Difference between revisions of "Talk:Avid Reader Badge"

Latest revision as of 20:48, 3 November 2013

Additional Prometheus requirements

My level 33 and 41 characters was unable to get the badge from Prometheus so I'm guessing that the character needs to be level 50. I am unable to test whether the character just needs to be level 50 or needs to also have the alpha slot open. -- StarGeek^{Talk page} 19:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

from this thread, it seems that the dialog doesn't open up until you do (complete? succeed?) one of the incarnate trials. I can't tell from the thread whether it's a specific one or any of them, though the latter seems likely. For now, I'm going to put in "must complete an incarnate trial". -- StarGeek^{Talk page} 20:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Patch_Notes/2011-06-28#Incarnate_Lore - Patch notes which seem to indicate the above. -- StarGeek^{Talk page} 20:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Confirming that just being level 50 is not enough. ~ AGGE talk/cons 09:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

And now confirming that unlocking Alpha via Ramiel isn't enough. About to hop on a trial to totally confirm. ~ AGGE talk/cons 09:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

On second thought, apparently it is way too late to hop on a trial. Alternately standing in Pocket D/RWZ, broadcasting and asking in global channels, no bites. Looks like the final part of my confirmation will have to wait until tomorrow. ~ AGGE talk/cons 09:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Ha-ha. Reading is fundamental. I totally only saw the first line in the patch notes, somehow. I BLAME IT ON IT BEING MIDNIGHT. Oh, god, the unending WAITING... and WAITING... ~ AGGE talk/cons 09:55, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I've updated the article to reflect this requirement, along with some other Spruce Hammery tweaks. I've tentatively removed the section detailing the dialogue options from Promethius you need to select for the badge on the grounds that A) they each lead into each other and are the only option that becomes available after completing an Incarnate Trial and B) Rothstein's dialogue options are not documented in this way. Should we decide both should be there, it's easy enough to add it back. --GuyPerfect 16:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Your point A is incorrect -- there's only one dialogue path that leads to the badge. Your point B is a faulty conclusion -- If Rothstein's info is not like Prometheus' and you feel that both have to be exactly alike, then update Rothstein. And what you call "Spruce Hammer" I call "removing information." We've been down this route with you before (the LRSF strategy info). If you don't think information belongs on a page, find a new place for it, but stop deleting information from the wiki. Zombie Man 19:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Zombie Man about removing the info. There have been requests for the info on the channels I've been on. Having it available is a good thing, IMO. -- StarGeek^{Talk page} 19:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

When I saw the dialogue path added here, my assumption was that it was a temporary addition that would be moved to the Prometheus page when his full dialogue tree was added. I still think that's the right answer, but was that not the initial intent? --Eabrace 19:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't my intent in adding it. My intent was to show the way to actually get the badge. As I said, it was an FAQ some of the channels I was on. -- StarGeek^{Talk page} 20:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't get careless, Zombie Man. You're making reckless assumptions by this point: namely regarding the other changes I made to the article that were not related to the removal of dialog information (those other changes I referred to as "Spruce Hammer" improvements). Your reversion ignored those in their entirety because you didn't necessarily agree with one of the things I did. My point B above stated that either both Promethius and Rothstein's dialogs should be documented in the article or neither, not that Rothstein's dialog should be treated differently due to being different from Promethius's. I'm not clear on what you thought I said.

You've acted without thought or consideration, but apparently in anger. I've reverted your reversion due to the other changes made to the article, so if you want to see information added back in, do it correctly. Use the discussion page before inciting edit wars (which is the very reason I put my above note here in the first place). There's already suggestion for including the Promethius dialog information on Promethius's page, for instance, which is the kind of activity we should be taking part in here on the wiki. Should the info be in this article? Should it be moved to another article? Let's have an objective discussion about it. For the time being, I've made the article consistent to a scope regarding what content should be in it. --GuyPerfect 20:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the info should be in this article. Reverted. Sorry, I also disagree with your "Spruce Hammer". -- StarGeek^{Talk page} 21:01, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit War Moderation

I don't like having to step in and moderate activity on an article.

But I like edit wars even less.

Everyone involved in the activity in this article today is just as guilty as anyone else. While Guy Perfect's modification to remove Prometheus's dialogue path may have been premature without first reaching consensus here, Zombie Man's wholesale reversion of the other changes Guy made to try and clean up the rest of the article was just as bad. The continued back-and-forth reverting that was taking place between Guy and StarGeek was even worse.

Seriously, you three have earned a lot of respect from me for your contributions to the wiki and the community at large over the years, but you're all pressing my red button today. If you all continue to behave like children here, don't be surprised if you end up serving a time-out.

Now, to curb the edit war, I've reinstated Guy's edits to the remainder of the article, left Prometheus's dialogue in there for now, and temporarily locked the article for editing. Should the three of you sort out a solution here on the discussion page like a group of mature adults, I will unlock the article and allow everyone to resume editing without having to wait for the temporary lock to expire.

Now behave.

--Eabrace 21:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Behave? I certainly hope you don't mean by the poor example you just gave with your condescending wagging. GuyPerfect made a bunch of edits as well as removing information, which in a similar case was already decided by consensus previously should not be happening. I cited the instance. I reverted it wholesale because it's not my job to take a scalpel to the multiple simultaneous edits he made. I said what I (and others in the past) objected to. He could have re-made the edits which were not objectionable, and appealed to consensus, but, of course, that didn't happen because he knew he wouldn't get it... again. And why didn't I ask GuyPerfect to put the information back? Because last time, he didn't and just ignored the request: http://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Talk:Lord_Recluse_Strike_Force. A problem which you had trouble seeing in the first place.

Here's the consensus discussion: http://www.cohtitan.com/forum/index.php/topic,4106.0.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zombie Man (talk • contribs) 01:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

OK then, here's the bottom line, free of condescention, subtlety, or any pretext of being nice about it:

You and Guy have a history of going after each other's edits. I've had to moderate some of those disputes in the past. You both know better than to start edit wars, so I don't owe either of you a warning, but you've been given one anyway.

I won't argue with your assertion that it is not your job to take a scalpel to multiple simultaneous edits in order to restore information that you feel should not have been removed to begin with. It also isn't your job to make wholesale reversions to those edits - especially when the reversion also removes information that was added or modified. Since you didn't want to ask Guy to put the information back, there were at least two actions you could have taken that I would have been fine with:

• just copy the block of information that was removed from the history and paste it back into the article
• notify an administrator (either on their talk page or on the Titan forums) and walk away

Instead, you chose to hit "revert" and escalate the issue.

No, I haven't forgotten the modifications made to the LRSF page. There were honest mistakes committed (which I take full responsibility for) in those edits, and if you'd like to re-open that discussion either on the LRSF talk page or take them up with me via PM on the Titan forums, feel free to do so. This page, however, is not the place to discuss that issue.

--Eabrace 02:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)