User talk:Tennessee Ernie Ford/Archive 04

first spam!
hi!--El_Nazgir 15:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * greets! Thanks, that white space was looking anemic.  &mdash; Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 18:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Second! Arnout aka The Emperors Angel 09:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The notes section in a mission article
You seem to be shifting a lot of mission advice to the notes section, which isn't really what it's there for. The notes section is basically a collection of things that go just fine on a mission page but don't really belong anywhere else. In particular, it doesn't include useful advice on how to beat a mission, as that goes in the walkthrough.

I've reverted your changes to the Thunderhead Keep page on the basis that you cut out way too much. It's not a hard mission, but it does have a lot of odd quirks to it. It also reputedly gives a lot of people trouble, perhaps because odd details catch them off guard. From personal experience, failing the bonus because you weren't sure what to do with lighting the torches is not fun.

As long as the mission article is, it used to be much, much longer. What's left in the walkthrough is mostly stuff that could be of use to someone who wants to beat the mission. Quizzical 01:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Think of it as "would I find this useful if I have never ever done this mission before?" If you would appreciate the information, leave it be.  This mission has a loooooong boring into before the actual mission starts, so trial and error are just not the best way to learn, and it's always good to get all the info you can before you try it.  Vital information that pertains to the primary/bonus objectives should not go into notes.  RoseOfKali [[Image:RoseOfKaliSIG.png]] 22:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with reverts whenever anyone thinks an edit does a poor job of meeting the article's goals. Especially in this case, since I am sure we have the same objectives (helping noobs, 1st timers, and hey-it's-been-a-while to succeed on 1st attempt). You have been around a lot longer than I, you know, and (without doubt) you play the game better, so I respect that you think my edit failed to do the job.


 * For what it's worth, my inspiration for overhauling was not the length. I found it far, far easier to pass mission/bonus by ignoring the text and using just the in-game cues. Even so, I worked hard to leave everything in the article. It's true I did move details from inline text to notes when they appeared relevant to only some people some of the time.  &mdash; Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 17:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The very last sentence I agree with, if it's only relevant in very limited situations, then it qualifies for notes. It was hard to see all the differences in such a massive edit/revert.  This is the reason it's usually wise to edit one thing at a time, so to speak.  If a lot of various editing is needed, reserve one edit to move a few things into notes and describe it as such, another for removing duplicate content, etc.  This way it's much easier to see step by step what you did, and only undo some changes that people may disagree with, and not scrap the whole thing, especially if parts of it were valid changes.  RoseOfKali [[Image:RoseOfKaliSIG.png]] 17:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * (indent to comment on my own earlier remark)
 * Quizzical: my apologies; I meant to make clear that the original article was both compelling and very helpful. It was the article's attention-to-detail that threw me; I found it hard to separate always important vs sometimes necessary vs beware, once in a while.... My goal was to rearrange valuable information to present the mission as straightforward with more than its share of oddities. (I believe that compels a rewrite rather than incremental edits). Obviously, I didn't succeed. (Sigh)


 * I also acknowledge we have a difference of opinion about what belongs in walkthrough vs notes; I am confident that we will work that out sooner (rather than later). I hope you'll bear with me until then.  &mdash; Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 04:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * First of all, for some reason I'm signed up to Watch your talk page. Which I don't remember doing. lol. But anyway, since I'm here: Ten really, don't worry so much. If you make a well-meaning edit and it doesn't work out, ... no one cares. This is a Wiki, it's like a bad painting, it's meant to be abused, experimented on, scratched out and redone over and over again. Don't deprecate yourself for disagreeing on the perspective of an edit; it's unnecessary, but also, you may be folding on an issue that people might compromise on given more discussion. As long as your tone is civil and your arguments are cogent, it's OK to have even raging disagreements. That's what makes collaborative stuff great. :D -- AudreyChandler 08:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hehe, I don't think TEF ever had any problems with disagreeing or having his edits reverted. He's about the most civil person I know on this entire wiki. :P RoseOfKali [[Image:RoseOfKaliSIG.png]] 17:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * lol, he just seems so chagrined about the whole affair. But no need to be! :D -- AudreyChandler 17:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It is a slightly awkward mission article to write, as it's a collection of a lot of things that could go wrong, but probably won't. There are enough such things that the probability that at least one goes wrong in a given run is substantial, however.  There are also alternate tactics with various pros and cons, to the degree that I'd send the whole group on totally different fort-defense tactics depending on which class I happened to be playing that time.
 * One other thing that you're running into is that I'm more defensive of articles that I've already put a lot of time into rewriting. If it's a choice between how I think a walkthrough out to be set up and how someone else thinks it should be set up, guess which one I'm going to prefer.  Yeah, I'm biased.  I'm more protective of some articles than others; if someone makes big changes to the structure of the walkthrough of Dzagonur Bastion, I'll probably revert it, almost no matter what the changes are.
 * Some of the things in the article are there primarily for hard mode. For reference, see the edits made while I was doing hard mode.  Things that you can gloss over in easy mode can often get you killed in hard mode.  Some details needed to go somewhere in the article, and sequestering them into the hard mode section would have been awkward.  The details apply to easy mode, too, and were far less awkward writing to stick them in the primary section, so that's where I put them.  Quizzical 06:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * At risk of sounding self-deprecating...sorry, didn't mean to sound self-deprecating ;-) I don't mind failing (as RoK suggests) (of course, don't like it much, either;-). So, only apologizing for a bold move not coming off as intended, not for the ol' college try. My wall of text here was to help explain the motivation, since I neglected to explain in the talk. (Did I fold on that? didn't mean to. Still think it needs something substantial.) Anyhow, thanks RoK, AC for nice words :-).


 * I did mean to make sure that Q realizes how good his stuff is: I wouldn't have been comfortable writing the article; however, the quality of the base article made a transformation possible. (Might be I'll give it another shot; I haven't had many reverts recently ;-)


 * Q &amp; I are going to disagree about walkthrough some more :-) (For me, I want to walk through it simply and then return to explore the nuances; as has been said, this mish poses problems for either style. And the short version of all this: it's all good :-)  &mdash; Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 06:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Yo
The image Kei Beach.jpg needs license and copyright details. It looks like a screenshot of some game, possibly Guild Wars. 03:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * did I forget? man, I was really, really trying not to be too tired to get that right. Will be fixed by time you read this (if not sooner). Sorry, dude.  &mdash; Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 05:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)