User talk:Guy Fawkes

Feel free to discuss anything here, except political talk. I have created a page for that. If you are discussing me, the game, edits I have made that pissed you off, a helpful suggestion, etc.

Guy Fawkes 04:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

stop

moving those pages. -Auron 02:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Have you discussed randomly capitalizing words with anyone, or are you doing this on whim? -Auron 03:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

If you insist on moving all those page, fix every link. --JonTheMon 03:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

But don't move a damn thing until you've discussed this and reached consensus first. ULC is preferred over Random Capitalization of Letters in Page Names, so much so that it actually became policy on the original wiki. I would be surprised if that wasn't the preference here as well. -Auron 03:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

It is. Stop moving pages. –Jette 03:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Your page moves constitute vandalism. Stop now or risk getting your editing privileges revoked. -Auron 03:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Auron, then what exactly am I supposed to do to correct improper spelling and capitalisation of page titles? Post a comment about it, and wait a month for people to be able to respond, and then change it? It is not random changes, it is a correction of improperly spelled and/or capitalised words. And my "reference" for if it is proper or not on the capitalisation specifically is the English language. If that is the process that is supposed to be followed in this case, then it will literally take years to get everything updated and adjusted properly, because even if you can fix the first one, then you need to wait for permission to change the pages that link to it, because, now they need to be changed, but you have to wait for everyone else to agree with you before you can fix it.

"Remember, remember the 5th of November... "- Guy Fawkes 23:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Bureaucracy...--Unendingfear 23:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

You've got years of precedence as to whether profession names should be capitalised - on both wikis, the consensus has gone in favour of lower-case; I wouldn't really call the pages improperly spelled or capitalised considering this. -- pling 23:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Signature

Please remove the excess text from your signature. As it stands, I consider it disruptive and a violation of policy. Thanks. -- Wyn talk 05:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I think a link to your username and talk page would be enough with just the username. No quotes. Not needed, when you have your userspace to express your quote on. Just being honest here. I love quotes, but I'm not posting my shortest one in my signature. It gets annoying with 'added' quotes, etc... Just giving a few ideas that might help settle your signature issue. -- riyen ♥ 06:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I hear you brother

Fight the power. Don't let the man get you down. Misery 19:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Although if you changed the text color of the quote in your signature slightly or added a double-dash so people don't mistake it as part of your comment, that would probably be appreciated. elix Omni 20:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

People were annoyed with my signature because it didn't have a link to my talk page when it was the default signature with a colour change. Misery 20:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Appreciate the input Felix, I will take that into consideration. I also recommend reading my latest addition to my page, before someone deletes it because it states my side of this issue.

"Remember, remember the 5th of November... Guy Fawkes 20:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone actually threatened to do so? I've seen someone request that you change your signature (probably a little heavy-handedly, but still it's just a request). It doesn't mean that you're being oppressed by The Man, nor that other aspects of oppression, such as censorship, will fall upon you.

While there's no policy of 'freedom of speech' or the like on this wiki, we're not going to 'censor' or delete your comments simply because it states your opinions. Also, what may be seen as "playing favourites" can be explained by the fact that one person cannot see every example of the thing they object to; in other words, some other people may have excessive text in their signature, but said 'person' might not have asked them to change it because they haven't actually seen it.

By the way, closing the quotation with another quotation mark would be good too. -- pling 20:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

In any case, the reason some people want you to change your signature is because it's just long and annoying. People want you to change your signature because your name is "Guy Fawkes", not "Remember, remember the 5th of November... Guy Fawkes." Do you understand now? ~Shard 20:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

(reset indent)

People want me to change my signature because it is their opinion whether or not it is "long and annoying". It might be on the long side, I will accept that as a valid opinion, but the multiple colours to me are annoying. Since it seems people want to get ridiculous about this, I will return the favor. If that is the case, then I want equal treatment for everyone. Which means that the only acceptable signature tags are the user names, no markup tags, just plain simple text, no obnoxious colours, no annoying icons, and so on, ACROSS THE BOARD. You cannot spell your signature tag name any other way than how your name is spelled on your user page, no exceptions.

Since it seems that people want to disallow certain individuals to have a reasonable way to present their signatures differently than other people's, then make the rules apply equally to everyone, and don't single certain people out.

"Remember, remember the 5th of November... - Guy Fawkes 21:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I have registered User:Wyn so my signature is perfectly legal. I asked you to do this as another user on this wiki, not as a sysop, I find excess text annoying and disruptive. I did not threaten any punitive action. Get over your oppression complex. -- Wyn talk 21:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not reasonable to put random irrelevant text in your signature. Your signature identifies you, not your opinions. That's what the rest of your messages are for. I could have signed my test krewe NDA with "OMG I cant believe I got in, I hope you guys dont fail... Shard Shardington" but they probably would have shredded it. ~Shard 21:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

People want me to get rid of my hat because it is their opinion whether or not it is really long code and breaks pages. It might be on the long side, I will accept that as a valid opinion, but only one image to me are annoying. Since it seems people want to get ridiculous about this, I will return the favor. If that is the case, then I want equal treatment for everyone. Which means that the only acceptable signatures are ALL CAPS ACROSS THE BOARDS. You cannot use a hat any other way than how your name is spelled on your user page, no expcetions.

Since it seems that people want to disallow certain individuals to have a reasonable way to wear a hat signature differently than other people's, then make the rules apply equally to everyone, and don't single certain people out. – derp de derp derp a tum tee tiddly tum ta tum Jette

22:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Personally, Jette, I think that people should be allowed to indivualise their signature tags. If you want to wear a hat tag, then more power to you. And if someone else wants to wear their hat tag on the other side of their icon's head than yours, even better. That is my whole point I am trying to make here. And despite how others are taking it, me posting that part of a line from the poem is just that, me being myself, personalising my tag. I am all for freedom of expression, again, with the exception of when it would interfere with someone else's freedoms.

"Remember, remember the 5th of November... "- Guy Fawkes 23:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

For obvious reasons your peripheral vision probably already saw, there have to be limitations on what people can do with their signatures. If your signature can wrap around my sig picture and have length left over, it's too long.

~Shard 06:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Shard, there are people who's excessive tag sig already do that in the display area. It is long, I get it already.

"Remember, remember the 5th of November... "- Guy Fawkes 07:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Wyn, just to keep it here with your specific comments about it, I am re-posting this here as well. I took your comment in a way that it wasn't apparently intended. For that I am sorry. - GF

No, you don't get it. If you got it, we wouldn't be having this conversation. ~Shard 01:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

red text

Read your "important notice". <font color=red>Text</font> Go nuts.-- anguard 20:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I figured it was that easy, but I thought it might not be a good idea. Someone might find a policy or something that I was violating by posting it that way.

"Remember, remember the 5th of November... Guy Fawkes 20:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

No anti-color policies that I know of.-- anguard 20:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

You know, if you are so afraid of being oppresed by the system, you could start taking an hour or two and read our list of policies, and maybe our list of guidelines too.--Fighterdoken 20:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not afraid of being oppressed by the system, I am taking issue with the abuse of power within that system. Just because someone in power has a differing opinion of if something is proper or not, and has no shown proof or specific items to back up why that opinion of theirs is proper and correct, that automatically makes their side the right one, while another's equally valid opinion is wrong just because they, and not the power(s) that be have that opinion. This seems to be the case, even though the non-system person has pointed out their side of the issue (I hope) clearly, and presenting each valid point of why that side is correct. As I have said, I am all for a valid discussion, but it seems to come down to "I am right, just because I say so, and you are wrong because what you think differs from what I say is right."

If my side of the issue is proven wrong, and clearly stated specific reasons, guideline, policies, and examples that prove wrong over my examples of why I am right, I will gladly make a public statement saying so on here, and on other pages if asked. I will still not agree with it, more than likely, and will say so, but I am willing to say that I am wrong, if it is proven to me that I am.

"Remember, remember the 5th of November... - Guy Fawkes 20:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Opinion has no sway when there are set rules in the background.-- anguard 20:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Well Vanguard, it would seem that other people feel otherwise in this case. Because there are set rules, and to my best determination, I am not in violation of them, with the possible exception of one which is based on an opinion only. That rule has been trashed and brought back to life and trashed already by many more people, and in much more extremity than my simple text only tag has done.

"Remember, remember the 5th of November... "- Guy Fawkes 23:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

wtf

From your page I also believe that people should have Freedom of Speech, and encourage everyone visiting this page to express that Freedom. The only restrictions that I ask people to follow is no racial slurs, and no generally accepted hate words (you should know what they are already).

Uhhhhhh, so you're saying ppl should express freedom of speech but then right after that you tell ppl not to say stuff? Make more sense please kthx. --adrin 20:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Adrin, I still encourage people to excercise their Freedom of Speech, and you stated your opinion here, in response to my comment. But since you commented, and it seems to me that you are unclear, please let me explain my comment in more detail, so hopefully I can convey my point to you better.

I do not consider racial slurs to be a valid discussion point, or an opinion, as they are used mostly for the sole purpose of encouraging hate and discontent. In this respect, in my point of view, they just fall into the category of name calling, and as such, have no place here. Calling someone a name, especially a racist-type name, serves little useful purpose in the place of a proper discussion.

Now, if, for example, someone were to start up a discussion on why they thought racism was acceptable, or why they were a racist, I might disagree with their points, but I would not and could not disagree with their freedom to express and discuss those points.

"Remember, remember the 5th of November... "- Guy Fawkes 23:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Sup nig, the ways in which people refer to other people have nothing to do with their arguments 99% of the time. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 05:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth

Your signature confused me. I didn't realize until reviewing Wyn's talk page that Guy Fawkes was a user name and not some other contributor asking us to remember Guy Fawkes Day. (And, erm, did you want us to remember the Day or the man, his actions and the politics leading up to the events after which the holiday was named? But I digress, as always.)

• I have no concerns about the wiki-code length of your signature.
• I find the inclusion of any slogan in a signature to be confusing; it makes it harder for me to recognize the name of the contributor and to navigate to their home/talk pages.
  • Consider changing your user name to, "Remember Guy Fawkes" or "Remember Guy Fawkes Day" (there's a name-change widget around here someplace, if that strategy appeals).
  • Alternatively, consider making it easier to distinguish between your name and the slogan. This example would be 192 chars for your ID: Tennessee Ernie Ford / TEF (No relationship to the Fantabulous Gospel Singer of the same name is intended or claimed.)

I am not making a formal request that you change your signature; I have no strong objections. It simply seems to me that it does not serve the wiki's required and your intended purposes as well as it might.   — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 21:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Ernie, thank you for your comment and your opinion of this discussion. My intent with the quote I am making, among other things, is to encourage people to be curious about something they don't understand, and to want to read more about it. My specific point is to remind people constantly about an event which I firmly believe in; that people are willing to fight for their Freedom. Admittedly, not everyone will get or fully understand the reference to November 5th, but enough people will. I thought that the line from the poem, in combination with the specific selection of the user name would encourage more people who might have heard about Guy Fawkes before to want to investigate further about him, and what happened. I must say, again, for the record, that I do not encourage or condone the methods attempted to be used by the original Guy Fawkes and his compatriots. I do, however, fully encourage people to fight for their Freedoms, especially when being taken away by an unjust government.

In the specific case of the now infamous Guy Fawkes, the Freedom they were fighting for was the Freedom to worship God the way they saw fit. Because it wasn't the same way the Crown thought, they were persecuted for their "crime".

"Remember, remember the 5th of November... "- Guy Fawkes 23:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I have a feeling that if I posted God Bless America in my signature tag, that people would take offense to that and claim that it was too long as well, even though they would have a problem with repeated posting of the word "God".

- GF

I wouldn't :P--Unendingfear 01:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I would, but I'm not one of those zealous angry atheists that would try burning him at the stake for it. I only raged on a religious reference once, some guy in game with some variant of "Jesus Loves You" and kept saying "god bless you" after every thing he said. THAT, pissed me off.-- anguard 01:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

^I loled. PS God Bless you, Vanguard. XD--Unendingfear 01:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

OMG

A holiday about blowing stuff up? ITS HEAVAN!--Neil2250Evil Mantis Eats Ragers. 21:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Neil, the holiday, if it could be called that, is actually intended to be the celebration of people FAILING to blow something up. And in all honesty, the person of Guy Fawkes isn't treated very well during these celebrations. He is burned in effigy (trust me, not a good way to go).

Personally, honestly, I am still unsure which way I want to go in regards to the original Guy Fawkes. On one hand, he was fighting for something he believed in; in his case it was religious freedom, which my Country, the US of A was founded on. On the other hand, he tried to violently overthrow the existing government. Not saying that the government was right in what they did, and I do not know the shoes these individuals were wearing, but I think I would have tried a better way of changing things than they attempted.

"Remember, remember the 5th of November... "- Guy Fawkes 03:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

This is not America...

There is no freedom of speech here. :)--Unendingfear 21:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Unending, I still live in America, and I intend to exercise my Freedom of Speech when I can.

"Remember, remember the 5th of November... "- Guy Fawkes 03:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The internet is not America. There is still freedom of speech, but there are even more confines and rules... since people from other countries don't share the same freedoms. -- anguard 03:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I live in America too, but on a site like this, yes you can post what you want, but there is no such thing a freedom of speech... There is a difference between the internet, and America.--Unendingfear 03:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

You still have your American freedom of speech in that you won't be arrested for whatever you post here (excluding Patriot Act and other such nonsense), but you may certainly be prosecuted internally. elix Omni 03:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Please...

Stop wasting our time as well as your own. Your signature is too long, it's potentially confusing as we don't have a clear view of who you are, and "Your signature identifies you, not your opinions." — Shard. Stop creating unnecessary drama. No-one is oppressing you in particular, there is no favouritism, stop this now and just change your signature. The only reason you may feel "oppressed" is because you keep drawing flak by drawing this on far longer then it needs to be. Feel free to have the "Remember Remember" bit at the top of your userpage in a big box, but not in your signature. Shadow Runner 22:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Shadow, my signature, as others does, identifies more than just a name. Otherwise, why would there be people who use character/profession icons in their respective sig tags? Why would there be people who choose to use different colours in their sig tags? It identifies that person's individuality as much as anything else. I just happen to use the text space used in mine to display more of it. Other people do the same thing in regards to using wiki and HTML tags, and icon pics. And yet no one seems to have a problem with them doing that.

As far as changing my signature, as soon as I feel the need, or the justified reasoning for it, I will do so. The only reason anyone has given me so far is that it is their opinion that it is too long. They want to be able to enforce their opinion on others, and yet deny others that same right. Not cool in my book. Not everyone (besides just me) shares the opinion that it is too long. You and everyone else seem to keep wanting to say (to me) "your signature tag is too long", and expect me to just sit there like a brainless idiot, and yet, if I say the same thing about others (about all the markup tags and such), which is the same exact point you and the others are trying to claim, my point isn't valid, apparently because it is not meshing with what you are saying.

It so happens that I have used more of the poem I quote some of in my tag, and I also have a quote used in the movie V for Vendetta on my user page, with links to more information if people choose to make use of them.

My point is, don't expect others to just roll over if their point is as valid, and in some cases more so, than others, just because you think they should. If that was the way it happened all of the time, then the world would still be flat, and the Earth would still be the centre of the Universe.

"Remember, remember the 5th of November... "- Guy Fawkes 00:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I personally have no problem with your signature, but the majority of the people here think it is disruptive, and needs to be shortened. And this site, majority does make up the law.--Unendingfear 00:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Another personal opinion that everyone will feel obligated to read but ultimately adds nothing to the discussion

I have no qualms with users including flavor text in their signatures, as long as it's not paragraphs of Lorum ipsum or something. It's a bit annoying when a signature begins with plain text with nothing separating it from the body of the actual post, because it's difficult to distinguish the two texts. However, that's already been changed, so from my perspective the signature as it is now is just fine.

However, I submit to you, Guy Fawkes, that you are not considering several important things. The first is courtesy. Wynthyst asked you politely to change your signature, and gave you her reasons for doing so. She made no mention of her status as sysop. Perhaps you didn't even know she was an admin before you navigated to her user page to reply. Now, I am not suggesting that you do everyone people tell you to do just because they're polite, but if it were me I would have replied with something like "I do not agree with your views, but I will respect your request." Compromise, sir, is the most powerful tool we have to keep the wiki (any wiki) running smoothly. If you respect another user's wishes now, it won't be long before someone will return the favor.

The second important thing is that admins cannot police everyone's signatures, and even if they could, they shouldn't, because it's not their job. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but you suggest that because other signatures are "more wrong" than yours, either yours should be overlooked or theirs should be brought in line as well. As I said, the job of asking other users to comply with community-established policy does not lie with the administrators, but with the users themselves. So if you want to pursue that course, you can become that which you hate, so to speak, and check every other user's signature yourself. The first option, unfortunately, is not viable and would set a bad precedent, because you can always point to the next guy and say "He's worse than I am."

Now, here is a suggestion that you may (I hope!) find favorable. Change your signature to

[[User:Guy Fawkes|]] <small>[[User:Guy Fawkes/Poem|Remember, remember...]]</small>

which displays as

Guy Fawkes Remember, remember...22:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

where User:Guy Fawkes/Poem is the poem in its entirety. Change colors and fonts to suit your tastes and creativity.

And remember, blowing up the Guild Wars Wiki server isn't an option, because you'd take out the Guild Wars servers along with it. elix Omni 22:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

^Good idea. :P Either that, or he can remake his acount as User:Remember, Remember, the 5th of Novermber Guy Fawkes--Unendingfear 22:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't recommend that. elix Omni 22:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Ya, I don't either, but I'm just sayin'--Unendingfear 22:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Some people have very small phrases in their sigs, so it's passable.-- anguard 22:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Felix, I do not agree with, nor condone, Guy's method of implementing change in a system he felt was wrong. I agree only with his reasoning behind it, trying to make change in a system that he felt was wrong and unfair; in his specific case, religious freedom, something the U. S. was founded on. I have served in my Country's military, proudly, and like many others who have also done so, abhor war and violence. And I feel that anyone in their right mind should. That is neither here nor there, though.

I do not say that my violations (if there are any violations in actual fact) should be overlooked because others are "more wrong". If mine is in fact wrong, then please, point out what specifically, showing (if in the case of violation of policy as was claimed), what specific policy it was in violation of. But, do not claim a violation has occurred without specifying which part or parts of that policy, while others are in constant violation (and the specific violations have been identified, by me, which policy or part of the policy it is in violation of). As I say in my "response to everyone" elsewhere on this page, I took this as a personal attack on me when it wasn't intended as such by the originator of the comment, Wyn. The reason I took it this way was because of a previous issue with someone who did say something (and did quote specifics) and, it turned out later was a wiki sysop, did something that I felt was a personal attack on something I was doing, that I felt was in accordance with stated guidelines, and acceptable standardisation of the wiki.

"Remember, remember the 5th of November... "- Guy Fawkes 22:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

You're not being singled out. Mafaraxas' most recent block was for this sig, which was deemed disruptive and he was therefore blocked. Not everything has to be word-for-word in a policy to be in violation of the wiki's general standards for things, and I've just pointed out a precedent of not accepting signatures like your current one. – Emmett 23:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I personally do not think you're violating any policy either. I'm only offering what I feel would be a good compromise, as well as a rather stylish signature. elix Omni 23:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

(rest indent)

Emmet, the particular line you reference is almost three times as long as my small portion of the poem and my name. Good effort, but not convincingly overwhelming that my signature tag is in any way improper.

"Remember, remember the 5th of November... "- Guy Fawkes 00:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

By the way, you can reset indent by using the {{ri}} template.--Fighterdoken 00:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

— derp de derp derp a tum tee tiddly tum ta tum Maf

"Remember, remember the 5th of November... "- Guy Fawkes

^Yours is longer both in code and in visible text. – Emmett 00:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Fighter, thanks for pointing out the template. And Emmet, I didn't say yours specifically, I was referring to a previous tag line that someone referenced me to. I counted it, taking out the changed semicolon tagged text such as & n d a s h : (without spaces) for how it shows up in their preferences bar. The tag was like 150 or 160 characters and spaces long. Mine, before I added a second " at the end of the quote was only 53, I think now it is up to 56 characters and spaces.

"Remember, remember the 5th of November... "- Guy Fawkes 02:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Nobody cares how long the raw text of your sig is. My sig's raw code is 3 times longer than yours, but it and the icon are less than an inch long. I buy food at Subway that doesn't even cover up your sig. ~Shard 04:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Shard, you need to keep away from those cookies, dood. I hear they are not good for your waistline. :P

"Remember, remember the 5th of November... "- Guy Fawkes 05:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I feel the need to point out that Felix's above suggestion of linking to a subpage containing the text of the poem in your signature would actually constitute a violation of the signature policy and therefore is not a viable option. The only links allowed in signatures is to your userpage, talk page, and contributions. -- Wyn talk 07:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Guy, if that response somehow invalidated the very clear precedent I just showed you, I missed it. I'm not showing "double standards and bullshit attitudes", I'm pointing you to an almost identical situation wherein it was decided that sigs such as yours aren't acceptable. If you can come up with a valid reason why you should be allowed to use your current signature when consensus determined 2 days ago that it's not allowed, I'm dying to hear it rather than some random tangent that I still have not determined the relevance of. – Emmett 19:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Emmett, that example you posted had almost three full lines of plain text, it didn't totally invalidate it. It just wasn't as concrete an example as you were intending, I think. Mine has six more words than just my name, that is it. It isn't a clear precedent, because the example listed did clearly violate stated tag policy about length, mine does not. If policy said "no other text besides your user name, or a stylised equivalent or variation in spelling is allowed", then I would agree that my signature tag would be in clear violation of the stated policy.

Guy Fawkes - "Remember, remember the 5th of November" 01:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Responding to all

Hopefully I will get this done before someone else edits, so that all of my hard work making MY comments will be able to be completed, and I won't need to use notepad and cut and paste to get it saved quickly enough.

K, here goes, first off, thanks to everyone for your opinions. I have read them all. Wyn, sorry for calling you "he" and "him" in previous posts. It was not meant to be offensive.

Now to the main point I am trying to make. I did not say I felt "oppressed" before, I took it (wrongly as it turns out) as a personal attack from a sysop of the wiki who was trying to enforce their personal opinion as "law". I was wrong for thinking that, and Wyn, again, my apoligies for that incorrect reasoning on my part.

My discussion, and my argument, based on that wrong line of thinking, was that if I was to be singled out (which I felt I was because of previous dealings with other wiki sysops, not going into it here), then the rules should be applied to all people, and fairly, which I still think is a valid point.

My argument is that these discussion pages (and by extension, the signatures of the people making use of them) are like forums, and like forums, people are allowed to express themselves, and express their views on certain things. In the case of forums, they have specific areas for certain topics of discussion. However, people are allowed, within reason, to post their own thing in those signature tags, if they use them.

In the case of these discussion pages, the "topic" happens to be the article page that discussion page is linked to. However, as in a forum, there is a reasonable amount of leeway allowed with the signature lines. I agree that a more restrictive use needs to be encouraged here, as in, no animations. etc. BUT plain text, which my signature line is, should not be a problem, since it is within the stated guidelines listed on the two pages I am using as a reference for my side if this issue.

My "concern" with being blocked was what originally brought up my concern for Wyn using sysop status to "enforce" a block on my account, and that concern was based on a comment that someone else (not Wyn) made, Jette, I believe.

Wyn, I had, and have, no problem with your specific instance of how your signature tag is presented on the wiki pages. I did not mean my comment about the excessive markup tags to be directed at you.

"Remember, remember the 5th of November... "- Guy Fawkes 22:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Take note that users get poked at for their signatures almost every day. You're not being singled out by any means. What got YOU so much attention, is you're adamant and giving walls of text trying to defend yourself, when a normal person would have just fixed their sig and be about their day. And despite all your apologies, I haven't seen you fix yours yet.-- anguard 22:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I think this guy is secretly Cat Dance >.>--Unendingfear 22:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

You are also making a critical mistake, Guy. Wiki talk pages are NOT a forum, nor are they intended to be treated as such due to technical an practical issues. Maybe there is no law stating this, but it is the concensus we are ruled by, to certain extent.--Fighterdoken 22:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Vanguard, I am not going to "fix" a signature tag that I don't consider in need of being "fixed". I will apoligise for doing something wrong, which I have done, specifically to Wyn, for taking something out of context of the intent she had originally, and also for referring to her in an improper gender. You have not seen me, nor will you see me, apoligise for a signature tag that I do not feel is in any way out of line. If I do, and only then, will I apoligise for it. No one has come across clearly enough, at any time, to show that my tag is in violation of any policy. All they have stated is that some people think it is long, and that is fine. That is their opinion, and they are entitled to it. It is my opinion that the use of a different colour for each letter is rude and obnoxious, and often times, difficult to read. It is also my opinion that there is nothing wrong with my signature tag the way it is.

However, I am not going to sit there and bitch about each and every time I see someone who does it (uses different colours in their tag), because of two things. One, that is how they want it, and two, I think that people should have the freedom to express themselves, as long as it doesn't infringe on someone else's freedom. And there is no such thing as a freedom to not possibly be annoyed by something someone else does.

I have even tried to make it so that my signature tag goes on a separate line, in anticipation of the possibility that some people might find the preceding post hard to read. However, I would not ask others to fix their signature tag, or where they put it, just because I found it hard to read or not.

"Remember, remember the 5th of November... "- Guy Fawkes 23:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Unending, I am not Cat Dance, BTW. I have no idea who that is. - GF

Guy, this place is run my consensus. You will get banned, unless you listen to the admins. If they wanted, they could ban you for your shoe being untied. :P--Unendingfear 23:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, Cat Dance was someone who filled the entire screen with one post. >.> You write a lot like he does...--Unendingfear 23:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) The alternative Felix offered to you is the best compromise the community could offer you at this time, i think. If you willingly ignore it and decide to keep going, i hope you have the maturity to deal with the consecuences.

As far as policy goes, they are created to be as general as posible but, since it is impossible to make them cover every and all variation that may ocurr, we, as a community, gave the admins discretion to judge the particulars of each case. As this, Wyn's request for your signature modification is within the attribution of both GWW:SIGN (which specifies that signatures must not be disruptive) and GWW:ADMIN (which, by granting discretion rights, allows admins to act within the "spirit" of policies and not be restricted by the wording of them).

If you want to keep going with your attitude, you only have one option. Request an arbitration comitee revision on the issue. They have the final word on anything on this wiki, specially if it is an issue between admins and users.--Fighterdoken 23:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

(reset indent)

I do not have an attitude about it, I have an issue with people trying to enforce their opinion as de facto law in this regard. Which, as I already said before, and apoligised to her about it, Wyn was not trying to do that. I mistook her comment as such for other reasons.

The point is, this does not clearly, I say again clearly violate any stated policy on the matter, it is only people's opinions that are being stated here. Not once has it been stated clearly that the issue I am supposedly violating is anything more than an opinion. And, if we are expected to follow opinions as law, then my opinion matters as much as anyone else's in this case, and in that, then to be fair to everyone, everyones' tag should conform to the standards, which are clearly stated, if mine is expected to conform to an opinion.

Since it seems that people feel that their opinions should be followed as law, then other opinions have as much validity, or else the whole issue is bull.

Some people have stated that they think that my tag is too long, and others have stated that they do not see a problem with it. I have also been commented to about "fixing" something that isn't broken. It is based on opinions, nothing more. Yet I am expected to sit here and accept that other people's opinions are valid, and yet, when I use their same reasoning from my side of the discussion, all of a sudden, that point isn't valid any more. The same exact argument, when used to "justify" (which is all they are using on their side, an attempt to justify their side of the discussion) from my side, is no longer a valid point.

I agree that there are certain things that aren't, and shouldn't be, allowed, such as the personal attacks, but be reasonable here. If you are expecting someone to just blindly accept another's opinions, and not have one of their own, that is just as valid, then you are living somewhere other than where I am. It is common sense, or at least it should be, that one point of view could be, and often is, just as valid as another. Just because many people happen to share a similar one doesn't mean that the differing point of view is any less valid.

"Remember, remember the 5th of November... "- Guy Fawkes 00:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Unending, I know you meant getting banned about having untied shoelaces jokingly, because I would probably post something like p;dsgnqa]r[dg (from banging my face on the keyboard). But there also has to be reasons for a ban if any is put in place. This has no clear violations of policy, only opinions.

- GF (This IS my talk page, I think there should be a way the system posts something automatically that the "owner" of the page made the particular post)

Page History does, essentially, that. --RIDDLE 03:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Riddle, I was referring to the event of autoplacement of the signature tag, not the credit being given to the poster.

"Remember, remember the 5th of November... "- Guy Fawkes 06:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Some HTML and wiki-code basics for text modification.

Since you seem to be wanting these:

• Two single quotes produces italics: ''text'' = text
• Three single quotes produce bold: '''text''' = text
  • Five single quotes will do both. text
• <span> tag is used to modify text: <span style="color:green; border: 1px solid red; font-family: Times New Roman;">text</span> = text
  • Alternatively, you can use <font> tags too: <font color = "red" size = "5">text</font> = text
  • The Hexadecimal color system is also supported. <font color = "#00aaff">text</font> = text
    

Good luck, and happy editing. --RIDDLE 04:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Appreciate the help on the editing, Riddle. However, I am not for the abuse and overuse of markup tags in a signature, and for me to do so, to me, would be just as bad as what people claim I am guilty of now. At the most, I might change the colour to either an equivalent level 13 blue, or the same colour as is used by the Blue Man Group

"Remember, remember the 5th of November... "- Guy Fawkes 06:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I believe I misinterpreted the reasoning for this. I thought you were aiming to use some HTML or wiki-code to help emphasize some of your points. --RIDDLE 06:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

pardon me, my dear sir

If you are going to sign as "GF", could you kindly create User:GF and redirect it here? Someone might become confused. Vili 点 04:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I was going to say this, but he's had enough "your sig needs to be fix'd" for today.-- anguard 04:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I thought, with all of the posts by Guy Fawkes, and given the content of the discussion being made, that it would be understood to be from me. My apologies.

"Remember, remember the 5th of November... "- Guy Fawkes 06:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

It is. Registering the account is just a measure to prevent someone suplanting you later.--Fighterdoken 06:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

This

Is the biggest, most obnoxious example of wikilawyering I have ever seen. Not only is it in the wrong place (if you want to discuss a change in the signature policy, do it on the policy talkpage), but it serves no function other than to broadcast your rebellious attitude across the wiki. Many users have warned you about your disruptive signature, some of them were sysops, and some of them were not. All of them left courteous notices. I find it difficult to form my own in such a manner, because, frankly, you have done nothing other than to whine about your rights and your freedoms to fix it.

Your freedom is not being suppressed. Your rights are not being revoked. This wiki isn't 1984, your delusions aside. Here, community consensus rules, and consensus thus far is clearly against that gigantic tagline of yours. Your page asks for both sides of the opposition to participate: I have news for you, you are the only one who is for them.

Do everyone a favor and fix that stupid signature of yours. It is not a means to express yourself, not a means to broadcast your ideas about the working of the world - it's a link to your userpage. Furthermore, from one wiki user to another, remove your wikilawyering page from Requests From Comment, and be kind enough to tag it for deletion before it creates more and, quite frankly, needless drama.

tl;dr: Grow up. NuVII 10:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Nuke, it's your turn for reintegration. Come along quietly now and maybe we'll keep the voltage low. Mr J 11:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Umm, Nuclear, why even bother to post at all? Posting gives him the attention he wants; when nobody bothers to sign, it will become obvious to him that nobody cares about his wikilawyering. Pika Fan 11:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Nuclear, it is just that, a request for discussion. Why is it that others have the opportunity to ask for a discussion of things, and because some of the people have stated their opinion, and I am not allowed the same opportunity? You are right, this isn't 1984. However, it also isn't a time when everyone thought the earth was flat, and it isn't like I am asking, sorry, trying to force everyone else to have their signatures the same way as I am. It is bullshit attitude like this that keeps it so that places like this continue to not be as good as they could. It was posted on the main page about Freedom of Speech. And anyone and everyone is free to post their thoughts on it.

I am not going to remove a request for discussion when it is the proper steps to follow for the resolution of this issue. Arbitration is the next, but only after the time the request for discussion is allowed to run.

If this were a requested change to a format of a page style or something, then yes, changing it back to the original way until it has had time to be discussed would be the proper steps.

Pika, this actually has little to do with wikilawyering (none at all actually), and more to do with double standards and bullshit attitudes being shown (and not from me).

Guy Fawkes - "Remember, remember the 5th of November" 19:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you're understanding the whole consensus thing. If more than a few want something gone, it should be gone. EVERYONE is a target for this.-- anguard 19:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

lol wow. - Mini Me talk 19:50, 30 October 2009

You are still refusing to see the point here. We don't want your opinion. We didn't ask for it, nobody did, in fact, so stop trying to shove it in our eyes when you are in breach of policy. There is no reason for discussion, because the community has already reached consensus. Other people do not unreasonably ask for a discussion when community consensus is clear, and when they do, that discussion is shot down because it generates drama. Your "freedom of speech" along with your editing privileges (and they are privileges, not rights) will vanish if you continue down this avenue. Take it from someone who has been there before: It's not worth it.

There are two ways this can end: Either you change your sig, or one of the sysops ban you after a drama shitstorm. I'd prefer the former over the latter, like everyone here does, but you aren't helping your cause by creating pointless "discussion" pages and trying to wikilawyer your way out of everything. Please, for everyone's sake, change the blasted signature and stop this before it escalates.

Finally, and I'm going to boldface and italicize this: The stability and continuity of the wiki supersedes everything; including your precious freedom of speech. If what you are doing is disruptive, someone (prolly a sysop) will put a stop to it. NuVII 20:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and please read this. While not official policy over here, it still applies. NuVII 20:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

And this--Unendingfear 20:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Alright guys, enough. Guy has been told by 3 admins now to change his signature as consensus has determined it's in violation of the policy. He's either going to do it and continue on his merry way, or not, and get banned. Continually beating him about the head and shoulders is not going to change anything and is only feeding into this drama fest. Thanks! -- Wyn talk 20:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The point is that if someone thinks that something in policy isn't correct, it is (even if you think it isn't) acceptable for that person to have a discussion about it. Especially when it refers to a policy that is only enforced against certain people. And once again, consensus states a unanimous decision against it. It has not been unanimous. I will agree that a majority of people do not care for it.

I also refer you to Unending's link about democratic dictatorship (I saw that before in my research Unending, and thanks for pointing that out as well). Once again, just because a large group of the involved do not agree, they try to force anyone who possibly sees things differently than them to bow to the majority will. I am not that person, and it doesn't make what you are all trying to do right and proper. It is also sometimes called abuse of authority. This isn't like I am trying to force everyone who reads my post hatemail or racial slurs or something like that. And yes this is playing favouritism, time and time again. I am not doing this just to gain attention, despite some claims. If it were, I would have something like "look at me look at me look at me look at me" in my signature tag, or a blaring colour. I don't. Other people have rude and obnoxious tags in their signature lines, and these do go against policy. Just because you want to claim wikilawyering against me doesn't mean that what you are doing is right either. You can use the claim of wikilawyering as an excuse for your actions all you want. It doesn't excuse the fact that you think just because some people happen to agree with others, that automatically makes those people right, and someone else wrong. The only reason this has gotten so much attention is because people apparently think that they can violate the agreed upon rules, and it is ok because no one (not true, but keep thinking it) cares; and someone chooses to ignore that fact, just because someone else has an opinion, a viewpoint, that some people happen to not share. This actually has nothing to do with if there is a consensus or not, and more to do with the point that I was going to leave alone, but Unending helped bring into the discussion, democratic dictatorship. I have proven my side validly time and time again. The response being given back basically amounts to people sticking their fingers in their ears and going "la la la la la la la la I'm not listening to you la la la lala la".

Guy Fawkes - "Remember, remember the 5th of November" 22:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to respond to that pile of nonsense you call a rebuttal; partially because of Wyn's request, mostly because I have seen that you are unable to hold a reasonable debate. Fine. It's going to be the latter, then, in the end. NuVII 22:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Apparently it is viewed as nonsense because it happens to be a viewpoint not held by the larger group of people. I have tried to have a reasonable debate. I have tried to actually have a debate about it, not stick my fingers in my ears and ignore reasonable discussion. I have been accused of wikilawyering. That is one of the lamest excuses for most of your activities about something staring you (collectively) in the face. Apparently, the only acceptable response to you and to the others who think the same on this point is "you are right and I am wrong". But because I am not saying that, then apparently I am not being reasonable. Yet another example of the double standards being exercised here. Based solely on the fact that someone has a different view point, they are being "unreasonable" and spouting "nonsense". In this case, it would seem that being reasonable is "ok everyone else is just automatically right" and then that person shutting up. Others are allowed to say their piece, but when I do, I get told, in effect, "your opinion doesn't matter because others don't see the same point". Never mind the fact that other people in this community have said they agree with my side of this discussion. Because I choose to disagree with certain people, and have the guts to present my side of this discussion, then I am the one in the wrong.

Try to unsuccessfully justify your refusal to have a reasonable discussion about this if it makes all of you feel better. Try to force your view on others even though there is a clear case of double standards and favoritism being used here. Try to use the excuse of the claim of wikilawyering against me if it makes you all feel better. This has gone far beyond a non-issue and has done so because of the refusal of many others to be reasonable, all the while accusing me of being unreasonable.

For those that have actually been reasonable and tried to discuss this, even the ones that have a different point of view than mine, thank you for your views. Unlike the majority of the people involved in this discussion, I have read them, and while they might not be shared by me, I accept that others may have views I can disagree with, but that doesn't make them mean any less. Unfortunately, many of those have gotten lost in the bullshit attitude, double standards, and excuses that many others have used to attempt to force their narrow-minded viewpoint on others.

69.182.188.52 01:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no clear view of right or wrong in this. The point is, multiple members of the wiki deem your signature to be too long and obstructive. While you may mean well, your constant arguments against what should be a simple issue has raised far more drama then is necessary. You are merely blowing this up far larger then it needs to be. By simply shortening your signature, this all could have been avoided. You also claim of bias towards you. You do NOT help matters by posting huge comments responding to the issue and yet seem to skirt the direct issue at hand, which is a simple concept of an overlong signature. There is no reason to be so idiotically stubborn over so trivial a matter. Shorten your signature, end this now. Shadow Runner 01:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

And the constant application of double standards (my wiki sig tag which has half a line of clear text (supposedly against policy), against opinion, or multiple users using sig tags (with ridiculous amounts of markup tags), which repeatedly violate STATED and accepted policy about length of signature tags, and excessive markups) do not help the opinion opposite mine either. It is their insistence on enforcing an opinion when other more serious violations are allowed to continue that has blown this up. By their insisting on double standards, they have continued this far beyond what it should have been. I am not skirting the issue, I am drawing attention to it. Double standards and favouritism is the issue, even if no one else wants to see that. I agree with your idea that there is no reason to be so stubborn, yet I have shown my point and have proven it repeatedly.

Proposing policy changes

If you wish to propose a change to the policy, please follow GWW protocols and place the discussion on Guild Wars Wiki talk:Sign your comments. Unless you wish to propose a complete rewrite of the Signature policy, in which case, you should write it up as a policy change draft on a page called Guild Wars Wiki:Sign your comments/20091030 draft and tag it as {{policy modification|active|Sign your comments}}. If you would like to see where these steps are outlined, please see Guild_Wars_Wiki:Policy#Changing_existing_policies. Thanks! -- Wyn talk 11:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for that information Wyn. I will look at those pages. It is also my intention to add a link to the discussion page for my alternate discussion page about the policy on signature tags. I am actually working on the proposal on notepad and am going to cut and paste when it is done. That way, I can get it all fixed, and devoid of emotion and also have sufficient research done to support my points calmly and clearly. These discussion pages are usually filled with vitriol more often than not, in my opinion.

Guy Fawkes - "Remember, remember the 5th of November" 22:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Wyn, for the record, I do not wish to propose a complete rewrite of the current standards, just a fair enforcement of them. I do not feel that attempting to enforce this issue, which does come down to a matter of opinion in reality, while repeatedly allowing others who do violate accepted (they are still listed on the policy page) policies and standards is fair. Basically, enforcement of this issue has come down to a popularity contest in many respects. Some of those in repeated violation of the stated policies are the ones who seem to be most vehement about my tag. - GF

Wyn, I am not proposing a rewrite of the entire sig tag policy, just a fair enforcement of it. It is a matter of opinion only on the length of my tag, as it stands, and yet there are people who repeatedly violate the stated and accepted (it is listed on the policy page, so I must presume that the community agreed to it) and are allowed to continue. Many of those who are the most vehement about enforcing this part of it are the worse violators of that very same policy. I do not try to claim that everyone who is against the length of my tag are in violation, but to borrow a discussion line from your talk page, they are being hypocrites, in regards that their actions (use of a sig tag that violates policy) do not follow their stated point of view (the desire to enforce that policy), even though my "violation" is not clearly shown. All that has been shown is that my tag goes against one opinion (that many people share) of what is acceptable. Without giving specific examples, and being accused of personally attacking people, I would venture to say that there are probably at least 20 people who use this wiki on a somewhat regular basis who's signature tags violate the accepted policy standards every time they make a post. Like I have said before, I don't even remember where now, this isn't something about a standard format of how an information page is laid out. On that, I could see the issue to someone making a major (or even a minor) change on their own, putting their own personal stamp on it, if you will, and violating the accepted standards. - GF (repeated, because first save was done in the middle of editing conflict, I apoligise for repeated statements/information)

Just so you know Guy, if you feel someone's signature is in violation of the policy, you can feel free to point it out to them and ask them to change it, just as I did with you. That's how the wiki works. When I see a signature I feel is in violation (and excess text is a pet peeve of mine) I ask them to change it. I may not have asked you in the most politically correct way, but that is all I did. The fact you turned this into a mass wiki drama fest and continued to do so, right up until Karakot banned you is something I just don't get. Your mass walls of text on my talk page outlining the points of the policy your signature doesn't violate totally skipped over the parts that it does, like because you adhere to 8 out of 10, those other two don't matter or something. I hope when your ban is over, you will simply do as you've been asked by the community and remove the excess text from your signature. I encourage you to continue trying to change the policy if you feel strongly about it, but, keep in mind there are tens of thousands of registered users here, and 9 active sysops, so calling for more rigid enforcement is probably not going to happen, and quite frankly will be seen as unreasonable. -- Wyn talk 14:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Qualifying edits

In order to vote in an election, you need a certain number of votes in Main space (i.e. GW articles, not talk pages); I leave it as an exercise for the reader to find the details.   — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 02:18, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks ernie

Guy Fawkes - "Remember, remember the 5th of November" 02:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

qualified votes...

or whatever. for the RFA for Auron. Its like, 100 mainspace edits, I believe. don't quote me on that though, I'm not 100% sure. personn5 02:18, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

You would also know this if you bothered reading the policy regarding elections. -Auron 02:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I probably would, but I'm too busy right now to. personn5 02:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks personn5

Guy Fawkes - "Remember, remember the 5th of November" 02:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

And thanks also for the snide comment Auron

Guy Fawkes - "Remember, remember the 5th of November" 02:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome, it was aimed at you in the first place. -Auron 02:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

No kidding? You mean that? (yes that was sarcasm, just in case you couldn't tell)

Guy Fawkes - "Remember, remember the 5th of November" 03:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Oh my goodness, am I disgusting. Ɲoɕʈɋɽɕɧ - "Remember, remember the 9th of November" 03:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Yep

No double standard here.-- anguard 11:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't fuel the fire vanguard...

nvm, you are awesome. NuVII 12:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Now you've just confused me.-- anguard 12:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Better? NuVII 14:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh look, it's another one!-- anguard 17:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

November 5, 2009

I will be celebrating this November 5th by decapitating a Guy Fawkes doll while wearing a traditional purple-dyed cape trimmed with gold. If you'd like to join me in celebrating the capture of some disgruntled guy that no one cared about, feel free to join me. To RSVP, call me at 813.675.4304. ··· Danny Pew Pew 18:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

no but but he protected our freedoms of us catholics

On an unrelated note, I found this while browsing through the wiki. Fawkes is number 30; but what amused me most was that Churchill was number one. A fascist drunkard is the best Briton who ever lived. NuVII 19:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Poor Ringo didn't make the list. --RIDDLE 06:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Charles Darwin should be no.1. And Churchill was kinda a good war leader.--92.14.223.207 21:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised Shakespeare wasn't 1. Without his contributions for the English Language, half of those people probably wouldn't have made history. --RIDDLE 05:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• cough* Newton *cough* physics *cough*. NuVII 14:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, for those that care, my intent was to draw attention to the reason Guy thought he had to blow up Parliament. The fight for freedom. In that respect, I think the original Guy Fawkes was doing the right thing. He just went about changing things the wrong way.

Guy Fawkes - "Remember, remember the 5th of November" 17:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

HTTP ERROR 404 years ago today

"Four hundred and four years ago, a domestic terrorism plot in Britain was foiled by a dedicated parliamentary representative who feared for the lives of his fellow legislators. With the WTC attacks less than a decade past, it's quite surprising that any decent human being, much less any American citizen, would dare to praise the failed Gunpowder Plot."

With that in mind, I sincerely hope that your use of the name "Guy Fawkes" is simply in jest. 69.162.71.154 20:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

rofl, he does, freedom or else!--Unendingfear 23:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Nice try, IP-guy, but the sheer fallacy of an argument equating an attack on civilians with a liberation of civilians is retarded. Oh, especially if its main tactic is "they both went boom". | 72 {U|T|C} 00:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I like IRL Guy, he had spirit. Blowing up Congress sounds like something I would do if they ever get around to passing one of them silly internet laws they keep talking about. It's a pity people like this guy are so irritating. LOL ANONIMUS IS LEEEJUN GUISE –Jette 00:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Blowing up congress is prolly a good idea. NuVII 12:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not condoning the failed attempt to blow up Parliament by use of this name, I am praising the man's willingness to fight for freedom. Any other inference drawn by others is their own fault.

Guy Fawkes - "Remember, remember the 5th of November" 17:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Socialized Medicine

Okay, you know what? Citations Needed. Britain (or, more formally, United Kingdom), Canada to a degree and France all apply a sociological medicine model. They aren't stupid. It works. I'm all for freedom of speech, but you must have numbers or pictures to prove your statements. NuVII 18:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Fawkes: I read your message with some bemused amusement (by the by, those who believe they aided the wiki by expelling you are unlikely to worry that they harmed the wiki by expelling you). However, as with Nuclear, when I came to your opinion on socialized medicine, I sputtered. Please, do not spout the lies you have been told by various people in your life before researching them. I am a Canadian and socialized medicine works amazingly. We never worry about whether we can afford doctor or hospital bills; we never think we have to sacrifice proper medical attention because it costs too much. Neither is there a lack of doctors, at least where the vast majority of the population is (i.e., anywhere not Nunavut). It works, and it works amazingly. On a related note, I just came back from my doctor's appointment. In July I had an accident wherein I was hit by a car. It has required four months of intensive care, two surgeries, and several doctors (mostly my hand and jaw were affected; the jaw is healed fine now, and the hand is in the last couple months of physiotherapy). This bill would be thousands and thousands of dollars were I in America. Neither I nor anyone responsible for me paid a cent. Oh shit, I had to wait in the waiting room an hour to see the doctor on two occasions. Actually, I seem to recall hearing that is better than in your country. | 72 {U|T|C} 20:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The internet is srs business I heard.--74.55.165.162 20:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

People and their ignorance is business worth attending to, sir | 72 {U|T|C} 22:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Lol, I had to wait like two hours to get a five minute braces check up :/--Unendingfear 00:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

What you say maybe true, but it's not the whole story. Here's some food for thought. You do pay, you pay higher taxes. Some people just don't believe they should pay for other people's heathcare. You pay for yours, I pay for mine. Personal responsibility. Now, I assume you're fairly young, twenty to forty? How do you think your wait time will change when you're fifty, sixty, seventy? Also, the U.S. population is significantly larger than Canada and UK. The strain will therefore be significantly larger. Not only will it affect patient to doctor ratio but wait times. Emergency room wait times are already abysmal. If it's working for your country, great. But you must understand "works for you" does not equal "works for anyone". Please don't use Guy's unfortunate choice of words as an excuse to vilify the other side of the argument. --74.55.165.162 21:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

IP has a good point. Not to say that all of his arguments are valid, but he has a good point. I, for one, just don't support it because of, well, ridiculous military contracts, the constantly failing Postal Service, and numerous other financial dumps that the U.S. government has taken over the years. Also, the removal of abortion coverage really, really irks me. ··· Danny Pew Pew 22:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Did it ever occur to you that, US is simply not doing it right? Also, please don't use Guy's unfortunate choice of words as an excuse to glorify your side of the discussion, it's unbecoming of people in a debate to resort to such ridiculous red herrings to derail the argument, especially when no such "vilification" is made. People gave their personal account of the system, as well as requested for evidence, no part was implied that socialized medicine is right just because Guy was wrong. Pika Fan 22:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Our taxes are hardly higher than if we did not have it, but each Canadian is willing to pay $100 more so that the 5% of them who need $2000 can afford it, especially if they end up being one of those who needs $2000 (and paid only $100). This is a ratio thing, and would increase with population, as would the U.S. population--the more population, the more doctors (for every 10 people paying $100, a doctor can work on one for $1000, etc). We have also found a trend that age has nothing to do with wait time to be seen; if anything, the older are given even more attention, I promise you. Emergency wait times are only abysmal for those not in serious emergencies; someone with a wound or in immediate danger is seen to immediately, and as for the others who do have to wait hours in the emergency room when their stomach feels particularly twisted, from what I gather that's not much better in the private medical systems over there (correct me if I'm wrong). Furthermore, "works for me" and "works for the majority of countries that have implemented it" are two different things; if the U.S. is seriously disadvantaged and would be in the "does not work for" category, then it's still not, as Guy argued, a moral failing of any kind. | 72 {U|T|C} 23:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be forgetting a few things:

1. America has far more people who need that $2000 because of all the fat fucks in our country.
2. Our representatives know only as much as the lobbying groups tell them.
3. We're already so bad at balancing a budget that we're depleting our Social Security and Healthcare benefits while blowing out our trillion dollar deficit with military spending.
4. If you have more affordable healthcare, that means, generally, that doctors are taking the hit, and it's already hard enough to find a competent family practice doctor. Unless you can convince medical supply companies to cut their costs, which, as far as I know, isn't in the bill, you're going to have very few people who want to go through medical school to make less than someone who graduated from a shitty business school.

··· Danny Pew Pew 18:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

That's a good point Danny. Spending half of your budget on useless and redundant arms is more important than providing proper healthcare. NuVII 20:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure what point you were trying to make since I already pointed out that the military spending was pointless, so if you could elaborate, that'd be great. (I will note, however, that unless they're excluding obesity-caused conditions from the bill, I might actually be in favor of the position that it would be better to fund the military than to support useless fatasses.) ··· Danny Pew Pew 20:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

That was me being sarcastic about the US budget at 3 AM. Yes, I agree with you. Would you like to be my friend? NuVII 20:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I can't be friends with foreigners. It's against my religion, and I heard the Senate was about to pass a bill to make it illegal. :< ··· Danny Pew Pew 20:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Convert to satanism, blow up senate. NuVII 20:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I should note that a), Canada also has a number of (non life-threatening) things which are not covered by free healthcare, such as circumcision, some vaccinations, and liposuction (I believe); that b), doctors do not take a hit if they receive $1000 from a group of people's taxes or $1000 from a single patient and $0 from others; and that c), if, as you say, the U.S. is actually a place where healthcare would fail miserably, it's not, as I said, a moral failing, as Guy would contend. Anyway, I think I've said pretty much everything nonredundant I can say on the topic... | 72 {U|T|C} 21:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I would never claim that it was a "moral failing". I'm assuming Guy meant that "the people had converted to evil socialism", which is simply being stubborn and resisting perpetual change. (Of course, I'm a staunch capitalist and social liberalist, so I'm not very fond of anything that's going into this bill, or public-support policies in general.) ··· Danny Pew Pew

I'm Chaotic Evil. –Jette 23:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

ym's chaotic evil. ··· Danny Pew Pew 23:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

(RI) Whatever True neutral here NuVII 16:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

That would be Neutral Evil, actually. "The price of inaction is far greater than the cost of making a mistake." ~Meister Eckhart ··· Danny Pew Pew 21:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

That kind of depends on the mistake.  :/ Also: satanism is quite peaceful, or at least law-abiding. tmyk!... –Jette 07:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm assuming you're American

so you might want to /rage at the new copyright treaty. ··· Danny Pew Pew 20:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)