User talk:Solus

User:Solus/Archive1 User:Solus/Archive2 User:Solus/Archive3

Image copyright problem
Thank you for uploading the files listed below. GuildWiki takes copyright very seriously, and the images you have supplied are missing information on its copyright status. The images will be deleted after 7 days, unless the copyright status is determined for the license and the source of the images. Please add a copyright tag to their image description page.

Thank you for your cooperation.

The following are a list of files that need attention: 84.13.251.42 07:14, 3 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Image:DiscipleSymbol2.jpg
 * Image:DiscipleSymbol.jpg
 * Image:DiscipleBlades.jpg
 * Image:Soluswwe.jpg

I'm sorry, why do I need a copyright tag, what has been breached? Solus  06:44, 3 May 2007 (CDT)
 * license issue, you must state where you got the image from and what license it is released under, even if it is of your own creation. -- Xeon 06:49, 3 May 2007 (CDT)


 * Why? Solus  [[Image:DiscipleSymbol2.jpg|19px]] 02:02, 4 May 2007 (CDT)


 * So you don't violate any copyright laws. Tycn 02:06, 4 May 2007 (CDT)


 * What copyright laws are you talking about? Solus  [[Image:DiscipleSymbol2.jpg|19px]] 02:10, 4 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Image attribution project. All of them. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|19px||My Talk]] 02:12, 4 May 2007 (CDT)


 * What kind of copyright template do I need to add. If your going to want to delete alot of peoples images, atleast give them guidelines how to copyright them or w/e. Solus  [[Image:DiscipleSymbol2.jpg|19px]] 08:01, 4 May 2007 (CDT)


 * We're working on that. However, it's not our job to educate you on the law, and I think you can appreciate that. If you were to post images of child pornography, we wouldn't need to justify why we delete them. This is the same deal.


 * Simply stated, even if you're allowed to use an image, you need to state why you're allowed to and where the image is from. Just like in school, when, if you use somebody else's work in a paper, you have to cite it as a source and provide attribution. &mdash;Tanaric

Discussion
Discuss :) Solus   00:17, 28 April 2007 (CDT)

Revert
I am not so boorish as to break into your Archives and make an edit there, so I have rewritten my blanked comments, as well as your response, here so that others may understand the conversation.

Your Revert

I contest your revert of my revert of the changes made to the Scams article.

1) On "Ferrying"

Of course it is a scam. Look at the Lion's Arch article. It is a well-known fact that you do not need a ferry to reach LA. All you need to do is go visit a certain Guild Hall and you will be taken there for free. As such, there is NO reason EVER to pay for any such "ferrying" from Nightfall or Factions to LA. And that makes it a scam. Charging money for a free service is scamming. If you have a counter-argument to that, please enlighten me.

2) On Begging

The Begging note has been in the article since forever. Every single time someone has removed it, their change has been reverted and the note restored. Neither Guild Wars nor GuildWiki supports begging. You can argue that "we don't need a note against it" because in lieu of support for begging, it is implied that we do not support it, and/or that we are neutral on the issue. However, I ask you this: What is the harm in having such a common-sense, cautionary note in the Article? Anyone who has ever played an online game such as GW, WoW, whatever can attest that there are unscrupulous individuals out there who will take advantage of the poor fools who are ignorant enough to "loan" them money. Now, I have no way to tell just how many people are honest in repaying their loans, and how many aren't. But I am willing to bet that the vast majority of people who beg for loans "for my armor", "for skills", whatever, do not actually need the money and/or have a malicious intent to take a poor newbie's money and never return to them. ANet is painfully slow in reponding to such petty theft (as it's rarely more than a few plat), since they are more concerned with investigating "real" crimes such as "item duplication" scammers and such.

If we will not warn people about the dishonesty of beggars, who will? The players themselves? Unfortunately, I've heard more than enough "scammed by beggars" tales to know that this is sadly inadequate. Moreover, even those "honest beggars" who actually "need" the money because of...I dunno...being the victim of a scammer themselves, are really not deserving of help anyways. You can argue against it, but my philosophy (shared by most players) is that in Guild Wars, you pull yourself up by your own bootstraps. You don't beg for money and items from other players. Money is easy enough to come by that no one should really have to ever resort to begging. I mean, honestly - I have seen beggars standing around in Droknar's Forge for hours and hours, asking for like 100 gold "to complete my armor set" or whatever. But seriously - in that amount of time they wasted, I could have made 3-4 plat just by killing monsters right outside the door. This is the same for every place in the game; since even if you were (hypothetically) level 1 when arriving in Post-Searing, monsters are not enough of a challenge that you will be unduly pressed for money and items. Work hard and earn your own wealth; don't leech off the poor altruists. It is one thing to accept charity from a kind player who has no qualms about perhaps losing what they give you forever; it is another to constantly spam the channels with panhandling messages. It irritates everyone and helps nobody. And like I stated previously - there are few "honest beggars" out there compared to malicious ones. And that, is why I think it deserves a note in the Scams article. If you disagree, please explain why. (T/C) 00:07, 28 April 2007 (CDT)

Ferrying is not scamming, you can always to somewhere for free, or you can be run there. Ferrying, is basically running. Running isn't scamming, begging is begging, not scamming. Please keep tht crap off my talk page, ferrying IS RUNNING NOT SCAMMING. Borrowing money without intention of returning is scamming, begging isn't. Solus   00:14, 28 April 2007 (CDT)

Please don't remove my comments, Solus. That is not polite, even on your own talkpage - especially considering that, unlike normal circumstances where one might be inclined to blank comments, I did not openly insult you, spam you with stupid messages such as "I like pie" or any such "crap". (Btw, it's not nice to call my truthful comments crap, just fyi.) I was attempting for an honest debate, with records to be kept so that others viewing this page could understand the argument. But, in the end, it is ultimately your choice of course. I can use no Wiki policy to revert your talk page.

Additionally, I find it offensive that you deleted my "crap comments", presumably to save space, and then decided to simply Archive everything away, which would have solved the problem in the first place without resorting to rude blanking. If I am beneath your notice and unworthy of debating with, then please, by all means - simply ignore me and don't respond. Do not dismiss my comments as "crap" and then sweep the still-ongoing discussion under the rug with a convenient archive.

Anyway, onto the real issue.

Rebuttal: I never said that "running is scamming"; you are twisting my words. I said that charging money for a free service is scamming. Running is not a "free service". Doing it yourself requires any of the following: specialized skills, certain profession combination, armor (depends on area), mission completion (certain Factions and Nightfall runs), and last of all - Skill. Many people in the game can not run themselves through the Desert, or to Droks, or through Sanctum Cay, or even to Kaineng from The Marketplace (which should be a scam in itself, but I'll let that one pass).

Ferrying, on the other hand, is not the same as running. It takes you to a place that is wholly impossible for you to get to at your current state in the game. Ferrying to Cantha from Nightfall is not possible until you reach Consulate Docks, but thankfully the Ferry to Docks run is very popular. That, too, is no run - if you are being ferried to Docks, you have not reached that mission and so therefore it is no run at all (you can't run there yourself). From Cantha to Nightfall, one must go to Seitung Harbor and finish Zen Daijun. However, if you accept a ferry, a player can take you without you having to do that mission at all. Once again, not something you could do for yourself. And then of course there is the famous "ferry to The Deep/Urgoz" So as you see, "ferrying" is not the same as running. It is not a free service and therefore it is completely acceptable to charge for it - and in no way is it a scam.

The so-called "ferry" from Cantha or Elona to Prophecies, however, is not a ferry. That's a run. Nay, not even a run - it is a scam. Like I said before - ferrying is a service that you pay for because you can't do something for yourself. Every single player in the game, once they reach a "port town" (Kamadan or Seitung), can map to the Great Temple of Balthazar. And from there it is just a few clicks - bam, you're in Lion's Arch. You just did for free what some scammer would charge money to do. The point of the note is to make people aware of this and help them preserve their money. How can you argue against that?

Quote yourself: "Borrowing money without intention of returning is scamming, begging isn't."

Okay, so...you just proved my point. It is not possible to know the intentions of a scammer, and a trade is final. I don't care if a borrower swore an oath on the Bible in front of my very eyes before I gave him money - there is absolutely nothing binding about a verbal agreement, and the potential for abuse and scamming is high. It warrants a note on the page to warn players about this sad little fact.

An alternative would be to write a guide on begging. "How to tell an Honest Beggar, How to tell a Malicious Beggar - The Finesse of Judging Intent". But no, Wiki doesn't do that. We aim to benefit the Guild Wars community via our Scams article, by warning them against common pitfalls and misfortunes that occur to the average player. We tell them how to avoid them. Malicious beggars are out there. True begging is not a scam, but it is greatly frowned upon by both the Guild Wars and the GuildWiki community. Moreover, the number of honest beggars who will return your loans is not very large. It is only logical to assume, therefore, that the sensible thing to do is never loan money. It's common sense advice. It belongs in the Scams article. Yes, you are strictly correct - honest begging is not a scam per se. However you may also note that the Scams page is full of general advice; it does not only list scams. For example - it is blatantly obvious that you cannot use another player's armor or customized items when you hover over them in the trade window. And it is not a scam either - there is nothing wrong with trading the items, so long as both parties understand and accept the trade with full knowledge about the usability of the items. So, by your logic, it's not a scam and doesn't belong in the Scams article. But you know? We have notes there anyway. Why, if they are not scams? Simple - because, even though the article is labeled as "Scams", it is more than that. We aren't here to nitpick at GuildWiki about what is strictly a "scam" that breaks the EULA and can be included in the article. We are here to give blanket coverage of most general maladies suffered by the unsuspecting players in the world of Guild Wars. Succumbing to beggars falls exactly under this category. And so it fits perfectly in the article.

Finally, I'll ask you again - What is the harm in having the note? Unless I am gravely mistaken, you too are of the opinion that begging for cash is a very sad thing indeed. If we agree so far as that, why do you insist on reverting and removing the note? It does not harm anyone - beggars need to learn not to live on charity - and it will potentially help many. (T/C) 00:50, 28 April 2007 (CDT)

You seriously have alot of spare time to argue over a obvious fact. Ferrying isn't scamming, it's running. Begging is begging, police don't arrest homeless people on the street because they are misfortunate do they now? Beggers will always be in Mmorpg's, but I'm sorry to inform you but begging isn't scamming. Borrowing money without intention of returning is stealing, and scamming. Beggers wouldn't plan to give the money back would they now?

And last but not least, I am allowed to archive my talk page. I alway run, and usually find myself a victim of a scam, I give ferrys to Lion Arch and consulate docks for free, but if nother running wants a bit of cash, he shouldn't be marked as a scammer. It's a runners service he is providing, which is not scamming. FyI, I didn't bother reading your post. Solus  02:14, 28 April 2007 (CDT)


 * Which can say more than any words. I pity you, Solus. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 02:19, 28 April 2007 (CDT)


 * All that, and your back to square one. Solus  [[Image:DiscipleSymbol2.jpg|19px]] 02:21, 28 April 2007 (CDT)


 * True. And you're on "square zero". [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 02:34, 28 April 2007 (CDT)

Only revert once. /Sigh Solus   02:45, 28 April 2007 (CDT)


 * This is relevant how? I never reverted your talk page, and I did not revert the article. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 02:48, 28 April 2007 (CDT)

Wow Solus, you act like I can't read
"Then Readem got involved with a bias and blunt attempt to add his prespective without understanding the discussion at hand." Of course I am being blunt. That is clear to absolutely everyone. And in no way am I being biased. When I see a person acting semi-ridiculous and partially-hysterical (Entropy), of course I am going to have a different view on the person causing so much distress. But is that really a Bias? Again you draw conclusions, when you say I have no idea about the discussion at hand, in a foolish attempt to belittle me. I am basically saying this: stop blowing things way out of proportion, just to make a better wiki. (Just to let you know, prespective is spelt prospective) Readem (talk *contribs ) 22:12, 30 April 2007 (CDT)


 * I can read, cept when Readem is talking with more then 200 characters =P--Stevo101 22:19, 30 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Can you read this userbox? --[[image:rollerzerris.jpg|50x19px]]   22:32, 30 April 2007 (CDT)


 * Readem, don't bother with Solus. Anything that doesn't make him look good is deemed worthless, crap, a joke or removed from his talk page. It's like the goggles; does nothing. [[Image:Canada_39x40.png|19px]] Thedarkmarine 23:20, 30 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Rofl, you're right. And Zerris, that Userbox is too long for me to read sorry. Readem (talk *contribs ) 23:58, 30 April 2007 (CDT)

Wow lot goes on when I'm not here. Sorry Readem, you do nothing constructive on wiki. Your last 500 edits are mostly on either, pages related to you, or discussion. Don't worry people like Darkmarine have had a little crusade trying to insult me a few months back, but fail, again and again. I don't care what you think of me, and I sure as hell don't care what you think you are. Your not helping anyone or anything by repeativly flaming me defending your views. I simply don't care, you have done nothing constructive on wiki since you started, expect create more useless discussion pages. I'll say it again, If you want to make pointless discussions, have little pretty userbox archives and have a flame and troll at me, go to Guru. I honestly don't care if I make a spelling mistake here or there, even though It becomes a big issue on my talkpage anyway.You should do something constructive on wiki or piss off in my opinion. Entropy can break all the policies she likes, and have her little flamers follow her around all she likes, but if your coming to my talkpage with more useless information regarding useless topics, I don't want to here it. Solus  03:05, 1 May 2007 (CDT)

Redeam, Solus, if you can't get along, avoid contact with each other. &mdash; Skuld 03:10, 1 May 2007 (CDT)

I don't know why He keeps starting this crap, again and again... Solus  03:11, 1 May 2007 (CDT)

Hey, it's not like I hire people to flame you Solus. I don't even know Thedarkmarine or Stevo101. So it's not a cult, "little flamers follow her around all she likes", and I sure as hell don't take pleasure out of watching you get flamed. I may think you are wrong in your beliefs, but (like you said some-where else) it really is none of their business. Now, maybe Readem has a problem because you "insulted" him (dunno if it is true or not), so that is a real issue. But our argument, on the revert, that is just between you and me, and admins too. I agree that having the peanut gallery like Readem etc. just shouting their opinions doesn't help the matter or make Wiki a better place. Like you say it is just angry flaming and it isn't constructive. And no, I don't support that. A saint is entitled to the same rights as a criminal, and justice is blind; and Wiki isn't a popularity contest either. I am sorry our little dispute has got so many uninvolved people yelling at you and in the future I hope our issues can be resolved more privately without irrelevant rants every other post. (T/C) 07:02, 2 May 2007 (CDT)

Fair enought, good to hear you don't support the constant flaming. My remarks regarding the followers usually refers to whenever I make a comment, a spelling error, a vote on the old builds section, it appears here, with me being flamed again and again, plenty of exampls in my firs archive as well as about 5 of Darkmarines crusades I had to end up removing. Atleast we are on the same page now, No bad blood all settled. Solus  07:27, 2 May 2007 (CDT)

This will be my last comment to you Solus (Taking Skuld's Advice), and I hope you will do the same for me. In no way am I "flaming you". I am merely defending those I feel, have been undermined in some way, by you. And believe it or not, I get somewhat defensive when you repeatedly disrespect me, say my edits are worthless, and then mock me on my own Userpage. Not to mention, I have apologized to you, and was returned w/ nothing but sarcasm. So I have but one thing to say to you: Expect to be "Flamed", you probably deserve it. Sincerely, Readem (Go ahead and delete this, I don't mind)

You seem to see one side to an arguement, you should pick your words more carefully and decide what you are posting at. But in theory, your edits have seemed to be completely worthless, whatever you say. But with current events, I see no apolige given, infact I see you starting more conflicts such as postings like this. I'm happy you've decided to sod off and not bother posting on my talkpage, because I do not welcome your vested interest. Solus  02:58, 4 May 2007 (CDT)


 * Oh, I wouldn't consider anyone's edits to be worthless. I'm sure even you have made a useful edit on some obscure details sometime somewhere.