User talk:Armond/Archive5

I'm flattered.

Really, I am. Raine - talk 05:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

wai? -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 05:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Please

Please do not replace the link on Tesla's talk page. She is upset by the entire episode, and you being an asshat about it is unnecessary. -- Wyn 17:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I still don't see why she's allowed to violate our archiving policy by removing the link, especially when the link is pretty much required for context to make any sort of sense. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 17:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

For once just leave it be. She is terrified by this stalker, and has asked for the community's support, and has indicated she objects to that link being posted on her talk page. It may not seem like a big deal to you, but it is to her. Our policies are not written in stone, and in some instances can be overlooked. We can allow users to remove content, especially if it is truly upsetting to them and has little relevance to GWW. If you really have a need to be able to go read that trash, there is a link on the noticeboard that will be archived. -- Wyn 17:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I'm just stuck at the part where she thinks that if it's not on her talk page it'll magically go away. Whatever. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 17:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, by google, I meant stumble. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 18:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Tesla‎; 12:01 . . (-1,532) . . Armond (Talk | contribs | block) (I can't read noticeboard. Also, I'm a dick. Also, it'd be nice if google provided context.) <-- Any guy that can admit that isn't all bad :P -- Wyn 19:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Apology accepted. <3 - Tesla 19:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Points

+1 for the lulz. — Jon Lupen 00:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Was it actually from portal or did I just make lulz? -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 00:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Portal reference aside, it was still funny, so both I guess. — Jon Lupen 05:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

nou

nou --adrin 03:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Why didn't I notice this before

YOU'RE A TOWEL! Dark Morphon 15:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

DUDE have u seen this Armind the Balancer Hubbard The Dervish 02:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

No wai :O. Dark Morphon 11:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 17:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hgcy6bsg4g

seen this before? -Auron 12:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I lol'd, even though trolls and belf dks are ugly. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 19:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

ROFL

Thank you for fixing that typo there, on my page. XD Apparently, my compulsion towards grammar extended to Seerin Flooms too. Elysea 05:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

GOT NOOKS? -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 05:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

August 9th Sealed Deck

You're on Team 2. It will be a best of 3 matchup, and the first match will start at 0:30 UTC instead of 0:00. Ryuu has been trying to contact you about builds. ~Shard 06:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Tell her to email me. I'll be afk most of tomorrow morning, is the thing... but I has a build set up if we need it. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 06:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, if I get a preference, I choose warrior. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 06:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

WIN

This user won the August 9, 2009 Sealed Deck Tournament with a score of 2-0.

That is for you -- Tha Reckoning 02:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi.

I added you to MSN as vigorous_rawr@hotmail.com, accept please, I need to talk to you about something. Alternatively, you could contact me in-game. I need the name of whoever you got to pug for us in the sealed game, and the necro and smite monk bars. Kthx. <3 Ryuu - talk 11:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Dejh -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 14:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Don't edit my userpage without asking. Thanks

^ (You've totally done it twice now) Ryuu - talk 16:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Lemme re-word that. I appreciate your suggestions and attempts to improve the content of my user page, but if you'd be so kind as to leave a note asking, or at least acknowledging the fact that you've edited the page, I'd appreciate it even more and perhaps be less bothered. Ryuu - talk 16:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

NPA

"personal attacks require there to be an attack involved."

Erh... I am pretty sure "targeted insults" qualify as attacks. See Izzy's page historial.--Fighterdoken 05:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure personal attacks have been handled fucking horribly since this wiki's inception, especially with regards to ANet staff. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 05:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure your particular view on past facts doesn't change the accepted interpretation of "personal attack" in the wiki.--Fighterdoken 05:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm also pretty sure (read that as I am SURE) that calling someone an idiot directly is a violation of NPA, however, it is up to Backsword to remove it, so I'm leaving it. -- Wyn talk 05:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Two carebears telling me I'm wrong without presenting any reasoning at all doesn't mean much to anyone, guys. Let's go down the list. Personal attacks include...

1. Racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, or ethnic epithets directed against another contributor. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual preference, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse.
2. Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme.
3. Threats of legal action.
4. Threats of physical violence, particularly death threats.
5. Threats of vandalism to userpages or talk pages.
6. Threats to interfere with the usual operation of a user's computer.
7. Threats or actions which expose other contributors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others.
8. Posting a link to an external source that fits the commonly accepted threshold for a personal attack, in a manner that incorporates the substance of that attack into discussion, including the suggestion that such a link applies to another editor, or that another editor needs to visit the external source containing the substance of the attack.
9. Revealing or threatening to reveal personal information about another contributor.

Copy-pasted directly from GWW:NPA, so we know this is an accurate representation of possible personal attacks (but, of course, not all possible personal attacks).

I'll take a multi-step process to present my point.

Step the one: Is "insults" on that list? No, it is not. The list is composed of serious offenses (to the point of "you could go to jail for this if you did it irl") - minor things like "ur a fukwad lololol" aren't included.

Step the two: Are insults implied on that list? No, not really. Again, the policy covers serious stuff - the kind of things that would make people run away from the wiki and go crying to mommy or something. Understandable in a social environment.

Step the three: Are insults ever mentioned on the policy page?

Yes.

...Wait, what?

It's pretty dumb and exactly why there's a line there contradicting the spirit of the policy is beyond me, but it's what's been wrong with the policy all along. I've (finally) gotten off my ass and made a post on the policy talk page, but for now I ask you guys to follow the spirit of the policy instead of the letter (historically, another huge problem GWW has had - remember GWW:ADMIN?).

-- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 14:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Look right above the chunk you copied: "There is no clearly defined rule or standard about what constitutes a personal attack as opposed to constructive discussion, but some types of comments that are never acceptable include but are not limited to..." — Jon Lupen 15:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Second sentence of GWW:NPA: "Comment on content, not on the contributor." And that's literally everything you need to know about NPA. The list you quote are examples for the sake of clarity, as it says both before and after the list. - Tanetris 16:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, the both of you missed the whole part where I analyzed the list to determine the spirit of the policy and pointed out a part of the policy that was contradictory to that list. Good job, both of you.

Tanetris, I ask you how the wiki's community will ever improve themselves if we can't criticize people, especially super-obvious trolls. (Should we stop posting "this guy's a vandal" on the admin noticeboard and instead put something like "this guy's contributions might be vandalous"? Might as well tack on "and I'm a super carebear that doesn't want to post this because I might offend the person I'm reporting" in that case.)

-- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 20:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Everyone seems to be in one of two camps; either "the policy is evil, disobey it!" or "don't say things which might possibly be construed as critical!" A little-known fact is that the original Ten Commandments were One Commandment. You know the tend commandments, right? Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, that sorta stuff. Well, Moses thought the people might not fully appreciate just one, as people back then were even dumber on average than they are now, so the list was revised to ten simple pointers. This has caused untold amounts of tragedy over the years, as the one rule would have done better. But we're on a wiki now, we can change the rules any time we feel like, and I think it might be beneficial to post the original one commandment here, strictly translated from ancient Hebrew:

DON'T BE A DICK.

Telling someone they're full of shit for thinking Wail of Doom is balanced or telling someone they're a troll should not be an offense, it's common sense. There is a difference between calling people out on their BS and calling them a sphincter-spelunking niggerjew. Please study and understand that difference, and abide by it. --Jette 20:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, I will side with Tanetris, that comments directed at the contributor rather than the content can and should be considered violations of GWW:NPA given the spirit of the policy which is always > the literal words of the policy. So continue your anti carebear approach Armond, that's fine, but in the end it's up to sysop discretion, and the poster of the particular statement in question was banned by MY discretion based on my belief of what is and is not a violation of policy. -- Wyn talk 20:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Wait, you just tried to claim that the spirit of the policy was more important than the literal words of the policy by referring to what is literally written down instead of what the list was written for. Also, you know (or should know) what I think of your discretion, so I don't see why you felt the need to post that bit. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 20:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Uh, "you're an idiot" is a personal attack. Just FYI. Also, this entire section is stupid. -Auron 21:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

welcome to guild wars wiki --Cursed Angel 21:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Anything discussing NPA on any even semi-serious level is going to be stupid, mainly because people do not understand there's meant to be a little leeway and because nobody seems to agree on what the hell constitutes a "personal attack" (this seems like it should be really obvious to me, tbh, but again, welcome to gww). --Jette 22:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Ups. I categorized personal attacks and ad hominum attacks differently because one of them's actually important and one of them no one gives a shit about unless it's disrupting a debate (by my definitions). -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 22:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The sky is made of cheese (by my definitions). -- Brains12 \ talk 22:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

You're an idiot, Armond. Ad Hominem Attack 22:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

At least my definitions are, y'know, reasonable, Brains. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 23:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Nothing you've posted in this entire section has been reasonable. You've basically tried to wikilawyer paragraphs about why "you're an idiot" isn't a personal attack, when, as Ben said, it's the very definition of a personal attack. Brains was pointing out how silly your definitions are by summarizing this entire section in one sentence. -Auron 09:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for restating what I said four lines up, as I obviously wasn't clear. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 14:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I restated nothing, least of all any of the bullshit you spewed throughout this section. -Auron 06:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I need to bookmark this page for whenever I need to have a good laugh at Armond's expense. ~Shard 06:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

You need a hug from Yassie

Because you were nice enough to check on me after my accident. You sweetheart. Now that Chloe will want to kill me, stop trying to play NWN1 WITH Shard and I by using the CD to NWN2. Get NWN1 so when I get back online after we move next week we can kick it DnD style.--*Yasmin Parvaneh* 00:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Just stop..

Stop discussing on the noticeboard, stop violating GWW:1RR, stop harassing Mtew. I think that covers it. -- Wyn talk 07:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll stop violating 1RR, but I insist that I wasn't discussing on the noticeboard in a way that violated the spirit of the rule ("educating people on how to use the goddamn thing" is more accurate - I mean, honestly, if someone has 10348792332 contributions and they're put on the noticeboard for "they did something very general and I'm not going to give you a time frame or a page name or a link", how can you be expected to do anything about it?) and "harassing" is a very strong word. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 07:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

If you are the one reported, no matter how right you are, posting there will probably aggravate the issue, and you know it. That's why you shouldn't discuss on the noticeboard. - anja 09:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Even when what I post is about how to use the noticeboard instead of about the issue at hand? What I posted was exactly the sort of thing I would have done were I a sysop. The whole thing was - believe it or not - posted in a "let's make this as painless for the sysops as possible while also teaching a dude how to not make the same mistake in the future" mentality, not the trolling mentality everyone seems to think I do everything in. When I had a comment to make on the actual issue, I took it to mtew's talk, as I figured that was discussion due to the fact that it risked getting a response that didn't have any place on the noticeboard.

If asking for clarity isn't something that should be done by non-sysops, I apologize and I'll make sure not to do it again, but I'd like to know first (partially because I can't really see someone like, say, Jon Lupen getting chewed out over the same post).

And also, Anja, I actually didn't know that. I guess I was wrong in assuming that people tend to read the content of a post before getting butthurt over the name of the poster. I'll fucking keep that in mind then. :/

-- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 14:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

In general, I would assume this applies to any case, since if a person is irritated enough with you to report you, any informative and friendly remarks will still easily be taken as mockery. I see why you posted and I don't disagree, I just think the effect is important to think of, and not only the intent.

You are getting chewed at because you are easier to chew I guess. :)

Seriously though, I don't mean to say "you are stupid you did wrong". I meant to say "this might be smart to avoid in the future". - anja 19:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't Die

^^ — Jon Lupen 14:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd love to be able to think straight. What's worse is that there's no breakfast in the house atm and I keep coming home after the local store closes (which could be related to the cold, but whatever). -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 14:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Skip some class(es) to go shopping. Vili 点 22:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)