User talk:Karlos8903

If you have questions or wish to discuss anything, please leave me a note here...

(Object) article deletion
Why were these deleted, or were they moved somewhere? There was no comment given. - Greven 18:42, 7 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Unnecessary. Those "objects" are just tablets/monuments with the story of Tahmu/Hai Jii/... so I put the info in Tahmu/Hai Jii/... etc. No information was lost. Did you know that? If yes, are you saying it was better to thave those aticles split up like that? --Karlos 19:36, 7 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I hadn't seen the updated boss articles until now. I must have missed the movement of the information.  It does look better there, honestly, but I (mis?)recalled objects which you could read as being seperate. - Greven 20:50, 7 June 2006 (CDT)

Parked
Why did you delete my artice "Parked"? It's not really a big deal, as I only created it because it was not listed under Slang & Terminology. But the information that was contained in my "Parked" article contained a bit more useful information than the present "Park" article. Also, I notice when checking the Category:Slang & Terminology, "Park" is not listed, while "Parked" is but is a dead link now. As I said, no big deal, but you might still want to include the information I included about how to utilize a parked character.--Xis10al 07:35, 8 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Was checking the history of Elite Mission and noticed the information I'm speaking of was created by you. I didn't mean to take credit for it, if it came across that way.  I just think it's very useful information and should be included.--Xis10al 07:53, 8 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I don't wanna forestall Karlos' answer. Let me just explain that per policy we keep all article titles on GuildWiki in the infinitive grammatical form. That's probably why Karlos dumped "parked". Off course, if you think that any important information from your (deleted) "parked" article is missing in park, then feel free to add it there. :) --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 07:57, 8 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Looking further at the history of park, Karlos moved your article "parked" to "park" (for reason explained above). Then Foo removed some of the detailed instructions. I assume he did that because those instructions are already available in the articles ferry and Elite Mission, where they belong. --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 08:09, 8 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Hi, sorry, I had already gone off to sleep when you posted this. Pretty much what Tetris said. At first I moved it to "Park" automatically and without reading it because we keep verbs in the infinitive form. i.e. "Faction farm" not "Faction farming." This also makes it easier to conjugate the article name in different ways since moast of the time you can link to the article without using pipes. i.e. You can link to  Park Parked Parking .
 * As for removing the points, again, as Tetris said, the information was already in other articles (regardless of who put it there). Now, my issue is that I don't like to repeat info in other articles. The steps for ferrying are valuable info but if they are placed in more than one article then, after a little while, they will be different as different users edit the same list differently. So, I just made a decision... Should the steps for ferrying through the guild hall be explained in Park, Ferry or Elite Mission. Since both Ferry and Park point to Elite Mission for details on how to ferry through the guild, I think no information is lost. --Karlos 18:59, 8 June 2006 (CDT)

Amber Drops
I was posting before without logging in, I was posting where i had found amber to drop from enemies, and after I posted I had typed something wrong, i went to correct it and my ip was banned, why was that? - Warcobra Edit: It also said (Blanking) when I did no such thing, I added on the very last line of the comment, I did not remove anything.


 * Can you give me the IP or the Article? --Karlos 20:03, 8 June 2006 (CDT)

Warcobra: 71.125.152.54 | article name is Amber Chunk User:warcobra 13:52, 9 June 2006 (EST)

I wasn't aware that the monsters needed to be added on. But I will do that, I am pretty sure it was a kurzick Warrior. And I was not able to grab a screenshot, I was just happy to have the amber at the time. Do you want me to add that on or just leave it be until I get more proof? warcobra 17:41, 9 June 2006 (EST)

Flare
For some reason, I found it funny to read "Rewritten to take out the horrific skill, Flare" in the E/any Fire Nuker change history. C'mon, Flare is wimpish, but is it really horrific?!? Those poor underdog skills of the world, beaten back again! --- Barek (talk &bull; contribs) - 22:05, 8 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Read my notes in the talk page... It's not for that build. It's the biggest crime heavy nukers make. If you're a heavy nuker, then you're not worried about a single target (especially in a party of 8 with other people). You don't have to get in the kill yourself. On the flip side, it cuase the pathetic side-effect of teaching them a habit to "spam" Flare when they are waiting for their skills to recharge. The problem with that is that Flare costs 5 energy and gives back only 1 energy. i.e. you are losing energy while waiting for skill recharge. Just a really bad idea. --Karlos 22:11, 8 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Sorry, didn't mean my comment to be taken so seriously. Like I said, I read the edit summary as humorous - calling it horrific just seemed to make me laugh for some odd reason.  I agree, it's a heavilly abused skill - especially in earlier quests of Prophecies where it's possible to get away with it at least through Kryta, by which time the bad habit is hard for many to break out of using.  If they really want to do damage while waiting for skills to recharge, in the long run Conjure Flame is marginally better; but personally I wouldn't bring either one.  Better to learn energy management and timing rather than either of the spamming options. --- Barek (talk &bull; contribs) - 22:23, 8 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Agreed. :) I hate Flare because it makes so many nukers in the game so lousy. When I play Fire Nuker I never ask anyone for energy, I never stop the party for energy, I just pace myself. Then you see all those nuker pinging "My energy is 11 of 85" and you see them spamming Flare. :( --Karlos 22:25, 8 June 2006 (CDT)

Games to Movies
On your user page, you mentioned that you would like to see a number of games turned into movies. Well, one of my friends recently pointed me towards this entry in IMDb. I just thought I'd let you know. --Thervold 17:01, 9 June 2006 (CDT)

moving pages
You commented ''I would recommend people use the move tag if they wanna indicate the page's name itself is in question. Qhen I looked at the page nothing told me there was any discussion about the name. I admittedly did not check the talk page, but I think I had no reason to do that.'' in justifying your move. However, I have to strongly disagree with the procedure. Moving a page haphazardly without a solid reason is not a good idea. Sure, if there is a page nameing rule that the page is breaking move it. But if you think the page is mis-named as a matter of opinion YOU are responsable for adding a Move tag. The move talk on the article you moved was already concluded and the article was moved (and thus the move template was removed from the page). Then you came along and moved it, then turned around and blamed us for it. If you were following proper procedure you would have added a move tag yourself and reopened the discussion on the talk page.

Please, dont try to pass the buck like that. Not that I mind what you moved the page to (and I dont think you should move it back) its just rude to blame us for something that squarely falls in your arena. --Draygo Korvan 11:28, 14 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I am not blaming you or anyone. You were upset that I moved the page "under the radar" and I wanted to let you know that I was not aware of any sonar emissions. I did nothing wrong to try and shift blame. How do you expect me to know there is a controversy about the name if there is no indication in the article. What you are saying now is that there was no controversy about the name and that the debate was resolved and the former name chosen. What I will say to you is that obviously that debate went wrong somewhere because everyone NOW thinks the name I moved it to makes more sense. Even though that name (or something similar to it) was proposed in your vote. I don't get that at all.
 * In general, if an article is clearly misnamed (in my own little view of the world), I will move it unless I see a move/delete tag. If the article is misnamed but attached to a large legacy, I will discuss it. If the article is moved by someone else and I think the old name was better, I will say it in the talk page. If the article was poorly moved to a new name, I will revert. This is the procedure I am following. Slapping a tag on everything that needs to be done slows everything done. Use move tags if the proposed move is not very certain. --Karlos 11:38, 14 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I'm saying that it was previously moved, thus you should have commented on the talk page. If you checked the history, you would note that your move would be the second move in a period of 24 hours. --Draygo Korvan 11:42, 14 June 2006 (CDT)


 * * sigh* I was unaware of the move or the discussion. Even though I watch the Recent Changes page very religiously, I just missed it. I don't know how. So, when I came across the page for the first time, I thought this is what it was named. I didn't see any tags implying any debate and didn't know it was recently moved. Had I known of either I would have left a comment in the talk page. This would fall into a "not so important move" and "a move that is being discussed" but I was unaware of this. --Karlos 11:48, 14 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Thats my point, how are we supposed to let you know that it was recently moved? What sort of tags should I leave on the page to tell you that the article was recently moved? Should I comment out the move tag? Would you even see that? I am not upset about the move, but I want to head off an issue that could be far more controversial in the future. --Draygo Korvan 11:52, 14 June 2006 (CDT)


 * My comment about putting a tag was because I thought you were complaining (with the radar comment) that I moved it while a debate was GOING ON. So, I was saying how was I supposed to know that. But what you are saying now is that after a decision was made, I came in and did my own thing. Well, that was becaus eI had no idea a debate was made. I do not just go change things that people vote on, I was unaware. --Karlos 11:55, 14 June 2006 (CDT)


 * And I'm saying is that you shouldn't be advocating a double standard. Unless a page breaks the GW:ULC, is obviously mis-spelled, or breaks some other guildwiki policy - I dont think the page should be moved without discussion. In this case, you should have added a move tag yourself to the page, which would averted this thing entirely. Obviously Guildwiki lacks a policy on this matter. --Draygo Korvan 12:04, 14 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I don't see a problem really, but I don't have energy for this. If you want to devise a Guildwiki article moving policy, by all means. I think it is overkill, I think 99% of the moves done are responsible and agreeable and I think we have better things to do. The "move" tag is a new invention to me. You'll notice I am old school and when I want to move an article I suggest that in the talk page. So, if the move tag has been adopted as a standard, that's news to me. --Karlos 12:08, 14 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I'm confused, you said: "I would recommend people use the move tag if they wanna indicate the page's name itself is in question. " and "I admittedly did not check the talk page, but I think I had no reason to do that." and now you say " The "move" tag is a new invention to me. You'll notice I am old school and when I want to move an article I suggest that in the talk page.". Which is it?--Draygo Korvan 12:12, 14 June 2006 (CDT)


 * What are you confused about? If people want to indicate the article name is disputed (at the time I thought you were saying it was), then they should certainly mark the article with some marker. In the second sentence, I am saying I personally don't really use it that much and when I want to suggest a move, I just put a note in the talk page. Do I need to explain to you the difference between "article name disputed" and "suggest a move"? --Karlos 12:17, 14 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Nope still confused, because I still see the double standard. My guideline on when an action would be deemed acceptable or not is simple: If an anon user can do it, and no one would revert it or question it, then it is fine to do it autonomously. Otherwise, because guildwiki is a community project, the community should get a chance talk about it. I am also confused in your reasoning here. In the discussion here I understand that:
 * If you have a dispute with the word please in the article name, by your admission here you should post it in the talk page. However in the talk page of the article you moved, you said you did not feel like you needed to view the talk page. --Draygo Korvan 12:31, 14 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Weeee. Let's keep going in circles: I moved it because I thought it was a straight forward move and I thought no one would object to it. Guess what? Turns out I was right. Now, my point about the move tag is, if the contributor feels the move is questionable or knows there is a debate about the name, then they should just put a tag and talk about it. My personal tendency is to just talk about it.
 * Also: I categorically disagree with your assessment that the standard of what a seasoned contributor to the wiki can do (let alone an admin) is the same as that of an anonymous user. That's not even true on Wikipedia. The good old "Be Bold" rule says I don't have to timidly ask before any change I want to make.
 * Again: The whole thing is a misunderstanding. I did not know there was any debate on the name and had I known you can be sure I would have posted a request on the talk page. --Karlos 19:19, 14 June 2006 (CDT)

For your consideration
Don't know if you're at all interested in this, but I'd appreciate your feed back here about this. --Rainith 00:42, 15 June 2006 (CDT)

Congratulations!
You have just broken GW:1RV. &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 20:44, 15 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Heh heh, I was going to post "fight, fight, fight" on the talk page when Stabber first reverted but decided that I'm slightly more mature than that (not much more mind you). Maybe I should have :D I'm not sure if I should treating this more seriously but hey, low wikistress means I'm seeing the humous side at this point. --Xasxas256 20:50, 15 June 2006 (CDT)


 * You can't RV an edit of a fellow contributer who has been around for a reasonably good amount of time and NOT explain it and expect me as an admin to hold it. So, three things happened here:
 * Karlos, the contributor, made an edit.
 * Stabber, the fellow contributor, RVed and didn't explain why (heh, I recall the heated debate that admins should not be able to revert without explaining, yet, y'all seem fine with doing ityourselves).
 * Karlos, the Admin, saw that and was like: What the...? And so, Karlos the Admin, viewed the edit in quesiton, saw that the edit made sense and the RV didn't, RVed Stabber's unexplained (and against policy) RV, and asked Stabber to explain or not RV.
 * Now, explain yourself on the talk page there. --Karlos 20:55, 15 June 2006 (CDT)

The update revert war
Karlos, I'm sure you're aware that I am not one to beat around the bush, so I am going to say straight up what is on my mind: The revert-war on the update article was extremely poor judgement on your part, in direct violation of a policy that it is your responsibility as an admin to form and uphold, especially by setting a good example. For a user, that might be acceptable and even excused. But for an admin, who has been shown the trust and support of the entire community, that is simply not good enough.

On a side note, I agree with your reason for doing the revert and I understand (although don't agree with) your tendency to value long-time contributors much more highly on conflicts than new users. And I encourage you to seek to have both of those opinions formed into policy through discussion. However, currently, they are not. And as such, in my mind, it is your responsibility to live up to the consensus and policies decided upon by the community, rather than your own interpretations of such. -- Bishop [ rap|con ] 05:30, 16 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Since this is not between you and me, I kept the discussion where it started, on the update article's talk page. --Karlos 07:37, 16 June 2006 (CDT)