User talk:Xeeron/Dec 2007-Nov 2008

Requested Example

The example of was referring to is this; User talk:Eloc_Jcg/Archive3#Someone.27s_number_of_contributions_does_not_mean_a_damn. Because the whole situation was blown out of proportion I didn't want to bring it up again on a page getting as much attention as the one I mentioned it on, especially seeing as it was Eloc's page and this one incident will be enough trouble for him without me bringing it up again in this context. SystemisFlawed 18:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Your example does not convince me one bit that "a current bureaucrat showed very poor judgement in a social problem". I can only hope that you grow tired soon of disrupting this wiki with your sockpuppets. You abuse GWW:AGF and you actions lead to every new editor being watched with suspicion. This wiki will be better off when you play your childish games elsewhere. --Xeeron 13:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

My Request For Comment

The request for comment I added here is for all weapons available from collectors not just max stat weapons as the one you mentioned is. It was started as a result of a discussion here. I added it to that page because I wanted more opinions/suggestions on it before I continued with more regions/games. --Kakarot 18:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I didn't get that you were concerned about the non-max weapons, sorry. Feel free to re-add the RFC (and my personal opinion: Move it to the main space to get more people contributing, discussion about formatting can be solved later). --Xeeron 23:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I've moved it here :) --Kakarot 23:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

RFC

Can I get your thoughts on the latest at Guild_Wars_Wiki_talk:Blocking_policy#No_duration_cap? --Rezyk 19:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

hai2u

How am I not impartial? I don't take sides in petty squabbles and I don't really like cliques forming and having power. If I disagree with someone or something, it's because I've thought it through and have a reason to disagree; if I happen to be on the same side as a number of users more than once, it's probably because they reach the same conclusion via their own reasoning. And I don't play favorites. I've told Skuld off on several occasions, and he's probably the person I'm closest to on this wiki; if I stand up to him, who on earth would I play favorites for?
I also disagree with the cool-headed thing. Amazingly, I don't care much about what happens online; I am extremely apathetic to pretty much everything from personal attacks made against me to people not agreeing with me. Basically, stuff like that doesn't phase me. I don't care enough to get riled up. I swear as part of my everyday speech; I do it IRL, I do it on the wiki. It usually is not an indication of me being pissed off. If there's some other word for what I am, feel free to use it; but cool-headed is pretty much how I am all the time on the wiki because I don't care enough to be otherwise.
You're right on the last bit. I don't really respect the policies of the wiki, but that would in no way hamper my ability to enforce them. -Auron 11:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

"I swear as part of my everyday speech; I do it IRL, I do it on the wiki. It usually is not an indication of me being pissed off." For me, swearing is a sign that someone is aggitated. If you tell me that you are cool-headed and swear at the same time, I misread that sign. However, it is clear that some people are offended by swearing, if you do it while not being aggitated, I don't think you're fit to be a sysop either. I'll fight for everyone's right to swear, but that doesn't change the fact that I feel it should not be done.

Regarding the clique, I see you as part of the "hai2u" and the IRC clique, one of which I disapprove off strongly, the other one partially. hai2u-type behavior is behind a lot of the conflicts on this wiki and I don't think you are fit to calm down such incidents. --Xeeron 12:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Your paranoia is a bigger threat to the wiki than any clique you feel I represent. -Auron 12:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, my disaproval for hai2u has lots to do with my personal taste and very little with paranoia, but anyway, my voting decision was not close at all, it does not hinge on a single word of my explication. --Xeeron 12:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I would say your vote (based on your arguments) shows that you have absolutely no idea what the sysop role is.

Sysops are nothing more than glorified janitors. That's what this wiki wanted, that's what this wiki got. Anything that would make me unable to delete pages based on policy and block users based on policy is something that should be considered as a hindrance to my performance as a sysop. Anything outside of that is an imagined role you are trying to make the sysop position into; a role I was under the impression this wiki was trying to avoid.

Any personal distaste of "hai2u" is simply your failure to be impartial. -Auron 12:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

"This wiki" is not a person, but the aggregate of its users. The consensus about what sysops are can be found at Guild Wars Wiki:Adminship and the term "glorified janitors" is not part of that page, so you are wrong. For me, being a sysop also includes being a positive example for other editors and *I* will vote accordingly. Whether you see sysops differently is your own decision. --Xeeron 12:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I look at your link and see "Sysops are administrators who perform cleanup tasks... according to the rules of the Guild Wars Wiki policy." If you want to add more meaning to it than there is, that's up to you; but as I said earlier, any meanings you add are your own and irrelevant to what sysops are actually responsible for.

If you feel that it is your job as a sysop to be a great and upstanding citizen, good on ya. I'm not going to take that away from you. But I will be irked if you allow your personal views of what sysops are to get in the way of what the wiki thinks they are (as stated by "widely accepted" Guild Wars Wiki:Adminship). If you feel that strongly about it, you should start a section on that talk page and let the community decide.

Again, I don't disagree with your opposing vote. Your reasons listed and your arguments supporting said reasons, however, are utter tosh. -Auron 12:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

"Sysops are nothing more than glorified janitors."

Nowhere in the policy does it say that sysops are glorified janitors, nor does it say they are nothing more. That is just your personal view of what sysops are. Now, doesn't this make this comment of yours

"But I will be irked if you allow your personal views of what sysops are to get in the way of what the wiki thinks they are "

quite hypocrital, accusing me of what you do yourself? For the record, in my opinion, which seems to differ from yours, the consensus on what sysops are is written down in the policy, but that is the bare minimum people could agree on. Everyone has further ideas about what sysops should be or should not be and they will take these into account when voting. --Xeeron 12:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

If they're not glorified janitors, what are they? They're put above regular users in most sense, thus the glorification part. They do the cleanup jobs around the wiki, which are usually mindless and simply require someone with the (computer) permissions to do them, thus the janitor part. Calling GWW sysops glorified janitors is an interpretation of the information given to us, created using logic and observations. If you change the information to us, then the interpretation will be changed. Armond 04:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The term "glorified janitors" does not stem from an interpretation using logic and observations, it stems from a rethorical devise used while discussing policy. One that I don't subscribe to as well. You and Auron might think that sysops are nothing more, I believe that they are to be positive role models for regular users and thus much more than janitors (glorified or not). --Xeeron 12:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, was away from internet for awhile, didn't mean to let this discussion die.

No, my quote is not hypocritical. I look at the policy describing what sysops are and what sysops do and attribute absolutely nothing more to them than what the policy states. GWW:ADMIN describes them doing cleanup tasks (sort of like... janitors?) and using a (very) limited amount of discretion on blocking etc. It goes on to list other stuff like providing an email address, but nowhere on the page does it state they need to be nice (hell, the page makes zero mention of any personality requirements whatsoever). I am not adding anything more into the policy than already exists.

I know where you're coming from. In your perfect wiki, all the sysops would be amiable - an admirable goal. But you're pretending that "friendliness" or whatever is a requirement listed on GWW:ADMIN, and it simply is not. -Auron 15:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

That is your personal opinion. My personal opinion is that admins need to have what the policy demands, plus more for me to support them. The policy says neither "admins must have a nice personallity" nor "it is forbidden to evaluate admins personallity when commenting on RFA's". That you think it should not play any role is your personal opinion. You will use yours, I will use mine while evaluating RFAs.

You are not adding anything to the policy, but you are concluding that the policy is an all-including recipe for good admins. It is not and it is not meant to be either. --Xeeron 15:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not conclude the policy is an all-including recipe for good admins. The policy is a POS. I think it's one of the dumbest (and most wrong) documents that exist on this wiki, but what I think it should say doesn't change what it actually says. -Auron 15:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

(RI) Then I don't understand why you base your RFA comments soley on a policy you do not respect. Nothing requires you to do so, and imho, it doesn't make sense. The policy does not outlaw you to vote against "nice"/"not nice"/whatever other trait you might care about candidates. In fact the policy can be so short because the RFA process is in place to make sure good candidates get selected, so there is no need to write down 3 pages of expected sysop behavior. --Xeeron 15:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

"Interesting" new site

Hiya Xeeron! I just wanted to get your attention and point you in this direction. Check it out when you get a chance, and let me know if you have any questions! -- Emily Diehl (talk) 19:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll be on there =) --Xeeron 23:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Sweet :) Thanks! -- Emily Diehl (talk) 00:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for Involvement

After careful consideration I would like to request your involvement in a dispute myself and other users are having with two admin on this site, I recognise you may not be back on the wiki at the time I make this request. here is the first part of the discusion. This is the issue which prompted that discussion and where much of it took place. I believe the two admin have abused their discretion in this case and unfairly blocked a user, citing consensus, discretion and ignoring a guideline AGF as justification. The two admin are User:Aiiane and User:Tanaric, the latter of which made the block but the former who has tried to use their admin power to bully Eloc, (even though Brains12 was supporting too, Eloc was the one specifically targeted) which both users are known to dislike. I have brought this up on both Aiiane's and Tanaric's talk pages in hopes of reaching some kind of resolution but even though Tanaric himself admited the user count opposed to the action he took was greater than those supporting, he still believes he acted with consensus. Although this block period has ended, it never should have taken place, but more importantly sets a dangerous precedent which is trying to use admin powers to force through a change in policy, or commonly accepted interpretation of policy that admin can't take this action. Rather than take a route to change policy to allow this kind of block, they have chosen to ignore a consensus seeking method and instead taken this route. I would like to also note that I have noticed a gathering of users from an off wiki communication resource who have banded together to support this stance, often at the request of each other or after discussion off wiki influencing their involvement in the case. This is a trend I have seen these users practice often in many issues on the wiki and is evident by the same users posting in the same discussions. I also feel it is important to mention this instance has brought these users having Reconfirmation requests, however not by me and I believe they are premature and will not achieve what is important here. 58.110.142.135 17:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll look into it. --Xeeron 10:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I responded here: Guild Wars Wiki talk:Arbitration committee/2007-12-30-User:Tanaric --Xeeron 14:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Admin names

May I have your vote and/or opinion regarding the Admin names (on a three level draft) discussion here? Coran Ironclaw 22:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Give me a bit to catch up with things here. I'll be over at the GW2 wiki shortly. --Xeeron 10:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

skiing

wb :) - Y0_ich_halt 14:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back. --Kakarot 14:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Your input would be appreciated

I would like to ask you to take a look at Help talk:Templates and add your input to the discussion. -- Wynthyst 09:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Out of interest...

Why do you abbreviate my name "DF"? *Defiant Elements* +talk 21:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I have no clue. I had a feeling I saw other people use that one, so I used it as well. From your question I gather they most likely didnt, hehe. As for why abbrivating in general, Defiant Elements is much to long to type for a lazy person like me and simply leaving out one part messes up the name. --Xeeron 10:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Most people abbreviate it "DE" :P *Defiant Elements* +talk 16:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

maybe "DeFiant elements"? XD - Y0_ich_halt 16:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I could argue that it was a use of the German method of abbrivating by taking prominent consonants (like Hauptbahnhof is HBF), but in truth, it was more me being sleepy and picking the wrong letter. --Xeeron 17:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

looking at the similarity of E and F, i think that's a viable excuse. - Y0_ich_halt 17:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

3 days??

3 WHOLE days!? :( ~ SCobra 11:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks will not be tolerated here nor over on gw2w. I hope I got that point across. --Xeeron 12:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

perms

I'm not going to play permissions tug of war, but given that there was an ongoing conversation I would have preferred that you at least contributed there first before reverting my permissions changes. If you were not aware of the conversation, my apologies and let me direct you to it. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 13:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit - I see you have replied there, and while I still sort of wish you had done so prior to making the changes, thank you for adding your comments. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 13:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, since the conversation is very recent, I made the permission changes before I saw the bulk of that conversation or else I would have joined the discussion first before acting. --Xeeron 13:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It's fine, I figured nearly as much. That out of the way, I'm going to hijack this heading to discuss the other thing on my mind, which was your edit comment - "as a side note, please give it more time before declaring the winner next time. Every regular user should at least have had the chance of disagreeing first."

Specifically, what is it that is preventing them from disagreeing after a winner is declared? Can you describe to me a situation in which Tanaric would not be declared the winner given the agreement of such by both opposing candidates? Technically, both opposing candidates could choose to withdraw, leaving Tanaric the only remaining candidate, which via the election policy leaves no choice as to the declaration of the winner. Thus, at least under current policy the explicit agreement of all other candidates is sufficient to determine the final results. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 13:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

They both stated that they regard Tanaric as a winner, not that they withdraw, there is a difference. Overall, is just that it is the decent thing to do to give everyone a chance to see that thread before making a change to the effect of Tanaric being the winner. Stage 3 is about finding consensus and usually (and for very good reasons), we give at least several days before declaring consensus. Disregarding that now would set a bad precedent for other, less clear, cases. --Xeeron 13:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm having difficulty in understanding your stance with regards to stage 3 when comparing your statement on the election talk page ("I fully support the candidate with the most votes becomming winner") with your statement above ("Stage 3 is about finding consensus"). Are you trying to say that the current stage 3 is not about votes, but believe it should be? Or that consensus and votes are the same (which I would obviously disagree on, but I don't think that's what you're saying)? Or was your statement on the most recent election's page meant to say something different from what I interpreted it as? (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 13:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I meant that *I* support the candidate with the most votes (Tanaric). However I am only one person. We have consensus if everyone supports Tanaric as well (for whatever reasons). --Xeeron 14:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hence my question, though - do you believe that stage 3 should be primarily about the votes in general? Or are you only adopting that as your person determinant and believe it should stay as-is? (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 22:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the election should be structured such that: 1. discussion, 2. voting, instead of the other way round. I made a proposal to that effect after the last election, but it went nowhere. --Xeeron 10:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey hey

okay this is probably the wrong place for this but not really sure what the procedure is if you notice something weird with a wiki page that you cant fix yourself, so I'm hoping you can help me. The Spawning Wand page is a bit messed up in that its showing the discussion from the talk page, concernign if it should be split, on the actual page itself, and i dont know how to rectify it. Any help with this issue would be appreciated as i dont have a clue how to fix this one. -- Salome 14:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It was using the talk page as an inclusion. - BeX 14:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Bex beat me to it. This part: {{Talk:Spawning Wand}} was causing the problems. The way the page should be formatted can be found at Guild Wars Wiki:Formatting/Weapons btw. --Xeeron 14:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

re: Edits to Guild Wars Wiki:Adminship/Draft 2008-02-06

← moved to Guild Wars Wiki talk:Adminship/Draft 2008-02-06

kungfu films

Can you recommend a kung fu film that a sword stops arrows and spears? Just wondering because I think that sounds fun. --Life Infusion «T» 03:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Out of the top of my head: Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. It is actually poisoned needles, but the whole film is full of "better than possible" action, including running up walls, semi-flying/huge distance jumps, etc. --Xeeron 10:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Hero. You'll see a sword stop barrages of arrows and slice a paintbrush in half, lengthways. A bit politically controversial, though. -- Hong 11:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I was about to suggest Hero and then noticed you had. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 11:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Kung Fu Hustle. Though I guess that isn't relevant as he's stopping some other odd deadly projectiles with a spear and not a sword. — Galil 11:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

You can stop bullets with katanas in this historically accurate ps2 game. -Auron 11:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

If you enjoyed that you need to watch Sukiyaki Western Django. Backsword 13:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, do you guys watch Chinese movies that were dubbed into English, or do you guys just read the subtitles? -- ab.er.rant 14:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Original soundtrack and voices with subtitles is much better than dubbed imo. -- Brains12 \ Talk 15:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. — Galil 16:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

dub is horrible. --Life Infusion «T» 00:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Dubbing is up there with killing babies. Backsword 13:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

the hidden "titan buff"

well, you liked to know where exactly i drew the information from. I don't know whether i should mention it on the article or not. I saw the skill by using Cheat Engine. A guide how to do so can be found here —ZerphaThe Improver 13:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thx. Not sure whether that should be added, but rather leave out the source alltogether instead of refering to some "other" sources which are then not specified. --Xeeron 21:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

RFC

Request for check on Guild Wars Wiki:Adminship/draft B to see if I missed anything glaring. --Rezyk 07:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I actually have the page watchlisted and have been there a few times, I simply didnt find the time to think about/write down a propper comment yet. --Xeeron 12:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Elections

I got a few quick questions before the elections start:

1. Can you be nominated for this election to renew your status as a bcrat?
   
2. If the answer is yes to the above, Do you think that you should be re-elected as a bcrat?
   
3. If the answer is yes to the above, How do you think being re-elected as a bcrat would help you help the wiki?
   
4. What are your feelings toward our wikis community?
   
5. Would you continue to make wise choices when it comes to selecting administrators?
   

Alright that should do it for now. Thanks! --Shadowphoenix 21:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The answer to question 1 is yes. --Lemming 21:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

While I will answer your questions below, my plans are to (most likely) not stand for election. I am putting the disclaimer in because I will stand if the only other candidates are of the likes of Raptors, but looking at past elections I have little doubt that enough capable candidates will show up.

So why do I not want to candidate a second time? A lot of the previous bureaucrats stood down without explaining their reasoning, but I will do so here (and parts might be similar for other former bureaucrats):

For me, the bureaucrat system here, and their elections, have been a very proud achievement of this wiki. I feel that the elections engaged a big part of the active editors in the way the wiki is run and resulted in (let me exclude myself since others are to judge me) quite formidable bureaucrats each and every time. One of the advantages comes from bringing new people into the position, leading to new approaches and, maybe, new decisions. That is good. The wiki changes, the wiki community changes and the bureaucrat position should reflect that chance. One of the best and easiest ways for change is to get a new person into the old position. A sitting bureaucrat will always have a slight edge in elections (if only because people prefer the evil they know), so I feel it is a good precendent set by bureaucrats so far to voluntarily step down to let new people in. I'd much rather be reelected again at some future date than right now, when I am the sitting bureaucrat.

Now the answers to your questions, for the unlikely case I run and because bureaucrats need to answer all questions =)

1. As Lemming explained above, the elections policy permits sitting bureaucrats to be reelected, so yes.
2. Like in all elections, not what I think matters, but what others think does. If you force me to evalute myself, I'll say that I would not have accepted the first nomination if I felt I was truely unable to become a bureaucrat.
3. Honestly, I think it would not. Noone really needs to be a bureaucrat to do good for the wiki. However, someone needs to fullfil the role of bureaucrats (technically promoting sysops and doing arbitration). We set up elections to find the most capable persons to do the job. And having the right people in the job, in turn, helps the wiki.
4. I feel the wiki community is like all human communities: There are nice people, and not so nice ones, some I connect better to and some I stay away from, lots of fun and also drama. Unlike other communities though, walking away from the wiki is really easy, so I guess my prolonged staying here shows that the former outnumber the later.
5. Hehe, only the most unwise man would call himself wise. So far we did not really have a "controversial" case in sysop applications yet. My stance has been to pretty much use the 3-to-1 rule literally, as long as I feel the RFA was not manipulated. In cases were lots of suspicious IPs or people who have been clearly sent to the wiki with the sole intend of supporting a specific candidate show up, I might apply the rule less literally. --Xeeron 20:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

J.Kougar's arbitration request

← moved to Guild Wars Wiki:Arbitration committee/2008-04-06-User:J.Kougar/Deliberation

Culture poll

→ moved from Guild Wars Wiki talk:Arbitration committee/2008-04-06-User:J.Kougar

Please note that this poll is not a vote about what either Aiiane or J.Kougar said, it is not likely to have a big impact on arbitration, but I am sincerly interested in how people perceive this:

Saying "You are pathetic" is:

An acceptable use of language

1. err, pathetic? c'mon >.> At least he didnt call her a stupid bitch there is honestly a great difference between the two.--Shadowsin 17:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

A personal attack

1. In the context that J.Kougar used it (i.e. telling Shadowphoenix she is pathetic and that he is laughing at her), yes, I see that as a personal attack. -- Brains12 \ Talk 16:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC) See below
2. Taking the hypothetical case Xeeron postulates, yes, it's a personal attack. It directly attacks the person as an individual. It's not exactly the most offensive ever, and by itself I doubt would warrant more than a slap on the wrist, but it breaches NPA.Cassie 23:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
3. Okay then, after the clarification from Xeeron, I'm gonna have to agree completely with Cassie. -- Salome 23:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

--Xeeron 12:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Xeeron nay offense but I think that only distracts from the issue at hand and will only prove what the people reading this topic believe and I think that is already clear from most peoples posts. -- Salome 12:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

You are right, placed this on my user talk page. --Xeeron 16:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

As already said on my talk page, I think this poll is too one sided and that one needs to ask about the use of both pathetic in the manner which Kougar and the manner in which Aiiane used it. Otherwise it looks like you're only inquiring about one instance and not the other. -- Salome 17:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Like I stated above the poll, this is not about Aiiane's or Kougar's use of the word, but about "You are pathetic". If you want to play semantics, you get that in neither case it related to a person. Aiiane related pathetic to anyone "attempting to blame sysops for the consequences of your own actions", Kougar said "You're pathetically amusing", so the amusment is pathetic (adverb vs adjective) not Shadowphoenix. Do you really want to engage in such word play? For me it is 100% clear that, whatever was written, in both cases the target was the other person. All I want to know is whether people feel the word "pathetic" is ok to use or not. --Xeeron 18:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

In that case, purely looking on the word "pathetic" and not how it was used, I don't see that as a personal attack that warrants direct administrative action (perhaps a warning/notice though). And by the way, I saw the "pathetically amusing" as "pathetic, and amusing in being so". -- Brains12 \ Talk 18:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Something that is "completely ridiculous" is not complete and ridiculous, something that is strongly supported is not strong and supported. Adverbs target the verb, not the subject. --Xeeron 18:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Ridiculous is an adjective, by the way.

In the case of JKougar, the adverb targets the adjective (pathetically [adv] amusing [adj]), which in turn targets the subject -- if the subject is "amusing", and that amusement is "pathetic", that "patheticness" is related to the subject in that it is amusing and pathetic. Even if I'm totally wrong on that (or it's something that I just see and can't articulate it very well), it's the manner in which it was said and the fact that he says he was laughing at Shadowphoenix for being "pathetically amusing" that makes it a personal attack in my opinion. I don't like sticking to everything literally when there's a hidden connotation in the context of the message. -- Brains12 \ Talk 18:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yay for the English language and its confusing complexities! All i meant Xeeron is that if Kougar reads this poll he will think its directed at him and not at Aiiane due to the use of language. Also all language is contextual. I do agree with you though, it's clear that both users were playing semantics with one another and that they both meant the other user was pathetic. Simply put i believe calling someone pathetic in any context is at the very least rude. I hope thats the kinda answer you were looking for, if not your poll confuses the hell outta me. -- Salome 18:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Brains wins the word game. One more reason I am opposed to playing it ;-)

For Salome: To be honest, I do not care a lot if Kougar thinks that. On top of the poll it is stated in clear words (no word games needed), that this is not about either him or Aiiane. If he prefers to think I lied with that sentence I can't help it. While you gave an answer, it was not the one I was looking for: I am interested whether you think that using the word pathetic towards another user is a NPA, not whether it is very rude. --Xeeron 22:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone else notice that this is getting pathetically out of hand? Kougar said pathetic, LETS WRITE A BOOK!, hell for just that one statement theres been more deliberation and talking than anything i've ever seen, koudo's to you mr. kougar, you beat my drama :3. C'mon guys, That is the most minor npa i have ever seen, ever. Also "Pathetically Amusing" is It's pathetic how amusing this is, not SP is pathetic and amusing. BTW have I mentioned yet that this is ridiculously long? ._. just unban him and get it over with. ~.~ buy some thicker skin, and if you cant do that maybe some thicker socks will do. You are Pathetic =/= npa, You are a bitch == NPA. lrn2drama less imo!--Shadowsin 05:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree this has gotten way out of hand, it even had some involvment is Shadowphoenix, DominatorMatrix, Ryudo, and Tanaric leaving. This has gotten way out of hand. --Myria83 05:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

RfA

The typical action, I nominated you ;) Even if I think I know the answer already, I'll give it a try, as I don't want to lose you from the admin team ^^ poke | talk 23:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

nvm - I fail! poke | talk 23:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I was about to say... Xe's already a sysop. :P (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 10:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Elections (2)

It would appear that the fervor surrounding election reform has already begun to die down. I for one would like to see some sort of change before the next election begins. As near as I can tell, pretty much everyone agrees that the current system isn't what we want and yet we cannot agree on a solution. That said, I'm considering merging Draft 3b into Draft 3 (despite my misgivings) in the hopes of getting something done (I tend to believe that, if nothing else, your version is more likely to be accepted) and there are certainly a number of important changes -- the question of deciding winners aside -- that are identical to both drafts. Any thoughts? *Defiant Elements* +talk 21:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I've merged 'em. Once/if this proposal is accepted we can reopen the issue of deciding winners. *Defiant Elements* +talk 23:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully, we will get the new policy passed now, that situation has been unresolved for a long time now. To be honest, I had almost given up on this. --Xeeron 11:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Ursan Essay

I am in complete agreement with what you said about Ursan Blessing on your essay. I'd like to add to the counterargument part - while "I don't have to use it" is partially true, it is an issue when a character are not allowed to participate in a PuG on nearly consistent basis due to not having this particular skill (read: DoA) despite there several evidence across forums that those elite missions can be done without resorting to ursanway. – Barinthus 23:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Taking this out of GWWT:GUILD

mostly, because otherwise i will lose track of it again

Yes, i have to admit that my comparison with grinch was not the nicest (nor smartest) thing i have done, but for a comment like "does it bothers you" i had to answer in the same tone. In any case, most of the "does it bothers you" comments made came from "supporters", so is not really a comparison to them, but to the reasoning used for justifying them.

Now, going back to the point, i must say that no, it doesn't bother me if a guilds has a fugly designed article, but it does bothers me if such article is designed in such way as to be visually uncomfortable. Hot pink font over a light-green background is ugly, but meh. Black background with lime-green letters is cool actually, but that + white background from the wiki = eyes hurt (plus partial blindess due to color contrast, same as if you were to face a lamplight for 1 second, then turned away). Maybe we could solve it by adding a vague stance again to the policy (like "not design features that may affect the readability of articles"), but that would bring to the table the same problems that "don't change infoboxes unless there is a good reason" (from the current policy) brought.

Now, since i know you can if you want, i would like to hear an alternative to the issue other than "do/do not", because at this rate i am starting to think that "leaving formatting as it is" and just setting pagesize restrictions is a better alternative :).--Fighterdoken 21:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Up till now, I have not thought deeply about this issue. What I want to prevent however, is alienating users who come here to set up their own guild page. How can that be done? Maybe one could separate "notable" guilds from "unnotable" guilds and make the first set of articles encyclopaedic and leave the latter free like user pages. I am not sure wheter such a separation would be helpful though. Another (more work involved) idea is to make several good looking "templates" for the whole page in different colors that can easily be used and adapted by guilds without hindering readability. How such templates could be made and, more important, how they could be stored such that new users easily find them, I dont know. When dealing with ugly/unreadable pages, it is better to do constructive criticism: Change the page to look better, maybe the guild will even like the new look. When simply slapping a clean-up template on, the reaction is easy to guess. People do feel offended if you tell them their work is crap (even if, objectively, it is crap). --Xeeron 11:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, in what refers to design and cleanup-stamping, that is something that can actually be solved by not allowing personalization at all (just copy-paste the example guild, fill the missing gaps, and done), or by deciding that we don't care about guild pages anymore (a la User:). If we just leave things as they are today (without changing the wording to be more permisive or more strict, whatever we choose), cleanup-stamping will continue from time on time.

I don't really think allowing users to select from a list of guildpage templates could solve the issues either (because we already provide one after all, and users still personalize it just to be "unique", without caring if the personalization ends breaking the wiki display), but a color palette (which doesn't really need to be limited to 8-16 colors, but could easily be 1024 if we were to take the time to draw a full palette) could still allow personalization while also ensuring that pages are within the color scheme of the wiki. In any case, i think users could still develop their guild page the way they wanted as long as the front page were to be wiki-friendly (kinda like "front page white, sub-pages however they want them).--Fighterdoken 01:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The Status Quo translation

I've been looking over some of the edits you've made to Guild Wars 2: The Status Quo, and while yes, some of those are more literal translations of the german text, that's not what Poke and I have been going for - we've been trying to translate it to a form that is natural for english speakers. I'd prefer if you could try to inquire more as to the reasoning behind the translation when you make edits which are effectively reverts of something that poke and I have been trying to refine over time, as you've essentially undone a good portion of a couple of hours of collaboration between myself and poke. :/ (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 20:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to revert. Most changes are minor stuff. There are a few though, where the meaning was changed. E.g. it is not the same whether you say multiple events are happening at the same time or whether they overlap. Or: Nowhere in the German version does it say that your level will "match" the one of the higher level guy. And seeing how in CoH it actually does not match (it only gets close to), that makes a difference to me. We should not deliberatly introduce false statements for the sake of a more refined English. --Xeeron 21:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I've been in contact with Regina (and through her hopefully Jeff Strain) to try and get some clarifications with regards to certain ambiguities in translation/expression, so hopefully some of those will be able to be clarified in the future. I'll take a look at some of the changes and see if other such problems can be addressed before then. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 22:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

You left a comment on my page, and I wasn't sure how I would go about responding.

Sorry, but I only removed talk pages that consisted of "QQing", as people say, or blatant insults towards Izzy and other staff, and the game updates themselves. I felt that their input was destructive and useless, much more they promoted bad behaviour amongst the PvX wiki community. I didn't know how to go about having that taken care of, and its was really getting out of hand. People tend to complain and insult nowadays than suggest and compliment. I apologize if my methods were brusque.

Are you an Admin? --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Phill Gaston (talk).

There is a strong norm against removing talk page entries here on GWW. We do not want users to censor other users comments. If there are violation against policy (and note that "QQing" usually does not count as a policy violation), the way to deal with them is bringing the issue up at the admin noticeboard, not removing them yourself. In response to your last question, yes I am a sysop here. PS: If you want to sign your comments, add ~~~~ at the end. --Xeeron 14:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Belated explanation

Well, a bit late since they're all gone now, but the answer is interesting enough, I think. We didn't have an automated way to solve attrib issues, so that had to be done manually. They should all be fixed now. Or at least noted. The reason for so many pendiong deletes was that I used DPL to find lost pages, that had no links in or out, and generally missing or malformed content, and tagged them all. The R2eedies was old move remnant redirects that don't do much good in anet space. Anyway, I don't redirect manual moves, so they should all be from automoves. Backsword 08:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thx for the explanation. --Xeeron 14:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

hello!

who i did not know you were an admin. I likes to meet of of them. :D — Seru Talk 21:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

*wave* --Xeeron 21:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Vael

You blocked him for personal attacks. If you were referring to his comments against me on Erasculio's talk page, I humbly ask that you remove the block. If I'm mistaken or there was more elsewhere, well, sorry for wasting your time. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 00:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Something else. I still don't understand that, but... Erasculio 00:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Hurr. He did it wrong, though. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 01:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The block was for the edit Erasculio linked. I don't know what initiated that edit, but it is definitely not something I want to see on the wiki. --Xeeron 09:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Boo fucking hoo? You marked it as a personal attack, not as racism. That means you really thought I was calling my friend a nigger thrice. If you don't like it, how about you message me instead of childishly casting down your banhammer? I know you wouldn't do that for many people - thus, I know you don't like me - thus, I know you did it because you don't like me, instead of just asking me to stop or something. Vael Victus 15:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Nice logic. Any proof or logical reason behind Xeeron's dislike of you, apart from the, again unproven and random, claim that he wouldn't do it for many people? -- Brains12 \ talk 16:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the fact I'm an asshole. The fact I speak my mind while other people don't, or those that do do it nicely. Vael Victus 21:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't keep tabs on possible friendships of every pair of editors here. Calling someone Nigger on their talk page is an obvious NPA breach. What do you want to argue here? That you meant someone else, but posted on DarkNecrid's page instead? That it was not directed at DarkNecrid, but instead just randomly put out to disparage blacks in general? I don't see how any of those would change my decision to block you. --Xeeron 17:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

"Calling someone Nigger on their talk page is an obvious NPA breach." perhaps you should take a nap so you're more energized to read my words correctly. I said "You marked it as a personal attack, not as racism. That means you really thought I was calling my friend a nigger thrice." that would imply it should have been marked as racism, not a personal attack, because I wasn't attacking anyone. I just said nigger nigger nigger. It wasn't meant to disparage anyone, it's just, "nigger nigger nigger". I don't care about the block, I care about you thinking it was a personal attack just because you saw the word nigger. If I said "potato potato potato" you would have thought I was such a silly rascal for it, but no, you know I'm an asshole and don't like me for it. Tada, brains, there's your logic that escapes you. Vael Victus 21:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Racists comments are all covered under GWW:NPA so trying to make an issue out of that distinction is pointless. Plain and simple that type of thing is not allowed on GWW in ANY context, whether it's an inside joke between friends, or an actual racial slur. You knew that when you did it, so your ban should not have been any real surprise, nor should you spend so much time trying to argue about it. Also making inferences regarding Xeeron's motives, or his reading comprehension is also pointless, non constructive, and bordering on another NPA violation. -- Wyn 21:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Last I checked, "nigger" wasn't a racial slur on the internet. A hell of an insult, yes, but not a racial slur (the same way "faggot" isn't a comment on one's sexuality in any way, and how "jew" simply doesn't relate to one's religion).

This is the problem with people on the internet - they simply don't recognize that the internet has its own jargon and assume that words on the web have the same meaning as they do in real life.

-- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 23:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I have to vehemently disagree with you Armond. The use of the word nigger is a racial slur in ANY context, and ANY medium. It should not be acceptable ANYWHERE, and I will stand by that opinion until the day I die. -- Wyn 23:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

You are quite wrong. The word means significantly more than it did back in the Civil War (when it was essentially spammable epeen vs black people for its own sake). I would dare say I know more white niggers than black niggers. (Yes, there's a big difference between a black person and a nigger. :/) -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 23:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

It's just a word. Like any other swearword, it means only what people choose to ascribe to it - and you have to keep that in mind when a word is used. I, like Armond, use it in my every day speech. It is often used as a greeting - "sup nig" is akin to "hello my good friend." But, when used in public, I am very vehement about defending my right to use it - in fact, like Armond, I don't think of "nigger" as a specific race, but more as a set of actions and morals (or lack thereof) that set that group of people apart. Blasting loud rap music, saggy jeans, low IQ, penchant for crime and violence - no matter if that person is white, black or asian, that person is a "nigger" if they fall into that category.

And of course, I didn't pick the word. They did. They use it in their rap songs, they use it in their every day lingo, and many of them identify by it - even if they don't understand what it really means. So please, don't try to make it out to be some evil thing - this isn't the 60s, nobody is lynching anyone, and true racism and hatred is pretty much non-existent on this wiki. Don't make words out to mean more than they do. -Auron 23:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

My understanding of rascism and sexual harrassment was that someone has to feel harrassed. Misery 00:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Whatever meaning you personally ascribe to the word doesn't matter. The wiki is not your group of rl friends, nor is it 4chan, SA, etc. The widely accepted meaning outside your group of rl friends, 4chan, SA, etc is an extremely negative racial slur. Some, likely most, of the wiki community is made up of people familiar with that meaning, so don't be surprised when rules are enforced based on that meaning.

As for the comparison to other profanity, which is generally allowed as long as it's not directed at anyone: the word "nigger" is by it's nature directed at someone, either the specific person being addressed or the racial group in general. Hence, NPA. So no, don't care about your intentions in this case. If you don't like it, use IM or e-mail instead of a wiki user talk page. - Tanetris 00:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Did you even read what Auron and Misery said? -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 00:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll give that it "could be directed to black people", tanetris, and thus would deserve the NPA. But how about how there wasn't even a warning? I think I got like one warning like six months ago for something stupid, probably another NPA. All I'm saying is I felt a bias to me because I'm an asshole. It's a condition I enjoy because I am a free person. You can never block someone from all means of the internets, even during my ban I was still free and editing fine. I'm sorry Xerox doesn't like people saying nigger, and would just assume I was being racist. :'( But someone who uses this wiki enough (xerox) should at least have some idea of the workings of the internet, much like you almost seem to do, Tanetris, (would've liked to see you say *chan instead but I'm okay) and thus he'd know I was just messing around. Especially considering my asshole condition. I don't know what else to say about this issue. :| I would like an apology, though. Vael Victus 01:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Am I allowed to say that asking for an apology on the internet for being banned is even more amusing that banning someone for saying the word nigger on the internet? Misery 09:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

In retrospection, I should have used a longer summary, with a link to the edit in question (since that confused Armond above). However, I still think the ban was valid, so I can't apologize for that. If you still feel the ban was not justified or that there was any bias, you can bring the issue up at arbcom or initiate a call for reconfirmation against me. --Xeeron 13:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Nah it's okay. I'm bored now. ;o; And I forgot to call you Xerox the first time so I had to type something else. Bye love you. Vael Victus 15:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

http://wiki.guildwars.com/index.php?title=ArenaNet:Guild_Wars_suggestions&diff=1210005&oldid=1209972

Was wondering about your motivation here. I had it in the other order as to encourage people to use the personal ideas first. Else we risk people not bothering to read till the end of the page, as the common section grows. OTOH I can see that one could think that the common section is the important one. Backsword 18:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Your later point and the fact that I wanted the bolded part at the top. --Xeeron 23:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I can see that, tho' I'd fear some pople may read it as pertaining to their userpages if read first, which is obviously not true. I sort of liked having the table up early, as it uses the Anet colours making things look a bit more professional. Backsword 20:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

If you feel strongly about it, just move it back, I don't care that much about it. --Xeeron 23:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)