User talk:Felix Omni/archive2

Captain's Log

---

Date
23 Aug 2009-01 Jan 2010
07 Jan 2010-05 Jan 2011
14 Feb 2011-24 Dec 2011
06 Feb 2014-?

First

Blah blah elix Omni 22:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

First by yourself is so 2009. -- Cyan 22:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Oooh! Hey, may I em, use the image on my user page and talk? I'm a trek fan too... -- riyen ♥ 22:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You may indeed, for it is GFDL licensed. Original credit goes to this guy, but the GWW template doesn't have a switch for author. elix Omni 22:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

it's on my talk page, but had distraction so I couldn't do it properly from the get go, but it's fixed. Thanks, now have to go tend to a pain - baby, she's cranky. -- riyen ♥ 03:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

osht

don't let him get murdered. you must delete all logs of the event. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 06:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I ain't no stool pigeon bro. elix Omni 06:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

[1]

:< ---Chaos?- (moo!) -- 22:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Bracket fail! Also, I've played Portal. elix Omni 22:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Then fail less ;> ---Chaos?- (moo!) -- 22:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I just didn't want to look up the lyrics. elix Omni 22:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I can't see why people can't just google those. ---Chaos?- (moo!) -- 22:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

That's like 3 extra clicks. elix Omni 22:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Saves one from being bad in a convo :< ---Chaos?- (moo!) -- 22:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

You did it for me anyway. I'd say my tactical approach was best. elix Omni 22:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Hai

2142? Ryuu - talk 22:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Generally speaking, if I'm not on MSN I'm not online. Home now though. elix Omni 01:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

gdiahf

Also, some of the things you corrected were actually perfectly fine. Like the "upon the once beautiful land of [[Ascalon_(pre-Searing)|Ascalon]] - and Devona's home." Thing. I suppose it's a little "complicated" for "simple wiki user's" minds to comprehend, but, it's still was correct. Ryuu - talk

Overuse of hyphens. It's like putting too much salt on your fries. elix Omni 17:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Could you please direct me to the trollpage? Misery 10:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

It's -------------that way------------>. is for Raine, etc. 15:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Try this. elix Omni 16:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually I think this is the current trolling location. – Emmett 16:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Nice double bracket, noob. elix Omni 16:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

You're already on the right page it seems :P - J.P.Talk 16:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Quick template help

Hello! I saw your messages on Wyn's page, and I thought maybe you could help me. A friend asked me to help them out with their Wiki page, and they are using this template for it. However, there were a few things she didn't want included, such as the favorite skill, minis, etc. So I just deleted those out of the source code and posted the new code on a new page so I didn't mess up the original. However, no matter what we do, whenever she marks something Yes as completed, it doesn't say so; it just registers that there is nothing completed at all. So I was wondering if perhaps you could look at it? The url is here. Thanks! Tender Wolf

Hi Wolf! I'd like to help you but, believe it or not, I have next to no expertise in wiki templates. I know how they work, and I can write simple ones like userboxes and infoboxes, but when it comes to triple-embedded parameters and things like that I wouldn't even know where to start. Sorry I can't be particularly useful in this situation. D: elix Omni 06:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

420MB and procesor rape

^. >.> ~ PheNaxKian 14:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, that would explain it. Jajaja. elix Omni 17:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Hur dur dur

In all honesty you would be better off banning someone that would care. --Frosty 16:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. elix Omni 16:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Strongly Disagree. Ryuu - Meow~ ♥ 16:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I am 99% sure you don't know what my comment was aimed at. --Frosty 16:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I am 60% sure that I do know what your comment was aimed at, and 90% sure that I don't care :3 Ryuu - Meow~ ♥ 17:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Byzzr Wingmender

Oh ok sorry about that. Haven't edited or posted on wiki so wanted to try it out. Knew about the Adventurer's scrolls but didn't know about the UW scrolls. Sorry. --68.14.232.135 01:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not a problem, everyone's new once. All your editing was fine, too. elix Omni 01:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Ninjas. D:

Stop ninjaing me in Feedback/Game updates. :3 You are always faster than me to revert :D Juze 17:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Years of practice and anticipation. elix Omni 17:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Ohai!

Hey Felix, how are you? :) poke | talk 15:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine, how are you? elix Omni 17:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

urcute :>!

And very funny. Please continue.

a/s/l? elix Omni 17:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Too young for sex, unown, Canadia :>

What's your Hidden Power's type and base power? I can determine your IVs. elix Omni 18:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Huge turn on. Also, you need a cute(r) sig. Maybe something with a spork.

(Reset indent) [2] would be nice instead of the F. :> elix Omn[3] it's a play on omnivore, if you didn't get it. :<

PNGs don't resize well, but to meet the image requirements it would have to be only about 4 pixels wide. So I'm afraid that one might not work. elix Omni 18:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't you re-save it as another type or would that violate some weird EULA from wikimedia? Also, it can't hurt to try, I like sporks very much.

Edit:Is there a width limit?

Yeah, the images here have to be no larger than 19x19p. So to avoid distortion it would have to be scaled down by a factor of ~20. Also bye. elix Omni 18:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I was actually denied entry into NHS in high school due to a "lack of moral character."

:> Misery 07:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not funny. I killed myself over that. elix Omni 18:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

You know

I actually kind of liked that vandal, I was going to leave his stuff there for a bit. -- Tha Reckoning 03:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

This is sacrilege of the highest order. We will never speak of this again. Go now. elix Omni 04:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Ninja

You beat me to it, with that mainspace/userspace thing just now :P — Ebany 08:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Fastest fingers in the Midwest. Or so the girls tell me. elix Omni 09:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I resent that.

I am an excellent horse. Misery 14:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

My sample size is greater than you can imagine. elix Omni 16:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's have a conversation

You start! Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ аІiсә ѕνәи Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ 06:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

How was your Labor Day weekend? elix Omni 13:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

It was like every other weekend. I slept, I ate ramen, I played Counter-strike: Source, and GlaDOS is now my new best friend. My life is not exciting or interesting in any way. Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ аІiсә ѕνәи Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ 20:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

My older brother came home from Minnesota for the weekend and we all moved my younger sister into her college dorm. She's never been away from home for more than a half a week before. Then we went to a friend's house and watched anime and drank beer. That was cool. The next day I did nothing of consequence, and on Monday I had a delicious homemade hamburger at my girlfriend's house. elix Omni 20:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm showing your girlfriend the chat logs. — Raine Valen 0:37, 8 Sep 2010 (UTC)

You wouldn't believe how many times I've seen that threat. elix Omni 00:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Cool beans... or should I say beef? Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ аІiсә ѕνәи Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ 19:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Grab your girlfriend; I've got the chat logs.

You've misquoted me, but you've already amended it.
However, I'd like to point out that I don't believe that "ethics have no place on a wiki", nor did I say that explicitly or implicitly. I do believe that ideals shouldn't be placed before practicality, and you may quote me as saying such. — Raine Valen 2:36, 13 Sep 2010 (UTC)

I concede. elix Omni 02:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I HAVE FURY

→ moved from Guild Wars Wiki talk:Requests for adminship/Raine Valen#To everyone that says "we don't need another Auron"

be sure to think about the implications of your statement in its entirety. I, for one, vehemently disagree. What the sysop team needs most right now is, in fact, another Auron. As you can see, the current system doesn't work. The trolls have finally realized, after years of getting banned, that all they have to do to avoid my banstick is to troll me directly, thus placing me in a position where I am unable to ban them. A second person willing to quickly ban them would solve the dilemma of people like Scythe. Scythe trolled and trolled and trolled, and he got a ton of very small bans that were applied too late. Finally, after literally a month or more of disrupting the wiki, forcing me to RfR, RfAing himself, and posting inane shit on the noticeboard, he got a 3 month block (which didn't even come from a sysop - it came from a bcrat, which isn't how shit is "supposed" to work). Do you think that system is working? Do you think more non-Auron sysops are going to make that problem go away? People spout off bullshit about how sysops need to be more trigger happy. Here is your opportunity - a level-headed potential sysop who is friendly with the community (something I never cared nor attempted to be) that is willing to take the flak of banning trolls for trolling. You claim it's a bad thing she seeks to emulate "certain other hardass parties," but again, I disagree. How else are the trolls going to be banned before they stir up a shitload of drama? In order for the current sysops to ban faster for trolling, they need to emulate certain other hardass parties. If that's a bad thing, the current broken system will simply continue to be broken. Unless you have an alternative that leads to trolls being banned quickly without sysops emulating certain other hardass parties? -Auron 02:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it's called fixing the problem instead of treating the symptoms. Why do people troll? Either because they're malicious, or they just don't understand. Malicious trolls should be ignored or banned, and that's dealt with satisfactorily, both by you and the rest of the team. The real problem is the other category. Lena, Ariyen, Scythe, Briar, 42, that guy with the poem in his signature. They end up causing the most drama, yet you complain that no one bans them. That's because they shouldn't be banned. Everyone shouts at them, the malicious trolls move in (and no one stops them because there's a strange notion going around that trolling is a good counter to trolling), and what choice do they have but to fight back or leave? The way to deal with misunderstood trolls is not discipline. It's not running them off the wiki on a rail. It's talking to them, helping them understand. And when I say talking, I don't mean gangbanging them on their talk page. elix Omni 02:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

"It's talking to them, helping them understand."

That's cute, but the bad ones consider that a personal attack and lash "back". –~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) ←♥– 02:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The wiki is not the place to help people with mental problems.--Lania 02:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

That's because people like to play it cool and say things like "It's really very simple. Don't be a retard and you won't get banned." These things are best dealt with off-wiki, and not just by sysops. elix Omni 02:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not our job to help people "understand". If they are immature and don't understand how the world works, we are not the ones to help them. if they have a mental disorder and thinks everyone is against them, our job isn't to try to convince them that everything is okay. We are not therapists or parents.--Lania 02:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you say the them, you are always maliciously attacking/trolling them. If they are not capable of functioning in the wiki, then they serve no purpose other than creating unnecessary drama. –~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) ←♥– 02:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Last I checked, all people have the capacity for compassion and tolerance, not just professionals and parents. Lacking those things qualifies you as a sociopath. elix Omni 02:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The wiki is a chaotic unfriendly place, especially for immature and/or mentally distressed people. If the person needs actual "help", this is the last place they should be as it will only exacerbate their symptoms. They need to be kicked off the wiki, so they can get some actual counseling irl. --Lania 02:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

There's a difference between having "compassion and tolerance" for another person and that person being impossibly ludicrous. –~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) ←♥– 02:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that is a lofty ideal that has almost no practical application to the wiki. Just this evening in our IRC conversation, you referenced one of these users that you say we should talk to and help- despite you trying to help this user for months, they were still a (quote) "stupid shitbag". When you yourself don't think these people can be helped, what do you expect people to do? Give them a green-light and let them parade their patently bad ideas around? – Emmett 02:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I blame myself for giving up in that situation, actually. I handled it particularly badly and became part of the problem rather than the cure. But that's water under the bridge. elix Omni 02:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

But that doesn't really answer the question. I do not believe those users would have benefitted from years of users trying to help them, and as you experienced, some people just can't be helped. I'm all for trying to help out the new guy, but only if he's willing to learn, and your solution has no remedy for when that just doesn't work. – Emmett 03:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I'm not making much sense right now, and this is off-topic. I'd like to move the current section sans Auron's starting post to my talk page and let it chill there for a bit. Does anyone object? elix Omni 02:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

nope, go ahead. --Lania 03:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't mean to stifle the discussion, by the way. I just felt stupid. elix Omni 03:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

It's all good, it was somewhat off-topic anyways. :) –~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) ←♥– 03:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

As I always want to do what is best by the wiki community

Would you be able to tell me what I did wrong in my approach with Scythe? I was one of the first people to contact him directly on his talk page about his behaviour in regard to the "IRC incident". I don't recall any prior interaction and I think my first approach (found in his most recent archive) was reasonable and he did not seem to react in a hostile manner to it. I don't think I had much interaction with him for a long time past that, but he then proceeded to jump in on other conversations I was involved in, commenting on how I was never helpful and if we are to believe Defiant Elements comments, seems to believe I am part of some wikispiracy to protect Auron.

Apparently you advocate attempting to improve behaviour in these cases. Ariyen is another example. I spoke with her at length on the wiki and in private about the issues she was having and causing. Her and I are still on good terms I believe, but her behaviour never did adjust to within what is considered acceptable on this wiki up until she was permanently banned. I know most reasonable people give up after a couple of these cases, but I do still try to differentiate between malevolent trolls and people who just don't understand how wikis work and what is socially acceptable on a wiki, but I don't see results. Are you seeing results consistently?

I'm not really talking about minor cases like Neil or Unending Fear, a couple of warnings and friendly pieces of advice and they cease their most ridiculous behaviour, it is the cases that spiral out of control that I believe we are both referring to. I will add as an addendum that it is no secret that I find acceptable certain kinds of behaviour that you do not. Misery 15:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

First off, you are a horse, and it's my position that you've been a generally good editor. I don't think the problem is what people have done wrong, per se, but rather that so many people have neglected to do it right. There are plenty of users who are happy to post "This is what you're doing wrong, cut it out" on a problematic user's talk page. But because there are so many such messages, it's easy to become overwhelmed by the amount of negative nancies and develop a certain persecution complex. This happened to Scythe, Briar, Ariyen, and pretty much anyone who complains of ______'s fanclub or an otherworldly cabal.

The best approach is a personal one, and beyond that, I also think it works best off the wiki, on IRC or an IM client perhaps. When you're posting on a wiki, there's an impetus to say as much as you can at one time because it may be hours before you can respond again. These impermeable chunks of thought usually prompt dozens of responses of similar length, and everyone gets frustrated when so much has been said and nothing gets done.

There have been few if any favorable results on GWW because the copious amounts of negativity will usually drive a user insane before any progress can be made. On GuildWiki, however, where there are fewer people and no trolls, this course of action is the norm, and it works. I think our poster child would be User:A F K When Needed, but there are numerous examples going all the way back to our heyday. And what was the last drama on GuildWiki? Dr Ishmael and mendel got in a programmers' squabble, badmouthed each other for a few days, made up, and wrote some templates together. No one got banned, no one ragequit, work got done.

Finally, there is a limit to all things, including my patience. There are times when losses must be cut, and unfortunately Ariyen fell into that category. elix Omni 20:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

You still seem to have a decent enough rapport with ariyen at GWW2wiki though. One thing though is that I do really commend your patience with people. --Lania 21:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll consider quoting that sometimes because I never bothered putting those same thoughts so well. I've been trying to practically work around the problems you mentioned for a while, and these thoughts might or might not some time be written down in the gospel of ^_______________^. --DANDY ^_^ -- 21:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

ilu mizzels anyway 88.153.105.75 22:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, great. You have identified a problem. Now how do we work on it? What you are talking about really has nothing to do with the admins at all, it is a question of culture and a problem of size. I certainly don't have the time to take a personal approach with everyone who strays from the path. It generally takes a lot of time per person, so who should do it? Who should take these people under their wing? Clearly the people to deal with this have to be identified, a swarm of emails or PMs is no less agitating than a swarm of talk page messages. They also have to be good at it, could you imagine if this job fell to Auron, Minime and Cursed Angel? While the tough love approach of warnings in combination with steadily increasing bans is sort of the ultimate in dick moves, it is time efficient. If you want to look at things from a greater good approach, some people should have been permabanned from day one, with the wikihours spent trying to deal with the problems they can cause dwarfing the wikihours of work they contribute to the community.

Do you want to suggest that only administrators be allowed to warn, suggest and correct? That isn't a sarcastic suggestion, it would at least drop the amount of people telling someone how wrong they are, but it does not seem practical. I'm a practical horse and if you tend to complain about a problem without suggesting a practical direction that we can move in, whether that be a change in behaviour or approach, I'm going to be tempted to tell you to take your complaints out into the garden to help the petunias grow. I like petunias. Misery 22:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

If new people read Guild_Wars_Wiki:How_to_help it would be less of a problem, but that doesn't happen. I remember there is a page somewhere about GWW helper project, where they help the new people but I can't find that page. Maybe something could be done to expand that program to have something like wiki-mentors or something similar and have it be a special user status without any sysop ability. But then I can see that system failing due to a mentor or several of them being too combative and their mentor-ship status being revoked. Also it seems like something like that would be in principal contrary to the spirit of the wiki, where everyone has equal say. Though I can see the value in having less asshats warning users in a very negative and combative tone (it's really not that hard to make a warning sound friendly and welcoming)... Any ideas to limit that kind of overtly negative "warning" to new users, I'd be open to and support as well. --Lania 23:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Well Misery, I'd like to say I have some sort of magical wiki-wand that I can wave to make all the negativity go away, or some miracle plan that will usher in a new era of prosperity. Unfortunately, I don't, and neither does anyone else. The only way the situation can improve is through effort by every individual- effort to be less unpleasant, less repulsive, less aggressive. I try to do my part, and I believe you do as well, but many people simply delight in antagonizing others.

I've devised a basic sort of spectrum of internet behavior that applies to pretty much any social activities on the interwub. At the far left end of the spectrum, you have people who think interacting over the internet is exactly like real life and can't understand why people are so different. These are your Ariyens, Scythes, 42s, and poem guy. A subset of this group is people who think their real life achievements make them better than everyone on the internet. At the far right are people who believe that because it's the internet, they can treat people however the hell they want with absolutely no consequences. Here thar be malicious trolls. People whose behavior is generally acceptable are somewhere in between the two outliers (I could totally make this into a box chart). For instance, I personally lean somewhat farther to the left, while Auron is quite far to the right.

So obviously, we either want to encourage people beyond the edges of acceptability to move farther inward, or else castrate the outliers and call it a day. The second option might be easier to implement, but in the long run it's less productive. The first option can be time-consuming and frustrating, but it leads to a healthier, more diverse userbase, and sets an example for future problem users as well. elix Omni 21:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

That last edit doesn't really seem in line with your philosophies espoused here, or does FnF not count? Misery 21:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Ups. elix Omni 22:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

c ups. Misery 22:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Well Misery, this shows that even people who consciously act toward the friendlification of the wiki can be swept up by the bandwagon of sarcasm. elix Omni 22:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

mendel mind

Because this is only two weeks old... : Misery, I've been meaning to write a page on "trolls and vandals", and when I do, I'll let you know. The short version is this:

I learned from some parenting literature that it's better to tell kids what to do rather than what not to do -- tell them what you want them to focus on. Get a wiki culture going that embraces this, and then it's not so much work for the admins any more. If you go with the Wikipedia definition of "personal attack", which is a comment upon the speaker and not on what his point is, then, taken this "too far", every negative "though shalt not" could be sanctioned as such; and every "wouldn't you better" should be rewarded. Problem: it is easier to say "don't" because it is usually a direct translation from "I don't like". To say "do this", it means thinking about what the other person wants (asking/listening helps), and then coming up with a course of action that is possible for them to take (technically and psychologically) to achieve their end, or at least come close. That's not being a carebear, that's just giving effective advice that actually helps.

I don't know the gww community enough to say whether it is even possible to teach them that; it's sometimes difficult to get even the guildwiki crew (who should be used to it more) to not stand in the way of the people who try that approach. (My impression is that younger persons and Americans seem to be less likely to get this.)

Also, this is the "condensed braindump" version of what I want to say; if you feel this is less than clear or makes you think too hard, wait for the long version, or talk to me on irc. --mendel 23:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Clarifying one thing: I'm bringing up parenting because you want to get other people to learn the rules of your community (family/wiki); you want to get them to behave the way you want them to, while they are favorably disposed towards you. The similarity pretty much ends there; though it extends far enough to suggest that the same sort of reasoning might apply. --mendel 23:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I am unconvinced that pure positive reinforcement works on a subject who has already been subject to a separate environment. When it comes to parenting I feel that corporal punishment is sometimes required and necessary, but if your child is in that position, you have severely fucked up as a parent. Trust me, I won't ever have to threaten or hit my kids. When I've dealt with other people's children, shutting what they are doing right down can give you an opportunity to incentise the kind of behaviour you want, but you have to get to that point first. Every editor comes here with preconceptions and a history of behaviour. I understand that this approach can get good results, sometimes, but at the cost of a huge amount of effort and a higher exposure to dedicated trolls. Misery 18:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

You are probably mistaken about the amount of "punishment" that a wiki block represents. It's not really much, in terms of the life of that person.

I think one thing that most "well-intentioned" trolls want is to voice criticism and have it taken seriously. That's not actually that hard to achieve.

If you even think of hitting your kids, you've failed to respect them as people - and any such failure on the wiki is going to increase the drama, not lessen it. --mendel 22:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it's really not any different from IRL when it comes to failing to respect people. As soon as you dismiss someone as less than you, you tend to ignore what the other side is saying. But, it's really hard to take anyone seriously when their arguments, thoughts, and criticism indicates that they are dumber than a rock... Kinda in a same way I can't take most politicians seriously cause they keep contradicting themselves or are just beyond ignorant...like ->w:Christine_O'Donnell. How do you hold a civil discussion when the other person starts wikilawering, repeating the same flawed arguments, quoting the bible, and completely fail to understand even the basic concepts of logic, even after repeated attempts to civilly say how they are wrong and this is the way to do it? And then in the end, the other person accuses you of being a stupid troll for not understanding their circular arguments, and flawed ideas. I'm not sure how valid the Dunning–Kruger_effect is, but I can say for sure that I've met enough people to think that this is very real. --Lania 22:56, 07 October 2010 (UTC)

I would like to add that this isn't just about the wiki, but people in general... on and off the net.... and I'm not targeting anyone when I say "dumber than a rock" so that I don't get hit with a NPA block thing. ^_^ --Lania 23:01, 07 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for illustrating one of the principles for me:

"Labeling is disabling" — label the behavior instead of the person. Incorrect: "Billy, you are a troll." Correct: "Billy, that type of argument will get you nowhere." [4]

And even that is not quite what I mean. Reinforcement is (loosely spoken) about the carrot and the stick, positive reinforcement being the carrot. It's used to motivate people. However, the "well-intentioned troll" is already motivated.

What I'm really about includes not saying "don't do this" and instead saying "do this". It changes the focus from you're doing it wrong to I'm helping you with this. Think about it: if it's too much effort for us who know our way around the wiki to come up with constructive help, how can we expect it of people who are new or inexperienced (in the kind of thing they're attempting) or, as you presume, "dumb as a rock"? Being smart means suggesting ways forward: more than one, if need be, and, if possible, in dialogue with the person.

And yes, I know how to hold a "civil discussion when the other person starts wikilawering, repeating the same flawed arguments, quoting the bible, and completely fail to understand even the basic concepts of logic" -- I'm a bit at a loss when they start slandering, though. --mendel 06:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Without wanting to dive too far into armchair psychology, there is a big difference between raising a child (a theoretical blank slate who looks up to his parents and copies their actions) and correcting the actions of a troll or similarly misguided wiki user (someone whose most crucial stages of development are behind them, and someone who usually doesn't "look up to" anyone on the wiki/internet).

Having also had this discussion with Felix on IRC, I'll say that our mentalities are simply different. I don't think wasting time and effort teaching trolls and idiots how not to be trolls and idiots is worth it - it's too far away from the goals of the wiki. If they can take something they learned from wiki, apply it to real life, and become a better person because of it, that's awesome. But I'm really not going to let the wiki suffer via their destructive actions until they've learned how to stop being a retard.

I will also add, however, that you are underestimating the effect blocks have on a user (or at least, on a user with an interest in improving). When I was a new contributor on GWiki, I called people names (hard to believe, I know) and Gares blocked me twice for it. Those blocks, in conjunction with discussion with Gares on MSN, led me to realize that I had been going about things the wrong way, and I made an effort to clean up my act. Simple discussion wouldn't have done the trick in my case - the block had to be placed to show me that Gares was The Law in that situation and that not obeying The Law would lead to timeout. Obviously my case was a combination of discussion and the blocks, but we can't discount the effect blocks have on users. (As far as a person's life goes, wiki blocks aren't very important, but again, I'm not interested in fixing a person's outlook on life, since a wiki about guild wars is not the place).

To summarize, I'm not as interested as you are in providing vagrants a psychological haven - I place a higher degree of importance on the wiki's goals than personal ones. It's great if they can learn and grow as an individual with minimal impact to the wiki; however, if their learning and growing isn't happening (as in the case of the recent slew of long-term bans), then there is no purpose served by continuing discussion with them. -Auron 09:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

No offense, but you seem to have misunderstood me. I know about the "big difference", see [5], and it doesn't come into it; and I don't agree with your notion of personality development "stopping" at some time or age; in the case of Scythe, at 14.

The idea is to not waste time and effort, but rather if it has to be had, to apply it effectively. Also, it's not about making "trolls" better people, it is about teaching them how this community works.

I would point out that you are the poster child for a block not having had much effect. You now limit yourself to what you can get away with, but I speculate that there was more for you to learn that you didn't.

I submit that my proposal takes at most as much effort as does yours, with all the drama and re-blocks and such, and serves the wiki's goals better; however, I'll admit that the role of being the one who upholds The Law in the wiki community and thwarts "vagrants" may be more satisfying. Though I doubt that Hollywood will make a movie about this. --mendel 12:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

We never stop learning until we die, but there are crucial stages where the behavior taught in that age range will carry through for the rest of that person's life. It's why feral animals stay feral. Humans don't work too differently - someone raised in a poor environment will have a much harder time meshing with society. The first five years of life are the most crucial for a human - if a person experiences prolonged trauma or parents fighting or what have you, that will be the "norm" that they build their entire mental world upon. Breaking them out of that mindset is nearly impossible - but once you have a masters or phd in the field, it pays pretty well to try.

I would riposte that the block did exactly what it was supposed to, and had it not been placed, the words would have had no effect at all. As you said, it's not about making trolls better people, it's teaching them how this community works - that's exactly what Gares did. The block could have had more of an effect, but I did not choose my path in ignorance. I knew what he had intended to teach me, and I was willing to compromise (i.e., I learned what he had to say, weighed my possible courses of action, and chose one that paid heed to some of his advice, but not all of it). The same cannot be said of those recently banned - assuming the best faith in each user, if they had the ability to conform to this wiki society's standards, they would have. The fact that they didn't either shows that they didn't care to or were unable to. I highly doubt that holding off bans even longer and using positive reinforcement would have had any effect whatsoever on the behavior of the users in question.

Small, friendly warnings and reminders are alright - saying "do this" instead of "don't do that" is great for the average userbase and is a simple way to avoid confrontation over non-issues. When a troll or a tard gets to doing what they do, positive reinforcement stops being worth the hassle and bans start becoming more effective. -Auron 14:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

My feeling continues that you mistake what I'm writing. Since we're talking about the morals individuals act by, and which group's standards they accept, I have Lawrence Kohlberg at the back of my mind. His theory of moral development doesn't seem limited by age. Your assumptions about what moral standards these people ought to go by are likely impossible for them to fulfill, while meeting them on another level works better (and doesn't detriment wiki work). My question is whether the "Law and Order" morality (that you seem to have learned by the block) serves your wiki best; and of course we can't easily decide that.

I didn't talk about "holding off bans even longer", I talked about about setting off differently so that it never comes to a ban, or that the ban carries more of a meaning. --mendel 14:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent)I feel that the point of the conversation is being lost inside terrible analogies and comparisons to corporal punishment that don't even apply. Going back to the original point of this section, are you saying that The Scythe Has Fallen would have improved his behaviour and not eventually been banned if I had said "Please discuss matters that have nothing to do with this wiki, including the GWW IRC channel, through channels other than this wiki. If you want to be unbanned from the IRC channel, contact an op from that channel. You should do this off-wiki, either via email if any of them have their email address public or through private messages within IRC." instead of "Please stop bringing disagreements with other users relating to events that have nothing to do with the wiki on to the wiki. This includes anything to do with the IRC channel. If you want to be unbanned from the IRC channel, contact an op from that channel. You should do this off-wiki, either via email if any of them have their email address public or through private messages within IRC." I am going to have to disagree with that, if that is your position. You obviously believe that a block is sometimes appropriate, although obviously less often than I do. The specific threshold for when a block is appropriate or not obviously varies, but the specific point is arbitrary and almost impossible to rationalise or defend. My main points remain that it is seldom worth the effort to attempt to reform a well-intentioned trouble user, although I do try, and that people coming here are not fresh, formless blobs, they already have a history when they get here and it can take a huge amount of effort to reshape them. The only difference in philosophy seems to be the amount of effort we are willing to expend, the thresholds for blocking and whether or not we choose to word our sentences in a positive or negative manner, the efficacy of which I have never been convinced of. Misery 10:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

User_talk:Pling#irc had already sent a different message. Anyway, your message in that case was fine; and while it may be argued that that act of the drama had already run its course then, Scythe gave it a rest on-wiki for a week, so there's nothing to say it wasn't effective. I might also point out that Scythe replied to your message, but you didn't engage him in dialogue; that might be an opportunity lost, but it's hard to tell.

Then Scythe posted this attack and the RfA talk, which didn't address off-wiki matters (about which you had warned). His RfA talk message, which held a legitimate question (plus some add-hominem uttered out of a defensive stance) was met by an admin (Auron) with a clear ad hominem and nothing else, which would serve to escalate drama, not quell it. By its nature, the counter-atack set the stage for the ensuing drama, confirming this to be a "battle" rather than a discussion. It was clear by then that there was a conflict brewing; it was addressed via block proceedings on the admin noticeboard, i.e. "the stick", and no clear "do address your issues with Auron like this" was ever issued (if it was, I missed it). I think the original question never got answered properly, either, though Poke made a fair attempt later. If I had been an admin and noticed, I might have discussed the special position that Auron has on this wiki with Scythe. It is kind of hard to understand, you know; it's easy to just see Auron as "the biggest bully on the schoolyard". --mendel 13:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I will admit that one of the problems with dealing with anything on this wiki is that whenever anybody tries to deal with anything, about 15 other people jump in on it. Most of them are not very good at dealing with the problem at hand. I do not know a solution for this problem. It is well and good to say that they should all handle things better or shouldn't jump in at all, but how exactly do you get that to happen? As for continuing dialogue with Scythe, he did respond, but archived before I saw it. I admit I am not very active, it was 3-4 days and my watchlist is kept very light down to the things that I absolutely have to deal with. I would like to submit that while the positive reinforcement environment you seem to think exists at Guildwiki may be a real, positive thing, it isn't the prime difference. The prime difference is activity level and number of people. With all due respect, I can still see yesterday sitting on your recent changes list. Even PvX, which I consider near dead, is not in that state. Problems remain small and never spiral out of control in the couple of hours between reasonable people checking the wiki. For that reason, you also never attract the worst trolls, because it is boring. My behaviour has improved a lot, but Guildwiki is the only of the 3 GW wikis that has never had to deal with my shenanigans on a grand scale. You guys had to deal with it once during the OhBloodyHell incident under my guise of No distinguishing features and I have to say, it was dealt with very poorly. I can't blame you, no wiki has dealt with me well. I admit the culture may have changed since then, but you acted in a manner similar to what you are advocating here, and it enabled me. It didn't enable me as an editor, it enabled me as a troll. It is a joke that my block log is clear on all three wikis. Before anyone misunderstands me, what I was doing is much worse than anything I do now and I believe if I were still doing blockworthy things here Raine would have blocked me. Of course on PvX I could do practically anything and not get blocked, seeing as it is the polar opposite of the environment mendel is striving for on GWiki. Misery 13:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree about the "prime difference". Also, I've never said that GuildWiki has reached that ideal (in fact, above I imply differently). The question remains, if GWW has so many more users, why aren't there more reasonable people among them?

I'd have to look the O'Bloody incident up before I comment on it. We've had bigger drama than that, and possibly also drama that was potentially bigger but never escalated (but then that's guesswork).

Suffice it to say that Scythe recently had a conflict with an ircop/admin on our irc channel, and that right now things are tense, but not dramatic, and nobody is blocked. That did take a lot of effort. --mendel 14:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

There are plenty of reasonable users, they just tend to get drowned out. Any discussion about something someone feels passionately about here instantly goes to massive walls of text from multiple parties, some of which are well reasoned, some of which are less than. People tend to focus on the ridiculous ones, because ridiculous dissent is easier to deal with. It is not suprising to me how common persecution complexes are here, but I don't have an answer as I can only reasonably control my own behaviour. OhBloodyHell wasn't really huge drama, but it ended in him leaving the wiki, which was exactly my intention and exactly what was requested of me. I guess maybe the prime difference between you and I is that you are still willing and able to put in that "lot of effort" required. Your intentions are noble and I wish you the best of luck, but a quick glance at your contributions on GWiki in comparison to mine here already suggests you are at least 4 times as active as I am. Misery 15:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

So we end up at what Felix initially replied - which I understand much more in-depth now, thanks to our conversation. (You seem somewhat defensive now; there's no need for that, I like you and the way you discharge your duties here.)

One thing I observed happening on our irc and on the Auron RfA is that as soon as somebody (Scythe) gets designated as an underdog (either by an ircop calling him a troll, or an admin PA'ing him), the drama escalates, and then the "troll" gets banned even if the other people didn't really behave much differently than he. Because, hey, if there's drama between an ircop and a troll, clearly the troll is at fault, right? In contrast, your GWW:NPA contains this: Comments should not be personalized and should be directed at content and actions rather than people. This usually allows us to warn anyone (obvsly the troll, since they usually are at the point of being angry and frustrated where few are calm enough to avoid this, but also everyone else who doesn't keep to the rational point of underdog's grievance) for something quite specific, and if these warnings (blocks?) were done consistently, with no exceptions, it might give the "reasonable" people more of a chance. The idea of "he's dumb as a rock, let's troll him off", wherever it appears unchallenged, moves gww in a direction that makes it less likely that a rational resolution of a conflict will be found when bullying/trolling suffices. Side note: In hindsight, the suggested GW2W policy, "Don't be a Dick" (made me give up on gw2w, btw) allows this. Disclaimer: I don't know gww enough to judge how often this happens, and thus I may be somewhat mistaken when I denounce this as a gww problem; correction/confirmation of this impression is welcome. --mendel 18:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Odd, I didn't mean to come off as defensive.

That is fairly accurate in my opinion. Misery 18:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. --mendel 20:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) While I am disgusted with the idea of trolling bad users off the wiki, I still don't think there is much good to be had by allowing disruptive reasonable people to continue their "crusade" at the expense of the rest of the wiki. You also have to consider what a wiki is. It is a community of people that do volunteer work, where volunteers do a "job" that they feel they can do a good job in. There are many jobs that are on a volunteer basis in the world, and not a single one attempts to take disruptive volunteers and try to mold them into a good worker to the point of compromising the work that needs done. The bad volunteers get fired/kicked out instead. What missed opportunity did we have with Scythe? That he could have become a better editor on a dying wiki? He hasn't learned anything despite the perma block at GWW, and already caused the same drama at GW2W and was blocked for an entire year. Users like Scythe bring the worst out from the wiki users, and the appropriate course of action was to block him (which happened) instead of trying to "help" him become a better editor. So what if a couple of potential good editors like Scythe and Ariyen get long term bans? It's nothing compared to the potential talent we lose or ward off due to the drama and disruption people like them cause.

You can't make everyone happy... it's impossible. Look at what happened to people who tried to do that as a policy like Jimmy Carter who shied away from drama and conflict... and look at the progress Obama is making with his "all inclusive" approach rather than steam-rolling over the republicans. You have to make tough decisions and choices to make the people that matter happy to get the work done even if it means it makes the people who "don't matter as much" unhappy. When I am managing teams or anyone I know manages a team... it "feels" much better to be all inclusive (the spirit of the wiki), but doing so compromises not only our efficiency but the quality of the work that we do. If someone is disruptive and inept, they get fired. If someone is unskilled but shows promise, they are suspended from the project until they get more training, if training is available, if not they get moved to a different project. That, IMO is the reality of how things work... and generally reasonable people tend to gravitate towards projects that mesh well with their own skill sets, but some people just get way in over their head, and try to do things that they don't understand at all and end up causing problems. Am I making sense here at all? I feel like I'm derailing the topic again. -_-;;--Lania 18:59, 08 October 2010 (UTC)

I find it very difficult to reply to your post. Many of your premises are not acceptable to me. (Examples for controversial premises: I think the divisiveness that the Republications have foisted on America ever since "chad day" works out very badly for you. Jimmy Carter negotiated Camp David and the SALT II nuclear disarmament treaties. He boycotted the 1908 summer olympics in Moscow (and SALT II!)because of Afghanistan. For these reasons, I would not characterizing him as "shying away" from conflict. Wikis (as opposed to volunteer organizations) allow everyone to edit, and every decision is public and contributes to the athmosphere of the project. The "training" in the case of wikis must be done on the job; if all wikis refuse to train, then nobody can learn. You've lost more than one good editor by the drama and disruption your community causes. If not for that, GuildWiki would be dead by now.) Also, I don't really know how what you say adresses what I've written except in a very general way.

If reasonable people are on a disruptive crusade, there's usually an issue that hasn't been adressed well enough. If you pay attention to the "crusade" bit, you're reinforcing the disruptive behaviour; if you respond to the issue that's been raised, you're reinforcing reason. (That works with people of any age.) The former is easier than the latter, since discussing the issues usually involves dealing with criticism. An organization that can't deal with criticism has no other choice than to dismiss the critic if it wants to continue working. That's why the wise critic tries to not leave too many openings for such dismissal. So, sure, it may be possible that the wiki can't react any differently, but that's because it hasn't learned how. --mendel 20:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Jimmy carter was an excellent president, but that didn't help his public image at the time. Obama is also a very good president, but is being plagued by the same problem now... low poll numbers, stagnant economy etc... with not much progress seen. I know the republicans are running interference every opportunity they get, but the democrats didn't counter or steamroll every opportunity they got.As far as reasonable people on a disruptive crusade? Isn't that kinda of a contradiction on its self? I'm going to ask some very simple questions that I'd like if anyone that reads this answers... 1). Would it have been worth the effort to educate and mold scythe into a good editor? 2). Was his complaint against Auron valid? 3). Are we going to change how GWW works or not? --Lania 22:40, 08 October 2010 (UTC)

So your point comes down to, do you want to look good, or do you want to do good? ;) (that's not to imply the Reps don't do good) "disruptive reasonable people to continue their 'crusade'" were your words. 1) Was it worth the effort to attempt this with User:A F K When Needed? Do you like Scythe's skill animations? 2) Now that Wyn's gone, Auron seems to be the most controversial sysop you have; most issues with the way this wiki is run are going to focus on him, valid or not. It seems to me that if you made it better understood by what principles this wiki is run, then there might be less controversy. Perhaps there are no principles. Perhaps the attempt to define them would produce a big inter-admin conflict that everybody wants to avoid. Your evaluation of the RuneScape wiki below seems to suggest that having common principles helps to get the message across more distinctly and effectively. Do you want that? That'll answer 3). (I sort of sidestepped the question of whether Scythe's complaint was valid. I believe it was a genuine complaint. Scythe should have posted it less aggressively, with no accompanying personal attacks. Has it received a succinct answer? What was it?) --mendel 06:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, when I said "disruptive reasonable people" that's what I meant, as a contradiction and not to be taken as a serious statement to be really thought about. Reasonable people can cause drama to enact positive change, but once they become disruptive (NPA, edit war, trolling), they stop being reasonable. lol, I'm not making sense. For AFK, the effort was worth it because 1). he was not "that" disruptive 2). he displayed a clear desire to be constructive. Auron is a popular target because of his history. You should have seen his behavior back in 2006 in the builds (now moved to pvx wiki) section on guildwiki. When I came back from my 3 year hiatus from the wiki, I was a bit surprised to see Auron as a sysop, since I didn't think he was much of Sysop material. I was also surprised to see how much his behavior changed. Suffice to say, Auron has a reputation for being brash, and being at the center of various types of drama.

One thing that I DO want to see changed is the relative non-communication between sysops and bcrats here at GWW, and probably eventually at GW2W. There is not enough communication between sysops or b-crats when it comes down to making a major decision or displaying a unified front. This is a problem that Auron and other sysops in the past have brought up, but not really ever addressed. If you want to use the parent analogy, it's like the mom is punishing the kid for doing something bad, and the father rewards the kid behind her back. With the 2 latest and separate drama incidents involving Ariyen and Scythe, there didn't seem to be enough communication between the sysops leading to contradictory messages, and inconsistent block times, with some sysops just basically not wanting to get involved. The same occurred with Scythe, and he didn't get a perma block until many walls of texts were typed, and the discussion haven't stopped there. I'm not sure what it would take to have better communication, but it doesn't look like it'll happen here because of one major problem. When a discussion starts about what to do with a specific trouble user on this wiki, it becomes poisoned with trolls, and drama loving users that add to the conflict rather than offering up solutions.I've probably done my share of conflict escalation in the past. It's not like there aren't any other venues, there's IRC, e-mail, MSN... but they don't seem to get used as often as they should, even though these types of problems are best discussed off wiki IMO. I think we should move large sections of this discussion to a separate page as it's getting beyond the scope of the original discussion. --Lania 15:59, 09 October 2010 (UTC)

If AFK was worth the effort (I put a lot in, and I was not the only one), so is Scythe. --mendel 21:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

RuneScape Wiki

If you want to spend some time on wiki theory, you could probably do worse than research Runescape Wiki, which, unlike GuildWiki, is highly active. I have very high respect for their adminship after reading about their "Defining Administrators" project. I don't know what you'd find if you researched their practises dealing with trolls etc., but I'm confident it would be interesting. --mendel 21:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I do get the sense that the community culture is different there. At the same time, they also seem to have around the clock sysop coverage, and their message is very clear whenever a dispute occurs. There doesn't appear to be a lot of trolls either, and they also have a ignore the troll policy. --Lania 22:40, 08 October 2010 (UTC)

Differences in content display between GW and GWW

Hey, reading your entry on Auron's talk page lead me to have a look at GW's move discussion. In general, me having been one of those pissed off more than average way back at the wikia move, I could not help but feeling my worst fears vindicated, but something else caught my mind: You, and hinted at the reasons for having separate wikies (eg the semanitic expansion). I am a strong believer in not reinventing the wheel, so it is always worthwhile learning about some other wiki doing stuff differently/better. I could go over there, look at tons of pages, but I am lazy, so I thought I could simply ask here, as you should be one of those who are knowledgable on both wikis: What are, in your opinion, issues where GW has the better solution? --Xeeron 21:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you asking about technical solutions? How the community interacts? Or any other type of tool. wikia:c:guildwars:User:Dr Ishmael has done the most work using SMW to good effect (e.g. wikia:c:guildwars:Nicholas the Traveler and wikia:c:guildwars:Template:ItemInfo). Kirbman has been innovative using math templates to keep track of predictable activities.

As I see it, the reasons for GWiki needing to change hosts could have happened anywhere. Wikia is no longer trying to be a wiki-hosting service; I could imagine ANet deciding not to support a user-controlled wiki (much as other companies have imprinted their official wikis with staff members as b'crats/sysops). Obviously, it's less likely to affect GWW in the near term, but any hosting solution that doesn't generate its own revenue depends on the kindness of the host...and that's never ideal in business relationships.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 22:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

This is a short list of the things I think GuildWiki does better, or differently but still effectively. It'll be expanded.

• Bureacrats.
• Sysops.
• Dealing with trolls.
• Dealing with drama.
• Positive environment.
• Armor galleries.
• Walkthroughs. elix Omni 22:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll tell you our tech secrets when we get to use Poke's Javascript tools. ;) --mendel 22:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I read the SMW page on GW and I looked at the code for the 2 pages linked above and tbh, I don't get it. These pages categorization looks perfectly ordinary to me. Just what is SMW supposed to do and how can I tell the difference to this wiki? --Xeeron 09:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

That's why I linked Dr Ish's user page, because I doubt I can do justice to the rationale. There are some posted discussions that discuss the pros/cons, but my bet is that you and he can really geek out on the details. Why not drop him a note directly?  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 09:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

So far as I can tell from [6], SMW is largely a different way to do what we do with DPL (possibly potentially easier to bend to certain applications, but you'd have a better time asking Poke about that). Anyway, what I think Xeeron's getting at is "What makes GuildWiki a different experience, as a user and as an editor?" rather than "Who is/are GuildWiki's Poke?" - Tanetris 17:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

We have a favicon with a transparent background. :) --mendel 06:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, we've gone around on that one a few times. It was transparent for a few months back in 2008. - Tanetris 22:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Tanetris is dead on with his comment above. While having a transparent favicon is fancy, and using SMW to turn the wiki into something closer to a database is as well, both don't strike me as something very important for wiki usage. Felix list is contains several more points, but without elaboration just how and why Bureaucrats, sysops, armor galleries and so on are better, it is not very useful to me. --Xeeron 22:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I haven't had time to expand. I will, though. elix Omni 05:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not my job to make GWW better. Will you help me make GuildWiki better? (Recognizing a joke when a smiley is attached might be a useful skill to acquire.) --mendel 06:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC) & 06:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I got the joke, but it didn't really contribute to answering my question at all. And if you have some questions about GWW, and I am able to answer them, then, yes, I will help you. And, btw, I was editing GuildWiki before pretty much any of the currently active editors started. --Xeeron 09:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, I guess I should explain some more before this thread takes a turn to the worse: I posted this, because I honestly think that wikis do best to learn from each other. Good ideas pop up everywhere, and it is folly not to adopt them. Someone who works on both wikis is the best first stop for that. Your joke was ok, but it is hard not to feel laughed at when you ask for help and are answered with a joke. Not to mention that Felix (sysop at GW) pretty much told me (sysop at GWW) "I am better than you" and now you suggest that I don't get humor and am not helpful towards others. I could live with that, but I very much resent the attempt to create a wall between GW and GWW users by implying we have nothing to do with each other. I was, and the same goes for most other old users here, very active over at GW and only left because I was disgusted with the way the trust of editors over there was abused by Gravewit. That artificial split in the community has nothing to do with people wanting different wikis and everything to do with the greed of Gravewit and the backhand business tactics of wikia. Therefore I try my best do stop the "we vs them" attitude that sometimes shows. --Xeeron 10:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I speak of the system we use for sysop responsibility, discretion, and so forth, not the individuals. elix Omni 16:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

It is not my intention to impede mutual exchange of ideas. I do not laugh at you. I did not mean to suggest that you are generally without humor; I merely thought that you did not display it in this instance. Nor did I mean to suggest that you are generally unhelpful; I merely feel that exchanging ideas with you in the manner started in this section would be unhelpful to me. I do not intend to create a wall between GW and GWW users; such an undertaking would be folly and ignoring the true state of affairs. Any "we vs. them" attitude that I have experienced had, for the most part, the spirit of friendly rivalry. --mendel 09:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

felix felix felix

I need to talk to you before the next forever is over – Emmett 23:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Very well. elix Omni 23:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

You got to it before I did.

This stupid thing never remembers me I dont know why it has the option. Drogo Boffin 03:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

:D

yay-- Ickoization 14:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

"If neither of you are going to take the high road and stick to the issues..."

Idk dude, I thought I was sticking to the issues at hand the entire time. We'll talk again when you can tell me what those issues are. — Jon Lupen 20:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Condescend more, it makes me so hard. elix Omni 20:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

If you asked nicely, I'd probably more inclined to do so. — Jon Lupen 20:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah baby, that's the stuff. elix Omni 20:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Huh. I didn't know you where a Marine that took stim packs. *shrugs* The more you know... — Jon Lupen 20:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

*Tchhhhh* Ahh, that's the stuff. elix Omni 21:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

You might want to find a medic. Those things are going to kill you eventually. That, and you can't regenerate like the Zerg. Besides, what's increased movement and firing speed going to do for you here? — Jon Lupen 21:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Your mom! elix Omni 21:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh! Didn't see that one coming. — Jon Lupen 21:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm silent and deadly, like a fart. elix Omni 21:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

You may be silent, but can you be invisible as well? — Jon Lupen 21:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Until my energy runs out, yes. elix Omni 21:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Crap man, idk if I'm going to be able to handle this. — Jon Lupen 21:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Email?

"I have e-mail enabled." — User:Felix Omni

Special:EmailUser/Felix Omni doesn't work; could you re-enable? (or remove the note?) Thanks!  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 09:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

It's enabled now, it must have been disabled when I switched from hotmail to gmail about a month ago. elix Omni 00:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 00:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

What's your vendetta?

Have I slighted you, somehow? I apologize, if I have. — Raine Valen 5:17, 15 Feb 2011 (UTC)

Raine, my opposition to your bureaucracy campaign, and indeed your sysophood here, is not in any way personal. I'm sure you resent my perpetual naysaying, and I wish I could pick on someone that I don't usually get along with, but it's been my position that you are and have been unfit for administrative tools on this wiki, and I can't pull my punches because we have fun together off the wiki. Or rather, I could, but I think it would be doing a disservice to us both. elix Omni 05:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)