User talk:Konig Des Todes

From Guild Wars 2 Wiki
(Redirected from User:Konig)
Jump to: navigation, search



Forgotten Question[edit]

Hey, quick question - you rewrote the Forgotten article and it's really neat, but there's one line: The last of this group of Forgotten saw the Exalted of Tarir into hibernation, his fate unknown, and Tarir and its Exalted lay dormant until the death of Glint. Um, who is "his"? Not Glint, right (because then you'd say "her fate")? Do you mean like "[the last member of this group of Forgotten]'s fate"? Because the first time I read it I thought "the last of this group" meant "the last [members, plural] of this group" and instead of "the last [member, singular] of this group", so it took me about five minutes to clue in. Also, have a happy Canadian Thanksgiving even though you're probably not Canadian and don't celebrate it, but you still deserve have a happy day. --Imry (talk) 07:37, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

His referring to "the last of this group of Forgotten" - e.g., the speechmaker of A Study in Gold's speech. Was going to rework that section again, that edit was just a quickedit to show that the Forgotten didn't perish in the Maguuma/shortly after that speech as we had thought. Unfortunately we're never given a difinitive name for that individual, though it's likely one of the two Yassiths.Konig (talk) 14:53, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Gotcha, thanks!
I was gonna edit it to clarify, but you're gonna edit it anyway, so I'll leave you to it. Good luck! --Imry (talk) 00:40, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Turai Ossa image[edit]

Hey, I saw your edit on the Turai Ossa page. I know you said that it is better to use the Echo image since we already have that, but honestly the picture of Turai in the desert helps distinguish the two versions of him much better. I hope you understand my perspective on this. --Teletric.3821 (talk) 00:29, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

There isn't anything to distinguish, since it's the exact same model to every detail. We do not use different images of the same model based on their location. At best, we only do for difference in weapons (and even that I would disagree about except when the weapon is important to lore). Konig (talk) 01:54, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
I disagree. I think the location is part of the context, and that's important. For example, in GW1 Glint was in a sandy lair, which tinted everything brown, but the image we used was a render which showed her as blue-grey because that's the colour of her model. So she became associated with that colour despite never appearing that way to players. Santax (talk · contribs) 07:59, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
After studying the two pictures I agree they are exactly the same model and should use the same image. The thing though, is I'd rather use an image of Turai Ossa taken in Crystal Desert, the lighting is better, however the current one would have to be retaken as I see outlines in the current picture of him there. - Doodleplex 08:24, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

gww:Vulture Drifts graveyard[edit]

Since I can't ask you on GWW, what is the source of the information that the structures in the Vulture Drifts graveyard in GW1 were made by Forgotten? Santax (talk · contribs) 08:09, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Same structures are in gw1:Lair of the Forgotten. Konig (talk) 15:38, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
If that's not enough to satisfy you: Of the five non-Forgotten groups who were in the Crystal Desert (Primeval Kings, Seekers, Margonites, Turai's Elonians, Ascalonians), they all have distinctive structures sans the Seekers who had no known structures. Few if any of those structures were in Lair of the Forgotten. Furthermore the pillars, which are in the center of the graveyard structures, have the Ascension runes on them, which have been directly and solely linked to the Forgotten.
Fun fact: Kesho is located roughly where that graveyard was. Unrelated but interesting. Konig (talk) 16:19, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Looking at these two screenshots, I can't see the sandstone pillars with the Ascension runes? I think these are the the structures that are implied to be Forgotten in origin (and I guess you agree with me). All I can see are these weird bone burrow things? --Santax (talk · contribs) 17:08, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
You cannot see the pillars right smack dab in the center of the dunes? Konig (talk) 18:56, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
I can see them, but to my eye they look very different from the pillars (with the hooded figure and the rune) on this screenshot, which is what I understand to be implied to be Forgotten architecture by the Lair of the Forgotten in-game description. Also, that doesn't explain what those weird burrow things are surrounding the pillars. --Santax (talk · contribs) 19:05, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Of that particular model, yes, but there were other versions of those pillars used elsewhere which were more worn down - like those - some iirc could be found in Prophet's Path (besides all this, though, those pillars are sometimes interactive objects in Elon Riverlands, called Forgotten Pillars). And those "weird burrow things" are what I mentioned when I said "Same structures are in gw1:Lair of the Forgotten.". You can even see one such "weird burrow thing" in the image there, albeit poorly. Konig (talk) 19:19, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Ah, the structures being called Forgotten Pillars in Elon Riverlands settles it. I thought you'd meant those when talking about the structures in the Lair of the Forgotten - I couldn't see one in the image. We should probably make a note about that on the Forgotten architecture subsection. Santax (talk · contribs) 17:41, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

"Most commonly seen (but also more weather-worn) are structures created out of sandstone." Already did, though I didn't go into detail. Unrelated: I see you're continuing the error of not following wiki formatting. Konig (talk) 22:25, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
I have no idea what you mean, but I don't see why it's necessary for you to have a snip at me here while addressing me in edit summary section, where I can't respond. Santax (talk · contribs) 23:40, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
You have no idea what I mean, but you acknowledge the address where I point it out. Konig (talk) 23:41, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
No Konig, you invented your own references policy when you said, "We do not use reference tags for things that are: 1) in either game, 2) in the novels, 3) in these articles. Anything that does or says otherwise is outdated (GW2W community is actually very bad at keeping formatting guidelines up to date, that one in particular is no exception (as this edit shows). Hell, I didn't even know that particular page existed, myself. If you disagree with any of that, then bring it up somewhere more appropriate than my page and where it'd be seen.". You even outright said that if a GW2W guidelines article contradicts you, then it's wrong. Don't misrepresent your own personal preferences for referencing things as wiki policy - it's dishonest. And by the time you'd made that comment, I had already brought this up on the community portal. I let you know so that you would have an opportunity to contribute to that discussion. People agreed with me and the guidelines on references have been updated. Santax (talk · contribs) 23:57, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
YUP! You're totally right, I made it up, jeeze, my bad.
Note, that was sarcasm. Ironic that the last one was you editing obscure guidelines without consensus.
I missed your link in your lower wall of text, so that's a bit forgivable. I also looked at the table of contents on the community portal and saw nothing saying "references". So I missed your section titled "The wiki has a credibility and accessibility problem when it comes to lore" (wow, what a mouth full!). Konig (talk) 00:08, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
As justification for the reference policy you've been quoting chapter and verse, you've linked to a discussion to 2009 on a different wiki, to a discussion from 2010 on a talk page for an article you claimed not to be aware of, and to an edit I made in 2014 that as far as I can tell has nothing to do with any of this. Those are all obviously superseded by the actual GW2W References formatting guideline.
By the way, we explicitly don't have policies, let alone wiki formatting rules. You clearly have no idea how this wiki works despite being a longtime editor, and that's because you have absolutely no idea how to act in a way that is collaborative. You treat this as your personal wiki and your first instinct is to revert when anyone dares to edit one of "your" pages in a way that you don't like. It's exactly this behaviour that got you permabanned from GWW, and it's clear you've learned nothing. Santax (talk · contribs) 00:30, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
"By the way, we explicitly don't have policies, let alone wiki formatting rules." Really? This category would disagree with you. I do not treat this as my own wiki. I follow the consensus that I have seen made. GW2W follows a lot of practices that GWW had, except when brought up here specifically - reference tags weren't, until now. Not one of these have been my sole opinion. My first instinct is to format to these consensus - not revert, conform. But you constantly solely lead away from that.
The behavior that got me banned on GWW is my laughing at the ridiculousness of GW2W mods who banned me thrice in a row when I said I was taking a break while never once stepping in while the issue of you ensuring your way is up while discussion was going underway - something you're doing even now - was actually an issue. Konig (talk) 00:48, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Do you understand that there'a difference between rules and guidelines? Santax (talk · contribs) 01:12, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I un-reverted a lot of your edit on the Forgotten page[edit]

I was quite proud of that edit and it took me a little while, so I found it a little patronising that you felt that you could undo most of it with an explanation no longer than the character limit of an edit summary. This is what was left of my edit. Like, come on, man.

  • "We don't reference the wiki" - That's not true. The current practice is that we don't reference the game, but we do reference anything that isn't found in-game, even if it's mirrored on the wiki (e.g. The Movement of the World, The Ecology of the Charr, etc.). All but one of the references you removed were pointing to things like that. The other reference, for the in-game description of the GW1 Lair of the Forgotten, was for a fact so obscure that I think it's justified.
I want you to put yourself in the position of a new editor who's interested in the lore but not quite sure of themself - you see this claim about Forgotten being extremely long-lived, but you'd never heard of that before (I certainly hadn't) and you think it might be wrong. You don't want to remove it in case it isn't, but you don't want to keep it there in case it is - you can't find a source either because not everyone has an encyclopedic knowledge of the lore. Your only choice is to find whoever added that, hope that they are still an active wiki editor, and ask them (which can be intimidating - this isn't my wiki, why should people have to go through me to find out whether they can add or remove something?). Most potential editors would think, you know what, this isn't worth the hassle, whoever added it probably knows better than me, and leaves a statement they think might be incorrect on the wiki. Hopefully you can see how not citing obscure statements effectively gates the editing of articles behind the user that added the statement, and potentially deters new people from getting involved in the wiki - that doesn't seem like a very collaborative way of doing things. FWIW, there's an ongoing discussion about references that you might be interested in here.
  • "we don't include sections lacking size" - It's a strange way of phrasing it, but if I'm understanding you correctly, you seem to be saying that we don't include stub sections in articles? That's not true either. The culture section was small because it was incomplete - there's plenty more we can say and {{section-stub}} is there to act as a prompt to expand it. That's how wikis work. Btw, imo the section on Forgotten physiology was long enough to warrant a separate section - the lede is just the introduction to the subject, it'd be weird to start going on about one specific aspect of the subject in detail there.
  • "Fixing grammatical and lore issues (e.g., nothing said Forgotten were killed in Tyria during Nightfall)" - I seem to remember something in GW1 about Tyrian Forgotten being persecuted by Margonites and retreating to the Realm of Torment because their time in this world is over, but I can't source it so I've removed it. Btw, you added back a couple of lore issues, e.g. saying that it's unclear whether the gods or the Forgotten arrived first (it's now pretty clear that the Forgotten were around 10,000 years ago whereas the gods came much later), linking to Elonia, a GWW page which is tagged for deletion because it's completely unsubstantiated and verging on fanfiction. EDIT: You also information about the Forgotten being on Tyria in 10,000 BE for some reason.
  • "Adding architecture lore" - 👍

In future, please use talk pages rather than edit summaries to explain why you have reverted something, or better yet use user talk pages to explain your issues with an edit and give users the opportunity to correct it themselves. Santax (talk · contribs) 09:13, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

  • We do not use reference tags for things that are: 1) in either game, 2) in the novels, 3) in these articles. Anything that does or says otherwise is outdated (GW2W community is actually very bad at keeping formatting guidelines up to date, that one in particular is no exception (as this edit shows). Hell, I didn't even know that particular page existed, myself. If you disagree with any of that, then bring it up somewhere more appropriate than my page and where it'd be seen.
  • Yes, strange way because summaries have a small limit of characters. My point is that, when it's fully expanded, if it's no more than a few sentences (like your version of physiology) then it's not worth separating. The reason why the major races have such, or races which got blog posts had such, is because they had enough information to merit the division. In the same respect, major NPCs with a huge biography section or races with a huge history section gets sub-divided. By "appropriate length", I'm talking two properly sized paragraphs (5+ sentences or 3+ lines per) or more. The physiology section is lacking.
    1. Actually, it's still unclear which came first given that we do not know when the Six Gods arrived; it's also unclear whether or not the Forgotten arrived on orders of the Six or not (either as scouts or a forward party or what).
    2. Elonia is not unsubstantiated, despite your (continued) protests. The fact a colony existed is a core part of many dialogues, and it is outright called Elonia (there are other links). Do your research before tagging things for deletion, will you? You had that issue in the past, editing before verifying. If you're not sure, feel free to ask before edits - I'd be more than happy to help you get edits right so we can avoid these silly things.
    3. As for removing the 10,000 BE there are many hints to show that the Priory are wrong about the last dragonrise date - first dwarven structures are just "over 2,000 years old", Glint only had 3,000 years of memory, Forgotten arrived in the world in 1769 BE. To name the major ones. It's unclear whether this means the last dragonrise lasted 8,000 years or the Priory is simply wrong and 10,000 is two dragonrises ago rather than one, with the last happening around 2,000 - 1,000 BE.
  • "use talk pages rather than edit summaries to explain why you have reverted something, or better yet use user talk pages to explain your issues with an edit" We tried that. And you refrained from ever budging,, even when provided facts, leading to edit wars because you had to have your version up rather than the original version or a version that removed the contested details out which is standard protocol for edit issues, something you're once again doing. Konig (talk) 15:54, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
By the way, I probably am not going to respond again if you post here because I do not want another repeat of last time despite it all. Konig (talk) 15:54, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Santax that "Elonia" is a massive stretch. The only references to it anywhere in the franchise are two related objects in Prophecies, objects which were very likely to have been created by the same dev and thus likely to have fallen victim to the same spelling error. I am not opposed to including CLEARLY-MARKED-AS-SUCH speculation on Elonia, but I really feel that your bold treatment of it as canon is unfounded. Short of asking ANet for confirmation, there's simply no way to be sure if "Elonia" was a typo or a deliberate reference to the colony. --Idris (talk) 17:41, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
One of those two items says Elonia is no more. So you're saying Elona, which Turai outright states to be the distant land he and his people come from in Prophecies, ceased to exist with the Crystal Desert colony's death? That sounds like a massive stretch to me. Konig (talk) 19:17, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Granted, that's the strongest piece of evidence in favour of your conclusion. I certainly understand where you're coming from. But I can think of other ways of interpreting it:
  • The colony was named "Elona"
  • The nomads were misinformed about the status of Elona
  • The dev made an error in calling the colony "Elona/Elonia" instead of its actual name
Ultimately, I feel like this one line is too vague to be justifiably used as evidence for the colony's name. Like I said before, I'm not opposed to clearly-marked speculation—I know the wiki doesn't speculate, but I see no harm in saying "evidence from such-and-such suggests that <lore> MAY be a thing, but there's no confirmation" in a trivia section. I just don't think we should be saying "yes, Elonia is definitely canon and don't argue with us". --Idris (talk) 19:27, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Who would ever name a colony the exact same as their motherland? Makes no sense.
  • Why would the pilgrims think that Elona has fallen? They left it at the highest height they've had in ages. That's like thinking England has fallen when the Mayflower settled in America.
  • Then what is the name of the colony?
ArenaNet always has vague lines strewn throughout places, especially in GW1, and it had always been left up to players to "connect the dots". That's how GW's lore functions across the entire series. By saying this is unconfirmed, that's the same as saying it's unconfirmed Abaddon had a predecessor, that it's unconfirmed that the Seers used divine resources to make the Bloodstone, that it's unconfirmed that Livia lengthened her lifespan by the Scepter of Orr.
I'm not saying "yes, Elonia is definitely canon and don't argue with us" I'm saying "Elonia is the one and only name ever applied to the colony, and the context of the line makes it point blank clear it is not a typo for the nation of Elona." If the name for the colony isn't Elonia, then what is it? If the name Elonia is a typo of Elona then why did Elona continue to exist? Occam's Razor (punning link intended) would argue that the name of the colony is Elonia. Even if it's an underused name, it's not like Anet always uses every bit of lore thrown at us. They never did, in fact. Even the discussion with Kormir has a ton of vagueness to it, which is fully deliberate - either to spark theorycrafting, to leave ArenaNet wiggleroom for future writing, or because they enjoy giving players a scavenger hunt. Konig (talk) 19:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
"If the name Elonia is a typo of Elona then why did Elona continue to exist?" Ah, come on. That's a silly argument and you know it. "If Paris is really a city in Texas, then why does the Paris in France still exist?" I do understand why you feel your interpretation is the most likely one, and I agree that sometimes we have to put the pieces together for ourselves; I just think our readers deserve a little more transparency. There's nothing wrong with admitting that we aren't sure. --Idris (talk) 19:46, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
That comparison doesn't work. Paris, Texas wasn't established by the French naming the place France. A similar argument for your sake would be "If France, North America, a colony of France, Europe in North America, then why does France, Europe still exist when France, North America ceased to be?" But you can see how silly that naming is. No one would name the colony nation the exact same as their motherland.
If what's wanted is transparency of "well, this name is only mentioned twice in the entire series, all other references to the colony leaving it unnamed because the context makes it clear what the subject is about, so some folks think that it is in fact a typo despite the context" then why do we not have transparency of "well, Adelbern is mentioned to be a descendant of King Doric one time only and never again, all other references to his lineage put him as a commoner because the context doesn't call to refer to his most ancient ancesotr, so some folks think that he is in fact not a descendant of King Doric." The reason is simple: Even if there's only one mention, the fact it gets mentioned with a clear context provided and never once gets contradicted, is proof enough not to doubt it. Konig (talk) 20:02, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Because I disagree with you about the context in this particular case being clear. As does Santax. I mean, if you think a colony named "Elona" is absurd, then fine, I'm not interested in arguing that point, because I still feel that the reference is just generally vague. You aren't obligated to agree with me on that, but I do think a compromise is needed in this case. --Idris (talk) 20:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Feel free to offer a compromise then. Because I've not seen one, and the only option seems to be keep gw1:Elonia or delete it. The latter destroys documentation. The former adheres to this supposedly giving the false name to the colony Elona. Konig (talk) 20:24, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I'm not a member of GWW, so I hadn't considered how to address it over there. My suggestion for GW2W is to remove the reference from Crystal Desert and replace it with a cautious trivia line, similar to the style I suggested above. I'll have a think about how we should address GWW, since Elonia seems pretty thoroughly integrated into the articles there, but my current thought is indeed to delete gww:Elonia and retain references to it in other, relevant articles, again as cautious trivia lines. --Idris (talk) 20:28, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

A less destructive alternative might be to rename the Elonia article to "Elonian colony" or some such. That would have the added benefit that all Elonia references can be kept to that one article. --Idris (talk) 20:33, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
There's too much lore there to put under "cautious trivia lines". Moving it to Elonian colony could be meritable - far superior to deletion - but I think it would be better to denote that some players contest the idea that Elonia is a typo for Elona, and let readers come to their own conclusion. Either way, I've sent a PM to Matthew Medina who's been helpful in the past with simple lore questions like this. So hopefully he'll get back to me. Konig (talk) 20:40, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, my second idea is definitely the better one, since I wasn't really keen on removing valid lore or sprinkling it out over several articles either. Good idea getting in touch with a dev; hopefully he'll be able to resolve this. :) If not though, as long as the article isn't named Elonia and the contested nature of the name is made explicit, I'm happy with your suggestion. --Idris (talk) 20:45, 12 October 2017 (UTC)


Please re-add the references you removed from the Six Human Gods and the Forgotten pages. I did bring it up on the Community Portal (linked there in my previous discussion but you appeared to have ignored that]]) and the references policy has now been updated. Santax (talk · contribs) 23:44, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Updated from a discussion that actually predates when it got brought up by myself. As I said above, I did look there for that, but man I did not look for "The wiki has a credibility and accessibility problem when it comes to lore". I looked in the table of contents for "reference". I'll look over the discussion and give my 2 cents. Konig (talk) 00:09, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Also fun to note that you updated the guideline without a consensus as I suggested of you. You instead chose to be bold rather than ensuring that I and others saw the discussion first. As always, you began pushing your view of what should be done, and now that you edited it and it's being re-edited by others you're pressing me to go and change to your opinions. Again. This is just a repeat of the last time we had issues, you know. I'm trying to hold to prior consensus, you're trying to change things while holding a discussion for new consensus while proclaiming there was no prior consensus, that I'm just holding to "my" ideals. I'm not. Konig (talk) 00:11, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
There was a consensus for a guideline change - everyone involved in the discussion agreed with me, and there had been no new replies in several weeks. Also, I did try to ensure that you and others saw the discussion first - I put it on the community portal rather than the talk page for the guideline because I thought it would be more visible there, and I specifically mentioned it to you in our previous discussion, which you elected not to read. I would have brought it up again in my response, but you told me that you would ignore it. Santax (talk · contribs) 00:22, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
In the meantime: are you going to add back those references, or are you going to make me do it? Santax (talk · contribs) 00:31, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Given that changes were made to your so-called consensus, discussion seems to be ongoing. I also posted my opinion, on why referencing every sentence (or half a sentence) is a bad thing.
Also, I said I was not going to respond to a reply, not that I was going to ignore. You're beginning to, once more, put words in my mouth. Konig (talk) 00:50, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
One last thing. To your question: I'm going to wait for a legit response to my concerns by someone other than you (I'm sure I know what your reply would be). After that, I'll follow what consensus is made be will be happy to edit Forgotten, Six Human Gods, and probably others with the appropriate changes based on the end discussion. I will note, however, that I will push - though probably not edit personally as I grow tired of this game - for you to NOT try to make your changes be what is on articles, as you so often do. Konig (talk) 01:05, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
On GWW there was 1RR. I'd make a change, you'd revert me, I'd revert your revert. We'd both have reverted once each. If we wanted it to go further, we'd have to talk and reach a consensus. A side effect of this is that the edits made by the original editor would stand.
That's one reason why I think that, if you're the one reverting all my edits, it's fine that my version of the article is the one that stands. The other reason is because you do things like say my response aren't legitimate, or say that you'd won't respond to any subsequent replies that I make in a discussion. You can't revert someone's edit, refuse to engage in discussion with them once they challenge you, and expect that revert to stand.
The way I see it, I'll normally spend a long time improving an article, only to come back minutes later to find large parts of it have been reverted, often for no reason other than you preferred it the way it was before. That's not how collaborative wikis are supposed to work. I mean, you undid this one with the justification "No point". What would you have me do - that's not a rhetorical question - what should I do?
You're not used to having to deal with other editors because for most of the wiki's life, you have been its sole lore editor. The reason for that is that you bully other editors off the wiki. As Auron said, "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." You'll recall that you felt the problems back then were because I was too speculative in my edits - now your problem is that I want to cite too many sources. Maybe the problem isn't either of those two opposite things, but that I am editing your lore articles. Santax (talk · contribs) 01:35, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
GWW and GW2W both have a policy (whether written or unwritten I've never bothered to actually look up, since it was presented to me (not always at me however) by three different admins in the past) to, when something is contested, keep to the contested details out (if such is not possible, to the original version) then tag the article (or section) pointing to discussion. You never followed such, I tried to in my reverts. Furthermore, you've ignored that 1 revert policy you're now quoting, many dozens of times. And honestly, not only against me.
"for most of the wiki's life, you have been its sole lore editor" That's actually not true. Especially seeing how I've not been around since day 1 of the wikis.
"What would you have me do - that's not a rhetorical question - what should I do?" Leave things to their uncontested state, and bring discussion explaining why your edits are superior? You do the latter fine enough, albeit with huge walls of text sometimes that no one - and I do mean no one - wants to read (and not because they're yours, because they're walls of text). Instead, you revert, insist on your version being up, while discussion is had. Regardless of how many times you insist on edits.
And do you really need to act like you spend hours on an article edits, when half of the article (if not far more) is just copy-paste from other places? I mean, that article there was just copy/paste of how it was before, while your "Exodus of the Gods" section on the Six Human Gods was practically verbatim of sections from this.
And if my issue is that you're editing "my articles", then why do I not have issues with others? Why are you the only one who I revert? Hell, this time I'm not actually reverting your articles, I just do tweaks. Only the excessive amounts of reference tags have I fully removed.
And I know I'm brash, perhaps too much, but I hardly bully anyone. Konig (talk) 02:11, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

"And I know I'm brash, perhaps too much, but I hardly bully anyone." -- Nobody self-identifies as a bully, Konig. It's a label that only others can give you. Based on my own experiences with you, I wouldn't go that far, but I'll admit that you can be frustrating to argue with. I know I'm meddling now, but it's only because I can see myself in you: I've been the argumentative little shit that people dread interacting with; I've arrogantly deflected accusations of bad behaviour because "it's just my personality!" -- and I can tell you from experience that digging your heels in like this will not help. I think that taking the break you're threatening to take will do you good. A little distance works wonders. And fwiw, I still mean everything I said below. --Idris (talk) 07:16, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

...Why do people see the idea of taking a break as a threat? Not just Idris, but others have before - I've even been temp ban with the explanation that my "threatening to leave" was the last straw for an admin (I'm sorry, but who locks the door on someone who left voluntarily, unlocks it before they decide to come back, and expects that to be a punishment the person who left learns from, exactly?). Taking a break is the furthest thing from a threat. Konig (talk) 13:51, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
I didn't mean to imply it was a bad or worrying thing, just that I wasn't sure if you meant it. Poor choice of words, perhaps. --Idris (talk) 13:54, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for being part of our community[edit]

It seems like you're feeling pretty burnt out at the moment. I know you and I rarely see eye-to-eye, but I do consider you to be a valuable member of the wiki, and I wanted to let you know that you're appreciated. I hope you feel better after your break. :) --Idris (talk) 05:09, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

NPC's mechanical names taking precedence over their names in lore[edit]

When I changed the article on Chief Kronon you reverted me - twice - claiming that (as far as I can tell, your wording was unclear) the name in the article's lede must only be different from the NPC's mechanical name "when the NPC has more names/titles in lore (e.g., Minister Caudecus)". When and where was this decided? I can't see anything in the NPC formatting guidelines about it. I can possibly understand the name field in the infobox in case it messes with DPL or something, but using the mechanical name in the lede just makes the article read horribly, imo. Santax (talk · contribs) 17:28, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't recall where the discussion was, but it was decided around 2011, when the game was new. It was a discussion on whether NPC articles should be named after the in-game name, or the full lore name, and in turn how should the intro be. The end decision was "article names match the mechanical appearance (common in the case of changing names, like we have with Rytlock/Rytlock Brimstone/Tribune Brimstone), and the intro showing the full titles/name". At that time, I don't think we settled on Champion/not, but it's been in large an unspoken rule. One person did make mass changes to do as you did, but then reverted such.
I disagree that it "makes the article read horribly" but I think this falls back to your opinion of when things "breaks the flow of the text (e.g. by breaking the fourth wall)".
But think of it this way, how does "Ice Imp is a powerful Ice Imp located in Angvar's Trove." sound? Consistency would be important, so all ranked NPC articles should remove that then, shouldn't it? Konig (talk) 17:46, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Right, so you quoted an "unspoken rule" chapter and verse as though it were wiki policy...again. If a rule isn't written down, then don't enforce it, because it's not a rule. And especially don't enforce the not-rule when it's likely to lead to a dispute. It'd be more honest to say, "Reverted because I think it's better the other way". And then we can have a discussion about whether it really is better the other way (if you care that much...).
I'm not talking about changing the page on the Champion Ice Imp. I think that's probably fine as-is, although the phrase "Ice Imp" appearing twice in close succession isn't great (btw, if you were determined enough I'm sure you could find a way to both remove the "Champion" and not have it read "Ice Imp is a powerful Ice Imp located in Angvar's Trove" - aren't you a writer?). I'm talking about the page on Chief Kronon, which has a large, lore-heavy intro but with an incongruous reference to the NPC's mechanical rank right at the beginning of it. Consistency is important, but not when it's to the detriment of the reader - that's why the formatting guidelines are guidelines instead of rules. Btw, as far as I can tell, according to your own rule of thumb the lede in Minister Caudecus, which is the specific example you gave, should just read "Minister Caudecus" instead of "Legate Minister Lord Caudecus Beetlestone the Wise", because "Minister Caudecus" is the NPC's mechanical name? Santax (talk · contribs) 19:01, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
For the sake of consistency and to avoid confusing newer editors, the general rule of thumb is to list their mechanical name, though I do agree with you that sometimes it is a little clunky for reading and writing purposes. If you don't agree with that formatting however, I suggest bringing it up on the NPC formatting template page for others to join in on, though I do believe this has been brought up twice with the results being to continue as before. And yes, until about half way through Confessor's Stronghold, his mechanical name is "Minister Caudecus", so that starting line should probably be changed somehow so that his mechanical name and full title are both listed. - Doodleplex 19:12, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) It's not an unspoken rule, it's just old that I don't remember where the discussion was. Do you remember the exact location of discussions that happened six years ago (that being when it was first brought up)? If so, congratulations, you got better memory than me. There was more recent discussions, but again, I don't recall where they were. I don't keep such things in mind as the months and years go by. So I am sorry I cannot cite each and every single tiny little rule or discussion that ever happens in the wiki, out of the literally trillions of edits that go by every month.
And no about Caudecus. That was, perhaps, a bad example since the in-game name doesn't include an NPC rank. Let me put it like this: if the NPC name was Champion Kronon, then we might have [[Champion Kronon|Chief Kronon]] to show such, in this specific example. But since it's Champion Chief Kronon, then it is Champion Chief Kronon. Just as Legendary Blademaster Diarmid is such not listed as Blademaster Diarmid. Konig (talk) 19:13, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Your expertise is needed again[edit]

Hi Konig, would you mind taking a look at the discussion going on at Talk:Southsun Settlers? In particular, points 3 and 7 on Doodle's list near the bottom of the page. If you're familiar with this lore, it'd be great if you could double-check, because I haven't the first clue. --Idris (talk) 04:52, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Red Link Story NPCs[edit]

I think you wanted a list of story NPCs that existed only as red links? I'm not going to link it case by some miracle the page is no longer needed, but you'll find it at "User:Doodleplex/Things To Do/Story stuff". Also moved the NPCs that need pictures there too in case you wondered where they went. - Doodleplex 19:24, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

This was unnecessary[edit]

How would I have known to speak to a scout NPC? Santax (talk · contribs) 18:57, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Scout NPCs are not exactly "obscure" - they're pretty obvious. What's unnecessary is you seemingly making an issue or calling for citation on every single one of my recent edits. I had already said that if you had a question about where lore came from ask me. I'd be willing to point out calmly if you just asked. Instead, you have to push for citation needed templates, start issues on talk pages, and promote your own theories - such as your continued insistance that Varra Skylark is infallible, as one of multiple examples - while dismissing my attempts to show both sides of an issue.
And the fact that you only do that when I recently edited the page makes it feel like downright harassment, Santax. That's what's unnecessary. I have to call it out somewhere, because I'm getting sick and tired of it. Konig (talk) 19:07, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Hey you two, we need to talk. When it comes to lore, we generally accept that you two know a lot, and you are both quite passionate about it.
Now that the platitudes are over with, I'm going to ask you two to start making smarter decisions. We encourage people on this wiki to work together, even when they're diametrically opposed on how things should be done. We don't ask for agreement, but we ask for you to stop and think about the other contributors around you. These flare ups you two have don't just affect the two of you. Other see things, and they are affected by your actions and words.
You two know that you're oil and water when it comes to most topics, and the stance of one tends to push the other away. You know this; you recognize this; you see this happen time and time again. If you are editing a page which you know may antagonize the other, choose your words and actions well. Ask yourself if you're doing everything above-board. Reach out to the other with an honest olive branch if you have a question or concern about an edit, and do your best not to see the worst in each other. Be the better person. G R E E N E R 20:25, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Why the quotes on "obscure" - where did I say that scout NPC's are obscure? All that happened was that I came across the page, thought that the lore sounded cool but that I had never heard any of it before, and as someone who considers themselves fairly clued up on the lore I figured that if it isn't obvious for me, it won't be obvious to others either (and if I'm curious about where it comes from, others will be too). I'm just trying to make content on the wiki verifiable, so there's really no need to take it so personally. AGF and all that.
The reasons that I didn't ask you directly because it shouldn't be the case that every time anyone on the wiki isn't sure where a piece of lore information comes from, they have to go through you. You are not the gatekeeper of lore on the wiki. What if one day you decided to leave (as you have done multiple times)? Wouldn't it be better if anyone could find out where information comes from because the source is listed on the page? It works the other way, too; placing the {{citation needed}} on the page means that anyone reading the page can add the source if they know it, not just you. People shouldn't have to go through specific users to edit, that's completely opposed to the spirit of the wiki.
On Varra Skylark (not sure what that has to do with this page), I don't remember insisting that Varra Skylark is infallible, and I take exception to you of all people accusing me of using the wiki to promote my theories. What theory would that be, then? That the Elder Dragons last rose in around 10,000 BE? Because that piece of information is repeatedly presented as fact to players via various Durmand Priory NPC's whenever there's a lore infodump. The fan theory here is yours, namely that the Durmand Priory is wrong about the date of the last dragonrise but that one Priory member is correct about the age of dwarven civilisation (or that her saying that dwarven civilisation lasting for over 2,000 years has to mean that the last dragonrise was 2,000 years ago), and that the Durmand Priory are supposed to be aware of the contradiction and haven't put 2+2 together (or they have but that information is being withheld from players for no reason). You are removing statements of this rather fundamental aspect of the game's lore from articles so that they accommodate your personal theory, in doing so making more difficult the project of documenting the game's lore accurately as it is presented to players. But you know what? The advantage of using reference tags is that any reader can click through to where a piece of information came from and say, "having seen where this information comes from, I think (for some reason) that this NPC is lying or incorrect". I'd have thought you'd be all for it, as if it's so evident that Varra Skylark is incorrect, readers will easily spot that for themselves once presented with the source of the information. We should give readers the power to decide for themselves whether they want to believe a source. They can't do that if you don't provide sources - they just have to accept what the wiki says (and usually if it's a lore article, that means what you say) as fact.
Btw, you hadn't "recently edited the page". You last edited that page literally a month ago to the day. The expansion only came out a week before that. Am I not allowed to edit anything that you've edited since the expansion came out? Or is it just that you saw the "29", assumed that you'd edited that article today rather than a month ago, and now you have egg on your face because you've attacked me for no reason? Again, chill. Santax (talk · contribs) 20:32, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
@Santax, you missed the forest for the trees in my comment, and return with a wall. I'm not going to continue this just to satiate your desires or your antagonizing. I'm done with you.
@Greener: I tried. I did try offering an olive branch. But Santax ignored every bit of it. Konig (talk) 20:36, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Santax, I understand you probably spent a long time typing out that response, but completely ignoring Greener's comment which caused the edit conflict was a bad call. I thought I'd made progress with you two the other day when I gave you both a harsh telling-off for your behaviour, but you've both slipped back into old habits. So I'm going to be harsh again: knock it the fuck off. Both of you need to learn to focus on compromising rather than word-vomiting why your viewpoint is the best one and attacking each other when you don't like the way one of you edited something. Konig, you in particular need to learn to stop being so salty when things aren't going your way. You are a valued contributor, but that doesn't make it okay to whinge when your opinion is outnumbered.
I don't want to see another word about this stupid Scout NPC here. Konig was unnecessarily rude; Santax's overzealousness triggered the rude outburst. You both fucked up, but it's done now. Just learn from the experience like the adults you're both supposed to be. --Idris (talk) 21:44, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Edit conflict'd again! 🤦 I'd typed out a longer response to both Konig and Greener but I'll take your advice and leave it. What I will say is that you appear to be saying the same that people said in the past ([1] [2]), that "they're just as bad as each other". It took us a long time to get there, but eventually people came to accept that this was not the case. I wanted to point that out because I don't want to end up going down the same route as we did back then. I'm sure there are things that I can be doing differently, but if we want things to really come to a close then Konig will need to find a capacity for introspection that we have yet to see. Santax (talk · contribs) 22:30, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Even if I were to accept that one of you is "worse" than the other (which is not something I'm willing to do -- not because I think you're both terrible but because it doesn't matter who's worse when you both keep antagonising each other), I still see that both of you are in a position to improve. So focus on what you can do to become a better editor in future, yeah? --Idris (talk) 22:42, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Southsun event help[edit]

Question for you: Defend the settlement from rampaging, crazed wildlife has some historical dialogue, and at the bottom of the page it says there was an event with the same name that occurred at Steampipe Steading. I think it's referring to Defend the settlement from the crazed creatures' attack, as that's the only event I can find that's close in name and historical. I'm trying to fill in some of the blanks of that historical event, so after poking around, based on the German wiki's page for the historical event, I think it's possible the two events originally had the same foes and dialogue. Based on your memory, does that sound right? And if so, do you think the historical dialogue could be moved to the historical event? - Doodleplex 01:17, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately I did not play during the two weeks of Secret of Southsun. Best look up youtube videos - that was my plan for figuring that out. I can only tell you that there was an event there that had that dialogue and replaced by Reclaim the settlement by burning out the karka nests when Karka Queen was added. By the looks of it, that historical event was replaced by Reclaim the settlement by burning out the karka nests. It's possible that there was no "failure" of the event and the one historical was replaced by both current events, but as said I wasn't playing much then - I had maybe one or two short day's of gameplay then and was more focused on getting AP than observing because devs had promised that at least some of the content would remain (liars!). Konig (talk) 02:22, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Magdaer and Sohothin[edit]

As far as I can tell, nothing in Plan of Attack says that the gods created the swords, just that they gave them to humans. The swords might have come from elsewhere (a lot of the artefacts in Arah predate the gods and were gathered there by them), and there is precedent for the gods gifting things to the races of Tyria which they did not create (e.g. magic). Santax (talk · contribs) 23:46, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Since I don't know most of the lore stuff, would you mind telling me what are these other artifacts that the gods gave to humans but didn't themselves create? - Doodleplex 00:09, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
@Doodle: He refers to the bloodstone and Mystic Telescope, and small mursaat artifacts seen in Arah dungeon.
@Santax: Context Santax, your lack of it when arguing against me is amazing when you utilize it in full force when arguing for your own edits - it's a bit funny really. In a non-funny way.
Rytlock explicitly states that the gods created the Foefire ritual (casting and cleansing seems to be one ritual by what Rytlock says) in Plan of Attack. Even ignoring the fact that in not just Plan of Attack, but also AC story and Ghosts of Ascalon (and likely far more) the ritual is intricately tied to the swords (and crown), the swords would be just generic fiery dragon swords that look a little differently if they existed before the Foefire ritual was attached to them by the gods (bolded for emphasis in textblock). So by all intents and purposes, the gods made Sohothin and Magdaer - whether they used scrap metal that they reforged into swords, used unrefined ore that they forged into swords, or took two ordinary swords to make them legendary powerful artifacts is ultimately irrelevant because you're just arguing fucking semantics and no one has time for that shit. Not you nor me nor Aunt Betty's Great Grandmother named Gwendoline.
Also magic is not an artifact created by another group; and one thing - if you can call it a thing (again: semantics that no one has time for) does not make a precedent. Konig (talk) 00:48, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Also, did you really have to make a new section in my talk page when a very similar one is already existing on yours? Konig (talk) 00:49, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
I do somewhat wish this conversation had been continued on Santax's page instead of here to cover both issues, but for the time being(dinner calls my name) I poked around to see what I could find regarding what was brought up here. The Ascalonian Catacombs story does state that Magdaer was forged in Orr("The Sword is named Magdaer, and it is twin to mine. It was forged in ancient Orr"), so add that onto what Rytlock states in Plan of Attack("At the same time, they also gave one of them a magical crown and two magical swords[Sohothin and Magdaer] to protect the kingdom"), I would conclude at the very least that the gods forged it in Orr, then went and gave it and it's twin Sohothin, to the Ascalonians. So for Magdaer at least, I think it's fairly safe to say the who and where it came from based on what is here on the wiki that we have documented. Also, I don't think Santax was calling magic an artifact, just that it was something they bestowed upon the humans to use, but they themselves didn't create it. - Doodleplex 01:53, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
I guess the magic bit wasn't clear. My point was that "what the gods shared that they didn't create" wasn't an artifact, but something innate to the world that they only spread faster and didn't actually gift to a singular specific group, which is very different from gifting an artifact they didn't create. Konig (talk) 04:40, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
But is it so implausible that they might gift an artefact that they didn't create? Is that such a crazy possibility? I'm not saying that's what happened; in fact I think that it's quite likely that the gods forged both swords themselves. However we don't know that, and we should only state what we know on the wiki. It's misleading to say that the gods created the swords and link to a reference, when that reference actually says something different. It turns (well-founded) speculation into gospel truth.
We should only say what we know. Magdaer being forged in Orr is a good catch, and should definitely be noted on its page. So should the Foefire ritual being created by the gods, and so should the swords being gifted to humans by the gods. These are all things that we know. But we shouldn't state things that we don't know for sure as fact when other possibilities exist. As I said in the other discussion, if it's so obvious from the information available that the gods created the swords, then readers will make that connection for themselves. We could even state it as long as it's clearly marked as speculation, "[x] and [y], suggesting that [z]". But I'm uncomfortable saying it as authoritatively as "Like its twin sister sword, Sohothin, it is an ancient holy artifact created by the Six Human Gods" when no source in or out of the game actually states that clearly. Santax (talk · contribs) 08:48, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Whatever, I'm not going to argue semantics with you, again, Santax. And if you want to be so focused on the details, then why don't you practice what you preach Santax. Giant, Elder Dragon, The All and more edits/reworks you've made I could point out many such issues. I've not because I want to avoid more arguments with you, I only pointed out the Morg thing but could point out a dozen more at least.
Every edit I make seems to have an issue with you in the realm of "specific details we're told" or however you want to put it, yet you have the same issues and will create walls of text to defend your specific interpretation of the lines while arguing that we cannot possibly put 2 and 2 together to make 4 with any of my edits.
Seriously man, just fucking stop. Konig (talk) 21:10, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm going to go ahead and reword those parts of the article then, as you've chosen to attack me and my edits personally rather than engage with the issue at hand.
Unfortunately, ignoring each other is not an option, as we are both working in a collaborative environment with heavily overlapping areas of interest. I feel as though I have been reasonable when discussing this issue and the other issue related to these articles on my talk page, and will continue to try to be reasonable in the future. Please try to do the same. Santax (talk · contribs) 08:22, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Sadly, it seems that ignoring your edits even if I feel they're in need of improvement has been the one and only thing aside from one of us ceasing to edit that seems to avoid further conflict, despite my previous attempts at negotiation.
I didn't bother responding on the articles because, quite frankly, without finding more references it would just be a merry go round of arguing semantics and explicitness of details which always happens between us and always leads nowhere. So, once again, you've taken my lack of willingness for a merry-go-round as your green light to exhibit your specific take on things. Thus relating us back to square one in the matter of conflict between us since however god damned years its been.
Also, I didn't attack your edits, I only "attacked" your methods - if you can call pointing out your methodology in your edits compared to your stances on mine an attack. Konig (talk) 09:09, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

You know, I would describe your arguing as less of a "merry-go-round" and more of a "tango" -- it takes two. So long as you keep blaming each other for these spats, they're going to keep happening. Self-improvement is the only way out of the whirlpool. If you don't know where to begin, please come to me and ask for advice. Both of you. I'm know that I'm far from perfect, but I started out as a belligerent little shit with autism-level social skills and skin the consistency of wet toilet paper -- If I could learn to collaborate, you chuckleheads certainly can. --Idris (talk) 09:47, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Domain of Istan[edit]

Is this definitely in the Crystal Desert in the API? It has a different background on the login screen and I think some separate achievements suggesting an "Istan" or "Isle of Istan" region. But I think that some things you can do in Istan do also count toward Crystal Desert achievs. Santax (talk · contribs) 14:39, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Fuck you're trigger happy to get on my ass today. Given how much hate has gone between us, can you give it more than 5 seconds to bring up an issue with an edit I make for once? I literally already addressed this as I thought twice about it. Konig (talk) 14:40, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Konig, I asked a reasonable question in a reasonable way. And the fact that you reverted yourself shows that you agree it was reasonable. You have chosen to be aggressive in your response. Santax (talk · contribs) 14:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
You asked a reasonable question in a reasonable wording with an unreasonable timeframe with a history of questioning many of my edits and a recent history of making disputes with me on other GW community sites. I may be aggressive in my response because I am tired of this shit but you've been aggressive in your actions.
Please leave me be. If you have an issue with my edits and feel that it must be addressed ASAP, bring it to User:Idris who had offered to help mediate between us. I intend to do the same. Konig (talk) 15:54, 29 November 2017 (UTC)