Talk:GW Texture Editor

Do we need this?
If we were an encyclopedia, then I could see it. But, as a fansite, why document something that has only ever been available to two players? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:32, 15 September 2006 (CDT)

It's interesting &mdash; Skuld 17:37, 15 September 2006 (CDT)

Yes
It's apart of item history, directly related to the addition of the Icy Dragon Sword, and I have no idea why you're following me around editing all my additions. - Kuntz 9/15/06 edit- All the help files in the world cant seem to explain how to use this discussion page!
 * We follow people around checking their edits because we're admins. --Fyren 17:39, 15 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Not following you. Like many here, I watch Special:Recentchanges for new edits.
 * This entire article, if kept, could be condensed considerably to purge the parts that come accross as bragging - and the technical details are simply not relevant to anyone who doesn't have the program, other than being a pointer of how to create their own. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:40, 15 September 2006 (CDT)

I could remove the technicle details I presume, but I thought they were interesting to those who might care. The most important part ties in generally with the IDS and TS item histories. --Kuntz 17:42, 15 September 2006 (CDT)

Why this should go
So, in conclusion, this is an unstable hack, aimed at allowing the user to fiddle with the textures in the game, and the article is written to boast of the tool's creator's ability to tick off Isiah Cartwright so much that he ordered the IDS to made. So, while it may provide for amusing reading, it belongs on Guru, not here. --Karlos 17:48, 15 September 2006 (CDT)
 * 1) It's not a tool by ANet, it's not a tool condoned by ANet, it's a third party software that ANet (according to the author) doesn't even like.
 * 2) The article as it's written is extremely technical and very boring and somewhat boastful.
 * 3) It's not a tool used by 5 people in the entire player base.
 * 4) WE have no basis to even confirm any of this. The screen shots could be painted for all we know.
 * 5) Main reason: If you understand programming, and you read the description... It's not a tool, it's a hack. It latches on to GuildWars' resouces and allows the user to read some of the textures or to edit some of the existing textures in the game. By design, such a tool would be highly discouraged by ANet, because, by design, it could destabilize your game.
 * Karlos' fifth point is why I questioned it, and why I removed a reference to it from Terror Shield. The ArenaNet fansite community expectations specify not linking to hacks; while not a hack to gain strategic advantage, this does venture into a gray area where it's a third party program that modifies the user's in-game experience - so I'm not sure how ArenaNet would clasify that as to "The Expectations" re hacks.
 * While no link exists here, in the current form, the technical details in the article is close to being a how-to road map for creating one (for anyone with the basic knowledge required). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:58, 15 September 2006 (CDT)


 * I only see 3 and 4 as relevant. If there were a common hack around, we should document it, so I disagree with 1 and 5.  2 is not a grounds for deletion but cleanup.  If it's a tool that essentially no one has or uses, whether or not it's verifiable doesn't really matter.  Regarding the history of the TS and IDS, it's enough to say Kuntz edited textures client-side, not that he wrote a program to do it or describe various features or its general architecture.  --Fyren 18:20, 15 September 2006 (CDT)


 * I agree with Karlos on all five points. However, I do think, we should keep an article on this hack, after all we document scams, too, for example. But I also think the article needs to be far less detailed. A simple "there is this program and this is roughly what it can do" should suffice. --84-175 (talk) 19:06, 15 September 2006 (CDT)
 * I agree. The technical details and images can be purged, and the remaining reworded to a more neutral point of view.  That way the existance can be documented, which is all that's really needed.  We don't go into this kind of detail on any other third party software that's documented on the wiki, I see no reason to make an exception here. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:03, 15 September 2006 (CDT)
 * I think the last line of the article says all that needs to be said about why we don't need it,"Only two people have ever had copies of the program and source code." (note this was from before Barek edited the article, I still don't think we need this article.)  --Rainith 20:57, 15 September 2006 (CDT)

Why this shouldn't go
"This is a hack, not a tool."

No, it's a tool. ArenaNET has known about it's existance since it's creation. Do you think they would have added the IDS if they thought this was a hack? It doesn't break the EULA or TOS since it only modifies the Windows OS, not Guild Wars.

"It's not a tool by ANet, it's not a tool condoned by ANet, it's a third party software that ANet (according to the author) doesn't even like."

Wrong.

"The article as it's written is extremely technical and very boring and somewhat boastful."

So you're bored, don't read it. Others will find it interesting, like "It's interesting — Skuld 17:37, 15 September 2006 (CDT"

"It's not a tool used by 5 people in the entire player base."

Your point being?

"WE have no basis to even confirm any of this. The screen shots could be painted for all we know."

Ask ArenaNET. How do you explain the IDS or TS then? Those MSPainted as well?

"So, in conclusion, this is an unstable hack, aimed at allowing the user to fiddle with the textures in the game, and the article is written to boast of the tool's creator's ability to tick off Isiah Cartwright so much that he ordered the IDS to made. So, while it may provide for amusing reading, it belongs on Guru, not here."

Wow jealous rage much? You speak on matters you have no education on. "Tick off" Izzy? "Ordered the IDS made"? Why don't you make up more things while you're at it. Here's some ideas: The earth is flat, the sky may or may not be blue, trees do not provide shade. Get crackin!

--Kuntz 17:48, 15 September 2006 (CDT)


 * How about... You re-read my comments assuming I am an admin who is about to delete your page, and then re-write your response? Seriously.
 * You also dodged the issue of the hack. It is a hack and as a low-level windows programmer myself I know a hack when I see one.
 * The point about not even 5 players use it is very relevant to Barek and me because we only document tools that players would "care" about. --Karlos 18:03, 15 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Karlos does have a valid argument in his stating "WE have no basis to even confirm any of this. The screen shots could be painted for all we know." I have no doubt that such a tool exists; but you could easilly be generating a new hoax claiming this tool did TS and IDS when it was actually a totally different tool - we have no method of confirming. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:04, 15 September 2006 (CDT)

Clairification comming soon...

--Kuntz 17:48, 15 September 2006 (CDT)

Kuntz is a known hacker
I did a simple google search, heres what i come up with, http://download.yousendit.com/CBB8B6B17DF2038F Here he talks about hacking, no idea what it means, but from what i can understand he talks about hacking games to give stuff you wouldnt get if you played it normally, ie infinite gold etc. anyway gj kuntz for using the same name everywhere you go. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.17.38.206 (talk &bull; contribs) 17:28, September 15, 2006 (CDT).
 * I missed this comment last night. Anon, Kuntz is a known entity within the Guild Wars community; you'll find references to him on almost every GW fansite forum.  Who he was and his abilities have never been in question - although I suppose it technically could have been someone else using that name here, leaching off the name recognition; but per GW:AGF, we should assume it was the same person.
 * The question has been on this specific software. In the articles current form, which is considerably condensed, most of the concerns raised have been eliminated or at the least minimized, while it still addresses the primary bullet points that Kuntz was addressing with the article (I believe so anyway, he can verify).  Hopefully whatever evidence he was forwarding resolves the factuality question.  The only other real question that remains is relevancy to players as the software was only ever available to two users.  I'll leave that debate to others if they want to raise it. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 11:23, 16 September 2006 (CDT)

lol
I'm a "known hacker"? Laugh. I guess if I make a knockoff of Notepad that'll be a hack program too! Good job Sherlock, you caught me! I tried real hard to remain anon on the internet, using my real name as my nick and all. I can't believe I was caught!11 Anyways back to the real discussion.

I'm willing to tone down or remove the technicle details of the tool (even though I disagree it'll help people remake it, people who know how to do this type of thing don't need Wiki articles for guidance) to keep the article up. I ultimately made this article for a pretty detailed version of how both the tool, and it's item offspring, came to be. Also search Guru/GWOnline for something called the Coin Shield, it was the 3rd hoax item, but that one didn't fair so well at all. I forgot to mention it. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kuntz (talk &bull; contribs) 17:45, September 15, 2006 (CDT).


 * I want to note two different things that I am not sure you are aware of Kuntz, and I note them so that you are absolutely clear on the situation:
 * It is highly irrelevant what you are "willing" or "unwilling" to do. While you (I assume) own the Texture Editor, you have no control over what we choose to say (if anything) about it.
 * We certainly have no need to maintain this article what so ever as it pertains to a very miniscule event in the game world (some guy edited the game resources to con people into thinking there were new items, whoop dee doo). Therefore, your entire outlook on this issue is flawed. You need to be giving us good reasons for why we should even care. Read the article Terror Shield and tell me... why shouldn't we just stick with that and ignore your tool's article altogether.
 * Now, I am being extremely confrontational up to this point because you have been extremely condescending in your language and in your understanding of what exactly is going on here.
 * The way I see it, this is a blatant attempt on your part to give more fame (and worth) to yourself and your tool. I really do not think the wiki should care about a tiny tool used by 2 people to generate fake images and videos to con people. That is REALLY all that it is and ever was. You need to make a case why the average user should care about this article other than to know that it was the hack tool used to scam people into thinking two fake items existed. --Karlos 20:46, 15 September 2006 (CDT)
 * Note: I trimmed out the extranous technical data as well as the content that came accross most as bragging in order to leave the article with a more neutral point of view. Also, as the images were not needed to illustrate the tool, I dropped them from the article.  I left the delete tag while the conversation continues on the talk page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:53, 15 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Should we put it into the third praty program category? After all, there are no proof of such program exist and it seems they are not going to release the tool, if it exist. I don't think there is any need to contain such 'information'. -- [[Image:Ritualist-icon-small.png]] Cwingnam2000 21:03, 15 September 2006 (CDT)
 * As its not publicly available, the standard disclaimer of the third party software tag isn't really applicable. My only remaining concern with the article is evidence that it even exists.  Since no one else can view to confirm it, for all we know the whole article was a hoax from the start. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:10, 15 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Solid confirmation/proof is enroute to one of the Wiki admins, might as well cease discussion untill it arrives. Kuntz 21:40, 15 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Found the topic/screenshot of the Coin Shield, I want to add this to this article as well as the 3rd major item created as a hoax. Derek made it for April Fools: http://img95.imageshack.us/img95/5120/coinshieldnew8wq.jpg
 * An explanation can be found in the April Fools topic, where the original Coin Shield topic was merged with: http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1184158&postcount=101


 * This was the first texture I ever edited and made a movie of. As you can see, the video upload date is Nov 6, 2005, which I have no way of editing. Download the 10mb movie to see an Adriana Lima Guild Cape fully animated in Lions Arch. This help proves how long the tool has existed. The solid proof is still being sent to a Wiki admin as well: http://files.filefront.com/lima_capeavi/;4327214;;/fileinfo.html
 * Kuntz 12:17, 16 September 2006 (CDT)


 * You don't need to keep trying to prove this by the way. I, for one, I'm satisfied it exists. --Karlos 12:32, 16 September 2006 (CDT)

Should we keep this?
Clearly, the kids are knawing each other's jugular veins off. The final verdict can be decided in one of two ways: we can keep this article (honestly, it's not like it takes up more than a scant few bytes of hard drive space) or we can vote. I'm in favor of the first one, but I made the vote just in case. --Mgrinshpon 21:32, 1 October 2006 (CDT)
 * I removed the vote. Voting is not the way to discuss this.  The issue was decided through discussion two weeks ago.  If anyone agrees with you and wants to change the state of the article back, they'll reply.  --Fyren 21:38, 1 October 2006 (CDT)
 * I agree - votes are a last resort, and should only be used when discussion is unable to achieve concensus. As Fyren said, this was settled over two weeks ago through the discussion process.  The "final verdict" as you put it was decided to keep in its stripped down form.  As for "kids knawing at each other's jugular veins" ... WTF?!?  It was a civil discussion about site policy and article content.  --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 11:09, 2 October 2006 (CDT)