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)

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)

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)