User talk:Santax

Archive
This page: 43,154 bytes

---

• 2007–Jun 2012
• Jun–Nov 2012
• Jan–Mar 2013
• Sep 2013–Apr 2014
• Apr–Jun 2014
• Jul 2014–Oct 2017

Quick note about Magic edits

You had been, humorously, adding much the same as I while I was reworking the whole top section of that article. I just wanted to note a bit about your additions that I opted not to keep:

"Some creatures, such as Elder Dragons, their scions, specialised dragon minions, and chak, have naturally evolved the ability to feed on magic and utilise its power. Asuran experiments have been able to imbue ordinary dragon minions with additional magic, as well, increasing their power."

We actually see that any dragon minion can and will absorb magic. This is notable in the Megadestroyer event, your linked asura PS and its counterpart, The Concordia Incident, some Iron Marches NPCs that got added with the mordrem events there (not sure if that ever got documented... will need to look into it later), and a lot more. The Mouth of Zhaitan was specialized in eating magical artifacts, not in eating magic; the Leyleecher doesn't seem all that more specialized than other mordrem we see later on.

"Trahearne has speculated that as more powerful minions hold a larger quantity of magic, they may also hold more of the Elder Dragons' will, and that creatures infused with more energy by Elder Dragons act with more self-will."

I opted to leave this out because I'm not quite convinced this is related to the general magic article. Trahearne's statement was more of saying "stronger minions are smarter, but to make stronger minions Elder Dragons need more magic" and that's more relevant to Elder Dragon than to magic in my opinion. Besides, the sylvari more or less disprove his claim, as their intelligence and strength don't have a clear ratio comparison unlike other dragon minions, which shows that the intelligence and strength of minions are more of a choice by their creator - whether or not this requires magic being unknown. Konig (talk) 23:18, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Uhiwi

Just checking: you've marked Veteran Uhiwi as a giant and added the giant slayer achievement to his article -- does killing him actually progress the achievement? I wouldn't have expected that, given his ghostly appearance. --Idris (talk) 09:40, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I got bored of waiting for a response so I just went ahead and changed it. I can't check the achievement for myself as I've already completed it, but it can always be added back in if I got it wrong. --Idris (talk) 11:38, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the lack of response. My assumption was that he's mechanically a giant because he is the same as other mechanical giants in every respect except for the ghost effect. It probably does need checking though. –Santax (talk · contribs) 11:40, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I'll add a verify tag, which is what I should have done to start with. --Idris (talk) 11:48, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Magdaer and Sohothin origins

Except that they were stated to be twin swords, with shared origins and power that matches each other. This means that they're created in succession, if not at the same time, by the same person/group. Or is this just another case of you antagonizing every lore edit I make? Konig (talk) 16:01, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Friendly reminder to play nice, Konig. I don't think the last bit is necessary, nor will it do either of you any good. talk 16:04, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

The citation on the statement that "Like its twin "sister", Magdaer, [Sohothin] is a powerful holy artifact once belonging to Balthazar, the god of war" says only that Sohothin was once "[Balthazar]'s own sword". How do we know that they have shared origins, or that they were created in succession/by the same people? –Santax (talk · contribs) 16:18, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

They were always said to have the same origins, as early as Ghosts of Ascalon IIRC. This is why they're twins/sisters; if they weren't of shared origins, then one would be a replica of the other and not called twin/sister swords. Hence the edit summary of indirect confirmation. Konig (talk) 17:45, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Well-founded speculation is still speculation. It seems as though we don't have anything to confirm that Balthazar was Magdaer's owner, just your inference based on your recollection of what's in Ghosts of Ascalon and your understanding of the meaning of the term "sister weapon". We should continue to just state what we know, which is that Sohothin was once Balthazar's own sword, and that Sohothin and Magdaer are sister weapon. If it's as obvious as you say that Magdaer was Balthazar's sword too, then readers will infer it for themselves. But we shouldn't be making definitive statements such as "Like its twin "sister", Magdaer, it is a powerful holy artifact once belonging to Balthazar, the god of war", when actually we don't know that is the case. It's misleading to readers. –Santax (talk · contribs) 21:33, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Concept Art

As an artist myself, I love looking concept art by other other artists, so I really love what you've found. My question is where did you find them? Nothing wiki related, I just wanna look at more concept art if possible, even if it's not GW2 related. - Do_odleplex 17:37, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I found them via this reddit post. There's a bit of a treasure trove of amazing HoT and PoF concept art from artists that I hadn't realised were working for ANet in there, and so most of it isn't on the wiki. I see that Konig has started the arduous task of getting it all uploaded, and I'm trying to do bits and pieces when I have the time, but it might be a while to get them all uploaded, properly credited to their artists, make sure the version uploaded is the highest res available, document any comments from the artist or other titbits, etc.. There were also some pieces I didn't recognise on GW2 website's concept art page, which gets updated from time to time, and some pretty nice high-res stuff in the asset kit. If you're after cool GW2 concept art, the best thing to usually do is find out the name of the concept artists and find their personal/professional blogs - I've found many concept pieces for the wiki that were never officially promoted by ANet in this way. –Santax (talk · contribs) 18:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Idris is Watching

Just a heads up, your recent edits haven't escaped my notice. If Konig picks a fight over them, come talk to me about it instead, ok? --Idris (talk) 06:45, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't have the mental fortitude to deal with Santax who is literally starting the same exact issues that no one had an issue with since he last left 6 months ago. I already gave an attempt to play nice and it already got spat back in my face. I do not have the civility to continue dealing with Santax's pretty blatant hypocrisy. Konig (talk) 13:07, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I understand. Just so you know, I wasn't accusing you of anything when I said "if Konig picks a fight" -- my wording was accounting for how Santax views the situation. If you're feeling attacked by Santax or want to discuss an edit he's made without having to deal with him, my talk page is still open to you as well. :) (I recommend making a new section so neither of you have to deal with each other's comments or edit conflicts.) --Idris (talk) 16:14, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Mouvelian template

Hey Santax. It was recently brought to my attention that {{Mouvelian}} is buggy, which... doesn't matter at all since the Mouvelian and Gregorian calendars don't sync up at all beyond year anymore, so I was thinking of changing it so it only displays the year. Just wanted to give you a heads up, since you're still using it on your userpage. If you like, I could make a variant for your userspace that retains the current functionality (plus a bugfix, assuming I can fix the bug)? --Idris (talk) 07:38, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Nvm, Alex already fixed it. --Idris (talk) 18:16, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Landmarks in Vabbi

Hello, could you please explain the reason of this edit in Guild Wars wiki? You have added 3 landmarks which are never mentioned in the texts or dialogues, and you haven't created even a stub pages for these landmarks (at least looking at the history of your edits during that time). It would be reasonable either to create the mentioned pages or revert the edit back. I am against so-called "redlinks" which nobody wants to fill with real data from documented sources because of lack of them; it's a disruptive practice. The same for the Template:Landmarks in the Realm of Torment and Template:Landmarks in Istan --109.252.109.60 08:13, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Not Santax but I know the answer. They're gw.dat landmarks, much like gww:The Spider's Heart etc. Though AFAIK no region was ever able to be attributed hence why no articles made, or they're too minimal/duplucative like Kormir's Ascension. I have a list of all gw.dat locations/descriptions, pages can be made quoting those lines. Konig (talk) 16:24, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

^ What Konig said. As an aside, redlinks are a great idea and I think it somewhat goes against the operating principle of a wiki to be "against" them. –Santax (talk · contribs) 20:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I clearly disagree. I count the redlinks as a temporary measure or a specific mark, which points at information, which is not yet ready but should be filled in ASAP by an author with adequate knowledge. Creation of redlinks with clear understanding that they will never be filled (or, even worse, shall never be filled) is a disruption. Maybe my point is based in paper encyclopaedias and not wikis.

About these particular places: as Konig sais, they have been datamined. Should this be honestly explained to wiki readers? The permanent redlinks are not a good way to tell this; it's possible to use another way. For example, instead of including them to location template, write a special paragraph in the main article devoted to landmarks. Look at this from the point of inexperienced player: the red links without any additional explanation may irritate them. You (a redlink creator) clearly know why this article doesn't exist, but new readers don't have such information. So, please find a proper way to deliver your knowledge. --109.252.109.37 19:37, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

You're free to disagree. But that's how most wikis work, and that's how the Guild Wars wikis work. They don't have to be permanent redlinks either - you (or anyone else) are encouraged to make an article for them. –Santax (talk · contribs) 08:29, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Lore

Hi. I think you may find the original authorship of the phrase "it has been suggested" in the revision template is quite beside the point being made on the lore page history notes -- that the suggestion is unnecessary to begin with. Your response confused me because it seems to avoid refuting this position, instead indicating the potentially erroneous language in the template being somehow responsible for justifying the change you wanted to make. Apologies if you misunderstood the situation. 146.90.165.210

Concept Art

Loving the concept art you've been adding, but I have a question or two for you. One, do you mind if I move "File:User Santax golem city.jpg" to a different name? Just want to drop the "this is a user image" part, but still use the image and link to the full wall paper. Two, I feel that the Largos and Krait page are a bit too image heavy at the moment, would you mind slimming it down a little? Otherwise, continue finding that lovely concept art! Cheers! - Do_odleplex 03:51, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Go for it! And I'll take a look at those pages now. –Santax (talk · contribs) 07:59, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Mordremoth

Yes, it was a revert. It was fully intended:

1. Zhaitan's article uses a render provided by an artist, but technically should use an in-game screenshot if a good one could be obtained (so far, none has). It does not use the png file from the gw.dat, which is this image, and it shouldn't. On top of that, people shouldn't have to scroll to the bottom to see Mordremoth's in-game depictions.
2. The images without the 300px size increase are too small, hard to see. I intentionally included those reverts.
3. The minor word changes of "ancient past" to "distant past" and "represented by" and "appeared as" are, imo, better as they were.
4. The section titles are inconsistent with every other NPC now (including every other Elder Dragon except the recently edited by you deep sea dragon (which I see errors with, but I didn't want to go fixing all of your edits in one morning) - and yes, eldritch beings can have biographies, as by definition a biography is "an account of someone's life written by someone else." They were alive, they're not writing it themselves, it's about their life, it's a biography. Not to mention you messed one section up.

So, once more, I'm reverting it. For the reasons stated above. I'll leave the changes for point 3, since they're not worth arguing over, and leave a concized version of the mention of Zhaitan's and Balthazar's facets as that too is not worth fighting over. The only revert I didn't intended was one I overlooked about the launch trailer edits (though technically the original version was correct, as the video is called Guild Wars 2: Heart of Thorns Launch Trailer). Konig (talk) 17:39, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

None of this is worth arguing over. The fact that you say things like "I didn't want to go fixing all of your edits in one morning" is unspeakably arrogant and perfectly indicative of why you have driven so many users away from these wikis, and why you are such a toxic presence in the wiki community. Very magnanimous of you to leave the minor word changes for point 3 intact, though, even though you personally preferred them the other way. Very big of you, given that you view lore articles as your own personal fiefdom.

I won't revert your edit, because I don't believe that it's useful to start an edit war. But I am considering taking further action, as I am sick of being harassed by you every time I dare to stick my head up and post an edit to the wiki. –Santax (talk · contribs) 18:00, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Not reverting again is always the right call. Ideally Konig's reasoning could have been discussed before changes were made, but I think he has some valid points. Obviously you guys don't get along, but please do your best to respond to the substance of his argument instead of the tone (which is being addressed separately). And it's always okay to step away from an argument you don't think is worth having; nobody "wins" the wiki when shit hits the fan. - Felix Omni 19:14, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

There's little point responding to the substance of the argument with Konig, because he will never budge. He follows me around the wiki wholesale reverting any changes that I make to articles that he considers "his". He's not interesting in assimilating criticism and finding compromise, he believes his role is to go around "fixing" (read: reverting) my edits - he said as much above. What you end up with is two opposing walls of text, and unless some well-meaning wiki editor wants to wade in and take sides (and it is fully understandable why they wouldn't want to), it's a lot of effort for an issue that never gets resolved. As I've said, I don't intend to revert Konig's revert, and he's decided to flounce off the wiki, so I guess his versions of the article stands.

I don't know that the tone of Konig's edits are being addressed separately. What I do know is that the rules of the wiki, or even the basic rules of all social spaces don't seem to apply to him. He has bullied countless productive users off the wiki, most recently (from what I've seen) SkrittmanCometh. He is currently flagrantly evading a permaban over on GWW. And yet for some inexplicable reason his presence continues to be tolerated.

I don't think his criticisms of the edit are fundamentally unreasonable, nor do I think that you are unreasonable Felix, so if you really want to get into it we can have a short discussion about the edit itself. But I don't see what could be accomplished from a discussion with Konig. –Santax (talk · contribs) 08:28, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I get it. We have struggled with the perception that certain users are untouchable, or have more influence over content decisions than they're due- it comes up on reddit and the like from time to time. But the fact of the matter is that the wiki is fundamentally different from other fansites because it's a project-driven community, and so we have to play something of a balancing act between keeping prolific contributors around but preventing them from becoming gatekeeping warlords. We've by no means perfected this balance, but Konig is a valuable contributor to the project (as are you!), so we prefer to polish the rough edges when possible. And I do believe he's learned to accept consensus and let go of controlling every detail a little better. But bad blood has a way of making people temporarily forget the lessons they've learned, and there's no question that the two of you have bad blood. In this particular case another user first called Konig out on the Discord when he reverted your changes to Mordremoth and posted the above rationale. He recognized that the way he had acted and written was inflammatory, and I suggested he take a break rather than respond to whatever came next. In the meantime, I think we can take the specific points of discussion over to Talk:Mordremoth, and he can join respectfully when he's done... flouncing. - Felix Omni 15:21, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

In my opinion, no user is so valuable that they can be allowed to bully other users off the wiki, whether or not they are part of the "in-crowd". But you have communicated that yes, he is effectively exempt from wiki rules. And I'm less inclined to edit myself, now that I apparently have to justify every small part of every edit to Konig to allow it to stand on the wiki. –Santax (talk · contribs) 09:13, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Deep Sea Dragon

Hey Santax, I noticed that you've made a change to Deep Sea Dragon, along with a justification on the talk page. As you're aware, the edit you reverted was Konig's change to one of your own previous edits. That means that going ahead with the revert instead of waiting for feedback on the talk page is revert war. I understand that you're feeling really frustrated at the moment because it feels like you're not allowed to make changes to anything without getting Konig's approval -- but deliberately continuing a revert war is a bad call. You could have requested that a neutral party such as myself or another lore editor such as Kossage give input first, but instead you chose to antagonize Konig. I want to assure you that I have no interest in taking sides here: Felix mentioned in the above section that a user called Konig out on Discord for antagonizing you over Mordremoth -- that was me. Konig isn't entitled to special treatment, but neither are you: all editors on this wiki are expected to handle conflict with maturity and patience, and right now you're not doing that. —Idris 14:00, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Idris. I appreciate the message. I don't consider my actions as having continued any revert war; I am trying as much as possible to act in a collaborative manner here. The edit you refer to was my first (partial) revert of Konig's revert; I have been voluntarily following a one-revert rule and that edit is consistent with that. If you believe that I (or both of us) should be following a zero-revert rule, then perhaps that is something that can be raised in the ongoing discussion at Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Admin noticeboard#Konig & AbuseFilter 27. As a gesture of good faith, I am willing to revert my own edit until the content dispute is resolved, but if I do so I would appreciate your input on the matter to ensure that the dispute actually gets resolved.

I do somewhat resent the suggestion that my edit was intended to antagonise Konig, as well as the suggestion that I am seeking special treatment. Konig does receive special treatment. Felix has as much as admitted above that his anti-community behaviour is tolerated because he is viewed as too productive to risk losing, and as I have pointed out before, he is currently conspicuously ignoring a permaban over at GWW. I, on the other hand, feel as though I am being expected to follow a zero-revert rule here, one that I have never been told about and one that the rest of the community (including Konig) are not expected to follow. –Santax (talk · contribs) 14:28, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I do think that a zero-revert rule would be a good idea for the both of you to follow with regards to each other, and I've recommended such to Konig in the past. Perhaps it was unfair of me to accuse you of intending to antagonize Konig, but sometimes our actions have unintended consequences, and having spoken with Konig about this, he does feel antagonized; he sees your revert as exactly the same behaviour you accuse him of getting away with. I'm inclined to agree with that assessment. I'm not going to address whether I think Konig really is getting special treatment in this comment as I'm running out of time, but I promise to speak with you about it later. I'll also take a look at the DSD article later today, when I can give it my full attention. —Idris 14:40, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Thank you for agreeing to have a look at the article. I've reverted my edit for now.

As to whether my revert constitutes the same behaviour that Konig has been criticised for (presumably referring to the Mordremoth discussion above?), the timeline of events on that article was that I made an edit, it was reverted by Konig (one revert), which was then reverted by me (one revert), which was then reverted by Konig (two reverts). At that point I chose to stop, and now his preferred version of the article stands pending input on the discussions that I have started on the talk page. The only difference here is that Konig has chosen not to go the extra revert and start a revert war, which is correct of him (although the usual thing to do at this point is to start a discussion - and his apparent unwillingness to do so is not sustainable in a collaborative environment), but does not make me the one at fault. –Santax (talk · contribs) 14:58, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I've left my take on the DSD talk page. I hope it helps.

With regard to this: "Konig has chosen not to go the extra revert and start a revert war, which is correct of him (although the usual thing to do at this point is to start a discussion - and his apparent unwillingness to do so is not sustainable in a collaborative environment)" I feel I should point out that Konig's silence was not due to unwillingness to have a discussion, but because he realised he'd done the wrong thing and decided--on my advice--to drop the issue. He did originally intend to respond and even sent me a draft so I could check it over for him, but he decided not to go ahead with that after you posted your request on the admin noticeboard. We felt that you would probably feel antagonised if he kept pushing the Mordremoth issue after that. If we misjudged, then fair enough, but I take partial blame for the resulting silence from Konig.

In my opinion, Konig's willingness to take advice on how to improve his interactions with you is indicative that he's getting better. I believe the admins feel the same way, though I can't speak for them. Yes, he makes mistakes -- I was very disappointed in him when I saw what he'd done with the Mordremoth article -- but he is getting better. I think the zero-reverts idea is a good one, and I'll talk to him about it next time he's on Discord. If you're willing to put the past behind you and focus on creating a future where the two of you can collaborate, I think he'd be willing to do the same. —Idris 18:18, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

It does help, thanks.

I hadn't realised that Konig's disengagement with the issue was because of an off-wiki conversation. This makes it more understandable, and there's no need to apportion blame or apologise.

However, I do not share your optimism that Konig has turned over a new leaf. Him taking a step back for a few days for a particularly heated dispute is nothing new. I have gathered that he is active in the Discord and seems to have something of a relationship with you and other prominent editors, but believe me when I say that I have more experience with Konig as an editor than most, and my assessment of his character is that he is a bully. It was true in 2014, and in the last few years, in which I have been less active, he has continued driving good, productive users like User:SkrittmanCometh and User:Louise away from the project. This is a pattern of behaviour that has been in place for well over half a decade. Having just re-read Auron's comment on his GWW talk page, I don't think there's a word of it that doesn't still apply today. Am I really that unreasonable for having exhausted my patience with it? –Santax (talk · contribs) 20:16, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't think you're unreasonable for having a low opinion of Konig, given your history with him. Your arguments are exhausting just to read, never mind what it must have felt like to be a participant in them, over and over and over. But I've been interacting with Konig for a few years now too, and though he (especially in the past) can be frustrating to argue with, I have seen him improve. (Maybe it's my influence. ;)) It's happening slowly, but I truly believe that he wants to better himself. He's just as frustrated and exhausted, and he has a similarly low opinion of you as you of him, and he's skeptical that his efforts are worth it because he doesn't think you'll meet him halfway. This is what bad blood does to people. The admins are, in my opinion, slow to ban or filter him not because he's "inner circle", but because he's just not as bad with everyone else as he is with you, and they can see him improving too. I truly believe that if you both put the past behind you, things will get better. Mistakes will be made along the way, and change won't come quickly: but it will come. You just have to let it.

A lot of discussions happen on Discord these days because it's convenient for running minor things by other users and getting a quick response. I would encourage you to try it out more often, especially when you need neutral opinions on a disagreement between you and Konig. You can block him on Discord if you wish so you don't have to deal with him there. And please feel free to reach out to me on Discord or ingame! —Idris 20:54, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) No, you're absolutely not unreasonable for being tired, Santax. If anything, expecting you to be the better person and stand above it is bordering on being cruel, considering you're the one being harassed. I further agree that I haven't seen much of a change in Konig's behaviour these days, particularly concerning the way he engages with others, despite there having been so many interventions in the past. From reverting multiple edits over placing delete tags on articles by Santax that were not even a day old instead of starting a discussion to snide remarks on the public discord directed at Santax and other individuals involved in certain affairs, I fail to see anything positive that happened lately. I would like you to show me examples where he did in fact behave as is expected of any regular wiki user.

Also, I want people to consider how Santax and others feel. I want people to acknowledge what they feel. Bullying is and never will be okay — and it's absolutely not okay to disregard people when they reach out and voice their discomfort. Right now, I don't feel anyone who participated in this conflict so far has shown any real concern for Santax and the points he raised — all I see is people defending and excusing Konig's behaviour.

As an aside, we cannot expect anyone to use Discord, and major discussions should still take place on the wiki, as it's excluding individuals. Not everyone wants or can access it either. talk 21:13, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not saying that Discord is a replacement for talk pages; any important decisions made on Discord that I've been involved with I always try to record somewhere on the wiki. I offered Discord as an option because of its speed and convenience even in asking people to take a look at a certain talk page, which might be useful in this particular scenario, but of course you don't have to. Konig often reaches out to me through private channels, but if you'd prefer, Santax, I could ask him to only contact me through the wiki in future.

And please do tell me if you feel I'm siding too hard with Konig. I'm trying to remain impartial, but I suppose bias is inevitable if Konig is in more frequent contact with me than Santax. You're right Inc, I was making excuses for bullying behaviour. Understanding why someone does the things they do isn't the same as it being okay for them to do those things, and I should have remembered the other side of that today. I don't want to contribute to driving anyone away from the wiki. I'm sorry. —Idris 21:44, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Idris, I think you should absolutely be free to talk to whoever you want to off-wiki, and if you are friends with Konig you should absolutely be able to contact him wherever you want. I wouldn't want to have any part in putting constraints on your social experience. I've avoided Discord because, although I'd probably be a little more active on the wiki and in-game if I used it, it is a space that Konig uses and I wouldn't want him to feel like I'm hounding him in every space that he has a presence in. I don't want to follow him around the internet having arguments with him, I just want the lore on a wiki about a video game to be as well-documented as possible. Besides, I've always treated the wiki more as a community-driven project than a project-driven community, and that difference in emphasis is just something I'm not used to.

I don't want to knock you for defending Konig. He's your friend and despite that you are clearly trying to act in good faith in the best interest of all the wiki, and going out of your way in doing so. But I've done this dance before, I hated every moment, and it is so dispiriting to have to do it again. Last time it was ultimately resolved with a recognition that okay, maybe Konig and Santax aren't "just as bad as each other" but there is a long-term problem here with Konig's pattern of behaviour. But those issues evidently weren't resolved, and maybe that's where we'll end up this time but it's so damn exhausting to do the same dance with new faces when I know that, sooner or later, we'll be back here again.

I can't emphasise enough, in 2014 - half a decade ago - we had a sysop saying, "I've received a handful of emails over the years from users complaining about Konig's mistreatment of them, his failure to collaborate and his tremendous arrogance preventing civilized discussion from taking place, resulting in the users simply giving up and letting Konig reign over his lore kingdom. After years of getting away with that behavior, he seems to think it's perfectly normal, and that compromising is for chumps". Half a decade later, how is this still going on? How many good editors or potential good editors have we lost because of this user? How valuable can one editor really be? I know you're trying to act in the best interests of the wiki and your presence here is extremely valuable, and it's not your responsibility any more than it is any other non-admin user's, but tolerating an editor who drives other editors and potential editors off the wiki is inevitably contributing to those editors being driven away from the wiki. And I can't do it anymore, I can't.

Inc, I just want to thank you for your comment. I think I needed to know that someone else has noticed this behaviour - I felt like I was going mad. It's good to know that I'm not the only one. I need to go to bed now; I've spent enough time on this today. –Santax (talk · contribs) 23:22, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry for making you feel like you had to type out a long reassurance to me; I'm not the one who needs reassurance right now. At least, not from one of the people I'm trying to help. I do understand why you feel the way you do about Konig, and I don't blame you for it at all. I hope things get better, and I hope you sleep well. —Idris 23:35, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Question from a Luxon / Factions fan

(Hopefully the title doesn't lose me too many points). I'm quite curious as to where this edit about the Luxons came from. The closest I have found is "Though the news would not arrive in the Empire of the Dragon for several decades after the fact, the year 305 by Canthan reckoning saw the arrival of humans on the continent of Tyria.". Implying that someone brought the news of their arrival. Was there another part that I've missed pointing towards the Luxons being in the Crystal Desert? It's been pointed out to me that I'm blind. Greener (talk) 18:02, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Greener's impairments aside, I do wonder whether the verbatim quote is appropriate for the GW2 page- after all, these "new discoveries" are 250+ years old now. It might read better to paraphrase? - Felix Omni 18:26, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree that it'd be better to paraphrase - it's just a matter of finding the right wording. I thought it might be bit too controversial to have it simply state that historians at one point believed that Luxons inhabited the Crystal Desert (as that implies that historians no longer believe that), or or to have it simply leave off the end of the sentence, as it is clearly noteworthy that this piece of lore is controversial in-universe as well. –Santax (talk · contribs) 00:32, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Zero-revert

Hey, Santax. Just dropping in to talk to you about the recent changes you and Konig made to Crystal Desert. Overall, I feel like both of you did really a good job here; it's clear you both made your changes with the intention of improving what the other had done, and you both tried to take into account what the others' intention had been. I'm proud of you both. I just want to warn you, though, that Konig is still struggling to understand exactly how you're defining "zero-revert", and he feels like the changes you made here undid too much of his work to count as "zero-revert". (If your immediate thought is "what a hypocrite, he removed a word from my edit too", I agree, and I've already spoken with him about this.) It's clear to me that Konig really wants to get this right, he just doesn't understand what he is and isn't allowed to do. I think perhaps you and he need to have another discussion about the definition of "zero-revert". —Idris 18:53, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, there's the discussion over at Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Admin noticeboard#Konig & AbuseFilter 27; I think that'd be the best place to reach a consensus for a definition of a revert.

On the particulars of my edit, I felt as though I was preserving the information and viewpoints of Konig's edit and that therefore it did not satisfy any definition of a 'revert'. I can see from the diff, though, that I did accidentally remove the clause about Margonites being viewed as mythical - as this does remove information and alter the meaning of the sentence, I am happy to re-add it. –Santax (talk · contribs) 22:30, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, the removal of the "mythical" clause was the main thing that bothered him; I think he was worried you weren't holding up your end of the zero-revert bargain. Thank you for confirming that it was just a mistake! I see you've started a discussion with him on the topic over on his talk page; you're both doing a great job so far. :) —Idris 23:51, 10 September 2019 (UTC)