User talk:Kaisha/Archive/Nonsense

Proof

I did provide proof. Check the talk page. [ Tyloric ] [ Talk ] 05:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I see that. However that's just an explorable in Gtob area and done on a necro, not a monk. Mine (done on a Monk)? PvE Explorables with the skill used on another user for better effectiveness. 72.148.31.114 16:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Vili did what I was hoping for. Showed pictures of livia and her monk. It is broken. :-S erm a bug. Sorry. Hopefully, there will be a response on the forum. 72.148.31.114 08:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

removing talk page content

I don't think Guild Wars Wiki:Talk pages makes an exception for editing one's own comments. You should at least leave a signature if you are going to do that, though. Otherwise it just makes more work for someone else who has to go and put an {{unsigned}}. 76.78.119.108 06:18, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Happened on many talk pages in the past. I have and others have edited their own comments, not striking them out, but removing comment to rephrase or leave what they feel should actually be there, be there. I only edit my own comments and I always sign my comments, so telling me this is redundant and pointless. I have been here for many years to see the on goings and changes. Sides, it's a "Guideline" not a policy and there's nothing wrong with me removing anything that I've said. 72.148.31.114 07:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, telling me that I cannot remove or modify my own redundance or "sentence structure" is really annoying. After all, it is mentioned in the guideline. 72.148.31.114 07:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

That's funny because I thought you're one of those "always follow the guidelines, they help the wiki" people. Didn't you also bring this up recently to someone else? Also, just because others have done it doesn't make it right, nor does the fact that it's been happening for a long time. Just like you've been here a long time, so have I - and I've seen cases where editors weren't allowed to remove their own comments plenty of times. Finally, removing an entire setion of a comment has nothing to do with changing the sentence structure. That's like saying taking out an entire floor of a building is just tidying up the blueprint. It fundamentally changes the composition of the whole post. If you had rewrote what you took away instead of just removing it, then yeah - that's a different thing. That's "rewording for clarity", not straight-up omission.

"Avoid modifying your own comments, unless it is to correct minor typos or sentence structure. Using strikethrough is much preferable."

"Users may not remove comments (wholly or partially) from any talk page, with the following exceptions..."

There's no exception that says "I can remove what I said because it is irrelevant or redundant to the topic". Unless you want to construe that as "spam". But it's kind of silly to remove your own post as spam...

In any case, there's been a long history of these sorts of conversations - you think you're right and no one is going to convince you otherwise. So I'll just drop it. 76.78.119.108 07:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Not always follow the guidelines, but the spirit of them. That's an assumption. Sides, you're quoting what I just said. Sentence structure. Look at the comment. See the repeats in my sentence structure? I removed what was not necessary that I have done said in the exact same section, also removed repeats that the first few sentences already take care of. Nothing wrong with that. There's a difference between Apples and Oranges. Kirbman deleted this post. That's not his own post, also it was not the same as what was on the feedback pages, but similar, just questions. Nothing trolling about it really. Someone was just frustrated and didn't think Kirbman wasn't paying attention. There's a difference and that's a different matter other than the drama you're bringing up here. If you claim you've dropped it. Then why are you questioning me and comparing two separate things? Really? I just feel this is all troll-baiting on your part. Considering you want to claim an actual vandalism is sandboxing... (um, I still don't get what gives away the "sandboxing", usually edits like that by anyone is considered vandalism by others.) You want to claim that numbers in front of salvaging is fine - despite the "Guideline" guiding in spirit displays differently... And you want to question me on my redoing of my own comment? curious question, but I've never seen anyone display such puzzling style of actions and I wonder what/how you think and so, how do you perceive of some things even things that's always been as they've been with no problems by other people? 72.148.31.114 07:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I said I wanted to drop the subject, but as I thought you have replied with a witty comeback to have the last word. If you really want to continue...

The point of the Kirbman example is that in that case you were all "blah blah letter of the law" and in this case you are saying "blah blah spirit of the law". It's inconsistent. Letter of the law: thou shalt not edit or remove any posts except under X exceptions. It's debatable whether Silven's original post should have been removed or not, but the argument is still the same: "Regardless of how it affects the talkpage, this is the law and it must be followed." Spirit of the law: keep talk pages running as smoothly as possible. That is, "I should be able to edit or remove my own posts, even if the guidelines don't specifically say so in an exception." In other words, ignore the guideline and do what's best for the wiki. So, do you believe in following the letter or the spirit of the law?

I'm not alone in my thoughts and actions. Tanetris left a cautionary note on Farlo's talkpage under my section header, "vandalism vs sandboxing". Zesbeer also reverted your editing of your comment because of the same reasoning I am trying to explain: the GWW:TALK guideline says you shouldn't do it. (letter of the law)

Incidentally, there is nothing in Guild Wars Wiki:Formatting/Weapons that says it's not okay to include amounts of salvage. The spirit of that guideline is "document everything about the weapon that is helpful and useful to know". It is helpful and useful to know amounts of salvage, although as you rightly pointed out, in most cases it is actually pointless after all.

Anyway, if you're really that curious, I'm "bothering" you because I have always had personal problems with you and most of the things you say/do. I've been following your edits since before you used the Kaisha username, and it's just been an endless source of frustration and misery to me. Call it poor self-control if you will - God knows I shouldn't care about this wiki or Guild Wars anyway - but I just get mad and have trouble helping myself. I am sure a veteran editor such as yourself knows what it is like to be so upset over something on the wiki that you can't help but write a huge wall of text about it. 76.78.119.108 09:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

lol at wiki drama.- Zesbeer 09:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

If you have "personal" problems @76 . Take it off the wiki. You are causing drama/disruption with your nonsense anyway. I've done explained twice. On kirbman's case - I wasn't all "Blah blah letter of the law", it was within spirit. Stop assuming wrongly, people don't participate when others create drama with things like sandboxing and vandalism. Sides, with my kirbman intervention Those two did work it out - it didn't get "worse". It caused a discussion to settle a disagreement. You don't like how I do things? Hell, things do get done and people do end up thinking. I haven't seen that out of your edits. 72.148.31.114 15:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Hi Kaisha, it's me again. I pop in every now and then.

You would do well to start reviewing your posts before you submit them. Your posts here and in some other places are giving an appearance of throwaway, defensive typing for the sake of getting out another (or perhaps the last) word. Completely apart from making you look foolish/immature/whatever (I honestly don't care what it makes you look like, so I don't analyze it at all; that's up to you to care about), this has the problem of making wikidrama and exploding talk pages.

I'd also like to inform you that you are now in violation of GWW:1RV on User talk:Farlo. Checking the history, the chain of events was so: you removed a part of your post (the "controversial edit"), User:Zesbeer reverted the controversial edit, and you reverted Zesbeer. At this point, you and zesbeer have used your one revert and should focus on discussing the controversial edit in order to gain consensus, according to the policy. (That discussion should be focused here, on the talk page of the appropriate user, in an appropriate section such as this.)

After that point, Farlo reverted your edit, using his one revert. Being a sysop, his revert and his comment can be considered enforcement of GWW:TALK. You reverted back to the controversial edit instead of discussing - that is two reverts, and so you have violated GWW:1RV in addition to GWW:TALK. I have restored the page to Farlo's version; if you would like to contest this version, I suggest you contact another sysop and try to get a second opinion on the matter.

As to the whole "letter of the law vs spirit of the law" thing, you have, in the past, consistently followed and argued for the letter of the law unless it goes against you. This is just the most recent example; you may also remember another shitstorm that you started (in the process flooding RC with useless reverts and, later, self-reverts) because, as you said, the letter of the law was, at the time, more important to you than either the spirit of the law or the final betterment of the wiki. (Don't get me wrong - I can appreciate that you want to use the proper channels to discuss changes before they're made, and despite my attitude towards you I think your sandbox is one of the most useful experimental pages on wiki - it's just that you are very clearly following the letter of the law instead of the spirit of the law.)

Regarding User_talk:Kirbman#Deleting_posts, it is slightly more difficult to tell if you are favoring the letter or spirit of the law. However, considering the above and also that you linked the policy page and did not leave the comment at "this is what you should and shouldn't do, and here's why", I'm going to go with letter. Furthermore, the discussion and settlement you mentioned had nothing to do with your intervention - Kirbman was the one who suggested they take it to a public vent server, which is what started the resolution.

About disruption/drama: I do not see what the IP has done to cause either. The worst s/he has done is bait you with this edit summary, for which I left a note on his/her talk page. Beyond that, however, the only one who sees disruption and drama is yourself. One thing I have learned about the internet is that claiming there to be disruption and drama is sometimes more disrupting and dramatic than the disruption and drama that was claimed; perhaps I am wrong, but maybe you should think about that before claiming such in the future.

I would also like to point out that calling the IP's edits "nonsense" can easily be considered "disparaging an editor" and thus a violation of GWW:NPA. Furthermore, that IP has only been contributing for a week or so at this point, so saying "I haven't seen that [things [getting] done and people [ending] up thinking] out of your edits" is fallacious not only because it's argument ad hominem, but also for lack of a sufficient sample size.

(As an aside, sandboxing is when a new editor makes the mistake of assuming that the wiki is available for edit by anyone and thus should be edited mercilessly - often time these editors don't understand that their changes are viewable by anyone. As the IP said on Farlo's talk, the difference between sandboxing and vandalism is intent; one is malicious and one is not.)

In short, I see this editor as a potentially useful addition to the wiki, though having made a few mistakes that many other editors on the wiki have made in their day. I also see you (intentionally or otherwise) getting very defensive when this editor - or even others - tries to present to you why you are mistaken, falling back on fallacies of inconsistency and ad hominem arguments, and claiming that people are making incorrect assumptions about you/your intentions/your contributions.

-- Armond Warblade 16:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Some vandalisms may not be "intentional", but still can be considered vandalism. The thing is, people "assume" and go with it. That in it's self is the issue and problem that can be and usually is solved with the realization that not everything is as it appears nor as bad as may seem. Sure, my comments - some aren't clear, but they're not to be clear to everyone. People out to learn and realize and know that some messages from a user (ip or registered) to another user (ip or registered) is "direct" or out of good spirit, a suggestion, comment, idea, etc. Not hostile, etc. Most tend to want to take things the wrong way and cause "hostilies, by troll-baiting, etc. My comment "nonsense" is what I thought of the comments made towards me as editor and not on him as a contributor. So, calling that npa? Maybe, but not everything is "black and white". I hope this helps. Sides, Zesbeer talked with me in gmail about the rv, etc. before the ip posted here and troll-baited and even as Zesbeer commented - obviously caused drama. Hope this helps. Thing is, it's better to ask questions than assume and make things worse than they could be. Most don't consider and go for assumption. Kaisha 17:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Sentence Structure

→ moved from User talk:Farlo

The problem we have here is that your understanding of what "sentence structure" means is different from the commonly accepted definition. Sentence structure is this sort of thing. It is not "what you write" but "how you write it". Let me give an example.

"Nicholas the Traveller wants 1 Skull Juju this week. It's a good thing he only wants one, because they are rather rare and not easy to farm. I have found that farming the two Gaki bosses in Drazach Thicket is a good way to earn them, and the green drops/tomes in HM are a nice bonus."

"This week, one Skull Juju is the item that Nicholas the Traveller is collecting. They don't drop very often and there aren't huge groups of Gaki that are easily farmed. The Pain Eater and The Skill Eater drop them sometimes, and some other nice loot too."

That is an example of changing the sentence structure (by making it worse). I'm saying the same thing, writing the same amount, but in a different way.

"1 Skull Juju - Eternal Grove."

Now, this is not changing the sentence structure - this is removing half the comment. It doesn't matter if the meaning isn't changed or what I removed isn't important, although obviously it is better to remove unimportant things than important things. Do you see the difference now?

(edit after edit conflict) If you had said in the first place that "I didn't mean to post this and I hit the save page button accidentally", this whole thing would probably have been let go, to be honest... 76.78.119.108 19:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

How about asking instead of assuming? Sentence structure is to how one would take it. You gave an example and yet you didn't see that you took out a large portion, while giving the same basic "points". I did the same. Can't we drop it now? I think each side have made their points known. It'd been solved a lot easier, if questions were asked instead of assumptions taken and brought out into a lot of drama. I'm sorry to expect that people would realize I was fixing my comment that I hit save page on instead of show preview. I didn't expect they'd assume differently and jump on my case for editing a comment of mine. It's not like I removed other people's comments, etc. intentionally as (if you'd read the talk of gww:talk) that page and other pages were obviously created to prevent. Kaisha 19:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

idk you could have said something 24.130.140.36 19:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

i mean people aren't mind readers 24.130.140.36 19:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Yea, I should have added a comment in my summary. Well, damage is done. What's done is done. >.< just annoying that my comment can't be as intended, because of others having issues with it and that they think it should remain as original and not as intended. It, imo, is not assuming good faith, but poor tactics in the first place. Disparaging to begin with, imo, and discouraging like, "you can't "fix" your comment" that you wrote. it was your fault you didn't use show preview". It's ironic in a way, My ip has had double edits, because of this touchy pad (I use mouse for these reasons) and the damn thing can't stay locked. May just make a comment to hp to have a switch, instead of a button or touch corner thing - to lock the mouse pad as this is a hardware issue that I do have a problem with (on my laptop) and that I can't really solve :-(. Hrm, unless I can disable it from within windows, but then I do like to use it (rarely) on a few things, least of all when I can't reach my mouse (little one does like to sit between me and the mouse when we watch a movie on here). *sigh* >.< *pout* Kaisha 19:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC)