Rezyk, I asked for comments, not belittling snide remarks. I believe it is important to define what we are listing here and important to tell the users what they are seeing here. Why do you find that unnecessary? --Karlos 16:56, 8 Oct 2005 (EST)
- Hey man, I truly did not mean it as any sort of "belittling snide remark" and am sorry (and somewhat confused) that you saw it that way. I do not find having a definition unnecessary/unimportant, just some of the details you have. Ummm..could you have perhaps mistakenly thought that I deleted the entire definition when in reality I just modified it? --Rezyk 20:31, 8 Oct 2005 (EST)
- Ok, if you really took such offense to my remark, I think you need to take a hard look at the way you commonly phrase things to others. All I did was say that some of your stuff was "unnecessary"; this is a routine point of debate -- what is really necessary and what is not. On the other hand, you have said to me before that my stuff is "completely unnecessary", "completely lacking in objectivity", "completely confusing", "makes absolutely no sense". Even if you believe them, those extra quantifiers served no purpose other than belittlement. --Rezyk 21:10, 8 Oct 2005 (EST)
- Agreed wholeheartedly with Rezyk: I like his more concise edit, and you're reacting extremely harshly. —Tanaric 11:03, 9 Oct 2005 (EST)
- I agree with both of you. I am sorry. Given past disputes between us, I assumed a tone that was not there. I apologize. You had no way of saying they were unnecessary without saying they were unnecessary. With regards to my use of adjectives, I am sorry if you find them offensive, I use them for emphasis, not belittlement, and they come from a cultural background. This is the way we often speak in Arabic. I know it does not translate well. It's hard to kick old habits. --Karlos 16:13, 9 Oct 2005 (EST)
- Understood and apology accepted. Glad to know this was just a misunderstanding. --Rezyk 06:19, 11 Oct 2005 (EST)
Wait a second! Accepting I reacted improperly does not mean I accept the edit. We DO need to tell this information to users. i.e. that we WILL list software sanctioned by Arena Net and that which is not. OR in pages of software that is NOT sanctioned by Arena Net, we tell people that this is software that is not approved or recommended by ANet. We owe the people that. If someone's personal data gets robbed off their PC because on of those tools is a trojan, we should feel bad about it. So, let us place this kind of disclaimer somewhere. --Karlos 18:00, 10 Oct 2005 (EST)
- As much as it disturbs me, I find myself agreeing with Karlos again. (I've gotta get myself checked out, there must be something wrong with me. :P) The note about software not sanctioned by ANet should IMO be left in. Otherwise all we should really have in this category is the game itself, DirectSong and whatever voice program was included with the deluxe package. Which would leave out stuff like the other voice program (I don't remember but I think Teamspeak came with the deluxe version), the GWFreaks program and anything else. --Rainith 01:20, 11 Oct 2005 (EST)
- Just to be clear, there is no need to keep this part off on my account. While I was the one who originally removed it, it was only my take on it and not a strong objection. I agree that Karlos makes a good point here. At this point, my ideal version would be something like this:
These are software packages and modules related to Guild Wars, such as game patches, plug-ins, and third-party programs (including those not officially sanctioned by ArenaNet).
Warning: Always be cautious when choosing to install or use any new software. Historically there have been many cases of game-related programs that may appear innocuous but execute malicious actions including but not limited to: stealing accounts/items, installing malware, running a trojan, etc.
- In the articles on Ventrilo and such I suggest "This software is not officially sanctioned by ArenaNet." --Rezyk 06:19, 11 Oct 2005 (EST)
- These sentences are excellent. I'll use those for now. Hmm, "malware" is new.. --Karlos 14:56, 11 Oct 2005 (EST)
- Anyone know the status of Teamspeak Overlay? Is it sanctioned/approved by ANet? --Karlos 15:00, 11 Oct 2005 (EST)
- Link is not working for me. --Karlos 21:16, 17 October 2005 (EST)