skill bar for example. -- Inspired to ____ 03:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Would be simple enough to simply give {{skill icon}} an optional |pvp flag. Edit: Eh, I guess MediaWiki's semi-stupid (read: inflexible) way of handling images might make that not work, but meh. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 03:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand a lot of this wiki programming but there's no question that things often should be simpler then they actually can be. :-) -- Inspired to ____ 03:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Admin policy

To not derail that talk page further, I wanted to share something with you on your talk page. If you check the actual differences, the only thing that happened was minor rewordings, nothing else. This is not big enough to warrant a revert on implementation (imo, and that seems to be the opinion of alot of others). It would have been alot more productive to actually implement those changes directly into the implemented policy. Clarifying wording should not have to stall a proposal. - anja 20:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Just as an add-on, you seem to think that only some elements of the proposal were well-accepted, that's not the case, there's consensus on the policy as a whole, those "minor re-wordings" have no impact on that fact. *Defiant Elements* +talk 20:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

@Anja. Your authority to tell me what policy talk pages I can and can not comment on is what? -- Inspired to ____ 20:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

@Defiant. There definitely was "not" consensus for giving bcrats the right to block. That is something I would oppose. -- Inspired to ____ 20:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, when did Anja tell you that you couldn't comment somewhere? *Defiant Elements* +talk 20:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Calm down a notch, please. I was commenting here to not take a "personal war" to a page where it does not belong. I didn't say anything about your commenting. - anja 20:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Anja's authority as a fellow user of the Guild Wars Wiki making a polite comment to another user of the Guild Wars Wiki but that was misunderstood and met with hostility instead.

That was put in by Backsword after Defiant Elements implemented the consensual proposal - it was not in that edition. -- Brains12 \ talk 20:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

@Anja. I'm sorry. I seem to have misunderstood your comment.

@everyone. This talk of compromise is wrong. For anyone who believes that compromise is a valid form of consensus on policy changes such as this then there needs to agreement on what the compromises were. Under that scenario it would appear that Backsword believed he was getting more changes in return for agreeing to the compromise that he actually was (Of course, only he can comment to his motivations). Either way, the change was apparently premature. Finally, there are a couple changes I would like to see made for which I'm pretty sure there would not be consensus for and I'm only now realizing that I should have objected to this policy change because maybe then I could have gotten something I wanted in exchange for "compromising". -- Inspired to ____ 20:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not as much of an "exchange" as people accepting other people's views and trying to adjust their own idea so it works. It's not "I get this, you get that". It's "I think like this, but if we change it this way it's acceptable for both of us" - anja 20:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Nevertheless, there is no good point for bring the word compromise into this discussion. It implies that someone made a compromised to reach consensus, and thus also implies that they can renege on the agreed compromise and consensus ceases to exist. -- Inspired to ____ 20:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

So compromise is something bad? I don't think so; as long as there is a consensus on the final version, it's fine. poke | talk 20:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) A compromise is not an alliance or contract that can be reneged upon, but rather when two or more intelligent people sit down and work out their differences of option. This would explain your inexperience in this area. Lord Belar 21:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Compromise is great and essential if there is a reason for it. Terrible if the reason for it is so that someone can get something "pushed through" that they otherwise couldn't. -- Inspired to ____ 21:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Like a reversion? Lord Belar 21:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm really confused as to how "terrible if the reason for it is so that someone can get something "pushed through" that they otherwise couldn't" has any bearing on the current situation. To be honest, a lot of your arguments are coming across (to me at least) as essentially nothing more than red herrings. I don't doubt your motivations, but... it's a feeling I simply can't shake. :/ :/ *Defiant Elements* +talk 21:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Reading material Lord Belar 21:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

More reading material. *Defiant Elements* +talk 21:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Read this please. -- Brains12 \ talk 21:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I have read before...you find compromise where? -- Inspired to ____ 21:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Try reading again, please. "Developing consensus requires special attention to neutrality - remaining neutral in our actions in an effort to reach a compromise that everyone can agree on." -- Brains12 \ talk 21:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Look at that nice picture!! poke | talk 21:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

@Brains. Fair enough. However, that does not change my belief that compromising is a poor way to make policy changes. -- Inspired to ____ 21:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

@Poke. The picture explains to me why we got a revert. -- Inspired to ____ 21:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, considering it was ironically due to my debate with Defiant over the election policy that this policy and associated unnecessary change ever got on my watch list, I am done with this. -- Inspired to ____ 21:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Skill discussion

Hi, if you wish to discuss skills such as ursan blessing please us the appropriate page here ArenaNet:Skill feedback/PvE/Ursan Blessing instead of the talk page for the article itself. That is reserved for discussions about the article itself and any content included in it. Thank you. --Lemming 21:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

God forbid we want to include anything in the article about how a skill actually works. Everyday this wiki gets more and more worthless...suggestions everywhere and yet very little information about how things actually work. -- Inspired to ____ 21:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point, when discussions like that are allowed to continue on article talk pages such as Ursan any useful information is very quickly lost and it turns into a free for all with various parties simply declaring that the skill sucks etc. If you wish to create a guide on how the skill "actually works" then you are more than welcome too. However please refrain from the afore mentioned discussions. Thanks. --Lemming 21:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

I noticed that you clarified one of the qualification lines on the Igneous Summoning Stone and I sure appreciate it. I was hesitating to change the actual topic page, but I think you may have read my note and it's sure nice of you to get that text updated to show "game" and not "product." Thanks again! -- Gaile 02:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I saw your note & you're welcome. Hopefully not too many were confused by this, but I don't really think they should have been anyway since it did say "version of..." which really only applies to the game anyway. -- Inspired to ____ 18:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Too true. The "version" comment sure seemed to narrow it to games, but those handful of support tickets made us wonder if we should be super-clear. After all, it's sad to disappoint someone when he or she thinks there's a goody coming and it doesn't arrive. Sort of like getting socks at Christmas. :) -- Gaile 20:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

DUDE!!

i wanna make a page for my necro...but i have no idea how!! can u help? i dont remember how to make pages or get pictures on.Brendan 06:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

never mind dude, i think i got it1 oh and do u like Dethly's image??? Brendan 06:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

i need your help, i wanna change Bleedings photo but i dont know how. i tried clicking on that upload a didfferent version of this then reverting it or somrthing but it wont work. What do i do??Brendan 19:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

guild

hey how do you make a page for your guild? cuz i want one for mine. Brendan 04:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The easiest way is to follow the link in game on the F10 menu. It will bring you to a creation screen. Simply enter the name of your guild, exactly as it appears in game (just the name, not the tag), and then fill in the blanks on the template provided. -- Wyn 05:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)