User talk:PanSola

Archives

 * Past mistakes are moved into the /MistakeArchive
 * Other closed issues are moved to /Archive, /Archive2, /Archive3, /Archive4

new skill list template
Sorry to post this here, wasn't sure where the new templates were discussed (feel free to post a link, and I'll move it there). Re: new templates used on Mesmer skills quick reference, I noticed that the new template doesn't seem to include the marker for questable skills. I realize there are very few that are in Factions, but many of them are questable in Prophecies. I think that's a useful column to include. Or has this already been discussed, or did I overlook it? --I am 161.88 12:31, 19 May 2006 (CDT)
 * It's kind of brought up here and there, but not fully explored. There are special complications with respect to Core skills, as a certain skill cound be questable in Campaign 1, 2, 4 and 5 but not in campaign 3 etc.  THis is a problem even for the existing system, and I have not though of a satisifactory solution to it.  Having a different icon for all possible combinations is out of the question IMHO.  Having separate icons for each campaign feels too bulky.  Simply marking it as questable if it is questable for any campaign seems to either mislead people or lost value (ppl would have to check the skill page to see which campaign it is questable for).  I am open to suggestions though. - 12:57, 19 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Hmmm, I see your point, I hadn't considered where the same core skill may/may not be questable depending upon which combination of campaigns the player owns. The only thing that I can think of is to have an icon that represents "This skill is questable in at least one campaign, see skill description for details"; but I'm not sure if that's any better than just leaving out the mention in the list.  --I am 161.88 13:08, 19 May 2006 (CDT)

Thanks
Just thought I'd say thanks for helping me out there with the Monk 15k Kuzrick Icon picture. Still figuring a lot out about GuildWiki just trying to help out. :) -Axodious

I wanted to thank you. I'm a long time user of GuildWiki, but am just now starting to contribute. I'm learning alot about editing just from looking at your User page and posts.--Xis10al 05:52, 23 May 2006 (CDT)

18 DA
There isn't a +1 deadly arts mod.. Skuld  17:12, 19 May 2006 (CDT)

Compass
The game calls it the "compass" in the UI customization window. --68.142.14.52 10:16, 20 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Arg, the game calls it the mini map in the Monastery Overlook tutorial... sigh, I'll move it back. - 10:18, 20 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Heh. I skipped the tutorial, so I didn't know.  What do the manuals call it?  I don't have any to check.  --68.142.14.52 10:21, 20 May 2006 (CDT)
 * No manual here, still waiting for my CE. I was basing it off a screen shot during head start event. - 10:23, 20 May 2006 (CDT)
 * I just checked my manual. It refers to the area in the Compass as the "mini-map" (pg 79), and the window shown by pressing 'U' as the "Area map" (pg 82). --- Barek (talk &bull; contribs) - 10:34, 20 May 2006 (CDT)

The redirects you added in relation to this issue
When you moved around the pages you created a double redirect issue, however unintentional. However I could not determine where you wanted the actual talk page so I removed both redirects. you had Talk:Mini map redirecting to Talk:Compass redirecting to Talk:Mini mpa (obvious misspelling) so could you place the content of Talk:Mini mpa wherever it belongs? Also I think compass article should have a talk page of its own and not be a redirect. --Draygo Korvan 12:12, 22 May 2006 (CDT)

Shiro edit
Sorry about the erroneous reversion. I was specifically reverting the edit of User:Potfish and didn't see your edits at the time; yet your edits were clearly there for more than a half hour before I did my reversion. I have noticed some odd timing issues recently, but only on a scale of a couple minutes, nothing like this, so I can't blame a system problem for the fault - it was all me. I'll be more careful in the future! --- Barek (talk &bull; contribs) - 09:17, 23 May 2006 (CDT)

Template:Icon
Mate, I have to say I'm not happy with the note you added to Template:Icon. First of all, the template is meant to be used not only for skills, but also for items, so the new name Template:Skill icon is a bad choice. But even more: I said in the discussion that I wouldn't mind a change of the template, provided that the person who hijacks the template for different use fixes all those articles that already use the old template. But you didn't bother to fix them. Instead you simply put in that note (without prior discussion), which makes all the articles look ugly, and leave the fixing to others. This is not a nice way to handle this! -- 10:27, 24 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Apologies. To make sure we are on teh same page, I'm actually not the one who picked the new name "Skill Icon".  I proposed "Article icon" and I still think that's a better name compared to "Skill icon", but didn't bother to bring up that particular point in discussion.  As for the other point, I thought it meant if I changed the template so old use of it becomes broken (that's what I thought "hijacking" meant), I would be responsible for fixing it.  Right now the template still functions as old, not broken, just with an additional message.  I took the action with the simple intention of making the transition message appear so it'll be noticed and fixed as ppl see them (didn't have the energy to do a crusade, like the skill articles).  Once again, apologies. - 10:36, 24 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Accepted. :) There seems to be a general disagreement about the use of the template anyway. Several other main contributors and admins remove the template alltogether wherever they see it (see: Talk: Afflicted Horror). This disagreement should be resolved before I continue to use the template. --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 06:30, 29 May 2006 (CDT)

Database testin'?
Let's just say I'm asking out of fellow curiousity? Grave is telling me there'll be another one brought online soonish so I'm wondering if you were testing bugs, speed, or whatever. It's good information to have. --Nunix 09:05, 26 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Testing load to see if it's affecting speed or causing errors. Specifically Mesmer skills quick reference.  I'll hold it still for one more week see how much errors are we getting, and decide whether to add load or decrease load for furthur study, since we have been getting database errors before I started the experiments (including that really major one). - 12:06, 26 May 2006 (CDT)

Wrong skill icon
There are wrong icons in skills: Mantra of Signets and Mantra of Inscriptions. They are switched. I am new to wiki and I am not sure if I can change it by myself. In fact I dont know how.
 * That's a REALLY good catch. I've fixed it.  Thanks for reporting. - 13:45, 26 May 2006 (CDT)

Assassin's Promise | Clarification
you say " This skill only affects skills with a recharge time." isnt that obvious? skills without recharge times dont have to recharge xD
 * Like Resurrection Signet and Celestial skills? - 05:58, 29 May 2006 (CDT)

User_upgrade_general_prefixes
I adjusted it according to some/most of your suggestions. Furious works for me but Vampiric refuses. And I still haven't tackled sundering. Colour code overrides for non-BGGreenyes values seem to be going good, as you'll see from my userpage. -- Dashface  07:21, 1 June 2006 (CDT)

Monk non-attribute elites not showing "no attribute" text
Monk_skills_quick_reference the two elites aren't showing the text that says no attribute and theyre leaving a blank cell at the end, is this a bug or bad filling in of (I notice it looks different to  for example)? &mdash; Skuld  07:35, 10 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I've just fixed this by making the template like the others. Not quite sure what the problem was, but you can look in the history if you want to investigate. --Theeth (talk)   08:37, 10 June 2006 (CDT)


 * thanks &mdash; Skuld  08:39, 10 June 2006 (CDT)


 * The "profession=hide" is supposed to hide the profession and the attribute cell, because I consider them redundent. The hiding effect only takes place if in the skill template the "profession = ". - 12:18, 10 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I get it now. Thanks for the explanation. --Theeth (talk)   16:32, 10 June 2006 (CDT)

Armor articles
Just wanted to say, despite what at least one person has said recently, I think you did a damn fine job on the new armor articles. =) I may end up adding to them sometime in the future, if I can figure it out (I can be slow sometimes).  --Rainith 02:51, 11 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Seconded. It's very easy to find what you want if you start from the index on the main page. I find it very handy, though I mostly just look up appearance. I can see how Ritualist/Ritualist's might be confusing to some (particularly non-native English speakers), but that's just because basic armors have profession names. &mdash; 130.58 (talk) ( 02:59, 11 June 2006 (CDT) )
 * Yeah that part annoyed me to no end... Anet really doesn't care about helping us keeping all the names straight. >_<" - 03:18, 11 June 2006 (CDT)

Old Skill Template..
Ok, all the skills in my user page are messed up now because someone depricated the old skill box. Which, for the life of me, I cannot comprehend. It goes against software design to break old stuff just to force people to use new stuff. Anyways, hwo do I get it to work? --Karlos 13:27, 11 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Sorry. Um, revert? (keep the categories though) - 13:29, 11 June 2006 (CDT)

Mimes
Yes they are! Corollary: mimes are useless anywhere. -- Bishop [ rap|con ] 17:07, 13 June 2006 (CDT)
 * "A mime is a terrible thing to waste" --161.88.255.140 17:22, 13 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Let's invent a FF5 dual version and my miming party will kick your sorry 'hind everywhere d-: - 17:33, 13 June 2006 (CDT)

Skillbox Templates: I need your help
Just one question: is it true that the current templates for skill quick references (skill box row etc.) require advanced syntax in the skill templates they include? If so: is there a reason why? I would not want the basic wiki contributor (including me) to write advanced syntax for the skills to display properly on quick reference (and other) pages. --Chi Li 07:06, 14 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Hiding stuff. requires advanced template. If you don't hide stuff, basic template will suffice.   Style and formatting/Skills also mentions a very easy way that converts basic syntax to advanced syntax, by using a subst template. - 07:07, 14 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Thanks, now I begin to understand what the "do this to convert to advanced template" means :) Unfortunately that implies another crusade (or bot?) on the existing skills, as quite many of them are coded in standard syntax. BTW: how does that subst react to Templates that already are in advanced syntax? --Chi Li [[Image:Chi_Li.gif|Chi Li]] 07:19, 14 June 2006 (CDT)
 * It adds a redundent layer of parameter passing, but doesn't break anything in terms of actual functionality. And again, as long as you don't hide stuff the standard syntax will suffice (like for the Monk skills quick refernce).- 07:21, 14 June 2006 (CDT)
 * I thought more about others trying to hide and wondering what caused the resulting errors. And thanks for improving the 1/4, 1/2 and 3/4 templates, they do now no longer break the SkillBoxStats template .) --Chi Li [[Image:Chi_Li.gif|Chi Li]] 07:50, 14 June 2006 (CDT)

For your consideration
Don't know if you're at all interested in this, but I'd appreciate your feed back here about this. --Rainith 00:42, 15 June 2006 (CDT)

Request protection and temporary blocks
Please protect Game updates/20060615 and place a temporary block on the users User:Karlos and User:Stabber. Revert war in progress. Thanks. &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 20:57, 15 June 2006 (CDT)
 * It's only a rever war if you are adding fuel to the fire. I'm not going to honor your request of even blocking the page when you are the only other participant in the revert war.  - 21:01, 15 June 2006 (CDT)

Request for participation
Can you participate in the discussion here: Talk:Armor penetration --Draygo Korvan 12:19, 16 June 2006 (CDT)

Thanks
Thanks for all your hard work here pansola. Just want to make sure there is no bad blood here =). I guess the bottom line of what I was saying can be summed up like this: good intentioned edits of potentially new information should be treated like you are treating Phantom Pain, regardless of the source. Another way to sum it up is "Trust but verify". If you feel like I unfairly criticised your decision, or made it out to be a much bigger deal than it was please let me know. I hope I did not dis-respect you in such a way. --Draygo Korvan 15:21, 16 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Well, if anyone, registered or anon, edits Phantom Pain's notes to switch the behavior of CoP and Purge Signet around, and do not provide any indication that they have done any tests, I will actually revert it back to the prior version. I will continue to trust the most recently timestamped report over an unsupported edit. - 15:31, 16 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Fine, I am talking added information here. Maybe instead of a solid revert, commenting out the data or moving the disputed content to the talk page would be a better action. Do you think you could move information like that to the talk page with a comment like: "Can anyone confirm this edit?", or a comment like "I really do not feel this data is accurate, can you please confirm it?". Would be a better way of handling such data, dont you think? --Draygo Korvan 15:42, 16 June 2006 (CDT)


 * According to my model of human behavior (which may have major flaws, and you are more than welcome to criticize it), the people who make an edit, check again later and see it deleted, and feel unwelcomed despite the type of edit summary I put in, would also be the type of user who do not check the edit summary (which invites them to discuss the content in question on the talk page) nor check the talk page. Thus, with respect to users' feelings, I do not thing your suggestion would help the situation.
 * As for the sake of correctness of information, it also does not seem practical to ask for confirmation on a previously verified result anytime someone makes a contradictory edit without additonal support.
 * I may have gotten the model of human behavior wrong, and I may not have considered some facts or factors, but according to the reasons I have listed, I do not think your suggestion is a better way of handling such data. And everything else being equal, it is more work.  Feel free to criticize my model/logic, or supply additional factors for consideration. - 15:53, 16 June 2006 (CDT)


 * My only problem with that model, is that it does not assume good faith in the editor. And time or difficulty on your part shouldnt be a factor, a questionable well intentioned edit does not come up that often to be that much of an extra burden to move any questionable content to the talk page for the greater community to discuss. The problem with just reverting it, is that generally it does not leave it open for discussion. Often when I see a revert on Recent Changes, I wont bother checking it especially if it is from what I consider to be a respected user like yourself. I would not even have noticed it if it wasnt for Kuntz's post on Guild-hall (which he did because he could not respond here due to the ban message). A hard revert like that is also harder on new users, who may not understand things like article history just yet. --Draygo Korvan 16:09, 16 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I disagree with your critique of the model not assuming good faith in the editor. Having good faith does not mean the editor will check the edit history or the talk page.  Therefore modeling that the editor do not check history nor talk page has no conflicts with assuming good faith of the editor.
 * Misinformed edits are sparse enough to revert. But if we require confirmation for every one of them prior to reversion, there would be a non-trivial number of articles with incorrect information on GuildWiki that everyone have forgotten about because no one bothered to check it the first day a confirmation is asked for.  There are already a dozen still-open questions that I've asked long ago had haven't had anyone test them out in months, and I have lost track of many of them.  Thus every intention assumed to be good, I will still stand the last timestamped result compared to an unsupported edit.  While still assuming good faith, I find the burdern of work to fall on the contributor to supply supporting evidence, as opposed to the rest of the guildwiki community to reconfirm what was tested and confirmed before.
 * We have very different understand of what a "hard revert" is. To me, a hard revert is done by using the "rollback" feature accessable to the admins, and the edit history will say "roll back edit of Blah blah blah, revert to version by Bluh bluh".  Typing a fully personal summary including a link, is, IMHO, a very soft revert.
 * Regarding the "not leaving it open for discussion", my edit summary is actually inviting discussion. If I wrote someting on the talk page, I would have included the information that "I reverted the above quoted edit because it conflicted with the test result in this linked article, and the contributor did not supply any supporting evidence whatsoever", so people get the full context.  If you trust my edit summary enough (revert. The anon edit disagree with research results done in 2005 December. Discuss edivence/proof on talk page), why would you more likely to feel interested in following up on the same thing I wrote on the discussion page which has the additional detail that the edit being reverted had posted zero supporting evidence whatsoever?  By providing the additional detail that the contributor did not provide any supporting evidence, what I wrote on the talk page would actually discredit the contributor compared to what I wrote in the edit summary.
 * Thus my logic leads me to conclude that what I wrote in the edit summary is more likely to get other people to check out and verify what the conflict being reverted is, whereas what you are asking me to write in the talk page + what I would have included for completeness of context would be less likely to get people to check it out.
 * The "history" and "recent changes" links are about just as hard to figure out as the "discussion" link (and with unregistered/novice users, the recent changes never collapse edits on the same article, so the comments, if any, will not be hidden by the non-existent collapse).
 * I hope I have addressed every point you have raised, unfortunately all in disagreement. Again feel free to criticize my logic or supply additional factors I did not consider. - 16:54, 16 June 2006 (CDT)