User talk:Tennessee Ernie Ford/Archive04

From Guild Wars Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
User Tennessee Ernie Ford Drama.gif
User Tennessee Ernie Ford Purple bulb.jpg
User Tennessee Ernie Ford Periodic Blocks.jpg
User Tennessee Ernie Ford Microphone (green).png
User Tennessee Ernie Ford Tool box (red).png
Encyclopedia GaileGrayica
User Tennessee Ernie Ford Leather bound book.png
User Tennessee Ernie Ford Guide dog.png
User Tennessee Ernie Ford Farm icon.png
Price checks
Rare Material Trader icon.png
User Tennessee Ernie Ford projects.jpg

Level scaling[edit]

Level scaling

Hi there TEF, I understand your concerns but I think you may have missed Konig's confirmation on the talk page, and since he is from the Test Krewe I would take his word for it. But I won't push it if you still want to wait before we actually see the quests. User ***EAGLEMUT*** Signature.png ***EAGLEMUT*** TALK 16:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I did miss his confirmation. Thanks for pointing it out. (And yes, Konig is a very reliable source; he always distinguishes what he has confirmed personally from what he believes to be so.) This seems a sensible exception to the rule of waiting for something to be in the game before documenting it as being in the game.
However, the foe level has nothing to do with Lieut. Langmar; it's about the foe levels in the quests she offers. So while it's reasonable to remind people on her page that foe levels vary, I don't think the details belong there. What do you think?  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 16:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree, it doesn't look like the best place for such information. I would slap it in "Vanguard Bounty" article if we had that, but I can't think of anywhere else. If you know of a better place, go ahead. And might as well kindly correct my horrible wording while you're at it. User ***EAGLEMUT*** Signature.png ***EAGLEMUT*** TALK 17:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
That's the right place...when we have it ;-) (And your wording usually doesn't need correction.)  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 17:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

"Junundu" vs "junundu": was Palawa Joko right?[edit]

Hello! You have edited some my notes here, I can agree or disagree with some stylistic forms, but I don't have serious objections, except one: the form of word Junundu/junundu. When I wrote the note, I asked myself, whether this word should be used in uppercase or lowercase. All previous authors have used the form with capitalisation, so it would be much easy to do the same. However, I noticed the non-capitalised form in game texts when I did this mission last time. Really, the form "junundu" is subsequently used in the middle of sentences in the objectives and, more notably, in Palawa Joko dialogues. Here is an example:
Palawa Joko: Interact with the wurm spoor to become one with the junundu. Your bodies and minds will merge, and traversing these sulfurous sands will be instinctual.
The question is: was Palawa Joko right or not, what do you think?
More seriously, in the formatting guide only the proper nouns require the capital letter, common nouns don't. Common junundu even don't have a visible name in interface, except of Junundu Young, so their names should be common nouns, like for common animals: bird -> sparrow, fish -> carp, wurm -> junundu. Because of this, I decided that form "junundu" is more correct, despite the form "Junundu" used in the article everywhere besides the citations of ingame texts. I begin to think that some authors here suffer from obsessive capitalisation, while some others simply repeat this tendency, and it's uneasy to go against it. --Slavic 11:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

My apologies.
More than likely, it was unintentional. Stylistically, I prefer capitalization of certain types of jargon because it allows the unusual to stand out. It's similar to how some publishers italicize conversations in foreign languages. I have to remind myself that this wiki's policy is different. (I also find the wiki's guidelines on the topic inconsistent, but that's a different topic. I hate to rely on ANet because they have some very weird ideas about naming/style conventions, capitalization, and language in general.)
As a consequence, I never edit for the purpose of changing lower/upper case because I'm sure I'll get it wrong. In particular, 99% of the edit you cite had nothing to do with CaPiTalization. The j→J was out of habit, not out of some desire to force a style change through guerrilla warfare.
So, I am sorry for undoing a part of your edit that was correct and causing extra work for you. Regards.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 16:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you! --Slavic 17:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

What did you mean?[edit]

re: this edit

What do you mean? -- My Talk Lacky 04:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

There's a pattern for the pre-quests, but I don't see that we've figured it out for the vanquishes. My apologies if that was unclear.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 04:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Oh, right. I understand now. Thanks for explaining that. Guess I should learn to read first. :P -- My Talk Lacky 08:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
You're welcome (and, to be fair to yourself, my edit summary could — and should — have been more clear).  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 15:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


When getting survivor, storybooks are actually a good way, because you can keep them all and earn 800k XP at once, basically at no risk. Even if you die while earning the pages, turning in the completed books has no risk at all. -- FreedomBoundUser Freedom Bound Sig.png 20:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

All true, but not (directly) relevant to the Storybook article. You could also speedbook eotn, be less likely to die and spend less time earning the title. I double-checked whether the Survivor article does include a note about using storybooks to progress the title (it does).
The 800 kxp available from completing all the books is definitely worth noting, because it's a large chunk.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 20:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Right, but you completely removed the link to survivor, and if someone was looking at the storybook article, the information on survivor is still relevant. I don't really see the harm in noting that it's useful. -- FreedomBoundUser Freedom Bound Sig.png 20:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't think it's harmful, but I disagree that survivor is relevant to storybook; the relationship is one-way. There are dozens of articles on topics that have to do with large chunks of experience; we only note the relevance to survivor when there's something special (e.g. Fronis).
Put another way, if you are interested in survivor, you should know that storybooks are a good source of xp. If you are interested in storybooks, you shouldn't have to care about survivor at all. (On the other hand, people go directly to the Fronis article to see tips for surviving, so the relevance is different.)  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 20:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I think that the reason why storybooks are not historically popular is because of the inherent risk in completing all of the missions. Now that you can die during any mission and still be on or restart the survivor track, storybooks should become a more popular means. If you need another example of two-way links, the Snow Wurm and Survivor articles both indicate that the other is relevant to one another. Either way, I'm not too vested in the link (which is why I came here instead of reverting). -- FreedomBoundUser Freedom Bound Sig.png 14:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey Thanks![edit]

Thanks for condencing my edit on the Black Moa Chick! I don't know how to do that :/, and I wanted to help those ppl that don't know where to go to get their Incubator Kit items, so they don't have to search through page after page, cause ppl always ask me how I got my moa chick, and when I tell them about the incubator kit, they ask me where I got the items, and where I got the kit and so on and so when I complete the edit, (also with your help by editing it, so I can just put the info in the same format :D) if ppl ask, I can just tell them to look on wiki XD. Carleen96 14:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. I think the addition of the maps is a good idea (people can following the links from the checklist, but I like anything that improves one-stop shopping for scavenger hunts). I'm sure you'll pick up various wiki coding tricks quickly (if you want to follow people who are really good at it, check out User:Wynthyst, User:Poke, and Kirbman@GWiki]).  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 15:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you! I think I could pick up afew tips from them. I'm kinda new, so this is a big help! Carleen96 15:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


I am stopping even before doing those two things because the volume of instructions is daunting.

yes, when you bury things in a mountain of text it becomes harder to comprehend. 21:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Bad title tsktsk. So you're saying that your suggestions aren't worth getting through those instructions? --JonTheMon 21:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for the title, thanks for fixing it. I do not even know why I brought this here. nevermind=d this game is about to be dead anyway so no worries. I just know that the way things are, I probably will not waste any more of my money on products from arena net. Which is sad because they have great ideas and concepts, their customer service happens however to be shitty. Their ability to take feedback even more so. Sorry to have bothered you. 21:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
oh and long story short I am a visual learner mountains of text elude me. 21:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)

"...the volume of instructions is daunting"
Generally, I'm a fan of less-is-more, but I do have trouble seeing how the table of contents offers something daunting. Would it help if we removed the ToC and replaced it with a list that said (+/- the same thing):
  1. Create an account.
  2. Read the rules (or skip them, but realize you are still bound by them).
  3. Create a feedback home page (which is where you sign on the dotted line).
  4. Review other ppl's feedback (to give you an idea of what works...or skip this too).
  5. Type a title in the create a suggestion field and fill in the template.
The instructions above are the same as what's in the ToC, but it would display differently. Would that make any difference? We could even shorten it to
  1. Create an account.
  2. Create a feedback home page (although you are bound by the rules whether you read them or not).
  3. Type a title in the create a suggestion field and fill in the template (although we recommend you review other feedback first).
Would that make things better? Worse? no difference? I can't think of how to make the short version (ToC or either of above) more visually appealing. One really does have to create an account and create the feedback home page... and there aren't really any sensible images for that. I suppose someone might be able to create a form to replace the wikicode template...but that's a lot of work to expect from a volunteer staff of wikians. Your thoughts?
ANet is extremely good about absorbing feedback, but it's true they make no effort to create a dialogue with their fans. That's not the same as being unable to take feedback. (Also, the fact that they ignore popular opinion doesn't make them non-responsive; it only means that they don't always agree with their fans, something that will be true of both smart and dumb corporations.)  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 21:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I have to tell you honestly that i have never seen the page you linked in the conversation before this one, and the above stuff is easy enough. I always end up getting this, [[1]] and this is what I am referring to here. The above stuff is easy enough to understand and I am currently checking out the link you posted in the other page (why I said I didn't know why I brought this here). So now I kinda feel like an ass for not having seen any of this before now. I do have a user account, would rather not use it until I have a firm grip and understanding of how this all works. Easier to not be judged for mistakes/lack of knowledge. 21:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Oh! That's actually very helpful. It won't be hard to update the Feedback main page to make it easier to see the getting started section. I think it was originally buried because the assumption was that new people would be directed early to getting started and veterans wouldn't have to wade through the intro. But there's no reason why the main page can't have a corner for getting started. Thanks. I'll give it some thought...and with luck, so will the original editors and we can help direct others to the appropriate page more quickly.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 21:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Well hey, Thanks a lot for helping me get to the heart of the matter, I know sometimes it seems as if I am unclear about what I mean (there are reasons for this) but that is very helpful. I am sure we all(wiki-novices) would appreciate the ability to not have to engage in conversations like the one on the other page. I know it creates a ton of lag through having massive amounts of data being logged. 22:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Not at all. Thank you for taking the time to express your concerns clearly (some of the recent feedback about Feedback has been...more heated than useful). (I'm going to give your comments more thought before I try to draft a change to Feedback:Main: a lot of thought went into creating the page and it's important that any changes maintain that articles utility as a home page; it has to remain easy to use a way to jump into reviewing feedback, too.)
BTW: I'm pretty sure that any lag in any wiki using any recent version of MediaWiki is unlikely to suffer lag because of multiple conversations; performance is almost never about the amount of data...and, as much as you might think you write, it's a tiny amount of data. Most of the most frequently displayed pages here include a lot of templates, transclusion, and calculations...and none of that slows down the wiki. The only reason it's bad to bring up an issue on multiple talk articles is that it makes it hard for everyone to (ahem) be on the same page; the wiki won't care, but the wiki community does.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 22:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Punny. Very Punny... Thanks that is good to know, and now I have to go look up two of those words. 22:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Be patient I am trying to remember how to reset my indent. 22:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

dude I am making a mess of this(lol) I am sorry can you tell me what I use to reset my indent? 22:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Many thanks for fixing the indent for me. Sorry for messing it up. 01:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Where to post[edit]

(header and indentation modified, since this is +/- a new idea)

Hey, just to confirm it would probably be better to not comment on the skill update feedback page since I already stated my piece on the preview is this correct? I feel perhaps that some people are trying to drag my comments into a pvp vs pve thing and that is not the point. The point I am trying to make is simply that there have been nothing but buffs to PVE mesmer skills for the last year with no attempt to mitigate the more powerful mesmer skills and I would like to have this in a spot where people aren't trying to turn it into a whiny PVP vs PVE thing. So I just wanted to confirm that I am in the correct spot with my statements about this. 19:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Assuming you don't want to use an account to post direct feedback or a suggestion, then as long as you have a clear/cogent post towards the top of a section, that's probably as good as any of us can get (without being part of the GW1 beta testing team). I think you decrease the likelihood of being heard if you post the same idea on multiple pages. However, since we don't get any direct response, it's hard to know what does/doesn't work.
With regards to your actual point, I don't think you've successfully backed up your claim.
  • Do 9 months of updates that increase effects/decrease resource costs count as a relative buff? Of course.
  • Is that the same as power creep? No, not in my opinion.
If you start by assuming, as ANet did, that the Mesmer was too weak, then the question isn't why do they keep buffing the mesmer?, but why didn't they get the update right in the first place? That's because no update can get it exactly right; there's just too many things that depend on how people play the game to know, especially considering the sheer number of skills/build combos. (Incidentally, I call the original update the Mesmer un-nerf — the profession was only usable by people who were really skilled at command and control; the changes made the Mesmer more easily playable by more people and more welcome in PUGs. In some ways, I prefer the old version. But it's still not the prof I choose when my primary concern is doing massive damage.)  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 19:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

no, that was not a typo[edit]

see you undid the comment I left. I purposely unsigned so you'd check the history. I was trying to create "aha!" moment. guess it was lost on you. remember, the map change, etc? Previously Unsigned 12:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

"Sigh. I will have to add a map then. There is no current exact location." (Unsigned note byUser:Previously Unsigned.)
If this section is a reference to that edit, I still have no idea to what you a referring.
The original comment had no link, no header, and had nothing to do with any of the recent comments (and particular not the ones immediately above). It looked exactly like a post where someone has accidentally pasted a wrong chat comment and pressed [Submit] by mistake. What confirmed it for me was that it was unsigned; after all, you are User:Previously Unsigned and not User:Only Occasionally Signed
I did check the history at the time. I've rechecked your recent contributions and compared them to mine...and I still haven't a clue what I should be aha!ing. Can you point me to an edit or a page (or, I suppose, a map)? Thanks!  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 16:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

moved to Talk:Captain Langmar#Location details

i dont exist[edit]

hi TEF, i think this will be the incorrect place to put this but i know youve recently spoken to my character on wiki so you know i do exist, my wiki name was Spark-TBa, i went to log onto my wiki account today and it says my login doesnt exist, as far as i know i havent done anything wrong so there is no reason to be banned, if you could shed some light on this i would be grateful, if you cant then its been nice speaking to some of you but im not gonna remake my login if its gonna be randomly deleted  :( hope to hear from you soon, was Spark-TBa. 07:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

ouch. That doesn't sound right, since, AFAIK, accounts aren't deleted (although they sometimes get merged). Let me see what I can find out quickly... if I don't find anything, I'll post a request on the admin noticeboard (you can check here or there).  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 07:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Aren't you User:Illumine Sparkler, using Spark-TBa as your signature? I don't see any blocks against that account and you seem to have posted in the last 24 hours. (I don't see a User:Spark-TBa.) All seems as it should be... or am I missing something?  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 07:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
TEF thank you for your quick response, although i now know what the issue was, its not wiki it was a virus on my computer, since finding and removing im able to log in again, it only effected wiki as far as i know but maybe thats cause ist the only website i log into on this computer  :), ty again anyway.Spark-TBa 08:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


Are you certain it wasn't a knockdown? User Felix Omni Signature.pngelix Omni 06:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Pretty sure.
Hmmn. Ok, now, I'm no longer sure.
Sigh. If you haven't already, please revert me. I forgot one of the heroes had Meteor. :-/  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 06:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

When are you...[edit]

...going to submit an RFA for yourself? --Lania User Lania Elderfire pinkribbon.jpg18:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

After he does one on GuildWiki. User Felix Omni Signature.pngelix Omni 19:02, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the (implied and actual) compliment.
I would take the sysop job too seriously. e.g. as a non-sysop I can choose to have a lot more patience with knuckleheaded behavior... e.g. I can choose to get involved (or not) in drama. Plus, the current team seems to be doing just fine: vandals are getting booted, pages are shielded, and developers are protected from the forces of Badness and Eviel.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 19:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Yep, you are an invaluable asset to the wiki! --Lania User Lania Elderfire pinkribbon.jpg02:56, 01 April 2011 (UTC)

Visible alcohol effect[edit]

Doesn't Absinthe also have a visible effect, or did they get rid of it? 07:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

It has a visible effect, but not a visible effect. That is: if you have post-processing effects enabled, drinking absinthe will show up as a different color from other alcohols. But it will not display your drunkenness in the effects monitor. Most players turn off post-processing when drunk (because it makes it harder to maneuver/target), so Absinthe's green tint isn't that much more useful than the regular blurred screen. I believe there are over a half-dozen other alcohols that also change the screen color, e.g. Fire Water is red/reddish.
Absinthe also creates an initial visual effect (the green burst at your feet), which I think is the coolest bit about it.
So, Grog is still unique among Alcohols by conveying one's drunkenness via the effects monitor.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 08:04, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I get it! Thanks for the clarification. Much appreciated :) 09:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


wut u doin bra, yuh not agree? explain 23:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Weapon stats[edit]

GWW:UNIQUE states that weapon stats are supposed to be copied verbatim from the in-game description. This also applies to collector-like weapons with prefilled slots. poke | talk 23:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, well, I never would have looked at Unique to find out about crafted destroyer weapons. I don't have a problem with reverting them back, so long as we also include appropriate notes that a lot of these items have removable (or at least, replaceable) mods. Thanks for the tip.
PS I'll do it myself later on, unless you think it shouldn't wait.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 23:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, it's kind of a special case, as there are not many weapons like those. Basically they were all introduced with GWEN or the BMP, while the formatting guides are all from before that. However I believe those weapons have a lot in common with unique weapons, except for the fact that the mods are changeable.
Adding some kind of note sounds good, although the explicit mention of the inscription might be obvious enough. And don't worry, it's not urgent ;) poke | talk 23:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Quest List Navbars[edit]

I was wondering if we could consider moving the navbars back to the top of the various "List of X Quests" pages? It was a jolly convenient way of navigating between the various lists; with it at the bottom, you have to scroll through a potentially long page to get to it. I suspect that most folks will never even realize it was there, drastically reducing its usefulness as a navigation aid. --DryHumour 20:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Since it's a significant change from the status quo, I think this is worth a community discussion and inviting lots of feedback. (Also, if we do create an exception, we should use a different design: the {{quest lists navbar}} is based on a format meant to go at the bottom; bars at the top require different display compromises.)
I don't happen to agree with using the top for navigation, as it distracts from the topic of the article. Currently, navbars always go at the bottom of articles (regardless of length). You are asking that we create an exception for one type of article (quest lists), but not any of the others (guides to playing a prof, minis, mission articles, ...). The point of an article is to address topic X (e.g. here's a list, here's a mission, here's a guide); the navigation is incidental to the article and shouldn't be a distraction.
And as for finding the navbar, pressing the [end] key pops you down to the bottom of any browser (as would an easy drag using the mouse). Placing navbars in the same spot on every article means they are easier to find. In my opinion, the usefulness of navigation aids is knowing that they are always in the same place.
Another alternative would be to create a sidebar navigation for certain types of articles, primarily lists. This would ensure that the top of the article still pertains to the topic (and not navigation) while avoiding the need to scroll (or press [end]]) to get to the nav. It could go in the same spot as an info box, which doesn't appear on articles that are primarily about listing things.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 20:25, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
For a set of lists such as these, navigation is central to their purpose, not peripheral. Note as well that the status quo for the lists in question is that the navbars have been at the top since their inception. --DryHumour 22:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
The links in the navigation bar are central to an article called, quests lists navigation, not one called list of quests in [x]; the purpose of that article is to present a list of quests in [x]. Also, when these lists were created, the status quo was navbars at the bottom; putting it at the top broke the convention.
That aside, would creating a right-side navbar be of any interest? That would largely address both of our concerns.
In any case, I think this discussion would be more appropriate elsewhere, as it's of general interest and would allow the community to weigh in on the idea.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 09:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Need some help[edit]

I can't get my wireless to work again... so I'm doing a tricky thing with the laptop as the main keyboard doesn't work... o.o Anywhoo, was wondering if you could help direct me to a site that can help me with wireless and this router... It's annoying me. Kaisha User Kaisha Sig.png 06:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I usually try to narrow down the problem and then ask Google. What version of windows? What router? How are you connecting? Are you losing both wireless to the router and to the keyboard? Microsoft] is actually a good place to start. Or, if you are running Vista or later, the troubleshooting that comes with Windows can help, too. I hope that helps.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 07:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm connected wired through laptop to the router, but wireless turned on to the modem as I finally got the Westell to work wirelessly. I just can't seem to get into the router (netgear) via the address, etc. at all, even with the wireless turned off. It works on and off with the deskop with the wireless via westell and that's why we had gotten the router... Kind of difficult as some of baby girl's shows is on netflix that she watches. I use Windows 7 on my laptop and desktop. On my husband's desktop is vista. Kaisha User Kaisha Sig.png 16:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Let's see if we can narrow the problem down enough so that can craft a useful google query. (I don't think there's any single website that does a great job of helping with all wireless/wired routing issues.) Let me check to see if I understand how you are currently connecting:
  1. internet → Westell modem → wireless → Win7 laptop and
  2. internet → Westell modem → wired → Win7 laptop and desktop
But you want
  • internet → Westell modem → Netgear router → (wired or wireless) → Win7 desktop and laptop
If the modem has wireless, why do you need the router? Almost all the available modems with wireless should be able to handle multiple connections. Since the laptop can connect wirelessly (to the modem), have you tried using it where the desktop is located? Wireless connections can get hinky around the corner or in other rooms, depending on all sorts of things.
Once you confirm that the laptop works in both locations, try using the Win7 wireless troubleshooter on the desktop. There might be various services turned off, you might be trying to connect to the wrong network, you might be using the wrong password, or you might be using the wrong settings to connect. (That last one is tricky sometimes b/c the router/modem companies don't use the exact same language to describe the settings as microsoft; in fact, MS isn't consistent with itself.)  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 17:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
In reference to "If the modem has wireless, why do you need the router?". The Westell wireless doesn't do all that well at all. If you're in one area of the house, you can't get the internet. However, you can in the area closer to it. With the Netgear, you're able to get the internet any where in the house. That's why I want what you said. ;-) Kaisha User Kaisha Sig.png 18:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
You might be better off ditching the Netgear and using wireless extenders (you can get them from Radio Shack as well as online), if only b/c you have gotten the Westell to work, but not the Netgear.
If you're still keen on the Netgear, there are a lot of reasons why you might be having trouble connecting. Have you used the Windows built-in wireless troubleshooter to narrow it down? — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 20:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
The troubleshooter doesn't tell me much. Maybe I'll get it to work later. Kaisha User Kaisha Sig.png 21:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
I can think of half a dozen things that commonly go wrong in wireless connections and the troubleshooter should be able to quickly eliminate some of them as possibilities. I've never had the troubleshooter identify the exact problem (let alone fix it), but it really is faster at narrowing things down than anyone but a serious tech wizard.
Short story: what have you eliminated as a source of the issue?  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 21:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Vandal Bots[edit]

Thanks for the work so far. I can take care of the reverts using a bot-rollback, which will hide all the edits and keep the Recent changes from getting spammed, from now on. Thanks! G R E E N E R 04:17, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

cool! (less work for me!)
I've never seen a vandal bot storm like this before, so should I just put a note on the admin NB next time saying it's raining bots and vandals?  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 04:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
It depends on who picks up the call. I only found out about bot-reverts from Jon, after I saw him banning IP's which seemed to have no edits on the RC. I say do what you've been doing the next time this happens, until you get the friendly wave-off, like above. G R E E N E R 04:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Hallo, wie geht es Ihnen?[edit]

(I hope I translated that correctly). Verbs at the end are not solely german, there was nothing wrong with how I typed that. You are rejected. (cwutideedthar?) -- Konig/talk 18:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure, it is allowed under English/American rules, but there's no rhetorical reason for placing it at the end.
I don't have any objections to reducing the list of all quests to a single example, in which case, verb placement less important becomes.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 20:06, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Note though that the verb is still at the end of the sentence now, as a list is following.. ;) poke | talk 22:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Also note that sentences in german do not automatically end with verbs. In fact most time the form of the verb that appears at the end is just a remainder of a previous verb-part.. poke | talk 22:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


You signed with 5 tildes :P–User Balistic B d-dark.pngalistic 02:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

To the stockades with him. User Felix Omni Signature.pngelix Omni 03:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
whoops! Thanks for catching it. (When do I have to report to the Stockades?)  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 03:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Stockades? Oh, my! Hope my picture of me in them won't show up. ^.^ Kaisha User Kaisha Sig.png 01:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


Great idea on edit to the Family box! Perfect! I'm still figuring everything out here on the Wiki, so I hope it's ok to leave a note for you here. :) TheGizzy 02:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome and sure, this is exactly the place to leave notes like this. FYI: I'm probably the least knowledgeable person around about wiki stuff (I pretend knowledge by imitating others). Check out Help, Help:Ask a wiki question, and the list of volunteers.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 02:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Yay! At least I got that right! LOL I was just reading up on some of the help pages and realized I've been apparently broadcasting all of the changes I've been making to my user page... and have now learned that I should be checking the "minor edit" box so that doesn't happen. There's a heck of a learning curve around here. *grins* Now if I can figure out if I'm supposed to do the same for comments on Talk pages and such. I'm going to go digging through those links and find out! TheGizzy 02:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
As long as you use the preview button instead of save→review→d'oh!→fix, it's fine (I don't think most ppl distinguish between major and minor edits when they save.) The other helpful thing to do is add an edit summary, so that you can clue people into whether they should take a look or not (e.g. typo vs changed the presentation of stats tells me more than major/minor does). Probably the only time a talk page comment should be marked major is if you're archiving (and typing archiving in the edit summary takes care of that).
And, yeah, there's a big learning curve. So, ask for help; don't be afraid to try something; and experiment in your Sandbox if you have less than 80% of your concept implemented; you can move things to the main space or point to the sandbox from a talk page where you present the idea.
Most importantly: have fun :-)  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 02:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I've been poking around your User Page and all the stuff you've linked to/compiled... and wow! You've put together a ton of really useful information. I especially like the HoM armor breakdowns by profession. I only have one of my HoM armors so far (Norn), so being able to look at my other choices side by side like that is helpful - especially since I don't generally like most of the elementalist armors. LOL Love the profession, not so keen on the clothes. o.0
I did not realize we could create our own sandbox. Does that title designation somehow keep it from constantly adding information to the list of recent changes site-wide? Or is it just a space people know to ignore? I have made liberal use of the Preview feature in doing my edits, so hopefully I didn't flood the recent changes list too badly.
I really want to be able to be an active contributor of new information to the GW2 wiki when the game is released, especially since I learned so much about GW1 from this wiki and it is a way to sort of "pay it forward," I guess. So a lot of what I'm doing with my user page and such is just to become familiar enough with the WikiCode that it's not going to take me an hour to format and populate a page about a new dynamic event, or weapon or whatever. And, you know... it's just fun. LOL
Thanks again for all the help and advice TEF :) TheGizzy 17:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
First, you are quite welcome. I am glad I can be of some assistance. Then, in no particular order, some responses:
  • Sandboxes are no different from any other page in your user space; as you suggested, their name helps people ignore them when viewing recent changes.
  • Well done using the preview button; that's probably the most egregious faux pas from new contributors (or, at least, it's the one that seems to get the most flak).
  • Elementalist: yeah, the armor (esp. for males) is not really suitable (or, perhaps: it's too suit-able).
  • Thanks for the compliment on the HoM armor. If you look at the code, you'll see I stole borrowed the idea from someone else; my contribution was putting it on a single page to make comparisons easier (and it helps enormously...although now, I suppose we need the rich-texture versions). The more useful page for me was the HoM weapons; those are much easier to compare side-by-side.
  • One tool that might be helpful to you is WikEd, which provides a WYSIWYG type of interface for editing wikis. It will work with GWW and GW2W (the easiest way to implement here is to add a line to your personal java script page; if Cacyle's instructions lead you astray, feel free to ask me about it).
Finally, you are too modest; you are already on your way to being an active contributor here (never mind at GW2W).  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 17:11, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Nine Rings[edit]

Nice job streamlining that top section. Fewer words is (usually) better. I was trying to convey the cost of pursuing the titles, as I found it all quite confusing when I read it the first 3 or 4 times.--Robdalf 20:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. That article has bugged me for a long time; I found it very confusing, too, but since no one else had adjusted it for ages, I thought that people expect that level of detail. As it turns out, I should thank you: your edit inspired me to clarify the other points; you made it clear that some of the key concepts were getting lost, in particular, the cost and efficiency of pursuing titles (which, as it turns out, aren't the same for some of the titles).  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 20:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Recent changes to Lucky & Unlucky[edit]

re: This

Apparently, there's some dispute regarding your edit (and, I suspect, some violation of 1RR..)

At any rate, at a glance I personally believe your edit to improve the quality of that article, and you may want to look into the "dispute", place a section on the talk page for that article, and sort it out. Also, if an article content discussion arises, this counts for my support. User Ryuu R.jpgRyuu - lol wiki 19:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Damnit, I was gonna revert with a couple actual reasons, but you beat me to the punch. oh well, your rv. --JonTheMon 19:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflicted self!) @Ryuu: Thanks for the note. For the moment, I've simply restored to the last edit and asked for some discussion. Given the complexity of the variations in technique to obtain the titles (and the oversimplifications used to estimate the time and cost), I can see folks wanting to update the calculations. Personally, I favor the methodology being relegated to a subpage (most people could care less) and presenting the simplest advice. I'll post a more detailed note on the talk itself.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 20:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
@Jon et al: I was going to wait for someone else to voice (state?) an opinion...but then I worried that it would be harder to adjust if anyone made incremental adjustments between now and then. Anyhow, I dropped a long note on the talk page explaining why I think less is more for this article. (I do think it could use a subpage for a detailed comparison of optimal strategies. But that's something I'd rather leave to folks who use statistics every day, like GWiki-Susan; the optimal strategy is going to vary with the retain rate, but the basic concepts will not.)  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 20:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
My name has two "u" 's in it. =/ Icwhatudidthar. User Ryuu R.jpgRyuu - lol wiki 20:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
(For the studio audience at home [sic], after Ryuu pointed out my socially faux-pas'd typo, I went back and added back in the second U. The struck-out part of the note above this made more sense beforehand.)  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 20:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Problems persist with the same editor constantly rolling back the page. I've already requested the page be semi-protected here. User Ryuu R.jpgRyuu - lol wiki 21:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Resolved! Your changes should be restored... eventually. ^-^ User Ryuu R.jpgRyuu - lol wiki 22:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. I appreciate you taking the time to defend the article. (And, of course, my changes.)  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 23:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Skill history Project[edit]

Hi again. I've been reviewing the current histories, and even though you're not actually working on it, I'd like your input on a few things. There are some global updates that affect various skills, without tweaking much (or any) functionality, or values.

  • Nature Spirits received an update to not effect other spirits. Is this noteworthy for its own history (meaning, it's justified to give an entire section just to mention the global update)?
  • Blood Magic skills (and other skills) used to have the sacrifice cost listed in the description, and not the main skill costs (the area where Energy, Activation, Recharge, and other information is listed). Should it be listed as per the literal in-game description and values, or to the current standard that the game uses (with the sacrifice in the infobox)?

Also, I've been tediously editing other histories to make a more uniform structure. Is there something I can do to make this less tedious? (Adding a suggestion for current bot accounts perhaps?)

-Blue Clouded 22:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Hey, while I started an attempted at the Elemental Skill Histories... I can say that it's not really something bots can do, unless it's a pure repeat on all skills. Kaisha User Kaisha Sig.png 22:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh no, I think I worded my bot question wrong: it would be purely for small tedious things, like making sure each section starts with "== As of (date) ==", maybe tagging skill histories that are missing concise descriptions, etc. Although it's a nice thought, I know a bot probably couldn't do the work for us, because of the reliance on previous knowledge, and other information sources. Blue Clouded 23:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent)

Global changes

I don't personally feel that global changes need to be reflected in skill histories. Technically, the skill isn't changing. e.g. We generally don't populate skill articles with details about hexes in general; we expect ppls to review the hex spell article to learn about that.

Sacrifice skills

You'll probably have to point me to a particular skill/skill(s) so I can see what you mean.


I am not conversant in wikibots myself, so you'd have to ask folks like User:Poke. In general, you are right, that bots are best when the task is precise and repetitive. However, a bot can follow a source file (e.g. a spreadsheet or a comma-delimited-text file). GWiki and GWW have both used that method when converting from one info box to another, with new data needed for the new box and different parameters applied depending on this or that.

A bot could be used to create skill history articles for all the pages that are missing them, add a line to the skill article's trivia (if no line links them), and hide them both until the history is populated.

Alternatively, we could imagine changing the {{skill infobox}} to include new parameters, e.g. function-delta which is yes if the most recent update changed the functionality. That could be used to categorize the skill history pages.

Better would probably be creating a {{historical skill infbox}} to replace the ordinary skill info box. It could include a parameter for the date, for developer comments, etc. And it could automatically create the display text, which would then be standardized. The template, {{skill history}} would tag the page as unchanged if the skill hadn't been updated.

I think that covers your current set of questions. — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 23:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

@Sacrifice: See this - the original skill had "Sacrifice %" in the description, but I've put it in the infobox instead.
@Bot: I don't think in that case, that I would need a program to create pages - It's much harder for me to see which ones are complete and which ones aren't, given the current way the skills history project lists which ones are done and which ones aren't.

Thank you! Blue Clouded 00:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Blood of the Aggressor removed the sacrifice altogether, but otherwise that history looks fine. (Removal of that cost doesn't count as a function change, since it only changes an amount, in this case from something to zero.) — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 00:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
I found a better way of asking my question - do textual changes or fixes need to be reported? (Ie: for Dark Fury, there was a fix that the description reported a wrong skill range, but performed correctly) Blue Clouded 00:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Have to be? No. Should we report them? Yeah, ideally, if we look ahead to the project's completion, will we be glad that textual changes were included in the history page? Yes, even if (or especially if) that text change was fixing the description to correctly describe what the skill did. (This applies to several interrupts, where the intent of the developers is still unclear b/c text != mechanics).
However, that's even more tedious, so I wouldn't blame you if you ignored those and left a note on the project page explaining that you are leaving that as an exercise for the reader. — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 00:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Alright - I'll be leaving them out because it most likely won't need to be used in most situations. I'll leave a note on the project page. Thank you very much for clearing these things up! Blue Clouded 00:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
You are quite welcome. Keep in mind those are merely my opinions (others might feel differently). In fact, given the amount (and quality) of work you are doing, I would hope that others would ask for your opinion before changing the current methodology. — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 01:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Fun fact about split notices[edit]

When you put two articles into one split tag, you're suggesting to split the article into those two. E.g., you just suggested that Charr Stalker becomes [[Charr Stalker (pre-Searing)]] and [[Charr Stalker (Vanguard quests)]], rather than splitting into a pre-Searing version and a post-Searing version. In the case of the stalker/firecaller, 2 tags is necessary as they're two different suggestions, but both pointing to a split. -- Konig/talk 18:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Signet of Illusions and Symbolic Celerity[edit]

Hello! Sorry, I need to explain you the mistakes which you have done recently in the changes which you have made in 2 articles: Symbolic Celerity and Signet of Illusions. I suspect that you noticed the bug note which I made for first skill, and you decided to improve the text from the point of common sense. But I suppose that you haven't done the same experiments which I carried out before the bug note and unfortunately, result is poor... Let's look.

Slavic: Bug. Like for Signet of Illusions, any attribute +1/chance weapon upgrades do not affect the signets while this enchantment is active. In particular, it's not possible to get 21 Fast Casting listed in the table below.

TEF: Anomaly. Items that grant a +1 bonus while using skills have no affect on the strength of this skill. In particular, they cannot be used to simulate Rank 21 in attributes other than Fast Casting. (They only grant the bonus while using a Fast Casting skill.)

What is wrong here? First, you implicitly introduce the term "strength of the skill". If you look at the article Skill, there is no such term there, moreover, it doesn't contain a word strength at all. Should I remind the Occam's razor? OK, now about the more essential mistake. From your note, items with +1/chance cannot be used to increase attribute (for any signet) other than Fast Casting. This doesn't have a place in reality.

How to test: in Fast Casting line, we have only 1 signet - Keystone Signet, so we need to equip our mesmer with Symbolic Celerity, this signet, and Fast Casting focus with +1/20% bonus (for example). If we set 3 in Fast Casting, the description of Keystone Signet will show "1 time". Now in explorable area, cast only a signet several times. As expected, with chance about 1/5 the description of the effect in top left will show "2 times" instead of "1 time", because F.C. is 4. Now cast the Symbolic Celerity first, then signet. Normally, for 3 in F.C. the effect of Symbolic Celerity shows 41 sec, and with chance about 1/5 - 42 (need to spend some time because of long recharge). However, when the enchantment is active, the effect of Keystone Signet will always show "1 time". I spent enough time to be sure that it's a reproducible bug (not an anomaly, BTW).

Conclusion: although this enchantment itself is affected by +1/chance bonus, but after its activation, any signet will work with attribute equal to "basic" Fast Casting, even if this is a signet from Fast Casting line; +1/chance bonus will not work at all. For example, not possible to get 17 without consumables/blessing. I decided to mention about 21 in the table, because the reason and consequence of this bug become more clear.

Now about Signet of Illusions. You have edited that article in the same way like the previous article and made the same mistake. Again, I suspect that you haven't carried out the necessary experiments first.

Rev. 6 Dec 2010: Bug. While Signet of Illusions is active, +1 attribute procs, such as those from Staff Wrappings of Mastery and "Master of My Domain" inscriptions, will not affect spells of any attribute including Illusion Magic.

TEF: Anomaly. Items that grant a +1 bonus while using skills (e.g. Master of My Domain) have no affect on the strength of this skill. In particular, they cannot be used to simulate Rank 21 in attributes other than Illusion Magic. (They only grant the bonus while using an Illusion Magic skill.)

Again, you repeat here the "strength of the skill" term. Again, from this note, items with +1/chance cannot be used to increase attribute (for any skill) other than Illusion Magic. Again, it's wrong.

How to test: the good skill for the experiment is an illusion hex Calculated Risk. Although it does not have the visible effect in top left, we can check its duration. Let's equip our mesmer with Signet of Illusions, Calculated Risk, and Illusions focus with +1/20%. We can set 3 in Illusion Magic and 0 in Fast Casting (important!). Now use the dummy target for test. Normally, the duration of hex if cast alone, is 7 sec, which is exactly the same as recharge time. With about 1/5 chance, the duration will be 2 sec more, as for 4 in Illusion. Now cast the Signet of Illusions and then Calculated Risk (repeat for statistic reliability). Similarly, Signet of Illusion will show the "2 spells" in the effect tooltip with chance about 1/5 instead of normal "1 spell", which means that it's affected by +1/20 focus bonus. But the duration of Calculated Risk will be 7 sec always. I will not repeat the conclusion above. --Slavic 20:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that neither of our notes quite captures the issue; I'm willing to concede that yours are/were somewhat better describing it. (In particular, you are probably correct that strength was a poor word choice.)
  • Based on similar testing by another player, it's clear that the +1 benefit only applies to the skill currently being activated.
  • Similarly, the bonus can only take place if the skill being used belongs to the relevant attribute.
  • This has nothing to do with SoI or with SC. It is a property of "Master of My Domain" and similar upgrades.
The problem is that as human beings, we expect that if SoI was cast with +1 FC, that should mean that future skills will also see the benefits of that +1. But that's not an actual game mechanic; the issue is our expectations, not the skills. Hence, it's not a bug.
I was looking for a way to turn the 110 words above into a shorter note that was easier to follow, and... as you suggested, I made things worse. If you want to revert my edits pending something better, I'm okay with that. — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 21:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Since you weren't around (and since it was my mistake, not yours), I've updated the two notes with a phrasing that I think is closer to your intent/original language, but also captures some of my intent in the rephrasing (e.g. avoiding comparisons and clarifying what rank the spells/signets use). I'm sure the language could be improved...and I suspect that you aren't convinced yet that this is probably not a bug as much as it is an accident of the MoMD-upgrade mechanics. If you see the need to change the text again (or restore the previous language), I will discuss it first (here or on the talk pages) before making additional changes. — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 00:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Leaving notes[edit]

Technically speaking, I did leave a note. It was in the summary. -- Konig/talk 21:59, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Without context, I'm not sure of what you are speaking. And, in any case, an edit summary is a summary of an edit; I tend to think of a note as a post on a talk page. — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 22:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Context. For me, note is merely an explanation of the edit. Summaries are notes of edits, people who watch pages see summaries, and will often check histories, therefore a summary can be a note to the person without cluttering a person's talkpage unnecessarily. -- Konig/talk 22:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, it's certainly better than marking it "minor" and leaving no summary in the hopes of going undetected! :P | 72 User 72 Truly Random.jpg | 22:20, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Wow, agreed. I hope I'm not guilty of shadow edits like that, but that's really bad. Besides, I think the tip on that page was very concise and helpful. Are there plans to put that back in? I'd do it but don't want to get in the middle of that one. --Kniblet Beast 22:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
I personally have it marked in my preferences to auto-minor all my edits. -- Konig/talk 00:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I would, but as for forgetting to tick the box, I prefer to err on the side of accidentally getting a second opinion than accidentally being overlooked.
Good to see that Thunderhead Keep was dealt with. That page sees a lot of random edits -- everyone thinks their strategy is universally the best...
I usually mark talk page edits minor as a way of saying "if what I said is stupid or offensive, don't take it too seriously!" :D | 72 User 72 Truly Random.jpg | 03:36, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent)

On topic: @Konig: I understand why you think the template didn't belong on the page; I don't understand why you couldn't have asked me to change it. Next time, please leave me a note.

I reverted your edit because I don't think we should be changing user or feedback pages of active contributors unless something is broken, violates policy, or has some major impact on readers; in this case, it was not urgent to fix an arguably poor use of a poorly documented template. In retrospect, I think you are right that the template was meant for some other purpose than what I intended; I would have understood that much more quickly had you left me a note instead of reverting my edit.

Thanks for your cooperation in the future. — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 07:26, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I think I understand why he changed it... I believe it's a courtesy thing... Nothing disrespectful meant of it. I just think that it was an edit merely to help you. I have seen people change or edit other people's feedbacks to help them with like the energy, recharge, etc. of skills... It's out of courtesy and respect and helpfulness that changes like that occur and I shall note that if it was vandalism, you can bet it'd been reverted by someone, be it you, etc. I hope this helps. Kaisha User Kaisha Sig.png 07:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Firstly, Kaisha is right. Secondly, both of my edits had summaries explaining my edit - I explicitly stated that the template wasn't intended for that kind of use and, in turn, did the right usage (adding a |resolved=yes bit onto the main Feedback userbox thingie that's autoplaced on all suggestion pages). I didn't bother with a note because I know you are a heavy reader of summaries and thus figured that you'd read the whole summary (and history for changes since you last visited the page). Apparently I was wrong. -- Konig/talk 20:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Firstly, I never thought or meant to suggest that your intent was anything other than respectful. What I am saying is that I don't want anyone to modify my (or anyone else's) content in user or Feedback space without permission. (I often do give permission, but when I don't...)
I read your edit summary and it didn't make any sense to me: there's a template that appears like it could be used for something more; I added it to see if it would hide my particular feedback page from certain list pages; I deliberately wanted to wait in case there was an issue with the server-side caching. I deliberately left the template in as an experiment; your reversion prematurely ended that testing.
I know you were trying to be helpful, and I apologize if I'm appearing ungracious. However, sometimes it's better to leave a note on the person's page, wait for them to react/respond, and only act if it's really necessary. Again, my edit wasn't doing any harm; there was no urgency to removing it.
I should have left you a note explaining why I reverted and then later un-reverted. — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 04:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
No need to drag anything on, since it was just misunderstandings and whatnot. Just making this comment for the summary (I think this is only the second time I've done such). The preceding unsigned unsigned note was added by Konig/talk, who really meant to use four tildes (~~~~) at 05:02, 9 May 2011 UTC.

Spawn spawn eggs and spawn[edit]

Thanks for this; my original idea had been to write "...then wait for him to spawn, as he will spawn right at your spawn point", which is just an unbearable number of uses of the word "spawn". Spawn. --Wormwood 00:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 00:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Zen Daijun (Explorable)[edit]

moved to Talk:Zen Daijun (explorable area)#Exploit or intended by developers?

VoG revert[edit]

I just like to point something out. "Here's a fun fact for people reading: Villainy of Galrath is internally quest #1 in Guild Wars." That's the source of the trivia note. No where does it say "database." My edit which you just reverted made the trivia note more general in the chance that Stumme was not referring to the database (which I knew full well about before the edit). If you had read my edit summary, you would of known that though. I think that it is far more appropriate to leave the trivia to be more generic than commenting on the database because 1) no one really cares about the database's numbering and 2) what if that wasn't what Stumme was referring to? General note is better than assuming what Stumme was referring to and making it something that's not very interesting. -- Konig/talk 00:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and at the very least, there's no reason to italicize the 1. -- Konig/talk 00:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Our own records point to it as quest #1. Human beings have long attributed mystical importance to that number, making it noteworthy without trying to read Stumme's mind. The current phrasing makes no sense to me at all: do you mean that the Guild Wars dev team(s) at ANet refer to it as the first quest? And what is the difference between in the game and in the database? The current phrasing is awkward.
People do care about the database numbering system as evidenced by the various discussions. And: without Stumme commenting directly, we don't know if that number was arbitrarily assigned or it became #1 because it was the first quest folks fleshed out or were excited about.
The previous phrasing has been there for a couple of weeks after some discussion; it seemed odd to me to change it without discussion. — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 00:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
"Internally" means "used by Anet staff/programming/etc." - for instance, the wiki uses Creature type, but internally it is family; "in Guild Wars" means just that - it's used for GW (rather than GW2). Meaning that the Villainy of Galrath is, by Anet standards, quest#1. This most likely refers to the database, but may refer to something else - like the first made quest (that's in the game still?) or something of the like. Perhaps it's both the database and being one of the oldest quests. It seems like a silly thing to note if it just means the database, like noted on the talk page. Where was the discussion to change it? Was it Talk:The Villainy of Galrath#Trivia? No, it isn't. Where else? I don't see such a discussion for what to change it to. You made a comment and altered the note based on the comment without ever saying what to turn it to or anyone agreeing. And if I'm wrong, point it out, because I don't see it.
Also take in note (something I forgot to mention prior): "To get things started, we've decided to revisit "The Villainy of Galrath," one of the very first quests ever added to Guild Wars." [2] To simplify things, rather than argue about arbituary things, I suggest altering the trivia note to the dev note quote. -- Konig/talk 01:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and I'd like to add that you should try to avoid putting important commentary in the summary. It makes reading comments in the future hard to understand - especially if discussions get moved. -- Konig/talk 01:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
The inarguable facts are:
  • VoG is the first introduced Difficulty: Master quest that requires HM to complete it.
  • The original VoG quest is listed by this wiki as #1 in the database.
    • More than a few people have stated they thought that interesting.
    • Others thought the numbering was arbitrary and it was coincidental that Quest #1 was the first D:M/HM quest added.
  • John Stumme said they were turning to one of the first quests.
  • A netzine said, Villainy of Galrath is internally quest #1.
Combine that however you like to be a short trivia note, but please don't quote the magazine; their phrasing is the least interesting note of those above. As trivia goes, I don't think this is particularly important and I'm sure you and I have other contributions to make to the wiki that could better use our time, i.e. I hadn't planned on opposing your re-revert even without your note. — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 01:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
And I'm merely left wondering if you read my full post. Either way, I'm re-rephrasing per my previous comment's quoting. -- Konig/talk 02:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
I think edit summary is best for explaining/commenting an edit (if not for contributing to a discussion); it keeps the explanation with the edit. | 72 User 72 Truly Random.jpg | 18:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Drop rate table for nick[edit]

Hey, I just thought I'd let you know that I noticed 2 TEF's in the table. It's saying for the redlinked one that the user isn't registered, so...would I be right in saying that one is an old (misspelled and/or unregistered) "account" of yours? I am somewhat busy atm irl but if it's something you wouldn't want to do then perhaps some time I could merge the totals for you. Although, I imagine that if the sight of the format of that table wasn't daunting or scary to you then you wouldn't have any trouble doing it. PalkiaX50 01:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for calling this to my attention. I've fixed the typo (for some reason, typing four tildes doesn't work for me using the template). I don't like to combine my totals for a couple of reasons:
  • It's all too easy to add them up incorrectly.
  • I keep track separately at home, so this allows me to perform an independent cross check (there have been a few vandalistic edits of drop rate tables in the past).
Accuracy in drop data is hard enough to come by, so I hate to see anything that adds another potential point-of-failure. On the other hand, I'm sympathetic to the idea that the page is becoming unmanageably large.
I wonder if there's another solution to the issue, for example: creating archive tables, e.g. /Drop rate/2009 Q1, /Drop rate/2009 Q2, etc.; then on the main table, post the summary results for each quarter year of data. That means all of us (including IP contributors) are able to reconfirm our personal results, recalculations only need to be made 4x/year, it's unlikely that will ever be too many entries per page, and there's overall less chance for mistakes (accidental or otherwise).
If you think collating each user's data is still the better system, then you have my permission to collate my entries (I believe there are four currently). — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 01:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, I think it'd be nice to try to be consistent with what all other contributors to the page have most likely done since for one thing it shortens the page, if only slightly. I can see what you mean about making mistakes though but thankfully that doesn't really apply to me since I more or less always update this as I open the gifts.PalkiaX50 02:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Teffeny, you could just create a user subpage (or edit an existing one) to house your independent drop table data, and just have a combined version in the main talk pages. Might be a little extra work but would keep a quick double check while keeping the length smaller. -- Konig/talk 02:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Jotun page trivia[edit]

moved to Talk:Jotun#Trivia or lore