User talk:Steve1

From Guild Wars Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

RIFs[edit]

Thanks for finishing the clean-up of Red Iris Flower. (I completely forgot about the profitability tag.) For what it's worth, I blame ANet for offering identically-named items with identical icons and properties that do not have the same merchant value. It's logical that the Yak's kit pack return less (otherwise, people would do nothing in Pre except farm flowers, get packs, and sell), but they could have given it a different name. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 02:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

No problem - after all I introduced the wrong info. :D Yeah, that's a tad bit uncool of ANet. It still wouldn't be too much of a problem though - there are much better farming things to do than invest half an hour for a plat. Steve1 15:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Racing Beetle[edit]

Concerning this edit, I know Helena offers it, but I didn't attempt to acquire a Racing Beetle for a Gold Zaishen Coin or 10,000 Balthazar Faction. Does she actually unlock the Racing Beetle or is the unlock not actually available until Canthan New Year starts? --Silver Edge 00:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't try it myself either - but had someone show me in-game. I didn't take a screenshot though. We can revert it back though, doesn't bother me. :) Steve1 17:34, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Hopefully the guy who showed you did so after the bug fix that turned regular pets into beetles? :D -Chieftain Alex 17:47, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
I wasn't even aware that there was such a bug. So no clue. You guys are tempting me to spend a zgold ... . Shame on you, Alex! ;) Steve1 18:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Feedback:Game updates/20130125 - this update makes me highly suspect that you saw one of those bugged bugs... so its probably still future content, but who knows, I'm not gonna spend any zgold yet :P
Also, don't worry. If anyone is gonna spend zgold on pets they'll never use it will be me! I expect we'll get it for free at a later stage of the event. Chieftain Alex 18:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Gosh, I guess now I look kinda stupid.
And you got a deal! Go and (try to) buy it. Gogogo! ;) But I was also expecting to get it for free. Hound of Balth and such. Steve1 18:38, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
This edit by an IP seems to imply that they are already in the game. --Silver Edge 05:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Alex, pop out the gold zaishen coin! Gogogo! ;) Steve1 18:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Awry autoblock of generic IP[edit]

13:58, 9 May 2013 Chieftain Alex unblocked #44590 (autoblock gone awry)

Hmm sorry about that, hopefully it should be fixed now. -Chieftain Alex 13:03, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Works now, yeah. Thanks! Steve1 (talk) 14:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Never mind me. I've found others with same word, I'm adding in the link that's missing, in concourse to others. Rodan (talk) 00:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Celestial Pig[edit]

Answering for Konig, you can find that information via Lorespinner Ri So. - Infinite - talk 18:26, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I see, I see. Thanks.Steve1 (talk) 19:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

fixed[edit]

No ragequitting allowed. [1] -Chieftain Alex 18:22, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

No more rageediting... Steve1 (talk) 21:53, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Nicholas the Traveler/research[edit]

I guess unprotecting that page might mean that the ip will successfully steal the glory of the find, and not update the other pages :D -Chieftain Alex 21:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

You should use all powers as a superadmin to ensure that either one of us (preferably me) can get the glorious edit! Smash them infidels to smithereens! Steve1 (talk) 21:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Sorry Steve, the old map has the old spawn location. Nick has moved to the west of his previous location Anon-e-mouse (talk) 17:17, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Gotcha. Thanks for the edit then. I only saw the red link, but didn't check for more ... Steve1 (talk) 17:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I was in the process of getting a new screen grab for his new location.. went to update it, and saw it had been replaced with the old location. It's not a big move, but he's definately not in his old position. I think I've gotten everything now. I've also updated the counters for changed locations, and the map on the research page. Is there anything else that needs changing? Anon-e-mouse (talk) 17:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I think that was about it. Except for the changed location list, where the format is "new spot vs old spot", which means dragon's gullet will drop to the bottom of that little list. :) Steve1 (talk) 17:46, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Done Anon-e-mouse (talk) 18:01, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Good job! :) Steve1 (talk) 18:43, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

reverting multiple things[edit]

just go to the history tab and click on the date of the last good revision and then press save lol. -Chieftain Alex 20:08, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the hint.
Go and vandalize some stuff so I can try. ;-P Steve1 (talk) 21:48, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
You literally missed out a minute ago. :D - Infinite - talk 21:49, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
fuck steve you didn't have to go vandalize all those pages just for a shot at reverting :P -Chieftain Alex 21:50, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, you really are a party crasher. I took all those pains to vandalize the wiki and you revert before I can log in again. How dare you?!?
I think I will now rehearse on your personal page. Steve1 (talk) 07:47, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Just wanted to try it. Is this possibly something admins can do but not normal editors? Steve1 (talk) 06:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Probably not since I've done it with my IP + before I was an admin...
Go to any page. Hit history. Click on the time/date. Press the edit tab. If it isn't the currently revision that you've chosen to view, then it will say "Warning: You are editing an out-of-date revision of this page." You can then press save to just overwrite edits that came afterwards, or make some changes. There isn't an automatic edit summary, but you could provide one. (note, if you press edit while in editing mode of a historical version, it will move to editing the current version of the page) -Chieftain Alex 06:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Removal vs. Censorship[edit]

Yeah, it's an ugly topic, and one that I will not claim to be well versed in (though I've taken actions and labelled posts as one or the other in the past). It seems that Feedback talk:Joe Kimmes is an attractive place for such grey-area topics.

I saw the removal of the post earlier today, and I chose to take no action (note: I'm NOT claiming my inaction was right/wrong). Was the post poorly written? Yeah. Was it completely appropriate to put on the page? No. Did it name/shame another member of the community? Yes. Does that mean it should be removed? *shrug*.

I haven't looked at Dmitri's past edits which you refer to, but frankly I'm not sure if there's a need. All of the above was written to ensure that I "brought up the topic". The real reason I'm here to to ask you to remove the accused player's name from that post. I'd do it myself, but I'm sure that others will interpret that as an admin action instead of the common-sense action that it really is; and I'd rather save my "admin actions" for when they're really needed, else they get watered down.

Much appreciated. G R E E N E R 20:22, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you mean w/ accused player "Mainstream" or Dmitri? How about you you do it in my stead since I don't really get what you mean? I personally won't see it as "nasty admin action", promised. ;) Feel free to refer to this post in your edit note, if that changes anything. Steve1 (talk) 20:47, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Mesmer note[edit]

I know perfectly well Razah's primary profession can be changed (hence why I included him(or it, rather) in the note). However, he starts off as a ritualist, and most players keep him that way. The point of my edit was to reflect the addition of the new Beyond-related heroes: not only core professions have three heroes nowadays, but dervishes, paragons and assassins aswell (as do rits, if Razah is considered one) Jeree95 (talk) 13:45, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I understand your points and agree w/ most of it. I also keep him as a Rit on all of my chars (since I don't need a 3rd Me or 4th whatever). The only part I disagree with is to consider Razah as a Rit - since he can be changed. But CA seems to agree with your PoV, so let's continue on his the Mesmer talkpage. ;) Steve1 (talk) 15:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Herald Demrikov revert[edit]

Shiro is listed as an envoy on the envoy page, hence I counted him as such on Demrikov's page aswell. He is "one of the envoys you meet during the course of the factions campaign" afterall, so we might aswell count him as such. Jeree95 (talk) 19:32, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

As indicated by my edit notes, again, I understand your point (that Shiro is an envoy). I just think that there is a significant difference between the 4 ghostly envoys and Shiro and therefore he shouldn't be counted here.
I just checked, that part was put there by Emily Diehl, who used to work for ANet at that time. Just saying. Steve1 (talk) 21:06, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

gw2w[edit]

I don't see how adding the gw2w template isn't "adding to the article." There's a reason that that template exists, and so we should be using it where applicable. -«troy.frostwind­» 20:30, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Ideally, the template says that it should be used on articles that exist on the GW2W but that pertain more to that game, but in action, it's used a lot more liberally and so continuing the pattern there shouldn't be the subject of individual page reverts (if we should go back through and re-discuss the usage of that template and make a campaign to apply it more conservatively, that should happen before individual page reverts) -«troy.frostwind­» 20:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
It's a shout, it inflicts conditions, it has the same name. It's related. -Chieftain Alex 20:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
I should say I agree on Red Bean Cake though, only the name is common to both, rest are different. -Chieftain Alex 20:51, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm absolutely cool with discussing the usage of this tag. As you can see from a past edit I'm not totally adverse to a more liberal usage of the tag:
You might remember the discussions we had surrounding the Vekk edits (see here: http://wiki.guildwars.com/index.php?title=Vekk&diff=2551417&oldid=2551412 and the other edits at that time).
And then there's also this, of course: http://wiki.guildwars.com/index.php?title=Template_talk:Gw2w&diff=2526638&oldid=2522542 ;)
I'm absolutely fine with a more liberal usage, but so far it seems to have been a bit inconsistent.
@Alex: And what kind of new/relevant information did you gather from the gw2 page? :P Steve1 (talk) 21:15, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Another issue I forgot to mention: GW2's YAAW hasn't been released yet. I'd PERSONALLY wait until HoT has been released with linking to HoT stuff. Steve1 (talk) 21:24, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
That I can agree with. While odds are that this skill will be implemented, things can change before release. I mean, the casing of YAAW isn't even sorted out. I get the excitement that people have when nostalgia and references are found in the lore/skills, but we can always wait. G R E E N E R 21:34, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Special Thanks[edit]

Thank you for correcting my grammatical mistakes, english isn't really my forte :/--Ruine Eternelle (talk) 17:32, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

No worries. :D Steve1 (talk) 18:18, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
About your last edit, yeah I forgot those Charr Fire Caller. I meant only elementalist charr dropping items. Good eye.--Ruine User Ruine Eternelle Ruine Eternelle.jpg Eternelle 15:07, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Cheers! Steve1 (talk) 17:21, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I admit Oath Shot as a way to recharge a skill with a recharge time extended by Glyph of Sacrifice was a stupid idea. Air of Superiority would already be better since it's non-elite but it only has 10% chance and takes a PvE-only skill slot. I was actually thinking about E/R using OS even with the 50% fail (and determined shot to recharge OS incase of fail) but no matter how you look at it E/A assassin's promise is more viable. R/E of course is totally silly.--Ruine User Ruine Eternelle Ruine Eternelle.jpg Eternelle 12:43, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Skill Nav Revamp[edit]

Requesting feedback on Skill Nav Revamp. --Falconeye (talk) 21:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Side note about your last reverts[edit]

Hello Steve ! I kind of understand that Falconeye does not always do thing the simplest way, but why undo the new player guide on "kind of a big deal" ? Some gw2 players may be interested to get that title (since it gives a gw2 special bonus) and should need a good explanation about how to get it. Best regards--Ruine User Ruine Eternelle Ruine Eternelle.jpg Eternelle 18:35, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Good point. ;-D Steve1 (talk) 20:01, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but take a look at what the template says: "geared towards new players". The way I see it, it should be added to guides that are written with mainly new players in mind. Not in an article about a maxed titles title track. If you added it to any article a new player might find useful, you'd have to tag half the pages in the wiki (i.e. what Falconeye has been doing lately ^^) Jeree95 (talk) 20:33, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, not gonna self-revert again. Feel free to undo it though. In this case I can see both sides of the story. ;-D Steve1 (talk) 21:22, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Bloodspike[edit]

per your feedback, I am requesting assistance with article. --Falconeye (talk) 19:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll try to help on that page. But (except for that little miniture edit spree just now) I'm kinda semi-active. I won't do anything substantial prior to Sunday, that's already certain. Steve1 (talk) 21:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I would appreciate your extensive knowledge regarding the martial and caster weapons used in PvP builds. What can I do help you? --Falconeye (talk) 03:16, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Hey Falconeye. I'd call my knowledge rather "outdated", but hey. ;)
Firstly, it's Summer. A rather nice, warm and sunny summer. So I spend less time in front of my computer.
Secondly, I'm currently looking for a new challenge. So I spend more computer time doing seriouzz business.
Thirdly, after 8 or 9 years of joy and fun, my interest in GW has started to wane (again). I will do Le Tour de Tyria in a month but until then I might be less than active (esp. during summer holidays - not taking a laptop with me). Wayfarer's has rekindled my interest once or twice before, so who knows what will happen.
Let's see what fall will bring (mid-September onwards), alright? ;) Steve1 (talk) 12:23, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
You ready to work on it? ^_^ Falconeye (talk) 22:26, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, tbh I have quit playing. Wayfarer's hasn't been able to rekindle the spirit.
I'll go for the 2 miniatures during CNY (no clue why - call me an idiot), but besides that I won't be touching the game (much).
And it's kinda similar with the wiki. I probably take a look at the recent changes more or less on a daily basis, but not planning to invest much time into it.
I'd have the solo monk backline/runner build available from some years back when it was 7 Necros and a Mo flagger, but anything else would be ... work. Can't have that. ;) Steve1 (talk) 14:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Gold trim guilds and Boring Gimmicks All Month page edits[edit]

For what purpose have the edits elucidating the recent monthly automated tournament grand final fiasco been removed from said pages? The information regarding the grand final was put on the Gold trim guilds to serve the same trivia and book keeping purpose as the trivia segment concerning We Are Six Inches Enchanted on the same Gold trim guilds page. Information on the highly abnormal grand final of November 2015 was added to the Boring Gimmicks All Month guild page to explain the conditions and circumstances of the grand final match for historical context (which PvP/GvG players find important and useful). Had these matches been run-of-the-mill or less important matches, there would be nothing worth writing down for historical or trivia purpose other than the same information that is recorded every monthly automated tournament. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 91.233.117.151 (talk) at 10:43, 22 November 2015‎ (UTC).

Motoko provided proof to both this wiki and ANet.
Until you can do the same: Stop besmirching other people.
You can note on DW's page that one of their monks didn't load and thus they were forced to play 7vs8 and therefore lost.
But accusing others of theft and DDosing without proof is a no-go.
And what is this mud-flinging under "Side Note" on DW's page? Doesn't belong there either.
For childish crap like this there's QQ forums.
Now go away. Steve1 (talk) 11:15, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, if you don't know the gvg scene you shouldn't edit posts about it as if you do imo, and being sassy about it doesn't help much
cute have been bragging about winning by ddos since they won, some of them making characters with names referring to it too
http://imgur.com/D2f6OW1 here is a screen shot from fluffy rainbow unicorns [cute] guild chat shortly after finals game, they are German guild
I'd also be grateful if someone could somehow remove my ip from this post, since if they see me post this they might go for me too --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.113.227.63 (talk) at 16:56, 22 November 2015‎ (UTC).
"Sass" aside, Steve is correct: We don't act on speculation.
As for your IP, it's there for a reason, as the site said it would be. It will do you zero harm. G R E E N E R 18:57, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Shadow Army[edit]

Category:Shadow Army affiliation is populated with multuple creature types. --Falconeye (talk) 18:02, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Good to know. Thanks. Steve1 (talk) 18:22, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Non-perfect items[edit]

Should we rename Category:Low requirement unique items to mirror your edits? --Falconeye (talk) 03:50, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly about that. Anything along the lines of "non-perfect" "imperfect" "non-max" sounds a tad bit better than "low requirements" to me. But changing 36 pages ... if you feel like it ... ;) Steve1 (talk) 10:23, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Merci[edit]

Thanks for being around for that. G R E E N E R 05:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

De rien. Or since you're Canadian: Bienvenue. ;-D Steve1 (talk) 08:48, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Lol, flashbacks to Grade 8 with Madam Gunn, and her shaking her head at us. G R E E N E R 17:07, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Right she was!
And you triggered a flashback for me as well: Grade 12, "advanced" English class, Southern Alta. Kids would still ask: Can I go to the bathroom. Mr. West's unerring response: I don't know if you're physically and mentally able, but you may.
Call that a mental block. (Don't think they did it just to wind him up) Steve1 (talk) 06:18, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Design choice[edit]

Heya, Steve! Quick question: was this change based on a consensus I missed, or a BOLD change? If it was the former, could you tell me where it was reached, or if it is the latter, may I propose a slight change? From this:

Level Skills
20
Cure Hex.jpg
Divine Intervention.jpg
Dwayna's Kiss.jpg
Orison of Healing.jpg
Resurrection Chant.jpg
Vigorous Spirit.jpg
Word of Healing.jpg
Balanced Stance.jpg
12 Divine Favor, 12 Healing Prayers

To this:
Level 20, 12 Divine Favor, 12 Healing Prayers

Cure Hex.jpg
Divine Intervention.jpg
Dwayna's Kiss.jpg
Orison of Healing.jpg
Resurrection Chant.jpg
Vigorous Spirit.jpg
Word of Healing.jpg
Balanced Stance.jpg

Or even this:
Level 20, 12 Divine Favor, 12 Healing Prayers

Cure Hex.jpg
Cure Hex
Divine Intervention.jpg
Divine Intervention
Dwayna's Kiss.jpg
Dwayna's Kiss
Orison of Healing.jpg
Orison of Healing
Resurrection Chant.jpg
Resurrection Chant
Vigorous Spirit.jpg
Vigorous Spirit
Word of Healing.jpg
Word of Healing
Balanced Stance.jpg
Balanced Stance

They have similar height impact as the current design, I'm personally just not a big fan of boxed in white space. - Infinite - talk 09:32, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I'd say it was neither nor. ;-D It was basically just what I "announced" on Falconeye's talkpage as a response to Magamdy:
https://wiki.guildwars.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Falconeye&diff=prev&oldid=2622228
Some skill lists looked like the before, some like the after version. I then decided which I liked better and changed the others to it. Tbh I didn't even look if there's a consensus on how it should be done (the support pages are FUBAR imo, it always takes me ages in order to find stuff I'm looking for).
I personally prefer the boxed version (we had that in the past before with something else iirc :D ) but could live with your proposed changes. You might wanna get FE and Magamdy involved though. Cheers, Steve1 (talk) 19:17, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

First Sun[edit]

This is the only page that mentions "First Sun" on the wiki, but IMO that doesn't make it outside the scope of the project. ANet has an internal lore wiki full of stuff like this (or at least it did at the time Nightfall came out). ANet also look at this wiki and GW2W to check their lore. I have no doubt that whatever "First Sun" is, more lore for it exists but was never put in a game (but it might have been kept in mind while designing things). Wren only gets one mention in GW1, and yet we actually go there in GW2. I kind of wonder if we'd have ever got to go there if we hadn't documented it fully on this wiki. --Santax (talk · contribs) 21:20, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't mind if you undo my revert - but at the moment it's only a red link. And *I* have no clue what to add to a newly created page. Do you have any additional info regarding FS? Steve1 (talk) 21:32, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
If the lore exists in Guild Wars 2, it doesn't necessarily exist in Guild Wars, but this dialogue specifically mentions First Sun with capitals. There is a story there, but it's not covered at all in Guild Wars. This leads me to believe to not document it as an article. If Guild Wars 2 elaborates on the term 'First Sun', at most a trivia note on Keeper of Light should address what that means, with a link to GW2W. - Infinite - talk 22:12, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
In this case, the lore doesn't even exist in GW2 - it's mentioned once and never again. If I had to guess, though, I'd say that it's related to the GW universe's creation myth, so in terms of importance you can't get much higher. But we don't know anything about it other than the Keeper of Light was blinded by it (presumably) long, long ago. So the question is whether to have a page on a high-importance subject even though we know virtually nothing about it. To me, the answer is obviously yes, as this is both necessary for the wiki to be a complete account of the games' lore and also consistent with our previous approach - we have entire categories for stuff like this.
Who knows what lore is out there yet to be documented because people didn't want to create a red link in one place, and then it gets mentioned elsewhere and a red link doesn't get created there either, and so the page never appears in Special:Wantedpages? Red links help the wiki grow. --Santax (talk · contribs) 13:48, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree red links are important to focus attention on the important and missing articles, but as you said it is mentioned once and never again. Everything about it would be speculation and that's not what the wiki does. If there is lore in-game, we should document it. But currently there is not so we can only guess. The fact that it is mentioned is the only fact about it, thus warranting nothing more than a note on the Keeper's until more facts specifically arise in either game.
What do you suggest an article for First Light would contain, if a note is not sufficient here? Is there any chance the red link becomes a blue one on GWW prior to added lore in GW2, per example? The purpose of a red link is to point out missing articles because they should exist and have content that should be documented. For this red link we have nothing but a comment by an NPC, and no hopes of it becoming more than that. To me that is basis to leave it as a note rather than the precedent for its own page, despite the foreshadowing of important lore in its connotation. - Infinite - talk 18:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
It would be a short article, probably saying something to the effect of "First Sun was an event at some point in Tyria's history. The Keeper of Light was blinded in its light." It's like having an article on Xun Rao, Gates of Heaven, Dzalana, or Grand Patriarch Mouvel. --Santax (talk · contribs) 08:51, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm personally still unconvinced. For all we know First Sun simply refers to the birth of a Forgotten. As in, the Keeper of Light was partially but permanently blinded by the first sunlight they saw. I would go with a trivia note along the lines of: "* The Keeper mentions an event called "First Sun," but neither the game nor the .dat file has any context for this."- Infinite - talk 12:58, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Note about boss drops[edit]

Can I put that bosses can drop 2 wings in the talk page on griffon wings?--Saxazax (talk) 23:43, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Saxazax, bosses can drop up to 4 items (plus gold) - so if you want to be consitent you'd have to add such a note to many item talk pages.
In other words: This is nothing wings-specific.
See where I'm going?
But if you wanna add that to the talk page than feel free. Steve1 (talk) 16:45, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

That Edit[edit]

Re: https://wiki.guildwars.com/index.php?title=Tahnnakai_Temple_(outpost)&oldid=2627631 Was only due to my frustration to locate mission info with out having to jump around and reverse track either via Zaishen mission info or the Missions - just trying to make it easier for those new, yes new players. Just seems the Proph, NF and GWEN outposts have a easier link. Though I may be mistaken. TikkaLeFem (talk) 19:23, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for taking a bit. I missed this edit to my talk page. At the top of the page there is the disambig info, which so far didn't include the link you were looking for. I added it. I suggest you do it like that on other pages where the autodetect doesn't work 100%. Fair enough? :) Steve1 (talk) 14:59, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Dasha Vestibule[edit]

Sorry, but your opinion here is not right: after completion of the first trial in the central room only the entrance to the left room becomes open, while the right room is still closed (checked today). So, my expression "second trial room" was correct. Although it can be named "left" as well, the reason of your edit is misguiding. --109.252.109.37 13:04, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Good to know. Haven't done the mission in quite a while. THanks for the info. Steve1 (talk) 16:33, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Can verify IP's comment. The order of doors opening is centre, left, right and these paths open one at a time. Technically the centre room is not locked, but you get the idea. - Infinite - talk 18:44, 9 August 2018 (UTC)


the power of blood[edit]

nice try, shade. Justice (talk) 23:25, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Justice, I am honestly surprised at how often I need to tell you to discuss the topic at hand. Repeating demonstrably false statements is gets you nowhere. It would have taken you just a few seconds to type out that the number reflects the level of the NPCs, not the number of NPCs encountered. Please take this as a learning moment, thank you. Greener (talk) 00:25, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Your edit is obviously correct, since it's about level and not amount of enemies - something I didn't think of yesterday.
But you should see some professional about your shade-obsession, dude. Steve1 (talk) 06:02, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
I can see we are learning already. Justice (talk) 07:47, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting me[edit]

You were right I forgot about the worms near the collector Varis.--Ruine User Ruine Eternelle Ruine Eternelle.jpg Eternelle 16:48, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Cheers! Steve1 (talk) 17:10, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Hey Steve, how are you doing? Thank you again! --Ruine User Ruine Eternelle Ruine Eternelle.jpg Eternelle 20:48, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Howdy Marc. I'm good. But busy with preparing my team and the site for COVID-19. Home office kinda sucks - you work (far) more than in the office. But now time for some relaxation. How are you?
No worries. You did the heavy lifting. Take care and stay healthy. Steve1 (talk) 20:57, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Good to know you are alright. And have something to do. It sucks to be less effective at home but I can see the appeal as you can take better breaks. As far as I'm concerned, I am fine, not sick (hope it stays that way), but in containment and unemployed :( I should look for a work rather than play and edit the wiki but given the current situation with all the business closing ¯\_(ツ)_/¯... let's say it's been harder to get motivated. --Ruine User Ruine Eternelle Ruine Eternelle.jpg Eternelle 10:39, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Not being sick is good. Hope it stays that way. The rest is ... :( Best of luck with your job hunt! And yeah, the situation now isn't perfect. Fingers crossed for you though! Steve1 (talk) 18:35, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Also thank you again for reading after my edits on the damage calculation page! I felt that - though the guy's work is very important and must have taken time - it had to be re-written in a more simple, comprehensive and less conceited/pompous (in lack of a better word to put it) way , but sadly I still struggle to remember that ":" rule... --Ruine User Ruine Eternelle Ruine Eternelle.jpg Eternelle 13:38, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Cheers! Steve1 (talk) 17:42, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Imperfect upkeep on fevered dreams[edit]

I see you reverted my edit on fevered dreams (77.193.21.130). I just wanted to explain my point.

Both Fevered dreams and fragility have a flaw, in that renewing a condition does not trigger some effects (no spreading the condition with FD, no damage from Fragility). Letting the condition expire before renewing it however, allows to get the effect, so the best way to use the skills seems to be not to maintain each condition perfectly, but "near perfectly", so that we are sure the condition is gone when reapplying it.

Some stuff can screw this strategy though. Natural Resistance for instance, heavy condition removal (daze should cover if not too heavy).

Thanks for reading me, cheers --Ruine User Ruine Eternelle Ruine Eternelle.jpg Eternelle 21:19, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I guess I might've gotten it now. Is this what you want to say:
It's best to keep conditions on the target almost non-stop. Let them expire and directly afterwards re-apply the condi again. ?
upkeep is for maintained enchantments. So that link added extra confusion to an already confusing sentence. ;)
And what do you mean with that? "the application will trigger the bugged interrupt from daze" Do you mean this? "Daze will interrupt spells upon application, regardless of the source of the condition."
Just revert my revert and clarify your original edit. :) Steve1 (talk) 18:24, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes I meant to let the conditions expire. With heroes or player wanting to spam skills, it can be interesting to lower the attribute rank for condition-inflicting skills to avoid dealing with a time window where conditions would be renewed instead of reapplied. And yes I mean the interrupt from daze.--Ruine User Ruine Eternelle Ruine Eternelle.jpg Eternelle 19:31, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

2016 social engineering[edit]

Re: your email. In 2016, a few individuals abused the support system to change account emails for other people's accounts to their own emails. They did this by guessing or googling personal information, and the support staff did a very poor job verifying ownership before transferring it to the new person. As a result, most of the accounts that were leaders of old gold-trim guilds got stolen. In an attempt to bring the issue to ANet's attention, one of the "hackers" used the technique to acquire Gaile Gray's account, complete with GM tools and special green speech privileges. They stood around in Kamadan, swearing and muting people in chat to make sure nobody could ignore the security flaws. ANet quickly took the servers down and banned every account that guy had, and even tried to take him to court (in his home country of Germany) but that failed spectacularly. You can read more about his story here.

Long story short, accounts of famous players in famous guilds were stolen and deleted, sold for real money, sold on d2jsp, whatever. It hit a huge number of "classic" gold trim guilds, and nobody's really sure how many legit ones are left. -Auron 22:38, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Steve1 (talk) 16:11, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

About my edits on Signet of Illusion[edit]

Hello Steve, thank you again for looking after what I do. I didn't mean to cause trouble here, but I thought the skill description was somewhat in need of clarification.

Recently I started an iron challenge with N/Me and I have some fun using skills like Mind Wrack or Malaise. You will understand that naturally I tried to look for information about the energy of foes in PvE, but we actually have little about it.

So I went on to do more tests, and the best energy degeneration skill is Ether Lord, with a good -3. Ether Lord is hardly maintainable, so in a flash I thought about using Mantra of Persistence to extend the duration. It only works on illusion spells, so I believed Signet of Illusion would have been able to turn it into an illusion magic spell. The description states "uses your Illusion magic attribute", and not explicitly "rank", so I had to check.

I ran tests and as you can expect it turns out that the duration stays the same, so we can conclude that Signet of Illusion does not make the spell an Illusion Magic spell. I also tested with Elemental Flame, and burning is still applied, so the hex is still considered a spell from its original attribute.

And here you have it. Hope my explanation wasn't too long, thank you for reading me. Cheers --Ruine User Ruine Eternelle Ruine Eternelle.jpg Eternelle 18:08, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Howdy Marc. All good. :) Take care of yourself, Steve1 (talk) 18:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Hey Steve1[edit]

Sorry for such a delay (2 yrs)

I'm answering your question you asked me back then. Yes I've gathered 8 assassin players and killed Shiro. He does not bow after being defeated by 8 assassins.

Availability of skills[edit]

Maybe ~I'm mistaken, but I thought only the first skill trainer in a campaign that provides a certain skill is to be mentioned ? --Ruine User Ruine Eternelle Ruine Eternelle.jpg Eternelle 14:45, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

You're mistaken. Unless I'm mistaken. Kidding. Look at other skill pages, there often is more than one skill trainer listed.Steve1 (talk) 14:49, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
I looked at more skills. Looks to be inconsistent. Let's see what the editing guides have to say.Steve1 (talk) 15:11, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Looking thru the formatting guides always takes me ages ... :( Guild Wars Wiki:Formatting/Skills#Acquisition doesn't specify it - but it uses the plural form regarding skill trainers. WHich is obviously needed since some skills can be found in more than one campaign.
My personal preference would be to include all trainers, but either way there would be work to do, since the skill pages are inconsistent. Dont know if either one of us has the nerve to wade thru 1000+ pages.
The skill trainer pages also are inconsistent. Most mention if a trainer offers skills from a previous trainer and doesn't list them. At least one doesn't mention it and lists the skills normaly. Steve1 (talk) 15:35, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Snark attack: User talk:Ruine Eternelle#.5B1.5D Steve1 (talk) 13:35, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Damn. I lost again. You are definitely the best at this game. --Ruine User Ruine Eternelle Ruine Eternelle.jpg Eternelle 14:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Snark-shark. ;) I actually accidently stumbled over that discussion. Nice timing. :D Steve1 (talk) 15:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Frustrations with sysops[edit]

Just catching up on what's been happening with the sysop guide. I've been rather busy this past week or so, my apologies. If you're having an issue with a sysop, myself included, we have an admin talk page where you can bring the topic up. We also have some bcrats you can talk to and even an RFA process which may interest you.

I've got more clients to go today, but I'll try to check back on the wiki later tonight. Greener (talk) 22:25, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Hey Kevin, will respond later - might be Thursday. Good luck with the clients. Steve1 (talk) 06:40, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Just a quick response, otherwise it'll probably become Thursday.
I accidently stumbled over the guide when looking for formatting guides and just wanted to document facts, as it's this wiki's goal. I was refering to the issue we were discussing last summer.
And removing facts and replacing then with self-adulation doesn't sit particularly well with me.
If you want to, we can continue our email exchange from last year - I'm just not certain that it will lead anywhere. You admitted that you chose to ignore a wikirule and claimed to have discussed the situation w/ one of the bcrats.
You see, all those links are rather pointless. The whole system is so intrinsically flawed it's laughable. Example: Let's assume I have a problem w/ a bcrat. Then all I can do is ... bring it to the attention of the bcrats. Dog don't eat dog. Pointless. Accused and judge would be one.
Plus, if you email the bcrats they can just choose to ignore the mail. As I told you back then, that's what happened. Whether it was a techical problem (emails don't always get delivered - just had a case at work 2 weeks ago) or if a normal editor is beneath them or if it's "There's honour among thieves.".
Pointing to the RfR is similarly laughable. At the end of those RfA processes a bcrat "will exercise discretion when gauging/interpreting the amount of support/opposition." So we're back at what I wrote above: Utterly flawed system.
How were the appointments w/ the clients? Isn't covid affecting things? Or sales guys haven't had a single f2f in 2 months.
If this is rather incoherent please let me know. I feel tired and sucked dry, so probably not at my best. Steve1 (talk) 19:55, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
PS: If you wanna continue by mail drop me a line here. I don't check that address often.
Wasn't sure if you were planning on swinging back here to add more. I'm not in sales - I'm a private tutor - so helping kids through these times has been difficult; it's been difficult for everyone on all fronts.
I pulled up the emails again and took a look at what went on. You were concerned with some reverting which had been going on between you and another editor, an editor who was also involved in a PvP community discussion. I told you my intent was to keep the editor focused on the community issue in the hopes that some understanding would be reached. My hopes were misplaced as that editor continued to cause problems leading to me blocking them.
You had wished that I had acted differently towards the editor in regards to the reverting issue; or more precisely that I had gone to their page to discuss it with them. I understood that you weren't happy with my explanation, and I did not expect you to be as I said to you at the time. I apologized then and I'll apologize now. It's not a comfortable spot to be in when those tasked with addressing issues overlook yours.
To reiterate something that I hope I have expressed before, for your ongoing care for this community both on the wiki and I'm sure in the game, you have my gratitude. We may differ on how we think some situations should be handled, but we both want the best for the community. I'll always respect that. Greener (talk) 01:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
I decided it was coherent enough after all.
Private tutor sounds bad in teh current situation. Best o' luck for ya.
I understood your intent back then, still do and will continue to do so. What I did not understand back then, still don't understand now and will continue not to understand unless you give me a logical and reasonable reason is why you were treating the issue as if the 2 things were mutually exclusive. I told you back then (twice actually) that you might as well post on their talkpage that they clearly had broken a rule (and you agreed with me that they had, in written!) and should take appropriate measures while at the same time encouraging them to continue with the discussion. How about this (minus the snark): "Kevin, theotherwikiposter is quite right about you violating a wikilaw. Be a good little Canuck and take appropriate steps - you know the rules. Thanks. I also noticed that the two of you are currently engaged in a lively discussion about how to remedy your disagreements. I appreciate your efforts and encourage you to come to a mutual agreement. Let me know if you need support from my side in any way. Toodles, friendlywikisysop." I'm genuinely interested why this wasn't possible (and you never bothered to explain). So fire away!
We have rules on the wiki. Either stick to them and enforce them. Or change them so they reflect reality. And if reality is that bcats and sysops can ignore the rules when they feel like it then make it official. "It's not a comfortable spot to be in when those tasked with addressing issues overlook yours." Sweetie-pie, that wasn't my private issue, it was and is official wiki rule.
There's one or two more points, but I will exchange them with you via mail. Best, Steve1 (talk) 14:44, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
I do not know my exact line of reasoning last summer; all I have is the email exchange and vague memories. I have expressed myself as best as I can with what I recall. I'm sorry that it falls short of what you are looking for.
As for your concerns in the email about the RfA process, I am only a sysop while the community wishes me to be. If they do not wish for me to be a sysop, then I have no problem in stepping away. Greener (talk) 05:20, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
We didn't interact outside of our email exchange. So your notes are complete.
I'd like to know why [1) keeping a discussion going] and [2) informing someone that they broke a wiki rule] seem to be mutually exclusive to you and why you can't do / couldn't do both. You haven't given any reasoning back then nor now that I've asked you again one day ago.
The only reasoning given by you was that you didn't impose wiki rules because you wanted to keep a discussion going. And I responded (twice) that those two things aren't mutually exclusive and can be done in parallel. Steve1 (talk) 08:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
"seem to be mutually exclusive" - Keeping a discussion in one place is beneficial. Greener is the most cautious of the sysops and this is exactly what I was aluding to on the sysop guide as effectively "perfect" sysop behaviour - you let the individuals discuss what they want, see if they reach a conclusion, and only weigh in if it gets absolutely toxic or when the users involved become destructive to the point that you're likely to lose further users if they step in to the discussion.
Ultimately sysops will do what we think is right to ensure the stability of the wiki, even if one or two overly sensitive individuals perceive it as some kind of suppression state. -Chieftain Alex 08:53, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi Alex, implying that I'm an "overly sensitive individual" isn't helping anything.
I never, ever disagreed that the discussion should not have continued or kept in one place. On the contrary, my original sentiment on the talkpage definitely needed correcting. And I never asked Kevin to stop the other user from participating or asked him to slap a (temp) ban on them. Not once. All I asked was that he'd let that user knwo that he (the user) had overstepped a rule and amend it while at the same time encouraging him (the user) to continue the discussion with me. I still don't see any reason why both things (encouraging the discussion AND letting a user know they broke a rule) cannot be done simultaneously. Do you have one?
And since you opened up the tangent: (Disclaimer: I don't really care about that aspect - but since you mentioned it ...) Kevin's later participation in the actual talkpage discussion was far from "perfect". The other user and I had a non-toxic non-distructive discussion and were approaching consensus when Kevin butted in with a "compromise" which clearly was in the interest of neither the other user nor me. But once again: I don't care about this aspect. I don't have any qualms w/ Kevin about this - otheruser and I were able to reach consensus even in spite of Kevin's contribution to the discussion. [Apologies Kevin, this stinger isn't targeted at you]
"Ultimately sysops will do what we think is right to ensure the stability of the wiki" Yeah, that's clear. Steve1 (talk) 09:28, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
"even if one or two overly sensitive individuals perceive it as some kind of suppression state." Noone even remotely alluded that the inherent faults of the wiki could be similar to or in a comparable league as a suppression state until you decided to troll me butt in. f you really think oppression states and the intrinsic failures of the wiki are even remotely comparable, you're embarassing yourself, as well as your history and social science teachers. Steve1 (talk) 15:54, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

RFA - Sysop nomination[edit]

Hey - After the current round of RFAs are complete, I'm planning on nominating some people (including you) to be additional Sysops, as I mentioned before. It seems to me that you've been a longtime contributor to the wiki, and have a working relationship with at least one of the current sysops, which are both good. It also seems that you don't necessarily agree with every decision that's been made, and my goal to have more dialogue regarding the adminship of the wiki would benefit from the addition of your voice. horrible | contribs 17:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello Horrible, thnaks for the consideration.
Nominating someone purely on current activity imo isn't the hottest idea. It's far more important if the nominee has shown promissing behaviour or at least gives the impression that he could change their behaviour with the new role.
In my case, I'd need to change my behaviour a bit since I tend to be a tad bit too confrontational than befits a sysop (imo). So the question would be if you (and everyone else) think I could do that.
I don't think I'd stand a chance in a vote. But choices are good. I'll have to read up on the exact job description of sysops before I could give a final decission though.
You've been asked about running and already declined - so I spare us the question.
Btw, I'll be less active this month due to RL stuff. July should be fine again. Steve1 (talk) 10:44, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Deleting proceeded by/followed by[edit]

Why are you deleting that info? Just because they are not required doesn't mean they don't proceed or are follow ups to other quests and missions. It's just as much a matter of info as it is a matter of requirement. Justice (talk) 11:16, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Because for any other mission or quest a "preceded by" means that it's a real prerequisite. And that's not the case for prophecies primary Qs and missions, so they aren't really preceded or followed by. Plus I started a discussion here Talk:Mission and noone seemed to be bothered. And we've done something similar for pre-searing a while ago and there the consensus was that only real prereqs should be noted like that. Steve1 (talk) 11:32, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
So put a note that it's not required. Just because it's not mandatory doesn't mean it's not a precursor quest nor a lead in to the next. That is indeed useful information for anyone trying to figure out where they are in the particular story and where they are going to next. Not everyone knows every mission outpost by memory. Ive used this info myself in the past when I returned to a character after some time away and wanted to find the npc offering the primary that leads to the continuation of the story. Justice (talk) 11:55, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Sic on four dots[edit]

Isn't that a punctuation mistake ? I was in Jaga Moraine --Ruine User Ruine Eternelle Ruine Eternelle.jpg Eternelle 16:40, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Edit : "I love the weather this time of year" and "I hear frogs taste just like chicken" both end with four dots ingame.--Ruine User Ruine Eternelle Ruine Eternelle.jpg Eternelle 16:44, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Hey Marc, I'd say no. The first three dots are an ellipsis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellipsis), the last one the full stop/period. I've seen it done with three dots (just the ellipsis) and with four like here. Makes sense? Cheers, Steve1 (talk) 16:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Huh, TIL "When a fourth dot appears, it indicates that the omitted material included at least one sentence." horrible | contribs 17:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Okay ... Learned something new then. Steve1 (talk) 17:34, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
The only place I have ever seen a four-dot ellipsis in my (long) life is if....snogratUser Snograt signature.png 20:34, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

<ri> Oh crap, never reacted properly here. Seems I was wrong, please revert me in that case. I don't know any more where I reverted Ruine ... Sorry man ... Steve1 (talk) 13:57, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Effected/affected[edit]

We must have a psychic bond or something. I saw that edit and my grammar-finger was itching to make the correction, but I thought,"nope, that would feel like validating the edit," and I, too, am unsure of the legitimacy of the statement. Mind you, if someone's bored enough to actually take the time to farm feathers, they'd know, right? — snogratUser Snograt signature.png 11:04, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Anecdotal, but from what I've seen the number of materials dropped depends on the level of the foe, which would mean that hard mode should increase the quantity. horrible | contribs 15:34, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I can't resist such edits. :D Steve1 (talk) 17:01, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

nice catch[edit]

can't believe I forgot about / when checking last time, nice catch on that. horrible | contribs 20:20, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I managed to miss a boatload of stuff as well ... :D FUnny, how much stuff there's still to improve after all that time, eh! Steve1 (talk) 19:08, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Wukunda[edit]

Yeah I completely missed the quotation mark at the end. Wasn't thinking about them each being a quote. User DrogoBoffin sig icon.png Drogo Boffin 20:13, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Governance[edit]

Re your edit on the standby draft page: "I've given up on the governance of this place. I think it's intrinsically FUBAR. And the worst thing is that it was done on purpose a decade ago as a result of too little participation during elections. I understand that the latter is a problem, I just think the "solution" is mind-bogglingly idiotic."

As somebody who was strongly involved in both setting up the initial voting process (after the GW disaster) and the policy process afterwards, I would like to know what your main thrust with calling the current system FUBAR is: Do you think that the opinions of long time admins have diverged too much from active editors? Or do you think that the discussions about governance have stalled to the degree of being effectively dead? Or something entirely different? --Xeeron (talk) 19:19, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello Xeeron, will do. Gimme a bit. Thanks. Steve1 (talk) 10:54, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
WHat was the GW disaster?

<reset indent> I'll be brief, hopefully not too brief.

1) AFAIK, there used to be a (pseudo-)democratic process regarding the election of admins. Due to low levels of participation this was changed into a for life system. I know this is a wiki and not a nation state (and the worst that can happen is a perma-ban), but moving from an electoral system to what we have now goes against anything I've learned in history and social science classes. Lengthen legislative periods. Let all (bcrat) positions be filled at the same time so the # of elections gets split into thirds. Dunno. But not move away from a voting system.

2) Bcats can ignore the popular vote in sysop elections for the good of the wiki. Don't know the exact phrase, somehting like that. That is anti-democratic and arrogant: So if one single dude decides they know better, they could totally ignore the outcome of a vote. The app. three times as many support votes than oppose votes is just a rule of thumb. In other words: This ain't a democratic election, it's just a show. The final decision lies with 2 dudes.

3) Where's the checks and balances for the bcrats? If I have an issue with one of them or even both of them, where can I turn to? Yeah, only the bcrats themselves.

4) According to the bcrat rules, if one of them decides to step down, that very bcrat may decide their successor. Are you effing kidding me? One single bloke decides who will inherit one of the three wikigod posiitons for life? I mean, seriously?! Look how Tanetris got the position: Pling stepped down and decided Tan's the man. There wasn't even a joke election since Tan was already a sysop. One person who shall be wikigod for life.

5) And again it worked like a charm with Jon the Mon. Dude just stayed in his seat for years until the rotting corpse was removed by Tan.

Makes sense to you? What's your take on things? Cheers, Steve1 (talk) 20:17, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

You could always ask for a reconfirmation if you feel Tanetris doesn't deserve the job. User DrogoBoffin sig icon.png Drogo Boffin 20:30, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
And that will solve the intrinsic structual problems how? But congrats an missing the point. Steve1 (talk) 20:36, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Just going to offer two small notes of clarification. The current policy on bcrat lack-of-elections was written by User:Tennessee Ernie Ford, who has never been an admin. When Pling was retiring, he specifically called for community input despite that not being a requirement and got no objection to either possibility. If you want to propose a new policy going back to elections, that is absolutely something you can do (maybe 1 election every year or two and top 3 candidates are bcrats? Or we could knock it down to 2 bcrats, since there isn't really such need for 'tiebreaking' these days. No idea if the community wants to go through even that much effort, but it's a thought)
Technically there is a final check on bcrats, though it has thusfar never been exercised. If both bcrats were entirely corrupt and all avenues of regular process exhausted, since Anet owns the servers the wiki's hosted on, User:Stephane Lo Presti as Anet's liaison to the wiki has the figurative Emergency Stop button and could remove us. It would take a pretty extreme scenario for him to be willing to do so, but it's hypothetically possible. - Tanetris (talk) 21:38, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
"When Pling was retiring, he specifically called for community input despite that not being a requirement" That's exactly my point 4. *despite that not being a requirement*
Sidenote: Yeah, I read up on those pages in the past months. Almost dislocated my neck from shacking my head ... ;-P
"Technically there is a final check on bcrats" Good to know. Thanks for the clarification. Steve1 (talk) 08:11, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
What I was trying to get at there with the first point was... This wasn't admins trying to seize power, so don't expect pushback on that front if you want to change it. You are exactly as entitled to put forward a policy proposal as TEF was. Only question is how much of a burden ongoing work for the community people are willing to tolerate. - Tanetris (talk) 17:30, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
"Only question is how much of a burden ongoing work for the community people are willing to tolerate" based on the responses to my policy proposal, sysops seem to vehemently hate the concept of any additional work. As far as the rest of the community, who knows - no one (other than Infinite) seems to care. horrible | contribs 17:38, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Oh, I was aware of that. Didn't think it was a power grab. But that makes the whole thing so mind-bogglingly idiotic imo: The "populace" (which already doesn't really have any power anyway) gives even that litte shred away. Willingly.
But I guess the thinking should be: It's just a wiki, so why does it matter. Steve1 (talk) 18:19, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Realistically, it's always been easy to get sysopped as a low-drama editor. We had a bunch of people who only ever did helpful edits, even in tiny sections of the wiki, but over a long period and people were like "why don't we just give you delete button for maintenance?" So it's never been about a power difference between the populace and the adminship - the adminship was literally just a set of tools that the populace gave to a slew of people over time. Real power was the ability to discuss policy in such a way to get others to agree with you, then your word became law. Often that came from admins, but equally often it didn't. We had users like Dirigible and TEF who proposed all kinds of policy while "just" users.
Coming up on wikis during that period, it's honestly confusing to me that people seem to think there's some kind of power struggle, or that exhaustive checks and balances at every level are necessary to prevent abuse. The wiki has been around for more than a decade, and many of the same good-faith sysops and users have been there the whole time. It's especially telling that the vast majority of admins, when asked if they want to step down willingly, did so without issue - they never saw it as some kind of position of power they needed to maintain to lord over people.
I was one of the users who balked at the constantly-rotating BCrat system because the elections were more trouble than they were worth, especially after the (equally pointless) arbitration system was abandoned. It was just a lot of circlejerking wiki-centric stuff that didn't benefit the wiki project but still required a ton of attention on a regular schedule. Because ANet owns the wiki and has a final say, there's no chance of, for example, gravewit coming back from the dead and selling the wiki off. We've never had a situation where a bcrat ran rogue, or hurt the wiki by making a decision against the "will of the people" on an RfA or similar - so what's the issue? Why is there this weird ass obsession with overthrowing the ruling class? They're not doing anything to hurt you or the wiki project, and they're not standing in the way of you proposing policy or getting community consensus to adopt it. Everything they've done since the beginning of this wiki project has been for the benefit of the project. If they didn't care, they wouldn't be here - especially after this long.
I haven't played GW in a very long time and probably never will again - if people really want me to stick around just in case we need another hand hovering over the ban or delete button, that's fine. But it's not about power. It's not a class struggle. And it never has been. Why is there such resistance and anger now? What have the bcrats in particular done to warrant outright hostile behavior (on horrible's part) but even exasperation on yours? I'm genuinely curious because it doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever. -Auron 23:16, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Two main factors, on my part. (1) The bcrats (and most sysops) no longer participate in the community on a regular basis - even on the discord, which is by far the most active part of the community. Outside of direct prompting, there (to me) feels like a disconnect between the users and the admin team. Everyone is well aware this wasn't the case on the wiki of yesteryear, but this divide (again, in my opinion) leads to a distinctly different feel when sysop decisions are made. Matters are discussed in private, and then simply carried out. My understanding is that this was done to present a more "unified front" among the admin team, but frankly it's only been harmful (again, in my opinion). (2) The administrative team is change-averse - This is where the frustration comes from, for me. Regardless of the topic, if a change wasn't suggested by an existing admin, it feels like (again, in my opinion) it holds less weight - and I'm not just talking about ideas from me, in my experience ideas are more often picked apart and dismissed for their flaws rather than work-shopped into something better. horrible | contribs 00:23, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
I completely feel you on #1; that's largely the reason I resigned as sysop on GW2W. When we're disconnected from the current affairs of the wiki, we can't make informed executive decisions with everyone's desires in mind. That said, the actual sysop tools literally haven't changed since I went (mostly) inactive. The same delete/ban reasons are there. In terms of being able to use the sysop tools, a long break is irrelevant. As long as a sysop doesn't come back (like Tanaric did) and start handing out bans based on outdated notions of policy, it's not an issue. And... even that wasn't an issue. It was rectified quickly and no lasting harm was done to the wiki project.
We're (evidently) going to continue disagreeing that admins have more weight on policy proposals. I think it's a false perception that arises because sysops seem to agree with sysops by default, but more likely it's that the people doing the discussing already value the opinions of people who just so happen to be sysops because they've been at it for a long time. To give you a snippet of Discord convo; one other sysop expressed surprise that he was actually in agreement with me over an issue, for the first time in perhaps a decade. Sysops have opinions as different as any other users. I value the opinion of established non-sysop users just as much as sysops; and, honestly, who the idea is coming from doesn't matter as much as what the idea is. When I look at your policy proposal about wiki activity, I'm not asking myself who you are or looking through your user contributions to figure out whether to agree or disagree. I just read the text on the page, weigh its pros and cons as presented, and post my take.
2: to be blunt, this is both wrong and irrelevant. What the admin team wants doesn't matter more (or less) than what the wiki community wants. If consensus is for change, it happens regardless of admin opinion, because (as stated many, many times) admins don't have additional power or weight in those discussions. What I've seen happen time and again is users come with unpopular ideas (like a policy against swearing, for example) and are surprised that it has not just no support, but vehement dissent. Then they try to jump to conclusions as to why the dissent happened - it couldn't have just been a shitty idea, it must be a group of elite voters that prevented it from happening!
No. It was just a policy without community support. When you have support, it doesn't matter what the admins think of it - with the caveat that they, too, are members of the community, and will be vocally active in those conversations. I'm glad that you've taken a stand, voiced your opinion, and even had a pretty large effect; your actions got most of the sysop roster cleared out. But the wiki project is about consensus, and if consensus is against your policy, that's just how it goes. Sorry. Try again next time with a better policy, or suggest tweaks to more popular mirror suggestions. There is no cabal resisting change just to be Status Quo Warriors. -Auron 02:04, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
"even on the discord, which is by far the most active part of the community." I think discussion shifting to off-wiki resources is a problem on its own. Part of the whole discussion around removing sysops seems to be driven by the idea that it is bad if sysops are no longer part of the community. Having a separate medium of communication very much fosters that. It also leaves the sysops open to accusations of forming a secret cabale (regardless of whether that happens or not). Not to speak of the trouble of referencing past conversations which works so beautifully on wikis. --Xeeron (talk) 13:38, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) (Resetting indent for separate topic from what Auron is discussing) Regarding point number 2: an actual democratic election process is too easy to defraud on a wiki where we all have pseudo-anonymous accounts. If a vote tally was the final determinant of whether someone is demoted or elected, it would be trivial to stack either way by malicious actors with sockpuppet accounts. For a modicum of effort, they could present varied wording on their reasonings (well, those would actually be irrelevant in a tally system) and set up proxies to make proving sockpuppetry difficult enough to at least grind RfAs to a halt while the bcrats try to determine which votes can be stricken. You could try to institute some sort of account age and activity requirements for voting, but this just delays the problem slightly unless you make the requirements onerous enough to lock out all but a small circle of power users. I think creating this situation is a far worse problem than bcrats having ultimate authority on the RfA - from what I've seen, bcrats do take into account all listed reasons on the RfAs. An elite bloc of voters would effectively take nothing into consideration other than their own opinions. Toraen - talk 00:23, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Agreed on your points. A big reason we kept away from simple vote tallies was that the wiki was fractured into factions at the time; PvPers, PvErs, PvXers (as in people from PvX wiki, not people who played both), trolls, etc. When a faction supported or opposed a sysop, they'd beat the drum and make sure everyone showed up to vote. Does it make sense that I should win an election just because my friends circlejerked on another wiki to get people to come here to vote? So we added a layer of protection; bcrats had the final say, respecting the spirit of the vote. If it was a landslide either way, they were expected to respect that decision (and as far as I know, have always done so). If it was close, but some of the reasoning on one side or the other was flimsy, they could make the coin toss. System worked pretty well ever since. -Auron 02:11, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Good post. Hadn't thought of that. Thanks. Steve1 (talk) 10:53, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

"What was the GW disaster?"[edit]

Looks like we never wrote down what happened back than in one easy-to-read location. Or if we did, I forgot where it is. Guess we never thought that this would once become history and people would not know. I'll try to give you the short version from my memory (which may be fault in parts).

GW: guildwiki GWW: guildwarswiki

GW was the first and at that time only wiki for the new game Guildwars. It was started by some dude called Gravewit [2]. Then, people started building up the wiki, with some bureaucrats around originaly selected by Gravewit. Don't ask me how and why they were chosen, as I only joined a few months after the wiki's creation and honestly did not care about the wiki's administration at that point.

Gravewit at first was an active editor, but became less active very soon. The wiki at large thrived and expanded, though. I remember there being a ledger where people could donate money for the servers, but maybe that is my memory playing tricks on me. After a bit more than 2 years of the wiki running and after Gravewit having been completely inactive for close to a year, he suddenly came back to the wiki with the news that GW, previously independent wiki, would now merge with Wikia, a commercial wiki provider [3]. That "merger" took the form of Wikia paying money and stock options to Gravewit for the rights to the URL and the content of the wiki.

Not surprisingly, the fully volunteer editors were outraged. In this situation, ANet stepped in and set up their own wiki for guildwars, GWW. The initial sysops of GWW were grandfathered from GW, that is, people who were sysops on GW became sysops on GWW. The userbase split, with the majority going to GWW and some staying on the now Wikia version of GW.

Over on GWW (here) we immediately started discussing how to construct a better wiki and especially a better admin structure [4]. Me and many others pushed for an election model of bureaucrats, which was eventually implemented. You probably know most of the story from here, but the elections became less and less active, terms were prolonged once [5], but eventually removed and replaced with bureaucrats for life [6].

GW is still around [7] but seems to have moved to a gamepedia url (I have no idea whether wikia changed names or sold it). It looks inactive to me. You can look at Gravewit's version of the story here [8], for what the editors thought, you'll have to dig a bit more. --Xeeron (talk) 07:33, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

PS: After some more digging, I found my own stance at the time, which is still in some part of my userspace [9]. These edits also made me feel old as fuck. --Xeeron (talk) 07:52, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
I remember the bs with GW and I vaguely remember donations as well. I wasn't the most active person on that one. I have noinks because I asked for my account to be deleted. That wiki is the sole reason I was on here for a nearly a year before making an account. User DrogoBoffin new sig.png Drogo Boffin 07:59, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the write-up. Stuff happened well before un-lurked in 2011.
If I understand your links correctly, then ANet also wanted an election model for admins. They didn't have a problem when it was changed to a for life model in 2012? Steve1 (talk) 08:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
I think they prefered the elections model, but took a very hands-off approach in general. I never heard anything about ANet-involvement in the 2012 change. I doubt they even noticed (nor that they would care). --Xeeron (talk) 09:31, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Just to confirm, there were donations on GW which were to defray some of the server costs (although I think I remember that there was advertising as well, although my memory may be faulty). After the initial editor outcry when the buyout was announced, which was the majority of the editors at the time, including Sysops, those who had donated to GW were refunded the money (or at least I was and I was given the impression that everyone who had donated had been as well).
Sidenote: Hi Xeeron, it does make you feel old when you look at that stuff doesn't it. :) --Rainith (talk) 16:19, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
I am quite sure there were adds, too. I came across some of the talk about them while searching for my above text. --Xeeron (talk) 23:01, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
A slight correction on the order of events: Anet first approached Gravewit about taking GuildWiki off his hands to become the official wiki, but it was determined presumably by Anet's lawyers that the noncommercial part of GuildWiki's license made this potentially sticky with how they wanted to integrate it into the game (being a commercial product). Anet therefore made their own GWW starting from scratch but, as Xeeron said, inviting GuildWiki editors and grandfathering over GuildWiki sysops. You can see by our own main page's history vs the history of the Wikia Move page Xeeron linked that GWW was already up and running for several months by that time (Feb 2007 vs Sep 2007). The rest is pretty much as Xeeron said.
(I personally never properly joined GuildWiki, but joined GWW within the first couple months after it opened) - Tanetris (talk) 16:24, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
OMG i remeber all of that... I was one of the many who migrated over. We were constantly having issues with people taking stuff over from GW to GWW and the license issues that caused. Jesus I feel so old. -- Salome User salome sig2.png 21:21, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
You're a month older than me, so yeah, you're old. Sorry for the pings, Steve. Greener (talk) 21:51, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Ah yes, the licence issue. I remember users putting the "blanket licence tag" on their user pages to help with that. --Xeeron (talk) 23:01, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
"GW is still around [6] but seems to have moved to a gamepedia url" My information on the topic is admittedly incomplete and second-hand, but the gist of it is that wikia broke pretty much every promise they made, and ended up flooding the site with RMT Gold ads. The remaining community of GuildWiki opted to move everything to gamepedia, and, after being denied the ability to delete the wikia version, rebranded it as a fanfiction wiki. Of course, now that wikia (oh sorry, "fandom") owns gamepedia as well, I suppose it was just delaying the inevitable. horrible | contribs 01:09, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
"wikia broke pretty much every promise they made" - insert surprised pikachu meme here. I think most of the community made the correct decision to move to GWW back then. --Xeeron (talk) 12:51, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
No worries. Some is educational, some entertaining. Some both. ;) Steve1 (talk) 10:53, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Re: Auron's talk[edit]

Regarding your issue with the bcrats, I thought I noted this the last time you brought it up, but it doesn't look like I did (or it got lost somewhere), so: At the time I did actually talk to Greener about it. If you're curious, I basically sided with Greener (yes it was technically a 1RR violation, but the spirit of 1RR is intended to get discussions rather than revert wars to happen, so given discussion was already happening by that point it was reasonable to let slide. Not every rule violation needs to result in intervention if they stop on their own (but will be kept in mind when determining severity of punishment the next time intervention is required)). All that being said. You reached out to the bcrats for a response, and you should've gotten a response directly from at least one of us at the time and not a year later. That was a failure on our part. For that I do apologize. I personally do not feel that it is indicative of a breakdown of the foundation of wiki so much as simply a mistake, but it was certainly a mistake. We're all human, and in my case the latter half of 2019 was a rough time for me personally off-wiki (even more so than 2020, and my goodness has 2020 been a year so far...)

Anyway. Important part is the part I bolded: we failed you in that particular instance, and I am sorry for that.

On a sidenote, to one of your questions over there, if every single user (besides myself) voted for Konig or Falconeye for bcrat with open-hearted enthusiasm and not just loltrolling, I would promote them, then wish you all luck, resign, and not look back, because at that point there is simply too much of a disconnect between me and the rest of the wiki for me to continue to be useful. But please don't do that, you can just vote me out instead. - Tanetris (talk) 23:01, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to use this section for one particular thing you mentioned – I think (and hope) that we cleared up the rest already in our email discussion:
“After a few days, *I* reached out to poke” – I'm honestly sorry about this. I remember that I mentioned your comment on that talk page iirc to Tanetris even and we spoke about that we will need to clear this up. But for various timing reasons (other wiki drama and work-related things), I personally missed the “right” window to reply and later felt that the discussion moved on in other directions. I was at fault here for not picking this topic up on my own, seeing that the topic we (Tanetris and I) believed to have been resolved a year ago, was not actually handled satisfyingly. I am deeply sorry but also thankful that you still bothered to contact me about it again, so that we could discuss this in more detail. poke | talk 09:14, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Apologies accepted. Thanks, guys.
"but the spirit of 1RR is intended to get discussions rather than revert wars to happen" The reason the revert war didn't happen was because *I* adhered to the rule. Absolutely no other reason. Should I've said: Well, rule doesn't get enforced, so let's break it myself? ;-P
And as I told Greener: There is absolutely nothing preventing an admin to both 1) make it clear that the 1rr has been brocken (w/o handing out a ban or anything) and rectifying it and 2) encouraging a discussion on another page. Those two things aren't mutually exclusive.
"On a sidenote," ... you actually made me LOL there.
"I think (and hope) that we cleared up the rest already in our email discussion:" we did.
Right, time to let it rest.
Cheers, Steve1 (talk) 09:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
"The reason the revert war didn't happen was because *I* adhered to the rule." That's true. No argument from me here. Revert wars take (at least) two to tango. You were the bigger person and moved to discussion rather than get caught up in reverts, and the entire situation was better off for it. If no one's said so already, thank you for that.
"Those two things aren't mutually exclusive." Yes and no. Technically they're separate matters in a purely rational sense, but because humans are irrational beings, trying to persuade someone that they have done wrong and also trying to persuade that person to continue a productive dialogue on the same matter at the same time is going to make them more resistant to both. It draws from the same pool of willingness to cooperate, if that makes sense. Greener felt, and I agreed that it was a reasonable call for the situation at the time, that keeping the discussion on-track was more important than a scolding. That being said, once the discussion cooled off, it probably wouldn't have hurt to go add an adminly stamp of approval to your note on his talk page, both for his future understanding of the rules and so you don't feel left out in the dust.
It would've been so much better for everyone if this discussion had happened a year ago. Again, sorry for that. - Tanetris (talk) 11:14, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Again, accepted. ;) Thanks.
"Yes and no" I see your point. Thanks for the input.
Was good talking to you guys. Steve1 (talk) 13:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)