Talk:Yak's Bend to Lion's Arch

Wait a second.... Is this even a Running Guide?? There's some terms in it that don't make any sense in a running context: Meanwhile there's a lack of details or specifics/counters to the common hazards that restrict running --ilr(04,Jan.'09)
 * ''"Teaming Up - Find yourself a team of Henchmen or Heroes in Yak's Bend."
 * Healer, Mage, Fighter, Enchanter, Cultist
 * This walk should take about 3 and 1/2 hours if you are a slow traveler like me"
 * "You might want to fill your inventory with healing items" → ....Wut??
 * The term "walk" is used several times... this almost reads more like an Everquest guide :p
 * Yah, I'm gonna go make a new map.--Łô√ë [[Image:Gigathrash_sig_G.jpg|Colors! ]]îğá†ħŕášħ 03:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, standardizedish.--Łô√ë [[Image:Gigathrash_sig_G.jpg|Colors! ]]îğá†ħŕášħ 04:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * LoL, I just did this run with a Mezmer/Ranger... Didn't have anything of substance to add, just wanted to brag, heh.  Oh, and hope ya don't mind I'm gonna borrow some of your work for the other guide, Thanks! --ilr[[Image:Ilr_d-small.png]]


 * Ok, so I'm not allowed to make ANY mistakes as a first time page-maker? I mean, it served it's purpose quite well, and there was no good reason to completely tear apart the page I worked hard on.  I mean, as far as none of my original information being in there, does it really seem right?
 * If your point was as follows: Is this even a Running Guide as there are restricts to running, then it would normally be acceptable for me if it wasn't a Running Guide. But I'm afraid that was much too literal a statement.  Yes, I put the word "walk" in there, but would that really matter to anyone?  It certainly doesn't to me, nor how anyone would actually even consider walking this.  If it truly bothered you that much, all you had to do was take it out of the article.
 * And as for the map switcher. Oh do I have a lot to say to you: There is not one, not one good reason as to why the maps I originally placed in this article were inadequate.    They served their roll very well.  The maps were completely the same as yours, except I drew paths on them on GIMP.
 * The intro and tips were taken out why? Oh they weren't official terms is your reason? Well that is a pitiful reason.  First of all, did I even ONCE mention I was using officail terms?  No, I didn't.  Second, it's ok to use terms that everyone (new and old players) can understand.  So for you to tell me you've taken them out because they're not official, is a sad reason.
 * What you did to this article is pathetic. I'm not just saying that because I made the original, but because all you did was switch the maps, give a less-detailed walkthrough for each step of the way, and add skills that could have been used. Those who have edited this article should be ashamed of themselves. Make sure you know how to edit next time, not completely tear apart and redo.
 * I've saved the original article and will replace it. I doubt as much time and effort I've put into this has been equal to the editors'.  Of course I may be wrong, but seeing as this was my first article, I view that chance as highly improbable.
 * Thank you for your time.
 * --GWGamer12 02:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)GWGamer12


 * Check the actual [History Logs] Please, I wasn't the one who deleted all your Work. All I did was remove it from the Category it was in because it did not appear to be a "Running Guide".  If your actual intent in creating this article was NOT for running, then I believe you have a legitimate complaint about everything being changed and the entire article being re-inserted into the Running Category. But crying foul over it won't really get you anywhere as the Hard-Hat policy of all Wiki's is: "All contributions may be mercilessly edited " (something I'm always forced to remind myself anytime I try to contribute to an article ... house of cards man, house of cards :p ) --ilr[[Image:Ilr_d-small.png]]

I'm awfully sorry, ilr, but from the way you made it sound, it was almost as if you had a big part in the editing. As for your question: yes, it is a running guide. I'll take out the "walk"s and similar words if you would like. I'm very sorry again!--GWGamer12 02:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)GWGamer12
 * Please don't apologize or change it into just another Running article... The Real problem I was trying to fix was the redundancy and "overlapping" of all the guides in this "running" Category. I just cleaned up that whole mess, and now people are muddying it again by putting articles back into the Running category featuring sections that are already covered in the remaining Articles.  If your article covers a reliable method for a low level Ascalonion character to actually make it to Lion's arch with nothing more than Henchmen, then I'd say that's the kind of uniqueness that deserves it's own Article.  It just doesn't happen to fit in the Running Guide Category... Perhaps try the [Main guide section] instead?  Thank you, and I hope this ordeal doesn't make you swear off Writing for good.
 * (continued) Aww crap, I spoke too soon. Now it looks like your article is stuck in the pointless limbo of an Edit-War.  Your best bet now is to save all your original work to your HD or whatever, and just start a new article (like I suggested, in another Category all together) since the rest of these guys won't give a damn about the actual amount of work you and I are putting into these projects so long as they can just keep slamming the roll-back button. --ilr[[Image:Ilr_d-small.png]]
 * You are valuable. We do care about all the hard work that you guys do onthese articles, but I don't see the point in having your article be changed to a completely other one --Balistic Pve (T/C/E) 03:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly my point though... why is this Article "being changed to a completely other one" when we've already got These - Two articles to cover the same basic Stretch. And on top of that... The first one there is still in much need of additional Contributions but hasn't received them.  Yet this article here that I've moved out of this category once already, has all the eyes on it (and judging from Gamer12's reaction, it was definitely unwanted attention).  ...however it's resolved, I hope it's resolved soon --ilr[[Image:Ilr_d-small.png]]
 * Standardization, it trumps everything.--Łô√ë [[Image:Gigathrash_sig_G.jpg|Colors! ]]îğá†ħŕášħ 06:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * LoL, I've been through one pointless battle with you over "standardization", I'm not going through another one. I already gave Gamer12 my advice, I'm just gonna wash my hands of this and thank you for using the new style Dr Ish and i came up with... Thanks! --ilr[[Image:Ilr_d-small.png]](07,Jan.'09)

Ownership
There are a few facts about wikis that everybody should know. Thank you. --◄mendel► 06:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't own an article. Pages you want to keep a say over should be placed in your userspace (e.g. mine all start with User:M.mendel). The disadvantage of that is that people looking for them won't find them there as easiliy or not at all. So if you decide you want to make an article to give something back to the wiki and help out, it should be in mainspace (i.e. here); but that means that ownership is shared, as well.
 * Your work is never "lost". Your original article is always available via the page history, there is no need to paste it back. Concerning the images, I have restored them until this edit dispute is resolved. If it turns out they are no longer needed, we can delete them again later.
 * You have decided to share the article, and now you find that the other "owners" of it have different ideas of what it should do and how it should look. However, this is not a contest where we have a "winner", and the winner certainly isn't who can paste his own version the fastest. This is embodied in our Only revert once tradition.
 * When conflict happens, we need to do more work; we have done the work on the article, now we need to work on people. We need to find out what they want, why they want to change what we wrote; and if it turns out that they didn't understand why things were written and stuff gets lost, we need to explain. This goes for everybody. That's what talk pages are for. If there are different ideas for what is good for the article, these ideas need to be explained, and a consensus must be found. This is work, but it goes with wiki-ness.
 * The upside of a wiki - everyone can edit - is also its downside, because you have to deal with everyone. It means extra work when you think you're already done (i.e the article is written or the edits are completed), but in many cases it means less work because somebody else has already written what you need, so it evens out.
 * What everybody concerned should do now:
 * Stop the edit wars.
 * Express your continued dissatisfaction as clearly and concisely as you can, here.
 * Read, understand, and think about what was written by others (this includes what I wrote just now)
 * Suggest a solution that everybody can live with
 * Repeat until the conflict is settled.
 * The world is not going to end if we need a week to settle things. In fact, it'll probably go faster if you all take the time to calm down before posting.