User talk:Defiant Elements/Archive 1

Why is this page so clean? Fixed. -- Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 20:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Mainly because I don't actually exist on this Wiki... or perhaps I exist but have yet to determine by essence... damn you Sartre. Defiant Elements 21:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

That's like saying "everything I say is a lie". It just doesn't make sense! How can you not exist on a Wiki that you just posted on? -- Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 21:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Adminship Policy Change

Hi there,

I just thought I'd draw your attention to this: Guild_Wars_Wiki:Adminship/Draft_2007-11-14, which is a currently proposed policy change for the adminship policy. I don't know whether the changes are sufficient to incorporate your ideas about adminship, but thought it might prove a useful place for you to provide some input if you have the time. --Indecision 16:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Yea, I've been reading the talk page, unfortunately, I haven't had much time today to do much other than (attempt to) respond to the torrent of comments that has flooded my nomination page. However, that doesn't mean I haven't been think about it, I'll try to post in (relatively) short order. File:Defiant Elements Sig Image.JPG *Defiant Elements* +talk 04:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

No worries, I understand that you're quite busy with that discussion at the moment. Thanks. --Indecision 05:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Defiant Elements Sig Image.JPG

..can now be found here - Image:User Defiant Elements Sig Image.JPG as per image policy. -- br12 • (talk) • 17:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Nice penguin. --- Ressmonkey (talk) 00:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Guild Shadows of Ansalon/Ascalon

May i request a confirmation on the name? The title page names it as Shadows of Ascalon, but the description states it as Shadows of Ansalon, and since it's spelled wrong (as per in-game capitalization) i am not sure which one the final destination should be.--Fighterdoken 05:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not my guild, someone (i.e. User:Girl of Nightfall) posted that text in Category:Recruiting guilds so I removed the text from the category page and created a proper guild page. You'll have to ask her. *Defiant Elements* +talk 05:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess when I copy-pasted I misread the name. *Defiant Elements* +talk 05:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Ow, ok, moving it again since that user moved it already... cleanup people will have work to do XD.--Fighterdoken 05:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

GWW:SIGN

Could you have a look at that before someone goes nasty on you? People are really hung up about signatures here. Backsword 05:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Heh, I actually read SIGN, I guess when I was actually creating the signature, I simply made a signature that complied with PvX:SIGN because that's what I'm used to. And, I'm so used to that image redirecting to my talk page, I completely forgot about it :P. Sorry 'bout that though, and thanks for the notice. *Defiant Elements* +talk 22:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, np, I don't mind one way or another my self. On a completly different note, you might want to get to GW2 wiki from the start. Regarding policy and such. Backsword 22:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Way ahead of you :). *Defiant Elements* +talk 22:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Guild_Wars_Wiki_talk:Adminship/Draft_2008-Jan-12#Bcrats:_Final_say_on_policy.3F

My main issue will be your example, but let me first state another point: I do not adhere to the "policy is meant to codify existing practice" theory. Policy should codify best practise, not existing practise. Good examples where the existing practise theory fails are all the policy change proposals that want to, for example, further admin discretion, thus changing existing practise into the direction of what is percieved best practise.

Regarding your PvXwiki example: I can simply not imagine a big proportion of users here ever supporting such a proposal. The ideals of an open wiki is much more entrenched here, for such an notion to be taken seriously. However even with the support that proposal got at PvXwiki, simply blocking it via your position as admin is the wrong way to go about it. If you feel it would harm that wiki, why is there no contribution by you on the talk page argueing such? Finding the best solution via discussion can only work if everyone contributes to the discussion. If those who feel they possess the superior solution don't step into the debate and argue why that solution is better and instead lean back, save in the knowledge that they will simply block any unconvincing proposals, you should not be surprised that the mentality of the other side does not change. Quite a lot of people can be convinced by arguements, but an unexplained block by higher ups never convinces anyone. --Xeeron 13:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the reply, although I think you may have partially misconstrued my argument. I was not attempting to suggest that such a policy might have strong support here, I was merely positing the existence of a policy supported by a "majority" which would potentially be detrimental to a Wiki. I used that example from PvX in order to give some grounding to my hypothetical. As to blocking it via my position as an Admin, while I disagree with the policy and think it could be harmful, I hope you noticed that I did no such thing. I was interested in where the re-kindled discussion was going (if indeed it was going anywhere), my essential opinion had already been stated by others. Certainly, prior moving a policy into the Failed category, I would at least have detailed my thoughts on the matter. Either way though, the purpose isn't to override discussion. Besides, I wouldn't suggest that I alone could or would block a policy, it would only be after discussing the policy with all of the Admins (at least, if not also the people who supported the policy). Lapsing into a familiar habit, I can't imagine that Auron or I has ever simply sat there, without becoming engaged, in the discussion and blocked a policy out of hand...

As to the question of existing practice vs. best practice, I would argue that in fact the recent Admin proposals fall into the category of existing practice. The trend towards support for increased Admin discretion precedes the existence of the proposals, besides, the current policy does not restrict Admins from using there discretion, and in at least a few cases, it hasn't in practice. (Perhaps now I'm the one reading too much into your comments.) Well... I've actually gotta run... more to come later if I can think of anything. *Defiant Elements* +talk 15:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I simply question that such a case would exist here (in fact, I also guess that, given a longer discussion, the policy will not be supported on PvXwiki), making the the admin clause unneeded.

Regarding best vs existing, I disagree with your assessment. I can recall a long period where some users did argue and push for a more discretionary policy/policy interpretation on talk pages, while sysops where still acting in a very non-discretionary way, so the push for (percieved) best practise came before any change in what sysops actually did. --Xeeron 17:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Smart People

"If you're not on this list and you think you should be, then you probably shouldn't."
Lol, that's just like the little sign at the card shop I go to. "Asking for a discount ensures you won't get one." I've only ever seen one guy get a discount there. -- Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 21:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

GWW:RFA

Appreciate you trying to help, but please learn how to use a wiki as you also removed a vote. IP votes are allowed in an RFA. Prophet Ascension 05:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Erm... I appreciate you trying to be kind, but I know full well how to use a wiki *Cough* PvXwiki *Cough.* I apologize if I missed a vote being added by the guy who vandalized the page, but... Besides which, I believe I was then forced to undo an errant edit by you on that very same page... so... *Defiant Elements* +talk 16:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Also... lol at your massively fallacious vote on Eloc's RfA. *Defiant Elements* +talk 17:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

People to Buffalo

I don't intent to visit Buffalo anytime soon, but for what it is worth, I prefered the version with "people ..." over the current "admins ...". The later seems to imply that admins should have more sway over policy or that it is part of admins responsibility to develop policies. --Xeeron 17:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

That's ironic actually. I changed it because I felt that if I had a list of "people" and all of those people were "admins," it would look like I felt like only admins should have a say, so I changed it to a list of "admins." :P *Defiant Elements* +talk 01:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

There is an easy solution: Put someone who is not an admin on the list ;-) --Xeeron 10:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Full stop/period

You know when you're being fussy when you edit just to add a full stop to a comment. :P -- Brains12 \ Talk 23:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

And then even more when you bother to change that to an exclamation point! *Defiant Elements* +talk 23:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Guild Wars Wiki:Adminship/Draft 2008-02-06

Are you going to leave this as is? It's going to be rejected if it's left to rot, y'know? Backsword 11:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to try to revive the discussion, but short of pestering people to death about it, I'm not sure how to come the general apathy that seems to surround policy discussions. *Defiant Elements* +talk 15:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Are there any major differences between this and Guild Wars Wiki:Adminship/draft B? I like Draft B for simply being more consise and clear than our current policy and also this one. --Xeeron 15:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't made up my mind 100% about Rezyk's version, but, at the moment, I'd be satisfied if it were made official instead of mine. *Defiant Elements* +talk 16:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Thanks for the comments on my RfA. Though it failed, I am looking forward to the future and trying to better myself to what the community wants from me if I am to be a sysop. Thanks again and take care. --People of Antioch talk 17:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Erm... thanks... I guess. I wish I could have supported your RfA, and I certainly don't think that you'd have done any harm in the position, but... well... my comment speaks for itself (hopefully). *Defiant Elements* +talk 18:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I respect you as a fellow contributor and friend. I am honored to have you comment. --People of Antioch talk 18:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I want my cookie

Cookie! Though you may be getting a little arrogant. I have no less than 5370 deletions, whereas you have a measly 3548. And you've been an admin for more than twice as long ^_^ ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777 (talk) 02:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, why is your talk page in Category:Recruiting guilds? ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777 (talk) 02:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Fixed that with a simple colon. --People of Antioch 02:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Nominated you for bcrat.

Have fun losing again. :) —Tanaric 06:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Will do. :P *Defiant Elements* +talk 23:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Not a long statement eh? You can't escape your nature =P --Xeeron 08:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Never said I wouldn't write a long statement, just not a long statement about what I think should change :P. *Defiant Elements* +talk 14:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

lulz

hey DE, do it for the 12.175.230.37 20:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

hmmm...

I well it is true I get along with you, even though we have not had much extended interaction

Shadowphoenix=ENFJ
DE=ENFP

Paws To Ponder lol --Shadowphoenix 03:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Defiant Elements is afraid. Very afraid. *Defiant Elements* +talk 14:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

*evil grin* wait what? :S --Shadowphoenix 21:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi

how'd i mess up on my side stuff? (wants to know for future) =D ? King-

In order to create a page within your namespace, you have to preface the title with "User:Your Name/". For instance, in order to create a personal sandbox, you would need to write: "User:Kingofcats/sandbox". *Defiant Elements* +talk 15:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment

Hey DE, thanks for taking the time to post your comments on my recent RFA :) --Kakarot 02:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I'm sure you'll make an excellent Sysop, I merely thought it best to refrain from actually supporting your nomination because I felt I didn't know you personally very well. Good luck. *Defiant Elements* +talk 03:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

hai2u2

lurk moar plz =o so i herd ur talk on msn was amusing =D Owut 23:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Erm... sure... who are you again...? *Defiant Elements* +talk 00:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Who do you think trolls and flames noxify. Owut 02:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Randon term thoughts

Okay, so I didn't want to go into all this on the policy discussion because...well I just want to get your thoughts on my random thoughts. Theoretically, I prefer longer terms. Of course, 6 months is longer than 3 months, and 2 years is longer than 1 year.; so the question becomes, how long is long enough and yet not too long? And, I'm not sure. This wiki has been around for, what, a little over a year; and it's for a game that's been around for a little over 3 years. And, while I know some people here don't even play the game, that probably doesn't apply to all that many. Anyway, my point is that a year from now seems like it may be a long time in terms of this environment; but, I'm not sure. I suppose that it also doesn't help knowing that there are those who believe that sysops should be stripped of their status if they haven't been active for a few months. The other thing concerns the whole admin policy versus election policy both currently specifying the term. First, I'd hate to see this stopped to due to lack of discernible consensus over term, and even if consensus exists among those involved would it right to change the admin policy due to a discussion over the election policy (and would it stand). I know I don't plan on entering the admin debate because I don't have strong opinion over it, and I would expect there are those who look at the election policy similarily. Anyway, I guess what I'm thinking is that if you're sure that 1 year is better than 6 months, that consensus can be achieved for it, and that this can be reconciled with the admin. policy; then leave 1 year in the proposal. Otherwise, why not change the term to just refer to the admin policy and not specify the actual time period in the election policy. And, let the admin policy, which appears that it may again be in greater flux with another new proposal, govern. -- Inspired to ____ 02:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'm in favor of increasing term lengths, and from everything I've seen from those who've posted, most people seem to agree with that sentiment. As Xeeron points out on Draft 3's talk page, the fact that we spend 6 months out of the year in "election mode" is somewhat ludicrous particularly given how much many people dislike the drama that inevitably surrounds elections. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: if a majority of people believe that term lengths should not be changed, it's something we can talk about, but honestly, at the time being, the cast majority seem to approve of one year term lengths. Regarding the policy question, there's really not conflict. It's not a mutually exclusive kind of thing, it has an impact on both policies and because both policies (as currently written) state the term length, both policies can be revised in such a way that changes the term length. Consensus on a particular issue isn't restricted to a single policy (i.e. if a consensus is reached on the term lengths here, it reflects a community consensus, not an ELECTION consensus). Thus, as far as consensus building goes, there's no difference between whether it's discussed in ELECTION or in ADMIN, and there's no reason to bog down one instead of the other (to be honest, I feel more strongly about ADMIN getting passed). Again, it's negotiable, so if it comes down to it, we can change it, but at the moment, there are (again, as near as I can tell) two people who oppose the change (including you) and perhaps a dozen who support it. (Apologies if parts of this response are rambling/incoherent, I'm tired). *Defiant Elements* +talk 03:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The thing is that I believe we could all say that there is consensus to change the election policy to clear up the vote/discussion/deciding issue and that then just leaves deciding what to change it to, and finding consensus for that. It seems we're heading there. However, on the term length I haven't seen where there is even consensus to change it at all; and since there must have been consensus for 6 months at some time for it to be in 2 policies, it seems like an easy way for the election policy change to fail to achieve consensus. Thus, the problem is that it complicates someting that is already complicated enough. The other thought I had, given the term being in 2 policies and the whole gradual change thing is being suggested for a couple elections anyway, would be to just offer up an 8 month term for the next bureaucrat as part of the upcoming election discussion. -- Inspired to ____ 17:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Read the support section at the top of the ELECTION page... most of the support is derived from the increased term length. *Defiant Elements* +talk 22:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.

-- Wynthyst 11:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

For what? this? Meh. Not a big deal, but you're welcome, I guess. *Defiant Elements* +talk 11:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

happenings elsewhere

Don't want to carry on the debate on the election talkpage as it's for everyone to form their own opinion really, but thought I'd explain where I felt you'd gone wrong.I have no problem with you using Banjthulu to shed the baggage of "Defiant Elements". I think Felix was behaving in an obnoxious manner towards "Banjthulu" (in particular, the way he just wouldn't let go on the copyright nitpicking). I think he needed to take a break (and stop caring over who Maui chatted to :-)). But you'd contributed to him getting so worked up by not 'fessing up when he called you out as a sock. Entropy tore into him over that (AGF etc.), and you should have stood up and said "No, Felix is right, I am a sock. And proud." As it was, I think he harboured a resentment to you for further destroying his relationship with Entropy. Now, he brought the rift with Entropy upon himself, but he's right that you helped widen it. So from that point on, "banjthulu" was really troll-bait for Felix. He shouldn't have taken it, but you can't absolve yourself of all responsibility. As you were partly responsible for his bad behaviour, it ill-behoved you to call for his banning, whether as DE or as Banjthulu (but doing it as Banjthulu only served to wind him up even more).Cassie 16:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I never made any real secret of the fact that Banjthulu was a sockpuppet (or, in any event, the account of an "old hand"). In fact, I was very careful to never disavow that fact. Would things have been better off had I 'fessed up at that point? Maybe, maybe not, but I don't think any of us can know with any kind of certainty. Either way, I'm not trying to absolve myself, I'm merely pointing out a (perceived, on my part) mis-characterization of my actions). I don't mind the characterization of Banjthulu as "malicious." However, I see his "maliciousness," if it exists, as lying in his very existence, a kind of passive maliciousness if you will, and, as such, I do mind the characterization of him as being actively malicious. While I'm at it, I might as well address the point about the discussion regarding a possible ban of Felix. After R.Phalange added the ban tag to Felix's user page, Cobalt asked for the specifics of the reasoning behind the ban tag. Having seen Felix slipping steadily toward more and more (as far as I was concerned) degenerate behavior and having been one of the people (both as Defiant Elements and as Banjthulu, in fact) who had experienced Felix's "asshattery" (for lack of a better term) first-hand, I felt obliged to respond. Did it make the situation worse? Probably, but it certainly wasn't motivated by any particular animus I felt toward Felix, I really felt that he needed a chance to cool down, which is why I don't see it as being actively malicious. *Defiant Elements* +talk 16:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for helping xD

At the Connoisseur thing. Please make a vote there! Thanks :) Ninjas In The Sky 19:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem. On a related note, "Too Slow!" *Defiant Elements* +talk 19:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Haha ur fast :P I've seen u a lot be4, never took my time to see your page Q.Q thanks, bye till further notes. Ninjas In The Sky 19:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

the person i edited was my GL

the person i fixed was my Guild leader, he doesn't know anything about the codes so I told him you can change...so I gave him an example. He'll fix it --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Blood234 (talk).

Thank you

Thank you very much for your support on my RfA. I hope I can live up to everyone's expectations. Honestly, I was surprised by the overwhelming support I received. -- Wyn 07:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Heh, don't worry about it, you'll do fine. *Defiant Elements* +talk 18:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

wookiee

is it from phoenix wright? - Y0_ich_halt 08:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

South Park. -- Armond Warblade 13:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

oh, lol - Y0_ich_halt 17:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

IRC

Get on, asap. We needs you. - anja 22:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)