User talk:Auron/Archive 4

'''This is an archive of my talk page, from October 5th, 2007 to December 1st, 2007. Please don't edit it; leave comments and messages on my talk page.'''

Are you a melee character by heart?
...because when I read your comments to the list on Izzy's talk page, I got that impression. Nicky Silverstar 20:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I love playing melee, but I actually midline in high-rated matches (usually bsurge, occasionally pblock or esurge mes). - Auron 21:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

...
Why do you bother? We already know that he doesn't read it. Readem 17:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I've invested too much time, money and energy to sit by and watch ANet fuck up the game without saying anything. They're succeeding admirably at making it suck, but I can't take it lying down. - Auron 17:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Gj
Gj on reverting with me and Aspectle ;P-- §  Eloc   §  04:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I do believe... we rock. - Auron 09:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * XD, you gotta give the vandal props for being able to keep up with 3 of us reverting him for half an hour Good thing Aiiane stepped in she she did though.-- §  Eloc   §  13:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Mail/Auction
Sounds alot like LotRO-- §  Eloc   §  15:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

WoW
Is it worth $13/month? --Edru viransu 16:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. - Auron 16:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Is the PvP or high-level PvE any good? Is TBC absolutely necessary? --Edru viransu 16:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The PvP in WoW is better than the PvP in GW (now, anyway); at least there are no builds like spiritway running around brainlessly dominating. You pretty much see balanced builds on everyone (there aren't a plethora of options to use tbh, any combination of them could be considered balanced). No one class utterly dominates all others (hunters can get pretty imba in 1v1, but in 5v5 it balances out).
 * TBC isn't necessary... yet. But honestly, if you've been dishing out $50 per expansion, just get the WoW/TBC battle chest for $40 (comes with a free month of play :p). As time goes on (and Wrath of the dead guy gets closer to release) you'll definitely want TBC. Oh, and horde without TBC = all ugly things like cows and orcs. TBC enables the blood elves :) - Auron 16:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * /sigh My attempts to convince myself not to get it are failing. I probably won't be able to get it for a bit due to having just spent almost all of my money on books(I Am America (And So Can You!)) and CDs, but I think me getting it has become pretty much inevitable. One last(I think) question: playing WoW opens a hole to some sort of place of eternal suffering and sucks you through into it. True/false? --Edru viransu 16:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If you replace "WoW" with "GW" in that last sentence, then the answer is true. - Auron 02:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Prot Paladins ftw. not that I'd know anything about that sort of thing... <_<... --Jamie [[Image:User Jamie.gif|(Talk Page)]] 23:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiDrama
I'm here to cause wikidrama Auron!!! /me throws a steak at Auron -- Scourge   07:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * fyi -- scourge  12:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Censorship....?
You told me that "we don't censor here" yet cite no source.

Please refer to the following page, it expressly encourages all members to take the time to edit offensive material. 4th paragraph.

http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Guild_Wars_Wiki:General_disclaimer Med Luvin 17:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That paragraph mean offenisive material in articles and clear vandalism, spam, etc. We don't have the custom to censor words from other peoples comments on talk pages. (I'm not sure what the case is where Auron told that to you, but I assume it's a case where you censored words from his or someone elses talk page comments) In general any edits made to talk page comments of other people are viewed as inappropriate most of the time. -- [[Image:User Gem sig.png|Gem]] (gem / talk) 19:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

When some one cites me a clear source where it says I have done something wrong, or an admin repremands me, thats one thing.

But editing a big "F*** You Izzy" to the astrics, I feels is what that statement means by ofensive material. So which is the lesser of 2 evils? Med Luvin 19:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Edits in question:.
 * You are citing the wrong wiki page. The general disclaimer does only talk about articles and not about talk pages. Furthermore, it is a wiki page without policy status. What you should have cited is GWW:NPA. And the correct action would be for Izzy to make those edits himself or for you to bring them to admins attention (e.g. post a link at the admin noticeboard).
 * As a secondary note: You did two edits. Only the first one was a breach of NPA (because it was directly insulting Izzy), the second one did not insult Izzy. --Xeeron 19:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Please take note, the edit I did was on the talk page of the article Agressive Refrain, it is not on a user page, but a subset of an article. Med Luvin 21:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * So you edit another user's comment (which is downright terrible etiquette if it isn't explicitly against the rules), and then ask me to cite my source on the whole "don't censor" thing?
 * Aside from that huge flaw in your logic, I would direct you here. People have tried to get policy support to be swearword censors, but have failed to gain community approval. I would ask that you seek community approval before editing other users' comments without their consent.
 * Frankly, I'm disgusted by blind censorship. Guild Wars is rated T for teen; 13 year olds can deal with swear words, why can't you? - Auron 22:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * What about purposeful censorship lulz? 68.35.91.2 02:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

As in any wiki, content should be for the good of the community, and the spirit of the community. This Wiki is about guildwars, it is also a tool the developers use to help keep a pulse on the game. When you open a page and see F*this, F*that, F*U, you are less likley to take the content seriously. I'm sure the developers don't prefer to spend thir spare time sorting through mud slinging, obscene content, or personal attacks to find usefull posts and ideas, constructive critisim, and possible approaches to correct said problem. In many cases it is often easier to simply disreguard such threads......as well as the usefull information pertaind therein, than to read through them. We have a resource we know the game developers read, and refer to. I want to be heard, I want the community to be heard, I don't want to see this valuable resource be derailed, and lose it's effectiveness because some people feel it is accecptable to "F'up the place" (pardon my play on words) Side note: As for the cussin failed policy you directed me to, Any pollicy simmilar to that is impossible to acheive, simply because a concencus is not majority, a concencus can never be reached when people are fundementally against a principal such as censorship. And without a concencus all policies automatically fail. So it dosn't matter if 97 out of 100 are for a policy, it is not a concencus, and therefore automatically fails. The question is, is such a policy in the best intrests of the community (not necessarily personal feelings of censorship)? Med Luvin 19:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * On a side note, actually, if 97 out of 100 are for a policy, chances are it has a fairly good consensus. Consensus does not need to be unanimous. In fact, consensus is not really based on raw numbers at all, but rather the relative strength of the arguments put forward and how they are accepted by the community. [[Image:User Aiiane-a.gif|Go to Aiiane's Talk page]] (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 22:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Question: I would appreciate if someone can define what a consensus is then. How is a consensus determined? In the policies it says "It is important to note that majority support is not an indication of consensus" If I were to write a policy with any hope of passing into effect, I need to know what is defined as a consensus, as reletive strength of the arguements is somewhat vague & ambiguous, with no clear cutoff point. Who determines what the strenght of the points are, if a consensus is a consensus. I don't mean to be difficult, I would like to write a policy, but before doing so, I need to know the criteria that determins if it passes or fails. Which would be a consensus, but in clear terms, what is a consensus. Med Luvin 15:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Firstly... proofread your posts, please. It's hard to follow what you're saying if every fourth word is a typo.
 * I don't think there can be a definition of consensus. The entire concept is abstract, but I think this comes close; If people are disagreeing (within reason, naturally), consensus has not been reached. There are, as always, quacks who won't be happy with anything, but consensus generally disregards them for the good of all that is sane.
 * So your burning question to answer is "is such a policy in the best intrests of the community (not necessarily personal feelings of censorship)?"
 * Well... no. For a bunch of reasons. Censorship aside, it solves nothing. Changing "fuck" to "f***" or "PROFANITY" does no good - the meaning is still there, it just looks more stupid. If you want, read some of Dirigible's posts on the policy talk page, he makes a bunch of good points debunking the idea; I won't waste time reposting them here. - Auron 16:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Every 4th word is a gross exaggeration, but I work to proofread (run through a spell-checker)my content for the good of the community. I have read Dirigible's comments, as well as the entire thread. I could counter point Dirigible's points as was done to Coran's points (whom I felt has some of the most logical points on the page). However, such discussion would prove fruitless, as other members on the page stated, it is a never-ending circle. It doesn't matter how practical the points are, someone will counter everyone of them, partially on principal alone. Would a language filtering policy detract from the wiki? Would it hurt the wiki? Or would it encourage more content & discussion directed at the game, instead of emotion fueled outbursts (or people just venting) While much of the wiki community does keep it pretty clean, as the community continues to grow, so will the instances, with more members, fewer policies will reach consensus, and remain in deliberation. After all, it is easier to remove a policy or guideline if it proves to be ineffective, than it is to add one. Med Luvin 19:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I get the feeling you aren't reading the same page I am. A per-user filter (if possible) would be for you to put in your js page, not for the MediaWiki technology to include; but, as Coran so wisely pointed out, "why you can't ignore them now?"
 * Anyway, I'm going to repost Dirigible's rebuttal of this insanity; have fun countering it.
 * "Your "arguments" against profanity don't convince me:
 * To maintain the same level of ettiquete as the game default. &rarr; The last time I checked, turning on the public channel in GuildWars was a similar experience to a Kevin Smith movie; it wouldn't exactly leave you with the impression that the speakers are aristocratic ladies and gentlemen. Alliance battles, major outposts, they're all swarming with so much "offensive" speech that nothing on this wiki will ever even get close to.
 * To become all ages friendly. Not mainly because 13 years old are offended. But mainly because it is truth that in some cultures (I just need some, i wont even discuss if they are mayority) parents are worried about thier childs reading profanity, and that is also a gw market. &rarr; Once again, the vast majority of 13 year olds know all these words already (13 years old = 8th grade, almost in high school). If their overprotective parents want to keep their children's ears pure from the moral corruption and vileness of hearing naughty words, they're certainly free to supervise their children during gaming sessions, use nanny software to censor and limit what they're doing on the web, or other such stunts. It's not up to us to do the parents' job. GuildWars itself needs to stick to the T rating so they can sell more copies in stores, we don't.
 * Anything regarding GW can be discussed without using profanity. &rarr; And everything about GuildWars can be discussed without using the word "spaceship", "syphilis" or "tax evasion". How is this a reason in favour of banning these words?
 * There is no need for the wiki to discuss explicit profanity words. And even if that is necessary they can be referred not literally, like many did here before by writing "The F-word" and everyone knows what is it. &rarr; I'm extremely honest here, not trying to be sarcastic: I'm genuinely offended by you expecting me to type "f---" instead of "fuck" with the reasoning that "it's ok, I got what you mean"; if you got the meaning, what offended you, just the three letters u, c and k? Just because you can use euphemisms instead of any word, it doesn't mean it's unnecessary and can be scrapped. That's called mutilating the language.
 * Arguments in favour of allowing it:
 * They're part of the English language. William Shakespeare used them, Pierre Trudeau uses them, U2's Bono uses them. They're part of everyday speech. They have their meanings, they have their uses, they have their purpose.
 * They are just words. As it's been repeated a dozen times during this discussion, by themselves they're harmless, it's the intentions that count. For offensive intentions we have a bunch of policies that regulate them and the ArbComm. For non hostile intentions, why is there a problem?
 * Because banning something just because we disagree with it is just shortsighted (see the Prussian Blue example that Tanaric gave above).
 * --Dirigible 22:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)"
 * Nobody managed to "counter" Dirigible's logic, but feel free to try. Your argument that comfort is more important than our language really doesn't sway me, so I hope you have something more solid. - Auron 19:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

NO U
NO U Ravensky 13:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

NO U ravensky, auron is always right.--Cursed Angel 16:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

:/
Devs are retards. Discuss. owait, I am banned EL O EL. Readem 01:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

eloc's talk
"what happened back under the Nazi regime was one of the most terrible and sad chapters of the history of mankind." People really need to take more history courses. It wasn't even the most terrible regime of the century, how on earth would it be one of the most terrible period? -Auron 23:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * well, what would you say was/is the most terrible regime of germany? i'm just curious what ppl think :) - Y0_ ich_halt  [[Image:User Y0_ich_halt_sig.jpg|16px|Have a look at my page]] 23:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I dont believe he is saying what happened wasn't terrible or wrong, but a lot of horrible things have happened to humankind over history, either from natural disasters or people doing horrible things to each other. "Most" depends on how you relate to a particular event (depending on your affiliation with the victims and how you were brought up to think about it), how you measure how bad something is (do you measure it by how many people died, how long it was, etc) and how many events you want to put in your top "x" of worst things ever (are you only counting the 10 worst events over the entirety of human history). - B e X  [[Image:User BeXoR sig.gif|iawtc]] 00:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What happened in Germany wasn't the question. That user was (falsely) stating that the Nazi regime was one of the most terrible in the history of mankind, which encompasses all races and all time periods. In terms of lives, Stalin killed more (by a few million; Hitler wasn't even close). In terms of hatred and discrimination, I'd say Czarist/Soviet Russia wins that as well (the early 20th century pograms against Jews and other minorities were longer lasting and attacked more of the culture; Hitler just rounded 'em up and gassed 'em). I'd say Hitler's regime, while devastating to the Jews and Jews alone, didn't really affect history as much as many of the other dictatorial regimes have. - Auron 00:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Russian pride! Woooo! —ǥrɩɳsɧ  ƿoɲ  00:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

doh, i didn't mean to have any relation to that talk. my question was: about centence #3: "It wasn't even the most terrible regime of the century". - Y0_ ich_halt  00:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you feel your question has been sufficiently answered? - Auron 00:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * yes, the discussion below got me my answer. - Y0_ ich_halt  [[Image:User Y0_ich_halt_sig.jpg|16px|Have a look at my page]] 17:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

And you tell me I should take more history courses? You obviously have no idea what was going on in Germany during WW2, because if you did, you'd know it was not "only" Jews that were killed in concentration camps in Germany it did not only have a devastating effect on the jewish population. I suggest you read up on that. Besides, have you ever thought of the people that were killed in battles during WW2? Have you thought about the people who were homeless, lost family members, were deported? This period of time had a devastating affect on all of Europe, and even beyond. You annoy me, Auron. LunarEffect 00:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Not nearly as much as you annoy me.
 * I know it was not only Jews that were killed in concentration camps, but they were the only ones killed by the million; the blacks, gays and gypsies that were rounded up were few indeed (some reports put a few hundred thousand of each as tops). Not exactly a drop in the bucket, but again, nowhere near what Stalin did.
 * The soldiers killed in battle can hardly be counted as Hitler's doing. I guess you could stretch logic a bit and say that because Hitler started the war, he caused the soldiers' deaths, but he wasn't rounding soldiers up and chucking them in gas chambers after stripping them and shaving their nails off.
 * The number of homeless people in Russia from early 1800's to early-to-mid 1900's blew Germany's out of the water (before Hitler took full power in mid 1930s, even the gays, jews, blacks and gypsies had homes; or at least as much of a home as they wanted).
 * It's common for nations that have lost wars to have thousands of homeless, many with dead family members; either killed in camps, in battle, or by the vengeful country/people that won the war. The small number Hitler kicked out onto the street doesn't begin to compare. - Auron 00:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Stalin is often considered to be intentionally responsible for more deaths than Hitler, he just didn't specifically target the Jewish people. Some historians argue that Mao Zedong is even worse than Stalin, he was responsible (whether by intent or foolishness or insanity) for even more deaths than Stalin or Hitler when he had some poor government decisions made which led to the starvation of many of the peasants in China preceded by executions and followed by the great proletarian cultural revolution which had more people die. That's all just in the last 100 years, ignoring war lords and leaders prior to that. Dancing Gnome 11:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Auron, I'd like to point out that it wasn't only Jews were exterminated by the millions under Nazi Germany. Around 3.5 million (non-combatant) Slavs were killed by the Third Reich, an estimated 90,000 to 1.5 million Roma were killed, and more than a "few" of the other minorities that were subject to that attempted extermination. As well, religious groups, such as Jehovah's Witnesses, political organizations, such as the Communist Party of Germany, and fraternal societies like the Freemasons all were persecuted against, and thousands of each group were put to their death. Mao Zedong, for one reason or another, has been responsible for the greatest amount of human suffering (though how does one really measure suffering?) during the last century, as Gnome pointed out. If you guys are interested in determining which 'regime' took the greatest toll on humanity, it was the collective of 'Old World' settlers that first came to the Americas that caused the most death and destruction. Old World diseases, for which they had no natural or built-up immunities to, were introduced to the Native peoples exterminated up to 100% of the population in certain areas, and approximately 90-95% of the New World population as a whole (though traditional warfare did occur, it was not the primary cause of this holocaust). The vast majority of the New World population is estimated to have died to this 'regime,' eradicating everything from civilizations down to the smallest family homes. For the most part, this 'biological warfare' was unintentional, though there have been significant number of examples of settlers intentionally infecting the Native populations with disease. Arguably, dying from full-blown smallpox induced more suffering than a bullet from a German, Soviet, or Chinese firearm. So, Nazi Germany and the Third Reich haven't been the most devastating regime in the history of mankind, but Hitler and his regime's impact on humanity shouldn't be understated here. Krowman 20:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It depends on how narrow "most" is. If it refers to the five most destructive events and regimes in human history by civilian or total body count, it wouldn't be on the list because several plagues and several other regimes killed more people. If "most" refers to the 50 most destructive events and regimes in human history by civilian or total body count, the Nazi regime or the holocaust definitely belongs on the list. -- Gordon Ecker 01:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * So what does this have too do with me? &mdash;  ク  Eloc  貢  01:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Nothing. Auron just made the comment in question on your talk page. Based on the context of his original comment, it's clear that Auron was using an extremely narrow definition of "most". -- Gordon Ecker 01:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright, continue on. &mdash;  ク  Eloc  貢  03:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Asshate userbox
Request permission to use your userbox...--Ryudo 03:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Go right ahead, Scourge made it for me quite recently. - Auron 03:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

GWW:DELETE
[...] the fact that admins can't speedy delete things without it being on a list is a weakness in the system. GWW_talk:Adminship

Could you tell me what you mean exactly by this, since as far as I know, sysops CAN (and DO) delete pages using a speedy deletion process (see GWW:DELETE). We do have GWW:DEL, which is indeed a list to keep track of articles that have been tagged with the delete, guild cleanup and copyvio tags, but that list is just an easy to use reference, nothing more. -- (CoRrRan / talk) 12:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You missed the "without it being on a list" part. - Auron 12:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * To clarify, the "list" in this case is GWW:DELETE, not the candidates for deletion category. - Auron 12:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Testing
You have been blocked. I'll unblock you after you edit your user page, or in 10 minutes. -- Gordon Ecker 08:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess it didn't work. -- Gordon Ecker 08:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I forgot to uncheck the boxes. -- Gordon Ecker 08:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Skill Balance
Any contributions regarding Heroes Ascent, would be greatly appreciated. Readem  22:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

'''frvwfr2; does that change anything? He banned himself for policy violations or something equally emo. He deemed it severe enough to warrant an infinite ban. His inability to unblock himself now is irrelevant (but, if I might say, was the entire point of the demotion). -Auron 13:11, 19 November 2007 (CET)'''

no u auron. Also, please leave a note that the skill balances have been moved here (due to me being an "emo") on my ip's user page. And I didn't circumnavigate my ban in all actuality, as I only comment when at school (or in this case on vacation). I permenantly banned myself, due to Wiki-drama and the inability to break away (was more than addicted; I am sure that you understand). I merely thought that PvX users would like to comment, and thus I brought it there. Just wondering, but what is your own personal opinion on the balance? Thanks. Readem 01:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Get on IRC
Get on IRC can PM me as soon as you get this. -- scourge  08:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Warning box

 * lololol - Auron 22:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * WTB. Armond 02:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * hai2u auron 99.235.230.36 00:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Bulbapedia
failure aids cancer --Cursed Angel  03:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * ym has cancer. - Auron 03:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * i lol'd irl for 1 hour and 42 minutes at the pokemonwiki :D --Cursed Angel [[Image:User_Cursed_Angel_Signature.jpg|19px|talk]] 08:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Hai2u
omg! --Silk Weaker
 * Happy first december Auron! --Cursed Angel [[Image:User_Cursed_Angel_Signature.jpg|19px|talk]] 15:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Heh. 24 days til presents. Can't wait! - Auron 15:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)