User talk:PanSola

Archives

 * Past mistakes are moved into the /MistakeArchive
 * Other closed issues are moved to /Archive, /Archive2

Redirection
Hi PanSola, for some strange reasons, Tempest%27s_Luxon_Armor_%2815k%29 won't redirect to Elementalist_Ascended_Luxon_Armor. Please help. - Natsumi

Barging in
Other than the fact that you're barging into others' problems, upkeeping such absurdity is just... absurd. What's been done by Stabber and that admin, is reverting a page after 3 edits off of a blank page. And then, after I am reverting it back into a full-proof page with better, proven information, it is protected as a blank page. And yet, I am told to "talk about it", which is basically wasting time with who is seemingly a thick-headed personality. Pretty useless, that contributors who actually know of what to do, is being shut off from editing, huh? --64.229.196.153 20:09, 6 May 2006 (CDT)


 * I'm not barging into other's problems. A revert war on a wiki creates problems for everyone.  I'm looking at the history of Mo/Me PvE Life Barrier Monk, and it does look like a revert war on an article that was not blank prior to May 6th.  So if you guys were talking about a different revert war, then I apologize, but my comments remain valid on the revert war of the Mo/Me PvE Life Barrier Monk article.  And talking about it is NOT useless, because OTHER admins and users will be able to see your arguments, talking about it is not for the benefit of the guy you are fighting, but for the benefit for the rest of the wiki.  If you can persuade the rest of the community to see your point, then ht doesn't matter if the other side has a thick-headed personality.  The ban on revert wars exist because if you don't explain yourself, and no one else explain on your behalf, then you and stabber will end up in an endless cycle of reverts that benefits no one else.  -PanSola 20:17, 6 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Yes, but Stabber is barging in on a topic that is other than what I initially reverted it for. It's like reverting a page to a blank one: it's of no harm to anyone, but is of no use to anyone either. At least my edits are not misleading. Of course, as I've stated on past run-ins (of other people) on the "protector's" page, it seems as if that people are ignored when they merely "talk about it". At least by reverting it, I can see that things have been accomplished, even for a short period of time. Oh, and most certainly, a (what you're calling) "revert war" most certainly does not cause problems for everyone. The only problem is that when false information comes up, it becomes misleading to others, especially on such a greatly acknowledged fansite such as this. I praise the full-time contributors to this Wiki, but am questioning their view on simple morals. --64.229.196.153 20:31, 6 May 2006 (CDT)
 * The problem is, a revert war will only end if 1. somebody talked about it and ppl reach an understanding, or 2. one side got disgussed and pissed off. It harms the wiki as it uses up server resources while accomplishing nothing.  And actions that comsume server resources to nobody's benefit is definitely everyone's problem.  I'm not saying Stabber is right.  I find her equally guilty as you are, and I have removed the ban request on you placed by her.  I strongly believe that this wiki will not benifit if you and she continue to revert each other's edits, reguardless of who is right, and whether you two were fighting over the same topic or not.  -PanSola 20:36, 6 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Look at it differently, by temorarily reverting it, SOME ppl see the right info at one time, and SOME people see the wrong info at another time. That doesn't help.  A revert war means your correct info will not take root and stay on teh page.  On the other hand, discussing on the talk page will help to keep your correct info on the page and stay there in the future, even if they are not currently on there due to a revert by someone who has mistakened information.  Do you want countless temporary glory in an endless war or long term peace and freedom after a short term oppression?  -PanSola 20:40, 6 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Of course there must be a limit to the duration of the "short-term" oppression. --64.229.196.153 20:42, 6 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Remember our original point. Yes, there must be a limit to the duration of the short-term oppression.  It will be as short as the time it takes for you to clearly layout and defend yoru case on the talk page for the others on the wiki to agree with you.  If you are bad at articularting, it will take longer.  If you never discuss it on the talk page, then you get the endless war with temporary glories, until one day you get disguested by the person on the other side of the debate, and you leave guildwiki and never comeback, then there will be long-term oppression until someone else comes along and enlighten the rest of us on the talk page why you were right and the other side was wrong, etc etc.
 * Thus, revert wars are bad, and talking on the talk page is good, even if the current info on the article is wrong. And technically, Stabber was the one who started the revert wars, so she pulled the first trigger.  You are only guilty of continuing the war with her instead of discussing your point.  You are not guilty of starting the revert war.  Not sure if that makes you feel beter, I personally find both sides in a revert war equally bad.  No bans on either of you though, as the protection of the article by Ranith seems enough to encourage at least one of you to start talking. -PanSola 20:49, 6 May 2006 (CDT)
 * And you do not think that comparing a revert war to an international crisis is overblowing it? Anyways, if the entire point of the protection was so that I was to be forced to use your prided "talk page", then I will gladly shut-the-hell-up, since people here are so confident with false information. --64.229.196.153 20:53, 6 May 2006 (CDT)
 * The point is so that we can get things cleared up, so that the community can decide who is right, instead of having two people keep repeating "Blah blah blah is correct, you are wrong" without furthur explaining themselves, and so the sever does not keep a history of 100 copies of two versions of the article. I WANT you to contribute, to tell us what the truth is, but what I want even more is all your reasoning and supporting evidence of the truth.  GuildWiki operates on evidence and test results, not on faith.  Falsehood will win on this wiki if the people who know the truth cannot defend the truth with evidence and test results and logic.  I want you to convince me you are right, as opposed to simply insisting you are right. -PanSola 21:02, 6 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Technically, Stabber wasn't the instigator. See the history. The original reverts were done by Tetracycloide, then they were reverted by anon with no explanation. However, I'm not excusing either party. As I have said, both deserve bans. Stabber deserves a more severe ban because he has a long history of abusive behaviour. F G 04:40, 7 May 2006 (CDT)

Kaineng City?
I don't think I get your edit to 1.5k armor. As far as I can tell, Kaineng City is not so much a location as a huge part of the total Canthan map. Saying that 1.5k is in Kaineng seems like saying it can be found in Tyria. --Bishop (rap|con) 05:46, 8 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Kaineng City is a region. All armor in Kaineng City is at least 1.5k, some are 15k.  The remaining regions after Kaineng City, eg the Forest and the Jade Sea, only has 1.5k and 15k.  Thus, I do not see what is wrong with saying 1.5k armor is avaialble starting Kaineng City.  The ONLY place in Factions that provide non level 20 armor is Shing Jea Island. -PanSola 05:49, 8 May 2006 (CDT)
 * BTW, depending on whether your character is a Canthan or a Tyrian, the first town/outpost you get to in Kaineng City with armor crafter will be different, which is another reason why I used the general region instead of a specific town/outpost. -PanSola 05:51, 8 May 2006 (CDT)
 * To help clear up a possible missunderstanding: Kaineng City is NOT that big part of city-like coast you see when you press M. That is Cantha (Cantha *at the same time* is ALL that you see when you press M, thx to ANet's confusing name policy). Kaineng City is only the outpost called such in the north-western corner of the big city-structure. --Xeeron 07:24, 10 May 2006 (CDT)
 * You are confusing Kaineng City with Kaineng Center. In Bishop's words, "As far as I can tell, Kaineng City is not so much a location as a huge part of the total Canthan map".  Kaineng Center is what Kaineng City used to consist of.  But then the city grew, so what used to be the city is now just the center.  -PanSola 07:25, 10 May 2006 (CDT)

Not a skill type?
In what way are Ward Spells and Well Spells not actual skill types? These are the official in-game skill types used for those skills. --adeyke 16:17, 8 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Crap, they are? Didn't realize things have changed.  Sorry. -PanSola 17:20, 8 May 2006 (CDT)

Image upload abuse
Hi, if you check the ban category a couple of ppl have uploaded cars & music and whatnot, could you delete those please Skuld  04:14, 9 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Thanks for bringing it to my attention -PanSola 04:14, 9 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Is my cake [[Image:Cake.png]] safe? --Jamie 04:15, 9 May 2006 (CDT)
 * I'm eating it, so it'll be safe inside my stomach. -PanSola 04:16, 9 May 2006 (CDT)

Skill beautification project
Hey PanSola, I've more or less beaten all the kinks out of the robot. Can you check Axe Rake, Balanced Stance and Battle Rage to see if you approve of the result, both the looks and the source? If so, I will run the robot tonight when the wiki activity is low. &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 11:22, 9 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Looks good. I would debate the necessity/merit of the NOTOC tag, but that shouldn't keep us from making the changes.  Anyways, if you insist on keeping the NOTOC tag, put it inside the skill box template, and we can debate it out later.  That way it'll be a one-edit job to remove it if necessary. -PanSola 16:27, 9 May 2006 (CDT)


 * One more thing, I think the "DO NOT TOUCH THIS SECTION (unless you know what you are doing)" is a little too scary to have it cover the entire use of the template. I think it suffices to put the warning around the include/noinclude tags and teh template invocation, so that the input of the template parameters are "touchable".  There are enough ppl watching changes on the wiki that bad inputs shouldn't have disastrous results, though I do understand the concern over the template calling and the includeonly/noinclude acrobatics parts. -PanSola 16:44, 9 May 2006 (CDT)

Bow damage calculations
I have very little knowledge of the damage calculation system of GW and I don't have enough time to learn it. Would it be possible for you (PanSola the damage guru ;) ) to calculate rough avarage dps of the different bow types (max dmg) on high level monsters. This would need separate calculations for an avarage high level caster, high level warrior and a high level ranger as they have different armor levels. I am especially interested in the effect of the armor penetration of the horn bow. If something like this has been done allready, where can I find it? If you do not have the time or do not want to do it (I understand if you don't) then who should I ask for help? --Gem  13:05, 9 May 2006 (CDT)
 * I can do it, but it'll be tricky since the only thing I can assume about monster AL is "caster AL = levelx3, ranger/assassin AL = levelx3+10, warrior AL = levelx3+20", and that general rule, while probably the best general rule we'll ever find, is probably not true enough on most cases. Present me some kind of table of the layout of results you want to see, and I'll figure out how to fill in numbers or modify rows/columns a bit to make it work. -PanSola 14:51, 9 May 2006 (CDT)
 * I'll make you something tomorrow in work if I don't have anything to do. --Gem [[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png|Gem]] 16:21, 9 May 2006 (CDT)

What's up with armor?
Heya PanSola. It looks like you were behind all the first run armor redirects, so I thought I'd direct this question here. I'm also posting on User_talk:Skuld, as he was behind some of the second round of moves.

I was looking through Special:DoubleRedirects, and found it full of armor pages. Being the crusading sort, I started resolving all the names to their final form (which, for most cases, was something like Ascended Armor Name). I only realized after I'd done a few (and removed the offending redirects) that maybe some of these existed for a reason.

What are you trying to do with armor? Or, do you know whom I should ask, if you're not responsible?

I don't understand why most point to Ascended armor type, but Dragon Armor (15k) points to Dragon Armor (art), which isn't about the art at all! Further, I don't get Water Design at all.

If you can help explain this, I'd greatly appreciate it. :)

&mdash;Tanaric 00:48, 10 May 2006 (CDT)
 * They exist because a lot of armor articles got renamed. Instead of resolving them, just check if anything link to them.  If nothing lnks to them, just delete. -PanSola 01:04, 10 May 2006 (CDT)
 * I moved some of the Blah Armor (15k) to Ascended Blah Armor, sorry about the double redirects Skuld  08:08, 10 May 2006 (CDT)

Good work on Mesmer armor
As a fellow Mesmer, I'm happy to see you are doing such a great job, Keep up the good work! --Jamie 04:29, 10 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Thanks. All I can do though is reorganize information already gathered by other people.  Right now I play an average of 15 minutes of guildwars a week, just to take some screen shots or check some easily verifiable data.  Still waiting for my Factions CE... -PanSola 04:30, 10 May 2006 (CDT)

Offer
I've had a night to reflect on this recent feud, and there is only one thing that is the really unfortunate result: leaving you out in the cold after having promised to fix the skill boxes. If you still want it, I'll run my robot on the skills. I've sunk far too much time into writing it to simply cast it aside now. &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 06:45, 10 May 2006 (CDT)
 * That'd be lovely (-: Thanks!  I was gonna partially transform current templates, then manually subst: them, and let users fill in whatever is missing (campaign etc).  This will help a lot (-: -PanSola 06:48, 10 May 2006 (CDT)


 * BTW, one more detail about the template calling: I prefer to put the pipe after parameter specifications, instead of before parameter name. The equal sign and the pipe completely encloses the value entered for the parameter, so it feels better.  But if you strongly disagree, that's ok too.  Not a big deal. -PanSola 07:08, 10 May 2006 (CDT)


 * It's too late to change that now. For the purposeses of template calling, whitespace surrounding a parameter is automatically removed. By the way, the Quick Reference pages are not nice to the server, as you may have noticed. Please use subst: for them. Keep the unsubsted code in a nowiki in a comment at the top so they can be cut-and-pasted quickly to regenerate the page. Stabbot 08:35, 10 May 2006 (CDT)
 * That's fine, I didn't realize you already started when I wrote that. As for quick reference, I believe they are cached.  So it's only the first time that messes thing up (i hope).  Using subst kinda defeats the purpose of the original motivation of this whole revamp process... -PanSola 08:36, 10 May 2006 (CDT)


 * You pay a huge recaching penalty every time a skill article is changed because the quick reference page will now have to pull in every other skill to re-render itself. Stabbot 08:40, 10 May 2006 (CDT)
 * ouch, good point... ... ... I think only templates can be subst-ed, inclusion cannot...  lemme check -PanSola 08:42, 10 May 2006 (CDT)

New proposal: For each skill article, create a "Skill/Infobox" article. All it will have is the template call. The "(edit)" link in the template will be modified to point there. This way we modularize the components, and only pay the caching penalty when the skill gets changed (as opposed to whenever ppl add acquisition or usage notes). What do you think? -PanSola 08:45, 10 May 2006 (CDT)
 * blah, except the dual-template trick wouldn't work with that plan. -PanSola 08:46, 10 May 2006 (CDT)