User talk:Jon Lupen/ArchiveSpecial1

Archives

---

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

the comment

DID belong on the page but if you consider it not long enough then yh no problem to remove it.Lilondra *gale* 20:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Izzy's page has not reached a point where it needs intervention and archiving. Individual topics often reach a size greater than 32KB and continue unhindered. When Izzy's page get's archived is up to him. If you believe we, as a community, should step in and archive things for him, his page is not the best place for such a request. I would recommend the Community Portal for this. — Jon Lupen 20:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Well to me I think pages need archiving when you have to scroll and well scroll to get to the bottom but yh it wasnt rly a page that long Lilondra *gale* 20:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The table of contents is your friend. Also, Izzy's page (being a page for Arena Net staff) is still a high traffic page, and will always be of a rather great length. Take a look at Linsey's talk page, it's sitting at over 500KB atm, and Regina's is over 200KB. The community portal talk page it's self is close to twice the size of Izzy's page. — Jon Lupen 20:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Why are you removing comments when it was said it wasn't needed seeing how Izzy hasn't been active for 2 months.

Also, if you delete comments make sure to think first. Just because it has skill names in it doesn't mean it's a suggestion. Mini Me 16:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm removing content because the page should still be clean, and Brains has passed the responsibility off to me. Comments are also removed if they are flame or could very easily insight a flame war or trolling. Izzy's page in it's self is very volitile. I'm trying to make sure that the comments on his page do not make it more volitile than it already is. — Jon Lupen 17:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Tbh You just removed a good comment it does not offend it does not involve suggestions but it asks a question to izzy like stated on the page can you explain WHY you removed it ? Lilondra *gale* 17:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) By removing VALID comments? Way to go! Instead of removing them, you could post a message telling people any comments will be deleted. I've reverted your revert, and yes I know about 1RVV but frankly, I don't really care about that right now. Mini Me 17:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh and: "Comments are also removed if they are flame or could very easily insight a flame war or trolling."

1: It wasn't a flame.

2: ANY comment on Izzy's page can very easily ignite a flame war and/or trolling tbh. Mini Me 17:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Stop using fallacious logic please mini me. Yes, "any" comment can easily ignite a flame war if trolls get to it, but that does not excuse anything. You can't use it as a defense for a post.

Although that post looks like a question to izzy and nothing more. He's not demanding nerfs or insulting anyone. As long as the page is trimmed of unnecessary commentary on the question, it should be alright. -Auron 17:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

You are right. Mini Me 18:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll be watching that topic VERY closely. If things get messy because of it, it goes, and pretty quickly. It will not be removed, but it will be moved. Does that sound reasonable? — Jon Lupen 18:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be better if the commentary below the original comment would be removed.

But that may be too much work. Mini Me 18:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The below commentary is part of the original comment and is just as questionable as the original comment. It's all or nothing on that topic at this point. — Jon Lupen 18:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I need to work on my speed reading >.< — Jon Lupen 19:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, you deleted my comment twice, even after I added a note to it to point out that your reason for removing it wasn't relevant. This time you said "Balance suggestions, comments and disuccion do not belong on Isaiah's page" and yet my comment was non of those, it was a question to Izzy. It was somewhat about balance and it even mentioned the names of OP skills (oh no!) but it was not a suggestion, comment or discussion and I would have thought that it was obvious to anybody reading it. Now, I don't mind people removing superfluous (especially given the length of Izzy's page), but NOT without a valid reason. Thank you. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:82.14.70.192 (talk).

I'm sorry. I'm usualy rather a rather short time on the wiki, and as a result, rush some things. In the rush, I missunderstood what you where saying. For that I am sorry. — Jon Lupen 19:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

No, that's fair enough and I totally agree with trying to keep the page clean and short and so forth, I was just annoyed that it didn't seem like it should have been removed. Thx for replacing it (I don't expect I'll get an answer anyway) :-). 86.0.109.132 11:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

why u delete my comment?

u can't remove comments. archive law. put it back please is a good idea and i thought for a long time. 23:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Please see your talk page and the message by Brains at the top of Isaiah's tage page. — Jon Lupen 23:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

o. misery said he would help but thanx Edward 23:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Who the fuck are you

I say this in the most polite way possible, of course.

Who gave you the right to police izzy page, if I may ask? -- NUKLEAR IIV 19:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Guild_Wars_Wiki_talk:Community_portal#User_talk:Isaiah_Cartwright You can stop reading after ab.er.RANT's comment. — Jon Lupen 22:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, lemme repharse that: If you are going to police that page, (Of course, we really need moar wikistapo's around here) do it right. This is the first page where you're actually participating in the discussion about balance, which, IMHO, is a bit lame. Now, the urge to post in worthless bullshit mounts to a terrifying level sometimes, and that's okay, as long as you're not a dick about it. So don't be a dick about it. Stop being a policy nazi, or follow the policy to the word. There is no grey area when it comes to this. -- NUKLEAR IIV 20:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Brains was/is more zealous in his enforcement of the policy on Izzy's page. I'm not the didicated "Izzy Police" with nobody else touching the page. Other admins and users are still watching and policing the page. Also, the on disucssion I took place in, was a question for Izzy, and not so much a balance discussion in the skill x is over powered, and skill y needs a buff, ect. There are topics and discussions that have been left, because they are an honest question, and not a call for skill change, or a suggestion. The purpose of the policing of Izzy's page is two-fold. One, keep out flame, flame-baits, trolling, NPA Violations, ect. Two, Keep skill balance discussions and suggestion at their proper location. It's not that we don't want things discussed, it's that we want it done somewhere else. — Jon Lupen 23:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

You're not getting it. You can't draw a line between balance discussions. You can't, for example, remove some discussions without any authority whatsoever and participate in the rest, when the topics are the same. It simply doesn't work. If you are going to police that page (your funeral, tbh) do it right. If you favor any disscussion over another with the same or similar topic (which you have done) people will bitch at you. I will bitch at you, just for kicks. This is not really advice. It's a firndly warning that you will get trolled, and people will enjoy it. Do the job right, or don't do it at all.

The reason why brains was a total nazi there was because that's the only viable way to keep that shithole clean. He didn't favor anything related to balance, period. If you want to take over his job, at least get a few pointers from him.

Also, clean up your act or I'll be the first one to troll you. Just for kicks. -- NUKLEAR IIV 20:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

No reason as to harras Jon just because he's keeping his eye on Izzy's talk page, that page is a joke and by all means Jon has did nothing wrong. By calling him a "policy nazi" welcome to the wiki, policies matter and so does sanity. If you don't like Jon's patrolling say something a bit nicer...I say that in my own personal opinion and not advice. However, you're both good at patrolling so patrol good instead of harrasing. Again that is in my own persoanl opinion and I'm not open to any arguments about it, you can't change one's opinion. Nuclear,by the way, trolling is NOT good and Jon has the right towards free speech, part of being trolled is knowing you're doing the right job and by all means, troll him, see what happens. Again that's in my personal opinion....-- WoB (contribs) 00:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Nuke, check your premises, because from where I stand, everything you have stated is a complete fallacy. I don't do bias and favorites. Trolling and bitching at someone for kicks is a good way to loose all respect anyone has for you, and a good way to loose my respect for you very quickly. If you disagree with my methods, fine, disagree with them civily, but it does not give you the right or a reason to make a douche out of yourself. — Jon Lupen 00:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

nuklear you have no idea what you're talking about. you should read what you type before you hit save page and make sure it's in line with reality. yes, jon is a complete whoru in terms of balance, and honestly should not be doing it... but there's nobody else willing and able, so unless you're volunteering to do the job for him, quit whining.
"You can't draw a line between balance discussions." Yeah... you can. It's called critical thinking. -Auron 00:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Izzy's page

Just what did you unarchive? Seeing as 50k was archived, and 14k was unarchived, and Archive page 22 still exists, I don't understand how you decided what should and shouldn't be archived. I believe that the entire archive should have been restored. -- Wyn 18:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I unarchived all the unaddressed topics. At the very least, it ALL doesn't need to be unarchived. There are a few topics that are just a header and a link to another page that could stand to stay archived at this point. If you think it should all be unarchived, then I'll take care of it shortly. — Jon Lupen 21:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, It's all been unarchived, with the exception of a few stubs that realy don't need to stay on the page. — Jon Lupen 22:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

When dealing with Izzy's page, could you please add {{unsigned}} to unsigned posts. With all the moving and stuff, it get's hard to track origins, and it is needed for legal reasons. Backsword 23:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually Backsword, since signatures are not required per policy, adding them isn't either. So if you feel that there are 'legal' reasons that stuff needs to be signed, then maybe the policy needs to be changed and actually REQUIRE signatures. -- Wyn 23:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Wyn, that's entirely wrong. Bananas are, in fact, yellow. Sometimes. Backsword 23:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

LIES! They're green! (for a while atleast.......) — Jon Lupen 23:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Nah Wyn, don't worry about it, I'll try and catch unsigneds if I can, as I have been. Keep min mind tho that I'm only around the wiki for so long each day. — Jon Lupen 23:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Did you have to unarchive all the "this topic you're not responsible for was moved to this other place" notices? Just saying... 69.109.186.15 00:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I didn;t actualy. Some topics have been moved by Backsword since I unarchived. I'm going to leave them around for a few days before archiving the newest moved topic stubs. — Jon Lupen 00:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)