User talk:193.52.24.125

You have it the other way around dude. The official Wiki is redundant to Guild Wiki. Readem (talk *contribs ) 23:36, 6 September 2007 (CDT)


 * Not really. You'd have to be blind to not see that... [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 23:38, 6 September 2007 (CDT)


 * Maybe it was redundant in the beginning, but now the official wiki has better long term prospects in my humble opinion. It is undeniable that they have more raw manpower, and it's clear to me that GuildWiki cannot long depend on its rapidly dwindling core of dedicated editors. If you look carefully, you can already see a huge deterioration in overall quality here. The thing that set guildwiki apart in its heyday was its builds, but that was spun off because of endless bickering. Builds are now thriving on a sounder policy base and a more dedicated administrative team at pvxwiki. I think that, while acknowledging the trail blazed by this wiki, it is time for the new guard to replace the old. 193.52.24.125

Heh, your support vote is exactly the kind of reaction I hope to see from more folks. I don't want my nomination to be filled with "gimme" votes from the "fan club", because that's not really an honest appraisal of how I'd fare as an admin. I want to be taken at face value, and you're absolutely correct that being here to "turn the lights off" at the end of the day (so to speak) is what I'm gonna be doing. Literally, I'm usually on to the late PM or early AM hours; and figuratively, I'll be one of the last to leave once GWiki itself reaches the end of its day. I won't go so far as to ask you to make an account, but I wish that more anons were like you instead of using the "mask of anonymity" as a cover for vandalism and stuff...You really help to redeem the Anon's reputation. (T/C) 02:15, 16 September 2007 (CDT)

That is not an archive
A subpage is DIFFERENT from an archive. If you disagree on the point, let me know and I'll elaborate further. If you agree, please redo your undo. Thank you. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 00:39, 17 September 2007 (CDT
 * I have commented there. 193.52.24.125 00:40, 17 September 2007 (CDT)

User:89.241.237.75
Hi. Please refrain from flaming the trolls; what they want most is attention. If you could both keep the discussion on the topic at hand, that'd be great. Just keep GW:NPA in mind, okay? - Auron 03:05, 18 September 2007 (CDT)

Re; User:Tanaric
If I suggest something you think is dumb, suggesting something better is more helpful than telling me how bad my suggestion is. None of us have been in this situation before, and we're all doing the best we can. &mdash;Tanaric 18:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * What prompted this comment? 193.52.24.125 19:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Older stuff that I hadn't had time to respond to -- it's been crunch time at work for the last few days and it's cut into the time I should spend on this issue. I think it was dated the 24th. Something about my motives or about how unsavvy I'm being with money. You seem more amenable to the OGL client idea, so perhaps its no longer relevant. &mdash;Tanaric 19:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. That comment was written before your new alternative suggestion. If you are not personally interested in the money, then fine, I misjudged you and my apologies. I have decided to stop caring about the Wikia move. If the Linux client thing works out, great, if not, whatever. 193.52.24.125 20:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Lornar's Pass
The "pulling the healers" suggestion doesn't rely on a pathing issue glitch; it relies on repeatedly hassling the mob from a distance then retreating until a chance to take out a lone healer eventually occurs. I'm not aware that there have been any changes in pathing since May 2007 when I made the comment. However I am unwilling to make the trek there for the sake of testing that. Have you vanquished the area recently and can confirm that the situation has changed? If so, how did you succeed in this challenging kill? Maz Mazkin 09:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)