User talk:GW-Taiki

Hi
If you earnestly believe that combo is good, please quit gws. Thanks. &mdash; Warw/Wick 18:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't feel like listening to someone that is running around and calling people "dumb" all the time. -- Ankh Mhutin 18:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

username vs. account name
I feel like being pedantic. GW:SIGN says your signature must represent your username. Lord of all tyria 19:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, up to now I though I had fulfilled the rule "Signature must show their user name or by other means make clear the user name." by linking to my user page. Would I be allowed to actually chose my username then? The original one had been defaced during some wiki software update.
 * Register a new account, then redirect this userpage to the new one. Should be fine. Lord of all tyria 19:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick answer, but I'd like to keep track of my old edits, especially to the images I added to Guildwiki. On the other hand I wouldn't want to create "corpses" by registering multiple accounts. -- Ankh Mhutin 19:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You could ask wikia to change the username since its technically possible, but they only did it during a short period after our database was merged with theirs. Not sure how they'd respond now. Lord of all tyria 19:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I am using my preferred username (which wasn't available) to sign, linking to my real userpgae. So far, nobody has complained. Sign as Taiki, link to User:GW-Taiki, and it ought to be fine. --◄mendel► 23:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That's because yours is at least similar to your actual username. I'm also a slight miscreant for signing as "Dr Ishmael", when my username is "Dr ishmael".  As long as it's similar, it's usually acceptable.  But "Ankh Mhutin" is nothing like "GW-Taiki", so yes, you need to change it.  &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 23:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * So I've created a new account (User:Ankh_Mhutin) now and redirected the old user page to the new one. — Taiki 13:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

regarding Secondary professions for a Ritualist
Hi, according to GW:1RV neither you nor Warwick can keep reverting each other. Make a note on the talk page about the spirits, and see if the community thinks it should be put in or removed. Thanks! --Shadowcrest 19:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The first thing I'd done was asking Warwick on the talk page why he'd deleted content. Shortly after my question on the talk page was gone. Now it is back again. I was just slightly confused about all that. As Warwick insulted people with every single edit and didn't explain much on the talks page, I felt this is pure vandalism.

I'd like to apologize. On the IRC channel, there was a conversation about these secondary profession articles and how they needed some "trimming". A lot of the notes in them were just factually bad, and this can be proven...Warwick said, in essence, that "I said that if anyone who didn't have a clue what they were talking about contested with me I'd just tell them to gtfo". This should have raised more red flags for me, but I suppose I was tired or something. In any case I agreed that the notes were dumb, and that it was okay to say so. I didn't think Warwick would take it to extremes by also calling the contributors who defended them dumb (well, okay, some the language used was harsher than that). It's my belief that you can call the notes dumb, and to a certain extent you can also call the people who added them dumb; for example, if a user adds a note that "Poison Arrow is a viable alternative to Apply Poison because it costs less energy and lets you use Barbed Arrows for more degen", that is a dumb note, and the user can also be called dumb if they honestly believe it in contrary to all evidence against it. I suppose a better word would be "ignorant".

The primary motivation for eliminating bad notes from the secondary profession articles is that we want to try and give the best advice possible, so that less players are bad at Guild Wars. This causes conflict when people who added the bad notes come back to defend them; basically then it becomes necessary to educate them about the game and try to make them better players, so they understand why the notes are bad. We have policies here, such as Assume Good Faith and You Are Valuable, which try to make this as smooth a process as possible, but sometimes people like Warwick get overzealous in their desire to improve the standards of advice for these article, and lose their patience with trying to explain to players why the notes are bad. (It tends to happen more if you are a long time player, coz you see this sort of bad stuff a lot more, and you ''know' it's bad.) (T/C) 23:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)