User talk:Jon Lupen/Archive5

Archives

---

• Izzy Police
• April 09
• May 09
• June 09
• Aug 09
• Sept 09
• Jan 10

"I DISAGREE WITH WHAT YOU SAY, BUT I WILL DEFEND TO THE DEATH YOUR RIGHT TO SAY IT."
~ Evelyn Beatrice Hall, The Friends of Voltaire

··· Danny Pew Pew 16:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to step away from this situation before I do something stupid that I'll later regret. My tolerance level is dropping through the ground today, and fast; it's already 6 feet under. — Jon Lupen 16:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

>: Sounds like someone needs a big hug. Wanna talk about it? ··· Danny Pew Pew 16:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine, or will be atleast, I just need to go somewhere else and blow off some steam. — Jon Lupen 16:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

^ sitting on wikis will only make you more frustrated unless you really don't care about what's going on. i'd suggest this if you're looking to get your mind off things. ··· Danny Pew Pew 16:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Linsey's Archives

Since new archives need to be created when current ones get too big, specifying the exact page is really not a good idea, like, a new Questions archive should be created with the next archive, since the current one is already almost 100k. -- Wyn talk 21:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

A new archive is a once in a while deal, I'll take care of those at the proper time. I specify the exact page because I'm usually the one that archives it and it speeds to process up a bit for me. I'll get a new Questions archive made and the link sorted out. Speaking of new archives, at what size should a new one be made, 100kb? — Jon Lupen 21:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Imo a good size, where it is still fine to visit the page is around ~120.. But it really doesn't matter. poke | talk 21:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Archives addressed. I made a 21st questions as well as a fourth resolved issues archive, as that one was getting large as well. I also changed the respective links to the new archives. — Jon Lupen 21:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Revert-alicious

Hey jon, although I appreciate what you are doing, please leave the reverting on Misery's page to the admins now. The issue has been brought to our attention and we can sort it without you breaking 1RR further matey and flooding RC. As although I don't think you should be sanctioned for your actions, 1RR is their almost explicitly for times like these. -- Salome 18:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Right. A side note, I saw the most recent vandalism on Misery's page before the admin notice board note. — Jon Lupen 18:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

No worries, as for protecting mis's page. Personally I don't like doing that without the users prior consent. This is even mroe so in instances where the user has the ability to protect their own page, like Miz does. -- Salome 18:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair point, let's see what he thinks on this matter. — Jon Lupen 18:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

"putting words in my mouth"

"Something is truth until it is shown to be otherwise." → "God exists because you can't disprove it."

I have no interest in continuing the religious part of the discussion, but if you're going to say something callous you may want to make sure it makes sense first. – Emmett 20:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Your reading farther into my statements than they were written. If your going to accuse me of something, make sure it's not a figment of your imagination first. — Jon Lupen 20:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Please explain then what you meant with your original statement, because given the context the conclusion I made is really the only one that makes sense. – Emmett 20:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Which original statement? — Jon Lupen 20:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

"Something is truth until it is shown to be otherwise." 1 – Emmett 20:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I ment exactly what I said. — Jon Lupen 20:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

...so you admit that nobody "put words in your mouth", and that you talked yourself into a corner all by yourself? k. – Emmett 21:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

No. — Jon Lupen 21:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Then show me what you meant by saying "Something is truth until it is shown to be otherwise" to mean anything other than "God exists because you can't disprove it," because so far all you've done is avoid the question and deny that you said exactly what I am saying you said without providing any evidence. – Emmett 21:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

This debate will at best decide nothing and at worst will cause wikidrama, so I would like to request it not continue. --71.56.252.139 21:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, unlike religion, this can be concluded, and I'd like to see how Jon responds. – Emmett 21:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I already did, your turn. — Jon Lupen 21:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

...no you didn't. Look 3 lines up. – Emmett 21:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain Jon never said anything about his belief (or not) in God. --67.240.83.137 21:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Which would make his request for proof all the more ridiculous. -- Brains12 \ talk 21:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I'm fairly certain that I am currently asking him to explain how his quote means something other than my interpretation of it, which can be found at the first line in this section. :/ – Emmett 21:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I was looking for a response below the IP. :P Also, "Something is truth until it is shown to be otherwise." means exactly what it says. Your reading farther into my comments than they were written. — Jon Lupen 21:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

On its own, it is just a statement that has no meaning- it doesn't mean anything until you apply it to something specific, such as the existence of God. Given that we were discussing the existence of God, I do not see how you could have possibly meant anything other than "God exists because you can't disprove it." Unless you can explain to me how I have interpreted this wrongly (<insert first sentence of this paragraph for emphasis>), you don't have grounds to accuse me of putting words into your mouth. – Emmett 21:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Once again, I would like to reiterate the idea that this discussion is not (and can not) go anywhere, so, for the sake of RC and to not piss people off, please drop it. --71.56.252.139 21:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

"Actually, unlike religion, this can be concluded, and I'd like to see how Jon responds." – Emmett 21:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

First things first, let's keep new comments to the bottom before I loose something again. Second off, I'm going to get something to drink while anyone else that has input adds it so I'm not getting RCed 5 times per edit and then having to revise a new edit because context has changed during the course, cue more edit conflicts, ect. — Jon Lupen 21:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

-- anguard 21:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) The only thing i can't understand is why Jon even brought this "god doesn't exist" thing up? If it's Titani's believe, let him be. - J.P.Talk 21:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

mooo Titani Ertan {{Snappy the Turtle}} 21:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Awesome Vanguard. +11 for you on that, it gave me a good laugh. Now that we have that out of our systems, ladies and gentlemen, I ask you to pursue some other activity such as getting a snack, taking a nap, reading, taking your significant other somewhere special, anything while I compose a coherent response. I would also like to take this moment to warn you of the possibility of an incoming wall of text. — Jon Lupen 21:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I already did all that today. That's why I'm on GWW. Titani Ertan {{Snappy the Turtle}} 21:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd love to see a wall of text. While you're at it, try to justify your original statement - "Something is truth until it is shown to be otherwise" - because that's a huge load of bullshit the way I look at it. So everything that happened in Greek mythology is truth? Roman, too? Norse? Egyptian? Harry Potter?

Speaking of, Hermione has this same sort of discussion with Xenophilos Lovegood with regards to the Resurrection Stone. Lovegood took your stance - "everything is possible until proved otherwise" - and came off looking like a total retard in the end of the book because of it.

-- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 21:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure we should use harry potter to prove a point. Aside from this however, the idea of "truth" as a concept in and of itself is fluid in nature. It depends wholly on ones perception. Their are very few absolute truths. Faith however is self proving, as it depends solely upon the individual believing their is a higher power than themselves, that in itself renders the faith valid regardless of the provable existence of a higher power. -- Salome 22:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Can we avoid picking apart examples please? Examples almost never apply 100% correctly to the situation that they are exemplifying. They are examples because they illustrate the general idea of the topic. — Jon Lupen 22:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

"Something is right because I think it is"

Wait, what? O'Brien held up five fingers now? -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 23:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

<wall of text>I’m going to start this off by eating some of my own words. To say “something is right until shown otherwise,” isn’t the best or most correct way to state it, if you would consider it correct at all. Perhaps a better way to phrase it would be to say, “A positive statement is to be considered true until one point is given to show it other wise. A negative statement is to be considered false until given one point to support it.” I say “to be considered,” because the only absolutes are falsities. To prove something absolutely correct, one would have to explore every single possibility and prove said positive state correct in every single circumstance. Given that there are practically infinite circumstances in the known universe, an absolute truth is beyond human grasp. A negative statement saying that something is false needs but one point to show that the statement it is contradicting is, in fact, false.

Now, how does this apply to the argument between Titani and me? First off, I am, in fact, of Christian belief, but this has little to no impact on the given situation. I did not start this with the intention of trying to prove that God, does, in fact, exist, and neither was my intention to try and convince Titani of this fact. Speaking of facts, I generally work by them, collect them, ponder them, trade them, discuss them, ect. I was merely interested in what points Titani had to back up his statement that God was a lie. If he had no facts to support it, and merely a held belief, then I’m curious to know why he held this belief. Aside from collecting facts and all that entitles, I like to understand and be understood. I like to know why people think and act the way they do, and believe the things they do. On the other side of the same coin, I like other people to know the same about me, if they are interested in knowing. The purpose was not to prove or convince the other party of what I know or think, it was to learn more about what the other party thinks and why. I was not attempting to start an argument or change people’s thoughts and opinions, only to learn.</wall of text>

And now, to end on a silly note, “I told you, I’m not aloud to argue unless you’ve paid.” — Jon Lupen 23:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Did you get your answer from me? Titani Ertan {{Snappy the Turtle}} 23:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The most distinctive thing I got was a dismissive, "I think what I want." If I missed something, enlighten me. — Jon Lupen 23:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

You missed probably every post I said about that subject, then. First ones are the more meaningful ones. Titani Ertan {{Snappy the Turtle}} 23:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I quickly got caught up fighting on multiple fronts, that spiraled out of control pretty quickly...

Would I be correct in saying it would be because you don't see any evidence to the contrary to support that there actually is a god? — Jon Lupen 23:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Not the time nor the place :P. Believe what you do/do not want its your free will no reason to drag a topic in the mud. --Dominator Matrix 23:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) No, you won't. I'll just say this: when I was young I was grown by a semi-religious mother and an amazingly intelligent father. I'll say that what my mother lectured me about that omniscient being with many names but no gender that for some reason is called a He, "He" turned his back to me. When I asked my questions to the bishop I mentioned on my talk page, he without hesitation said "you speak words of blashphemy", and walked away. It's not that I wasn't given evidence, as it's a Religion and you don't need evidence for things like how Muhamad rose to the sky or how Moses received the blessing. It's the base of what would you want God to be, and that is what I based my answer about. Titani Ertan {{Snappy the Turtle}} 23:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Best caller ever + quotes (with plenty of "this is why you're wrong" in the appropriate discussions). -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 23:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair warning, I just took another look at FSTDT (after like a couple years) and it seems to be bogged down in "wtf" quotes (which are amusing as hell to read, but aren't quite as informative as I remember the site being). -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 23:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I see. I get the feeling this is a matter I shouldn't push farther into, so we'll leave it at this. — Jon Lupen 03:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

To continue our chat on GW about GW2

Well, I'm just hoping that the game engine will be fast and more responsive then GW's current. Remember those game-wide lags last year? The problem was fixed, for the most part but after that, I'm a little disappointed but I still love GW. =) -- WoB 18:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

You can't often blame the engine for lag, if at all. It's a very long chain between you and the servers. I've learned from our rather complex home network that one bad link somewhere along the chain can tank the entire system. The path between you and the servers is not a one stop expressway, there are about as many stops as you would take driving from Bellevue to Bellevue. — Jon Lupen 05:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

That's great and all, but when every program on your computer works fine except for Guild Wars, it's probably ANet's problem. It would be mine if it were my company's, at least. Also, there are efficient ways of coding things and less inefficient ways (but often with their own benefits), and choosing the more performance-heavy options can have severe stability issues. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 05:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

It can very-well be Arenanet's fault or a problem on their end, but not be caused by issues with the engine. If it was the engine, this most recent episode of lag would be hitting everyone, and it's not. — Jon Lupen 05:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, however like you said, it's a chain from your pc to the server and back. Meaning, there has to be something wrong with either your pc or the server. The coding is complex and it attempts to be compatible with your pc. Have you ever had the Anet txt file in you GW file? If you get it, read it...very intresting. :) -- WoB 17:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

"Meaning, there has to be something wrong with either your pc or the server." - Wrong. Think about a chain and try again. — Jon Lupen 20:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I connect directly to NCSoft's servers in Texas with some string and two paper cups. I never get more than 20m/s latency. —Jette 20:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Unless someone here's a network tech or a algorithm engineer and you're willing to volunteer your time to help solve the issues, why don't you all just accept that fact that GW isn't a pay-per-month, has less downtime than WoW (and no server limits), and is run by a business whose goal is to make money, not throw it away fixing something that doesn't need fixing (re: XTH, possibly the biggest flop in GW history). Do you really think that they don't take realistic steps to solve these issues?

Specifically, though, code efficiency only does so much. A machine can only flip so many bits per second for an overcrowded outpost, and unless you really expect ANet to spend huge amounts of money on top-notch servers, I'd just get over it or stop playing.

Love,

··· Danny Pew Pew 19:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Chill, we're only talking about it. No reason to get all uptight. We're only discussing over a simple little thing. -- WoB 02:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

He's uptight? I'm confused. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 20:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Feedback Namespace

<gripe>It bugs me that the Feedback Namespace has a green theme but all the links and what-not are still blue. The lack of uniformity is a tad painful </gripe> *shrugs* I'll live. — Jon Lupen 21:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not the only one who thinks that. Yay! -- WoB 15:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

You could probably fix that with personal javascript, or maybe even css. ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777(talk) 21:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Greasemonkey > GWW, tbh. —Jette 21:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

monobook.css and monobook.js save you the hassle of hampering an already slow Firefox, tbh. ··· Danny Pew Pew 19:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

It bugs me enough to itch at the back of my mind when I'm on the feedback namespace, but not enough to bother doing anythting about it. — Jon Lupen 03:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

@smart people: how2do? -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 06:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

how to modify what pages look like? just go to User:<Name>/<skin (no caps)>.css. For an example, see User:Daññy/monobook.css. Greasemonkey is effectively the same thing, except you can apply it to any sites you visit. I'd suggest waiting for JetPack, though, if you cbf'd with tons of code. ··· Danny Pew Pew 19:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you think the non-feedback-namespace links should be grey? -- Brains12 \ talk 20:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I don't. Mint green and... whatever you call this shade of blue have a definite contrast, however, and not in the good way. If I was the one calling the shots, I would have given the feedback namespace a red color scheme, similar to the ANet logo color. Blue and red don't contrast nearly as fiercely. What do I know, though. —Jette 20:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that was the original plan, but making it a faded/pale red turned out too 'pink' for some people's liking. I think green background and purple tables was Wyn's idea that was continued across the namespace. I don't think the green and blue are that badly contrasting, but my eyes are quite terrible. -- Brains12 \ talk 20:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The arenanet namespace was pink, I don't think it was ever "the original plan" to make the feedback space pink (in anyone but poke's brain at least). I don't think the green/purple w/blue links is in any way bad, they are all related colors. -- Wyn talk 20:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I don't care. All I can see anymore is JPEG artifacts anyway. I don't even see images, I just see eight-by-eight blocks and mosquitoes. It's happening in real life too. I pick stuff up and it'll have this weird texture on it, and I'll look closer and I'll realize reality is being lossily compressed. —Jette 20:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

No offense, but blue on green or purple just sounds absolutely terrible for contrast by any means. That said, I'm strongly against deep blue colors on any non-white background. I've got decent eyesight, but it just feels stressful to look at. But hey, it's not like I spend a whole lot of time doing anythign constructive around here anyway. ··· Danny Pew Pew 22:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Generous use of !important should override any differences in Feedback namespace, so it'll look like the rest of the wiki does with your usual monobook.css . If you wanted to have .css rules which only affected Feedback (namespace 202), you can use .ns-202, for example .ns-202 div#bodyContent { background:transparent ; } etc. Javascript shouldn't need to be changed; GWWT and such seem to still work. Vili 点 03:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

honestly can't tell

did you miss a comma in the first line here? -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 05:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Ummk? I think all my commas are present and accounted for... — Jon Lupen 13:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Staff archives

Please make sure that you are keeping anything that has been posted in the feedback namespace IN the feedback namespace when you are archiving staff pages and use the {{feedback archive}} tag on them. We can not change the submission terms of user's posts. Thanks! -- Wyn talk 06:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Tag the page it's being archived to or the topic? — Jon Lupen 13:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The archive pages. poke | talk 14:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Noted. — Jon Lupen 15:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)