User talk:108.75.73.62

Have you realized that over the last year every mesmer skill you have updated in pve has been only to buff an already overpowered class? 108.75.73.62 18:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC) Not when those skills you mentioned are specific and effective counters for melee attackers. Oh and Shadow Form is nearly useless in PvP. --ஸ Kyoshi 20:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No need to get all worked up. Morphy 19:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Not worked up just bringing attention to the fact that mesmers have received a year worth of buffs, while everybody else barring derv has received a year worth of mostly nerfs. heck, even derv received a nerf 1 month after they buffed it. Mesmer received no such balance. 108.75.73.62 19:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Balance is not a race for the least/most buffs/nerfs. What is it then, you might ask? I honestly don't know anymore :/ Morphy 19:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I meant balance as in a lessening of the effect of specifically the most OP skills a few mentioned here( Empathy, Sympathetic Visage, Ancestor's Visage).
 * But I digress, I am just pointing out that since May last year, Mesmer seems to be on the rise via strengthening of an already OP status through a year worth of const ant buffs. 108.75.73.62 19:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think those skills are "OP" - I play sin all the time and I can easily avoid them. They're hard for melee to get around, sure, but they aren't overpowered. -- Konig / talk 20:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The fact that you disagree with me does not change the fact that over the last year mesmer has received nothing other than buffs to an already OP status. 108.75.73.62 20:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh and the fact that you play sin makes your point almost useless, of course you have no issues with those skills, you have critical strikes, and Shadow Form making your life easy. War has no such wonderful ways of making life easy. 108.75.73.62 20:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "Oh and the fact that you play sin makes your point almost useless"
 * You also missed my point above. This discussion is not about PVP it is about PVE thanks for playing. 108.75.73.62 20:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Make an account and go to Feedback:Getting started if you have suggestions. [[Image:User_Felix_Omni_Signature.png]]elix Omni 21:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * So you're arguing that Empathy is overpowered in PvE? ...huh. --ஸ Kyoshi [[Image:User_Kyoshi_sig2.png|19px]] 21:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I am going to ask whoever moved this to replace it back. I made no suggestions, I only stated that mesmer has received nothing other than buffs over the last year. the rest of it is all you guys and your intense dislike of anybody stating anything other than your personal preferences and likes. 108.75.73.62 21:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope. [[Image:User_Felix_Omni_Signature.png]]elix Omni 21:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Troolllll. 108.75.73.62 21:16, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

"Oh and the fact that you play sin makes your point almost useless, of course you have no issues with those skills, you have critical strikes, and Shadow Form making your life easy." Empathy damages attackers and makes attackers lose energy. Critical Strikes doesn't counter that. Also, I don't use Shadow Form. If an enemy has Sympathic/Ancestor's Visage stop attacking that enemy and let the casters handle him. If you're hexed with Empathy, have your monk remove it. It's called using your head for more than rolling across the keyboard. -- Konig / talk 21:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You win only because your sysop friend stepped in to help you. I will make my complaint to the admin noticeboard regarding that. Oh wait he removed my comments from a page. So in an effort to avoid a revert war and more retarded shuffling of my comments. I will make complaint to another sysop regarding this issue. 108.75.73.62 21:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This isn't a contest. Your opinion isn't unimportant, merely misplaced. [[Image:User_Felix_Omni_Signature.png]]elix Omni 21:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You just re-added your statement. You didn't even undo the move. --JonTheMon 21:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Jon yes I was did that with the statement I wanted there from the beginning, I did not however wish to get into a revert war (just like you and felix obviously want to start) so I leave that up to the sysop I contacted regarding this issue. I am done discussing this, I made my complaint about you removing my comment, and I refuse to get into an argument with you regarding the fact that my statement was valid and you removed it for no reason other than what seems to be the fact that you disagree with it. 108.75.73.62 21:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It was moved because people are tired of John's talk being flamed. Greener is not going to act in your favor, especially given the massive contrivance you've made the issue now. -- Oiseau | User_Oiseau_Melandru.jpg 21:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I did not flame anything, I simply stated a fact that I think needed to be stated. Whether he acts or not you violated the rules by removing my comment. You are a sysop you should know better. 108.75.73.62 21:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely right. Sysops should know better than you. I'm glad you've seen reason. [[Image:User_Felix_Omni_Signature.png]]elix Omni 21:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Your personal like or dislike of my comment aside, you should not have moved what is not a suggestion. 108.75.73.62 21:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Firstly, I am not a Sysop. Secondly, the constructive place for Feedback is in a User's Feedback space; I can seemingly innocuous comments like these more-inflammatory-than-not, because it prompts an extremely over-worn subject, and one which is known to be touchy at that. Now, your comments were not removed; they were merely moved. Please believe me when I say: that was nothing personal. -- Oiseau | User_Oiseau_Melandru.jpg 22:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I did not mean that you are a sysop I was speaking to jon when I said that, and jon did indeed remove my comment from the page after felix moved this whole discussion here. I repeat Jon did remove a comment I made on a page and as a sysop he should know better than that. Whether he agrees with the comment or not. Also, I would like to note here that none of the above is a suggestion, nor was it intended as a suggestion. It was intended as an enlightening fact. Having not been a suggestion it should never have been moved no matter somebodies personal feelings on the matter. Had it not been moved Jon would never have had to remove totally my comment breaking the rules he is supposed to be upholding. I have done nothing wrong, the sysops in this situation have however broken rules and I feel perhaps they should be reconsidered as sysops if they continue (note the if they continue) to act in this manner towards other users. 108.75.73.62 22:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The page I linked you to is a 130 KB page on the subject. It's not one which begs re-admittance (i.e. is enlightening to no one, least of all John), especially not on John's page; that is all I'm saying. -- Oiseau | User_Oiseau_Melandru.jpg 22:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * So what you(and these 2 sysops) are telling me is that as a user of this wiki you are choosing what pages I can comment on? Interesting, but I guess that is the way life goes. Thank you for picking and choosing who can talk to the devs. 108.75.73.62 22:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Your intentional misinterpretations are getting annoying. The bottom line is if you want devs to see what you have to say, make an account and a feedback space. Otherwise we'll keep moving your crap and ignoring your protestations. End of story. [[Image:User_Felix_Omni_Signature.png]]elix Omni 22:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yea its ok you decide who can talk with the devs. it is ok, I did not make a suggestion, and I do not need an account to have my voice heard. You can continue to move my conversations around but I will continue to report you to the admin notice board eventually requesting that you and whomever else does so is removed from sysop status and blocked for trolling. 108.75.73.62 22:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Look, this wiki is not run democratically - and no one here is squeamish about admitting that. We all follow these rules or we face the consequences. The last person who will tell you otherwise is going to be Greener, but you're welcome to press your luck. -- Oiseau | User_Oiseau_Melandru.jpg 22:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Look, just because they can claim sysop status does not give them the right to decide who can and cannot be heard by the devs. No matter their personal feelings, they broke the rules you speak of. I did not. I am reasonably certain that they should be punished for abuse of their sysop status. 108.75.73.62 22:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Acting under GWW:TALK does not require one to be a Sysop; I could have moved it just fine. That you do not understand the irrelevance of the discussion you began does not preclude the reasoning for the move. -- Oiseau | User_Oiseau_Melandru.jpg 22:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You can rationalize all you like, however my comment was completely removed by a sysop and that breaks the rules. My other conversation was moved not because it broke any rules, but because Felix personally did not agree with it. You guys are choosing who can talk to the devs by moving conversations you disagree with off the page. Some of which are suggestions some of which are not. I agree suggestions should be moved. However you have no right to censor anyone from talking to the devs and this conversation (not being a suggestion) should not have been moved. 108.75.73.62 22:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That's enough blathering. If you post more suggestions outside the feedback space, they will be moved and you will be blocked. End of discussion. [[Image:User_Felix_Omni_Signature.png]]elix Omni 23:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the threat. 108.75.73.62 23:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

ok....
so it seems to me that you are being combative to anyone who dose anything with your comments even if you are in the wrong and people are just following common practices THUS making you a troll. IF you want to provide FEEDBACK which is what your comments about Mesmers are. then do so on the feedback space. it takes 2 seconds to make a account on the wiki and then another 2 seconds to read the feedback name space getting started which has been linked to you more then once. not everyone is a sysop, admin, or bureaucrat. everyone has most of the same tools (only sysops,admins and or bureaucrats have the tools to block people i think...?) other then that ANY one can move stuff to where it is more appropriate.- Zesbeer 23:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What you fail to see is that I made no suggestion. Just because I commented on mesmer does not make it a suggestion. A suggestion would be "Nerf the hell out of every mesmer skill," Instead, I have made comments regarding the seeming frequency of mesmer Buffs that have come down over the last year. While not a suggestion, quite informative (and easy to not notice) since the Buffs have taken place over the course of a year. So I maintain still that moving my conversation was breaking the rules. Also I maintain that Jon removing my comment from the page is also breaking the rules. So go tell them how wrong they were. I did nothing wrong. 108.75.73.62 23:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * what you fail to see is i said nothing about suggestions. I SAID FEEDBACK. let me give u a definition of feedback seeing as you dont seem to understand what that means. |en&q=feedback&hl=en here you go -[[Image:User_Zesbeer_sig.png|link=User talk:Zesbeer‎]] Zesbeer 23:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I am sorry is not John stumme's page considered "Feedback talk:John Stumme" (I dunno bout you but that says feedback in it). 108.75.73.62 23:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * do you really not get it? i mean surusly it has been explained to you over 90000 times. in different places even i even explained it to you on the ANB and yet you said i was having a power trip. you sir are hopeless if you refuse to read and understand the answers given to you by more then one person.-[[Image:User_Zesbeer_sig.png|link=User talk:Zesbeer‎]] Zesbeer 23:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree with you. Censoring a user because you disagree with him is of course still censoring a user. But I do understand its all about what you and the sysops want said and not anything that you disagree with. That is what makes this such a bad place for Anet to have for a feedback space. 108.75.73.62 23:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * cool trolling bro.-[[Image:User_Zesbeer_sig.png|link=User talk:Zesbeer‎]] Zesbeer 23:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It is funny to me that you guys call those whom you disagree with trolls. 108.75.73.62 00:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * it's funny that u ass-u-me everyone is in disagreement with you.-[[Image:User_Zesbeer_sig.png|link=User talk:Zesbeer‎]] Zesbeer 00:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I presume nothing. It is ok. all of you (jon you and felix) have expressed disagreement by telling me I am wrong and calling me a troll. I did not ass-u-me anything. 108.75.73.62 00:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * actually you are making the assumption that we all disagree with your Mesmer statements, i know this from your comments. the only thing i have been trying to do is show you that you misplaced your comments. and you dont seem to read or understand that fact.-[[Image:User_Zesbeer_sig.png|link=User talk:Zesbeer‎]] Zesbeer 00:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What I am trying to point out is I was not attempting to bring the old mesmer discussion into play. I was trying to point out that they have done nothing other than buff mesmer over the last year. I do not understand why this is wrong other than the fact that you guys disagree with it and do not want anet to see it. I presume that this is because you play mesmer and are happy that everything else is being thrown wacky by the continual buffs to one class. However that still does not give you all the right to censor another players statements about an issue. This is all pointless, I broke no rules. My conversation was moved for no reason, it was in no way a suggestion and should not have been moved. I did not misplace my comment, as I have as much right as you do to be heard by the devs. So I maintain that by moving my conversation because it was not personally agreed with by a few of you is an invalid reason to move it. No quoting that I broke a rule is going to change the fact that I did not break any rules. I made no suggestions. I simply pointed out that mesmer is receiving continual buffs in pve over the last year. I do not see why that is wrong or why that is breaking a rule, it in no way makes a suggestion, it does however make a point that one class is being given an unfair advantage over other classes and this should be taken into consideration. The only reason that you guys would not want anet to see this conversation is because I am right and they would do something about it if they saw it. 108.75.73.62 00:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

see you are not reading what i am saying thus talking to you is pointless.- Zesbeer 00:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I read what you said, I just disagree with it. You do not see me trying to move your words or change the fact of whether they are right or wrong. 108.75.73.62 00:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I tried to make it clear that those "rules" are not hard-and-fast, because this is not a democratic wiki. We operate on consensus and everyone but you agrees that your comment was misplaced. Therefore, it was moved. That is all. -- Oiseau | User_Oiseau_Melandru.jpg 00:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * How many people is everyone? You took a vote on whether to agree with me or not? LOL. no offense man, but it is a fact (go look at the skill updates) that every time mesmer skills were in the update notes for update in pve they were buffed. I guess you guys are delusional or just too blind to do the research. But that is ok 3 or 4 of you agreed that my comment was misplaced that does in no way indicate everyone. Please do no exaggerate. I have seen plenty of people comment who are having issues with mesmer. They are just not as tenacious about being heard as I am. They allow you guys to shout them down. I guess they were the smart ones, because they ended their conversations with you people long ago. 108.75.73.62 00:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

what you responded: ":"What I am trying to point out is I was not attempting to bring the old mesmer discussion into play. I was trying to point out that they have done nothing other than buff mesmer over the last year. I do not understand why this is wrong other than the fact that you guys disagree with it and do not want anet to see it. I presume that this is because you play mesmer and are happy that everything else is being thrown wacky by the continual buffs to one class."" what did i say??!?! you are not reading what i am saying otherwise you would have not made that statement.
 * no you clearly are not what did i say ? "actually you are making the assumption that we all disagree with your Mesmer statements, i know this from your comments. the only thing i have been trying to do is show you that you misplaced your comments. and you dont seem to read or understand that fact."

you are  WRONG HERE IS WHAT HAPPENED: you posted feed back that did not belong on john's page. IT GOT MOVED. you didn't like that it go moved so you re-posted not reverted what got moved, admins saw this and deleted it because it was moved (notice not deleted or censored) and because it was feedback that did not belong on john's page. NO WHERE did you get "censored" the only thing that got "deleted" which wasn't deleted was your extra post (which still existed on your talk page WHERE IT GOT MOVED TO)!..
 * "However that still does not give you all the right to censor another players statements about an issue. This is all pointless, I broke no rules. My conversation was moved for no reason, it was in no way a suggestion and should not have been moved. I did not misplace my comment, as I have as much right as you do to be heard by the devs. So I maintain that by moving my conversation because it was not personally agreed with by a few of you is an invalid reason to move it. No quoting that I broke a rule is going to change the fact that I did not break any rules. I made no suggestions. I simply pointed out that mesmer is receiving continual buffs in pve over the last year. I do not see why that is wrong or why that is breaking a rule, it in no way makes a suggestion, it does however make a point that one class is being given an unfair advantage over other classes and this should be taken into consideration. The only reason that you guys would not want anet to see this conversation is because I am right and they would do something about it if they saw it."

???? as it has been said to you TIME AND TIME AGAIN it is feedback that DOSE NOT BELONG ON JOHNS TALK PAGE BUT YOUR OWN. no one was like "zomg i love mesmers THIS BLASPHEMY NEEDS TO BE MOVED OFF OF JOHNS PAGE ZOMG DO IT NAOW QQQQQQ" NO ONE SAID THAT OR DID THAT AND IT IS NOT THE REASON IT GOT MOVED.- Zesbeer 01:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * i don't know how to make this shit any more clear to you.-[[Image:User_Zesbeer_sig.png|link=User talk:Zesbeer‎]] Zesbeer 00:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Simple. Stop picking and choosing who can comment on johns page. You have no right to decide what he wants to read. 108.75.73.62 00:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * SIMPLE WE ARE NOT PICKING AND CHOOSING WHO GETS TO COMMENT ON JOHNS PAGE NOTICE ALL OF THE RESENT TOPICS POSTED ON JOHNS PAGE HAVE BEEN MOVED. also notice that john knows how to use links.-[[Image:User_Zesbeer_sig.png|link=User talk:Zesbeer‎]] Zesbeer 01:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, all topics other than the topics that the certain 4 people who are moving them approve. That is called censorship. 108.75.73.62 01:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * yes see that would be censorship if the comments were getting deleted which they are not they are getting moved and provided with links to said moved topic.. do i need to link you to what the def of censorship is?-[[Image:User_Zesbeer_sig.png|link=User talk:Zesbeer‎]] Zesbeer 01:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Censorship: is the suppression of speech or other communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the general body of people as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body.
 * You people decided that my conversation was inconvenient because you disagree with it thereby censoring my conversation by removing it to another less likely to be viewed space. 108.75.73.62 01:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * where did anyone say that it was "inconvenient because we disagree"


 * Zeeb, please just ignore the troll. If he wants to edit any space but his own, he'll have to observe the rules. If he doesn't, he'll run into a block. Let him be. -- Oiseau | User_Oiseau_Melandru.jpg 01:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oiseau, i just want to make it clear to everyone that he is trolling. at this point he has no argument because i destroyed it with logic. and forced him to read.-[[Image:User_Zesbeer_sig.png|link=User talk:Zesbeer‎]] Zesbeer 01:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You need to chill man, I am not yelling or being rude. I am open to your point of view but you need to see that censorship applies here. People are deciding what is important or inconvenient and moving what they consider inconvenient to less likely to be viewed spaces. The content being moved is irrelevant. The fact that some peoples voices are being censored is however not. My statement was intended for John Stumme and it was in the right space for him to see it until you gentlemen and ladies moved it to a less likely space where it will most likely not be viewed - that qualifies as censorship because the conversation was inconvenient to the persons moving it. There just happen to have been in this case sysops. You destroyed nothing with logic, and see you call those you disagree with trolls. 108.75.73.62 01:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Suddenly your entire argument is nullified when I reveal that I'm just a regular user. [[Image:User_Felix_Omni_Signature.png]]elix Omni 01:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Nah I knew you weren't a sysop. I looked. thats why when I made my complaint regarding you I said you stated you were an admin or whatever. 108.75.73.62 01:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * lol just lol i proved to that no one is censoring you and yet you don't understand that gg. i am done. how more clear do we have to be as to why it was moved and not deleted. at this point if you don't understand. then you are trolling and its not because or have anything to do with with mesmers and there state in the game. GOOD DAY SIR. ENJOY HAVING THIS POINTLESS ARGUMENT THAT YOU CANT COMPREHEND. -[[Image:User_Zesbeer_sig.png|link=User talk:Zesbeer‎]] Zesbeer 01:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yea, I disagree with you so I am a troll. It is ok. The very act of moving my conversation was censorship and I proved that by using logic and the definition of censorship. Censorship does not mean the item in question is deleted it means it is moved or removed from view. Hence the whole term Banned book. You can still find books that are banned (these have been censored). Which makes your entire point moot. You guys have burned a book but.. not every copy. 108.75.73.62 01:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * moved linked to = removed from view? OH WAIT YOU HAVE A LINK TO IT hey guys it was removed from view OH WAIT.-[[Image:User_Zesbeer_sig.png|link=User talk:Zesbeer‎]] Zesbeer 01:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The link does not = the entire conversation. So by moving it yes you have removed it from view, thereby censoring it. 108.75.73.62 01:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Also I would like to point out that by moving non suggestion comments you are equating them with suggestions which John is most likely going to ignore the link. 108.75.73.62 01:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * -[[Image:User_Zesbeer_sig.png|link=User talk:Zesbeer‎]] Zesbeer 01:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey man
Just to say, this whole drama probably wouldn't ever have happened if you hadn't been so angry at the start. Just take it easy. Morphy 10:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Nah this whole drama would not have happened had people not been allowed to break the rules and move non suggestion conversations because they disagree with them. 108.75.73.62 11:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * See, you're doing it again. Morphy 11:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If speaking the truth of the matter is doing it again you are correct. I am doing it again. 108.75.73.62 11:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * And again. Morphy 11:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What do you want? How about you just get the hell off my page k? 108.75.73.62 11:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I want you to stop the passive agressiveness you're spreading all over. Or is that too hard to understand? Where is the love? Morphy 11:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * And I want you to stop trolling me. Go away. 108.75.73.62 11:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok man, if you spit on my love, I'll just leave. Morphy 11:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Only love would have been to not troll. There is enough of that going on from people like felix and several of the sysops. Love would have been allowing someone to state the truth. Love is the wrong word. All you did with this conversation is further the drama man. No offense, you are not helping anything. 108.75.73.62 11:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello Mr IP
I think you've earned this. -- Briar    The Spider  12:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

attn: trolls
Stop trolling. Thanks in advance.

Unfortunately, this is also an admin warning to you, 108.75. Policies exist regarding the proper place to put suggestions, and people upholding policies are not trolling you and you gain nothing by antagonizing them. All that does is disrupt the wiki for no actual gain. Disruption is a blockable offense, and I have no problem blocking for it.

There are proper ways to do things that don't include kicking and screaming. If you feel the policies regarding suggestions and feedback are wrong, start a discussion on the correct page and try to obtain a consensus with the rest of the users. If consensus ends up being that IPs can have feedback pages or that feedback belongs directly on John Stumme's talk page, then there you go - you can do what you've been trying to do and nobody will pester you about it. As it stands, it is a violation of policy.

If you feel any users have unnecessarily trolled or antagonized you, you are free to report them to the noticeboard. In the case of Jon and Felix, their actions were taken to uphold this wiki's policies, and thus no admin action will be carried out to punish them.

If you feel any sysops have overstepped their bounds, you are free to sign a petition to start the reconfirmation process for them. Find their most recent Request for Administration, put your name at the bottom of it (in the RfR field) and then post valid links on the talk page as evidence of wrongdoing or abuse of power. Again, simply carrying out the rules isn't actually evidence of wrongdoing, and will most probably be ignored.

And lastly, don't feed the trolls. I don't know if you're a troll or not, but your actions have incited quite enough drama as it is, and I would prefer that not happen again. Don't run around saying people are doing shit wrong if you haven't a clue what "right" or "wrong" actually is on the wiki. Read all the policies we have. Read the talk pages to understand how the policies got to how they are now. Once you understand what a policy's goals are, you can make a much more convincing argument that someone is in violation of said policy.

This all comes back to consensus. Policies are not set in stone. If you can convince enough other people that your ideas for _____ are a big enough improvement over what we currently have, then consensus will shift, and policy with it. In order to convince anyone that your ideas have merit, you need to do your homework - learn wiki policy, learn why it exists, and most importantly, learn where to complain about it (hint; random user talk pages isn't it). Once you figure all that out, people will take you seriously. Until then, you're just going to be trollbait and will get frustrated without effecting any change on the wiki. - Auron 13:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)