User talk:Tanaric

Old conversations and dead threads can be found on /Archives. If you want to dredge something up, bring the whole thread back here.

Request for Opinions on Factions campaign
I'm broke, and am trying to find out if Factions is worth buying. Now, this is clearly a biased community, but I'm interested in what you guys think. &mdash;Tanaric 00:06, 30 April 2006 (CDT)
 * Not -entirely- broke right now, but I'm currently lurking in Japan with my North America account; which means I'm fighting cruddy wireless connection across a whole bunch of miles, since they don't have any of the Asia territories available due to whatever bizarre price scheme they came up with over here. So while I'd certainly like to get it, and the network issues could probably be surmounted.. it's definitely no must-buy for me. Guess I'm just not enthralled with the new classes and the whole.. well.. factions thing. ;p --Nunix 06:07, 2 May 2006 (CDT)


 * It's nice... The whole proccess of PvE is accelerated alot, perhaps too much.. I don't mind lvling faster, but I don't like the AI getting better quicker, I ended up in Kaineng Center at lvl16 with my Me/E(Canthan Born) and I found the primary quest "Mayhem in the Market" impossible to do with henchies & my playing partner. I'm now getting on for lvl20 and I hope to be able to do the quest. That's my gripe... but the world is beautiful to look at.
 * To me every one of the early quests seemed like Villany of Galrath in terms of distance the character would have to travel.
 * I think if you're looking for a game which is similar to the 1st chapter you will be dissapointed, I had this train of thought for a while, that the game had pacing issues (I still do).
 * While browsing the wiki I've seen some armors I wanted for my monk but again the limited amount of armor on offer makes it not so enjoyable (READ: "he's scared of a little work").
 * On other notes from what i've heard people can not simply run to places so if you like running your characters to places then you might be dissapointed. The game has an anti-run sort of feel to it. well.. thats the end of my vent.. --Jamie 06:43, 2 May 2006 (CDT)


 * As Jamie, I have divided thoughts. The new world looks nice and the armor system is very fun. (Most appearances can be combined with most armor statistics) I also liked to start a new character, which I kept separate from my other characters (No access to storage). The quests give huge amounts of xp, skill points and gold, but no skills, which you can buy freely with the skill points and gold you get. More choice for the player, but too fast level gaining. The tutorial parts are well done, which should reduce the amount of really crappy players.
 * Even as a runner I like it that people can't just be ran everywhere. It forces them to learn to play their characters.
 * The world seems a bit too chaotic and unclear. When I first entered with my Tyrian character, I was very confused and uncertain of what to do. Playing with a new character from the beginning seems a good idea to do first. I also dislike the idea that I can't access the elite missions without a good alliance. I really would like to play those missions a lot.
 * All in all I like Factions, but its not THE greatest extension ever. --Gem [[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] 06:53, 2 May 2006 (CDT)


 * Hmm. Everything that you two have identified as negative seem incredibly positive to me. It sounds like a return to the difficulty and scope of the old Beta events. Damn.  And I was hoping you'd convince I didn't need to buy it. :) &mdash;Tanaric 09:16, 2 May 2006 (CDT)


 * IMHO, the difficulty in Factions is not that high. I henched all but the very last mission with my ranger. I was expecting more of the Underworld level of difficulty, but what I got was the ruins of the Tomb of the Primeval Kings level. A disappointment. &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 09:21, 2 May 2006 (CDT)

Request for arbitration
I wasn't planning on logging in here again, but this comment by User:F_G surely crosses a line that shouldn't be crossed. It barely matters that he is completely incorrect. Even if he were 100% right, it is an unjustified personal attack on someone who has had a long and positive history on this site, and on me (though he right on the money regarding balding and 40 years old). I am not sure what F G's motivation is, but please intervene here. I am asking you because on Administrators you are listed as the person to contact regarding user disputes. esan 17:01, 9 May 2006 (CDT)


 * Done. See Requests for arbitration. &mdash;Tanaric 21:26, 9 May 2006 (CDT)

On this subject - it appears from the above arbitration thread that we still have no official policy on personal attacks. I have posted on Talk:Grind that another users comments were offensive and that I want an admin to look at it. I honestly don't expect any serious action taken as there is still no policy on personal attacks, but I would like an admin to at least voice an opinion in that discussion, as well as hoping that it acts as yet another driver towards implementing an official policy on this. I would also like to add that I don't see a need for a full arbitration article on this one, I just want an admin to chime in one way or another over there - I'll abide by any admins decision, advice, or opinion even if contrary to mine; provided two admins don't post conflicting opinions - hey, we've seen it before! :-). --161.88.255.140 12:42, 11 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Note: Rainith spotted the edits and voiced his opinion already; so I'm satisfied to have had an admin opinion added to the thread. However, it still leaves open the question of if we require an official 'No Personal Attacks' policy.  I feel we do, but I do not feel qualified to create a fair version even as a draft document.  Given the recent growth and renewed interrest in Guild Wars thanks to Factions, it is something that I believe the wiki needs to address one way or another to meet the burden imposed by more users joining the community. --161.88.255.140 15:05, 11 May 2006 (CDT)


 * Why not simply adopt Wikipedia:WP:NPA? By the way, is admin-says-all really the best way to resolve conflicts? On wikipedia there is the Wikipedia:Arbcom, which moves at a semi-glacial pace but makes very well-examined decisions. Granted GuildWiki is nowhere near the size of WP... but should sysops be weaing so many hats? Seventy.twenty.x.x 15:11, 11 May 2006 (CDT)
 * To me, GuildWiki is still small enough that I don't believe that a formal arbcom is needed. In the past, admins have discussed issues with each other.  If an admin sees a policy violation, he/she states that info clearly.  If their opinion is questioned or if it's a larger matter, they request community involvement.
 * This particular issue honestly didn't require much attention, but I wanted an admin to voice in, and as long as it came up, I wanted to use it to try to prod along the implementation of an NPA policy, which I have believed for some time this site requires. --161.88.255.140 15:23, 11 May 2006 (CDT)


 * Somehow I missed this particular discussion; sorry about that.


 * There is a reason we don't adopt Wikipedia policies, in general. Wikipedia is more than just a wiki&mdash;it's a movement for the grand cooperation of all mankind. It's a grand experiment in mutualism&mdash;even if it doesn't intend to be. GuildWiki is... well... not. We're a fansite, plain and simple, and our policies (more pertinently, our traditions, which govern more than our policies do) reflect that. Our actions are designed to make this the best source for Guild Wars information on the web. I think we've succeeded in that.


 * The people who go to Wikipedia come from all walks of life, with a variety of interests and specialties&mdash;it's what makes Wikipedia work. The common thread that unites them is the ideal of the wiki wiki web, which is heavily romanticized there. The people who come to GuildWiki like Guild Wars, and their respective pasts are made (mostly) irrelevant by our singular focus. The thread that unites us here is Guild Wars. That's it. People don't come here because it's a wiki&mdash;people come here because we're the best.


 * From that point of view, it's easy to understand why our policies don't reflect Wikipedia's. Glacial, but potentially more fair, arbitration isn't important here. Quick resolution of an issue to maintain the GuildWiki's functionality is. Where discussion and consensus of a user issue is important there, it's actually somewhat discouraged here&mdash;my goal is to make user disputes invisible to the average contributor, and impact the site as little as possible. While I realize that I can never accomplish this goal, it's something I'll continue to strive for, because it allows the GuildWiki to run as smoothly as possible.


 * My summer project is to create a metawiki for GameWikis. I have attempted to impress upon Nunix the need for a central repository of policy and style, to prevent individual GameWikis projects from diverging too much from each other. One side effect of creating this will be the codification of many long-standing traditions of GuildWiki into proper policies. Even if I can't get the metawiki running, I'll definitely complete this codification. I agree that a NPA policy is appropriate.


 * Sorry to go off on a tangent. If there's anything I missed that you'd like me to cover, let me know. &mdash;Tanaric 04:33, 13 May 2006 (CDT)


 * Oops, actually, I did miss something. "Should sysops really be wearing so many hats?" The short answer is that we don't. Sysops are free to concentrate on the issues that interest them, or, in the case of our inactives, on nothing at all. I prefer user disputes, policy, and style&mdash;I wrote more than my fair share of content back in the day, and now I find the bureaucracy more interesting. (This is probably why I get along so well with Karlos.) &mdash;Tanaric 04:35, 13 May 2006 (CDT)

Enchantment Removal Quick Reference
Oy! Deleting that article was uncalled for. Not only had I worked on it seconds ago, others had too. And it was useful! So what if nothing linked to it? Make a link instead. --Bishop (rap|con) 22:03, 9 May 2006 (CDT)


 * Check recent changes again. I moved it to enchantment removal quick reference first, and deleted the auto-generated redirect. In general, article names should use lower case. &mdash;Tanaric 22:05, 9 May 2006 (CDT)


 * Uh, right you are. And your point is well taken. I was just a little shook up about the article I was working on disappearing between my fingers. --Bishop (rap|con) 22:09, 9 May 2006 (CDT)

Unique Items Quick Reference
The unique item quick referance chart was a page I had bookmarked, and used many times. Not sure how I came across it, but it was one of the most useful pages in guildwiki. I didn't understand the reason for total deletion without discussion... "Unused Redirect." I can't find it anywhere now. Why'd you delete it? Could I at least get a copy of the page and put is as a sub-user page, for reference? -Auron of Neon 04:47, 11 May 2006 (CDT)


 * The page in question was moved to unique items quick reference (Prophecies). Sorry about the confusion&mdash;I'll note where the redirects pointed to in my delete summaries from now on. &mdash;Tanaric 08:38, 11 May 2006 (CDT)

May I suggest instead of deleting the redirect pages (for popular pages), to temporarily place a small article that says "This page has been moved to XYZ, please update your bookmarks as this link will be removed shortly." And then list them some place where we can come back and delete them say a few weeks later. --Karlos 09:24, 11 May 2006 (CDT)


 * Is there any way to tell which ones are popular? If people are keeping bookmarks of redirects, there's no good way to test that. &mdash;Tanaric 23:08, 11 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Yea, when people notice it's gone and start bitching about it... lol. I dunno if there are any better ways to find that out, though. -Auron of Neon 02:59, 13 May 2006 (CDT)
 * I think I'll continue my delete policy of unused redirects, then. I don't mind pointing people in the right direction here. &mdash;Tanaric 04:36, 13 May 2006 (CDT)