User talk:Readem/Archive 1

Note: Don't even bother.

Sig testing

Well. That sucked lol. ~Readem

Let's try this again. Readem (talk*gwwcontribs) 08:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Any particular reason you find every GWEN skill to be overpowered? Even the ones everyone else says need buffing? - HeWhoIsPale 18:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Because I am strange like that. I am also very strange. Ask anyone. Readem (talk*gwwcontribs) 22:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

?

?--File:Image-User Hanks Gotcha sig.png Big Hank (talk · contributions) 05:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Was laughing at your slash comment :P. Readem (talk*gwwcontribs) 22:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Add another block to your user page

This user need to be banned for ranting too much Lightblade 23:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

uhhhhh --Readem 17:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I lold

^ Raine - talk 20:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Why not just add a ban template, wave a flag that promotes censorship, and give a valid reason for such nonsense. tyvm. bye now. Readem (talk*gwwcontribs) 23:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Seriously...stop trolling. You're annoying a lot of people including A-Net staff and a lot of commitied wiki users with you're pointless overly opinionated factless comments. If you have something to say, then say it, and with resaon's explanations etc. NOT as you are currently doing, e.g: Here. --ChronicinabilitY 22:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I am allowed to have an opinion regardless of what you care to believe. Take offense, to what is directed at you. If not, ignore it. I have my opinions, you have yours, leave it at that. If you can find a place where I am incorrect (Fact-wise) feel free to bring it up here. If you are unable to tolerate a small bit of criticism, then please understand that this will not be the first time you will see it. You do not have to respond. Simple as that. Also my friend, it would be your not "You are" (From a Grammatical Standpoint), and you spelled "reason" and "Committed" incorrectly. If you are going to wave the flag of blatant censorship around, at least use FF. Ty, and have a great day. (Also, if the Anet staff are so unhappy about my opinions, then perhaps they should listen to the vast majority of us, who are displeased with their work.) Readem (talk*gwwcontribs) 23:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

You are allowed your opinions, but don't expect people to take any of them seriously when you don't back any of them up with a rational. Most of your comments are 1 sentence long (if that, and typically are along the lines of "Overpowered IMO"), and the longer ones remind me of J Cougar so much that I wonder if you two are sharing notes. For the record, I like or am indifferent to most of the changes from the last update (and yes, I have a Ritualist). Edit: Let me rephrase: I'm referring to J Cougar's initial arrival to the wiki. I've actually found J Cougar more constructive lately than you. - HeWhoIsPale 12:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

From what I have seen, he has done nothing wrong except have a different view on game balance. He seems like a pretty normal guy, except for the fact he said Ensign was wrong >.>. I tbh, do not care about anyone's opinion, especially yours :)! Tbh, I am not a caring person. Like I said, if you take offense to what I say, then please understand, that this is just a game. Oh, and another thing, one may take you more seriously, if your name wasn't "HeWhoIsPale". Srsly. Readem (talk*gwwcontribs) 23:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

J Cougar's initial edits on this wiki consisted on vandalizing Gaile Grey's Userpage. He was blocked after been given warnings and then proceeded to continue editing while bypassing his block (thus lengthening his block). He justified his behavior by claiming that Gaile sucked at her job and that the majority of players agreed with him. His current edits mostly consist of his unique view on balance, which while I don't agree with, he is at least contributing in a positive manner. - HeWhoIsPale 12:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Has Readem broken policy? -Auron 12:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Not to my knowledge. His attitude towards Anet and it's employees, rather than his behavior was where I felt similarities. - HeWhoIsPale 17:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

No Auron, I have merely been more elitist then people have liked. I will refrain from commenting, after receiving such a good chuckle. Didn't see his Gaile Vandalism, but I wouldn't doubt it. I am actually surprised Admins had yet to protect her page lulz :P. O, and I am still pissed that you did not stand up for me whatsoever Auron, even though I would have done such for you without even hesitating. Disappointing that's all. DE neutral, and you didn't even care. Readem (talk*gwwcontribs) 23:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I will stand up for you. I may not agree with some views of J Kougar, or you even... but I respect how the two of you don't "follow the crowd". honestly, I have issues with [Gaile's] demeanor as well, but I choose not to voice them on her talk page.... often. At any rate, I do NOT support this ban. AT ALL. Counciler 19:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

"The only thing I suggest, is thinking before changing; actually listen to the opinion of the many, rather then of the few." If you're going to criticize others for grammar, you better fucking make sure you're doing it right. 68.51.95.206 08:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

New Siggy siggy sig

Readem Sorry, I'll stop trolling now.

Should I mention it violates GWW:SIGN? Granted, its more of a guideline than a rule (at least that clause). Riven pt 2? LOL -elviondale (tahlk) 04:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

How so? It does not disrupt text, it is properly tagged, and color does not avert the attention of anyone. It can be arranged that it does not link to my Talk Page, though the Guide Lines clearly says that is not a problem. At most, it is annoying to some lol :P. Readem Sorry, I'll stop trolling now. 04:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Is that in anyway better? Readem I troll you, you troll me. 04:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I just meant the 30 character thing. -elviondale (tahlk) 04:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:IESux.jpg

This image is up for deletion because of image naming. Please take a look at GWW:USER#User images and reupload it with a correct name :) - anja 11:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I said nothing. Just a bunch of gibberish, they may, or may not be translated into "IESux". It is most definitely up for interpretation :P. Readem Sorry, I'll stop trolling now. 23:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, it's more the lack of User Readem that irks me ;) - anja 00:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The new image is still wrongly named... :P I'll fix - anja 17:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I named it after after a famous band. Thought that might be please you, and yet you still go displeased! :P Readem Sorry, I'll stop trolling now. 23:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

lawl

hehe —The preceding awesome-sauce comment was added by Skakid9090. 17:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Laugh while you stll can skakid. Readem Sorry, I'll stop trolling now. 23:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

the meaning of "BS"

"Yeah, this is BS. Readem Sorry, I'll stop trolling now. 23:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)" wondered what it meant, thats all o.O... --Ghirkin 00:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Um, are you wondering what "Bull shit" Means, or the context of what I was saying O.o...? Readem Sorry, I'll stop trolling now. 01:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Lol sorry im not good with abbreviations ^^, to me could have meant "monk socks" or somthing..... --Ghirkin 06:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

LOLOL

HOW DO I KNOW YOU AGAIN?!?!? :P Dieing I troll you, you troll me.

Ow, my eyes

Your user page is painful to read. o.0 (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 00:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

You should see my old page on Guild Wiki lol. Readem Sorry, I'll stop trolling now. 01:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

;)

You know, with your last sentence "We are done" on my talk page you-know-where, you got the song "We are One" stuck in my head, only with the lyrics We are Done. We are more than we are, we are done. XD Just thought I'd share that pointless and random bit of information with you.  ;) ~ J.Kougar 03:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I am all about the pointless and random dude. Readem Sorry, I'll stop trolling now. 22:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Spamming in the wrong places

Readem, try to reduce spamming, and please, try to make your comments easier to understand. Avoid your 'I say one (sarcastic) sentence, the rest should be clear' postings, as there are many readers that are less witty than you - making comments that are understood only by a small 'elite' should be avoided in an open forum like this. If you have something to say (and you proved you have), then DO so, don't wait and make numerous pointless comments until someone asks you to explain yourself. You cannot assume people know your point without explaining it, if it was like that, there was no need to write something in the first place. Personally, I like reading some of your comments, but then I'm only some random guy with too much time to spent: There's no place for this kind of entertainment in skill discussion section, for example. There ARE stupid comments about skills being over- or underpowered, but trolling is no appropriate response, as the usefulness of the whole feedback section is reduced even further.
This wiki is an interface between users and devs, spamming WILL reduce its functionality, and might even make this whole feedback issue pointless eventually. Try to be more constructive, and you'll find out that it is much more difficult than hiding behind a wall of sarcasm.
There's little chance this posting will change anything, of course, yet I felt like writing this. I do have one additional request, though: Please mock my english, as I am no native speaker. - TeleTeddy 23:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The Devs listen to what they want to hear. Its functionality is both at an all time high and low, so I doubt that I, (being merely one user) can even make a dent. Now onto the mocking stage! Okely dokely! :P Readem Promote My Ban Here 00:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

They hear what they want to hear? I'd say they have to. 4 million sold copies result in many different views regarding a single feature. You can't please them all... and you shouldn't even try, as a vast majority of people is so very uninspired about most topics. As a dev, it is wise to ask the community for ideas, but eventually you have to do what YOU think is right.

However, being discontent with the direction the game is heading lately (as I am, too) is no excuse to fuck up feedback discussions. Being unhappy with the work of community relations staff in general is no excuse for trolling. Do not destroy what you can't have, and don't underestimate the influence a single user can have on 'debate culture'. - TeleTeddy 09:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

No, they literally hear what they want to hear. It is not selective ignoring, it is not a matter of time/people. Some topics they clearly see and have been commented upon multiple times. They merely do not want to deal with it, at all. If they left even a small comment, on the matters the public is most perturbed with, then I would be satisfied. Instead, I believe it is GWO, the PR was actually fighting with the community lulz.

Now, I do not "Fuck up" discussions. Disagree, I will not argue. But my intent is not to fuck things up. I merely hold strong beliefs, that others do not find "satisfactory". Tbh, I don't care what they think. Never have, never will. I highlight the dumb ideas. I argue against this "Idiocracy", and because I do so, people hold me in contempt. I am not against the devs. I have no qualms with Izzy (Not the greatest at skill balance, but I am sure we all would make mistakes), nor Ryan (Who has to deal with avid RA nubs, who think their glad 1 title means something). Even Gaile, is not a horrible dev. She is just in the mediocre range, when it comes to PR. It upsets me, because PR for Anet especially, is so very important. The underlying theme of this story, is that I do not dislike/like anyone on this wiki. I do not know any of you. You are merely people on a wiki, or in an online game. If you react so violently, when I bring up a controversial subject, please QQ to a Psychologist, not me. Readem Promote My Ban Here 18:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think dumb ideas need any highlighting at all. Any sane person will notice dumb ideas as ... dumb ideas - you shouldn't drag further attention to them, doing that will not improve anything. Especially as the authors of these dumb ideas most certainly will NOT understand your intention and begin to argue: Congratulations, a pointless discussion was born. Reacting to stupid posts is tempting, but feedback section is not the place to do that.

Btw, these violent reactions you provoke, and your answers to them, DO fuck up feedback disussions occasionally. Maybe 'fuck up' is exaggerated, maybe it wasn't your intention, but it happens anyway. You could argue that it's not your fault, but I think we both know your style has something to do with that: In feedback section you should provide feedback, any distraction to that is unwanted. Recently being part of some, you should know you're not completely unblameable. - TeleTeddy 09:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

When people realize their their mistakes (a.k.a how dumb they are), then I shall stop trolling. Expect the Universe to implode before either of those two things occur. Readem Hate Mail Goes Here 06:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Greetings.

I don't quite understand what you said, but if you appreciate in depth explainations you may appreicate some of my other topics.

Anyhow, I have to say that your really not promoting your interests by making alot of obnoxious remarks, I say alot of things people hate and disagree with all the time, but being obnoxious about it just gives them permission to dismiss your interests. I always look at things from a rational point of view and try to discuss topics in a way which will either educate others or at least stand irrefutable against any remarks, but in the end some people, and even Anet will not accept what you think, and aggrivating them isn't helpful.

I hope you the best in progress, and I hope you can contribute to the discussion.--BahamutKaiser 19:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Tbh, I don't care whether Anet will accept my ideas/philosophies. Not their problem, nor is it my mine. If people learn to cope with me and dismiss "my interests", I am glad that I have made such a significant difference in their "Wiki Experience". That they too, actually hold some firm beliefs. Your remarks are not irrefutable as are mine, for they are merely opinions. Opinions can neither be wrong nor right. Arguing that point, is ridiculous (<3 the irony). I hope you continue to enjoy contributing, and will likely speak with you again in the near future. Readem Promote My Ban Here 19:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with your philosophy there at all, an opinion is only invalid if it is subjective, an objective opinion, no matter how much others disagree, is only wrong because of misunderstanding, rather than the common bias and prejudice of most opinions. When you rationalize something you simply observe the given facts and conditions, and derive a solution. In an extreme sense, no one can be perfect, and there is no complete objectivity, but in reasonable context, it is rather possible to set aside subjective bias and derive answers which are sound.

Ergo, it really is an irrefutable statement if there is no denying an observation and fact, the modern liberal idea that any opinion holds wieght simply because their human is nonsense, an emotional allowance for those who cannot recognize facts and accept understanding.

Wile I pursue my interest in the game, particularly improved gameplay, more dynamic combat, increased frequency, a better circle of checks and balances, and higher inclusion of interesting content, these are all acceptable interests, and they do not affect my rationalization, only my goal. Therefore, when a discussion occurs about one topic or another, I will rationalize what I know about the situation and developed a solution which will involve these features, someone who disagrees has the opportunity to correct misunderstandings, pursue alternate interests, or simply ignore and deny rational observations and pursue impractical interests and solutions. I can accept that some people do not want the same objectives I am interested in, that just means the more productive and enjoyable option should be wieghed by the developers, and I can accept that I may misunderstand a feature, and have to alter accordingly, but I do not recognize irrational remarks and petty denial without any evidence.

I'm not implying that you said anything irrational, you just want different things, so don't get me wrong, but I certainly don't believe that arguements cannot be irrefutable. For example, this discussion I had about the grind possible in Archive GW2 Suggestion, In the section about creeping introduction of grind, players repeatedly suggested the addition of fake levels to allow a low power cap wile allowing "additional" levels. I told them this was nonsense, and completely irrational, nobody wants fake levels, and the only people who were suggesting it were people who didn't want extra levels..... etc. They didn't have a chance in the world of disputing their point, it was completely irrational, and when they had no hope of making a valid remark, their best supporter started writing emo remarks to be saying they were insulted because I told them the idea was irrational. That has no validity, it was irrational, and it was irrefutable, and their only rebuttal was to privately cry about it and try to guilt me.

Reality has rational, irrefutable truths, the challenge is to discover them and represent them.--BahamutKaiser 20:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

It was there opinion to make fake levels. Though utter nonsense, it does have some positive points to it. That, is irrefutable. Thus, you cannot change someones opinion for them, it simply does not work that way. They, must do it themselves. No matter how impractical an idea may seem, all in all, it is an opinion, who is right/wrong. Generally, the majority decides upon the "actual" answer. Thus, it is an opinion to view someone else's ideas/beliefs as "wrong", and that your own logic is irrefutable. lol, it is a paradox in itself. Readem Promote My Ban Here 21:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

A statement that there is possitive points to it isn't evidence, and there are absolutely no possitive points to it. There are those who want the level cap to remain, and there are those who want more levels, not a single person wants fake levels, and people who want low levels and are afraid of high levels are suggesting fake levels in an irrational hope that this will be an alternative. The benifits are none, if they arn't levels, than it is a trick, titles are used to track progression outside of levels, levels signify the actual power of your character, no one who wants higher levels is going to accept fake levels, and Anet didn't consider fake levels when they considered higher levels to be an improvement.

This sort of nonsense isn't acceptable, reason is not determined by majority or acceptance, support doesn't make an issue right, this idea that majority determines reality is nonsense, the majority can think whatever they want, and they often do, and for it they are simply wrong. This is irrefutable, because no rational arguements can be presented, interests and denial are not rebuttals, they are ignorance, and no matter how many people don't understand, they are still wrong. This is the sum of reality, almost everyone will always be wrong, and only a few people will slay their bias and prejudice and draw rational conclusions whether they support their interests or not. If your philosophy is one of liberal denial than nothing can be constructed from your discussion, whatever you think really isn't relavent, only what you can support with rational evidence.

That is reality, whether you agree or not, and it doesn't need you to understand for it to be certain, there is only truth, lies, understanding, misunderstanding, denial and acceptance. Denial is just an illusion of evidence for illegitimate interests. Without reason, a person can think whatever they want and people will only agree on what they want, it requires reason for people to accept ideas outside of what they want or expect, in order to come to a universal and accurate conclusion. And this discussion is pointless if you cannot accept that.--BahamutKaiser 21:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I cannot accept that you think humans are reasonable :P. That, and that alone is a major flaw in your thought process. People will choose what sounds PC, or structured better grammatically even. Even if, the logic behind the said idea/concept is inane or ignorant. People are ignorant, let's face it. Though some may strive to do better, there are always twice as many doing the exact opposite. I may complicate matters, but if matters are not questioned, then humans tend to make rash decisions for the worst. You and I, are very similar in this way. You questioned the communities consensus, and thus possibly changed the end result. Rather then use our wits to argue over a triviality such as this, let us use them to better the wiki. This conversation is over, I assume. And hope ;). Readem Promote My Ban Here 22:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You know, I'm starting to realize how smart you actually are. A little harsh at times, but overall you're a very intelligent human being. I also just realized that the last part of that sentence was a contradiction. You win some, you lose some, oh well. Bluemilkman 02:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Lulz, I am a walking contradiction. Readem Promote My Ban Here 05:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference between offering people your opinion and inviting people to prove you wrong. But I won't feed the shark in this case, like you would love me to. There should be a huge warning notice on the front page of all the wikis you "participate" in that states "If you happen to visit a page, skip all posts by this user(you), who likes getting bashed for no reason, so that he can hustle you into an argument you will clearly lose, due to his gifted cunning abilities." Laura Brinklow 23:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you just insult or compliment me? Tbh, I can't tell. Readem Promote My Ban Here 03:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's say I complimented you, since you totally redeemed yourself on my talk page, which I have to thank you for. Laura Brinklow 12:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Np, I do that rawr. Readem Warning: Ignore this User if at all possible. 22:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

homsar

you are strange and this place is a contradiction and npa is being violated here and there and this is a big pit full of arguments and i hate this place what else is there to say i think it would be fun to troll here cuz it sucks lolol 34.176.35.18 21:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Mr.Test

hi 2 u

I know we don't talk much nemoar but I wanted to let you know I STILL CARE -- <3 Tankity Tank 03:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I just realized how much my seig fails in IE...

Title says it all. Anyone else see green O.o? Readem Warning: Ignore this User if at all possible. 21:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Played with you in RA!

Very nice games, shame on that 7th one! The Ranger was REALLY annoying me, everytime I got Zealous Benediction back, he'd interrupt it and disable it! Shame! But it was very fun playing with you, and I hope to see you in the Arenas again! Tr33zon (Talk - Contribs) 07:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi2u2. Readem Warning: Ignore this User if at all possible. 07:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

omgstop

Y R U TROLINGG SOO MUCH STOP ITS LIEK ANOYIN MEH —The preceding awesome-sauce comment was added by Skakid9090. 19:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

R U JELOS?? -Auron 11:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Readem for President!!-Cardsharp

If I was a registered voter, believed in voting(or democracy, or majority rule), and/or was eligible to vote, I would vote for Readem. --Edru viransu 22:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

OMG U TROL MOAR STOP —The preceding awesome-sauce comment was added by Skakid9090. 17:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

No u Skakid. Readem Hate Mail Goes Here 17:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Sig

I'm sorry, but did you read GWW:SIGN throughly? Maximum visible characters = 30. I wouldn't complain otherwise but currently it's disturbing a lot and I don't see a point in the extra stuff after your user name. -- (gem / talk) 06:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Pretty sure he can't read period. -Auron 06:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Always making fun of my disabilities, eh Auron? Also, is this better? Readem Hate Mail Goes Here 06:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Y. :) -- (gem / talk) 06:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Lol love that sig! - hehehe, i rarely agree with yer responses here, but i REALLY like the "hate mail goes here" sig--Midnight08 03:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

ownership of this wiki

the fact that anet host and provide the bandwidth for this wiki would in effect give them complete ownership of this wiki. Basically if this wiki continues to include content which exceeds the T for Teen rating of the official game, it could quite easily lead to the end of anet support of this site.Thus dropping of the site itself. Therefore any company which has the power to shut down this wiki, does in effect own this wiki. If you wish to argue this point further, please go and read the relevant contract law books first. -- Salome 20:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Anet doesn't own the content of the wiki, so anyone could take the content from here and host it elsewhere. --Edru viransu 20:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

that is indeed true and as i said, ANET owns the wiki. I dd not say Anet owns the content.However if Anet did indeed cease support of this wiki due to inappropriate material, then if it is hosted elsewhere without the official endorsement etc... It would no longer be THIS wiki, it would be an unofficial wiki. Thus my prior point stands, for all intents and purposes anet owns this wiki. -- Salome 20:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It would be the exact same content. I don't doubt that it would have most of the same contributors, either. I don't really see the point of discussing a hypothetical as unlikely as Anet randomly shutting down the wiki, regardless. It's akin to discussing what I might do if I actually played the game anymore. --Edru viransu 20:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Hate mail

Hate hate hate hate hate. Also, get on IRC. —ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲ 23:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Please have the decency to include deregotary comments about me on my talk page, rather than on others talk pages. At least I would have a better opportunity to answer any issues you seem to be having with my phrasing. I assume from your wording you would have preffered me to use the past tense for "misunderstand", however as the individual in question was continuing to misunderstand my point, i felt the present tense was necessary. However if this is not the issue and you are just generally trolling about my particular turn of phrase, then in that case happy trolling! -- Salome 01:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Trolling would be more like what youre doing right now! Captain Obvious 01:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

In what sense? since when did asking for clarification upon a point become trolling? -- Salome 03:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

K, happy trolling for me. Readem Hate Mail Goes Here 04:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

winner

You made Skakid9090 laugh out loud, so now Skakid9090 thinks you are teh winnar. — Skakid9090 01:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

O: look at the above note Skakid, and stop failing. At this rate, there won't be any room for my hate mail, which is simply not acceptable. Readem Hate Mail Goes Here 01:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

oh sry, U SMEL — Skakid9090 01:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

readem, why are you so DISRUPTIVE?! wtf — Skakid9090 01:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The only explanation...is that I want attention! So gtfo my talk page skakid. Readem Hate Mail Goes Here 01:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Nerf charm animal? Єяøהħ 02:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Nerf it, gogogo Readem Hate Mail Goes Here 02:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Mind toning it down a little?

Not sure what point you are trying to prove, but what you're doing now is certainly not the way to go about it. You're just disrupting those discussions and frustrating editors who are trying to engage in dialogue and figure out what's best for the wiki. That's just not right. Please, enough. --Dirigible 03:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I love ironic typos. --Edru viransu 03:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

You didn't see that, you're just imagining things. --Dirigible 03:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

orly? --Edru viransu 03:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

but what you're doing now is certainly the way to go about it

You heard the man, Readem. —ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲ 03:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I am merely interjecting Dirigible, not disrupting discussion. I do not like the idea of such rash policy changes; they are poorly thought out, and were hastily created. Am I not a frustrated editor Dirigible? Am I not, in my own fashion, trying to figure out what is best for this Wiki? Perhaps it is you, who should try/accept a different methodology on such matters/occurrences? Are you doing the right thing Dirigible, allowing my edits to be erased and labeled as "Vandalism"? Reprimanding me, and allowing others to go "Scott-free"? It appears to me, that this discussion is over, as your opinion seems highly biased/irregular on my views/opinions. Oh, and I am not trying to prove anything...as of yet. Readem Hate Mail Goes Here 05:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Signature GWW:SIGN

You chose black as color for your signature as well a put it into bold print. Taking both options is prohibited here: Do not use color and bold formatting on the same text. Please correct that. ~ dragon legacy 20:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Black is color, now? --Edru viransu 21:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

So if black is considered color here then that would make it to where nothing can be bolded at all. His sig is fine.- Hyrule 21:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I must admit, I don't understand what you're referring to either, Dragon Legacy. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 21:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Alright, tech talk: "[[]]" produces a 'link' which is by default (i.e. 'without color') blue. To customize the appearace you add 'style="color: black;"'. There's nothing hard to understand about this. ~ dragon legacy 21:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I think most of us know that. We're not idiots, nor clueless. Black's not color, though, from both a technical and a scientific perspective. --Edru viransu 22:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, this is getting ridiculous. I'll go a little more into detail: If black is "not a color", what's blue then? We allow default-colored links to be bold. That is because the choice of the color is left to the user. In the monobook.css, each of us has the freedom to define "non-colored" for himself. Choosing a user defined color for your signature is a matter of customization. Wether "science" should define black a color is merely a philosophical debate. The paragraph in GWW:SIGN is non-ambiguous and we're all playing by the same rules. I shouldn't have to tell you that. ~ dragon legacy 08:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

In this case Dragon, I think it's best to go with the spirit of the policy, which is to disallow signatures that would be distracting and allow basic customization. Black is not distracting, as it is one of the base colors of the page itself, and thus I don't see the harm in allowing it to be bolded.

There are much better places that effort could be focused on, or necessary issues brought up, than this (in my opinion). (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 08:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you aware of what you just did? I can't quite understand why you would try to overrule a policy definition. If you think the paragraph is unjustified or inaccurate, you're always free to put up a new draft. ~ dragon legacy 08:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikilawyering is not in the best interests of the wiki. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 08:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to tell you, you're doing a great job. Case in point. ~ dragon legacy 08:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you read the article linked to? I'm asking that you consider the spirit in which the policy is intended rather than the precise word used, which is most definitely not within the realm of wikilawyering. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 08:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The policy is not clealy written. It does not state what is defined as a color: Scientifically, black is not a color, in terms of programing language, it is, and in normal english, black can both be a color or not a color, depending on the context. I suggest bringing this up on the policy page and clarifiying what is not a color in terms of the policy. --Xeeron 09:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Lol, I can't believe you're arguing over this. --Akaraxle 08:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

POINTLESS BANter FOR READEM!

u r teh nubz. File:PaintballerSig.jpg The Paintballer (T/C) 20:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Ban for NPA plz. — Skakid9090 21:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

"NPA does not correspond here"

User_talk:Isaiah_Cartwright#cap_block_rate - It most certainly does, as it applies everywhere on the wiki - and a personal attack is a personal attack. Since it appears you won't listen to a casual piece of advice, let me state as a sysop that your comments there violate GWW:NPA and further violations of this nature may lead to blocking. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 01:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I did not break NPA in any of my statements. Thus, it does not apply. By all means Aiiane, find my violation and prove me wrong. Readem Hate Mail Goes Here 02:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It was this line Readem: Still waiting for someone w/ any viability to post... That's a targeted insult. -- ab.er.rant 02:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Specifically who? The people who rarely GvG, and have less < 300 faction? The PvE people? How is that insulting, it is merely a fact. Readem Hate Mail Goes Here 02:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

If it is necessary, I will interview each User I "attacked", and see how many hundreds of hours they have spent PvPing. I always support factual evidence. Readem Hate Mail Goes Here 02:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

If you had said something to the effect of "That doesn't make sense", then nobody would've said anything. Your comment is construed as a snide remark against one of the commentors above you. Epinephrine's remark against you falls under the same type. -- ab.er.rant 05:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It isn't targeted at anyone in particular :/... Readem Hate Mail Goes Here 05:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I feel very targeted. Your comment targeted everyone above. Yes I know, I don't have much PvP experience, but unless you show me where I'm wrong, I will keep thinking I'm correct. -- (gem / talk) 07:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and attacking multiple persons at once is a bigger NPA, not a smaller like your comment seems to say. -- (gem / talk) 07:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

...how is saying that you lack substantial PvP experience a personal attack Gem? You are digging this hole deeper, by over-thinking my statement. Tbh, being all emotional about this matter is just ridiculous; a waste of my time, and yours. Readem Hate Mail Goes Here 08:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, knowing that you lack any significant amount of PvP expierience, and yet believing you are right all the same, is foolish. You are a very intelligent person Gem, but you need to think this matter over a bit more. Readem Hate Mail Goes Here 08:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Boy, here's the message in clear print: We don't want to block you, we want you to stop harassing users. So do the right thing for once in your life and relax. We feel you're crossing boundaries. If you actually weren't entitled your own opinion, none of your posts here would show up. If our admins were the mean trigger-happy maniacs you are oh-so-eager to see, you would have been banned a few times already. If you could take just the extra second to think about what you want to write, that would help the community (that's us, including you) a lot more than your "untargeted" und "unoffensive" remarks. ~ dragon legacy 08:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

If you were not so bad at making valid points/arguments, then perhaps I would be offended =). I have not harassed anyone in particular, and thinking such is a serious error on your part. If my remarks are "not specifically targeted" or "offensive", I fail to see why anyone is having this discussion. You my friend, have had no serious impact upon this Wiki. Thinking you are "teaming up" with the administrative pool, is a farce only children would believe. Are you a child? I would hope/expect that you are not. Now, when you can readily accept/acclimate to the situation, and know a thing or two about Wiki Politics, come back and say “hello”. For future reference, you should avoid at all costs making comparisons/analogies, as all of them are simply horrendous. I apologize for any inconvenience I may have caused due to Grammar related issues, it is rather late here. Readem Hate Mail Goes Here 08:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

"Tbh, being all emotional about this matter is just ridiculous; a waste of my time, and yours." I'm not all emotional here :D. That was my first message about this topic and I wouldn't have said anything if people hadn't already made a mess out of it. Tbh I dont care and I didn't mean to give an impression that I feel offended. I said "I feel targeted", not that I feel offended. There is a very big difference. I was a target, but I don't think it was offending. My latter post about the NPA didn't mean that I think this was a PA. I just said that PA's get worse when targeting multiple persons instead of one as you seemed to think that it's some sort of a PA yourself. Sorry if this confused you.

And I didn't say that I always think that I'm right. I meant that in this single case I don't have a reason to think that I was wrong. -- (gem / talk) 09:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Remember how I accused you to occasionally fuck up skill balance discussions? This is a very good example, you started a discussion that's completely off-topic. The reactions to your posting were so very predictable, and now we have more comments off-topic than on-topic - that's what I call a fuck-up (not that it matters, skill balance discussions are becoming more and more useless, even without your help). - TeleTeddy 08:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

And you good sir, are bad at the game. When you are able to contribute something useful to this discussion, come back when I am more awake/not busy. Readem Hate Mail Goes Here 08:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with TeleTeddy that Readem should really keep his trolling in other places (or other forums entirely), but I agree with Readem in that if someone has no clue what they're talking about, they should really not be posting. Those people should just be watching the thread and learning, not trying to contribute.

In this case, he's pointing that out; it's not a personal attack to claim that someone isn't as skilled as you are. If I said "Readem is not as good at the game as I am," I would not be personally attacking him - if he's offended by it, that's his problem. Remember, what offends hypersensitive people and what breaches policy are two different things - learning to differentiate between the two is key. -Auron 08:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Ohai Auron, it is late and I am still doing fucking math. My day rocks. Readem Hate Mail Goes Here 08:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

For the record, he neither said "lacked substantial PvP experience" nor pointed out "you're not as good as I am". The "viability" comment smacks of a condescending tone that borders on NPA. And yes, obviously, it's very much arguable. And so very easily avoidable. -- ab.er.rant 09:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

...nothing can be more condescending then "I am better than you". Saying that they lack viability, is perfectly acceptable, as they did not include any valid evidence supporting their side either. Drag it on as you will Aberant... Readem Hate Mail Goes Here 09:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for that, I couldn't miss the opportunity to say "Look! I was right!" Should have started a new subsection, maybe, but I haven't, so I'll contribute to this discussion: Don't complain about users feeling offended. You obviously chose to sail near the wind, this is what accompanies your decision. - TeleTeddy 09:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Is it just me, or does everyone fail at Analogies today? Also, they are complaining to me; not the other way around Ted. Finally, you should know by now that taking such opportunities makes you look both foolish and ignorant. Readem Hate Mail Goes Here 09:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I would like to sign up for your class in advanced wiki politics please, Mister Readem, Sir.

As a matter of fact, you haven't brought a single argument. Your whole 'defense' consisted of changing the topic, belittling other users' opinions and denying that problems ever existed. Still waiting for someone w/ any viability to post is the line in question. It actually denies seven users being valuable. Even Auron thinks you are trolling and now you go around telling us we're entirely blind? There are limits to decency and good taste. Your edits, my friend, are neither decent, nor constructive, nor funny. ~ dragon legacy 11:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious: how is suggesting that someone is not amazing at everything(by suggesting that someone is not amazing at one thing) a personal attack? PvP balance issues should be discussed by competent PvPers. PvEers who are clueless about PvP discussing PvP balance is amusing(well, everyone once in a while, "bring hex removal, noob" is mildly amusing), but it detracts from and derails the discussion. --Edru viransu 12:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not the suggesting something it's the suggestion itself which is offensive. Again: The comment in question has not been quoted out of context or altered. Since Readem hasn't even given an explanation as to why the posters above him should lack the credibility to post, the remark itself can only be interpreted as demeaning. ~ dragon legacy 12:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I think Readem, that the problem is that you think that all skills changes only affect PVP...no where do i see it say that the balance was a PVP balance...maybe I am wrong and there are in fact two different sets of skills...one for pvp and one for pve...if so please let me know. But honestly I think that PVP and PVE players should be able to comment on skill balances as they affect both worlds...not just one.--Coridan 13:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

And that my scrub friend, is where you're wrong. Guild Wars is balanced around almost entirely on Guild versus Guild (HA to a far lesser extent), NOT Player versus Environment. What happens to PvE players is inconsequential. —ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲ 14:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Funny that we are discussing NPA here isn't it..maybe you should read up on it. But I am not stating the PVE is more important or anything along those lines..i am just stating that pve players have just as much right to comment on skill balances as anyone else does...it doesn't matter if someone plays PVE or PVP they bought the game same as everyone else and they have just as much freedom to express there thoughts on changes to the game they bought. Take a life lesson and realize that not everything revolves around PVP in guildwars...look at the latest expansion...much in there for pvp? no...mmkay--Coridan 17:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Can we get back to the crux of the matter here, the issue is not pvp vs pve. Let us please leave that issue in the playground where it belongs, it creates more childish and quite frankly pathetic arguments then any other discussion on guild wars related discussion boards. The point here is whether taking a quite civil conversation off topic by attacking all the previous contributors is appropriate behaviour. Whilst I am unsure if it does constitute a personal attack, it is trolling in my book and does not contribute positively to the overall atmosphere of the wiki. --Lemming 17:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I thought Readem left GWW. Just ban him already, more discussion is futile, and it will just make him troll more. Lightblade 21:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Banning me, would only make my point more valid. Besides, being intelligent is disruptive lulz. Readem Hate Mail Goes Here 21:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Readem is nowhere near as intelligent as he thinks he is...it's just all the truely intelligent people choose to disregard everything he says without even giving it any thought. --ChronicinabilitY 00:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't suppose you would fall into this "Intelligent" category Chronic, or even come close I am afraid. I say this because, you did not disregard what I said (and chose to respond here), and also because you spelt truly incorrect :/. This also makes your viability as an accurate/unbiased source, rather questionable... Readem Hate Mail Goes Here 03:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I'm fairly certain calling someone(and indeed, a number of people(i.e., everyone who pays any attention to Readem) unintelligent is NPA violation. --Edru viransu 00:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

You being smart doesn't make people here happy. You shut up and leave does make people here happy. I don't care how intelligent you are or how valid your point is, but you're definitely making people here unhappy. We don't need "smart-ass" like you here. Lightblade 02:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Tbh, that was one of the most worthless posts on my entire page :/. "He is right, but we shall remain ignorant! Ignorance is ftw!" Also, wtb grammar/conjugation 3k ok? Readem Hate Mail Goes Here 03:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculously off-topic and pointless. Stopping feeding the trolls please. The warning has been served and explained and the issue is resolved. If any of you have a valid argument against the definition of GWW:NPA, please propose an amendment or interpretation there. -- ab.er.rant 02:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah guyz, stopping feeding me! Readem Hate Mail Goes Here 03:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

No, don't stopping feeding him! He needs to eat, and this is the very place where he should do that. ;) - TeleTeddy 07:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Resolved? You're only delaying the inevitable. Lightblade 17:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

i actually think that readem is the guy that makes the most sense on this wiki. sure hes a bit arrogent but he knows what hes talking about. hes just blunt, if he offends you dont read it. plain and simple. if your going to post on his thread and demand that he gets banned while making your own insults then your no better then he is if not worse. 98.196.45.234 21:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

hi

hi 65.93.146.27 00:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hai2u2. Unbanned I see ;p. Readem Hate Mail Goes Here 01:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that was me, but I can't remember. Btw recent update sucks shit, ANet does not know what they are doing. What shall we do Readem, the healing breeze wammos will taunt us forever!! 65.93.144.25 19:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Get together in AB and /report people for leeching, imo. Or TA. Or even CM, maybe. Maybe abuse of the system may cause them to fix it. Glad, who cares? RA VoD iz gud, though. --Edru viransu 20:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Edrama

I still <3 you, Readem, despite not wanting you to be in my guild. --Edru viransu 02:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

That is nice. Readem 04:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

how did this page appear on my internets screen ?

...I don't know. Readem 23:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Read!

Please read all information before making edits, all of your issues with the edits have been already answered. ~ Zero rogue x 09:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Assuming this is referring to the DPS figures you added to RI and Flare, I'm fairly certain I see no discussion on the merits of the DPS figures on any of the relevant talk pages. And, Readem's right, no one cares about flare DPS, and no one cares about RI DPS because it's not a DPS spell(i.e., it's not bad). RI DPS is meaningless, because if you're trying to DPS with a fire ele, you're going to need to bring other skills due to recharge. --Edru viransu 04:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Be less bad then. ty. Readem 21:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Update discussion

Please do not resort to attacking other users on this wiki, describing Izzy as worthless is not very productive and doesn't improve the general atmosphere. Please consider toning down your language when discussing game balance to reflect the updates themselves instead of insulting a-net staff. Thanks. --Lemming 21:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Tbh, it would have been even more unproductive and also redundant if he had just explained his disagreements with the updates instead, imo. --Edru viransu 23:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Izzy is worthless at game balance. If you would so prefer, I can rage about every skill and make everyone bad at PvP (90% of this wiki) seem idiotic beyond words. A-net staff deserves no praise, as they actually make the game worse. Oh, and thanks for bring this to my attention. The update needs to be throughly reviewed ;). Readem 23:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Lemming64 advised you to refrain from personal attacks and your response included yet another insult. This time insulting "90%" of the community. Also, according to Guild Wars Wiki:User page#Ownership, your user page will be removed of all content that violates policy. Please refrain from such comments in the future to anyone in the community and the community as a whole when you return. — Gares 03:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Question: how is suggesting that someone is not perfect and amazing at every possible thing a person could do a personal attack? --Edru viransu 03:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

"Comments should not be personalized and should be directed at content and actions rather than people." (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 03:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Edru and Readem, be careful not to piss off the carebear crew; they'll ban you FOR LIEF. Making sense and all doesn't matter, all that matters is being a zealot. Even though there's no other way to state "izzy is bad at game balance" or "gaile gray is a carebear," they don't care; thinking isn't their job :/

I'm quite tired of this whole "brainlessly support ANet no matter how badly they fuck up" group. They're the ones that hurt the game the most tbh, by letting the devs fall into this sense of complacency with a bad product. -Auron 03:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

So, instead of saying "Izzy is bad at skill balancing", Readem should have said "Izzy fails at skill balancing" or something similar? --Edru viransu 03:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, saying Izzy is worthless at game balance is criticizing his actions regarding balacing the game. You can argue semantics, but you're still just arguing semantics. --Edru viransu 03:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

No, quite simply, the discussion of whether Izzy and/or Gaile are good or not at their jobs is not something which belongs on this wiki. It's not a matter of one viewpoint or the other, the entire discussion simply doesn't belong here, which is one of the reasons why it conflicts directly with policy. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 03:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Then why not say that instead of hiding behind NPA until someone dares disagree about whether it's possible to refer to someone negatively in a non-NPA way? --Edru viransu 03:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Because that is one of the facets of NPA. It's not hiding behind it, it's pointing out that NPA and the guiding concepts of this wiki do not entail discussions of the competency of ArenaNet personnel. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 03:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussions of how well Anet staff do their job = disallowed, then? Okay, this presents a problem, because that means that pretty much all of Izzy's talk and its subpages are in violation of NPA, since they are almost entirely composed of discussion of Izzy's job, how well he's doing it, and what he should do. --Edru viransu 03:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Edru, you come across as being intentionally difficult. It is fairly easy to see the difference between "this change to a skill was good/bad", "this skill needs to be buffed/nerfed" vs. "Izzy, you fail". One is constructive, the other is not, in the context of the wiki. If you wish to be constructive regarding personnel matters, I'd suggest contacting Steve Shepard, Human Resources Manager, ArenaNet (ArenaNet, Inc., 227 Bellevue Way NE #75, Bellevue, WA 98004). (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 03:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you come across as being intentionally difficult, as well. It seems to me to be fairly easy to see the difference between "Izzy is bad at skill balance" and "Izzy, you fail". The former is criticizing his skill balancing. The latter is a personal attack. --Edru viransu 03:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I am not sure what anyone hopes to achieve by blaming anyone about skills on the wiki anyway. All it does is generate a bad atmosphere that is very unproductive. The wiki is meant to be a place to document the game, which is why we have policies in place regarding NPA. I am sorry if these policies conflict with your day to day posting on Izzy's talk page but these are the policies, and all users are expected to follow them. --Lemming 20:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why I'm adding this but I was wondering if it would be ok for someone to say "Izzy sucks at skill balance" if he was not a member of the wiki? Dancing Gnome 13:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

No. -- (gem / talk) 14:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Why not? Gem fails at explaining. 68.35.91.2 02:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know.

I completely agree with your comment on Izzy's page. Apparently you cant get a point across without having people coming to condemn how you word it.--Atlas Oranos 10:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Which bascially means he fails at communication. Otherwise, he wouldn't have to swear that much. People that need to shout to win an argument are people who are not smart enough to think of new arguments to support thier point of view.Nicky Silverstar 19:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Note that the above statement is a general cocensus among academics and not a direct flame directed towards anyone personally, like Edru Viransu seems to think.Nicky Silverstar 21:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Imo he isnt shouting, and if he would of stated his thoughts in a perfectly polite matter, Izzy still wouldnt listen. He would just archive the article and move on. Either that or completely ignore it like he does now.--Atlas Oranos 09:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

lulz mirite

Guild:U L G G -Auron 10:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I lol'd irl. Readem 07:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks

See Guild Wars Wiki:No personal attacks. -- Gordon Ecker 02:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Since multiple warnings have been issued to Readem and a ban was already placed due to personal attacks (discussion found here), another ban will be placed. Again, please refrain from insulting others in the future. — Gares 16:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

What?! Readem getting banned? Sorry I don't come that much on this wiki but srsly, Readem ownz, I cant believe he got banned... Dark Morphon 17:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

If you think he ownz, then perhaps you should get banned too. Because clearly, you two are the same kind of people. Lightblade 00:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Readem owns --Cursed Angel 07:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Readem ownz. —ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲ 11:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Readem ownz. — Skakid9090 20:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Readem ownz. 64.149.24.114 20:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

He sure does. It's sad ppl don't appreciate him here. Dark Morphon 16:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

It's sad? It's common sense. Readem may be skilled and awesome, but that doesn't give him free reign to act however he pleases. The policy isn't Guild Wars Wiki:No personal attacks unless you are really good at Guild Wars. - HeWhoIsPale 18:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)]]

It should be, Redeam ownz too much for the ordinary GWW:NPA --Cursed Angel 18:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

he ownz alrite 99.235.230.36 02:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Readem ownz. --71.229.204.25 03:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

HxC ownz.--Fallen 05:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Readem ownz. --- Ressmonkey (talk) 02:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Dates ftl? Lord Belar 02:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Question: why does someone own when all he does is complain, troll, ruins the general atmosphere and encourages players to whine about things that are actually good for the game? I really want to know that. 87.210.150.58 07:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I would guess it is because some people think of that kind of behavior as rebelion against authority and a declaration of freedom. Often, also, people who celebrate this kind of behavior have a simmilar historial as the people they celebrate (or lots of "just this close").--Fighterdoken 07:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I take your implication that I'm stupid enough to think that as an insult. GWW:NPA pls. --71.229.204.25 01:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Uhm, not sure who you are answering, but since there is not previous use of that word on this page, i would guess it was just a misinterpretation of the previous text. I am not qualifying that behavior as positive or negative, just stating it as a possible reason.--Fighterdoken 02:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

And I take that implication as an insult. Less NPA violations pls. --71.229.204.25 08:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

If you feel the previous statement was in some way offensive and violated NPA, please report it under GWW:NOTICE. I could find offensive apples, but that doesn't meant they are. --Fighterdoken 19:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

71.229.204.25; stop being noob helps alot. --Cursed Angel 19:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=facetious. You're looking for definition #3. --71.229.204.25 22:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Cursed Angel, the best way to deal with trolls is to just ignore them, not get tempted into responding in kind. Just leave it be. -- ab.er.rant 08:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Why is my talk page filled with such failure? --Readem 06:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

You're good at annoying people, I'll give you that. :-) Nicky Silverstar 08:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• chuckles* @ random bull from Readem. Keep it up Coruskane 17:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Skill Balance

Feel free to help and suggest skills. Readem 22:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

GWW:USER and GWW:NPA again

Your user page yet again violates these two policies. GWW:USER: Do not include any material generally deemed offensive and insulting. and GWW:NPA: Racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, or ethnic epithets directed against another contributor.

Your user page will be edited to remove violations and another ban will be placed. Review these policies again if you have not already. — Gares 15:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

"Americans suck at GW" is not an ethnic epithet. "Fucking Limeys" is an ethnic epithet. Learn the difference if you're going to enforce the goddamn policy. --71.229.204.25 19:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

American isn't a race or ethnicity, Gares. -Auron 00:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The zealot who couldn't read? —ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲ 01:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

this was lame --Cursed Angel 01:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm highly amused at how all the talks about "trust your sysops!", "give more discretion to the sysops!", "allow sysops to do their job", "ban them all", "sysops know better than the community" suddenly disappear when a sysop does something a couple users don't like... Erasculio 01:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm amused by your missing the point again. If Gares had said "banned for asshattery," I wouldn't care; but because they have to be fully justified by policy to even think about banning, they better damn get it right if they're quoting policy.

I, as an American, look at his page and am not offended nor insulted (so that's the GWW:USER out the window), and since American isn't an ethnicity, there goes the NPA... I guess if we took a poll, we might be able to figure out if his comments are "generally offensive," but until then, this ban was unwarranted. -Auron 01:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I see the point very well - "do as I say, not as I do". The fact you are American and do not feel insulted is, well, irrelevant - you do not speak for all American users, and so if a single one feels insulted, or if the sysop (in whose discretion we are supposed to trust, remember?) believes it would be insulting, there is a NPA breach. Likewise, feel free to find a definition of ethnic groups that excludes Americans as one of such (and I have to say, now I'm REALLY amused by reading how now we are supposed to take a "poll", despite how a few weeks ago the community was supposed to be ignorant). Erasculio 01:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

My beef with this is that declaring Americans suck at GW isn't in any way an ethnic epithet. Yanks is the closest thing I can think of. An epithet is a derogatory term, not a stereotype like what Readem posted. Learn you some vocabulary, boy. --71.229.204.25 01:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Do notice what's said at the GWW:NPA policy right after the passage quoted above: "Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual preference, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse". Quoting policy FTW, I guess. Erasculio 01:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Do notice that I never argued that, only that you used the wrong word in the justification of the banning. Reading comprehension FTW, I guess. --71.229.204.25 01:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC) don't make me go get Grammarine.

It's overrated, obviously. Logic was never a huge concern on this wiki. -Auron 01:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

(EC) Actually, "reading comprehension" would have told you I was not the one who did the ban nor the one who used the expression "ethnic epithet" (or "epithet")...But Auron is right - if we have people demanding sysops to be trusted and to be all powerful, and a few weeks later questioning said sysops, logic doesn't really follow. Erasculio 01:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The belittling of someone else for technical reasons is quite lame too. I'll just go ahead and declare that Gares' ban quoted the wrong line in the policies, and proceed to "lift" the ban, but since I don't disagree with the ban, as Auron said, "general asshattery", I'm going to "re-apply" the remainder of the ban for that specific reason. Is this enough to resolve this? Or are you guys actually complaining about the ban instead of the quoted line of the ban? -- ab.er.rant 01:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Good enough for me, even if I think it's a little obsessive to ban him over such a minor thing. You guys might want to alter the wording of that policy slightly. --71.229.204.25 01:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Nah, here, policys are sacred! You can't change them. Blasphemy! Lord Belar 03:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

lol --Cursed Angel 03:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The length of his ban is in part due to the violation history of this user. If you feel the policies can be improved upon, please do offer up your thoughts at Guild Wars Wiki talk:User page or Guild Wars Wiki talk:No personal attacks. -- ab.er.rant 05:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The length of his ban is in part due to the violation history of this user.

Fixed that for you. If I'd posted that, I would've just been told to remove it. --71.229.204.25 06:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster's definition of Ethnic: 2 a: of or relating to large groups of people classed according to common racial, national, tribal, religious, linguistic, or cultural origin or background. Please look up definitions before arguing about the usage of the word please.

Also, I know what epithet means as well. Regardless of whether it was the correct line to quote or not, under the policy it is still a violation. I will be happy to quote a more appropriate line for the ban if that will settle everyone down. — Gares 15:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Nobody mentioned a definition of ethnic, and Aberrant already changed the reason of the ban. tyfyt. --71.229.204.25 20:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I very much doubt that the intention was to be racist or demeaning towards the American players (or anyone for that matter) but rather to be mildly humorous and sarcastic, and I rather think the administrator is taking this too far for reasons I care not to fathom. - Anon --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:147.226.221.150 .

You would if you look at the history and archive. -- ab.er.rant 05:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Fail less. "American" = any member of North, South, or Central America, including but not limited to the United States of America, Canada, Brazil, Mexico, and Venezuela. "American" is not an ethnicity. "African-american" is; "Asian-american" is; "Mexican" is; "Caucasian" is; hell, even "Canadian" is. But not "American". Armond 23:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

In your language: Wikilawyering FtL. Backsword 23:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I very much doubt that the intention was to be racist or demeaning towards the American players --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:147.226.221.150 .

Yes, probably not, but stop focusing on American because it's not the sole reason. And stop beating a dead horse please. -- ab.er.rant 05:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I, as an American, look at his page and am not offended nor insulted (so that's the GWW:USER out the window) I wasn't aware American now refers to Auron and Auron alone. 58.110.136.10 06:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I wasn't aware that my previous comment appeared to be invisible on certain monitors. -- ab.er.rant 07:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Nothing can compare to the lulz generated by GWW Administrators. --Readem 23:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Spelling

"He can spell. Unlike Xeeron, and many of the other users below me. --Readem"

Care to correct me? --Xeeron 11:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Spelin iz gud. Lord Belar 01:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

"That is a very favorite statement of people agrueing against elections. However it is not wrong once, but even twice. Once, it is logically wrong: The fact that elections sometimes produce bad outcomes does not speak against elections unless there is some other procedure around that does produce less bad outcomes. Also check my reply to DE above to see why this is not an arguement against elections. Second, your example is factually wrong. As long as fair and free elections existed, a majority of Germans did not vote for Hitler." --Xeeron 15:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Tbh, elections are still terrible. Also, use FF. Thanks. --Readem 23:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

FF? And I didnt spot any corrections. --Xeeron 23:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to guess Firefox. Lord of all tyria 23:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

...spelling is ftw? lulz. --Readem 23:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, the above quote just doesn't make sense. Hard to argue with, eh? --Readem 23:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

its not argue, its agrueing, lern too speel --Cursed Angel 00:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am doing my best to learn english, but that was just a typo. --Xeeron 01:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression you spoke it natively. Don't mind Readem's rants, he's trying to make you fuss over minutia. -Auron 01:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I just thought you were an ass for trying to make everyone in that argument feel stupid (directed at Xeeron). Also, Auron is my model hypocrite. <3 u lulz --Readem 06:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

a grue? Lord Belar 04:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

WTS all grues 10k ea firm. Armond 05:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It is dark. --71.229.204.25 06:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

>Go north. :P Lord Belar 00:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

No u. Dark Morphon(contribs) 19:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Pwned *Defiant Elements* +talk 23:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

srsly WTB a grue 2k --Cursed Angel 00:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I have seen that. Pretty epic ;p. --Readem 00:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

File:User Lord Belar Grue crossing.jpg Lord Belar 00:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) , YOU ALL LEAVE READEM ALONE, HES BEEN TRHU SO MUCH ~ SCobra 00:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

To answer your question...

"So I'm a PvE noob huh? It has been stated many times..." Nicky Silverstar 08:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are. Returning favors and answering questions, always makes me feel like a good person. How about you Nicky,Guardian of Earth? --Readem 23:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought I'd respond to your question here, I don't want to mess up my own talk page wih your posts. Anyway, yes, I love role-playing. That in itself does not make me a noob. Second, in our guild, 'Guardian of Earth' is the name of the guild's traders, people who gather weapons, tomes and crafting materials, and sell them to guildies who need them, for a low price (or even free. So if you want to call me a noob for helping others and giving them free/cheap stuff, then go ahead, call me a noob. If you want to call me a noob for my role-playing fun, go ahead. I'm a noob, and I'm proud of it. But I am also 10 times better than you, both as a person and as a player. Nicky Silverstar 08:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

srsly roleplaying fails --Cursed Angel 09:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

So do you, but you don't hear me complaining. Nicky Silverstar 16:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

no, acctually i dont --Cursed Angel 17:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

You don't complain? Oh sorry, I misunderstood you. My bad. Nicky Silverstar 19:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, readem acts like an ass (lolol, NPA, /ban), but calling yourself a noob and then saying you're a better player is sort of a contradiction. Lord of all tyria 19:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

If you consider being a noob to be the least type of player, then yes, you're right, that is a contradiction. Nicky Silverstar 21:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

"I'm a noob, and I'm proud of it. But I am also 10 times better than you, both as a person and as a player." Being a noob means you aren't 10 times a better player than readem. 10 times a better person I won't judge. Lord of all tyria 21:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think we can all just agree on the fact, that I generate epic lulz. --Readem 02:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Readem=epic+lulz. Lord Belar 02:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Come on guys, cool it. Just let it drop. -- ab.er.rant 03:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, don't worry Readem, you've made your point. There are obviously people who really care what you say and write, and think that calling Izzy an epic failure several times isn't the reason he has left his talk page. I won't bother you anymore, and I hope you and your posse feel good about yourselves. Nicky Silverstar 08:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

u r a killer of lulz, therefore u r bad Ab.er.rant. --Readem 04:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Readem is epic drama, which leads to epic headaches, which should lead to epic bans. But... whatever. And for those of you that can't make the connection, roleplaying isn't automatically fail, bad roleplaying is fail. Just because you don't do it doesn't mean it's bad. (+1 to theory that the human race, as a whole, is immensely arrogant.) -- Armond Warblade 07:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

+1 to the theory that the human race, as a whole, is epic fail. -- scourge 08:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

why do i think scourge have a point --Cursed Angel 23:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I have said that so many times. --Readem 22:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Um last i saw some1 was roleplaying "guardian of earth" in AB. Thats before they got wanded to death by the kurzick army monk.... Oh and readem is epic lulz, srly 24.141.45.72

Hero

readem u r a hero, for ur fight against izzy and other bad ppl i give u tihs nomination --Crsd ngl 23:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Aren't you guys the same person then? I always thought you were...Nicky Silverstar 08:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea who cursed really is tbh. --Readem 09:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. ^^ You seem to get along rather well though. :-) Nicky Silverstar 09:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Divine post

whar iz from? -- Armond Warblade 07:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

it was epic --Hai I'm Cursed Angel 15:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that was great. Lord Belar 19:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[1] for anyone who wanted to know. Lord of all tyria 22:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[me] "interview"

/agree 24.141.45.72 04:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

+1 99.235.230.36 21:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Block

I guess my block summary is a bit misleading, as your behavior is not only NPA violations but rather disruptive. But you know why you are blocked, it seems. - anja 01:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Why?!? He speaks the truth.... Leave him be, i dont care about seeing fuck, and shit on a page.. 24.141.45.72 20:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

He's blocked for NPA, not swearing. Please take a moment to actually read the policies before making stupid, suckup comments. Lord Belar 23:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The policy's called "no personal attacks", not "no criticism", he can make as much harsh criticism as he wants as long as he doesn't insult anyone. -- Gordon Ecker 02:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Stop being b& so you can keep trolling my bsurge page :( -Auron 09:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Why the fuck would i suckup? He speaks truth, and last i checked, truth is good 24.141.45.72 16:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

If you would actually read what he says, you would say that he mostly twists words and trolls. He's hardly ever right, and never uses any arguments other than: you fail. Nicky Silverstar 22:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

lol, yea, ineptisins is a balanced build, that takes much skill. We should buff emanagement skills, because the blue bar won't keep going down ;o!!! --Readem 23:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

For your information

In case you didn't see it yet: Guild Wars Wiki:Arbitration committee/2008-02-07-User:Readem --Xeeron 10:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Needs to be a more efficient way of notifying people of these things imo. I didn't know about mine for forever. -- Armond Warblade 10:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

don't get banned so much :( --Cursed Angel 10:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocking You

Readem,

I agree with many of the sentiments you express, but the manner in which you're expressing them is not helping the wiki. I don't support arbitration, but I do support blocking you at this point -- your disruption has eclipsed your valuable self-expression. Be civil during your arbitration, and after, for that matter, or I'll permaban you, per your request.

I'd really rather it not come to that, though. I think you have a lot to offer.

—Tanaric 07:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. Don't impersonate other users. It's not funny and it's disruptive. ArbComm may (or may not) have you unblocked if they accept your case. —Tanaric 00:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Unblocked per your request on the GuildWiki. Sorry about that -- but your reputation precedes you. I'll be more careful but so should you. —Tanaric 03:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry friend, I unblocked one of your autobanned IPs instead of you. Back in my day, we didn't have autoblock, etc, grumble grumble. —Tanaric 07:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

lol, thought it was pretty funny tbh. --Readem 23:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Wiki people

Are epic terribad. I told myself after reading the first sentence I should stop reading. The first sentence is *always* the best, things always go downhill from there. But no... -- Armond Warblade 06:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Also: Ur mom. Troll troll troll. -- Armond Warblade 06:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

no ur mom --Hai I'm Cursed Angel 20:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

/Agree

Having disagreed with you on a lot of stuff for a while (not on Wiki, reading what you said) I've finally been seriously reading the posts in Izzy's discussion pages and decided you're right. Things like "SP isn't overpowered" are so... strange and I now support you.  ;) Mr.Hobo 21:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

readem is awesome --78.82.75.101 21:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Readem is...not here at the moment. 145.94.74.23 07:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

User talk:222.127.198.144

Please take some time to figure out how to discuss things without resorting to personal attacks. This is far from the first time, and regardless of how the other person is behaving, it isn't acceptable. Think about that for a few days. - Tanetris 21:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

lol NPA. --71.229.204.25 21:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the IP also broke NPA, and I warned him about it. By all means, if you see other people breaking NPA, let us know at GWW:NOTICE, and they will similarly get a warning or a ban. - Tanetris 21:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Tanetris, I agree with your intent but not your severity. Readem's previous block was for one month. Since we tend to up block durations on problem cases like this, I've altered Readem's block duration to 3 months.

Feel free to revert if you disagree -- in two days I don't have the authority to revert it anyway. :)

—Tanaric 15:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Holy shit, dude - a three month block for trying to get a guy to see how he was being dumb? It's kinda like my comment about how this guy seemed like a 13 year old - yes, he could take offense to it, but it's not *that* serious, and he (Readem) is right.

Yeah, this is why I support dealing with things on a case-by-case basis. If you're giving Readem a 3 month ban for this, you ought to give me at least a three day ban. In fact, I'd even say what I did was worse - but does it make sense to ban me for that long? If not... why give Readem such a ban? -- Armond Warblade 04:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

3 months for something that would give like a few days for npa is wrong, maybe a week cuz of his history but not a 1/4 of a year --Cursed Angel 15:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

As Readem's one month blocks weren't carried out in either case (shortened by Anja for ArbComm, cancelled by Tanaric), I don't see that as an upholding block to use as a reference for a later block. Changing this block to a month may be prudent, but I'm not going to press the matter if Tanaric or Tanetris disagree. -- Brains12 \ Talk 18:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

While I agree in concept that the same behavior warrants a longer ban with each subsequent offense, I see this as a smaller offense on Readem's part than previously. The way I read the situation, Readem was provoked into breaking NPA by rather abusive posts on the IP's part. For someone without Readem's history, I'd say it warrants at most a 1 day ban to cool off. Factoring in Readem's previous problems with NPA is how I decided on 1 week, and that's still what I think. Certainly I think 3 months is overkill here, and even 1 month seems a bit much to me, but I'm happy to come to a compromise duration if everyone else thinks 1 week is too lenient. - Tanetris 20:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Tough to say, it really depends on how you look at it. Calor 20:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I think, in general, that our blocks have been far too lenient with recurring issues like this. I further think that, since Anja suspended Readem's ban so he could participate in ArbComm, he should be blocked for two weeks at least just to finish the ban he incurred earlier. That combined with the fact that his last well-earned block was a month leads me to believe that the block in this case should be at least six weeks. I picked the next-biggest default block length option after one month -- which happened to be three months.

As I said above, Tanetris, I have absolutely no issue with you reverting to something less. You know how I feel, and I trust your judgment on this issue. Further, this wiki doesn't have a well-established history of sysops reverting sysops and the like. Since the history didn't exist, I used my prior experience on the GuildWiki as my basis. Perhaps this was inappropriate -- if you'd have preferred discussion first, I apologize.

—Tanaric 03:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

If this was a user who had no previous blocks for this behaviour, I could see an issue here. But as it stands Readem had violated NPA on so many occasions where action was taken in the past, and I am sure many times where action was no taken at all, that I believe the length of the block to be long yes, but I agree with Tanaric that it is justified. --Lemming 03:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

You sir, need bcrat right now

I 100% agree with everything you've done on this wiki. Apart from getting banned, you have done what everyone else wanted to do. This is not a community, it's a place of information and boredom with no opinions. Thank you for trying to make this wiki what everyone, except for faggy sysops, wants it to be. 61.69.196.118 09:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a hell of lot of users you just promoted to sysop. Backsword 11:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

never thought i would become sysop. thanks calling me faggy, it means open minded and sensitiv. lussh 11:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

So, you want this wiki to be more about a careless community than an information source which is used by thousands weekly? You want the primary source of information from in-game to be not about the information, but about how many people can flame each other and spam wtfs? If so, you, sir, have no idea what a wiki is about. And it's not what "everyone" wants it to be either, as it if was, it would already be like that. Guess what - a community shapes a wiki, and the community has obviously shaped it to what they want it to be. Our community is fine as it is (and by the way, calling our sysops "faggy" isn't helping your stature here one bit). I doubt you have even spent one iota of your time here with the community, as only one who hasn't can go far enough to call our community lifeless. -- Brains12 \ Talk 15:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Information is just that, information. If it weren't boring, it would be inaccurate. And we don't want that.- Vanguard 15:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for trying to make this wiki what everyone, except for faggy sysops, wants it to be. If that were true, then he really wouldn't be banned. In the real world, people aren't cool just because they talk trash, did you know that? Then again, if I had to choose between Britney and Readem for my idol, then I'd go for Readem as well. Thankfully, there are other options.145.94.74.23 07:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Still banned...

...so peaceful here. I like it. 145.94.74.23 12:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC) P__q he will nevah come backOni 15:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

be careful....it could be a secret "raptors" style ban ig uoi know what i mean ...o_O--Raph Talky 21:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Picnic Pioneers

Want to join me or no? It's life hinges on your decision. —ǥrɩɳsɧƴɖɩđđɭɘş 23:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

lol why on GWW Grinch? --Readem 21:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

ur

still baed, kk? Droks 19:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Sez droks,lulOni 18:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

On an editing spree, I see

Hia2u, readem. I believe we haven't met. Would you like complementary buttsecks? -- NUKLEAR IIV 19:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

no --Readem 19:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

VII, you realize that doesnt help right?--Raph Talky 21:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

help what? -- NUKLEAR IIV 06:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

help with the semi-insulting comment spree--Raph Talky 22:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

He's not insulting anyone. At least, nothing I can classify as an insult. -- NUKLEAR IIV 14:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Dun listen

To those trolls, ur awesoem! Dark Morphon(contribs) 16:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC) Gtfo dark! Dun lisen to dem trullz! u pwn!Oni 17:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)(takez credit yay)

wowwww..

i must say.. i took the time to read this entire talkpage, and alas i am very amused by you readem. keep up the good work =p--Arrythmia 14:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi

I'm Readem. --Readem 23:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi sir, im frozen archer. im a strong and powerful sway ranger --Frozen Archer 01:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

orlly? --Readem 18:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

yarly --Frozen Archer 22:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

hi readem

i like kittens --Cancer Angel 01:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

readem kittenstomper — Skakid 21:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Poor kittens. --Super Igor 12:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

"I LUFFS THE CAWK"

I knew you did.--74.61.209.219 06:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

no, I got banned in-game. I guess my IGN was "offensive". --Readem 06:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

lol, I was banned due to error. --Readem 22:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Pro. --76.25.197.215 23:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Izzy's Talk page

If you restore your comments to Izzy's talk page again, you will be banned. -- Wyn 12:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

You cannot violate RV. Even as a sysop. Get validation from another. --Readem 12:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Stop trolling. You didn't even bother discussing it with the admin in question before reverting. That tells me you don't give a shit about the content, you just want to rile people up.

If I were the admin you reverted, on that page in particular, I'd have banned you. Willful reverting of administrative action is definitely enough support for a ban. Just because you don't agree with her reasoning doesn't mean her reasoning doesn't exist. You need to talk it out with her instead of going straight to the admin noticeboard.

Lastly, this wiki is leagues better than it was on inception. It's gotten better and better at containing trolls. But it doesn't become a twisted dictatorship the second you can't do whatever the hell you feel like. Using your own advice; "think logically." Slippery slope fallacies and red herrings aren't part of that "logic." -Auron 12:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

by reading the content of the questioned page, you may realize that the admin responsible (had not read our discussion, nor did she handle it as an admin should). This Wiki is shit Auron. Be proud of it all you want, but even the the best of alchemists cannot make shit into gold. containing trolls? is that what you call it now? pathetic. I am sure Auron, with all your experience as a wiki nazi, you will lead all the "trolls" to the gas chambers in no time. O, and as for me "doing whatever the hell I want", if you mean asking for policy reforms and questioning authority (when they may/may not be wrong), then you have got me! Declare me winner of the contest Auron, the 20k I rlly need. --Readem 12:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

What exactly do you claim I did wrong? I moved your suggestion to the suggestion page, and moved the discussion of your suggestion to the suggestion page's discussion page. Where is that wrong? -- Wyn 12:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

"It is 1 revert (total) for the content in question. I understand if one of us is mistaken, but such things should be clarified. Also, it is best to include another admin when making the decision of banning a user over 1RV. --Readem 12:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC) " from the noticeboard You may wish to look at Guild_Wars_Wiki_talk:One-revert_rule#Clarification_requested that discussion for your clarification of 1RR-- Wyn 12:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

First of all, you can only revert content once before RV1 is broken. In the case where an administrator is involved, another admin should be consulted before proceeding. You also lopped off about half the section during transfer (all of which, was relevant to the discussion at hand). Finally, don't throw the ban word around unless you are seriously considering it. Rather than be irrational (for example Auron who throws it around willy-nilly and gets some strange sense of empowerment through doing so) truly think about it first. Give a warning, but don't be too soft. Also, there is no policy dictating an admin's ability to judge what is a "Skill Balance Suggestion" and what isn't. In all honesty, that is a triviality, but according to Auron, trivialities make a difference. All in all, you did fine. I just don't appreciate valid arguments being (basically) censored. --Readem 12:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I brought this discussion here so you and I could talk it out, but obviously you don't want to talk it out, you just want to be right. I also did not throw out the ban word without seriously considering it, and had you restored your comments to Izzy's page, you would have been banned. If you don't like where I moved your suggestion to, feel free to move it to the appropriate feedback page which is NOT Izzy's talk page. As for censoring, again, all I can say is I did not eliminate ANY information, just placed it where it was most appropriate imo. If you look at the talk page for the suggestion you will see that ALL of yours and DarkNecrids comments are there. As for 1RR, I don't believe I've misunderstood the discussion I referenced above. -- Wyn 13:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

"Also, there is no policy dictating an admin's ability to judge what is a "Skill Balance Suggestion" and what isn't. " Your argument there is a nice summary of what made this wiki, as you call it, "shit"; I think you'll find times have changed. If you wish to oppose the proposal, feel free to discuss it constructively on the relevant page; proving a point by disrupting is not the way to go about it. -- Brains12 \ talk 13:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you couldn't be more wrong. I don't give a flying fuck if I am right or not. If you look above you, I have a section titled "I LUFFS THE CAWK". That is how serious I am. You however, and the rest of the admin team, admit to no wrong-doings. No faults. You are accountable for nothing. Which tbh, is pure BS. As I will say again, I don't break wiki violations. Most of my bans, are for calling DEV's "carebears" or being racist against "Americans" (I cannot even begin to express the sheer irony). Stop kidding yourselves; this Wiki is a joke. You ban me merely because I (at times; sometimes I do not) make accurate statements, and you want me out of your hair. The first time I attempt to post something valid (in months; I even compliment Izzy LOLWUT?), it gets removed? You might as well have just deleted it. --Readem 13:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

In response to Brain's comment, no. Times have not changed apparently. I try to be as cordial as possible; I give helpful suggestions and links (even compliment the guy I usually have a distaste for). What happens? Even after discussing it throughly with a fellow user, it STILL GETS REMOVED. I then re-add it, and politely ask for it to be reviewed on the Admin Notice Board. instead, I am THREATENED WITH A BAN. Then, Auron comes swinging his epeen hammer, complicating matters further. I am treated as though I have virtually no rights as a user (and though I may have but a few, I guard them closely). Shireen would be absolutely disgusted with this Wiki's PR. --Readem 13:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

You can argue a point, yes, but you do not disrupt or personally attack to do so. Also, 1RR was created for articles, not necessarily user talk pages. And I have no idea who Shireen is, by the way. -- Brains12 \ talk 13:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't violate NPA and 1RR affects all pages/content. If calling this Wiki shit offends you, I apologize, but it doesn't make it any less true. As for the whole Wiki Nazi, I can show you Auron's swastika on his talk page if you would like. Shireen was an admin on PvX; his real name was John. He couldn't spell for shit. --Readem 13:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

There's no excuse to personally attack Auron (or any other user). If you have something personal against him, leave it at the door. -- Brains12 \ talk 13:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

As I said previously, I don't violate NPA. Bringing up things he has done in the past and making a reference to it, is in no way a personal attack :/. --Readem 13:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is if that reference is used to personally attack someone. Anyway, instead of going in circles... when you're warned about something, it's generally a good idea to heed it. -- Brains12 \ talk 13:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

lol, like I said again, I broke no rules. I didn't violate anything I was warned about either. --Readem 13:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

After that 20k, only 30k to obsidian armor obaby. I'm going to get the printscreen key out and we'll have a sexy photo shoot. —ǥrɩɳsɧƴɖɩđđɭɘş 14:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

hi

my name is Archer i am useless now i am rly gud i occ. shot thru wallz while wandering eyed but it dont matter anymore cause i dont do anything lol. DarkNecrid 12:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

look i just got wandering eyed and clumsinessed and shot thru wall i am pro archer o wait no one still cares cause if i die nothing happens lol. DarkNecrid 13:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

hi my name is bodyguard i protect the gl oh you're going out for a picnic where there's 16 people all duking it out?? ok cya gl *smokes pipe* (ok i'll stop but I can't stop loling at the NPCs) DarkNecrid 13:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Did u ab this weekend? Sword.wind. 01:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

yep. r1 now =))) --Readem 02:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

gz. Sword.wind. 02:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

r1 good job now you can use imba PvE skillz to be strong and brave. DarkNecrid 14:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

???

How can one be both old and dead? surely once you start one, you stop being the other? -- Salome 11:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I quite simply, do not understand. --Readem 02:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Palawa Joko ← -- Gordon Ecker 02:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

FURZT

hai :p Lilondra 08:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Hm

You should run mystic regen instead of something on your vekk. -Auron 09:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

o, you mean against rainbow? I stopped playing at about 6 points to 1, and we just started talking. O, and you micro vekk so he doesn't waste energy. --Readem 21:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

More drama at pvx, is boring there--Relyk 00:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

babies are so cutttttttte. grinch is soooooo cutteee. --Readem 21:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Readem so cutttttttte ;o. --87.102.42.251 17:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

2,3 shock axe plz — Skakid 22:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

nop, nubcake too bad to use shock lol. once we get top 200, we will form split guild smurf and learn to split strong. we lost once against polly yest, 1 time against euro shit because of accidental triple infuse, and once against super strong korean guild because bad positioning and not capping for like, 8 mins... --Readem 22:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Ummmm

Are you still here Readem? Just wondering... Mr.Hobo 18:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

was I ever ;o? --Readem 23:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Well... I guess that's the question, isn't it? Mr.Hobo 01:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't you find it funny

...that n00bs QQ about how overpowered Hunter's Shot and Read the Wind are when it's savage shot and dshot that are overpowered?

lol you are a fucking joke. --Readem 18:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

NPA.

It's readem. Lord Belar 21:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

And then what? that doesn't give him the right to violate NPA. If you don't want to join Shard on the list of blocked users, I suggest that you stop posting personal attacks.

It's readem. He doesn't give a fuck. Lord Belar 19:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't give him the right to break NPA on a daily basis.

Yes it does. Dark Morphon(contribs) 14:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

So...

i herd you liek mudkipz. O.o

Happy Birthday!

-- |Cyan LightLive!| 10:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

O.o

Hej, you should up your userpage. Click on this for my old userpage. For inspiration! I have a new one. Bounty 10:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

TA

We got killz on you with our RA team! >:D Raine - talk 20:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Feirst 174.131.45.184 18:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)