Talk: Tennessee Ernie Ford/Archive 03

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

They

For the grammar demons out there: TEF uses they for the missing third person, gender-neutral pronoun. This has wide-acceptance among a number of people, although, afaik, it hasn't really been adopted by the largely white-male dominated krewe that gets to write the rule books. And, to be fair to their point-of-view, there are a good number of herstorian types who eschew its use as well. However, until someone comes up with an acceptable substitute pronoun to use when the person is known, but the gender is not confirmed, I'm stickin' with it.

Good: I know that Chris is a good person, having spoken to them online many times. However, they have never mentioned their gender to me.

Bad: I know that Chris is a good person, having spoken to him/her online many times. However, he/she has never mentioned his/her gender to me.

  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 04:07, October 22, 2009 (UTC)

Meh, I know you did at least mention that even many fans of gender-neutral language don't like the singular they, but really, I fail to see where this is better than the alternatives. (And hence, why I don't understand why dislike of singular they would be characterized as anti-gender neutrality at all. It's just anti-awkward-writing and anti-use-of-plural-as-singular.) I know the alternatives can take a little more thought to use and may at times requiring rewording of a sentence, but investing that extra work usually allows your writing to flow better and be more natural than singular they ever will. So, yes, this is why even many of us who feel gender neutrality in language is a worthy goal find this to be a poor solution. The pronoun form of "one" can be used in some cases, though I know it often requires modification of sentence structure. Where "one" does not work, you may be able to use a noun with equivalent meaning instead of a pronoun. This should allow you to minimize the use of "he or she," "him or her," and so on to a level that isn't annoying (meaning only where those two other options do not work well). I personally find that extra effort to be superior to a solution that most readers are likely to find awkward and jarring.

Anyway, the pedant within couldn't resist throwing in his two cents. Feel free to ignore it if you wish. Nwash 21:01, December 25, 2009 (UTC)

I cannot disprove anything you say: none of the alternatives for gender neutrality are great. Pedants (such as either of us) are SoL :-( I find the use of one or his/her to be awkward/jarring. I agree that rephrasing to reduce the need to choose is the least bad solution...for now.

Of the English teachers I've had who expressed an opinion for the third-person unknown: about 40% preferred he always; 15% advocated he/she without enthusiasm; 15% suggested one as the least-bad; and the remaining 30% preferred a combination of they/he/she/one, depending on circumstances. About ¹/₃ of the he advocates insisted on he and wouldn't tolerate discussion/dissent on the topic; the rest split more/less evenly on whether they was acceptable.

In other words, I don't think there's any type of uniform opinion from those who make a living from the ins and outs of grammar. In a fansite (such as this), I will continue to try to subtly influence choices by using they in talk pages and rephrasing to avoid the debate in articles. At least until peeps can point me to some authoritative source(s) who have (a) reflected upon the issue, (b) considered the current alternatives (and some inventive new ones), and (c) concluded that there is a best choice.   — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 00:03, December 26, 2009 (UTC)

Style overhaul

There's an argument to be made about considering a style overhaul, but you won't catch me making it anytime soon. — if, hypothetically, you were to make this argument (which I understand you are not), roughly how would it go? --◄mendel► 09:30, October 7, 2009 (UTC)

First, I have to stop lmao. That's an admirably sneaky way of teasing out conversation from recalcitrant ppls.

Then, hypothetically, I might cleverly point out how much easier GWW has become recently in terms of finding info on the page, general navigation, presenting like data in an alike way, etc. And that those ease-of-use improvements have come in part due to style changes. GWiki has its own style, but it appears rooted in its origins (data >>>> form) rather than fit for its current purpose. Worse, the style hasn't been logically extended throughout: navbars sometimes, not others. Info boxes without (much) info. Awkwardly split pages. On longer articles, the most needed/used info is sometimes awkwardly placed.

So, theoretically, I imagine that I might be able to point out that we might want to grow from pretty good to good into consistently very good to excellent.

You might ask me why didn't I want to get into a style discussion sooner rather than later. Did I wish to avoid volunteering for significant work (and bot building/testing)? Did I want to avoid a style overhaul convention (which can be tediously dull)? Did I want to avoid implicit criticism of the loyal and more talented wikians who were here before me? Well, yes, all of above.

More importantly, I have been weighing in my mind whether there's a more fundamental shift that GWiki should consider and whether, with whom, and where to discuss it. Over the last few months, my watched-list has gone from active to quiet. Recent activity is more often measured in hours than minutes. Heck, the number of vandal-edits has dropped dramatically since I joined. Notably, (some) previously frequent contributors have moved attention from here to there.

I don't think we're asymptotically approaching the point where there's nothing much to edit (plenty of stubs, out-of-date guides, missing guides, old styles in use, ...). Significantly, this wiki still seems to be getting a lot of traffic (a recent estimate suggested it might still be getting 2x as much search-engine directed visitors as GWW).

So, with lots of traffic and relatively fewer contributions, what's the best use of time for GWikians? I don't have an answer, theoretically or otherwise. I'm convinced that there are things that GWiki does much better than GWW, but I have trouble articulating what exactly those might be. I am even more convinced that GWiki fills a critical function for players, but, again: what exactly is that?

So, before re-fitting this wiki better towards its purpose, I'd like to consider the purpose it does serve. My current brain dump about GWiki's advantages or unique place in the GW universe include that GWiki...

• tends to embrace new concepts/approaches more quickly than GWW.
• tends to support new contributors better.
• does not seem to demand or assume advanced skills, titles, or abilities in offering advice.
• is more likely to be able to offer something that's missing than either PvX or GWW (e.g. the Nick farming guide here that doesn't assume leetness of toons nor of players).

  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 23:35, October 8, 2009 (UTC)

Hah, now I see what's on your mind, and I look forward to the day when you might be prepared to make such an argument. :) What we seem to lack is a user interface designer (sometimes called information architect) who structures the presentation (and workings) of the wiki more along the actual needs of its users. It's a lot of work.

Another point is that we are the wiki with sister wikis in almost every Guild Wars language, and if we were in control of our skin, we'd have interlanguage links to all of them. As it is, we could probably use some custom Javascript in the meantime.

And I ought to actually go and look at gww. --◄mendel► 01:36, October 9, 2009 (UTC)

re: looking at GWW: yes. Take a look at any trophy, any title, any party item, and any holiday (for starters, anyhow). And, now that I've brought up the daily activity slow-down here, do you have any thoughts on that?

re: UI Designers & info architects: I know good ones from bad ones, but I'm not one myself. I get the principles and can help a team avoid catastrophe; I can recognize good design-for-purpose. I'm not able to go much more beyond that.   — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 02:44, October 9, 2009 (UTC)

encouraging comment

I see what you tried there and there, but this and this actually worked well (or should). --◄mendel► 11:12, October 15, 2009 (UTC)

Thanks — the differences between theory and practice of taking GW:AGF to a emoboldened extreme.   — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 23:49, October 15, 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the individual responses is that I actually need to have a somewhat accurate impression of the person I am replying to - when I'm doing this, AGF isn't another mechanic to do things, it means I actually get a little bit interested in the person (well, in the case of Vipermagi, I already am ;-) and adress myself to my impression of them; and if that's off, so's my response. --12:31, October 16, 2009 (UTC) — This almost signed™ post was made by Mendel on the date/time indicated, who apparently was too distracted to notice the number of ~ in his sig.

Would I get in trouble for copy / pasting that into my preferences, calling myself A F K When Needed and linking to myself instead of to you? A F K When Needed 17:46, October 16, 2009 (UTC) Pure epic...

It's too long for a signature, though I agree TEF's edit is win (thank you!). --◄mendel► 21:57, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

Ernie

Hai. A F K When Needed 17:10, October 15, 2009 (UTC)

TEF doesn't know anyone who responds to, "Ernie." Do you?   — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 23:51, October 15, 2009 (UTC)

I do. 10:51, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

I don't know you.

So hi.-- (Talk) (Contr.) 02:01, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

And hello yourself!   — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 02:22, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

Bad news and Iffy news.

I discovered on Monday that the most important day of my life up to this point will be on the 23, which is why I had to scrap my Rurik costume, so don't expect anything from me. But the slightly better news is, after the 31, I'm going to try to revive the GD&D group.--Łô√ë îğá†ħŕášħ is hosting a Card Creation Contest! 00:47, October 22, 2009 (UTC)

Yay! 01:14, October 22, 2009 (UTC)

Most important day? You are visiting the moon? (or something not so fun) Either way, gl! And thanks for headsup about GD&D; I wondered if/when.   — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 03:14, October 22, 2009 (UTC)

Who's Ernie ?

Objects are often referred to as female, e.g. she's a fine ship (bad example, but whatever >.>) A F K When Needed 14:49, October 28, 2009 (UTC)

Ernie? Who is this Ernie?

If TEF had been addressed, they might say that, sure, Cap'n Kirk's would say of the the Enterprise, she's a fine ship. However, Kirk would never say, her twin sister, the Constellation is pretty good, too. Instead he might refer to, her sister ship or (possibly, just possibly) her twin ship. In any case, what makes us think that shields might be boys instead of girls?   — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 16:47, October 28, 2009 (UTC)

Well maybe someone mistook the shield handle for a... y'know... A F K When Needed 11:39, October 29, 2009 (UTC)

If you are personifying an object, then it seems to me you can use any terminology that can metaphorically apply, so there's no reason not to call the two ships "twin sisters," especially if someone starts feeling especially poetic. (They are the same class, almost identical in appearance, though whether they were built at the same time or not is something I'm not going to bother checking.) It pretty much just comes down to "sister ship" being a commonly accepted personification. (Though personifying a shield does seem odd, unless it's magical enough to have intelligence or something...) Nwash 11:56, October 29, 2009 (UTC)

It's not that one can't call two ships, "twin sisters;" it's that no one ever does, despite the poetry. And sure, someone might mistake the shield handle for a, y'know...but somehow I think Georgia O'Keeffe might paint things a little differently.   — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 16:47, October 29, 2009 (UTC)

Even sister cities exist. RoseOfKali 17:15, October 29, 2009 (UTC)

Erm, sure. But not twin sister cities. San Francisco is not the twin sister of Buenos Aires; it's the sister city. My original point, which seems to be lost, was: there is no colloquialism in English that suggests that the Skeleton Shield should/could be a twin brother of the Skull Shield. Twin Shields gets the same point across without a confusing hiccup.

The gender identity of the shields is probably best left for the shields to discuss in privacy with their therapists, i.e. it was a throwaway silly statement.   — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 19:30, October 29, 2009 (UTC)

Lol. :P RoseOfKali 20:41, October 29, 2009 (UTC)

It takes..

5. Kurtan 23:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

So it would appear.   — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 23:43, October 30, 2009 (UTC)

This is a public Service Announcement courtesy of GD&D

Please update your available times so that I can arrange the (hopefully) last session in the current campaign.--Łô√ë îğá†ħŕášħ is hosting a Card Creation Contest! 00:14, November 2, 2009 (UTC)

Sapphire

→ Moved to Talk:Fire Imp

Thanks

For the welcome. :-)

I've been a GuildWiki user for a long while but wanted to start contributing, I'll try to be of good use to the community. This is a good chance for me to improve concision in my work as well: I proofread and edit professionally, and am an aspiring fiction writer. --CarriViscero 16:55, November 12, 2009 (UTC)

Awesome! I hope that proofreading here is at least as much fun as when you get paid for it :-) What type of fiction?   — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 17:16, November 12, 2009 (UTC)

Various kinds, mostly fantasy and science fiction with a bit of realitistic/high-literary fiction thrown in ... I'm from a mix of backgrounds when it comes to that, and have a pretty broad interest. I occasionally write humor. Proofreading is always nice to able to help out with although it gets tedious if doing it for loooong periods at a time, so catching little things on a wiki every now and then is right up my alley when it comes to putting those skills to use in a relaxing way. --CarriViscero 05:15, November 13, 2009 (UTC)

An interesting notation

Hey, on gww. try w: for wikipedia - shortens it from wikipedia: . I learned that, when I saw links on other pages. Thought that might be helpful. good redoing the fruitcake page. It's much better! :-) riyen 07:16, December 4, 2009 (UTC)

Oh? thanks! (didn't realize). shortcuts are good :-)   — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 09:17, December 4, 2009 (UTC)

You're welcomed. Indeed, shortcuts are handy. riyen 19:21, December 4, 2009 (UTC)

Wintersday

Thanks, you too :) --Macros 18:21, December 25, 2009 (UTC)

Merry X-mas!!! :P -- † F1© Talk 20:22, December 25, 2009 (UTC)

-User:PanSola (talk to the ) 20:40, December 25, 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and happy holidays, TEF. 20:58, December 25, 2009 (UTC)

Wow thanks, thats the first time anyone said that to me this year :)

And what have you found under your Wintersday tree/in socks? ***EAGLEMUT*** TALK 22:32, December 25, 2009 (UTC)

Merry CHRISTMAS!!! Even though I'm late, and currently not very merry. Watch out with fireworks! Arnout aka The Emperors Angel 13:31, December 28, 2009 (UTC)

Hey Ernie ;)

What's up? =) A F K When Needed 12:27, December 28, 2009 (UTC)

Ernie? PS TEF says, Ohai back   — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 17:17, December 28, 2009 (UTC)

killing RC is *my* job

For future reference, it might be a good idea to delegate some tasks that mostly consist of repetitive minor edits, like adding a navbox to all pages concerned, to a bot. —Dr Ishmael 02:02, December 31, 2009 (UTC)

Erm, in case it wasn't obvious, I have never used a wiki bot. What's the preferred way to go about minionizing such tasks?   — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 02:09, December 31, 2009 (UTC)

Well, when we used to have 4+ active users with bots, you'd add the task as a subpage of the page I linked above, and one of us would take care of it. Unfortunately, that page hasn't been used since before I started my "wiki-vacation" last February. Since I'm pretty much the only one still around, just put a note on my talk. —Dr Ishmael 02:23, December 31, 2009 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks. I will take you up on the offer (and volunteer to learn how to do some of the heavy lifting, if you like — I can put examples/code in my user space for you to grab, if you let me know what's needed).   — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 02:38, December 31, 2009 (UTC)

stupid question about spaces

Okay, stupid question time: why do you insist on putting spaces after any * (bullet) or : (indent) formatting? —Dr Ishmael 05:27, January 1, 2010 (UTC)

For the bullets, I like to do that myself; because it looks better in the wikitext. The bullet is punctuation, and looks better separated; it is a typographic entitity of its own that looks to much like a letter if judging by "paint density". Since TEF has written ASCII FAQs in the past, I won't be too surprised if it is a remnant of his writing style there.

For the indents, TEF is fairly unique on the wiki in leaving white space there; it shouldn't come up much on articles, and I think no other editor does this on talkpages. Maybe reconsider that?

If you were less confrontative, Dr Ishmael, you might have made your question smart by explaining why the practice you ask about is one you don't follow yourself. --◄mendel► 09:10, January 1, 2010 (UTC)

*Sometimes* I use spaces after indenting (example: right here). I don't otherwise because I don't notice a difference. Something similar, though, is how I always leave a white line in between comments. "[..]it looks better in the wikitext" ~Mendel :) However, it also shows on the actual page, unlike the spaces. --- -- (contribs) (talk) 13:06, January 1, 2010 (UTC)

I occasionally put a space behind *'s and :'s on talkpages, but always on normal pages. I also always put spaces between the =='s and the word in titles (== example ==). I also put in a white line between my comment and the previous on talk pages (which is a habit I mimicked from Viper). I just developed that stuff on this wiki, as it makes for easier reading while editing imo. --El_Nazgir 13:39, January 1, 2010 (UTC)

Meh, this is like arguing over brace style is programming. There will be different preferences, and it makes no difference to the end result at all. The only thing I would suggest is to follow the style already used in a given article, because it's usually best to be consistent, but beyond that? Meh, doesn't matter. Nwash 13:43, January 1, 2010 (UTC)

It is exactly like discussing brace/bracket style in programming: the wiki parsers don't much care about such spaces, while human editors (as noted) do.

• Spacing after : and * or around | and == or makes the non-code text that much easier to edit, e.g. words can be more easily selected/double-clicked.
• It's also easier for wiki-n00bs to read, which, after all, is part of the purpose of white space and punctuation generally. Making life easier on a those unfamiliar with wiki-code makes it more likely that they will (a) decide to contribute; (b) quickly learn how to imitate required syntax; and (c) not miss an important bit of text.

I'm happy to abide by any convention we agree upon (here or elsewhere). I apologize if such spacing (or lack thereof) was already part of GWiki's style. The style guides were written long ago, but even some of those use more white space than wiki-code requires, as do some of the edits of some of our more prolific contributors.

PS Happy New Year to all :-)   — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 17:22, January 1, 2010 (UTC)

Remember, code looks much better with Code highlighting RandomTime 17:34, January 1, 2010 (UTC)

I agree. However, I have had a lot of problems getting various wikis to respond consistently to WikEd. Plus, most peeps don't have the plug-in (especially not wiki n00bs).   — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 17:48, January 1, 2010 (UTC)

@mendel: Confrontational? o_O Informal, yes; candid, blunt... Confrontational would've been, "Why are you wasting your time with those stupid spaces all over the place?" And don't change my header - it was a stupid question.

@TEF: Thanks for your response. I do always space out tables, because they'd be a horrible mess otherwise, what with switching back and forth from text to punctuation within the same line. Line formatting (: * #), though, only appears at the beginning of a line, so it doesn't seem as messy to not have a space there. I don't put spaces in headers (==) either, because to me they're pretty much the same as parentheses in normal text (which you never space on the inside) or templates ({{blah}}) or text formatting (being '''bold''' and ''stuff''). And really, that's just the way I learned it, since that was the prevailing style on the wiki two years ago. It sure didn't seem to deter wiki-n00bs back then. —Dr Ishmael 16:16, January 2, 2010 (UTC)

My change preserved your original header, so I had hoped it would be ok - I would prefer for this section to carry a header that allows me to find it again should I go looking for it some months hence.

Your use of "insist", which imputes a motive not in evidence, and the absence of self-context made me label your question as confrontational (perhaps mildly so); your example would be "aggressive" in my book. --◄mendel► 09:35, January 5, 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Prevailing style is always a good place to start and a good place to stay...unless there's a good reason to change. I think there's a compelling argument that adding invisible punctuation makes editing/review/troubleshooting easier. Still, I will stop adding such optional whitespace if that is getting in the way of others. (Is anyone making suggesting that?)

On talk pages, I think everyone is entitled to their own style of writing, including wikicode, so long as (a) it doesn't alter the flow of the thread/discussion and (b) none of us alter anyone else's attributed text.

@ Doc Ish: I didn't take any offense (implied or otherwise) by the heading, tone, or style of the original question. For what it's worth, I don't think it a stupid question (even if it hadn't generated this length of thread): it can only help the wiki succeed if frequent contributors understand how everyone else works.

@ Mendel: truth to tell, I learned about adding white space well after my early html experiences. A collaborator used invisible punctuation and I found it much easier to understand/parse/edit.   — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 23:28, January 4, 2010 (UTC)

I hope everyone had a super holiday and I apologize for my delayed response.   — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 23:28, January 4, 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not saying you should stop entirely. I just noticed it because you would often add spaces to bullet lists in articles you edited, even when you hadn't actually edited anything in the list, which seemed like extraneous effort. Still, I don't see any reason to go changing up the style in existing articles — prevailing style and all that. If you make a new list or significantly rewrite an existing list, then you can set the style however you like. —Dr Ishmael 02:50, January 5, 2010 (UTC)

TEF sees a reason - and so do I. Wikis work by allowing any editor to make any improvements, however small or large they may be; it has been argued that having the whitespace is an improvement; nobody has argued that having no whitespace is better on its merits (your argument seems to be, in short, "it's tradition"). If you insisted on a single style to prevail, I'm sure I could easily bot all of the mainspace and GuildWiki articles to comply with having a space after a leading asterisk. Should I do that? --◄mendel► 09:35, January 5, 2010 (UTC)

I think his point was "editing for just the sake of hidden formatting isn't really worth it." Think of it as, uh.... a seatbelt law. You won't get pulled over just for that, but if you do get pulled over (edit the page for something else) you go ahead and also ticket for the seatbelt (changing the formatting). --JonTheMon 13:45, January 5, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, and my point is that it is. :) --◄mendel► 14:03, January 5, 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why, but it seems like you and I always get into arguments like this - you want to change something that goes against 5 years of wiki tradition, and all I can come up with to argue against it is that it's "too much effort for too little benefit," and it always makes me feel stupid for not being able to debate in your weight class. Seriously, I wish I'd never brought this up. —Dr Ishmael 15:16, January 5, 2010 (UTC)

Nah, that's ok - it's not as if there's been any drama or such. :) It was good of you to raise this issue.

If you were in my "debating weight class", we'd now be talking about how this difference of opinion - traditions vs. minor changes - stems from wiki philosophy issues: how people are secure in the wiki when it keeps to traditions, but that (new and old) editors feel connected to the wiki more if it is responsive to their ideas of change. I empathize with the changers more; I think they're what we want to have as editors; and I believe that GWW works differently, with more emphasis on what the keepers of tradition (administrators and policymongers) see fit. I don't think either position is intrinsically "wrong" or "stupid" per se, but one of them leads to a style of wiki that I don't want GuildWiki to be. (And I trust you won't strawman me into advocating change for change's sake - we're talking about change that some editor sees the benefit of and is willing to do the work for). --◄mendel► 23:32, January 5, 2010 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Happy New Year! -- † F1© Talk 11:17, January 1, 2010 (UTC)

Hey, listen!

I am tentatively setting up a GD&D session for January 17th (16th for everyone besides mendel), for 5:00 ust until the <SPOILER TEXT REMOVED> dies. This translates to 9:00 p.m. Saturday the 16th West Coast USA. If you can't make it drop a message on my talk page.--Łô√ë îğá†ħŕášħ is hosting a Card Creation Contest! 06:55, January 11, 2010 (UTC)

Wha?

Uummm... I'm not trying to cause trouble for you since we're friends 'n' all but... you created this? o.O A F K When Needed 18:20, February 5, 2010 (UTC)

I created? No, I'm pretty sure I grabbed it off of a list of ok-for-public-to-use site (maybe even apple's?). I'm surprised I didn't comment/document. :-/

I suspect it's fair use to include an application icon extracted from an exe on a fansite, especially when the fansite (a) is non-commercial and (b) doesn't compete for revenue streams with the application (Guild Wars & Wikia Games != audio or video). However, ... better safe than entangled in a lawsuit. — thanks for catching the omission.

I have replaced the icon with one with a more felicitous provenance. Will that do?  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 22:22, February 5, 2010 (UTC)

That is one unhappy template. :P

It stated (possibly as some kind of default, but that sounds unlikely to me) that it was "user created", hence why I originally contacted you.

I'd be inclined to guess that that's altered, but based on, the original image, and so just as difficult to use.

However, all of this aside, you could probably survive by picking your favourite and claiming Fair Use. A F K When Needed 00:03, February 6, 2010 (UTC)

Erm, your guess sounds right. Sigh. I honestly think either would come under fair use (per above).

I think when I uploaded the original, I wasn't sure which of the available licenses applied. (OTOH, mebbe I didn't think about it long enough, since I didn't document, as is my custom.)

So, short story: I'm going to leave the current image (least effort on my part). If anyone is worried, let me know and I'll make any reasonable changes. Again, thanks for calling this to my attention.  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 00:41, February 6, 2010 (UTC)

Userbox

You wanting help with Lornar's Pass? A F K When Needed 23:02, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer! Any tips for H/H team?

At the moment, I'm taking a hiatus from the game/wikis. When (if?) I return, will I want help with Lornars? Probably, although several folks in my guild have already offered to help me VQ. I actually made it through most of the way (starting from Drok's) just before reaching the worms. (Then, RL interrupted.)  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 02:13, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to end a break from the game, but...

I'd be inclined to use conventional nukers there (unusual for me) but no real tips as such. :/ Sorry. A F K When Needed 15:23, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

I imagine it not being too hard with Rayway, since nothing really is :P Ward of Stability or something similar will come in handy, since there's a decent amount of KD (WT and Burrowurms most notably). Alternatively, lots of physical damage tends to pack a punch. Since the SoH buff, even heroes can deal decent melee damage. This is also less of a Squishyway^TM. --- -- (contribs) (talk) 16:21, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

I have a couple guildies who swear that the only hard group in the entire 3 zone vanquish, from Snake Dance to Lornar's Pass, is a group in Lornar's with multiple Dolyak Riders. So anything that can deal with 3 Marks of Protection cast in sequence should be ok. --Macros 15:38, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Inclined to agree. If you're going for the full caravan, however, some form of anti-KD is pretty much a must if you want to halve your time. Giant Stomp chains can cause wipes, and otherwise leave you seriously hurt as a team. That, or bring some rupts; either works well. --- -- (contribs) (talk) 22:49, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

<insert nonsense here for sake of edit summary> --Gimmethegepgun 23:04, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

O, Noes

"There are 10 kinds of people: those who understand binary & those who don't."
I had an ex that used that quote to death. -.- I guess what I don't understand is why some use it. It really doesn't make all that much sense, because it's not ten kinds. It's whether you understand something or not. So, I guess the quote it's self puzzles me. LOL, Sorry. riyen 07:25, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Uh... 10 in binary = 2 in decimal. It makes perfect sense in binary. O_o RoseOfKali 12:05, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Ariyen is now promoted from the latter to the former group in the given quote (soemwhat). --- -- (contribs) (talk) 12:08, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Ariyen's geek cred is increased! (whether she wanted it or not...) Nwash 13:03, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

It makes perfect sense when written: "10" has a different meaning depending on the context of which number base is being used, binary or decimal. The 'gotcha' is that the base is not given explicitly, and you don't realize until after you've finished reading that 10 should be interpreted in the binary base instead of decimal.

The problem when saying it aloud is that our spoken number words have specific meanings that don't depend on context. Ten is ten, which, to give a mostly unambiguous definition, is "the number of fingers on a normal human's hands," regardless of what the numeral 10 may mean at the time.

So in this phrase, 10₂ = 2₁₀, but both of those should be read as "two." It's a common problem that people have when reading numerals in bases other than decimal. When I read binary, I just read it as a sequence of digits (e.g. "one zero") instead of worrying about the actual number it represents. —Dr Ishmael 14:21, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Well, she did only say he quoted it, not where. I agree it's kind of a WTF to use that joke in speech, because yes, 10 binary = 2 decimal, but ten binary is merely nonsensical. Nwash 14:40, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

So I heard somewhere in some weird Pacific islands they have some tribe that uses base 27... I would not want to take a math class with those aborigines... :O Hex was annoying enough. I'm an engineering bachelor myself, but still find that joke cheesy at best, and noob in most cases. RoseOfKali 21:34, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Math humor isn't even funny to all geeks and nerds. I wouldn't want to over-use the "10 kinds" comment, but in small doses (e.g. < 10 ;-), it cracks me up. Then again, I'm amused by things like, "2+2=5 for extremely large values of 2" and I'm a big fan of Mister Twelvetoes (to whom "10" is an even dozen).

But I always thought of this as a visual rather than verbal joke; how does one even use it in speech? (As Doc Ish points out, 10₂ is the number of hands on a typical human, not the number of fingers.)  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 07:00, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

--Macros 16:44, February 26, 2010 (UTC)