User talk:Ph03n1x

Has anyone ever said hi? :( Welcome to GW2W! Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 14:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi! :) (Xu Davella 15:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC))

Haha, thanks :) I've actually had my account on the wiki for GW1 for a couple months - just signed into it here for the first time yesterday. Or was it the day before? I don't remember. But yeah, thank you :)--Ph03n1x 02:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a good sign

→ moved from Talk:Mesmer

...that they've waited this long to announce the Mesmer, I think, because they seem to be announcing professions in an order correlative with 'game-changing' aspects. There's nothing especially revolutionary about the elementalist, the warrior, or the ranger. They were considerably more hush-hush about the necromancer until the demo, though, at which point they revealed the life shroud mechanic in all its glory. Now we have the guardian, a new profession with some neat crowd control and prot abilities - but still essentially a paladin archetype and nothing the genre hasn't seen. I think, based on the three left (and the fact that they haven't been releasing two of the same armor class in succession) that they'll wait until after the next profession revealed to show off the new mesmer. I also think it will be the one that's returning, that the assassin will be renamed (and revealed next since the rogue is also an rpg staple), and the gun-wielding charr will be the other new one they recently mentioned. In that order, it's a pretty good indicator how different (and important) the mesmer class will be this time around.--Ph03n1x 20:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Speculation. It belongs in the userspace. Aqua (T|C) 20:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Aqua. No use in these discussion, unless you're willing to waste your life. (seeing how the possibilities are endless) Ge4ce-Talk-Contribs 20:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm willing. It's fun to talk about and the people who come to this page like mesmers, so there's little likelihood of a flame war. I get it on the general reveal because everyone goes there, but this page has no history of drama caused by contributors offering their opinion. It's like Shadow Form page vs Brother Mhenlo's. There are radically different opinions on the first, but generally everyone goes to the second to say the same thing - that he's a pimp :p —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ph03n1x (talk • contribs).

Willing or not, no speculation on wiki. That is not what talk pages are for. - Infinite - talk 22:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not on the wiki, just not in the mainspace. Even myself and Infinite (two of the paragons of the "no speculation in mainspace plzkthnx crusade") have speculation in our userspaces. It's not explicitly banned; its just incorrectly placed. Aqua (T|C) 22:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Why are we not more stringent, then? I saw the flame war on the guardian page that included one of a no-speculation paragon. Is it not allowed always or just for certain subjects? --Ph03n1x 22:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I've noticed that lately people have been more "rawr!" about the kinds of discussions on the talk pages. If you look at old discussions, there is indeed talk about speculation and situations in the talk pages. The "no-speculation" rule means for the main space not the talk space. Two very separate things. Also seen a lot of "this is not a forum" comments by people... -- Konig/talk 23:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

o Konig just kicked butt xD--Icyyy Blue 23:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

It's okay to speculate,if it's constructive and makes sense, could be of any use,I think. But it gets really annoying when articles get archived because of people wich like to repeat evry thought that passes throug their head.so to all who likes to speculate, next time you feel like arguing:

1. make sure it's no complete nonsense otherwise:
2. make sure it hasn't been said over 9000 times, otherwise:

• [click here]
• Make your own user page/speculation and shout it out
• take a deep breath, take a break, start a new project
• ...
  

--SierraThat's me 23:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The reason that I (and others) have been more quote rawr! unquote about speculation in the main space is that it is beginning to get excessive. I <3 the example of Talk:Professions reveal: it has about 41kb of legitimate archives (discussions about page formatting, changes, how to name, etc.) and then there is the "Misplaced Discussions" archive... 247 kb of speculations. That particular page became such a problem that we decided to enact a "This is a page for discussing revisions to Professions reveal". We have provided numerous places for speculation to go on, including a list of forums, and we allow it in userspaces. We are not being stringent; we have made many efforts to keep the mainspace talk pages useful. There are places for speculation; they are not the mainspace. Talk pages in the mainspace are to discuss edits to various articles, not to post "well I think <x> and I can back it up with <w>, <y> and <z>." Aqua (T|C) 00:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

And per the "flame war involving a no speculation paragon," I'm pretty sure that this is not speculation. It is a user complaining about the mechanics, then getting aggressive and inciting a flame war. Infinite (and virtually everyone else) were trying to tell the IP that this is a MMO. Opinions are different than speculation. Aqua (T|C) 00:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

"not to post "well I think <x> and I can back it up with <w>, <y> and <z>."" *points to the top of the page with a cane* Apparently your cranium doesn't recognize the fallacy of your comment. Also: Talk:Abaddon. /stopsactinglikeHouseakaanass Also, that link in your last one... I was not referring to for the "rawr! no speculation" stuff.

Oh, and to be clear: I agree that speculation is better placed on the forum, I just greatly disagree with the "no speculation AT ALL" and "yell at all those who begin to post their thoughts." -- Konig/talk 02:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Wiki isn't designed to host speculation. It's a different matter if you're discussing branches of lore, because that is something that can help develop an article. Stuff like this? None of it is beneficial to the article (58.171.34.80 03:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC))

This kind of stuff (speculation) belongs either on a forum or in userspace. Not mainspace. - Lucian 3:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Konig, it is not an absolute "no speculation." I just don't feel like moving every discussion that starts off with speculation to the respective user's userspaces, and by saying "please move it to your userspace or to a forum," I hope to prevent things like the entire rest of this discussion. As I've said (and I'm sure I'll say again), discussion pages are for discussing changes to the article, not to speculate upon the content of the article. This particular discussion, in no way was Ph03n1x saying anything that could even remotely be considered as constructive discussion of this page. (I'm not saying it was destructive; I'm just saying it was not constructive.) In short, it shouldn't be here, and by establishing that speculation doesn't belong in the Main space or its talk space, and that it is absolute, hopefully, one day, I won't have to police every talk page for speculation. Aqua (T|C) 04:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed Bro. I feel that day will come soon. Or at least in fall 2011. (What else will there be to speculate when everything is released, right?) - Lucian 4:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd like be notified when there's an issue related to the page, not when someone has a thought about mesmers that I've seen dozens of places already, or the dozenth discussion about the appropriateness of such discussions. Manifold 04:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

My point is that the policing doesn't really need to happen this way at all. People want to put their opinions here on the talk pages because it would be an incredible pain in the ass and completely worthless, lurking on people's userspaces or through all of the threads on a forum to scout for opinions about the game as it's currently known. This page is basically the lighthouse for everything concerning the Mesmer, as other pages are for the subjects they cover. Discussion that doesn't concern the actual formatting of the page will continue and it's pretty pointless to try to stop the kind that's perfectly harmless. Why chastise the kid drawing on the sidewalk when you could save your energy for the others painting on the walls? If my comment had just been ignored in the first place (since it wasn't trolling and therefore harmed no one), this thread would be considerably shorter. Irony? --Ph03n1x 07:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

If you're commenting just to be ignored, why comment? Eive 07:33, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I was commenting to share my opinion and get some in turn. My bringing up the hypothetical situation where my comment would have been ignored was to point out the irony behind the fact that by doing so much policing to save the pages from clutter, some of the 'police' actually cause more of it. Was there something confusing about the way I phrased it? I thought I drove it home with the whole 'Irony?' thing. --Ph03n1x 07:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Irony? Directing others to the forum or their own userspace is a way of telling users that they will get a more collective response if they post there. I don't understand how you're not getting that. The fact that we take the time to explain this over and over again is a constructive way of resolving the issue and quite frankly it is more effective than ignoring it or doing nothing about it. The wiki is designed to inform and we are using the appropriate means to ensure that you are informed. Does it cause clutter? Yes. Does it help reduce the effects of further clutter? Absolutely! I'm not saying your opinion is worthless, but you wont generate the kind of response that you are looking for if you post it here. Sure, some users are going to get pissed off at having to tell users the same thing over and over again, but how do you think other users feel when they actually do have something to contribute and are frustrated because they have to sieve through hordes of speculation to get to where they want to contribute? (Xu Davella 09:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC))

When it's been said over and over, yeah, I understand wanting people to move their crap elsewhere. But if I post I read the page first to make sure I'm not repeating myself, as I was not here. There's a difference between "So do u guys think mesmers will be in or not and why i do not think they should come back personally." and a thought-out unobtrusive opinion that's not already plastered all over the page.--Ph03n1x 04:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Though it's speculation, it does bring up an interesting idea. However, this is not the place to discuss it. Copy your paragraph and paste it to your talk --then I'll discuss it. - Lucian 5:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, when you move speculation to userspace, you can be super creative. :) - Lucian 6:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Adding my twopennyworth here, if you want to keep talk pages clear of excess "crap" to the purpose of allowing people to easily see where they can add their various bug/formatting reports, why don't we maintain a permanent header at the top of each talk page for aforementioned bug reports, and simply archive everything below that point every so often? It'd be a MUCH simpler task than trying to beat off the speculators with stern words and riling. Point being, it is indeed rather rare that your average wiki user will actually search through someone's userspace on the search for a vein of speculation, often having to dig through, and I use this word in humourous sense, "crap". Further issue arises when you have multiple similar/same speculations in different userspaces. The discussion on the talk pages may or may not be speculation, but so long as they remain relevant and aren't trolling attempts, I see no reason for those speculations to be quashed from the talk pages. As for this particular main page, there is almost equal evidence supporting Assassin (check out Caithe in EoD) [discounting the lack of usage of the word Assassin], if they are dismissed as speculation up until now, then why does the Mesmer page exist, and the Assassin, not? If you "Paragons of Anti-Speculation" are indeed so riled by speculation in the main space, I think you have greater concerns to attend to than the speculative discussions taking place here. I'll also take a moment here to direct you to my talk page as the comments no doubt to follow this last sentence are probably not entirely related to the Mesmer. :) Darke 19:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The speculation here (at least the start of it) is not useful because it amounts "the Mesmer is definitely going to be a profession and I am glad that the suspense is building because I am even more excited." If it were further information, like a quote from a book or interview, that hints vividly at something we are not yet aware of, it would be worth posting here.

Assassin as a profession is not on this wiki because it is a confirmed (though possibly badly translated) achievement and because, like you said, there is no confirmation that it's the exact name of the "rogue- or assassin-like" profession. The word mesmer has been used to describe it (or so I'm told; I haven't read the books yet) and as such we know that it exists at least in lore which exceeds the scope of the GW1W, if not as a presently existing (whether playable or unplayable) profession.

(And no, this needn't be directed to your talk page, as it relates to both this page and the non-existant assassin (profession) page; my comments on speculation in general can be directed there if you'd like. However, if you'd like to discuss the purging of speculation with the community, there's a place more suited to sharing your concerns.) --ஸ Kyoshi 22:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I apologize Kyoshi, the irony doesn't seem to have carried through in text very well, despite my efforts to keep it light-hearted yet still noticeable. Eh *scratches head*,

suffice it to say that if people are going to preach absolute relevancy and definite divisions between canonical lore and personal (albeit shared amongst the "general *smirks* community) interpretations, then we have got to stick by this trend. It's not fair to our fellow users to have half of the wiki organized a certain way, only for them to see it mis-constructed in other parts, often leading to confusions (I have myself been confused at times as to how I should organize articles, comments, whether a correction is really a correction or not etc) and this can lead to conflicts (although thankfully not heated ones thus far =] ) between two or more very fixed opinions. What I intended to put across isn't that we should shift this entire discussion to my talk page, but I foresaw perhaps, misinterpretations of what I've written and hoped that people might channel their.... less than Mesmer related... opinions on my talk page where I can deal with any people who might be upset in any way. My fault entirely for not clarifying, again, apologies. I do realize now that the Community portal perhaps is a better place to express these... concerns? worries? whatever you wanna call 'em, but it's like I've stated, it's really hard, for someone wanting to leap into a conversation to really appreciate the context of it without having seen, for example, the particular article to which I'm referring. Maybe it's just me, but I do assume after hovering over the links in certain responses to understand the context of what a person is trying to convey with that link. I need to brush up on my hypothesis descriptions it seems, the non-existant assassin page was a purely hypothetical comparison (and it too, shared amongst quite a few of the general wiki user base). Again, I'd prefer this particular discussion to have happened, on my talk page, but I think that here is better, as it is relevant to your comment, and to clearing (hopefully =] ) any doubts that another may have. Oh, and to wrap the whole thing up, I have read the books, the term mesmer appears to be used as more of an adjective. "We are mesmers." doesn't forcibly translate to "There are Mesmers in Tyria." just as much as Caithe describing how discovering weak points (avoiding spoilers best I can) could easily equate with upgrading your Critical Strikes attribute (or perhaps trait). Especially if you then apply the thought of Stilettos, but then again, reading the book is necessary to understand what I'm getting at with that. I refuse to deny that Mesmers exist, simply because I'm too opinionated to believe that Anet would let go of such a profession =], yet with near equal evidence, as you understood, minus confirmation, that there is no Assassin (Unconfirmed). You therefore have the confusion that a wiki user could/can/might/possibly pick up on. Thus, we either, as a community come to the conclusion that we need a strict "no speculation at all in the mainspace right down to unconfirmed Professions" (Lore and Professions are two different, though not unrelated, things) such as the Mesmer, OR, and I say this seriously, we decide not to bring up this debate about speculation every time someone dares to breathe a word of the phrase "I think _____ will be in GW2" on a discussion page such as this one, especially one based on a community speculation itself. I believe this will need to be put into the community portal at some point, and I hope you'll share my smile as you read this next bit, that you'll be the one to do so, as you know more about aforementioned community portal than I do. =] Darke 01:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Ay, the lack of paragraphs in your post hurts my eyes. =P If you'd be so kind as to hit enter every so often, a lot of people will appreciate that.

I still think that specifically using the word "mesmer" (which is particularly relevant to the Guild Wars universe, and more obscure in alternate context than, say, "illusionist") is pretty precise compared to "knowledge of weak points" vs "Critical Strikes". There opinion involved of course, but we can't just call the sneaky profession an assassin (or put it on the assassin page) without knowing the name, and still claim to be credible. (Especially when they said it was "for people who play sneaky rogues or assassins", specifically saying assassin rather than dancing around the term like they probably would do if it were the name--imho.) And again, it's not whether it's a playable profession, it's whether there is some lore that's beyond the scope of the GW1W, such as Queen Jennah

Sorry if I seemed a bit stern, but it's not often we get "reasonable arguments for speculation," as far as I'm aware. Yours makes sense but I think the above is a fair flaw. --ஸ Kyoshi 03:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) TL;DR - No speculation in main space. Talk pages of main space articles are still main space, ergo no speculation on talk pages such as these. But forums or Wiki User space is fine. - Infinite - talk 14:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

You condensed 96 lines into one. --'Mai Yi' talk 21:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

So does this mean that sharing opinions on information whose existence is proven is okay? Because I see that all over the wiki (let's not even discuss GW1W) with no censures issued.--Ph03n1x 07:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Just don't do any speculation in mainspace. That others do it doesn't mean that it is allowed, and as you can see do we try to solve this matter. Thanks. -- Cyan 10:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

And the speculation about the 'Other Related Concept Art' at the bottom of the Professions Reveal page? Does that need to go, too, since it isn't proven?--Ph03n1x 06:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Which part of that section are you referring to? The only thing that would actually warrant as speculation is the very last line of that section which probably could be removed (the one that uses the words presumed and possibly. Other than that, the section is linking one set of concept art to another set of concept art. No need to speculate when both sources of information come officially. BTW this conversation is so far off topic now it really needs to be moved...(Xu Davella 09:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC))

If we're being hard-nosed about it, the whole last section shouldn't be there since the points it makes are evidence for the conclusions drawn in the 'very last line'. I still think this whole thing is ridiculous - everywhere I look I see people (including the speculation police) engaging in off-topic discussion (discussion that is not strictly about which content to include in the mainspace) until someone comes along and calls 'Speculation! Move it to the userspace!'. Speaking openly, those who fall into that category need to get a standard (not two) and follow it or quit nagging those who can maturely discuss their opinions on the talk pages.--Ph03n1x 04:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Opinion seconded, Phoenix Darke 04:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Care to site a (recent) non-userspace example of me taking another stance on speculation? We do not have a double standard; this stance is on I have been slowly growing into and have finally come to an absolute decision on very recently. The previous discussion was in fact useful. It discussed the concept of "aligned-gods" and whether said "aligned-gods" should be featured on profession pages. That is a very legitimate example of speculation that really isn't. And I'll repeat myself: "Talk:Mesmer" is for discussing changes to the "Mesmer" page. And, a) why does this have to be *here* (you could have just made a section in your usertalk talk saying that, and I might have even stopped by and said, "gee, this guy has really thought about this", but no, you insist that it is appropriate here), and b) just because others do it does not make it the correct choice of action. If I go and steal someone's car, does that mean that stealing someone else's car is the correct and lawful choice of action? Aqua (T|C) 04:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

May I suggest a Mesmer/Speculation page? I think that will solve most of the problems... Also, I firmly agree with Aqua on this matter.. This is not the appropriate page for this. Changes to this talk page should be strictly about the changes to the Mesmer, IF it comes out at all... - Lucian 5:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

(reset indent) Ladies and gentlemen, this has been moved. Regardless of the speculation issue, I think it's quite apparent that we are no longer remotely discussing the content of the Mesmer page, or the mesmer in general. ~Ekko (talk) 05:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Ekko, I was going to move it myself but I made a RFC and brought up a proposal for things such like this. - Lucian 5:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflicted by an entire section move, dayum.)

There is a point to this "hard-nosed" stance that you insistent speculators (or speculation-supporters) seem to keep ignoring, or haven't realized. If you weren't here a while back, then you wouldn't have seen, but Talk:Professions reveal was cluttered with section upon redundant section of speculative crap that couldn't be politely archived because people kept posting on it and would have protested at its disappearance or would have just created more to replace it, since there would have been no evident reason. The page's size has been as large as about 100,000b (for a point of reference, that's larger than Shadow Form's talk page on GWW has ever been--even after the nerf), and which consisted of hardly anything but repetitive and uninformative crap.

If you really, really, really need someplace to discuss your speculation (among even less useful things, like how happy you are about an update or lack thereof), there are any number of other places to do it that won't clutter up mainspace talk pages. Don't keep this argument up for its own sake. --ஸ Kyoshi 05:34, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Aqua, I neither used your name nor implied you were one of the users I mentioned. I also didn't state that the Mesmer Talk page was where the speculative talk occurred. Don't know where you got those ideas from. And I'll listen to you tell me the Mesmer Talk page is not the place for speculation and your reasons for that belief all day, but I find your claim that you might have swung by my talk page out of curiosity to see what I thought silly. You wouldn't have. Most people wouldn't, which is why I put my two cents where I did. I don't regularly communicate with anyone on here, so why would I put something I would have appreciated feedback on somewhere where no one would see it? Had I the desire to rant and rave about why I thought Mesmers SHOULD return, I'd do it on my talk page, sure, but because that's straight up opinion, not conclusions I've drawn from the information that Anet has provided so far. Finally...how is non-conformity to a gamer community's suggestions anything like stealing people's cars?

Kyoshi, I'm just defending my point of view. I don't want to argue - I genuinely want this to come to a resolution. But if there's no speculation, then there needs to be no speculation, period. I have little incentive to follow that preference some of the members of this site have when I see some of the very same people (not you, Aqua) engaging in speculative talk. That whole 'do as I say, not as I do' thing never really worked for me.--Ph03n1x 03:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) @Ph03n1x: I apologize for assuming that you were referring to me. Some of the stuff did read as though you could have been referring to me, but re-reading it now I can see how it wasn't. Back to subject at hand: I have no problem with your speculation. Hell, I might have swung by your talk page and added my two cents. Most of what I was opposed to was not the content; it was the placement. Aqua (T|C) 03:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Professions reveal

"My point was not the statement's validity, but that the people advocating its removal are doing so because they say other people have a problem with it. Which people?" That's not true.

I'd encourage you to read this again. People can agree it's the Mesmer, but still not want us to include the note. You seem to be disregarding this. A F K When Needed 18:57, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Which is also the comment I decided to rest the case with, as it brings up very valid points about what a singular, simple note could cause in the future. - Infinite - talk 19:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Where else have we had this issue, though? It's all hypothetical problems! Why not deal with ones that exist instead of fabricating ones that don't? Where has anyone made a case for a returning profession based on a lack of evidence? Further more, where has anyone made a case for any returning game aspect based on its previous existence? I read the post thoroughly (and read it again when you suggested it), and that's why I said what I said. It makes no sense - the controversial reputation the Mesmer's developed, the fervent aversion to posting the likelihood of its return, the imaginary 'actual' opposition to the idea that its place in GW2 is assured. I don't know why, because I know I'm typing completely coherent sentences that express my ideas/opinions, but the users who feel differently than I do seem to constantly respond to things I haven't said, as if I'm not coming across clearly.--Ph03n1x 02:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

You are missing the point Ph03n1x, we do not document speculation, no matter how proven or unproven it is. That is the entire reason we don't mention the mesmer past the page. Aqua (T|C) 03:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Grr...if I didn't know better I'd think this was a page about a political figure. Whatever.--Ph03n1x 05:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

support?

You should add elementalist and engineer to professions that play large support roles, and warrior if you're considering the damage buffs... maybe even rangers because of their utility skills and their spirits. Just some advice :) 71.163.44.146 02:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I was on the fence about Eles...they probably could specialize in support, it just seemed a little too easy with water magic healing all over the place. I figured they'd have more (but weaker) skills that offer support. Engineer, yes, I definitely will add that one. I haven't kept up with this stuff very well - it was before I caved and made an account on the GW2G and needed to get all my ideas out haha. My definition for support (for just that instance; I realize support can encompass a lot), was more along the lines of providing benign buffs rather than ones that would help offense.--Ph03n1x 03:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Relax

You're not the only one who's being stalked and I'm not the only one who's stalking. Mediggo 20:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

You relax, I was kidding :P --Ph03n1x 20:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I know, just messing around because I'm bored. :) Mediggo 21:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

So how do you get all that from a hyperlink?--Ph03n1x 00:37, 4 May 2012 (UTC)