User talk:Reanimated X

Archive

---

• Archive

Thanks

Searching back through all of my pages, you stopped me gaining un-needed embarrassment on spelling errors, so thankies for correcting <3 --Neil2250 , Render Lord 16:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. - Reanimated X 17:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

---

Thanks for the ~~~~ information. I was looking how to sign my comments. Thanks :) Rendier 16:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Anytime. - Reanimated X 18:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Hey! thanks for pointing me to that suggestion pages, its strange that no1 else has told me that before cause its not the first time i make a suggestion related to a AI skill/combat behavior there on that page :P. I will have now in mind that suggestion page from now on ^^. --FunnyUsername 19:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. - Reanimated X 04:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Good catch

Re: Undo revision 2116251 by Maria I saw that and was gonna revert myself earlier, but was not sure, myself if the link was valid. Although, the spelling gild-wars was laughable. Once again, Good Catch!.MystiLefemEle 11:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Vandal...

Hate to do it, but its not worth getting into an edit war with a vandal (they have made it clear that they will revert our reverts). It floods RC. (and I know I shouldnt have done it too.) Anyway...now we just have to wait for an admin. :S Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 19:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Reversion of Jette's post

I'm not sure why you reverted Jette's post on Joe Kimmes' talk. (a) I am not sure how it's offensive to point out that there's some oddities in the bridge code (and it is probably a result of some kludge) or (b) how Jette was so disrespectful that his post doesn't deserve to remain.

A lot of people around here can be gruff and/or rude in their writing style, but as far as I know, wiki policy doesn't allow for us to remove/revert posts with which we disagree (unless there's some very serious violations of GWW:NPA or the like). Although I'm not a fan, Jette does make serious points most of the time. I might not like the manner in which they are presented, but I can respect the ideas.

On the other hand, maybe you saw something that I missed. If so, I hope you can take the time to clarify your point of view. Thanks.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 23:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Reverting questions that we don't like

Could you explain why you think that this reversion is appropriate under wiki policy? Anons (and registered contributors) are, as far as I know, allowed to be rude, ask unpleasant questions, and even to post in a way that makes it hard to understand what they want. I don't think asking her about her role is necessarily a personal attack.

Look, I like the idea of what I think you are trying to do (i.e. protect the ANet staff who, near as I can tell, are working hard to make a better game for all of us...and might not have time to deal with crap on the wiki). However, I cannot find the wiki wiki policy that allows you or I to revert someone just because we perceive them to be rude to staff. Gaile Gray, for example, often chooses to respond to the substance of such questions (and ignores the manner in which they are made). Joe Kimmes (who, by nature of his role, doesn't get many questions like this) tends to ignore them.

Regina...well, I don't have a good sense of her behavior because I think she tends to be less involved in the wiki and I don't visit the forums that she does. Still, based on what I've seen of her writing, she's more than capable of responding to cranky players.

If I misunderstood what you were trying to accomplish or how it fits into wiki policy, I hope you can take the time to clarify your point of view. Thanks.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 15:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

He might not have time, so I'll just go ahead and point to the policies (that I'm quite sure you're already aware of): GWW:TALK (obviously vandalism/trolling) and GWW:NPA (I shouldn't really have to tell you how that is a personal attack). I'm not going to read the rest of your comment, but you really need to stop trying to defend these obvious trolls, it helps no one. -- FreedomBound 16:16, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

On the one hand, I'm not fond of babying bad developers so they don't have to deal with perhaps the most crucial aspect of their job. On the other hand, if this were a forum and not a wiki, the thread would have been deleted out of hand for obvious trolling. Regardless of the reactions of the developers or their ability (or lack thereof) to handle "cranky" complaints, I was under the impression that we don't allow trolls on the wiki.

That said, TEF's point about not deleting questions we don't like is valid. Gaile and Regina have historically shown that they have no qualms about archiving valid, unanswered questions simply because they don't like the way they're phrased, the light they paint ANet in, or things like that. This relates to the above section regarding Jette's post, and on a slightly unrelated note I'd like to echo TEF's request there.

I think there's a sort of a balance that needs to be struck between "we can't let people defame ANet on their own wiki, even though those people are right" and "everyone should be allowed to say anything just because this is the internet". That might not quite be what people are thinking, but the balance still needs to be found.

-- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 17:06, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with TEF and Armond. In addition to that, we can't see any visible work that Reggie is doing lately. She is the Anet PR person isn't she? And yet a whopping 6 contribs on the wiki since April, on a journal that a fraction of the GW community reads. On the other hand Gaile who is the support liason is still active here, guru, and you can sense that she is very busy doing things. The question that the IP asked, is something I would like to ask as well, except much more politely and in a non-trolling manner. Also just because something is "trolling" doesn't necessarily make it a PA. --Lania 20:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) You know, nowadays, users on this wiki tend to follow the policies word by word instead of looking at the spirit of them. I would like to quote Kim Chase, who said this in a similar case where her work was questioned a couple of years ago: "This sounds more like a personal attack than a real question. There is nothing I can say to that other than to defend myself at my job, which I don't think I should need to do". For one to have to defend oneself, there must be an attack of some sort to be begin with. And as the comment was obviously malicious, I saw no other option than to follow the spirit of the No personal attacks policy and remove the comment in question. - Reanimated X 20:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I feel inclined to point out that GWW:NPA doesn't exist to stop people from getting their feelings hurt, but rather to keep topics from being derailed with irrelevant psuedo-arguments. — Raine Valen 5:14, 26 Sep 2010 (UTC)

The urge to bitch about Kim Chase (or at least that specific situation) is nigh-overwhelming. But disregarding that...

Lania, I don't understand how you can agree with TEF and I when we're saying completely different things. He's saying anons are allowed to troll, I'm saying random bads showing up and bitching about ANet isn't allowed any more than Shard and I are allowed to do so. If you want to go ask Regina in a polite way why she hasn't been fired, IMO go ahead - but good luck finding a way to do so.

Reanimated, these days policies are generally followed by the spirit rather than the letter, I find. At least, compared to a few years ago...

Raine, don't EC me with a paragraph I'm already saying. :<

-- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 05:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Armond, well I kinda meant that part you and TEF agreed on which is about "deleting comments that we/anet doesn't like", but I was completely unclear about ^_^. The only reason I can think that reggie hasn't been fired is because she is working on something with GW2 now that shes not telling us, and ignoring GW1... seriously, there are "still" people playing GW1 still... and yet some of them act as if no one plays GW1 anymore. I think I will ask, and I'll try to make it as nice as possible.

Reanimated, for one to defend one self, all there needs to be is a valid criticism {if it was invalid, there is no reason to defend one self}, which doesn't have to be a personal attack. That IP's comment, if you take in account the content it self, is just criticizing her jobs she's doing as a PR employee of Anet. Yes, it's a very trolly way of asking, but I still fail to see a personal attack in that comment. --Lania 05:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

When it comes to the game industry, being community relations employee is one of the worst jobs to have. You have to deal with 13-year-olds who got trolled for the first time, angry nerds who demand to know when the next "real content" will come, game-addicted girls who want the game to be even easier because they want to faceroll DoA with their casual guild... and worse. But guess what, that is the job of the CR dude/gal. We should not be doing it instead. Koda Kumi 09:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

That's kind of missing the point. We know it's a troll, we know that in the past, such trolling posts have gotten lots of responses, we know that Regina is MIA (and I don't really care why). What possible purpose does leaving it there until she comes back (if she comes back) to archive or delete it serve? -- FreedomBound 16:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The troll raises a valid point, and that's the benefit of letting the post stand. It could be reworded in a way that won't hurt anyone's feelings (or, since the question essentially boils down to "why are you in CR if you don't do any CR", some way that hurts feelings as little as possible), sure, but I do think that it's a valid question.

Also, removing it serves equally as little point as leaving it, given your premise. — Raine Valen 18:32, 26 Sep 2010 (UTC)

I asked such a question late last night while a bit drunk ^_^;;, [1]. However, I think the question needs to be reworked to make it sound less confrontational. Anyone is free to hack/slash my question and post it under your name, or just ask a question yourself. As Raine and others pointed out... this is a valid question to ask. --Lania 19:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Please avoid putting words in my mouth. I don't think trolling is cool at all. I don't think being rude is cool. I don't think either of those things are good for the wiki.

I also don't think that the spirit of the NPA rule means removing posts that are phrased undiplomatically, that is, it's not obvious to me that it's trolling. To me, it's simply an incredibly hostile way of asking what a lot of people wonder: if Regina doesn't participate in the wiki, what does she do? (my paraphrase of their words)

But let me be clear: I agree with the spirit of Freedom/Reanimated's actions because they believe this is trolling — my disagreement stems from my belief that being rude isn't obvious trolling. I don't think I can say anything that will convince people otherwise. I only ask that you refrain from describing my actions as defending trolling — nothing about my record suggests I have any interest in supporting asshattery generally, including my choice of which b'crats/admins to support etc. In this case, we have a fundamental disagreement about what constitutes trolling (the word is, unfortunately, ambiguous). Thanks  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 02:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

A lot of this discussion is skirting around the core of the issue - users aren't allowed to revert questions they think might offend ANet employees. Let CR do CR. Or not, in reggie's case. Revert only obvious vandalism - if you can't distinguish between a valid question (like "how is a CR still employed after a year of doing no CR?") and trolling ("lol anet sux reggie is almost as good as gaile omg haahah im so funny") then you better not be removing posts. -Auron 03:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Trivia

Discussion of the template is still going on, yes, but please don't erase information which both groups seem to want. G R E E N E R 16:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Birthday

a happy one for you! --The Holy Dragons 12:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy Birthday.--Neil • 12:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

She turned me into a newt!

I have to take issue with you calling the discussion on the election talk page a "witch hunt." When a person accepts a nomination for bureaucrat, they agree to open themselves and their actions to criticism and discussion, even if it doesn't portray them in a good light. You could call my approach and arguments many things- biased, stubborn, sexy- but a witch hunt is not one of them. elix Omni 01:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, let's look at the definitions of witch-hunt, shall we:

1. A search witches, persons believed to be using sorcery or harmful magic, in order to persecute and typically kill them.

2. An attempt to find and publicly punish a group of people perceived as a threat, usually on ideological or political grounds.

3. A public smear-campaign against an individual.

Hmm, I don't recall Aiiane doing anything even remotely related to witchcraft, so it can't be number one, now can it. Number two seems a bit more appropriate, but it's also not quite right. You don't really have to find her, since she's right here and you don't really have the power to "punish" her since you're not a sysop. So that leaves number three, which perfectly fits the situation. It is public, since the announcement is practically on every page you visit, right on top of the page. Now, you could argue that it's not a smear campaign, but I'd be inclined to disagree. You yourself admitted that you were "committed to vocally opposing her candidacy.", which practically means that you aren't having this "discussion" because you believe you could change your mind, which turns this whole "discussion" into something else. A political smear-campaign against an individual. It is a witch-hunt, Felix, and I am going to call it that. - Reanimated X 05:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Stephane's page

Couple things. First, you don't need to respond on Stephane's page; he's responded and finished the topic. Second, Stephane is a guy (yeah, it's close enough to Stephanie that I initially didn't know either). Third, you're not gonna convince Nathe. --JonTheMon 21:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Fine, I won't respond to Nathe and I'll just let him make himself look dumb. - Reanimated X 16:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)