User talk:Mora

From Guild Wars 2 Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Yo![edit]

Hey, Mora. Since you've been taking such good care of our tango icons, I'd like to remind Attribute bonus.png and Knockback.png still need that love. :) – Valento msg 01:46, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

The attribute bonus one wasn't nearly as much fun to throw together as the knockback one, but it should fit in now. Mora 02:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Sweet! <3 – Valento msg 04:40, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey[edit]

Hey Mora, are you editing the same page as me or you are editing my stuff cuz I'm adding "extra content" (I'm talking about the Daredevil stuff XD)? I just want to know cuz then I don't keep editing what you are editing already. Sorry –Keltz (talk) 14:23, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm removing it. It's all datamined stuff and doesn't belong in the page, so just wait until tomorrow's POI. Stuff can still change, so we should start the page with the most accurate, confirmed information. Mora 14:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
They were hidden! I know they are datamined, and I know they can change, but if you remove the valors it's exactly what is saying in the post. Also there was a note saying "do not remove the hidden until tomorrow's PoI". But whatever, sorry! –Keltz (talk) 15:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Daredevil[edit]

Ok, I understand what happened before, but why are you changing the dodge skills icons to wrong ones? Undoing things? --Keltz (talk) 21:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Because they're correctly incorrect in the API currently; Unhindered Combatant is using a placeholder icon and Lotus Training is mismatched. Mora 21:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
hhmm, I don't understand too much about API, but I see your point... Sorry, I didn't want to disturb, I just wanted to know why. Thank you --Keltz (talk) 22:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

News articles[edit]

Use Form:ArenaNet content to create the news article and then you can wikilink to it. Makes more sense to me than transcluding text or linking to the news post url.--Relyk ~ talk < 20:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Coloured texts in descriptions[edit]

I'm just curious if we aren't doing that anymore. the text in the tooltips are golden in colour for several of the known aspects of The Juggernaut I: The Experimental Hammer‎. This is similar to the blue text found in these pages Venom20 User Venom20-icon-0602-sm-black.png 01:06, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Since it's the entirety of the text, I don't really see the point of making it unique to make it stand out and the links don't need to be added to a notes section just to make the text look less weird. And that color is fairly difficult to read. Mora 01:12, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Alpine vs. Desert in WvW[edit]

You seem to have moved the wrong set of files for Resource Camp, Tower, and Keep. The current version of Borderlands is Desert. Your source was Alpine, which is mostly out-of-date. The only remnant of Alpine is in Eternal Battlegrounds and even there the Upgrades use the new method. Since A*net has stated that Alpine might return in the future, keeping a set of Alpine pages marked "historic" would be useful. The pages for Resource camp, Tower and Keep might be more appropriate as disambiguation, redirects or pointing to Desert. ~ 1Maven (talk) 04:39, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

So update the pages with the correct current information. If people are looking for the historical upgrade information, it's on structure upgrade. The actual location pages are kept, so moving or splitting the general page is pointless and not useful. Mora
I took your suggestion and "updated the pages with the correct current information". Also updated Guild Claiming ~ 1Maven (talk) 11:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Adding interwiki links to new pages[edit]

Hi, good job on creating new items so fast. You do it quite often. But you could also put interwiki links for new items, it's just copy & paste from here. Then I don't have to watch for your new pages anymore and work after you :-) Thank you! --Cloned (talk) 08:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

elite spec proficiency traits[edit]

Any reason you put qualifiers on all of those pages? The only ones that should need it are Shield and Staff Proficiency, since multiple elites get them. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 16:22, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Just figured most would probably be split eventually, so I just specified each one now in advance. Mora 16:51, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
"Eventually" is likely at least six months away (I doubt Anet will release the next round of elites any sooner), so it seems silly to have these pages unnecessarily qualified for that long. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 17:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Rebel[edit]

Are you sure that's not a transform? That's usually how things like that work, although I know nothing about the raid, of course. Just wanting to make sure we don't create any unnecessary segmentation. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 05:11, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

It functions very similar to a transform "trapped" skills (such as Struggle), but it is a unique skill slot above the profession mechanic skills with its own key bind, so it definitely needs the split. Mora 05:21, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Ahhhh, it appears in a special location. See, I told you knew nothing about this! —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 14:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Advertising is not the point[edit]

They are good guides and alternate strat writeups. Until we have them I don't see the issue with linking to external sites since people come to look for info. It's not like the site isn't linked elsewhere. Seylan (talk) 01:39, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

No. If people want to look for the guides while it's not here, they can do a google search for one. If that community refuses to contribute to the wiki articles, why should their pages be linked directly from here and why not link every other guide that pops up? So leave the links off the pages and stop reverting it. Mora 01:43, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
The point of the site is to provide info... and if there isn't info atm, then why inconvenience people for the sake of your personal principles? Nobody is obligated to contribute to the wiki. You may as well remove the reddit links too while you're at it. AFAIK there isn't a policy with linking to external guides, and if there was I'd think Alex would have removed the links already instead of editing them. Seylan (talk) 01:48, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
So edit the pages instead of being lazy and linking to them? It's the entire reason templates like {{YouTube search}} exists; so people don't just link to their own pages/sites and promote themselves and because those specific sites are not the only options. Those links are not appropriate for the pages so remove them. Mora 01:53, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Do you feel like volunteering to write it then instead of removing info? There's only so much time in the day to do things and I'm not going to spend all of it editing. Seylan (talk) 01:56, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Eventually. Remove the links. Mora 01:56, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
You want them removed, you remove them. Seylan (talk) 02:04, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
It is a long-standing practice on this wiki that we do not link to specific fan-created content on external sites, so as to not show favoritism to any individual player or website. This isn't something that Mora made up just to antagonize you.
@Mora: You should know better than to contribute to a revert war. Both of you, consider this a warning. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 02:23, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
I will link to dulfy or other sites until we have a walkthrough up. This allows users to have references for writing up the walkthrough and encourages contributing. Dulfy is really good for reference because of the article quality. Once we have a walkthrough, the links can be removed as we have all the content covered. The article still has a {{stub}} tag, so the links can stay until it's removed.--Relyk ~ talk < 04:33, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with keeping the links until that future point. -Chieftain AlexUser Chieftain Alex sig.png 11:37, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
You re-added the link for Vale Guardian which already has a fairly complete guide. Wiki has never excelled on guides, so what "future point" requirements are you setting to continue linking to specific external sites and promoting those individual sites/pages over others? From a quick search, why are GuildMag's YouTube video or Brazil's YouTube video not acceptable links but Dulfy.net is? Mora 01:11, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
And images apparently aren't a requirement because editors still feel the need to promote that site even when a page has a map with indicators for the content or a page that has a full write-up with recommended skills and consumables. So, what is the quality mark required for guides before removing links and which ones are you allowing? Mora 01:29, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Mora makes it clear why I think we should stick with the strict practice of not linking to anything. Mostly, I don't understand Relyk's assertion that the presence of links "encourages contributing". It seems to me like it would do exactly the opposite, and by directing readers away from the wiki, there's a strong possibility that we lose those readers entirely. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 02:16, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Users who are willing to contribute but don't know where to start on need a reference either from other pages on the wiki or external references. My concern is about users contributing to the write-up. There isn't any article for readers to read, so the idea of losing readers makes no sense here. I also disagree on the notion that we are somehow competing for readers, that we can lose readers "entirely". Users are not restricted to getting information from just the wiki, dulfy, or a youtube video.--Relyk ~ talk < 03:39, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
"Users are not restricted to getting information from just [a single website]" In theory, no; in practice, once a person finds a site that provides them most/all of the information they need, they'll stick with that site.
It's also psychological: if someone is looking for information on the wiki and finds no info, they'll (hopefully) check back later to see if we have it yet. On the other hand, if they find no info but also find links to other websites, they'll assume that the links are a replacement for info on the wiki (i.e. it's like saying, "We won't ever have this info, so just go here instead.") and will stop visiting the wiki as much. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 03:49, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree with both Mora and Ish. I've never liked adding external links to any pages since it basically states "hey, we don't have any information for this available, but here's a <link> that works much better than anything you might potentially see here." As was stated above, it doesn't encourage users to contribute to the article at all. That's why we have stubs; they are there to let (potential) editors know that the page needs an expansion. Adding a link that summarizes all that is frankly irresponsible on our part. —Ventriloquist 11:35, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
The wiki works on the basis that "once a person finds a site that provides them most/all of the information they need, they'll stick with that site." Individual sites don't have the resource to provide and maintain information. And I'm not sure that's how people actually behave. My experience is that readers who find the link on the wiki article come back again because they are using the wiki to navigate to other sites. By design, the external links are at the bottom, so readers have to scroll through the content of the wiki first. They'll check back to the wiki for the links and any information that the external sites don't provide. If you ever look at other sites, there is always information missing, needs clarification, or as easy to find as it would be on the wiki. I don't buy the argument that other sites work so much better that we can permanently lose readers and contributors by providing links.--Relyk ~ talk < 21:57, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Precursor Weapon Nav[edit]

Never got around to saying so, but Thanks so much for the edit on the weapon nav; it looks much nicer than anything I came up with. If you don't mind, I might go and apply that to the experimental and perfected weapons. -Darqam (talk) 16:28, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it would really work on those ones though, because the HoT sets don't follow those naming patterns to really make the fit into those sets (The MechanismPerfected Axe). Mora 16:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
True... should there maybe be a new/separate template for those then? I can always build that up for now and if someone comes up with a better solution later it can be swapped. -Darqam (talk) 16:40, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm thinking a set for HoT tier 1 and tier 2 should be split:
  • Experimental / Tier 1
  • Perfected / Tier 2
  • Precursor (merged)
  • Legendary (merged)
I think the precursor/legendary ones only really need to be merged because of their status in the whole process, the pre-precursors are just stepping stones. The naming for the two tiers for HoT sets are just going to be weirdly named because there's not really a pattern for the weapon names. Mora 17:56, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Regression[edit]

Once again you have done over a dozen reverts without providing any explanation. Are you trying to start yet another revert war? I had such high hopes when you began to include explanations that the trend would continue, but there has been a regression to the prior non-communicative behavior. Often, you have good reasons for your actions, but I am unable to read your mind, even if you think the reason is obvious to the rest of us. ~ 1Maven (talk) 03:31, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Discussing edits with you never goes anywhere. You're simply too stubborn to actually provide any reasonable feedback to because you are stuck on trying to maintain incorrect information and awful formatting that you've added to pages.
  • Guild Claiming — You seem to feel this page, which is a terrible mess, is required and putting the information on the appropriate pages is not acceptable. So to simply ignore talking to a wall again, I'm removing links to the page so you can keep your page intact, and hopefully a few as possible readers will end up at it.
  • Objective Auras — Why did you feel like you had to add what 1/8 of the effect is as the introduction sentence when the description clearly show what bonuses they provide? How is the full list of bonuses in the description or provided notes insufficient that you had to be redundant with: "All prerequisite auras remain in effect."
    • Tier 1-7 — Please explain your removal of the note to show what the next tier is that was used to link the pages in order of progression.
  • Schematic: Presence of the Keep — Please explain your complete butchery of this page.
I'm not going to explain every edit I do on this wiki just to appease you and I find it extremely hypocritical that you had a single edit summary included in your edits on these pages but expect me to explain all of mine. Mora 04:20, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
I dont see any discussion on those talk pages, so no edits were discussed by either party from what I see. Personal attacks against each other definitely won't resolve any issues.
  • I don't see anything wrong with the Guild Claiming article.
  • We can remove the notes section label. It's completely overused on our effect pages. The ordering of the aura effects is implied and not useful to players. The pages need to link to the guild upgrade since those pages have the guild upgrade nav to navigate between the previous and next objective aura. Or link to the War Room, since that provides an overview of the objective auras and how they work together.
  • We still need an item infobox for schematics, probably wouldn't remove them because they don't go to inventory, if I understand correctly.
And yes, users should explain or clarify any edit that another user brings up. These issues are trivial and reverting each other over them looks rather silly.--Relyk ~ talk < 10:56, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

War score[edit]

moved from Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Admin noticeboard

War score is not displayed in the wiki anymore as it once was. have the score change ? what point per tick, ppt do you get when you take a keep = ppt ? what point per tick, ppt do you get when you take a tower = ppt ? what point per tick, ppt do you get when you take a camp = ppt ? what point per tick, ppt do you get when you take a keep = ppt ? ppt when you kill a dolyak = ppt ? Do you get any ppt when a dolyak enter a tower or a keep ?

This info was on the wiki. Someone have removed it and redirect the link for war score in wiki search to where there is no war score info.

there don't seem to be any info who did post this, but it was me Dtorx.7813

Hey Mora. You revamped the Power of the Mists page back in December 2015. This text above was left on the admin noticeboard, and it seems to claim some details were removed from the page, such as PPT. Did you move that information somewhere else? —Ventriloquist 10:16, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

That was a revert from 1Maven shoving the information onto the page and completely removing it from the WvW page, causing the issue. Objective has the details for each PPT. But since they expanded it to per kill, I still think it should also be readded to the WvW page. Mora 12:31, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Skill damage[edit]

moved to Guild Wars 2 Wiki talk:Community portal#Skill damage

...mkay[edit]

You seem do be undo queen based on your talk page lol. http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Map_meta_event Lists Night and the Enemy as map meta and last I played it was a map wide meta event. So is that page wrong/to be deleted or are we only listing map metas as meta events? - Doodleplex 23:33, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I was still trying to decide which should be put as a qualifier; Night and the Enemy (map meta event) or "Night and the Enemy (meta event)" (current page). Auric Basin has the same issue with them reusing event names for Defending Tarir as the map meta, and the meta within the city itself, along with Battle in Tarir as a map meta, and the second meta in the map meta chain. The pages need a lot of clean up. Mora 23:52, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
@Doodleplex - the smaller meta events (eg. Outpost ones in verdant brink) are referred to as such in-game. To distinguish between the smaller ones and the map-wide meta events I think it's better to refer to the large ones as map meta event. As well, while there's some inconsistency, ANet usually uses meta event rather than meta-event to refer to these (yes, I like to use the latter). Seylan (talk) 00:43, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
(Reset indent) (section seems to be related to meta events) I just wanted to say that the events section on Dragon's Stand looks fantastic after you rearranged the content, so thanks very much! -Chieftain AlexUser Chieftain Alex sig.png 17:55, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Flat Out[edit]

I'm new, and I don't mind if I make mistakes and if people explain what's what I'm doing wrong or have an example of things, but you're coming off as extremely rude and just don't want to help anybody other than you. If you'd simply explained from the start that you can get into Courtyard that would have solved the whole problem, but instead you just went off to be nasty. You also could have tweaked what I wrote that it was only possible under custom(though nobody I've asked can get into that map on custom, so I'm curious to know how you did it with your guildmate), like Darqm did, but you didn't just went "NOPE". I really don't appreciate that. So lets keep things civil for the future...if I screw up can you please explain without being rude what's wrong as I really have no desire to get into a wiki edit war with you. I'd much rather get back to writing guides and helping. - Doodleplex 04:42, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Sup[edit]

Hi Mora, mind explaining why exactly you went and tagged all those reward chest icons with "Redundant image"? -Chieftain AlexUser Chieftain Alex sig.png 23:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Because they have all already been uploaded and are in the same category that the duplicates also got put into. Mora 23:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Hmm sounds reasonable then. I wonder why I didn't get any notifications for uploading duplicate images then. I ripped mine out of the .dat, how about you? -Chieftain AlexUser Chieftain Alex sig.png 06:37, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Title swap[edit]

Hey, so I didn't know about talk page guidelines so thanks for pointing that out. However, to me it still seems like your addition to the talk page is bringing the conversation into a separate area than it started. I get that this is the continuation of a (very) long argument (that I'm not going to step into). However throwing this effectively out of nowhere on Stephan's page will probably yield no answer as he might not know anything about the current wiki-issues with this subject.

The initial comment asks for pretty much a carbon copy of an email(?) plus a few explanations. The further comments talk about wiki structure of events and what is to be done and not done. Yes it's correlated, but has nothing really to do on that comment; which is why I believed a title replacement had no place. That said, if the conversation will continue after that minor hijack (which lets face it happens what.. 50% of the time anyway...) then I imagine the new title is appropriate.

As a minor detail, I don't think Stephan will be able to answer comments about the API, for that the API forum might be better. As well, you linked to api V1, I'm honestly not sure how valid anything in there is now with V2 around... but v2 events is not active... so yeah not 100% sure how anything event related is accurate on the api. -Darqam (talk) 21:16, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

If the information received through the email is intended to dictate the format of wiki articles (the entire reason it was originally sent), then Stephane should have been given the full background of the discussions to begin with. Framing every question to direct him to one side of a dispute has no substance to it and doesn't resolve anything. If he's unable to conclude the dispute with the facts presented, what was the purpose of requesting an official response? Mora 21:54, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Those guidelines are Wikipedia's guidelines, not GW2W's guidelines. GW2W has no affiliation with Wikipedia. Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are entirely irrelevant to GW2W. - Tanetris (talk) 21:32, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Hostility and revert wars and whatnot[edit]

So what exactly is going on with you and Doodleplex? It appears that you have a certain set way in mind for a number of pages based on how you believe things are technically classified based on your interpretation of the UI, while Doodle wants to make changes based on how Anet claims things are classified, and I'm kinda seeing 'what would make the best sense for readers' (i.e. literally the most important thing) get lost in the too-much-hostility-to-actually-call-it-a-discussion. So is there more to this that I'm not seeing? What's the story? - Tanetris (talk) 01:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Revert wars — not entirely sure what you're referring to that would be considered a revert war, but I'll go ahead and guess:
  • Courtyard: The claims made by the user that the map was historical was completely false, as shown in the discussion page. Maintaining the statements that it is historical would be completely wrong and misleading to readers.
  • Night and the Enemy: The tag was added over a month after User:Chieftain Alex partially restored the separation of Defending Tarir meta event and [[Defending Tarir (meta event)|map meta event]] and the tag lasted for a month with no discussion or evidence to support any claims for changes, so the tag was removed. I brought up the information that was already shown to the user (here), but was dismissed yet again. "What would make the best sense for readers" would be maintaining consistency with how the information is displayed in-game. There has been no statements made to counter that stance or any explaination of why it would make sense to use one interface for Night and the Enemy but a completely separate interface for nearly every other such as Advancing on the Blighting Towers; disambiguation articles are not wrong, so the pages have been separated to reflect the in-game display of mechanics and information.
Hostility — I agree that this user has been openly aggressive with each encounter I've had with them and goes out of their way to do so. They have stated that they do not want to discuss edits further, which is very unproductive for any editor: "<!---Rip Mora's back, can't edit with the wall around =p--->"
  • 17:48, 15 March 2016"No..." (edit summary) — initial revert to the incorrect historical status update
  • 17:57, 15 March 2016"No, because your statement is 100% incorrect. Courtyard is not historical, so neither is the map type."
  • 22:28, 17 March 2016"Still completely incorrect" (edit summary)
  • 22:37, 17 March 2016"Courtyard states that it was removed from the roulette, which is only used for Unranked and Ranked. Explain what part of this is not accessible or playable, or how you or your "pvp specialist" came to that conclusion."
  • 23:42, 17 March 2016See: User talk:Mora#Flat Out: the user claimed that I was aggressive with no reference to what was interpreted as such
Please advise what statement(s) were inappropriate and provide some sort of justification for the other user's statement and refusal to discuss with other editors.
"As far as I know when Anet employee says "removed from play" it's historical..." With this claim, apparently ANet employees get information wrong or are misunderstood by editors. Articles should reflect what appears in-game (and simply noted if intended otherwise) and this user has consistently fought counter to this effort, and at time maliciously. Mora 04:06, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
And this is why it's important for wiki editors to actually play the game and double check before making changes. Also this quote from further up on this talk page:
"If you'd simply explained from the start that you can get into Courtyard that would have solved the whole problem, but instead you just went off to be nasty. " - Doodleplex
might be a little telling. If somebody is wrong, explain why they're wrong. Don't just tell them they're wrong and undo what they wrote. ur both beanheads. I just wanna do my coefficients maths Towelcat (talk) 12:33, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
It was explained on the talk page why the historical status update was incorrect and screenshots were provided to support the reverts: "... so someone would need to confirm that it's possible to custom play Courtyard." What additional information is needed when a user is claiming that content has been completely removed and is not accessible by players in-game?
  • 02:34, 17 February 2016"Not all maps are available in every Structured PvP mode... The Deathmatch map, Courtyard, was formerly offered in Unranked Arena but has been removed, and is now only available in Custom Arenas... All current maps are available when creating a Custom Arena." I understand that this are separate pages, but the information was on the wiki prior to these edits for readers to review if necessary.
  • 17:53, 15 March 2016"I'm not that knowledgeable of pvp..." it's typically a good idea for users to not get so defensive when contributing to unfamiliar content and inappropriate to get so aggressive when told that what they added is incorrect.
Also regarding the constant map meta event disputes:
  • 04:03, 1 May 2016"Note: The current documentation standard is that the "map meta event" does not appear in the "meta event" user interface, so they are to be separate pages even if they share the same name." The merge tag was added nearly two months (23:28, 22 June 2016) after that statement was added to the event formatting guidelines. Mora 15:08, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I am entirely baffled that you think I am referring to Doodleplex being hostile. Defensive, certainly, but honestly that seems pretty understandable, and I would be addressing such concerns to Doodleplex, not you. Even just looking at the first edit summary you've presented here. A flat revert that just says "No". Do you know when that's appropriate? For vandalism. You are treating a good-faith editor like a vandal. And it continues on in similar vein, your entire involvement in both of the noted issues. Have you looked at Darqam's responses on the Courtyard issue, both in edit summaries there and on those talk pages? That is an appropriate way to convey that a fellow editor has misunderstood something: see where the misunderstandable information comes from, explain, and see if something needs fixing up. Work with other editors instead of trying to make them go away. You have been around the wiki long enough that you should know this.
"the tag lasted for a month with no discussion ... so the tag was removed" I have two issues with this statement. The first is your wording to disclaim responsibility. "the tag was removed" You removed the tag. As for no discussion... Then start a discussion. We don't just wait for tags to "expire" because we don't like them. Again, work with other editors instead of trying to make them go away. You have been around the wiki long enough that you should know this. - Tanetris (talk) 20:11, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
The map meta event discussion had been stretched across many pages over a few months. As stated above, the guidelines had already been updated due to the previous discussions. Even with all of the discussion, evidence, and decided guidelines, the user still feels the need to ignore it all. I'm not going to waste my time going over the same information yet again when the user has refused to follow what was decided on and the user had already previously tagged another page resulting in an incorrect merge that was later reverted; the tag was removed to prevent from happening again.
Yes, I did see Darqam's comments on the talk page, which is why I provided the screenshot as evidence that the content was not removed as requested, despite Doodleplex's constant need to claim it was removed. The discussion is available for everyone, so why should I be expected to repeat what was previously said by other users when I'm responding to it? The issue is I reverted and took 9 minutes to comment with a screenshot?
  • "I think the issue is courtyard is not in the ranked rotation (maybe unranked?)..." -Darqam (talk) 23:03, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
  • "... so someone would need to confirm that it's possible to custom play Courtyard." -Darqam (talk) 00:03, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
  • "Courtyard states that it was removed from the roulette, which is only used for Unranked and Ranked..." —Mora 03:36, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
    • It was later added to the Team Deathmatch game mode and added to the map selection roulette. Courtyard was later removed from map selection roulette. — was already present on Courtyard. That means that it is only available for queues that do not provide a map selection roulette, which is custom. If users have issues with the wording not being explicitly clear, they can edit that (which Darqam did, although redundantly). But marking it historical and removed from the game is incorrect, and repeatedly marking it as such could be viewed as vandalism. "[A]nd while it's icon is still in game, the map itself currently is not and cannot be played on..." That statement was the content of the second revert, which is completely false and has no justification for staying on the page; why should I be expected to rewrite the article when my entire edit was to remove a false statement?
Please show where I should be aware that this user views "no" as aggressive or hostile, as I intended its meaning of "that information is not correct" and followed with stating that on the talk page, the second edit summary, and providing evidence.
  • 15:01, 19 May 2016"I don't care for anything you have to say. Don't comment on my page again... What part of "Do not comment on my page again did you not understand. I don't have any desire to talk to you, it's not productive. - Doodleplex 20:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)" — yet I'm the one that's the problem with trying to not discuss issues and drive people away? If that is considered appropriate behavior, why did the user feel the need to delete the comments when archiving? Just think about how extremely inappropriate it would be if I decided to make that same statement to "conclude" this discussion. Mora 21:14, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Guidelines are not written in stone. When it doesn't make sense to apply them, it can and should be discussed how to do things better. Ultimately, guidelines are meant to document consensus on practices, not dictate them.
I'm not talking about Darqam's request for confirmation, but rather the fact that he actually addressed the situation rather than throwing reverts around.
"could be viewed as vandalism" No it can't. That's not what vandalism means.
Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Practices and processes#Personal conduct is where you should be aware.
I'm seeing a theme in your comment about "waste my time" and "why should I be expected". The very simple answer to this is that if it's too much work to exercise courtesy to other users, then just leave it be. You aren't obligated to edit anything, but you are expected to act appropriately when you do.
Doodle not including that when archiving is incorrect and I'll point that out to her. As for the content of it, I'd like you to take note of the datestamp of that exchange vs the datestamp of the various edits to Courtyard and associated pages that an uninvolved third party is telling you were unnecessarily hostile and perhaps consider that there may be a certain amount of cause-and-effect.
It would be very inappropriate to conclude that way, as this discussion is an admin (me) looking for some sign from a user (you) engaged in inappropriate behavior (hositility and revert warring) that this situation can be resolved without just banning you. - Tanetris (talk) 23:46, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
As I have already pointed out, I did discuss the reverts on the talk pages (the user was told the information was incorrect and readded the false statements anyways). I'm not sure why you keep dismissing it entirely because you feel that the thoroughness was inadequate after the fact and after another user had already attempted to gain additional information regarding the confusion. I was honestly bewildered by her claims of speaking to ANet employees and "pvp specialist" on a subject that took 30 seconds to verify in-game to be completely false.
Why were the guidelines for the map meta events updated after all of the discussions if they weren't meant to be followed; how much additional discussion do you feel is necessary for this subject?
Doodleplex's inappropriate comments were brought up because you asked for the story between two users. Personal conduct was brought up to the other user and was dismissed with no admin intervention; and it appears that they are being mainly dismissed again even when pointed out to an admin.
What resolution are you seeking more than me saying I'll try use additional edit summaries or be mindful how other users interpret my comments (although I'd like an example of what was so hostile/inappropriate for reference because it sound like you want to claim all "cause-and-effect" situations were caused solely by me)? Mora 04:33, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The sort of resolution I was seeking was, say, some sort of realization that yes this was clearly over the line behavior. Perhaps some sort of admission of culpability, maybe even an apology to the other user and some sort of commitment to be less confrontational in the future. Basically an indication that this conversation has changed something in some way.
And I'm seeing a whole lot of none of that. You're asking for an 'example' when the example is all of the things that I've brought up. All of it is too hostile. Every single diff. All of them, individually and as a gestalt. All of it. The whole thing.
So that'll be something for you to ponder the next couple months as you take a break from the wiki. - Tanetris (talk) 04:53, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

(Reset indent)

Tanetris. Please forgive my brashness to intrude. I am in no way affiliated with either of the users concerned, however, as a lover of justice and the proper passing of judgement this affects me more than it probably should. Thus, I feel it necessary to speak up where I normally would have chosen to stay silent.
Please, I politely ask you to revisit your verdict.
As it stands now, there is a winner and a loser. This should not be. Both parties have committed wrongs, both parties are equally guilty. This user is not the only one at fault; in fact, his actions, apart from the reverting and his often unfavourable silences, were as much provoked as the actions of the other one have been. Where the other user reacted rather emotionally, making it a personal matter, this user managed to stay more or less level-headed and relatively civil through it — without resorting to underhanded methods or inciting others.
By condemning the one you approve the actions of the other. In this case, neither party's conduct was appropriate, which should be punished accordingly.
I think a week-long time-out should give both users enough time to consider their deeds.
Regarding the sentence; a two months suspension seems rather long — even if it is not the first offence. Nevertheless, a jump from one day to 59 appears to me as a rather drastic measure that can only harm the wiki in the long run. We cannot afford to lose a seasoned veteran editor for a whole of two months (or indefinitely even since his motivation and will to resume his work might be lost forever); the anniversary is coming up — and the next episode of the current living story and PvP season 4 as well. It would not be good to lose such a valuable asset.
Concerning the expectation of remorse; you expected this user to apologise or repent his actions when your initial call already signalled to him that he was the only one at fault. His subliminal pleads to include the other party in the process of judgement were not acknowledged. Personally speaking, I would not have shown any sign of repentance either if I was villainised in the same way he is. Aside from this, expecting an apology is meaningless since it would be insincere coming from either party. The outcome might have been different if both parties had been reprimanded equally.
I conclude this with the sincere hope that you might reconsider your sentence. Please allow me, at the very least, if my appeal does not sway you, to share half of this user's punishment.
I apologise for any inconveniences this may cause and thank you for your time and consideration. User Incarnazeus Signature.pngtalk 09:49, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
"Both parties have committed wrongs" - yes
"both parties are equally guilty" - no
Doodle is a fairly new user who tried to improve the wiki (whether you consider her edits a net improvement or net regression, I am focusing on intention here), was met with unnecessary hostility, actively tried to make peace, and was met with more hostility before coming to the conclusion that it was no longer worth dealing with Mora.
Mora is a veteran user who decided it was easier to treat a good-faith user's edits as vandalism rather than work with that user, and continues a pattern of hostile editing that he has been talked to repeatedly about both before and after the 1-day ban in his block log, and actively refuses to acknowledge said hostility when pointed out.
These are not equivalent wrongs.
And even if they were equivalent wrongs, both users were given the same treatment: a chance to explain their side of the story, an analysis of their actions, explanations of what they did wrong, and cautions about doing so in the future. Doodle's talking-to happened off-wiki, because Doodle contacted me off-wiki to bring my attention to the issue because she felt too threatened to continue editing, but the conclusion of the conversation was acknowledgment and agreement both to specific issues with her actions and in general to working with Mora in the future if Mora will work with her. Thus, no ban is warranted, appropriate, or useful.
Mora, to his very last edit, simply refused to accept the concept that he had done wrong (e.g. "I'd like an example of what was so hostile/inappropriate"), choosing instead to deflect blame. It became rapidly clear that mere words were not going to affect future behavior, thus a ban.
The length of the ban (which was supposed to be 2 months, but for some reason the wiki decided to interpret 2 months as 59 days. Close enough, have one less day because of software weirdness) is made on the (admittedly subjective) basis of the fact that this has been a Problem both before and after the previous ban. See for example on this very page User talk:Mora#Regression: a similar interaction with an entirely different user, well after the previous ban. If I thought a 1 month ban would be a sufficient wake-up call, I would just reduce it to 1 month without inflicting a matching ban on an innocent user. It's not about an arbitrary amount of pound of flesh that must be exacted for wrongdoing, it's about attempting to fix the problem with admittedly inexact tools, but they're what I have available to me.
To emphasize: if this could have been fixed without a ban, I would just not ban Mora. I'm not out for blood, just to try to fix problems.
"We cannot afford to lose a seasoned veteran editor for a whole of two months" - Absolutely false. No user is 'too valuable' to be above the basic rules of civility. I would rather Mora come back from his ban with renewed perspective and continue to edit productively and with courtesy and respect to other editors, but even if he chooses not to return, I won't lose sleep over it. Not to get all doom and gloom, but understand that this kind of hostility is exactly what drives off new users, and a wiki that relies solely on a dwindling veteran editor pool while driving away potential new editors cannot survive.
And on a lighter note: "Please forgive my brashness to intrude" - Nothing to forgive. You are absolutely free to question admin decisions. It won't necessarily change the outcome, but at least the admin can offer further explanation. Hopefully my explanation has been helpful to you in some way, even if you still disagree with the decision. - Tanetris (talk) 01:33, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
As a note to Incarnazeus and other observers, Tanetris was not the only admin involved in this dispute, though he took the most visibly active role. I, and others, have been following the discussions closely on and off the wiki and I fully support his judgment and decision. It is also my hope that Mora will return in two months and resume his role as knowledgeable and valuable contributor, sans problematic attitude. Please understand that we administer bans as prompts to fix behavior and keep the wiki and its community running smoothly, not as arbitrary punishment. - Felix Omni 16:55, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Long Lost Orphan[edit]

Hey there! I've been going through the orphaned pages and found this little number that you created awhile ago. I realize it's been a pretty long time, but got any idea where it's from? If not, I'll just put it back at the bottom of my list. Thanks!--Rain Spell (talk) 03:46, 31 July 2017 (UTC)