User talk:Kaisha/Archive/Jan2010

Archive

---

"2010" January

Hi

I reverted your edit, as the Arbcomm's existence doesn't preclude the possibility of an RFA process. There is a new request for a reconfirmation on Wyn's page, thus a link belongs in that section. -- FreedomBound 20:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Move of Live Team page

Where was the discussion regarding the move of Guild Wars Live Team? I seem to have missed it. -- Wyn talk 18:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, we can't "be bold"? Seems an admin was in a move without discussing about moving it back, when more were for that move. If you're going to jump on me for "Live Team". Jump on the admin for the other "without disucssion" move. Kaisha 20:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't take everything as an assault. Some people might just ask things. -- Cyan 20:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Open mouth, insert foot. Thanks. Kaisha 20:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

And this is a perfect example that you try to change something while the most people disagree and you clearly don't want to see that. -- Cyan 20:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a difference between being bold and being absurd. The Guild Wars Live Team has always been known as such. If you wish to make it easier to find using just Live Team, then create a redirect to it from Live Team, don't move the entire page, leaving the redirect linked to 20+ pages. If this was suppose to prove some point to support the argument on the Test Krewe move issue, it has fallen far short imo. -- Wyn talk 21:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Please leave this off my talk page. May I suggest Guild Wars Wiki talk:Talk pages ‎ ? If you two have a problem that is. I think both should be the same, but discussing here won't change anything. Kaisha 21:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Serious, why there? It doesn't belong there at all. -- Cyan 21:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Related? Anyway, I don't talk to people who are clueless. Kaisha 21:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thats just a weak reaction. -- Cyan 21:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

It's on your page because you are the one that moved it, and my comments are directed at you for that reason. There is no purpose in moving this discussion elsewhere because it's you that needs to justify why you moved the page without any discussion at all. As for being clueless, I find that insulting to say the very least. -- Wyn talk 21:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

As for the Test Krewe page and move that is totally unrelated to this issue, and imo the admin move was to correct an erroneous premature move. Consensus had not been reached in the discussion when that page was moved, so restoring it to it's original location was appropriate. -- Wyn talk 22:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, you don't understand consensus anymore. More were for the move and several were against it being moved back. There was a consensus. Now be a good girl and not have the arbcom take your ops away. Kaisha 23:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe it's you who doesn't understand consensus, no matter how many times people explain it to you. Consensus is not a majority rules issue, it doesn't come down to a vote count. Consensus involves discussion and compromise until all parties are satisfied with the outcome. If that doesn't happen, status quo continues. Do you really think that this discussion has any relevance to the current arb com? I don't. I see you reacting in a very defensive emotional way including violations of NPA to having something you did questioned (which btw is all I did). -- Wyn talk 23:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Show/Hide

Hey there. Not sure if it's because you only have a January archive, however the link to the Jan archive shows up regardless of whether or not whether show/hide is selected. -- Lacky 12:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I know. I don't know how to fix it. Kaisha 16:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you want 2010 show/hide or do you want January as show/hide? –alistic 16:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Meh, I fixed it. Thank you. Kaisha 16:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

[1]

It would help. -- Lacky 03:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

A suggestion, ask the one that put it there? Kaisha 03:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I already planned too, however I don't know if that user is still active or not. -- Lacky 04:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't hurt to try. Kaisha 04:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. -- Lacky 05:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking, of maybe asking one of the arenanet staff, but I don't know who. Kaisha 05:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe Linsey, she has responded to these kind of questions before. –alistic 05:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, would you want to ask her, Lacky? Kaisha 05:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I would if Linsey's page wasn't protected. >_> -- Lacky 05:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Signature

You don't have to update all your old signatures. --JonTheMon 18:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I know, but I wanted to. Kaisha 18:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

That is why you use a generic image name for your signature [[File:User Kaisha sig.png]] then you can simply change out the image whenever you wish :D -- Wyn talk 21:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Hence, I created Sig for that reason, but I wanted it all to be blue, no red, no typical pink butterfly. Red, reminds me of blood... Had enough of that yesterday to do me a bit. Blue reminds me of water, the ocean, the rivers, my man's eyes, and the sky. Kaisha 01:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Wintersday Redux

Which browser are you using? I tested out the schedules on WinXP using Firefox 3, IE7, IE8, Opera 10, Safari, and Chrome and they all looked fine (with a minor table rule colour problem under IE7). --DryHumour 20:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not the browser, but the size of the resolution. Kaisha 20:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I tested at several resolutions as well. What res are you using and which browser? --DryHumour 20:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

800x600 chrome and ie and firefox. Kaisha 20:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Thx. I'm pretty sure I tested that, but I'll double check when I get home. If you can grab a screenshot, that might be useful if I can't repro immediately. --DryHumour 21:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

GWW is opttimized for 1024x768. If you are viewing at lower than that, a lot of things are going to look bad. -- Wyn talk 21:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Just thought I'd be helpful to those who do view a bit lower than that. I like friendly screens/pages. It helps attract users to using so many pages/sites. Kaisha 23:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

You will find very few gamers that view the web lower than 1024x768, especially now with the mass influx of widescreen monitors. We more often have to convince people that not everyone views in 1920x1080 these days. -- Wyn talk 01:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Not so with some monitors and newer computers. Especially those that are small. Kaisha 01:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I for one do not view the web at 1024x768, as that is the entirety of my screen real estate. 71.146.81.65 22:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) An unexpected washing machine calamity preempted all of my time last night; I'll try to check tonight. Although Wyn is correct, it's always nice if it can relatively easily be made to work elegantly for everyone. --DryHumour 16:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

As it happens, I had actually checked all of these at a variety of resolutions, and they all render as I would expect. What problem are you seeing? Are you perhaps using custom stylesheets or monobook.js? --DryHumour 04:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

[I originally uploaded screens directly here, but was informed that they constituted copyvio. I've uploaded them here instead under the principle of fair use.] --DryHumour 04:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I have decided not to mess with this, despite that secondly, it's unnecessary and needed, when it already has a location. I just think some information is needed, even a link to original, but not photos as that seems sooo redundant. Kaisha 20:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

But what was the rendering problem you were having? --DryHumour 23:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem was the words with the images was blending in with the side panel and when I tried in preview to fix it any other way. I saw no way, it came clear the problem was the images, when I removed that the words were well like notepad, they would wrap and continue in a paragraph type way. It all looked better. the second thing below that one, did well too. Oh, well. I'm not going to participate anymore with the wintersday stuff that dealt with last wintersday and the redux. Not something to worry about. Kaisha 02:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Skill history

I don't think we need to put the skill history on every changed skill. That's partly what the history tab is for and the main update notes. --JonTheMon 01:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Some information is not added into the page. Some, aka me, may not know how to add it in it's self. So, being respectful to leave the information for others to correct/do. Kaisha 01:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Everybody on the wiki is aware of the new skill update notes -- if you cannot edit the article correctly, please just let somebody else take care of it. Your notes are well-intentioned but make it harder to do the job right. That said, I'm as frustrated as you at the template proliferation that has made our articles so difficult to edit -- and for that I apologize. —Tanaric 01:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

If you really want to record that information, do as Aegis does. There is a separate page for the historical changes and a note in the trivia section. --JonTheMon 01:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Jon, that has me a bit more confused. Help? Kaisha 01:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The very last note, at the bottom, points to Aegis/Skill_history --JonTheMon 01:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Yea, but that following page confuses me. Can you help put the updated ones like that? It'd be nice. Kaisha 01:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

First off, what Wyn said below, about proposing it as a project. Second, all you have to do on that page is make a heading for the date, then go to the history of the page and copy the {{Skill infobox}} and {{Skill progression}} for the correct date and copy+paste it to the skill history page, with maybe a note or two. --JonTheMon 01:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Still leaves me clueless... Kaisha 01:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Then you should check out: Help:Templates and w:Help:Page history before doing too much more. --JonTheMon 01:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I know that, but the layout to that page is confusing and looks a bit like it blends. Kaisha 02:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Part of that could be that you are viewing it at 800x600. As I said above, lots of pages are going to look wierd for you at that resolution. -- Wyn talk 02:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Even at other resolutions, it still looks like it blends a bit. Kaisha 02:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Skill updates

See GWW:SKILLS. Those update notes are not needed, and not part of the article. -- FreedomBound 01:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Uh, they are. They're information about the skill. Kaisha 01:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Skill articles follow a particular format that FB linked. You can edit the header to update the skill notes, but please don't add information that doesn't fit that guideline without discussion. —Tanaric 01:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused. Kaisha 01:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The skill pages need to be updated, yes, but the way you're going about it does not follow the current guideline. When skills are updated, we do not put the old or new version in the notes section (which, as explained on the page, is used for special notes about the skill's use), we just update the skill page with the appropriate new information (i.e. the infobox/skill template). -- FreedomBound 01:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Uh huh. Well, hopefully Jon can add the appropriate subpages with the "old" and fix all that up that is if he wouldn't mind doing such. That'd be nice. *smile* Kaisha 01:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe there are any plans to do a history page for every skill. If you feel strongly about it, you should propose it as a project and get started :D -- Wyn talk 01:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

*O.O*Uh... um... I get lost looking at the history page (grr, that subpage with repeats that blend), else I'd be happy to... *whiney, pouty cry* Kaisha 01:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Notes

Please stop adding useless notes saying the skills were changed. We know they were. If you don't know how to change the skill descriptions, don't touch the page. Someone else will update it. --adrin 02:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Please, Stop accusing and look at the user history as well as talk, before you speak in a harsh tone. Thank you. Kaisha 02:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I went through your contribs. That's how i found all the useless notes you made. please take shard's advice in the section below. --adrin 03:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Stop

You have amassed a huge amount of bad edits in a very short amount of time. If you keep adding bad content to pages, you will most likely be blocked. Please take a break and lay down long enough for your brain to get oxygen. ~Shard 03:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Skill descriptions are taken from in game, not based on update text. Please don't change them on the wiki unless you have checked them in game. Thanks! -- Wyn talk 03:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

On a similar note, your Ride the Lightning edit is wrong. Shadow steps are supposed to have the aftercast functionality, and now RtL does as well, rather than being an exception as you claim. ~Shard 03:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Pathetic really, then what use is the skill update pages? When the in game is updated as well? Most don't pay attention. Neither do you guys, obviously, else Shard wouldn't be calling my edits bad as last I checked, I understood there were updates to neverwinter, when was the last time gw was played? Kaisha 03:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

lol bad --adrin 03:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Skill update pages show what was changed and with reasoning(developer updates), rather than having to sift through all 1300 some skills and compare descriptions until you figure out wtf was changed. 98.248.90.248 03:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The use of the skill update pages is so users don't have to refresh 3300 skill pages to find out exactly what gets updated. Somebody is working on a skill history project. I believe you're supposed to make a subpage to the skill's content page (like Ride the Lightning/Skill history). ~Shard 03:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you, Shard? Since, maybe I was doing small things, before going to attempt a big project? I would, if I had that type of time. I'm off to bed for a big day tomorrow and I hope you're not just trolling and I hope you and Adrin pay attention. Kaisha 03:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you paying attention? No other skill page has a random list of dates the skill was updated. Did you bother to check any other pages? No. Did you bother to check the guidelines? No. Did you bother using the search feature to find anything remotely related to what you wanted to do? No. You need to pay attention. ~Shard 03:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Her entire comment to you Shard made absolutely no sense. And why do we need to know about someone's "big day"? What does that have to do with this discussion?--*Yasmin Parvaneh* 03:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

She's got a kid to chase after. --adrin 03:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I have been and I do pay attention Yet, you don't seem to pay attention that others above you have discussed and I followed their advice, doing what I can, you're disrespecting me of that and not looking at the whole picture (history of all pages involved, talk page, contributions, etc.). It's done been discussed and was done, before you two joined in on the train that had done left.. Now don't try to demeanor me, please? Just leave me alone and pay attention to whatever you do. Whether it's playing Neverwinter or some other game. Kaisha 03:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Being butthurt on everyone's page who has edited a skill isn't helping your case. 98.248.90.248 04:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

LOL. Not hurt, just being kind to others who do similar. See Skill history and skill updates was already about it after i had made my mistakes. It was discussed. The others jumping in way after, did not bother to do their research or look (aka pay attention). Not my problem that we have people who want to be all macho over nothing. Kaisha 04:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it's covered pretty well by "*O.O*Uh... um... I get lost looking at the history page (grr, that subpage with repeats that blend), else I'd be happy to... *whiney, pouty cry* ~ Kaisha" -- Wyn talk 04:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

IF you're gonna qoute and be selfish like that? quote it right. Btw, that comment was about Aegis/Skill_history In all honesty that I was still baffled at how bad the page looked. It does give me an idea to fix up the page it's self and hope that I get consensus to agree on it, before I'd proceed to other pages. so much for assumptions that this would fit, huh? Kaisha 04:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) There is a fansite that does keep a complete record of every skill change. If you are that interested in the skill changes you might want to bookmark it. -- Wyn talk 04:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I don't consider quoting you to be selfish, I consider you expecting Jon, or Shard, or anyone else to create skill history pages that meet your requirements, while unwilling to do it yourself as selfish. You might want to consider your words before you type them. -- Wyn talk 04:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. However, you missed the "help?" and "If" words, when reading into the above. Thank you SOOO much for those assumptions as well. Not knowing that I do plan on it. (missed that as well?) but ya know. it'd be nice as a group event. with it already started on one page. I don't know how it kept from being a listed project on the projects page. However, I'm not going to list it, because why? If it was never listed in the first place.. why should it be bothered to be listed now? I'm not asking at all for shard's help, just Jon as he seemed and to me is pretty knowledgeable. Kaisha 04:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Tbh, I was hoping you'd either start doing the skill history pages yourself or formally bring it up on the projects page. Proposing a project isn't that huge of a deal; if people think it's worthwhile, it'll be retained and people who are interested will eventually help with it. At this point in time I'm willing to point out what's already been done, but am not really interested in it myself. Also, as per the formatting I don't think the skill history needs to be noted on each page. --JonTheMon 04:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, agreed there, but would be interested to note on the pages that would need it. I'm wanting get this idea I have out of the way first, before suggesting the project it's self. That is, to see if the idea would pass or fail. Kaisha 05:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe there are many skills in the game that haven't received some sort of change at one point in the past 5 years. The project should create a skill history page for every skill in the game if it's going to do any at all. I have created a list of the Elementalist skills linking to the skill history page... if the link is red, it doesn't exist. Once all the skill history pages are created, then we can figure out how to link them on the skill pages. -- Wyn talk 12:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Game updates - 2010/01/28

Actually, that page is for documenting game updates. Precision Shot was changed. It is therefore a game update. It needs to be on that page. I won't revert due to GWW:1RV Aevar talk contribs 20:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

If you read the page, you would see that Precision shot was updated to their notes. The addition was a bug that someone had found, not an update. pay attention, please? Kaisha 02:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

obvious bugs found in patches are often included in the patch notes page. -Auron 03:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Hm, doesn't explain some previous ones not being allowed on previous updates. Oh well, not really my problem. Kaisha 03:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)