User talk:12.5.144.20

Hi, quit it. If you have screenshots showing the tournament roster with guilds forfeiting and/or alliance chat screens with related commentary, that would do a lot to help the trivia stay on the page. As it is, it's a stretch - the note you keep reverting contains all the useful information without any of the theorycrafting. (Plus, let's be real here, it's 2012 - there isn't any real competition, even if the servers aren't having problems) -Auron 13:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I won't quit it. https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.gw-memorial.net/results/mAT/2012/April/ Is this best solid proof I have as I don't sit there and take time to screenshot things. You'll notice April 2012 is the only month that a chart of wins/losses/forfeits/byes was not charted. Games were not loading and teams would be "playing" for the whole match only for neither team to get a win/tie/loss - essentially they did not play a round. It isn't a stretch. If you were a credible source of PvP information I would concede to you. But you aren't. As I said, revise it to include the information I have been posting and I will gladly leave it alone. 12.5.144.20 15:37, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

And while I am aware most players are terrible and there is no real competition... There are still some really skilled individuals spread out amongst the teams. 12.5.144.20 16:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point of GuildSpace articles: they are there for the guild members to document their own history (and structure); they are free to be as biased or factual as they like, within the wiki's policies.

You seem to think that they are less deserving of their win than other teams; that might be true, but it does not have to be noted on their guild page. George W Bush and John F Kennedy won their first presidential elections under circumstances that many objective observers find suspicious, but they still took office. If W wanted to create a user page on this wiki and refuse to mention the controversy, he's entitled. And his detractors wouldn't get to edit his user page to correct their own (albeit perhaps accurate) view of history. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 16:47, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

You assume my intentions. I wouldn't advise making that mistake. It is purely for historical and trivia purposes. The server errors practically made the game unplayable. It should be noted in GW only remaining serious form of competition. If a member of OG wants to delete the page, they are more than welcome to. But from the overwhelming attempts to troll on QQ forums, they are fully aware of it and don't disagree with the information. 12.5.144.20 16:56, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I assumed nothing; I have described how your actions appear to me.

I repeat again: it is not for non-guild members to determine what is historically accurate and/or trivia for the guild; it's up to the membership alone. If they want to state the issues present during the victory, they can choose to do so. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 17:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

"You seem to think" - Seem, appear, assume, look like - These are synonyms. Familiarize yourself with them. Again, to support your comment please refer to the rawr situation. When you have taken care of that and succeeded in having a rawr member deal with it, you have a solid base to deal with the OG comment and I will concede. It is historically accurate. Deal with that fact. Look what happens when you have some PvE player that is inept and ignorant of what goes on in the PvP world. I have to waste time arguing with you and show you that you are wrong when you should just leave it alone in the first place. 12.5.144.20 17:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, quit it. If you're right, you'll convince enough people and it'll get added back. If you're right but it's not worth it, it'll stay off. --JonTheMon 17:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Hiya. As Jon's most recent comment suggests, disputes as to what information is/is not appropriate are resolved through discussion/consensus-building, not stubbornness. You're free to make your case for the appropriateness of this information on the talk page. You are, however, not free to engage in a revert war. Take the day, relax, and if you still think this information is pertinent and appropriate, then do your best to present a convincing case. As TEF pointed out, guild pages have, for the most part, been treated basically like user pages, which means that they are not intended as strictly factual documentation. Indeed, even if this information is indeed pertinent and provable, the guild page may not be the appropriate place to document it. Cheers. — Defiant Elements +talk 17:40, 26 June 2012 (UTC)