User talk:Tanetris

Archives

---

• April 2007 - April 2008
• May 2008 - May 2009
• June 2009 - June 2010

I must say

two weeks was a very long time and not to start a flame war here to but, i find stopping my work on the skill animations project was more disruptive than my anti-auron "crusade" — Scythe 0:55, 27 Aug 2010 (UTC)

WTS

Anyone who stalks my page interested in buying a few thousand points of alcohol or party? Specifically I've got 4756 minutes of alcohol and 5788 party points. I hate Kamadan. - Tanetris 11:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

X( Koda Kumi 12:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Koda, are you suggesting Euradyce wants to buy those points or that she's being annoying with the spamming of RC? -- Salome 12:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I am suggesting I missed your message. Which she still seems to ignore. Koda Kumi 13:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I know its annoying. Alas can't do anything to stop her as RC spamming is allowed just annoying. :( -- Salome 15:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations

50 points and GWAMM, I'm impressed :o poke | talk 10:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

RC

I hate to ask but, is there a way to hide deletions/moves from RC? It's kinda spammed up with all your deletions, not saying deleting is wrong! - Lucian Shadowborn 20:05, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Hm. I don't think non-admins can hide patrolled edits from RC so that's probably out... No, I don't think there is a way. I'll stop for awhile after I finish the speedies, though. Not many more. - Tanetris 20:15, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thats' what I figured. Thanks anyway. :) - Lucian Shadowborn 20:26, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Its possible to extend the limit of your RC to see beyond his edits, though. [1] --Neil • 20:34, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Boo!!!

I wanted to do that! You take away all my fun! *huffs* -- Salome 01:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

ty for extending the block on our recent vandal, especially since I believe that they were either circumventing an existing block...or were following in the exact footsteps of a previously banned account (the text used and even the account name was copied).  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 00:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Question

What's a really good ranger weapon in your opinion to use with Barrage? Kaisha 09:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I know you're asking Tanetris and not me, but I'll offer some choices to choose from while she's busy or otherwise unavailable. Zealous, for the energy regain per hit from Barrage. Vampiric, same basic concept only with life stealing. Poisonous (as Poison Tip Signet can be used with Barrage). If it triggers on successful hits and isn't removed by Barrage, it's probably worth considering. Teddy Dan, yo. 10:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Probably a recurve, btw, because of its low shelf/flight time. You wanna be sure all of those arrows hit. Bow of the Kinslayer is a nice one for poison on hit with PTS. Elswyth's Recurve Bow for life stealing on hit. Mallyx's Recurve Bow for energy regain on hit. Crippling would be pretty good if you have a Fevered Dreams/Epidemic mesmer or Crippling Anthem paragon in your party, so as to keep groups from spreading any further. Otherwise, Crippling is basically useless with a Barrage build. As you would guess, that very same Barrage+Crippling Anthem combo sets AoEs up nicely for elementalists. One could even bring both Barrage and Crippling Anthem for such a plan, but I would advise against it. Anyway, I'm getting off-topic. Any low-and-fast-firing bow with an effect that triggers upon successful hit is good with Barrage provided you can remove/prevent blocking and scattering. Of course, as always, I could be wrong Teddy Dan, yo. 10:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey

It was nice to meet you on Friday, it is always nice to put a face to the username.  :) I hope you enjoyed your time here and that you cooled off a bit from the weather in your part of the country. --Rainith 00:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

LDoA

Not interested? 76.106.245.213 17:26, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, that was before the addition of Vanguard quests. I did have a level 16 perma-Pre at the time, but just not enough connection stability for deathleveling. Got it within a week or few of the Vanguard update though. Also got the last few armor statues. I'll update the link. - Tanetris 18:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, okay. My apologies for assuming, then. 76.106.245.213 00:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Danke

For this. Konig/talk 20:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC) ^Once more. Now that many bad images have been removed, I can properly resume my work! Huzzah! Konig/talk 21:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

TANKS

thanks for switching the main page back. the images are fine at 175 the person who changed them dost realize that only one sticks out and it dost stretch the page. could u by chance push the feature forward?- Zesbeer 05:04, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Is there a particular reason not to give MKT the standard 2 weeks feature time and change it Monday? - Tanetris 06:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

There isn't other than it being a Halloween-themed feature. Konig/talk 06:34, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Censorship

Funny your reaction to an attempt to raise awareness of very real censorship that will likely break the internet as you and I know it. You react to it by censoring it. At least we all know where your loyalties lie, now. And they are not with freedom of expression.

Try graffitiing the office of any civil liberties lawyer you could name, I would bet they will at the very least throw you out and clean it up, if not press charges. Vandalism is vandalism, whether it's for a good cause or not. If anything, vandalism for a good cause does more to damage that cause's credibility than promote it. - Tanetris 16:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

As I said on my talk page, the placement of the linked image was very deliberate so as not to disrupt the rest of the page layout. That is not vandalism, because vandals don't care what they do to a page. I do. That's why the image was placed as it was. Or would you rather have the GW community remain in ignorance of this issue which, I remind you, could threaten even this wiki with being shut down?

May i ask what is being censored here because the only thing i see is the removal of vandal posts (being posts that have nothing to do with the game). Da Mystic Reaper 17:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

What is being censored is a linked image bringing awareness of an issue that could threaten this wiki with being shut down. All it takes under SOPA is just one accusation, without any proof, for that to happen. Tell me that doesn't concern you, Mystic. Also, all banning and comment removal are in fact merely different forms of censorship. Sites like this one can exist without them, it's just that many people are so accustomed to this way of doing things that they don't want to try anything different.

No i for one am not woried because this is a game wiki not a political wiki, there are no political subjects on this wiki since it isn't part of the game. There are also no subjects that could even be subject to censorship and if so it will only be in the country it is forbidden in, in this case your oh so typical arrogant America with it's increasingly fucked up politics (freedom of speech). Please keep political topics on social media and don't bother gamers with it, this wiki if for info about Guild Wars not about american political issues. But let me repeat it GWWiki is in no danger of being closed down whatsoever, it can be blocked in America at most so tough luck for you americans. Da Mystic Reaper 18:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Wrong. GW - and therefore, this wiki - contains dozens of references to other works in many of its skill names and other things. Should any of the originators of said references not like that their content has been reflected here, all it would take is a single accusation of infringement on their part to shut down the wiki. Censorship and website shutdowns are not limited to political sites only. Under SOPA, any site that references another work can be a target. ANY site.

First let me say this; Do you actually believe it yourself that something as ridiculous as SOPA is going to make it trough.

Second; Like i said if such a ridiculous thing as SOPA is going to make it trough it only affects americans since it will only be blocked in America wich does not mean the end of this wiki since it is also being maintained by non-americans like us europeans. Americans only simply won't be able to use it so again tough luck for them.

Now please stop bothering wich such ridiculous topics and keep the panic talk to yourself, you sound like a religious The World Is Going To End!!! preacher. Da Mystic Reaper 19:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, you underestimate how deeply entrenched Hollywood influence is in DC. Are you also aware of the multiple attempts by the US at enforcing its laws on other countries? Even going so far as to attempt to extradite a UK citizen for things which were legal in the UK but not in the US? You also forget that Anet is based in the US, so SOPA can be used against it. And it's not just website shutdowns that SOPA allows, but also complete cutoffs by payment providers such as Paypal, Visa, and Mastercard. How long do you think Anet would last without them?

OK stop right there America has by no means such power and influence and any american who think his/her country does have so if foolishly mistaken since America is no longer concidered a superpower and has very limited influence and power since the financial crisis caused after they lost the war (yes lost since the objective was to deplete Americas finances trough a war wich they succeeded in wich makes it a loss for America, heck wich war of all the wars they waged did they ever managed to win since WW2?). If you are thinking about Anonymous keep in mind NCsoft wich finances Anet is located in South Korea and isn't concidered a criminal orginasation, with the wiki gl for any nation shutting off wikipedia. The pressure America will be facing from the game industry (wich is the biggest in the world) and supported by many more industries of technology will make them back off and immediatly since America is powerless against those industries who have more money, power and influence than America ever had. Now that you know that America has no such power to achieve such goals ends this foolish discussion on this talk page wich does not belong to either of us. Da Mystic Reaper 20:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Everything you just said is wrong, and I now doubt your sanity. elix Omni 21:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Man, this is a GAME wiki, not a stupid political forum! You're just dirting this place with your political nonsenses. And i don't care if your it's a just cause, the fact is that this is the WRONG PLACE for things like that. --Kyx 21:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I lol'd at this entire section. IP is solid troll. -Auron 23:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Been a long time

Merry Christmas! Drogo Boffin 03:00, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Bureauthing

I nominated you. Just a heads-up. elix Omni 16:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. - Tanetris 19:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Well then GL! :). Da Mystic Reaper 20:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank You

I thank you for your honesty. But seeing as you just down right loathe me and have never taken the time to even converse with me you have no idea weither or not I "have neither the wisdom nor the maturity for the job". You did kick/block me from IRC for simply being there. Drogo Boffin 20:23, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I know I cand do it and I know I can keep a level head while being completely un-biased. I just dont want to see the wiki destroyed by vandals. Even if it isnt me, the wiki needs somebody thats still here and that is going to be here. You used to see the sysops on here constantly now the wiki feels somewhat abandoned and left to the vandals. Leaving us users helpless to stop them and all we can do is revert/report without hearing/seeing anything from the sysops for days. Silver Edge would be good. Drogo Boffin 20:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I watch everything. Let's hit some highlights of your most recent contribs, in the past 24 hours:

You confuse Farlo for Fabian

You confuse editing the wiki with an external program with editing GW texture files and when corrected, stubbornly insist that irrelevant links are relevant

Moved a guild page to the wrong name (there's no such thing as a guild name with a capital letter without a space)

Took 4 edits to still not get this one right

You edit recklessly, and doing that as a sysop would be disastrous, regardless of good intentions. I have no particular personal feelings regarding you other than that I would not be interested in socializing with you, which I can just as easily say about many editors both good and bad. I'd have to look through logs to see the specifics of why I blocked you on IRC, but I honestly can't remember a time that you were in IRC that you weren't being disruptive about one thing or another, so I'm going to assume for the moment it was that. - Tanetris 21:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I cant think of one time I was being disruptive on IRC. Yes I've made mistakes here in the last couple days but that is due to being rusty on the wiki. If my comments about you are false then I retract them and apologise for them. But none of the mistakes are serious and were easily fixed. The last one I was looking for a solution when somebody else fixed it. I was having to go through the table to find the error. Again I am a little rusty and these mistakes will not continue. Drogo Boffin 21:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the above, all errors are from editing in multiple tabs and cofusing myself. I apologize Drogo Boffin 21:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

That is also not cofusion. I gave him the closest links to editing files externally. May be wrong but it is the closest thing on the wiki. Drogo Boffin 21:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd expect anyone requesting adminship to understand and use the "Show preview" button at the very least. That's all that I wanted to point out. It didn't just happen on Diamond Aegis either; it happens to you a lot more often than should be necessary. Other than that I'm not involving myself with your RfA, so good luck on that. I feel Tanetris voiced the general trend that this RfA will experience in advance, though. - Infinite - talk 21:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

What ever happens happens. I'm not gonna take it down. I honestly didnt expect to become a sysop but I had to get it out of the way. The wiki does need somebody thats gonna be here whoever that may be. Drogo Boffin 21:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

@Infinite I use the "Show preview" button but in my experience there are certain things that it will not show. If I try several things in show preview and it doesnt show any change then I go ahead and save it. It is very easy to "undo" anything. Drogo Boffin 21:55, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

If the issues can be solved (and by that I mean the general pattern of editing, not those specific diffs), then you need to solve them before I, or I think most others, are going to trust you with sysop tools. If you're rusty with the wiki, work out the rust. If you're confusing yourself with multiple tabs, don't use multiple tabs. If you're rushing too much, slow down. If you don't have enough time to do everything you want on the wiki, either do less or make time. If you don't have the knowledge needed, either go find out or leave it be and let someone else field it. If you don't understand how exactly Show Preview works, learn (specifically, the only time Show Preview should not work correctly is when a page is transcluded into itself (e.g. Templates)). Fix all of that and stick to it long enough to prove that it is fixed, and then you might be ready to start an RfA. The stakes are higher as an admin, and if you sysop anything like you edit, you will be damaging the wiki. There are reasons we don't just autopromote anyone who volunteers. - Tanetris 02:04, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Questions

I have a couple questions on a unrelated topic. Do you mind if I send you a message? Drogo Boffin 21:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

The "Email this user" link is above and to your left, if it's important. - Tanetris 02:04, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

RFAs do not require consensus

Unlike Policy proposals. If you want me to argue against my own position, then fine - The RFAs that have been completed so far were done so with near-universal support, but not with complete consensus. on each one, Wandering Traveler voiced concerns about the reasoning for the removal of sysop rights. If those had been policy discussions, such a concern would need to be addressed before a policy could have consensus. I'm not sure what game you're playing, but it seems to me that you're making up the rules as you go. horrible | contribs 16:06, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I was responding to your PS. Also consensus is not the same as unanimity. See w:Consensus decision-making. - Tanetris (talk) 16:28, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Unanimous would be one agreement that everyone agrees with. Consensus would be a compromise that everyone finds acceptable. As it's always been on this wiki. If you want consensus on your proposal, you're going to have to make compromises. Deal with it. horrible | contribs 16:32, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Per your link: "The focus on avoiding negative opinion differentiates consensus from unanimity, which requires all participants to positively support a decision". Emphasis mine. horrible | contribs 16:37, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

In a consensus all sides will have to compromise to find the middle ground everyone can agree with, even if it's with a sense of disagreement, you 2 destructively bickering won't change that so my advice is to start talking constructively and start compromising. Da Mystic Reaper (talk) 16:51, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I've already put forth compromises, and have said repeatedly I'm willing to make more. Not sure why you're "both sides"ing this. horrible | contribs 16:53, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Because that's how a consensus works the most effectively, both sides comprimising equally so no one side feels that the consensus is disadvantageous towards them. Da Mystic Reaper (talk) 16:55, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Adding a standby clause to Guild Wars Wiki:Activity was my initial concession, with the hopes of community input to further reach something amiable. I got no replies on how to improve it, (other than Alex saying that there shouldn't be a standby clause, which would have been a step away from consensus) - Every other comment on the proposal (most of which came two months later, after i bumped it) is an outright refusal to even consider it. I can't know what further concessions I should make because of the outright refusal to even consider compromise coming from the Sysop team. horrible | contribs 17:07, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

@DaMysticReaper: I do not care in the least about personal advantage/disadvantage. Just that the wiki stay safe. I don't think Horrible cares about advantage/disadvantage either, just his idea of what would make the wiki best. - Tanetris (talk) 17:37, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

“Every other comment on the proposal is an outright refusal” – I believe the primary issue with your proposal is that it’s spelling out those hard requirements which makes it really complex and difficult to maintain. But since that’s the core of your proposal, I personally don’t see how we could salvage it into a more acceptable one without rewriting it completely. But since draft for standby admins looks generally more accepted, maybe you should propose changes to that one then if there are parts that you really want to see included (other than those hard requirements). poke | talk 22:25, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Why do you think I'm set on hard requirements? I've made no such remarks. My initial proposal has them because I felt it would be easiest way to get the idea across. Hell, the proposal fucking starts with This policy is subject to bureaucrat discretion - I want there to be some way to clearly deal with sysops who don't participate in the wiki at all - without having to pull teeth with an RFA each time. horrible | contribs 00:45, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

If you raise a concern with the proposal, I would be happy to try to find a way to address that concern. You have not expressed any(*), just a desire to hold it hostage until there is some sort of direct activity requirement, which is both beyond the scope of the proposal and an issue you've already by your own admission failed to achieve consensus for.

(*): Actually you did express one, way back in June, which I responded to, and we came to agreement on that particular point.

Just as someone trying to hold up an election policy until we revoke GWW:NPA is not a valid objection and would rightfully not factor into a decision, you filibustering does not actually prevent consensus. - Tanetris (talk) 16:58, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Again, I don't think you know what the word filibuster means. I have stated my reasons for opposing the change. You don't get to choose whether or not my reasons are valid. horrible | contribs 17:07, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I personally do not individually decide if your reasons are valid (at least in terms of policy discussions). That is correct. The wiki overall absolutely does get to decide if your reasons are valid. Otherwise trolls could grind any discussion to a halt.

(to be clear, I am not calling you a troll, just noting where the end of that particular slope would lay if we completely ignored the validity of reasons. I hope we can agree that this would be bad.) - Tanetris (talk) 17:37, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

And I hope we can agree that sysops who don't participate in the community don't get a say in community consensus. horrible | contribs 17:42, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I definitely don't agree with that. We always welcome the input of people who are not active in the community, be they anons, Anet, or anyone in between. The perspective of those being affected by any policy change should be heard and considered. Greener (talk) 18:11, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

As Greener said, we'll literally let a random IP who has never made an edit before get a say if they bring a good point to the discussion, so not sure why we'd single out users who happen to be sysops in the other direction. I'm assuming this goes back to your belief that admins get greater say than other users in policy/content, which Auron already addressed at length.

(Total sidenote: I've noticed a few times you harping on sysops for not engaging with discord, and here's as good a place as any to mention that your info is out of date on that at this point. Several admins (myself, Salome, Aii, Greener. Also Felix, though he's GW2W-only) have made more of an effort to be chatty in the public-facing channels the past several months.) - Tanetris (talk) 19:07, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

re: sidenote - good for you. maybe show some of that activity onto the wiki too, eh? horrible | contribs 19:45, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

The standard for consensus on GWW has always been, like Wikipedia, one of w:Rough consensus, which requires neither 100% agreement nor 100% acceptance. Furthermore, the default action when no consensus is reached is generally to preserve the status quo. There is not a requirement for action, and no proposal is entitled to consensus. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 02:11, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Disappointment (moved)

Here we go, pestering times are back...

← moved to User talk:Lon-ami#Disappointment

Sorry for the drama.--Lon-ami (talk) 12:37, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Partial revert of your edit on Silver Edge

Hi Tanetris, I'm partially reverting the edit you made because this was started by a wiki edit that confirmed an earlier rumor, not directly the linked tweet. Uh also I really don't think it's good to have a super long line next to a super short line - that just looks ugly. Let me know if there's any issues with that rationale. Thanks! horrible | contribs 01:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I'd say Matthew Moore's tweet had a much greater impact on spurring things than the wiki talk page did (the tweet was several hours before he came to the talk page and was already making the rounds enough that I'd even already heard about it in the GW2W discord). That said it's subjective/nitpicky enough I'm not about to revert over it and I leave it to your own best judgment. I will mention that if we're giving credit to the wiki edit as kicking things off, that '2½ days' should almost certainly go. - Tanetris (talk) 02:10, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I originally thought about changing it to "under ⅔" but it was a small enough difference in time i didn't consider it significant. Also I wouldn't know about anything happening on the GW2W discord :). I only know when it was brought up on the gw discord and later when it reached the front page of the gw subreddit. Feel free to revert if you feel the earlier mention is more important, I won't contest it. horrible | contribs 02:25, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Removal of revisions 2674406 & 2674405 on Guild Wars Wiki:Admin noticeboard

The user asked to have their account deleted. What Greener did is not account deletion. Unless you've somehow changed your mind in the last week, I doubt you actually plan to delete this user's account. I was providing helpful information. horrible | contribs 15:35, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Your suggestion was for the user to request the removal of personal information from the wiki. Not only would this cause the user to jump through many extra hoops, it would get nothing done as there is no personal information to be removed. Greener (talk) 16:12, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

They wanted their account deleted. To my knowledge, the method I linked is the only such way to do that. horrible | contribs 16:28, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Also, as you and Tanetris are both acutely aware, the hoops you're suggesting that they would have to jump through are the exact things I was attempting to help them bypass. horrible | contribs 16:33, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Their account will be deleted per their request, which is accurate information Greener gave them. If what you had wanted on the GW2W was just your account deleted, we would have done that. What you wanted was a talk page deleted, which was at odds with GW2W policy. You decided to do an end-run through Anet which was ultimately successful. Which is fine and well for you, but what this user wants is simple and straightforward with no end-run required. I would've done it last night, but I figure it's good precedent to give at least a 24-hour hold in case of a changed mind or kid-was-on-my-computer or such (though I don't think that's the case here), since it can't be undone.

Also in any case GWW and GW2W are not the same wiki, as can easily be proven by your continued ability to edit here. - Tanetris (talk) 18:00, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Correct. GWW has far more policies and practices than GW2W. If my request had been on GWW, I would have pointed to the existing precedent for talk page deletion here. As evidenced by Greener's original acceptance of my request, it was neither unreasonable nor outside of the realm of possibility. The fact that you forced me to do an "end-run" reflects poorly on you and the rest of the GW2W sysop team, not me. horrible | contribs 18:07, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

how's the weather up there? can your horse breathe ok? -Auron 20:16, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

My horse is fine. How's your neck? horrible | contribs 20:33, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

2687951

https://wiki.guildwars.com/index.php?title=Guild_Wars_Wiki:Admin_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=2687951 horrible 15:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Thought I did this ages ago. Done. So long and thanks for all the fish. - Tanetris (talk) 16:32, 10 October 2023 (UTC)