User talk:Rodan

Signing on talk pages!

Hi, just a tiny thing, it would be great if you could click on the signature button after writing on talk pages - this marks the page with a timestamp and a username so that other users can tell who is responding and when they responded. The button looks like: - and clicking on it writes four tildes which looks like ~~~~ in the preview window. Thanks! -Chieftain Alex 12:48, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok. I can try. --Rodan 07:46, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

delete tagging

Hiya! Thanks for patrolling our wiki to keep it clean from spam. In the future, just throw the delete tag at the top of the page instead of blanking it - typically admins will check the history to see what was on the page pre-blanking, so you'll save them a few clicks down the road. Happy editing! -Auron 09:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I prefer not to see spam. Sorry, Sir. Rodan (talk) 17:34, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Indenting

Your indenting is in dire need of fixing. It's a wiki standard across all wikis that every line of your message all have the same number of indents. That way, a person can respond to you by simply adding another level of indent to their message. Additionally, a person can respond to another person in the conversation farther up, without disrupting the flow of a talk section, by simply adding 1 indent more than the person he's responding to. For example, if the "main discussion" is up to 7 indents, but you're responding directly to a person who commented with 3, you can simply comment with 4 and you'll basically create a sub-thread within the existing thread to talk to that person. This allows other users to either comment with 8 indents to add on to the thread as a whole, or comment with 5 indents to add on to your subthread specifically, all without breaking the flow of the conversation or making it confusing to follow.
Breaking this standard and trying to invent new ones just causes chaos and confusion, and because literally nobody writes on wikis that way, it's something nobody is accustomed to. Since it's 1. not the custom and 2. far less useful and organized than our current method, expect poorly indented comments to be fixed to the norm. There's no reason why every paragraph of a comment needs an additional indent; it doesn't help with understanding and it actively impedes communication because it makes big conversations impossible to hold and keep track of (unlike the accepted method of talk page format). Always keep in mind the text at the bottom of the page: "Please note: If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." This includes talk page formatting. If it actively impedes communication, it needs fixing. If it needs fixing, it will be fixed.
If it's your personal blog or something, or a fancy writeup on your userpage discussing a topic to which you expect no replies, you can use whatever formatting you want. But when you're taking part in a conversation with other users, you are expected to use the normal talk page format; both for their benefit and the benefit of anyone else who's reading the conversation. Wikis have been around for a long time, and while consensus is ever shifting, there's no consensus to use an indenting method that is messy and chaotic over one that is precise and organized. Ergo, expect messy and chaotic indenting to be fixed. -Auron 00:48, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I didn't ask them to not respond, but rather I'd like to reduce the drama/disruption that I've seen here. All I asked was them to fix their abrubt archiving after an ip had posted there. I undid the archiving only to respond to it - confused slightly trying to go through all of that WoT. They re-archived not fixing the new comments into a new discussion and clearly it was not in the archive. I'm still a bit new to the whole discussion thing. So, seeing them acting to what I feel hostile. I felt that I needed to fix the actual talk by placing back the comments. I asked nicely for this person to do this, before I did the fix. Then I posted to my own comment to say I fixed it. I added back the original post and my response to the new discussion that was clearly removed. Nothing was really needing to be said, because it was fixed and no discussion was missed. As you can see, it seemed to have gotten hostile again. I thought I was following the talk page protocal to responses and I apologize.

Sorry. - Rodan 02:37, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

trivia removal

Thanks for coming to my talk page. That's the right thing to do if there is some disagreement. I don't know why you removed your comments though.

I went to the Disguises page, looked at "Disguises obtained during missions" and the non-existant trivia section - and I'm clueless about what you want to tell me. Feel free to elaborate.

Do you know what would've happened if you'd reverted my revert? I'd removed the two links to the 2 elites as per the formatting guide, shrugged, and moved on. Feel free to test it.

And you might find people responding much more friendly and nicely to you if you don't insult them on their talk page. "Think, before you revert." and your implicit accusation that I start/cause/participate in revert wars. In case you're wondering. Steve1 (talk) 17:25, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Category_talk:NPCs_with_multiple_elite_skills Stop defying me with reverts, when I fix the same thing that is on other pages. Using a link that makes no sense, when other pages show the same thing as to what I fix that one for. It's not your page. Either you have it be like the others or you have it look horrible. Your choice, your issue, not mine and I don't insult as I fix it like other pages are on here that I didn't do. I'm tired of people changing a page to whatever they want and not check out other pages that are of the same or similar. It's a wonder people get confused in game and complain about it. Rodan (talk) 18:30, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/GWW:GENFORM#Wiki_links

"For each article, use a wiki link for the first instance only of a particular term or name; avoid linking subsequent appearances, unless it would ease the text flow."

Got it?

I wasn't reverting you on Legionnaire, I moved up the link to the first instance.

You can get tired as much as you want to. But there is a formatting guideline and you were not sticking to it. That's no big deal, someone helpful (often SE) will notice and rectify things. Recently I had the same thing done to one of my edits and I learned from it instead of crying about it. Steve1 (talk) 20:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Guidelines are not rules or policies. You don't "have" to abide by them as long as it's close to it. It's used as a "guide" as to how pages are suppose to look. I feel as long as it's close, why worry about it? In my opinion, I'd rather had the link in a safer location, than an unstable location that was being discussed at the time. Rodan (talk) 07:24, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

As per Guild Wars Wiki:Formatting/General:

"This article contains the general formatting guide for this wiki. All articles are expected to conform to style and formatting guidelines outlined below, unless they are superseded by more specific formatting." ¥oshida Keiji(talk) 07:29, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

It's a guide, not a policy. You can dictate, when policy. I quote "Please note that these are guidelines to help editors — they are recommendations rather than rules restricting creativity." Recommendations, not requirements.Rodan 09:04, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Everyone stop wikilawyering for a second. Is there really a good reason to be arguing over which instance of "elite skill" is wiki-linked? Does it improve readability, improve a potential reader's ability to find the page? Does it matter at all which one is linked and which isn't? Regardless of what's done on other pages, or what guidelines say to do, take a good look at the page in question and ask yourself: does it really, really matter this much? Is it "worth it" to fight over?

One thing you have to learn to do on wikis is pick your battles. If you try to fight over every minor, meaningless detail you are going to burn out fast. And this is pretty much the epitome of minor, meaningless detail. It's not the layout of the page, it's not a sweeping category change that will affect hundreds of pages. You guys are fighting... over wiki links. Put that in perspective. And then quit fighting over silly shit. -Auron 14:01, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I feel that for some that don't "care" about reading Pros and cons, will possibly scroll down to the Notes and miss the link. Not having a link there, might not be a very good idea; if one wants to check out other elite skills at that point. My idea, not issue, but consideration of the said link involved was to try to use it where it'd benefit more, not by just simply moving the link to the first words that appear on the page. That was why I was raising a point as I was concerned that the movement of it wasn't considered for all readers. Not because of some silly guideline being followed strictly, but because I'd rather see pages help all users and not just certain ones. We have many variety of players and therefore will have many variety of readers that I feel should be considered when one edits a page,even when linking to other pages. While, I know we all mean well. It does help to think about where to place links, before following a recommendation page like it was a rule or a strict policy. I only mean well and do not wish to be a disruption, but I have concerns and I'd rather discuss about it and solve it, than to let it go and have others come to the same issues or concerns. Rodan (talk) 21:24, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Miniature categories

You don't need to manually add those miniature categories to the miniature pages. {{Item infobox}} use to automatically categorize them, but it seems this edit caused it to not categorize miniature pages properly. --Silver Edge 07:40, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Many of the miniatures like Gwen, Salma, etc. that were already "categorized", were not done by that. They were done by Category:Rare miniatures having that and other categories at the bottom of the list. So, I prefer to be assured they're categorized and accurate across all miniatures. Is this another no no for me to not do? Rodan (talk) 09:52, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I think I fixed the problem with the template. Miniature pages are now auto-categorized again (e.g. Miniature Eye of Janthir is categorized without placing [[Category:Unique miniatures]] on the page). It may take a while for the wiki to populate the categories. Miniature Gwen was manually categorized before the template auto-categorized it. And Miniature Princess Salma was a copy and paste of a unique miniature page that was most likely manually categorized before the template began auto-categorizing it, hence why it was categorized as both unique and rare before this edit. --Silver Edge 21:31, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

It seems they're now all categorized based on the figures in the note on the Miniature page: "There are currently 127 different miniatures in the game (40 white, 19 purple, 46 gold, and 22 green), including the 3 unique Frogs."

Agreed as per Category:Miniatures. However, I still feel slightly better with manual over auto. Does it work in all browsers like overwolf, chrome, IE, Firefox, Maxithon, etc. ? If not, then I feel we should go with manual. Rodan (talk) 04:35, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes it does. Why wouldn't it work in all browsers? That template, like many others on this wiki, automatically categorizes a lot of categories.--Silver Edge 05:02, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. It just shows that I have lack of trust in some browsers. I have found things to not work in some, that's suppose to and it work fine in others. I use Opera for the things that don't work in this browser. Rodan (talk) 06:48, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

No

Okay, you use God of Fissures' work. Okay, that's great mod already.

BUT OMFG HOW CAN U PREFER IT TO MY MOD ILL FUCKIN KILL YA >:( !!!!

Seriously, the 2015 mod is ten times better than the older editions. Just for cantha, it has 1) the borders of JQ/FA, 2) more from the Portal Jump to Vasburg armory, 3) more from The Final Confrontation/Shing Jea arena exclusive area 3) more information about how to get Shing Jea Boardwalk 4) better location for portal jump in Raisu Palace and Wajjun Bazar.

That is all I can remember so far, I think it also has the Shiro part, but well, sometimes please just try to change your habits. I know the difference with Cantha isn't much, but still try my mod. If it doesn't satisfy you, you can always go back to the old versions. But they lack of alot of information.--Ruine Eternelle 11:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

People don't FA anymore nor can all the characters do the portal jumping. Calling them outdated is lame, just putting your's there is fine. Let the people choose what one to use. Right now, I am using the 2014 one until I get areas that I cannot do or find issues. I may try your's. I did not diss your's I'm just saying for some, things work as they do. It's better having options. However, I would not include the areas that are not accessible for carto. It's not worth it to the player to load that much more data to their computer. Rodan (talk) 02:52, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I got carried away, please don't mind it xD

Your choice is fair enough, I said it, because the mod of God of Fissures is really really good already (all the areas I had found on my own while scrapping with or without the original 2009 mod were already there, even the Tahnkhai Temple north sliver which I was very proud of and thought I was the only one to know about).

However even that good mod has its limits : I believe you might miss the borders of FA for example.

About Portal jumping : all characters can do it. You may not like portal jumps, even though they make the title much more easier (I know, I was like you in the beginning, I hated portal jumping which I found was too complicated and I hated Texmod for making cartoing-which was my favorite activity-so easy), but most of the portal jump areas in Cantha are actually accessible for carto under other circumstances anyway (for example, Eredon and Saint Anjeka Shrine's portal jumping areas can be accessed from the exclusive area when belonging to the alliance, while Shing Jea boardwalk can be accessed during events or tutorial) : portal jumping for those areas is but a tool to avoid having to meet those hard conditions.

About the weight of the mod compared to the 2014 one, you are right and it is really heavier : it takes about 2~4 more seconds to load the textures and the fog when launching the game. The mod does not slow you in any way when playing nor loading. What is 4 more seconds at start compared to hours of gaming ? Also, no need to restart guild wars if you want to switch to Elona or Tyria for a change (which can be the case if going for Legendary Cartographer).--Ruine Eternelle 07:21, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Portal Jumping is not that easy for me to do. Though, I don't need Canthan anymore... I do still need Prophecies and Nightfall. I am still having trouble with nightfall, especially the challenge mission with the beetles. I do not get what I am doing wrong, but I suck at solo missions.

The fact that you managed to explore Cantha while not being able to kill a few insects in nightfall is puzzling me. Always have a weakened Greater Infestation nearby and kill it when one of those annoying spirits gets too close. Dynastic Tombs isn't that hard, you have Junundu Tunnel to run away.--Ruine Eternelle 10:00, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Yea, I'm not into challenge missions that has me to think. Rodan (talk) 04:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

No pain, no gain. Sadly you need that part for your title. Minion trick and portal jumping may allow you to skip it, but since you don't like them...--193.48.141.104 07:51, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

The minion Trick and portal jumping I am interested in for nf and prophecies - if can be done. I just am not into the challenge mission, because I feel like I fail at it so much! I don't have the support or friends in game like I use to. Rodan (talk) 17:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Nightfall without Dynastic Tombs is mainly about using SaO chains. There are other possible types of Portal jumping that can be done of course, but SaO chains will always give you the best results. Minion trick is great to get access to the big tutorial area and the medium part in Gandara (which is around 0,5%), but it is a little more painful to do. Watch my videos, read the pages. SaO chain is rather easy once you get the hang of it. You don't even need texmod for prophecies. Ruine--93.25.120.137 20:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

And about in game friends, yeah that's the problem and the reason why I chose to split my gaming time with gw2. I'm still very happy to see people play the game though ;)--93.25.120.137 21:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I don't own gw2. I mess around on Facebook and gw1. Rodan (talk) 03:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

A reply to your emails

Given the breadth of the topics you covered in your two emails, and their relation to the wiki, I'm going to reply to them here. I see no point in discussing all of these things outside of the forum for which they were meant.

To your first email

• I'm presuming the inaccurate information you wanted to remove was the trivia on Red Iris Flower. It's been removed.
• If you feel I've abused my powers, I have some suggestions:
  • First, I would encourage you to be more explicit in stating where that abuse of power has taken place. Your email only says that it has occurred, leaving me to guess that it's in relation to the blocks on another editor.
  • Second, such accusations are taken seriously. Hiding them in an email does not help solve the problem which you are claiming exists.
  • Third, our admin board would be where I would suggest you go to to lodge your complaint against me. If you do not wish to go there, then please be aware that my talk page is always open, and do not forget the first point in this section.
• Yes, this wiki does need to be more mobile friendly.
• Ad hominems will weaken your argument, not strengthen it, though I understand that they can be cathartic.

To your second email

• If you're trying to appeal to my judgment, then please do not leave out large portions of the story which are relevant. I am not a fool, and when I see that the parts you excluded weaken your argument to the degree that they do, it removes any value in me responding to your claims.
• You're now asking for new trivia to be placed on the Red Iris Flower page, rather than having the trivia removed. Personally, I do not see how telling players that a red flower in the game is also a red flower in real life has value. That's just my opinion though, and you're entitled to yours, and the relevant talk page is there for you to express yourself if you have not already done so.
• Do not presume what I have and have not done. The thoroughness with which I am responding here should make it clear that I've put far too much energy into this discussion.
• Yes, the wiki needs to be more friendly to our mobile users.
  • I do not know anything about GuildWiki's style changes, or lack thereof.
  • What changes could ArenaNet make that have you worried?
• There is no rule on the wiki against using certain words.
• I have taken no action against you or your account to my knowledge. As I have done for far too many years now, I encourage you and other editors to discuss things on the relevant talk pages.

If I have seemed to skip over a few points in your emails, it is likely due to me having already responded to them on the admin noticeboard, and you can find my answers there. Greener (talk) 18:02, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

To your third email

• Do not use the 'email user' function to fight some sort of proxy war or settle a personal vendetta against another user. The fact that you're arguing for an administrative action in this way speaks poorly of your request and motivation.
• I've looked into the situation repeatedly. I've responded to it repeatedly.
  • I told you it doesn't help when you leave out critical parts of the story, and yet once again you thought that would be a prudent thing to do.
  • Maybe you're purposefully ignorant of the fact that the IP I blocked was the one who decided that attacking was the proper first step.
  • Maybe you're happy to ignore the generally polite response the IP received from the user you're unhappy with, until that user was accosted to an understandable breaking point.
  • Frankly, I don't care what sort of fantasy world you build around yourself, just don't impose it on others.
• Your constant insinuation that I do not value the edits of IP contributors has gotten to the point of pissing me off, and if you ask around, that's a hard thing to do. So let me be very clear before you try that again: I value every good faith edit. If someone comes along and tries to help, but ends up breaking the wiki, I'll revert them and thank them for what they tried to do.
• Implying or threatening (or whatever that was) to take legal action on the basis you presented would be ill-advised. I'm not a lawyer, and perhaps that was a joke you were making, but I cannot see it holding up.

If you send me another email relating to this situation, I'll remove your ability to send them. Greener (talk) 17:51, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

To your email to me (Rainith)

Greener has responded much better than I likely could, and I would tend to agree with all that he said above. I will expand on a couple of specifics from your email to me.

• While it isn't encouraged, cursing is not against the rules. It likely won't last long on an actual article, but it is allowed on talk / user pages. Also, I don't believe it has ever been banned from edit summaries.
• Reverting is allowed and actually encouraged if the person who made said comment is currently blocked from editing. Being blocked from editing doesn't mean that we'll turn a blind eye if you come back from a different IP or if you register as a new user with a slightly different name. It means for the duration of that block, you aren't allowed to edit and if you do, those edits should be reverted.
• Finally, I'd like to reiterate something Greener mentioned and that is that you need to give specifics for your complaint not broad generalities that you think someone is "violating the rules." What rule(s) are they violating? Where? When?

I'm going to assume that you've used a shotgun approach here and have spammed emails to multiple Admins here after you didn't get your way with your original email to Greener. I'll just let you know that isn't a good way to get what you want, it tends to do nothing but annoy multiple people when they find out. --Rainith (talk) 18:34, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

If neither of you can read her emails or use Contributions on ALL users, you aren't worthy Admins. Consider this, most other wikis do better than judge based on assumptions with what little they see. They use many options like Contributions, dates, times, and actions on each page edited. They do not take up for users, who don't use agf and attack Ips, which can be seen in horrible's contributions. Horrible has reverted, as seen in contributions, edits on an ip, before said ip was done. Doing the reverts as the excuse. Is it her problem that she's trying to point all of this out and refusing to do the jobs for you all that You should do?

Sounds like lazy immaturity at best. I'm glad these other wikis do better than I have Ever seen this one do. Even on other sites, the admins look into reports and gather all information before judging. Many do this at their jobs as well, including police work in investigations. They don't ask others to gather everything for them as that's lazy work and would not provide a peace of mine. I would suggest you both read her emails as I see here, thoroughly and revert comment removals before the ban.

Otherwise, you allow a user to be a vandal with "excuses", Do you see that Ip that's banned reverting on a proxy ip? I don't think so and had it been me, I would have done so, because of your lazy adminships on all admins that are "active". After all, you both are clearly responding with, 'we don't want to do what all should be required of us to do on this wiki, because we don't get paid.' You volunteered. Expect it. 174.232.188.7 21:19, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Goodbye

I do my best to give people the benefit of the doubt. You may have noticed in my response to your first two emails that I chose to look past some of your more unfortunate statements, and I tried to see your words in a light most beneficial to you. I went and looked at all of your claims that you'd made to see if there was something more of value that I could glean on your behalf. That allowance ran short by your third email where you chose to double-down on your falsehoods and half-truths, despite my attempt to warn you to do otherwise.

Many years ago, I blocked a user who behaved in a very similar manner to you. They, too, fixated on other users as being the main sources of issues, rather than accepting personal responsibility. They, too, chose to turn minor issues into needless drama. They, too, were comfortable with using wiki concepts such as 'agf' as a shield for the drama that they were causing. The parallels have been eerily striking.

The presumption of good faith only lasts for so long, and so you, too, have been banned from this wiki. I have lost faith in you being able to understand why, but that's no longer on my conscience. Greener (talk) 01:56, 16 January 2023 (UTC)