User talk:Xasxas25616711

Please feel free to discuss any edits I've made here. -- Xasxas256

Bow Chart
Nice work. It would help a lot if you actually put in the firing rate of those bows instead of saying "if it fires as many shots as a flat bow it's flat if it fires as many shots as a long bow it's long" post the actual numbers as well. Just a suggestion. Thanks. --Karlos 07:07, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I felt the comparision helps eliminate semi-systematic errors on the user side, due to reaction timing and stuff. I guess a 30-sec interval is supposed to spread that out so it becomes insignificant... -PanSola 07:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I didn't know what semi-systematic meant but I figured it was a really good word for describing why I did it. Then I looked it up, you just made that word up didn't you PanSola :Ãž I did it like that because people's timing method might be different, ie you could time starting from when the first arrow is fired and count the number of times an arrow is launched. Or you could start timing when the character first puts an arrow into the bow and the count the number of times the arrow his the target creature. But it doesn't matter how it's timed as long as it's consistant between each bow and 30 seconds should be long enough to differentiate between the bow types.
 * Well, "semi-systematic" means halfway systematic... And system implies consistency.  The same human will tend to err in a consistent way, but not exactly in the same way, thus the errors are only "semi" systematic, as opposed to fully systematic.  So, essentially how you explained it, with the additional attention that it's a human, not machine (whose error can be considered fully systematic), doing it.  --PanSola 12:34, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


 * It's a good suggestion though Karlos because the person may not have the appropriate bows to test with but it would still allow them to figure out what type it is. I'll mull on that for a little longer. --Xasxas256 11:54, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Thats a very nice chart! I had know idea about anything but short and long bows :)

On the Forgerunner, it's a longbow, "feathered" longbows as they're know, the prestige skin. 212.158.245.101 08:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

To Do section
I really should add some info about choosing a secondary class on it like I said on Talk:Roleplaying character creation using User:Xasxas256/Secondary Profession Guide

Update troubles
Hehe, looks like we finally got it sorted out with today's update, did we? I wasn't aware you were already updating the updates page until I got an edit conflict. :) Yes, time zones... always check the official page for dates and such... --Eightyfour-onesevenfive 20:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Ra, Rt, etc.
Hey, just noticed the developments since last night. I think you at taking it too personally. You are valuable, but that doesn't mean that other users won't ruthlessly edit your works. This is both the beauty and the curse of wikis, but more beauty than curse, I think. I certainly didn't mean any affront to you personally and sorry if anything I wrote came across that way. F G 23:24, 6 April 2006 (CDT)


 * Problem was that nobody edited the article, people just jumped on the talk page and rubbished it. As I said on Talk:Ri I'd had a bad day, thought I'd do something useful by doing a few GuildWiki edits, I came home cold and wet to a couple of people telling me how useless those two articles.


 * Look I'm fine now and it wasn't a total loss, I got to have a discussion with Karlos re communism and stuff which was interesting. I'm in a much better mood now, I got a bit unhappy earlier but I didn't swear at anyone or anything. I think I described it as: I just generally became kinda bitter and pissed off at the world and threw in the towel. I mean I didn't threaten to quit the GuildWiki or anything. I just didn't let it slide like I should have, Karlos and I were talking about Ghandi before, I'm just not that calm, I do get pissed off occasionally! (Although this is probably the first time on the GuildWiki.)


 * However that said, I don't know how: If you are advocating for Wa, you might as well be advocating for the slaughter of infants to harvest their organs. And I have just one question for you. Why do you hate babies? rates in my book, on an issue that has obviously become a bit more charged than it should be, that's probably fanning the flames a little unncessarily. Still by the time I got to reading that I was back in a happy enough mood and it didn't worry me too much. But it doesn't directly address why you disagree, for my mind it's just a joke that stirs people up. Anyway thanks for dropping us a line and clearing the air. --Xasxas256 23:43, 6 April 2006 (CDT)


 * That line about babies was mostly a joke, of course. Was it not obvious? F G 23:50, 6 April 2006 (CDT)

Savage Slash in the Me/W Spell Slasher
Okay, now I'm paranoid... wish I had the time to go double-check all the prebuilds for correctness. Sigh. --130.58 03:07, 12 April 2006 (CDT)


 * That was a quick reply! Well I wish I had a PvP slot so I could check it myself :P I'll have to wait until EB gives me a call and tells me my copy of Factions is in before I can test it here. I think this one is probably an exception, it looked totally different to the other premades before I got to it today...but sorry I can't confirm or deny that your paranoia is well founded :P --Xasxas256 03:15, 12 April 2006 (CDT)

Augury Rock to Thirsty River discussion
I told you I'd harrass you about some more articles with a cleaup tag. With Augury Rock to Thirsty River I think you were the creator and it had a cleanup tag on it. I did some extensive editing to it but I was a bit rushed cos I was about to knock off work :) But it looks like you've picked up the ball and started making improvements. Previously it just wasn't appropriately written, the writing style was too informal. Also it mentioned being in a group and fighting this and that but also said things about running. I tried make it more formal and take out the fightning references, it's not a hard journey to fight from Augury Rock to Thirsty River but I suppose the run isn't totally straight forward. Still you can change however you like, I'm not fussed and you'll probably know better than me what the original author's intentions were. :) But the thing did look like a good (bad?) example of how wikis can result in articles being non cohesive and looking like it's been written by different people. --Xasxas256 03:23, 12 April 2006 (CDT)
 * Xeeron added the cleanup, I've never laid a hand on that page! Skuld  03:25, 12 April 2006 (CDT)


 * I was the creator and I did the recent edits. This and other information you can easily glean from the page's history. I completely and adamantly oppose making it a running-only article. &mdash; Stabber (talk) 03:26, 12 April 2006 (CDT)
 * Geez no need to pick a shotgun and start waiving it at me from your rocking chair! I already said you can change it to read however you like in regards to the article describing running/fighting or both, because you'd know better than me. There's no opposing anything if there's no opposition. Do what you like, today I just simply decided to cleanup some of the articles that were cleanup tagged, some of them had been tagged quite a while ago, some of them were indeed pretty ordinary. This article just simply wasn't written well, it was informal and looked thrown together by multiple editors. So I think it reads better now but please, there's no need to completely and adamantly oppose anything, I'm not going to revert any edit that adds the fighting info back in (and even take out the running info too, doesn't worry me, I was just trying to improve the writing). --Xasxas256 03:35, 12 April 2006 (CDT)


 * I am surprised that you are lecturing me about "poorly written" articles, and I question your judgement about the quality of the text. Informal it may have been (hey, it's a wiki, not an encyclopedia the last time I checked!), but it was thrown together by me, a single person, not a cacophony of editors. You may consider reading some of the related articles, such as Augury Rock to Elona Reach, to see why these guides mention both fighting and running. &mdash; Stabber (talk) 03:45, 12 April 2006 (CDT)


 * Look it was flagged for a cleaup so I did my best to clean it up. Ok I'll start with the running/fighting thing first:
 * I don't know how many times I can say it I don't care, at all, if it talks about running, fighting or both why do you keep bring it it up!?!?!? I've already said that you were the creator and YOU know best what the intention of this article was, I just tried to improve it because it was flagged. You're trying to get me to argue about something that I'm not fussed about, when I initially brought this up I said:

"Also it mentioned being in a group and fighting this and that but also said things about running. I tried make it more formal and take out the fightning references, it's not a hard journey to fight from Augury Rock to Thirsty River but I suppose the run isn't totally straight forward. Still you can change however you like, I'm not fussed and you'll probably know better than me what the original author's intentions were. :)"


 * I explained why I took out the fighting references but also said that you can change it, this was just how I saw the article but because you're the creator, I defer to you on this one. When Xeeron flagged it for clean up he/she said "(added cat. added cleanup: Language. This should differenciate between running and group travel (fighting) like the other guides)" So I went with running, if you don't like that decision, that's fine, you're the creator, change it back, there's no problem, you don't need to argue why, just do it!


 * Ok onto the language aspect, Xeeron said the language needed improvement, I agreed, so I tried to improve it as I saw fit. To me that article was written far more informally than the average article on the GuildWiki, if you disagree that's fine. But We_are_not_Wikipedia makes no mention of the writing style used here and Augury Rock to Elona Reach was also written by you, it's not really an example of how this particular wiki is very informal. That said however (and this makes it a bit more interesting :P )I don't have any problems with the language used in Augury Rock to Elona Reach, to me it's neither particularly formal or informal, it's pretty neutral and fine in my book.


 * Basically I improved the language and decided to make it clearer as to whether or not the article concerned running or fighting, because that was what was requested in the cleanup --Xasxas256 04:25, 12 April 2006 (CDT)


 * Maybe I'll just append an addition, Stabber, there's nothing to be discussed/argued about in regards to putting the fighting info back in so we don't have to worry about that. I probably shouldn't have said "poorly written", not a good choice of words, I just didn't like how informal it was. But if your intention is to make it look like Augury Rock to Elona Reach, that sounds good too me. You've obviously spent some time creating these pages and their maps, so I don't mean to bag you, but I perceive Augury Rock to Elona Reach to read better than Augury Rock to Thirsty River did (before today). But if they were to look similar, I'd be a happy man.--Xasxas256 04:33, 12 April 2006 (CDT)