User talk:Armond/Archive1

Rit Seitung

If there is something grammatically wrong with the sentence, then you'll have to correct every armor article. They all have the same introductory sentence. I did not see any grammatical error so I was correcting it for consistency's sake. - BeX 01:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, fun. Thanks for letting me know. Armond 14:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

"I am unstoppable!"

← moved to Talk:"I am unstoppable!"

FYI

I responded to your comment on my talk page, although a bit late. My apologies for that. --  (CoRrRan / talk) 23:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

lu

Thanks and glad you agrreed allowing me to insult you, not because i want to do it ( because i don't ) but because... you already know why ^^
fffa, fight for the first amendment, free to speech. lussh 09:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

"I do not agree with a word you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." <-- I'm ashamed I don't know where that quote's from. Armond 09:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I love itlussh 10:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

It's from Voltaire (arguebly) :)reanor 02:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Guild Wars Wiki:Harassment

Please remove the deletion tag of your own will, the reasons it is not a duplicate of GWW:NPA had already been addressed on the talk page even prior to your addition of the tag, and they are sound. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 10:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

It's gone already. Might want to talk to Gem about revert wars? :P -Auron 10:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

No revert policy. -- (gem / talk) 10:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Didn't say there was, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a revert war. -Auron 10:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Both of my reverts were legit. First revert is always ok, and a revert based on talk page agreement is also legit. Even according to all the policy proposals that we have. -- (gem / talk) 10:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

And to him, all of his reverts are legit. Hence why we call it a revert war. -Auron 12:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

If the 1 revert rule were a policy then he would have broken it. :) Note that I'm not taking this too seriously. -- (gem / talk) 13:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I feel hated on, gtfo my talk nub. Armond 23:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

:( Don't hate me. People are too full of hate anyway. -- (gem / talk) 00:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

O sry, that was sarcasm. Armond 00:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

You Da Man

"LUK THUMPERS WITH PETS LET'S MAKE LEVEL 0 BONE MINIONS. OLAWL THEY DIE FAST! OWEL I HAS NARGAY! Armond 07:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)"

ROFL - † Lord Xivor † 06:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I try. :P Armond 06:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

PvX bug

Found a bug/coding issue/something on pvx that needs fixed, sorta banned so I can't put it anywhere in pvx, including noticeboard. Anyways, you can rate builds when your banned, at least in my case I can.76.2.20.255 06:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Sigh, I was afraid of that. Thanks. Mind telling me what you rated, and such, so I can poke at it if necessary? Armond 06:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

this.(same person, just logged in) --Teh Uber Pwnzer 07:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if it was a great idea to put it on the noticeboard, until this is fixed, socks can go crazy rating random things, meaning lots of work for you and the other admins removing the votes. Should probably keep it quieter? --Teh Uber Pwnzer 07:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll personally take down any sock votes. I want this fixed fast, and no other admins are on MSN right now. (You also assume socks are smart enough to check the admin noticeboard before socking.) And I knew it was you, I did a checkuser before you logged in. :P Armond 07:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

PvX

uhhh yeh sry bout crashing the servers o.O i wont do it again but i hav to admit that page wuz epic.....«º¤¥Ω☼Vørråx☼Ω¥¤º» 19:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I missed something. 70.130.234.236 20:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Love that story xD

I just love that story on your userpage. It really cracked me up. —Ebany Salmonderiel 21:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Random

I like the way how you speak out your mind and I agree with a lot of what you've said. -- (gem / talk) 00:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, thanks! Armond 01:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

You're right in many ways, but you should try to change what you don't like instead of leaving it to itself.reanor 22:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I did. The wiki is hopeless at this point in time. I'm not going to waste my time and stress on it anymore. Armond 00:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Question

If I was to edit using my ip, would that be against any policies or anything? You didn't ban my ip long enough and I am currently able to edit with it. — Teh Uber Pwnzer 11:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The IP ban is automatic and only for 24 hours (if banned as an extension of an account ban). Yes, editing from your IP is circumventing the ban. -Auron 11:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

What he said. Armond 11:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

External link in your sig

Hi, I know this will likely irk you quite a bit since you already dislike the way the policies are being handled and all, but could you change your sign so that it doesn't contain an external link? You can put the link at the top of both your user page and your talk page, but just not in your sig. Sorry. -- ab.er.rant 05:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I figured someone would come bother me about it if it was on the policy, but I was too lazy to check... Well, I can't really get mad at you for following a policy I agree with (for the most part), especially if I made a conscious choice to not check to see what the policy was, but would it be alright for me to keep it as is while I argue a case on the policy's talk page? Armond 07:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The previous argument regarding the signature involved using larger than accepted icons. The general agreement at that time on the discussion page was that the signature should be changed to comply with the policy first while a change proposal was being discussed. I'd rather you just change it first though, since you might also be involved on other talk pages (unless you refrain from using that signature on other talk pages, but still...). -- ab.er.rant 00:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

They told me there to change it. I'm not really active enough here to put the signature on too many other places, by the way... :P Armond 02:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

User page content

Please edit your page to remove the insults to Erasculio and wiki population. - BeX 08:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see any insults. I comment on Erasculio's method of debate and the way sysops are allowed to act on the wiki, but nowhere do I say "Erasculio is a bloody idiot" or "the vast majority of people making decisions on this wiki seem incompetent" or anything of the sort. Armond 08:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Targeting Erasculio because you don't share an opinion is unacceptable. Just because you have addressed the way he argues a point doesnt mean it isn't insulting or disparaging, and putting it on your user page to specifically point this out is an attack. After rereading the intelligence part, I realise you were talking about the policies, not the wiki population, so my bad on that. - BeX 08:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm targeting Erasculio because he pisses me off and I want to make it clear to people why I'll suddenly refuse to discuss something if he joins in. I point to my user page every time that happens. Armond 09:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

You can achieve the same by wording it in terms of your own opinions, rather than as negative statements about others. Backsword 09:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It's my opinion that he can't use logic worth a damn or whatever I said on the page. Is that alright with you, or am I going to stay up later to debate this? It's near 2 am. Armond 09:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Armond gives his oppinion about erasculio behavior, he don't attack him.

How else can he says what he thinks about a behavior he dislike without anyone being offended ? Without intention to attack people, is it allowed to tell what we think is bad about other ? or we are just not allowed to tell what we found wrong because it means it attacks someone ? And what the "insulted", Erasculio think about this page ? He logically should have been the first to complain about it. lussh 11:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

"Comments should not be personalized and should be directed at content and actions rather than people" - when he claims that I'm unable to do something or that I "can't use logic", he's talking about "people", not "content". Therefore it's a violation of GWW:NPA. If you don't see a way to talk about someone's behavior without offending said someone, it might be better to not say anything at all. Erasculio 11:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree ; i can't tell i dislike someone and why i do on my page? "it might be better to not say nothing at all"? Are you're saying me i should shut up ? I'm feeling offended, i dislike you now, because you don't gives solutions and allows repression of free speech. lussh 11:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

If you cannot say something without offending someone else, yes, it's better if you just don't say it - that's the solution. In fact, not only the solution, but what you have to do if you don't want to breach GWW:NPA. Not that I'm repressing you - feel free to say whatever it is you want to say...As long as you are also willing to pay the price for it. Erasculio 11:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not negociate free to speech. lussh 11:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It's perfectly fine to say "This argument by this user isn't logical because...". It's not fine to say "This user fails at logic". I don't see why you need the right to say you dislike other peolpe (with personal attacks)? How does that enhance your (and other people's) wiki time? - anja 11:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The bottom line is, there are two policies on this wiki to protect users from being targetted unfavourably by others. It is completely improper for anyone to post on their user page, or for that matter anywhere on the wiki, disparaging, demeaning, or insulting comments about another user or their character. Users should be able to address other people without resorting to insults and derision and every user should be allowed to go around this wiki without being the target of personal attacks. Obviously there is no free speech on this wiki when there are two policies stating that you should not be insulting or conduct personal attacks. In real life if you were to defame someone, even though it's your opinion and depending on your country you may have the "right" to free speech, you can still be taken to court for it. - BeX 11:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Your difference between what is allowed and what is not it to thin for me, i don't understand it, allow everything or nothing ? And for me, improving the wiki has nothing to do with user pages and user talks pages being investigated and eventually censored by other users before reaching agreement between the main protagonists. lussh 11:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

"Comments should not be personalized and should be directed at content and actions rather than people". He's commenting on Erasculio's actions. — Skakid HoHoHo 20:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Every time I come here I find admins arguing with users and each other over policies. That really says something about this site. --71.229.204.25 21:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's saddening that many users choose to argue with admins over technicalities instead of first complying and then raise the issue on the appropriate policy talk page and talk it over calmly.

Armond, if you feel that you can achieve something by "needling an insult at Erasculio" and absolutely unable to refrain from mentioning his name on your userpage, then I think a "I refuse to associate with User:Erasculio because I cannot agree with him." is more than sufficient. No need to make a snide remark about how he presents his views. If you want Erasculio to refrain from replying to your comments, drop a polite message on his talk page explaining that you cannot accept the way he argues things and would like both of you to avoid replying to each other directly. Plain and simple. If he persists despite your request, do raise it to ArbComm.

Lussh or Liche, you seem to have mistook this wiki for something else. Your user page is not primarily for you to explain your feelings, hopes, likes, and dislikes. Of course, we're not saying that you can't, but please also respect the wiki by avoiding policy violations, even the borderline ones. Why must you advertise who you dislike and point out negatively why you dislike someone in your user page? Do you wear a shirt with the names of every person or thing you don't like? And as for free speech, given that we're the "Guild Wars Wiki", free speech doesn't really fall within our scope. improving the wiki has nothing to do with user pages and user talks pages Well, sometimes they do, such as when users get distracted by arguments being carried out on them.

If any of you still feel that admins are interpreting GWW:NPA and GWW:USER is an incorrect way, I would like to request that this be raised in the appropriate talk page to contest our interpretation. Remember to add it to GWW:RFC too. That way, we're at least arguing to improve the policy, instead of only getting on each other's nerves. -- ab.er.rant 02:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't twist my words, Aberrant. I was pointing that squarely at you, BeXor, and Erasculio. I've learned to trust Armond's judgment second only to Krowman's, and the only place I've ever seen you is on the wrong side of stupid arguments. --71.229.204.25 02:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't twisting your words. Apparently, I was reading it wrongly. But what I said stands. If you feel we've interpreted things wrongly, feel free to raise it against us on the policy in question to bring in other editors, not bickering about what is or isn't here, where it won't change anything. And regarding Armond's judgment, I don't believe anyone is saying that he has poor judgment. -- ab.er.rant 04:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

So, you're telling me that instead of arguing against shitty enforcements of a good policy in a reasonable place, I should argue against a good policy based on its shitty enforcement in a place without any readily available framing for my criticism. Yeah, I'll hop right on that.

And this: Yes, it's saddening that many users choose to argue with admins over technicalities instead of first complying and then raise the issue on the appropriate policy talk page and talk it over calmly. is what I was referring to. For some reason, I can't help but read that as a pointed statement. --71.229.204.25 04:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread what you were saying, and I'm still pretty crabby from my first encounter with Erasculio earlier. I still disagree with every enforcement of the rules I've seen you involved in, but I'm just going to go off and do something else for a while. --71.229.204.25 05:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

If you don't mind the trouble, I would appreciate it if you could point me towards those issues that you felt I was doing the wrong thing or siding with the wrong side. At least let me know why. -- ab.er.rant 06:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

You did not understood a single tiny part of my point but i don't care, i'm tired of this useless discussion. Everyone talks politely, but no one understand the other point, me the first. but since it's talking after the censor of the page ; i can't tell you "do what you want", it's already done. i won't try to explain my point again, discussions are useless over here. lussh 08:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I tried a reply on your talk page. Anyway, I would like you guys to take a look at this. Maybe if we try to put forth opinions from our own perspective (hopefully emotionally detached), we could at least try to understand where each other is coming from and where the root problem lies. This is an issue where there's probably no compromise, since it's really difficult for people to change their perceptions, behavior, and the way they approach things. But this might at least help increase awareness of why other people act the way they do (yes, other than being a jackass ;) I'm quite sure we're all thinking that and more about each other). -- ab.er.rant 14:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Need I explain how infuriating it is to watch a huge discussion unfold about my user page and be unable to point out the fact that the ban was unwarranted due to the fact that the comment a. was not personalized and thus did not violate NPA and b. GWW:USER does not allow one to edit a userpage until over a week has passed since the first warning? Armond 11:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe it says "That user is expected to comply with the notice within a week. Failure to comply would warrant a subsequent warning notice on that user's talk page. Further ignorance of the warning after 3 days (especially if that user was seen to be active on the wiki after the warning) may be construed as purposeful defiance of policy and administrators are then allowed to remove or change the offending portion of the user page." --Pyron Sy 15:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

And I had already raised the question of whether or not the admin's decision was valid. We can't come to a consensus on that before banning me? Armond 16:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know just from the names, who is user, who is something else, i don't know who is who and what. Can't come to a consensus before banning or censoring ? from what i saw, i'd say : no. Before any agreement your page was censored by two differents users and you where ban, without explain i'd qualify as acceptable (or where ?). The NPA rules are written down, wich means they can be interpreted but it seems not discussed on every case, it was quite clear for your case armond. Adding the fact that you were banned, (did i have a way to know it ?) All i saw here is creeping me out. As stated above, i had no intention coming saying something again here. That was not knowing yet that armond was ban. Screw whoever did this.

(as i don't know who, is this a NPA violation ? i don't care)

Improving wiki won't come by playing cow boys against someone you dislike because, from your point, they crossed the line. THE LINE IS NOT THE SAME FOR EVERYONE, you are the first to say it, but it seems you're not the first to understand, accept it and deal with it. "do what i tell, not what i do". Cow boys attitude are things i dislike. I can't put names here, but i think, as i don't, it's not NPA violations right ? I really think you are an immature, pueril jerk, i despite you, whoever you are, you'll get pissed off reading this, you'll know you're the one i'm talking about. Now you can ban me if you want, for ever if you want, what do i care ? Just look my talk page, (not my contribution page, never look it please) i already made so many people pissed of or even angry against me. ban me, it'll resolve all your problem, that what you think, then do it. Follow your stupid way till the end, till the absurdity of your choices will make you as pityfull as you already are, but you won't understand it till the end. lussh 20:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Your arbcomm

About trolling, that was me I guess. It was personal opinion and I would not block you for that. Simply because I don't feel it would help. - anja 10:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I would far prefer to have been blocked for trolling, fyi. :/ Armond 22:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, ok. But I wouldn't have. :P - anja 22:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

GWW:NPA

Please read over GWW:NPA. You're obviously not completely familiar with it and all of its rules. — ク Eloc 貢 06:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, neither are you Eloc, since you're missing the enitre "removal of text" part. Backsword 06:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

While it's certainly debatable whether it's NPA or not (just look at all skill balance discussions), as I've responded on GWW:ADMIN, the targeting of Eloc is a bit unfair to him because Eloc was not the person who started a lot of discussions on the whole issue over several talk pages. It would be fairer to him to just link to the incident in question rather than blaming Eloc as the source. -- ab.er.rant 07:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

True, but being factually incorrect is not a personal attack. Backsword 07:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

If Armonds thing is incorrect, why keep it there? — ク Eloc 貢 07:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Regulate content and not people, etc. Obsessive sterilization is a bad thing, etc. Miniluv, etc, etc. --71.229 07:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

And yes, I did just call your request Orwellian. --71.229 07:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Because I said it and I have the right to retain my edits?

I feel that the majority of this stemmed from Eloc QQing. However, out of respect to Ab.er.rant and Tanaric, I'll dig a bit into this when I can. If anyone can provide relevant links, I'd be happy to take them.

Out of the interests of neutrality, I'd rather not take links from Eloc or Edru. Armond 07:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

If you're still looking for the link, the issue in question started here. -- ab.er.rant 09:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

That's as I had originally thought. Was there more involved in it, or was it simply "eloc warns about policy, lussh snaps, eloc continues his point, eloc is banned"? I'll take a look at Tanaric's talk. Armond 17:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Afaik, it then moved onto the admin noticeboard, Tanaric's talk, Aiiane's talk, and the recent elections talk, plus Tanaric and Aiiane's candidacy page as well - most, if not all, started by an anonymous user. -- ab.er.rant 02:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

If this "sex comment" is your way of having fun without "violating NPA", just stop it. It's just trolling. - anja 22:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Believe me, I wish I were having fun. -- Armond Warblade 22:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

You and Eloc

Armond,

Please don't speak with Eloc for a while -- maybe a week or so. It's clear your opinions are completely at odds and the escalating tension is good for neither you, him, or the wiki in general. If you guys can civilly work out your differences after a week has gone by, I'm all for it, but it seems clear that nothing is being solved right now.

Thanks, —Tanaric 08:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It shall be done. Armond 09:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Lulz

Lunar Tokens!!! Oh wait, I still have 5 in my invent too.. :( -elviondale (tahlk) 04:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was afk the whole time they could be traded for fortunes :P Armond 05:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

At your request

Eloc Eloc. There you go, as you requested. Enjoy :D — ク Eloc 貢 03:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I know how it works. Both in this RfA and the one at PvX I was being sarcastic. -- Armond Warblade 07:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, just making sure. — ク Eloc 貢 00:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks and sorry

Good job on all the updates to the Izzy skill pages, and sorry for adding new things to the template (which reminds me.. perhaps make a {{skill issue}} like {{art issue}}?) :/ -- Brains12 \ Talk 21:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, adding things to the template is fine. As for a {{skill issue}}, I'll give it a go a bit later - going around putting in dates for now, and I may have to run out for a bit. -- Armond Warblade 21:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll try something in my sandbox -- Brains12 \ Talk 21:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. I need to head out for an hour or so (hopefully no longer...), can you drop me a link to your sandbox in the meantime? (I'm sure I could just look at your userpage, but I'm lazy. >.>) -- Armond Warblade 21:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

izzy's talk pages

Thanks for letting me know. I started moving issues from the old format and didn't really know where to put my name. Some of them weren't even my issues. ~Shard (talk / Nerf List) 23:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Check This Out

Hey there make sure u check this out and post here User:Shadowphoenix/User Birthdays --Shadowphoenix 03:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

HEY ARMOND

WHY ARE HYPERACTIVE PEOPLE SO POWERFUL IN D&D? --71.229.204.25 12:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

BECAUSE SUGAR GIVES YOU HUGE BONUSES TO YOUR DEXTERITY MODIFIER? -- Armond Warblade 18:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

NO, BECAUSE THEY HAVE 80 HD! --71.229.204.25 00:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

GET IT? 80 HD, ADHD, THEY SOUND SIMILAR, IT'S A PUN... --71.229@home kk? 09:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

O NAO IT MAEK SENSE. OLOL. -- Armond Warblade 09:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I now hate everyone involved in this conversation. Including myself for laughing at this joke. —Tanaric 05:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, it won't happen again. -- Armond Warblade 05:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Failed his a Fortitude test, amirite? --71.229 05:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

*save -- Armond Warblade 06:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

>: --71.229 06:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

You fail

Don't flame me anymore please, especially in regards to HB, you have no clue about the format and are inactive on GW, you are on PvX...gz doesn't mean you know anything about the game. Inferring that I am a 13 y. old kid is pretty sad tbh, ltinsult. 77.98.129.168

While the anon's comment is breaking NPA, and he's getting his own warning, Armond, please don't call people 13 year olds. You can explain what's wrong with someone's comment without resorting to personal attacks. You know GWW:NPA by now. Next one's a ban. - Tanetris 23:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm in full agreement with Tanetris here and was about to express the same sentiment, grrr at "edit conflict" --Lemming 23:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

My apologies. The sheer number of uninformed and useless posters on that page annoys me to no end. -- Armond Warblade 07:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

PvX nub here

Ohai armond, i need ur epic wiki coding 2 fix some messup with izzys feedback... wich i dont understand a thing about plx x.x

http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/User:Isaiah_Cartwright/Monk/Blessed_Light  thats how long i came.... Fish 00:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

dw, i've managed it. Fish 12:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)