User talk:Karlos8903

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

anecdote
I came back from an extended absence around the wiki to find you picking fights on nearly every Talk: page from here to judgement day; this would be, oh, early-mid November, I think. This drove me insane; here's this guy - and I really don't care how many contributions he's made - who is polluting the only space for discussion we have, since we don't run a forum. For no apparent reason other than he wants to argue for argument's sake! On this thing we worked so hard to build up and keep running! If those were forum posts, they've been closed, and you'd likely have been banned, anywhere else. I asked Phil to step in, or let me do it, put his foot down, and knock some heads together. Know what he said? He's just a site admin, and all he wants to do is keep the code running; he'd let the users sort themselves out. If you want an abuse of power, Karlos, next time just ask me; I'd be happy to oblige you. --Nunix 18:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * While the anecdote describing Gravewit's motives is appreciated, the inherent threat is not. I'd like to think that any of us could question the way this community is being led by a founder without backlash from another.  I, too, have reservations about where we're heading and, more importantly, why, and I'd rather see Gravewit or you address these concerns openly and freely instead of attacking those who have the audacity to wonder. &mdash;Tanaric 23:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Guys, it wasn't a threat. It was illustration; Karlos' main thrust seems to be a claim of abuse of power. Specficially Gravewit's. The point was that you'd have to look hard to find someone LESS interested in abusing power, even when there is absolutely excellent reason to use that power. You'd want to look at me instead, for I have no problem being an utter tyrant. =p I feel this whole thing is an attack at Grave, and has nothing to do with any kind of spam. I'll move the thread back to the Main Page talk. I'll also note I would've happily emailed Karlos, and only Karlos, with this, but he provides no email, only a mention to use his Talk page. He can delete this off his page if he feels moved to.

Karlos, please read and respond to my post in the talk section of Talk:Gaile Gray article. I am not the only one who thinks this issue is not resolved. --Zero_Rogue 10:44, 2 January 2006 (PST)

A small bit of randomness: the Diablo 2 collector's edition comes with a DVD with the cinematics on it. I know because I have it. --Fyren 18:55, 6 Jul 2005 (EST)

Thanks for the tip! :) After paying $40 for the game, I'll wait until the collector's edition is for $5 before I get it. "And the evil that was once vanquished shall rise anew... Wrapped in the guide of man shall he walk amongst the innocent... And terror shall consume they that dwell upon the earth..." Freaky stuff! :) --Karlos 19:15, 6 Jul 2005 (EST)


 * "Smoove" with the Regions category ;) 09:48, 8 Jul 2005 (EST)


 * Thanks. It'd been a long time coming. :) --Karlos 11:29, 8 Jul 2005 (EST)

Hi! Good work on the armor crafters! That's something I was planning to do once I had the chance :)

For the rest of them, could you use the same form as in Stingray_Strand_Crafter? You can just copy and paste the stuff, and leave all the areas blank. For the picture, type in whatever makes sense for the picture name. It will show up as "picture not found", but that's fine, because I'll be adding them within the next week. 17:53, 10 Jul 2005 (EST)


 * Done. I just looked at the wanted page and so all those missing armor crafters. There ought to be a better way of cross-referencing these things. Somehow if you say this armor is available at Hagen in the Armor's page it should also appear under Hagen's page. --Karlos 18:08, 10 Jul 2005 (EST)


 * Good job, it looks great.
 * The only way to cross-reference them would have been to make a category for each crafter. But, that would have really looked messy.  23:18, 10 Jul 2005 (EST)

It's rare to meet a Planescape: Torment fan. That is the single best story ever written. It's a shame that Bioware is leaning more towards the action-oriented games now. &mdash;Tanaric 22:07, 13 Jul 2005 (EST)


 * Amen to that. I have played that game over and over. It never gets old. It lacked a lot of the "cool" aspects of equipment and armor. But the sense of gratification from uncovering the story was sublime. The complexities of the characters. the conversations between the Nameless One and Dakkon and Vhailor are simply awesome. And then to uncover to Dakkon that it was all made up.. Dang! Oh, no! I am gushing again! :)


 * Nordom : Attention; Morte. I have a question. Do you have a destiny? A purpose?
 * Morte : Is Annah still wearing clothes?
 * Nordom : Affirmatory.
 * Morte : Then the answer is yes. :) --Karlos 22:37, 13 Jul 2005 (EST)


 * PS:T is one of the greatest games. Possibly the greatest. I'd have to think pretty hard about a very small number of other games. --JoDiamonds 05:33, 25 October 2005 (EST)

Well done on the conditions revamp. That sorely needed to be done! &mdash;Tanaric 20:46, 2 Aug 2005 (EST)
 * Thanx --Karlos 20:51, 2 Aug 2005 (EST)

Thanks a lot, that is the way I wanted it, but would not get it to be =) --Xeeron 19:38, 29 Sep 2005 (EST)

Lists in Skill Type Articles
Here's some things wrong with your changes to the skill lists in Signet, Stance, Hex, Enchantment, Sacrifice, and Knockdown: For the information of how the skills relate to the skill type: unless it adds a lot of utility to the user and is objective enough, please consider keeping it limited to parenthetical information after each element in the list instead. --Rezyk 15:24, 1 Oct 2005 (EST)
 * The new list titles are way too subjective in meaning (for example, someone added Diversion to "Skills that harm/hinder Signet users", which would have much less of a case in the old list title).
 * The user can no longer tell that all skills that directly involve those skill types are among the lists, and that the lists are limited to such.
 * The lists are sometimes broken up into multiple very, very short lists; some have a single item! These are a lot less convenient for the user to navigate.


 * Let's take it over in, say, Talk:Hex? --Karlos 16:13, 1 Oct 2005 (EST)

Our little argument
I almost forgot about the False Gods discussion. Time to pick it up again, especially after your last remark. Sorry, I can't leave it standing like that. But I'll take it to your talk page, because this is about you (and me) more than it is about The False Gods.

That it was "my" remark being removed is clearly NOT the heart of the problem. It is perfectly clear to me that anything in a wiki is public domain and doesn't belong to anyone. Countless times in the past I've acceded that other people (including you) have edited "my" text. That's because I agreed that their wording sounded better (which is easy, considering I'm not a native speaker), their text was more elaborated, or they convinced me that there was an error in my text. Actually it's quite easy to convince me. I don't claim to be impeccable.

The point is that in this specialy case you did NOT convince me. Nor did you prove me wrong. There is nothing to prove here. It's matter of opinion. But you behave like there was a definite right or wrong here, and like YOU were the judge over it. I'm not at all convinced that this is all about me. This is about you just as much as it is about me. You like to see yourself as the Judge of Objectivity and the Keeper of the thousand Rules in this Wiki. You reserve the right for yourself to edit any article to your liking, but if somebody insists and reverts the edit you call that "childish games". Double standards, anyone?

You behave like you're an admin, which - as we know - may soon come true. I hope in that case we'll manage to come to a live and let live agreement. You're not dumb. An argument with somebody with a sharp mind can be fun, even if you disagree. But I'm afraight with one of us having admin powers, discussions are going to become a bit lopsided. You say I'm going to have a lot of problems here. Surprisingly, I haven't had any so far, except with you. I really enjoyed being a contributor of this wiki in the past, and I'd hate to leave because of a stupid personal matter like this.

Thanks for saying that I'm a creative contributor to this wiki. I can say the same about you. But I wish you'd focus on constructive work more than supervising and critisizing other people's work. Unless you become an admin, of course, which would officially make it your job to do that. ;) --Tetris L 04:48, 5 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * Karlos, these are pretty much the exact same sentiments (good parts and bad) I had in our clash. (I don't mean to start an argument or get involved in this one; just thought you should know.) --Rezyk 08:36, 5 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * I'm getting into the bad pattern of interfering in arguments involving Karlos. Nevertheless, there is something I need to say: admins do not have any greater say on content/style than anyone else, as far as I'm concerned. Even if Karlos does become an admin (I think he'd do a good job), that will not give him any more authority as far as generating or maintaining content.  This is a collaborative, democratic project, and all voices are equal. &mdash;Tanaric 09:49, 5 Oct 2005 (EST)

Let me explain things a bit from my side. There are two things I love doing in this Wiki:
 * Lore and Story: While I think the overall plot is like a Tom & Jerry cartoon compared to Torment's Shawshank Redemption, :) I like to understand the story of any game and fully explore the history and the characters. Not for any perceived in-game benefit, just out of love for adventures.
 * Editing: Not editing as in changing, but editing as in newspaper editing. Supervising the grammar, the language, the conciseness and the objectivity. I am a bit compulsive by nature and like for things to be tidy and make sense (according to me of course). But above that, I am an editor of an actual English language publication and in general enjoy checking every nook and cranny in every article and making sure things are consistent and to the standard. This is why I will push for standardizing Skill progression tables regardless of which format that standard takes. I like for things to follow a system and to be tidy and accessible to all.

Now, one of the reasons we have had friction, I think, is that we share the love of the first (you like and care about the lore and story angles too), and you do not seem to care (as much) about the second (i.e. that everything is in a system and that a process governs what we are doing). I think this is why we had so many "run-ins."

As Tanaric said above, I think you (and Rezyk) are understanding my role incorrectly. When I first came here, I used to think the same... That to challenge LordBiro or Dlanod, I'd have to take their permission first because they were admins and I am a lay citizen and admins have the final word. But I quickly learned that it's not like that. You'll note that in my quarrel with Rezyk, I did not plead for admins to "stop him" but instead I made a plea for the community to weigh in. That's all I care about. If I do become an admin, I will actually have to be very careful because some people might think I am "running" the site.

I edit left and right because I DO think my edits are good obviously, or I would not do them, but I DON'T do them because I think I am in charge of this place or that my wording is unchangeable. I do feel that overall few people here match my care for "editing peculiarities" such as punctuation and grammar and overall style and objectivity. But that does not mean that I feel my opinions on these issues are final and unchallengeable. I have tried since coming here to make this Wiki serious. i.e. articles look as crisp and professional as possible. That is why there is nary an article that pops up on the recent changes list that I do not touch.

As for defending my edits... If you look at the articles on this site you'll find many, especially in mission overviews, quest descriptions and lore that I have written. Some of them I no longer even recognize. I don't care and never tried to "defend" my style vs someone else's. Working in a magazine teaches you that pretty well. If you edit too much, the writers hate you, if you edit too little, the readers hate you.

With regards to our little struggle in False Gods, as I said then. I felt your advice was not that good. We had a tussle and then I asked for input from others. I should not have dragged it into a semi-revert-war, especially since you deserve better from me and for that I apologize. But I still think your comment should not be there.

So, in summary, I am the Keeper of a thousand Rules but I am not the Judge of Objectivity, I am the Pursuer of Objectivity. --Karlos 16:55, 5 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * Wait a second! I just noticed! I am an admin!! Mwah ha ha haah! To quote Galadriel: "Instead of a dark lord you would have an admin, not dark but annoying and persistent as an alarm clock!! All shall love me and despair!!" :) --Karlos 17:37, 5 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * Oh, crap! Who gave him the ring?? The ring to rule them all (and in the darkness bind them).


 * Seriously now: Congrats for becoming an admin! You had my vote. I understand your motivation to edit in this wiki (both in the meaning of changing and newspaper editing). And you're good at what you do. I'd say that 8 out of 10 times I agree with your suggestions (except when it comes to the thousand rules ;)). I'm an engineer, and like all engineers I like things to be well structured and organized. We're not that different in that respect. I am however, not willing to stick to all rules just for the sake of it. My first priority is to make this wiki as useful as possible for our users. If a rule hinders us more than it helps to make the wiki useful, then I'll gladly bend that rule, or revise it.


 * Anyway ... I trust you won't abuse your admin powers. If you disagree with somebody over something that is a matter of opinion, and no agreement can found in the discussion of the facts, put the matter to a vote by the community. Anybody should be willing to accept the result of a little poll. But never, ever should you say (openly or between the lines) "I'm right because I'm an admin" and then declare you opinion as the final decision. I trust you know that, and will act accordingly. --Tetris L 02:41, 6 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * Thank you for the advice and the vote of confidence. I offer you a weapon in exchange. If ever you feel I am bullying you (or any other admin), do not simply leave the wiki, but instead invoke other wiki users and admins and demote the foul-playing admin. This is everybit your wiki as it is mine or Ollj's. --Karlos 18:33, 6 Oct 2005 (EST)

Skill Progression Math
Hey Karlos, i noticed you added my damage note on final thrust to the article, i only just started making those... should i just put them in every article i make a note on that does not yet have a table? --Genveir
 * I'd say leave it in the talk page. If you want to add an actual table to the article like in, for example, Mind Shock, that's fine.  --Fyren

Admin
Let's make this a bit more formal, with a big subheading and everything&mdash;congratulations! You are hereby Karlos, 8th Sysop of GuildWiki! &mdash;Tanaric 04:35, 6 Oct 2005 (EST)
 * My my a grave case of sysoption I hope the patient gets well soon. Grats! =) --Xeeron 08:46, 6 Oct 2005 (EST)
 * Thank you.. Thank you for the Scepter of Orr.. >:) I'll take very good care of it. --Karlos 18:35, 6 Oct 2005 (EST)
 * I think one of your first admin acts should be to delete the sysoption article. :) &mdash;Tanaric 10:59, 9 Oct 2005 (EST)

You're a bureaucrat! --Fyren 15:29, 16 October 2005 (EST)
 * Who? Me or Tanaric? If it's me, I confess to the crime. I am fascinated with process. Here's a little more info:
 * --Karlos 15:50, 16 October 2005 (EST)


 * --Fyren 15:53, 16 October 2005 (EST)


 * Hmm, I had no idea what that meant. Now that I went and read about it. It maybe a mistake by Gravewit. In any case, I think the decision to make someone an admin should not be one person's decision. I like how we did yours and mine. People asked for it and nominated names. I think that's how it should be. All that being said, I think we should try to find a way to insert Karlos the Bureaucrat into the actual game. :) --Karlos 15:59, 16 October 2005 (EST)

Too Personal
It has become evident to me (through the cases in Evade, Hex, and Category:Software) that you are taking edits of your submissions way too personally. This needs to stop. In all of those, we start off with a potentially reasonable disagreement but you come out of the gate acting as if I had kicked your mother. Then you leave me to come up with versions & justifications to satisfy your issues, while pushing the current article state to your version so that you don't have to take my issues seriously. --Rezyk 05:00, 9 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * Not exactly my perception. On Software, I assumed you were mocking, and I was wrong, and I apologized. I assumed you were mocking not because I can't stand people doing edits to text I put into articles, but because of the bad history between us.
 * I see the story in Hex as the complete opposite of what you just recounted. You made an addition to that article, a very good one too. I edited that addition into a different format. You reverted my edit. I tried to convince you of my edit, but you would not accept.
 * Now, the more you talk about this on Talk:Hex, the more I am convinced it is you who has an issue with accepting my editing of your articles. You are the one who seems to have an issue with me in general (see above). The proof (to me) is that you have stated gradually on Talk:Hex that you never actually liked the way the skills were listed on your design. Yet, you kept reverting my change religiously AS IF you were actually defending something you believed in (which you didn't) or as if my edits were a total disaster (which they weren't as evident by you modeling your User:Rezyk/RelatedSkills after it).
 * I am sorry, but I cannot accept that or respect it. Hence the feeling that you are targeting my edits for some personal reason which, for the life of me, I cannot figure out. --Karlos 17:45, 9 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * Yes, I have had issues with your edits of content I submitted -- but, excepting certain reverts, these issues have only been "normal" subjective disagreements about which content is best. I see you believe otherwise for at least the Talk:Hex case, which I'll cover below. --Rezyk 17:09, 11 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * Yes, I guess I do have a personal issue with you in general, but only as a result of Talk:Hex (discussed below). That said, I also say it would be pretty wrong/ugly/petty for me to keep targetting your edits or base content discussion on it, and regret that you might feel I'm doing this.  All I can offer to indicate otherwise is to note that for all these disputes, I had already been involved in the article before the disputed edit so it's obviously stuff I have thought about before, rather than picked up because of your involvement.  I suppose you also might have felt that I targetted Hex because of our discussion over Category:Creatures; while that discussion did prompt me to take action, I assure you I had been mulling over the issue of those articles since before then. --Rezyk 17:09, 11 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * Yes, I have always not liked many things about my original Hex design, and have always liked certain things about your original edit. But this wasn't revealed gradually -- I explicitly stated as much in my second edit of Talk:Hex!  I have also always felt that there is bad stuff (the 3 points I initially brought up) in your original that overall outweigh the good.  User:Rezyk/RelatedSkills and most of my other edits are attempts to keep your good stuff while negating/minimalising those bad points.  There's nothing strange about that, and it was actually my original hope that the discussion naturally would seek that kind of path itself. --Rezyk 17:09, 11 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * I kept reverting because I was defending 2 things I believed in:
 * my opinion was reasonable enough to warrant discussion
 * specific contributors should not get preferential treatment (with respect to policy)
 * From these I felt it was more than fair for me to want a decent discussion before having to accept the changes to Hex and similiar articles.  So I didn't like it when you reverted forward again immediately while calling my issues ridiculous. And I really didn't like it when you started acting as if mine were horribly unjustified reverts and yours not, as if it was somehow wrong for me to have not already submitted at only 4 hours into the discussion!  I still can't see that as anything but a bully move that sought to unfairly circumvent having to take my issues seriously, and is the heart of my issue with you now. --Rezyk 17:09, 11 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * I have had no problems with you prior to Hex. I reverted your edit on Category:Creatures but I could not tell your name from Impresario's at that point.
 * I still find your stand unjustified and unfair. Your design was poor, someone came up with another design (by your admission, a better design), you reverted it and engaged in a severe dispute with them about it, only to work privately in your user page on improving that design. I think the obvious correct choice was to keep that design and improve it. Not revert it and then privately improve it. It's not like the existing design was liked by anyone, not even you liked your design.
 * I have been very honest with you. Your edits in Category:Creature were breaking the system and setting a new precedent, all I asked was that you discuss it. I do this with every perceived major edit in the structure of articles in the Wiki (see Tetris and the Forgotten). Maybe I should let go and be a little more loose. But my experience has been that we suffer a lot when such things are not discussed and formulated well early on.
 * I have also been honest with you in that I felt you had no business reverting my edit when you were a junior contributor, defending a poor design and doing it for personal reasons. Maybe I should have been more diplomatic and patient in telling you that. I got carried away as I felt your edits were personal and this is why I kept saying "it is not your article" because I was defending process (veteran contributor, better design), not my edits. You, on the other hand, were trying to teach me a lesson, using the wiki's articles. I was going nuts because I knew you were placing inferior pages on the Wiki just to make a personal point to me. I recognize now that I should have been wiser and more patient. In engaging you in that mini revert war, I belittled my design and the process I was defending. It was easy for anyone looking at the edits to think we were two people childishly fighting over our version of things. When in truth, your version was not even liked by yourself.
 * As for the lesson itself you are trying to teach me. I understand you felt bullied, and perhaps I did not seem very respectful. You seem to be a person who takes a lot of pride in his work and my cynical/sarcastic approach tends to rub people like you the worst. I meant no offense, and sense I understood that, I have made it very clear that I truly appreciate the work you did and have been doing. But I never tried to drown your voice, I never tried to obscure your work, I did not make it a "do you believe me or him" kinda thing, because I do not want to bully anyone. Think about this when you evaluate whether or not I was bullying you. --Karlos 17:47, 11 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * Whoa, whoa, whoa.. I never felt your original design was better than my original design! I felt it was better in some ways, worse in some ways, and worse overall.  I don't know where I supposedly said otherwise, but either you misread me or I mistyped.  These are the main reasons I opted for reverting:
 * I felt my version was overall better/superior (though not strictly) and headed in a better direction.
 * I needed clarification on the policy defending your revert of Category:Creatures (because it had huge ramifications on how I participate on this wiki) and was frustrated in trying to get a straight answer. So I went with my interpretation of it, to either verify it or have it corrected.  I am not attacking that policy nor trying to "teach you a lesson" about the Category:Creatures case.
 * It was the way to make sure my issues got due consideration. I was especially wary of this with you because I felt you had earlier been able to be dismissive of my issue in Evade by having that article left at your version.  (I really don't mean to bring up old stuff and that case certainly wasn't a big deal, but this was an important part of my reasoning and my reaction to your reverts.)
 * I was not using this as a personal attack, although I was being especially defensive about getting bullied. I realize/understand now that yours were reactions to what you saw as a personal attack and that bullying was not your intention, so I apologize for accusing you of that. --Rezyk 19:49, 13 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * Your characterization of me reverting "only to work privately in [my] user page on improving that design" is entirely unfair.
 * It was unfeasible for me to just do the improvements on your articles in the first place because I couldn't come up with enough to fix them well myself. I only saw how from much discussion and others' contributions.
 * I believe that from the start, I was always working the hardest within the discussion in trying to find ways to satisfy everyone's issues.
 * I originally started working on that user page for the discussion -- hopefully for a better compromise and to clarify the relation in other articles for a better understanding of the big picture. Then a vote was called and being waited on, so I just hastily put it up for public consumption.
 * During the vote and ever since, I have always been up for pursuing more discussion and improvements. But there was no feedback/interest shown by anyone else about it (my last proposal in the thread went unanswered).  So I continued working on improvements, and that I was now doing so alone was not out of choice.
 * --Rezyk 19:49, 13 Oct 2005 (EST)

Maps
Hey Karlos, u left a note on my user page. U can use my skill maps if u like and I know some of the locations can vary, but most of them have a fixed path they walk and i indicated their locations on that route (like maxine coldstone). But thanx for the compliment btw, i'm now busy with the cristal desert, so keep an eye on the site if u want that one 2 --Gaia 13:00, 12 oct 2005


 * Thank you. I am sorry, I read your response and told Tetris on this page we now have your permission, but I forgot to respond. Thank you very much. Tetris has a long way before he gets to the Ring of Fire though. --Karlos 21:09, 12 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * Ok, do you have already have a map of the southern Shiverpeaks too, or can u give me some pointers to make the one on my site better so u can use it here (just tell me when u really don't need any other maps, but i have already got all the blanc maps on my pc anyway). --Gaia 13:12, 12 Oct 2005


 * No, our resident cartographer is still in Old Ascalon. :) If you'd like to upload maps, check out what we have in Maps and see what complements our collection. For this you can simply place links to your site. The maps Tetris is making are comprehensive maps with NPCs and collectors pointed out in each area. Feel free to help with that if you like (see Old Ascalon for an example). --Karlos 21:34, 12 Oct 2005 (EST)

Right-aligned TOC
Beaten to it =P check my userpage Skuld &Dagger; 01:09, 19 October 2005 (EST)


 * Doesn't count! It's on your user page! Instead of utilizing it for the good of the wikian people, you opted to use it for your own nefarious purposes! :) --Karlos 04:02, 19 October 2005 (EST)


 * I don't care who invented it first. It's great.  Thanks! --Squeg 06:05, 19 October 2005 (EST)

Shameless is the way to go! Atleast I gave you cred! :D

Halloween Collectors
Did you even bother to look in Category:Halloween 2005 or read the response to your question in Talk:Squash Serum first? :P --Rainith 20:38, 30 October 2005 (EST)


 * No, I didn't. I am catching up on updates from yesterday. Was going to get to it eventually. Thought I'd put the page up just in case it was not there. Thanks for letting me know, I directed the link to your page and removed mine. --Karlos 20:47, 30 October 2005 (EST)


 * No problem, I figured you were in a hurry and this was the best way to let you know. :)  --Rainith 20:50, 30 October 2005 (EST)

Armor Pieces
I'm trying to go along with the chosen direction of doing redirects on the armor pages as requested on the wanted section. However, while I'm able to do the link on the page itself, I dont know how to have it automatically go to the general armor page like the other pages you have changed do. Might need some help on this...--Shadow 01:06, 2 November 2005 (EST)


 * I am not the one who made the redirects in the articles you mentioned, that's Fyren. To make a page automatically redirect to another page, simply place the line:
 *  #redirect Article Name  in the article. That's all the article will be.
 * Go to this page and edit it to see an example. --Karlos 03:25, 2 November 2005 (EST)


 * I was doing that after the request, but I see it automatically does it now. For some reason the links were not doing that but it seems to work fine now.  Thanks for the help.

Sleep
Karlos, do you ever sleep? I've never checked the GuildWiki without seeing a "recent change" from you pop up while I'm here. :) &mdash;Tanaric 19:27, 7 November 2005 (EST)


 * Zzzzzz. :) I do this at work between e-mails and during compilation. I do it at home while watching TV. :) And in the past month I have been staying up late for Ramadan, so I was around even more. --Karlos 20:02, 7 November 2005 (EST)


 * Karlos, just curious: Were you born in the US or in Egypt? Your English seems just as good or better than that of many native speakers to me. --Tetris L 21:16, 7 November 2005 (EST)


 * Born in the city of the Pyramids. :) As for English, I just played too many "adventure games" back in the day when you had to type everything. :) If you've ever played King's Quest III and had to spend months figuring out how to kill the wizard Manannan only to find out that it's "put cookie in porridge", not "put cookie in soup", you'll know what I'm talking about. :) --Karlos 21:29, 7 November 2005 (EST)


 * I've never played King's Quest III myself, but other text-based adventures, starting with The Hobbit for my Commodore 64. :)
 * Well ... many native speakers pay little attention to their mother tongue language, especially on the internet. It's kinda sad when foreigners have to tell them about proper spelling, grammar and punctuation. --Tetris L 22:32, 7 November 2005 (EST)


 * I don't know about British kids (though Skuld isn't exactly a shining example) :P but in America, the system here emphasizes self-expression over correctness. It's something I think a lot of Europeans would find unconventional. Here they tell kids to write and write and tell tales and not bother with grammar/style. It really broadens the child's imagination and creativity, but it makes for some very painful reading. :) (Not defending it, I just think it's the reason Americans are so bad at English) :) --Karlos 22:50, 7 November 2005 (EST)


 * I don't understand =( 11:18, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The reference to you was just poking fun since you said you were in the UK. :) If you don't understand my theory itself, you're not missing much. :) --Karlos 18:14, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

System message link
Can you change the link from Train] to Sword or something on MediaWiki:Exporttext please. All admins missed my couple of requests >< MediaWiki_talk:Exporttext 11:22, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Done. --Karlos 18:14, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

my hunch is you forgot to read again
Check my complaints at Template talk:CollectableCategory.

Unless you are just trying to sneak a deletion into all the subcategories without editing all those pages yourself... -PanSola 08:43, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I did read the talk page, that was why I marked it for deletion, I thought it was an attempt at doing what you said in the talk page you wanted it to do. I never checked how you were using it.
 * That being said. Please do NOT use templates for short hand. That makes editing the articles more arcane for the average user to edit which inhibits contributions. I would ask you to revert that last edit but I know you just finished 200,000 edits and your Ctrl and V keys probably fell off the keyboard by now. :) The issue here is benign so leave the template. --Karlos 09:06, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, even if I remove the use of template it wouldn't be a "revert", because it was changing from Collector Items to Collectable Drops too, both in the text description and category. Guess you'll summon the bot to get rid of the use of template later? d-: -PanSola 09:51, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Not sure what to call it
Hey, glad to see you came back. Hope things are going better for you. Remember, if it isn't fun anymore, don't do it. I hope this is still fun for you though. :) --Rainith 04:40, 26 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, my love for the wiki is certainly strong and healthy. I found myself still opening my notepad, jotting down stats and skills used by monsters and still taking screen caps of bosses. So, it's evident to me that I'm still pretty attached to the wiki. I'm hoping to be able to figure out why people find it easy to assault my person. But I figure staying away is not going to help me do that.
 * I tried attributing it to cultural differences, but I have lived here for in the US for several years and never had this kind of treatment in person. So, I am assuming the obnoxiousness/ease of assaulting others is mainly an internet thing. While I'm not new to the internet (me and Al started it together), I am new to this kind of friction in a supposedly collaborative effort.
 * I've decided though that I care about what I do here while I do not really care that some anonymous person in some unknown location resorts to name calling when he disagrees with me. It's not thicker skin, because that stuff still hurts, it's keeping my eye on the big picture. --Karlos 05:41, 26 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Good call, I've been on this intarweb thingy for almost 15 years, and one thing I have learned is that 90% of the people on it are idiots, or they just act that way. My best advice is not to take anything said to/about you personally, and to just let it flow right by you.  Not the easiest advice in the world to follow, I know.
 * As a kinda funny note, apparently Lunarbunny can't tell us apart: User talk:Lunarbunny --Rainith 05:48, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Or invest in kickboxing. It's a great way to vent and it's good for you as well. Welcome back Karlos. --William Blackstaff 06:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice. Left my own gem for Lunarbunny. :) --Karlos 06:13, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, welcome back (-: And well, it's a two-way street.  Sometimes different ways of saying the same thing can provoke very different reactions from other people.  People can lash out harder than they know when trying to vent certain frustrations, rightous or not. -PanSola 08:26, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Talk: Tank
 Here we go again. Once again, the discussion on an article (Talk:Tank) is getting personal, so I'm taking this to your talk page.

Once again you claim that my opinion is just my opinion, that it's wrong, "meaningless" and "not relevant". Now, should I go to your talk page and make a melodramatic post complaining about how you "belittle" me and ask you to "show respect" and refrain from personal attacks?

In Talk:Tank you claim to know what players "actually use" and "think" in the game. Well ... reading through that talk again, you clearly don't. You're outnumbered. In that talk, myself, theeth, Xasxas256, Stabber, Shandy and Rezyk have quite clearly disagreed with your interpretation of the term "tank" (being limited to Warriors only). Cloak of Letters is the only one who supported your interpretation. Will you ever accept that your opinion isn't definite or agreed to by the majority?

Let me be clear about it: If you dare to simply revert the new definition of Tank to your old one, despite the majority of people disagreeing with it in the talk, then I will file an "official complaint" and put this whole matter to a vote by the community and admins. That includes that I will ask you to step down as an admin or be demoted by Gravewit. If my request is rejected by the majority of the community and admins, then I will step down as a contributor of this wiki and make room for you.

I'm afraight it's you or me in any case. I'm too tired of this crap. I don't wanna tiptoe around you any more. Time to make a decision. :( -- 08:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * This is the manifestation of the same problems indeed. Allow me to illustrate:
 * a) I said your new definition is meaningless, you removed the definition that said the tank is a warrior who can soak a lot of damage and made into "the tank is a melee fighter." That definition is wrong first of all and worthy of reversion in and of itself and second, it does not imply anythin OTHER than warrior which was your beef.
 * b) Once again you took my comment on the meaningless change you put in and considered that I am saying your opinion is meaningless. You took my note about how your personal usage of the term is not relevant in the discussion and turned into how your opinion is irerelevant. You keep twisting my words around so that you can feel insulted. There is nothing I can do about that.
 * c) I am not outnumbered, the only person who said the word TANK is generally used to refer to other professions not just warriors is Rezyk. All the others are arguing that other professions can tank, something I never questioned.
 * d) Let me be clear. I do not care about your threats. If by tomorrow, that same meaningless definition is still there, I will revert it back to Warrior, until someone has a better way to phrase it. When people say "Party LF Tank" they certainly never mean "Melee Fighter who is not necessarily a warrior."
 * e) I trust the process. So, file a complaint if you wish.
 * --Karlos 09:36, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * a) My definition includes more than just that single sentence. Shandy did right when he removed the period and linked it with the rest of the paragraph. I admit that I should have used the word "short range" instead of Melee, because "melee" is really Warrior-only, while "short range" is open for all professions.
 * b) Yes, Word Twisting is an elite skill that we're both pretty good at. ;)
 * c) Please, read through the talk again. Your separation of the noun Tank (warriors only, according to your opinion) and the verb to tank (all professions, according to your opinion) is artifical. In my understanding to say "A Geomancer can tank, but he can not be a tank." makes little sense. (To put it mildly.) And for sure this is not what the people that I listed had in mind. They disagreed with your definition of the noun tank. If I missinterpreted any of them, I hope they will speak up and I will gladly admin that I stand corrected.
 * d)/e) I will put my edits on hold until tomorrow, although I have some in mind that might make the wording of Tank more acceptable to you. But this would be useless now. This isn't about Tank, this is a general problem, and it has to come to an end. And no matter how it ends, it will be a relief for me. If it has to be me who makes room, then so be it.
 * -- 11:36, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * c) Irrelevant correction to this: I didn't say it's generally used that way, just that it's used that way enough (which could even be a minority of the time). --Rezyk 13:43, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I would like to dissociate myself from any implication that I believe "tank", in the realpolitik sense, means anything but a Warrior. As I pointed out in Talk:Tank, my experience has been that tank = Warrior. Furthermore, I think the verb form of "tank" is a flawed and fundamentally undefinable construction. Do monks monk? Do rangers ranger? Do mesmers mesmer? No. Tank is a class, not a role. Speaking of which, a tank (which I understand as "warrior") can play many roles -- blocker, damage sponger, disrupter, monk annoyer, stance breaker, down knocker, final thrust spiker, and so on. Many of these roles can be played by other classes, as has been pointed out, often much better than a warrior can hope. I absolutely disagree that the role and the class should be equated. If I wanted to be more descriptivist, I would think that the verb "to tank" means "to believe that one has enough protection and health to absorb a lot of damage". It is a mental state, not an action; a strategy, not a tactic. A tanking elementalist, for example, is a deluded fool unless he is using a very specific build (Invincible Geomancer, for instance). Anyway, it seems that this issue is obfuscated enough, and that "tank" is enough of a neologism, that any definitive article is premature. Tomorrow the meaning of "to tank" could become "to fall down quickly". Boy will we feel stupid then for having had this present argument. &mdash; Stabber (talk) 05:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I haven't read through the talk on Tank (I have enough books I want to read right now thanks), but why don't both of you step away from this article and let other people define/write it? I don't know what the problem(s) is/are but I've seen this before. You're both good contributers and you're both adults. Maybe you can find other areas of the wiki to work on and check back on tank in a week or so? --Rainith 11:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Like I said, this isn't about Tank (if it was, I would have kept the discussion there, not take it to Karlos' talk page). This is a general thing, and ignoring Tank wouldn't help. It would only postpone the problem 'til the next "hot topic". I think at least that is something that Karlos and me agree about. -- 11:55, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Rainith. There are two issues at heart here:
 * a) Whether or not I can change articles as I see fit. I see no problem in that and I will not let that be affected by how others view my changes. Never have, never will. I hope others do the same.
 * b) Whether I am abusing my powers as admin to benefit my edits and my edits alone. I do not believe I am. For some reason, if I revert an edit using the "rollback" admin feature (instead of manually copying an older version), that is considered abuse of power. I don't think it is. Now, everyone on this wiki reverts edits that they feel do not make sense, not just me. Fyren does it all the time on the skill notes left by other contributors. If he feels a note is silly or redundant or not in the right place, he will fix it/remove it. Xeeron does it with the PvP pages. For some reason, I am perceived as the great Satan who unjustly reverts other people's edits without consulting with the greater community when everyone else does it (and rightfully so). This concerns me, because it's turning into this bogus campaign of how Karlos is forcing his opinions on the wiki when I have not done any more or less than everyone else. I would be abusing my powers if I started protecting pages to prevent edits to them, or deleting articles on a whim. But for me to "mercilessly edit" like everyone else, yet be singled out as the most "merciless" editor is, quite frankly, bogus.
 * I rather solve problems than go around them. I tried going around problems and it doesn't work for me. When I went away for a few days, Tetris went ahead and put in all the disputed notes he had on the Dragon article (Bone Dragons are evil, heh) and no one told him, wait, this is disputed, let's first resolve this. So, I have learned that the "greater community" is very susceptible to bullying and "facts on the ground" style of editing (our Dragon article says that there is this "mixing" between dragons and drakes which is only felt by ONE editor on this wiki). I refrained from editing that article back to what it was or any other version waiting to see what people will do, and no one did anything. So, I am not backing down any more. If the "greater community" wants to step in and intervene, they are welcome to. I'll just keep editing away. I see that in the Tank article, putting some more work into it fixed it. I intend to keep doing that. --Karlos 19:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Personally, I have always felt that the GuildWiki policies traditions that are so accepting of reverts/deletions are poor compared to Wikipedia policy. Maybe now is a good time to propose change... --Rezyk 21:25, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * GuildWiki has no policies; at least, none that are generally well-defined enough for me to consider them such. The reason I backed (and continue to back) Karlos as a sysop here is that he very actively enforces the standards that the community seems to push.  The simple fact is that, in the policy debates I've participated in around here, only those who are currently sysops (with an occasional other) generally participate.  This hasn't changed since the site was founded, even though we now have over 1100 members (I remember when there were less than 50).


 * Debates are okay. Debates with Karlos are, in fact, okay.  The key issue here is not Karlos, I think, or even about two stubborn people disagreeing.  The point here is that, after a rather heated discussion it Talk:Tank, we ended up with a damned good article on what a tank is and what tanks do.  Debate is always good for the GuildWiki as a whole, so I'd really rather not see "you or me" posts like this on a user's talk page after both users, together, successfully made quite a good article.


 * Finally, regardless of your dispute, Karlos has clearly not misused his admin rights in any way. You (Tetris L or others) are free to make any claims against his editing practices you wish&mdash;I disagree with you, but I understand how you'd draw the conclusion.  However, I do not believe his admin status has anything to do with this argument whatsoever. &mdash;Tanaric 02:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The key issue here (on this page, at least) is why things keep escalating to such a heated degree, and if there is a good way to dissolve or circumvent the problem factors. Karlos, I do not believe there is a "bogus campaign" against you -- I think a major factor of why you have more heavy clashes is this difference:  You will tend to revert, or threaten to revert, more in the middle of a dispute.  I hope this is not taken as a personal attack; there are definitely other factors and I am not saying this is a violation of policy.  If anything, I am pointing out that it might be best to improve the system to avoid this. --Rezyk 14:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I also suggest that we stop wandering off on the tangent of "admin rights abuse". Nobody (as far as I can tell) has said that it's a problem and so it is something of a straw man. There are other reasonable reasons for asking someone to step down as admin. --Rezyk 14:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I suggest you read the thread more carefully:
 * Let me be clear about it: If you dare to simply revert the new definition of Tank to your old one, despite the majority of people disagreeing with it in the talk, then I will file an "official complaint" and put this whole matter to a vote by the community and admins. That includes that I will ask you to step down as an admin or be demoted by Gravewit. If my request is rejected by the majority of the community and admins, then I will step down as a contributor of this wiki and make room for you.
 * As for my reverting or threatening to revert: a) that's completely in your head and b) You of all people have the least right to preach about this. In your first disagreement with me YOU reverted my enhancements to your work. You were the trigger happy reverter. Remember?
 * Anyways, if you wish to discuss policy/tradition issues, please do so in the proper talk page. --Karlos 22:34, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of issues here -- I will just respond to the most relevant ones. If you and the community don't see or don't care about these problem factors, and really believe them to be completely in my head, then I admit I am at a loss of how to work here. In the interest of not making this seem like a personal attack, I will not press that particular matter now (I had honestly not even expected it to be a point of disagreement). I did not preach to you about changing your practices; I have been responding here with stuff very relevant to the comments and problems at hand and how we may be able to avoid them by changing the system. --Rezyk 14:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Extra note: I was working on this response during Karlos' last edit. --Rezyk 14:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Karlos is right about one thing: This isn't about abuse of admin rights. Karlos has acted the same way before he got an admin officially. He has always felt entitled to make swift edits and reverts, watching over the rules and what he considers objectivity. So ... thinking about it again ... him stepping down as an admin wouldn't solve the problem for me.

My problem is: Discussions are supposed to be fruitful and constructive. Both sides present their arguments, both sides make concessions, and in the end you hopefully come to a mutual agreement. But that doesn't happen with Karlos (at least not in discussions with me). Karlos sticks to his initial opinion and defends it with teeth and claws. Discussions, even over tiny minor details, turn endless circles. In the end the article is just left alone and the discussion is put on ice. Sadly, I've come to the conclusions that discussions with Karlos are pointless, because they lead to nothing.

Karlos: You may now whine about how I'm not respectful and that I'm attacking you personally. But this whole problem is about your personality, and there is no way not to say it personal. There is no use beating around the bush and tiptoeing around the problem, which is you.

You're the most stubborn person I've met in quite a while. I think I have never, ever, not a single time, seen you change your mind over a matter (except minor details), even when obviously proven wrong (not obvious for you, off course) or confronted with a majority speaking against you.

Karlos, I am really, really tired of the discussions with you, and they have basically spoilt the fun I used to have with this wiki. Recently I'm not having fun, because I know that whenever I write something, you're going to jump at it, call it "just an opinion (usually false)", revert it and replace it with your own very subjective opinion. I'm not willing to take that s*it any more.

I'm not going to provide evidence for what I've said, or reply, because that would lead to yet another endless, time- and energy-consuming yet pointless discussion, which I'm not willing to go through. Instead I will let people judge for themselves. The following are some of the many articles that I would ask everybody to review:


 * Talk:Tank
 * Talk:Leaver
 * Talk:Hex
 * Talk:Dragon
 * Talk:Ghost
 * Talk:Monster skill
 * Talk:The False Gods
 * Talk:Evade
 * Talk:Twin Serpent Lakes
 * Talk:Seekers
 * User talk:Tetris L
 * User talk:Deldda Kcarc
 * User talk:Karlos
 * User talk:Karlos

Everybody, read and judge for yourself.

Karlos, the "serious re-evaluation" that you did while you were "away from wiki" obviously didn't lead to any insight. Since you're not going to change, I will make room. Have fun with this wiki.

I may be a stubborn person too, and for sure I've had my share of culpa that it had to come to this. Maybe I exagerated a bit with what I said above and maybe I put it too harsh. But these are my sentiments right now.

I'm jaded. This is my final post in this thread. See you all. -- 04:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * So the real problem is that I'm just a person too difficult to deal with? Hmm.. Do I have personality flaws? You bet I do, I am impatient, I am too sarcastic at times and I am too blunt as well. Yet, your issue with me is that I think I am right "too much of the time." I am afraid that is a) an unfair estimation of our discussions and b) all in your head. I do know that my bluntness and my sarcasm can make some people think I am arrogant and do not care for doing the right thing, just having things my way. I also know form living with me for 30 years that they are wrong. I'll show you in your own examples, though I expect it will change very little:
 * Talk:Tank
 * And what happened in that article? Did the article get "stalled"? Did I "have my way"? I believe you edited it and I made a minor change to your edit and now a lot of people are happy with it. Does the article say "warrior" as I wanted it to? No.
 * Talk:Leaver
 * And what happened there? Did I delete the article? Is it a redirect to Quitter? I found that enough people call it Leaver and I left it at that and removed my own delete request.
 * Talk:Hex
 * And what happened there? After the hostilities were calmed down the article looks a LOT better because we worked out a nice layout.
 * Talk:Dragon
 * And if I am not mistaken, you did put you suggested edits there and they are still there.
 * Talk:Ghost
 * In which we arrived at the conclusion you will develop a system of categorizing undead based on what affects them and what does not.
 * Talk:Monster skill
 * What's wrong there? We were working on the layout for non-player skills which I believe you started implementing.
 * Talk:The False Gods
 * I believed your edit was bad, just as Rustjive believes my edit was stupid. Tough luck. :)
 * Talk:Evade
 * I was opposed to a specific wording, and we worked out a definition that pleased all parties and the definition was not concocted by me.
 * Talk:Twin Serpent Lakes
 * Hmm, isn't your note on the article? Even though I personally believe the lake and the mountains have nothing to do with each other? Did we not leave your note there?
 * Talk:Seekers
 * And the article is called?
 * Overall, you see very clearly that I did not "have my way" except partially in Evade. Did you even stop to ponder that? Your problem with me is that I stand up for what I think is right too zealously, not that I actually "twist" the content on the wiki to my liking. Well, Tetris, this is just the way I am. Call me too full of myself, call me too full of crap, I DO stand up for things I believe in. If I am proven wrong (as in the Ranger example in Tank, or Forgotten note in Glint or numerous other cases) I am the first to correct those mistakes.
 * You don't want me to dispute your edits, you don't want me to question the changes you make and I can't help you there. I try to not even READ the edits you make to things I am not interested in (like Collectors and Merchants) so as not to find anything I might dispute and upset you. But for the things I DO care about, the story, the bestiary, the quests, the lore, all those things... We will have run-ins as long as your expectation is that I should not challenge you or dispute your changes simply because I do it too much or in an over-confident way. I can't help you there. You will have to do some re-evaluation yourself.
 * I made my discoveries known in the re-evaluation and I said that I no longer care what you or anyone else thinks and I no longer care if you cuss/curse at me on talk pages or if you even leave, quite frankly. I suggest you reach the same conclusions and move on, but if you feel too much angst over this, then move on to something else. You are a great contributor, and it will be a loss for the wiki. But I am not mincing words anymore. --Karlos 07:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Karlos, I ask you to strongly consider voluntarily stepping down as an admin, based simply on this reason alone: It is an exceptional problem for users to work with an admin who "no longer cares what [..] anyone else thinks" about such a pertinent issue.  For what it's worth, I am asking this out of a sense of necessity and not hostility. --Rezyk 13:42, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * You are twisting my words and I shall make no guess as to whether that is intentional or unintentional. I do not care what any of you think, say or do as a result of my personality. Is that clear enough? If that IS required of me to be admin (to care what you think about me) then I will step down. I try to encourage all edits and new contributors and I do care that the wiki grows and prospers. No amount of misconstruing on your part will change that.
 * Now, I ask that you evaluate your own role in this conversation. A few issues of note are:
 * You intervene in the middle of the discussion to tell me that I should stop bringing up the admin issue as a "straw man." I show you that it WAS the issue brought up to begin with. You remain silent. No attempt to take your foot out of your mouth or apologize.
 * Then, after you say that the admin issue is not at all the issue and that it requires more reasonable factors, you post now asking me to step down as admin because, all of a sudden, I was no longer fit. This is based on a misconstrued snippit of text from a longer paragraph.
 * Finally, I will not keep this drama going. If you have ANY further comments/requests/questions about my job as an admin or my behavior as a contributor, please make them in the form of a formal request to Gravewit or Tanaric, or the Community Portal talk page. --Karlos 14:09, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * From my point of view, it is you who is completely misconstruing many things, filibustering on irrelevant issues, and dead-ending the important points, intentionally or unintentionally. Especially in this last response of yours.  Like Tetris L, I will refrain from specifics (unless you ask for them) because it would provide more opportunity of the same.  From all this, I get the impression that you really, simply, don't care what others think about this issue, and I admit I don't understand how else to interpret what I quoted.  Do you want my thoughts on this issue or not? --Rezyk 15:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Depends on what the issue is. If you're going to tell me your thoughts on my person and my way of thinking as Tetris did, if you'll be telling me I think I am right and everyone else is wrong, if you're going to expound more on the evil ways of my debating skills and how I filibuster, use straw men and misconstrue your points ... Then I don't want to know your thoughts. Keep them for yourself. I could try and care less, but I don't think that's humanly possible.
 * If you're going to be critiquing my work in any specific article in this wiki or my work as an admin or if you wish to discuss a policy issue, please go ahead and explain yourself further.
 * If you have nothing better than to keep asking loaded questions and going around in circles on my talk page, then I am afraid you'll be doing that solo from now on. --Karlos 19:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * If you don't want to know my thoughts about what's wrong or bad about your arguments (i.e. what I feel is misconstrued), then personally I can't accept that you are genuinely open to discussion. So, I will not continue here. --Rezyk 17:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

As someone not remotely involved with any of the articles in question, and reading through all of this simply because I care about the wiki, I'd like to say that I agree with Karlos on most of this. Yeah, some really mundane points were argued more than I'd care to&mdash;but it takes two to argue. In general, Karlos has presented his views and responded to any critique of them with critique in kind (which is what constructive, collaborative editing is). He is not required to find your views better than his. In cases in which he found himself in the minority, he has allowed the other party's idea to remain on the wiki. More typically, a middle ground was met. While I don't recall ever seeing him directly concede a point (perhaps that would be helpful in the future, to avoid misunderstandings), there isn't a single case (that I remember -- there was a lot of text to read through!) where he forced the wiki to use his initial wording of an article&mdash;more to the point, I don't recall a single case where he didn't acknowledge positive contributions by the editors he was working with on the articles in question! Anyway, thanks Karlos, for being a positive influence on the wiki. &mdash;Tanaric 15:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Air
Someone has been playing as an air elementalist :P Shandy 09:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I love Air Magic. In my opinion, it's best at taking out a foe, and it is also the most versatile school of magic in the game. I can go to FoW and pack the punch, I can go to UW and just switch in Blinding Flash and Gale and all of a sudden I can control those crazy Aatxes. Just amazing.
 * To me, Fire is extremely boring (boom, boom and then some more boom), Earth is cool, and Water is for assistant-nukers, goes well with a lot of other stuff, but is not as potent on its own. Playing a lot with henchies, I have found Air the best at just taking out the guy I want to take out. :)
 * I'm always interested in Aeromancer builds, if you have any please suggest them here or in the Aeromancer talk page. --Karlos 10:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Got your message Karlos; thanks for the welcome. I was reading your info and what you said about being a monk: "It also requires patience as you can see the mistakes of others a lot more closely." Hahaha, very true! I love being a monk. --TheSpectator 03:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * You are most welcome. Yes, being a monk is like this Zen experience. You see people doing weird stuff (like the dying ally who runs INTO the enemy making sure you can't heal him) as well as lame stuff (tanks with no res who'd rather run fo their lives than save you). I prefer protection so it's a great mental exercise in trying to predict the game's next move and countering it because I think that's when protection is most effective. But I digress... Welcome aboard. :) --Karlos 04:18, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Amen to that. Since a monk's job is usually light work at the start of a battle, you get to really concentrate on what is going on - you get to see the idiot warriors luring two groups in the FoW or the Elementalist with 3 super runes racing ahead. Pretty frustrating stuff. Then it comes to the actual battle and you see the warriors BACKING OFF! Argh! If I ever see another cowardly warrior again it'll be too damn soon.
 * Ahem. You may have noticed I have a slight problem with warriors :P. Shandy 04:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, I have become incredibly mean to warriors over the past two months. The amount of bad tankingI have sen in the Fissure has made me flip more than once. I just can't fathom a tank who aggros needlessly then when he recognizes that he made a booboo, backs up and brings the new mob into his healers and elementalists. Or the tank who thinks his job is to take out the enemy monk and leave his spell casters to fend off for themselves against an Abyssal! Just too many bad tanks out there. --Karlos 11:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank You.
Hey man, thanks for the support. I will be writing more and more articles in the future, along with adding pictures where needed. It's nice to see yet another diablo fan converted over to guildwars :).--The King Tarosian 07:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Your welcome. For the most part, this wiki had two people heavily contributing to the Fissure and UW sections, me and 84.175. But he's been scarce now for nearly two months. I have had great excursions into the Fissure, but the UW is much harder to traverse with PuGs. My best success there has been with friends and guild mates. Unfortunately, I cannot find people often enough to go there with. I finally conquered the spawning pools this week (when I added the entry). So, any help is appreciated. --Karlos 07:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Well i'm on guildwars almost always so your free to see what im up to anytime. IGN's Tarus From Taros, Ament of Taros and Self of Taros. If i don't respond its probably because im updating guild wiki :).--The King Tarosian 08:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Sagius
I'm glad you and I feel the same way about the actions of Sagius Truthbarron. :) &mdash;Tanaric 21:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Yay, I'm popular :D --Sagius Truthbarron 21:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't like to beat around the bush. I don't believe threats of banning are very conducive to healthy contribution, but I also think a line has to be drawn somewhere. --Karlos 22:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

"Pure" vs "Actual"
Original discussion from Category talk:Christmas Update:


 * I hope there's a Chinese New Year (aka Lunar New Year) update celebration. I mean, the world Tournament is taking place in Taipei (which celebrates Chinese new year despite whichever side of the Taiwan/China issue you are or aren't on), and the lunar new year as right at the end of January this year (usually in Feb). -PanSola 00:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Another cultural misconception! :) The only people who use an actual Lunar calendar in the world are the Muslims. :) The Chinese and the Jews use a "Lunisolar" calendar that lines up with the Gregorian one every 2-3 years. A purely Lunar calendar (like ours) would keep rotating back 11-12 days every year (Lunar year is 354 days). This is why Ramadan does not map near any specific Gregorian month. --Karlos 00:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Are you sure they aren't just different lunar calendars with respect to how a "year" is counted? The Chinese "lunar" calendar, which you said to be "lunisolar", has the full moon on the 15th of every month.  The "Chinese New Year" is never the same day as the Gregorian New Year for at least the past 20 years (and I'd bet 2 cents that they are never the same day), so I'm not sure what you mean by "line up".  I'd be very interested in any source that explains this "lunisolar" deal. -PanSola 01:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok I looked things up on Wikipedia. Both "Lunisolar" and "Pure Lunar" calendars ARE actual lunar calendars!  And indeed the difference IS in how a "year" is counted.  You were trying to claim the equivalent of "The only people who are actual mesmers in the world are in Pre-Searing (before taking secondary profession)", when I said Sora Pan (Me/R) is a Mesmer that has finished all the missions.  Difference in "actual" and "pure" is quite a bit d-: -PanSola 02:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh brother. A lunisolar calendar cannot be a true lunar calendar because they count the years based on the rotations of the sun, not the moon. Lunisolar does not equal Lunar. You're trying to say tha W/Me can be considered a primary mesmer. You're the one stretching the definition. A Lunar calendar is a calendar fully based on the moon, months and year. Does "Solar Calendar" indicate a calendar that counts months based on the sun but years based on Mars? Nope. Why are we even arguing about this? :) --Karlos 03:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not trying to say W/Me can be considered a primary mesmer. The difference in analogy is that, the moon is only capable of distinguishing months, not season or years. Thus any calendar that always uses the phase of the moon to determine the months are actual lunar calentars. Nothing about the moon is given up when additional stuff is added into the calendar.

The moon is only related to months. The sun is only related to years. (Days are related to Earth's own rotation only, the Sun happen to be a useful reference point just like stars not on the axis of Earth's rotation)

The "month" in the Gregorian calendar is an approximation of a period of the moon's phase, useful for dividing the many days inside a year; Similarily, the "year" in the muslum calendar, your so-called "pure lunar" calendar, is an approximation of a period of the cycle in seasons, useful for grouping large number of months. Nothing intrinsic about the moon makes sense to group months by units of 12 each, and nothing intrinsic about the sun makes sense to divide the year into 12 parts. The various lunisolar calendars simply decide to add leap months to keep up with the seasons, whereas the muslum calendar prefers regularity of numbers but allow any particular month to occure in any seasion, depending on which year it is.

A 100% pure lunar calendar should only have months, not years at all.

I guess the best analogy would be a W/R who has a full warrior build skill bar, spent the attribute points in all the stuff needed for a pure warrior build, but have 6 additional attribute points which got dumped into Marksmanship and carries a longbow as backup weapon. The W/R isn't a "pure" warrior because of the bow and the few ranks in Marksmanship, but is still an "actual" warrior. The pure warrior would be a W/R (or W/anything) that let the extra attribute points sit idly, and refuse to carry a bow. Likewise, the Chinese lunisolar calendar is an actual lunar calendar, just not pure. (-: -PanSola 04:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * According to the definition of calendar:
 * [ http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/calendar]
 * It is a system that defines a year, a month and a day, sometimes a week. No system of calendars that I know of or read about is called a "calendar" but does not define years, nor is there a system that does not define months. Even the wacky Mayan Calendar had months.
 * Therefore, your statement that a calendar can be a calendar without defining a year or a month is a fallacy. A solar calendar is one in which years and months are based on the sun (in which case the months are simply distributed among the 365 days of the year) and a lunar calendar is a calendar that defines the year and the month based on the moon (in which case the year is simply 12 months). A lunisolar calendar is a calendar that uses a combination of both, using the sun to decide the year and the moon to decide the months. A <> B <> C. --Karlos 04:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I concure that calendar must have year, so my previous claim had a fallacy. Nonetheless the concept of "year" comes about from the cycle of seasons, and the concept of "month" comes about from the cycle of moon phases.  The Solar calendar's months aren't based anything on the sun, they are arbitary divisions averaging about 30 days in length, to RESEMBLE the period of moon phases.  Likewise lunar calendars' years aren't based on the moon, lunar years are arbitary units of time averaging about four seasons long.


 * The lunisolar calendars don't use the sun to decide the year, at least not directly. Leap years are added so the lunisolar new year is always somewhere at the end of winter or beginning of spring, but at least fot the Chinese new year it only lands on the same Gregorian date every few decades, and it's not exactly a simply cyclic pattern.


 * Had the Earth take twice as long to go around the sun, even the Muslim calendar would have had 24 months (or maybe 25, since +12 might be preferred over -24). I assert the Muslim calendar also uses the sun to determing the year, rounding the length of 4 seasons to the nearest integral number of months.  Thus to consider the Muslim calendar the ONLY actual lunar calendar, while not counting the lunisolar calendars, is a fallacy IMHO.  Lunisolar calendars is a proper subset of lunar calendars. -PanSola 05:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Again, the concept of a year being related to seasons is another stretching of the defintion. Seasons matter for agrarian societies. Prior to settling down to farm, people had little "use" for marking seasons, especially if you subscribe to the theory that human life began around the warmer areas where the seasons look alike.
 * With regards to 24 months... Umm, actually no. The number of months is set at 12. It's actually divine scripture.. A surprise, I know. :) Muslims do not even have the option of introducing intercalary months or altering the Lunar calendar into a Lunisolar one. :) At least for the purposes of worship. So, we definitely could care less about the sun. :) Our months move all over the place.. You can't plan any farming on the lunar calendar. --Karlos 08:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

edits
Hey sorry I'm just trying to help, I'm still new so I don't know like all the rules and such yet, sorry :) --DragonWR12LB 07:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)